Category Archives: Innovation

Don’t Fall for the Design Squiggle Lie

Don't Fall for the Design Squiggle Lie

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Last night, I lied to a room full of MBA students. I showed them the Design Squiggle, and explained that innovation starts with (what feels like) chaos and ends with certainty.

The chaos part? Absolutely true.

The certainty part? A complete lie.

Nothing is Ever Certain (including death and taxes)

Last week I wrote about the different between risk and uncertainty. Uncertainty occurs when we cannot predict what will happen when acting or not acting. It can also be broken down into Unknown uncertainty (resolved with more data) and Unknowable uncertainty (which persists despite more data).

But no matter how we slice, dice, and define uncertainty, it never goes away.

It may be higher or lower at different times,

More importantly, it changes focus.

Four Dimensions of Uncertainty

Something new that creates value (i.e. an innovation) is multi-faceted and dynamic. Treating uncertainty as a single “thing” therefore clouds our understanding and ability to find and addresses root causes.

That’s why we need to look at different dimensions of uncertainty.

Thankfully, the ivory tower gives us a starting point.

WHAT: Content uncertainty relates to the outcome or goal of the innovation process. To minimize it, we must address what we want to make, what we want the results to be, and what our goals are for the endeavor.

WHO: Participation uncertainty relates to the people, partners, and relationships active at various points in the process. It requires constant re-assessment of expertise and capabilities required and the people who need to be involved.

HOW: Procedure uncertainty focuses on the process, methods, and tools required to make progress. Again, it requires constant re-assessment of how we progress towards our goals.

WHERE: Time-space uncertainty focuses on the fact that the work may need to occur in different locations and on different timelines, requiring us to figure out when to start and where to work.

It’s tempting to think each of these are resolved in an orderly fashion, by clear decisions made at the start of a project, but when has a decision made on Day 1 ever held to launch day?

Uncertainty in Pharmaceutical Development

Let’s take the case of NatureComp, a mid-sized company pharmaceutical company and the uncertainties they navigated while working to replicate, develop, and commercialize a natural substance to target and treat heart disease.

What molecule should the biochemists research?
How should the molecule be produced?
Who has the expertise and capability to synthetically poduce the selected molecule because NatureComp doesn’t have the experience required internally?
Where to produce that meets the synthesization criteria and could produce cost-effectively at low volume?
What target disease specifically should the molecule target so that initial clincial trials can be developed and run?
Who will finance the initial trials and, hopefully, become a commercialization partner?
Where would the final commercial entity exist (e.g. stay in NatureComp, move to partner, stand-alone startup) and the molecule produced?

And those are just the highlights.

It’s all a bit squiggly

The knotty, scribbly mess at the start of the Design Squiggle is true. The line at the end is a lie because uncertainty never goes away. Instead, we learn and adapt until it feels manageable.

Next week, you’ll learn how.

Image credit: The Process of Design Squiggle by Damien Newman, thedesignsquiggle.com

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

Do You Have Gumption?

Leave a reply

Do You Have Gumption?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Doing new work takes gumption. But there are two problems with gumption. One, you’ve got to create it from within. Two, it takes a lot of energy to generate the gumption and to do that you’ve got to be physically fit and mentally grounded. Here are some words that may help.

Move from self-judging to self-loving. It makes a difference.

It’s never enough until you decide it’s enough. And when you do, you can be more beholden to yourself.

You already have what you’re looking for. Look inside.

Taking care of yourself isn’t selfish, it’s self-ful.

When in doubt, go outside.

You can’t believe in yourself without your consent.

Your well-being is your responsibility. And it’s time to be responsible.

When you move your body, your mind smiles.

With selfish, you take care of yourself at another’s expense. With self-ful, you take care of yourself because you’re full of self-love.

When in doubt, feel the doubt and do it anyway.

If you’re not taking care of yourself, understand what you’re putting in the way and then don’t do that anymore.

You can’t help others if you don’t take care of yourself.

If you struggle with taking care of yourself, pretend you’re someone else and do it for them.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2025

1 Reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2025 Drum 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 August’s ten most popular innovation posts:

The Nordic Way of Leadership in Business — by Stefan Lindegaard
Science Says You Shouldn’t Waste Too Much Time Trying to Convince People — by Greg Satell
A Manager’s Guide to Employee Engagement — by David Burkus
Decoding the Code of Life – Human-Centered Innovation in Synthetic Biology — by Art Inteligencia
Why Innovators Can’t Ignore the Quantum Revolution — by Art Inteligencia
Performance Reviews Don’t Have to Suck — by David Burkus
Why Explainable AI is the Key to Our Future – The Unseen Imperative — by Art Inteligencia
Goals Require Belief to be Achievable — by Mike Shipulski
The Future is Rotary – Human-Centered Innovation in Rotating Detonation Engines — by Art Inteligencia
The Killer Strategic Concept You’ve Never Heard Of – You Really Need to Know About Schwerpunkt! — by Greg Satell

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

Do We Really Need Managers? — by David Burkus
Building Psychological Safety – Team Dynamics Explained — by Stefan Lindegaard
3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists — by Greg Satell
Turning Around Declining Customer Satisfaction — by Shep Hyken
Three Executive Decisions for Strategic Foresight Success or Failure — by Robyn Bolton

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!

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:

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

Invention Through Co-Creation

Leave a reply

Invention Through Co-Creation

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

It was an article in the Harvard Business Review, “Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything,” by Steve Blank, that caught my attention more than ten years ago and caused me to shift my mindset about entrepreneurship and innovation. He described a lean start-up as “favoring experimentation over elaborate planning, customer feedback over intuition, and iterative design over big design up front” developments. It sparked my fascination and ignited my curiosity about start-ups and how the start-up approach could be applied to creating a collaborative, intrapreneurial, entrepreneurial, and innovative learning curriculum that supported learning new ways of co-creation in the invention and innovation processes.

Why co-creation matters

One of the essential keys to success in innovation, whether as a start-up entrepreneur, corporate intrapreneur, innovation team, aspiring innovative leader, or organization, is your ability to collaborate, experiment, create, invent, and innovate. This involves actively embracing and incorporating the lean start-up approach alongside design thinking, adult learning principles, experiential learning techniques, and change management disciplines, especially in a world that is quickly becoming dominated by AI, to both create and capture value in ways people appreciate and cherish.

What is co-creation?

Invention through co-creation involves a collaborative design process in which stakeholders and customers work together to create and invent innovative solutions. It is a challenging process because it requires people to co-create a shared purpose, ensure equal contribution, and make collective decisions to guarantee that the final product meets the needs and preferences of its users. For these core elements to be successfully implemented, start-up founders and key stakeholders must have high levels of conscious self-awareness, a willingness to accept responsibility for their thoughts and behaviors, strong listening and inquiry skills, and self-mastery to navigate and adapt to the instability and uncertainty of a constantly changing environment.

Failure of innovation educators

With extensive experience in designing and developing bespoke experiential learning programs, I quickly realized that most traditional innovation education programs in tertiary institutions mainly focus on applying project management disciplines to creative ideas. Organizations relied on idea-generation tools, applying design thinking, and agile methodologies to improve efficiency and performance. While these disciplined approaches are vital for the success of start-ups and innovation initiatives, they rarely lead to systemic awareness and continuous learning, which are essential for innovation. Other options tend to involve quick, episodic “innovation theater” or entirely chaotic open innovation initiatives, which also fail to deliver the desired or potential long-term productivity, performance improvements, and growth!

Balancing and integrating chaos and rigidity

When people concentrate on balancing and integrating the chaos of creativity with the rigidity of disciplined methodologies, they can co-create, innovate, and deliver forward-thinking solutions by being agile, adaptable, and emotionally resilient. This forms the essential foundation for start-ups, entrepreneurs, teams, and organizations to achieve balance, focus, and flow while remaining resilient in the post-pandemic era of instability and uncertainty. At the same time, the outcome of integration is harmony; the lack of integration results in chaos, unpredictability, instability, and rigidity, where individuals unconsciously display inflexible and controlling behaviors.

The Start-Up Game™ Story

The Start-Up Game™ is based on the principle that “anyone can earn to innovate”, as it has been co-created as an immersive hybrid board game that combines achievement, competition, and an AI learning component. It is a co-creation tool that guides players to think, behave, and act differently by safely exploring the language, key mindsets, behaviors, and innovative thinking skills of successful intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs, and innovators within a socially responsible start-up environment. The game provides a safe, playful, and energizing space for players to experiment, take strategic risks, iterate, pivot, and co-create sustainable, future-ready, innovative solutions to survive and thrive on the innovation roller-coaster ride.

TechCrunch’s Innovation initially inspired our co-creation. We wondered how we could bring our vision to life by designing a two-hour board game that delivered value beyond mere engagement. We sought to create an immersive, playful, and interactive experience that participants could enjoy and gain from, within a risk-free learning environment, while generating an unprecedented level of lasting impact. The challenge we faced was heightened by today’s shorter attention spans and the fast-paced nature of our world, all within the constraints of an online learning environment.

Traditionally, business games create an environment where participants can make decisions, take risks, and learn from mistakes, all without real-world consequences. At the same time, they encourage better teamwork, collaboration, networking, and relationship-building opportunities. However, the value we aimed to deliver went beyond that, seeking to broaden players’ horizons, change their ways of thinking, and introduce new language, mindsets, and behaviors of innovation by playing the lean start-up way.

To ensure a lasting impact, we integrated advanced technology and hybrid, blended learning processes designed to enhance delivery. This extended beyond the in-game experience to include pre-game elements, establishing the foundation and providing context for the game. A key feature is the use of Generative AI avatars for content delivery, supported by written versions to accommodate different learning styles. By applying experiential and adult learning principles and techniques, we created team pause points and check-ins to encourage teams to regularly observe and reflect on their performance, while also fostering reflection and deeper discussions on how to improve during their current phase of the game.

Invention through co-creation

Being both creative and methodical

Invention through co-creation is not an easy process; in fact, it can be highly challenging and often chaotic, requiring people to balance creative chaos with disciplined order. Many start-ups, innovation teams, and digital and innovation transformation initiatives frequently fail because they do not mitigate risks by integrating the chaos of creativity with a disciplined and methodical approach. This is why design thinking and agile have become so popular, as they involve robust, structured methodologies that are easy to learn, follow, and implement. Design thinking principles and techniques are vital to the invention process, helping to manage key stages of the co-creation cycle:

Identify the user and their problem,
Ideating a hypothetical solution,
Developing a prototype,
Getting user feedback,
Iterating the prototype,
Getting user feedback,
Pivoting prototype,
Finalising the solution.

One of the most important lessons was recognizing the need to balance the creativity of chaos with disciplined order, which is why it is crucial to introduce creative energy, passionate purpose, and innovative thinking to drive and maintain that balance. To create, invent, and innovate successfully and avoid failure, co-creators must be attentive and intentional in:

a) Developing self-regulation strategies that support co-creation:

Flow with the uncertainty of success in an unstable environment.
Be willing to disrupt their habitual thinking and feeling habits and be cognitively agile in constantly shifting their mindsets and developing multiple perspectives.
Accept responsibility for their operating styles and ensure that they have a constructive impact on each other and their stakeholders.

b) Maintaining self-management strategies that enable co-creation:

Develop conscious and systemic awareness.
Generate both deep and agile thinking processes.
Sustain their emotional energy in capturing and creating value.
Adapt to stay ahead of change; be resilient, hopeful, and optimistic.

This involves the co-creators opening their minds, hearts, and will to unleash possibilities, emerge, diverge, and converge on new ideas, while withholding evaluation and judgement through deep observation, inquiry, and reflective listening practice. To cultivate people’s neuroplasticity through structured play, encouraging new growth, wonder, and a game-based mindset, and building the foundations for thinking differently. To foster honesty, courage, and provocation in using cognitive dissonance, creative tension, and contrarian behaviors to facilitate generative debate.

Key success factors

It involves blending the generative learning process with the discipline and rigor of adopting a methodical design thinking approach. The goal is to be brave and bold, compassionate and empathic when faced with challenges, both in being challenged and challenging others to think, act, and be differently. It includes experimenting through beta testing, managing the risks and demands of limited self-funded options, while co-creating a professionally designed set of user interfaces as the start-up navigates the start-up curve and the innovation roller-coaster, aiming to reach the Promised Land.

The Start-up Game™ is ideal for corporates, academic institutions, business schools and small to medium businesses to introduce the language, key mindsets, behaviors, and innovative thinking skills as an engaging, blended and experiential learning activity at innovation and strategy off-sites and in leadership development programs, cross-functional team-building events, culture change initiatives and sustainability and ESG engagement workshops to:

Promote inclusivity, collaboration, and real co-creation through playful experimentation and equal partnership.
Enable people to make sense of innovation in the context of entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship involves bringing an innovation culture to life.
Build both awareness and the application of innovative thinking and problem-solving to real-life challenges and business problems.

Successful co-creation yields increased engagement, collaboration, experimentation, enhanced understanding, and the delivery of innovative solutions and outcomes.

Through integrating both creative and inventive people with disciplined systems, processes, and methodologies.

This is an excerpt from our upcoming book, “Anyone Can Learn to Innovate,” scheduled for publication in early 2026.

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

Discover 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 personalized innovation coaching and learning program supported by a global group of peers over nine weeks. It can be customized as a bespoke corporate learning program. It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that provides a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem-focused, human-centric approach and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation. It will also up-skill people and teams, developing their future fitness within your unique innovation context. Please find out more about The Start-Up Game.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

Mismanaging Uncertainty & Risk is Killing Our Businesses

2 Replies

Mismanaging Uncertainty & Risk is Killing Our Businesses

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

During September 2011, the English language officially died. That was the month that the Oxford English Dictionary, long regarded as the accepted authority on the English language published an update in which “literally” also meant figuratively. By 2016, every other major dictionary had followed suit.

The justification was simple: “literally” has been used to mean “figuratively” since 1769. Citing examples from Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield, Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, they claimed they were simply reflecting the evolution of a living language.

What utter twaddle.

Without a common understanding of a word’s meaning, we create our own definitions which lead to secret expectations, and eventually chaos.

And not just interpersonally. It can affect entire economies.

Maybe the state of the US economy is just a misunderstanding

Uncertainty.

We’re hearing and saying that word a lot lately. Whether it’s in reference to tariffs, interest rates, immigration, or customer spending, it’s hard to go a single day without “uncertainty” popping up somewhere in your life.

But are we really talking about “uncertainty?”

Uncertainty and Risk are not the same.

The notion of risk and uncertainty was first formally introduced into economics in 1921 when Frank Knight, one of the founders of the Chicago school of economics, published his dissertation Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. In the 114 since, economists and academics continued to enhance, refine, and debate his definitions and their implications.

Out here in the real world, most businesspeople use them as synonyms meaning “bad things to be avoided at all costs.”

But they’re not synonyms. They have distinct meanings, different paths to resolution, and dramatically different outcomes.

Risk can be measured and/or calculated.

Uncertainty cannot be measured or calculated

The impact of tariffs, interest rates, changes in visa availability, and customer spending can all be modeled and quantified.

So it’s NOT uncertainty that’s “paralyzing” employers. It’s risk!

Not so fast my friend.

Not all Uncertainties are the same

According to Knight, Uncertainty drives profit because it connects “with the exercise of judgment or the formation of those opinions as to the future course of events, which…actually guide most of our conduct.”

So while we can model, calculate, and measure tariffs, interest rates, and other market dynamics, the probability of each outcome is unknown. Thus, our response requires judgment.

Sometimes.

Because not all uncertainties are the same.

The Unknown (also known as “uncertainty based on ignorance”) exists when there is a “lack of information which would be necessary to make decisions with certain outcomes.”

The Unknowable (“uncertainty based on ambiguity”) exists when “an ongoing stream [of information] supports several different meanings at the same time.”

Put simply, if getting more data makes the answer obvious, we’re facing the Unknown and waiting, learning, or modeling different outcomes can move us closer to resolution. If more data isn’t helpful because it will continue to point to different, equally plausible, solutions, you’re facing the Unknowable.

So what (and why did you drag us through your literally/figuratively rant)?

If you want to get unstuck – whether it’s a project, a proposal, a team, or an entire business, you first need to be clear about what you’re facing.

If it’s a Risk, model it, measure it, make a decision, move forward.

If it’s an uncertainty, what kind is it?

If it’s Unknown, decide when to decide, ask questions, gather data, then, when the time comes, decide and move forward

If it’s Unknowable, decide how to decide then put your big kid pants on, have the honest and tough conversations, negotiate, make a decision, and move on.

I mean that literally.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Why Big Ideas Often Fail to Survive Victory

Leave a reply

Why Big Ideas Often Fail To Survive Victory

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I still vividly remember a whiskey drinking session I had with a good friend in my flat in Kyiv in early 2005, shortly after the Orange Revolution had concluded. We were discussing what would come after and, knowing that I had lived in Poland during years of reform, he was interested in my opinion about the future. I told him NATO and EU ascension was the way to go.

My friend, a prominent journalist, disagreed. He thought that Ukraine should pursue a “Finnish model,” in which it would pursue good relations with both Russia and the west, favoring neither. As he saw it, the Ukrainian people, who had just been through months of political turmoil, should pursue a “third way” and leave the drama behind.

As it turned out, we were both wrong. The promise of change would soon turn to nightmare, ending with an evil, brutal regime and a second Ukrainian revolution a decade later. I would later find that this pattern is so common that there is even a name for it: the failure to survive victory. To break the cycle you first need to learn to anticipate it and then to prepare for it.

The Thrill Of A New Direction And An Initial Success

In the weeks after the Orange Revolution I happened to be in Warsaw and saw a huge banner celebrating democracy movements in Eastern Europe, with Poland’s Solidarity movement as the first and Ukraine’s Orange revolution as the last in the series. Everyone thought that Ukraine would follow its neighbor into peace and prosperity.

We were triumphant and it seemed like the forces of history were on our side. That’s one reason why we failed to see the forces that were gathering. Despite our enthusiasm, those who opposed our cause didn’t just melt away and go home. In fact they redoubled their efforts to undermine what we had achieved. We never really saw it coming.

I see the same thing in my work with organizational transformations. Once people get a taste of that initial success—they win executive sponsorship for their initiative, get a budget approved or even achieve some tangible progress on the ground—they think it will all get easier. It never does. In fact, it usually gets harder.

Make no mistake. Opposition doesn’t erupt in spite of an early success, but because of it. A change initiative only becomes a threat to the status quo when it begins to gain traction. That’s when the knives come out and, much like my friend and I after the Orange Revolution, most people working to bring about change are oblivious to it.

If you are working for a change that you believe in passionately, chances are you’re missing a brewing storm. Almost everyone does the first time around (and many never learn to recognize it).

Propagating Echo Chambers

One of the reasons we failed to see trouble brewing back then was that, as best we could tell, everyone around us saw things the same way we did. Whatever dissenting voices we did come across seemed like an aberration to us. Sure, some people were still stuck in the old ways, we thought, but with history on our side how could we fail?

Something similar happened in the wake of the George Floyd protests. The city council in Minneapolis, where the incident took place, voted to defund the police. Taking its cue, corporate America brought in armies of consultants to set out the new rules of the workplace. In one survey, 85% of CHRO’s said that they were expanding diversity and inclusion efforts. With such an outpouring of news coverage and emotion, who would dare to question them?

The truth is that majorities don’t just rule, they also influence in a number of ways. First, decades of studies show that we tend to conform to the views around us and that effect extends out to three degrees of relationships. Not only people we know, but the friends of their friends—most of whom we don’t even know—affect how we think.

It isn’t just what we hear but also what we say that matters. Research from MIT suggests that when we are around people we expect to agree with us, we’re less likely to check our facts and more likely to share information that isn’t true. That, in turn, impacts our informational environment, helping to create an echo chamber that reinforces our sense of certainty.

The Inevitable Backlash

Almost as soon as the new Ukrainian government took power in 2005, the opposition went on the offensive. While the new President, Viktor Yushchenko was seen positively, they attacked the people around him. His Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was portrayed as a calculating and devious woman. When Yushchenko’s son got into trouble, questions were raised about corruption in his father’s administration.

A similar pattern took hold in the wake of the George Floyd protests. Calls for racial justice were portrayed as anti-police and law enforcement budgets across the country increased as “We Support Our Police” signs went up on suburban lawns. Critical Race Theory, an obscure legal concept rarely discussed outside of universities, became a political punching bag. Today, as layoffs increase, corporate diversity efforts are sure to take a hit.

These patterns are not exceptions. They are the rule. As Saul Alinsky pointed out, every revolution inspires a counter-revolution. That is the physics of change. Every reaction provokes a reaction. Every success impacts your environment and some of those changes will not be favorable to your cause. They will expose vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those who oppose your idea.

Yet Alinsky didn’t just identify the problem, he also pointed to a solution. “Once we accept and learn to anticipate the inevitable counter-revolution, we may then alter the historical pattern of revolution and counter-revolution from the traditional slow advance of two steps forward and one step backward to minimizing the latter,” he writes.

In other words, the key to surviving victory is to prepare for the backlash that is sure to come and build a strategy to overcome it.

Building A Shared Future Rooted In Shared Values

In the two decades I have been researching transformation and change, the failure to survive victory is probably the most consistent aspect of it. In fact, it is so common you can almost set your watch by it. Amazingly, no matter how many times change advocates experience it, they rarely see it coming. Many, in fact, seem to take pride in how many battles they have lost, seeing it as some kind of badge of honor.

The uncomfortable truth is that success doesn’t necessarily begat more success. Often it breeds failure. People mistake a moment for a movement and think that their time has finally come. Believing change to be inevitable, they get cocky and overconfident and miss the networks of unseen connections forming in opposition. They make sure to press a point, but fail to make a difference.

Lasting change always needs to be built on common ground. That’s what we failed to see all those years ago, when I began my journey. You can never base your revolution on any particular person, technology or policy. It needs to be rooted in shared values and if we truly care about change, we need to hold ourselves accountable to be effective messengers.

We can’t just preach to the choir. Sometimes we need to venture out of the church and mix with the heathens. We can be clear about where we stand and still listen to those who see things differently. That doesn’t mean we compromise. In fact, we should never compromise the values we believe in. What we can do, however, is identify common ground upon which to build a shared future.

These principles hold true whether the change you seek is in your organization, your industry, your community or throughout society as a whole. If you fail to learn and apply them, don’t be surprised when you fail to survive victory.

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

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

Charlie Kirk and Innovation

1 Reply

What We Can Learn and Build in the Wake of His Tragic Death

Charlie Kirk and Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Innovation is not born in silence. It emerges from the friction of ideas, the collision of perspectives, and the courage to challenge assumptions. In this light, the public discourse shaped by figures like Charlie Kirk — whether you agree with his politics or not — offers a fascinating lens through which to examine the dynamics of innovation in a polarized age.

The Power of Rational Debate

Charlie Kirk built his platform by engaging in live debates on college campuses, inviting ideological opponents to challenge him directly. This practice, though often contentious, embodies a core principle of innovation: constructive conflict. Rational debate is the crucible in which ideas are tested, refined, and sometimes transformed.

Innovation thrives when we create safe spaces for disagreement. Kirk’s willingness to engage with critics — sometimes fiercely — demonstrates the value of showing up, listening, and responding. These are not just political acts; they are innovation behaviors.

In my work on human-centered change, I emphasize the importance of dialogue over monologue. Whether you’re designing a new product or reimagining a business model, innovation demands that we hear from diverse voices. Kirk’s approach, though polarizing, reminds us that progress often begins with uncomfortable conversations.

Empathy in the Arena

Empathy may not be the first word that comes to mind when discussing Charlie Kirk. Yet, beneath the surface of his confrontational style lies a strategic understanding of audience. Kirk speaks to young conservatives who often feel alienated in academic environments. He validates their concerns, gives them language, and builds community. That’s empathy in action.

Innovation leaders must do the same. We must understand the emotional landscape of our stakeholders—what they fear, what they hope for, and what they value. Empathy is not agreement; it’s connection. And connection is the foundation of co-creation.

“Charlie made it normal to be active in politics, made it cool, and made it something that people should be more interested in.” — Krish Mathrani, Michigan GOP Youth Chair

When we design change initiatives, we must ask: Who feels left out? Who needs to be heard? Who needs to be invited in? Kirk’s success in mobilizing youth reminds us that innovation is not just about ideas—it’s about people.

Challenging Assumptions

One of the most provocative aspects of Kirk’s career was his willingness to challenge the status quo — even within his own ideological camp. He faced criticism from far-right figures for being “insufficiently radical,” especially during the Groyper Wars of 2019. Yet, he persisted in advocating for positions like granting green cards to high-skilled international graduates — an idea that, ironically, aligns with innovation policy.

Innovation demands that we challenge assumptions, even sacred ones. Whether it’s the belief that “we’ve always done it this way” or the notion that certain groups don’t belong in the conversation, progress requires us to interrogate our mental models.

When Kirk said “America is full” in response to visa expansion for Indian professionals, he sparked outrage — but also dialogue. Critics argued that such policies would harm the U.S. innovation pipeline. The debate itself illuminated the tension between nationalism and global talent — an issue every innovation leader must grapple with.

Innovation in the Age of Polarization

We live in a time when polarization threatens the very conditions that make innovation possible. The assassination of Charlie Kirk during a campus event was a tragic reminder of what happens when dialogue breaks down. Violence is the antithesis of innovation. It silences voices, erodes trust, and fractures the social fabric.

Yet, Kirk’s legacy — his insistence on showing up, speaking out, and engaging — offers a blueprint for how we might reclaim the public square. Innovation requires courage. It requires us to stand in the arena, even when the crowd is hostile.

Conclusion: The Innovation Imperative

Charlie Kirk was not an innovation theorist. But his methods — debate, empathy, and assumption-challenging — mirror the behaviors we must cultivate to drive meaningful change. Whether in politics, business, or society, the innovation imperative calls us to engage, not retreat.

As we mourn the loss of a controversial yet catalytic figure, let us recommit to the principles that make innovation possible. Let us debate fiercely, empathize deeply, and challenge boldly. Because in the end, innovation is not just about what we build — it’s about who we become.

Postscript: One Way We Could Honor Charlie’s Legacy

Imagine if rational debate were a mandatory course from middle school onward in the United States. Embedding the principles of respectful discourse, critical thinking, and evidence-based argument into our education system would not only cultivate a generation of more thoughtful citizens — it would dramatically increase our national innovation capacity. When students learn to listen actively, challenge ideas without attacking individuals, and articulate their own perspectives with clarity and empathy, they become better collaborators, problem-solvers, and leaders. Over time, this cultural shift could reduce the divisiveness of our politics by replacing tribalism with curiosity, and outrage with understanding. Innovation flourishes in environments where ideas are exchanged freely and respectfully — and that starts in the classroom.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

Back to Basics for Leaders and Managers

Leave a reply

Back to Basics for Leaders and Managers

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Imagine that you are the CEO working with your CHRO on a succession plan. Both the CFO and COO are natural candidates, and both are, on paper, equally qualified and effective.

The CFO distinguishes herself by consistently working with colleagues to find creative solutions to business issues, even if it isn’t the optimal solution financially, and inspiring them with her vision of the future. She attracts top talent and builds strong relationships with investors who trust her strategic judgment. However, she sometimes struggles with day-to-day details and can be inconsistent in her communication with direct reports.

The COO inspires deep loyalty from his team through consistent execution and reliability. People turn down better offers to stay because they trust his systematic approach, flawless delivery, and deep commitment to developing people. However, his vision rarely extends beyond “do things better,” rigidly adhering to established processes and shutting down difficult conversations with peers when change is needed.

Who so you choose?

The COO feels like the safer bet, especially in uncertain times, given his track record of proven execution, loyal teams, and predictable results. While the CFO feels riskier because she’s brilliant but inconsistent, visionary but scattered.

It’s not an easy question to answer.

Most people default to “It depends.”

It doesn’t depend.

It doesn’t “depend,” because being CEO is a leadership role and only the CFO demonstrates leadership behaviors. The COO, on the other hand, is a fantastic manager, exactly the kind of person you want and need in the COO role. But he’s not the leader a company needs, no matter how stable or uncertain the environment.

Yet we all struggle with this choice because we’ve made “leadership” and “management” synonyms. Companies no longer have “senior management teams,” they have “senior/executive leadership teams.” People moving from independent contributor roles to oversee teams are trained in “people leadership,” not “team management” (even though the curriculum is still largely the same).

But leadership and management are two fundamentally different things.

Leader OR Manager?

There are lots of definitions of both leaders and managers, so let’s go back to the “original” distinction as defined by Warren Bennis in his 1987 classic On Becoming a Leader

Leaders	Managers
· Do the right things· Challenge the status quo· Innovate· Develops· Focuses on people· Relies on trust· Has a long-range perspective· Asks what and why· Has an eye on the horizon	· Do things right· Accept the status quo· Administers· Maintains· Focuses on systems and structures· Relies on control· Has a short-range view· Asks how and when· Has an eye on the bottom line

In a nutshell: leaders inspire people to create change and pursue a vision while managers control systems to maintain operations and deliver results.

Leaders AND Managers!

Although the roles of leaders and managers are different, it doesn’t mean that the person who fills those roles is capable of only one or the other. I’ve worked with dozens of people who are phenomenal managers AND leaders and they are as inspiring as they are effective.

But not everyone can play both roles and it can be painful, even toxic, when we ask managers to take on leadership roles and vice versa. This is the problem with labeling everything outside of individual contributor roles as “leadership.”

When we designate something as a “people leadership” role and someone does an outstanding job of managing his team, we believe he’s a leader and promote him to a true leadership role (which rarely ends well). Conversely, when we see someone displaying leadership qualities and promote her into “people leadership,” we may be shocked and disappointed when she struggles to manage as effortlessly as she inspires.

The Bottom Line

Leadership and Management aren’t the same thing, but they are both essential to an organization’s success. They key is putting the right people in the right roles and celebrating their unique capabilities and contributions.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Growth is Not the Answer

Leave a reply

Growth is Not the Answer

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Most companies have growth objectives – make more, sell more and generate more profits. Increase profit margin, sell into new markets and twist our products into new revenue. Good news for the stock price, good news for annual raises and plenty of money to buy the things that will help us grow next year. But it’s not good for the people that do the work.

To increase sales the same sales folks will have to drive more, call more and do more demos. Ten percent more work for three percent more compensation. Who really benefits here? The worker who delivers ten percent more or the company that pays them only three percent more? Pretty clear to me it’s all about the company and not about the people.

To increase the number of units made implies that there can be no increase in the number of people required to make them. To increase throughput without increasing headcount, the production floor will have less time for lunch, less time for improving their skills and less time to go to the bathroom. Sure, they can do Lean projects to eliminate waste, as long as they don’t miss their daily quota. And sure, they can help with Six Sigma projects to reduce variation, as long as they don’t miss TAKT time. Who benefits more – the people or the company?

Increased profit margin (or profit percentage) is the worst offender. There are only two ways to improve the metric – sell it for more or make it for less. And even better than that is to sell it for more AND make it for less. No one can escape this metric. The sales team must meet with more customers; the marketing team must work doubly hard to define and communicate the value proposition; the engineering staff must reduce the time to launch the product and make it perform better than their best work; and everyone else must do more with less or face the chopping block.

In truth, corporate growth is the fundamental behind global warming, reduced life expectancy in the US and the ridiculous increase in the cost of healthcare. Growth requires more products and more products require more material mined, pumped or clear-cut from the planet. Growth puts immense pressure on the people doing the work and increases their stress level. And when they can’t deliver, their deep sense of helplessness and inadequacy causes them to kill themselves. And healthcare costs increase because the companies within (and insuring) the system need to make more profit. Who benefits here? The people in our community? The people doing the work? The planet? Or the companies?

What if we decided that companies could not grow? What if instead companies paid dividends to the people do the work based on the profit the company makes? With constant output wouldn’t everyone benefit year-on-year?

What if we decided output couldn’t grow? What if instead, as productivity increased, companies required people to work fewer hours? What if everyone could make the same number of products in seven hours and went home an hour early, working seven and getting paid for eight? Would everyone be better off? Wouldn’t the planet be better off?

What if we decided the objective of companies was to employ more people and give them a sense of purpose and give meaning to their lives? What if we used the profit created by productivity improvements to employ more people? Wouldn’t our communities benefit when more people have good jobs? Wouldn’t people be happier because they can make a contribution to their community? Wouldn’t there be less stress and fewer suicides when parents have enough money to feed their kids and buy them clothes? Wouldn’t everyone benefit? Wouldn’t the planet benefit?

Year-on-year growth is a fallacy. Year-on-year growth stresses the planet and the people doing the work. Year-on-year growth is good for no one except the companies demanding year-on-year growth.

The planet’s resources are finite; people’s ability to do work is finite; and the stress level people can tolerate is finite. Why not recognize these realities?

And why not figure out how to structure companies in a way that benefits the owners of the company, the people doing the work, the community where the work is done and the planet?

Image credit: Dall-E

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

The Crisis Innovation Trap

Leave a reply

Why Proactive Innovation Wins

LAST UPDATED: September 3, 2025 at 12:00PM
The Crisis Innovation Trap

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

In the narrative of business, we often romanticize the idea of “crisis innovation.” The sudden, high-stakes moment when a company, backed against a wall, unleashes a burst of creativity to survive. The pandemic, for instance, forced countless businesses to pivot their models overnight. While this showcases incredible human resilience, it also reveals a dangerous and costly trap: the belief that innovation is something you turn on only when there’s an emergency. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I’ve seen firsthand that relying on crisis as a catalyst is a recipe for short-term fixes and long-term decline. True, sustainable innovation is not a reaction; it’s a proactive, continuous discipline.

The problem with waiting for a crisis is that by the time it hits, you’re operating from a position of weakness. You’re making decisions under immense pressure, with limited resources, and with a narrow focus on survival. This reactive approach rarely leads to truly transformative breakthroughs. Instead, it produces incremental changes and tactical adaptations—often at a steep price in terms of burnout, strategic coherence, and missed opportunities. The most successful organizations don’t innovate to escape a crisis; they innovate continuously to prevent one from ever happening.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Innovation

Relying on crisis as your innovation driver comes with significant hidden costs:

Reactive vs. Strategic: Crisis innovation is inherently reactive. You’re fixing a symptom, not addressing the root cause. This prevents you from engaging in the deep, strategic thinking necessary for true market disruption.
Loss of Foresight: When you’re in a crisis, all attention is on the immediate threat. This short-term focus blinds you to emerging trends, shifting customer needs, and new market opportunities that could have been identified and acted upon proactively.
Burnout and Exhaustion: Innovation requires creative energy. Forcing your teams into a constant state of emergency to innovate leads to rapid burnout, high turnover, and a culture of fear, not creativity.
Suboptimal Outcomes: The solutions developed in a crisis are often rushed, inadequately tested, and sub-optimized. They are designed to solve an immediate problem, not to create a lasting competitive advantage.

“Crisis innovation is a sprint for survival. Proactive innovation is a marathon for market leadership. You can’t win a marathon by only practicing sprints when the gun goes off.”

Building a Culture of Proactive, Human-Centered Innovation

The alternative to the crisis innovation trap is to embed innovation into your organization’s DNA. This means creating a culture where curiosity, experimentation, and a deep understanding of human needs are constant, not sporadic. It’s about empowering your people to solve problems and create value every single day.

Embrace Psychological Safety: Create an environment where employees feel safe to share half-formed ideas, question assumptions, and even fail. This is the single most important ingredient for continuous innovation.
Allocate Dedicated Resources: Don’t expect innovation to happen in people’s spare time. Set aside dedicated time, budget, and talent for exploratory projects and initiatives that don’t have an immediate ROI.
Focus on Human-Centered Design: Continuously engage with your customers and employees to understand their frustrations and aspirations. True innovation comes from solving real human problems, not just from internal brainstorming.
Reward Curiosity, Not Just Results: Celebrate learning, even from failures. Recognize teams for their efforts in exploring new ideas and for the insights they gain, not just for the products they successfully launch.

Case Study 1: Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Foresight Gap

The Challenge:

In the late 1990s, Blockbuster was the undisputed king of home video rentals. It had a massive physical footprint, brand recognition, and a highly profitable business model based on late fees. The crisis of digital disruption and streaming was not a sudden event; it was a slow-moving signal on the horizon.

The Reactive Approach (Blockbuster):

Blockbuster’s management was aware of the shift to digital, but they largely viewed it as a distant threat. They were so profitable from their existing model that they had no incentive to proactively innovate. When Netflix began gaining traction with its subscription-based, DVD-by-mail service, Blockbuster’s response was a reactive, half-hearted attempt to mimic it. They launched an online service but failed to integrate it with their core business, and their culture remained focused on the physical store model. They only truly panicked and began a desperate, large-scale innovation effort when it was already too late and the market had irreversibly shifted to streaming.

The Result:

Blockbuster’s crisis-driven innovation was a spectacular failure. By the time they were forced to act, they lacked the necessary strategic coherence, internal alignment, and cultural agility to compete. They didn’t innovate to get ahead; they innovated to survive, and they failed. They went from market leader to bankruptcy, a powerful lesson in the dangers of waiting for a crisis to force your hand.

Case Study 2: Lego’s Near-Death and Subsequent Reinvention

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, Lego was on the brink of bankruptcy. The brand, once a global icon, had become a sprawling, unfocused company that was losing relevance with children increasingly drawn to video games and digital entertainment. The company’s crisis was not a sudden external shock, but a slow, painful internal decline caused by a lack of proactive innovation and a departure from its core values. They had innovated, but in a scattered, unfocused way that diluted the brand.

The Proactive Turnaround (Lego):

Lego’s new leadership realized that a reactive, last-ditch effort wouldn’t save them. They saw the crisis as a wake-up call to fundamentally reinvent how they innovate. Their strategy was not just to survive but to thrive by returning to a proactive, human-centered approach. They went back to their core product, the simple plastic brick, and focused on deeply understanding what their customers—both children and adult fans—wanted. They launched several initiatives:

Re-focus on the Core: They trimmed down their product lines and doubled down on what made Lego special—creativity and building.
Embracing the Community: They proactively engaged with their most passionate fans, the “AFOLs” (Adult Fans of Lego), and co-created new products like the highly successful Lego Architecture and Ideas series. This wasn’t a reaction to a trend; it was a strategic partnership.
Thoughtful Digital Integration: Instead of panicking and launching a thousand digital products, they carefully integrated their physical and digital worlds with games like Lego Star Wars and movies like The Lego Movie. These weren’t rushed reactions; they were part of a long-term, strategic vision.

The Result:

Lego’s transformation from a company on the brink to a global powerhouse is a powerful example of the superiority of proactive innovation. By not just reacting to their crisis but using it as a catalyst to build a continuous, human-centered innovation engine, they not only survived but flourished. They turned a painful crisis into a foundation for a new era of growth, proving that the best time to innovate is always, not just when you have no other choice.

Eight I's of Infinite Innovation

The Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation

Braden Kelley’s Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation provides a comprehensive framework for organizations seeking to embed continuous innovation into their DNA. The model starts with Ideation, the spark of new concepts, which must be followed by Inspiration—connecting those ideas to a compelling, human-centered vision. This vision is refined through Investigation, a process of deeply understanding customer needs and market dynamics, leading to the Iteration of prototypes and solutions based on real-world feedback. The framework then moves from development to delivery with Implementation, the critical step of bringing a viable product to market. This is not the end, however; it’s a feedback loop that requires Invention of new business models, a constant process of Improvement based on outcomes, and finally, the cultivation of an Innovation culture where the cycle can repeat infinitely. Each ‘I’ builds upon the last, creating a holistic and sustainable engine for growth.

Conclusion: The Time to Innovate is Now

The notion of “crisis innovation” is seductive because it offers a heroic narrative. But behind every such story is a cautionary tale of a company that let a problem fester for far too long. The most enduring, profitable, and relevant organizations don’t wait for a burning platform to jump; they are constantly building new platforms. They have embedded a culture of continuous, proactive innovation driven by a deep understanding of human needs. They innovate when times are good so they are prepared when times are tough.

The time to innovate is not when your stock price plummets or your competitor launches a new product. The time to innovate is now, and always. By making innovation a fundamental part of your business, you ensure your organization’s longevity and its ability to not just survive the future, but to shape it.

Image credit: Pixabay

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area and the key elements to focus on were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with help from Google Gemini to shape the article and create the illustrative case studies.

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