Category Archives: Leadership

Making Empathy Your Secret Weapon

Making Empathy Your Secret WeaponGUEST POST from Greg Satell

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

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

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

Identifying Shared Values

We all have ideas we feel passionately about and, naturally, we want others to adopt them. The ideas we believe in make up an important facet of our identity, dignity and sense of self. For me, as an American living in post-communist countries, the ideas embedded in democratic institutions were important and it was difficult for me to see things another way.

My conversation with Pavlo opened my eyes. Where I saw America and “the west” as a more just society, people in other parts of the world saw it as a dominant force that restricted their freedom. My big insight was that I didn’t need to agree with a perspective to understand, internalize, and leverage it as a shared value.

For example, once I was able to understand that some people saw Americans as powerful—something akin to an invading force—I was able to shed the feelings of vulnerability that arose from being in a strange and foreign land and focus on the shared value of safety in my dealings with others.

A great strategy for identifying shared values is to listen closely to what your opposition is saying. People say and do things because they believe they will be effective. Once I was able to stop dismissing Lukashenko as a corrupt thug, I was able to identify the issues surrounding safety and dominance that could be useful to me.

Building Shared Purpose

Using empathy to identify shared values is a crucial first step, but doesn’t achieve anything by itself. To move things forward, we need to build a shared purpose. Consider a famous study called the Robbers Cave Experiment, which involved 22 boys of similar religious, racial and economic backgrounds invited to spend a few weeks at a summer camp.

In the first phase, they were separated into two groups of “Rattlers” and “Eagles” that had little contact with each other. As each group formed its own identity, they began to display hostility on the rare occasions when they were together. During the second phase, the two groups were given competitive tasks and tensions boiled over, with each group name calling, sabotaging each other’s efforts and violently attacking one another.

In the third phase, the researchers attempted to reduce tensions. At first, they merely brought them into friendly contact, with little effect. The boys just sneered at each other. However, when they were tricked into challenging tasks where they were forced to work together in order to be successful, the tenor changed quickly. By the end of the camp the two groups had fallen into a friendly camaraderie.

As Francis Fukuyama writes in his recent book, “Identity can be used to divide, but it can also be used to integrate,” which is exactly what I found in my years working is foreign cultures. Once I was able to leverage shared values to create a shared purpose and began engaging in shared actions, that purpose and those actions became part of a shared identity. Yes, I was still an American, with American values and perspectives, but I became their American.

Overcoming Conflict By Designing A Dilemma

Unfortunately, building a shared purpose isn’t always possible. A simple truth is that humans build attachments to people, ideas and things. When those attachments are threatened, they will lash out. That’s why whenever we set out to make a significant impact, there will always be those who will work to undermine what we are trying to achieve in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

When that happens—and it always does eventually—we can get sucked into a conflict, which will likely take us off course and discredit what we’re trying to achieve. Yet, here too, developing empathy skills to identify shared values can be extremely helpful once we learn how to design a dilemma action, which puts the opponents into an impossible position.

Dilemma actions have been used for at least a century—famous examples include Gandhi’s Salt March, King’s Birmingham Campaign and Alice Paul’s Silent Sentinels—but more recently codified by the global activist, Srdja Popović. They are just as effective in an organizational context, using an opponent’s resistance against them.

One of the great things about dilemma actions is that you approach them exactly the same way you approach building allies—by identifying a shared purpose. Once you do that, you can design a constructive act rooted in that shared purpose that advances your agenda. Your opponent then has a choice: they can disrupt the act and violate the shared value or they can let it go forward and let change progress.

For example, I was once running a transformation project that was being impeded by a Sales Director hogging accounts. Although it was agreed that she would distribute her clients, she never got around to it, so I set up a meeting with a key account and one of our salespeople. When she tried to disrupt the meeting, she violated the shared value we had established, was dismissed from her position and everything fell into place after that.

Empathy Is Not Absolution

Empathy, as powerful as it can potentially be, is widely misunderstood. It is often paired with compassion in the context of creating a more beneficial workplace. That is, of course, a reasonable and worthy objective, but the one-dimensional use of the term is misleading and limits its value.

When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, empathy can seem like a “nice to have,” trait rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.

One thing I learned over many years living in foreign cultures is that it’s important to understand how people around you think, especially if you don’t agree with them and, as is sometimes the case, find their point of view morally reprehensible. In fact, learning more about how others think can make you a more effective leader, negotiator and manager.

Empathy is not absolution. You can internalize the ideas of others and still vehemently disagree. There is a reason that Special Forces are trained to understand the cultures in which they will operate and it isn’t because it makes them nicer people. It’s because it makes them more lethal operators.

It is only through empathy that we can understand motivations—for good or ill—and design effective strategies to build shared purpose or, if need be, design a dilemma for an opponent. To operate in an often difficult world, you need to understand your environment. That’s why building empathy skills can be like a secret weapon.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— 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.

It’s Impossible to Innovate When …

It's Impossible to Innovate When ...

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Your company believes everything should always go as planned.

You still have to do your regular job.

The project’s completion date is disrespectful of the work content.

Your company doesn’t recognize the difference between complex and complicated.

The team is not given the tools, training, time and a teacher.

You’re asked to generate 500 ideas but you’re afraid no one will do anything with them.

You’re afraid to make a mistake.

You’re afraid you’ll be judged negatively.

You’re afraid to share unpleasant facts.

You’re afraid the status quo will be allowed to squash the new ideas, again.

You’re afraid the company’s proven recipe for success will stifle new thinking.

You’re afraid the project team will be staffed with a patchwork of part time resources.

You’re afraid you’ll have to compete for funding against the existing business units.

You’re afraid to build a functional prototype because the value proposition is poorly defined.

Project decisions are consensus-based.

Your company has been super profitable for a long time.

The project team does not believe in the project.

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

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.

How Empowered Are Your Employees?

How Empowered Are Your Employees?

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Earlier this year, I wrote a Forbes article celebrating the 50th anniversary of the famous Nordstrom story in which a man wanted to return a set of used tires – even though Nordstrom never even sold tires. That fact didn’t stop the employee from giving the customer a refund. Right or wrong, that story is still talked about 50 years later!

I’ve mentioned this story in the past, and the point is that stories like these become legends inside an organization, and if the brand is lucky, they may even get some good press. They are not easy to find, unless you intentionally look for them. Nordstrom had been in business for 75 years before this legendary story was discovered and shared.

I’ve written about many such stories. They are a reminder for every company to find its unique story that exemplifies the importance of customer service. These stories are powerful because they become a “north star” for how a company should treat its customers. Publicity is optional. The real value is cultural.

Nordstrom Tires Story Cartoon from Shep Hyken

For example, there are numerous Ritz-Carlton legendary stories, such as Joshie the Giraffe, in which the hotel staff made a big effort to return a stuffed animal to a child. There are also stories that aren’t so famous. I interviewed Horst Schulze, the first president and co-founder of the Ritz-Carlton, who shared a story about empowering employees to take care of their guests.

The short version is that the Ritz-Carlton allows employees to spend up to $2,000 to resolve a guest issue without seeking manager approval. One day a housekeeper found a guest’s computer. The guest had already checked out and flown from California to Hawaii. She took it upon herself to book an airline ticket and personally delivered the laptop to the guest.

As crazy as this may sound, the housekeeper was not reprimanded but instead was applauded for her efforts. Then, she was coached that next time, overnight shipping would be sufficient. The point is, there’s no risk in taking care of a guest. The story became a teaching moment for both the housekeeper and all Ritz staff, reinforcing the hotel chain’s commitment to empowered, guest-focused service.

Not every company will have a $2,000 empowerment policy like the Ritz-Carlton or a story like Nordstrom that literally defines their customer experience, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy similar benefits.

So, here’s your assignment. Find your company’s legendary customer service story. If you don’t yet have one, start looking for those stories. Use them in training, meetings, and internal communications. Over time, they will become the DNA of your customer service culture. And who knows? Fifty years from now, someone might still be telling your story.

Image credits: Pexels, Shep Hyken

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.

Rebuilding Trust When You’ve Broken It

Rebuilding Trust When You've Broken It

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Trust is the foundation of every high-performing team. It’s the invisible force that enables collaboration, fuels innovation, and keeps teams resilient in the face of setbacks. But when that trust is broken – leaders need to focus on how to rebuild trust carefully and deliberately. Rebuilding trust isn’t as simple as offering an apology and moving on. In fact, that’s where many leaders go wrong.

They believe a sincere “I’m sorry” is all it takes to make things right again.

But it’s not.

Rebuilding trust takes far more than words—it takes sustained action. And if you’re serious about leading a high-performing team, you need to understand the process of how to truly rebuild trust when it’s been damaged.

Most Leaders Get Rebuilding Trust Wrong

Let’s start with the apology. A real apology – the kind that has the potential to begin the healing process – sounds like this: “I did this. I now know it was wrong. I see the impact it had on you. And I’m going to make it right.” That’s not the same as saying “I didn’t mean it” or “I’m sorry if anyone was offended.” Those aren’t apologies; they’re excuses dressed up in regret.

Even when leaders get the words right, they often assume the work ends there. But rebuilding trust doesn’t happen with a single moment of contrition. Trust isn’t built on words. It’s built on behavior.

What leaders fail to realize is that when they betray trust, they don’t just damage the relationship – they break an emotional loop. I call it the trust loop, and it exists in every relationship you have with your team, both collectively and individually. That loop is a cycle of expectation, action, and consistency. When everything is working well, the loop reinforces itself and trust grows. But when trust is violated, the loop shatters—and rebuilding it takes far more than a one-time gesture.

Why Words Aren’t Enough To Rebuild Trust

When you break trust and then try to move on too quickly, you’re sending an unspoken message to your team: “This wasn’t that big of a deal.” And that message undercuts any sincerity you intended with your apology. Research backs this up. Paul Zak, a neuroscientist who studies trust in organizations, found that employees in high-trust workplaces report 74% less stress and 50% higher productivity. Trust isn’t just a feel-good concept – it’s measurable, and it affects everything from performance to retention. But that kind of trust can’t exist unless leaders take full accountability, even for their mistakes.

Taking accountability isn’t just about admitting the error – it’s about acknowledging the impact. And that’s where a lot of well-meaning leaders go off track. They say, “I made a mistake,” but they don’t take the time to understand or validate how that mistake affected others. The result? Their apology feels hollow. The team sees them as principled, maybe, but detached. Or worse – performative.

To truly rebuild trust, leaders need to demonstrate both responsibility and empathy. Because your team needs to know not just that you’re sorry, but that you get it. That you see the ripple effect your actions had, and that you care enough to do better.

What Rebuilding Trust Actually Takes

So how do you rebuild trust?

It starts with a strong apology, yes. But it doesn’t end there. Here are four steps to guide the process—and none of them can be skipped.

1. Own the Mistake – and Its Impact

Rebuilding trust begins with full accountability. You must take ownership of what happened and openly acknowledge the harm it caused. That might mean calling out specific behaviors, admitting lapses in judgment, or addressing how your decision made the team feel undervalued or vulnerable. This isn’t a time to minimize, justify, or deflect. And it’s not just about your intention – it’s about the impact. The more specifically you can articulate what went wrong and why it mattered, the more credible your apology becomes.

2. Invite The Team Into The Solution

After accountability comes action. But not behind closed doors. Telling your team, “I’ll do better,” isn’t enough. They need to see you doing better. Better yet, they need to be part of the process.

Invite them into the solution. Talk through what happened. Share the thinking behind your original decision—not to excuse it, but to help the team understand where things went wrong. Then ask for input. What would they have done differently? What safeguards could be put in place to avoid a repeat? The more you co-create the fix, the more your team sees that you’re serious about change. Transparency builds credibility. And when your team sees you working on yourself, they’re more likely to work with you to rebuild what was broken.

3. Show Them You’re Changing

The most powerful way to rebuild trust is to demonstrate new behavior in old situations. If you made a decision that sidelined the team last time, then the next time a similar decision comes up, you need to do the opposite. Bring the team in early. Ask for feedback. Show them that the lesson was learned – and internalized.

They don’t need to see everything you’re doing differently. But they do need to see you behaving differently in the kinds of situations that broke trust in the first place. That’s how predictability is restored. And predictability is a cornerstone of trust.

4. Be Consistent—Every Day

This is where most leaders lose momentum. They start strong. They apologize, they make a few changes, they check in. But over time, old habits creep back in and the consistency fades. And when that happens, the message to the team is clear: “That apology wasn’t real.”

Rebuilding trust isn’t about grand gestures. It’s about small, daily actions. It’s about showing up consistently. Following through consistently. Making decisions with integrity—consistently.

The longer you sustain those behaviors, the more the trust loop starts to turn again. Slowly, day by day, your team regains their confidence – not just in your words, but in your ability to lead with integrity.

Always Be Rebuilding Trust

You don’t rebuild trust with a single apology. You rebuild trust by showing that your apology meant something. That you’ve changed. That the behavior that broke trust won’t be repeated.

And while that takes time, it’s worth it. Because trust is what makes teams resilient. Trust is what drives performance. And trust – when rebuilt the right way – can actually come back stronger than before.

So, if you’ve broken trust with your team, don’t aim for forgiveness. Aim for consistency. Start by owning your mistake. Involve your team in the fix. Show them the change. And then keep showing up – day after day.

That’s how you rebuild trust. And that’s how you restart the trust loop.

This article originally appeared on DavidBurkus.com

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Modeling Good Board Governance

Modeling Good Board Governance

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

There are cartloads of checklists and commentary on the duties and responsibilities of a board of directors, none of which are particularly surprising, but collectively, somewhat mind-numbing. As a frameworks person, I need to see things in a more simple and integrated way, hence the diagram below:

Board of Directors Responsibilities Framework

Public boards should tackle this framework from the bottom up as they are liable for damages if the company fails to address risk and compliance properly, or improperly reports performance results. Foundational to their recruiting and staffing efforts should be securing strong chairpersons for each of the three anchor committees—Nominating and Governance, Audit, and Compensation. That’s table stakes. High-performing boards do their best to handle these obligations in committee so they can spend quality time on the upper levels of the framework. The obstacle here tends to be management’s presentation of the past quarter’s performance. This is necessary to bring the board up to speed on the current state of the company, but it is something that most boards spend way too much time on, given how little the board can do to move the needle. This limits the time available to devote to strategy and resource allocation, where their outside-in perspective can add a ton of value. Big bets, on the other hand, do get the full attention they deserve—they just should not happen very often given the risk-averse nature of public market shareholders.

Venture-backed companies, on the other hand, are a different kind of animal. They should approach this framework from the top down. They are big bets, and their first responsibility is to get those bets across the chasm and inside a tornado. Resource allocation and strategy are core to accomplishing these ends. Performance matters, but early on it is more about accumulating power than delivering profits. Risk and compliance are still relevant, but the shareholders have a higher tolerance for risk, and the relatively small size of the enterprise as a whole makes compliance a whole lot simpler. And finally, the board is typically comprised primarily of investors and founders with an independent director for balance—not really a governance model, built more for guidance instead.

The disparity between the public and private market board models creates a shock when venture-backed companies get acquired by public companies. The newly acquired team wakes up one morning inside a public enterprise with all its established processes and procedures and feels like it is being smothered to death. There is no halfway house here, so when we talk about acquisition integration, we need to include a deep-dive orientation to public-market expectations, and the work enterprises must do to address them. In parallel, the acquiring company needs to adopt zone management to ensure that they are holding the acquired company accountable to the right goals and metrics. This goes all the way up to the board, where people are likely still smarting from the high premium they had to pay and looking to get it back as fast as possible. Thrusting the new team into the Performance Zone is a proven path to crushing innovation and destroying shareholder value.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

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.

Why Are We Forcing People Back into Cubicles?

Why Are We Forcing People Back into Cubicles?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Whether it’s placing machine tools on the factory floor or designing work spaces for people that work at the company, the number one guiding metric is resources per square foot. If you’re placing machine tools, this metric causes the machines to be stacked closely together, where the space between them is minimized, access to the machines is minimized, and the aisles are the smallest they can be. The result – the number of machines per square foot is maximized.

And though there has been talk of workplaces that promote effective interactions and creativity, the primary metric is still people per square foot. Don’t believe me? I have one word for you – cubicles. Cubicles are the design solution of choice when you want to pack the most people into the smallest area.

Here’s a test. At your next team meeting, ask people to raise their hand if they hate working in a cubicle. I rest my case.

With cubicles, it’s the worst of both worlds. There is none of the benefit of an office and none of the benefit of collaborative environment. They are half of neither.

What is one of Dilbert’s favorite topic? Cubicles.

If no one likes them, why do we still have them? If you want quiet, cubicles are the wrong answer. If you want effective collaboration, cubicles are the wrong answer. If everyone hates them, why do we still have them?

When people need to do deep work, they stay home so they can have peace and quiet. When people they want to concentrate, they avoid cubicles at all costs. When you need to focus, you need quiet. And the best way to get quiet is with four walls and a door. Some would call that and office, but those are passe. And in some cases, they are outlawed. In either case, they are the best way to get some quiet time. And, as a side benefit, they also block interruptions.

Best way for people to interact is face-to-face. And in order to interact at way, they’ve got to be in the same place at the same time. Sure spontaneous interactions are good, but it’s far better to facilitate interactions with a fixed schedule. Like with a bus stop schedule, people know where to be and when. In that way, many people can come together efficiently and effectively and the number of interactions increases dramatically. So why not set up planned interactions at ten in the morning and two in the afternoon?

I propose a new metric for facilities design – number of good ideas per square foot. Good ideas require deep thought, so quiet is important. And good ideas require respectful interaction with others, so interactions are important.

I’m not exactly sure what a facility must look like to maximize the number of good ideas per square foot, but I do know it has no cubicles.

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.

Bringing Energy Back to Work

Bringing Energy Back to Work

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

There are all kinds of survey data these days indicating that morale in the workplace is lower than it used to be and, more importantly, than it ought to be. This has got managers scurrying about trying to find ways to make their employees happier. One word of advice on this: Stop!

It is not your job to make the people on your team happy. That is their job. Your job is to make their work important. Now, as a bonus, there is a strong correlation between meaningful work and worker happiness, so there is a two-birds-for-one-stone principle operating here. It’s just that you have to keep your eye on the lead bird. Employee happiness is a trailing indicator. Customer success is the leading one.

Your team’s customers can be internal or external — it just depends on your performance contract, the one that sets out the outcomes your organization has been funded to deliver. To be meaningful, in one way or another, those outcomes must contribute materially to the overall success of your enterprise’s mission. Your job is to highlight that path, to help your team members see it as a North Star to guide the focus and prioritization of their work. That is what gives their work meaning. Their performance metrics should align directly with the outcomes you have contracted to deliver – else why are they doing the work?

Performance management in this context is simply redirecting their energy to align as closely as possible to the deliverables of your organization’s performance contract. The talent you recruit and develop should have the kind of disposition and gifts that motivate them to want to do this kind of work. If there is a mismatch, help them find some other kind of work that is a better fit for them, and backfill their absence with someone who is a better fit for you. Performance management is not about weeding out—it is about re-potting.

Finally, if we bring this mindset to our current challenges with institutionalizing remote/hybrid operating models, too often this is being framed as an issue of improving employee happiness. Again, not your job. Instead, the focus should be on how best to meet the needs of the customers you have elected to serve. That is, instead of designing enterprise-out, with our heads down in our personal and team calendars, we need to design customer-in, with our heads up looking at where the trapped value is in their world, aligning our energies to release that trapped value, and organizing our operating model to maximize our impact in so doing. If we are not in service to our customers, what use are we?

That’s what I think. What do you think?

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.

Do What 91% of Executives Will Not

Winning in Times of Uncertainty

Do What 91% of Executives Will Not

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In times of great uncertainty, we seek safety. But what does “safety” look like?

What We Say: Safety = Data

We tend to believe that we are rational beings and, as a result, we rely on data to make decisions.

Great! We’ve got lots of data from lots of uncertain periods. HBR examined 4,700 public companies during three global recessions (1980, 1990, and 2000).  They found that the companies that emerged “outperforming rivals in their industry by at least 10% in terms of sales and profits growth” had one thing in common: They aggressively made cuts to improve operational efficiency and ruthlessly invested in marketing, R&D, and building new assets to better serve customers have the highest probability of emerging as markets leaders post-recession.

This research was backed up in 2020 in a McKinsey study that found that “Organizations that maintained their innovation focus through the 2009 financial crisis, for example, emerged stronger, outperforming the market average by more than 30 percent and continuing to deliver accelerated growth over the subsequent three to five years.”

What We Do: Safety = Hoarding

The reality is that we are human beings and, as a result, make decisions based on how we feel and the use data to justify those decisions.

How else do you explain that despite the data, only 9% of companies took the balanced approach recommended in the HBR study and, ten years later, only 25% of the companies studied by McKinsey stated that “capturing new growth” was a top priority coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uncertainty is scary so, as individuals and as organizations, we scramble to secure scarce resources, cut anything that feels extraneous, and shift or focus to survival.

What now? AND, not OR

What was true in 2010 is still true today and new research from Bain offers practical advice for how leaders can follow both their hearts and their heads.

Implement systems to protect you from yourself. Bain studied Fast Company’s 50 Most Innovative Companies and found that 79% use two different operating models for innovation to combat executives’ natural risk aversion.  The first, for sustaining innovation uses traditional stage-gate models, seeks input from experts and existing customers, and is evaluated on ROI-driven metrics.

The second, for breakthrough innovations, is designed to embrace and manage uncertainty by learning from new customers and emerging trends, working with speed and agility, engaging non-traditional collaborators, and evaluating projects based on their long-term potential and strategic option value.

Don’t outspend. Out-allocate. Supporting the two-system approach, nearly half of the companies studied send less on R&D than their peers overall and spend it differently: 39% of their R&D budgets to sustaining innovations and 61% to expanding into new categories or business models.

Use AI to accelerate, not create. Companies integrating AI into innovation processes have seen design-to-launch timelines shrink by 20% or more. The key word there is “integrate,” not outsource. They use AI for data and trend analysis, rapid prototyping, and automating repetitive tasks. But they still rely on humans for original thinking, intuition-based decisions, and genuine customer empathy.

Prioritize humans above all else. Even though all the information in the world is at our fingerprints, humans remain unknowable, unpredictable, and wonderfully weird. That’s why successful companies use AI to enhance, not replace, direct engagement with customers. They use synthetic personas as a rehearsal space for brainstorming, designing research, and concept testing. But they also know there is no replacement (yet) for human-to-human interaction, especially when creating new offerings and business models.

In times of create uncertainty, we seek safety.  But safety doesn’t guarantee certainty. Nothing does. So, the safest thing we can do is learn from the past, prepare (not plan) for the future, make the best decisions possible based on what we know and feel today, and stay open to changing them tomorrow.

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.

Should Owners or Employees Come First?

Should Owners or Employees Come First?

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

“It’s crucial that we succeed in securing a competitive return for our owners and meet the expectations of consumers and society. But the foundation for all of this is creating a workplace and a culture that attracts the best talent.”

– Niels Duedahl, CEO at Danish Crown

Yes, it’s always a balance.

But it’s telling how Niels Duedahl sees people and culture as the true foundation.

I couldn’t agree more.

If we don’t get the workplace right, nothing else will follow.

What about you – how do you see it?

Image Credit: Pexels

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






Do You Have the Courage to Speak Up Against Conformity?

Do You Have the Courage to Speak Up Against Conformity?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you see things differently than others, congratulations. You’re thinking for yourself.

If you find yourself pressured into thinking like everyone else, that’s a sign your opinion threatens. It’s too powerful to be dismissed out-of-hand, and that’s why they want to shut you up.

If the status quo is angered by your theory, you’re likely onto something. Stick to your guns.

If your boss doesn’t want to hear your contrarian opinion, that’s because it cannot be easily dismissed. That’s reason enough to say it.

If you disagree in a meeting and your sentiment is actively dismissed, dismiss the dismisser. And say it again.

If you’re an active member of the project and you are not invited to the meeting, take it as a compliment. Your opinion is too powerful to defend against. The only way for the group-think to survive is to keep you away from it. Well done.

If your opinion is actively and repeatedly ignored, it’s too powerful to be acknowledged. Send a note to someone higher up in the organization. And if that doesn’t work, send it up a level higher still. Don’t back down.

If you look into the future and see a train wreck, set up a meeting with the conductor and tell them what you see.

When you see things differently, others will try to silence you and tell you you’re wrong. Don’t believe them. The world needs people like you who see things as they are and have the courage to speak the truth as they see it.

Thank you for your courage.

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.