Category Archives: Leadership

Should Owners or Employees Come First?

Leave a reply

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?

Leave a reply

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.

How Knowledge Emerges

Leave a reply

Understanding Epistemology

How Knowledge Emerges - Understanding Epistemology

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that addresses the theory of knowledge. But what do philosophers mean by knowledge? Traditionally, it is defined as justified true belief, and it is established by applying logic and reason to whatever set of claims is under discussion. That is the path we are going to follow here as well. But to get the full picture, we need to look at both knowledge and knowing through the lens of emergence.

In The Infinite Staircase, we offered a global model of emergence that seeks to span all of reality, organizing itself around eleven stairs, as follows:

Infinite Staircase Geoffrey Moore

Justified true belief is a product of reason employing the top four stairs of language, narrative, analytics, and theory to test claims to truth. It is the cumulative impact of all these stairs building one atop the next that allows knowledge to ultimately emerge in its fullest sense. That is the path we are about to trace. Before so doing, however, we should acknowledge that there are seven stairs below language, all of which are “pre-linguistic,” that also seep into the way we know things. A complete epistemology would therefore go all the way down to the bottom stair, with particular attention to culture (what we learn from others) and values (what we learn from mammalian nurture and governance). Nonetheless, we are going to focus on just the top four because that is where the bulk of the action is.

Beginning with the stair of language, its major contribution to justified true belief is its ability to communicate facts. All facts are expressed through declarative sentences. Each sentence makes a claim. What makes a claim a fact is that we are willing to accept its assertion without further verification or validation. For the ultimate skeptic who is never willing to do this, there are no facts. For the rest of us, who are continually making real-life decisions in real-time, facts are necessary, and we accept or reject claims of fact based on the information we have at hand, including the reliability of the source and the probability of the claim given current circumstances.

That said, facts by themselves don’t mean much. What gives them meaning are narratives. Narrative is the cornerstone of all knowledge, the medium by which we communicate beliefs. The book of Genesis represents one such belief-supporting narrative, The Origin of Species another, the Big Bang a third. Each of these narratives not only explains how things have come to be as they are, at the same time they foreshadow how they can be expected to turn out in the future. Whether it is the hand of God, the workings of natural selection, or the ceaseless operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, narratives spotlight the governing forces in whatever situation they describe. That in turn lets us identify actions we can take to turn our situation to best advantage. Narratives, in other words, are essential equipment for any kind of decision-making. The question, however, is are they credible?

This is where analytics comes in. The role of analytics is to justify belief in the claims embedded in the narrative. In The Infinite Staircase, I summarize Stephen Toulmin’s model for conducting such an analysis. It is organized around six elements:

  1. What are the claims being made? Are they clear, precise, and unambiguous?
  2. What evidence is there that these claims might be true? What are the facts of the case as best we can determine them?
  3. What warrants us to believe that this evidence supports these claims? Are there clear lines of reasoning that take us from the facts to the claims and back?
  4. Do the warrants themselves require additional backing to be credible? Is there evidence to support their claims?
  5. What counter-arguments could potentially invalidate our claims, and do we have a credible rebuttal to refute them?
  6. Where do we draw the line between our claims and these alternatives?
  7. Based on all five precious steps, is there some qualification we can apply to our claim to secure its overall justification more firmly? What is our final statement of our core claim?

By applying this model to our beliefs, we can transform them into justified beliefs. But that still begs one question: are they true?

To address the question of truth, we have to draw upon the resources of the highest stair in our model, the one labeled theory. There are multiple theories of truth, but three stand out in particular:

  1. The correspondence theory, which says that claims are true when they are consistent with how things actually turn out to be, leading to a verifiable view of the world.
  2. The coherence theory, which says that claims are true when they are consistent with all the other claims you believe, leading to a coherent view of the world.
  3. The pragmatism theory, which says that claims are true when you act on them and your actions are consistent with your intentions, leading to an effective view of the world.

Rather than think of these theories as competing with one another, consider them as three dimensions of one and the same thing, namely knowledge that helps further one’s strategy for living. In that context, knowledge does indeed consist of justified true beliefs. It emerges from language contributing facts, interacting with narratives contributing beliefs, tested by analytics contributing justification, and confirmed by theory contributing truth. In this context, it is neither complicated nor mysterious.

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.

Three Reasons Change Efforts Fail

Leave a reply

Three Reasons Change Efforts Fail

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

There’s no question we have entered a transformative age, with major shifts in technology, resources, demography and migration. Over the next decades, we will have to move from digital from post-digital, from carbon to zero-carbon and from the Boomer values to those of Millennials and Zoomers. Migration will strain societies’ social compact.

Unfortunately, we’re really bad at adapting to change. We’ve known about the climate threat for decades, but have done little about it. The digital revolution, for all the hoopla, has been a big disappointment, falling far short of its promise to change the world for the better. Even at the level of individual firms, McKinsey finds that the vast majority of initiatives fail.

One key factor is that we too often assume that change is inevitable. It’s not. Change dies every day. New ideas are weak, fragile, and in need of protection. If we’re going to bring about genuine transformation, we need to take that into account. The first step is to learn the reasons why change fails in the first place. These three are a good place to start.

1. A Flawed Idea

One obvious reason that change fails is that the idea itself is flawed in some way. Barry Libenson found this out when he was hired to be CIO at the industrial conglomerate Ingersoll Rand. It was his first CIO role and Barry was eager to please the CEO, who he saw as a mentor. So he agreed to aggressive very performance targets for modernizing systems.

Yet while Barry was being financially incentivized to upgrade technology, each of the division leaders were financially incentivized to maximize profit growth. Every dollar they invested in modernizing systems would eat into their performance bonus. Perhaps not surprisingly, Barry’s modernization program didn’t go as well as he’d hoped.

There are a number of tools that can help to troubleshoot ideas and uncover flaws. Pre-mortems force you to imagine how a project could fail. Red Teams set up a parallel group specifically to look for flaws. Howard Tiersky, CEO of the digital transformation agency From Digital and author of the Wall Street Journal bestseller Winning Digital Customers, often uses de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats to help the team take different perspectives.

Most of all, we need to come to terms with the reality that our ideas are always wrong. Sometimes they’re off by a little and sometimes they’re off by a lot, but they’re always wrong, so we always need to be on the lookout for problems. As the physicist Richard Feynman put it.“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.”

2. Failure To Build Trust

Proposed in 1983 by Ira Magaziner, the Rhode Island’s Greenhouse Compact is still considered to be an impressive policy even today, 40 years later. In fact, the bipartisan CHIPS Act is based on the same principle, that targeted, strategic government investments can help simulate economic development in the private sector.

The plan in Rhode Island was to establish four research centers or “greenhouses” throughout the state to help drive development in new technologies, like robotics, medicine and thin film materials, as well as existing industries in which the state had built-in advantages, such as tourism, boat-building and fishing. It quickly gained support among the state’s elite

Yet things quickly soured. There were a number of political scandals that reduced faith in Rhode Island’s government and fed into the laissez-faire zeitgeist of the Reagan era. Critics called the plan “elitist,” for taxing “ordinary” citizens to subsidize greedy corporations. When the referendum was held, it plan got less than a fifth of the vote.

Magaziner’s mistake — one he would repeat with the healthcare plan during the Clinton Administration—was ignoring the need to build trust among constituencies. Getting the plan right is never enough. You need to methodically build trust and support as you go.

3. Identity and Dignity

One of the biggest mistakes change leaders make is assuming that resistance to change has a rational basis. They feel that if they listen to concerns and address them, they will be able to build trust and win over skeptics. Unfortunately, while doing those things is certainly necessary for a successful change effort, it is rarely sufficient.

The simple fact is that human beings form attachments to people, ideas and things and when they feel those attachments are threatened, it offends their identity, dignity and sense of self. This is the most visceral kind of resistance. We can argue the merits of a particular idea and methodically build trust, but we can’t ask people to stop being who they think they are.

Don’t waste your time trying to convince the unconvincible. Your efforts will be very unlikely to succeed and very likely to exhaust and frustrate you. The good news is that irrational resistors, if left to their own devices, will often discredit themselves eventually. You can also speed up the process by designing a dilemma action.

What can be hardest about change, especially when we feel passionately about it, is that at some point, we need to accept that others will not embrace it and we will have to leave some behind. Not every change is for everybody. Some will have to pursue a different journey, one to which they can devote their passions and seek out their own truths.

Change Is Not Inevitable

People like to quote the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who said things like “the only constant is change” and “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” They’re clever quotes and they give us confidence that the change we seek is not only possible, but inevitable.

Yet while change in general may be inevitable, the prospects for any particular change initiative are decidedly poor and the failure to recognize that simple fact is why so many transformation efforts fall short. The first step toward making change succeed is to understand and internalize just how fragile a new, unproven initiative really is.

To bring genuine change about you can’t expect to just push forward and have everyone fall in line. No amount of executive sponsorship or program budget will guarantee victory. To move forward, you will need to listen to skeptics, identify and fix flaws in your idea to methodically build trust. Even then, you will have to outsmart those who have an irrational lust to kill change and who act in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

Change is always, at some level, about what people value. That’s why to make it happen you need to identify shared values that reaffirm, rather than undermine, people’s sense of identity. Recognition is often a more powerful incentive than even financial rewards. In the final analysis, lasting change always needs to be built on common ground.

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

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

Getting the Most Out of Quiet Employees in Meetings

Leave a reply

Getting the Most Out of Quiet Employees in Meetings

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Getting quiet employees to speak up in meetings can feel like a challenge, but it doesn’t have to be. The truth is silence doesn’t mean disengagement. Often, quiet team members are the most reflective, thoughtful contributors—they just need the right environment to share their insights. If you’ve ever wondered how to help them find their voice, you’re not alone. It’s a question many leaders face, and the answer lies not in fixing the individual but in fixing the environment.

Let’s explore how to create a space where everyone feels confident contributing and where the team benefits from the diverse perspectives that emerge.

What Leaders Often Get Wrong

A common tactic leaders use to engage quiet employees is calling on them directly during meetings. It seems logical—put someone on the spot, and they’ll contribute, right? Wrong. Forcing participation in this way often backfires. When you call someone out with, “We haven’t heard from you, what do you think?” you’re not creating an opportunity; you’re creating pressure. This can leave the individual feeling unprepared or even embarrassed, which only reinforces their reluctance to speak up in the future.

One-on-one conversations with quiet employees can also miss the mark. Phrasing like, “I haven’t heard from you in meetings lately,” may seem supportive, but it can come across as criticism. Employees may interpret it as, “You’re not contributing enough,” which puts them on the defensive. The issue isn’t the individual’s nature; it’s the dynamics of the meeting itself.

Build an Environment That Encourages Input

Instead of focusing on “fixing” the quiet employee, focus on creating a space that naturally draws out their input. The foundation of this approach is psychological safety, a concept championed by researcher Amy Edmondson. Psychological safety ensures team members feel respected and valued, even when sharing dissenting ideas. Leaders play a pivotal role in cultivating this environment.

One powerful tool is asking better questions. Broad, open-ended prompts signal that all perspectives are welcome and needed. For example:

  • “What perspectives might we not have considered?” This invites team members to think expansively without feeling the pressure to speak directly from their own viewpoint.
  • “How do you see this issue affecting our team or organization as a whole?” This leverages the natural reflective tendencies of quieter team members, giving them an entry point to share their thoughts.
  • “What insights from your work could help us solve this?” By focusing on an individual’s expertise, this question creates a comfortable way for them to contribute.
  • “What have you seen work well in similar situations?” Grounding the conversation in personal experience allows quieter team members to share insights on their terms.

These types of questions help build trust and demonstrate that every voice matters.

Rethink Meeting Dynamics

The structure of your meetings can either foster or stifle participation. Too often, meetings are tailored to the preferences of more vocal team members, leaving quieter employees without a natural space to contribute. To counteract this, vary the formats of your meetings to accommodate different communication styles. Some team members thrive in group discussions, others in chat-based brainstorming, and still others prefer to provide detailed input via email. By alternating your approach, you give everyone an opportunity to engage in the way that suits them best.

Another powerful tactic is structured silence. When you pose a key question during a meeting, instead of opening the floor immediately, give everyone a few minutes to think and jot down their ideas. If you’re meeting virtually, ask participants to type their responses into a shared chat or document. This approach levels the playing field by giving everyone equal time to formulate their thoughts before louder voices dominate the conversation. Research consistently shows that this kind of silent brainstorming not only generates more ideas but also produces better ones.

Support Contributions in the Moment

When a quiet employee does speak up in meetings, how you respond matters. A positive reaction reinforces their willingness to participate again. Start by praising their contribution and ensuring it gets the attention it deserves. Avoid allowing others to immediately dismiss or talk over their idea. Instead, amplify it by saying something like, “That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s explore that further.”

This approach sends a clear message: their input is valued, and this team appreciates diverse ideas. Over time, these affirming responses build confidence and encourage more frequent participation.

Amplify Voices Outside the Meeting

Sometimes, even with the right environment, a quiet employee may hesitate to contribute in the moment. In these cases, follow up with them privately after the meeting. Instead of framing the conversation as a critique, approach it as an opportunity. For example, you might say, “I’d love to hear your thoughts on what we discussed today. What’s your perspective?”

When they share, praise their ideas and encourage them to bring them up in future meetings. If they do, reinforce their contribution publicly. Highlight the value of their insights to the team, ensuring they feel recognized and respected. This two-step process—private encouragement followed by public amplification—builds their confidence and strengthens their connection to the team.

Create Space for Every Voice

Quiet employees aren’t a problem to be fixed; they’re a strength waiting to be unlocked. By shifting your focus from “Why won’t they speak up?” to “How can I create an environment where they feel comfortable contributing?” you’ll foster a more inclusive and innovative team dynamic. Start by rethinking your meeting structures, asking better questions, and supporting contributions both in and out of the meeting room. Over time, you’ll see not just one employee speaking up more but a cultural shift where every voice is heard—and valued.

By encouraging everyone to speak up in meetings, you’ll unlock the full potential of your team. After all, the best ideas don’t come from the loudest voices. They come from the collective brilliance of the group. It’s your job as a leader to make sure every voice has its chance to shine.

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

Important Questions for Innovation

Leave a reply

Important Questions for Innovation

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Here are some important questions for innovation.

What’s the Distinctive Value Proposition? The new offering must help the customer make progress. How does the customer benefit? How is their life made easier? How does this compare to the existing offerings? Summarize the difference on one page. If the innovation doesn’t help the customer make progress, it’s not an innovation.

Is it too big or too small? If the project could deliver sales growth that would dwarf the existing sales numbers for the company, the endeavor is likely too big. The company mindset and philosophy would have to be destroyed. Are you sure you’re up to the challenge? If the project could deliver only a small increase in sales, it’s likely not worth the time and expense. Think return on investment. There’s no right answer, but it’s important to ask the question and set the limits for too big and too small. If it could grow to 10% of today’s sales numbers, that’s probably about right.

Why us? There’s got to be a reason why you’re the right company to do this new work. List the company’s strengths that make the work possible. If you have several strengths that give you an advantage, that’s great. And if one of your weaknesses gives you an advantage, that works too. Step on the accelerator. If none of your strengths give you an advantage, choose another project.

How do we increase our learning rate? First thing, define Learning Objectives (LOs). And once defined, create a plan to achieve them quickly. Here’s a hint. Define what it takes to satisfy the LOs. Here’s another hind. Don’t build a physical prototype. Instead, create a website that describes the potential offering and its value proposition and ask people if they want to buy it. Collect the data and refine the offering based on your learning. Or, create a one-page sales tool and show it to ten potential customers. Define your learning and use the learning to decide what to do next.

Then what? If the first phase of the work is successful, there must be a then what. There must be an approved plan (funding, resources) for the second phase before the first phase starts. And the same thing goes for the follow-on phases. The easiest way to improve innovation effectiveness is avoid starting phase one of projects when their phase two is unfunded. The fastest innovation project is the wrong one that never starts.

How do we start? Define how much money you want to spend. Formalize your business objectives. Choose projects that could meet your business objectives. Free up your best people. Learn as quickly as you can.

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.

11 Reasons Why Teams Struggle to Collaborate

Leave a reply

(Despite Good Intentions)

11 Reasons Why Teams Struggle to Collaborate

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Collaboration is a favorite theme in strategy decks and leadership keynotes. Leaders say it’s essential for innovation, agility, empowerment, and execution. But if you’ve worked in or with large organizations, you’ll know something feels off:

Teams want to collaborate and not just within their own team, but across functions and silos, and even with partners or external experts.

The problem is that most organizations aren’t set up for this.

I often argue that many organizational issues start at the top. Leaders talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. And when collaboration is reduced to a value on a poster – or buried under broken structures – teams are left to figure it out in an environment working against them.

So I’ve created this ranked list of reasons why collaboration fails. It’s not to point fingers at teams but to spotlight the real barriers that leaders and organizations need to address.

1. They promote teamwork, yet reward individual KPIs.

You can’t expect collaboration when success is defined individually. When people are measured and rewarded for their solo achievements, they will naturally prioritize their own goals – even when it works against the team.

2. They push for cross-functional alignment, yet still operate in silos.

True collaboration requires more than cross-functional task forces, it demands integrated ways of working. But when organizational structures and incentives are siloed, collaboration becomes optional, not foundational.

3. They push for cross-functional alignment, yet still operate in silos.

Collaboration isn’t just within teams. It depends on how well teams work across functions, departments, and even with external partners. Without integrated goals and decision rights, silos quietly win.

4. They encourage knowledge-sharing, yet overload teams with competing priorities.

Collaboration takes time. When teams are juggling too much, knowledge-sharing becomes a luxury. People protect their time and focus, not because they don’t care, but because they’re trying to survive the chaos.

5. They say collaboration matters, yet measure success in isolation.

If KPIs and OKRs don’t reflect shared goals, collaboration will always take a back seat. People follow the metrics. And when those metrics are narrow or individual, so is the behavior.

6. They ask for collective ownership, yet assign accountability to a single function.

You can’t expect teams to own outcomes together if only one person or team is held accountable when things go wrong. This creates fear, finger-pointing, and passive involvement from others.

7. They talk about shared goals, yet lack clear alignment across teams.

“Shared goals” sound good, but if each team interprets them differently, you end up with misalignment, duplication, or conflicting efforts. Collaboration without alignment leads to confusion, not impact.

8. They encourage open dialogue, yet don’t create psychological safety to speak up.

Without safety, people stay silent. They avoid saying what needs to be said, and collaboration becomes shallow. Open dialogue is only possible when people trust they won’t be punished for honesty or vulnerability.

9. They expect faster execution, yet require too many approvals to move forward.

Even well-aligned, collaborative teams can lose momentum when bogged down in bureaucracy. Endless approvals signal a lack of trust and slow down the very agility leaders are asking for.

10. They want proactive teams, yet reward those who play it safe and stay in their lane.

Proactivity means taking initiative, stepping into grey zones, and owning outcomes. But when the system rewards safety and punishes stretch behavior, people stay in their box – and so does the organization.

11. They invest in collaboration tools, yet don’t invest in team dynamics or leadership behaviors.

Slack, Miro, Teams, Asana. Tools are helpful, but they don’t create trust, alignment, or clarity. Collaboration starts with people, not platforms.

The Bottom Line

Collaboration isn’t broken – what’s broken is the system surrounding it.

People want to work together. Most teams are willing, capable, and motivated. But collaboration fails when leadership behaviors, organizational structures, and incentives quietly undermine it.

So the question isn’t:

“Why don’t our teams collaborate better?”

It’s:

“What’s making it harder for them to collaborate in the first place?”

Fix the system. Collaboration will follow.

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.

Bridging Differences to Drive Creativity and Innovation

Leave a reply

Bridging Differences to Drive Creativity And Innovation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I have a friend who was once ambushed on a TV show panel. Being confronted with a clearly offensive remark, she was caught off-guard, said something that was probably unwise (but not untrue or unkind), and found herself at the center of a media-driven scandal. It would cost her enormously, both personally and professionally.

I often think about the episode and not just because it hurt my friend, but also because I wonder what I would have done if put in similar circumstances. My friend, who is black, Muslim and female, is incredibly skilled at bridging differences and navigating matters of race, gender and religion. If she fell short, would I even stand a chance?

We are encouraged to think about matters of diversity in moral terms and, of course, that’s an important aspect. However, it is also a matter of developing the right skills. The better we are able to bridge differences, the more effectively we can collaborate with others who have different perspectives, which is crucial to becoming more innovative and productive.

The Challenge Of Diversity

There is no shortage of evidence that diversity can enhance performance. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that diverse groups can solve problems better than a more homogeneous team of greater objective ability. Another study that simulated markets showed that ethnic diversity deflated asset bubbles.

While those studies merely simulate diversity in a controlled setting, there is also evidence from the real world that diversity produces better outcomes. A McKinsey report that covered 366 public companies in a variety of countries and industries found that those which were more ethnically and gender diverse performed significantly better than others.

However, it takes effort to reap the benefits of diversity. Humans are naturally tribal. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out group members. Similar results were found in a study involving five year-old children and even in infants. Group identification, even without any of the normal social cues, is enough to produce bias.

The innate distinctions we make regarding each other carry over to work environments. When researchers at Kellogg and Stanford put together groups of college students to solve a murder mystery, teams made up of students from the same sorority or fraternity felt more successful, even though they performed worse on the task than integrated groups.

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

Group Identity And Individual Dignity

In western civilization, since at least the time of Descartes, we have traditionally thought in rational terms about how humans behave. We tend to assume that people examine facts to make judgments and that any disputes can be overcome through discussion and debate, through which we will arrive at an answer that is objectively correct.

Yet what if we actually did things in reverse, intuitively deciding what was right and then coming up with rational explanations for how we feel? Discussion and debate wouldn’t achieve anything. If rational arguments are merely explanations of deeply held intuitions, the “arguments” from the other side would seem to be downright lies or just crazy.

In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt points to decades of evidence that suggest that is exactly how we do things. We rely on social intuitions to make judgments and then design logic to explain why we feel that way. He also makes the point that many of our opinions are a product of our inclusion in a particular group.

Hardly the product of cold logic, our opinions are, in large part, manifestations of our identity. Our ideas are not just things we think. They are expressions of who we think we are.

Talking Past Each Other

Clearly, the way we tend to self-sort ourselves into groups based on identity will shape how we perceive what we see and hear, but it will also affect how we share and access data. Recently, a team of researchers at MIT looked into how we share information — and misinformation — with those around us. What they found was troubling.

When we’re surrounded by people who think like us, we share information more freely because we don’t expect to be rebuked. We’re also less likely to check our facts, because we know that those we are sharing the item with will be less likely to inspect it themselves. So when we’re in a filter bubble, we not only share more, we’re also more likely to share things that are not true. Greater polarization leads to greater misinformation.

The truth is that we all have a need to be recognized and when others don’t share a view that we feel strongly about, it offends our sense of dignity. The danger, of course, is that in our rapture we descend into solipsism and fail to recognize the dignity of others. That can lead us to dangerous and ugly places.

In Timothy Snyder’s masterful book Bloodlands, which explores the mass murders of Hitler and Stalin, the eminent historian concludes that the reason that humans can do unspeakable things to other humans is that they themselves feel like victims. If your very survival is at stake, then just about anything is warranted and cruelty can seem like justice.

Once our individual dignity becomes tied to our group identity, a different perspective can feel like more than just an opposing opinion, but a direct affront and that’s what may have precipitated the public attack on my friend. The verbal assault was probably motivated by her assailant’s need to signal inclusion in an opposing tribe.

Building Shared Identity And Purpose

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

As we conform to those around us, we are setting ourselves apart from those who are shaped by different sets of experiences. While there is enormous value to be unlocked by integrating with diverse perspectives, it takes work to be able to bridge those differences. What we hear isn’t always what others say and what we say isn’t what others always hear.

In his book, Identity, political scientist Francis Fukuyama explains that our identities aren’t fixed, but develop and change over time. In fact, we routinely choose to add facets to our identity, while shedding others, changing jobs, moving neighborhoods, breaking off some associations as we take on others. “Identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate,” Fukuyama writes.

Yet integrating identities takes effort. We first need to acknowledge that our truth isn’t the only truth and that others, looking at the same facts, can honestly come to different conclusions than we do. We need to suspend immediate judgment and devote ourselves to a common undertaking with a shared sense of mission and purpose.

This is no easy task. It takes significant effort. However, it is at this nexus of identity and purpose that creativity and innovation reside, because when we learn to collaborate with others who possess knowledge, skills and perspectives that we don’t, new possibilities emerge to achieve greater things.

— 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.

The Evolution of Trapped Value in Cloud Computing

Leave a reply

The Evolution of Trapped Value in Cloud Computing

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Releasing trapped value drives the adoption of disruptive technology and subsequent category development. The trapped part inspires the technical innovation while the value part funds the business. As targeted trapped value gets released, the remaining value is held in place by a secondary set of traps, calling for a second generation of innovation, and a second round of businesses. This pattern continues until all the energy in the system is exhausted, and the economic priority shifts from growth to maintenance.

Take cloud computing for example. Amazon and Salesforce were early disrupters. The trapped value in retail was consumer access anytime anywhere. The trapped value in SaaS CRM was a corporate IT model that prioritized forecasting and reporting applications for upper management over tools for improving sales productivity in the trenches. As their models grew in success, however, they outgrew the data center operating model upon which they were based, and that was creating problems for both companies.

Help came from an unexpected quarter. Consumer computing, led by Google and Facebook, tackled the trapped value in the data center model by inventing the data-center-as-a-computer operation. The trapped value was in computers and network equipment that was optimized for scaling up to get more power. The new model relentlessly focused on commoditizing both, with stripped-down compute blocks and software-enabled switching—much to the consternation of the established hardware vendors who had no easy place to retreat to.

Their situation was further exacerbated by the rise of hyperscaler compute vendors who offered to outsource the entire enterprise footprint. But as they did, the value trap moved again, and this time it was the hyperscaler pricing model that was holding things back, particularly when switching costs were high. That has given rise to a hybrid architecture which at present is muddling its way through to a moderating norm. Here companies like Equinix and Digital Realty are helping enterprises combine approaches to find their optimal balance.

As this norm takes over more and more of the playing field, we may approach an asymptote of releasable trapped value at the computing layer. If so, that just means it will migrate elsewhere—in this case, up the stack. We are already seeing this in at least three areas of hypergrowth today:

  1. Cybersecurity, where the trapped value is in patching together component subsystems to address ongoing exposure to catastrophic risk.
  2. Content generation, where the trapped value is in time to market, as well as unfulfilled demand, for fresh digital media, both in consumer markets and in the enterprise.
  3. Co-piloting, where the trapped value is in low-yielding engagement with high-value digital services due to topic complexity and the lack of sophistication on the part of the end user.

All three of these opportunities will push further innovation in cloud computing, but the higher margins will now migrate to the next generation.

The net of all this is a fundamental investment thesis that applies equally well to venture investing, enterprise spending, and personal wealth management. As the Watergate pair of Woodward and Bernstein taught us many decades ago, Follow the money! In this case, the money is in the trapped value, so before you invest in any context, first identify the trapped value that when released will create the ROI you are looking for, and then monitor the early stages to determine if indeed it is getting released, and if so, that a fair share of the returns are coming back to you.

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

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

Innovation Requires Defying Success

Leave a reply

Innovation Requires Defying Success

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation is difficult because it requires novelty. And novelty is difficult because it’s different than last time. And different than last time is difficult because you’ve got to put yourself out there. And putting yourself out there is difficult because no one wants to be judged negatively.

Success, no matter how small, reinforces what was done last time. There’s safety in doing it again. The return may be small, but the wheels won’t fall off. You may run yourself into the ground over time, but you won’t fail catastrophically. You may not reach your growth targets, but you won’t get fired for slowly destroying the brand. In short, you won’t fail this year, but you will create the causes and conditions for a race to the bottom.

Diminishing returns are real. As a system improves it becomes more difficult to improve. A ten percent improvement is more difficult every year and at some point, improvement becomes impossible. In that way, success doesn’t breed success, it breeds more effort for less return. And as that improvement per unit effort decreases, it becomes ever more important (and ever more difficult) to do something different (to innovate).

Paradoxically, success makes it more difficult to innovate.

Success brings profits that could fund innovation. But, instead, success brings the expectation of predictable growth. Last year we were successful and grew 10%. We know the recipe, so this year let’s grow 12%. We can do what we did last year, but do it more efficiently. A sound bit of logic, except it assumes the rules haven’t changed and that competitors haven’t improved. But rules and competitors always change, and, at some point the the same old recipe for success runs out of gas.

It’s time to do something new (to innovate) when the same old effort brings reduced results. That change in output per unit effort means the recipe is tiring and it’s time for a new one. But with a new approach comes unpredictability, and for those who demand predictability, a new approach is scary. Sure, the yearly trend of reduced return on investment should scare them more, but it doesn’t. The devil you know is less scary than the one you don’t. But, it shouldn’t be.

Calculate your revenue dollars per sales associate and plot it over time. If the metric is flat over the last three years, it was time to innovate three years ago. If it’s decreasing over the last three years, it was time to innovate six years ago.

If you wait to innovate until revenue per salesperson is flat, you waited too long.

No one likes to be judged negatively, more than that, no one likes their company to collapse and lose their job. So, choose to do something new (to innovate) and choose the possibility of being judged. That’s much better than choosing to go out of business.

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.