Category Archives: Leadership

Never Trust a Guru

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 2005 W. Chan Kim and Renée published Blue Ocean Strategy, which found that “blue ocean” launches, those in new categories without competition, far outperformed the shark-infested “red ocean” line extensions that are the norm in the corporate world. It was an immediate hit, selling over 3.5 million copies.

Bain consultants Chris Zook and James Allen’ published, Profit from the Core, around the same time. They found that firms that focused on their ”core” far outperformed those who strayed. For example, they warned that Amazon was putting itself from peril for expanding its business beyond books and predicted dire results.

Clearly, none of this makes sense. How can you both “focus on your core” and seek out “blue oceans?” It betrays logic that both strategies could outperform one another. Today, Amazon makes most of its money outside of books. Yes, new markets lack competitors, but they also lack customers. The truth is that most business research is surprisingly shoddy.

Cargo Cult Science

When Richard Feynman took the podium to give the commencement speech at CalTech in 1974, he told the strange story of cargo cults. In certain islands in the South Pacific, he explained, tribal societies had seen troops build airfields during World War and were impressed with the valuable cargo that arrived at the bases.

After the troops left, the island societies built their own airfields, complete with mock radios, aircraft and mimicked military drills in the hopes of attracting cargo themselves. It seems more than a little silly, and of course, no cargo ever came. Yet these tribal societies persisted in their strange behaviors.

Feynman’s point was that we can’t merely mimic behaviors and expect to get results. To illustrate what he meant, he told a story about going to a new-age resort where people were learning reflexology. A man was sitting in a hot tub rubbing a woman’s big toe and asking the instructor, “Is this the pituitary?” Unable to contain himself, the great physicist blurted out, “You’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man.”

What makes science real is not fancy sounding words or slick charts with numbers on them. Business gurus often boast of their “research” that consists of hundreds of case study interviews and large databases containing data on thousands of firms, but without the proper methods and controls, those things are meaningless.

The Problem With Case Studies

Organizations are often inscrutable and hard to research. That’s why the preferred mode of analysis is case studies in which insiders are interviewed and a particular situation is interpreted by investigators. These can be helpful, but they also have severe limitations.

First, with shareholders and customers to please, managers are rarely eager to talk about failures. So we usually only hear about successes. Those, of course, are important but also subject to survivorship bias. For example, if a risky strategy results in 1% of the firms being wildly successful and 99% going out of business, then we’ll tend to hear glowing accounts of that lucky 1% and we’ll miss the vast majority that flamed out.

Another issue with the case study method is that it is necessarily limited. When researchers did a case study on a company I used to run, to take just one example, they interviewed insiders (including me) and did their best to interpret what they heard and what they could glean from background information regarding the market.

While I don’t think anything was inaccurate, it wasn’t exactly the truth either. Only a handful of people were interviewed, almost all of them were concentrated in a single part of the business and none of them, besides me, were involved in making decisions. The issues presented in the case study simply weren’t the ones we were actually wrestling with.

The problem with case studies is that they offer little to no documentation. In more rigorous fields like, say, sociology or psychology, researchers are expected to share their data so that others can interpret it. Unfortunately, that’s rarely true in business research.

Working Around The Glitches In Our Brains’ Machinery

We tend to imagine that our minds are some sort of machines, recording what we see and hear, then storing those experiences away to be retrieved at a later time, but that’s not how our brains work at all. Humans have a need to build narratives. We like things to fit into neat patterns and fill in the gaps in our knowledge so that everything makes sense.

Psychologists often point to a halo effect, the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another. For example, when someone is physically attractive, we tend to infer other good qualities and when a company is successful, we tend to think other good things about it.

The truth is that our thinking is riddled with subtle yet predictable biases. We are apt to be influenced not by the most rigorous information, but what we can most readily access. We make confounding errors that confuse correlation with causality and then look for information that confirms our judgments while discounting evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, so many of the popular management ideas today come from people who never actually operated a business, such as business school professors and consultants. These are often people who’ve never failed. They’ve been told that they’re smart all their lives and expect others to be impressed by their ideas, not to examine them thoroughly.

That’s why it’s so important to not to believe everything you think, there are simply too many ways to get things wrong and so few ways to get things right.

It’s More Important To Be Careful Than Smart

When I lived in Poland, a common aphorism advised that “life is cruel, and full of traps.” From an American perspective, the aphorism can be a bit of a culture shock. We tend to believe in the power of positivity, the American dream and the can-do spirit. Negativity can be seen as something worse than a weakness, both an indulgence and a privation at the same time.

Over the years, however, I came to respect the Poles’ innate suspicion. The truth is that we are far too easily fooled and taken in by those prey on the glitches in our cognitive machinery. Often business gurus have fooled themselves. They believe they have special powers of insight and get taken in by the glitches we all have in our mental machinery.

We get taken in because we want their claims to be true. We’d like to think that there is a secret we’re missing, that there’s a black magic that we’re not privy to and, if we prove our worth and obtain access to a few simple truths, we’ll capture the success that eludes us. Things can seem simple in a PowerPoint deck, but the truth is that the world is a messy place.

That’s why we need to train ourselves to ask the tough questions. What are we not seeing? What data is missing? What are alternative interpretations for the evidence being presented? It’s more important to be careful than smart. We can only make decisions on higher or lower levels of confidence. In the real world, there are no “sure things.”

— 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.

How to Lead Cross-Functional Teams Without Cracking

Leave a reply

How to Lead Cross-Functional Teams Without Cracking

GUEST POST from David Burkus

You’ve just been asked to lead a new team. But here’s the catch: it’s not really your team. It’s a group pulled together from different departments – sales, marketing, product, maybe even someone from legal whose job seems to be vetoing everything. These aren’t people you hired. They don’t report to you. And they probably don’t report to each other either.

You’ve been handed what might be called a “project committee” or “task force,” but what you really have is a cross-functional team. And while cross-functional teams should be engines of innovation, agility, and organizational alignment, the truth is most of them don’t work very well.

But they can, if you lead them the right way.

The Promise and Problem of Cross-Functional Teams

In theory, cross-functional teams are supposed to break down silos, accelerate execution, and bring diverse perspectives to complex problems. And sometimes they do.

But more often than not, they stall out. One study found that 75% of cross-functional teams are actually dysfunctional—they miss deadlines, blow budgets, or fail to stay aligned with organizational priorities. And it’s not because the individuals aren’t talented. It’s because collaboration across departments requires a different kind of leadership. One that starts with structure, not just speed.

Too many team leaders, especially those new to cross-functional work, start with the work itself. They jump straight into assigning tasks, setting up meetings, and building timelines. That seems logical, it’s a project after all.

But if you don’t pause to clarify goals, define roles, and build new communication norms, your team will default back to the ways of working they know best—the ways of working from their own silos. And that means your team will function more like a loosely affiliated group than a truly collaborative unit.

Why Most Approaches Fail

Cross-functional dysfunction isn’t about poor communication, it’s about misaligned expectations. Everyone brings different priorities, pressures, and mental models into the room. The marketer thinks about brand. The engineer thinks about feasibility. The legal team thinks about risk. And no one is wrong.

But if you don’t create a shared understanding early, those different viewpoints don’t complement each other—they compete. Left unchecked, people stick to their departmental defaults, and the very diversity that was supposed to spark innovation becomes a source of friction.

How Cross-Functional Teams Win

To lead a cross-functional team effectively, you don’t just manage the project, you design the team.

Here’s how.

1. Clarify Goals and Roles

Before anyone touches a task list, you need to get the team aligned on two foundational questions: What are we trying to achieve? Who is doing what to get us there?

That may sound obvious. But in cross-functional teams, ambiguity reigns. Everyone assumes someone else is handling a task. Or worse, two people assume they’re both in charge.

Start by mapping out the scope of the project together. Identify major deliverables. Then ask the group: “Who here feels best equipped to own this?” Let people step forward. If there’s debate, facilitate it. If someone volunteers for a stretch assignment, support them, perhaps by pairing them with a more experienced teammate.

This approach does more than assign work. It sends a message: this is a team, not a collection of departments. And you’re here not just to execute—but to develop.

2. Set Communication Norms

Every department has its own way of working. Some teams live in Slack. Others still rely on email. Some expect immediate responses. Others have a “48-hour rule.” If you don’t align early, miscommunication is inevitable.

At your kickoff meeting, have the team co-create its communication norms. Ask questions like:

How will we keep each other updated on progress?
What tools should we use, and for what?
How do we request help?
How often should we meet?
How will we make decisions?
How will we give and receive feedback?

Document the answers. Make them visible and accessible. Then refer back to them, especially when things get bumpy.

These shared norms help your team navigate differences in communication style and prevent misunderstandings from becoming major roadblocks.

3. Build Empathy Through Common Understanding

Communication norms help people speak to each other. Empathy helps them listen with each other.

People on a cross-functional team aren’t just bringing different skills—they’re bringing different definitions of success. One team member might be evaluated on speed, another on accuracy, another on cost control. If you don’t understand the pressures your teammates are under, you’ll misunderstand their decisions—and maybe their intentions.

One powerful exercise: ask each team member to explain how their performance is measured back in their “home” department. What does success look like? What’s their boss expecting from them? What’s at stake?

You can even create simple “user manuals” for each team member that explain how they like to work, how they make decisions, and what stresses them out.

The more your team understands each other, the easier it becomes to collaborate, and to resolve conflicts when they arise.

4. Foster Psychological Safety

Here’s something most people miss: a lack of disagreement on a cross-functional team isn’t a sign of alignment. It’s a sign of silence.

In the early days of a new team, people tend to be polite. They nod along. They bite their tongues. They say things like, “That’s interesting,” when they really mean, “That will never work.”

But innovation doesn’t happen through politeness. It happens through candor. And candor requires psychological safety—the belief that you can speak up without fear of rejection or ridicule.

To build that safety, model vulnerability as a leader. Say things like, “What am I missing?” or “This is a rough idea—feel free to poke holes.” When people challenge you, thank them. When disagreements emerge, guide the group to evaluate ideas based on assumptions, not egos. Ask, “What assumptions are we each making?” rather than “Who’s right?”

Psychological safety isn’t about eliminating conflict. It’s about making conflict productive.

5. Celebrate Small Wins

Cross-functional projects often span months or even years. And when the deadline feels distant, motivation can wane, especially when team members are juggling other priorities.

That’s why milestones matter. Break the project into phases. Define what success looks like for each one. Then, when your team hits a milestone, celebrate it. A shout-out in a meeting. A thank-you email. A Slack emoji reaction.

Research shows that even small wins, when recognized, can boost morale and performance. Just make sure your recognition is authentic and specific. People know when you’re faking it.

Final Thought: It’s Never Too Late to Reset

Maybe you’re reading this and thinking, “Great… but I’m already halfway through leading a cross-functional team that’s barely functioning.”

Good news: it’s never too late to pause and reset. Call a meeting. Clarify goals. Align on roles. Set communication norms. Celebrate any progress you’ve made. Then start fresh from there.

Cross-functional teams can be challenging. But when they’re led well, they become more than the sum of their parts. They become engines of innovation and drivers of real change across your organization.

And you? You become the kind of leader who makes collaboration work, even when no one reports to you.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Do Your Innovation Words Match Your Actions?

Leave a reply

Do Your Innovation Words Match Your Actions?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation isn’t a thing in itself. Companies need to meet their growth objectives and innovation is the word experts use to describe the practices and behaviors they think will maximize the likelihood of meeting those growth objectives. Innovation is a catchword phrase that has little to no meaning. Don’t ask about innovation, ask how to meet your business objectives. Don’t ask about best practices, ask how has your company been successful and how to build on that success. Don’t ask how the big companies have done it – you’re not them. And, the behaviors of the successful companies are the same behaviors of the unsuccessful companies. The business books suffer from selection bias. You can’t copy another company’s innovation approach. You’re not them. And your project is different and so is the context.

With innovation, the biggest waste of emotional energy is quest for (and arguments around) best practices. Because innovation is done in domains of high ambiguity, there can be no best practices. Your project has no similarity with your previous projects or the tightest case studies in the literature. There may be good practice or emergent practice, but there can be no best practice. When there is no uncertainty and no ambiguity, a project can use best practices. But, that’s not innovation. If best practices are a strong tenant of your innovation program, run away.

The front end of the innovation process is all about choosing projects. If you want to be more innovative, choose to work on different projects. It’s that simple. But, make no mistake, the principle may be simple the practice is not. Though there’s no acid test for innovation, here are three rules to get you started. (And if you pass these three tests, you’re on your way.)

If you’ve done it before, it’s not innovation.
If you know how it will turn out, it’s not innovation.
If it doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it’s not innovation.

Once a project is selected, the next cataclysmic waste of time is the construction of a detailed project plan. With a well-defined project, a well-defined project plan is a reasonable request. But, for an innovation project with a high degree of ambiguity, a well-defined project plan is impossible. If your innovation leader demands a detailed project plan, it’s usually because they are used running to well-defined continuous improvement projects. If for your innovation projects you’re asked for a detailed project plan, run away.

With innovation projects, you can define step 1. And step 2? It depends. If step 1 works, modify step 2 based on the learning and try step 2. And if step 1 doesn’t work, reformulate step 1 and try again. Repeat this process until the project is complete. One step at a time until you’re done.

Innovation projects are unpredictable. If your innovation projects require hard completion dates, run away.

Innovation projects are all about learning and they are best defined and managed using Learning Objectives (LOs). Instead of step 1 and step 2, think LO1 and LO2. Though there’s little written about LOs, there’s not much to them. Here’s the taxonomy of a LO: We want to learn if [enter what you want to learn]. Innovation projects are nothing more than a series of interconnected LOs. LO2 may require the completion of LO1 or L1 and LO2 could be done in parallel, but that’s your call. Your project plan can be nothing more than a precedence diagram of the Learning Objectives. There’s no need for a detailed Gantt chart. If you’re asked for a detailed Gantt chart, you guessed it – run away.

The Learning Objective defines what you learn, how you want to learn, who will do the learning and when they want to do it. The best way to track LOs is with an Excel spreadsheet with one tab for each LO. For each LO tab, there’s a table that defines the actions, who will do them, what they’ll measure and when they plan to get the actions done. Since the tasks are tightly defined, it’s possible to define reasonable dates. But, since there can be a precedence to the LOs (LO2 depends on the successful completion of LO1), LO2 can be thought of a sequence of events that start when LO1 is completed. In that way, an innovation project can be defined with a single LO spreadsheet that defines the LOs, the tasks to achieve the LOs, who will do the tasks, how success will be determined and when the work will be done. If you want to learn how to do innovation, learn how to use Learning Objectives.

There are more element of innovation to discuss, for example how to define customer segments, how to identify the most important problems, how to create creative solutions, how to estimate financial value of a project and how to go to market. But, those are for another post.

Until then, why not choose a project that scares you, define a small set of Learning Objectives and get going?

Image credits: Pixabay

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

Time to Finally Kill the Idea of Leaderless Organizations

Leave a reply

Time to Finally Kill the Idea of Leaderless Organizations

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

About a decade ago, the management guru Gary Hamel wrote a highly cited article in Harvard Business Review entitled ‘First, Let’s Fire All the Managers’. He analyzed the success of Morningstar, a leading manufacturer of tomato products that operates with a flat management structure and called for other corporations to follow its lead.

“A hierarchy of managers exacts a hefty tax on any organization,” he wrote. “This levy comes in several forms. First, managers add overhead and, as an organization grows, the costs of management rise in both absolute and relative terms.” The article created a lot of buzz and helped bolster other flat models, such as Holacracy.

Yet the “flat organization” idea hasn’t caught on. “Since 1983, the size of the bureaucratic class — the number of managers and administrators in the US workforce — has more than doubled, while employment in other categories has grown by only 40%,” Hamil recently wrote. The truth is that we need managers and trying to eliminate them is a waste of time.

Planning A Spontaneous Revolution

In the early 2000s, a series of color revolutions spread across Eastern Europe sweeping away the authoritarian remnants of post-communist governments in Serbia, the Georgian Republic and Ukraine. These would prove to other revolutionary waves such as the Arab Spring. Old-style hierarchies suddenly seemed out of date.

I experienced some of these events first-hand. I was living in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution and managing the leading news organization in the country. I also spent some time in the Georgian Republic and got to see many of the reforms take place. When Hamel’s article came out, I had already begun the research that would lead to my book Cascades and I found his ideas about flat organizations not only persuasive, but inspiring.

I shouldn’t have. Even at the time, it had become clear that the revolutions weren’t as successful and many of us had hoped. In Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych had already come to power and it would take another revolution to dislodge him. In other countries, such as Egypt, new authoritarians would soon take the place of those who had been overthrown.

Yet even more importantly, I would later get to know one of the chief architects of the color revolutions, my friend Srdja Popović, and would learn that the revolutions weren’t leaderless at all. In fact, much of what I had experienced as spontaneous and organic was actually very much planned, engineered and organized.

As I continued to research supposedly “leaderless” organizations this would be a recurring theme. Either their success was either not genuine or ephemeral, or that there was a less obvious, informal hierarchy at work.

The Truth About The Orpheus Orchestra

One of the most cited examples of successful leaderless organizations is the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra in New York, which has been operating without a conductor since 1972. They not only regularly play at top venues like Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center, but have won multiple Grammy awards.

An orchestra concert is a highly coordinated event, with many different musicians needing to coordinate their efforts to play music according to a specific vision. If everyone applies their own interpretation, what should be a symphony would end up as a cacophony. So how does Orpheus manage to not only survive, but thrive?

The truth is that Orpheus is not really a purely leaderless organization. It would be more accurate to say that the members trade off leadership, with one member leading one particular collection and then a different member leading another. So while it is true that the Orchestra as a whole is leaderless, each concert is leaderful.

That’s quite a big difference. If you would believe that an entire orchestra could conduct itself, you might go and try to run your organization with no direction at all, which would be a disaster. However, if you would follow the direction of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, you would appoint a particular team member to run each project, which would be so utterly conventional that it wouldn’t even seem worth mentioning.

The Open Source Pecking Order

Another favorite that advocates of “leaderless” organizations like to point to are open-source software communities. Yet once again, when you take a closer look, these communities are not some free-for-all, with everybody chiming in and making changes at will. In fact, in successful communities take governance very seriously.

Some projects, like Android and WordPress, are tightly controlled by the companies that originated them, Google and Automattic, respectively. They manage the community fairly tightly, accepting patches, revisions and improvements as they see fit and providing a vision for where they think the technology should go.

Open source foundations, like Linux and Apache provide more intricate governance structures. They don’t have much in the way of formal leadership, but in practice each project has informal leaders who drive the direction of the technology. In fact, competition for clout within those communities can be very stiff.

There’s a reason why some of the world’s most valuable companies pay people well to contribute to open-source software communities and it’s not altruism. They want to shape how crucial technologies will develop to benefit their business. To do that, talented people need to spend time building the trust and reputation that will enable them to lead.

Let’s Not Fire All The Managers

For a while now, management gurus such as Gary Hamel have been advocating for flatter organizations, yet there is little evidence that eliminating leaders is a viable model. In fact, when Wharton Professor Ronnie Lee took a close look at game software developers, he actually found that the number of levels of bureaucracy increased significantly, not decreased, over the last 50 years.

There are several reasons that this is true. The first is that, while having a flatter structure leads to more innovation and creativity, you need good leadership and governance to execute well. As an industry matures and becomes more complex, more levels of hierarchy are needed to manage it effectively.

Another important factor to consider is that even without a formal hierarchy, leaders will tend to emerge. Which is why when you take a closer look at often cited examples of “leaderless organizations,” there is much more hierarchy that it would at first seem. Just because there isn’t an organization chart doesn’t mean there isn’t a pecking order.

We need to stop thinking in terms of how many levels of bureaucracy there are and start working to network our organizations. We don’t need to eliminate managers — or anyone else for that matter — but to widen and deepen connections within and without our enterprise. We need to lead and to do it more effectively.

The role of leadership in organizations has changed. It is no longer merely to plan and direct work, but to inspire meaning and empower belief. As I wrote in Cascades, the key to transformational change is small groups, loosely connected by united by a shared purpose. The job of leaders today is to help those groups connect and forge a common purpose.

— 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.

Unleashing Your Innovation Potential

Leave a reply

Unleashing Your Innovation Potential

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

It is not unusual, especially in the corporate world, to label someone who disrupts and challenges the status quo, or what others say, as argumentative and “oppositional”. According to Human Synergistics, the Oppositional Style, in their circumplex, when measured as a dominant leadership style, is summarized in their 360-degree Leadership Styles Inventory (LSI) by two items: “usually against things” and “opposes new ideas.” It labels the person, or leader as being aggressively defensive and causes them to disengage by avoiding engaging in any kind of conflict, dissent and disagreement. This inhibits and prevents them from unleashing their creative thinking and their innovation potential.

In my many years as a corporate trainer presenting high-performance cultures and transformational leadership programs, I learned to apply my imagination, curiosity and inquiry skills to be attentively present, listen deeply and ask generative questions. This helped me develop strategies to unleash a person’s innovation potential by encouraging and enabling thoughtful dissent and disagreement. I learned to uncover and recognize a leader’s energy and positive intent behind many of the scary, argumentative, hostile, contrary, critical, and aggressive behaviors directed at me, especially in my years upfront as a female corporate trainer in many toxic organizational cultures.

I often found that they were compromised in some way by their personal and family needs and values, their assumptions and beliefs about themselves and their performance at work, poor physical and mental health, and/or a lack of emotional well-being. Any one of these factors made them self-protective, leading to either overt aggression toward others, passive avoidance of conflict, or an unconscious refusal to engage in thoughtful dissent and disagreement because they did not want to be perceived as hostile and argumentative.

All of these unconscious reactive responses inhibited them from unleashing their creative thinking and innovative potential.

This blog explores the power of unleashing creative thinking and innovation potential through supporting people to thoughtfully dissent and disagree – by using conflict as a catalyst for better decision-making, problem-solving, and strengthened collaboration and innovation – not as a barrier.

Unconscious reactive responses

This manifests as a neurologically challenging reactive response, as people’s brains are wired to defend and protect them to ensure their survival. These defensive responses are composed of fight/flight/freeze/fawn reactions and arise when people face what their neurology (the limbic system) perceives as a threat to their security, safety, or survival.

These reactions stem from past experiences and traumas that are often stored in people’s somatic memories. They become neurologically wired and embedded in people’s habitual ways of being unless they are noticed, labelled, accepted, acknowledged and owned. Until there is a safe holding space for this to happen, it will be impossible to unleash their creative thinking and innovation potential.

Safe holding spaces

Once a safe holding space is established, an oppositional person can be carefully and empathetically challenged, disputed, deviated from, and redirected towards more self-regulated, resourceful, and emotionally healthy states and new approaches. This involves bravely engaging them in thoughtful dissent and disagreement, despite being encased in a toxic organizational culture. Its about building permission, safety and trust to encourage creative thinking that unleashes a persons innovation potential.

Fight-flight-freeze and fawn responses

The amygdala is designed to detect threats and trigger the fight-flight-freeze response to help people survive

A fight response involves standing our ground when we feel threatened, driven by anger, fear, and anxiety.
A flight response entails moving away from or avoiding a situation to reduce painful feelings.
A freeze response involves shutting down, feeling numb, or experiencing paralysis to reduce painful feelings, resulting in immobility.
A fawn response involves appeasing and placating others or seeking approval while neglecting the need to feel safe.

Role of smart conflict, thoughtful dissent and disagreement

This is particularly evident in political and organizational contexts, where people are suffering from change fatigue and overwork. As a result, they unconsciously disengage from their work, families, and daily lives through a flight-or-freeze response, driven by burnout, the pursuit of external validation (a fawn response), or frustration and anger (usually a fight response). A combination of any or all of these largely unconscious but fully present reactive responses creates toxic organizational cultures, in which leaders’ behaviors are either passively or aggressively defensive in their attempts to meet people’s core security, safety, and survival needs. Leaders avoid encouraging or engaging in thoughtful dissent and disagreement that mobilizes people’s creative and critical thinking and unleashes their innovation potential.

The constraints and challenges of the pandemic, coupled with threats to people’s stability and the desire for certainty, also led many people in organizations to fear that their needs for security, safety, and survival would not, and could not, be met. These fears unconsciously intensified people’s defensiveness and reactivity, leading to immobilization through passivity, helplessness, hopelessness, powerlessness, disengagement, and detachment. This indicates a lack of emotional intelligence, largely due to the absence of initial self-regulation and self-leadership strategies. It is easier and sometimes safer to be a victim and blame others for any negative, pessimistic, or painful feelings of shame, guilt, and embarrassment, resulting from competing commitments, value violations, thought distortions, and emotional dissociation.

These emotionally overwhelming and cognitively overloading factors are also accepted inhibitors to unleashing a person’s innovative potential, especially when they are unable to engage in thoughtful dissent and disagreement under the influence of a toxic organizational culture.

Making the shift

To support people to effectively shift this way of being and safely unleash their creative thinking and innovation potential:

It is crucial to develop and apply the generative discovery skillset to welcome dissent and thoughtful disagreement:

Notice: by being aware and attentively present to what is happening to, and within the person, neurologically and physiologically, emotionally, cognitively and physically.
Disrupt: by being curious and safely asking open, explorative discovery questions, and by listening carefully to hear and notice what is really going on for them.
Dispute: by safely summarizing and challenging their assumptions, perceptions and perspectives, asking evocative and provocative questions that encourage contrary thinking, diversity of thought, differences and constructive disagreement.
Deviate: by safely summarizing and eliciting a mindset flip or an agility shift in the oppositional person, directing their creative energy towards constructive behaviors that deliver a positive outcome.

This enables people to redirect their emotional energy and move away from unresourceful internal thought patterns and distortions. It also encourages them to open their minds to thoughtful dissent and disagreement, allowing them to think differently and enter creative and innovative realms.

This is impossible when toxic organizational cultures force people to hide behind conventional, rigid, and closed minds that won’t allow them to rock the boat and be, think and act differently by intentionally using conflict constructively by embracing dissent and thoughtful disagreement

At the same time, it’s crucial to safely, empathically and compassionately evoke and provoke an opening of people’s hearts by purposefully and meaningfully aligning their needs and values, so that the change motivates them to change meaningfully and purposefully. This creates the safe holding space that allows them to let go of the need to be in control and be open-willed, unleashing their creative thinking and innovation potential to make the shift to the creative and innovative realms.

Empowering people and teams to redirect their emotional energy towards opening their minds to thoughtful dissent and disagreement allows them to handle hard conversations with constructive and creative intent.

Welcoming dissent and thoughtful disagreement involves daring yourself and others to be and think differently. Being able to think creatively maximize a person or a teams innovation potential, unleashes their human ingenuity in the age of AI, and mobilizes their collective intelligence to lead, manage, or implement constructive and sustainable change.

Leveraging constructive conflict, dissent and thoughtful disagreement unleashes people’s creative thinking and innovation potential and is a necessary part of enabling AI, digital transformation and innovation initiatives to succeed in uncertain and disruptive times.

Find out more about our work at ImagineNation™ and The Start-Up Game.™ Discover our collective learning products and tools that can be customized as playful bespoke corporate learning programs. Our blended and transformational change and learning programs provide a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem-focused, human-centric approach and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation and entrepreneurship. It will also upskill people and teams, developing their future fitness within your unique digital transformation and innovation initiatives. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: Gemini

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 July 2026

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of July 2026 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 July’s ten most popular innovation posts:

What Happens When AI Becomes Your Customer? — by Shep Hyken
The Experience Economy 2.0 — by Braden Kelley
How to Calculate the ROI of Customer Experience — by Braden Kelley
Strategic Foresight: A Practitioner’s Guide to Thinking About the Future — by Braden Kelley
Innovation or Not — InTruth — by Braden Kelley
Innovation Framework Examples: 7 Real-World Cases That Show How They Work — by Braden Kelley
The Personal AI Renaissance — by Braden Kelley
Your 3 Phase AI Journey — by Geoffrey Moore
Why So Much Bullshit? — by Greg Satell
Creating an Innovation Edge — by John Bessant

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

The Neuroscience of Creativity — by Braden Kelley
The Synthetic Organization — by Braden Kelley
Use Failure as Rocket Fuel for Success Like SpaceX — by Robert B. Tucker
Crossing the Chasm of Fear — by Braden Kelley
4 Simple Rules That Make You Exponentially More Effective and Productive — by Greg Satell

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 five years:

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

Three Facts That Business Leaders Refuse to Accept

Leave a reply

Three Facts That Business Leaders Refuse to Accept

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In the late 90s Fortune magazine named Enron the most innovative company for six consecutive years, right up until the company collapsed in scandal. GE’s strategy of stack ranking was seen as a model to be emulated by other firms, even though there was no evidence it worked. McKinsey advised companies to fight a war for talent.

Today, we know better. It’s obvious that Enron was incredibly dysfunctional, that stack ranking undermines a high-performance culture and that talent is something that you build through upskilling, not something you “win” in a metaphorical war. It’s mind boggling to think of all the damage that was done before those ideas were exposed.

Yet if we accept all that we need to ask ourselves which ideas are widely accepted today that don’t hold water. Every era has its own fictions, things that are accepted because they are repeated, but lack any serious foundation. They become memes replicating themselves throughout the zeitgeist, rarely being questioned. Here are three truths that will surprise you.

1. Bigger Organizations Are More Innovative

We tend to think of innovation as something startups do. Big organizations, with their bloated bureaucracies and cumbersome decision making, are less nimble. Yet a recent book, Corporate Explorer, by Stanford professor Charles O’Reilly, Harvard Professor Paul Lawrence and consultant Andrew Binns finds that larger firms have more resources, talent and ideas.

This may seem surprising, but there is ample evidence supporting the principle that larger enterprises innovate more effectively. A 1969 study of local health departments found that the larger ones serving larger communities were more innovative. A 1986 analysis of footwear manufacturers found that the bigger ones had more technical specialists and adopted more radical innovation. Same thing when researchers looked at German banks’ adoption of telecommunication services.

Clearly startups have advantages. They tend to be less bureaucratic and can make decisions faster. They are also less invested in incumbent systems and technologies, which makes change easier. Yet innovation isn’t just about speed, it’s also about commitment to solving important problems and larger enterprises have more resources and scope to do that.

That’s why when you look at the most cutting edge technologies, like quantum computing, artificial intelligence, materials science, synthetic biology and others, you tend to find large organizations at the core. Don’t get me wrong, not every big company can innovate, but the ones that can come up with new ideas and execute them consistently, year after year and decade after decade, are enterprises with scale.

2. Levels Of Bureaucracy And Hierarchy Are Increasing, Not Decreasing

About a decade ago, the management guru Gary Hamel wrote a highly cited article in Harvard Business Review entitled First, Let’s Fire All the Managers. He analyzed the success of Morningstar, a leading manufacturer of tomato products that operates with a flat management structure and called for other corporations to follow its lead.

“A hierarchy of managers exacts a hefty tax on any organization,” he wrote. “This levy comes in several forms. First, managers add overhead, and as an organization grows, the costs of management rise in both absolute and relative terms.” The article was very influential and helped bolster other flat models, such as Holacracy.

For a while now, management gurus have been advocating for flatter organizations, yet there is little evidence that eliminating managers is a viable model. In fact, when Wharton Professor Ronnie Lee took a close look at game software developers, he found that the number of levels of bureaucracy increased significantly, not decreased, over the last 50 years.

Certainly, the “flat organization” idea hasn’t caught on. “Since 1983, the size of the bureaucratic class—the number of managers and administrators in the US workforce—has more than doubled, while employment in other categories has grown by only 40%,” Hamil recently wrote.

The inescapable conclusion is that we’ve failed to do away with bureaucracies and hierarchies because they serve a useful purpose. While flatter structures can inspire creativity, we need hierarchies to execute complex operations well. That might not play well when your trying to sell consulting projects or on the keynote stage, but it’s the truth.

3. Markets Are Becoming Less Competitive, not More (At least in the US)

Today it’s become an article of faith that everything moves faster. Business pundits tell us that we’re living in a VUCA world (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). These are taken as basic truths that are beyond questioning or reproach. Yet are things actually moving any faster than in earlier eras? The evidence is surprisingly scarce.

The data, however, tell a very different story. A report from the OECD found that markets, especially in the United States, have become more concentrated and less competitive, with less churn among industry leaders. The number of young firms have decreased markedly as well, falling from roughly half of the total number of companies in 1982 to one third in 2013.

A comprehensive 2019 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found two correlated, but countervailing trends: the rise of “superstar” firms and the fall of labor’s share of GDP. Essentially, the typical industry has fewer, but larger players. Their increased bargaining power leads to more profits, but lower wages.

The truth is that we don’t really disrupt industries anymore. We disrupt people. Economic data shows that for most Americans, real wages have hardly budged since 1964. Income and wealth inequality remain at historic highs. Anxiety and depression, already at epidemic levels, worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic.

What You See Is How You’ll Act

When ideas are repeated often enough, we begin to take them as self-evident and don’t even question them. People take it for granted that small organizations are more innovative than larger ones, that flatter organizations outperform those with high levels of bureaucracy and that business is more competitive today than in earlier eras.

If you believe all that, then you would avoid getting involved with a large organization if you want to innovate, you would try to eliminate levels of hierarchy and create a high sense of urgency about everything you do. Yet when you examine the evidence it becomes clear that none of these things are factual.

The truth is that size has little to do with innovation. As we saw during Covid, the most pathbreaking advances came from collaborations between organizations, public and private, large and small. The levels of hierarchy in an organization aren’t nearly as important as its networks. Pushing too many initiatives is more likely to result in a high level of change fatigue and diminished mental health than lead to genuine results.

When we look back at earlier eras, it’s easy to see the errors in the zeitgeist. It seems obvious that the robber barons undermined society, that excessive tariffs during the depression would impoverished society and that Enron was a fraud. Yet we need to look with the same skeptical eye at prevalent beliefs today.

As Richard Dawkins has explained, memes are selfish. They propagate themselves for their own benefit, not necessarily for ours. We need to learn to be fiercer advocates for our fates.

— 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.

Managing Your Work Friends

Leave a reply

Managing Your Work Friends

GUEST POST from David Burkus

You just got promoted. Congratulations! But now you’re managing your friends. The people you used to grab lunch with, the ones you vented to about the boss, and the folks who knew every inside joke from your team Slack channel — they’re your team. And you’re their boss.

Work friendships are powerful. They boost morale, improve collaboration, and make the workday more enjoyable. I don’t have to convince you that having friends at work is valuable. But when the power dynamic shifts, when you go from being “work friend” to “work boss,” things inevitably change. Suddenly your decisions carry weight — promotions, raises, performance reviews, and tough calls that impact livelihoods. At the same time, your team knows a lot about you. Maybe they’ve seen your Instagram stories or been with you at happy hours. That blurred line between friendship and authority can get messy fast.

And this is the dilemma of managing your friends: how do you maintain meaningful relationships without undermining your credibility as a leader? How do you stay approachable and authentic while also being consistent and fair?

The answer isn’t easy, but it is possible. It starts with understanding what doesn’t work, and then rebuilding those friendships into a new kind of relationship.

Why Most New Managers Struggle

Most new managers stumble into one of two extremes when they start managing their friends. They either pretend nothing has changed, or they change everything.

Some ignore the shift. They keep gossiping, keep oversharing, keep hanging out exactly the same way — hoping the friendship will buffer any awkwardness. But it doesn’t. That kind of behavior undermines authority when it’s time to make a hard call. A joke about a teammate suddenly looks like favoritism. A venting session about a senior leader sounds like open dissent. And the manager’s credibility takes the hit.

Others overcorrect. They pull back completely. They stop socializing. They stop texting. They stop grabbing coffee or lunch. They put up walls and operate only in “professional mode.” That comes across as cold — because it is. And the sudden distance damages trust and morale.

Both extremes backfire. Pretending nothing has changed creates resentment and perceptions of favoritism. Overcorrecting destroys connection and trust. Neither approach works long term. What new managers really need is a third path: redefining the friendship for the new reality.

Why The Old Dynamic Doesn’t Work Anymore

It helps to remember why friendships at work felt easy before. They were built on equality. You were in the trenches together — venting about the same boss, rolling your eyes in the same meetings, maybe even sneaking out early together on a Friday. But the key word there is were. You were equals. Now you’re not.

Power dynamics are like gravity. You don’t always see them, but they’re always pulling. Once you’re in charge, every interaction gets filtered through that shift. You may think you’re just being candid with an old friend, but now it sounds like the boss has picked a side. You may think you’re just cutting them some slack, but others see favoritism. And once your team suspects favoritism, everything else you do gets questioned — your motives, your decisions, even your integrity.

That’s why the old friendship dynamic doesn’t work anymore. It’s not because the friendship isn’t real — it’s because the context has changed. So if you want to keep both your friendships and your credibility, you’ll need to redefine the relationship.

Five Tips For Managing Your Friends

1. Address the Shift Directly

Pretending nothing has changed is like pretending you didn’t just get promoted. Everyone knows. They feel it already. And if you don’t address it, the tension just lingers like an awkward silence no one names.

The fix is surprisingly simple: talk about it. You don’t need to make a big speech or hold a formal meeting. Just have an honest one-on-one conversation with each friend. Something as short as:

“Hey, I know this feels a little different now that I’m in this role. I really value our friendship, and I want to make sure I’m being fair and consistent with the whole team. What boundaries make sense for us?”

That’s it. Short, honest, specific. And it shows you care enough to be proactive. Trust me, your friend is already wondering how things are going to change. By being the first to bring it up, you take away the uncertainty and replace it with clarity.

2. Embrace Your New Role

You can still be friendly, but you can’t be “one of the gang” anymore. Accepting that reality is part of stepping into leadership.

This is where many new managers trip up. They cling to the old dynamic. They keep venting frustrations, gossiping, and oversharing with their closest colleagues. But once you’re the boss, those conversations hit differently. A joke about a coworker is no longer harmless — it’s favoritism. Complaining about company policy isn’t just blowing off steam — it’s sowing dissent.

And those side conversations? They never stay side conversations. They spread. They change perceptions. They chip away at your authority.

That doesn’t mean you need to become robotic. You can still laugh with your team. You can still celebrate wins. You can still be approachable. But you’re “leader first, friend second” now. And when you need to vent, find a new outlet—a mentor, another manager, or someone outside the company. Your team isn’t your sounding board anymore.

3. Stay Consistent to Avoid Favoritism

Fairness isn’t just a leadership principle—it’s a credibility shield. The quickest way to lose trust is to treat your friends differently than the rest of the team.

That doesn’t mean you’ll intend to play favorites. It’s usually subtle. Giving your old buddy more slack on a deadline. Asking them for input first in meetings. Grabbing lunch with them a little more often than with others. None of those things seem like a big deal, but your team notices. They always notice. And once they suspect favoritism, the dynamic of the whole team changes.

So be deliberate about how you lead. Rotate lunch invites. Keep feedback tied to measurable goals so everyone sees the standard is the same. Spread recognition evenly and shine the spotlight on the whole team, not just the familiar faces. Consistency protects your credibility and reinforces trust across the group.

4. Reevaluate Social Media Boundaries

Before you were the boss, your social media interactions were harmless — liking memes, posting weekend selfies, swapping DMs. But now? Those same interactions can be seen as bias or favoritism, and worse, they come with receipts.

A casual photo at a backyard barbecue? Favoritism. Liking a slightly edgy meme your friend shared? Bias. Responding privately to a rant about another teammate? Favoritism again — this time with screenshots. You don’t have to ghost your entire digital life, but you do need to tighten boundaries. Adjust privacy settings. Consider unfollowing or at least limiting interactions. Keep work and social media in separate lanes. And follow this rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t put it in a company email, don’t put it in a DM.

5. Focus on Connection Through the Work

One of the best parts about working with friends is the sense of connection. The risk, when you become their boss, is thinking you need to pull away completely to preserve fairness. But you don’t. You just need to redirect that connection into the work itself.

Research on prosocial motivation—our drive to protect and promote the well-being of others—shows that teams thrive when they’re bonded around shared purpose. That’s your new role: to cultivate connection not through gossip or side chats, but through collaboration, recognition, and shared wins.

Keep the relationships, but root them in the team’s mission. That way you’re not just holding on to friendships—you’re strengthening the team.

The Bottom Line

Managing your friends after a promotion is one of the trickiest leadership challenges you’ll face. If you pretend nothing’s changed, you’ll lose credibility. If you overcorrect, you’ll lose connection. The path forward is acknowledging the shift, embracing your new role, staying consistent, setting boundaries, and channeling friendship into shared purpose.

You don’t have to lose your friends when you become their boss. But you do have to lead them differently. And if you do it well, you won’t just keep your friendships — you’ll earn their respect.

Image credit: Gemini

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

The Leadership Journey

Leave a reply

The Leadership Journey

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you know what to do, do it. Don’t ask, just do.

If you’re pretty sure what to do, do it. Don’t ask, just do.

If you think you may know what to do, do it. Don’t ask, just do.

If you don’t know what to do, try something small. Then, do more of what works and less of what doesn’t.

If your team doesn’t know what to do unless they ask you, tell them to do what they think is right. And tell them to stop asking you what to do.

If your team won’t act without your consent, tell them to do what they think is right. Then, next time they seek your consent, be unavailable.

If the team knows what to do and they go around you because they know you don’t, praise them for going around you. Then, set up a session where they educate you on what you should know.

If the team knows what to do and they know you don’t, but they don’t go around you because they are too afraid, apologize to them for creating a fear-based culture and ask them to do what they think is right. Then, look inside to figure out how to let go of your insecurities and control issues.

If your team needs your support, support them.

If your team need you to get out of the way, go home early.

If your team needs you to break trail, break it.

If they need to see how it should go, show them.

If they need the rules broken, break them.

If they need the rules followed, follow them.

If they need to use their judgement, create the causes and conditions for them to use their judgement.

If they try something new and it doesn’t go as anticipated, praise them for trying something new.

If they try the same thing a second time and they get the same results and those results are still unanticipated, set up a meeting to figure out why they thought the same experiment would lead to different results.

Try to create the team that excels when you go on vacation.

Better yet, try to create the team that performs extremely well when you’re involved in the work and performs even better when you’re on vacation. Then, because you know you’ve prepared them for the future, happily move on to your next personal development opportunity.

Image credits: Pixabay

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

Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

Leave a reply

What the C-Suite Actually Asks

Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every Customer Experience (CX) leader I’ve worked with believes, correctly, that their organization needs a customer experience audit. Very few of them get the budget approved on the first try. The gap almost never comes down to whether the need is real — it comes down to whether the person championing it walked into the room prepared for the four questions a C-suite reliably asks, in roughly this order.

“What does this cost us if we do nothing?”

This is the opening question, and it’s the one the CX ROI Calculator exists to answer. Walk in with your own churn rate, revenue per customer, and a modeled range — conservative to optimistic — rather than an industry statistic borrowed from a research report. A number that’s obviously yours survives scrutiny. A number that’s obviously generic invites the room to argue with the source instead of the substance.

“Why an audit, and not just another survey?”

This is where most business cases quietly fall apart, because the honest answer requires admitting a limitation of what you’re already doing. Your NPS and CSAT programs measure what customers are willing to tell you. An audit measures what’s actually happening in the journey, including the parts customers work around instead of reporting. If your organization has been running satisfaction surveys for years and CX metrics still haven’t moved the way they should, that’s not evidence the audit is unnecessary — it’s usually the single best evidence that it is. Surveys have had their chance to find the problem. They haven’t. A different method is the correct next step, not a redundant one.

“What will we actually be able to do differently afterward?”

An executive approving a budget is not funding a diagnosis for its own sake — they’re funding the decisions the diagnosis will enable. The strongest version of this answer is specific: an audit produces a prioritized list of friction points ranked by business impact, not a general health score. Walk in already able to name the kind of decision it unlocks — “we’ll know whether to fix onboarding or billing first” is a far stronger sentence than “we’ll understand our customers better.”

“How disruptive is this, and how long until we see something?”

This is the question that kills otherwise-approved initiatives at the last step, usually because nobody addressed it until it was asked live in the room. Have the realistic timeline ready before you’re asked for it, not after: when the audit starts, what it requires from internal teams, and when the first findings arrive. Vagueness here reads as risk, even when the actual answer would have been reassuring.

Sequencing the case correctly

The order matters as much as the content. Lead with the cost of inaction (the number), and the room is primed to hear the diagnosis as the obvious next step rather than an added expense. Lead with the audit itself, and you’re immediately negotiating from a weaker position — explaining a cost before anyone in the room has agreed there’s a problem worth solving.

If you haven’t run your own numbers yet, start with the calculator — it’s the fastest way to walk into that first conversation with your own defensible figure instead of someone else’s. When you’re ready to talk about what an audit specifically finds and how it runs, the audit page has the detail, and I’m glad to answer the disruption and timeline questions directly if you’d rather hear them from me before you’re asked them by your own leadership.

Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

Image Credit: Gemini, ChatGPT

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

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