Category Archives: Leadership

Contemporary Science versus Natural Language

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Item 1. The fastest human-created spacecraft goes 165,000 mph. Pretty amazing. But for it to travel one light year would take roughly 3000 years—basically, the length of recorded human history. The closest star system that hosts an earth-like planet (Alpha Centauri) is 4.4 light years away. Thus, it would take today’s fastest vehicle 14,000 years to make a one-way trip. On our earth, 14,000 years ago humanity’s most sophisticated technology was a stone axe. Thus, while we love to talk about space travel outside the solar system, as well as aliens in UFOs coming to Earth, neither is remotely possible, not now, not ever.

Item 2. There are 30 trillion cells in the average human body. There are 100 trillion atoms in a typical human cell. That means there are three thousand trillion trillion atoms, give or take, in you or me. Atoms are so small that it is not clear any words we have would apply to how they actually operate. Particle and wave are two of the ones we end up using the most. Neither of them, however, can coherently explain something as simple as the double-slit experiment.

Item 3. The metabolic reactions that support all life are mind-bogglingly fast. Take mitochondria for example. They are the organelles that produce the bulk of our ATP, the energy molecule that drives virtually all life’s chemical reactions. Of the 30 trillion cells in your body, on average each one uses around 10 million molecules of ATP per second and can recycle all its ATP in less than a minute. There is simply no way to imagine something happening a million times per second simultaneously in thirty million different places inside your own body.

Item 4. Craig Venter has been quoted as saying, “If you don’t like bacteria, you’re on the wrong planet. This is the planet of the bacteria.” In one-fifth of a teaspoon of seawater, there are a million bacteria (and perhaps 10 million viruses). The human microbiome, which has staked out territory all over our body, in our gut, mouth, skin, and elsewhere, harbors upwards of three thousand kinds of bacteria, comprising some 3 million distinct genes, which they swap with each other wherever they congregate. How in the world are we supposed to keep track of that?

Okay, okay. So what’s your point?

The point is that contemporary science engages with reality across a myriad of orders of magnitude, from the extremely small to the extremely large, somewhere between sixty and one hundred all told. Math can manage this brilliantly. Natural languages cannot. All of which means: philosophers beware!

Philosophers love analogies, and well they should. They make the abstract concrete. They enable us to transport a strategy from a domain where it has been proven effective and test its applicability in a completely different one. Such acts of imagination are the foundation of discovery, the springboard to disruptive innovation. But to work properly they have to be credible. That means they must stand up to the kind of pressure testing that determines the limits to which they can be applied, the boundaries beyond which they must not stretch. This is where the orders of magnitude principle comes in.

It is not credible that there could be a cause that is a million million times smaller than its effect. Yes, it is theoretically conceivable that via a cascading set of emergent relationships, one could build a chain from such an A to such a B, but the amount of coordination that would be required to lever something up a million million times is just ridiculously improbable. So, when philosophers refer to the uncertainty principles embedded in quantum mechanics, and then infer or imply that such uncertainty permeates human affairs, or when they trace consciousness down to quantum fluctuations in messenger RNA, when, in short, they are correlating things that are more than a trillion, trillion times different in size and scope, then they are misusing both the mathematics of science and the resources of natural language. We simply have to stay closer to home.

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

Image Credit: 1 of 850+ FREE quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.com

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

Five Questions Great Leaders Always Ask

Leave a reply

Five Questions Great Leaders Always Ask

GUEST POST from David Burkus

It may seem like leaders need to have all the answers. Presumably, they became leaders by being smart, hardworking individual contributors who had the answers most of the time. But while knowing what to do is important, great leaders believe that knowing what questions to ask is even more vital. Especially when it comes to leading the team. Asking them the right questions instead of barking out the answers will lead to a higher performing team.

In this article, we’ll outline five questions great leaders ask to promote growth, collaboration, and trust within their teams. These questions are not just about directing the team, but also about understanding the team’s strengths, identifying areas for improvement, providing necessary support, and seeking feedback for personal growth. These questions align the team towards common goals, focus on strengths, encourage feedback and improvement, and promote a servant leadership mentality.

1. Where Are We Going?

The first question great leaders ask is, “Where are we going?” This question helps to identify the projects and progress of the team, providing a clear direction and goals for everyone involved. It’s about understanding the key performance indicators and aligning the team towards a common vision, often referred to as the North Star or Commander’s Intent. This vision serves as a guiding light, ensuring that all team members are moving in the same direction and working towards the same objectives.

By asking this question, leaders can ensure that everyone understands the team’s mission and goals. It promotes transparency and clarity, reducing the chances of confusion or misalignment. It also allows leaders to gauge the team’s understanding of the goals and make necessary adjustments to ensure everyone is on the same page.

2. What Is Going Well?

The second questions great leaders ask is “What is going well?” This question emphasizes the importance of recognizing achievements and successes within the team. It’s about identifying areas of strength and expertise and encouraging more of what is working well. This approach is more effective than constantly pointing out what’s wrong, as it builds confidence and motivates the team to continue performing at their best.

By focusing on what’s going well, leaders can foster a positive work environment where team members feel valued and appreciated. It also helps leaders understand the team’s strengths better, allowing them to leverage these strengths to achieve team goals more effectively.

3. Where Can We Improve?

The third question great leaders ask is “Where can we improve?” This is about seeking feedback and identifying areas for improvement as a team. It involves asking the team for their ideas and perspectives, identifying blind spots and weaknesses, and addressing collaboration issues or client problems. This question promotes a culture of continuous improvement, where everyone is encouraged to share their ideas and take ownership of the team’s progress.

By asking this question, leaders can create an open and inclusive environment where everyone’s opinions are valued. It also helps leaders identify areas where they might not have noticed a need for improvement, allowing them to make necessary changes to enhance team performance.

4. How Can I Help?

The fourth question great leaders ask is “How can I help?” This question emphasizes the role of a leader in providing support and resources to the team. It’s about understanding the leader’s responsibility to assist the team and adopting a servant leadership mentality. This question ensures that the team has what they need to succeed, whether it’s resources, guidance, or moral support.

By asking this question, leaders can show their commitment to the team’s success and their willingness to provide necessary support. It also allows leaders to understand the challenges and obstacles that the team is facing, enabling them to provide appropriate assistance and resources.

5. Where Do I Need Help?

The final question great leaders ask is “Where do I need help?” This question shifts a leader’s attention toward seeking their own feedback and continuously learning and growing. It’s about recognizing the value of feedback from the team, building trust through open communication, and encouraging personal development and growth. This question shows that great leaders are not afraid to ask for help and are always seeking to improve themselves.

By asking this question, leaders can foster a culture of mutual learning and growth, where everyone, including the leader, is continuously improving. It also helps build trust within the team, as it shows that the leader values the team’s feedback and is willing to learn from them.

These five questions – Where are we going? What is going well? Where can we improve? How can I help? And where do I need help? – are essential tools for great leaders. They promote growth, collaboration, and trust within the team, fostering a positive and productive work environment. By asking these questions regularly, leaders can ensure that their teams are aligned, motivated, and doing their best work ever.

Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on December 19, 2023

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

How Innovation Tools Help You Stay Safe

Leave a reply

Risk Management in Uncertain Times

How Innovation Tools Help You Stay Safe

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Risk management is critical in uncertain times. But traditional approaches don’t always help when volatility, ambiguity, and complexity are off the charts.

What many leaders overlook in their rush to safety is that many of the most effective tools for managing risk come from an unexpected place: innovation.

The Counterintuitive Truth About Risk Management

Risk Management’s purpose isn’t to eliminate risks. It’s to proactively identify, plan for, and minimize risk. Innovation is inherently uncertain, so its tools are purpose-built to proactively identify, plan for, and minimize risk. They also help you gain clarity and act decisively—even in the most chaotic environments.

Here are just three of the many tools that successful companies use to find clarity in chaos.

Find the Root Cause

When performance dips, most leaders jump to fix symptoms. True risk management means digging deeper. Root cause analysis—particularly the “5 Whys”—helps uncover what’s really going on.

Toyota made this famous. In one case, a machine stopped working. The first “why” pointed to a blown fuse. The fifth “why” revealed a lack of maintenance systems. Solving that root issue prevented future breakdowns.

IBM reportedly used a similar approach to reduce customer churn. Pricing and product quality weren’t the problem—friction during onboarding was. After redesigning that experience, retention rose by 20%.

Focus on What You Can Actually Control

Trying to manage everything is a recipe for burnout. Better risk management starts by separating what you can control, what you can influence, and what you can only monitor. Then, allocate resources accordingly.

After 9/11, most airlines focused on uncontrollable external threats. Southwest Airlines doubled down on what they could control: operational efficiency, customer loyalty, and employee morale. They avoided layoffs and emerged stronger.

Unilever used a similar approach during the global supply chain crisis. Instead of obsessing over global shipping delays, they diversified suppliers and localized sourcing—reducing risk without driving up costs.

Attack Your “Deal Killer” Assumptions

Every plan is based on assumptions. Great risk management means identifying the ones that could sink your strategy—and testing them before you invest too much time or money.

Dropbox did this early on. Instead of building a full product, they made a simple video to test whether people wanted file-syncing software. They validated demand, secured funding, and avoided wasted development.

GE applied this logic in its FastWorks program. One product team tested their idea with a quick prototype. Customer feedback revealed a completely different need—saving the company millions in misdirected R&D.

Risk Management Needs Innovation’s Tools for a VUCA World

The best risk managers don’t just react to uncertainty—they prepare for it. These tools aren’t just for innovation—they’re practical, proven ways to reduce risk, respond faster, and make smarter decisions when the future feels murky.

What tools or strategies have helped you manage risk during uncertain times? I’d love to hear in the comments.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Leaders Must Be Truthful and Forthcoming

Leave a reply

Leaders Must Be Truthful and Forthcoming

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Have you ever felt like you weren’t getting the truth from your leader? You know – when they say something and you know that’s not what they really think. Or, when they share their truth but you can sense that they’re sharing only part of the truth and withholding the real nugget of the truth? We really have no control over the level of forthcoming of our leaders, but we do have control over how we respond to their incomplete disclosure.

There are times when leaders cannot, by law, disclose things. But, even then, they can make things clear without disclosing what legally cannot be disclosed. For example, they can say: “That’s a good question and it gets to the heart of the situation. But, by law, I cannot answer that question.” They did not answer the question, but they did. They let you know that you understand the situation; they let you know that there is an answer; and the let you know why they cannot share it with you. As the recipient of that non-answer answer, I respect that leader.

There are also times when a leader withholds information or gives a strategically partial response for inappropriate reasons. When a leader withholds information to manipulate or control, that’s inappropriate. It’s also bad leadership. When a leader withholds information from their smartest team members, they lose trust. And when leaders lose trust, the best people are crestfallen and withhold their best work. The thinking goes like this. If my leader doesn’t trust me enough to share the complete set of information with me it’s because they don’t think I’m worthy of their trust and they don’t think highly of me. And if they don’t think I’m worthy of their trust, they don’t understand who I am and what I stand for. And if they don’t understand me and know what I stand for, they’re not worthy of my best work.

As a leader, you must share all you can. And when you can’t, you must tell your team there are things you can’t share and tell them the reasons why. Your team can handle the fact that there are some things you cannot share. But what your team cannot hand is when you withhold information so you can gain the upper hand on them. And your team can tell when you’re withholding with your best interest in mind. Remember, you hired them because they were smart, and their smartness doesn’t go away just because you want to control them.

If your direct reports always tell you they can get it done even when they don’t have the capacity and capability, that’s not the behavior you want. If your direct reports tell you they can’t get it done when they can’t get it done, that’s the behavior you want. But, as a leader, which behavior do you reward? Do you thank the truthful leader for being truthful about the reality of insufficient resources and do you chastise the other leader for telling you what you want to hear? Or, do you tell the truthful leader they’re not a team player because team players get it done and praise the unjustified can-do attitude of the “yes man” leader? As a leader, I suggest you think deeply about this. As a direct report of a leader, I can tell you I’ve been punished for responding in way that was in line with the reality of the resources available to do the work. And I can also tell you that I lost all respect for that leader.

As a leader, you have three types of direct reports. Type I are folks are happy where they are and will do as little as possible to keep it that way. Type II are people that are striving for the next promotion and will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get the next job. Type III are the non-striving people who will tell you what you need to hear despite the implications to their career. Type I people are good to have on your team. They know what they can do and will tell you when the work is beyond their capability. Type II people are dangerous because they think only of themselves. They will hang you out to dry if they think it will advance their career. And Type III people are priceless.

Type III people care enough to protect you. When you ask them for something that can’t be done, they care enough about you to tell you the truth. It’s not that they don’t want to get it done, they know they cannot. And they’re willing to tell you to your face. Type II people don’t care about you as a leader; they only care about themselves. They say yes when they know the answer is no. And they do it in a way that absolves them of responsibility when the wheels fall off. As a leader, which type do you want on your team? And as a leader, which type do you promote and which do you chastise. And, how do you feel about that?

As a leader, you must be truthful. And when you can’t disclose the full truth, tell people. And when your Type II direct reports give you the answer they know you want to hear, call them on their bullshit. And when your Type III folks give you the answer they know you don’t want to hear, thank them.

Image credits: Unsplash

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

Should My Brand Take a Political Stand?

Leave a reply

Should My Brand Take a Political Stand?

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

Many of you may have noticed that we are in a period of unparalleled social and political polarization in the US. For better or for worse, the public is probably more engaged and more passionate about politics and related social issues than it’s ever been.

So how should we, and the organizations we are a part of respond to this? When we feel passionate about something, there is always motivation to take action. And for many of us, the place where we have the most influence, resources and leverage is via work.

Does Politics Belong at Work? So should we blur the boundary between our personal beliefs and our work? Should our marketing and communication reflect the social or political passions of ourselves, and our colleagues? It’s a question I’ve been asked a lot over the last few years, and even more over the last few months. And not surprisingly, it’s often fueled by a working group who share passionate common values.

Job Satisfaction: Acting on these shared passions certainly has potential to benefits job satisfaction, team building and even perception of work life balance. Despite this, I nearly always advise to avoid politicizing a brand, and to even be very cautious about social engagement. That’s often an unpopular opinion, especially if team members care deeply about a cause. But aligning a brand with politics opens a door that is extremely difficult to close.

Bud-Light: The news story below is a good example. Anheuser-Busch is currently facing negative social media for pulling it’s support for a Pride Festival.

https://www.fox5vegas.com/2025/03/26/anheuser-busch-pulls-out-pride-festival-after-30-year-partnership/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJRIflleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdeKDxDCkmbH0QkJNegb-TZxi1TiwDpqs35z4gcx7AwYH3nCOVH01VEscg_aem_w6v3QjCD_cWvEnFdcP2NIA

It’s not the first time Bud-Light has found itself in the news for a politically related topic. I’m sure we all remember the Bud Light controversy over it’s association with Dylan Mulvaney. That resulted in massive backlash from the ‘right’ and loss of its position as the #1 beer in the US. Now it’s facing backlash from the ‘left’ over Pride. Basically they now cannot win, and that is the core issue. Once you’ve taken a position in a controversial space, even somewhat unintentionally as Bud Lite did, it becomes a part of your brand, and that lens is applied to virtually everything you do. It is then extremely difficult to recapture a neutral position.

No-Win Scenario? It really doesn’t matter which side of the political fence a brand chooses. Once that door is open, the repercussions’ can last for years, and any course correction almost inevitably upsets one side or the other. Budweiser, Chick-Fil-A, even Pepsi have all dipped their toes in to political and social arenas, and had to manage fall-out that is typically disproportional to the original content.

All of that said, a brand following a purpose can have positive impact on internal job satisfaction, at least in the short term. At of course, it can and often does resonate positively with a subset of its customers. But unless that purpose is unambiguously and universally supported by all existing and potential customers, and frankly very little is these days, the risks almost inevitably outweigh the benefits. Even apparently successful campaigns like Nike’s featuring Colin Kaepernick, which had strong appeal for their core, younger demographic, are high risk-high reward, and come with long-term risks which are hard to quantify. Negative emotions tend to drive strong, and more resilient behavioral changes than positive ones. So even if initially polarized markets sees offsets between positive and negative consumer response, the positive tends to fade faster. Humans have evolved to more heavily weight negative experiences for good survival based reasons.

Universal Appeal and Availability: At the heart of this challenge is that growing and maintaining a brand requires reaching and appealing to as many customers as possible. Whether we view markets through the eye of Ehrenberg-Bass models, or follow more traditional volume forecasting models, the single biggest variable that enables a brand to grow is reach. And that reach needs to operate on both a mental and physical vector. Physical availability is generally achieved via wide distribution or ubiquitous access. Quite simply, if potential customers cannot find you, then most will not buy you. But mental availability is equally important. If and when shoppers do find you, they need to both desire and understand you. This is a bit more complex, and achieved by great marketing, branding, media, packaging and messaging.

But if a brand aligns with a controversial cause, it risks losing positive mental availability, and being either consciously or implicitly rejected. The reality is that pretty much any political or social cause these days carries a real risk of upsetting half of your customers. Positive Brand loyalty is often at best fickle, but once someone has decided they dislike a brand for whatever reason, that de-selection can be quite resilient.

Treat Marketing like Thanksgiving: And it can become even harder when brands try to course correct. Reversals tend to look inauthentic and manipulative, while attempts to ‘read the room’, and go with current trends risks being distrusted by both sides!! In a vast majority of cases, by far the best strategy is to treat marketing like Thanksgiving dinner, and keep out of politics and religion

Keeping Purpose Alive: So should brands abandon any form of purpose or altruism. I’d hope not. Altruism is good for community, good for employee satisfaction, good for long-term equity and more. So what should we do?

I think there are at least three important guidelines.

One is stay in your lane. Most people struggle with a drink, food or soap powder having a political or social opinion.
The second is to find ways to contribute that are at least largely universally supported, and avoid the flavor of the month’. Even in today’s polarized society, helping cancer research, disaster victims, helping kids, animal shelters, and ma minimum controversy.
The third is to ask ‘why am I doing this? Is this the best use of company money, and am doing this for the brand, the business, or is it more in support of my own values?” If it’s the latter, maybe find ways to achieve that without opening your brand to future risk
Bottom line, basically anything that politicians talk a lot about, and certainly argue about, is best avoided. And even be careful how you frame what you do to avoid affiliation with groups perceived as political. Channeling money through a non-profit can be very effective, both in endorsements and validating claims. But many non-profits have become increasingly politicized. I’m not here to make judgment on that, except that from a marketing perspective, we risk becoming aligned with that bias.

But if we are thoughtful, we can combine purpose and innovation and marketing. I think Tide’s ‘Loads of Hope’ is a great positive example. It’s about cleaning laundry, which is perfectly in lane for the brand, & it helps disaster victims, which at least for now is political neutral, and more importantly, largely future proofed.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons

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

Focus your Emotional Energy Purposefully

1 Reply

Focus your Emotional Energy Purposefully

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

When I exited my corporate career more than thirty-five years ago, I was privileged to be regarded and respected as the Fashion Direction Manager for the Grace Bros Department Store group, one of Australia’s most senior women in retail management. This launched my global reputation as a fashion and lifestyle marketing innovator. In this exciting role, I was responsible for designing and implementing a company-wide fashion information system for apparel, accessories, homeware, merchandising, and advertising. This required me to focus my emotional energy on researching, analyzing, and conceptualizing global fashion and lifestyle trends and adapting them to suit the Australian consumer lifestyle.

It was a dream role before the invention of the Internet, the implosion of the mass media, and the dominance of fast fashion. It required our team to focus their emotional energy on intensively researching different global and diverse media sources, including yarn, textile, couture, designer, ready-to-wear shows, trade journals, magazines, and seasonal sales data.

Generating creative thinking

Creativity is about connecting things, and in the fashion world, the best designers make the most unlikely connections to produce novel and wondrous creations. As my professional background included graphic and fashion design and marketing, I could further hone my associative (lateral and connective) thinking skills to think creatively and critically in this role. To focus my emotional energy and attention on guiding my intuition, values, and decisions on the needs and wants of buyers, merchandisers, marketers, and customers. To emerge, diverge and converge the key connections and patterns occurring globally in the fashion world and external complex fashion systems. I also learned the importance of being customer-focused and the value and role of being empathic with customers, manufacturers’ value chains and fashion information system users.

It was an incredibly emotional, physical, and stressful role, which required me to travel overseas four times a year to stay current on the different global fashion streams.

This caused my life to melt into being at work, the gym, or the airport.

Stress-induced exhaustion and burnout

This resulted in my first profound encounter with stress-induced exhaustion and burnout, which hit me right in the face one morning when my body refused to move, and I was unable to get out of bed.

I have also noticed that many of my global coaching clients have faced a similar challenge: stress-induced exhaustion and burnout. Fortunately, they can use the coaching partnership to unearth their particular pattern and unresourceful ways of being and learn how to focus their emotional energy to disrupt, dispute, and deviate from it into a more resourceful way of being and acting. However, it has shifted the coach’s role as a healer, making it even more critical in our current environment.

Focusing emotional energy on pursuing mattering, meaning and purposeful work

This ultimately manifests as a crisis and becomes a defining moment. In my case, I made a fundamental choice to focus emotional energy on pursuing meaning, mattering, and purposeful work, which still focuses my full attention and drives me today.

It created a “crack, “or an opening and threshold for making two fundamental choices: to embark on a healing journey to become the kind of person I wanted to be and to find a way to focus my emotional energy on making the difference I wanted to make in the world.

This enabled me to use my knowledge, experience, and skills to establish Australia’s first design management consultancy.

What is emotional energy?

Emotional energy is the catalyst that fuels creativity, invention, and innovation.

Understanding and harnessing this energy inspires and motivates individuals to explore and embrace creative and critical thinking strategies, now in partnership with AI.

When a person’s emotional energy has contracted, it results in constrained, negative, pessimistic, and even catastrophic thinking habits, which have a toxic impact on the person’s identity and emotional and physical well-being.

This means there is no space, doorway, or threshold to take on anything new, novel, or different. Nor can they imagine what might be possible to evolve, advance, or transform their personal or professional lives in an uncertain future.

Emotional energy catalyses and directs your intrinsic motivation, conviction, hope, positivity, and optimism to approach your world purposefully, meaningfully, and differently.

When you are true to your calling or purpose, you will make extra efforts to be healthier, positively impact your well-being, and improve your resilience.

How does this apply to leadership in uncertain times?

“I think leaders need to remember that they are in the energy management business,” says Halsey. “Their role is to keep people focused, energized, and positive about themselves and their work. They may be unable to change external circumstances, but they can create a safe, nurturing, and empowering work environment. By setting clear goals, diagnosing individual needs, and providing the right leadership style, leaders can help their teams thrive—even in uncertain times.”

People want work to be less of a job and more of a calling.

According to Martin Seligman and Gabriella Rosen Kellerman in their book Tomorrowmind, a US-based research study that included two thousand employees of all ages, industries, tenures, and incomes, revealed that people craved more meaning at work regardless of sector or position. Everyone wanted work to be less of a job and more of a calling and gave their current jobs a rating of 49, which suggests that their “meaning cups” are only half full.

This search for meaning, mattering, and being of service to humanity in a different and value-adding way enables innovators, entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs to cultivate the emotional energy and develop the agility required to drive their creativity, invention and innovation endeavors.

It is the most critical ingredient that motivates, empowers, enables, fuels and sustains innovators, entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs to adapt, survive and thrive on the innovation roller coaster.

Channeling emotional energy meaningfully and purposefully

From my leadership training and coaching experience, I have learned that most people desperately want their lives to make sense and be meaningful and to know that who they are and what they do matters. It is possible to link meaning and mattering to being intentionally motivated and directed by your core values to make a difference and a contribution that provides value and significance to someone, a community, or society.

Being purposeful

Being purposeful focuses your emotional energy, guides your life decisions influences your behaviors, shapes your goals, offers a sense of direction, and creates meaning. Rather than engaging in shallow, empty, or pointless activities, it gives you agency.

In our uncertain, volatile and disruptive world, it is crucial to think about your “purpose in life.” Be like an Entrepreneur and link your purpose as a guidepost to help you deal with uncertainty, navigate it better, mitigate the damaging effects of long-term stress, and become psychologically resilient.

People with a strong sense of purpose direct and focus their emotional energy on what really matters to them. They tend to be more agile and adaptive, hardier and resilient, and more able to refocus and recover quickly from adverse and catastrophic events.

According to McKinsey & Co.’s article “Igniting individual purpose in times of crisis,” purposeful people also live longer and healthier lives and are essential to employee experience. This results in higher levels of employee engagement, more substantial organizational commitment, and increased feelings of well-being. Like many entrepreneurs, people who find their purpose congruent with their jobs tend to get more meaning from their roles, making them more productive and more likely to outperform their peers.

How can you add more meaning, mattering and purpose?

Meaning is an outcome of purpose, and many people, due to their experience of the pandemic and hybrid workplace in a chaotic and uncertain world, are seeking to re-engage with their work and workplaces by focusing their emotional energy on improving their well-being and creating more purposeful, balanced, and meaningful lives.

This is a short section from our new book, “Conscious Innovation – Activating the Heart, Mind and Soul of Innovation”, which will be published in 2025.

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

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

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

Image Credit: Unsplash

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

Commercializing New Concepts is Hard

Leave a reply

Commercializing New Concepts is Hard

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you have the data that says the market for the new concept is big enough, you waited too long.

If you require the data that verifies the market is big enough before pursuing new concepts, you’ll never pursue them.

If you’re afraid to trust the judgement of your best technologists, you’ll never build the traction needed to launch new concepts.

If you will sell the new concept to the same old customers, don’t bother. You already sold them all the important new concepts. The returns have already diminished.

If you must sell the new concept to new customers, it could create a whole new business for you.

If you ask your successful business units to create and commercialize new concepts, they’ll launch what they did last time and declare it a new concept.

If you leave it to your successful business units to decide if it’s right to commercialize a new concept created by someone else, they won’t.

If a new concept is so significant that it will dwarf the most successful business unit, the most successful business unit will scuttle it.

If the new concept is so significant it warrants a whole new business unit, you won’t make the investment because the sales of the yet-to-be-launched concept are yet to be realized.

If you can’t justify the investment to commercialize a new concept because there are no sales of the yet-to-be-launched concept, you don’t understand that sales come only after you launch. But, you’re not alone.

If a new concept makes perfect sense, you would have commercialized it years ago.

If the new concept isn’t ridiculed by the Status Quo, do something else.

If the new concept hasn’t failed three times, it’s not a worthwhile concept.

If you think the new concept will be used as you intend, think again.

If you’re sure a new concept will be a flop, you shouldn’t be. Same goes for the ones you’re sure will be successful.

If you’re afraid to trust your judgement, you aren’t the right person to commercialize new concepts.

And if you’re not willing to put your reputation on the line, let someone else commercialize the new concept.

Image credits: misterinnovation.com (1 of 850+ free quote slides for download)

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

Job Design as Innovation Strategy

Leave a reply

How Complex Problem-Solving Creates Automation Champions

Job Design as Innovation Strategy

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Imagine a manufacturing company. On the factory floor, machines whirl and grind, torches flare up as welding helmets click closed, and parts and products fall off the line and into waiting hands or boxes, ready to be shipped to customers. Elsewhere, through several doors and a long hallway, you leave the cacophony of the shop floor for the quiet hum of the office. Computers ping with new emails while fingers clickety-clack across the keyboard. Occasionally, a printer whirs to life while forcing someone to raise their voice as they talk to a customer on the other end of the phone.

Now, imagine that you ask each person whether AI and automation will positively or negatively affect their jobs. Who will champion new technology and who will resist it?

Most people expect automation acceptance to be separated by the long hallway, with the office workers welcoming while the factory workers resist.

Most people are wrong.

The Business Case for Problem-Solving Job Design

Last week, I wrote about findings from an MIT study that indicated that trust, not technology, is the leading indicator of whether workers will adopt new AI and automation tools.

But there’s more to the story than that. Researchers found that the type of work people do has a bigger influence on automation perception than where they do it. Specifically, people who engage in work requiring high levels of complex problem-solving alongside routine work are more likely to see the benefit of automation than any other group.

Or, to put it more simply

Net Impact of Automation & New Technology on Your Work

While it’s not surprising that people who perform mostly routine tasks are more resistant than those who engage in complex tasks, it is surprising that this holds true for both office-based and production-floor employees.

Even more notable, this positive perception is significantly higher for complex problem solvers vs. the average across all workers::

Safety: 43% and 41% net positive for office and physical workers, respectively (vs. 32% avg)
Pay: 27% and 25% net positive for physical and office workers, respectively (vs. 3.9% avg)
Autonomy: 33% net positive for office workers (vs. 18% average)
Job security: 25% and 22% net positive for office and physical workers, respectively (vs. 3.5%)

Or, to put it more simply, blend problem-solving into routine-heavy roles, and you’ll transform potential technology resistors into champions.

3 Ways to Build Problem-Solving Into Any Role

The importance of incorporating problem-solving into every job isn’t just a theory – it’s one of the core principles of the Toyota Production System (TPS). Jidoka, or the union of automation with human intelligence, is best exemplified by the andon cord system, where employees can stop manufacturing if they perceive a quality issue.

But you don’t need to be a Six-Sigma black belt to build human intelligence into each role:

Create troubleshooting teams with decision authority
Workers who actively diagnose and fix process issues develop a nuanced understanding of where technology helps versus hinders. Cross-functional troubleshooting creates the perfect conditions for technology champions to emerge.
Design financial incentives around problem resolution
The MIT study’s embedded experiment showed that financial incentives significantly improved workers’ perception of new technologies while opportunities for input alone did not. When workers see personal benefit in solving problems with technology, adoption accelerates.
Establish learning pathways connected to problem complexity
Workers motivated by career growth (+33.9% positive view on automation’s impact on upward mobility) actively seek out technologies that help them tackle increasingly complex problems. Create visible advancement paths tied to problem-solving mastery.

Innovation’s Human Catalyst

The most powerful lever for technology adoption isn’t better technology—it’s better job design. By restructuring roles to include meaningful problem-solving, you transform the innovation equation.

So here’s the million-dollar question every executive should be asking: Are you designing jobs that create automation champions, or are you merely automating jobs as they currently exist?

Image credits: Robyn Bolton and misterinnovation.com (1 of 850+ free quote slides for download)

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

Shifting Mindsets to Compete in an Ecosystem-Driven World

Leave a reply

Shifting Mindsets to Compete in an Ecosystem-Driven World

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1980 Harvard professor Michael Porter published Competitive Strategy, which recommended that firms create advantage by driving efficiencies throughout the value chain and mastering competitive forces by maximizing bargaining power. These concepts drove corporate thinking for decades.

Yet as AnnaLee Saxenian explained in Regional Advantage, around the same time that Porter’s ideas were ascending among CEOs in the establishment industries on the east coast, a very different way of doing business was gaining steam in Silicon Valley. The firms there saw themselves not as isolated fiefdoms, but as part of a larger ecosystem.

Competitive advantage can no longer be reduced to the sum of efficiencies in a value chain, but is embedded in webs of connections. To compete in an ecosystem-driven world, Leaders need to do more than adapt how we deploy assets, we need to look at things differently. It is no longer enough to merely plan and direct action, we need to inspire and empower belief.

Shifting From “Compel And Control” To “Access And Empower”

In the 1920s Henry Ford built the almost completely vertically integrated River Rouge plant. Because the company had the ability to produce just about every facet of its product itself (the plant even had its own steel mill), it had tremendous control over the value chain, making it virtually immune to the bargaining power of suppliers.

However, as the industry matured, other companies began to specialize in particular components. Ford, unable to compete in so many directions, became integrated into the larger ecosystem. In fact, during the financial crisis in 2008, the company’s CEO, Alan Mulally, said this in testimony to Congress:

“In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises”

In a value-chain-driven world, Ford would have welcomed its competitors’ demise. In an ecosystem-driven-world, however, their collapse would damage nodes that the company itself depended on. Clearly, the principles of competitive advantage have changed. Today your fate depends less on the assets and capabilities you control, than what you can access.

That, in essence, is why we need an ecosystem strategy. Control has become a dangerous illusion. It’s what led to the demise of the East Coast technology companies such as DEC and Data General that AnnaLee Saxenian wrote in her book. By seeking full control of their value chain, they cut off connection to important parts of the ecosystem. When the market and technology shifted, they were left on their own island.

Building Silos Of Excellence

It’s become so common for pundits to complain about organizational silos that few even think about what it means anymore. Why do silos form in the first place? Why do they persist? If silos are so egregious, why are they so common? And once we get rid of them, what takes their place? To “break down silos” and not ask these questions is just lazy thinking.

Silos aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Essentially, they are centers of excellence. It’s true that people who work closely together naturally form a working culture and tacit domain knowledge that can be hard for others to penetrate, but breaking those units apart can undermine the important work they do.

Another problem is that when you reorganize to break down one kind of silo, you inevitably create others. If, for example, your company is organized around functional groups, then you will get poor collaboration around products. But when you reorganize to focus on product groups, you get the same problem within functions.

The truth is that you don’t want to break down silos, you want to connect them. What we need to learn is how to network our organizations to help silos become interoperable with other silos that have complementary resources and areas of areas of expertise. That, essentially, is what an ecosystem is, a network of interoperable networks.

Paradoxically, we need silos of excellence to provide value to the ecosystem in order to get value out. The best way to form a connection is to have something attractive that others want to connect to.

Connecting Silos To Leverage Platforms

It’s become clear that no organization can survive focusing exclusively on capabilities it owns and controls. Today, we need to leverage platforms to access ecosystems of technology, talent and information from a variety of stakeholders, including customers, partners, vendors and open platforms. Yet, that is often easier said than done.

The truth is that while platforms offer enormous possibilities to scale, they also have deep vulnerabilities. Yes, platforms can help connect to capabilities and assets, but they are no substitute for a sound business model that creates, delivers and captures value. That was one problem with Uber, it created connection, but little else.

Organizations that successfully leverage platforms do so with silos of capability at the core. Amazon has leveraged decades of investment in building an unparalleled logistic capability to create a dominant commerce platform. In a similar way, IBM has leveraged its expertise in quantum computing to create a network of like-minded organizations. Corporate Venture Capital (VC) funds leverage industry expertise to access entrepreneurial innovation.

There are a number of ways even small firms can leverage platforms to access ecosystems. The Manufacturing USA Institutes cater to small and medium sized firms. Local universities are often overlooked resources to access deep expertise. Harley Owners Groups are a great example of how firms can leverage their own customer networks.

Strategy Is No Longer A Game Of Chess

Traditionally, strategy has been seen as a game of chess. Wise leaders survey the board of play, plan their moves carefully and execute flawlessly. That’s always been a fantasy, but it was close enough to reality to be helpful. Organizations could build up sustainable competitive advantage by painstakingly building up bargaining power within the value chain.

Yet as Rita McGrath has pointed out, it’s no longer as important to “learn to plan” as it is to “plan to learn.” Today, a better metaphor for strategy is an online role-playing game, where you bring you certain capabilities and assets and connect with others to go on quests and discover new things along the way.

Unlike chess, where everyone knows that their objective is to capture the opponent’s king, in today’s ecosystem-driven world the basis of competition is in continuous flux, so we cannot be absolutely sure of the objective when we start out, or even if our opponent is really an opponent and not a potential ally.

That’s why strategy today requires a more Bayesian approach in which we don’t expect to get things right as much as we hope to become less wrong over time. As I wrote in Harvard Business Review some years ago, “competitive advantage” is no longer the sum of all efficiencies, but the sum of all connections. Strategy, therefore, must be focused on deepening and widening networks of information, talent, partners, and consumers.”

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

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

Three Ways Teamwork Can Fail

Leave a reply

Three Ways Teamwork Can Fail

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Teamwork is a constant in organizational life. You will work on teams for the majority of your career. Some of those teams will be an uplifting, engaging experience—but most will be an average or even a draining experience. Because most teams aren’t high-performing ones. Most teams fail to achieve a level of performance above the average of each individual’s capabilities. Most teams lack what Stephen Covey would call “synergy” but what organizational psychologists call “collective intelligence.”

Collective intelligence happens when a team’s performance on tasks exceeds what would be predicted by averaging the capabilities of each member. Collectively intelligence teams find a way to bring out more from each other than they even expected of themselves. And the inverse is true as well. When teams fail, it’s often because they fail to achieve collective intelligence.

In this article, we’ll outline three different reasons teamwork fails—or at least fails to achieve collective intelligence.

1. Social Loafing

The first reason teamwork fails is social loafing. Social loafing is a phenomenon that can seriously undermine the effectiveness of a team. It refers to individuals who do not fully commit to tasks or deadlines, taking advantage of the interdependence of work in teams. This lack of commitment can lead to missed deadlines, incomplete tasks, and a general decrease in team productivity.

The key to addressing social loafing is accountability. By holding each team member accountable for their assigned tasks, it is possible to remove the opportunity for social loafing. Regular check-ins can also be beneficial, as they allow team leaders to monitor progress and ensure that everyone is pulling their weight. By fostering a culture of accountability, teams can minimize the impact of social loafing and ensure that all members are contributing effectively.

2. Unequal Sharing

The second reason teamwork fails is unequal sharing. This occurs when certain individuals dominate conversations, preventing the full range of ideas from being expressed. When this happens, the benefits of all the team’s diversity are not fully utilized, leading to sub-optimal decision making.

To address unequal sharing, it can be helpful to introduce structure into team meetings. This could involve using timers to ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak or breaking larger teams into smaller groups to facilitate more balanced conversation. Encouraging conversational turn-taking can also be beneficial, as it ensures that all voices are heard.

3. Lack of Social Sensitivity

The third reason teamwork fails is a lack of social sensitivity. This is a less obvious, but equally damaging, issue that can affect team performance. It refers to the inability to perceive and empathize with the emotions and beliefs of others. This lack of empathy can lead to misunderstandings, conflict, and a lack of cohesion within the team.

Increasing social sensitivity within a team can be achieved in several ways. One effective strategy is to add more women to the team, as research has shown that teams with a higher proportion of women tend to have higher levels of social sensitivity. Additionally, taking steps to better understand and empathize with team members can also be beneficial. This could involve team-building exercises, training in emotional intelligence, or simply taking the time to listen and understand each other’s perspectives. By modeling behavior and teaching empathy, teams can become more socially sensitive and therefore more effective.

Building collective intelligence within a team is not always straightforward. It requires careful management and a commitment to fostering a positive team culture. By addressing issues such as social loafing, unequal sharing, and lack of social sensitivity, teams can become smarter and less likely to fail. The strategies outlined in this article provide a starting point for teams looking to improve their effectiveness and achieve their goals.

Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on December 10, 2023

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