Category Archives: Leadership

How Courage and Trust are Transforming Bayer

Fewer Rules and Better Results

How Courage and Trust are Transforming Bayer

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

“Consider this question: If workers are hobbled by 1,000 rules, does it make a meaningful difference to reduce them to only 900?”

The answer is No.  In fact, this is precisely why most attempts at fighting bureaucracy fail – and why true transformation requires starting completely fresh.

Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, knows this and isn’t afraid to admit it.  When he took the helm in June 2023, he discovered a company paralyzed by bureaucracy. Instead of trying to optimize the system, he looked at the company’s “1,362 pages” of employee rules and knew the entire structure needed to change.

Breaking the Stranglehold

As Anderson stated in Fortune, “There was a time for hierarchical, command-and-control organizations – the 19th century, to be exact, when many workers were illiterate, information traveled at a snail’s pace, and strict adherence to rules offered the competitive advantage of reliability.”

The modern reality is different. Today’s Bayer employs highly skilled experts, operates at digital speed, and competes in markets where, as Anderson observes, “the most reliable companies are the most dynamic.”

The challenge wasn’t just the encyclopedic rule book. The organization’s “12 levels of hierarchy” created what Anderson called “unnecessary distance between our teams, our customers, and our products.” In today’s innovation-driven market, this industrial-age structure threatened the company’s future.

Unleashing Innovation

Anderson’s solution? “Dynamic Shared Ownership” – a radical model that puts 95% of decision-making in the hands of the people actually doing the work. Instead of annual budgets and endless approvals, self-directed teams work in 90-day sprints with the autonomy to make real-time decisions.

The results are already showing. Take Vividion, Bayer’s independently operated subsidiary. Operating in small, autonomous teams, they went from FDA approval to first patient dosing in just six weeks. They’re now on track to produce one or two new drug candidates for clinical testing every year.

Speed Becomes Reality

The impact extends across the organization. Bayer’s scientists have transformed their plant breeding process, reducing cycles from “five years down to merely four months.”

In the consumer health division, teams have accelerated their development timelines significantly, reducing product launch schedules “by up to nine months” in Asia. Within their first two months under the new system, these teams generated millions in additional value.

While financial markets remain uncertain about this transformation, one crucial metric suggests it’s working: employee retention has improved. The scientists, researchers, and product developers – the people doing the innovative work – are showing their confidence in this dramatic shift toward autonomous operation.

Why This Matters & What to do Next

For most of us, the question isn’t whether our organization has too much bureaucracy – it almost certainly does. The question is: what are you going to do about it?

Try this – Create a small, autonomous team with a 90-day mission. Give them real decision-making power and see what they can accomplish when freed from bureaucratic constraints.

Remember Anderson’s key insight: reducing rules from 1,000 to 900 won’t create meaningful change. Real transformation requires the courage to fundamentally rethink how work gets done.

For anyone who’s ever felt the soul-crushing weight of bureaucracy, Bayer’s radical reinvention offers hope. Maybe the path to innovation isn’t through better rules and processes, but through the courage to trust in human potential.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

What Separates Truly Revolutionary Leaders from Everyone Else

What Separates Truly Revolutionary Leaders From Everyone Else

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1919, Mahatma Gandhi, who had long established himself as a revolutionary leader of uncommon strategic acumen, called for a general strike throughout India to protest unjust laws levied on his people by the British. It was, at least at first, an enormous success. In Mumbai, for example, 80% of shops closed their doors.

Yet things soon got out of hand. What began as peaceful protests against oppression turned violent. Riots broke out. The moral high ground that Gandhi so coveted—and relied on to accomplish his objectives—would crumble under his feat. Things ended with a horrible massacre at Amritsar. Gandhi would later call it his Himalayan miscalculation.

Yet that wasn’t the end of the story. Not by a long shot. He not only admitted his mistake, he vowed to learn from it. Ten years later, when the opportunity presented itself, he took a very different tack, which led to the Salt March and became his greatest triumph. It is often the ability to learn from mistakes that makes the difference between success and failure.

A Flash Of Insight That Would Overthrow A Dictator

One day in 1998, a group of five friends met in a cafe in Belgrade. Although still in their 20s, they were already experienced activists and most of what they experienced was failure. In 1992, they had taken part in student protests to protest the war in Bosnia. Yet much like the #Occupy protests that would later spread across the world, they never amounted to much.

In 1996, they took to the streets to support Zajedno, a coalition of opposition parties aligned against Slobodan Milošević. Although the ruling party clearly lost at the polls, the Serbian dictator annulled the election. Massive protests broke out, but unfortunately, the opposition coalition was unable to maintain unity and it was all for basically naught.

It was these defeats that they began to examine in 1998. They took a hard look at what had worked and what didn’t. They knew that they could get people to the polls and they knew that if people went to the polls they could win the Presidential election coming up in 2000. They also knew, from bitter experience, that if Milošević lost the election he would try to steal it.

So that’s what they planned for. They created a movement called Otpor that was steeped in patriotic imagery from the World War II resistance. It grew slowly at first, amounting to only a few hundred members after a year. But by the time the elections came around in 2000, Otpor’s ranks swelled to 70,000 and had grown into a potent political force.

When the Serbian strongman tried to falsify the election results massive protests, now known as the Bulldozer Revolution broke out. This time Otpor was able to enforce unity among the opposition parties, having lost the confidence of the military and police forces, Milošević was forced to give in. He would later be extradited to The Hague and die in his prison cell.

The Epiphany That Would Lead To The Lean Startup

In 1999, the day before his eighth startup went public, Steve Blank decided to retire at the age of 45. With time to reflect, he sat in a ski lodge and began to write a memoir with a “lessons learned” section at the end of each chapter. “In hindsight, it was a catharsis of moving from one part of my life to another,” he told me.

What he realized was that the idea a business started with was always wrong. Sometimes it was off by a little, sometimes it was off by a lot, but it was always wrong. The key to success was not a better idea, necessarily, but identifying and fixing its flaws before you ran out of money. To do that you needed to go and talk to customers.

“I was 80 pages in when I realized there was a pattern. When I sat inside the building things didn’t go very well, but when I got outside the building things turned around and got much better,” he remembers. Pursuing customer development even before product development was the essential insight behind the Lean Startup movement.

Today, lean startup methods have gone beyond startups been proven useful for large corporations, scientific institutions and even government agencies. The essential epiphany that made it possible came not from divine enlightenment, but rather through hard examination of two decades of mistakes and the will to change tack.

The Unmasking Of The Most Deadly Disease

In 1891, Dr. William Coley had an unusual idea. Inspired by an obscure case, in which a man who had contracted a severe infection was cured of cancer, the young doctor purposely infected a tumor on his patient’s neck with a heavy dose of bacteria. Miraculously, the tumor vanished and the patient remained cancer free even five years later.

Looking to repeat his success, he created a special brew of toxins designed to jump-start the immune system. Unfortunately, he was never able to replicate his initial results consistently. His idea was met with skepticism by the medical community and, when radiation therapy was developed in the early 20th century, Coley’s research was largely forgotten.

Yet his daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, kept the dream alive. With a $2000 grant from Nelson Rockefeller she founded the Cancer Research Institute in 1953 to study immunological approaches to cancer. While mostly dismissed by the medical community, it did inspire a small cadre of devotees to keep looking, albeit mostly in vain.

A breakthrough came in 1996, when a researcher named Jim Allison published a landmark paper that added a new twist to the mystery. Allison had a hunch that Coley’s initial insight that our immune system can fight cancer was correct. However, he had discovered a “switch” that would shut off the immune response and believed that he could switch it back on.

As it turned out, Allison got it right and would win the Nobel Prize for his discovery of cancer immunotherapy. Coley’s initial idea wasn’t wrong, exactly, just incomplete. He had a piece of the puzzle, but not all of it. What he failed to see was the diabolical nature of the disease itself, some forms of which, “learned” to outwit our immune system by switching it off.

Unfortunately, we can be proved “right” in the end, and still fail. Every idea is flawed in some way, it’s just that sometimes those flaws are more disabling than others.

To Change The World, You Must First Conquer Yourself

There’s nothing quite like the rapture of an epiphany, that initial flash of insight which is still pure and innocent, before the harsh realities of the world muck it up with a bunch of inconvenient facts, corollaries and exceptions. That’s when we can give ourselves to it wholeheartedly, without equivocation or bearing the burden of creeping doubt.

Yet our ideas never turn out like we think they will. To succeed, they must grow and adapt to the world around them. Gandhi, fresh off stunning victories gaining rights for Indians in South Africa, didn’t realize how his methods could go so horribly awry. The Otpor activists, Steve Blank, William Coley and so many others had similar blind spots.

What I’ve found in my research of revolutionary changemakers is that what makes the difference between success or failure isn’t necessarily the brilliance of the initial idea or even the passion and diligence of those who work to bring it about, but their ability to learn things along the way. They didn’t merely stay the course, they corrected it as many times as they had to until they won.

Unfortunately, most never learn that simple lesson. They would rather make a point than make a difference and wear their failures like a badge of honor. After all, who but the most righteous could inspire such opposition? And who but the most pure could continue to persevere in the face of such constant defeat?

That’s the really tough thing about change. To truly bring it about, we first must change ourselves.

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

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






Taking Ownership with a Tool for Better Team Dynamics

Taking Ownership With a Tool for Better Team Dynamics

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Whether you’re a leader or team member seeking to foster empowerment, accountability, and overall team growth, this card is designed for you.

It’s part of our Team Dynamics Cards and thus our suite of leadership growth and team dynamics tools aiming to boost team collaboration, performance, and communication. We develop such tools and approaches to ignite team discussions, inspire self-reflection and guide actionable steps.

Get in touch if you and your team would like to know more about our Team Dynamics Cards and how we can tailor this to your needs and interests.

Today’s Card: Taking Ownership

Category: Empowerment & Accountability

Our exploration leads us to understand the importance of encouraging team members to fully embrace their roles and responsibilities. By setting precise expectations, endorsing self-reflection, and cultivating a culture of mutual accountability, we can empower team members and enhance their sense of responsibility in their daily tasks.

Principles:

  1. Set Clear Expectations: Promote understanding of each team member’s roles, responsibilities, and the goals they are working towards.
  2. Practice Self-Reflection: Advocate for team members to assess their own performance, identify areas for improvement, and set personal growth targets.
  3. Hold Each Other Accountable: Foster an environment where team members support each other in achieving their goals and taking responsibility for their actions.

Reflection Questions:

1) Reflect on your current demonstration of ownership in your role and responsibilities within the team. Where do you see room for improvement?

2) Evaluate the level of accountability practiced within your team. How can this be amplified?

Action Questions:

1) What specific measures can each team member adopt to enhance ownership of their roles and responsibilities, and how can these actions be monitored and tracked?

2) How can your team cultivate a culture that supports and encourages individual and collective accountability? What concrete actions can be implemented to demonstrate this commitment?

If you find this card valuable and want to delve deeper, we’re offering a free test-deck of Team Dynamics Cards as well as a more complete set of tools around topics like high performance teams, team dynamics and leadership growth.

Simply like this post, and send me a message or comment expressing your interest. We can even tailor the deck to your team’s needs and preferences in a pilot project.

In return, we would appreciate your feedback on the concept and your experience using the cards and tool. Your insights will help us refine and improve our offerings for future users. Let’s collaborate to elevate your team’s dynamics and personal development of its members.

Image Credits: Pexels

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






There is Nothing Without Trust

There is Nothing Without Trust

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If someone treats you badly, that’s on them. You did nothing wrong.

When you do your best and your boss tells you otherwise, your boss is unskillful.

If you make a mistake, own it. And if someone gives you crap about it, disown them.

If someone is untruthful, hold them accountable. If they’re still untruthful, double down and hold them accountable times two.

If you’re treated unfairly, it’s because someone has low self-esteem. And if you get mad at them, it’s because you have low self-esteem.

What people think about you is none of your concern, especially if they treat you badly.

If you see something, say something, especially when you see a leader treat their team badly.

A leader that treats you badly isn’t a leader.

If you don’t trust your leader, find a new leader. And if you can’t find a new leader to trust, find a new company.

If someone belittles you, that’s about them. Try to forgive them. And if you can’t, try again.

No one deserves to be treated badly, even if they treat you badly.

If you have high expectations for your leader and they fall short, that says nothing about your expectations.

If someone’s behavior makes you angry, that’s about you. And when your behavior makes someone angry, the calculus is the same.

When actions are different from the words, believe the actions.

When the words are different than the actions, there can be no trust.

The best work is built on trust. And without trust, the work will not be the best.

If you don’t feel comfortable calling people on their behavior it’s because you don’t believe they’ll respond in good faith.

If you don’t think someone is truthful, nothing good will come from working with them.

If you can’t be truthful it’s because there is insufficient trust.

Without trust there is nothing.

If there’s a mismatch between someone’s words and their actions, call them on their actions.

If you call someone on their actions and they use their words to try to justify their actions, run away.

Image credits: Unsplash

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






Lean is the Enemy of Learning

And Other Counterintuitive Lessons from a Day at MIT

Lean is the Enemy of Learning

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

I firmly believe that there are certain things in life that you automatically say Yes to.  You do not ask questions or pause to consider context. You simply say Yes:

  1. Painkillers after a medical procedure
  2. Warm blankets
  3. The opportunity to listen to brilliant people talk about things that fascinate them.

So, when asked if I would like to attend an Executive Briefing curated by MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program, I did not ask questions or pause to check my calendar.  I simply said Yes.

I’m extremely happy that I did because what I heard blew my mind.

Lean is the enemy of learning

When Ben Armstrong, Executive Director of MIT’s Industrial Performance Center and Co-Lead of the Work of the Future Initiative, said, “To produce something new, you need to create a lot of waste,” I nearly lept out of my chair, raised my arms, and shouted “Amen brother!”

He went on to tell the story of a meeting between Elon Musk and Toyota executives shortly after Musk became CEO.  Toyota executives marveled at how quickly Tesla could build an EV and asked Musk for his secret.  Musk gestured around the factory floor at all the abandoned hunks of metal and partially built cars and explained that, unlike Toyota, which prided itself on being lean and minimizing waste, Tesla engineers focused on learning – and waste is a required part of the process.

We decide with our hearts and justify with our heads – even when leasing office space

John E. Fernández, Director of MIT’s Environmental Solutions Initiative, shared an unexpected insight about selling sustainable buildings effectively.  Instead of hard numbers around water and energy cost savings, what convinces companies to pay the premium for Net Zero environments is prestige.  The bragging rights of being a tenant in Winthrop Center, Boston’s first-ever Passive House office building, gave developers a meaningful point of differentiation and justified higher-than-market-rate rents to future tenants like McKinsey and M&T Bank.

49% of companies are Silos and Spaghetti

I did a hard eye roll when I saw Digital Transformation on the agenda.  But Stephanie Woerner, Principal Research Scientists and Executive Director for MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research, proved me wrong by explaining that Digital Transformation requires operational excellence and customer-focused innovation.

Her research reveals that while 26% of companies have evolved to manage both innovation and operations, operate with agility, and deliver great customer experiences, nearly half of companies are stuck operating in silos and throwing spaghetti against the wall.  These “silo and spaghetti companies” are often product companies rife with complex systems and processes that require and reward individual heroics to make progress. 

What seems like the safest option is the riskiest

How did 26% of companies transform while the rest stayed stuck or made little progress?  The path forward isn’t what you’d expect. Companies that go all-in on operational excellence or customer innovation struggle to shift focus and work in the other half of the equation.  But doing a little bit of each is even more risky because the companies often wait for results from one step before taking the next.  The result is a never-ending transformation slog that is eventually abandoned.

Academia is full of random factoids

They’re not random to the academics, but for us civilians, they’re mainly helpful for trivia night:

  • 50% of US robots are used in the automotive industry
  • <20% of manufacturing job descriptions require digital skills (yes, that includes MS Office)
  • Data centers will account for 8-21% of global energy demand by 2030
  • Energy is 10% of the cost but 90% of the cost of mining bitcoin
  • Cities take up 3% of the earth’s surface, contain 33% of the population, account for 70% of global electricity consumption, and are responsible for 75% of CO2 emissions

Why say Yes

When brilliant people talk about things they find fascinating, it’s often because those things challenge conventional wisdom. The tension between lean efficiency and innovative learning, the role of emotion in business decisions, and the risks of playing it too safe all point to a fascinating truth: sometimes the most counterintuitive path forward is the most successful. 

How have you seen this play out in your work?

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Four Deadly Business Myths

Four Deadly Business Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The unicorn is perhaps unique among myths in that the creature doesn’t appear in the mythology of any culture. The ancient Greeks, for all of their centaurs, hydras and medusae, never had any stories of unicorns, they simply thought that some existed somewhere. Of course, nobody had ever seen one, but they believed others had.

Beliefs are amazing things. We don’t need any evidence or rational basis to believe something to be true. In fact, research has shown that, when confronted with scientific evidence which conflicts with preexisting views, people tend to question the objectivity of the research rather than revisit their beliefs. Also, as Sam Arbesman has explained, our notions of the facts themselves change over time.

George Soros and others have noted that information has a reflexive quality. We can’t possibly verify every proposition, so we tend to take cues from those around us, especially when they are reinforced by authority figures, like consultants and media personalities. Over time, the zeitgeist diverges further from reality and myths evolve into established doctrine.

Myth #1: We Live In A VUCA Business Environment

Today it seems that every business pundit is talking about how we operate in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world. It’s not hard to see the attraction. Conjuring almost apocalyptic images of continuous industrial disruption creates demand for consulting and advisory services. It’s easier to sell aspirin than vitamins.

The data, however, tell a different story. In fact, 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.

Today, in part because of lax antitrust enforcement over the past few decades, businesses have become less disruptive, less competitive and less dynamic, while our economy has become less innovative and less productive. The fact that the reality is in such stark contrast to the rhetoric, is more than worrying, it should be a flashing red light.

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.

The recent great resignation, when people began leaving their jobs in droves, helps tell this story. Should anyone be surprised? We’ve been working longer hours, constantly tethered to the office even as we work remotely, under increasing levels of stress. Yes, things change. They always have and always will. We need to adapt, but all of the VUCA talk is killing us.

Myth #2: Empathy Is Absolution

Another favorite buzzword today is empathy. It is often paired with compassion in the context of creating a more beneficial workplace. That is, of course, a reasonable and worthy objective. As noted above, there’s far too much talk about disruption and uncertainty and not nearly enough about stability and well-being.

Still, the one-dimensional use of empathy is misleading. When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, it seems like a “nice to have,” rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.

One thing I learned living overseas for 15 years is that it is incredibly important to understand how people around you think, especially if you don’t agree with them and, as is sometimes the case, find their point of view morally reprehensible. In fact, learning more about how others think can make you a more effective leader, negotiator and manager.

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

Learning that not everyone thinks alike is one of life’s most valuable lessons. Yes, coercion is often a viable strategy in the short-term. But to build something that lasts, it’s much better if people do things for their own reasons, even if those reasons are different than yours. To achieve that, you have to understand their motivations.

Myth #3: Diversity Equity And Inclusion Is About Enforcing Rules

In recent years corporate America has pushed to implement policies for diversity, equity and inclusion. The Society for Human Resource Management even offers a diversity toolkit on its website firms can adopt, complete with guidelines, best practices and even form letters.

Many organizations have incorporated diversity awareness training for employees to learn about things like unconscious bias, microaggressions and cultural awareness. There are often strict codes of conduct with serious repercussions for violations. Those who step out of line can be terminated and see their careers derailed.

Unfortunately, these efforts can backfire, especially if diversity efforts rely to heavily on a disciplinary regime. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out long ago, strict rules-based approaches are problematic because they inevitably lead to logical contradictions. What starts out as a well-meaning effort can quickly become a capricious workplace dominated by fear.

Cultural competency is much better understood as a set of skills than a set of rules. While the prospect of getting fired for saying the wrong thing can be chilling, who wouldn’t want to be a more effective communicator, able to collaborate more effectively with colleagues who have different viewpoints, skills and perspectives?

To bring about real transformation, you need to attract. You can’t bully or overpower. Promoting inclusion should be about understanding, not intimidation.

Myth #4: People Are Best Motivated Through Carrots And Sticks

One of the things we’ve noticed when we advise organizations on transformation initiatives is that executives tend to default towards incentive structures. They quickly conjure up a Rube Goldberg-like system of bonuses and penalties designed to incentivize people to exhibit the desired behaviors. This is almost always a mistake.

If you feel the need to bribe and bully people to get what you want, you are signaling from the outset that there is something undesirable about what you’re asking for. In fact, we’ve known for decades that financial incentives often prove to be problematic.

Instead of trying to get people to do what you want, you’re much better off identifying people who want what you want and empowering them to succeed. As they prosper, they can bring others in who can attract others still. That’s how you build a movement that people feel a sense of ownership of, rather than mandate that they feel subjugated by.

The trick is that you always want to start with a majority, even if it’s three people in a room of five. The biggest influence on what we do and think is what the people around us do and think. That’s why it’s always easy to expand a majority out, but as soon as you are in the minority, you will feel immediate pushback.

We need to stop trying to engineer behavior, as if humans are assemblages of buttons and levers that we push and pull to get the results we want. Effective leaders are more like gardeners, nurturing, growing and shaping the ecosystems in which they operate, uniting others with a sense of shared identity and shared purpose.

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

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






Five Secrets of Team Motivation

Five Secrets of Team Motivation

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Every team leader knows the importance of keeping their team motivated. The more motivated your team, the more productive they are, and the better results they deliver. Research suggests that the more powerful form of motivation is intrinsic, flowing from an individual’s desire to do the work or achieve the outcome for their own reasons—not bonuses, awards, or other extrinsic motivators leaders often use. But that doesn’t mean leaders are out of options.

While your team will still be best motivated through reasons that are individual, there are still a few tactics you can use to motivate your team by creating a culture and climate where intrinsic motivation is most likely to develop.

In this article, we’ll explore five effective ways to motivate your team, ensuring they remain focused, engaged, and driven to achieve their goals.

1. Describe the End Goal

The first way to motivate your team is to describe the end goal. Leaders achieve this by giving them a clear and tangible objective to work towards. By describing the end goal, you provide a big objective that motivates individuals and gives them a sense of purpose. This is particularly useful in ambiguous and volatile times when the path forward may not be clear.

One valuable concept to consider is letting the team know the “Commander’s Intent.” This is a clear and concise statement that defines what “done” looks like and keeps people focused. This military term refers to the practice of clearly communicating the desired end state of an operation, allowing individuals to adapt their actions to achieve this goal. This not only motivates individuals but also fosters a sense of autonomy and responsibility.

2. Set Milestones

The second way to motivate your team is to set milestones. Milestones are the smaller objectives that signify progress toward the end goal. Milestones provide checkpoints for teams to use to measure progress, a potent motivator in its own right. And milestones help the team see see how their work contributes to the larger objectives.

Additionally, deciding on the order of tasks can give individuals a sense of autonomy over the overall project, further boosting their motivation. You may not have been able to choose your end goal, but teams can still look at their expected deliverables and create their own series of checkpoints or milestones that help them feel more in control of the project—and autonomy and control help create intrinsic motivation.

3. Celebrate Small Wins

The third way to motivate your team is to celebrate small wins. This involves acknowledging and appreciating the progress made by individuals and the team, no matter how small. Celebrating small wins helps to motivate the team and signify progress, fostering a positive work environment. And obviously, this method is difficult without establishing milestones in the previous method. Achieving those checkpoints is a perfect time to celebrate small wins.

But wins can be even smaller, like having a good day, completing a task, or receiving help from someone else. Celebrations can be done in various ways, in person over food or drinks, through a round of emails praising the win, or simply just acknowledging the achievement in a team meeting. The key is to make sure the team feels appreciated and valued.

4. Learn from Failures

The fourth way to motivate your team is to learn from failures. Failures are inevitable in any team or project. However, the way you handle these failures can greatly impact your team’s motivation. Instead of blaming others, it’s important to learn from these mistakes and use them as opportunities for growth.

Leaders and influential teammates can help extract lessons from failures and encourage transparency. This creates a psychologically safe environment where individuals feel supported and are more willing to take risks. This not only promotes learning and increases performance, but also fosters intrinsic motivation because learning—even learning through failures—helps people tap into a sense of growth and mastery, both of which are powerful triggers for intrinsic motivation.

5. Turn “Why” into “Who”

The final way to motivate your team is to turn the “why” into “who.” This involves focusing on the individuals or groups that benefit from the team’s work, instead of just relying on the organizational mission or vision statement to motivate for you. Leaders who create a sense of this “pro-social purpose” find themselves leading teams who are more motivated, but also more bonded. Pro-social motivation and purpose are key to intrinsic motivation, helping individuals see the impact of their work.

Knowing who is served by the work helps individuals and the team stay motivated. The specific “who” can vary for each team and individual, but the key is to make sure everyone understands the value and impact of their work.

By implementing these five strategies, leaders can create an environment where team members feel intrinsically motivated and can do their best work. Remember, motivation is not a one-time event, but a continuous process that requires ongoing effort and attention—a process that leads everyone to do their best work ever.

Image credit: misterinnovation.com

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on November 6, 2023

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






Is Your Problem Bigger Than Its Seems?

Is Your Problem Bigger Than Its Seems?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If words and actions are different, believe the actions.

If the words change over time, don’t put stock in the person delivering them.

If a good friend doesn’t trust someone, neither should you.

If the people above you don’t hold themselves accountable, yet they try to hold you accountable, shame on them.

If people are afraid to report injustices, it’s just a matter of time before the best people leave.

If actions are consistently different than the published values, it’s likely the values should be up-revved.

If you don’t trust your leader, respect your instincts.

If people are bored and their boredom is ignored, expect the company to death spiral into the ground.

If behaviors are different than the culture, the culture isn’t the culture.

If all the people in a group apply for positions outside the group, the group has a problem.

When actions seen by your eyes are different than the rhetoric force-fed into your ears, believe your eyes.

If you think your emotional well-being is in jeopardy, it is.

If to preserve your mental health you must hunker down with a trusted friend, find a new place to work.

If people are afraid to report injustices, company leadership has failed.

If the real problems aren’t discussed because they’re too icky, there’s a bigger problem.

If everyone in the group applies for positions outside the group and HR doesn’t intervene, the group isn’t the problem.

And to counter all this nonsense:

If someone needs help, help them.

If someone helps you, thank them.

If someone does a good job, tell them.

Rinse, and repeat.

Image credits: Pixabay

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






Is it Time to ReLearn to Work?

Is it Time to ReLearn to Work?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

In white-collar industries where remote work is not only viable but often highly productive, we are still struggling to find a post-pandemic formula for integrating office attendance into our weekly routine. Continuing to waffle, however, does no one any good, so we need to get on with things. Part of what has been holding us back is that we have been talking about getting back to the office as an end. It is not. It is a means. The question it begs is, what is the end we have in mind? Why should we get back to the office?

Let’s start by eliminating one reason which gets frequent mention—we can manage better. This is not a good why. Supervision is an artifact of a prior era. Digitally enabled work logs itself, and we can hold each other accountable for all our KPIs, OKRs, and MBOs without having to be collocated. Managers may feel more in control with people in sight, but that is a poor return on the overall commute investment entailed.

A far better reason to return to the office is to reactivate learning. The biggest problem with remote work is that we do not learn. Specifically, we do not:

  • Learn anything new about ourselves, because we need the input of others to do so.
  • Learn new soft skills, because online courses don’t cut it.
  • Learn about our teammates, because video calls lack the needed intimacy.
  • Learn about our customers, because we need to go to their offices to do so (going to our offices would at least let us share the ride)
  • Learn about the current state of our company, because that kind of thing never gets published.

In short, just as our children experienced a learning gap at school, so we inherit the same dynamics with remote work. We consume the skills we have, but we do not develop the ones we need next. We are harvesting, but we are not seeding, and there will be a reckoning if we do not alter our course.

So, there is a good why for returning to the office, but that in turn begs the question of how? Here we need to be clear. We do not know how. We do not know what is the right formula. Unfortunately, waiting won’t help either, so now what?

Let me suggest that the best course of action is to implement a clear policy effective immediately with the following provisos.

  1. We publicly acknowledge that we suspect this policy is wrong.
  2. We are putting it in place for 90 days.
  3. We want everyone to abide by it religiously so that we get the right signals.
  4. We will review the policy publicly and transparently after 90 days and implement a new policy at that time.
  5. We will put that policy in place for 90 days, following the same protocols as before.
  6. We will rinse and repeat until no longer necessary.

The point is, we have to get on with getting on, and running the experiment is the fastest way to get there.

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

Image Credit: Pixabay

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






Startups, Companies, Acquisitions and Hurricanes

Startups, Companies, Acquisitions and Hurricanes

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you run a company, the most important thing you can control is how you allocate your resources. You can’t control how the people in your company will respond to input, but you can choose the projects they work on. You can’t control which features and functions your customers will like, but you can choose which features and functions become part of the next product. And you can’t control if a new technology will work, but you can choose the design space to investigate. The open question – How to choose in a way that increases your probability of success?

If you want to buy a company, the most important thing you can control is how you allocate your resources. In this case, the resources are your hard-earned money and your choice is which company to buy. The open question – How to choose in a way that increases your probability of success?

If you want to invest in a startup company, the most important thing you can control is how you allocate your resources. This case is the same as the previous one – your money is the resource and the company you choose defines how you allocate your resources. This one is a little different in that the uncertainty is greater, but so is the potential reward. Again, the same open question – How to choose in a way that increases your probability of success?

Taking a step back, the three scenarios can be generalized into a category called a “system.” And the question becomes – how to understand the system in a way that improves resource allocation and increases your probability of success?

These people systems aren’t predictable in an if-A-then-B way. But they do have personalities or dispositions. They’ve got characteristics similar to hurricanes. A hurricane’s exact path cannot be forecasted, the meteorologist can use history and environmental conditions to broadly define regions where the probability of danger is higher. The meteorologist continually monitors the current state of the hurricane (the system as it is) and tracks its position over time to get an idea of its trajectory (a system’s momentum). The key to understanding where the hurricane could go next: where it is right now (current state), how it got there (how it has behaved over time), and how have other hurricanes tracked under similar conditions (its disposition). And it’s the same for systems.

To improve your understanding of how your system may respond, understand it as it is. Define the elements and how those elements interact. Then, work backward in time to understand previous generations of the system. Which elements were improved? Which ones were added? Then, like the meteorologist, start at the system’s genesis and move forward to the present to understand its path. Use the knowledge of its path and the knowledge of systems (it’s important to be the one that improves the immature elements of the system and systems follow S-curves until the S-curve flattens) to broadly define regions where the probability of success is higher.

These methods won’t guarantee success. But, they will help you choose projects, choose acquisitions, choose technologies, and choose startups in a way that increases your probability of success.

Image credits: Pexels

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