Category Archives: Leadership

We Must Unlearn These Three Management Myths

1 Reply

We Must Unlearn These Three Management Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “It’s not what you don’t know that kills you, it’s what you know for sure that ain’t true.” Ignorance of facts is easily remedied. We can read books, watch documentaries or simply do a quick Google search. Yet our misapprehensions and biases endure, even in the face of contradicting facts.

The truth is that much of what we believe has less to do with how we weigh evidence than how we see ourselves. In fact, fMRI studies have suggested have shown that evidence which contradicts our firmly held beliefs violates our sense of identity. Instead of adapting our views, we double down and lash out at those who criticize them.

This can be problematic in our personal lives, but in business it can be fatal. There is a reason that even prominent CEOs can pursue failed strategies and sophisticated investors will back hucksters to the hilt. Yet as Adam Grant points out in Think Again, we can make the effort to reexamine and alter our beliefs. Here are three myths that we need to watch out for.

Myth #1: The “Global Village” Will Be A Nice Place

Marshal McLuhan, in Understanding Media, one of the most influential books of the 20th century, described media as “extensions of man” and predicted that electronic media would eventually lead to a global village. Communities would no longer be tied to a single, isolated physical space but connect and interact with others on a world stage.

To many, the rise of the Internet confirmed McLuhan’s prophecy and, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, digital entrepreneurs saw their work elevated to a sacred mission. In Facebook’s IPO filing, Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.

Yet, importantly, McLuhan did not see the global village as a peaceful place. In fact, he predicted it would lead to a new form of tribalism and result in a “release of human power and aggressive violence” greater than ever in human history, as long separated—and emotionally charged—cultural norms would now constantly intermingle, clash and explode.

For many, if not most, people on earth, the world is often a dark and dangerous place. When your world is not secure, “open” is less of an opportunity to connect than it is a vulnerability to exploit. Things can look fundamentally different from the vantage point of, say, a tech company in Menlo Park, California then it does from, say, a dacha outside Moscow.

Context matters. Our most lethal failures are less often those of planning, logic or execution than they are that of imagination. Chances are, most of the world does not see things the way we do. We need to avoid strategic solipsism and constantly question our own assumptions.

Myth #2: Winning The “War For Talent” Will Make You More Competitive

In 1997, three McKinsey consultants published a popular book titled The War for Talent, which argued that due to demographic shifts, recruiting the “best and the brightest” was even more important than “capital, strategy, or R&D.” The idea made a lot of sense. What could be more important for a company than its people?

Yet as Malcolm Gladwell explained in an article about Enron, strict adherence to the talent rule contributed to the firm’s downfall. Executives that were perceived to be talented moved up fast. So fast, in fact, that it became impossible to evaluate their performance. People began to worry more about impressing their boss and appearing to be clever than doing their jobs.

The culture became increasingly toxic and management continued to bet on the same failed platitude until the only way to move up in the organization was to undermine others. As we now know, it didn’t end well. Enron went bankrupt in 2001, just four years after The War for Talent highlighted it as a model for others to follow.

The simple truth is that talent isn’t what you win in a battle. It’s what you build by actualizing the potential of those in your organization and throughout your ecosystem, including partners, customers and the communities in which you operate. In the final analysis, Enron didn’t fail because it lost the war for talent, it failed because it was at war with itself.

Myth #3: We Can “Engineer” Management

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management, based on his experience as a manager in a steel factory. It took aim at traditional management methods and suggested a more disciplined approach. Rather than have workers pursue tasks in their own manner, he sought to find “the one best way” and train accordingly.

Before long, Taylor’s ideas became gospel, spawning offshoots such as scientific marketing, financial engineering and the six sigma movement. It was no longer enough to simply work hard, you had to measure, analyze and optimize everything. Over the years these ideas became so central to business thinking that they were rarely questioned.

Yet they should have been. The truth is that this engineering mindset is a zombie idea, a remnant of the logical positivism that was discredited way back in the 1930s and more recent versions haven’t fared any better. To take just one example, a study found that of 58 large companies that announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent trailed the S&P 500 in stock performance. Yet that didn’t stop the endless parade of false promises.

At the root of the problem is a simple fact: We don’t manage machines, we manage ecosystems and we need to think more about networks and less about nodes. Our success or failure depend less on individual entities, than the connections between them. We need to think less like engineers and more like gardeners.

Don’t Believe Everything You Think

At any given time, there are any number of clever people saying clever things. When you invoke a legendary icon like Marshall McLuhan and say “Global Village,” the concept acquires the glow of some historical, unalterable destiny. But that’s an illusion, just like the “War for Talent” and the idea of “engineering” your way out of managing a business and making wise choices.

Yet notice the trap. None of these things were put forward as mere opinions or perspectives. The McKinsey consultants who declared the “War for Talent” weren’t just expressing an opinion, but revealing the results of a “yearlong study…involving 77 companies and almost 6,000 managers and executives.” (And presumably, they sold the study right back to every one of those 77 companies).

The truth is that an idea can never be validated backward, only forward. No amount of analysis can shape reality. We need to continually test our ideas, reconsider them and adapt them to ever-changing conditions. The problem with concepts like six sigma isn’t necessarily in their design, but that they become elevated something approaching the sublime.

That’s why we shouldn’t believe everything we think. There are simply too many ways to get things wrong, while getting them right is always a relatively narrow path. Or, as Richard Feynman put it, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”

— 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.

What Are the Toughest Words to Say?

Leave a reply

What Are the Toughest Words to Say?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

As the world becomes more connected, it becomes smaller. And as it becomes smaller, competition becomes more severe. And as competition increases, work becomes more stressful. We live in a world where workloads increase, timelines get pulled in, metrics multiply and “accountability” is always the word of the day. And in these trying times, the most important word to say is also the toughest.

When your plate is full and someone tries to pile on more work, what’s the toughest word to say?

When the project is late and you’re told to pull in the schedule and you don’t get any more resources, what’s the toughest word to say?

When the technology you’re trying to develop is new-to-world and you’re told you must have it ready in three months, what’s the toughest word to say?

When another team can’t fill an open position and they ask you to fill in temporarily while you do your regular job, what’s the toughest word to say?

When you’re asked to do something that will increase sales numbers this quarter at the expense of someone else’s sales next quarter, what’s the toughest word to say?

When you’re told to use a best practice that isn’t best for the situation at hand, what’s the toughest word to say?

When you’re told to do something and how to do it, what’s the toughest word to say?

When your boss asks you something that you know is clearly their responsibility, what’s the toughest word to say?

Sometimes the toughest word is the right word.

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.

The Magic of Starting with Yes

Leave a reply

The Magic of Starting with Yes

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

It’s time to revisit the idea of avoiding the word “no,” but this time, I want to approach it from a different angle. First, let me tell you about my friend Dr. Nido Qubein, a devoted husband and father, motivational speaker, entrepreneur, president of High Point University, and mentor to many, who came to this country when he was 17 with little more than $50 to his name. Almost 50 years ago, he attended High Point University, never dreaming that one day he would be president of the institution, a position he accepted in 2005.

Since that time, there has been incredible growth at HPU. In his first year, the university had about 1,400 students enrolled on the 91-acre campus. Today, there are almost 6,000 students, including 623 graduate students. The campus has grown to more than 500 acres, includes 128 buildings, and is considered an elite university.

If you Google “Nido Qubein,” you will see a list of accomplishments that give insight into this man’s extraordinary career. As mentioned, he is a mentor to many, and even as a friend, I am among those who consider him a mentor. I’ve learned much from his willingness to share the lessons he learned from his successes, and today, I want to share a simple lesson we might all want to consider, which has to do with the word no.

If you’ve been following my work, you know I’ve written several articles about avoiding the word no. Christine Trippi and Cameron Mitchell have been featured in The Shepard Letter and in my videos discussing the topic. This time, I give you Nido’s perspective, and even though he’s not talking about customer service or CX, it ties in perfectly.

Nido recognizes that when someone new steps into a leadership role in any type of organization, authenticity and listening skills are of the utmost importance. People can be skeptical. He says, “I always start with a yes. It doesn’t always end that way after we’ve done the study, but a lot of people start with no.”

I love this idea. When our customers ask us for something or they have an issue, starting on a positive note, such as finding a way to use the word yes from the start can help guide the conversation in the right direction. This is what it looks like:

  • “Yes, I understand.”
  • “Yes, that’s a great idea worth considering.”
  • “Yes, you do have a problem, so let’s see what we can do about it.”
  • “Yes, that is a possibility. Let’s look at the situation more closely.”

Nido’s simple leadership lesson is also a powerful customer service lesson. When a customer comes to you with a problem or issue, you are in a leadership position. You are empowered with authority to help the customer. Saying yes is not about giving in. It’s about using the right word at the right time to create a better customer experience.

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.

Don’t Listen to the ‘We Can’t Do That’ Lie

Leave a reply

These Are the Truths

Don't Listen to the 'We Can't Do That' Lie

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

How many times have you proposed a new idea and been told, “We can’t do that?” Probably quite a few.  My favorite memory of being told, “We can’t do that,” happened many years ago while working with a client in the publishing industry:

Client: We can’t do that.

Me: Why?

Client: Because we already tried it, and it didn’t work.

Me: When did you try it?

Client: 1972

Me: Well, things certainly haven’t changed since 1972, so you’re right, we definitely shouldn’t try again.

I can only assume they appreciated my sarcasm as much as the idea because we eventually did try the idea, and, 30+ years later, it did work. But the client never would have enjoyed that success if my team and I had not seen through “we can’t do that” and helped them admit (confess) what they really meant.

Quick acknowledgment

Yes, sometimes “We can’t do that” is true.  Laws and regulations define what can and can’t be done.  But they are rarely as binary as people make them out to be.  In those gray areas, the lie of “we can’t do that” obscures the truth of won’t, not able to, and don’t care.

“I won’t do it.”

When you hear “can’t,” it usually means “won’t.”  Sometimes, the “won’t” is for a good reason – “I won’t do the dishes tonight because I have an urgent deadline, and if I don’t deliver, my job is at risk.”  Sometimes, the “won’t” isn’t for a good reason – “I won’t do the dishes because I don’t want to.”  When that’s the case, “won’t” becomes “can’t” in the hope that the person making the request backs off and finds another solution. 

For my client, “We can’t do that” actually meant, “I won’t do that because it failed before and, even though that was thirty years ago, I’m afraid it will fail again, and I will be embarrassed, and it may impact my reputation and job security.”

You can’t work with “can’t.”  You can work with “won’t.”  When someone “won’t” do something, it’s because there’s a barrier, real or perceived.  By understanding the barrier, you can work together to understand, remove, or find a way around it.

“I’m not able to do it.”

“Can’t” may also come with unspoken caveats.  We can’t do that because we’ve never done it before and are scared.  We can’t do that because it is outside the scope of our work.  We can’t do that because we don’t know how. 

Like “won’t,” you can work with “not able to” to understand the gap between where you are now and where you want to go.  If it’s because you’re scared of doing something new, you can have conversations to get smarter about the topic or run small experiments to get real-world learnings.  If you’re not able to do something because it’s not within your scope of work, you can expand your scope or work with people who have it in their scope.  If you don’t know how, you can talk to people, take classes, and watch videos to learn how.

“I don’t care.”

As brave as it is devastating, “we can’t do that” can mean “I don’t care enough to do that.” 

Executives rarely admit to not caring, but you see it in their actions. When they say that innovation and growth are important but don’t fund them or pull resources at the first sign of a wobble in the business, they don’t care. If they did care, they would try to find a way to keep investing and supporting the things they say are priorities.

Exploring options, trying, making an effort—that’s the difference between “I won’t do it” and “I don’t care.”    “I won’t do that” is overcome through logic and action because the executive is intellectually and practically open to options. “I don’t care” requires someone to change their priorities, beliefs, and self-perception, changes that require major personal, societal, or economic events.

Now it’s your turn to tell the truth

Are you willing to ask the questions to find them?

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.

Change Leaders Must Anticipate and Overcome Resistance

Leave a reply

Change Leaders Must Anticipate and Overcome Resistance

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When Barry Libenson arrived at Experian as Global CIO in 2015, he devoted his first few months to speaking with customers. Everywhere he went he heard the same thing: they wanted access to real-time data. On the surface, it was a straightforward business transformation, but Libenson knew that it was far more complicated than that

To switch from batch processed credit reports to real-time access would require a technology transformation—from an on-premise to a cloud architecture—and in order to develop cloud applications effectively, he would have to initiate a skills-based transformation—from waterfall to agile development.”

So what at first appeared to be a straightforward initiative was actually three separate transformations stacked on top of one another. To make things even more difficult, people had good reason to be hostile to each aspect. Still, by being strategic about overcoming resistance from the start, he achieved a full transformation in less than three years.

Understanding Cognitive Biases

One of the key concerns about Libenson’s program at Experian was that the company would lose control over its business model. The firm had prospered selling processed credit reports. Giving customers real-time access to data seemed to undercut a value proposition that had proven itself over decades, almost as if McDonald’s decided to stop selling hamburgers.

These were not casual criticisms. In fact, they reflected instinctual cognitive biases that are deeply rooted in our consciousness. The first, loss aversion, reflects our tendency to avoid losses rather than seek out new gains. The second, called the availability heuristic, reflects our preference for information that is easy to access and internalize, such as the decades of profits generated by credit reports rather than the vague promise of a new cloud-driven business model.

A similar dynamic is plays out between the Black Lives Matter movement and police unions. One could argue, with significant evidence, that the smart play for police unions would be to come to some accommodation with protesters’ concerns to avoid more draconian policies later on. Yet after meticulously building their power base for decades, they have shown little willingness to make concessions.

Libensen and his team were able to navigate these challenges with two key strategies. First, he started with internal API’s, rather than fully open applications, as a keystone change,. That helped bridge the gap between the initial and desired future state. Second, the program was opt-in at first. Those program managers who were excited about creating cloud-based products got significant support. Those who weren’t were left alone.

Navigating Asymmetrical Impacts

Another obstacle to overcome was the fact that some people were more affected than others. In the case of Experian’s skills-based transformation from waterfall to agile development, which was essential to making the business and technology transformations possible, the change hit more senior personnel harder than junior ones.

Many of the project managers at the company had been doing their jobs for years—even decades—and took great pride in their work. Now they were being told they needed to do their jobs very differently. For a junior employee with limited experience, that can be exciting. For those more invested in traditional methods, the transition can more difficult.

Here again, the opt-in strategy helped navigate some thorny issues. Because no one was being forced to switch to agile development, it was hard for anyone to muster much resistance. At the same time, Libenson established an “API Center of Excellence” to empower those who were enthusiastic about creating cloud-based products.

As the movement to the cloud gained steam and began to generate real business results, the ability to build cloud-based projects became a performance issue. Managers that lagged began to feel subtle pressure to get with the program and to achieve what their colleagues had been able to deliver.

Overcoming Switching Costs

Experian facilitates billions of transactions a month. At that scale, you can’t just turn the ship on a dime. Another factor that increased the risk is the very nature of the credit business itself, which makes cybersecurity a major concern. In fact, one of Experian’s direct competitors, Equifax, had one of the biggest data breaches of the decade.

Every change encounters switching costs and that can slow the pace of change. In one particularly glaring example, the main library at Princeton University took 120 years to switch to the Library of Congress classification system because of the time and expense involved. Clearly, that’s an extreme case, but every change effort needs to take inevitable frictions into account.

That’s why Libenson didn’t push for speed initially, but started small, allowing the cloud strategy to slowly prove itself over time. As win piled upon win, the process accelerated and the transformation became more ingrained in the organization. Within just a few years, those who opposed the move to the cloud were in the distinct minority.

As General Stanley McChrystal explained in Team of Teams, he experienced a similar dynamic revamping Special Operations in Iraq. By shifting his force’s focus from individual team goals to effective collaboration between teams, he may have slowed down individual units. However, as a collective, his forces increased their efficiency by a factor of seventeen, measured by the amount of raids they were able to execute.

In every transformation, there is an inherent efficiency paradox. In order to produce change for the long-term, you almost always lose a little bit of efficiency in the short-term. That’s why it’s important to start small and build momentum as you go.

Leveraging Resistance To Forge A New Vision

Any change, if it is important and potentially impactful, is going to encounter fierce resistance. As Saul Alinsky noted, every revolution inspires its own counter-revolution. That’s why three quarters of organizational transformations fail, because managers too often see it as a communication exercise, rather than a strategic effort to empower those who are already enthusiastic about change to influence everyone else.

In the case of Experian’s move to the cloud, the objections were not unfounded. Offering customers real-time access to data did have the potential to upend the traditional credit report business model. Switching to a new technology architecture does raise cybersecurity concerns. Many senior project managers really had served the company well for decades with traditional development methods.

As Global CIO, Libenson could have ignored these concerns. He could have held a “townhall” and launched a major communication effort to convince the skeptics. Yet he did neither of these things. Instead, he treated the resistance not as an obstacle, but as a design constraint. He identified people who were already enthusiastic about the shift and empowered them to make it work. Their success built momentum and paved the way for what became a major transformation .

In fact, Experian’s cloud architecture unlocked enormous value for the firm and its customers. The company’s API hub made good on Libenson’s initial promise of supporting real-time access to data and today processes over 100 million transactions a month. It has also enabled a completely new business, called Ascend, now one of the company’s most successful products.

The truth is that bringing about fundamental, transformational change takes more than clever slogans and happy talk. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. You need to be clear-eyed and hard-nosed. You need to understand that for every significant change, there will be some who seek to undermine it in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

The difference between successful revolutionaries and mere dreamers is that those who succeed anticipate resistance and build a plan to overcome it.

— 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.






Humanizing Agility

1 Reply

Humanizing Agility

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

Like many others, I invested time in isolation during the pandemic to engage in various online learning programs. As a highly credentialed coach to many global Agile and SCRUM leaders in major international and local organizations, I enrolled in an Agile coach certification program and enthusiastically attended all daily sessions. It was a disastrous learning experience, verifying my perception of the Agile community’s focus on a prescriptive rules-driven process to agility. The Agile Manifesto’s  highest priority is satisfying customers through the early and continuous delivery of valuable software; only two of the 12 principles mention people – “Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project” and “the best architectures, requirements, and design emerge from self-organizing teams.” So, with this in mind, what might be some of the benefits of integrating a technological and process-driven disciplined approach towards humanizing agility?

I am a conceptual and analytical thinker, an entrepreneur, and an innovator who is acknowledged as a global thought leader on the people side of innovation. I also teach, mentor, and coach people to be imaginative, inquisitive, and curious, always asking many open questions. I empower, enable, and equip them to become change-agile, cognitively, and emotionally agile and develop their innovation agility. The presenters responded to my method of inquiry by assuming that I knew nothing about Agile despite knowing nothing about my background.

As a result, they failed to certify me without communicating or consulting with me directly, despite my meeting all of the course evaluation criteria and having more than 10,000 hours of facilitation and more than 1,000 hours of coaching experience on the people side of change. I also have a comprehensive background in humanizing total quality management, continuous improvement, and start-up methodologies in major organizations.

I contacted the training company and challenged their decision, only not to be “heard” and be paid lip service when confronted by a rigid, linear, conventional, disconnected approach to agility and its true role and capability in catalysing change, innovation and teaming.

This is especially true considering the senior SCRUM and Agile leaders I was coaching at the time experienced very few problems with Agile’s disciplined process and technological side. They specifically requested coaching support to develop strategies to resolve their monumental challenges and complex issues involving “getting people to work together daily” and operating as “self-organizing teams.” How do they go about humanizing agility?

Making sense of agility

Despite my disappointment, I bravely continued researching how to make sense of agility and link and integrate it with the people side of change, innovation, and teams. I intended to enable leaders to execute agile transformation initiatives successfully by combining a human-centered approach to agile software development through humanizing agility.  

Agility refers to a leader, team, or organization’s ability to make timely, effective, and sustained changes that maintain superior performance. According to Pamela Myer’s book “The Agility Shift”, – an agility shift is the intentional development of the competence, capacity and confidence to learn, adapt and innovate in changing contexts for sustainable success. We have incorporated this approach into our innovation learning and coaching curriculum at ImagineNation™ and iterated and pivoted it over the past 12 years in empowering, enabling and equipping people to become “agility shifters” by humanizing agility.

Humanizing agility differently

Agility can be humanized and expanded to include change, cognitive, innovation, and organizational agility, all powerfully fueled by people’s emotional energy. This is fundamental to achieving success through non-growth or growth strategies and delivering equitable and sustainable outcomes that will make the world a better place for all humanity.  

It involves identifying pivots, unlearning, learning, and relearning, embracing new approaches, frameworks, and tools, and developing new 21st-century mindsets, behaviors, and skills.

Humanizing agility involves empowering, enabling, and equipping people to be, think and act differently autonomously and competently, especially in the conflicted, chaotic, unstable post-COVID world of emerging unknowns.

Like innovation, agility is contextual.

Humanizing agility supports people to adapt, grow and thrive, become nimble by enabling:

  • Teams to deliver product releases as shorter sprints to collect customer feedback to iterate and pivot product development.
  • Leaders, teams, and organizations respond quickly and adapt to market changes, internally and externally.
  • People must think and feel and be able to quickly make intentional shifts to be effective, creative, inventive, and innovative in changing contexts.

That empowers, enables and equips people with the mindsets, behaviors, and skills to adapt, grow, and thrive by developing their confidence, capacity, and competence to catalyze and mobilize their power to move quickly and easily, think creatively and critically to make faster decisions and solve complex problems with less effort.  

Humanizing Agility – The Five Elements

1. 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 thinking strategies in partnership with AI.

Emotional energy catalyses people’s intrinsic motivation, conviction, hope, positivity, and optimism to approach their world purposefully, meaningfully, and differently.

When people are true to their calling, they make extra efforts and are healthier, which positively impacts their well-being and improves their resilience.

2. Change agility

Change agility is the ability to anticipate, respond, be receptive, and adapt to constant and accelerating change in an uncertain, unstable, conflicted world.

It involves developing a new perspective of change as a continuous, iterative, and learning process that has to be embedded in every action and interaction, not a separate standalone process.

Requiring the development of new mental models, states, traits, mindsets, behaviors, and skills to drive business and workforce outcomes that are critical for an organization to survive and thrive through any change.

Change becomes an ongoing opportunity, not a threat or liability, and humanizing agility in the context of change agility is a core 21st-century competency for leaders, teams and coaches.

3.Cognitive agility

Cognitive agility is the extent to which people can adapt and shift their perspectives and thought processes when doing so leads to more positive outcomes. 

Cognitive agility refers to how flexible and adaptive people can be with their thoughts in the face of change, uncertain circumstances, and random and unexpected events and situations. Being cognitively agile helps people break down their neuro-rigidity and eliminate any core fixed mindsets; it supports their neuro-plasticity and develops a growth mindset and ability to perceive the world through multiple lenses and differing perspectives.

Humanizing agility in the context of cognitive agility enables people to make sense of and understand the range of challenges, problems, and paradoxes at the deeper systemic and surface levels, preparing them for smart risk-taking, effective decision-making, and intelligent problem-solving. 

4.Innovation agility

Innovation agility is the extent to which people develop the courage, compassion and creativity to safely deep-dive into and dance with cognitive dissonance—to passionately, purposefully, and apply creative tension and develop neuro-elasticity, to play in the space where possibility lives—between the present state and the desired creative, inventive, and innovative outcome.

To empower, engage, and enable people to use their human ingenuity and harness their collective intelligence to be innovative in the age of AI by adapting and growing in ways that add value to the quality of people’s lives, which is appreciated and cherished.

5.Organizational and leadership agility

Organizational agility involves developing an ability to renew itself, adapt, innovate, change quickly, and succeed in a rapidly changing, uncertain and unstable operating environment. It requires a paradoxical balance of two things: a dynamic capability, the ability to move fast—speed, nimbleness, responsiveness and stability, and a stable foundation—a platform of things that don’t change to provide a rigorous and disciplined pillar.

Organizations and leaders prioritizing humanizing agility also prioritize differing and creative ways of being, thinking and acting. They maintain their strength by focusing on their core competencies while regularly stretching themselves for maximum flexibility, adaptiveness and resilience.

Finally…. Imagine humanizing agility

Imagine what you could do and the difference we could make to people, customers, organizations, communities and the world by humanizing agility in ways that embrace and embody the five elements of agility to harness the human ingenuity and people’s collective intelligence guide vertical, horizontal and transformational changes the world and humanity need right now.

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.

Image Credit: Pexels

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

How Leaders Make Employees Feel Respected

1 Reply

How Leaders Make Employees Feel Respected

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Leadership is about relationships. And the cornerstone of just about every relationship is respect.

When employees feel respected, they are more engaged, motivated, and productive. But many managers struggle to convey their respect to team members. Consequently, colleagues often experience a sense of being undervalued, disconnected, or even inferior. It is difficult to envision individuals who harbor such sentiments being able to their best work ever.

In this article, we will outline how to make employees feel respected through five actions leaders can take to build a respectful work environment.

Check-In Often

The first action leaders can take to make employees feel respected is to check-in often. By staying in contact with your team members on a regular basis, you show that you value their work and progress. That’s why regularly checking in with team members through one-on-one meetings is essential for making them feel respected. During these check-ins, ask about their work progress and if they need any resources or support. But beyond just work-related checking in, this is a time to check in with them on a deeper level as well. Show genuine interest in their personal lives and let them choose how much they want to share. They may not answer right away, as it takes time to grow comfortable with sharing personal information at work. But inquiring about it still demonstrates that you care about them as individuals and not just as employees.

By maintaining open lines of communication and regularly checking in, you create a supportive and respectful environment where employees feel heard and valued.

Ask for Input

The second action leaders can take to make employees feel respected is to ask for input. Employees involved in the decision-making process feel like their perspective and knowledge is respected. You don’t need to agree to follow every decision they make, and you don’t even need to let them make the decision. But you should absolutely seek out their input before you decide. By asking for their input, you show respect for their expertise and that you value their opinions. And you recognize that others may have different perspectives and access to information that you may not have. Even if their input is not ultimately followed, it is crucial to explain the reasoning behind the decision. In fact, asking for input helps you better explain to employees why a decision was made that they may disagree with, while still helping employees understand that their input was considered and respected.

By actively seeking input from your team members, you foster a culture of collaboration, trust, and respect.

Demonstrate Trust

The third action leaders can take to make employees feel respected is to demonstrate trust. Trust is a fundamental aspect of creating a respectful work environment. And the research on how trust develops suggests that trust isn’t given or earned, it’s built over time through a reciprocal process. When people feel trusted, they’re more likely to respond with trustworthy behavior. And in a work-context, this means leaders ought to go first by demonstrating they trust their employees. This often takes the form of giving employees more autonomy. Set clear standards and expectations but allow them to find the best way to meet them. By giving autonomy, you show that you trust your employees’ abilities and judgment.

However, it is important to balance autonomy with accountability. While giving employees the freedom to work in their own way, ensure that they are still accountable to the team and the organization’s goals. This balance between trust and accountability creates a respectful and empowering work environment.

Referee Conflicts

The fourth action leaders can take to make employees feel respected is to referee conflicts. Conflicts within a team can be detrimental to a respectful work environment, but they can also be hugely beneficial. It just depends on the type of conflict and how it is handled. Personal conflicts need to be resolved and eliminated quickly. But task-focused conflicts can benefit the team by making ideas stronger and making final decisions better. As a leader, this means referring task-focused conflicts to ensure they stay productive. Establish ground rules for conflicts, such as starting with positive feedback before addressing disagreements. This helps create a safe space for open and productive discussions. Additionally, teach your team members how to have productive conflicts that lead to better ideas and solutions.

By encouraging task-focused conflict and working to find productive resolutions, you foster a culture of respect and continuous improvement.

Give Fair Feedback

The final action leaders can take to make employees feel respected is to give fair feedback. Providing direct and fair feedback is essential for helping employees improve and grow. When giving feedback, focus on both the positive aspects and areas for improvement. By acknowledging their strengths and offering constructive criticism, you show that you value their efforts and are invested in their professional development. Where many leaders go wrong is in spending too much time on constructive criticism and not enough time on positive elements of one’s performance. That’s not fair. Fair feedback ensures that the conversation is proportionate to the overall performance of the employee. If their work is 90 percent positive and 10 percent needing improvement, then the conversation should be 90 percent positive. This not only helps the constructive criticism be better received, but it also helps the employees know their contribution is valued.

By giving fair feedback, employees not only grow faster but they grow in their feeling of being respected.

Creating a respectful work environment requires consistent effort and commitment from leaders. By regularly checking in with team members, involving them in decision-making processes, demonstrating trust, refereeing conflicts, and giving fair feedback, you can make employees feel respected and valued. Remember, a respectful work environment leads to higher employee satisfaction, engagement, and productivity—in other words, employees who feel respected are employees able to do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on August 14, 2023

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






False Choice – Founder versus Manager

1 Reply

False Choice - Founder versus Manager

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Paul Graham, cofounder of Y Combinator, was so inspired by a speech by Airbnb cofounder and CEO that he wrote an essay about well-intentioned advice that, to scale a business, founders must shift modes and become managers.

It went viral. 

In the essay, he argued that:

In effect there are two different ways to run a company: founder mode and manager mode. Till now most people even in Silicon Valley have implicitly assumed that scaling a startup meant switching to manager mode. But we can infer the existence of another mode from the dismay of founders who’ve tried it, and the success of their attempts to escape from it.

With curiosity and an open mind, I read on.

I finished with a deep sigh and an eye roll. 

This is why.

Manager Mode: The realm of liars and professional fakers

On the off chance that you thought Graham’s essay would be a balanced and reflective examination of management styles in different corporate contexts, his description of Manager Mode should relieve you of that thought:

The way managers are taught to run companies seems to be like modular design in the sense that you treat subtrees of the org chart as black boxes. You tell your direct reports what to do, and it’s up to them to figure out how. But you don’t get involved in the details of what they do. That would be micromanaging them, which is bad.

Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it’s described that way, doesn’t it? Except in practice, judging from the report of founder after founder, what this often turns out to mean is: hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground.

Later, he writes about how founders are gaslit into adopting Manager Mode from every angle, including by “VCs who haven’t been founders themselves don’t know how founders should run companies, and C-level execs, as a class, include some of the most skillful liars in the world.”

Founder Mode: A meritocracy of lifelong learners

For Graham, Founder Mode boils down to two things:

  1. Sweating the details
  2. Engaging with employees throughout the organization beyond just direct reports.  He cites Steve Jobs’ practice of holding “an annual retreat for what he considered the 100 most important people at Apple, and these were not the 100 people highest on the org chart.”

To his credit, Graham acknowledges that getting involved in the details is micromanaging, “which is bad,” and that delegation is required because “founders can’t keep running a 2000 person company the way they ran it when it had 20.” A week later, he acknowledged that female founders “don’t have permission to run their companies in Founder Mode the same way men can.”

Yet he persists in believing that Founder, not Manager, Mode is critical to success,

“Look at what founders have achieved already, and yet they’ve achieved this against a headwind of bad advice. Imagine what they’ll do once we can tell them how to run their companies like Steve Jobs instead of John Sculley.”

Leader Mode: Manager Mode + Founder Mode

The essay is interesting, but I have real issues with two of his key points:

  • Professional managers are disconnected from the people and businesses they manage, and as a result, their practices and behaviors are inconsistent with startup success.
  • Founders should ignore conventional wisdom and micromanage to their heart’s content.

Most “professional managers” I’ve met are deeply connected to the people they manage, committed to the businesses they operate, and act with integrity and authenticity. They are a far cry from the “professional fakers” and “skillful liars” Graham describes.

Most founders I’ve met should not be allowed near the details once they have a team in place. Their meddling, need for control, and soul-crushing FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) lead to chaos, burnout, and failure.

The truth is, it’s contextual.  The leaders I know switch between Founder and Manager mode based on the context.  They work with the passion of founders, trust with the confidence of managers, and are smart and humble enough to accept feedback when they go too far in one direction or the other.

Being both manager and founder isn’t just the essence of being a leader. It’s the essence of being a successful corporate innovator.  You are a founder,  investing in, advocating for, and sweating the details of ambiguous and risky work.  And you are a manager navigating the economic, operational, and political minefields that govern the core business and fund your paycheck and your team.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Revolutionizing Customer Service

Leave a reply

Brian Higgins On Driving Verizon’s Customer Experience Vision

Revolutionizing Customer Service - Brian Higgins On Driving Verizon's CX Vision

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

If you have the best product in the world, that’s nice, but it’s not enough. You need a strong customer experience to go with it.

If you have the best service in the world, that’s nice, but it’s not enough. You need a strong product to go with it.

And one other thing. You also need customers! Without them, it doesn’t matter if you have the best product and the best service; you will eventually go out of business.

That’s why I’m excited about this week’s article. I had the opportunity to have an Amazing Business Radio interview with Brian Higgins, the chief customer experience officer at Verizon Consumer. After a career of 20-plus years working for one of the most recognized brands in the world, he has a lot to share about what it takes to get customers to say, “I’ll be back.”

Verizon is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet. A Fortune 50 company, it has more than 100,000 employees, a global presence serving more than 150 countries, more than $130 billion in annual revenue and a market cap of more than $168 billion.

Higgins made it clear that in addition to a premium network and product offerings, there needs to be a focus on customer experience with three primary objectives: addressing pain points, enhancing digital experiences and highlighting signature experiences exclusive to Verizon customers/members. They want to be easy to do business with and to use Customer Experience (CX) to capture market share and retain customers. What follows is a summary of Higgins’ most important points in our interview, followed by my commentary:

  1. Who Reports to Whom?: With Verizon’s emphasis on CX, one of the first questions I asked Higgins was about the company’s structure. Does CX report to marketing? Is CX over sales and marketing? Different companies put an emphasis on marketing, sales or experience. Often, one reports to the other. At Verizon, sales, revenue and experience work together. Higgins says, “We work in partnership with each other. You can’t build an experience if you don’t have the sales, revenue and customer care teams all on board.” The chief sales officer, chief revenue officer and chief experience officer “sit next to each other.”
  2. Membership: In our conversation, Higgins referred to Verizon’s customers as customers, members and subscribers. I asked which he preferred, and he quickly responded, “I would refer to them as members.” The membership is diverse, but the goal is to create a consistent and positive experience regardless of how individuals interact with the company. He sees the relationship with members as a partnership that is an intricate part of their lives. Most people check their phone the moment they wake up, throughout the day, and often, it’s one of the last things they check before going to bed. Verizon is a part of its members’ lives, and that’s an opportunity that cannot be mismanaged or abused.
  3. Employees Must Be Happy Too: More companies are recognizing that their CX must also include EX (employee experience). Employees must have the tools they need. This is an emphasis in his organization. Simplifying the employee experience with better tools and policies is the key to elevating the customer’s experience. Higgins shared the perfect description of why employee experience is paramount to the success of a business: “If employees aren’t happy and don’t feel they have the policies and tools they need that are right to engage with customers, you’re not going to get the experience right.”
  4. Focus on Little Pain Points: One of the priorities Higgins focuses on is what he refers to as “small cracks in the experience.” Seventy-five percent of the calls coming in to customer care are for small problems or questions, such as a promo code that didn’t work or an issue with a bill. His team continuously analyzes all customer journeys and works to fix them when needed. This helps to minimize recurring issues, thereby reducing customer support calls and the time employees spend fixing the same issue.
  5. The Digital Experience: Customers are starting to get comfortable with—and sometimes prefer—digital experiences. Making these experiences seamless and user-friendly increases overall customer satisfaction. More and more, they are using digital platforms to help with the “small cracks in the experience.” Employees also get an AI-infused digital experience. Higgins said Verizon uses AI to analyze customer conversations and provide real-time answers and solutions to employees, demonstrating how AI can support both employees and customers.
  6. Amplifying the Power of One Interaction: The final piece of wisdom Higgins shared was about recognizing how important a single interaction can be. Most customers don’t call very often. They may call once every three years, so each interaction needs to be treated like it’s a special moment—a unique opportunity to leave a lasting positive impression, one that leaves no doubt the customer made the right decision to do business with Verizon. Higgins believes in treating the customer like a relative visiting your home for a holiday. He closed by saying, “You’d be amazed how getting that one interaction with a customer right versus anything less than right can have a huge impact on the brand.”

Higgins’ vision for Verizon is not just about maintaining a superior network. It’s about creating an unparalleled customer experience that resonates with every interaction. As Verizon continues integrating advanced AI technologies and streamlining its processes, the focus continues to be on personalizing and enhancing every customer touchpoint, creating an experience that fosters high customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Image Credits: Pexels

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

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






Push versus Pull in the Productivity Zone

Leave a reply

Push versus Pull in the Productivity Zone

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Digital transformation is hardly new. Advances in computing create more powerful infrastructure which in turn enables more productive operating models which in turn can enable wholly new business models. From mainframes to minicomputers to PCs to the Internet to the Worldwide Web to cloud computing to mobile apps to social media to generative AI, the hits just keep on coming, and every IT organization is asked to both keep the current systems running and to enable the enterprise to catch the next wave. And that’s a problem.

The dynamics of productivity involve a yin and yang exchange between systems that improve efficiency and programs that improve effectiveness. Systems, in this model, are intended to maintain state, with as little friction as possible. Programs, in this model, are intended to change state, with maximum impact within minimal time. Each has its own governance model, and the two must not be blended.

It is a rare IT organization that does not know how to maintain its own systems. That’s Job One, and the decision rights belong to the org itself. But many IT organizations lose their way when it comes to programs — specifically, the digital transformation initiatives that are re-engineering business processes across every sector of the global economy. They do not lose their way with respect to the technology of the systems. They are missing the boat on the management of the programs.

Specifically, when the CEO champions the next big thing, and IT gets a big chunk of funding, the IT leader commits to making it all happen. This is a mistake. Digital transformation entails re-engineering one or more operating models. These models are executed by organizations outside of IT. For the transformation to occur, the people in these organizations need to change their behavior, often drastically. IT cannot — indeed, must not — commit to this outcome. Change management is the responsibility of the consuming organization, not the delivery organization. In other words, programs must be pulled. They cannot be pushed. IT in its enthusiasm may believe it can evangelize the new operating model because people will just love it. Let me assure you — they won’t. Everybody endorses change as long as other people have to be the ones to do it. No one likes to move their own cheese.

Given all that, here’s the playbook to follow:

  1. If it is a program, the head of the operating unit that must change its behavior has to sponsor the change and pull the program in. Absent this commitment, the program simply must not be initiated.
  2. To govern the program, the Program Management Office needs a team of four, consisting of the consuming executive, the IT executive, the IT project manager, and the consuming organization’s program manager. The program manager, not the IT manager, is responsible for change management.
  3. The program is defined by a performance contract that uses a current state/future state contrast to establish the criteria for program completion. Until the future state is achieved, the program is not completed.
  4. Once the future state is achieved, then the IT manager is responsible for securing the system that will maintain state going forward.

Delivering programs that do not change state is the biggest source of waste in the Productivity Zone. There is an easy fix for this. Just say No.

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

Image Credit: Unsplash

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