Category Archives: Leadership

A Tale of Two Narratives on Polarization

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

In a time of increasing polarization, amplified by social media and exacerbated by malicious actors, we all need to deepen our understanding of just what we are into. Polarization, as I described in a previous blog on this subject, is best understood as an artifact of people binding their identities to explanatory narratives that validate their experience of the world, especially those experiences that activate their deepest fears. Binding to narrative per se is fundamental to both psychological and social stability, and in that context, it is natural and healthy. But when the narrative is being deliberately corrupted in order to manipulate public opinion, it fosters increasingly antagonistic relationships, dehumanizing the antagonists and inflaming the protagonists, both of which encourage us to treat fellow human beings as targets for marginalization, incarceration, or elimination.

In contemporary culture, there are two framing narratives that are driving this kind of polarization (and let me give shout out to Tangle for calling them to my attention):

Civilization vs the Barbarians. In this narrative, “we” are the defenders of what is good, noble, and sacred in human culture, and “they” are agents of evil, degradation, and blasphemy. Thus, “we” can consider ourselves exempt from ethical accountability in our actions against them because “they” are threatening the very foundation of ethics itself.
Oppressed vs the Oppressors. In this narrative, “we” are the victims of political, social, and economic exploitation by “them,” an overclass that has acquired a disproportionate share of power, wealth, and entitlements illegitimately at our expense. Thus, “we” can consider ourselves exempt from ethical accountability in our actions against them because “they” have unethically disenfranchised us.

Both narratives can be legitimate under extreme conditions, but each also lends itself to inflammatory purposes as well. Historically, the role of news reporting has been to help us distinguish between these two states. What is disgraceful about today’s media is that major broadcast networks, as well as previously highly respected publications, have not just abandoned this role but are actively engaged in subverting it. Let’s look a little more closely at what they are up to.

Civilization vs the Barbarians

This is the narrative framework that underlies Israel’s stance about its war with Hamas. It is also the one the US used to justify its post-9/11 actions against both Iraq and Isis. In both instances, provoked by starkly violent surprise attacks against purely civilian targets, outrage and righteous indignation fueled a demand for massive retaliation. There was simply no room for acknowledging any mitigating circumstances, any possible responsibility for creating the conditions that might have led to the terrorist attacks, or any accountability for subsequent acts of retributive retaliation regardless of how appalling they, in turn, might have been.

Now, given the extremity of the provocations, it is hard to see how any of this could have been avoided. But the civilization-vs-barbarians narrative is being used much more broadly in contemporary political discourse to address concerns that are much less extreme, including the following:

Right-wing outrage over illegal immigration
Left-wing outrage over anti-abortion legislation
Right-wing outrage over students demonstrating over the war in Gaza
Left-wing outrage over climate change deriders
Right-wing outrage over DEI initiatives
Left-wing outrage over 2020 election deniers.
Right-wing outrage over atheism
Left-wing outrage over book-banning

The key term here, in case you missed it, is outrage. Outrage uses righteousness to legitimize an explosion of anger against a community-sanctioned target. But the roots of that anger are not in the object of its attention. They are in the subject that has been carrying that burden around internally and who has now found a socially acceptable way to release it. And don’t think this applies just to “other people.” No one (except maybe a saint) is exempt here. You and I are as subject to the power of narratives as anyone else—it is only the trigger narratives themselves that separate us.

Look back over the bullet points above. Each of them is encased in a narrative, be it based on fact or urban legend. We should not be naïve about the power of these narratives to shape public opinion and influence elections. Psychologically, they play upon some of our deepest fears and then offer us a protective shield that is both internally coherent and externally impenetrable. That’s what makes the civilization-vs-barbarians narrative such a powerful political tool.

Oppressed vs the Oppressors

This is the narrative framework that underlies US college student protests in support of the Palestinians and against Israel’s sustained offensive in the Gaza Strip, as well as NATO support for the Ukraine and US support for Taiwan. Inside the US, it underpins support for the homeless, defunding of the police, and decriminalization of drug use. In each case, in order to relieve the debilitating conditions these communities are living under, the narrative calls for a radical change in the status quo, including a willingness to deprioritize legal justice in order to achieve social justice.

There are two separate audiences this narrative seeks to engage. Ostensibly, it is the oppressed themselves, but this can be misleading. Under exceptional circumstances, it is true that such narratives can trigger a revolution of the oppressed, but more commonly, these folks are in no position to take action on their own behalf. The far more frequent audience is people of means who have the power to take action and who empathize with the cause. This results in two kinds of calls to action—a revolutionary path, led by the oppressed, which seeks to overthrow the oppressors through violent means, and a liberal path, led by the empathizers, which seeks reform by working within the system.

Although we associate the oppressed-vs-the-oppressors narrative primarily with the left, we should note that the far right is leveraging it as well, as witnessed by the following widely held claims:

The woke liberal establishment is imposing socialist agendas around climate change and DEI on the oppressed white middle class.
Parental rights are under attack, threatened by liberal ideologies that have taken over public schools.
The 2020 election was rigged by Democrats, and Republicans, therefore, need not accept the results of the 2024 election because it also could be rigged.
Donald Trump did not get a fair trial because it, too, was rigged.
(And at the far right) the tyranny of the Deep State is so oppressive it warrants patriotic citizens taking up arms and shedding blood.

The Implications

To sum up, both political parties are using both narratives, but in very different contexts.

US Right: “Oppressors are the woke liberal establishment imposing socialist agendas around climate change and DEI on the oppressed white middle class.”
US Right: “Barbarians are the illegal immigrants seeking to invade our country and take over our democracy by outnumbering the civilized native white citizenry.”
US Left: “Oppressors are the conservative capitalist establishment imposing unjust requirements on disadvantaged populations, including illegal immigrants, the homeless, and the addicted.”
US Left: “Barbarians are the far-right politicians and pundits undermining the rule of law with fake news and demagogic rhetoric to block reproductive rights, equal opportunity programs, and climate change initiatives.”

Any attempt to argue people off of any of these positions is almost certain to fail, not because the arguments that support them are especially persuasive, but because people have bound their identities to them so tightly that they cannot break with them. As part of this binding, society self-segregates into “Us” and “Them,” each with its own amplifying media sources, its own signals of solidarity, its own righteous indignation, its own contempt for the other side.

Given all that, what could anyone seeking a better way possibly do? That is a question for a future blog post, one that is still very much in the works. For now, we should just note when these narratives are being used in corrupt ways to legitimize illegitimate claims and do our best to detach ourselves from them.

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

— Image credit: Pixabay

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

Why Collective Intelligence is the New Scarce Resource in an Age of Abundant AI

Leave a reply

The Coordination Dividend – An AI Soft Landing Scenario

Why Collective Intelligence is the New Scarce Resource in an Age of Abundant AI

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Throughout history, every major technological revolution has fundamentally altered the landscape of scarcity. The Industrial Revolution transitioned physical labor from a precious commodity into an abundant input; the Information Age did the same for data; and the Internet democratized communication, rendering the friction of distance nearly obsolete. Today, we are witnessing the latest iteration of this pattern: Artificial Intelligence is rapidly making individual intelligence, once our most guarded and limited asset, an abundant utility.

But if intelligence is becoming commoditized, what becomes scarce next? Many leaders are still trapped in a race to build “smarter” systems, yet the evidence suggests that smarter algorithms alone will not generate the competitive advantage we seek. The real bottleneck for progress in the coming decade is no longer how smart we are, but how effectively we coordinate our human and AI systems toward shared goals.

I call this the Coordination Dividend. It is the measurable surplus value created when diverse groups of humans and autonomous agents align seamlessly, communicate with minimal friction, and operate within shared mental models. As we navigate the AI transition, the winners will not be those with the most powerful models, but those who design the best operating systems for collective intelligence. Innovation, leadership, and organizational design are no longer just about optimizing technology, they are about perfecting the human-centered architecture of our future collaboration.

Section 1: Why Intelligence Is No Longer the Bottleneck

For years, we have been conditioned to believe that the primary lever for organizational success is the acquisition and application of specialized intelligence. We hired for it, we optimized our internal processes around it, and we built our competitive moats upon it. However, we are now entering an era where expert-level reasoning, sophisticated code generation, and nuanced creative synthesis are becoming commoditized utilities, accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a subscription.

The danger in the current market environment is the pursuit of the “Solo Genius” myth — the belief that an individual, super-powered by an AI agent, will be the primary driver of value. While AI augmentation significantly boosts individual output, it does not inherently solve the challenges of friction, misalignment, or slow execution that plague most organizations. In a world where intelligence is abundant, the strategic advantage shifts from the individual to the system.

This creates a critical pivot point for leaders:

Moving Beyond Capability: We must stop asking “How can AI make our people smarter?” and start asking “How can we orchestrate our people and AI together to move faster?”
The End of the Intelligence Moat: If your organizational strategy relies solely on being the smartest player in the room, your edge will evaporate as those capabilities are integrated into foundation models.
The Shift to Agility: The true test of an organization is now its ability to reconfigure itself in real-time. We must transition our focus from maximizing raw intelligence to maximizing organizational agility — the capacity to pivot, integrate new tools, and align collective energy without the usual administrative drag.

When intelligence is everywhere, the most successful entities will be those that master the flow of information and intent between human operators and synthetic agents. The future belongs to those who recognize that the intelligence itself is merely the raw material; the finished product is the coordinated outcome.

The Scarcity Shift Matrix

Section 2: Anatomy of the Coordination Dividend

To capture the Coordination Dividend, we must move past the idea that AI is a tool we “use” and begin to see it as a partner we “integrate” into our operational fabric. Coordination is no longer just about human-to-human interaction; it is about establishing a high-fidelity interface between human intent and synthetic execution.

The architecture of this dividend rests on three foundational pillars:

Shared Mental Models: In a hybrid workforce, humans and AIs must operate from the same baseline of context. This requires a shift in how we document strategy, culture, and operational constraints. If the AI doesn’t understand the “why” behind the “what,” it will optimize for the wrong outcome. Building a shared mental model is about encoding human values and strategic intent into the persistent memory of our systems.
Adaptive Governance: Traditional, top-down hierarchies act as friction points that prevent the rapid exchange of information necessary for coordination. We need to transition toward fluid, purpose-driven collaboration where decision rights are clear but execution is decentralized. Governance in this new era means setting the boundaries and the goals, then empowering human-AI teams to navigate the space in between autonomously.
Low-Latency Feedback Loops: The speed of business is accelerating. The organizations that win will be those that have engineered out the “wait states” in their decision-making processes. By creating real-time feedback loops — where performance data is instantly processed by AI to inform the next human action — we turn planning into a continuous, iterative flow rather than a static, periodic event.

Ultimately, these pillars define the difference between an organization that is merely “using AI” and one that is “AI-coordinated.” The former will continue to struggle with siloes and misalignment, while the latter will discover the efficiency gains that come from true systemic harmony.

The Anatomy of Human-AI Orchestration

Section 3: Impact Across the Ecosystem

The Coordination Dividend is not merely an internal efficiency metric for corporate operations; it is a fundamental restructuring of how value is created across every layer of modern society. When we solve the coordination problem between human intent and synthetic intelligence, the ripple effects transform everything from enterprise strategy to civic infrastructure.

Consider how this dividend manifests across key dimensions of our economic and societal ecosystem:

Innovation & Product Design: The traditional innovation pipeline is notoriously clogged by friction — the delay between ideation, prototyping, testing, and scaling. In an AI-coordinated environment, teams can run hundreds of parallel experiments simultaneously. The bottleneck is no longer generating or executing ideas, but curating the highest-impact concepts and aligning multidisciplinary teams around rapid deployment.
Organizational Design & Culture: Traditional departmental silos are the ultimate tax on coordination. The Coordination Dividend dismantles rigid organizational charts in favor of dynamic, cross-functional “pod” structures where human domain experts, experience designers, and specialized AI agents form transient units around specific outcomes, dissolving once the goal is reached.
Leadership & Change Management: The role of the leader fundamentally pivots from “commander of resources” to “architect of coordination.” Tomorrow’s leaders will win not by issuing directives, but by designing the collaborative systems, guardrails, and psychological safety needed for humans and AI agents to co-create without friction or paralysis.
Civic Infrastructure & Public Systems: At a societal scale, the inability to coordinate remains our greatest challenge — evident in healthcare delivery, urban planning, and educational equity. When local governments and institutions leverage low-latency, AI-augmented coordination, we can optimize complex public networks (from smart traffic management to personalized learning pathways) in real time while maintaining a deeply human-centered ethos.

Across every sector, the lesson remains constant: technology supplies the velocity, but coordination supplies the vector. Without systemic alignment, speed simply leads to faster friction.

The Coordination Dividend: Ecosystem Impact

Section 4: Measuring the Dividend

If coordination is the core source of competitive advantage in an AI-abundant era, we must develop new frameworks to measure it. Traditional productivity metrics — focused on output volume, lines of code, or hours logged — are entirely obsolete when generative systems can flood an organization with synthetic artifacts in seconds. Measuring volume only incentivizes noise; we must instead measure alignment and velocity.

To quantify the Coordination Dividend, forward-looking organizations will monitor key operational indicators:

Coordination Friction Index: Calculating the latent delay between intent and execution. How many handoffs, approval bottlenecks, or misaligned rework cycles occur between a strategic decision and its initial market feedback?
Context Parity: Assessing how accurately human teams and AI agents share operational context. High context parity eliminates hallucinated priorities and ensures autonomous workflows remain tightly bound to strategic goals.
Adaptive Velocity: Measuring an organization’s ability to reconfigure workflows, redeploy human talent, and integrate new AI models without triggering operational paralysis or cultural burnout.

Crucially, this dividend must be rooted in human-centricity. High-tech coordination without human-centered design risks creating hyper-efficient panopticons — systems that optimize for throughput at the expense of psychological safety, creativity, and trust. The ultimate metric of a successful coordination model is whether it frees humans to focus on judgment, empathy, and strategic intuition, or simply traps them in a high-speed hamster wheel of machine management.

Measuring the Coordination Dividend

Conclusion: The New Operating System for Civilization

As we navigate the ongoing shifts of the AI transition, it is easy to become captivated by the exponential performance curves of new models and raw processing capabilities. Yet, history reminds us that technology alone is never the destination — it is merely the catalyst. Just as steam power required the invention of the factory, and the Internet required the creation of networked platforms, artificial intelligence demands a radical overhaul of our collaborative architecture.

The Coordination Dividend represents the next frontier of organizational and societal evolution. In a world of abundant intelligence, value migrates to those who can master the art and science of synthesis — uniting human empathy, judgment, and creativity with machine scale, precision, and speed. The defining challenge of the next five years will not be building smarter algorithms, but designing better systems of human-AI orchestration.

For leaders, innovators, and experience designers, the directive is clear: stop obsessing solely over AI tools, and start designing for systemic alignment. By prioritizing low-latency feedback loops, shared mental models, and human-centered governance, we can ensure that artificial intelligence does not fragment our efforts, but elevates our collective capability. Intelligence provides the raw energy for our future, but coordination is the steering system that ensures we achieve a soft landing — and build a resilient, high-performing society on the other side.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the “Coordination Dividend”?

The Coordination Dividend is the measurable surplus value created when groups of humans and AI systems align seamlessly, communicate with minimal friction, and operate toward shared goals. As AI makes raw intelligence abundant, competitive advantage shifts from individual smarts to collective coordination speed and efficiency.

Why does intelligence cease to be the primary bottleneck in the AI era?

Generative AI democratizes access to expert reasoning, code generation, and strategic synthesis. When expert-level capability becomes a low-cost utility available to everyone, having intelligent individuals or models is no longer a distinct moat; the true bottleneck becomes how effectively an organization can connect, align, and execute across human-machine teams.

How do organizations measure and capture the Coordination Dividend?

Rather than tracking traditional volume metrics (e.g., hours logged or lines written), organizations quantify coordination by measuring the Coordination Friction Index (delay between intent and execution), Context Parity (shared context between humans and AI), and Adaptive Velocity (speed of reconfiguring workflows without burnout).

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a visualization of but one possible future. I will be publishing other possible futures as they crystallize in my mind (or as you suggest them for me to explore).

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

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

Why Are What We Know and What We Do Often So Different?

Leave a reply

Why Are What We Know and What We Do Often So Different?

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1988, a young management student named John Krafcik published an article in MIT’s Sloan Management Review entitled, Triumph of the Lean Production System. Based on his study of 90 manufacturing plants in 20 countries, it argued that manufacturing could be made vastly more productive, while improving quality at the same time.

These methods would grow into the lean manufacturing movement and their effectiveness has been well documented. Krafcik himself went on to have a successful career in the auto industry, taking over Google’s self-driving division, Waymo, in 2016. There is an amazingly strong case for manufacturers to adopt lean methods.

Yet surprisingly few do. In fact, a recent survey found that less than 15% of manufacturers have adopted lean methods. This dilemma is much more common than you’d think. We’ve been conditioned to believe that a good idea, once proven out, will prevail in the marketplace, but that’s not really true. There is often a large gap between what we know and what we do.

A New World Of Work

Clearly the world of work has changed. When I began professional life in the mid-90s, laptops were still new and few people had access to the Internet. Work was something you did in your office. We largely communicated by phone and memos typed up by secretaries. Data analysis was something you did with a pencil, paper and a desk calculator.

Today, on the other hand, work is largely something we do with each other. We are increasingly collaborating in teams and our work has become more social and less cognitive. For example, the journal Nature noted that the average scientific paper today has four times as many authors as one did in 1950 and the work they are doing is far more interdisciplinary.

The truth is that we spend most of our time in meetings, collaborating with colleagues to solve problems, rather than working alone in our offices to execute tasks. Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been no shortage of concepts developed, such as psychological safety, agile development and diversity & inclusion policies, designed to help us succeed and prosper in this new world of work.

Yet much like with lean manufacturing, the reality of most workplaces rarely reflects the pundits’ rhetoric. The reason for this is simple. The status quo has inertia on its side and that is an incredibly powerful force. Change takes effort and is often disruptive. The costs are clear and present while the benefits can seem distant and remote.

The New, New Economy

In 1982, when Steve Jobs was trying to lure John Sculley from Pepsi to Apple, he asked him, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?” The ploy worked and Sculley became the first CEO of a major conventional company to join a Silicon Valley startup.

Yet since then, besides for a relatively short period between 1996 and 2004, labor productivity has remained depressed, except during recessions when businesses cut workers. At the same time, income inequality has increased and business has become less dynamic, with fewer startups and less churn among market leaders. I don’t think those are the changes Jobs was talking about.

It seems amazing that given all of the technological progress, including mobile and cloud computing, artificial intelligence and Industry 4.0 manufacturing technologies, that so little has been accomplished, but in their recent book, Power and Progress, economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson argue that market and technological forces, if left to their own devices, tend to favor elites rather than society as a whole.

We can’t simply leave our fates to the impersonal whims of market and technological forces. The historical record shows that innovations that displace workers do not necessarily make us better off. In fact, we have strong reasons to suspect that many of these technologies impoverish our society and corrode our culture.

Technology and markets were created by humans to serve people. That is their purpose and should be, by any reasonable analysis, the measure of their value. We need to take a hard look at the last 30 years and ask how we’re better off, how we’re worse off, what we need to do differently and how we can forge a better path.

The End Of History?

In 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama published an essay in the journal The National Interest titled The End of History, which led to a bestselling book. Many took his argument to mean that, with the defeat of communism, US-style liberal democracy had emerged as the only viable way of organizing a society.

He was misunderstood. His actual argument was far more nuanced and insightful. After explaining the arguments of philosophers like Hegel and Kojeve, Fukuyama pointed out that even if we had reached an endpoint in the debate about ideologies, there would still be conflict because of people’s need to express their identity.

Humans tend to build stories that support our notions of who we think we are. If you work hard at your job, new ideas about lean manufacturing or agile development can seem like an affront. In much the same way, entrepreneurs like to think that their businesses have social value and the denizens of the tech universe like to think that their code changes the world.

If you believe that the forces of history are on your side, pursuing your path seems like a calling and an obligation. The benefits you receive are just more proof that you are headed in the right direction and whatever costs that are incurred by others may seem like mere table stakes to be paid for the price of progress.

That’s why tech billionaires write silly manifestos and politicians are able to fleece them for outrageous amounts of money. It is not enough to earn a good living and live in comfort. People have a need to be recognized and they will cling to the the identity they have built for themselves. Asking them to change can often seem more than a simple shift in behavior, but an affront to who they are.

Dismantling the Cult of Inevitability

We’d like to think that if something is a good idea, can be proven to work, improve performance and make people’s lives better, that market and technological forces will somehow make it inevitable. Unfortunately, the history of the last half century makes it clear that’s not true. Most people in developed countries are worse off than a generation ago.

Yes it’s true that our TV’s have gotten better and we have infinitely more channels. We carry supercomputers around in our pockets that give us unprecedented access to information and emerging services like ChatGPT give us almost superhuman powers to process it. Yet the cost of basics, such as housing, healthcare and education have impoverished us.

This wasn’t inevitable. Consider that in the US per capita GDP has nearly doubled since 1985 but median household income has risen only 27% and you begin to see the problem. In my work with organizational transformation it is clear that similar forces are at work in the corporate world. For all the talk about disruption and change, the status quo usually prevails.

We need to be more cognizant of the stories we tell ourselves. We have a primal need to be the heroes in our own narratives, to tell ourselves that we are on the right path while others are just fooling themselves, to look for information that confirms our choices and neglect evidence to the contrary. It is not a character flaw, but a reality of human nature.

Ironically, it is through awareness of our failings that can help us overcome them. Decades of research show that shifts in knowledge and attitudes don’t necessarily result in changes in behavior. Once we know that we can be more vigilant and hold ourselves to a higher standard. What we know and what we do are two different things, but with effort we can narrow the gap.

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

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

How to Keep Learning as a Leader

Leave a reply

How to Keep Learning as a Leader

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Leaders are learners.

That’s not really disputed. You have to be a pretty strong learner to even get into a leadership role. And most people agree that you have to be continuously learning as a leader as well.

The problem is that what is common knowledge is not always common practice. As the demands of the leadership role pile up, and the freely available time on the calendar shrink, it can become easy to cut learning from the schedule.

But what leaders who consistently excel know is that continuously learning has to be a priority. They know that resting on their past knowledge and foolishly believing they’ve learned enough is inviting disaster. Because as the world changes, leaders who rest on how much they know will find they know an awful lot about a world that doesn’t exist anymore.

Learning doesn’t have to dominate a leader’s calendar, but it cannot be removed from it. And a few simple habits, practiced regularly, can dramatically increase how much learning leaders can find time for.

So, in this article, we’ll outline four ways you can keep learning as a leader.

Linger On Failure

The first way to keep learning as a leader is to linger on failure. Failure is feedback. It’s uncomfortable feedback, but it’s the most potent form of feedback when it comes to learning. In addition, failure is inevitable. Projects will fall apart or go over budget. Clients will move to competitors. People will quit. But how you respond matters. You can shift blame and try to convince others it wasn’t your failure. Or you can linger on the failure long enough to analyze what happened and improve as a result.

Perhaps one of the best examples of modern-day learning from failure is Navy Seal turned leadership consultant, Jocko Willink. The worst day of Willink’s Navy service was also the one he learned the most from. He was leading a mission that turned into a friendly fire incident—with teams shooting at each other in the mistaken belief they were the enemy. Afterwards, Willink was told to prepare for a debrief and, instead of compiling reasons he was blameless, Willink reflected on the failure and decided to take ownership of it. And his choosing to take on the blame helped the rest of his battalion be honest and transparent about the incident—so they could learn how to keep it from happening again.

Stay Curious

The second way to keep learning as a leader is to stay curious. Be willing to ask others about their expertise. This sounds easy, but often we’re tempted to do the opposite and pretend we have the answers. In fact, research shows that faking certainty and displaying confidence may be what brought most people into a leadership role in the first place. But it’s not an effective way to keep learning. Something amazing happens when leaders admit they don’t know and start asking questions: people start teaching them.

One leader whose life is a testament to the power of curiosity is Brain Grazer. Grazer is the founder of Imagine Entertainment and a Hollywood executive responsible for dozens of hit television shows and movies. But inside Hollywood, he’s also known for his “curiosity conversations.” Starting early in his career, Grazer made it a goal to have at least one conversation per week with someone about a topic or industry he knew nothing about. This wasn’t a networking exercise where he was just trying to expand his contact list, although that happened. It was a regular habit of trying to expand his mind and a realization that the best way to do that was to stay curious and be genuinely interested in other people.

Experiment

The third way to keep learning as a leader is to experiment. When everything is working, it’s easy to forget the importance of trying new things to keep learning. But smart leaders know they must challenge the status quo when times are good in order to keep bad times from happening. In addition, being willing to let your team experiment can scale up everyone’s learning. You won’t always have successful experiments. There will be failures, but as we’ve already covered, those are learning opportunities as well

One overlooked form of experiments leaders make often is decisions. Admit it. Decisions don’t look like experiments. It was Peter Drucker who is often credited with pointing this out. Drucker knew that, at their core, every decision is a miniature experiment in what you think will happen as a result of your actions. In fact, he went so far as encouraging leaders to keep a “decision journal”—a record of what decision you made and what the intended result was—so that you can check back in a few months or years and learn the results of your decision experiment and actually learn from your decisions instead of just continuing to blindly act.

Cultivate Conflict

The final way to keep learning as a leader is to cultivate conflict. One unfortunate result of being in a leadership position is that people often self-censor ideas that conflict with the leader’s. They fear being see as a troublemaker or worse, and so they keep their ideas to themselves. But leaders need the benefit of those ideas and, as such, they need to embrace existing conflict and cultivate more. Obviously, this refers to task-focused conflict and not interpersonal conflict. But that task-focused conflict still needs to be respectful in tone and with a sense of team-wide trust. And it’s the leader’s job to model the way on how to have the respectful conflict to learn from diverse ideas.

Often that can mean openly calling for conflict over an idea or proposal. There’s a possibly apocryphal story about General Motors’ legendary CEO Alfred P Sloan that captures the idea behind cultivating conflict. During a meeting in which GM’s top management team was considering a weighty decision, Sloan closed the meeting by asking.” “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here?” Sloan then waited as each member of the assembled committee nodded in agreement. Sloan continued, “Then, I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is about.”

While these habits are simple to practice, they are not exactly comfortable—especially at first. It’s comfortable to be curious because curiosity comes with an admission that you don’t know something. It’s uncomfortable lingering on failure. It’s uncomfortable to hold yourself accountable for decisions or to cultivate conflict. But learning happens in discomfort. Discomfort is a sign that you’re growing. So, if you want to stay committed to keep learning as a leader, you’re unfortunately going to have to stay committed to being uncomfortable as a leader as well. And if you do, you’ll keep growing into new and better ways to lead your team and you’ll keep creating an environment where everyone can do their best work ever.

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on January 31, 2022.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Here is Your Healthy Dose of Heresy

Leave a reply

Here is Your Healthy Dose of Heresy

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Anything worth its salt will meet with resistance. More strongly, if you get no resistance, don’t bother.

There’s huge momentum around doing what worked last time. Same as last time but better; build on success; leverage last year’s investment; we know how to do it. Why are these arguments so appealing? Two words: comfort and perceived risk. Why these arguments shouldn’t be so appealing: complacency and opportunity cost.

We think statically and selectively. We look in the rear view mirror, write down what happened and say “let’s do that again.” Hey, why not? We made the initial investment and did the leg work. We created the script. Let’s get some mileage out of it. And we selectively remember the positive elements and actively forget the uncertainty of the moment. We had no idea it was going to work, and we forget that part. It worked better than we imagined and we remember the “working better” part. And we forget we imagined it would go differently. And we forget that was a long time ago and we don’t take the time to realize things are different now. The rules are dynamic, yet our thinking is static.

We compete with the past tense. We did this and they did that, and, therefore, that’s what will happen again. So wrong. We’ve got smarter; they’ve got smarter; battery capacity has tripled; power electronics are twice as efficient; efficiency of solar panels has doubled; CRISPR can edit our genes. The rules are different but the sheet music hasn’t changed. The established players sing the same songs and the upstarts cut them off at the knees.

If you were successful last time and everyone thinks your proposed project is a good idea, ball it up and throw it in the trash. It reeks of stale thinking. If your project plan is dismissed by the experts because it contradicts the tired recipe of success, congratulations! You may be onto something! Stomp on the accelerator and don’t look back.

If your proposal meets with consensus, hang your head and try again. You missed the mark. If they scream “heretic” and want to burn you at the stake, double down. If the CEO isn’t adamantly against it, you’re not trying hard enough. If she throws you out of the room half way through your presentation, you may have a winner!

Yesterday’s recipes for success are today’s worn paths of mediocrity.

If you’re confident it will work, you shouldn’t be. If you’re filled with electric excitement it might actually work and scared to death it might end in a wild fireball of burn metal toxic fumes, what are you waiting for?!

Heretics were burned at the stake because the establishment knew they were right. Goddard was right and the New York Times wasn’t. Decades later they apologized – rockets work is space. And though the Qualifiers and Pope Paul V were unanimous in their dismissal of Galileo and Copernicus, the heretics had it right – the sun is at the center of everything.

Don’t seek out dissent, but if all you get is consensus, be wary. Don’t be adversarial, but if all you get is open arms, question your thesis. Don’t be confrontational, but if all you get is acceptance, something’s wrong.

If there’s no resistance, work on something else.

Image credits: Pexels

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

People Pools Provide a Different Lens for Collaboration

Leave a reply

People Pools Provide a Different Lens for Collaboration

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Most organizations and networks talk about stakeholder management. That usually means mapping interests, aligning priorities, and balancing influence (and even power). Useful, yes – but limited.

With People Pools, I suggest a different lens. Instead of treating stakeholders as roles or entities to manage, we see them as groups of people with strengths, constraints, and motivations. And people show up with mindsets that shape how they collaborate.

So what do People Pools look like in practice?

Startups and SMEs bringing agility and fresh ideas
Corporates contributing scale and resources
Investors scanning for opportunities and deal flow
Universities and knowledge institutions adding talent and long-term perspective
Municipalities and government shaping growth, jobs, and reputation
Advisors, mentors, and hidden contributors (like nurses, data managers, or regulators) who often decide whether ideas succeed in practice

This matters for hubs, ecosystems, and networks. Innovation doesn’t flow because interests are mapped – it flows when diverse pools are activated, connected, and bridged.

Working with People Pools means:

Surfacing what each pool brings (and what holds them back).
Balancing WIIFM (what’s in it for me) with WIIFUS (what’s in it for us).
Empowering connectors who move between pools.
Building bridges and learning loops instead of silos.

Traditional stakeholder management is about alignment and control. People Pools are about activation and mindset.

That shift creates ecosystems where people don’t just sit in the same room – they actually learn, connect, and innovate together.

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard

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

Five Keys to Building Trust on Teams

Leave a reply

Five Keys to Building Trust on Teams

GUEST POST from David Burkus

One of the easiest ways to predict how successful or not a given team will be, is to first measure how much trust exists on the team as a whole. When members of the team trust each other, they’re more likely to succeed because they’re more likely to share information.

They’re more likely to share feedback.

They’re more likely to take risks.

They’re more likely to support each other.

They’re more likely to express crazy ideas that lead to the brilliant ideas they need.

They’re more likely to admit failures and get the help that they need.

And they’re more likely to grow together and reach new levels of performance.

But how do you build trust on a team? How do you get people to trust each other? And how do you get people to trust the team and you as a leader?

In this article, we’ll outline five ways to build trust on teams. Trust is not built overnight, but these five simple actions will start the process of trust-building on your team.

Build Real Bonds

The first way to build trust on teams is to build real bonds. Specifically, build bonds between teammates that form for reasons beyond shared work or collaborative roles. In other words, build friendships. Research suggests those who report having friends at work are more productive, more committed, and yes more trusting (and trustworthy). And while you can’t force two people on your team to be friends, you can create opportunities for your team to have socialization and non-work conversations that will lead to the discovery of mutual interests. These “uncommon commonalities” make people more likely to become friends—and make it more likely they develop mutual trust.

Encourage Candor

The second way to build trust on teams is to encourage candor. Encourage the team to speak freely and even to disagree. While that might seem counterintuitive, respectful dissent and collaborative disagreement are signs of trust on a team. It’s inevitable that members of your team will disagree, if no one is speaking up that’s a sign that there is not yet enough trust built up. As a leader, you can fix this by encouraging dissent and disagreement with you, and then modelling what respectful behavior and civil disagreement look like. This not only demonstrates to the team how to behave when they disagree, it also demonstrates that they can trust that their ideas are heard.

Spotlight Wins

The third way to build trust on teams is to spotlight wins. Whenever members of the team have small wins—work related or not—make sure you take the time to let the whole team know. This is good for the overall culture and camaraderie of the team, but it also tells the individual members that you care and that you notice what matters to them. In addition, it makes it more likely they’ll trust you and come to you with successes and failures—and come to the whole team with successes and failures—because they know that you care.

Accept Failures

The fourth way to build trust on teams is to accept failures—and in some ways this is the opposite side of spotlighting wins. Failures happen. No one wins all of the time and no team is able to deliver on time and under budget every time. Mistakes get made. And situations outside of the team’s control happen. But how leaders and teams respond to those failures is what determines future success, and future trust. Leaders who seek to find blame, and teammates who offer quick excuses, undermine trust, and prevent the team from improving. But leaders who seek to find learning opportunities inside of failure make the team more trusting and, in the long run, much more successful.

Model Vulnerability

The final way to build trust on teams is to model vulnerability. Sometimes, all it takes for a team to start trusting each other is for the team leader to stop pretending to be perfect. When leaders admit their mistakes and own up to their biases, they send a strong message to the rest of the team that they can be trusted. And often that vulnerability is met with vulnerability from others. It’s impossible to build trust on a team without creating the opportunity to be trusted—and that opportunity comes from vulnerability.

While these five methods are not an exhaustive list of the ways trust develops on teams, they all have something in common. Each of these methods is a leader-initiated action that kick starts a cycle of trust. Each method creates space for team members to act on trust and feel trusted. And we know from research that trust is not given, and trust is not earned, trust is reciprocated. It’s a virtuous cycle that starts with one person — usually the leader—demonstrating trust and modeling what trustworthiness looks like. Over time that trust compounds and creates an environment where everyone on the team can do their best work ever.

Image credit: Gemini

This article originally appeared on DavidBurkus.com

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

Making Employees Feel Appreciated

Leave a reply

Making Employees Feel Appreciated

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Appreciation is an underutilized part of organizational life.

It’s not that leaders think they don’t need to make employees feel appreciated. Most are in agreement that showing appreciation for great work is key to a positive organizational culture. And the research supports that belief. For example, Professors Adam Grant and Francesca Gino found that “a little thanks goes a long way” and experiencing even small moments of gratitude from managers significantly increases employee motivation. The same is true for teams. Researcher Perry Geue found that teams perform tasks better when their members believe that their colleagues respect and appreciate them.

But this research also points to why appreciation is underutilized.

Most organizations equate appreciation with rewards. They create bonus structures and gift-giving programs. But most research shows its expressions of gratitude that move the needle on feeling appreciated. And while saying something heartfelt while giving your team new coffee mugs might have some effect, it’s the day-to-day ways leaders express gratitude that really matter.

So, in this article, we’ll review four ways leaders can help make employees feel appreciated — we’ll cover the research and some practical ways to get started.

Touch Base Early And Often

The first way to help make employees feel appreciated is to touch base early and often. Especially in an era of hybrid and remote work, it can be easy to let a day or two (or more) go by without having a social conversation with your people. So, make a point to check-in often, and preferably early in the day. These check-ins don’t have to be formal, performance check-ins. They’re much more about making time to socialize and let them know you care.

Research from Jessica Methot suggests quick hellos and casual conversations mean more than you think. Small talk at work (or in Slack) is how people find the mutual interests or common background experiences that create bonds. These bonds lead to friendships and feelings of connection and appreciation on teams. So, make time for small talk and it’ll have a big effect on how appreciated your people feel.

Give Unscheduled Feedback

The second way to help make employees feel appreciated is to give unscheduled feedback. Many team leaders wait until formal performance reviews or regularly scheduled check-ins to give any feedback at all. But feedback that feels obligatory is not only less potent, it is less appreciated. Unscheduled feedback means taking the time after small wins or even just random moments to praise people for things they’re doing well. It also means finding time at the end of projects or when things go wrong to give constructive feedback as well.

When feedback is given more closely to the actions observed, it sends people the message that they’re so important the feedback can’t wait. And it’s not just about manager-employee feedback. Developing a culture on the team of unscheduled praise can go a long way toward helping employees feel appreciated. Research from Ron Friedman shows that high-performing teams reported receiving more frequent appreciation at work — from their manager and their colleagues.

Be Flexible And Trust

The third way to help make employees feel appreciated is to be flexible and trust your people. We know from decades of research into human behavior that having autonomy at work is a powerful motivator. But giving people autonomy also signals trust. Leaders who let their people determine how they’ll work, when they’ll work, and even where they’ll work send a clear and compelling signal that they trust their people. And research from Paul Zak shows that feeling trusted can improve not just motivation but outcome performance as well.

Of course, most important is that when we feel trusted, we feel appreciated by our leaders and our team. And Zak’s research suggests that those initial feelings set off a virtuous cycle: we respond to feelings of trust and appreciation with more trustworthy behavior, which triggers more appreciation, which triggers more positive behavior. And so on. And so on. So, get the cycle going by using any discussions about flexibility to also convey trust and appreciation.

Talk Growth

The final way to help make employees feel appreciated is to talk growth — their growth, not yours or the company’s. This means having regular conversations about people’s goals, career plans, and desires for their development. Professor Teresa Amabile has compiled the largest body of evidence to show that, of all the things that intrinsically motivate us, feeling that we’re making progress is one of the most powerful. But you can only help people show progress in their careers if you know about their career goals.

Unfortunately, a lot of leaders refrain from talking growth and career development outside of an annual review process. But plans change often, and the formalized process isn’t the most effective way to appear interested in someone’s desires — and hence not an effective way to signal to them that they’re appreciated. So, talk growth early and often, let people know you’re there to help them with their whole career and create opportunities that will help them grow.

Unlike gifts or awards, these four methods are not one-time offerings to people. They’re habits. Their effects may feel minimal at first, but they will grow in potency over time. Leaders who make their employees feel appreciated do so over the long-haul. Because the way to let employees know you care and that you support them, is to show them a track record of care and support. And overtime, that will prove how much they’re appreciated. And over even more time, that appreciation will help employees do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Creating the Conditions for New Behaviors to Grow

Leave a reply

Creating the Conditions for New Behaviors to Grow

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When you see emergent behavior that could grow into a powerful new theme, it’s important to acknowledge the behavior quickly and most publicly. If you see it in person, praise the behavior in front of everyone. Explain why you like it, explain why it’s important, explain what it could become. And as soon as you can find a computer, send an email to their bosses and copy the right-doers. Tell their bosses why you like it, tell them why it’s important, tell them what it could become.

Emergent behavior is like the first shoots of a beautiful orchid that may come to be. To the untrained eye, these little green beauties can look like scraggly weeds pushing out of the dirt. To the tired, overworked leader these new behaviors can like divergence, goofing around and even misbehavior. Without studying the leaves, the fledgling orchid can be confused for crabgrass.

Without initiative there is no new behavior and without new behavior there can be no orchids. When good people solve a problem in a creative way and it goes unacknowledged, the stem of the emergent behavior is clipped. But when the creativity is watered and fertilized the seedling has a chance to grow into something more. The leaders’ time and attention provide the nutrients, the leaders’ praise provides the hydration and their proactive advocacy for more of the wonderful behavior provides the sunlight to fuel the photosynthesis.

When the company demands bushels of grain, it’s a challenge to keep an eye out for the early signs of what could be orchids in the making. But that’s what a leader must do. More often than not, this emergent behavior, this magical behavior, goes unacknowledged if not unnoticed. As leaders, this behavior is unskillful. As leaders, we’ve got to slow down and pay more attention.

When you see the magic in emergent behavior, when you see the revolution it could grow into, and when you look someone in the eye and say – “I’ve got to tell you, what you did was crazy good. What you did could turn things upside down. What you did was inspiring. Thank you.” – you get people’s attention. Not only to do you get the attention of the person you’re talking to, you get the attention of everyone within a ten-foot radius. And thirty minutes later, almost everyone knows about the emergent behavior and the warm sunshine it attracted.

And, magically, without a corporate initiative or top-down deployment, over the next weeks there will be patches of orchids sprouting under desks, behind filing cabinets, on the manufacturing floor, in the engineering labs and in the common areas.

As leaders we must make it easier for new behavior to happen. We must figure a way to slow down and pay attention so we can recognize the seeds of could-be greatness. And to be able to invest the emotional energy needed to protect the seedlings, we must be well-rested. And like we know to provide the right soil, the right fertilizer, the right watering schedule and the right sunlight, we must remember that special behavior we want to grow is a result of causes and conditions we create.

Image credits: 1 of 1,300+ FREE quotes for download at http://misterinnovation.com

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