Category Archives: Leadership

Learn How Your Team Works Best

Leave a reply

Learn How Your Team Works Best

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Assembling a team of talented individuals is only the first step toward success. The real challenge lies in ensuring that this team can work together effectively to meet deadlines and achieve goals. Despite having a roster of skilled professionals, you may find your team underperforming, a situation that can be both perplexing and frustrating. In this article, we’ll examine why some teams don’t work.

The Need For Common Understanding

It’s a common misconception that if each member is clear on their individual tasks, the team will naturally succeed. However, this overlooks the crucial aspect of how team members interact and collaborate with one another.

The reluctance to micromanage may lead managers to adopt a hands-off approach, expecting teams to navigate their dynamics independently. However, this can result in a disjointed effort, with members unsure of how to integrate their work with that of their colleagues. Providing clear guidance on roles and responsibilities is essential, but fostering a culture of empathy and understanding is equally important. This dual focus on clarity and empathy cultivates a common understanding, enabling teams to excel not just in their tasks but in their collaboration as well.

Empathy in management goes beyond simply putting yourself in another’s shoes. It involves actively fostering a team culture where members are attuned to each other’s strengths, weaknesses, and working styles. This was exemplified by Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut, who led a diverse team on the International Space Station. Hadfield prioritized team cohesion. He realized that the mission’s difficulties would not stem from a lack of technical knowledge but rather from the potential clashes arising from differences in personality and work preferences, which tend to intensify over extended periods in close quarters. To foster understanding and unity, Hadfield lived and worked in both the United States and Russia, immersing himself in their respective cultures. He encouraged the team to share their preferences, connect with each other’s families, and engage in role-playing exercises to anticipate reactions to challenging scenarios.

This dual understanding—clarity regarding tasks and insight into each other’s perspectives—proved instrumental in the mission’s remarkable success. Despite spending five months together in the confined quarters of the ISS, the team never experienced heated arguments. They faced unexpected challenges, including the loss of a loved one while in space and a sudden ammonia tank leak, which demanded an urgent spacewalk. However, their thorough preparation and understanding allowed them to navigate these challenges effectively and ensure the mission’s triumphant completion.

Why Empathy Works

Research by Dr. Anita Williams Woolley at Carnegie Mellon University highlights that the success of a team isn’t solely dependent on the intelligence or diversity of its members. Dr. Woolley and her research team tested 152 teams and gave them assignments that required collaboration, creative thinking, decision making challenges and involved planning ahead. Initially, the researchers assumed that factors like intelligence or level of skills specific to the task would best predict which teams performed well. But surprisingly, it was a team’s level of social perceptiveness and ability to work together harmoniously that predicted performance—including high-performance on tasks in which the team had merely average intelligence or no discernable skills for the task. Teams that develop a shared behavioral norm and understand each other’s contributions could tackle any task efficiently. In other words, the more common understanding, the more likely the team was to perform.

How To Build Common Understanding

Building empathy within a team doesn’t require grand gestures but can start with simple, everyday interactions. Here’s a few ways to get started:

Find Free Time:

One of the most productive times for team collaboration is when the team does nothing at all. That sounds counterintuitive, but humans are social creatures and socialization is how we learn about each other best. In times when people aren’t talking about work, they’re usually talking about themselves. They’re describing past experiences, introducing their family, and sharing hobbies and interests that extend beyond their job description and training.

These moments of self-disclosure allow the whole team to understand the person better, and they allow individual teammates to find uncommon commonalities—things that those two have in common, that are uncommon to the rest of the team. These uncommon commonalities are how individuals build bonds and how coworkers turn into friends. A myriad of research suggests having friends at work and on a team makes people more productive, engaged, and resilient.

Some unstructured times happen naturally, like the moments before a meeting when some of the team is in the conference room or on the video call early. But other times may need to be created deliberately, like setting certain days to eat together or creating a calendar of paired “coffee chat” appointments between coworkers. These deliberate times might seem fundatory (mandatory fun that’s not actually that fun), but that’s likely because the team doesn’t know that much about each other yet. As these times continue and as the team grows closer and develops more empathy, they’ll quickly turn into some of the most energizing times on a team’s calendar.

Write Manuals of Me:

Think of this as a user’s manual, like the one you’re handed when you get a new car. Have each person on the team draft a short document telling their teammates more about them and how they prefer to work. These manuals help the team understand why one person always seems overly optimistic and another skeptical, and why one person writes long, contemplative emails and another writes back “Sounds good.” This saves time and confusion and also helps reduce conflict, perhaps better than any over-priced personality test could.

One easy template to start contains four simple statements: I am at my best when __________. I am at my worst when __________. You can count on me to __________. What I need from you is __________.

Send these questions out and ask the team to ponder them for a while before meeting to share answers. If you’re the leader, establish trust by going first (more on that in Part Two). Allow time after each statement for questions and clarification, as people are trying to apply what has been shared to past experiences with that person. Just like team charters, the real value is not in the document, but in drafting and sharing it.

Share Gratitude:

One of the simplest and most powerful ways to build empathy and connection with someone else is to show appreciation. So, it’s not surprising that research suggests high-performing teams express significantly more gratitude to each other than other groups. In addition, increasing expressions of gratitude on a team also increase the openness to helping each other on future projects. The benefits of gratitude aren’t just reserved for the receiver, they’re also gotten by the giver (Please forgive the grammar there in favor of some awesome alliteration).

Taking the time to say “thank you” increases well-being and brain function and reduces impatience and other stressors that get in the way of empathizing with colleagues. Grateful people are more relaxed, more resilient, and earn about seven percent more than their ungrateful colleagues.

Consider starting a few public displays of appreciation on your team. This could be a weekly ritual at the end of a meeting where each person says thanks to someone else on the team (and pay attention, you want to make sure everyone receives at least one kudos). It could also be by creating a “Weekly Praise” email or communication channel where members share what they appreciated about each other this past week. If you need an even smaller start, you could target just one person and pass around a symbol or token when they receive appreciation (the token also nominates them to share next week).

Conclusion

Creating a high-performing team is akin to playing chess, where understanding the unique strengths and roles of each piece is crucial to victory. By fostering a culture of clarity, empathy, and mutual understanding, you enable your team to navigate the complexities of collaboration effectively. This approach not only enhances performance but also builds a resilient and adaptable team capable of achieving its objectives. Remember, the path to a high-performing team is a journey of building understanding and empathy, a strategy that, while it may require time and patience, yields substantial rewards for those willing to invest in it.

Image credit: Pexels

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

You Already Have Too Many Ideas

1 Reply

You Already Have Too Many Ideas

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation isn’t achieved by creating more ideas. Innovation is realized when ideas are transformed into commercialized products and services. Innovation is realized when ideas are transformed into new business models that deliver novel usefulness to customers and deliver increased revenues to the company.

In a way, creating ideas that languish in their own shadow is worse than not creating any ideas at all. If you don’t have any ideas, at least you didn’t spend the resources to create them and you don’t create the illusion that you’re actually making progress. In that way, it’s better to avoid creating new ideas if you’re not going to do anything with them. At least your leadership team will not be able to rationalize that everything will be okay because you have an active idea generation engine.

Before you schedule your next innovation session, don’t. Reason 1 – it’s not an innovation session, it’s an ideation session. Reason 2 – you don’t have resources to do anything with the best ideas so you’ll spend the resources and nothing will come of it. To improve the return on investment, don’t make the investment because there will be no return.

Truth is, you already have amazing ideas to grow your company. Problem is, no one is listening to the people with the ideas. And the bigger problem – because no one listened over the last ten years, the people with the ideas have left the company or stopped trying to convince you they have good ideas. Either way, you’re in trouble and creating more ideas won’t help you. Your culture is such that new ideas fall on deaf ears and funding to advance new concepts loses to continuous improvement.

If you do want to hold an ideation event to create new ideas that will reinvent your company, there are ways to do it effectively. First, define the customer of the ideation event. This is the person who is on the hook to commercialize things that will grow the business. This is the person who will have a career problem if ideas aren’t implemented. This is the person who can allocate the resources to turn the ideas into commercialized products, services. If this person isn’t an active advocate for the ideation event, don’t hold it. If this person will not show up to the report out of the ideation event, don’t hold it. If this person does not commit to advancing the best ideas, don’t hold the event.

Though innovation and ideas start with “i”, they’re not the same. Ideas are inexpensive to create but deliver no value. Innovation is expensive and delivers extreme value to customers and the company. If you’re not willing to convert the ideas into something that delivers values to customers, save the money and do continuous improvement. Your best people will leave, but at least you won’t waste money on creating ideas that will die on the vine.

If the resources aren’t lined up to run with the ideas, don’t generate the them. If you haven’t allocated the funding for the follow-on work, don’t create new ideas. If the person who is charged with growing the business isn’t asking for new ideas, don’t hold the ideation event.

You already have too many ideas. But what you lack is too few active projects to convert the best ideas into products and services that generate value for your customers and growth for your company.

Stop creating new ideas and start delivering novel usefulness to your customers.

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.

Portfolio Management and Category Power

Leave a reply

Portfolio Management and Category Power

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Portfolio management is the most consequential and the most challenging element in strategic planning. There is typically a ton of data, but none of it can really speak to the host of underlying risks that underpin long-range investments in net new lines of business, ones that pay off primarily in the out years. The best one can do is leverage experience, frameworks, and pattern recognition to navigate what are inevitably uncharted waters. With that in mind, here are some things to keep in view.

  1. Category Maturity Life Cycle: Tornadoes versus Main Street. Who doesn’t want a growth portfolio? To get one, however, means your enterprise must have meaningful plays in categories that are undergoing secular growth. Secular growth happens when net new budget is being created for a new purchase category across a broad spectrum of customers, a phase in technology adoption we have termed the tornado. Once the tornado has passed, the category will have an established place in these customers’ budgets going forward, a stage in the life cycle we call Main Street, one that is characterized by cyclical growth. Cyclical growth rewards inertial momentum, the goal being to leverage incumbency to grow wallet share more than market share. Secular growth rewards disruption, the goal being to displace an established profit pool by leveraging an emerging one. These dynamics transcend the efforts of most companies to influence (gorilla leaders being the exception), so assessing category power is first and foremost getting clarity on the hand you have been dealt. That will shape your ambitions for next year’s performance and set a baseline for future investment.

  2. Valuation: Growth investors versus value investors. Both forms of growth, secular and cyclical, are valued by investors for their respective risk-adjusted returns, but in different ways for different reasons. Growth investors are looking for a big pop and are willing for you to take considerable risk to get it. Value investors by contrast seek predictably consistent performance—an earnings-oriented approach that outperforms bonds with a minimum of additional risk. Both groups discount the value of the other group’s approach which exposes the market cap of established enterprises to a “conglomerate discount,” a painful penalty given that their stock is the major currency that will fund any M&A. Managing for shareholder value, in other words, gets hung up on the question, which shareholders? The reality is that most publicly held companies have a mix across the board, so the salient issue to address is how much of our operating budget should we commit to the current year versus the out years? Having a principled discussion on this topic leading to a definitive commitment is essential to creating a coherent strategy.

  3. Capital market status: PE-backed versus publicly held. Strategic planning in privately held enterprises is typically more straightforward because the board of directors representing the investing firms share a common approach to risk-adjusted returns. This is why when publicly held companies like Dell reach a crossroads that requires a patch of difficult sledding, they choose to take themselves private in order to accelerate their course corrections. The price to pay for this option is committing to operating principles, performance milestones, and a management discipline that meets the PE investors’ approval.

  4. Leveraging M&A: Incubate before you commit. Pundits like to claim that most M&A transactions fail to deliver on their promise (although recent research puts the odds at closer to fifty-fifty). Some of the failures, however, are self-inflicted wounds that can be avoided by taking a multi-step approach. If your enterprise has a venture investment capability, taking positions in disruptive start-ups with observer rights is a good way to test the waters. In parallel, the goal is to incubate comparable initiatives internally and get them into the market as trial balloons. The difference between this and the early-stage venture model is that you cannot wait for these organic efforts to scale—it will simply take too long. So, you are not trying to win the game with your new offers, just learn it. Sooner or later, you will turn to M&A to acquire something of meaningful mass, the difference being, because you have spent the intervening time in the market competing, you will be a much more knowledgeable acquirer than you otherwise would be.

  5. Synergy management: Year One is the one that matters most. Value-oriented M&A is intended to consolidate mature categories with cyclical growth. It is based on an inside-out approach to cost reduction focusing on eliminating duplicated functions, typically in the back office and the supply chain. Growth-oriented M&A, by contrast, takes an outside-in approach focusing on accelerating bookings and revenues through a series of go-to-market and customer success initiatives. When a smaller high-growth enterprise gets acquired by a larger, slower-growing one, the opportunity is to galvanize the latter’s existing customer base and ecosystem relationships, as well as its global sales and service footprint, to capture market share under highly favorable selling conditions. The trick is to do this quickly, while the iron is still hot, and that requires special incentives and strong management support to build trust between the old and new guards and to overcome the initial inertial resistance that accompanies any acquisition. In sum, what looks good on paper could very well be good in actual fact, but only after you execute Captain Picard’s famous dictum: Make it so!

  6. M&A integration: Year Two is the one that matters most. If the first year is all about getting the go-to-market right as fast as possible, the second is about creating lasting relationships that will enable the two enterprises to operate as one. There are four areas of interest here—the product team, the sales team, the management team, and the culture overall—and each one calls for a slightly different approach. The single most important outcome is to keep the product talent in place—they have the keys to the new kingdom. The sales team can and normally should continue to function as an overlay during the second year, but in parallel a transition to an integrated organization must begin so that in Year Three the overlay is eliminated. The management team is a wild card. Despite all the best intentions on both sides of the table, including vesting incentives of various kinds, entrepreneurial CEOs rarely stay, nor should they. The skillset for disrupting does not translate well into the skillset for scaling and optimizing. This suggests that from the outset a leadership transition should be on the table, typically enlisting an up-and-coming executive from the acquiring enterprise to personally throw themselves into the gap and pull the two organizations together leveraging every talent and tool they have. Finally, large enterprises necessarily entail an enormous amount of process management, something that goes against the grain of entrepreneurial culture, so one needs to tread carefully here, with the understanding that long term there can only be one enterprise, and by virtue of its scale, it will be process-driven for much of its day-to-day work. To promise the acquired company anything else will only create disillusion and disintegration down the line.

  7. Decision Time: To play or not to play. There is no formula for making transformational decisions, but there are some guidelines to keep in mind. The first is few, and far between. Transformations are disruptive to the core business that is funding your overall operation, and it takes time for everything to stabilize around a new portfolio. A second principle is existential threat. If the emerging category obsoletes a pillar of your core business, the way digital photography obsoleted film, the way that streaming is obsoleting conventional TV, then you must take action. Absent such a forcing function, a third principle to consider is value to the existing customer base, with the corollary of opportunity for our existing ecosystem. In other words, does the world want you to do this? Transformation takes a village, and it matters a great deal how much your constituencies will lean in to help you through it. Finally, when your competitors hear about this, will they smile and laugh, or will they say Oh sh*t! If the latter, it just puts icing on the cake.

  8. Plan B: Leverage the updraft. The stars have to align to make any transformational portfolio play work, and sometimes they simply won’t. Plan B is to incorporate a portion of the tornado category into your existing portfolio as a supplement. Take Gen AI, for example. You don’t have to be in the category like Open AI or Anthropic to participate in the new spending. Virtually any enterprise application can benefit from a Gen AI bolt-on to improve the user experience or simplify the administrative one. Prior experiences with adding mobile applications and digital commerce to legacy systems have delivered similarly positive returns. You don’t have to be in the lead, but customers do want to see you are still in the game, and assuming you show up with a working product, they are more than happy to consume it.

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

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

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.

Innovation, Leadership and Productive Conflict

Leave a reply

Five Questions to Laura Weiss

Innovation, Leadership and Productive Conflict

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

You need friction to create fire. It’s true whether you’re camping or leading change inside an organization. Yet most of us avoid conflict—we ignore it, smooth it over, or sideline the people who spark it.

I’ve been guilty of that too, which is why I was eager to sit down with Laura Weiss, founder of Design Diplomacy, former architect and IDEO partner, university educator, and professional mediator, to explore why conflict isn’t the enemy of innovation, but one of its essential ingredients.

Our conversation wasn’t about frameworks or facilitation tricks. It was about something deeper: how leaders can unlearn their fear of conflict, lean into discomfort, and use it to build trust, fuel learning, and drive meaningful change.

So if conflict feels like a threat to alignment and progress, this conversation will show you why embracing it is the real leadership move.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Robyn Bolton: What’s the one piece of conventional wisdom about change that organizations need to unlearn?

Laura Weiss: The belief that change is event-driven.  It’s not, except for seismic shifts like the Great Recession, the COVID-19 pandemic, 9/11, and October 7. It’s happening all the time!  As a result, leading change should be seen as a continuous endeavor that prepares the organization to be agile when unforeseen events occur.

RB: Wow, that is capital-T True! What is driving this misperception?

LW: It’s been said that ‘managers deal with complexity, but leaders deal with change’. So, it all comes down to leadership. However, the prevailing belief is that a “leader” is the person who has risen to the top of the organization and has all the answers.

In many design professions, those who are promoted to leadership roles are exceptional at their craft. But evolving from an ‘individual contributor’ to leading others involves skills that can seem contrary to our beliefs about leadership. One is humility – the capability to say “I don’t know” without feeling exposed as a fraud, especially in professions where being a “subject matter expert” is expected. Being humble presents the leader as human, which leads to another skill: connecting with others as humans before attempting to ‘lead’ them. I particularly like Edgar Schein’s relationship-driven leadership philosophy as opposed to ‘transactional’ leadership, where your role relative to others dictates how you interact.

RB: From your experience, how can we unlearn this and lead differently?

LW: Leaders need to do three things:

  1. Be self-aware. After becoming a certified coach, it became clear to me that all leadership begins with understanding oneself. If you’re unaware of how you operate in the world, you certainly can’t lead others effectively.
  2. Be agile. Machiavelli famously asked: “Is it better to be loved or feared…?” Being a leader requires the ability to do both, operating along the ‘warmth-strength’ continuum, starting with warmth. There are six leadership styles a leader should be familiar with, in the same way that golfers know which golf club to use for a particular situation.
  3. Evolve. This means feedback – being willing to ask for it and receive it. Many senior leaders stop receiving feedback as they progress in their careers. But times change, and ‘what got you here won’t get you there.’ Holding up a mirror to very senior leaders who have rarely, if ever, received feedback, or have received it but didn’t really “get it,” is critical if they are to change with the times and the needs of their organization.

RB: Amen!  I’m starting to sense a connection between leadership, innovation, and change, but before I make assumptions, what do you see?

LW: First, I want to acknowledge the thesis of your book that “innovation isn’t an idea problem, it’s a leadership problem” – 1000% agree with that!

Laura Weiss

One of the reasons I shifted from being an architect to focusing on the broader world of innovation was that I was curious about why some innovation initiatives were successful and some were not.  Specifically, I was curious about the role of conflict in the creative problem-solving process because conflict is critical to bringing innovation and change to life. Yet, it’s not something most of us are naturally good at – in fact, our brain is designed to avoid it!

The biggest myth about conflict is that it erodes trust and undermines relationships. The opposite is true – when handled well, productive conflict strengthens relationships and leads to better outcomes for organizations navigating change.

Just as with innovation, the organizations that are most successful with change are the ones that consistently use productive conflict as an enabler of change.

To achieve this, organizations must shift from a reactive stance to a proactive one and become more “discovery-driven”. This means practicing iterative prototyping and learning their way forward. In my mind, innovation is a form of structured learning that yields something new with value.

RB: What role does communication play in leadership and conflict?

LW: Conflict is an inevitable part of the human experience because it reflects the tension between the status quo and something else that’s trying to emerge.  It can appear even in the process of solving daily problems, so the ability to deal productively with conflict, from simple misunderstandings to seemingly intractable differences, is crucial.

The source code for effective conflict engagement is effective conversations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The real challenge in leadership isn’t preventing conflict—it’s recognizing that conflict is already happening and choosing to engage with it productively through conversation

This conversation with Laura reminded me that innovation and change don’t just thrive on new ideas. They require leaders who are self-aware enough to listen, humble enough to ask for feedback, and courageous enough to stay in the tension long enough for something better to emerge.

Image credit: Unsplash, Laura Weiss

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.

Purpose Has Transformative Power

Leave a reply

Purpose Has Transformative Power

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Wherever I go in the world to speak and advise organizations, I always get the same question: “How can I get people to listen to my ideas?” The truth is that no one wants to listen to your ideas unless they solve a problem that is meaningful to them. So many initiatives fail because leaders get so focused on their passion for an idea that they fail to communicate it effectively.

People already have enough going on in their lives with their own responsibilities, ambitions and dreams. They have families to take care of, friends that they want to spend time with and their own ideas that they want to pursue. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully.

The truth is that good ideas fail all the time. In the two decades I have been researching and advising leaders about transformation, what I have found is that few have trouble coming up with new concepts. The hard part is to get others to buy in and work together towards a common purpose. That can only be done in the context of shared sense of values and mission.

Why Occupy Not Only Failed, But Could Never Succeed

On September 17, 2011, #Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park, in the heart of the financial district in Lower Manhattan. Declaring, “We are the 99%,” they captured the attention of the nation and then the world, eventually growing to encompass protests in 951 cities across 82 countries.

The protesters were angry and rightly so. A global economic elite had bilked us out of trillions and then gotten off scot-free. However, despite all of the self-righteous indignation, they offered no alternate vision of how they wanted things to be. There were no proposals for legislation, alternative business models or anything else really, just anger and frustration.

As Joe Nocera noted in the New York Times, the Occupy movement “had plenty of grievances, aimed mainly at the ‘oppressive’ power of corporations,” but “never got beyond their own slogans.” It’s never enough to merely point out what you don’t like — you need to put forward a clear idea of what you want instead.

When General Stanley McChrystal sought to transform military operations in Iraq, his mantra was “it takes a network to defeat a network” and he built his strategy for change around that one basic principle. Lou Gerstner pulled off one of the most extraordinary turnarounds in history by refocusing his organization from its proprietary “stack” of products to its customers’ “stack” of business processes.

A sense of grievance is never enough to bring change about. You need to put forward an affirmative vision of tomorrow.

How the Mission Drives Your Strategy

We usually think of strategy as a rational, analytic activity, with teams of MBA’s poring over spreadsheets. We often forget that strategy has to have a purpose and that purpose is almost always personal and emotive. Great strategy starts, not with analysis, but from defining and committing to a mission.

Strategy is never created on an empty canvas. While we can make rational assessments about whether we want to pursue a strategy based on low costs, differentiation or an attractive niche. We can, through investments and divestments, fill in missing pieces on a PowerPoint chart, but the fate of a strategy ultimately hinges on personality and ambition.

The success of Apple can’t be separated from Steve Jobs’ ambition to weave technology and design into products that were “insanely great.” Southwest’s dominance in the travel industry is a direct consequence of Herb Kelleher’s mission of being “THE low cost airline,” which drove everything he did from the planes he bought to which routes he competed on.

As Adam Michnik, one of the key intellectual leaders behind the Solidarity movement in Poland, put it, “Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. Do you believe in free speech? Then speak freely. Do you love the truth? Then tell it. Do you believe in an open society? Then act in the open. Do you believe in a decent and humane society? Then behave decently and humanely.”

Any vision for the future needs to be rooted in desire and desires are essentially personal. They are deeply entrenched in our sense of self.

The Value of Values

The 2008 financial crisis posed serious challenges for every business. With sales taking a nosedive, companies had to make painful cuts to rein in costs. In the vast majority of cases, that meant layoffs and millions lost their jobs. It’s one of those understandable misfortunes.e No one likes it, but few see alternatives.

The steel giant Nucor, however, had pledged never to lay off employees and it cost it dearly. In 2009, the company lost $294 million dollars. At the time, many saw the move as quixotic and impractical. Yet the results speak for themselves. Today the company is valued more than 30% higher than its closest rival ArcelorMittal S.A., with significantly higher profit margins and twice the return on equity.

In The Good Jobs Strategy MIT’s Zeynep Ton tells a similar story about Mercadona, Spain’s leading discount retailer, when it needed to cut costs in 2008. Rather than cut wages or reduce staff, it asked its employees to contribute ideas. The result was that it managed to reduce prices by 10% and increased its market share from 15% in 2008 to 20% in 2012.

Values are how an enterprise honors its purpose. Yet living up to them involves certain costs. You can’t say you value employees and then lay them off at the first sign of trouble, just like you can’t say you value innovation and obsess about quarterly earnings. You can’t commit to a purpose without making hard choices.

We Need to Start Asking Different Questions

When the Business Roundtable issued a statement in 2019 that discarded the old notion that the sole purpose of a business is to provide value to shareholders, many were dismayed. Some thought it was just another example of misguided altruism by “elites.” Others saw it as a cynical and disingenuous ploy.

The truth is that the whole idea of shareholder capitalism was a cop-out. It gave leaders an excuse for not making choices because it implied that whatever the stock market valued was somehow more relevant than human agency. The anonymous collective of the market was primary, while individual choice was considered to be less consequential.

The ascendant concept of “stakeholder capitalism,” unfortunately, isn’t much better. Surely we can’t value all stakeholders equally. So which communities should we choose to serve? Which consumers do we value over others? Which partners do we choose to get in bed with? What standards should we insist that our suppliers meet?

None of these are easy questions. If for instance, we stop working with suppliers who don’t meet certain environmental or governance standards, we take away jobs from certain communities and run the risk of diminishing our ability to serve our customers. So we need to be thoughtful and offer intelligent standards making tough and uncertain choices

The reason so many organizations find themselves unable to pursue a purpose isn’t because they don’t want to, but because it is hard. Purpose doesn’t begin with a single step, but with a diverging path. We must choose one direction at the expense of another, or stay mired and lost, unable to move forward.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Dall-E

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.






Should We Stop Asking Employees to Innovate?

Leave a reply

Should We Stop Asking Employees to Innovate?

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

I recently revisited a comment from one of my older posts on how to train and educate executives on innovation. It went something like this:

“Innovation requires time and drive to explore new vistas, so it’s understandable that busy employees can’t be bothered with it. The best approach is for senior managers to assign a team, giving them the time and resources to innovate.”

While I agree that dedicated innovation teams with the right resources are crucial, the notion that “busy employees can’t be bothered” with innovation is not just dangerous, it’s short-sighted.

If leaders believe innovation is only for a select few, it signals that innovation isn’t truly a priority. And in today’s fast-evolving landscape, companies that don’t prioritize innovation throughout their ranks are setting themselves up for stagnation.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter:

1. Innovation isn’t just for the few, it’s for everyone – strategically.

Not every employee needs to work on breakthrough innovation, but every employee should have the opportunity to contribute. Whether through idea portals, hackathons, or innovation challenges, businesses should create accessible ways for employees to share their ideas and build on others’.

2. Innovation should happen in the day-to-day.

Often, the best innovations come from employees focused on improving their immediate environment. This type of incremental innovation – refining processes, enhancing services, or finding small but impactful efficiencies – should happen at the business unit level. Meanwhile, dedicated teams can tackle more disruptive and higher-risk projects with a long-term payoff.

3. It’s time to re-frame innovation.

The term “innovation” has become vague and overused. Consider a term like “impact” as a way to shift the focus from concepts to tangible results. Impact is measurable and reflects the outcome, not just the process. After all, what matters isn’t innovation for its own sake, but the meaningful change it brings.

Finally, corporate innovation teams should shift their roles from doers to facilitators and integrators – empowering business units to innovate while connecting internal and external resources. Collaboration, both within and outside the organization, accelerates innovation, increasing diversity of thought and speeding up results.

Scaling innovation across the company is a collective effort, not a siloed one.

What’s your take on this?

Image Credits: Pexels

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






What Will Happen if You Disappear?

Leave a reply

What Will Happen if You Disappear?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you were out of the office for a month and did not check email or check in, how would things go?

Your Team – Would your team curl up into a ball under the pressure, or would they use their judgement when things don’t go as planned? I think the answer depends on how you interacted with them over the last year. If you created an environment where it’s a genius and a thousand helpers, they won’t make any decisions because you made it clear that it’s your responsibility to make decisions and it’s their responsibility to listen. But if over the last year you demanded that they use their judgement, they’ll use it when you’re gone. Which would they do? How sure are you? And, how do you feel about that?

Other Teams – Would other teams reach out to your team for help, or would they wait until you get back to ask for help? If they wait it’s because they know you make all the decisions and your team is voice actuated – you talk and they act. But if other teams reach out directly to your team, it’s because over the last years you demonstrated to your team that you expect them to use their good judgement and make good decisions. Would other teams reach out for help or would they wait for you to get back? How do you feel about that?

Your Boss – Would your boss dive into the details of the team’s work or leave the work to the team? I think it depends on whether you were transparent with your boss over the last years about the team’s capability. If in your interactions you took credit for all the good work and blamed your team for the work that went poorly, your boss will dig into the details with your team. Your boss trusts you to do good work and not your team, and since you’re not there, your boss will think the work is in jeopardy and will set up meetings with your team to make sure the work goes well. But if over the last years you gave credit to the team and communicated the strengths and weaknesses of the team, your boss will let the team do the work. Would your boss set up the meetings or leave your team to their work? How sure are you?

To celebrate my son’s graduation from engineering school, I am taking a month off from work to ride motorcycles with him. I’m not sure how it will go with my team, the other teams and my boss, but over the last several years I’ve been getting everyone ready for just this type of thing.

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.






Transform Your Innovation Approach with One Word

Leave a reply

Transform Your Innovation Approach with One Word

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Have you heard any of these sentences recently?

“We don’t have time”

“Our people don’t have the skills”

“We don’t have the budget”

“That’s not what we do”

I hear them all the time.  

Sometimes they’re said when a company is starting to invest in building their innovation capabilities, sometimes during one-on-one stakeholder interviews when people feel freer to share their honest opinions, and sometimes well after investments are made.

Every single time, they are the beginning of the end for innovation.

But one word that can change that.

“We don’t have time – yet.”

“Our people don’t have the skills – yet.”

“We don’t have the budget – yet.”

“That’s not what we do – yet.”

Yet.

Yet creates space for change.  It acknowledges that you’re in the middle of a journey, not the end.  It encourages conversation.

“We don’t have time – yet.”

“OK, I know the team is busy and that what they’re working on is important.  Let’s look at what people are working on and see if there are things we can delay or stop to create room for this.”

“Our people don’t have the skills – yet.”

“Understand, we’re all building new skills when it comes to innovation.  Good news, skills can be learned.  Let’s discuss what we need to teach people and the best way to do that.”

“We don’t have the budget – yet.”

“I get it.  Things are tight. We know this is a priority so let’s look at the budget and see if there’s a way to free up some cash.  If there’s not, then we’ll go back to leadership and ask for guidance.”

“That’s not what we do – yet.”

“I know.  Remember, we’re not doing this on a whim, we’re doing this because (fill in reason), and we have a right to do it because of (fill in past success, current strength, or competitive advantage.”

You need to introduce the Yet.

It is very rare for people to add “yet” to their statements.  But you can.

When someone utters an innovation-killing statement, respond with “Yet.” Maybe smile mischievously and then repeat their statement with “yet” added to the end.

After all, you’re not disagreeing with them. You’re simply qualifying what they’re saying.  Their statement is true now, but that doesn’t mean it will be true forever.  By restating their assertion and adding “yet,” you’re inviting them to be part of the change, to take an active role in creating the new future state.

There’s a tremendous amount of research about the massive impact of this little word.  It helps underperforming students overachieve and is closely associated with Dr. Carol Dweck’s research into fixed and learning mindsets.

The bottom line is that “yet” works.

Put Yet to work for you, your organization, and your efforts to innovate and grow.

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.

Revolutions Never Begin with a Slogan

Leave a reply

Revolutions Never Begin with a Slogan

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenski has been compared to great orators like Winston Churchill. He vowed to the English House of Commons to fight “in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets.” In a speech to the US Congress he told President Biden, “​​Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.”

While new to politics, Zelensky is no neophyte when it comes to delivering a line. A longtime actor and comic who was the voice of “Paddington” in the Ukrainian adaptations of the hit movie, his production company Kvartal 95 produced a series of hits. It would be easy to boil his effectiveness down to his communication skills.

That would be a mistake. Zelenski’s eloquence derives its power from the plight of his people, their passion for freedom and their unwillingness to return to an often troubled past. One reason why change so often fails is that we spend so much time focusing on wordsmithing that we neglect why the need for change arose in the first place. That is where we must start.

Gandhi’s Satyagraha

As a young man, Mohandis Gandhi wasn’t the type of person you would notice. Impulsive and undisciplined, he was also so shy as a young lawyer that he could hardly bring himself to speak in open court. With his law career failing, he accepted an offer to represent the cousin of a wealthy muslim merchant in South Africa.

Upon his arrival, Gandhi was subjected to humiliation on a train and it changed him. His sense of dignity offended, he decided to fight back. Yet he would do so not by attacking his enemies, but by targeting his own weaknesses. The aim, as he put it, was “the vindication of truth not by affliction of suffering on the opponent, but on one’s self.”

His method of Satyagraha was not passive resistance as commonly understood, which he considered a “weapon of the weak.” In fact, it was extremely strategic. Its aim was to undermine his opponents legitimacy and, in doing so, their freedom of action. He sought to back them into a corner in which both action and inaction would yield essentially the same result —an upending of the existing order.

At its core, Satyagraha is intended to be a quest for truth. The aim is to get your opponents to confront themselves. As the South African leader Jan Smuts would put it. “It was my fate to be the antagonist of a man for whom even then I had the highest respect… For me — the defender of law and order — there was the usual trying situation, the odium of carrying out the law, which had not strong popular support.”

Stalin’s Gift That Just Kept Giving

One of the first things a visitor to Warsaw will notice is the Palace of Culture. When arrived in the country in 1997, it dominated the skyline. A replica of the Seven Sisters buildings in Moscow, it was forced upon the Polish people by Stalin in 1955 and for decades it served as a reminder of Soviet domination.

I remember attending a business meeting there where my host pointed out that it had the best view in Warsaw, because it was the only place where you couldn’t see the Palace of Culture. Its tower had the feel of Sauron, the evil force in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series. It was more than just a foreign presence at the heart of the capital city. It was an all-watching eye, a reminder that Poles’ lives were not fully their own.

We remember the Solidarity movement in Poland as a struggle for labor against communism and economics were certainly part of it. But the larger grievance was encapsulated in the Palace of Culture, the feeling of being completely subjugated by another nation. Poles felt it deeply and never truly accepted Soviet rule.

Much like Gandhi on the train, it was that emotional sense of injury that pushed the Polish people to be passionate about change and it is similar forces that propel the Ukrainians now. Vladimir Putin, much like Stalin before him, has unwittingly empowered his own opposition by failing to recognize their identity and attempting to subjugate their identity,

Today, the Palace of Culture still stands, albeit enfeebled by the modern skyscrapers bustling with commercial activity, that surround and obscure it.

Steve Jobs and the Products That Sucked

Steve Jobs didn’t believe in market research. He once explained, “Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, ‘If I’d ask customers what they wanted, they would’ve told me a faster horse.’ People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” That’s why he didn’t start out with a product idea, but something that “sucked”

Computers sucked. They were ugly and hard to use. That’s what drove him to create the Macintosh. Music players sucked. He wanted something that would put 1000 songs in his pocket. That’s what drove him to create the iPod. Phones sucked. That’s what drove him to create the iPhone. Much like Gandhi’s humiliation and the Palace of culture, these things offended his sensibilities.

If you want to create change in this world, you need to identify a grievance that people care about. Because if people don’t see a problem, they’re not going to care about your solution. It doesn’t matter if it’s in your team, your organization, your industry or throughout society as a whole. Change isn’t about ideas, it’s about solving meaningful problems.

When we begin to work with a leadership team on a transformational initiative, we always start out asking about what problem they are trying to solve. Often, they don’t know. There are so many wonderful things to adopt that it’s easy to fall into the trap of identifying a solution before you’ve actually defined a problem.

Don’t Let Talking About Change Undermine Your Ability to Achieve It

Every leader wants to be seen at the vanguard of change. The truth is, it’s relatively easy to announce a change initiative, hire vendors to implement new technologies and then bring in change consultants to hone messaging and arrange training, but these things are unlikely to bring about successful transformation.

In fact, evidence suggests that all of the talk about change may be undermining our ability to achieve it. One survey found that 44% of employees say they don’t understand the change they’re being asked to make, and 38% say they don’t agree with it. A clear majority, 65% of respondents complained of “change fatigue.”

Change doesn’t begin with an idea. It starts with identifying a meaningful problem. That’s why it’s so important that before you start an initiative you ask questions like, ask questions like, “What problem are we trying to solve? Is there a general consensus that it’s a problem we need to solve? How would solving it impact our business?

When we look at transformational leaders who achieved great things, the first thing we tend to notice is their words, not the cause that compelled them to act. The words are easy to replicate. Anyone can speak them. But If you want to create change in this world, you need to identify a grievance that people care about. Because if people don’t see a problem, they’re not going to care about your solution.

— 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.






The Real Reason Your Team Isn’t Speaking to You

1 Reply

The Real Reason Your Team Isn't Speaking to You

GUEST POST from David Burkus

It’s a common issue in many organizations – teams not voicing obstacles or issues in their work. If you’ve been a leader for a while, you’ve probably experienced it firsthand. Maybe you and your team had a check-in meeting with everyone, and everything was positive. Everyone gives a status update. And no one is asking for help. So, the meeting ended, and everyone went about their business.

But you were suspicious. Your team was saying it was all good. But then they started missing deadlines, or the project came in over budget, or it didn’t come in at all.

You’re not alone. In fact, in many organizations’ failures happen and get covered up at many levels of the organization. It’s not uncommon for senior leaders to be the least informed about what’s really happening in the organization because everyone at every level is trying to minimize failure…or trying to minimize their role in it.

No one trusts each other enough to share their setbacks, so no one knows what’s holding the team back.

But trust doesn’t automatically resolve teamwide issues. Building trust is great, but research suggests that trust alone is insufficient. Instead, teams need to feel psychological safety—a climate of mutual trust and respect that helps team members feel safe to take interpersonal risks. Risks like voicing failures or disagreements, but also risks like sharing their “crazy” ideas that just might be brilliant.

Teams with psychological safety have members who can be vulnerable and authentic with each other. They ask questions or offer ideas that may seem odd but can lead the team’s thinking in new directions. Psychological safety encourages team members to speak up when they disagree, and as a result more diverse viewpoints are shared. Psychological safety reduces failures, because when people feel that they can speak freely they’re more likely to intervene before a team makes a mistake. In fact, research from Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, who first discovered the power of psychology safety on teams, suggests that on diverse teams, psychological safety determines whether their varied strengths are harnessed or if they perform below their potential.

In her work, Edmondson describes psychological safety as “a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.”

Trust and Respect.

These may seem similar. But they have their differences. The interplay between them is what builds psychological safety. Trust is how much we feel we can share our authentic selves with others. Respect is how much we feel they accept that self. If I trust you, then I will share honestly with you. If you respect me, then you will value what I’ve shared. High-performing teams don’t need to just trust each other, they also need to learn how to respect each other’s contribution.

So how can leaders build a sense of trust and respect on a team? Here’s a few ideas:

1. Celebrate Failures

Celebrating failures on a team doesn’t mean teams throw a party every time they lose, but it doesn’t mean that every loss immediately triggers a round of “shift the blame” or that they forbid each other from talking about “the project which shall not be named.” Failures are inevitable, and often for reasons outside of a team’s control. Clients change their mind. Budgets get cut. Global pandemics disrupt the supply chain and force everyone to look at each other on video calls. To build trust on a team, the team must be comfortable with the idea that they will fail—and that they will learn from failure.

So, taking the time to celebrate what the painful experience taught the team can be a worthwhile exercise. This happens in several ways. You could draft a “failure resume” for yourself and encourage teammates to do the same, listing every job or project that didn’t turn out as hoped. As a team, you could create a “failure wall” with pictures or quotes from projects that blew up or clients you didn’t win. Sara Blakely, founder of Spanx, throws regular Oops Meetings, where she admits her own mistakes and encourages the team to do the same. One pharmaceutical company went so far as to create “Failure Wakes” to gather researchers together around a promised but failed compound. The team said their good-byes, and expressed gratitude for the lessons working on that aborted drug taught them. These types of celebrations not only focus the team on lessons learned, but they encourage future risk-taking and keep teams motivated even when those chances of failure are high.

2. Hold After-Action Reviews

One way to at least celebrate learning if not failure is the after-action review. Although unlike clapping or waving, this is a more serious ritual done after the action (hence the name). Originally a military ritual, after-action reviews work well because they force the team to discuss strengths and weaknesses and to dissect past failures (and even successes) for lessons. Just after the team finishes a project, or during an important milestone, gather them together and ask them a few questions:

  • What was our intended result?
  • What was the actual result?
  • Why were they different?
  • What will we do the same next time?
  • What will we do differently next time?

The purpose of the meeting is not to find someone to blame, or someone to give all the credit. The goal is to extract lessons from the project about where the team is strong and where they need improvement. When people are open and honest about their weaknesses and contributions to failure, celebrate the vulnerability they just signaled.

3. Model Active Listening

The easiest way to signal disrespect to someone is make them feel ignored. The reverse is true as well. Making people feel listened to and truly heard is one of the simplest ways to signal that you respect what they have to say. Great team cultures are marked by how well they listen to each other and take turns speaking so everyone feels heard. But our natural tendency as humans can make it difficult to show others we’re listening. We want to help people. So, when people come to us with problems, we want to jump in and help right away. For team leaders, this tendency is even stronger. People are supposed to come to us for help, right? So, we start helping…which means we start talking…which means we stop listening.

One simple trick for ensuring you listen longer and help others feel more heard is to get used to saying, “Tell me more.” When someone says something that triggers a thought in your head, and you feel your mouth starting to open so your brilliant advice can greet the world—stop. Instead of whatever you were going to say, just say “Tell me more.” If you want to take active listening even further, consider a useful acronym from communication expert Julian Treasure: RASA. When someone else is speaking, Receive their ideas by paying attention to them as they speak. Appreciate what they are saying by nodding or giving confirming feedback. Summarize what the other person said when they’re finished. Then Ask them questions to explore their idea further. Since respect is a learned behavior, as you model active listening your team will follow your example—and more members of your team will feel heard and respected.

4. Recognize, And Share Credit

Leadership thinker Warren Bennis once noted that good leaders shine under the spotlight, but great leaders help others shine. Teams that share credit and take the time to recognize each other are teams where members feel more respected and more trusted. But teams that fight for credit when a project is finished (or fight over blame when it fails) diminish what little respect they had before. Great team leaders look for as many ways to share credit with their team as they can, even if they desire most of the credit. This can be as simple as taking the time to appreciate each team member’s strengths, or as big as shouting those praises throughout the company. When team members know what you appreciate about them, they know you respect their abilities and their ideas.

In addition, find small wins that can be celebrated more often—hence creating more opportunities to recognize others. Small wins have a big impact on individual and team motivation—and that impact only gets bigger when credit for the win is shared team wide.

Conclusion – The Psychological Safety Cycle

When individuals feel respected, and respectful behavior becomes the norm on a team, trust will naturally increase as well. That ensures that great ideas, and great lessons, get heard and considered. Without respect, that trust you’re building by accepting failures and embracing held-back brilliance from your team, will have a very short half-life. You can’t sleep on respect.

It’s a cycle.

You build trust on the team, which encourages people to take risks (or to risk admitting failures) and if that risk is met with respect…trust grows even more. If it doesn’t, you’re failing even faster.

It’s worth including in the conclusion, that we’re not talking about repeat failures. Psychological safety doesn’t mean there’s no accountability for consistently under-performing. It doesn’t mean that people can get away slacking off or that teams will just keep failing. But it does mean they don’t have to be afraid to ask for help or admit those occasional times when they do fail. It means that they take learning and growth so seriously that don’t hold back talking about their own struggles and their own mistakes.

And that’s why high-performing teams are psychologically safe teams.

Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on January 6, 2024

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