Category Archives: Management

Values Always Cost You Something

That’s What Makes Them Different From Platitudes

Values Always Cost You Something

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I was in Panama a couple of years ago for a keynote I had the opportunity to speak with Erika Mouynes, the country’s former Foreign Minister, about the war in Ukraine. Her ministry had strayed from its traditionally neutral stance by calling for “respect for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine based on international law.”

She told me that when she later met with Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, he asked her why she cared about a country thousands of miles away where Panama has no tangible interests. What did she expect to gain? She told him that sometimes you need to make decisions based on values that are important to you.

Her position was not without risk. Panama depends on broad international support for its canal. Yet many of the executives at the event told me how proud they were of her support for sovereignty, an issue that Panama has sometimes struggled with in its history. The truth is that, to mean something, values always cost you something. Otherwise they’re just platitudes.

Gandhi’s Ahimsa

Today, many dismiss Mohandas Gandhi as guileless and quixotic. He himself once said, “Men say that I am a saint losing myself in politics. The fact is I am a politician trying my hardest to be a saint.” He was, in truth, a master strategist, luring opponents into a dilemma that would put them in an impossible position of choosing either surrender or damnation.

One of the first principles of his philosophy of Satyagraha was ahimsa, or nonviolence, which was rooted in the quest for truth. If no one could claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth, then it followed that using violence—or any other means for that matter—to compel people to accede to your will would be to undermine, rather than support truth.

To the modern ear, Gandhi’s views seem idealistic at best, if not completely naive, yet there was much more to his philosophy than met the eye. His aim was to undermine his opponents’ legitimacy. 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.

As General Jan Smuts, Gandhi’s chief adversary in South Africa, 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.” Smuts had not only been defeated; he had been won over and lost any rationale to keep fighting.

Gerstner’s Devotion To The Customer

When Lou Gerstner took over as CEO of IBM in 1993, the company was near bankruptcy. Many thought it should be broken up. Yet Gerstner saw that its customers needed the firm to help them run their mission-critical systems and the death of IBM was the last thing they wanted. He knew that to save the company, he would have to start with its values.

“At IBM we had lost sight of our values,” Irving Wladawsky-Berger, one of Gerstner’s chief lieutenants, told me. “IBM had always valued competitiveness, but we had started to compete with each other internally rather than working together to beat the competition. Lou put a stop to that and even let go some senior executives who were known for infighting.”

Gerstner had been a customer and knew that IBM did not always treat him well. At one point the company threatened to pull service from an entire data center because a single piece of competitive equipment was installed. So as CEO, he vowed to shift the focus from IBM’s “own “proprietary stack of technologies” to its customers’ “stack of business processes.”

Yet he did something else as well. He made it clear that he was willing to forego revenue on every sale to do what was right for the customer and he showed that he meant it. Over the years I’ve spoken to dozens of IBM executives from that period and virtually all of them have pointed this out. Not one seems to think IBM would still be in business today without it.

“Lou refocused us all on customers and listening to what they wanted and he did it by example,” Wladawsky-Berger, remembers. “We started listening to customers more because he listened to customers.”

The World’s Debt To Katalin Karikó

In the early ’90s, Katalin Karikó was trying to solve a tough problem. A young researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, she had been working on an idea to hijack the protein manufacturing machinery in our cells (called ribosomes) to directly produce things that could help our bodies fight disease. Yet despite her best efforts, she was making little progress.

To understand the problem, imagine you want to hijack someone else’s factory to make your own product. Because the factory is automated, it is just a matter of installing software at the factory, but to do that you need to get past security. Replace “software” with genetic instructions and “security” our body’s immune system and, in a nutshell, that is what Katalin had to overcome.

By 1995, things came to a head. Unable to secure grants to fund her work, the university told her that she could either direct her energies in a different way, or be demoted. “I thought of going somewhere else, or doing something else,” Katalin would later recall. “I also thought maybe I’m not good enough, not smart enough. I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments.”

She decided to stick it out and eventually struck up a partnership with Drew Weissman, an immunologist who had some ideas about how to slip the genetic instructions past the cell’s natural defenses. Their work led to a breakthrough and, when the Covid pandemic broke out in 2020, the mRNA technology they invented led to life saving vaccines in record time.

Today, mRNA is being used to develop a number of therapies beyond vaccines, including cures for cancer and other diseases. Sticking to her values certainly cost Katalin Karikó, but the rest of us benefited enormously.

Values Are How An Organization Honors Its Mission

Values are essential to how an enterprise honors its mission. They represent choices of what an organization will and will not do, what it rewards and what it punishes and how it defines success and failure. Perhaps most importantly, values will determine an enterprise’s relationships with other stakeholders, how it collaborates and what it can achieve.

When we sit down with executive teams to help them drive transformation and change, one of the first things we ask them is to define their values. Usually, they can easily rattle off a list such as, “the customer,” “excellence,” “integrity,” and so on. Then we ask them what those values cost them and we get blank stares.

The problem is that values are often confused with beliefs. When you’re sitting around a conference table, it’s easy to build a consensus about broad virtues such as excellence, integrity and customer service. True values, on the other hand, are idiosyncratic. They represent choices that are directly related to a particular mission.

Make no mistake. Real values always cost you something. They are what guides you when you need to make hard calls instead of taking the easy path. They are what makes the difference between looking back with pride or regret. Perhaps most importantly, they are what allows others to trust you.

Without genuine commitment values there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no shared purpose.

— 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.

Managing B Players in the Pursuit of Excellence

1 Reply

Managing B Players in the Pursuit of Excellence

GUEST POST from David Burkus

When we talk about building high-performing teams, we tend to focus on the stars — the A players. These are the people who turn heads, drive results, and seemingly do the work of ten. They’re the ones we spotlight in meetings, promote quickly, and praise loudly.

But here’s what we often miss: it’s not just the A players that keep teams running. In fact, it’s the B players — yes, the so-called “average performers” — that are often the reason your company is still standing after a crisis and the reason your team is humming along today.

Surprised? Let’s talk about why B players might be the unsung heroes of your team — and what great leaders do to support them.

Why B Players Get Overlooked

We over-glorify A players for a lot of reasons. They’re visible. They’re charismatic. They get results. But they can also be volatile. A players burn out. They job-hop. And if we’re not careful, they create cultures that are high-performance… until they’re not. Because eventually, the instability catches up.

B players, by contrast, are consistent. Reliable. Thoughtful. They’re the ones who quietly get the work done. They don’t seek the spotlight, not because they’re less capable, but because they’re not interested in climbing the ladder just for the sake of it. They value balance. They want to do great work — and then go home and be present for the rest of their life.

And that’s not a weakness. In many ways, it’s wisdom.

The Peter Principle and the Trap of Promotion

Part of the reason we mismanage B players is because most career paths are still built on a single staircase: do good work, get promoted into management. But this structure leads us right into what Dr. Laurence J. Peter famously called the Peter Principle: in any hierarchy, people tend to get promoted to their level of incompetence.

Think about it: a top-performing engineer gets promoted into a managerial role…and suddenly spends all their time in meetings, writing budgets, managing people — and none of it leverages what made them successful in the first place.

It’s not that they’re incompetent. It’s that they’ve been promoted into a role that requires a different skill set — one they may not have, and often, don’t even want.

What makes B players so valuable is that many of them recognize this dynamic early. They choose to stay in the roles where they excel, where they’re engaged, and where they contribute meaningfully. They don’t take the bait of promotion for promotion’s sake. And that self-awareness makes them an asset — not a liability.

The Many Faces of a B Player

B players aren’t one-size-fits-all. Some are former A players who chose to step off the fast track for the sake of family, health, or sanity. Some are deeply mission-driven truth-tellers who care more about doing the right thing than climbing a corporate ladder. Others are the connectors — the people who know how everything (and everyone) fits together in your organization.

Think of the longtime office manager who can navigate the org chart better than anyone else. Or the behind-the-scenes analyst whose work drives key decisions. These aren’t future VPs, but they’re foundational. If they left, your team would feel the loss immediately.

So how do you support B players in a way that helps them thrive?

Step One: Give B Players Permission

Many B players aren’t disengaged — they’re just waiting for a green light. They know what to do. They see the solution. But they’re respectful. They’re not going to go rogue or overstep their role. What they need isn’t more direction — it’s permission.

Sometimes, all it takes is six words: “I trust you. Go for it.”

When leaders make it clear that judgment is trusted, that autonomy is welcomed, and that action is encouraged, B players shine. It’s not about micromanaging less — it’s about actively empowering more.

Step Two: Build B Players a Parallel Path

Most organizations treat advancement as a vertical path. If you want more recognition or compensation, you have to manage people. But what if we built a parallel path — one that rewards deep expertise, not just leadership?

Titles like principal engineer, lead strategist, internal consultant, or senior specialist aren’t consolation prizes. They’re strategic roles that allow people to grow and stay aligned with the work they love.

Not every B player wants to be a people manager. And that’s not just okay — it’s something to design for. Because when we force people up the ladder without giving them options, we risk turning our best contributors into struggling supervisors.

If you can’t create new roles on the org chart, you can still help B players feel like they’re moving forward. Ask them: • “What part of your job do you wish you could do more of?” • “Where do you want to grow this year?” • “If I could redesign your role to be more aligned with your strengths, what would that look like?”

You’ll be surprised what you learn just by asking — and how much more engaged your B players become when they feel seen and supported.

Step Three: Recognize B Players’ Value — Loudly

We tend to celebrate the visible wins: the product launch, the sales deal, the standout presentation. But high-performing teams are built just as much on quiet consistency as they are on flashy achievements.

As a leader, it’s your job to see the whole team — not just the ones shouting the loudest. Make time to recognize the B players, the steady hands, the glue that keeps the group together.

If they’re remote, reach out. If they’re introverted, check in one-on-one. Leadership isn’t about chasing stars. It’s about making sure everyone has the opportunity to do their best work and be recognized for it.

The Bottom Line on B Players

The truth is, you can’t build a high-performing team with A players alone. You build it by assembling the right mix of talent, by understanding what each person brings to the table, and by creating an environment where everyone — including your B players — can thrive.

And here’s the best part: when you lead B players well — when you trust them, invest in them, and help them grow — you may just find that they had A-level talent all along. They just needed a leader who saw it.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Four Ways to Manage Projects

Leave a reply

Four Ways to Manage Projects

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

There are four ways to run projects.

One – 80% Right, 100% Done, 100% On Time, 100% On Budget

Fix time
Fix resources
Flex scope and certainty

Set a tight timeline and use the people and budget you have. You’ll be done on time, but you must accept a reduced scope (fewer bells and whistles) and less certainty of how the product/service will perform and how well it will be received by customers. This is a good way to go when you’re starting a new adventure or investigating new space.

Two – 100% Right, 100% Done, 0% On Time, 0% On Budget

Fix resources
Fix scope and certainty
Flex time

Use the team and budget you have and tightly define the scope (features) and define the level of certainty required by your customers. Because you can’t predict when the project will be done, you’ll be late and over budget, but your offering will be right and customers will like it. Use this method when your brand is known for predictability and stability. But, be weary of business implications of being late to market.

Three – 100% Right, 100% Done, 100% On Time, 0% On Budget

Fix scope and certainty
Fix time
Flex resources

Tightly define the scope and level of certainty. Your customers will get what they expect and they’ll get it on time. However, this method will be costly. If you hire contract resources, they will be expensive. And if you use internal resources, you’ll have to stop one project to start this one. The benefits from the stopped project won’t be realized and will increase the effective cost to the company. And even though time is fixed, this approach will likely be late. It will take longer than planned to move resources from one project to another and will take longer than planned to hire contract resources and get them up and running. Use this method if you’ve already established good working relationships with contract resources. Avoid this method if you have difficulty stopping existing projects to start new ones.

Four – Not Right, Not Done, Not On Time, Not On Budget

Fix time
Fix resources
Fix scope and certainty

Though almost every project plan is based on this approach, it never works. Sure, it would be great if it worked, but it doesn’t, it hasn’t and it won’t. There’s not enough time to do the right work, not enough money to get the work done on time and no one is willing to flex on scope and certainty. Everyone knows it won’t work and we do it anyway. The result – a stressful project that doesn’t deliver and no one feels good about.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

Leave a reply

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

The primary responsibility of management is to allocate resources in the way that best achieves business objectives. If there are three or four options to allocate resources, which is the best choice? What is the time horizon for the decision? Is it best to hire more people? Why not partner with a contract resource company? Build a new facility or add to the existing one? No right answers, but all require a decision.

Rule 1 – Make decisions overtly. All too often, decisions happen slowly over time without knowledge the decision was actually made. A year down the road, we wake up from our daze and realize we’re all aligned with a decision we didn’t know we made. That’s bad for business. Make them overtly and document them.

Rule 2 – Define the decision criteria before it’s time to decide. We all have biases and left to our own, we’ll make the decision that fits with our biases. For example, if we think the project is a good idea, we’ll interpret the project’s achievements through our biased lenses and fund the next phase. To battle this, define the decision criteria months before the funding decision will be made. Think if-then. If the project demonstrates A, then we’ll allocate $50,000 for the next phase; if the project demonstrates A, B and C, then we’ll allocate $100,000; if the project fails to demonstrate A, B or C, then we’ll scrap the project and start a new one. If the decision criteria aren’t predefined, you’ll define them on-the-spot to justify the decision you already wanted to make.

Rule 3 – Define who will decide before it’s time to decide. Will the decision be made by anonymous vote or by a show of hands? Is a simple majority sufficient, or does it require a two-thirds majority? Does it require a consensus? If so, does it have to be unanimous or can there be some disagreement? If there can be disagreement, how many people can disagree? Does the loudest voice decide? Or does the most senior person declare their position and everyone else falls in line like sheep?

Think back to the last time your company made a big decision. Were the decision criteria defined beforehand? Can you go back to the meeting minutes and find how the project performed against the decision criteria? Were the if-then rules defined upfront? If so, did you follow them? And now that you remember how it went last time, do you think you would have made a better decision if the decision criteria and IF-THENs were in place before the decision? Now, decide how it will go next time.

And for that last big decision, is there a record of how the decision was made? If there was a vote, who voted up and who voted down? If a consensus was reached, who overtly said they agreed to the decision and who dissented? Or did the most senior person declare a consensus when in fact it was a consensus of one? If you can find a record of the decision, what does the record show? And if you can’t find the record, how do you feel about that? Now that you reflected on last time, decide how it will go next time.

It’s scary to think about how we make decisions. But it’s scarier to decide we will make them the same way going forward. It’s time to decide we will put more rigor into our decision making.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025

3 Replies

After a week of torrid voting and much passionate support, along with a lot of gut-wrenching consideration and jostling during the judging round, I am proud to announce your Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025:

Robyn Bolton
Robyn M. Bolton works with leaders of mid and large sized companies to use innovation to repeatably and sustainably grow their businesses.
.

Greg Satell
Greg Satell is a popular speaker and consultant. His first book, Mapping Innovation: A Playbook for Navigating a Disruptive Age, was selected as one of the best business books in 2017. Follow his blog at Digital Tonto or on Twitter @Digital Tonto.

Janet Sernack
Janet Sernack is the Founder and CEO of ImagineNation™ which provides innovation consulting services to help organizations adapt, innovate and grow through disruption by challenging businesses to be, think and act differently to co-create a world where people matter & innovation is the norm.

Mike Shipulski
Mike Shipulski brings together people, culture, and tools to change engineering behavior. He writes daily on Twitter as @MikeShipulski and weekly on his blog Shipulski On Design.

Pete Foley
A twenty-five year Procter & Gamble veteran, Pete has spent the last 8+ years applying insights from psychology and behavioral science to innovation, product design, and brand communication. He spent 17 years as a serial innovator, creating novel products, perfume delivery systems, cleaning technologies, devices and many other consumer-centric innovations, resulting in well over 100 granted or published patents. Find him at pete.mindmatters@gmail.com

Geoffrey A. Moore
Geoffrey A. Moore is an author, speaker and business advisor to many of the leading companies in the high-tech sector, including Cisco, Cognizant, Compuware, HP, Microsoft, SAP, and Yahoo! Best known for Crossing the Chasm and Zone to Win with the latest book being The Infinite Staircase. Partner at Wildcat Venture Partners. Chairman Emeritus Chasm Group & Chasm Institute

Shep Hyken
Shep Hyken is a customer service expert, keynote speaker, and New York Times, bestselling business author. For information on The Customer Focus™ customer service training programs, go to www.thecustomerfocus.com. Follow on Twitter: @Hyken

David Burkus
Dr. David Burkus is an organizational psychologist and best-selling author. Recognized as one of the world’s leading business thinkers, his forward-thinking ideas and books are helping leaders and teams do their best work ever. David is the author of five books about business and leadership and he’s been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, CNN, the BBC, NPR, and more. A former business school professor turned sought-after international speaker, he’s worked with organizations of all sizes and across all industries.

John Bessant
John Bessant has been active in research, teaching, and consulting in technology and innovation management for over 25 years. Today, he is Chair in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and Research Director, at Exeter University. In 2003, he was awarded a Fellowship with the Advanced Institute for Management Research and was also elected a Fellow of the British Academy of Management. He has acted as advisor to various national governments and international bodies including the United Nations, The World Bank, and the OECD. John has authored many books including Managing innovation and High Involvement Innovation (Wiley). Follow @johnbessant

Braden Kelley
Braden Kelley is a Human-Centered Experience, Innovation and Transformation consultant at HCL Technologies, a popular innovation speaker, workshop leader, and creator of the FutureHacking™ methodology. He is the author of Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire from John Wiley & Sons and Charting Change from Palgrave Macmillan. Follow him on Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

Art Inteligencia
Art Inteligencia is the lead futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. He is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Art travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. His favorite numbers are one and zero.

Stefan Lindegaard
Stefan Lindegaard is an author, speaker and strategic advisor. His work focuses on corporate transformation based on disruption, digitalization and innovation in large corporations, government organizations and smaller companies. Stefan believes that business today requires an open and global perspective, and his work takes him to Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia.

Dainora Jociute
Dainora (a.k.a. Dee) creates customer-centric content at Viima. Viima is the most widely used and highest rated innovation management software in the world. Passionate about environmental issues, Dee writes about sustainable innovation hoping to save the world – one article at the time.

Teresa Spangler
Teresa Spangler is the CEO of PlazaBridge Group has been a driving force behind innovation and growth for more than 30 years. Today, she wears multiple hats as a social entrepreneur, innovation expert, growth strategist, author and speaker (not to mention mother, wife, band-leader and so much more). She is especially passionate about helping CEOs understand and value the role human capital plays in innovation, and the impact that innovation has on humanity; in our ever-increasing artificial/cyber world.

Soren Kaplan
Soren Kaplan is the bestselling and award-winning author of Leapfrogging and The Invisible Advantage, an affiliated professor at USC’s Center for Effective Organizations, a former corporate executive, and a co-founder of UpBOARD. He has been recognized by the Thinkers50 as one of the world’s top keynote speakers and thought leaders in business strategy and innovation.

Diana Porumboiu
Diana heads marketing at Viima, the most widely used and highest rated innovation management software in the world, and has a passion for innovation, and for genuine, valuable content that creates long-lasting impact. Her combination of creativity, strategic thinking and curiosity has helped organisations grow their online presence through strategic campaigns, community management and engaging content.

Steve Blank
Steve Blank is an Adjunct Professor at Stanford and Senior Fellow for Innovation at Columbia University. He has been described as the Father of Modern Entrepreneurship, credited with launching the Lean Startup movement that changed how startups are built; how entrepreneurship is taught; how science is commercialized, and how companies and the government innovate.

Jesse Nieminen
Jesse Nieminen is the Co-founder and Chairman at Viima, the best way to collect and develop ideas. Viima’s innovation management software is already loved by thousands of organizations all the way to the Global Fortune 500. He’s passionate about helping leaders drive innovation in their organizations and frequently writes on the topic, usually in Viima’s blog.

Robert B Tucker
Robert B. Tucker is the President of The Innovation Resource Consulting Group. He is a speaker, seminar leader and an expert in the management of innovation and assisting companies in accelerating ideas to market.

Dennis Stauffer
Dennis Stauffer is an author, independent researcher, and expert on personal innovativeness. He is the founder of Innovator Mindset LLC which helps individuals, teams, and organizations enhance and accelerate innovation success. by shifting mindset. Follow @DennisStauffer

Arlen Meyers
Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA is an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, an instructor at the University of Colorado-Denver Business School and cofounding President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs at www.sopenet.org. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameyers/

Phil McKinney
Phil McKinney is the Author of “Beyond The Obvious”, Host of the Killer Innovations Podcast and Syndicated Radio Show, a Keynote Speaker, President & CEO CableLabs and an Innovation Mentor and Coach.

Ayelet Baron
Ayelet Baron is a pioneering futurist reminding us we are powerful creators through award winning books, daily blog and thinking of what is possible. Former global tech executive who sees trust, relationships and community as our building blocks to a healthy world.

Scott Anthony
Scott Anthony is a strategic advisor, writer and speaker on topics of growth and innovation. He has been based in Singapore since 2010, and currently serves at the Managing Director of Innosight’s Asia-Pacific operations.

Leo Chan
Leo is the founder of Abound Innovation Inc. He’s a people and heart-first entrepreneur who believes everyone can be an innovator. An innovator himself, with 55 US patents and over 20 years of experience, Leo has come alongside organizations like Chick-fil-A and guided them to unleash the innovative potential of their employees by transforming them into confident innovators.

Rachel Audige
Rachel Audige is an Innovation Architect who helps organisations embed inventive thinking as well as a certified Systematic Inventive Thinking Facilitator, based in Melbourne.

Paul Sloane
Paul Sloane writes, speaks and leads workshops on creativity, innovation and leadership. He is the author of The Innovative Leader and editor of A Guide to Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing, both published by Kogan-Page.

Ralph Christian Ohr
Dr. Ralph-Christian Ohr has extensive experience in product/innovation management for international technology-based companies. His particular interest is targeted at the intersection of organizational and human innovation capabilities. You can follow him on Twitter @Ralph_Ohr.

Dean and Linda Anderson
Dr. Dean Anderson and Dr. Linda Ackerman Anderson lead BeingFirst, a consultancy focused on educating the marketplace about what’s possible in personal, organizational and community transformation and how to achieve them. Each has been advising clients and training professionals for more than 40 years.

Howard Tiersky
Howard Tiersky is an inspiring and passionate speaker, the Founder and CEO of FROM, The Digital Transformation Agency, innovation consultant, serial entrepreneur, and the Wall Street Journal bestselling author of Winning Digital Customers: The Antidote to Irrelevance. IDG named him one of the “10 Digital Transformation Influencers to Follow Today”, and Enterprise Management 360 named Howard “One of the Top 10 Digital Transformation Influencers That Will Change Your World.”

Chateau G Pato
Chateau G Pato is a senior futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. She is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Chateau travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. Her favorite numbers are one and zero.

Shilpi Kumar
Shilpi Kumar an inquisitive researcher, designer, strategist and an educator with over 15 years of experience, who truly believes that we can design a better world by understanding human behavior. I work with organizations to identify strategic opportunities and offer user-centric solutions.

Anthony Mills
Anthony Mills is the Founder & CEO of Legacy Innovation Group (www.legacyinnova.com), a world-leading strategic innovation consulting firm working with organizations all over the world. Anthony is also the Executive Director of GInI – Global Innovation Institute (www.gini.org), the world’s foremost certification, accreditation, and membership organization in the field of innovation. Anthony has advised leaders from around the world on how to successfully drive long-term growth and resilience through new innovation. Learn more at www.anthonymills.com. Anthony can be reached directly at anthony@anthonymills.com.

Paul Hobcraft
Paul Hobcraft runs Agility Innovation, an advisory business that stimulates sound innovation practice, researches topics that relate to innovation for the future, as well as aligning innovation to organizations core capabilities. Follow @paul4innovating

Jorge Barba
Jorge Barba is a strategist and entrepreneur, who helps companies build new puzzles using human skills. He is a global Innovation Insurgent and author of the innovation blog www.Game-Changer.net

Douglas Ferguson
Douglas Ferguson is an entrepreneur and human-centered technologist. He is the founder and president of Voltage Control, an Austin-based change agency that helps enterprises spark, accelerate, and sustain innovation. He specializes in helping teams work better together through participatory decision making and design inspired facilitation techniques.

Jeffrey Phillips
Jeffrey Phillips has over 15 years of experience leading innovation in Fortune 500 companies, federal government agencies and non-profits. He is experienced in innovation strategy, defining and implementing front end processes, tools and teams and leading innovation projects. He is the author of Relentless Innovation and OutManeuver. Jeffrey writes the popular Innovate on Purpose blog. Follow him @ovoinnovation

Alain Thys
As an experience architect, Alain helps leaders craft customer, employee and shareholder experiences for profit, reinvention and transformation. He does this through his personal consultancy Alain Thys & Co as well as the transformative venture studio Agents of A.W.E. Together with his teams, Alain has influenced the experience of over 500 million customers and 350,000 employees. Follow his blog or connect on Linkedin.

Bruce Fairley
Bruce Fairley is the CEO and Founder of The Narrative Group, a firm dedicated to helping C-Suite executives build enterprise value. Through smart, human-powered digital transformation, Bruce optimizes the business-technology relationship. His innovative profit over pitfalls approach and customized programs are part of Bruce’s mission to build sustainable ‘best-future’ outcomes for visionary leaders. Having spearheaded large scale change initiatives across four continents, he and his skilled, diverse team elevate process, culture, and the bottom line for medium to large firms worldwide.

Tom Stafford
Tom Stafford studies learning and decision making. His main focus is the movement system – the idea being that if we can understand the intelligence of simple actions we will have an excellent handle on intelligence more generally. His research looks at simple decision making, and simple skill learning, using measures of behaviour informed by the computational, robotics and neuroscience work done in the wider group.

If your favorite didn’t make the list, then next year try to rally more votes for them or convince them to increase the quality and quantity of their contributions.

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2024

Download PDF versions of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 lists here:

. . .

. . .

. . .

Happy New Year everyone!

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

Getting the Most Out of Quiet Employees in Meetings

Leave a reply

Getting the Most Out of Quiet Employees in Meetings

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Getting quiet employees to speak up in meetings can feel like a challenge, but it doesn’t have to be. The truth is silence doesn’t mean disengagement. Often, quiet team members are the most reflective, thoughtful contributors—they just need the right environment to share their insights. If you’ve ever wondered how to help them find their voice, you’re not alone. It’s a question many leaders face, and the answer lies not in fixing the individual but in fixing the environment.

Let’s explore how to create a space where everyone feels confident contributing and where the team benefits from the diverse perspectives that emerge.

What Leaders Often Get Wrong

A common tactic leaders use to engage quiet employees is calling on them directly during meetings. It seems logical—put someone on the spot, and they’ll contribute, right? Wrong. Forcing participation in this way often backfires. When you call someone out with, “We haven’t heard from you, what do you think?” you’re not creating an opportunity; you’re creating pressure. This can leave the individual feeling unprepared or even embarrassed, which only reinforces their reluctance to speak up in the future.

One-on-one conversations with quiet employees can also miss the mark. Phrasing like, “I haven’t heard from you in meetings lately,” may seem supportive, but it can come across as criticism. Employees may interpret it as, “You’re not contributing enough,” which puts them on the defensive. The issue isn’t the individual’s nature; it’s the dynamics of the meeting itself.

Build an Environment That Encourages Input

Instead of focusing on “fixing” the quiet employee, focus on creating a space that naturally draws out their input. The foundation of this approach is psychological safety, a concept championed by researcher Amy Edmondson. Psychological safety ensures team members feel respected and valued, even when sharing dissenting ideas. Leaders play a pivotal role in cultivating this environment.

One powerful tool is asking better questions. Broad, open-ended prompts signal that all perspectives are welcome and needed. For example:

“What perspectives might we not have considered?” This invites team members to think expansively without feeling the pressure to speak directly from their own viewpoint.
“How do you see this issue affecting our team or organization as a whole?” This leverages the natural reflective tendencies of quieter team members, giving them an entry point to share their thoughts.
“What insights from your work could help us solve this?” By focusing on an individual’s expertise, this question creates a comfortable way for them to contribute.
“What have you seen work well in similar situations?” Grounding the conversation in personal experience allows quieter team members to share insights on their terms.

These types of questions help build trust and demonstrate that every voice matters.

Rethink Meeting Dynamics

The structure of your meetings can either foster or stifle participation. Too often, meetings are tailored to the preferences of more vocal team members, leaving quieter employees without a natural space to contribute. To counteract this, vary the formats of your meetings to accommodate different communication styles. Some team members thrive in group discussions, others in chat-based brainstorming, and still others prefer to provide detailed input via email. By alternating your approach, you give everyone an opportunity to engage in the way that suits them best.

Another powerful tactic is structured silence. When you pose a key question during a meeting, instead of opening the floor immediately, give everyone a few minutes to think and jot down their ideas. If you’re meeting virtually, ask participants to type their responses into a shared chat or document. This approach levels the playing field by giving everyone equal time to formulate their thoughts before louder voices dominate the conversation. Research consistently shows that this kind of silent brainstorming not only generates more ideas but also produces better ones.

Support Contributions in the Moment

When a quiet employee does speak up in meetings, how you respond matters. A positive reaction reinforces their willingness to participate again. Start by praising their contribution and ensuring it gets the attention it deserves. Avoid allowing others to immediately dismiss or talk over their idea. Instead, amplify it by saying something like, “That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s explore that further.”

This approach sends a clear message: their input is valued, and this team appreciates diverse ideas. Over time, these affirming responses build confidence and encourage more frequent participation.

Amplify Voices Outside the Meeting

Sometimes, even with the right environment, a quiet employee may hesitate to contribute in the moment. In these cases, follow up with them privately after the meeting. Instead of framing the conversation as a critique, approach it as an opportunity. For example, you might say, “I’d love to hear your thoughts on what we discussed today. What’s your perspective?”

When they share, praise their ideas and encourage them to bring them up in future meetings. If they do, reinforce their contribution publicly. Highlight the value of their insights to the team, ensuring they feel recognized and respected. This two-step process—private encouragement followed by public amplification—builds their confidence and strengthens their connection to the team.

Create Space for Every Voice

Quiet employees aren’t a problem to be fixed; they’re a strength waiting to be unlocked. By shifting your focus from “Why won’t they speak up?” to “How can I create an environment where they feel comfortable contributing?” you’ll foster a more inclusive and innovative team dynamic. Start by rethinking your meeting structures, asking better questions, and supporting contributions both in and out of the meeting room. Over time, you’ll see not just one employee speaking up more but a cultural shift where every voice is heard—and valued.

By encouraging everyone to speak up in meetings, you’ll unlock the full potential of your team. After all, the best ideas don’t come from the loudest voices. They come from the collective brilliance of the group. It’s your job as a leader to make sure every voice has its chance to shine.

This article originally appeared on DavidBurkus.com

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Innovation Theater – A Defense

Leave a reply

Innovation Theater - A Defense

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

I can’t believe that I’m writing this. Honestly, I can’t believe I’m even thinking this. I’m an open-minded person, but I truly never thought that anything would ever change my mind on this topic. And yet, I must confess that I’ve come to the conclusion that…

(deep breath)

Innovation Theater is important.

(Sorry, needed a minute to recover. It’s one thing to think something. It’s another to see it in writing.)

Why We All Hate(d) Innovation Theater.

The term “Innovation Theater” was coined by Steve Blank in a 2019 HBR article to describe innovation activities like hackathons, shark tanks, and workshops that “shape and build culture, but they don’t win wars, and they rarely deliver shippable/deployable product.”

The name stuck because it gave the Innovation Industrial Complex a perfect scapegoat. Innovation efforts weren’t producing results because companies were turning real strategy into theater—events that could be delegated and scheduled instead of the courage, commitment, and willingness to change that actual innovation requires.

And in many cases, this criticism was warranted.

But in our rush to dismiss Innovation Theater, we missed something important.

What I (Almost) Missed.

Recently, I visited a company’s Innovation Center, curious to see what ten years of innovation investments and two floors in a downtown high-rise had produced.

The answer was a framework to think more deeply about equity and inclusion. My immediate reaction was rage. A decade of investments for this? Millions of dollars spent on the very definition of Innovation Theater? And they’re bragging about it?!?

Once the rage subsided, something remained. Something that I couldn’t shake. An inkling that I had missed something. That inkling became the realization that I was wrong.

Over the past five years, the framework had been used in carefully curated workshops to help teams across the organization see things they had previously overlooked, understand topics that were sensitive or taboo, and envision solutions that no one their heavily regulated industry had even considered.

Not every workshop resulted in action. But over time, something shifted.

Seasons. Not Shows.

Repetition created a shared language. Multiple touchpoints built permission. Small success stories accumulated to make risk feel manageable. The workshops didn’t send off isolated sparks of innovation. They built the conditions where acting on new ideas became progressively safer and more normal.

And after several seasons, enduring value was created. The company now enjoys the highest retention rate of customers in its industry and has attracted more new customers than all its competitors combined. A decade of “Innovation Theater” delivered exactly what innovation is supposed to deliver: measurable competitive advantage and revenue growth.

Don’t Cancel Your Next Innovation Event.

The problem isn’t Innovation Theater itself. It’s how we practice it.

A one-off hackathon? Theater. An annual workshop? Theater. But sustained investment over years, touching dozens of teams, building shared language and accumulated proof points? That’s a strategic bet on transformation that creates lasting competitive advantage.

The question isn’t whether Innovation Theater works. It’s whether you’re willing to commit to the season, not just the show. Are you prepared to invest consistently, measure differently, and wait for compounding effects that won’t show up in next quarter’s results?

Because when you commit to the season, not just the show, it’s the most strategic bet you can make.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Is There a Real Difference Between Leaders and Managers?

1 Reply

Is There a Real Difference Between Leaders and Managers?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

The debate between leaders vs managers has been a long-standing conversation in professional circles. Some elevate the role of leaders, casting them as visionaries who inspire, while relegating managers to the shadows of administrative drudgery. But does this distinction really matter? More importantly, how can a manager evolve into a true leader? Let’s explore the heart of this conversation and break down why separating leadership from management can sometimes lead to dangerous misconceptions.

Why the Debate Between Leaders vs Managers Matters Less Than You Think

Much of the debate over leaders vs managers hinges on over-idealization. Leaders are often depicted as charismatic figures, visionaries who drive change and inspire their teams. Managers, by contrast, are often painted as the ones who carry out routine, less glamorous tasks. However, this binary thinking is a gross oversimplification. When we separate leaders vs managers too starkly, we set both roles up for failure.

In reality, great leaders need managerial skills to succeed. Likewise, strong managers must cultivate leadership qualities if they aim to have a meaningful impact. Consider recent examples: Adam Neumann of WeWork or Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos—visionaries without the grounding managerial skills to make their ambitious plans a reality. Even Steve Jobs, who is lionized as a leader, struggled as a manager and needed skilled managerial partners like Tim Cook to bring his vision to life. This demonstrates the inherent interdependence of the leader vs manager roles.

Management as a Foundation for Leadership

To understand why leadership is inseparable from management, let’s break down what being a manager entails. In the leader vs manager conversation, management often gets short-changed as “administrative,” but it encompasses setting objectives, removing obstacles, allocating resources, delegating tasks, and ensuring accountability. These tasks are not merely about managing people; they are about creating results and making progress happen.

In contrast, leaders serve to inspire, unify, and mobilize teams around a shared mission. They cast a vision of what can be, rallying people to pursue a goal together. But what use is vision if there is no plan for how to achieve it? This is why the idea of leaders vs managers being wholly distinct from one another can be damaging; leadership without a managerial foundation is fragile.

The Leader vs Manager Hybrid in Action

Successful professionals embody the blend of both roles in the leaders vs managers debate. Consider Steve Jobs again: his visionary prowess would not have led to Apple’s success without the operational grounding provided by Tim Cook. The true distinction between effective leaders and ineffective ones often boils down to their ability to marry visionary leadership with operational execution, revealing that the line separating leaders vs managers is not as clear as it might seem.

Great leaders do not abandon their managerial roots. Even CEOs, often perceived as paragons of leadership, must manage resources, oversee strategy, and allocate people effectively. Leadership might soar at 30,000 feet, but it always requires an anchor on the ground—a reminder that even the most inspiring figures must master the duality inherent in the leader vs manager dynamic.

Evolving From Manager to Leader

For those starting out in management, the path from manager to leader is not instantaneous. When you are first assigned a managerial role, your primary tasks center around administrative competence: running effective meetings, managing budgets, and ensuring project deadlines are met. This foundational period is essential for anyone navigating the leader vs manager journey. Only by mastering these skills can you then focus on expanding your influence, building relationships, and inspiring others.

True leadership emerges gradually. It begins with influence over your team and, as you grow, expands to influence your broader organization. The journey from manager to leader involves understanding the company’s strategic direction, aligning your team’s objectives with broader organizational goals, and participating in or leading conversations about that strategy. For those grappling with the leaders vs managers dichotomy, take note: growth happens through learning and doing, not simply by aspiring.

The Practical Blend of Leaders vs Managers

Ultimately, the debate between leaders vs managers is less important than understanding their interconnectedness. Every organization needs individuals who can inspire and guide while also ensuring operational discipline. Leaders who lose sight of practicalities can steer organizations into chaos. Managers who refuse to inspire can stifle innovation and morale. The true magic lies in combining these strengths: casting a compelling vision and navigating the gritty realities that make it possible.

By blending strong leadership qualities with grounded managerial skills, you become the kind of leader who doesn’t just talk about vision but delivers results. In the end, the best leaders are those who understand their dual responsibility in the leader vs manager equation—and execute both roles masterfully.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Reduce Innovation Risk with this Nobel Prize Winning Formula

Leave a reply

Reduce Innovation Risk with this Nobel Prize Winning Formula

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

As a kid, you’re taught that when you’re lost, stay put and wait for rescue. Most executives are following that advice right now—sitting tight amid uncertainty, hoping someone saves them from having to make hard choices and take innovation risk.

This year’s Nobel Prize winners in Economics have bad news: there is no rescue coming. Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt demonstrated that disruption happens whether you participate or not. Freezing innovation investments doesn’t reduce innovation risk. It guarantees competitors destroy you while you stand still.

They also have good news: innovation follows predictable patterns based on competitive dynamics, offering a framework for making smarter investment decisions.

How We Turned Stagnation into a System for Growth

For 99.9% of human history, economic growth was essentially zero. There were occasional bursts of innovation, like the printing press, windmills, and mechanical clocks, but growth always stopped.

200 years ago, that changed. Mokyr identified that the Industrial Revolution created systems connecting two types of knowledge: Propositional knowledge (understanding why things work) and Prescriptive knowledge (practical instructions for how to execute).

Before the Industrial Revolution, these existed separately. Philosophers theorized. Artisans tinkered. Neither could build on the other’s work. But the Enlightenment created feedback loops between theory and practice allowing countries like Britain to thrive because they had people who could translate theory into commercial products.

Innovation became a system, not an accident.

Why We Need Creative Destruction

Every year in the US, 10% of companies go out of business and nearly as many are created. This phenomenon of creative destruction, where companies and jobs constantly disappear and are replaced, was identified in 1942. Fifty years later, Aghion and Howitt built a mathematical model proving its required for growth.

Their research also lays bare some hard truths:

Creative destruction is constant and unavoidable. Cutting your innovation budget does not pause the game. It forfeits your position. Competitors are investing in R&D right now and their innovations will disrupt yours whether you participate or not.
Competitive position predicts innovation investments. Neck-to-neck competitors invest heavily in innovation because it’s their only path to the top. Market leaders cut back and coast while laggards don’t have the funds to catch-up. Both under-invest and lose.
Innovation creates winners and losers. Creative destruction leads to job destruction as work shifts from old products and skills to new ones. You can’t innovate and protect every job but you can (and should) help the people affected.

Ultimately, creative destruction drives sustained growth. It is painful and scary, but without it, economies and society stagnate. Ignore it at your peril. Work with it and prosper.

From Prize-winning to Revenue-generating

Even though you’re not collecting the one million Euro prize, these insights can still boost your bottom line if you:

Connect your Why teams with your How teams. Too often, Why teams like Strategy, Innovation, and R&D, chuck the ball over the wall to the How teams in Operations, Sales, Supply Chain, and front-line operations. Instead, connect them early and often and ensure the feedback loop that drives growth
Check your R&D and innovation investments. Are your R&D and innovation investments consistent with your strategic priorities or your competitive position? What are your investments communicating to your competitors? It’s likely that that “conserving cash” is actually coasting and ceding share.
Invest in your people and be honest with them. Your employees aren’t dumb. They know that new technologies are going to change and eliminate jobs. Pretending that won’t happen destroys trust and creates resistance that kills innovation. Tell employees the truth early, then support them generously through transitions.

What’s Your Choice?

Playing it safe guarantees the historical default: stagnation. The 2025 Nobel Prize winners proved sustained growth requires building innovation systems and embracing creative destruction.

The only question is whether you will participate or stagnate.

HALLOWEEN BONUS: Save 30% on the eBook, hardcover or softcover of Braden Kelley’s latest book Charting Change (now in its second edition) — FREE SHIPPING WORLDWIDE — using code HAL30 until midnight October 31, 2025

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

Making Decisions in Uncertainty

1 Reply

This 25-Year-Old Tool Actually Works

Making Decisions in Uncertainty

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Just as we got used to VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) futurists now claim “the world is BANI now.” BANI (brittle, anxious, nonlinear, incomprehensible) is much worse than VUCA and reflects “the fractured, unpredictable state of the modern world.”

Not to get too Gen X on the futurists who coined and are spreading this term but…shut up.

Is the world fractured and unpredictable? Yes.

Does it feel brittle? Are we more anxious than ever? Are things changing at exponential speed, requiring nonlinear responses? Does the world feel incomprehensible? Yes, to all.

Naming a problem is the first step in solving it. The second step is falling in love with the problem so that we become laser focused on solving it. BANI does the first but fails at the second. It wallows in the problem without proposing a path forward. And as the sign says, “Ain’t nobody got time for this.”

(Re)Introducing the Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin framework recognizes that leadership and problem-solving must be contextual to be effective. Using the Welsh word for “habitat,” the framework is a tool to understand and name the context of a situation and identify the approaches best suited for managing or solving the situation.

It’s grounded in the idea that every context – situation, challenge, problem, opportunity – exists somewhere on a spectrum between Ordered and Unordered. At the Ordered end of the spectrum, cause and affect are obvious and immediate and the path forward is based on objective, immutable facts. Unordered contexts, however, have no obvious or immediate relationship between cause and effect and moving forward requires people to recognize patterns as they emerge.

Both VUCA and BANI point out the obvious – we’re spending more time on the Unordered end of the spectrum than ever. Unlike the acronyms, Cynefin helps leaders decide and act.

Five Contexts, Five Ways Forward

The Cynefin framework identifies five contexts, each with its own best practices for making decisions and progress.

On the Ordered end of the spectrum:

Simple contexts are characterized by stability and obvious and undisputed right answers. Here, patterns repeat, and events are consistent. This is where leaders rely on best practices to inform decisions and delegation, and direct communication to move their teams forward.
Complicated contexts have many possible right answers and the relationship between cause and effect isn’t known but can be discovered. Here, leaders need to rely on diverse expertise and be particularly attuned to conflicting advice and novel ideas to avoid making decisions based on outdated experience.

On the Unordered end of the spectrum:

Complex contexts are filled with unknown unknowns, many competing ideas, and unpredictable cause and effects. The most effective leadership approach in this context is one that is deeply uncomfortable for most leaders but familiar to innovators – letting patterns emerge. Using small-scale experiments and high levels of collaboration, diversity, and dissent, leaders can accelerate pattern-recognition and place smart bets.
Chaos are contexts fraught with tension. There are no right answers or clear cause and effect. There are too many decisions to make and not enough time. Here, leaders often freeze or make big bold decisions. Neither is wise. Instead, leaders need to think like emergency responders and rapidly response to re-establish order where possible to bring the situation into a Complex state, rather than trying to solve everything at once.

The final context is Disorder. Here leaders argue, multiple perspectives fight for dominance, and the organization is divided into fractions. Resolution requires breaking the context down into smaller parts that fit one of the four previous contexts and addressing them accordingly.

The Only Way Out is Through

Our VUCA/BANI world isn’t going to get any simpler or easier. And fighting it, freezing, or fleeing isn’t going to solve anything. Organizations need leaders with the courage to move forward and the wisdom and flexibility to do so in a way that is contextually appropriate. Cynefin is their map.

Image credit: Pexels

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