Category Archives: Psychology

Important or Urgent?

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

People in the corporate world today are busy – overwhelmingly so. Calendars are packed. Emails never stop. Meetings bleed into each other. On paper, it all looks like progress. But under the surface, something more critical is being lost.

This constant busyness creates the illusion of high performance. Output is visible. Actions are taken. Projects get delivered. But the deeper elements that actually build high performance – leadership development, trust, team learning, shared direction – are quietly being squeezed out.

In my work with leadership teams, I’ve seen this again and again: the very things that drive long-term success get de-prioritized, not because people don’t care, but because there’s simply no time left for them.

We talk a lot about performance, but real high-performance leadership isn’t built on urgency. It’s built on clarity, consistency, learning, and the ability to step back and make deliberate choices. When people are in constant motion, there’s no time for that. No time to coach. No time to reflect. No time to ask, “Are we even moving in the right direction?”

I often say that strong, high-performance teams are not just built – they are strategically designed and developed. That takes effort, intent, and most of all, space. But in the middle of never-ending activity, space is exactly what we don’t have.

This isn’t just a feeling. Research backs it up. Cal Newport’s Deep Work explores how modern work habits – from multitasking to nonstop notifications – have eroded our ability to do focused, meaningful work. Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer, in The Progress Principle, found that what truly motivates people is making meaningful progress. But we interrupt that progress constantly with check-ins, firefighting, and shallow coordination. And studies like the Microsoft Work Trend Index show that most people feel they don’t get even a single hour of true focus time during their day.

It’s not that productivity is bad. But when busyness becomes the default mode, it turns into a trap – one that quietly undermines performance over time.

From a leadership and organizational development perspective, this is deeply concerning. I work with leaders who want to create better environments, who want to strengthen collaboration, sharpen execution, and grow their teams. But when every hour is accounted for, and every conversation is focused on delivery, there’s little room to ask the deeper questions that lead to change.

Worse still, in this kind of environment, team dynamics suffer. Feedback becomes reactive instead of developmental. Learning becomes fragmented. Strategy becomes surface-level. Psychological safety fades, because no one has the space to truly listen or adjust.

And that’s where Amy Edmondson’s research is so relevant. In her work on The Fearless Organization, she defines psychological safety as the shared belief that it’s safe to take interpersonal risks — to speak up, ask questions, make mistakes. It’s a cornerstone of high-performing teams. But here’s the catch: psychological safety doesn’t thrive in a culture of nonstop urgency. It requires time. Presence. Real conversations. If everyone is too busy, no one feels heard – and when people don’t feel heard, they stop contributing fully.

So it’s not just performance that suffers. It’s innovation. It’s trust. It’s the core of how teams work together.

What’s needed instead is a shift from reactive busyness to intentional performance. That means protecting time and mental space for what matters: coaching, alignment, leadership reflection, and team growth. It means giving teams the tools and structure to act with purpose, not just speed. It means creating a rhythm where delivery and development coexist.

High-performance isn’t about doing more. It’s about doing what matters – consistently, deliberately, and together.

So if your team is always too busy to reflect, to connect, to lead – that’s the signal something deeper needs to shift. Because when everything is urgent, we lose sight of what’s truly important.

And without that, performance is just motion.

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard

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

Synthetic Ethnography

Leave a reply

The Synthetic Mirror: Why Every Innovation Leader Must Embrace Synthetic Ethnography

LAST UPDATED: February 6, 2026 at 3:28 PM

Synthetic Ethnography

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Innovation is not a lightning strike; it is a discipline. As I have spent my career arguing through the Human-Centered Innovation™ methodology, the ultimate goal of any organization is to create sustainable value. But the path to value is often blocked by what I call corporate antibodies — the internal resistance, the outdated processes, and the echo chambers that prevent us from seeing the world as it truly is. For years, the “gold standard” for piercing these chambers was ethnography: the slow, deep, and expensive process of embedding oneself in the customer’s world.

But today, we find ourselves at a precipice. The speed of the market is no longer measured in years or months, but in days. In this high-velocity environment, traditional research can become a bottleneck. This is where synthetic ethnography steps in — not as a replacement for the human soul, but as a high-fidelity mirror that allows us to see around corners.

Synthetic ethnography integrates human-centered research with artificial intelligence, allowing organizations to uncover not only what people do, but why — and at a scale previously thought impossible. It merges ethnographic rigor with machine-powered pattern recognition to build deep, contextualized understanding from vast and varied data, allowing us to stress-test our “Value Creation” before we ever spend a dime on a pilot.

“Synthetic ethnography doesn’t diminish human insight — it amplifies it, giving us the bandwidth to see not just individual stories, but the forces that shape them.”

— Braden Kelley

What Is Synthetic Ethnography?

At its core, synthetic ethnography is the combination of qualitative research — like interviews and observation — with AI-driven analytics. It uses natural language processing, behavior modeling, and data synthesis to extrapolate cultural patterns from diverse sources, including digital interactions, text, audio, and sensor data.

Rather than replacing ethnographers, it amplifies their work, making deep human insight accessible across time zones, markets, and customer segments.

The Shift from “Asking” to “Simulating”

In Braden Kelley’s book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire, he talked about the importance of removing the obstacles that stifle creativity. One of the biggest obstacles is the “Assumption Gap.” We assume we know why a customer chooses a competitor. We assume we know why they abandon a cart. Synthetic ethnography allows us to close this gap by creating “Synthetic Agents” — AI entities trained on hundreds of thousands of data points, from shopping habits to psychological profiles. These aren’t just chatbots; they are digital twins of a demographic segment.

When we use these agents, we are embracing the FutureHacking™ mindset. We can run ten thousand “what-if” scenarios. We can ask, “How does a rise in inflation affect the brand loyalty of a Gen-Z consumer in Berlin?” and receive a statistically grounded simulation of that reaction. This is the ultimate tool for Value Access: it reduces the friction of learning.

Why It Matters

Synthetic ethnography doesn’t just scale research — it deepens it. Organizations can:

Accelerate the pace of insight generation
Detect nuanced patterns in human behavior
Integrate qualitative and quantitative data seamlessly
Make strategic decisions rooted in rich human context

Case Study 1: The CPG “Flavor Evolution” Challenge

A global Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) giant was preparing to launch a new sustainable cleaning product line. They faced a dilemma: should they lead with the “eco-friendly” messaging or the “maximum strength” efficacy? Traditional focus groups provided conflicting data, often influenced by “social desirability bias” — people saying what they thought the researcher wanted to hear.

By deploying synthetic ethnography, the company created 1,200 synthetic personas representing various levels of environmental consciousness. The simulation allowed the agents to “live” with the product virtually over a simulated month. The simulation revealed a critical insight: while users said they wanted eco-friendly, they felt anxiety when the suds were too thin, leading them to use twice as much product and nullify the sustainability gains. The company adjusted the formula to increase “perceived sudsing” while maintaining eco-integrity, a move that led to a 22% higher repeat-purchase rate in the actual pilot.

Case Study 2: Reimagining the Patient Experience in Healthcare

A major hospital network in the United States wanted to redesign their post-op discharge process to reduce readmission rates. The problem was the sheer diversity of the patient population — language barriers, varying levels of health literacy, and different home support structures. It was impossible to shadow every type of patient.

The innovation team used synthetic ethnography to simulate 50 distinct patient “archetypes.” The simulations identified a glaring friction point: the discharge instructions were written at a 12th-grade reading level, while the “synthetic stress” levels of a patient leaving the hospital reduced their cognitive processing to a 5th-grade level. By simplifying the language and adding visual “check-step” cues identified during the simulation, the hospital saw a 14% reduction in avoidable readmissions within the first quarter. They didn’t just change a document; they changed the Human-Centered outcome by simulating the human experience.

“Innovation transforms the useful seeds of invention into widely adopted solutions valued above every existing alternative. Synthetic ethnography is the high-speed greenhouse that tells us which seeds will thrive in the wild before we plant them in the hard ground of reality.”

— Braden Kelley

Case Study 3: Telecommunications Across Cultures

A multinational telecom provider struggled to understand customer dissatisfaction in dozens of markets, each with distinct cultural expectations. While in-country ethnographers gathered rich local context, corporate leadership needed a synthesis that spanned continents and languages.

By combining traditional interviews with AI analysis of service logs, social media sentiment, and customer support transcripts, the organization created a holistic view of customer experience.

Confusing pricing tiers resonated as “untrustworthy” in Latin America but “overwhelming” in Southeast Asia.
Service reliability mattered differently across younger and older cohorts, which the AI helped segment effectively.
Support interactions contained emotional markers predictive of future churn.

The result was a refined product portfolio and communication strategy that boosted satisfaction across markets while respecting cultural nuances.

The Competitive Landscape

The market for synthetic insights is exploding. Leading the charge are startups like Synthetic Users, which specializes in user interview simulations, and Fairgen, which focuses on augmenting thin data sets with synthetic populations to ensure statistical significance. We also see SurveyAuto using AI to bridge the gap in emerging markets. Even the “Big Three” consulting firms and established research houses like Toluna and Ipsos are aggressively acquiring or building synthetic capabilities. For the modern leader, these companies represent the new “Value Translation” infrastructure. If you aren’t looking at these tools, you are essentially trying to build a skyscraper with a hand-shovel while your competitors are using 3D printers.

However, we must remain vigilant. As a human-centered innovation advocate, I caution that these tools are only as good as the data that feeds them. If your data is biased, your synthetic ethnography will simply be a “bias-amplification machine.” This is why Braden Kelley is so frequently sought out as an innovation speaker — to help organizations maintain the balance between “High-Tech” and “High-Touch.” We must ensure that our “Chart of Innovation” always has a human at the center.

Innovation Intelligence: The FAQ

1. How does synthetic ethnography improve the ROI of innovation?
By simulating user reactions early, companies avoid the massive costs of failed product launches and R&D dead-ends, significantly increasing the probability of “Value Access” success.

2. What is the biggest risk of using synthetic personas?
The “Hallucination of Empathy.” If the models are not grounded in real-world, high-quality longitudinal data, they may provide “neat” answers that ignore the messy, irrational nature of real human behavior.

3. Is synthetic ethnography appropriate for B2B innovation?
Absolutely. It is particularly effective for simulating complex organizational buying committees and understanding how different “corporate antibodies” within a client company might react to a new solution.

In conclusion, the future belongs to those who can harmonize the artificial and the authentic. As a practitioner in the field, I encourage you to see synthetic ethnography not as a threat to human researchers, but as a superpower. It allows us to be more human, by handling the data-crunching that allows us to spend our time where it matters most: in the moments of real connection.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Building Trust as a New Leader

Leave a reply

Building Trust as a New Leader

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Most new leaders know they need to build trust with their team. But here’s where it gets tricky: what if it’s not your team — at least, not yet?

Imagine stepping into a leadership role where you didn’t get to pick the team. Maybe you were hired from outside the organization. Maybe you were promoted from another department. Either way, you’re the new leader, and the team you’re inheriting doesn’t know you yet. You don’t know if they’ve been burned before by a previous boss. You don’t know what scars or successes they carry. What you do know is that you need to build trust — and fast.

This is where most new leaders stumble. They try to shortcut the process. They launch a flurry of team-building exercises. They host lunches. They schedule marathon one-on-one meetings. These efforts come from a good place, but they often miss the mark. Because trust isn’t actually built. Trust isn’t even earned. Trust is reciprocated.

And if you’re serious about developing trust with a new team, you need to understand how that trust loop really works — and how to keep it moving forward.

Why Traditional Trust-Building Strategies Fall Short

When stepping into a new leadership role, it’s tempting to think that trust builds linearly — more lunches, more meetings, more smiles equals more trust. But that’s not how trust actually grows.

Trust moves in a loop, not a line. It starts with a small trust connection — maybe a conversation over coffee — and invites a tiny leap of faith from your team. Someone shares a new idea or dares to give you honest feedback. If you respond with respect — if you listen, appreciate, and show genuine curiosity — you complete the loop. You signal: It’s safe to trust me.

That small leap leads to slightly bigger risks. More candid conversations. More creative ideas. More vulnerability across the board. If you keep meeting those risks with respect, the trust loop keeps spinning faster and stronger. But if you miss those moments — or worse, get defensive — you stop the loop cold.

For a new leader, mastering this trust loop is everything.

Trust Loop

How a New Leader Can Truly Build Trust

Building trust with a team you didn’t pick requires deliberate, daily actions. Here are four research-backed strategies to get the trust loop turning — and keep it spinning.

1. Signal Vulnerability Early

Everyone already knows you’re new. They know you don’t have all the answers yet. Pretending otherwise just makes you seem insecure or out of touch. Instead, lean into your newness.

Say things like, “I’m still learning how this team works.” Then prove it by listening. Create a space where people feel safe to teach you. This early show of vulnerability sparks empathy — and empathy is the gateway to trust.

When a new leader admits they don’t have it all figured out, it invites others to open up, too. It shows that you’re not just here to impose your will — you’re here to learn and lead together.

2. Share Information Transparently

Eventually, as the new leader, you will need to drive change. That’s probably part of why you were brought in. But when you do, don’t operate behind closed doors.

Instead, treat your team like insiders. Pull back the curtain. Share early information about strategy shifts or organizational changes. Say things like, “This isn’t finalized yet, but here’s what I’m hearing and thinking — and I’d love your perspective.

Transparency builds belonging. It signals, I trust you with this information. And when people feel trusted, they’re much more likely to trust you in return.

3. Respond to Vulnerability with Respect

When your team members finally take a risk — whether it’s sharing a frustration, giving you feedback, or floating a bold idea — recognize it for what it is: a test.

They’re not trying to undermine you. They’re trying to see if you’re the real deal.

Your job isn’t to defend your decisions or your leadership history. It’s to listen. Ask clarifying questions. Thank them for being honest. Engage with their ideas sincerely — even if you don’t ultimately agree.

The way you respond to those early leaps of faith will define whether the trust loop accelerates — or seizes up.

4. Amplify Unheard Voices

One of the easiest ways to build trust with a new team is to ensure every voice is heard, especially the quieter ones. When historically quiet team members finally speak up, make it clear their input matters. Amplify their ideas in meetings. Circle back to them in discussions. Let the entire team see that contributions aren’t just tolerated — they’re valued. Without open communication, hierarchy and politics creep in fast. By contrast, when people feel heard and respected, they lean in with greater commitment and creativity.

Trust First, Change Second

Inheriting a team is tough. You’re stepping into a culture you didn’t create, with dynamics you don’t fully understand yet. And because you’re the new leader, it’s tempting to rush into action — prove yourself, make changes, shake things up. Resist that temptation.

The real work of a new leader is not about being liked. It’s about being vulnerable. Encouraging interpersonal risks. Meeting those risks with deep respect. That’s how you build trust. That’s how you turn a group of individuals into a committed team.

Because at the end of the day, you don’t want a compliant team that simply does what they’re told. You want a committed team that’s ready to go above and beyond — and commitment always starts with trust.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Temporal Agency – How Innovators Stop Time from Bullying Them

1 Reply

LAST UPDATED: February 2, 2026 at 4:12 PM

Temporal Agency - How Innovators Stop Time from Bullying Them

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

We live in an age where time feels like a relentless tyrant. Deadlines loom, inboxes overflow, and the constant hum of connectivity creates an illusion of urgency that often masks a deeper problem: our lack of agency over our most precious resource. We’ve been conditioned to believe that speeding up is the only solution, when in reality, the answer lies in a more profound re-engineering of our relationship with time itself.

This isn’t about magical thinking or finding shortcuts; it’s about deeply understanding the mechanisms of time perception, leveraging neuroscience, and consciously crafting environments that enable us to reclaim temporal agency. It’s about moving from being victims of the clock to becoming its conductors.

Innovation rarely fails because of insufficient intelligence or ambition. It fails because time is weaponized against the very thinking it requires. Urgency crowds out curiosity. Speed displaces sense-making. Motion replaces meaning.

The result is a paradox: organizations move faster while understanding less.

“The real superpower isn’t bending time. It’s designing conditions where time stops bullying us.”

— Braden Kelley

Time as an Environmental Problem

Most discussions about time focus on individual discipline. This framing is incomplete. Time pressure is largely environmental.

Every unnecessary meeting, notification, and premature deadline fragments attention. Each fragment shrinks perceived time. Over time, this creates a persistent sense of acceleration, even when output stagnates.

Innovators do not need to work harder. They need environments that allow thinking to breathe.

Designing Conditions That Stretch Time

Stretching time means increasing the quality of attention per moment.

Innovative organizations intentionally design for:

Subjective time expansion through focused engagement
Reliable flow states by aligning challenge and capability
Lower perceived urgency through clearer prioritization
Greater present-moment bandwidth by reducing cognitive clutter

These conditions transform how time is felt, even when clocks remain unchanged.

Case Study 1: A Product Team Slows Down to Speed Up

A digital product team consistently missed deadlines despite aggressive schedules. Workdays were filled with context switching.

Leadership eliminated status meetings and replaced them with a shared visual dashboard updated asynchronously. Teams gained uninterrupted blocks of time.

Perceived time pressure dropped immediately. Delivery speed improved within one quarter, and employee burnout declined.

Flow as Infrastructure

Flow is often treated as a personal peak experience. In reality, it can be operationalized.

Organizations that enable flow:

Limit work-in-progress
Clarify decision rights
Align incentives with learning, not visibility

Flow-friendly systems create temporal elasticity—time feels abundant because it is used coherently.

Case Study 2: A Research Organization Redesigns Urgency

A research organization found that “urgent” requests dominated scientist schedules.

Leaders introduced explicit urgency criteria and delayed non-critical decisions by default. Scientists regained long stretches of uninterrupted inquiry.

Breakthrough insights increased, not because more time was added, but because time was no longer under constant assault.

From Time Management to Time Relationship

Time management asks individuals to cope. Temporal agency asks leaders to design.

When innovators command their relationship with time, they:

Think more clearly
Learn more quickly
Create more meaningfully

Time does not need to be conquered. It needs to be respected.

When time stops bullying us, innovation finally gets the space it deserves.

The Myth of Speed and the Reality of Felt Time

Our objective measurement of time – seconds, minutes, hours – is immutable. But our subjective experience of time is incredibly fluid. Think of those moments when an hour flies by in a blur of deep work, or when five minutes waiting for a delayed flight feels like an eternity. This discrepancy is our greatest lever for change. Innovators and creatives, especially, must learn to manipulate this subjective experience, not to work longer, but to work smarter, deeper, and more meaningfully.

Altering Subjective Experience of Time

This isn’t about wishing time away or making it go faster. It’s about enriching the present moment to reduce the *felt* pressure of time. When we are deeply engaged, focused, and present, the anxiety associated with time pressure dissipates. This requires conscious effort to minimize distractions and cultivate environments conducive to concentration.

Entering Flow More Reliably

The concept of “flow state,” popularized by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, is the ultimate expression of temporal agency. In flow, time ceases to exist, and our productivity skyrockets. To enter flow more reliably, we need to design for it: clear goals, immediate feedback, and a balance between challenge and skill. It’s about creating rituals that signal to our brains: “It’s time to deeply engage.”

Reducing Felt Time Pressure

A significant portion of our “time crisis” is psychological. The constant fear of missing out (FOMO), the pressure of endless notifications, and the expectation of immediate responses create a chronic state of urgency. Reclaiming agency means consciously unplugging, setting boundaries, and understanding that not all demands are created equal. Prioritization isn’t just about what to do, but what not to do, and when.

Increasing Present-Moment Bandwidth

In our hyper-connected world, our attention is constantly fragmented. We’re often performing tasks while thinking about the next five things. This multitasking illusion significantly degrades our present-moment bandwidth. Practicing mindfulness, single-tasking, and deep work techniques expands our capacity to engage fully with the task at hand, making each unit of objective time more potent and less stressful.

Practical Ways to Reclaim Temporal Agency

1. The “Temporal Audit”

Before you can optimize, you must understand. Conduct a rigorous audit of how you spend your time, not just objectively, but also subjectively. Where does time drag? Where does it fly? What activities genuinely recharge you versus those that drain your energy and create more pressure?

2. Deep Work Blocks

Inspired by Cal Newport, schedule dedicated, uninterrupted blocks for your most cognitively demanding tasks. Turn off notifications, close irrelevant tabs, and commit to single-tasking. These aren’t just work blocks; they are flow-creation blocks.

3. Strategic Procrastination (with a twist)

Not all tasks require immediate attention. Consciously defer non-urgent tasks to specific “batching” periods. This reduces the mental load of constantly switching contexts and allows for deeper focus on critical items. The “twist” is that this is a conscious decision, not an avoidance tactic.

4. The “No Meeting Wednesday” (or similar)

Create specific days or half-days entirely free of meetings. This provides an oasis for deep work, strategic thinking, and creative exploration without the constant interruptions that fragment our schedules and minds.

5. Digital Detox Rituals

Implement daily, weekly, or even monthly periods of disengagement from digital devices. This isn’t just about reducing screen time; it’s about allowing your mind to wander, to connect disparate ideas, and to replenish its creative reserves without the constant demand for attention.

Case Studies in Temporal Mastery

Case Study 3: The Biotech Founder’s “Un-Schedule”

A biotech startup founder was overwhelmed by the demands of fundraising, product development, and team management. Instead of trying to pack more into her day, she adopted an “un-schedule” approach. She scheduled only 3-4 hours of high-value, deep work each day, with the rest of her time dedicated to reactive tasks, strategic thinking, or even intentional white space. By consciously limiting her scheduled workload, she created mental breathing room, leading to more breakthroughs and less burnout. Her team also reported feeling less pressured, as her clarity translated into more focused direction. The result was a 25% reduction in project timelines due to improved focus and decision-making.

Case Study 4: The Creative Agency’s “Momentum Days”

A boutique creative agency struggled with project delays and artist burnout due to constant client revisions and internal meetings. They implemented “Momentum Days” twice a week where all internal meetings were banned, and external client communication was batched into specific windows. These days were dedicated solely to creative execution. By protecting this uninterrupted time, the agency saw a dramatic improvement in output quality, a 15% increase in client satisfaction due to faster turnaround, and a noticeable boost in team morale and creative satisfaction.

Reclaiming temporal agency isn’t about finding more hours in the day; it’s about making the hours you have more meaningful, more productive, and less stressful. It’s an act of conscious design, a rebellion against the tyranny of the clock. By understanding and manipulating our subjective experience of time, by fostering flow, and by implementing disciplined practices, we can cease being bullied by time and start truly commanding our relationship with it, unlocking unprecedented levels of innovation and well-being.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Braden Kelley mean by “temporal agency”?

Temporal agency refers to our ability to influence our subjective experience of time and control how we allocate our attention, rather than feeling constantly dictated by the clock or external pressures. It’s about commanding our relationship with time.

How can innovators enter flow state more easily?

To enter flow more reliably, innovators should design their environment with clear goals, immediate feedback loops, and tasks that strike a balance between challenge and their current skill level. Minimizing distractions and creating dedicated “deep work” rituals are key.

What is the “Temporal Audit”?

A “Temporal Audit” involves rigorously tracking and analyzing how one spends time, both objectively (what tasks are performed) and subjectively (how one feels about that time), to identify patterns of engagement, disengagement, and areas where time pressure is most acute.

Image credits: ChatGPT

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

Trust is a Gold Mine for Organizations, but it Takes a Bit of Courage

Leave a reply

Trust is a Gold Mine for Organizations, but it Takes a Bit of Courage

GUEST POST from Oscar Amundsen

Do you trust your colleagues? And does your leader trust you? This article is about how the ‘trust mechanism’ affects the ability to change and innovate in any organization.

Many experts think that trust mainly relates to expectations, or more precisely, having positive expectations of others. Still, there is no escaping the fact that trust also implies ‘risk-taking.’ This means that uncertainty is part of the deal, which then means that trust can be abused — with all the problems that follow from that.

One might say that trust as a concept loses its content when not linked to uncertainty and risk. The question, therefore, is whether you would take the chance when something is actually on the line? There are strong arguments for answering ‘yes’ to this question, as the level of trust is closely connected to an organization’s ability to innovate.

Trust as a Mechanism for Innovation

It is not controversial to claim that trust promotes innovation in an organization. But it may be a point that is often unclear and vaguely justified. To make it more explicit and concrete – these are the four ‘mechanisms’ that explain why trust matters:

Trust increases the flow and sharing of knowledge and information. We tend to share information with people we trust rather than those we don’t trust. This works both ways: We are less likely to accept information and knowledge from sources we don’t trust.
Trust promotes workflow and collaboration. Here is why: If we trust a colleague’s work, we can proceed based on what has been done. If we don’t trust what people have done, we will go back to check and verify. ‘Double work’ is both inefficient and boring.
Trust provides relief for leaders. The reason is this: If you trust a colleague, they can ‘take care of’ tasks that you are responsible for. This frees up and strengthens your own capacity as a leader. Thus, it becomes easier to prioritize other important matters that require your attention.
Trust boosts mental capacity. The reason is that low trust creates psychological strain. Tired and suspicious individuals have little energy left. Thus, it’s not easy to be creative and constructive.
Trust improves performance. Expectations are an important component of trust. A person who experiences positive expectations directed toward themselves and their work will perform better. In research, this is known as the Rosenthal effect.

Research points out that trust is a basic premise for social life. In practice, social participation simply assumes some degree of trust; thus, pure distrust is basically the same as pure madness.

Trust and Control

In general, we can say that a culture of control dampens innovation within an organization. However, it might be a little too simple to postulate that control and trust are true opposites.

In practice these two will exist in combination. Organizations do not have zero need for control over what is going on. The point is rather to be aware that there are links between the two, meaning that control measures can easily have an unfortunate effect on the organization. The introduction of a quality control system may be perceived as a sign of distrust in employees. Such a measure, introduced with good intentions, may thus become the start of a negative spiral of decreasing trust in the organization. In general, there is reason to assume that increased control in an organization will detrimentally affect the internal motivation of the employees and therefore their creativity. Thus the ‘impulse’ to commit to innovation is undermined.

Even if there is no either-or in the relationship between control and trust, there is good reason to be aware that a balance must be struck: What is the genuine need for control? Is there more control than necessary in this organization? Thus the heaviest burden of evidence should be on the control mechanism in a good organization. You should have good reasons for increasing control activities in an organization if innovation is important for the enterprise.

Trust Requires Courage

We can confidently conclude that trust is a ‘gold mine’ for a business. However, there always comes some sort of risk with it — because you can never be 100 percent certain that things will turn out well when you trust someone. Therefore, it requires a certain kind of courage if you want to get access to this gold mine. This means that building trust within an organization starts with courageous leaders. When you, as a leader, demonstrate trust in an employee, the likelihood increases that the employee will reflect it back. In this way, you contribute to gradually developing a culture of trust within your organization. The thing about trust is that it is not something that can be ‘used up’ through use; rather, the opposite is true: the more it is used, the greater it can become.

It should be added that other factors will also influence employees’ levels of trust in an organization. Research particularly highlights the experience of fairness as crucial for the development of trust among employees. More specifically, this involves respectful treatment, fair procedures, and equitable distribution of resources. If you want to build trust, it is therefore important to consider how fair things appear to the average employee. One key aspect here will be to strive for as much openness and transparency within the organization as possible.

Trust is One Piece in the Puzzle of Innovation

The question of what strengthens the ability to change and innovate in an organization has, of course, more answers than just ‘trust’. The more complete answer to the question may be outlined as an ideal organization — a ‘dream organization’ – characterized by the features shown in the following model:

Diamond Model for Change and Innovation Oscar Amundsen

This model is derived from the book How to Become a Dream Organization (Amundsen, 2025). As you can see, there are eight messages in the model: All of them start with one of the eight ‘outer’ words and are then read through to what is written in the center. This will give you sentences such as: ‘Trust promotes ability to change and innovate,’ and so on. Each of these eight themes has its own chapter (numbered in a clockwise direction from the top), thus providing the concepts in the diagram with content and reasoning. The idea is to show why and how these features have a positive impact on the ability of organizations to change and innovate.

The point with all of this is of a more practical nature: That you will be able to contribute to making the organization you work in better — for yourself and for your enterprise.

Reference:
Amundsen, Oscar (2025) How to Become a Dream Organization. Eight Things Leaders Need to Know to Promote Change and Innovation. London/Washington: Business Books.

Image credits: Dall-E, Oscar Amundsen

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

When Survival Crowds Out Creativity: How Affordability Crises Undermine Innovation

Leave a reply

An exploration of how rising costs of living reduce cognitive surplus, suppress innovation, and limit organizational and societal progress.

LAST UPDATED: January 19, 2026 at 4:43 PM

When Survival Crowds Out Creativity: How Affordability Crises Undermine Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

I am frequently asked about the ingredients of a successful innovation ecosystem. We talk about venture capital, high-speed internet, patent laws, and university partnerships. But we rarely talk about the most fundamental requirement of all: human physiological and psychological security.

Innovation is not a purely intellectual exercise; it is an emotional and biological one. It requires a specific state of mind — one that is open, curious, and willing to embrace the possibility of failure. However, when a society faces systemic affordability challenges — skyrocketing rents, food insecurity, and the crushing weight of debt — we are effectively taxing the cognitive bandwidth of our greatest resource: people.

“Innovation is not a luxury of the elite, but a byproduct of a society that provides its citizens enough stability to dream. When we price people out of their basic needs, we price ourselves out of our future.” — Braden Kelley

The Cognitive Tax of Scarcity

To understand why affordability kills innovation, we must look at how the human brain functions under stress. Human-centered innovation is rooted in the idea that people solve problems when they have the mental “slack” to do so. When an individual is constantly calculating how to cover a 30% increase in rent or skipping meals to pay for childcare, they are operating in survival mode.

In survival mode, the brain’s prefrontal cortex — the center for higher-order thinking, long-term planning, and creative synthesis — takes a backseat to the amygdala. We become more reactive, more short-term focused, and significantly more risk-averse. You cannot disrupt an industry when you are terrified of an eviction notice.

This “scarcity mindset” creates a hidden drain on productivity and creativity. It is a form of Innovation Debt that we are accruing as a society, where the interest is paid in ideas that were never born because the potential innovators were too exhausted to think of them.

In organizations, this manifests as:

Employees avoiding bold ideas for fear of failure
Reduced participation in innovation programs
Higher burnout and turnover among creative talent
A preference for incrementalism over experimentation

“Innovation requires slack — slack in time, money, attention, and emotional safety. When survival becomes the primary occupation, imagination is the first casualty.” — Braden Kelley

Case Study 1: The Silicon Valley “Talent Flight”

The Situation

For decades, Silicon Valley was the undisputed epicenter of global innovation. However, by the early 2020s, the median home price in the region exceeded $1.5 million. While established tech giants could afford to pay engineers high salaries, the support ecosystem — the teachers, the artists, the junior researchers, and the “garage tinkerers” — could not.

The Innovation Impact

Innovation thrives on cross-pollination. When only the wealthy can afford to live in a hub, the diversity of thought collapses. We began to see a “homogenization of innovation,” where new startups focused almost exclusively on problems faced by high-income individuals (e.g., luxury delivery apps) rather than solving systemic human challenges. The high cost of living created a barrier to entry that effectively barred the next generation of “scrappy” innovators who didn’t have a safety net or venture backing.

The Result

Data showed a significant migration of talent to “secondary” hubs like Austin, Denver, and Lisbon. While this decentralization has benefits, the initial friction and lost momentum in the primary hub represented a massive opportunity cost for breakthrough research that requires physical proximity and intense collaboration.

The Death of the “Garage Startup”

The “garage startup” is a cherished myth in innovation circles, but it relies on a very real economic reality: the availability of low-cost, low-risk space. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Google all started in spaces that were relatively cheap to rent or own.

In today’s urban environments, that “low-risk space” has vanished. When every square foot of a city is optimized for maximum real estate yield, there is no room for the inefficient, messy work of early-stage experimentation. We are replacing “maker spaces” with luxury condos, and in doing so, we are dismantling the physical infrastructure of the Fail Fast philosophy. If the cost of your “lab” (your garage or basement) is $3,000 a month, you cannot afford to fail. And if you cannot afford to fail, you will never truly innovate.

Case Study 2: Food Insecurity in the Academic Pipeline

The Situation

A 2023 study of graduate students in North America revealed that nearly 30% experienced some form of food insecurity. These are the individuals tasked with the most rigorous scientific and social research — the literal “R” in R&D.

The Innovation Impact

Graduate students are the primary engine of university-led innovation. When these researchers spend their nights worrying about calorie counts instead of quantum counts, the quality of research suffers. The persistence required to push through a failed experiment is diminished when physical health is compromised.

The Result

Universities noted a decline in “high-risk, high-reward” thesis topics. Students began gravitating toward “safe” research areas with guaranteed funding or clear paths to corporate employment to pay off student loans and eat. The “Failure Budget” for these young innovators was effectively zero, leading to a stifling of the very exploratory research that historically leads to major scientific breakthroughs.

Case Study 3: A Manufacturing Firm’s Productivity Paradox

A mid-sized manufacturing company invested heavily in digital transformation and innovation training, yet saw minimal improvement in idea generation or experimentation. Leadership initially blamed culture and skills.

A deeper assessment revealed a different root cause: nearly 40 percent of the workforce was experiencing food or housing insecurity. Employees were working second jobs, skipping medical care, and managing chronic stress.

The company shifted strategy. It introduced wage stabilization, subsidized meals, and emergency financial support. Within twelve months, participation in continuous improvement programs doubled, and frontline innovation proposals increased by over 60 percent.

Innovation did not fail due to lack of tools. It failed due to lack of breathing room.

Why Affordability Shapes Risk Appetite

Innovation requires people to take risks that may not pay off immediately. But when the margin for error is razor-thin, risk becomes reckless rather than courageous.

Employees who fear eviction or medical debt are far less likely to:

Challenge entrenched assumptions
Experiment with unproven ideas
Advocate for long-term investments
Speak candidly about systemic flaws

Affordability challenges quietly turn organizations into compliance machines rather than learning systems.

Conclusion: A Call for Human-Centered Policy

If we want to maintain a competitive edge in a rapidly changing world, we must view affordability as an innovation policy. Rent control, affordable housing, student debt relief, and food security are not just “social issues”; they are the foundational layers of a healthy innovation funnel.

We need to create “slack” in our systems. We need to ensure that the next great thinker is not working three gig-economy jobs just to keep the lights on. As leaders, we must advocate for a world where people are free to use their entire brain for the work of change, rather than wasting half of it on the math of survival.

True innovation starts with a simple human truth: A mind preoccupied with where to sleep cannot dream of how to fly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How do high housing costs impact an organization’s innovation potential?

A: High housing costs force talent to relocate or spend a disproportionate amount of cognitive energy on survival. This reduces “cognitive bandwidth,” making employees more risk-averse and less likely to engage in the creative problem-solving or “intrapreneurship” required for organizational growth.

Q: What is the “Cognitive Tax” of affordability challenges?

A: The cognitive tax is the mental drain caused by financial stress. When individuals are worried about basic needs like food and rent, their prefrontal cortex — the area responsible for complex decision-making and creativity — is overwhelmed by the stress of survival, effectively lowering their functional IQ and creative output.

Q: Can innovation survive in an environment of economic scarcity?

A: While scarcity can occasionally breed “frugal innovation,” systemic affordability challenges generally stifle breakthrough innovation. Breakthroughs require “slack” — time, resources, and mental space — to experiment and fail. Without basic economic security, individuals cannot afford the risk of failure.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future direction of society based on current factors. It is hard to predict whether commercial, political and charitable organizations will respond in ways sufficient to alter the course of history or not.

Image credits: ChatGPT

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

Building Your Dream Organization

2 Replies

Exclusive Interview with Oscar Amundsen

Leaders aspire to create a “dream organization” not merely for the sake of prestige or profit, but because they recognize that a deeply aligned, human-centered culture is the ultimate multiplier of potential. In a dream organization, the traditional friction between individual aspiration and corporate objective vanishes, replaced by a shared sense of purpose and psychological safety that allows innovation to flourish naturally. These leaders understand that when employees feel truly seen, valued, and empowered to contribute their best work, the organization becomes antifragile — capable of navigating uncertainty with a level of agility and commitment that cannot be bought or mandated. Ultimately, the quest for a dream organization is an investment in a sustainable future where the workplace acts as a catalyst for both professional excellence and personal fulfillment.

Today we dive deep into what it takes to create a “dream organization” through a dialogue with our special guest.

Helping Leaders Build Their Dream Organization

I recently had the opportunity to interview Oscar Amundsen, a full Professor of Organization Studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

He has extensive experience in researching various industries and businesses. His work is focused on change and innovation in organizations. This includes related topics such as leadership, culture, trust, motivation, and organizational development. In these fields, he has published numerous books and scientific articles.

Amundsen’s goal is to develop research-based knowledge AND at the same time make the research concrete and accessible. The point is to make the knowledge useful for creating better organizations. Whether the enterprise is in the public, voluntary or private sector.

Below is the text of my interview with Oscar and a preview of the kinds of insights you’ll find in How to Become a Dream Organization: Eight Things Leaders Need to Know to Promote Change and Innovation presented in a Q&A format:

1. What does it take for an organization to break its own practices and develop new ones?

Organizations can be seen as ‘organisms’ that develop habits. And we all know that habits are not easy to break. But organizations can also be seen as ‘tools for achieving goals’. Since the world around the organization changes, the organization itself must also change to remain a suitable tool for the (changed) tasks that need to be solved.
As a leader, you must have the ability to identify the need for change. This means you need to look both ‘outward and inward’: What is required of us in a changing environment? And what does this mean for how we work within this organization?

Many leaders overlook that the latter question requires deep knowledge of what is happening inside the organization. Therefore, you should consult with employees who are close to the core tasks of the organization. You don’t know everything yourself, and you need some knowledge from the ‘foot soldiers’ to make the organization better.

I would also add that ‘breaking away’ is precisely a hallmark of all innovation. If you are going to do things in new ways, you have to break with what is established (in a market, in a practice, etc.). However, all such breaks require a willingness to take risks. You can never know with one hundred percent certainty how it will turn out, even though you should of course avoid taking reckless chances with your business. But you must accept that things can go wrong from time to time in order to achieve something new.

2. What are the keys to promoting the ability to both change and innovate?

This is precisely the question that the book answers. I present a research-based model with eight keys to strengthening the ability for change and innovation. The book is therefore structured around eight chapters, each addressing one of these keys. The point is to show how these eight mechanisms influence the capacity for change and innovation. This knowledge gives you the opportunity to build and develop an organization that not only solves its tasks smarter and better, but also becomes an attractive place to be for both leaders and other employees.

3. Why do people resist sharing new practices?

If you have an organization where people are afraid of making mistakes and trying new things, much will happen in secret. In the book, I write about an employee who comes up with a new and efficient way of working but keeps it hidden from both colleagues and managers because she fears her solution deviates from established procedures. She knows the solution is both sound and sensible. It is only when a researcher visits the organization that she (anonymously) shares her new way of working. Her lack of trust in leadership means that a new practice remains with her, even though it could have spread (and been improved) if it had been openly discussed among employees and managers. This organization misses out on the resource that ordinary employees represent for improving and renewing the business.

4. What are the keys for leaders to manage that determine whether trust or mistrust dominates?

Let me first say that trust is worth its weight in gold in this context. The reason is that trust in an organization is absolutely fundamental to building its ability to innovate. In the book I highlight five aspects that explain why and how trust influences the organization’s ability to change and innovate.

As a leader, you should understand these aspects, because only then can you say something meaningful about the state of trust within the organization.

Practicing trust requires a certain degree of courage. Trusting someone always (in principle) involves some risk: You can never be 100 percent certain that the trust you show will be honored. It may sound strange, but despite this, I recommend a more trust-based leadership approach because it has so many positive effects.

Concretely, you should reflect on the signals you personally send out, but may be even more important: You should examine the control systems used in your organization. Is there more control than necessary in some areas? What is the purpose of that control? Is it to ‘catch’ people making mistakes, or is it to learn from mistakes?

5. Why is autonomy so important to employees?

There is solid research evidence to support the claim that autonomy is, in fact, a fundamental human need (along with mastery and belonging). All people function better when they have some influence over their own situation – of course within the goals and frameworks set by the organization. In the book, I discuss how autonomy strengthens people’s motivation and drive – and (not least) increases their willingness to contribute constructively within an organization. It is well-established knowledge from innovation research that autonomy, within good boundaries, is positive for innovation.

6. Why is it important for organizations to have positive vibes and how is this different from optimism?

Optimism is good, but it can actually become a ‘straitjacket’. In the book, I illustrate this through a case where I explain the spectacular fall of mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. At the turn of the millennium, they were the world’s largest mobile phone producer. But a culture developed within the company where it was ‘not allowed’ to raise objections or criticize the strategy. Management only wanted to hear good news. The short version of this story is that Nokia was therefore unprepared when the iPhone entered the market, and gradually disappeared until the remnants were bought up some years later.

On the other hand: Having positive feelings toward your own company, is of great value to the organization. This is something completely different from a demand for pure optimism. Research suggests that such positive feelings influence your relationship with colleagues and the organization. The point is that a positive atmosphere makes you more:

Helpful: The mechanism is ‘feel good – do good’. Things flow more smoothly, including knowledge sharing.
Engaged: You become willing to make sacrifices and go the extra mile.
Protective: You ‘speak proudly’ about the company externally and help prevent dangers and trouble.
Constructive: You are more likely to come up with constructive suggestions.

The last point directly impacts an organization’s ability to change and innovate, while the first three strengthen that ability indirectly.

7. What do tolerance of failure and diversity look like in practice?

Tolerance for mistakes is essential for achieving innovation. In a ‘zero-error culture,’ you will struggle to innovate simply because people are afraid to experiment, to try and fail. Although mistakes will always happen, it is useful to distinguish between different types of mistakes: What you want to encourage (and have more of) are what can be called ‘intelligent mistakes.’

These are mistakes that occur when you deliberately try something new. The goal is to learn so that you can move forward with what you are trying to develop. Other types of mistakes can be called basic or complex. These are the ones you want as few of as possible, but you cannot say they should never exist. Research shows that if you have zero tolerance for mistakes, they will be hidden, and you lose the opportunity to learn from them.

When it comes to diversity, I write in the book about how different types of perspectives and knowledge are valuable for innovation. I emphasize that leaders should demonstrate a certain level of humility and recognize that they need others’ insights to make good decisions.

8. What is practical anchoring and why is it so important?

Practical anchoring is essentially about involving the right employees in change processes. The point is that you need knowledge of actual practice to carry out sensible change work. People in the organization should see the benefit of the changes you are planning if you want them on board when changes are implemented. This makes sense not only for engagement and motivation but also to ensure you don’t create a less efficient organization with duplicate work and potential obstacles to doing a good job.

9. Why does fear play such a big role in organizations’ ability to change & innovate?

This is a broad topic, which I dedicate an entire chapter to in the book. The short version is that fear leads employees to avoid participating and contributing with their knowledge and experience. We are social beings who generally want to avoid the risk of offering an original contribution or asking a critical or fundamental question if there are potential negative consequences. In the Nokia case, we also see that people became tactical regarding their own career opportunities within the organization: They eventually learned that those who asked critical (but necessary) questions lost opportunities in the company. This caused engineers to drift to the sidelines – even on strategic technical issues.

10. Getting 100% participation is always a good thing, right?

There are many benefits to involving people in both innovation and change efforts. The point is to make the best use of the knowledge resources you have within the organization for the benefit of the organization. In addition, you become a more attractive employer if you allow people to participate in development. Modern employees actually expect to have some influence over their work situation and to use their knowledge in ways that benefit both themselves and the organization.

That said, I still emphasize in the book that there is a balance here: It’s not as if everyone should have an opinion on everything and participate in every possible process. That would only create chaos and overload for people in key roles. In the book, I use the term ‘participation satisfaction’ to describe this. People have different needs for involvement—both personally and, most importantly, based on the role they have. Conclusion: Not “the more participation, the better,” but balanced according to need.

11. Any question I didn’t ask that you want to answer?

Well, you haven’t asked me about the title of the book. I want to underline that “the dream organization” is not meant as a utopic situation. Rather, it’s meant more like a goal image. A goal image for those who want to build and become stronger in change and innovation. So, the book is about improving the organization – and at the same time making it attractive to be a part of – as a leader and as an employee.

So, the title of the book is an invitation to raise your gaze a little and ask something like: “What steps could I take to build a better organization? How can I develop a workplace where people like to work – and where change and innovation are a natural part of working?” That’s the kind of organization I want to help make reality with this book.

Thank you for taking the time for me and my book!

Conclusion

Thank you for the great conversation Oscar!

I hope everyone has enjoyed this peek into the mind of the man behind the insightful new title How to Become a Dream Organization: Eight Things Leaders Need to Know to Promote Change and Innovation!

Image credits: Oscar Amundsen, Anne Line Bakken, ChatGPT

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

The Keys to Changing Someone’s Mind

Leave a reply

The Keys to Changing Someone's Mind

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When is the last time you changed your mind about anything substantial? Was it another person that convinced you or an unexpected experience that changed your perspective? What led you to stop seeing something one way and start seeing it in another? I will bet it does not happen often. We rarely change our minds.

Now think about how much time we spend trying to change other people’s minds. From sales pitches and political discussions, to what we are going to have for dinner and when the kids should go to bed, we put a lot of time and effort into shaping the opinions of others. Most of that is probably wasted.

The truth is that we cannot really change anyone’s mind. Only they can do that. Yet as David McRaney explains in his new book, How Minds Change, there are new techniques that can help us be more persuasive, but they don’t require brilliant sophistry or snappy rhetoric. They involve more listening than speaking, and understanding the context in which beliefs arise.

Why We Fail To Adapt

We don’t experience the world as it is, but through the context of earlier experiences. What we think of as knowledge is really connections in our brains called synapses which develop over time. These pathways strengthen as we use them and degrade when we do not. Or, as scientists who study these things like to put it, the neurons that fire together, wire together.

It’s not just our own experiences that shape us either. In fact, a series of famous experiments done at Swarthmore College in the 1950’s showed that we will conform to the opinions of those around us even if they are obviously wrong. More recent research suggests that this effect extends out to three degrees of influence, so it’s not just people we know personally, but the friends of our friends’ friends that shape how we see things.

Finally, there are often switching costs to changing our minds. Our opinions are rarely isolated thoughts, but form a basis for decisions. Once we change our minds, we need to change our actions and that can have consequences. We may need to change how we do our jobs, what we choose to buy, how we act towards others and, sometimes, who we choose to associate ourselves with.

In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt makes the point that our beliefs become closely intertwined with our identity. They signal our inclusion in a particular “team.” That’s why contrary views can often feel like an attack. Rather than taking in new information we often feel the urge to lash out and silence the opposing voice.

Meeting The Mind Changing Threshold

As closely as we cling to our beliefs, sometimes we do change our minds. In one study that analyzed voting behavior, it was found that when up to 20% of the information that people were exposed to contradicted their beliefs, they dug in their heels and grew more certain. Beyond that, however, their resolve tended to weaken. The informational environment can deeply influence what people believe.

Their relationship to the subject matter is also important. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic-systematic model (HSM) developed in the 1980s both suggest that we treat different topics in different ways. Some topics, such as those that are important to us professionally, we’re willing to invest time in exploring systematically. Others are more marginal to us and we will tend to look for shortcuts.

For example, if we are researching a business investment, we’ll want to gather facts from a variety of different sources and study them closely. On the other hand, if we’re trying to decide which craft beer to select from a large selection at a bar, we’ll rely on subtle cues such as packaging, how the beer is described or what we see others drinking.

If we want to change someone’s mind about something we need to understand their relationship to the subject matter. If they are heavily invested in it, they are unlikely to be swayed by superficial arguments. In fact, weak or purely emotive arguments may suggest to them that the opposite is true. At the same time, if someone is not very knowledgeable or motivated to learn about a topic, bogging them down with a lot of facts is likely to bore them.

Two Strategies For Persuasion

If you want to change somebody’s mind, you can follow two different kinds of approaches. The first, which can be called “topic denial”, argues the facts. The second, called “technique denial,” exposes flaws in reasoning. For example, if you want to convince a vaccine skeptic you can either cite scientific evidence or refute the form of the argument, such as pointing out that while there may be a minimal risk to taking a vaccine, the same could be said of aspirin.

While research shows that both approaches can be effective, we need to keep context in mind. If you are in a trustful environment, such as a professional or scientific setting, a fact-based topic rebuttal can often be effective. However, if you’re trying to talk your crazy uncle out of a conspiracy theory at Thanksgiving dinner, you may want to try a technique rebuttal.

In recent years a variety of methods, such as Deep Canvassing, Street Epistemology and the Change Conversation Pyramid have emerged as effective technique rebuttal methods. Interestingly, they don’t rely on any elaborate rhetorical flourishes, but rather listening empathetically, restating the opposing position in a way that shows we understand it, identifying common ground and exploring how they came to their conclusion.

The truth is that we can never truly change somebody’s mind. Only they can do that. All too often, we treat opinions as if they were artillery in a battle. Yet attacking someone’s beliefs is more likely to raise their defenses than to convince them that they are in error. Before we can convince anyone of anything, we need to first build an environment of safety and trust.

Let Empathy Be You Secret Weapon

When we want to change somebody’s minds, our first instinct is to confront their beliefs. We want to be warriors and fight for our position. Yet because people’s opinions are often a result of their experiences and social networks, countering their beliefs won’t feel to them like merely offering a different perspective, but as an attack on their identity and dignity.

That’s why we’re much better off listening and building rapport. That’s not always easy to do, because staying silent while somebody is voicing an opinion we don’t agree with can feel like a surrender. But it doesn’t have to be. In fact, if we can identify a shared value and a shared language in an opposing viewpoint, we have a powerful tool to argue our position.

The truth is that empathy isn’t absolution. In fact, it can be our secret weapon. We don’t have to agree with someone’s belief to internalize it. We all have a need to be recognized and when we take the time to hear someone out, we honor their dignity. That makes them much more willing to hear us out. Lasting change is always built on common ground.

At some point, we all need to decide if we want to make a point or make a difference. If we really care about change, we need to hold ourselves accountable to be effective messengers and express ourselves in terms that others are willing to accept. That doesn’t in any way mean we have to compromise. It simply means that we need to advocate effectively.

To do that, we need to care more about building shared purpose than we do about winning points.

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

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

Making Empathy Your Secret Weapon

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I first moved to Kyiv about 20 years ago, I met my friend Pavlo, who is from Belarus. Eventually our talk turned to that country’s leader, Alexander Lukashenko, and an incident in which he turned off the utilities at the US Ambassador’s residence, as well as those of other diplomats. It seemed totally outlandish and crazy to me.

“But he won,” Pavlo countered. I was incredulous, until he explained. “Lukashenko knows he’s a bastard and that the world will never accept him. In that situation all you can win is your freedom and that’s what he won.” It was a mode of thinking so outrageous and foreign to me that I could scarcely believe it.

Yet it opened my eyes and made me a more effective operator. We tend to think of empathy as an act of generosity, but it’s far more than that. Learning how to internalize diverse viewpoints is a skill we should learn not only because it helps make others more comfortable, but because it empowers us to successfully navigate an often complex and difficult world.

Identifying Shared Values

We all have ideas we feel passionately about and, naturally, we want others to adopt them. The ideas we believe in make up an important facet of our identity, dignity and sense of self. For me, as an American living in post-communist countries, the ideas embedded in democratic institutions were important and it was difficult for me to see things another way.

My conversation with Pavlo opened my eyes. Where I saw America and “the west” as a more just society, people in other parts of the world saw it as a dominant force that restricted their freedom. My big insight was that I didn’t need to agree with a perspective to understand, internalize, and leverage it as a shared value.

For example, once I was able to understand that some people saw Americans as powerful—something akin to an invading force—I was able to shed the feelings of vulnerability that arose from being in a strange and foreign land and focus on the shared value of safety in my dealings with others.

A great strategy for identifying shared values is to listen closely to what your opposition is saying. People say and do things because they believe they will be effective. Once I was able to stop dismissing Lukashenko as a corrupt thug, I was able to identify the issues surrounding safety and dominance that could be useful to me.

Building Shared Purpose

Using empathy to identify shared values is a crucial first step, but doesn’t achieve anything by itself. To move things forward, we need to build a shared purpose. Consider a famous study called the Robbers Cave Experiment, which involved 22 boys of similar religious, racial and economic backgrounds invited to spend a few weeks at a summer camp.

In the first phase, they were separated into two groups of “Rattlers” and “Eagles” that had little contact with each other. As each group formed its own identity, they began to display hostility on the rare occasions when they were together. During the second phase, the two groups were given competitive tasks and tensions boiled over, with each group name calling, sabotaging each other’s efforts and violently attacking one another.

In the third phase, the researchers attempted to reduce tensions. At first, they merely brought them into friendly contact, with little effect. The boys just sneered at each other. However, when they were tricked into challenging tasks where they were forced to work together in order to be successful, the tenor changed quickly. By the end of the camp the two groups had fallen into a friendly camaraderie.

As Francis Fukuyama writes in his recent book, “Identity can be used to divide, but it can also be used to integrate,” which is exactly what I found in my years working is foreign cultures. Once I was able to leverage shared values to create a shared purpose and began engaging in shared actions, that purpose and those actions became part of a shared identity. Yes, I was still an American, with American values and perspectives, but I became their American.

Overcoming Conflict By Designing A Dilemma

Unfortunately, building a shared purpose isn’t always possible. A simple truth is that humans build attachments to people, ideas and things. When those attachments are threatened, they will lash out. That’s why whenever we set out to make a significant impact, there will always be those who will work to undermine what we are trying to achieve in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

When that happens—and it always does eventually—we can get sucked into a conflict, which will likely take us off course and discredit what we’re trying to achieve. Yet, here too, developing empathy skills to identify shared values can be extremely helpful once we learn how to design a dilemma action, which puts the opponents into an impossible position.

Dilemma actions have been used for at least a century—famous examples include Gandhi’s Salt March, King’s Birmingham Campaign and Alice Paul’s Silent Sentinels—but more recently codified by the global activist, Srdja Popović. They are just as effective in an organizational context, using an opponent’s resistance against them.

One of the great things about dilemma actions is that you approach them exactly the same way you approach building allies—by identifying a shared purpose. Once you do that, you can design a constructive act rooted in that shared purpose that advances your agenda. Your opponent then has a choice: they can disrupt the act and violate the shared value or they can let it go forward and let change progress.

For example, I was once running a transformation project that was being impeded by a Sales Director hogging accounts. Although it was agreed that she would distribute her clients, she never got around to it, so I set up a meeting with a key account and one of our salespeople. When she tried to disrupt the meeting, she violated the shared value we had established, was dismissed from her position and everything fell into place after that.

Empathy Is Not Absolution

Empathy, as powerful as it can potentially be, is widely misunderstood. It is often paired with compassion in the context of creating a more beneficial workplace. That is, of course, a reasonable and worthy objective, but the one-dimensional use of the term is misleading and limits its value.

When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, empathy can seem like a “nice to have,” trait rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.

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

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

It is only through empathy that we can understand motivations—for good or ill—and design effective strategies to build shared purpose or, if need be, design a dilemma for an opponent. To operate in an often difficult world, you need to understand your environment. That’s why building empathy skills can be like a secret weapon.

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

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

Bringing Energy Back to Work

Leave a reply

Bringing Energy Back to Work

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

There are all kinds of survey data these days indicating that morale in the workplace is lower than it used to be and, more importantly, than it ought to be. This has got managers scurrying about trying to find ways to make their employees happier. One word of advice on this: Stop!

It is not your job to make the people on your team happy. That is their job. Your job is to make their work important. Now, as a bonus, there is a strong correlation between meaningful work and worker happiness, so there is a two-birds-for-one-stone principle operating here. It’s just that you have to keep your eye on the lead bird. Employee happiness is a trailing indicator. Customer success is the leading one.

Your team’s customers can be internal or external — it just depends on your performance contract, the one that sets out the outcomes your organization has been funded to deliver. To be meaningful, in one way or another, those outcomes must contribute materially to the overall success of your enterprise’s mission. Your job is to highlight that path, to help your team members see it as a North Star to guide the focus and prioritization of their work. That is what gives their work meaning. Their performance metrics should align directly with the outcomes you have contracted to deliver – else why are they doing the work?

Performance management in this context is simply redirecting their energy to align as closely as possible to the deliverables of your organization’s performance contract. The talent you recruit and develop should have the kind of disposition and gifts that motivate them to want to do this kind of work. If there is a mismatch, help them find some other kind of work that is a better fit for them, and backfill their absence with someone who is a better fit for you. Performance management is not about weeding out—it is about re-potting.

Finally, if we bring this mindset to our current challenges with institutionalizing remote/hybrid operating models, too often this is being framed as an issue of improving employee happiness. Again, not your job. Instead, the focus should be on how best to meet the needs of the customers you have elected to serve. That is, instead of designing enterprise-out, with our heads down in our personal and team calendars, we need to design customer-in, with our heads up looking at where the trapped value is in their world, aligning our energies to release that trapped value, and organizing our operating model to maximize our impact in so doing. If we are not in service to our customers, what use are we?

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

Image Credit: Pexels

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