Category Archives: Psychology

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.

Innovation Requires Defying Success

Leave a reply

Innovation Requires Defying Success

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation is difficult because it requires novelty. And novelty is difficult because it’s different than last time. And different than last time is difficult because you’ve got to put yourself out there. And putting yourself out there is difficult because no one wants to be judged negatively.

Success, no matter how small, reinforces what was done last time. There’s safety in doing it again. The return may be small, but the wheels won’t fall off. You may run yourself into the ground over time, but you won’t fail catastrophically. You may not reach your growth targets, but you won’t get fired for slowly destroying the brand. In short, you won’t fail this year, but you will create the causes and conditions for a race to the bottom.

Diminishing returns are real. As a system improves it becomes more difficult to improve. A ten percent improvement is more difficult every year and at some point, improvement becomes impossible. In that way, success doesn’t breed success, it breeds more effort for less return. And as that improvement per unit effort decreases, it becomes ever more important (and ever more difficult) to do something different (to innovate).

Paradoxically, success makes it more difficult to innovate.

Success brings profits that could fund innovation. But, instead, success brings the expectation of predictable growth. Last year we were successful and grew 10%. We know the recipe, so this year let’s grow 12%. We can do what we did last year, but do it more efficiently. A sound bit of logic, except it assumes the rules haven’t changed and that competitors haven’t improved. But rules and competitors always change, and, at some point the the same old recipe for success runs out of gas.

It’s time to do something new (to innovate) when the same old effort brings reduced results. That change in output per unit effort means the recipe is tiring and it’s time for a new one. But with a new approach comes unpredictability, and for those who demand predictability, a new approach is scary. Sure, the yearly trend of reduced return on investment should scare them more, but it doesn’t. The devil you know is less scary than the one you don’t. But, it shouldn’t be.

Calculate your revenue dollars per sales associate and plot it over time. If the metric is flat over the last three years, it was time to innovate three years ago. If it’s decreasing over the last three years, it was time to innovate six years ago.

If you wait to innovate until revenue per salesperson is flat, you waited too long.

No one likes to be judged negatively, more than that, no one likes their company to collapse and lose their job. So, choose to do something new (to innovate) and choose the possibility of being judged. That’s much better than choosing to go out of business.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Team Conflict Isn’t Always Bad

Leave a reply

Team Conflict Isn't Always Bad

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Conflict on teams is inevitable. But here’s the real question: does it need to be resolved? Not always. In fact, the type of conflict matters just as much as how you address it. Some conflicts demand immediate resolution, while others can be channeled into creativity and progress. Knowing the difference is critical to leading a team effectively.

At its core, conflict on teams falls into two categories: personal conflict and task-focused conflict. Personal conflict is what most of us think of first—tensions that get personal, unkind remarks, or behaviors that erode respect. Left unaddressed, this type of conflict undermines trust and productivity. Task-focused conflict, however, is entirely different. This is the natural tension that arises from diverse ideas and perspectives. It’s not a problem to be solved; it’s a tool to be harnessed. Handled well, task-focused conflict can propel a team forward.

Let’s look at both in depth—how to resolve personal conflict and how to channel task-focused conflict into better outcomes for the team.

Resolving Personal Conflict

When personal conflict on teams arises, it can feel uncomfortable, even awkward, to step in as a leader. Yet the cost of avoiding it is far greater. Toxic behavior, left unchecked, damages the entire team. Addressing it quickly and thoughtfully is key to maintaining a healthy team dynamic.

The best approach often begins with a private, one-on-one conversation. For less overt issues—like someone cutting a teammate off during a meeting or taking a criticism too far—pulling the individual aside after the fact is often more effective than addressing it publicly. Explain what you observed, how it impacts the team, and what needs to change. Your goal isn’t to embarrass them but to guide them toward more constructive behavior.

When the conflict on teams involves repeated tensions between two people, start with separate conversations. This allows you to understand each person’s perspective and identify the root of the issue. Once you’ve done that, consider bringing them together for a mediated discussion. The goal isn’t to force them to like each other but to secure a commitment to respect and professional behavior. Over time, if people consistently act respectfully, they often grow to genuinely respect one another — a win for everyone involved.

Whatever the situation, don’t wait to act. Personal conflict that lingers becomes a poison to the team. Address it early, directly, and consistently. Your willingness to confront these issues sends a powerful message about what kind of culture your team will have — a culture of respect and accountability.

Harnessing Task-Focused Conflict on Teams

Task-focused conflict, by contrast, is not something to resolve. It’s something to embrace. Teams are made up of individuals with different experiences, perspectives, and ideas. That’s their strength. When these differences lead to debates over the best course of action, your role as a leader isn’t to shut it down. It’s to create the conditions where productive conflict can thrive.

The first step is to foster an environment where everyone feels safe sharing their ideas. Too often, leaders assume they’ve created space for feedback simply by asking, “What does everyone think?” at the end of a meeting. But vague invitations rarely lead to meaningful input. Instead, make feedback an active part of your team’s discussions. One approach is to explicitly ask for “builds” and “flags.” Builds are suggestions that add to or improve an idea. Flags are concerns or alternative approaches. This framework encourages participation and ensures that all voices are heard.

Equally important is creating psychological safety—the sense that team members can share dissenting ideas without fear of judgment or retaliation. This starts with you as a leader. When you express doubt, admit uncertainty, or genuinely invite feedback, you show vulnerability. That vulnerability signals trust, which is the foundation of psychological safety. But it’s not enough to invite ideas; you must also respond to them with respect. Engage fully, listen actively, and ensure that team members feel heard. A team that trusts its leader and each other will embrace conflict as a pathway to better solutions.

When it comes time to respond to conflicting ideas, focus on the assumptions behind them rather than the ideas themselves. People often tie their identities to their ideas, which can make critique feel personal. But assumptions are different. They can be questioned without sparking defensiveness. For example, if a debate arises about project timelines, you might uncover that one person assumes it will take six months while another assumes a year. By exploring these assumptions, the team can arrive at a clearer understanding—and a better decision.

When the Team Can’t Agree

Despite your best efforts, there will be times when the team can’t reach consensus. This is where your leadership is most crucial. After everyone has had the opportunity to share their perspective, it’s time to decide and move forward. This is the principle of “disagree and commit.”

Make it clear that every voice matters and that the decision-making process is the team’s opportunity to influence the outcome. But once a decision is made—whether by consensus or by you as the leader—it’s time for everyone to align and commit. The team must understand that revisiting the debate later is not an option. This clarity ensures that even unresolved disagreements don’t derail progress.

Turning Conflict Into a Strength

Conflict on teams isn’t inherently bad. In fact, task-focused conflict is one of the best tools a team has for finding innovative solutions. The challenge is in how you, as a leader, handle it. Personal conflict needs resolution, quickly and thoughtfully. Task-focused conflict needs space to flourish, guided by a culture of respect and psychological safety.

When managed well, conflict on teams transforms from a source of tension into a driver of success. It pushes teams to consider new perspectives, challenge assumptions, and arrive at better outcomes. As a leader, your job isn’t to eliminate conflict. It’s to create an environment where it can be constructive, where it can make your team stronger.

Conflict on teams isn’t something to fear. It’s something to embrace. And when you do, you’ll find that the best ideas—and the best teams—are forged through it.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Strategic Self-Righteousness is Not a Thing

Leave a reply

Strategic Self-Righteousness is Not a Thing

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Not long ago I was participating in a discussion on the social audio app, Clubhouse, and I said something a lady didn’t like that triggered her emotions. “Obviously, you need to be educated,” she said before subjecting me to a prolonged harangue riddled with inaccuracies, logical gaps and non-sequiturs.

Yet putting the merits of her argument aside, her more serious error was trying to overpower, rather than attract, in order to further her argument. If anything, she undermined her cause. Nobody likes a bully. Perhaps even more importantly, silencing opposing views restricts your informational environment and situational awareness.

This is why Gandhi so strictly adhered to the principle of ahimsa, which not only proscribed physical violence, but that of words or even thoughts. Everyone has their own sense of identity and dignity. Violating that will not bring you closer to success, but will almost certainly set you on a path to failure. Self-righteousness isn’t a strategy, but the lack of one.

Forming An Identity With Differentiated Values

Humans, by nature, seek out ideas to believe in. Ideas give us purpose and a sense of mission. That’s why every religion begins with an origin story, because it is our ideas that differentiate us from others and give us a sense of worth. What does it mean to be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, a socialist or a capitalist, if we’re not differentiated by our beliefs?

So it shouldn’t be surprising that when people want to express their ideas, they tend to start with how their beliefs are different, because it is the dogmatic aspects of the concepts that drive their passion. Perhaps even more importantly, it is their conspicuous devotion that signals their inclusion with a particular tribe of shared identity.

Humans naturally form tribes in this way. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out-group members. Similar results were found in a study involving five year-old children and even in infants. Evolutionary psychologists attribute this tendency to kin selection, which explains how groups favor those who share their attributes in the hopes that those attributes will be propagated.

So when we’re passionate about an idea, we not only want to share it and “educate” others, we will also tend to see any threats to its survival as an affront to our identity. We begin to view ourselves as protectors and bond with others who share our purpose. We need to be aware of this pattern, because we’re all susceptible to it and that’s where the trouble starts.

Echo Chambers And The Emergence Of A Private Language

Spend time in an unfamiliar tribe and you’ll immediately notice that they share a private language. Minnesota Vikings fans shout “Skol!” Military people talk about distance in terms of “klicks,” and might debate the relative importance of HUMINT vs. SIGINT. Step into a marketing meeting and you’ll be subjected to a barrage of acronyms.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein explained how these types of private languages can be problematic. He made the analogy of a beetle in a box. If everybody had something in a box that they called a beetle, but no one could examine each other’s box, there would be no way of knowing whether everybody was actually talking about the same thing or not.

What Wittgenstein pointed out was that in this situation, the term “beetle” would lose relevance and meaning. It would simply refer to something that everybody had in their box, whatever that was. Everybody could just nod their heads not knowing whether they were talking about an insect, a German automobile or a British rock band.

Clearly, the way we tend to self-sort ourselves into homophilic, homogeneous groups will shape how we perceive what we see and hear, but it will also affect how we access information. Recently, a team of researchers at MIT looked into how we share information—and misinformation—with those around us. What they found was troubling.

When we’re surrounded by people who think like us, we share information more freely because we don’t expect to be questioned. We’re also less likely to check our facts, because we know that those we are sharing the item with will be less likely to inspect it themselves. So when we’re in a filter bubble, we not only share more, we’re also more likely to share things that aren’t true. Greater polarization leads to greater misinformation.

The Growing Backlash

One of the many things I’ve learned from my friend Srdja Popović is that the phase after an initial victory is often the most dangerous. Every revolution inspires its own counter-revolution. That is the physics of change. While you’re celebrating your triumph, the forces arrayed against you are redoubling their efforts to undermine what you’re trying to achieve.

Yet nestled safely within your tribe, speaking a private language in an echo chamber, you are unlikely to see the storm gathering storm. If most of the people around you think like you do, change seems inevitable. You tell each other stories about how history is on your side and the confluence of forces are in your favor.

Consider the case of diversity training. After the killing of George Floyd by a police officer led to massive global protests in over 2,000 towns and 60 countries, corporations around the world began to ramp up their diversity efforts, hiring “Chief Diversity Officers” and investing in training. For many, it was the dawn of a growing consciousness and a brighter, more equitable future.

It hasn’t seemed to turn out that way, though. Increased diversity training has not led to better outcomes and, in fact, there is increasing evidence of backlash. In particular researchers note that much of the training makes people feel targeted. Telling people that they owe their positions to something other than hard work and skill offends their dignity and can actually trigger exactly the behaviors that diversity programs are trying to change.

These misgivings are rarely voiced out loud, however, which is why change advocates rarely notice the growing chorus waiting for an opportunity to send the pendulum swinging in the other direction.

Learning To Survive Victory

In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt makes the point that many of our opinions are a product of our inclusion in a particular team. Because our judgments are so closely intertwined with our identity, contrary views can feel like an attack. So we feel the urge to lash out and silence opposition. That almost guarantees a failure to survive victory.

I first noticed this in the aftermath of the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004. Having overcome a falsified election, we were so triumphant that we failed to see the gathering storm. Because we felt that the forces of history were on our side, we dismissed signs that the corrupt and thuggish Viktor Yanukovich was staging a comeback and paid a terrible price.

I see the same pattern in our work helping organizations with transformational initiatives. Change leaders feel so passionately about their idea they want to push it through, silence dissent, launch it with a big communication campaign and create strong incentives to get on board. They’re sure that once everybody understands the idea, they’ll love it too.

The truth is to bring about lasting change you need to learn to love your haters. They’re the ones who can help alert you to early flaws, which gives you the opportunity to fix them before they can do serious damage. They can also help you to identify shared values that can help you communicate more effectively and also design dilemmas that will send people your way.

But in order to do that, you need to focus your energy on winning converts, rather than punishing heretics. It’s more important to make a difference than it is to make a point.

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

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

Are We Suffering from AI Confirmation Bias?

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

When social media first appeared on the scene, many of us had high hopes it could play a positive role in community development and civic affairs, as indeed it has. What we did not anticipate was the long-term impact of the digital advertising model that supported it. That model is based on click-throughs, and one of the most effective ways to increase them was to present content that reinforces the recipient’s existing views.

Statisticians call the attraction to one’s existing point of view confirmation bias, and we all have it. As individuals, we believe we are in control of this, but it is obvious that at the level of populations, we are not. Confirmation bias, fed first by social media, and then by traditional media once it is converted to digital, has driven political and social polarization throughout the world. It has been further inflamed by conspiracy theories, malicious communications, fake news, and the like. And now we are faced with the advent of yet another amplifier—artificial intelligence. A significant portion of the fears about how AI could impact human welfare stem from how easily it can be put to malicious use through disinformation campaigns.

The impact of all this on our political life is chilling. Polarized media amplifies the impact of extremism and dampens the impact of moderation. This has most obviously been seen in primary elections, but it has now carried over into general elections to the point where highly unqualified individuals who have no interest in public service hold some of the most important roles in state and federal government. The resulting dysfunction is deeply disturbing, but it is not clear if and where a balance can be found.

Part of the problem is that confirmation bias is an essential part of healthy socialization. It reflects the impact that narratives have on our personal and community identities. What we might see as arrant folly another person sees as a necessary leap of faith. Our founding fathers were committed to protecting our nation from any authority imposing its narratives on unwilling recipients, hence our Constitutional commitment to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

In effect, this makes it virtually impossible to legislate our way out of this dilemma. Instead, we must embrace it as a Darwinian challenge, one that calls for us as individuals to adapt our strategies for living to a dangerous new circumstance. Here I think we can take a lesson from our recent pandemic experience. Faced with the threat of a highly contagious, ever-mutating Covid virus, most of the developed economies embraced rapid vaccination as their core response. China, however, did not. It embraced regulation instead. What they and we learned is that you cannot solve problems of contagion through regulation.

We can apply this learning to dealing with the universe of viral memes that have infected our digital infrastructure and driven social discord. Instead of regulation, we need to think of vaccination. The vaccine that protects people from fake news and its many variants is called critical thinking, and the healthcare provider that dispenses it is called public education.

We have spent the past several decades focusing on the STEM wing of our educational system, but at the risk of exercising my own confirmation bias, the immunity protection we need now comes from the liberal arts. Specifically, it emerges from supervised classroom discussions in which students are presented with a wide variety of challenging texts and experiences accompanied by a facilitated dialog that instructs them in the practices of listening, questioning, proposing, debating, and ultimately affirming or denying the validity of the argument under consideration. These discussions are not about promoting or endorsing any particular point of view. Rather, they teach one how to engage with any point of view in a respectful, powerful way. This is the intellectual discipline that underlies responsible citizenship. We have it in our labs. We just need to get it distributed more broadly.

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

Image Credit: Pixabay

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