Tag Archives: Blockbuster

The Crisis Innovation Trap

Why Proactive Innovation Wins

The Crisis Innovation Trap

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

In the narrative of business, we often romanticize the idea of “crisis innovation.” The sudden, high-stakes moment when a company, backed against a wall, unleashes a burst of creativity to survive. The pandemic, for instance, forced countless businesses to pivot their models overnight. While this showcases incredible human resilience, it also reveals a dangerous and costly trap: the belief that innovation is something you turn on only when there’s an emergency. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I’ve seen firsthand that relying on crisis as a catalyst is a recipe for short-term fixes and long-term decline. True, sustainable innovation is not a reaction; it’s a proactive, continuous discipline.

The problem with waiting for a crisis is that by the time it hits, you’re operating from a position of weakness. You’re making decisions under immense pressure, with limited resources, and with a narrow focus on survival. This reactive approach rarely leads to truly transformative breakthroughs. Instead, it produces incremental changes and tactical adaptations—often at a steep price in terms of burnout, strategic coherence, and missed opportunities. The most successful organizations don’t innovate to escape a crisis; they innovate continuously to prevent one from ever happening.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Innovation

Relying on crisis as your innovation driver comes with significant hidden costs:

Reactive vs. Strategic: Crisis innovation is inherently reactive. You’re fixing a symptom, not addressing the root cause. This prevents you from engaging in the deep, strategic thinking necessary for true market disruption.
Loss of Foresight: When you’re in a crisis, all attention is on the immediate threat. This short-term focus blinds you to emerging trends, shifting customer needs, and new market opportunities that could have been identified and acted upon proactively.
Burnout and Exhaustion: Innovation requires creative energy. Forcing your teams into a constant state of emergency to innovate leads to rapid burnout, high turnover, and a culture of fear, not creativity.
Suboptimal Outcomes: The solutions developed in a crisis are often rushed, inadequately tested, and sub-optimized. They are designed to solve an immediate problem, not to create a lasting competitive advantage.

“Crisis innovation is a sprint for survival. Proactive innovation is a marathon for market leadership. You can’t win a marathon by only practicing sprints when the gun goes off.”

Building a Culture of Proactive, Human-Centered Innovation

The alternative to the crisis innovation trap is to embed innovation into your organization’s DNA. This means creating a culture where curiosity, experimentation, and a deep understanding of human needs are constant, not sporadic. It’s about empowering your people to solve problems and create value every single day.

Embrace Psychological Safety: Create an environment where employees feel safe to share half-formed ideas, question assumptions, and even fail. This is the single most important ingredient for continuous innovation.
Allocate Dedicated Resources: Don’t expect innovation to happen in people’s spare time. Set aside dedicated time, budget, and talent for exploratory projects and initiatives that don’t have an immediate ROI.
Focus on Human-Centered Design: Continuously engage with your customers and employees to understand their frustrations and aspirations. True innovation comes from solving real human problems, not just from internal brainstorming.
Reward Curiosity, Not Just Results: Celebrate learning, even from failures. Recognize teams for their efforts in exploring new ideas and for the insights they gain, not just for the products they successfully launch.

Case Study 1: Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Foresight Gap

The Challenge:

In the late 1990s, Blockbuster was the undisputed king of home video rentals. It had a massive physical footprint, brand recognition, and a highly profitable business model based on late fees. The crisis of digital disruption and streaming was not a sudden event; it was a slow-moving signal on the horizon.

The Reactive Approach (Blockbuster):

Blockbuster’s management was aware of the shift to digital, but they largely viewed it as a distant threat. They were so profitable from their existing model that they had no incentive to proactively innovate. When Netflix began gaining traction with its subscription-based, DVD-by-mail service, Blockbuster’s response was a reactive, half-hearted attempt to mimic it. They launched an online service but failed to integrate it with their core business, and their culture remained focused on the physical store model. They only truly panicked and began a desperate, large-scale innovation effort when it was already too late and the market had irreversibly shifted to streaming.

The Result:

Blockbuster’s crisis-driven innovation was a spectacular failure. By the time they were forced to act, they lacked the necessary strategic coherence, internal alignment, and cultural agility to compete. They didn’t innovate to get ahead; they innovated to survive, and they failed. They went from market leader to bankruptcy, a powerful lesson in the dangers of waiting for a crisis to force your hand.

Case Study 2: Lego’s Near-Death and Subsequent Reinvention

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, Lego was on the brink of bankruptcy. The brand, once a global icon, had become a sprawling, unfocused company that was losing relevance with children increasingly drawn to video games and digital entertainment. The company’s crisis was not a sudden external shock, but a slow, painful internal decline caused by a lack of proactive innovation and a departure from its core values. They had innovated, but in a scattered, unfocused way that diluted the brand.

The Proactive Turnaround (Lego):

Lego’s new leadership realized that a reactive, last-ditch effort wouldn’t save them. They saw the crisis as a wake-up call to fundamentally reinvent how they innovate. Their strategy was not just to survive but to thrive by returning to a proactive, human-centered approach. They went back to their core product, the simple plastic brick, and focused on deeply understanding what their customers—both children and adult fans—wanted. They launched several initiatives:

Re-focus on the Core: They trimmed down their product lines and doubled down on what made Lego special—creativity and building.
Embracing the Community: They proactively engaged with their most passionate fans, the “AFOLs” (Adult Fans of Lego), and co-created new products like the highly successful Lego Architecture and Ideas series. This wasn’t a reaction to a trend; it was a strategic partnership.
Thoughtful Digital Integration: Instead of panicking and launching a thousand digital products, they carefully integrated their physical and digital worlds with games like Lego Star Wars and movies like The Lego Movie. These weren’t rushed reactions; they were part of a long-term, strategic vision.

The Result:

Lego’s transformation from a company on the brink to a global powerhouse is a powerful example of the superiority of proactive innovation. By not just reacting to their crisis but using it as a catalyst to build a continuous, human-centered innovation engine, they not only survived but flourished. They turned a painful crisis into a foundation for a new era of growth, proving that the best time to innovate is always, not just when you have no other choice.

Eight I's of Infinite Innovation

The Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation

Braden Kelley’s Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation provides a comprehensive framework for organizations seeking to embed continuous innovation into their DNA. The model starts with Ideation, the spark of new concepts, which must be followed by Inspiration—connecting those ideas to a compelling, human-centered vision. This vision is refined through Investigation, a process of deeply understanding customer needs and market dynamics, leading to the Iteration of prototypes and solutions based on real-world feedback. The framework then moves from development to delivery with Implementation, the critical step of bringing a viable product to market. This is not the end, however; it’s a feedback loop that requires Invention of new business models, a constant process of Improvement based on outcomes, and finally, the cultivation of an Innovation culture where the cycle can repeat infinitely. Each ‘I’ builds upon the last, creating a holistic and sustainable engine for growth.

Conclusion: The Time to Innovate is Now

The notion of “crisis innovation” is seductive because it offers a heroic narrative. But behind every such story is a cautionary tale of a company that let a problem fester for far too long. The most enduring, profitable, and relevant organizations don’t wait for a burning platform to jump; they are constantly building new platforms. They have embedded a culture of continuous, proactive innovation driven by a deep understanding of human needs. They innovate when times are good so they are prepared when times are tough.

The time to innovate is not when your stock price plummets or your competitor launches a new product. The time to innovate is now, and always. By making innovation a fundamental part of your business, you ensure your organization’s longevity and its ability to not just survive the future, but to shape it.

Image credit: Pixabay

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area and the key elements to focus on were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with help from Google Gemini to shape the article and create the illustrative case studies.

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

Driving Change is Not Enough

Leave a reply

You Also Have To Survive Victory

Driving Change is Not Enough

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In early 2004, Viacom announced it would spin off Blockbuster Video, leaving CEO John Antioco master of his own fate. He moved quickly to meet the threat posed by Netflix head on, launching Blockbuster Online in 2004 and, after successfully testing the concept in a few markets, ending late fees in early 2005.

Still, not satisfied with playing catch-up, Antioco searched for model that would return his company to dominance. He found it in 2006 with the Total Access program. Within a few weeks of announcing the promotion, Blockbuster was winning the majority of new subscribers, outstripping Netflix for the first time.

It was a textbook case of sound strategy and execution meeting a disruptive threat, but it would not end well. In 2010 Blockbuster would declare bankruptcy and become a cautionary tale. We tend to think that driving change is merely a matter of coming up with a clever plan and executing well. Yet that isn’t enough. You also need learn how to survive victory.

Defying Critics And Beating The Odds

John Antioco was the quintessential American success story. Starting from humble origins as a management trainee at 7-Eleven, he rose to become a senior vice president at the company. He then moved on to run the struggling Circle K convenience store chain, which he turned around in just three years before moving on to Taco Bell and working the same magic there.

So when he joined Blockbuster as CEO in 1997, he was ideally suited to the job. Early in his tenure, he came up with a program to share rental revenues with the movie studios rather than buying the videos directly.The strategy improved the firm’s cash position and its access of high demand movies, while also allowing it to increase its marketing budget. It was a stroke of genius.

“The experienced video executives were skeptical,” Antioco would later tell me. “In fact, they thought that the revenue-sharing agreement would kill the company. But throughout my career, I had learned that whenever you set out to do anything big, some people aren’t going to like it. I’d been successful by defying the status quo at important junctures and that’s what I thought had to be done in this case.”

So Antioco approached the Netflix problem in the same way. He assembled a team of talented executives, came up with a strategy and worked to execute it flawlessly. Yet although his efforts were initially successful, there was a flaw in his plan that he didn’t see at the time and it would lead to Blockbuster’s downfall.

Failing To Align Stakeholders

Not everybody was thrilled with the moves Antioco made. Franchisees, many of whom had their life savings invested in their business, were suspicious of Blockbuster Online. They only owned 20% of the stores, but could make their displeasure known. The moves were also expensive, costing roughly $400 million to implement, and investors balked.

So while Blockbuster was making progress against the Netflix threat, as earnings turned to losses, its stock took a beating. The low price attracted corporate raider Carl Icahn, whose heavy-handed style made managing the company difficult. Things came to a head in late 2006 when Icahn demanded that Antioco accept only half of the bonus he was owed.

“I was at a point, both personally and financially, that I had little desire to fight it out anymore,” Antioco told me. He negotiated his exit early the next year and left the company in July of 2007. His successor, Jim Keyes, was determined to reverse Antioco’s strategy, cut investment in the subscription model, reinstated late fees and shifted the focus back to the retail stores.

When Blockbuster declared bankruptcy in 2010, the event was portrayed as corporate America’s inability to navigate digital disruption. Yet, as we have seen, nothing could be further from the truth. The management team came up with a viable strategy, executed it well and proved they could compete, yet still were unable to survive that victory.

Building Shared Purpose And Shared Consciousness

When General Stanley McChrystal took over command of special forces in Iraq, the situation he encountered was surprisingly similar to that of Antioco and Blockbuster. A well-led, well-resourced and highly efficient organization was faced with a disruptive challenge by a smaller, less powerful, but incredibly disruptive adversary.

Yet while Antico saw the problem as one of strategy and tactics, McChrystal saw it as one of one of organizational coherence. So he embarked on a program to improve the links both within his command and also to outside stakeholders, such as partner agencies, law enforcement and embassy personnel, to build “shared purpose and shared consciousness.”

“We began to make progress when we started looking at these relationships as just that: relationships — parts of a network, not cogs in a machine or outputs and inputs,” McChrystal would later write in his book, Team of Teams. Within a few years, the terrorists were on the run.

The difference in outcomes is striking. Antioco, who had built his career on defying the critics, largely ignored their concerns and pressed on with his strategy. McChrystal, on the other hand, understood that if he couldn’t get key stakeholders on board, the strategy wouldn’t matter. He worked on building relationships not to overpower, but to attract others to his cause. There were still critics, but they were vastly outnumbered.

You Need A Plan To Survive Victory From The Start

In my book, Cascades, I cover a wide range of transformational efforts, from revolutionary political movements to corporate turnarounds. In every case, the movement for change inspired others to move against it. As Saul Alinsky pointed out decades ago, every revolution provokes a counterrevolution.

I saw this first hand in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which I personally took part in. Five years after we protested in the bitter cold to overturn a falsified election, we saw the target of our ire, Viktor Yanukovych, win the presidency in an election that outside observers judged to be legitimate. Later, similar events played out in the aftermath of Egypt’s Arab Spring.

What makes the difference is not a particular strategy or persona, but whether an organization can align based on shared values and purpose. It wasn’t that Blockbuster franchisees were worried that Antioco’s plan wouldn’t succeed, they were terrified that it would and they would be left behind. Investors, for their part, were more focused on earnings than Antioco’s vision.

Yet shared values are what enables a transformation to succeed beyond a few initial victories. As Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a key player in IBM’s historic turnaround in the 90s told me, “Because the transformation was about values first and technology second, we were able to continue to embrace those values as the technology and marketplace continued to evolve.”

And that’s what so often makes the difference between ultimate success and failure. Those that see driving change as merely a series of benchmarks often find their efforts thwarted. Those that build a plan to survive victory based on the forging of shared values, are much more likely to prevail. Transformation is always a journey, never a destination.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

Ideas Have Limited Value

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

There is a line of thinking that says that the world is built on ideas. It was an idea that launched the American Revolution and created a nation. It was an idea that led Albert Einstein to pursue relativity, Linus Pauling to invent a vaccine and for Steve Jobs to create the iPhone and build the most valuable company in the world.

It is because of the power of ideas that we hold them so dear. We want to protect those we believe are valuable and sometimes become jealous when others think them up first. There’s nothing so rapturous as the moment of epiphany in which an idea forms in our mind and begins to take shape.

Clearly, ideas are important, but not as many believe. America is what it is today, for better or worse, not just because of the principles of its founding, but because of the actions that came after it. We revere people like Einstein, Pauling and Jobs not because of their ideas, but what they did with them. The truth is that although possibilities are infinite, ideas are limited.

The Winklevoss Affair

The muddled story of Facebook’s origin is now well known. Mark Zuckerberg met with the Winklevoss twins and another Harvard classmate to discuss building a social network together. Zuckerberg agreed, but then sandbagged his partners while he built and launched a competing site. He would later pay out a multimillion dollar settlement for his misdeeds.

Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins were paired in the news together again recently when Facebook announced that it’s developing a new cryptocurrency called Libra. As it happens, the Winklevoss twins have been high profile investors in Bitcoin for a while now. The irony was too delicious for many in the media to ignore. First he stole their idea for Facebook and now he’s doing the same with cryptocurrencies!

Of course this is ridiculous. Social networks like Friendster and Myspace existed before Facebook and many others came after. Most failed. In much the same way, many people today have ideas about starting cryptocurrency businesses. Most of them will fail too. The value of an initial idea is highly questionable.

Different people have similar ideas all the time. In fact, in a landmark study published in 1922 identified 148 major inventions or discoveries that at least two different people, working independently, arrived at the same time. So the fact that both the Winklevoss twins and Zuckerberg wanted to launch a social network was meaningless.

The truth is that Zuckerberg didn’t have to pay the Winklevoss twins because he stole their idea, but because he used their trust to actively undermine their business to benefit his. His crime wasn’t creation, but destruction.

The Semmelweis Myth

In 1847, a young doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis had a major breakthrough. Working in a maternity ward, he discovered that a regime of hand washing could dramatically lower the incidence of childbed fever. Unfortunately, the medical establishment rejected his idea and the germ theory of disease didn’t take hold until decades later.

The phenomenon is now known as the Semmelweis effect, the tendency for people to reject new knowledge that contradicts established beliefs. We tend to think that a great idea will be immediately obvious to everyone, but the opposite usually happens. Ideas that have the power to change the world always arrive out of context for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet.

However, the Semmelweis effect is misleading. As Sherwin Nuland explains in The Doctor’s Plague, there’s more to the story than resistance to a new idea. Semmelweis didn’t see the value in communicating his work effectively, formatting his publications clearly or even collecting data in a manner that would gain his ideas greater acceptance.

Here again, we see the limits of ideas. Like a newborn infant, they can’t survive alone. They need to be nurtured to grow. They need to make friends, interact with other ideas and mature. The tragedy of Semmelweis is not that the medical establishment did not immediately accept his idea, but that he failed to steward it in such a way that it could spread and make an impact.

Why Blockbuster Video Really Failed

One of the most popular business myths today is that of Blockbuster Video. As the story is usually told, the industry giant failed to recognize the disruptive threat that Netflix represented. The truth is that the company’s leadership not only recognized the problem, but developed a smart strategy and executed it well.

The failure, in fact, had less to do with strategy and tactics than it did with managing stakeholder networks. Blockbuster moved quickly to launch an online business, cut late fees and innovated its business model. However, resistance from franchisees, who were concerned that the changes would kill their business, and from investors and analysts, who balked at the cost of the initiatives, sent the stock price reeling.

From there things spiraled downward. The low stock price attracted the corporate raider Carl Icahn, who got control of the board. His overbearing style led to a compensation dispute with Blockbuster’s CEO, John Antioco. Frustrated, Antioco negotiated his exit and left the company in July of 2007.

His successor, Jim Keyes, was determined to reverse Antioco’s strategy, cut investment in the subscription model, reinstated late fees and shifted focus back to the retail stores in a failed attempt to “leapfrog” the online subscription model. Three years later, in 2010, Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy.

The Fundamental Fallacy Of Ideas

One of the things that amazed me while I was researching my book Cascades was how often movements behind powerful ideas failed. The ones that succeeded weren’t those with different ideas or those of higher quality, but those that were able to align small groups, loosely connected, but united by a shared purpose.

The stories of the Winklevoss twins, Ignaz Semmelweis and Blockbuster Video are all different versions of the same fundamental fallacy, that ideas, if they are powerful enough, can stand on their own. Clearly, that’s not the case. Ideas need to be adopted and then combined with other ideas to make an impact on the world.

The truth is that ideas need ecosystems to support them and that doesn’t happen overnight. To make an idea viable in the real world it needs to continually connect outward, gaining adherents and widening its original context. That takes more than an initial epiphany. It takes the will to make the idea subservient to its purpose.

What we have to learn to accept is that what makes an idea powerful is its ability to solve problems. The ideas embedded in the American Constitution were not new at the time of the country’s founding, but gained power by their application in the real world. In much the same way, we revere Einstein’s relativity, Pauling’s vaccine and Jobs iPhone because of their impact on the world.

As G.H. Hardy once put it, “For any serious purpose, intelligence is a very minor gift.” The same can be said about ideas. They do not and cannot stand alone, but need the actions of people to bring them to life.

— 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.

Detecting the Seeds of Future Innovation

Leave a reply

Weak Signals, Strong Insights

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In our hyper-connected world, we are inundated with information. Market data, analyst reports, and competitive intelligence systems all provide a clear picture of the present. But as a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I argue that the most transformative opportunities don’t emerge from this flood of “strong signals.” They emerge from the subtle, often contradictory, and easily dismissed weak signals on the periphery. These are the whispers of change, the fringe trends, the unarticulated customer frustrations, and the strange technological mashups that hint at a future yet to be built. The ability to detect, interpret, and act on these weak signals is the single most powerful competitive advantage an organization can cultivate. It’s the difference between reacting to disruption and proactively creating it.

Weak signals are, by definition, not obvious. They are often dismissed as anomalies, niche behaviors, or fleeting fads. They can come from anywhere: a casual comment in a user forum, a viral video that defies a category, a surprising scientific breakthrough in an unrelated field, or a quiet startup with a baffling business model. The challenge for leaders is to move beyond the comfort of big data analytics and embrace the messy, qualitative, and deeply human work of foresight. This isn’t about guesswork; it’s about building a systematic, human-centered practice for sensing the future and turning those faint whispers into a clear vision for innovation.

Why Weak Signals are Your Best Innovation GPS

Cultivating a weak-signal detection capability offers profound benefits:

Foresight, Not Just Hindsight: While strong signals confirm what has already happened, weak signals provide clues about what is *about to* happen. This gives you a critical head start in preparing for, or even driving, market shifts.
The Source of True Disruption: Most truly disruptive innovations—from personal computing to smartphones—began as weak signals on the fringe, often dismissed by established players who were focused on optimizing their core business.
Uncovering Unmet Needs: Weak signals are often an early indicator of deep, unarticulated human needs. They are the seeds of a problem that a current market solution isn’t addressing.
Building a Culture of Curiosity: Actively looking for weak signals encourages a culture of curiosity, open-mindedness, and a willingness to challenge assumptions—all essential traits for innovation.

“Strong signals confirm your past. Weak signals whisper your future. The most innovative leaders are the best listeners.”

A Human-Centered Approach to Detecting Weak Signals

Detecting weak signals is not an automated process. It is a deeply human activity that requires a specific mindset and intentional practice:

Go to the Edge: Move beyond your core market and familiar customer base. Talk to fringe users, early adopters, and even those who reject your product. Spend time in adjacent industries and with unconventional thinkers.
Embrace a Beginner’s Mindset: Temporarily suspend your expertise. Look at your industry as if you are seeing it for the first time. Why do customers do what they do? What seems strange or inefficient to an outsider?
Connect the Unconnected Dots: A single weak signal means little. The true insight comes from identifying patterns. Is a new technology in one field combining with a new consumer behavior in another? The unexpected combination of two seemingly unrelated signals is often where the magic happens.
Create “Listening Posts”: Form small, cross-functional teams whose sole purpose is to scan the periphery. Empower them to read obscure journals, follow niche social media communities, and report back on anything that feels “off” or interesting.

Case Study 1: The Rise of Social Media – A Weak Signal Ignored by the Giants

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, the internet was dominated by large, content-heavy portals like Yahoo! and search engines like Google. Communication was primarily through email and instant messaging. The idea of people building public profiles to share personal updates and connect with friends was seen as a niche, even trivial, activity. It was a weak signal, a seemingly minor behavior on college campuses.

The Weak Signal Ignored:

For established tech giants, the signal was too faint. They were focused on the strong signals of search queries and content monetization. Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster were dismissed as “just for kids” or a “niche social trend.” The idea of a public profile as a primary mode of online identity and communication was too far outside their core business model to be taken seriously. They saw a minor curiosity, not the future of human connection.

The Result:

The companies that paid attention to this weak signal—and understood the human-centered need for connection and self-expression—went on to build a multi-trillion-dollar industry. The giants who ignored it were forced to play a decade-long game of catch-up, and many lost their dominant position. The weak signal of a simple public profile evolved into the foundational architecture of the modern internet and the economy built on it. Their failure to see this wasn’t a failure of technology; it was a failure of imagination and human-centered listening.

Case Study 2: Netflix and the Streaming Revolution – From DVDs to a Weak Signal

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, Blockbuster was the undisputed king of home entertainment. Their business model was robust, profitable, and built on a physical presence of thousands of stores and a lucrative late-fee system. The internet was a nascent and unreliable platform for video, and streaming was a faint, almost invisible signal on the horizon.

The Weak Signal Detected:

While Blockbuster was focused on optimizing its core business (e.g., store layout, inventory management), Netflix, then a DVD-by-mail service, saw a weak signal. The signal wasn’t just about faster internet; it was about the human frustration with late fees and the inconvenience of physical stores. The company’s leaders started to talk about the concept of “on-demand” content, long before the technology was ready. They were paying attention to the unarticulated desire for convenience and unlimited choice, a desire that was a whisper to Blockbuster but a deafening call to Netflix. They began to invest in streaming technology and content licensing years before it was profitable, effectively cannibalizing their own profitable DVD business.

The Result:

Blockbuster famously dismissed Netflix’s weak signal, seeing it as a minor inconvenience to their existing business model. They believed a physical store experience would always win. Netflix, by acting on the weak signal and a deep understanding of human frustration, was able to pivot from being a DVD service to the global streaming behemoth we know today. Their foresight, driven by a human-centered approach to a technological trend, allowed them to disrupt an entire industry and become a dominant force in the future of entertainment. Blockbuster, unable to see beyond the strong signals of its profitable past, is now a cautionary tale.

Conclusion: The Foresight Imperative

The future is not a surprise that happens to you. It is a collection of weak signals that you either choose to see or ignore. In an era of constant disruption, relying on strong signals alone is a recipe for stagnation. The most resilient and innovative organizations are those that have built a human-centered practice for sensing change on the periphery. They have created a culture where curiosity is a core competency and where questioning the status quo is a daily ritual.

As leaders, our most critical role is to shift our focus from optimizing the past to sensing the future. We must empower our teams to go to the edge, listen to the whispers, and connect the dots in new and creative ways. The future of your industry is already being born, not in the center of the market, but on its fringes. The question is, are you listening?

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Balancing Creativity and Feasibility in Innovation

Leave a reply

Balancing Creativity and Feasibility in Innovation

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Innovation. The very word pulsates with the promise of progress, often conjuring visions of breakthroughs that reshape industries and improve lives. Yet, beneath the glamour of the “aha!” moment lies a truth often overlooked: a brilliant idea, no matter how disruptive, is merely a whisper in the wind until it can be brought to tangible reality. This is the central paradox, the vital tension, at the heart of truly impactful innovation: the intricate dance between unbridled creativity and grounded feasibility.

Far too often, organizations stumble by overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of the other. Some become playgrounds for “innovation theater,” where whiteboard sessions brim with fantastical concepts, yet none ever see the light of day. These companies generate a flurry of ideas but lack the rigor to assess and execute them. Conversely, others are so risk-averse and steeped in pragmatism that their innovation becomes painfully incremental. They prioritize what’s immediately achievable, effectively stifling any truly transformative thinking and missing the larger opportunities that emerge from challenging the status quo.

“Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.” – John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins

The Indispensable Partnership: Creativity & Feasibility

Imagine creativity as the boundless ocean – vast, deep, and full of unexplored possibilities. It’s the engine of divergent thinking, pushing us to challenge assumptions, question norms, and explore uncharted territories. It asks, “What if? What else could we do? How might we completely reimagine this?”

Feasibility, then, is the experienced navigator and the robust ship. It represents convergent thinking, meticulously evaluating constraints, assessing available resources, and charting a realistic, sustainable course. It asks, “Can we truly build this? Is it sustainable at scale? Do we have the necessary resources and capabilities? What are the inherent risks, and how can we mitigate them?”

The magic happens not when one dominates the other, but when they engage in a continuous, iterative dialogue. An initial creative spark is immediately subjected to a feasibility lens. This check doesn’t kill the idea; rather, it often sparks *new* creative solutions to overcome identified obstacles, refine the concept, or pivot towards an even stronger, viable solution. It’s a cyclical process, a perpetual feedback loop where each refines and strengthens the other.

Case Study 1: Apple’s iPhone – Synthesizing Vision with Viability

Apple’s iPhone – Synthesizing Vision with Viability

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, it wasn’t just another mobile phone. It was a audacious creative leap – a seamless convergence of a phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough internet device, all controlled by a revolutionary multi-touch interface. The vision was to eliminate physical buttons, create an intuitive operating system from scratch, and integrate a vast, extensible application ecosystem.

However, the true genius of Apple wasn’t just in the audacious creative vision; it was in their unparalleled mastery of feasibility. They didn’t just dream big; they possessed the engineering prowess, supply chain expertise, and manufacturing discipline to turn that dream into a polished, mass-market reality. They painstakingly solved immense technical hurdles: perfecting the responsive multi-touch screen, miniaturizing powerful processors, optimizing battery life for constant connectivity, and building a robust, scalable software platform (iOS) that could attract developers. This wasn’t merely invention; it was the meticulous synthesis of creative foresight with an unwavering commitment to practical execution and scalability. Apple understood that for the creative vision to truly disrupt, it had to be undeniably *feasible*.

Case Study 2: Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Peril of Myopic Feasibility

Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Peril of Myopic Feasibility

Consider the stark contrast between Blockbuster and Netflix. Blockbuster, once the reigning king of video rentals, was deeply anchored in the feasibility of its existing physical store model. Their enormous physical infrastructure, established supply chains, and predictable revenue from late fees represented a very profitable, tangible business. When a nascent Netflix proposed a mail-order DVD service (a creative new approach), Blockbuster famously dismissed it, seeing it as a niche, unfeasible threat to their dominant brick-and-mortar empire.

Netflix, on the other hand, embraced a creative vision of convenience and accessibility that challenged the norm. They started with a relatively simple, feasible model (DVDs by mail) and continually iterated, demonstrating the feasibility of streaming and eventually content production. Blockbuster’s fatal flaw was allowing the perceived short-term feasibility and profitability of their existing model to blind them to the disruptive creative potential of a new one. Their inability to pivot and invest in a new, feasible model for digital distribution, even when the market signals were clear, led to their eventual demise. Netflix, by continuously balancing its creative vision for entertainment delivery with the evolving feasibility of technology, conquered the market.

Cultivating the Innovation Sweet Spot

So, how can organizations consciously foster this crucial balance? It demands a deliberate, integrated approach:

Embrace Structured Ideation & Rigorous Filtering: Encourage boundless brainstorming sessions, but immediately follow with structured evaluation frameworks that assess both creative potential (novelty, value proposition) and practical viability (technical feasibility, market fit, resource requirements).
Assemble Cross-Functional Catalysts: Break down silos. Bring together diverse perspectives – creative thinkers (designers, strategists), technical experts (engineers, data scientists), and operational pragmatists (finance, supply chain). This diversity ensures ideas are challenged and refined from all angles.
Prototype and Test Relentlessly (Lean & Agile): Don’t strive for perfection upfront. Build Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) and prototypes quickly to test core assumptions about both user desirability (creative validation) and technical/business feasibility. Iterate rapidly based on real-world feedback, making feasibility an ongoing learning process, not a final gate.
Develop Clear Innovation Pathways: Establish transparent stages in your innovation funnel where ideas are not just generated but rigorously evaluated and refined against both creative aspiration and practical viability criteria. This ensures a healthy pipeline of both breakthrough and incremental innovations.
Cultivate a Culture of Psychological Safety: People must feel empowered to propose radical ideas without fear of immediate dismissal, and equally safe to voice genuine concerns about feasibility without being labeled as negative or unsupportive. Open, honest dialogue is paramount.

Ultimately, true innovation isn’t about conjuring magic; it’s about disciplined imagination. It’s understanding that the most brilliant ideas are only half the battle. The other, often more challenging half, is the art and science of transforming that brilliance into tangible value for customers and the organization. By consciously nurturing the dynamic interplay between creativity and feasibility, organizations can transcend mere ideation and consistently deliver impactful innovation that truly reshapes the future.

Image credit: Pexels

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

A Human-Centered Approach to Mastering Disruption

Leave a reply

A Human-Centered Approach to Mastering Disruption

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Disruption. The word itself can evoke a sense of panic in the boardrooms of established organizations. It represents the unknown, the sudden shift that threatens to destabilize markets, render existing strategies obsolete, and even collapse empires. Yet, in our volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, disruption is not just a possibility; it’s a relentless certainty. The true differentiator for success in this era isn’t about avoiding disruption, but about mastering its management. And at the heart of this mastery lies a profound commitment to human-centered change and innovation. It’s about recognizing that people – your employees, your customers, your partners – are not merely components of the machine, but the very engines of resilience and reinvention.

Effective disruption management transcends mere contingency planning. It demands an organizational culture that is inherently adaptable, relentlessly curious, and deeply empathetic. It requires the courage to challenge assumptions, the agility to pivot rapidly, and the wisdom to learn from every experience – both good and bad. Let’s explore how leading organizations have exemplified these principles through two powerful case studies, revealing the human thread that weaves through their triumph over turbulence.

Case Study 1: The Global Logistics Industry & The COVID-19 Shock

From Supply Chain Gridlock to Agile Lifeline

The dawn of 2020 brought with it a disruption of staggering scale: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the global logistics and supply chain industry, it was an existential shockwave. Traditional systems, built on predictable flows and just-in-time efficiencies, buckled under unprecedented demand surges, crippled by sudden labor shortages, and fractured by international border closures. The world watched as shelves emptied and critical medical supplies became scarce.

However, amidst this chaos, giants like Amazon, FedEx, and a constellation of regional innovators didn’t just survive; they redefined their roles. Their success wasn’t born from static playbooks, but from a dynamic, human-centered response. They rapidly iterated and deployed contactless delivery models, adapting safety protocols not just for efficiency but for the psychological safety of both their workforce and customers. They harnessed the power of real-time data analytics, not just for route optimization, but to predict demand fluctuations and proactively reroute essential goods to areas of greatest need.

Perhaps most profoundly, their leadership empowered frontline employees. Truck drivers, warehouse workers, and delivery personnel became critical innovators, devising on-the-ground solutions for complex, evolving challenges. Leaders listened, decentralized decision-making, and invested in immediate support—from personal protective equipment to rapid retraining. This cultivated an extraordinary level of trust and shared purpose, transforming a fragmented network into a resilient, adaptive lifeline for global communities.

Key Lessons from the Logistics Response:

Distributed Intelligence & Empowerment: Equip and trust your frontline teams; they hold the most immediate insights and often the most pragmatic solutions.
Rapid Experimentation (Build-Measure-Learn): Don’t strive for perfection upfront. Test, learn from feedback, and quickly iterate new solutions, even under immense pressure.
Empathy-Driven Operations: Prioritize the physical and psychological well-being of your employees and customers; their safety and trust are foundational to resilience.
Data as a Human Enabler: Utilize data not just for efficiency, but to inform human decisions and adapt quickly to evolving needs and risks.

Case Study 2: Netflix vs. Blockbuster – The Empathy Divide

A Masterclass in Customer-Centric Disruption

The story of Netflix and Blockbuster is a cautionary tale and a beacon, respectively, in the annals of disruption. Blockbuster, the once-dominant king of video rentals, famously dismissed an opportunity to acquire a nascent Netflix in 2000 for $50 million. Their rationale? Netflix’s DVD-by-mail model seemed niche, and their own late fees were too lucrative to abandon. This was a classic product-centric, rather than human-centered, blind spot.

Netflix, conversely, was built on a foundation of deep customer empathy. They didn’t just offer DVDs; they offered a solution to the frustrations of physical stores, limited choices, and the egregious late fees that plagued Blockbuster’s customers. They listened to the human desire for convenience, variety, and a sense of fairness. As broadband internet became ubiquitous, Netflix didn’t hesitate to disrupt its *own* successful DVD-by-mail model. They recognized the evolving human need for instant gratification and personalization, investing heavily in streaming technology and, crucially, in data-driven content recommendations and original programming.

Blockbuster, meanwhile, clung to its brick-and-mortar legacy, unable or unwilling to shed the very aspects of its business that were becoming pain points for consumers. Their leadership failed to understand the human shift towards digital access and personalized entertainment experiences. Netflix, by consistently putting the customer’s evolving needs at the very core of its strategy – a true demonstration of Human-Centered Change™ in action – didn’t just manage disruption; it orchestrated it, evolving from a DVD service to a global entertainment powerhouse.

Key Lessons from Netflix’s Triumph:

Obsessive Customer-Centricity: Deeply understand and anticipate evolving human needs and frustrations; this is your ultimate compass.
Strategic Cannibalization: Be willing to disrupt your own profitable business models if it serves a superior, emerging customer experience.
Long-Term Vision over Short-Term Myopia: Resist the temptation to prioritize immediate gains when fundamental market shifts are underway.
Culture of Continuous Learning & Adaptation: Foster an organizational mindset that embraces new technologies and business models, even if they seem small or unprofitable at first.

The Human Thread: Cultivating Resilience and Reinvention

These case studies underscore a critical truth: successful disruption management is not a technological problem; it’s a human one. It demands a leadership commitment to fostering environments where curiosity thrives, experimentation is encouraged, and empathy guides every decision. To build an organization capable of not just surviving but thriving amidst continuous disruption, consider these human-centered imperatives:

Cultivate Psychological Safety: Create a culture where speaking up, challenging norms, and even failing fast are embraced as vital components of learning and innovation. Fear is the enemy of adaptation.
Empower the Adaptive Mindset: Invest in continuous learning, providing opportunities for employees to develop skills in areas like design thinking, agile methodologies, and data interpretation. Equip your people to be lifelong learners.
Champion Cross-Functional Collaboration: Break down silos. Disruptive challenges rarely fit neatly into departmental boxes; solutions emerge when diverse perspectives converge and collaborate.
Lead with Radical Transparency & Empathy: During times of uncertainty, clear, honest, and empathetic communication from leadership builds trust and reduces anxiety, freeing people to focus their energy on solving problems.
Design for Human Resilience: Build systems, processes, and a culture that is inherently flexible, capable of absorbing shocks, learning from them, and quickly reconfiguring. This means focusing on human capabilities and adaptability, not just rigid procedures.

Disruption is not a wave to be merely endured; it is a current that can be navigated, harnessed, and even ridden to new horizons. By placing the human element – our innate capacity for innovation, collaboration, and resilience – at the heart of your strategy, you can transform the daunting challenge of disruption into your greatest opportunity for sustained growth and meaningful impact.

Image credit: 1 of 850+ FREE quote slides from http://misterinnovation.com

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

Can You Be TOO Strategic?

Leave a reply

Can You Be TOO Strategic?

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

While the lack of a clear strategy can create problems in any business, there is another end of that spectrum.

Having a strategy means having clarity on what you want to achieve and a plan on how to get there. These are good things, but it’s also possible to be too strategic—too focused on a single goal and plan.

When Being TOO Strategic is a Problem

1. You Have an Ineffective Plan

What if you have a plan for reaching your goal but it doesn’t work? You could be putting all your eggs in one basket.

In some cases, you may be able to determine very quickly if your strategy isn’t working. That’s one of the beauties of digital. For example, with ecommerce, you can try a new email subject line and within a few hours (or even minutes) you can see whether people are responding to it.

There are other strategies, however, that demonstrate their effectiveness over time. A program that is designed to build relationships to drive more long-term customer loyalty is an example of a strategy that you won’t be able to determine the success of overnight.

Regardless of whether your plan can be evaluated quickly, if you put all your eggs in one strategic basket, there’s always the possibility that you’re wrong about the method to achieve your goal.

2. You Set the Wrong Goal

There’s also the possibility that you have either the wrong goal or a goal that’s not optimal.

No matter what group of consumers you choose to target, things can change quickly; it may turn out that you haven’t chosen a good target at all.

For example, think about when COVID-19 first disrupted our world. Consumers’ needs and habits changed because of the pandemic, which caused many companies to adjust their goals because their original goals were no longer going to bring successful outcomes. If you stayed laser focused on the goal of increasing the number of shoppers coming to your store each day amidst the pandemic, you were a little too strategically disciplined.

Even in less extreme cases, there are still situations where leaders fail to see new trends and opportunities for growth.

Blockbuster Video Blockbuster is a great example of a company that had the wrong goal in mind. They were so hyper focused on putting a video rental store in every neighborhood that they failed to see the potential opportunity in digital streaming services.

Netflix, on the other hand, did an excellent job seeing that opportunity and successfully transformed from the DVD rental by mail service to the popular digital streaming service consumers love today.

There’s always the risk that either you’re pursuing the wrong destination or the wrong means to get there. And what do you do then? You have the opportunity to say, “Maybe I shouldn’t be 100% strategic.”

Often, mistakes and variability promote evolution and growth in a company, so it’s important to determine what percentage of your business should be based on strategy and what percentage should be based on trying new and different things which may not align with the current official strategy.

3. Consider a Balanced Approach

Ideally, find a balance of mostly strategic activities, but carve out some time for non-strategic activity to allow employees to be creative and freely come up with new ideas that just might turn into something great.

An example of a company who does this well and has seen success come out of this strategy is Google. Google offers “20% time,” which allows each employee to spend 20% of their work time on independent projects they feel will benefit Google in the long run without having to justify it to anyone.

This freedom promotes innovation and creativity, making employees feel like their work and input really matters to the company. Many of Google’s widely known products have come out of this non-strategic time, such as Gmail and Google Maps.

Another area of business that often takes a balanced approach to strategy is Research and Development (R&D). R&D teams are typically made up of creative and original thinkers; they may be faced with problems that they’re fascinated by and are trying to solve. It’s not always clear how solving that problem is going to help the company right away, but some of the world’s greatest innovations have come out of R&D departments.

For example, at Bell Labs, the transistor was invented by people who were fascinated by the way materials could be used to control electricity. It wasn’t clear when they were doing that original research exactly how the product would be used; it was much later that the potential was realized for commercial applications such as the microchip

Another example is Steve Jobs in the early days of Apple. When the Apple ][ computer was at its height, it was the main focus of the company and where all the money was coming from. The long term success of the Apple ][ platform was the strategic focus of the company.

At the time, in order to politically sideline him, Jobs was assigned to work on a seemingly non-strategic project, which was the Apple Macintosh, originally intended as a product for the education market. As successful as the Apple ][ was, ultimately, the innovation that came from launching the Macintosh massively eclipsed the Apple ][ and is a key product line to this day. Thank goodness for a non-strategic project.

4. It Might Be Worth It to Pursue a “Moonshot Idea”

It can be beneficial to allow a certain amount of time to work on complete “moonshot ideas”—
ideas that are highly risky but could change the company or the industry as a whole if they’re successful.

While these grand ideas have only proven to be occasionally successful, the payoff can be so huge when they do succeed that they are worth pursuing.

The bottom line is that you want to be good at being strategic, but not get so caught up in being so strategic that you miss out on a great opportunity for growth and success in your company that may not align with your strategy.

Parting Gift

My Wall Street Journal bestselling book, Winning Digital Customers: The Antidote to Irrelevance, contains a blueprint for developing a successful strategy for your company as well as practices to aid in identifying new trends and opportunities to explore. You can download the first chapter for free here or purchase the book here.

Image credits: Pixabay and Unsplash

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