Tag Archives: Decision Making

How to Present Strategic Uncertainty to Your Board Without Looking Indecisive

Leave a reply

How to Present Strategic Uncertainty to Your Board Without Looking Indecisive

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

There’s a particular silence that falls over a boardroom when a strategy leader says the words “we’re not certain.”

It lasts about two seconds. In those two seconds, directors are doing math. Is this person hedging? Do they know what they’re doing? Why am I paying for a plan that isn’t sure of itself? By the time the silence breaks, you’ve either lost the room or you’ve earned something rarer than confidence, which is credibility.

Which one you get depends almost entirely on how you present the uncertainty. If you’re a CSO or strategy leader heading into the 2027 planning cycle, here’s how I’d approach it.

Why the instinct to hide uncertainty backfires

The temptation is understandable. Boards want decisions. Executives are rewarded for sounding sure. So the natural move is to smooth over the unknowns and present a single confident number, a single confident forecast and a single confident plan.

The trouble is that directors aren’t naive. Most of them have sat through enough planning cycles to know that a forecast with no stated uncertainty is either a forecast nobody questioned or one somebody hid the doubt inside. When reality drifts from the plan, as it always does, the board doesn’t just see a miss. It sees a team that never told them the miss was possible.

Hidden uncertainty feels safe on the day you present. It’s expensive on the day you’re wrong.

What boards actually worry about

When directors push back on uncertainty, it’s rarely because they dislike uncertainty. It’s because they’re asking three more specific questions:

  1. Does management understand the risks? Not “are there risks,” which everyone knows, but “have you thought about the right ones?”
  2. Is there a plan if things go differently? A board doesn’t need certainty. It needs to know you won’t be paralyzed.
  3. Will we find out in time? The real fear isn’t that the future is unknown. It’s learning about a problem late.

Notice that none of these require you to pretend to know the future. They require you to show you’ve thought about it. That’s a much easier thing to be good at.

The structure that works: firm on action, explicit on uncertainty

The reframe that has served me best is this: be firm about what you’re doing, and be explicit about what you don’t know. These are different things, and mixing them up is what makes uncertainty sound like indecision.

Here’s a structure you can use.

  1. Start with the decision, not the doubt. Lead with what you’re recommending. “We recommend investing in X, Y and Z in 2027.” Boards relax when they hear a position before they hear a caveat.
  2. Name the few uncertainties that actually matter. Not twenty. Three or four. Pick the ones that, if they break differently than expected, would change your strategy. If an uncertainty wouldn’t change a decision, leave it out. It’s noise, and it dilutes the ones that count.
  3. Show the futures, not just the risks. Instead of a list of risks, describe a small set of genuinely different ways the next few years could unfold, each traced back to signals the board can see. It’s more concrete than “risks,” and it lets directors engage with the world you’re describing instead of with an abstract worry.
  4. Separate no-regret moves from bets. Tell the board which parts of the plan hold up in every future you described, and which depend on one future arriving. Directors love this, because it shows you know exactly where the real exposure is.
  5. Show your tripwires. For each major uncertainty, say what you’d have to see to conclude things are going the other way, who is watching for it, and what you’d do. This answers the board’s third question directly. You won’t be the last to know.
  6. Close on how you’ll report back. Tell them when and how they’ll hear about changes. A predictable rhythm of updates turns uncertainty from a source of anxiety into a managed process.

Language that helps, and language that hurts

Small word choices matter more than you’d expect in this setting.

Instead of “we don’t know,” try “here’s what we know, here’s what we’re watching, and here’s what we’d do if it changes.”

Instead of “it depends,” try “it depends on two things, and here’s how we’ll know which way each is going.”

Instead of “we think maybe,” try “our current view, based on these signals, is…” Then give it a rough confidence level. “We’re fairly confident in this one and much less confident in that one” is a perfectly respectable thing to say to a board.

Instead of a single number, give a range and the assumption it rests on. A range with a stated assumption signals competence. A single number with no assumptions signals either naivety or a hidden agenda.

And avoid the two extremes: false precision, which gets punished later, and endless hedging, which gets punished now.

Use a picture

One practical suggestion. Directors take in far more from a single well-built visual than from twenty slides of text. If you can put the signals, the trends and the possible futures onto one shared page, with the most probable future and your preferred path marked, the board can see the whole argument at once and point at the part they’d like to discuss. That’s a much better conversation than one where everyone is holding a slightly different mental picture of what you meant.

That’s the reasoning behind the visual approach in FutureHacking™: it moves a leadership team from signals, through trends, to a set of possible futures and a preferred path, on a page everyone can see. A team that has worked that way arrives at the boardroom with the thinking already organized.

Rehearse the hard question

Before the meeting, find the toughest director and ask yourself what they’d say. Usually it’s some version of “so which is it?” Have a short, clear answer: “Our most likely future is this one, and here’s why. We’ve built the plan so it works if we’re wrong.” If you can say that without flinching, you’ve already won the room.

A way to get started

If your team hasn’t yet pulled together the signals behind your current view of the future, the free FutureHacking Signal Picker helps you identify and prioritize the signals worth watching, which gives you the evidence to point to when the board asks where your view comes from.

I’m also finishing the FutureCanvas Picker, which takes planners through the whole arc, from signals to trends to possible futures to your most probable future and the path toward the one you’d prefer. I’m opening early access to a select group first: CSOs, strategic planners and leaders preparing for planning cycles and board conversations right now, who can tell me honestly what works under real deadline pressure. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

The credibility dividend

Here’s the long game. The leaders who present uncertainty well don’t just survive the meeting. They build a reputation for telling the board the truth early, and that reputation is worth more than any single forecast. The next time something goes sideways, the board remembers who warned them and who didn’t.

Present the uncertainty. Just make sure the plan looks like it was built by someone who knew it was there.

Image Credits: Unsplash

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

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

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

Leave a reply

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Pexels

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

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

1 Reply

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

“The single most important message in this book is very simple,” reads the first line in John Kotter’s highly regarded The Heart of Change. “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.

Really? That’s the important message? That emotive arguments are more powerful than factual arguments? What about other reasons why people change their behavior, such as social proof, conformity, incentives or coercion? By setting up a binary and artificial choice between two communication alternatives, he eliminates important strategic and tactical options.

It’s not just Kotter either, who is a well respected professor at Harvard Business School. The truth is that a lot of management thinking is surprisingly shoddy, with arbitrary notions and cognitive biases dressed up as scholarly work. We need to be more skeptical about “research” that comes out of business schools and consultancies. Here are three things to look for:

1. WYSIATI And Confirmation Bias

Kotter’s point about emotive vs. analytic arguments is, of course, completely valid. The fundamental error he makes is that he focuses on that particular aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Daniel Kahneman calls this WYSIATI, or “what you see is all there is.” Once you get tunnel vision on a particular fact or idea, it’s hard to see anything else.

Consider this thought experiment: You go to a conference featuring a powerful, emotive presentation on the need to combat climate change. You see glaciers melting, polar bears losing their habitat and young children starving from drought. Then you go back to the office, fired up and ready to do something about it, but everyone else has a strong argument against acting on climate change.

What is likely to happen next? You convince you co-workers—including your bosses— about the urgency of the crisis? Or, surrounded by skeptics, your conviction begins to wane? When all we see is the poor polar bears and starving in an echo chamber of likeminded people, we forget about other considerations, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

An issue related to WYSIATI is confirmation bias. Kotter proudly points out that he worked with Deloitte to conduct extensive research for his book. Amazingly, after analyzing over 200 interviews, he ended up with the same 8-step process he cited in his earlier work. So what was the purpose of the research, to gain actual insights or to confirm what he thought he already knew?

Perhaps not surprisingly, after decades of organizations applying Kotter’s ideas about change McKinsey still finds that more than two-thirds of transformational efforts fail. Maybe there is actually more to change than communication strategy.

2. Halo Effects And Confounding Variables

One of the most popular modes of analysis that business thinkers use is to examine successful companies and see what they do differently. A number of bestselling management books, such as In Search of Excellence, have used this method. Unfortunately, when doing so they often fall prey to a cognitive bias known as the halo effect.

For example, in 2000, before the dotcom crash, Cisco was flying high. A profile in Fortune reported it to have an unparalleled culture with highly motivated employees. But just one year later, when the market tanked, the very same publication described it as “cocksure” and “naive.” Did the “culture,” under the very same leadership, really change that much in a year? Or did the perceptions of its performance change?

Cisco had a highly motivated and, some would say, aggressive sales force. When the company was doing well, analysts assumed it was their aggressiveness that produced good results and when its fortunes changed, that same aggressive behavior was blamed for its failures. This is what’s known as a confounding error, the fact that an aggressive sales force correlated with specific results doesn’t mean that the aggressive sales force caused the results.

Every organization has things which it does differently, that are idiosyncratic to its management and culture. In some market contexts those traits will be advantageous, in other environments they may not be. It takes work—and some humility—to separate what’s truly a success factor, what’s merely fit for a narrow purpose and what’s not really relevant.

3. Survivorship Bias

Business school professors and consultants gain fame—not to mention large fees—when they are able to define a novel concept or success factor. If you are able to isolate one thing that organizations should do differently, you have a powerful product to sell. A single powerful insight can make an entire career, which is probably why so many cut corners.

For example, in their study of 108 companies, distinguished INSEAD professors W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne found that “blue ocean” products, those in new categories without competition, far outperform those in the more competitive “red ocean” markets. Their book, Blue Ocean Strategy, was an immediate hit, selling over 3.5 million copies.

Bain consultants Chris Zook and James Allen’ book, Profit from the Core, boasted even more extensive research encompassing 200 case studies, a database of 1,854 companies, 100 interviews of senior executives and an “extensive review” of existing literature. They found that firms that focused on their ”core” far outperformed those who strayed.

It doesn’t take too much thinking to start seeing problems. How can you both “focus on your core” and seek out “blue oceans”? It betrays logic that both strategies could outperform one another. Also, how do you define “core?” Core markets? Core capabilities? Core customers? While it’s true that “blue ocean” markets lack competitors, they don’t have any customers either. Who do you sell to?

Yet there is an even bigger, more insidious problem called survivorship bias. Notice how “research” doesn’t include firms that went out of business because there were no customers in those “blue oceans” or because they failed to diversify outside of their “core.” The data only pertains to those that survived.

It’s hard to think of any other field where researchers could get away with such obviously careless work. Can you imagine medical research that didn’t include patients that died, or airplane research that didn’t include the flights that crashed? Suffice it to say that since the two books were published two decades ago, they’ve shown no capacity to predict whether a business will succeed or fail.

Don’t Believe Everything You Think

When I’m finishing up a book, I send out sections to be fact-checked by experts and those who have first-person knowledge of events. I’m always amazed at how much I get wrong. In some cases, I make truly egregious errors about facts I should have known (or did know, but failed to take into account). It can be an incredibly humbling process.

That’s why it’s so important to not to believe everything you think, there are simply too many ways to get things wrong. As Richard Feynman put it, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” I would also add a second principle that just because you’ve managed to fool others, doesn’t mean you’ve gotten it right.

Unfortunately, so many of the popular management ideas today come from people who never actually operated a business, such as business school professors and consultants. These are often people who’ve never failed. They’ve been told that they’re smart all their lives and expect others to be impressed by their ideas, not to examine them thoroughly.

The problem with so much business thinking today is that there is an appalling lack of rigor. That’s the only way that obviously flawed ideas such as “blue oceans,” “profiting from the core” and John Kotter’s ideas about change management are able to gain traction. It’s hard to imagine any other field with such a complete lack of quality control.

That’s why I send out fact checks, because I know how likely I am to think foolish and inaccurate things. I’ve also noticed that I tend to be most wrong when I think I’ve come up with something brilliant. Much as Tolstoy wrote about families, there are infinitely more ways to get things wrong than to get things right.

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

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

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

Leave a reply

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

We live in an automated age. From the news we read and the items we shop for, to who we date and what companies we choose to work for, algorithms help drive every facet of modern life. Such rapid technological advancement has led some to predict that we’re headed for a jobless future, where there is no more need for humans.

Yet in their recent book Radically Human, Accenture’s Paul Daugherty and H. James Wilson argue exactly the opposite. In their work guiding technology strategy for many of the world’s top corporations, they have found that, in many cases, the robots need us more than we need them. Automation is no panacea.

For over a century, pundits have been trying to apply an engineering mindset to human affairs with the hope of taking a more “scientific approach.” So far, those efforts have failed. In reality, these ideas have less to do with science than denying the value of human agency and limiting the impact of human judgment. We need to stop making the same mistake.

The Myth Of Shareholder Value

In 1970, the economist Milton Friedman proposed a radical idea. He argued that corporate CEOs should not take into account the interests of the communities they serve, but that their only social responsibility was to increase shareholder value. While ridiculed by many at the time, by the 1980s Friedman’s idea became accepted doctrine.

In particular, what irked Friedman was that managers would exercise judgment with respect to the objectives of the organization. “the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation … and his primary responsibility is to them,” he wrote.

The problem is that boiling down the success of an enterprise to the single variable of shareholder value avoids important questions. What do we mean by “value?” Is short term value more important than long-term value? Do owners value only share price or do they also value other things, like technological progress and a healthy environment?

Avoiding tough questions leaves significant problems unsolved, which may be one reason that, since Friedman’s essay, our well-being has declined significantly. Our economy has become markedly less productive, less competitive and less dynamic. Purchasing power for most people has stagnated. By just about every metric, we’re worse off.

How The Consumer Welfare Standard Undermines Consumer Welfare

In 1978, the legal scholar Robert Bork published the Antitrust Paradox in which he argued against the rule of reason standard for antitrust cases that required judges to use their discretion when deciding what constitutes a practice that “unreasonably” restricts trade. In its place, he suggested a consumer welfare standard, which would only take into account whether the consumer was harmed by higher prices.

Much like Friedman, Bork didn’t like the idea of depending on subjective human judgment. How could we trust judges to decide what is “reasonable” without a clear and objective standard? If the government is going to block business activity, he argued, it should have to prove, through stringent economic analysis, that harm is being done.

Yet as Lina Kahn pointed out in a now-famous paper titled Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, consumers can be harmed even as prices are lowered. If Amazon is allowed to control the online retail infrastructure, including logistics, hosting, marketing, etc., then trade is restricted, free markets are undermined and the consumer will be harmed.

To understand why, you only need to look at the recent baby formula shortage, in which only three firms dominate the market and, the leader, Abbott, is the exclusive supplier in many markets. Not only is it highly likely that the lack of competition contributed to lax quality standards at Abbott’s plant in Sturgis, Michigan, but once it went offline because of contamination, there weren’t enough suppliers to fill the gap.

These aren’t isolated examples, but indicative of a much larger and growing crisis. An article in Harvard Business Review details how the vast majority of industries are concentrated in just a few dominant players. A more extensive analysis by the Federal Reserve bank shows how the lack of competition leads to lower business dynamism and less productivity.

“Great Power” Politics

In early March, the prominent political scientist John Mearsheimer gave an interview to The New Yorker in which he argued that the United States had erred greatly in its support of Ukraine. According to his theory, we should recognize Russia’s role as a great power and its right to dictate certain things to its smaller and weaker neighbor.

Today, the idea that America should have left Ukraine at the mercy of Russia seems not only morally questionable, but patently absurd. Not only has the brutality of the Russian forces horrified the world, their incompetence has laid bare the fecklessness of the the Putin regime. How could such a respected expert of foreign affairs get things so wrong?

Once again, the failure to recognize human agency is a key culprit. In Mearsheimer’s view, which he calls, “realism,” only “great powers” have a say in world affairs and they will work to further their interests. He believes that by not recognizing Russia’s desire to subjugate other nations in its orbit, America and its allies are being silly and impractical.

Hopefully, we can learn some lessons from the war in Ukraine. Strategy is not a game of chess, in which we move inert pieces around a board. People have the power to make choices. Ukraine chose to undertake tough reforms and arm itself. Russia chose an autocracy which rewarded loyalty over competence. That, more than anything else, has driven events.
The Real World Isn’t An Algorithm

A joke began circulating in the late 1970s, often attributed to management consultant Warren Bennis, that the factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. Today, even with offshoring, about 10% of Americans work in factories.

When you scratch below the surface, the joke has less to do with technological advancement than it does with derision and control. Bennis wasn’t just any business consultant, but a renowned expert on leadership, who wrote books, published articles in top journals and even advised presidents. That he would promote the view, even as a joke, that leaders should deny agency to employees is as troubling as it is telling.

If you believe that human judgment is a liability rather than an asset, you manage accordingly. You treat employees as cogs in a machine rather than partners in a shared enterprise. You invest in offshoring rather than up-skilling, schedule shifts without regard to people’s lives, deny benefits such as parental leave. We’ve seen where that’s gotten us—lower productivity, worsening mental health and a society that is more unequal and less just.

We need to get back to the business of being human. Our economy should serve our people, not the other way around. The success of a society needs to be measured by the well-being of those who live in it. If we increase GDP, but our air and water are more polluted, our children less educated, we live unhappy lives and die deaths of despair, what have we really gained?

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

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of March 2025

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of March 2025Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are March’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. Turning Bold Ideas into Tangible Results — by Robyn Bolton
  2. Leading Through Complexity and Uncertainty — by Greg Satell
  3. Empathy is a Vital Tool for Stronger Teams — by Stefan Lindegaard
  4. The Role Platforms Play in Business Networks — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  5. Inspiring Innovation — by John Bessant
  6. Six Keys to Effective Teamwork — by David Burkus
  7. Product-Lifecycle Management 2.0 — by Dr. Matthew Heim
  8. 5 Business Myths You Cannot Afford to Believe — by Shep Hyken
  9. What Great Ideas Feel Like — by Mike Shipulski
  10. Better Decision Making at Speed — by Mike Shipulski

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in February that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

SPECIAL BONUS: While supplies last, you can get the hardcover version of my first bestselling book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire for 44% OFF until Amazon runs out of stock or changes the price. This deal won’t last long, so grab your copy while it lasts!

Build a Common Language of Innovation on your team

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last four years:

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

Six Smarter Decision Making Strategies

Leave a reply

Six Smarter Decision Making Strategies

GUEST POST from Robert B. Tucker

On average, you make 700 decisions daily, most of them of little importance. But some decisions are worth examining because they are of great importance. These choices determine the course of your future. They become who you are.

Should you accept that promotion and transfer to Denver yet risk making your family unhappy? Should you invest in that real estate deal with your brother-in-law or park your money in an index fund instead? Should you retire and move to a lower-cost state more aligned with your political leanings? Perhaps you’re weighing such an important decision right now. If so, it’s time to ask yourself: what’s been my process in making this decision? Have I been methodical, or am I approaching the decision the way I approach the many less consequential decisions I make daily?

In ten years or less, we’ll likely have a personal A.I. avatar to help us make big decisions. For now, the task falls on our shoulders. Most of the decisions we make – even the important ones – are made on the fly, while multitasking, made because there’s a deadline, made because that’s the way we’ve always done it in the past. In short, the need for a sound decision-making strategy has never been greater.

Below are six strategies for making sounder, smarter decisions.

  1. Define the decision to be made. Take the time to think through the issue underneath the decision. For example, whether to accept the promotion or turn it down may not be the only option so clarify whether the decision is binary or multiple- option, or open to further negotiation. Should you buy this house or keep looking? Spell out the steps you need to take to make the very best decision possible.
  2. Develop a process. Ben Franklin used to make decisions by running a line down the page and listing the pros and cons. Former treasury secretary and CEO Robert Rubin relies on his yellow pad to map out probabilities.
  3. Broaden your options. Instead of Options A and B, what about C or even D? A technique I use in working with client organizations is to set up a “challenge statement” that inevitably reveals multiple possibilities to be decided upon. I’ll have small groups of four or five people take 10 minutes to list all the options without discussing or critiquing them during the exercise. Frame challenge statements thusly: “In what ways might we accomplish X?” “In what ways might I invest this money instead of putting it into this risky option” opens the decision to innovation and creativity.
  4. Gather information on various options. The effective decision-makers I have studied all seem to have a common trait: an intense appetite for information. They are consummate researchers and voracious readers. They are curious, they track trends, constantly looking for patterns. Before you’re ready to make a big decision ask yourself: have you done enough research?
  5. “Futurize” the decision and project out ahead. To “futurize” is to look ahead three, five, and 10 years and ask: what will the environment be like at that point? If you’re in your early ‘60s, do you want to purchase a three-story townhouse and climb all those stairs? Futurize also before purchasing that beachfront home on the Gulf of Mexico by projecting out ahead. How might climate change affect property values should you need to sell? To futurize is to project out ahead and think through the implications, ramifications, consequences (and unintended consequences), and threats that might need to be factored into today’s decision.
  6. Listen to your gut. Intuition is knowing something without knowing quite how we know it. All of us have it, but in a data-driven world, listening to it becomes harder. Before making an important choice, one executive I interviewed gathers information, weighs all the facts – then takes time to stop and listen to what his gut is telling him. “When a decision doesn’t feel good,” one executive commented, “It feels like a stomachache. And when a decision feels right, it’s like I’ve eaten a great meal. If I don’t feel good in my gut about a decision, I don’t care if the numbers say we’re going to make a billion dollars, I won’t go ahead with it. That’s how important intuition is to me.”

This article originally appeared in Forbes
Image credit: Gemini

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

Disagreements Can Be a Good Thing

1 Reply

Disagreements Can Be a Good Thing

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When you have nothing to say, don’t say it.

But, when you have something to say, you must say it.

When you think your response might be taken the wrong way, it will.

When you take care to respond effectively, your response might be taken the wrong way.

When you have disagreement, there’s objective evidence that at least two people are thinking for themselves.

When you have disagreement, confrontation is optional.

When you have disagreement, everyone can be right, even if just a little.

When you have disagreement, that says nothing about the people doing the disagreeing.

When you have disagreement at high decibels, that’s an argument.

When you have disagreement, disagreeing on all points is a choice.

When you have disagreement, if you listen to sharpen your response, it’s a death spiral.

When you have disagreement, it’s best to disagree wholeheartedly and respectfully.

When you have disagreement, if you listen to understand, there’s hope.

When you have disagreement, it’s a disagreement about ideas and not moral character.

When you have disagreement, intentions matter.

When you have disagreement, decision quality skyrockets.

When you have disagreement, thank your partner in crime for sharing their truth.

When you have disagreement, there is sufficient trust to support the disagreement.

When you have disagreement, sometimes you don’t, but you don’t know it.

When you have disagreement, converging on a single point of view is not the objective.

When you have disagreement about ethics, you may be working at the wrong company.

When you have disagreement, there are no sides, only people doing their best.

When you have disagreement, the objective is understanding.

When you have disagreement, it’s the right thing to have.

When you have disagreement, there may be disagreement on the topic of the disagreement.

When you have disagreement, you are a contributing member, even if you stay quiet.

When you have disagreement, why not be agreeable?

When you have disagreement, it’s okay to change your mind.

When you have disagreement, you may learn something about yourself.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of May 2023

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of May 2023Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are May’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. A 90% Project Failure Rate Means You’re Doing it Wrong — by Mike Shipulski
  2. ‘Innovation’ is Killing Innovation. How Do We Save It? — by Robyn Bolton
  3. Sustaining Imagination is Hard — by Braden Kelley
  4. Unintended Consequences. The Hidden Risk of Fast-Paced Innovation — by Pete Foley
  5. 8 Strategies to Future-Proofing Your Business & Gaining Competitive Advantage — by Teresa Spangler
  6. How to Determine if Your Problem is Worth Solving — by Mike Shipulski
  7. Sprint Toward the Innovation Action — by Mike Shipulski
  8. Moneyball and the Beginning, Middle, and End of Innovation — by Robyn Bolton
  9. A Shortcut to Making Strategic Trade-Offs — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  10. 3 Innovation Types Not What You Think They Are — by Robyn Bolton

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in April that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last three years:

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

Involving Employees in Decision-Making Processes

Leave a reply

Involving Employees in Decision-Making Processes

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the rapidly evolving landscape of 2025, the traditional top-down organizational structure is increasingly becoming a relic of the past. Organizations that thrive are those that recognize their most valuable asset isn’t their technology or their capital, but their people. And for people to truly be an asset, they must be empowered, engaged, and intimately involved in the decisions that shape their work and the future of the enterprise.

For decades, I’ve championed the cause of human-centered innovation. My message has consistently been that true innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, nor does it emerge solely from a corner office. It bubbles up from the collective intelligence, diverse perspectives, and lived experiences of every individual within an organization. This is why involving employees in decision-making processes isn’t just a “nice-to-have”; it’s a strategic imperative for resilience, agility, and sustained competitive advantage.

Why the Time is Now: The Unarguable Case for Empowerment

The arguments for employee involvement are stronger than ever. The velocity of change demands faster, more informed decisions. The complexity of modern business challenges often outstrips the capacity of a small leadership team to fully grasp. When you bring your entire workforce into the decision-making fold, you unlock a cascade of benefits that are simply non-negotiable for future success:

  • Enhanced Decision Quality: Diverse perspectives lead to a more comprehensive understanding of problems and a wider array of potential solutions. Those closest to the work often possess the most accurate, granular insights.
  • Increased Buy-in and Implementation Success: When employees are integral to crafting the solution, they inherently own it. This dramatically reduces resistance to change, accelerates adoption, and embeds solutions deeply within the operational fabric.
  • Boosted Employee Engagement and Morale: Feeling valued, heard, and impactful is a fundamental human need. Involvement fosters a profound sense of purpose, psychological safety, and belonging, creating a truly vibrant workplace.
  • Improved Innovation and Problem-Solving: A culture of authentic participation naturally encourages creative thinking, challenges the status quo, and cultivates a proactive, solution-oriented approach to identifying and addressing complex challenges.
  • Reduced Turnover: Empowered employees are happier, more fulfilled employees. They are significantly more likely to stay with an organization that respects their intelligence, values their contributions, and invests in their growth.

Beyond the Suggestion Box: Practical Approaches for Leaders

So, how do organizations move beyond token gestures and truly integrate employees into decision-making? It requires a fundamental shift in mindset from control to collaboration, and a steadfast commitment to structured, intentional processes. For leaders, this means:

  1. Cultivating Radical Transparency: Lay the groundwork by openly sharing context, challenges, and strategic goals. Employees can only contribute meaningfully if they understand the big picture. Transparency builds trust and enables truly informed contributions.
  2. Empowering Cross-Functional Teams and Task Forces: For specific projects or complex problems, convene diverse teams with representatives from all affected departments and levels. Grant these teams genuine autonomy to research, analyze, propose solutions, and even execute pilot programs.
  3. Leveraging Democratic Idea Generation Platforms: Utilize modern digital platforms (like enterprise social networks, dedicated innovation portals, or AI-powered ideation tools) where employees can submit ideas, collaboratively refine them, and democratically vote on their merit. This democratizes innovation.
  4. Implementing Participatory Budgeting: Involve teams or departments in decisions about how their operational budgets are allocated. This fosters a heightened sense of accountability, strategic thinking, and ownership at every level.
  5. Hosting Open Forums and Deliberative Dialogues: Create regular, facilitated opportunities for two-way dialogue between leadership and employees. These aren’t just Q&A sessions; they’re platforms for inviting challenging questions, candid feedback, and strategic suggestions on key organizational directions.
  6. Embracing “Wisdom of Crowds” Methodologies: For complex, high-stakes decisions, engage a representative sample of employees in structured deliberative polling exercises. This scientifically-backed approach gauges collective sentiment, uncovers hidden insights, and can often predict outcomes more accurately than small expert groups.

Case Study 1: “AgileSphere Innovations” – Redefining Product Roadmap for a Hyper-Competitive Market

AgileSphere Innovations, a leading enterprise software provider, faced a common challenge in 2023: their product roadmap was often perceived as being dictated by a few senior executives, leading to internal misalignment, delayed feature adoption, and occasional missed market opportunities in an increasingly competitive landscape.

Instead of the usual top-down annual planning cycle, AgileSphere launched “Co-Create the Future.” They implemented a quarterly “Innovation Sprint” where every employee, regardless of role or seniority, was invited to submit product feature ideas, improvements, and even entirely new product concepts. These ideas were then collaboratively refined, discussed, and voted upon within an internal, gamified ideation platform. The top 50 ideas would then be pitched in a company-wide virtual “Shark Tank” style event, judged by a diverse panel of executives and randomly selected employees. The winning ideas directly influenced the next quarter’s product roadmap, with allocated resources and dedicated, self-organizing teams formed around them.

Outcome: Within 18 months, AgileSphere reported a remarkable 30% increase in employee engagement scores related to “feeling heard” and “impact on company direction.” Crucially, three of their most successful product launches in 2024 originated directly from employee submissions through this process, including a groundbreaking AI-powered analytics dashboard that captured significant market share, validating the power of collective intelligence.

Case Study 2: “EcoHarvest Foods” – Optimizing Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World

EcoHarvest Foods, a sustainable food distributor operating across North America, experienced significant and costly disruptions in their supply chain during the global events of the early 2020s. Recognizing that the frontline workers in their warehouses, logistics, and procurement departments held invaluable operational knowledge often overlooked, they initiated “The Ground Up Initiative” in late 2022.

This initiative involved creating regional “Resilience Circles” – self-managing, cross-functional groups of 8-12 employees who met bi-weekly. Their mandate was to identify supply chain vulnerabilities, propose alternative sourcing strategies, and streamline internal processes. These circles were given genuine autonomy to pilot small-scale improvements and report their findings directly to a senior leadership steering committee. EcoHarvest also implemented a “Reverse Mentoring” program, where younger, digitally native employees mentored senior leaders on emerging technologies like blockchain for traceability and AI for demand forecasting, bridging critical knowledge gaps.

Outcome: By mid-2024, EcoHarvest Foods had reduced supply chain lead times by an average of 15% and diversified their critical supplier base by 25%, significantly enhancing their resilience against future disruptions. The initiative also led to a 10% reduction in operational waste through employee-identified process efficiencies, proving that empowering those closest to the problem leads to tangible, bottom-line results and a more sustainable enterprise.

Navigating the Path: Addressing Challenges and Empowering Leaders

While the benefits are clear, implementing broad employee involvement isn’t without its challenges. Leaders must be prepared to address:

  • Fear of Ceding Control: This is perhaps the biggest hurdle. Leaders must understand that empowering doesn’t mean losing control, but rather amplifying influence through shared ownership.
  • Information Overload: As more voices contribute, managing the influx of information requires robust digital tools and clear facilitation processes.
  • Ensuring Equitable Participation: Not everyone is comfortable speaking up. Leaders need to actively foster an inclusive environment where all voices feel safe and encouraged to contribute, leveraging anonymous feedback channels where appropriate.
  • Managing Expectations: Not every idea can be implemented. Transparent communication about why certain decisions are made, even when an employee’s specific idea isn’t chosen, is crucial.
  • Decision Fatigue: While involvement is good, not every decision requires broad consensus. Leaders must discern when broad input is vital versus when efficient, executive decision-making is necessary.

For leaders, this shift requires new muscles: active listening, empathetic facilitation, skillful synthesis of diverse inputs, and a genuine belief in the wisdom of their collective workforce. Invest in leadership development that focuses on coaching, collaboration, and building psychological safety.

Your Next Step: Ignite the Power Within

The future belongs to the organizations that democratize decision-making. Don’t wait for a crisis to realize the untapped potential within your workforce. Begin today by identifying one key decision area where employee input could be transformative. Open the dialogue. Trust your people. And watch as engagement soars, innovation accelerates, and your organization becomes truly future-proof. The journey to a human-centered enterprise starts with empowering every voice.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Reversible versus Irreversible Decisions

3 Replies

Reversible versus Irreversible Decisions

GUEST POST from Farnham Street

We often think that collecting as much information as possible will help us make the best decisions. Sometimes that’s true, but sometimes it hamstrings our progress. Other times it can be flat out dangerous.

***

Many of the most successful people adopt simple, versatile decision-making heuristics to remove the need for deliberation in particular situations.

One heuristic might be defaulting to saying no, as Steve Jobs did. Or saying no to any decision that requires a calculator or computer, as Warren Buffett does. Or it might mean reasoning from first principles, as Elon Musk does. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, has another one we can add to our toolbox. He asks himself, is this a reversible or irreversible decision?

If a decision is reversible, we can make it fast and without perfect information. If a decision is irreversible, we had better slow down the decision-making process and ensure that we consider ample information and understand the problem as thoroughly as we can.

Bezos used this heuristic to make the decision to found Amazon. He recognized that if Amazon failed, he could return to his prior job. He would still have learned a lot and would not regret trying. The decision was reversible, so he took a risk. The heuristic served him well and continues to pay off when he makes decisions.

Decisions Amidst Uncertainty

Let’s say you decide to try a new restaurant after reading a review online. Having never been there before, you cannot know if the food will be good or if the atmosphere will be dreary. But you use the incomplete information from the review to make a decision, recognizing that it’s not a big deal if you don’t like the restaurant.

In other situations, the uncertainty is a little riskier. You might decide to take a particular job, not knowing what the company culture is like or how you will feel about the work after the honeymoon period ends.

Reversible decisions can be made fast and without obsessing over finding complete information. We can be prepared to extract wisdom from the experience with little cost if the decision doesn’t work out. Frequently, it’s not worth the time and energy required to gather more information and look for flawless answers. Although your research might make your decision 5% better, you might miss an opportunity.

Reversible decisions are not an excuse to act reckless or be ill-informed, but rather are a belief that we should adapt the frameworks of our decisions to the types of decisions we are making. Reversible decisions don’t need to be made the same way as irreversible decisions.

The ability to make decisions fast is a competitive advantage. One major advantage that start-ups have is that they can move with velocity, whereas established incumbents typically move with speed. The difference between the two is meaningful and often means the difference between success and failure.

Speed is measured as distance over time. If we’re headed from New York to LA on an airplane and we take off from JFK and circle around New York for three hours, we’re moving with a lot of speed, but we’re not getting anywhere. Speed doesn’t care if you are moving toward your goals or not. Velocity, on the other hand, measures displacement over time. To have velocity, you need to be moving toward your goal.

This heuristic explains why start-ups making quick decisions have an advantage over incumbents. That advantage is magnified by environmental factors, such as the pace of change. The faster the pace of environmental change, the more advantage will accrue to people making quick decisions because those people can learn faster.

Decisions provide us with data, which can then make our future decisions better. The faster we can cycle through the OODA loop, the better. This framework isn’t a one-off to apply to certain situations; it is a heuristic that needs to be an integral part of a decision-making toolkit.

With practice, we also get better at recognizing bad decisions and pivoting, rather than sticking with past choices due to the sunk costs fallacy. Equally important, we can stop viewing mistakes or small failures as disastrous. Instead, view them as information that informs future decisions.

“A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”

— General George Patton

Bezos compares decisions to doors. Reversible decisions are doors that open both ways. Irreversible decisions are doors that allow passage in only one direction; if you walk through, you are stuck there. Most decisions are the former and can be reversed (even though we can never recover the invested time and resources). Going through a reversible door gives us information: we know what’s on the other side.

In his shareholder letter, Bezos writes:

Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible – one-way doors – and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don’t like what you see on the other side, you can’t get back to where you were before. We can call these Type 1 decisions. But most decisions aren’t like that – they are changeable, reversible – they’re two-way doors. If you’ve made a suboptimal Type 2 decision, you don’t have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. Type 2 decisions can and should be made quickly by high judgment individuals or small groups.

As organizations get larger, there seems to be a tendency to use the heavy-weight Type 1 decision-making process on most decisions, including many Type 2 decisions. The end result of this is slowness, unthoughtful risk aversion, failure to experiment sufficiently, and consequently diminished invention. We’ll have to figure out how to fight that tendency.

Bezos gives the example of the launch of one-hour delivery to those willing to pay extra. This service launched less than four months after the idea was first developed. In 111 days, the team “built a customer-facing app, secured a location for an urban warehouse, determined which 25,000 items to sell, got those items stocked, recruited and onboarded new staff, tested, iterated, designed new software for internal use – both a warehouse management system and a driver-facing app – and launched in time for the holidays.”

As further guidance, Bezos considers 70% certainty to be the cut-off point where it is appropriate to make a decision. That means acting once we have 70% of the required information, instead of waiting longer. Making a decision at 70% certainty and then course-correcting is a lot more effective than waiting for 90% certainty.

In Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell explains why decision-making under uncertainty can be so effective. We usually assume that more information leads to better decisions — if a doctor proposes additional tests, we tend to believe they will lead to a better outcome. Gladwell disagrees: “In fact, you need to know very little to find the underlying signature of a complex phenomenon. All you need is evidence of the ECG, blood pressure, fluid in the lungs, and an unstable angina. That’s a radical statement.”

In medicine, as in many areas, more information does not necessarily ensure improved outcomes. To illustrate this, Gladwell gives the example of a man arriving at a hospital with intermittent chest pains. His vital signs show no risk factors, yet his lifestyle does and he had heart surgery two years earlier. If a doctor looks at all the available information, it may seem that the man needs admitting to the hospital. But the additional factors, beyond the vital signs, are not important in the short term. In the long run, he is at serious risk of developing heart disease. Gladwell writes,

… the role of those other factors is so small in determining what is happening to the man right now that an accurate diagnosis can be made without them. In fact, … that extra information is more than useless. It’s harmful. It confuses the issues. What screws up doctors when they are trying to predict heart attacks is that they take too much information into account.

We can all learn from Bezos’s approach, which has helped him to build an enormous company while retaining the tempo of a start-up. Bezos uses his heuristic to fight the stasis that sets in within many large organizations. It is about being effective, not about following the norm of slow decisions.

Once you understand that reversible decisions are in fact reversible you can start to see them as opportunities to increase the pace of your learning. At a corporate level, allowing employees to make and learn from reversible decisions helps you move at the pace of a start-up. After all, if someone is moving with speed, you’re going to pass them when you move with velocity.

The biggest risk to irreversible decisions is deciding before you need to. The biggest risk to reversible ones is waiting until the last minute. Make reversible decisions as soon as possible and make irreversible decisions as late as possible.

This article originally appeared on Farnham Street

Image credits: Pixabay, Farnham Street

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