Tag Archives: Innovation

Markets Don’t Build Themselves, You Must Engineer Them

Exclusive Interview with Bruce Cleveland

In a business landscape increasingly cluttered by “feature wars” and fleeting viral trends, true market leadership isn’t just about who builds the best product — it’s about who defines the problem. In his groundbreaking work, Market Engineering, Bruce Cleveland argues that successful companies don’t just enter markets; they architect them. By blending rigorous systems thinking with the art of category design, Cleveland provides a blueprint for moving beyond commodity status to become a dominant force that sets the rules of the game.

In this insightful Q&A, Cleveland breaks down why “Market Engineering” must be foundational from day one rather than a secondary thought for the marketing department. From the evolution of Chief Storytellers to the strategic distinction between a market and a category, he explores how leaders can steer through the noise — especially in the age of AI — to create a resonant narrative that sticks.

Today we dive deep into the characteristics and necessities of market engineering with our special guest.

Markets Don’t Build Themselves

Bruce Cleveland is a former venture capitalist and engineering and product executive at Apple, C3 AI, Oracle, and Siebel Systems. As founder of Traction Gap Partners, he has helped hundreds of startups, scale-ups, and enterprises to transform innovation into impact. His previous book, Traversing the Traction Gap, is taught in universities and used by investors and founders worldwide. Cleveland’s frameworks blend analytical discipline with creative storytelling — empowering leaders in companies of all sizes and industries to transform technology into traction and markets into movements. He lives in Bend, Oregon.

Below is the text of my interview with Bruce and a preview of the kinds of insights you’ll find in Market Engineering presented in a Q&A format:

1. When does it make sense for a company to engage in Market Engineering?

Market Engineering isn’t something you save for later: it’s foundational from the moment you decide to bring a new product or company to life. The earlier you start intentionally defining or redefining your category, shaping positioning, and setting the narrative, the more leverage you have. If you wait until after a product launch or when you’re trying to scale, you’re forced to play by definitions set by incumbents or competitors, which makes differentiation and leadership much harder.

2. Why is it so important for a company to shape the market reality?

If you don’t shape your market’s reality, someone else will, often in a way that disadvantages you. Shaping market reality means you control how problems are defined, which features or metrics matter, and what the buying criteria look like. Market leadership is rarely awarded to the objectively “best” product; it’s achieved by those who frame the market in terms they can win.

3. Why must all leaders intimately understand the difference between a category and a market?

A market is the overarching territory: the set of buyers, sellers, and needs. A category is a specific frame or context you create and own within that market. If you only compete in the market, you become a commodity; if you define and then dominate a category, you set the standards and leave competitors playing catch-up. Leaders must understand this distinction so they can move from playing the existing game to rewriting the rules.

4. What do you think about the Chief Storyteller roles we see appearing in companies?

It’s a positive development; as long as the role goes beyond polished campaign stories and becomes architect and keeper of the full-market narrative. The best Chief Storytellers aren’t just marketers; they’re narrative engineers who unite product, category vision, customer proof, and internal culture into a coherent, resonant story that attracts and aligns stakeholders. Think Steve Jobs: one of the best storytellers ever.

5. Many see Thought Leadership as a combination of messaging and storytelling, what makes it a standalone tenet?

Thought Leadership stands alone because it’s about setting the agenda (leading the conversation) rather than just communicating your point of view. It requires original insight, provocation, and the courage to propose new models, not just synthesize existing ones. When done well, it changes the direction of the market; others start to echo your terminology and frameworks.

6. Why is it so hard for most new products to get traction?

Most new products fail to get traction not because of weak tech, but because of unclear value, undifferentiated positioning, or market confusion. Teams overfocus on features and under-invest in the story, category, and proof. Without clear market engineering, no one knows why the product matters or how they should think about it compared to everything else.

7. Where do companies go wrong with category design?

The most common mistake is either not designing a category at all (just trying to out-feature incumbents) or making it a “naming exercise” disconnected from authentic customer need and business reality. Category design isn’t branding; it’s systems thinking. it should be rooted in a real problem, codified with relentless clarity, and validated with influential customers and analysts.

8. How does the leadership team recognize they got the positioning wrong and how do they fix it?

You’ll know you have a positioning problem if deals stall in the pipeline, you get slotted into the wrong RFP bucket, or media/analysts lump you with solutions you don’t respect. Fixing it starts with honest investigation: talking directly to customers/prospects, auditing every touchpoint, and rigorously re-testing your Messaging Matrix. It’s usually about clarity, not cleverness.

9. What are the biggest pitfalls of message ownership and management and how can leaders avoid them?

The biggest pitfalls are lack of internal discipline and message drift: where every functional group tells the story a bit differently, or the narrative morphs with each campaign. Leaders must treat the messaging as a living, central artifact (like the Messaging Matrix), ensure frequent training, and make every update explicitly cross-functional. Messaging must be owned at the top.

10. What are some of the keys to great storytelling that every leader should master?

Great storytelling starts with empathy: a deep understanding of customer pain and aspiration. Then, it follows with clarity (no jargon), specificity (real data, real outcomes), and tension (what’s at stake in the market). Too often, stories become “laundry lists”. The key is to focus on a single arc: What’s broken in the world, what new future you’re inviting them into, and social proof that it’s real.

11. What are the keys to creating effective thought leadership?

You must have a strong point of view and the willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. Effective thought leadership is not just more content; it’s original, actionable ideas presented consistently across channels and validated with real-world outcomes, not just theory. Authenticity and a learning mindset are critical: the market rewards those who teach, not just those who promote.

12. Does AI make Market Engineering easier or more difficult and why?

AI makes Market Engineering both easier and much harder. Easier, because it democratizes access to research, market signals, and rapid content generation. Harder, because it amplifies noise and makes it much more difficult to stand out unless your positioning, messaging, and insight are precise and differentiated. The bar for clarity and originality rises: those who do Market Engineering well will thrive; those who don’t will be commoditized instantly.

13. Is there anything you wish I had asked so that you could speak to it?

I wish more people asked, “How do you maintain momentum and discipline in Market Engineering after the initial category launch?” Winning the first lap is one thing; evolving category leadership into true market leadership and dominance over the years is another. It’s not a one-time event: it’s ongoing narrative, data, partner ecosystem, and customer proof work. The companies that endure are those that outlearn, outevolve, and outlast, not just outlaunch their competition.

Conclusion

Thank you for the great conversation Bruce!

I hope everyone has enjoyed this peek into the mind of the man behind the insightful new title Market Engineering!

Image credits: Bruce Cleveland, Google Gemini

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

We Need More Innovators and Scientists in Leadership Roles

2 Replies

We Need More Innovators and Scientists in Leadership Roles

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

Our world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We are in an innovation driven economy. AI, genetic manipulation, energy innovation, climate, and virtually anything driving change are all highly technical and complex. And all come with high stakes pros and cons.

Scientists and innovators navigating this requires strategic leadership that understands technical complexity, uncertainty and that collectively has some knowledge of basic science and engineering.

Politics Lacks Scientists: Today, while more than half of US Senators have a law background, only one has a science PhD. I believe this creates a serious gap in fundamental knowledge between our strategic leaders and the innovators that are driving change.

Experts or Oracles? Of course, our leaders have access to ‘experts’ to help them with complex topics. But when the fundamental knowledge gap between leaders and experts becomes too big, experts become oracles. They pronounce rather than persuade. When this happens we risk the determining factor in strategy becoming superior communication skills, instead of knowledge or superior ideas. The ideas (and regulations) that win are not the necessarily best ones, but the ones championed by good communicators, salesmen scientists or smooth talking lobbyists. It’s dangerous to follow the science blindly, and even riskier to regulate what we don’t understand. That invites dangerous unintended consequences. But increasingly, that is the path we are on.

Why We Need More Innovators and Scientists in Leadership Roles

Of course, our leaders don’t need to all be 160 IQ polymaths with PhD’s in quantum mechanics. But to make good decisions they do need to at least be able to understand and apply critical thinking to the inevitably conflicting opinions of experts.

Communicating Science and Technology: Now of course, much of the onus for promoting understanding of complex technology lies with us in the broader innovation and science community. If we cannot communicate knowledge to people who own resources and executive power, then we risk that knowledge becoming redundant.

But communication is always a two way street. Bridging between leaders and experts requires some common ground. It’s really hard to have a useful discussion with someone who does even have a basic vocabulary for a topic. As technology and innovation become increasingly important, without more technically savvy leaders we risk a disconnect between strategy, regulation and knowledge. As our leaders get older, and more disconnected from the science driving change they rely less on quality of ideas, and more on appealing framing of ideas, or perhaps familiarity with equally disconnected experts. That is a dangerous path.

Non Scientific Mindsets Facing Technical Challenges. One key danger is the tendency to view choices as binary, another is sunk cost. Binary choices are superficially easy, but in the real world most innovation is not black and white, but instead involves some form of trade off. Whether it is AI, energy strategy, pharmaceutical development or one of the other ever growing list of emerging technologies, there are benefits, but also costs. With AI for example, the benefits of gaining and holding global leadership of the technology are likely as economically huge as the opportunity cost of not doing so. But with big opportunity also comes big risks, including the environmental costs of data centers, risks to societal structure, and even existential risk to humanity itself. The stakes don’t get much higher.

The Uncertainty Principle: And this is multiplied by the sunk cost fallacy. Over commitment to an incorrect binary choice can be really risky. While we know there are going to be pros and cons to any new technology, we rarely understand them very well in advance. Innovation is by definition a dive into the unknown, and that makes accurately predicting both upsides and downsides really difficult. This requires flexible, agile thinking, openness to new data, and a willingness to adjust mid-flight, skills inherent to science and technology .

But as a society, if anything we seem to be moving away from flexible thinking, and towards more rigid viewpoints that are often heavily pre-primed by affiliations, preconceptions and bizarrely, politics. People are often passionately for or against AI, but all too often without really knowing why. ‘Green’ energy is polarizing, climate change is divisive. But while passion and ownership have their place, often the best answer is not cheerleading for a team. Instead it’s beneficial to find a flexible balance that acknowledges the pros and cons, and that ideally identifies non zero sum answers for those contradictions. But that again typically requires nuance, and some level of technical understanding.

Finding Non Zero Sum Answers: The good news is that once we step away from polarized and binary thinking, non zero sum solutions are sometimes not as hard to find as we think. Just as an example, with AI, there is potential to have our cake and eat it. If we cut out digital slop, it’s conceivable that could we achieve and maintain technology leadership, but with much lower environmental cost. For example, using AI to solve complex medical problems may be a net benefit that is worth some damage to our wilderness, or use of our scarce resources. But action figures, generic illustrations, mediocre music and often pointless copies of master artists not so much! I’m sure all of the latter help advance our knowledge to some degree, and help to justify AI investment, but by being more selective, could we achieve the same or similar ends with a superior benefit/cost ratio?

The Human Advantage: But making smart trade-off decisions like this requires flexible and creative thinking. Ironically that is one of the things humans still do better than AI. We just need to embrace our human strengths, but also make sure our leaders also reflect those strengths.

Innovators in Leadership Roles: This means we need a more balanced and scientific approach to leadership if we are navigate the increasingly technology driven future. Having lawyers making laws is not bad per se, but I passionately believe we need a more diverse set of skills at our upper leadership levels if we are to effectively navigate the coming years. That means the innovation and scientific community needs to step up. We also need to get much better, and mea culpa, at communicating complex issues. It’s critical to be clear and simple but not simplistic.

The Tyranny of Simplicity: Simplistic answers, memes, and binary choices have a great deal of superficial appeal. And politicians and the media exploit this very effectively. In our information overloaded, time constrained world, everybody’s cognitive bandwidth is stretched. We often seek answers rather than understanding because that’s all we have time for. But from a leadership perspective, we need to understand that limited cognitive bandwidth is not the same as limited intelligence. People may grasp for simplistic answers, but because they have no commitment to them based on their own knowledge or critical thinking, that grasp is tenuous. This means that being simplistic can be self defeating in the long run. For example, take the much quoted, ‘globally agreed’ climate target; to not exceed a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase since pre-industrial times. For sure, some people will accept this without question. But other enquiring minds will ask if 1.49C OK? Is this a tipping point? Do we fall of a cliff at 1.51C. Conversely, what happens if we exceed that limit and nothing dramatic happens? Do we discard that boundary, or move it? Then there are obvious questions around how we address that boundary. What will it take to prevent crossing it? What are the trade offs? Who has the sphere of influence to actually make a difference? It’s OK to have a simplistic position, but it needs to be supported by layered reasoning.

Cry Wolf: I’m not suggesting that climate scientists who promote 1.5C don’t grasp this complexity. But somewhere in the path from science to politicians and media the real world complexity it often gets lost in translation. And thats not trivial, as it creates the risk of ‘cry wolf’ effects, and of leaders being perceived as manipulative. If we overstate the importance of 1.5 C, and it proves to be wrong, or at least a softer limit than previously advertised, we risk people perceiving that they have been mislead or manipulated. That then feeds skepticism, and even gives support to some of the wilder ‘conspiracy theories’. Once a source has become discredited on one vector, it is typically discredited on everything.

No easy answers to this. But I believe innovators and scientists really need to take a bigger leadership role in a world where innovation is increasingly the driving force. Politicians generally don’t get elected because they deeply understand complex issues, but because they understand how to motivate, communicate, simplify and manipulate. They often rely on peoples limited cognitive bandwidth, as this helps them to craft simple slogans, concepts, and sometimes trigger fear and division. Remember that we dislike losing something about twice as much as we like gaining it, which makes fear a very powerful manipulative tool. That brings power, but not necessarily wisdom. But limited cognitive bandwidth is not the same as limited intelligence. And simplistic concepts are vulnerable to challenge, or evolving data.

Of course, we don’t want to make every issue a PhD thesis. But we do need to acknowledge increasing complexity and uncertainty, and at the very least develop authentic, layered narratives that acknowledge complexity and the inevitable uncertainty of an innovation driven world. Without that, our strategies become extremely fragile, and easily shattered the first time we are proved wrong. Even if we may start from a position of intense conviction, we must also change paths in the face of compelling evidence. Scientists and innovators tend to be good at this. It’s a skill that maybe needs to be used more broadly

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Connecting People in a Time of Isolation and Detachment

1 Reply

Connection People in a Time of Isolation and Detachment

GUEST POST from Douglas Ferguson

In today’s fast-paced and increasingly digital world, people often find themselves feeling disconnected from others, both in the workplace and their personal lives. The rise of remote work, the constant bombardment of information on social media, and the divisiveness of politics have only exacerbated these feelings of isolation and detachment. This disconnection is not only detrimental to our well-being but also poses significant challenges for organizations seeking to foster a collaborative and innovative environment. Now, more than ever, we must recognize the importance of fostering connection and nurturing relationships at work to repair the fractures that have formed in our society.

“We are all so much together, but we are all dying of loneliness.”– Albert Schweitzer

By acknowledging the current state of disconnection and actively working to promote understanding, empathy, and collaboration, we can create a more inclusive and productive workplace that benefits everyone involved. In this article, we will explore the consequences of disconnection, the power of connection and understanding, and the role of facilitation in fostering these essential relationships.

The consequences of disconnection

Disconnection can be observed across various aspects of our society. In politics, the polarization of opinions and the entrenchment of viewpoints create a divide that prevents productive dialogue and collaboration. Social media platforms contribute to this divide by amplifying echo chambers, wherein individuals are exposed primarily to information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, further deepening the rift between differing perspectives.

Disconnection also permeates the workplace and organizational structures. Within companies, miscommunication, a lack of understanding, and unaddressed conflicts can create disconnects between individuals and teams, hindering progress and innovation. These consequences are not limited to large-scale issues; even seemingly minor incidents, like a disagreement over conference room usage, can cause lasting resentment and erode workplace relationships.

A striking example of the dangerous consequences of disconnection is the recent classified document leaks via Discord. The individual responsible for the breach was motivated by feelings of isolation and a desire for recognition. This act of cyber espionage demonstrates how disconnection and the need for validation can drive individuals to take extreme risks and engage in destructive behaviors.

The consequences of disconnection can even be observed at a cellular level. In a recent Rich Roll Podcast episode, Dr. Zach Bush discussed the origins of cancer originating from cellular disconnection in the human body. When cells become disconnected from one another, they may begin to malfunction and grow uncontrollably, resulting in cancer. This biological phenomenon parallels the societal consequences of disconnection, wherein isolation and detachment can lead to radicalization and unproductive behaviors.

“The eternal quest of the human being is to shatter his loneliness.”– Norman Cousins

The power of connection and understanding

By fostering connection and understanding, we can counter the negative consequences of disconnection and create an environment where growth and collaboration thrive. Research consistently shows that diverse teams perform at higher levels when united by a shared purpose and understanding. Embracing and engaging with different perspectives not only sharpens our own viewpoints but also allows us to innovate and produce better products, services, and solutions.

A sense of belonging and purpose is crucial in the workplace. Employees often cite the team and the people they work with as key factors in job satisfaction. By building genuine connections and strong relationships, employees become more invested in the organization’s mission and feel a deeper commitment to their work. This sense of purpose is amplified when colleagues are able to collaborate effectively, respect each other’s opinions, and find common ground despite their differences.

Teamwork

“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.”– Helen Keller

There is extensive evidence supporting the importance of connection and relating at work. For instance, a study published in the Harvard Business Review found that employees who reported feeling more connected at work were more likely to be engaged and productive while also demonstrating higher levels of well-being and job satisfaction (1). Furthermore, research has consistently shown that diverse teams perform at the highest levels thanks to their ability to generate innovative ideas and foster a culture of learning and growth (2).

Several books highlight the significance of connection and relating at work. In “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman explores the ways our brains are hardwired for social connection, emphasizing the importance of developing strong relationships in all aspects of our lives, including the workplace (3). Similarly, in “The Power of Moments: Why Certain Experiences Have Extraordinary Impact,” Chip and Dan Heath discuss how creating meaningful, memorable experiences can foster deeper connections among coworkers and lead to a more engaged and satisfied workforce (4).

Connection and understanding are also vital for creating healthier organizations. Employees who feel connected and supported are more likely to engage in productive behaviors, contribute positively to the workplace culture, and stay committed to the organization’s goals. As a result, fostering connection and understanding not only benefits the individuals involved but also the organization as a whole.

Real-life examples of connection and relationships

Facilitators and leaders play a crucial role in fostering connection, understanding, and relationships within organizations. Creating the conditions necessary for open dialogue and collaboration can bridge divides and encourage growth through diverse perspectives.

Elena Farden is a Voltage Control Certified Facilitator, and her work as the Executive Director (ED) for the Native Hawaiian Education Council provides a compelling example of fostering connection and relationship building. As the ED, she is responsible for advocating for resources and support for Native Hawaiian education: expanding indigenous voices at the federal level.

Elena Farden – Executive Director (ED) for the Native Hawaiian Education Council

One key aspect of her work is anchoring her vision in the connection to the land, with her entire portfolio serving as a metaphor for connection to land with sense of place. In a recent conversation, Elena shared an insightful quote about this connection: “Our connection to the land is the foundation of our identity and purpose. As we nurture this connection, we strengthen our relationships and responsibility to work together for the betterment of our community.”

Elena utilizes the ʻauwai, a Hawaiian irrigation system, as an approach to facilitation. She discussed how one part of the irrigation process involves tempering the water to avoid damaging the crops. This approach resonated with her as an analogy for addressing controversial topics in her work. Elena explained, “Just like the water tempering process, facilitation requires a gentle approach when dealing with sensitive issues. By creating a safe space for open dialogue, we allow for growth and understanding to emerge.”

In her role as the Executive Director, Elena has demonstrated the power of connection and relationships in driving positive change. She has gone to bat for the Native Hawaiian community, facing challenges and building connections between different stakeholders. Through her work, she has shown that fostering relationships and understanding are crucial elements in addressing complex issues and finding solutions that benefit everyone involved.

One of Elena’s most significant achievements has been creating opportunities for collaboration and dialogue between the indigenous community and the government. This has not only facilitated the allocation of resources for Native Hawaiian education but has also strengthened the ties between the two parties. In her words, “When we build connections and relationships with people from different backgrounds, we create a solid foundation for collaboration and understanding. This, in turn, leads to more effective solutions and a stronger sense of our collective responsibility to community.”

Elena’s story is a powerful testament to the importance of connection and relationships in both personal and professional settings. By nurturing these connections, we can create healthier organizations and communities where individuals feel supported, understood, and empowered to reach their full potential.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995, serves as another powerful testament to the importance of connection and relating in the healing process of a nation. Born out of the wounds of apartheid, the TRC aimed to provide a platform for victims and perpetrators alike to share their experiences and confront the harrowing truth about the country’s violent past. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the chair of the TRC, famously stated, “Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones is not about pretending that things are other than they are… It is about finding a way in which to accept that which happened as that which happened, and then to move beyond it and to be willing to develop a new relationship.”

Through a process of public hearings, amnesty applications, and reparations, the TRC fostered understanding, forgiveness, and, ultimately, reconciliation among South Africans. The public hearings were instrumental in giving voice to the voiceless and allowing individuals to share their stories in a supportive environment. As one survivor, Nomonde Calata, poignantly said during her testimony, “Now that I have told the story, I feel like a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders.”

Despite its achievements, the TRC’s work was not without its challenges and controversies. Critics argue that the commission failed to hold all perpetrators accountable and that the reparations provided were insufficient to address the deep-rooted inequalities that persist in South African society. Nevertheless, the TRC’s efforts showcase the power of human connection in repairing deep-seated divisions and fostering a sense of unity.

By offering a space for individuals to engage with diverse perspectives and confront difficult truths, the TRC played a crucial role in helping South Africa move toward a more inclusive and equitable future. It demonstrated that open dialogue, empathy, and understanding can help build bridges between communities and lay the groundwork for healing.

The lessons learned from the TRC can be applied to various contexts, including personal relationships, community initiatives, and corporate environments. By fostering a culture of open communication and empathetic listening, we can encourage understanding, bridge divides, and create more harmonious relationships both in our personal lives and in the workplace.

In the workplace, facilitators can apply these principles by creating an environment where employees feel safe to express their ideas, engage with diverse perspectives, and collaborate effectively. This can be achieved through active listening, encouraging empathy, and fostering an atmosphere of trust and respect.

“The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them.”– Ralph G. Nichols

Here are some tips for facilitators and leaders to foster connection and relationships at work:

Encourage open dialogue: Foster an environment where team members feel comfortable expressing their opinions and ideas, even if they differ from the majority. Set group agreements or commitments that ensure this openness. By encouraging open dialogue, we create opportunities for understanding and learning, which can lead to more informed decisions and innovative solutions.
Cultivate empathy: Make an effort to understand the perspectives and experiences of others, even if they’re different from our own. By practicing empathy, we can break down barriers, reduce prejudice, and build stronger connections with those around us.
Engage in community-building activities: Participate in initiatives that bring people together, both within your organization and your local community. This could include team-building events, volunteering, or joining local clubs or groups. These activities can help strengthen bonds between individuals and promote a sense of belonging.
Practice active listening: When engaging in conversations, make a conscious effort to truly hear and understand what the other person is saying without judgment or interruption. Active listening helps to build trust and rapport and can lead to deeper connections and more productive discussions.
Be mindful of the language we use: Words have power, and the language we choose to use can either build connection or create division. Be mindful of the words you use in your communication, and strive to choose language that is inclusive, respectful, and empathetic.
Embrace diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging: Make a conscious effort to create a diverse and inclusive environment where everyone feels valued and included, regardless of their background, beliefs, or perspectives. And lean into conversations and issues of identity, power, privilege, and justice. By embracing these approaches, we can benefit from the rich tapestry of ideas and experiences that each individual brings to the table and create a culture where all team members belong.

The Importance of Connection and Relationships

The importance of connection and relationships at work cannot be ignored. By recognizing the negative consequences of disconnection and actively working to foster understanding, empathy, and collaboration, we can create a more inclusive and productive workplace that benefits everyone involved.

Facilitators and leaders play a critical role in promoting connection and relationships within organizations. By applying principles of empathy, active listening, and trust, they can bridge divides and encourage a culture of collaboration and growth.

As we continue to navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, nurturing connection and understanding at work is essential for building healthier organizations, driving innovation, and creating a more inclusive society.

“Connection is the energy that exists between people when they feel seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment; and when they derive sustenance and strength from the relationship.”– Brené Brown

As we move forward, it’s essential to prioritize connection and relationships at work. Reflect on your own experiences and consider the ways in which you can nurture stronger connections and understanding within your organization. Remember, you have the power to create a positive impact on your team and the overall work environment.

Consider the following steps as you work towards fostering connection and relationships:

Assess your current work environment: Identify areas where you can promote understanding, empathy, and collaboration.
Engage in open dialogue: Encourage open and honest conversations about the importance of connection and relationships within your team.
Seek opportunities for growth: Look for ways to learn from diverse perspectives and foster personal and professional growth for yourself and your team members.
Share your experiences: Share your own experiences of connection and understanding with others, and learn from their stories as well.
Stay committed to the process: Building and maintaining strong connections and relationships takes time and effort. Stay committed to the process and recognize that growth and understanding may not happen overnight.

By actively working to build connection and relationships at work, we can create healthier organizations, foster innovation, and contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society.

Let’s make a conscious effort to prioritize connection, empathy, and collaboration in our workplaces and beyond.

Image Credits: Unsplash, Voltage Control, Elena Farden

Article originally posted at VoltageControl.com

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

Stereotypes – Are They Useful and Should We Use Them?

1 Reply

Stereotypes - Are They Useful and Should We Use Them?

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

I recently got a call from an ex colleague looking to staff up a technology innovation organization. She was looking for suggestions for potential candidates, and when I asked her for a bit more more information, her first criteria was that she was looking for a ‘Gen Z’. This triggered an interesting conversation around how useful generational and other stereotypes are.

At one level, they are almost invaluable. We use stereotypes, categorization and other grouping strategies all of the time, both consciously and unconsciously. Grouping things together is a pragmatic part of how we as humans deal with large numbers of anything, whether it’s people, tasks, objects or pretty much anything, and are often a key tool in prediction. They are not always accurate or precise, but they are often a first step in how we distill large amounts of data or choices down to more manageable numbers, and/or how we begin to understand something unfamiliar. If a stranger were to point an unfamiliar gun at us at a stop sign, we can quickly determine that they are probably dangerous, likely a criminal, and that the gun is likely deadly. That kind of categorization and stereotyping might be the difference between life and death.

But these grouping strategies can also mislead us, especially if we don’t use them effectively. For example, in the case of generational stereotypes, when dealing with large numbers of people, it can be useful to break them down into generational groups. A targeted marketing campaign may benefit from knowing that people over a certain age are more likely to use different social media platforms than people under 20. Or a physician and patient may benefit from knowing certain age groups are more likely to face certain health issues and need screening for certain diseases. Stereotypes can also address fundamental differences in life experiences between generations. For example, Gen Z grew up immersed in a digital world, whereas earlier generations grew up acquiring digital skills, perhaps changing how we design interfaces for Medicare versus home schooling?.

But the key lies in the phrase ‘large groups of people’. There are times when its really useful and beneficial to make approximations on when dealing with large groups. But as tempting as it can be when having to make a quick judgement, or to quickly filter a large number of people, as in my friends original question, applying them to individuals is often misleading, and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No matter what grouping strategy we apply, we need to be really careful about applying them at an individual level. And there are of course many different ways to group things, whether it’s categorization, archetypes, stereotypes, sensory cues or many others, depending upon context and goals. I’ve deliberately blurred the lines between these, because in reality, people tap into different ones depending upon goals, contexts, personal experience or personal knowledge. And to a large degree, similar principles apply to all of them. That leads to a couple of concepts, which while pretty obvious, I think are worth sharing or reiterating:

1. Stereotypes can be useful when applied to large groups of people, but judging an individual through that lens is disingenuous in both directions. Take gender as an example. There are distinct, scientifically measured differences between men and women if we look at them at the large group level. These differences can be physical, behavioral or both. Perhaps the least controversial is that ON AVERAGE, men are taller and stronger than women. But importantly there is also massive overlap between genders, and there are many, many individual women who are taller and stronger than individual men. We intuitively get that, and nobody would recruit for a job that requires hard physical labor by ruling out women. But conversely, if we are designing a clothing line, we’d be foolish to ignore those average differences when developing sizing options and inventory. Gender differences are potentially useful when dealing with large numbers, but potentially highly misleading on an individual basis

Similarly, using generational stereotypes to target ‘digital natives’ for a tech job may superficially sound reasonable, as it did to my friend. But it risks ignoring strong candidates who may reside outside of that category. Even if Gen Z as a whole may arguably have a more intuitive understanding of tech, there are many individual Millennials, X’ers and Boomers who are more technically savvy than individual Z’ers. Designing software targeted at large groups of specific age groups may benefit from group categorization, but choosing who to write it on that basis is a lot less effective, if at all.

2. Grouping is how we often manage complex decisions. Faced with more than a few individual choices, pragmatically, we often have to find some way to narrow choice to manageable numbers. For example, in Las Vegas we have 2,500 restaurants. When deciding where to eat, we cannot consider each one individually. We instead use grouping filters like location, cost, cuisine, familiarity or ratings. It’s not perfect, it’s often not a conscious strategy, and we may miss a great restaurant, but it beats the alternative of starving while we cross reference 2500 individual options. Recruitment these days is similar. Most job openings get multiple candidates that we must narrow to manageable numbers. But we need to be careful that we carefully select criteria that benefit us and candidates. Those may vary by context. But especially as we defer screening and decision making to AI and automation, it’s so important that we really understand what those criteria are, and how they benefit our search. I’d argue that generational stereotypes are a particularly ineffective filter in narrowing our choices for many things, especially for recruiting or career management.

3. Not all stereotypes or categories are accurate. Even if they feel intuitively right, they may be neither accurate or predictive. In part this is because they are often based on (superficial) correlation, instead of causation. For example, historically a common stereotype was that women were considered less able at math and science than men. It was true that for a long time men were better represented in these fields. But the stereotype that men were were more skilled was fundamentally inaccurate. We now know there is no gender difference in that innate ability. But a mixture of social factors, and a feedback loop created by a self fulfilling stereotype created an illusion of meaningful difference. Conversely, men were considered less empathic than women. The actual science is far less clear on this, and there may be some small innate gender differences. But if they exist, they are sufficiently small that it’s hard to separate whether this is due to self reporting biases, socialization, or meaningful differences in biology. But certainly the difference is too small to preclude men from careers that require a high level of empathy, a stereotype that existed for quite some time in, for example, fields such as nursing, which were long dominated by women.

Even today, only 13% of registered nurses in the US are male, and only 31% of engineers are women Self fulfilling stereotypes can be particularly hard to see through, let alone break, because they reinforce their own illusion.

But all of this said, some stereotypes can still be useful. Take the stereotype that the Swiss are punctual, organized and ‘on time’. If you are planning on catching a train for an important flight, nearly 95% of trains in Switzerland arrived on time in 2025. In Italy, the number was less than 75%. That of course doesn’t guarantee than the Swiss train will be on time, or the Italian one won’t. But it does make it prudent to add a bit more padding into an Italian travel itinerary, or at least research back up options!

And then there are examples like the tomato. No matter how you pronounce it, the tomato is technically a fruit. But it is commonly used as a vegetable. So is it more practically useful to categorize it as a fruit or vegetable? I’d argue vegetable.

In conclusion, stereotype, categories, grouping and similar mechanisms are a fundamental part of the way we as humans deal with large amounts of data. And at least at one level, as the amount of data we are exposed to explodes, we are going to need those filters more than ever. But they can also be highly misleading, especially when applied to individuals, so we need to understand when and how to use them, and treat them with a lot of caution.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Sign 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 January 2026

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of January 2026 Drum 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 January’s ten most popular innovation posts:

Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025 — Curated by Braden Kelley
Trust is a Gold Mine for Organizations, but it Takes a Bit of Courage — by Oscar Amundsen
Outcome-Driven Innovation in the Age of Agentic AI — by Braden Kelley
Building Your Dream Organization — by Braden Kelley
Why Photonic Processors are the Nervous System of the Future — by Art Inteligencia
Reimagining Personalization — by Geoffrey Moore
We Must Hold AI Accountable — by Greg Satell
The Keys to Changing Someone’s Mind — by Greg Satell
Concentrated Wealth, Consolidated Markets, and the Collapse of Innovation — by Art Inteligencia
It’s Impossible to Innovate When … — by Mike Shipulski

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

Is OpenAI About to Go Bankrupt? — by Chateau G Pato
The Rise of Human-AI Teaming Platforms — by Art Inteligencia
What Are We Going to Do Now with GenAI? — by Geoffrey Moore
Rebuilding Trust When You’ve Broken It — by David Burkus
Modeling Good Board Governance — by Geoffrey A. Moore

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 five years:

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

What to Do When Your Plans Are Already Obsolete

Leave a reply

HINT: It has something to do with strategy execution

What to Do When Your Plans Are Already Obsolete

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

We are three full weeks into the new year and I am curious, how is the strategy and operating plan you spent all Q3 and Q4 working on progressing? You nailed it, right? Everything is just as you expected and things are moving forward just as you planned.

I didn’t think so.

So, like many others, you feel tempted to double down on what worked before or chase every opportunity with the hope that it will “future-proof” your business.

Stop.

Remember the Cheshire Cat, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”

You DO know where you’re going because your goals didn’t change. You still need to grow revenue and cut costs with fewer resources than last year.

The map changed. So you need to find a new road.

You’re not going to find it by looking at old playbooks or by following every path available.

You will find it by following these three steps (and don’t require months or millions to complete).

Return to First Principles

When old maps fail and new roads are uncertain, the most successful leaders return to first principles, the fundamental, irreducible truths of a subject:

Organizations are systems
Systems seek equilibrium and resist change when elements are misaligned
People in the system do what the system allows, models, and rewards

Returning to these principles is the root of success because it forces you to pause and ask the right questions before (re)acting.

Ask Questions to Find the Root Cause

Based on the first principles, think of your organization as a lock. All the tumblers need to align to unlock the organization’s potential to get to where you need to go. When the tumblers don’t align, you stay stuck in the dying status quo.

Every organization has three tumblers – Architecture (how you’re organized), Behavior (what leaders actually do), and Culture (what gets rewarded) – that must align to develop and execute a strategy in an environment of uncertainty and constant change.

But ensuring that you’ve aligned all three tumblers, and not just one or two, requires asking questions to get to the root cause of the challenges.

Is your leadership team struggling to align on a decision because they don’t have enough data or can’t agree on what it means? The Behavior and Culture tumblers are misaligned with the structure and incentives of Architecture

Are people resisting the new AI tools you rolled out? Architectural incentives and metrics, and leadership communications and behaviors are preventing buy-in.

Struggling to squeeze growth out of a stagnant business? Structures and systems combined with organization culture are reinforcing safety and a fixed mindset rather than encouraging curiosity and learning.

Align the Tumblers

When you diagnose the root causes you find the misaligned tumbler. And, in the process of bringing it into alignment, it will likely pull the others in, too.

By role modeling leadership behaviors that encourage transparent communication (no hiding behind buzzwords), quantifying confidence, and smart risk taking, you’ll also influence culture and may reveal a needed change in Architecture.

Modifying the metrics and rewards in Architecture and making sure that your communications and behavior encourage buy-in to new AI tools, will start to establish an AI-friendly culture.

Overhauling Architecture to encourage and reward actions that expand that stagnant business into new markets or brings new solutions to your existing customers, will build new leadership Behaviors will drive culture change.

Get to your Goals

It’s a VUCA/BANI world AND It’s only going to accelerate. That means that the strategy you developed last quarter and the operational plans you set last month will be obsolete by the end of the week.

But the strategy and the plan were never the goal. They were the road you planned based on the map you had. When the map changes, the road does, too. But you can still get to the goal if you’re willing to fiddle with a lock.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Four Ways to Manage Projects

Leave a reply

Four Ways to Manage Projects

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

There are four ways to run projects.

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

Fix time
Fix resources
Flex scope and certainty

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

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

Fix resources
Fix scope and certainty
Flex time

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

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

Fix scope and certainty
Fix time
Flex resources

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

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

Fix time
Fix resources
Fix scope and certainty

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

Image credit: Pexels

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

Ranking Your Top 10 Micro Moments

Leave a reply

Ranking Your Top 10 Micro Moments

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Everybody loves a Top X list. This past week I’ve read the Top 100 Best Comedy Movies of All Time, The 100 Best Episodes of the Century, and the NYT’s 100 Notable Books of 2025. And all this before we’re inundated with the Top 10 lists sports, politics, celebrity news, world news, and whatever other topic a writer can dream up.

Top X Lists are about big things, events that affect everyone or that will be remembered for decades. And while those Macro-moments are what stand out in our memories, they rarely define our everyday existence.

What are Micro-moments?

I first heard of Micro-moments in an interview between Dan Shipper, founder of Every, and Henrik Werdelin, founder of Prehype (an incubator that helped launch Barkbox and Ro Health). According to Werdelin:

Micro-moments for me are things when I’m in flow and things where I’m happy. It can’t be a big thing like having a family. It has to be a very concrete things like I like walking over the Brooklyn Bridge in the morning. It’s just something I get profoundly happy about, right? Or I like being in brainstorm meetings with (other entrepreneurs).

But his list of Micro-moments isn’t just a new-age happiness manifestation, it’s an actual decision-making tool. Werdelin explains:

I was basically trying to figure out what to do next and I was keeping all my options open. I got offered a job to run BBC Digital on the international side and then I got offered a job at a design agency called Wolf Collins who had an incredible CEO.

And so, I ended up having these 30 concrete [moments] where I’ve done stuff and then I started to use that as a way to measure options that would be thrown at me. The BBC sounded like it would be a lot of money, and it was like a cool job, and it would give me, I guess, self-esteem for a second. But then when I looked at what it would entail, none of the Micro-moments would be included so I was like, “ah, probably not for me.”

My first Micro-reactions

Eye roll: Thank goodness you had a list of Micro-moments so you could avoid the soul sucking horror of running BBC Digital!
Righteous indignation: Do you have any idea how hard it is out there to find a job? People would be thrilled to have a job that delivers only ONE Micro-moment of happiness?!
Breathe: Wait a second. What if Mico-moments don’t determine your role. What if Micro-moments…perhaps…mean a little bit more! (yes, that is a terrible rephrasing of the Grinch’s epiphany)

Micro-moments are more than moments of flow and joy. They’re the moments that make up our lives, relationships, and view of the world. They’re the moments that should be on our Top 10 lists but too often get crowded out by noisier, bigger moments.

They’re also things we can create, design for, and sometimes even control.

What are YOUR Micro-moments?

As the period of end-of-year reflection approaches, think about your Micro-moments. What small, concrete moments that brought you flow, joy, or peace, this year? Where were you? What were you doing? Who were you with? Jot them down.

When the new year dawns, go back to your list and get curious. What are the common themes, people, places, and activities in your Micro-moments. Write down what you notice.

As the year kicks into gear and everyone settles back into work and school routines, return to your list and start planning. How might you create more Micro-moments?

Life is made up of moments. Many of them are beyond our control. But some of them aren’t. And wouldn’t it be great to know which ones make us happiest so we can experience them more often?

Image credit: Pexels

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

Will our opinion still really be our own in an AI Future?

2 Replies

Will our opinion still really be our own in an AI Future?

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

Intuitively we all mostly believe our opinions are our own. After all, they come from that mysterious thing we call consciousness that resides somewhere inside of us.

But we also know that other peoples opinions are influenced by all sorts of external influences. So unless we as individuals are uniquely immune to influence, it begs at the question; ‘how much of what we think, and what we do, is really uniquely us?’ And perhaps even more importantly, as our understanding of behavioral modification techniques evolves, and the power of the tools at our disposal grows, how much mental autonomy will any of us truly have in the future?

AI Manipulation of Political Opinion: A recent study from the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and the UK AI Security Institute (AISI) showed how conversational AI can meaningfully influence peoples political beliefs. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-12-11-study-reveals-how-conversational-ai-can-exert-influence-over-political-beliefs . Leveraging AI in this way potentially opens the door to a step-change in behavioral and opinion manipulation inn general. And that’s quite sobering on a couple of fronts. Firstly, for many today their political beliefs are deeply tied to our value system and deep sense of self, so this manipulation is potentially profound. Secondly, if AI can do this today, how much more will it be able to do in the future?

A long History of Manipulation: Of course, manipulation of opinion or behavior is not new. We are all overwhelmed by political marketing during election season. We accept that media has manipulated public opinion for decades, and that social media has amplified this over the last few decades. Similarly we’ve all grown up immersed in marketing and advertising designed to influence our decisions, opinions and actions. Meanwhile the rise in prominence of the behavioral sciences in recent decades has provided more structure and efficiency to behavioral influence, literally turning an art into a science. Framing, priming, pre-suasion, nudging and a host of other techniques can have a profound impact on what we believe and what we actually do. And not only do we accept it, but many, if not most of the people reading this will have used one or more of these channels or techniques.

An Art and a Science: And behavioral manipulation is a highly diverse field, and can be deployed as an art or a science. Whether it’s influencers, content creators, politicians, lawyers, marketers, advertisers, movie directors, magicians, artists, comedians, even physicians or financial advisors, our lives are full of people who influence us, often using implicit cues that operate below our awareness.

And it’s the largely implicit nature of these processes that explains why we tend to intuitively think this is something that happens to other people. By definition we are largely unaware of implicit influence on ourselves, although we can often see it in others. And even in hindsight, it’s very difficult to introspect implicit manipulation of our own actions and opinions, because there is often no obvious conscious causal event.

So what does this mean? As with a lot of discussion around how an AI future, or any future for that matter, will unfold, informed speculation is pretty much all we have. Futurism is far from an exact science. But there are a couple of things we can make pretty decent guesses around.

1. The ability to manipulate how people think creates power and wealth.

2. Some will use this for good, some not, but given the nature of humanity, it’s unlikely that it will be used exclusively for either.

3. AI is going to amplify our ability to manipulate how people think.

The Good news: Benevolent behavioral and opinion manipulation has the power to do enormous good. Whether it’s mental health and happiness (an increasingly challenging area as we as a species face unprecedented technology driven disruption), health, wellness, job satisfaction, social engagement, important for many of us, adoption of beneficial technology and innovation and so many other areas can benefit from this. And given the power of the brain, there is even potential for conceptual manipulation to replace significant numbers of pharmaceuticals, by, for example, managing depression, or via preventative behavioral health interventions. Will this be authentic? It’s probably a little Huxley dystopian, but will we care? It’s one of the many ethical connundrums AI will pose us with.

The Bad News. Did I mention wealth and power? As humans, we don’t have a great record of doing the right thing when wealth and power come into the equation. And AI and AI empowered social, conceptual and behavioral manipulation has potential to concentrate meaningful power even more so than today’s tech driven society. Will this be used exclusively for good, or will some seek to leverage for their personal benefit at the expense of the border community? Answers on a postcard (or AI generated DM if you prefer).

What can and should we do? Realistically, as individuals we can self police, but we obviously also face limits in self awareness of implicit manipulations. That said, we can to some degree still audit ourselves. We’ve probably all felt ourselves at some point being riled up by a well constructed meme designed to amplify our beliefs. Sometimes we recognize this quickly, other times we may be a little slower. But just simple awareness of the potential to be manipulated, and the symptoms of manipulation, such as intense or disproportionate emotional responses, can help us mitigate and even correct some of the worst effects.

Collectively, there are more opportunities. We are better at seeing others being manipulated than ourselves. We can use that as a mirror, and/or call it out to others when we see it. And many of us will find ourselves somewhere in the deployment chain, especially as AI is still in it’s early stages. For those of us that this applies to, we have the opportunity to collectively nudge this emerging technology in the right direction. I still recall a conversation with Dan Ariely when I first started exploring behavioral science, perhaps 15-20 years ago. It’s so long ago I have to paraphrase, but the essence of the conversation was to never manipulate people to do something that was not in there best interest.

There is a pretty obvious and compelling moral framework behind this. But there is also an element of enlightened self interest. As a marketer working for a consumer goods company at the time, even if I could have nudged somebody into buying something they really didn’t want, it might have offered initial success, but would likely come back to bite me in the long-term. They certainly wouldn’t become repeat customers, and a mixture of buyers remorse, loss aversion and revenge could turn them into active opponents. This potential for critical thinking in hindsight exists for virtually every situation where outcomes damage the individual.

The bottom line is that even today, we already ave to continually ask ourselves if what we see is real, if our beliefs are truly our own, or have they been manipulated? Media and social media memes already play the manipulation game. AI may already be better, and if not, it’s only a matter of time before it is. If you think we are politically polarized now, hang onto your hat!!! But awareness is key. We all need to stay aware, be conscious of manipulation in ourselves and others, and counter it when we see it occurring for the wrong reasons.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Do What 91% of Executives Will Not

Leave a reply

Winning in Times of Uncertainty

Do What 91% of Executives Will Not

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In times of great uncertainty, we seek safety. But what does “safety” look like?

What We Say: Safety = Data

We tend to believe that we are rational beings and, as a result, we rely on data to make decisions.

Great! We’ve got lots of data from lots of uncertain periods. HBR examined 4,700 public companies during three global recessions (1980, 1990, and 2000). They found that the companies that emerged “outperforming rivals in their industry by at least 10% in terms of sales and profits growth” had one thing in common: They aggressively made cuts to improve operational efficiency and ruthlessly invested in marketing, R&D, and building new assets to better serve customers have the highest probability of emerging as markets leaders post-recession.

This research was backed up in 2020 in a McKinsey study that found that “Organizations that maintained their innovation focus through the 2009 financial crisis, for example, emerged stronger, outperforming the market average by more than 30 percent and continuing to deliver accelerated growth over the subsequent three to five years.”

What We Do: Safety = Hoarding

The reality is that we are human beings and, as a result, make decisions based on how we feel and the use data to justify those decisions.

How else do you explain that despite the data, only 9% of companies took the balanced approach recommended in the HBR study and, ten years later, only 25% of the companies studied by McKinsey stated that “capturing new growth” was a top priority coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uncertainty is scary so, as individuals and as organizations, we scramble to secure scarce resources, cut anything that feels extraneous, and shift or focus to survival.

What now? AND, not OR

What was true in 2010 is still true today and new research from Bain offers practical advice for how leaders can follow both their hearts and their heads.

Implement systems to protect you from yourself. Bain studied Fast Company’s 50 Most Innovative Companies and found that 79% use two different operating models for innovation to combat executives’ natural risk aversion. The first, for sustaining innovation uses traditional stage-gate models, seeks input from experts and existing customers, and is evaluated on ROI-driven metrics.

The second, for breakthrough innovations, is designed to embrace and manage uncertainty by learning from new customers and emerging trends, working with speed and agility, engaging non-traditional collaborators, and evaluating projects based on their long-term potential and strategic option value.

Don’t outspend. Out-allocate. Supporting the two-system approach, nearly half of the companies studied send less on R&D than their peers overall and spend it differently: 39% of their R&D budgets to sustaining innovations and 61% to expanding into new categories or business models.

Use AI to accelerate, not create. Companies integrating AI into innovation processes have seen design-to-launch timelines shrink by 20% or more. The key word there is “integrate,” not outsource. They use AI for data and trend analysis, rapid prototyping, and automating repetitive tasks. But they still rely on humans for original thinking, intuition-based decisions, and genuine customer empathy.

Prioritize humans above all else. Even though all the information in the world is at our fingerprints, humans remain unknowable, unpredictable, and wonderfully weird. That’s why successful companies use AI to enhance, not replace, direct engagement with customers. They use synthetic personas as a rehearsal space for brainstorming, designing research, and concept testing. But they also know there is no replacement (yet) for human-to-human interaction, especially when creating new offerings and business models.

In times of create uncertainty, we seek safety. But safety doesn’t guarantee certainty. Nothing does. So, the safest thing we can do is learn from the past, prepare (not plan) for the future, make the best decisions possible based on what we know and feel today, and stay open to changing them tomorrow.

Image credit: Pexels

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