Tag Archives: trust

Trust Built Now Will Help You Recover from Future Complaints

Trust Built Now Will Help You Recover From Future Complaints

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

When you have your customer’s confidence, the opportunity to create an excellent customer experience dramatically improves. That confidence comes from consistency. The customer knows what to expect, even if any problems or issues arise. They know you’ll take care of them.

This is a follow-up to my article that covered the Customer Service Recovery Paradox, in which a customer’s perception of the company is higher after a problem or complaint is resolved than if the problem had never happened at all. One of our subscribers, Sean Crichton-Browne of Market Culture, shared a great comment. The short version is that when you have the customer’s confidence, especially in potentially tenuous situations, customers work with you rather than against you.

Sean’s insight is spot-on and worth diving into further. Think about the last time you had a problem with a company you trusted versus one that you didn’t. By the way, that lack of trust could be because you haven’t yet experienced how they handle a problem, not because of any inconsistencies or problems in the past. With the trusted company, you most likely approached the conversation differently. You were more patient as you explained the situation, and you were more open to their suggestions and solutions.

Trust Recovery Cartoon from Shep Hyken

Contrast that with a company you don’t yet trust. You go into the conversation with your guard up, wondering if you’ll get the response and answers you hope for. You may even be prepared to fight for what you believe is right.

When customers trust you, they:

  • Give you the benefit of the doubt when mistakes happen.
  • Share more information about what went wrong, making it easier to fix.
  • Accept reasonable solutions rather than demanding unrealistic ones.
  • Remain calm and respectful, making it much easier to help them without having to first de-escalate the customer’s anger.

As mentioned, and worth mentioning again, confidence comes from consistency. Even if the customer has only done business with you once or twice, it can be earned through all of the positive touchpoints of those interactions. Every interaction, big or small, builds confidence. Every time you answer the phone, return a call promptly, respond to email quickly, keep your promises, and more, you’re building trust. When something does go wrong, not if something goes wrong, you will have those past interactions working for you.

Yes, we need to react to complaints and problems when they happen, but remember that your ability to resolve those issues successfully may have been determined long before the problem ever occurred. It’s determined by how you treat customers and manage every interaction, the small ones and the big ones. Every touchpoint is an opportunity to build the confidence that will make future problems easier to resolve. When you have their trust, customers work with you rather than against you.

Image credits: Flickr Mary Jane, Shep Hyken

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.

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

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

GUEST POST from Oscar Amundsen

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

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

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

Trust as a Mechanism for Innovation

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

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

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

Trust and Control

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

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

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

Trust Requires Courage

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

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

Trust is One Piece in the Puzzle of Innovation

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

Diamond Model for Change and Innovation Oscar Amundsen

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

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

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

Image credits: Dall-E, Oscar Amundsen

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.

Solving the AI Trust Imperative with Provenance

The Digital Fingerprint

LAST UPDATED: January 5, 2026 at 3:33 PM

The Digital Fingerprint - Solving the Trust Imperative with Provenance

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

We are currently living in the artificial future of 2026, a world where the distinction between human-authored and AI-generated content has become practically invisible to the naked eye. In this era of agentic AI and high-fidelity synthetic media, we have moved past the initial awe of creation and into a far more complex phase: the Trust Imperative. As my friend Braden Kelley has frequently shared in his keynotes, innovation is change with impact, but if the impact is an erosion of truth, we are not innovating — we are disintegrating.

The flood of AI-generated content has created a massive Corporate Antibody response within our social and economic systems. To survive, organizations must adopt Generative Watermarking and Provenance technologies. These aren’t just technical safeguards; they are the new infrastructure of reality. We are shifting from a culture of blind faith in what we see to a culture of verifiable origin.

“Transparency is the only antidote to the erosion of trust; we must build systems that don’t just generate, but testify. If an idea is a useful seed of invention, its origin must be its pedigree.” — Braden Kelley

Why Provenance is the Key to Human-Centered Innovation™

Human-Centered Innovation™ requires psychological safety. In 2026, psychological safety is under threat by “hallucinated” news, deepfake corporate communiques, and the potential for industrial-scale intellectual property theft. When people cannot trust the data in their dashboards or the video of their CEO, the organizational “nervous system” begins to shut down. This is the Efficiency Trap in its most dangerous form: we’ve optimized for speed of content production, but lost the efficiency of shared truth.

Provenance tech — specifically the C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) standards — allows us to attach a permanent, tamper-evident digital “ledger” to every piece of media. This tells us who created it, what AI tools were used to modify it, and when it was last verified. It restores the human to the center of the story by providing the context necessary for informed agency.

Case Study 1: Protecting the Frontline of Journalism

The Challenge: In early 2025, a global news agency faced a crisis when a series of high-fidelity deepfake videos depicting a political coup began circulating in a volatile region. Traditional fact-checking was too slow to stop the viral spread, leading to actual civil unrest.

The Innovation: The agency implemented a camera-to-cloud provenance system. Every image captured by their journalists was cryptographically signed at the moment of capture. Using a public verification tool, viewers could instantly see the “chain of custody” for every frame.

The Impact: By 2026, the agency saw a 50% increase in subscriber trust scores. More importantly, they effectively “immunized” their audience against deepfakes by making the absence of a provenance badge a clear signal of potential misinformation. They turned the Trust Imperative into a competitive advantage.

Case Study 2: Securing Enterprise IP in the Age of Co-Pilots

The Challenge: A Fortune 500 manufacturing firm found that its proprietary design schematics were being leaked through “Shadow AI” — employees using unauthorized generative tools to optimize parts. The company couldn’t tell which designs were protected “useful seeds of invention” and which were tainted by external AI data sets.

The Innovation: They deployed an internal Generative Watermarking system. Every output from authorized corporate AI agents was embedded with an invisible, robust watermark. This watermark tracked the specific human prompter, the model version, and the internal data sources used.

The Impact: The company successfully reclaimed its IP posture. By making the origin of every design verifiable, they reduced legal risk and empowered their engineers to use AI safely, fostering a culture of Human-AI Teaming rather than fear-based restriction.

Leading Companies and Startups to Watch

As we navigate 2026, the landscape of provenance is being defined by a few key players. Adobe remains a titan in this space with their Content Authenticity Initiative, which has successfully pushed the C2PA standard into the mainstream. Digimarc has emerged as a leader in “stealth” watermarking that survives compression and cropping. In the startup ecosystem, Steg.AI is doing revolutionary work with deep-learning-based watermarks that are invisible to the eye but indestructible to algorithms. Truepic is the one to watch for “controlled capture,” ensuring the veracity of photos from the moment the shutter clicks. Lastly, Microsoft and Google have integrated these “digital nutrition labels” across their enterprise suites, making provenance a default setting rather than an optional add-on.

Conclusion: The Architecture of Truth

To lead innovation in 2026, you must be more than a creator; you must be a verifier. We cannot allow the “useful seeds of invention” to be choked out by the weeds of synthetic deception. By embracing generative watermarking and provenance, we aren’t just protecting data; we are protecting the human connection that makes change with impact possible.

If you are looking for an innovation speaker to help your organization solve the Trust Imperative and navigate Human-Centered Innovation™, I suggest you look no further than Braden Kelley. The future belongs to those who can prove they are part of it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between watermarking and provenance?

Watermarking is a technique to embed information (visible or invisible) directly into content to identify its source. Provenance is the broader history or “chain of custody” of a piece of media, often recorded in metadata or a ledger, showing every change made from creation to consumption.

Can AI-generated watermarks be removed?

While no system is 100% foolproof, modern watermarking from companies like Steg.AI or Digimarc is designed to be highly “robust,” meaning it survives editing, screenshots, and even re-recording. Provenance standards like C2PA use cryptography to ensure that if the data is tampered with, the “broken seal” is immediately apparent.

Why does Braden Kelley call trust a “competitive advantage”?

In a market flooded with low-quality or deceptive content, “Trust” becomes a premium. Organizations that can prove their content is authentic and their AI is transparent will attract higher-quality talent and more loyal customers, effectively bypassing the friction of skepticism that slows down their competitors.

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

Image credits: Google Gemini

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






Rebuilding Trust When You’ve Broken It

Rebuilding Trust When You've Broken It

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Trust is the foundation of every high-performing team. It’s the invisible force that enables collaboration, fuels innovation, and keeps teams resilient in the face of setbacks. But when that trust is broken – leaders need to focus on how to rebuild trust carefully and deliberately. Rebuilding trust isn’t as simple as offering an apology and moving on. In fact, that’s where many leaders go wrong.

They believe a sincere “I’m sorry” is all it takes to make things right again.

But it’s not.

Rebuilding trust takes far more than words—it takes sustained action. And if you’re serious about leading a high-performing team, you need to understand the process of how to truly rebuild trust when it’s been damaged.

Most Leaders Get Rebuilding Trust Wrong

Let’s start with the apology. A real apology – the kind that has the potential to begin the healing process – sounds like this: “I did this. I now know it was wrong. I see the impact it had on you. And I’m going to make it right.” That’s not the same as saying “I didn’t mean it” or “I’m sorry if anyone was offended.” Those aren’t apologies; they’re excuses dressed up in regret.

Even when leaders get the words right, they often assume the work ends there. But rebuilding trust doesn’t happen with a single moment of contrition. Trust isn’t built on words. It’s built on behavior.

What leaders fail to realize is that when they betray trust, they don’t just damage the relationship – they break an emotional loop. I call it the trust loop, and it exists in every relationship you have with your team, both collectively and individually. That loop is a cycle of expectation, action, and consistency. When everything is working well, the loop reinforces itself and trust grows. But when trust is violated, the loop shatters—and rebuilding it takes far more than a one-time gesture.

Why Words Aren’t Enough To Rebuild Trust

When you break trust and then try to move on too quickly, you’re sending an unspoken message to your team: “This wasn’t that big of a deal.” And that message undercuts any sincerity you intended with your apology. Research backs this up. Paul Zak, a neuroscientist who studies trust in organizations, found that employees in high-trust workplaces report 74% less stress and 50% higher productivity. Trust isn’t just a feel-good concept – it’s measurable, and it affects everything from performance to retention. But that kind of trust can’t exist unless leaders take full accountability, even for their mistakes.

Taking accountability isn’t just about admitting the error – it’s about acknowledging the impact. And that’s where a lot of well-meaning leaders go off track. They say, “I made a mistake,” but they don’t take the time to understand or validate how that mistake affected others. The result? Their apology feels hollow. The team sees them as principled, maybe, but detached. Or worse – performative.

To truly rebuild trust, leaders need to demonstrate both responsibility and empathy. Because your team needs to know not just that you’re sorry, but that you get it. That you see the ripple effect your actions had, and that you care enough to do better.

What Rebuilding Trust Actually Takes

So how do you rebuild trust?

It starts with a strong apology, yes. But it doesn’t end there. Here are four steps to guide the process—and none of them can be skipped.

1. Own the Mistake – and Its Impact

Rebuilding trust begins with full accountability. You must take ownership of what happened and openly acknowledge the harm it caused. That might mean calling out specific behaviors, admitting lapses in judgment, or addressing how your decision made the team feel undervalued or vulnerable. This isn’t a time to minimize, justify, or deflect. And it’s not just about your intention – it’s about the impact. The more specifically you can articulate what went wrong and why it mattered, the more credible your apology becomes.

2. Invite The Team Into The Solution

After accountability comes action. But not behind closed doors. Telling your team, “I’ll do better,” isn’t enough. They need to see you doing better. Better yet, they need to be part of the process.

Invite them into the solution. Talk through what happened. Share the thinking behind your original decision—not to excuse it, but to help the team understand where things went wrong. Then ask for input. What would they have done differently? What safeguards could be put in place to avoid a repeat? The more you co-create the fix, the more your team sees that you’re serious about change. Transparency builds credibility. And when your team sees you working on yourself, they’re more likely to work with you to rebuild what was broken.

3. Show Them You’re Changing

The most powerful way to rebuild trust is to demonstrate new behavior in old situations. If you made a decision that sidelined the team last time, then the next time a similar decision comes up, you need to do the opposite. Bring the team in early. Ask for feedback. Show them that the lesson was learned – and internalized.

They don’t need to see everything you’re doing differently. But they do need to see you behaving differently in the kinds of situations that broke trust in the first place. That’s how predictability is restored. And predictability is a cornerstone of trust.

4. Be Consistent—Every Day

This is where most leaders lose momentum. They start strong. They apologize, they make a few changes, they check in. But over time, old habits creep back in and the consistency fades. And when that happens, the message to the team is clear: “That apology wasn’t real.”

Rebuilding trust isn’t about grand gestures. It’s about small, daily actions. It’s about showing up consistently. Following through consistently. Making decisions with integrity—consistently.

The longer you sustain those behaviors, the more the trust loop starts to turn again. Slowly, day by day, your team regains their confidence – not just in your words, but in your ability to lead with integrity.

Always Be Rebuilding Trust

You don’t rebuild trust with a single apology. You rebuild trust by showing that your apology meant something. That you’ve changed. That the behavior that broke trust won’t be repeated.

And while that takes time, it’s worth it. Because trust is what makes teams resilient. Trust is what drives performance. And trust – when rebuilt the right way – can actually come back stronger than before.

So, if you’ve broken trust with your team, don’t aim for forgiveness. Aim for consistency. Start by owning your mistake. Involve your team in the fix. Show them the change. And then keep showing up – day after day.

That’s how you rebuild trust. And that’s how you restart the trust loop.

This article originally appeared on DavidBurkus.com

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.front






Three Reasons Change Efforts Fail

Three Reasons Change Efforts Fail

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

There’s no question we have entered a transformative age, with major shifts in technology, resources, demography and migration. Over the next decades, we will have to move from digital from post-digital, from carbon to zero-carbon and from the Boomer values to those of Millennials and Zoomers. Migration will strain societies’ social compact.

Unfortunately, we’re really bad at adapting to change. We’ve known about the climate threat for decades, but have done little about it. The digital revolution, for all the hoopla, has been a big disappointment, falling far short of its promise to change the world for the better. Even at the level of individual firms, McKinsey finds that the vast majority of initiatives fail.

One key factor is that we too often assume that change is inevitable. It’s not. Change dies every day. New ideas are weak, fragile, and in need of protection. If we’re going to bring about genuine transformation, we need to take that into account. The first step is to learn the reasons why change fails in the first place. These three are a good place to start.

1. A Flawed Idea

One obvious reason that change fails is that the idea itself is flawed in some way. Barry Libenson found this out when he was hired to be CIO at the industrial conglomerate Ingersoll Rand. It was his first CIO role and Barry was eager to please the CEO, who he saw as a mentor. So he agreed to aggressive very performance targets for modernizing systems.

Yet while Barry was being financially incentivized to upgrade technology, each of the division leaders were financially incentivized to maximize profit growth. Every dollar they invested in modernizing systems would eat into their performance bonus. Perhaps not surprisingly, Barry’s modernization program didn’t go as well as he’d hoped.

There are a number of tools that can help to troubleshoot ideas and uncover flaws. Pre-mortems force you to imagine how a project could fail. Red Teams set up a parallel group specifically to look for flaws. Howard Tiersky, CEO of the digital transformation agency From Digital and author of the Wall Street Journal bestseller Winning Digital Customers, often uses de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats to help the team take different perspectives.

Most of all, we need to come to terms with the reality that our ideas are always wrong. Sometimes they’re off by a little and sometimes they’re off by a lot, but they’re always wrong, so we always need to be on the lookout for problems. As the physicist Richard Feynman put it.“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.”

2. Failure To Build Trust

Proposed in 1983 by Ira Magaziner, the Rhode Island’s Greenhouse Compact is still considered to be an impressive policy even today, 40 years later. In fact, the bipartisan CHIPS Act is based on the same principle, that targeted, strategic government investments can help simulate economic development in the private sector.

The plan in Rhode Island was to establish four research centers or “greenhouses” throughout the state to help drive development in new technologies, like robotics, medicine and thin film materials, as well as existing industries in which the state had built-in advantages, such as tourism, boat-building and fishing. It quickly gained support among the state’s elite

Yet things quickly soured. There were a number of political scandals that reduced faith in Rhode Island’s government and fed into the laissez-faire zeitgeist of the Reagan era. Critics called the plan “elitist,” for taxing “ordinary” citizens to subsidize greedy corporations. When the referendum was held, it plan got less than a fifth of the vote.

Magaziner’s mistake — one he would repeat with the healthcare plan during the Clinton Administration—was ignoring the need to build trust among constituencies. Getting the plan right is never enough. You need to methodically build trust and support as you go.

3. Identity and Dignity

One of the biggest mistakes change leaders make is assuming that resistance to change has a rational basis. They feel that if they listen to concerns and address them, they will be able to build trust and win over skeptics. Unfortunately, while doing those things is certainly necessary for a successful change effort, it is rarely sufficient.

The simple fact is that human beings form attachments to people, ideas and things and when they feel those attachments are threatened, it offends their identity, dignity and sense of self. This is the most visceral kind of resistance. We can argue the merits of a particular idea and methodically build trust, but we can’t ask people to stop being who they think they are.

Don’t waste your time trying to convince the unconvincible. Your efforts will be very unlikely to succeed and very likely to exhaust and frustrate you. The good news is that irrational resistors, if left to their own devices, will often discredit themselves eventually. You can also speed up the process by designing a dilemma action.

What can be hardest about change, especially when we feel passionately about it, is that at some point, we need to accept that others will not embrace it and we will have to leave some behind. Not every change is for everybody. Some will have to pursue a different journey, one to which they can devote their passions and seek out their own truths.

Change Is Not Inevitable

People like to quote the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who said things like “the only constant is change” and “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” They’re clever quotes and they give us confidence that the change we seek is not only possible, but inevitable.

Yet while change in general may be inevitable, the prospects for any particular change initiative are decidedly poor and the failure to recognize that simple fact is why so many transformation efforts fall short. The first step toward making change succeed is to understand and internalize just how fragile a new, unproven initiative really is.

To bring genuine change about you can’t expect to just push forward and have everyone fall in line. No amount of executive sponsorship or program budget will guarantee victory. To move forward, you will need to listen to skeptics, identify and fix flaws in your idea to methodically build trust. Even then, you will have to outsmart those who have an irrational lust to kill change and who act in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

Change is always, at some level, about what people value. That’s why to make it happen you need to identify shared values that reaffirm, rather than undermine, people’s sense of identity. Recognition is often a more powerful incentive than even financial rewards. In the final analysis, lasting change always needs to be built on common ground.

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






Re-engineering Trust and Retention in the AI Contact Center

The Empathy Engine

LAST UPDATED: November 9, 2025 at 1:36PM
Re-engineering Trust and Retention in the AI Contact Center

by Braden Kelley

The contact center remains the single most critical point of human truth for a brand. It is where marketing promises meet operational reality. The challenge today, as highlighted by leaders like Bruce Gilbert of Young Energy at Customer Contact Week(CCW) in Nashville recently, is profound: Customers expect friction-less experiences with empathetic responses. The solution is not merely throwing technology at the problem; it’s about strategically weaving automation into the existing human fabric to create an Empathy Engine.

The strategic error most organizations make is starting with the technology’s capability rather than the human need. The conversation must start with empathy not the technology — focusing first on the customer and agent pain points. AI is not a replacement for human connection; it is an amplification tool designed to remove friction, build trust, and elevate the human agent’s role to that of a high-value relationship manager.

The Trust Imperative: The Cautious Adoption Framework

The first goal when introducing AI into the customer journey is simple: Building trust. The consumer public, after years of frustrating Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems and rigid chatbots, remains deeply skeptical of automation. A grand, “all-in” AI deployment is often met with immediate resistance, which can manifest as call abandonment or increased churn.

To overcome this, innovation must adhere to a principle of cautious, human-centered rollout — a Cautious Adoption Framework: Starting small and starting with simple things can help to build this trust. Implement AI where the risk of failure is low and the utility is high — such as automating password resets, updating billing addresses, or providing initial diagnostics. These are the repetitive, low-value tasks that bore agents and frustrate customers. By successfully automating these simple, transactional elements, you build confidence in the system, preparing both customers and agents for more complex, AI-assisted interactions down the line. This approach honors the customer’s pace of change.

The Agent Retention Strategy: Alleviating Cognitive Load

The operational cost of the contact center is inextricably linked to agent retention. Finding and keeping high-quality agents remains a persistent challenge, primarily because the job is often highly stressful and repetitive. AI provides a powerful retention tool by directly addressing the root cause: cognitive load.

Reducing the cognitive load and stress level on agents is a non-negotiable step for long-term operational health. AI co-pilots must be designed to act as true partners, not simply data overlays. They should instantly surface relevant knowledge base articles, summarize the customer’s entire history before the agent picks up the call, or even handle real-time data entry. This frees the human agent to focus entirely on the empathetic response — active listening, problem-solving, and de-escalation. By transforming the agent’s role from a low-paid data processor into a high-value relationship manager, we elevate the profession, directly improving agent retention and turning contact center employment into an aspirational career path.

The Systemic Challenge: Orchestrating the AI Ecosystem

A major limiting factor in today’s contact center is the presence of fragmented AI deployments. Many organizations deploy AI in isolated pockets — a siloed chatbot here, a transcription service there. The future demands that we move far beyond siloed AI. The goal is complete AI orchestration across the enterprise, requiring us to get the AIs to talk to each other.

A friction-less customer experience requires intelligence continuity: a Voice AI must seamlessly hand off its collected context to a Predictive AI (which assesses the call risk), which then informs the Generative AI (that drafts the agent’s suggested response). This is the necessary chain of intelligence that supports friction-less service. Furthermore, complexity demands a blended AI approach, recognizing that the solution may involve more than one method (generative vs. directed).

For high-compliance tasks, a directed approach ensures precision: for instance, a flow can insert “read as is” instructions for regulatory disclosures, ensuring legal text is delivered exactly as designed. For complex, personalized problem-solving, a generative approach is vital. The best systems understand the regulatory and emotional context, knowing when to switch modes instantly and without customer intervention.

The Strategic Pivot: Investing in Predictive Empathy

The ultimate strategic advantage lies not in reacting to calls, but in preventing them. This requires a deeper investment in data science, moving from descriptive reporting on what happened to predictive analytics to understand why our customers are calling in before they dial the number.

This approach, which I call Predictive Empathy, uses machine learning to identify customers whose usage patterns, payment history, or recent service interactions suggest a high probability of confusion or frustration (e.g., first-time promotions expiring, unusual service interruptions). The organization then proactively initiates a personalized, AI-assisted outreach to address the problem or explain the confusion before the customer reaches the point of anxiety and makes the call. This shifts the interaction from reactive conflict to proactive support, immediately lowering call volume and transforming brand perception.

The Organizational Checkpoint: Post-Deployment Evolution

Once you’ve successfully implemented AI to address pain points, the work is not finished. A crucial strategic question must be addressed: What happens after AI deployment? What’s your plan?

As AI absorbs simple transactions, the nature of the calls that reach the human agent becomes disproportionately more complex, emotional, and high-value. This creates a skills gap in the remaining human workforce. The organization must plan for and fund the Up-skilling Initiative necessary to handle these elevated interactions, focusing on conflict resolution, complex sales, and deep relationship management. The entire organizational structure — training programs, compensation models, and career paths — must evolve to support this higher-skilled human workforce. By raising the value of the human role, the contact center transitions from a cost center into a profit-generating Relationship Hub.

Conclusion: Architecting the Human Layer

The goal of innovation in the contact center is not the elimination of the human, but the elevation of the human. By using AI to build trust, reduce cognitive load, enable predictive empathy, and connect disparate systems, we free the human agent to deliver on the fundamental customer expectation: a friction-less experience coupled with an empathetic response. This is how we re-engineer the contact center from a cost center into a powerful engine for talent retention and customer loyalty.

“AI handles the transaction. The human handles the trust. Design your systems to protect both.” — Braden Kelley

Your first step into the Empathy Engine: Map the single most stressful task for your top-performing agent and commit to automating 80% of its cognitive load using a simple AI co-pilot within the next 90 days.

What is that task for your organization?

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, insights captured from the Customer Contact Week session, panelists to mention, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini 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.






Four Pillars of Innovation

People, Learning, Judgment and Trust

Four Pillars of Innovation

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation is a hot topic. Everyone wants to do it. And everyone wants a simple process that works step-wise – first this, then that, then success.

But Innovation isn’t like that. I think it’s more effective to think of innovation as a result. Innovation as something that emerges from a group of people who are trying to make a difference. In that way, Innovation is a people process. And like with all processes that depend on people, the Innovation process is fluid, dynamic, complex, and context-specific.

Innovation isn’t sequential, it’s not linear and cannot be scripted.. There is no best way to do it, no best tool, no best training, and no best outcome. There is no way to predict where the process will take you. The only predictable thing is you’re better off doing it than not.

The key to Innovation is good judgment. And the key to good judgment is bad judgment. You’ve got to get things wrong before you know how to get them right. In the end, innovation comes down to maximizing the learning rate. And the teams with the highest learning rates are the teams that try the most things and use good judgement to decide what to try.

I used to take offense to the idea that trying the most things is the most effective way. But now, I believe it is. That is not to say it’s best to try everything. It’s best to try the most things that are coherent with the situation as it is, the market conditions as they are, the competitive landscape as we know it, and the the facts as we know them.

And there are ways to try things that are more effective than others. Think small, focused experiments driven by a formal learning objective and supported by repeatable measurement systems and formalized decision criteria. The best teams define end implement the tightest, smallest experiment to learn what needs to be learned. With no excess resources and no wasted time, the team wins runs a tight experiment, measures the feedback, and takes immediate action based on the experimental results.

In short, the team that runs the most effective experiments learns the most, and the team that learns the most wins.

It all comes down to choosing what to learn. Or, another way to look at it is choosing the right problems to solve. If you solve new problems, you’ll learn new things. And if you have the sightedness to choose the right problems, you learn the right new things.

Sightedness is a difficult thing to define and a more difficult thing to hone and improve. If you were charged with creating a new business in a new commercial space and the survival of the company depended on the success of the project, who would you want to choose the things to try? That person has sightedness.

Innovation is about people, learning, judgement and trust.

And innovation is more about why than how and more about who than what.

HALLOWEEN BONUS: Save 30% on the eBook, hardcover or softcover of Braden Kelley’s latest book Charting Change (now in its second edition) — FREE SHIPPING WORLDWIDE — using code HAL30 until midnight October 31, 2025

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.






The Trust Network Knows

The Trust Network Knows

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Trust is the most important element in business. It’s not organizational authority, it’s not alignment, it’s not execution, it’s not best practices, it’s not competitive advantage and it’s not intellectual property. It’s trust.

Trust is more powerful than the organizational chart. Don’t believe me? Draw the org chart and pretend the person at the top has a stupid idea and they try to push down into the organization. When the top person pushes, the trust network responds to protect the company. After the unrealistic edict is given, the people on the receiving end (the trust network) get together in secret and hatch a plan to protect the organization from the ill-informed, but well-intentioned edict. Because we trust each other, we openly share our thoughts on why the idea is less than good. We are not afraid to be judged by members of trust network and, certainly, we don’t judge other members of the network. And once our truths are shared, the plan starts to take shape.

The trust network knows how things really work because we’ve worked shoulder-to-shoulder to deliver the most successful new products and technologies in company history. And through our lens of what worked, we figure out how to organize the resistance. And with the plan roughed out, we reach out to our trust network. We hold meetings with people deep in the organization who do the real work and tell them about the plan to protect the company. You don’t know who those people are, but we do.

If you don’t know about the trust network, it’s because you’re not part of it. But, trust me, it’s real. We meet right in front of you, but you don’t see us. We coordinate in plain sight, but we’re invisible. We figure out how things are going to go, but we don’t ask you or tell you. And you don’t know about us because we don’t trust you.

When the trust network is on your side, everything runs smoothly. The right resources flow to the work, the needed support somehow finds the project and, mysteriously, things get done faster than imagined. But when the trust network does not believe in you and your initiative, the wheels fall off. Things that should go smoothly, don’t, resources don’t flow to the work and, mysteriously, no one knows why.

You can push on the trust network, but you can’t break us. You can use your control mechanisms, but we will feign alignment until your attention wanes. And once you’re distracted, we’ll silently help the company do the right thing. We’re more powerful than you because you’re striving and we’re thriving. We can wait you out because we don’t need the next job. And, when the going gets tough, we’ll stick together because we trust each other.

Trust is powerful because it must be earned. With years of consistent behavior, where words match actions year-on-year, strong bonds are created. In that way, trust can’t be faked. You’ve either earned it or you haven’t. And when you’ve earned trust, people in the network take you seriously and put their faith in you. And when you haven’t earned trust, people in the network are not swayed by your words or your trendy initiative. We won’t tell you we don’t believe in you, but we won’t believe in you.

The trust network won’t invite you to join. The only way in is to behave in ways that make you trustworthy. When you think the company is making a mistake, say it. The trust network likes when your inner thoughts match your outer words. When someone needs help, help them. Don’t look for anything in return, just help them. When someone is about to make a mistake, step in and protect them from danger. Don’t do it for you, do it for them. And when someone makes a mistake, take the bullets. Again, do it for them.

After five or ten years of unselfish, trustworthy behavior, you’ll find yourself in meetings where the formal agenda isn’t really the agenda. In the meeting you’ll chart the company’s path without the need to ask permission. And you’ll be listened to even when your opinion is contrary to the majority. And you’ll be surrounded by people that care about you.

Even if you don’t believe in the trust network, it’s a good idea to behave in a trustworthy way. It’s good for you and the company. And when the trust network finally accepts you, you’ll be doubly happy you behaved in a trustworthy way.

Image credit: MarilynJane on Flickr

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.






Values Determine Your Competitiveness

Values Determine Your Competitiveness

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When Lou Gerstner was chosen to lead IBM in 1993, he was an unlikely revolutionary. A McKinsey consultant and then the successful CEO of RJR Nabisco, he was considered to be a pillar of the establishment. He would, however, turn out to be as subversive as any activist, transforming the company and saving it from near-death.

Yet there was more to what he achieved than simply turning red ink to black. “The Gerstner revolution wasn’t about technology or strategy, it was about transforming our values and our culture to be in greater harmony with the market,” Irving Wladawsky-Berger, one of his chief lieutenants, told me.

Values are essential to how an enterprise honors its mission. They represent choices of what an organization will and will not do, what it rewards and what it punishes and how it defines success and failure. Perhaps most importantly, values will determine an enterprise’s relationships with other stakeholders, how it collaborates and what it can achieve.

Values Incur Costs And Constraints

At his very first press conference, Gerstner famously declared: “the last thing IBM needs right now is a vision.” It was an odd, even shocking statement for a new CEO charged with turning around a historic company. But what he understood, and few others did, was that unless he changed the culture to honor the values its success was built on, no strategy could succeed.

“At IBM we had lost sight of our values,” Wladawsky-Berger would later tell me. “For example, there was a long tradition of IBM executives dressing formally in a suit and tie. Yet that wasn’t a value, it was an early manifestation of a value. In the early days, many of IBM’s customers were banks, so IBM’s salespeople dressed to reflect their customers. So the value was to be close to customers.”

Gerstner had been a customer and knew that IBM did not always treat him well. At one point the company threatened to pull service from an entire data center because a single piece of competitive equipment was installed. So as CEO, he vowed to shift the focus from IBM’s “own “proprietary stack of technologies” to its customers’ “stack of business processes.”

Yet he did something else as well. He made it clear that he was willing to forego revenue on every sale to do what was right for the customer and he showed that he meant it. Over the years I’ve spoken to dozens of IBM executives from that period and virtually all of them have pointed this out. Not one seems to think IBM would still be in business today without it.

The truth is that if you’re not willing to incur costs and constraints, it’s not a value. It’s a platitude. “Lou refocused us all on customers and listening to what they wanted and he did it by example,” Wladawsky-Berger, remembers. “We started listening to customers more because he listened to customers.

Values Signal Trust And Credibility

In South Africa, the Congress of The People was held in June, 1955. The gathering, which included blacks, mixed race, Indians and liberal whites, convened to draft and adopt the Freedom Charter, much like the Continental Congress gathered to produce the Declaration of Independence in America. The idea was to come up with a common and inclusive vision.

However, the Freedom Charter was anything but moderate. It was a “revolutionary document precisely because the changes it envisioned could not be achieved without radically altering the economic and political structure of South Africa… In South Africa, to merely achieve fairness, one had to destroy apartheid itself, for it was the very embodiment of injustice,” Nelson Mandela would later write.

Yet despite its seemingly radical aims, the Freedom Charter spoke to common values, such as equal rights and equal protection under the law—not just among the signatories, but for anyone living in a free society. It was powerful because of how it signaled to outside stakeholders, such as international institutions, governments and corporations that they shared more with the anti-apartheid movement than they did with the regime.

It was because of those values that activists were able to successfully boycott firms, such as Barclays Bank and Shell Oil, that did business in South Africa. When those companies pulled their investments out, the dominoes began to fall. International sanctions and political pressure increased markedly and Apartheid became politically untenable.

Here again, values would play a crucial role. Much like Gerstner’s willingness to lose revenue on every sale to keep his commitment to IBM customers, Mandela’s commitment to the Freedom Charter, even during 27 years in prison, signaled to stakeholders—inside and outside of South Africa—that supporting his cause was the right thing to do.

Shared Values Drive Collaboration

In the 1960s and 70s, Route 128 outside of Boston was the center of technology, but by the 1990s Silicon Valley had taken over and never looked back. As AnnaLee Saxenian explained in her classic, Regional Advantage, the key difference had less to do with strategy, technology and tactics than it did with values and how the firms saw themselves.

Dominant Boston firms such as DEC, Data General and Wang Laboratories saw themselves as warring fiefdoms. The west coast startups, however, saw themselves as part of the same ecosystem and tended to band together and socialize. “Everybody worked for the same company — Silicon Valley,” Saxenian would later tell me.

This difference in values translated directly into differences in operational practice. For example, in Silicon Valley if you left your employer to start a company of your own, you were still considered part of the family. Many new entrepreneurs became suppliers or customers to their former employers and still socialized actively with their former colleagues. In Boston, if you left your firm you were treated as a pariah and an outcast.

When technology began to shift in the 80s and 90s, the Boston firms had little, if any, connection to the new ecosystems that were evolving. In Silicon Valley, however, connections to former employees acted as an antenna network, providing early market intelligence that helped those companies adapt.

When you value competition above all else, everyone is a potential enemy. However, when you are willing to forsake absolute fealty in the service of collaboration, you can leverage the assets of an entire ecosystem. Those may not show up on a strategic plan or a balance sheet, but they are just as important as any other asset.

Moving From Hierarchies to Networks

The truth is that IBM was not devoid of values when Gerstner arrived. It’s just that they’d gone awry. “IBM had always valued competitiveness, but we had started to compete with each other internally rather than working together to beat the competition,” Wladawsky-Berger remembers. Certainly it valued technology and profits, just not customers.

What Gerstner did was, as noted above, bring the company’s culture and values back into “harmony with the market.” The company no longer wielded monopoly-like power. It had to collaborate with a wide array of stakeholders. It was this realization that led it to become the first major technology company to embrace open source software and support Linux.

Traditionally we’ve seen the world as driven by hierarchies. Kings and queens ruled the world through aristocracies that carried out their orders. Corporate CEO’s outlined strategies that underlings would have to execute. Discipline was enforced through a system of punishments and rewards. Power was valued above all else.

Yet as Moisés Naím pointed out in The End of Power, “Power is easier to get, but harder to use or keep.” Therefore, the ability to attract has become more important than the power to compel or coerce. That’s why today, strategy has less to do with increasing efficiencies and acquiring resources and more to do with widening and deepening networks of connections.

Power no longer lies at the top of hierarchies, but emanates from the center of networks. What determines whether we will get there or not is our values.

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






Why Customers Don’t Trust Five-Star Reviews

Why Customers Don't Trust Five-Star Reviews

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

How important are online ratings and reviews? Our annual customer experience research found that 85% of U.S. customers say ratings and reviews help them decide if they want to make a purchase. That’s almost nine out of 10 customers!

However, that same number of customers (85%) also believe that some ratings and reviews are fake. While not all ratings and reviews are fake, the number of dishonest reviews has become a problem. RetailWire’s recent article about how Amazon is fighting back against fake reviews with strict policies and technology is an important place to learn how top online brands deal with the problem. The article also cites research from Fakespot estimating that 42% of Amazon reviews are fake.

It’s important to note that the fake reviews are not Amazon’s attempt to persuade consumers. On the contrary, the company is waging a war against fake reviews with stricter policies and proactive detection.

I recently made a purchase from a retailer selling through the Amazon Marketplace, which allows third-party sellers to list and sell products on Amazon. About two weeks after the purchase, I received a postcard asking me to leave a five-star review. A request to leave an honest review is acceptable, but that’s not what happened. This “third-party” seller offered a bribe for the positive review in the form of a $20 Amazon gift card or a payment directly to my PayPal account. All I had to do was send a screenshot or link to the review.

Fake reviews come in several different forms:

  1. Friends, company employees or others—not customers—are asked to leave reviews.
  2. Customers are bribed, like I was, to leave a positive review.
  3. Companies take down negative reviews and only leave the good ones.

And, not all fake reviews are positive. Negative reviews left by competitors—not customers—that lie about a company’s products or customer service to make them look bad can impact the reputation of a company or brand.

But having 100% five-star ratings and/or reviews isn’t good either. Our annual research found that 76% of customers are skeptical about the authenticity of reviews if they are all positive, and 30% of customers say they won’t purchase from a company that doesn’t have any negative reviews.

So, what’s a company to do?

  1. Make It Easy for Customers to Leave Reviews: If you want reviews, it’s okay to ask for them. Send an email with a link to leave the review.
  2. Respond to Negative Reviews: If most reviews are good, having a bad one isn’t going to hurt, especially if the company responds to it. A good response from a company can actually improve customer trust. Use negative reviews as opportunities to demonstrate good customer service.
  3. Respond to Positive Reviews: We coach our clients to respond to all reviews, not just negative ones. Depending on how many you get, this can seem like a daunting task. But if someone takes the time to leave a lengthy message of positive feedback, give them the respect of a simple response.
  4. Identify Verified Customers: If you look at Amazon reviews, you’ll see the notation of “Verified Purchase” next to the review. This is credibility.
  5. Don’t Game the System: Offering bribes and incentives for positive reviews crosses an ethical line. And, taking down negative reviews is, in effect, lying to your customers.

Almost every industry, not just B2C, has the opportunity for customers to leave reviews. Depending on the company (and industry), the review sites may not be public like a retailer’s website or a review platform like Google Reviews. Many industries in the B2B world have forums where customers can share experiences about companies and suppliers they do business with. With a shift in the importance of reviews, the company that practices the five tactics mentioned above will build trust. It’s not realistic to have 100% perfect reviews. As the research shows, customers don’t trust the “perfect” company. But they do trust and appreciate the authentic company. The best way to get excellent reviews isn’t to buy them or game the system. It’s to earn them!

Image Credit: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com

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.