Building Your Dream Organization

Exclusive Interview with Oscar Amundsen

Leaders aspire to create a “dream organization” not merely for the sake of prestige or profit, but because they recognize that a deeply aligned, human-centered culture is the ultimate multiplier of potential. In a dream organization, the traditional friction between individual aspiration and corporate objective vanishes, replaced by a shared sense of purpose and psychological safety that allows innovation to flourish naturally. These leaders understand that when employees feel truly seen, valued, and empowered to contribute their best work, the organization becomes antifragile — capable of navigating uncertainty with a level of agility and commitment that cannot be bought or mandated. Ultimately, the quest for a dream organization is an investment in a sustainable future where the workplace acts as a catalyst for both professional excellence and personal fulfillment.

Today we dive deep into what it takes to create a “dream organization” through a dialogue with our special guest.

Helping Leaders Build Their Dream Organization

I recently had the opportunity to interview Oscar Amundsen, a full Professor of Organization Studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

He has extensive experience in researching various industries and businesses. His work is focused on change and innovation in organizations. This includes related topics such as leadership, culture, trust, motivation, and organizational development. In these fields, he has published numerous books and scientific articles.

Amundsen’s goal is to develop research-based knowledge AND at the same time make the research concrete and accessible. The point is to make the knowledge useful for creating better organizations. Whether the enterprise is in the public, voluntary or private sector.

Below is the text of my interview with Oscar and a preview of the kinds of insights you’ll find in How to Become a Dream Organization: Eight Things Leaders Need to Know to Promote Change and Innovation presented in a Q&A format:

1. What does it take for an organization to break its own practices and develop new ones?

Organizations can be seen as ‘organisms’ that develop habits. And we all know that habits are not easy to break. But organizations can also be seen as ‘tools for achieving goals’. Since the world around the organization changes, the organization itself must also change to remain a suitable tool for the (changed) tasks that need to be solved.
As a leader, you must have the ability to identify the need for change. This means you need to look both ‘outward and inward’: What is required of us in a changing environment? And what does this mean for how we work within this organization?

Many leaders overlook that the latter question requires deep knowledge of what is happening inside the organization. Therefore, you should consult with employees who are close to the core tasks of the organization. You don’t know everything yourself, and you need some knowledge from the ‘foot soldiers’ to make the organization better.

I would also add that ‘breaking away’ is precisely a hallmark of all innovation. If you are going to do things in new ways, you have to break with what is established (in a market, in a practice, etc.). However, all such breaks require a willingness to take risks. You can never know with one hundred percent certainty how it will turn out, even though you should of course avoid taking reckless chances with your business. But you must accept that things can go wrong from time to time in order to achieve something new.

2. What are the keys to promoting the ability to both change and innovate?

This is precisely the question that the book answers. I present a research-based model with eight keys to strengthening the ability for change and innovation. The book is therefore structured around eight chapters, each addressing one of these keys. The point is to show how these eight mechanisms influence the capacity for change and innovation. This knowledge gives you the opportunity to build and develop an organization that not only solves its tasks smarter and better, but also becomes an attractive place to be for both leaders and other employees.

3. Why do people resist sharing new practices?

If you have an organization where people are afraid of making mistakes and trying new things, much will happen in secret. In the book, I write about an employee who comes up with a new and efficient way of working but keeps it hidden from both colleagues and managers because she fears her solution deviates from established procedures. She knows the solution is both sound and sensible. It is only when a researcher visits the organization that she (anonymously) shares her new way of working. Her lack of trust in leadership means that a new practice remains with her, even though it could have spread (and been improved) if it had been openly discussed among employees and managers. This organization misses out on the resource that ordinary employees represent for improving and renewing the business.

4. What are the keys for leaders to manage that determine whether trust or mistrust dominates?

Let me first say that trust is worth its weight in gold in this context. The reason is that trust in an organization is absolutely fundamental to building its ability to innovate. In the book I highlight five aspects that explain why and how trust influences the organization’s ability to change and innovate.

As a leader, you should understand these aspects, because only then can you say something meaningful about the state of trust within the organization.

Practicing trust requires a certain degree of courage. Trusting someone always (in principle) involves some risk: You can never be 100 percent certain that the trust you show will be honored. It may sound strange, but despite this, I recommend a more trust-based leadership approach because it has so many positive effects.

Concretely, you should reflect on the signals you personally send out, but may be even more important: You should examine the control systems used in your organization. Is there more control than necessary in some areas? What is the purpose of that control? Is it to ‘catch’ people making mistakes, or is it to learn from mistakes?

5. Why is autonomy so important to employees?

There is solid research evidence to support the claim that autonomy is, in fact, a fundamental human need (along with mastery and belonging). All people function better when they have some influence over their own situation – of course within the goals and frameworks set by the organization. In the book, I discuss how autonomy strengthens people’s motivation and drive – and (not least) increases their willingness to contribute constructively within an organization. It is well-established knowledge from innovation research that autonomy, within good boundaries, is positive for innovation.

6. Why is it important for organizations to have positive vibes and how is this different from optimism?

Optimism is good, but it can actually become a ‘straitjacket’. In the book, I illustrate this through a case where I explain the spectacular fall of mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. At the turn of the millennium, they were the world’s largest mobile phone producer. But a culture developed within the company where it was ‘not allowed’ to raise objections or criticize the strategy. Management only wanted to hear good news. The short version of this story is that Nokia was therefore unprepared when the iPhone entered the market, and gradually disappeared until the remnants were bought up some years later.

On the other hand: Having positive feelings toward your own company, is of great value to the organization. This is something completely different from a demand for pure optimism. Research suggests that such positive feelings influence your relationship with colleagues and the organization. The point is that a positive atmosphere makes you more:

Helpful: The mechanism is ‘feel good – do good’. Things flow more smoothly, including knowledge sharing.
Engaged: You become willing to make sacrifices and go the extra mile.
Protective: You ‘speak proudly’ about the company externally and help prevent dangers and trouble.
Constructive: You are more likely to come up with constructive suggestions.

The last point directly impacts an organization’s ability to change and innovate, while the first three strengthen that ability indirectly.

7. What do tolerance of failure and diversity look like in practice?

Tolerance for mistakes is essential for achieving innovation. In a ‘zero-error culture,’ you will struggle to innovate simply because people are afraid to experiment, to try and fail. Although mistakes will always happen, it is useful to distinguish between different types of mistakes: What you want to encourage (and have more of) are what can be called ‘intelligent mistakes.’

These are mistakes that occur when you deliberately try something new. The goal is to learn so that you can move forward with what you are trying to develop. Other types of mistakes can be called basic or complex. These are the ones you want as few of as possible, but you cannot say they should never exist. Research shows that if you have zero tolerance for mistakes, they will be hidden, and you lose the opportunity to learn from them.

When it comes to diversity, I write in the book about how different types of perspectives and knowledge are valuable for innovation. I emphasize that leaders should demonstrate a certain level of humility and recognize that they need others’ insights to make good decisions.

8. What is practical anchoring and why is it so important?

Practical anchoring is essentially about involving the right employees in change processes. The point is that you need knowledge of actual practice to carry out sensible change work. People in the organization should see the benefit of the changes you are planning if you want them on board when changes are implemented. This makes sense not only for engagement and motivation but also to ensure you don’t create a less efficient organization with duplicate work and potential obstacles to doing a good job.

9. Why does fear play such a big role in organizations’ ability to change & innovate?

This is a broad topic, which I dedicate an entire chapter to in the book. The short version is that fear leads employees to avoid participating and contributing with their knowledge and experience. We are social beings who generally want to avoid the risk of offering an original contribution or asking a critical or fundamental question if there are potential negative consequences. In the Nokia case, we also see that people became tactical regarding their own career opportunities within the organization: They eventually learned that those who asked critical (but necessary) questions lost opportunities in the company. This caused engineers to drift to the sidelines – even on strategic technical issues.

10. Getting 100% participation is always a good thing, right?

There are many benefits to involving people in both innovation and change efforts. The point is to make the best use of the knowledge resources you have within the organization for the benefit of the organization. In addition, you become a more attractive employer if you allow people to participate in development. Modern employees actually expect to have some influence over their work situation and to use their knowledge in ways that benefit both themselves and the organization.

That said, I still emphasize in the book that there is a balance here: It’s not as if everyone should have an opinion on everything and participate in every possible process. That would only create chaos and overload for people in key roles. In the book, I use the term ‘participation satisfaction’ to describe this. People have different needs for involvement—both personally and, most importantly, based on the role they have. Conclusion: Not “the more participation, the better,” but balanced according to need.

11. Any question I didn’t ask that you want to answer?

Well, you haven’t asked me about the title of the book. I want to underline that “the dream organization” is not meant as a utopic situation. Rather, it’s meant more like a goal image. A goal image for those who want to build and become stronger in change and innovation. So, the book is about improving the organization – and at the same time making it attractive to be a part of – as a leader and as an employee.

So, the title of the book is an invitation to raise your gaze a little and ask something like: “What steps could I take to build a better organization? How can I develop a workplace where people like to work – and where change and innovation are a natural part of working?” That’s the kind of organization I want to help make reality with this book.

Thank you for taking the time for me and my book!

Conclusion

Thank you for the great conversation Oscar!

I hope everyone has enjoyed this peek into the mind of the man behind the insightful new title How to Become a Dream Organization: Eight Things Leaders Need to Know to Promote Change and Innovation!

Image credits: Oscar Amundsen, Anne Line Bakken, ChatGPT

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

The Mesh – Collaborative Sensing and the Future of Organizational Intelligence

Leave a reply

LAST UPDATED: January 15, 2026 at 5:31 PM

The Mesh - Collaborative Sensing and the Future of Organizational Intelligence

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For decades, organizations have operated like giant, slow-moving mammals with centralized nervous systems. Information traveled from the extremities (the employees and customers) up to the brain (management), where decisions were made and sent back down as commands. But in our hyper-connected, volatile world, this centralized model is failing. To thrive, we must evolve. We must move toward Collaborative Sensing — what I call The Mesh.

The Mesh is a paradigm shift where every person, every device, and every interaction becomes a sensor. It is a decentralized network of intelligence that allows an organization to sense, respond, and adapt in real-time. Instead of waiting for a quarterly report to tell you that a project is failing or a customer trend is shifting, The Mesh tells you the moment the first signal appears. This is human-centered innovation at its most agile.

“The smartest organizations of the future will not be those with the most powerful central computers, but those with the most sensitive and collaborative human-digital mesh. Intelligence is no longer something you possess; it is something you participate in.” — Braden Kelley

From Centralized Silos to Distributed Awareness

In a traditional hierarchy, silos prevent information from flowing horizontally. In a Mesh environment, data is shared peer-to-peer. Collaborative sensing leverages the wisdom of the crowd and the precision of the Internet of Things (IoT) to create a high-resolution picture of reality. This isn’t just about “big data”; it is about thick data — the qualitative, human context that explains the numbers.

When humans and machines collaborate in a sensing mesh, we achieve what I call Anticipatory Leadership. We stop reacting to the past and start shaping the future as it emerges. This requires a culture of radical transparency and psychological safety, where sharing a “negative” signal is seen as a contribution to the collective health of the mesh.

Leading the Charge: Companies and Startups in the Mesh

The landscape of collaborative sensing is being defined by a mix of established giants and disruptive startups. IBM and Cisco are laying the enterprise-grade foundation with their edge computing and industrial IoT frameworks, while Siemens is integrating collaborative sensing into the very fabric of smart cities and factories. On the startup front, companies like Helium are revolutionizing how decentralized wireless networks are built by incentivizing individuals to host “nodes.” Meanwhile, Nodle is creating a citizen-powered mesh network using Bluetooth on smartphones, and StreetLight Data is utilizing the mesh of mobile signals to transform urban planning. These players are proving that the most valuable data is distributed, not centralized.

Case Study 1: Transforming Safety in Industrial Environments

The Challenge

A global mining operation struggled with high rates of “near-miss” accidents. Traditional safety protocols relied on manual reporting after an incident occurred. By the time management reviewed the data, the conditions that caused the risk had often changed, making preventative action difficult.

The Mesh Solution

The company implemented a collaborative sensing mesh. Workers were equipped with wearable sensors that tracked environmental hazards (gas levels, heat) and physiological stress. Simultaneously, heavy machinery was outfitted with proximity sensors. These nodes communicated locally — machine to machine and machine to human.

The Human-Centered Result

The “sensing” happened at the edge. If a worker’s stress levels spiked while a vehicle was approaching an unsafe zone, the mesh triggered an immediate haptic alert to the worker and slowed the vehicle automatically. Over six months, near-misses dropped by 40%. The organization didn’t just get “safer”; it became a learning organization that used real-time data to redesign workflows around human limitations and strengths.

Case Study 2: Urban Resilience and Citizen Sensing

The Challenge

A coastal city prone to flash flooding relied on a few expensive, centralized weather stations. These stations often missed hyper-local rain events that flooded specific neighborhoods, leaving emergency services flat-footed.

The Mesh Solution

The city launched a Citizen Sensing initiative. They distributed low-cost, connected rain gauges to residents and integrated data from connected cars’ windshield wiper activity. This created a high-density sensing mesh across the entire geography.

The Human-Centered Result

Instead of one data point for the whole city, planners had thousands. When a localized cell hit a specific district, the mesh automatically updated digital signage to reroute traffic and alerted residents in that specific block minutes before the water rose. This moved the city from crisis management to collaborative resilience, empowering citizens to be active participants in their own safety.

Building Your Organizational Mesh

If you are looking to help your team navigate this transition, start by asking: Where is our organization currently numb? Where are the blind spots where information exists but isn’t being sensed or shared?

To build a successful Mesh, you must prioritize:

Interoperability: Ensuring different sensors and humans can “speak” to each other across platforms.
Privacy by Design: Ensuring the mesh protects individual identity while sharing collective insight.
Incentivization: Why should people participate? The mesh must provide value back to those who provide the data.

The Mesh is not just a technological infrastructure; it is a human-centered mindset. It is the realization that we are all nodes in a larger system of intelligence. When we sense together, we succeed together.

Frequently Asked Questions on Collaborative Sensing

Q: What is Collaborative Sensing or ‘The Mesh’?

A: Collaborative Sensing is a decentralized approach to intelligence where humans and IoT devices work in a networked “mesh” to share real-time data. Unlike top-down systems, it relies on distributed nodes to sense, process, and act on information locally and collectively.

Q: How does Collaborative Sensing benefit human-centered innovation?

A: It moves the focus from “big data” to “human context.” By sensing environmental and social signals in real-time, organizations can respond to human needs with greater empathy and precision, reducing friction in everything from city planning to workplace safety.

Q: What is the primary challenge in implementing a Mesh network?

A: The primary challenge is trust and data governance. For a mesh to work effectively, participants must be confident that their data is secure, anonymous where necessary, and used for collective benefit rather than invasive surveillance.

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

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

Asking for the Right Work Product is Key

Leave a reply

Asking for the Right Work Product is Key

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

We think we have more control than we really have. We imagine an idealized future state and try desperately to push the organization in the direction of our imagination. Add emotional energy, define a rational approach, provide the supporting rationale and everyone will see the light. Pure hubris.

What if we took a different approach? What if we believed people want to do the right thing but there’s something in the way? What if like a log jam in a fast-moving river, we remove the one log blocking them all? What if like a river there’s a fast-moving current of company culture that wants to push through the emotional log jam that is the status quo? What if it’s not a log at all but, rather, a Peter Principled executive that’s threatened by the very thing that will save the company?

The Peter Principled executive is a tough nut to crack. Deeply entrenched in the powerful goings on of the mundane and enabled by the protective badge of seniority, these sticks-in-the-mud need to be helped out of the way without threatening their no-longer-deserved status. Tricky business.

Rule 1: If you get into an argument with a Peter Principled executive, you’ll lose.

Rule 2: Don’t argue with Peter Principled executive.

If we want to make it easy for the right work to happen, we’ve got to learn how to make it easy for the Peter Principled executive to get out of the way. First, ask yourself why the executive is in the way. Why are they blocking progress? What’s keeping them from doing the right thing? Usually it comes down to the fear of change or the fear of losing control. Now it’s time to think of a work product that will help make the case there’s a a better way. Think of a small experiment to demonstrate a new way is possible and then run the experiment. Don’t ask, just run it. But the experiment isn’t the work product. The work product is a short report that makes it clear the new paradigm has been demonstrated, at least at small scale. The report must be clear and dense and provide objective evidence the right work happened by the right people in the right way. It must be written in a way that preempts argument – this is what happened, this is who did it, this is what it looks like and this is the benefit.

It’s critical to choose the right people to run the experiment and create the work product. The work must be done by someone in the chain of command of the in-the-way executive. Once the work product is created, it must be shared with an executive of equal status who is by definition outside the chain of command. From there, that executive must send a gracious email back into the chain of command that praises the work, praises the people who did it and praises the leader within the chain of command who had the foresight to sponsor such wonderful work.

As this public positivity filters through the organization, more people will add their praise of the work and the leaders that sponsored it. And by the time it makes it up the food chain to the executive of interest, the spider web of positivity is anchored across the organization and can’t be unwound by argument. And there you have it. You created the causes and conditions for the log jam to unjam itself. It’s now easy for the executive to get out of the way because they and their organization have already been praised for demonstrating the new paradigm. You’ve built a bridge across the emotional divide and made it easy for the executive and the status quo to cross it.

Asking for the right work product is a powerful skill. Most error on the side of complication and complexity, but the right work product is just the opposite – simple and tight. Think sledgehammer to the forehead in the form of and Excel chart where the approach is beyond reproach; where the chart can be interpreted just one way; where the axes are labeled; and it’s clear the status quo is long dead.

Business model is dead and we’ve got to stop trying to keep it alive. It’s time to break the log jam. Don’t be afraid. Create the right work product that is the dynamite that blows up the status quo and the executives clinging to it.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Humans Don’t Have to Perform Every Task

Leave a reply

Humans Don't Have to Perform Every Task

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

There seems to be a lot of controversy and questions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) being used to support customers. The customer experience can be enhanced with AI, but it can also derail and cause customers to head to the competition.

Last week, I wrote an article titled Just Because You Can Use AI, Doesn’t Mean You Should. The gist of the article was that while AI has impressive capabilities, there are situations in which human-to-human interaction is still preferred, even necessary, especially for complex, sensitive or emotionally charged customer issues.

However, there is a flip side. Sometimes AI is the smart thing to use, and eliminating human-to-human interaction actually creates a better customer experience. The point is that just because a human could handle a task doesn’t mean they should. 

Before we go further, keep in mind that even if AI should handle an issue, my customer service and customer experience (CX) research finds almost seven out of 10 customers (68%) prefer the phone. So, there are some customers who, regardless of how good AI is, will only talk to a live human being.

Here’s a reality: When a customer simply wants to check their account balance, reset a password, track a package or any other routine, simple task or request, they don’t need to talk to someone. What they really want, even if they don’t realize it, is fast, accurate information and a convenient experience.

The key is recognizing when customers value efficiency over engagement. Even with 68% of customers preferring the phone, they also want convenience and speed. And sometimes, the most convenient experience is one that eliminates unnecessary human interaction.

Smart companies are learning to use both strategically. They are finding a balance. They’re using AI for routine, transactional interactions while making live agents available for situations requiring judgement, creativity or empathy.

The goal isn’t to replace humans with AI. It’s to use each where they excel most. That sometimes means letting technology do what it can do best, even if a human could technically do the job. The customer experience improves when you match the right resource to the customers’ specific need.

That’s why I advocate pushing the digital, AI-infused experience for the right reasons but always – and I emphasize the word always – giving the customer an easy way to connect to a human and continue the conversation.

In the end, most customers don’t care whether their problem is solved by a human or AI. They just want it solved well.

Image credits: Google Gemini, Shep Hyken

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

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

Leave a reply

Is Your Company Prepared?

LAST UPDATED: January 9, 2026 at 3:55PM

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Economic warfare rarely announces itself. It embeds quietly into systems designed for trust, openness, and speed. By the time damage becomes visible, advantage has already shifted.

This new era of conflict is not defined by tanks or tariffs alone, but by the strategic exploitation of interdependence — where innovation ecosystems, supply chains, data flows, and cultural platforms become contested terrain.

The most effective economic attacks do not destroy systems outright. They drain them slowly enough to avoid response.

Weaponizing Openness

For decades, the United States has benefited from a research and innovation model grounded in openness, collaboration, and academic freedom. Those same qualities, however, have been repeatedly exploited.

Publicly documented prosecutions, investigations, and corporate disclosures describe coordinated efforts to extract intellectual property from American universities, national laboratories, and private companies through undisclosed affiliations, parallel research pipelines, and cyber-enabled theft.

This is not opportunistic theft. It is strategic harvesting.

When innovation can be copied faster than it can be created, openness becomes a liability instead of a strength.

Cyber Persistence as Economic Strategy

Cyber operations today prioritize persistence over spectacle. Continuous access to sensitive systems allows competitors to shortcut development cycles, underprice rivals, and anticipate strategic moves.

The goal is not disruption — it is advantage.

Skydio and Supply Chain Chokepoints

The experience of American drone manufacturer Skydio illustrates how economic pressure can be applied without direct confrontation.

After achieving leadership through autonomy and software-driven innovation rather than low-cost manufacturing, Skydio encountered pressure through access constraints tied to upstream supply chains.

This was a calculated attack on a successful American business. It serves as a stark reminder: if you depend on a potential adversary for your components, your success is only permitted as long as it doesn’t challenge their dominance. We must decouple our innovation from external control, or we will remain permanently vulnerable.

When supply chains are weaponized, markets no longer reward the best ideas — only the most protected ones.

Agricultural and Biological Vulnerabilities

Incidents involving the unauthorized movement of biological materials related to agriculture and bioscience highlight a critical blind spot. Food systems are economic infrastructure.

Crop blight, livestock disease, and agricultural disruption do not need to be dramatic to be devastating. They only need to be targeted, deniable, and difficult to attribute.

Pandemics and Systemic Shock

The origins of COVID-19 remain contested, with investigations examining both natural spillover and laboratory-associated scenarios. From an economic warfare perspective, attribution matters less than exposure.

The pandemic revealed how research opacity, delayed disclosure, and global interdependence can cascade into economic devastation on a scale rivaling major wars.

Resilience must be designed for uncertainty, not certainty.

The Attention Economy as Strategic Terrain and Algorithmic Narcotic

Platforms such as TikTok represent a new form of economic influence: large-scale behavioral shaping.

Regulatory and academic concerns focus on data governance, algorithmic amplification, and the psychological impact on youth attention, agency, and civic engagement.

TikTok is not just a social media app; it is a cognitive weapon. In China, the algorithm pushes “Douyin” users toward educational content, engineering, and national achievement. In America, the algorithm pushes our youth toward mindless consumption, social fragmentation, and addictive cycles that weaken the mental resilience of the next generation. This is an intentional weakening of our human capital. By controlling the narrative and the attention of 170 million Americans, American children are part of a massive experiment in psychological warfare, designed to ensure that the next generation of Americans is too distracted to lead and too divided to innovate.

Whether intentional or emergent, influence over attention increasingly translates into long-term economic leverage.

The Human Cost of Invisible Conflict

Economic warfare succeeds because its consequences unfold slowly: hollowed industries, lost startups, diminished trust, and weakened social cohesion.

True resilience is not built by reacting to attacks, but by redesigning systems so exploitation becomes expensive and contribution becomes the easiest path forward.

Conclusion

This is not a call for isolation or paranoia. It is a call for strategic maturity.

Openness without safeguards is not virtue — it is exposure. Innovation without resilience is not leadership — it is extraction.

The era of complacency must end. We must treat economic security as national security. This means securing our universities, diversifying our supply chains, and demanding transparency in our digital and biological interactions. We have the power to stoke our own innovation bonfire, but only if we are willing to protect it from those who wish to extinguish it.

The next era of competition will reward nations and companies that design systems where trust is earned, reciprocity is enforced, and long-term value creation is protected.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is economic warfare?

Economic warfare refers to the use of non-military tools — such as intellectual property extraction, cyber operations, supply chain control, and influence platforms — to weaken a rival’s economic position and long-term competitiveness.

Is China the only country using these tactics?

No. Many nations engage in forms of economic competition that blur into coercion. The concern highlighted here is about scale, coordination, and the systematic exploitation of open systems.

How should the United States respond?

By strengthening resilience rather than retreating from openness — protecting critical research, diversifying supply chains, aligning innovation policy with national strategy, and designing systems that reward contribution over extraction.

How should your company protect itself?

Companies should identify their critical knowledge assets, limit unnecessary exposure, diversify suppliers, strengthen cybersecurity, enforce disclosure and governance standards, and design partnerships that balance collaboration with protection. Resilience should be treated as a strategic capability, not a compliance exercise.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Rearchitecting the Landscape of Knowledge Work

Leave a reply

Rearchitecting the Landscape of Knowledge Work

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

One thing the pandemic made clear to everyone involved with the knowledge-work profession is that daily commuting was a ludicrously excessive tax on their time. The amount of work they were able to get done remotely clearly exceeded what they were getting done previously, and the reduction in stress was both welcome and productive. So, let’s be clear, there is no “going back to the office.” What is possible, on the other hand, is going forward to the office, and that is what we are going to discuss in this blog post.

The point is, we need to rethink the landscape of knowledge work—what work is best done where, and why. Let’s start with remote. Routine task work of the sort that a professional is expected to complete on their own is ideally suited to remote working. It requires no supervision to speak of and little engagement with others except at assigned checkpoints. Those checkpoints can be managed easily through video conferencing combined with collaboration-enabling software like Slack or Teams. Productivity commitments are monitored in terms of the quality and quantity of received work. This is game-changing for everyone involved, and we would be crazy to forsake these gains simply to comply with a return-to-the-office mandate.

That said, there are many good reasons still to want a return. Before we dig into them, however, let’s spend a moment on the bad reasons first. First among them is what we might call “boomer executive control needs”—a carry-over from the days of hierarchical management structures that to this day still run most of our bureaucracies. Implicit in this model is the notion that everyone needs supervision all the time. Let me just say that if that is the case in your knowledge-work organization, you are in big trouble, and mandating everyone to come back to the office is not going to fix it. The fix needed is workforce engagement, and that requires personal intervention, not systemic enforcement. Yes, you want to do this in person, and yes, the office is typically the right place to do so, but no, you don’t need everyone to be there all the time to do it.

This same caveat applies to other reasons why enterprises are mandating a return. Knowledge work benefits from social interactions with colleagues. You get to float ideas, hear about new developments, learn from observing others, and the like. It is all good, and you do need to be collocated to do it—just not every day. What is required instead is a new cadence. People need an established routine to know when they are expected to show up, one they can plan around far in advance. In short, we need the discipline of office attendance, we just want it to be more respectful of our remote work. In that light, a good place to start is a 60/40 split—your call as to which is which. But for the days that are in office, attendance is expected, not optional. To do anything else is to disrespect your colleagues and to put your personal convenience above the best interests of the enterprise that is funding you.

So much for coping with some of the bad reasons. Now let’s look into five good ones.

Customer-facing challenges. This includes sales, account management, and customer success (but not customer support or tech support). The point is, whenever things are up for grabs on the customer side, it takes a team to wrestle them down to earth, and the members of that team need to be in close communication to detect the signals, strategize the responses, and leverage each other’s relationships and expertise. You don’t get to say when this happens, so you have to show up every day ready to play (meaning 80/20 is probably a more effective in-office/out-of-office ratio).
Onboarding, team building, and M&A integration. Things can also be up for grabs inside your own organization, particularly when you are adding new people, building a new team (or turning around an old one), or integrating an acquisition. In these kinds of fluid situations, there is a ton of non-verbal communication, both to detect and to project, and there is simply no substitute for collocation. By contrast, career development, mentoring, and performance reviews are best conducted one-on-one, and here modern video conferencing with its high-definition visuals and zero-latency audio can actually induce a more focused conversation.
Mission-critical systems operations. This is just common sense—if the wheels start to come off, you do not want to lose time assembling the team. Cybersecurity attacks would be one good example. On the other hand, with proper IT infrastructure, routine system monitoring, and maintenance as well as standard end-user support can readily leverage remote expertise.
In-house incubations. It is possible to do a remote-only start-up if you have most of the team in place from the beginning, leveraging time in collocation at a prior company, especially if the talent you need is super-scarce and geographically dispersed.
But for public enterprises leveraging the Incubation Zone, as well as lines of business conducting nested incubation inside their own organizations, a cadence surrounding collocation is critical. The reason is that incubations call for agile decision-making, coordinated course corrections, fast failures, and even faster responses to them. You don’t have to be together every day—there is still plenty of individual knowledge work to be done, but you do need to keep in close formation, and that requires frequent unscripted connections.
Cross-functional programs and projects. These are simply impossible to do on a remote basis. There are too many new relationships that must be established, too many informal negotiations to get resources assigned, too many group sessions to get people aligned, and too much lobbying to get the additional support you need. This is especially true when the team is led by a middle manager who has no direct authority over the team members, only their managers’ commitment and their own good will.

So, what’s the best in-office/remote ratio for your organization?

You might try doing a high-level inventory of all the work you do, calling out for each workload which mode of working is preferable, and totaling it up to get a first cut. You can be sure that whatever you come up with will be wrong, but that’s OK because your next step will be to socialize it. Once you get enough fingerprints on it, you will go live with it, only to confirm it is still wrong, but now with a coalition of the willing to make it right, if only to make themselves look better.

Ain’t management fun?

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

Image Credit: Google Gemini

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

The Keys to Changing Someone’s Mind

Leave a reply

The Keys to Changing Someone's Mind

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When is the last time you changed your mind about anything substantial? Was it another person that convinced you or an unexpected experience that changed your perspective? What led you to stop seeing something one way and start seeing it in another? I will bet it does not happen often. We rarely change our minds.

Now think about how much time we spend trying to change other people’s minds. From sales pitches and political discussions, to what we are going to have for dinner and when the kids should go to bed, we put a lot of time and effort into shaping the opinions of others. Most of that is probably wasted.

The truth is that we cannot really change anyone’s mind. Only they can do that. Yet as David McRaney explains in his new book, How Minds Change, there are new techniques that can help us be more persuasive, but they don’t require brilliant sophistry or snappy rhetoric. They involve more listening than speaking, and understanding the context in which beliefs arise.

Why We Fail To Adapt

We don’t experience the world as it is, but through the context of earlier experiences. What we think of as knowledge is really connections in our brains called synapses which develop over time. These pathways strengthen as we use them and degrade when we do not. Or, as scientists who study these things like to put it, the neurons that fire together, wire together.

It’s not just our own experiences that shape us either. In fact, a series of famous experiments done at Swarthmore College in the 1950’s showed that we will conform to the opinions of those around us even if they are obviously wrong. More recent research suggests that this effect extends out to three degrees of influence, so it’s not just people we know personally, but the friends of our friends’ friends that shape how we see things.

Finally, there are often switching costs to changing our minds. Our opinions are rarely isolated thoughts, but form a basis for decisions. Once we change our minds, we need to change our actions and that can have consequences. We may need to change how we do our jobs, what we choose to buy, how we act towards others and, sometimes, who we choose to associate ourselves with.

In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt makes the point that our beliefs become closely intertwined with our identity. They signal our inclusion in a particular “team.” That’s why contrary views can often feel like an attack. Rather than taking in new information we often feel the urge to lash out and silence the opposing voice.

Meeting The Mind Changing Threshold

As closely as we cling to our beliefs, sometimes we do change our minds. In one study that analyzed voting behavior, it was found that when up to 20% of the information that people were exposed to contradicted their beliefs, they dug in their heels and grew more certain. Beyond that, however, their resolve tended to weaken. The informational environment can deeply influence what people believe.

Their relationship to the subject matter is also important. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic-systematic model (HSM) developed in the 1980s both suggest that we treat different topics in different ways. Some topics, such as those that are important to us professionally, we’re willing to invest time in exploring systematically. Others are more marginal to us and we will tend to look for shortcuts.

For example, if we are researching a business investment, we’ll want to gather facts from a variety of different sources and study them closely. On the other hand, if we’re trying to decide which craft beer to select from a large selection at a bar, we’ll rely on subtle cues such as packaging, how the beer is described or what we see others drinking.

If we want to change someone’s mind about something we need to understand their relationship to the subject matter. If they are heavily invested in it, they are unlikely to be swayed by superficial arguments. In fact, weak or purely emotive arguments may suggest to them that the opposite is true. At the same time, if someone is not very knowledgeable or motivated to learn about a topic, bogging them down with a lot of facts is likely to bore them.

Two Strategies For Persuasion

If you want to change somebody’s mind, you can follow two different kinds of approaches. The first, which can be called “topic denial”, argues the facts. The second, called “technique denial,” exposes flaws in reasoning. For example, if you want to convince a vaccine skeptic you can either cite scientific evidence or refute the form of the argument, such as pointing out that while there may be a minimal risk to taking a vaccine, the same could be said of aspirin.

While research shows that both approaches can be effective, we need to keep context in mind. If you are in a trustful environment, such as a professional or scientific setting, a fact-based topic rebuttal can often be effective. However, if you’re trying to talk your crazy uncle out of a conspiracy theory at Thanksgiving dinner, you may want to try a technique rebuttal.

In recent years a variety of methods, such as Deep Canvassing, Street Epistemology and the Change Conversation Pyramid have emerged as effective technique rebuttal methods. Interestingly, they don’t rely on any elaborate rhetorical flourishes, but rather listening empathetically, restating the opposing position in a way that shows we understand it, identifying common ground and exploring how they came to their conclusion.

The truth is that we can never truly change somebody’s mind. Only they can do that. All too often, we treat opinions as if they were artillery in a battle. Yet attacking someone’s beliefs is more likely to raise their defenses than to convince them that they are in error. Before we can convince anyone of anything, we need to first build an environment of safety and trust.

Let Empathy Be You Secret Weapon

When we want to change somebody’s minds, our first instinct is to confront their beliefs. We want to be warriors and fight for our position. Yet because people’s opinions are often a result of their experiences and social networks, countering their beliefs won’t feel to them like merely offering a different perspective, but as an attack on their identity and dignity.

That’s why we’re much better off listening and building rapport. That’s not always easy to do, because staying silent while somebody is voicing an opinion we don’t agree with can feel like a surrender. But it doesn’t have to be. In fact, if we can identify a shared value and a shared language in an opposing viewpoint, we have a powerful tool to argue our position.

The truth is that empathy isn’t absolution. In fact, it can be our secret weapon. We don’t have to agree with someone’s belief to internalize it. We all have a need to be recognized and when we take the time to hear someone out, we honor their dignity. That makes them much more willing to hear us out. Lasting change is always built on common ground.

At some point, we all need to decide if we want to make a point or make a difference. If we really care about change, we need to hold ourselves accountable to be effective messengers and express ourselves in terms that others are willing to accept. That doesn’t in any way mean we have to compromise. It simply means that we need to advocate effectively.

To do that, we need to care more about building shared purpose than we do about winning points.

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

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

Why Meeting Icebreakers Matter

Leave a reply

Why Meeting Icebreakers Matter

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Icebreakers are not just games or frivolous activities. Many people have memories of cringeworthy and awkward games played under the pretense of “team building.” I was one of them. But the research on icebreakers is pretty clear. Icebreakers are powerful tools that can help teams find uncommon commonalities and build strong connections.

Icebreakers can be the key to unlocking a more collaborative, understanding, and high-performing team. However, the effectiveness of an icebreaker hinges on its relevance and comfort level. They should be personally meaningful and not make team members uncomfortable.

In this article, we’ll cover four such icebreakers for team meetings. They’re quick, and not cringe. Each of these icebreakers is designed to help teams connect, understand each other better, and perform at a higher level.

1. Energy Check

The Energy Check is an icebreaker that encourages team members to rate their energy level and discuss ways the team can support each other. This is done by having each team member rate their energy level on a scale of 1 to 5—with 1 being dead tired and 5 being energy to spare. Whatever the answer, the team can follow up with question about what they can do to support the person speaking. This opens up a conversation about ways the team can support each other and learn about each other’s challenges and weaknesses.

By encouraging open discussion about energy levels and support needs, this icebreaker fosters a culture of empathy and understanding within the team. It helps team members to understand that they are not alone in their struggles and that they can rely on their team for support. This can significantly improve team cohesion and performance.

2. Triple H

Triple H is an icebreaker that allows team members to share a hero, highlight, and hardship in their life or career. Each team member is asked to share a hero who inspires them, a highlight from their life or career, and a hardship they have faced. This not only allows team members to disclose personal preferences, values, and experiences, but also creates the opportunity to find uncommon commonalities and build bonds through shared experiences.

By sharing their heroes, highlights, and hardships, team members can gain a deeper understanding of each other’s motivations, achievements, and challenges. This can lead to increased empathy, respect, and cooperation within the team.

3. Defining Moment

Defining Moment is an icebreaker where team members share a defining moment that shaped who they are today. Think of it as a faster version of Triple H—one that just focuses on the highlight. Each team member is asked to share a significant event or experience in their life or career that has had a profound impact on them. This encourages team members to share something personally meaningful and helps find uncommon commonalities that are deeper and more personally meaningful.

By sharing their defining moments, team members can reveal aspects of their personality and values that may not be apparent in a professional setting. This can lead to increased understanding and respect among team members, fostering a more harmonious and productive team environment.

4. Three Snaps

Three Snaps is an icebreaker where team members share three meaningful photos from their camera roll. Each team member is asked to share three photos that are meaningful to them. This allows team members to share about themselves to the level they’re comfortable with and helps find commonalities and build connections through shared experiences and interests.

By sharing their photos, team members can give others a glimpse into their personal lives, interests, and experiences. This can lead to increased understanding and connection among team members, fostering a more cohesive and collaborative team environment.

These icebreakers, when used effectively, can be powerful tools for building a more connected, understanding, and high-performing team. They can help teams find uncommon commonalities, build strong connections, and understand each other better. In other words, these short, non-cringe icebreakers can help any team do its best work ever.

This article originally appeared on DavidBurkus.com

Image credit: Pexels

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

Solving the AI Trust Imperative with Provenance

Leave a reply

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.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

Leave a reply

Three Mandates for Better Decisions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Pexels

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