Picking Innovation Projects in Four Questions or Less

Picking Innovation Projects in Four Questions or Less

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

It’s a challenge to prioritize and choose innovation projects. There are open questions on the technology, the product/service, the customer, the price and sales volume. Other than that, things are pretty well defined.

But with all that, you’ve still go to choose. Here are four questions that may help in your selection process:

1. Is it big enough?

The project will be long, expensive and difficult. And if the potential increase in sales is not big enough, the project is not worth starting. Think (Price – Cost) x Volume. Define a minimum viable increase in sales and bound it in time. For example, the minimum incremental sales is twenty five million dollars after five years in the market. If the project does not have the potential to meet those criteria, don’t do the project. The difficult question – How to estimate the incremental sales five years after launch? The difficult answer – Use your best judgement to estimate sales based on market size and review your assumptions and predictions with seasoned people you trust.

2. Why you?

High growth markets/applications are attractive to everyone, including the big players and the well-funded start-ups. How does your company have an advantage over these tough competitors? What about your company sets you apart? Why will customers buy from you? If you don’t have good answers, don’t start the project. Instead, hold the work hostage and take the time to come up with good answers. If you come up with good answers, try to answer the next questions. If you don’t, choose another project.

3. How is it different?

If the new technology can’t distinguish itself over existing alternatives, you don’t have a project worth starting. So, how is your new offering (the one you’re thinking about creating) better than the ones that can be purchased today? What’s the new value to the customer? Or, in the lingo of the day, what is the Distinctive Value Proposition (DVP)? If there’s no DVP, there’s no project. If you’re not sure of the DVP, figure that out before investing in the project. If you have a DVP but aren’t sure it’s good enough, figure out how to test the DVP before bringing the DVP to life.

4. Is it possible?

Usually, this is where everyone starts. But I’ve listed it last, and it seems backward. Would you rather spend a year making it work only to learn no one wants it, or would you rather spend a month to learn the market wants it then a year making it work? If you make it work and no one wants it, you’ve wasted a year. If, before you make it work, you learn no one wants it, you’ve spent a month learning the right thing and you haven’t spent a year working on the wrong thing. It feels unnatural to define the market need before making it work, but though it feels unnatural, it can block resources from working on the wrong projects.

Conclusion

There is no foolproof way to choose the best innovation projects, but these four questions go a long way. Create a one-page template with four sections to ask the questions and capture the answers. The sections without answers define the next work. Define the learning objectives and the learning activities and do the learning. Fill in the missing answers and you’re ready to compare one project to another.

Sort the projects large-to-small by Is it big enough? Then, rank the top three by Why you? and How is it different? Then, for the highest ranked project, do the work to answer Is it possible?

If it’s possible, commercialize. If it’s not, re-sort the remaining projects by Is it big enough? Why you? and How is it different? and learn if It is possible.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Are You Getting Your Fair Share of $860 Billion?

Are You Getting Your Fair Share of $860 Billion?

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

According to Qualtrics, there is an estimated $860 billion worth of revenue and cost savings available for companies that figure out how to create an improved Customer Experience (CX) using AI to better understand and serve their customers. (That includes $420 billion for B2B and $440 billion for B2C.) Qualtrics recently released these figures in a report/eBook titled Unlock the Potential through AI-Enabled CX.

I had a chance to interview Isabelle Zdatny, head of thought leadership at Qualtrics Experience Management Institute, for Amazing Business Radio. She shared insights from the report, including ways in which AI is reshaping how organizations measure, understand and improve their relationships with customers. These ideas are what will help you get more customers, keep existing customers and improve your processes, giving you a share of the $860 billion that is up for grabs. Here are some of the top takeaways from our interview.

AI-Enabled CX Represents a Financial Opportunity

The way AI is used in customer experience is much more than just a way to deflect customers’ questions and complaints to an AI-fueled chatbot or other self-service solution. Qualtrics’ report findings show that the value comes through increased employee productivity, process improvement and revenue growth. Zdatny notes a gap between leadership’s recognition of AI’s potential and their readiness to lead and make a change. Early adopters will likely capture “compounding advantages,” as every customer interaction makes their systems smarter and their advantage more difficult for competitors to overcome. My response to this is that if you aren’t on board with AI for the many opportunities it creates, you’re not only going to be playing catch-up with your competitors, but also having to catch up with the market share you’re losing.

Customers Want Convenience

While overall CX quality is improving, thanks to innovation, today’s customers have less tolerance for friction and mistakes. A single bad experience can cause customers to defect. My customer experience research says an average customer will give you two chances. Zdatny says, “Customers are less tolerant of friction these days. … Deliver one bad experience, and that sends the relationship down a bad path more quickly than it used to.”

AI Takes Us Beyond Surveys

Customer satisfaction surveys can frustrate customers. AI collects the data from interactions between customers and the company and analyzes it using natural language processing and sentiment. It can predict churn and tension. It analyzes customer behavior, and while it doesn’t look at a specific customer (although it can), it is able to spot trends in problems, opportunities and more. The company that uses this information the right way can reap huge financial rewards by creating a better customer experience.

Agentic AI

Agentic AI takes customer interactions to a new level. As a customer interacts with AI-fueled self-service support, the system can do more than give customers information and analyze the interaction. It can also take appropriate action. This is a huge opportunity to make it easier on the workforce as AI processes action items that employees might otherwise handle manually. Think about the dollars saved (part of the $860 billion) by having AI support part of the process so people don’t have to.

Customer Loyalty is at Risk

To wrap this up, Zdatny and I talked about the concept of customer loyalty and how vulnerable companies are to losing their most loyal customers. According to Zdatny, a key reason is the number of options available to consumers. (While there may be fewer options in the B2B world, the concern should still be the same.) Switching brands is easy, and customers are more finicky than ever. Our CX research finds that typical customers give you a second chance before they switch. A loyal customer will give you a third chance — but to put it in baseball terms, “Three strikes and you’re out!” Manage the experience right the first time, and keep in mind that whatever interaction you’re having at that moment is the reason customers will come back—or not—to buy whatever you sell.

Image Credits: Pexels

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.

The Agentic Browser Wars Have Begun

LAST UPDATED: October 22, 2025 at 9:11AM

The Agentic Browser Wars Have Begun

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

On his way out of town to Nashville for Customer Contact Week (CCW) I managed to catch the ear of Braden Kelley (follow him on LinkedIn) to discuss the news that OpenAI is launching its own “agentic” web browser, something that neither of us saw coming given their multi-billion dollar partnership with Microsoft on Copilot. He had some interesting perspectives to share that prompted me to explore the future of the web browser. I hope you enjoy this article (and its embedded videos) on the growing integration of AI into our browsing experiences!

For decades, the web browser has been our window to the digital world — a passive tool that simply displays information. We, the users, have been the active agents, navigating tabs, clicking links, and manually synthesizing data. But a profound shift is underway. The era of the “Agentic Browser” is dawning, and with it, a new battle for the soul of our digital experience. This isn’t just about faster rendering or new privacy features; it’s about embedding proactive, intelligent agents directly into the browser to fundamentally change how we interact with the internet. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I see this as the most significant evolution of the browser since its inception, with massive implications for productivity, information access, and ultimately, our relationship with technology. The Browser Wars 2.0 aren’t about standards; they’re about autonomy.

The core promise of the Agentic Browser is to move from a pull model (we pull information) to a push model (intelligence pushes relevant actions and insights to us). These AI agents, integrated into the browser’s fabric, can observe our intent, learn our preferences, and execute complex, multi-step tasks across websites autonomously. Imagine a browser that doesn’t just show you flight prices, but books your ideal trip, handling preferences, loyalty points, and calendar integration. This isn’t futuristic fantasy; it’s the new battleground, and the titans of tech are already drawing their lines, vying for control over our digital workflow and attention economy.

The Shift: From Passive Viewer to Active Partner

The Agentic Browser represents a paradigm leap. Traditional browsers operate at the rendering layer; Agentic Browsers will operate at the intent layer. They understand why you are on a page, what you are trying to achieve, and can proactively take steps to help you. This requires:

  • Deep Contextual Understanding: Beyond keywords, the agent understands the semantic meaning of pages and user queries, across tabs and sessions.
  • Multi-Step Task Execution: The ability to automate a sequence of actions across different domains (e.g., finding information on one site, comparing on another, completing a form on a third). This is the leap from macro automation to intelligent workflow orchestration.
  • Personalized Learning: Agents learn from user feedback and preferences, refining their autonomy and effectiveness over time, making them truly personal co-pilots.
  • Ethical and Safety Guardrails: Crucially, these agents must operate with transparent consent, robust safeguards, and clear audit trails to prevent misuse or unintended consequences. This builds the foundational trust architecture.

“The Agentic Browser isn’t just a smarter window; it’s an intelligent co-pilot, transforming the internet from a library into a laboratory where your intentions are actively fulfilled. This is where competitive advantage will be forged.” — Braden Kelley


Case Study 1: OpenAI’s Atlas Browser – A New Frontier, Redefining the Default

The Anticipated Innovation:

While still emerging, reports suggest OpenAI’s foray into the browser space with ‘Atlas‘ (a rumored codename that became real) aims to redefine web interaction. Unlike existing browsers that integrate AI as an add-on, Atlas is expected to have generative AI and autonomous agents at its core. This isn’t just a chatbot in your browser; it’s the browser itself becoming an agent, fundamentally challenging the definition of a web session.

The Agentic Vision:

Atlas could seamlessly perform tasks like:

  • Dynamic Information Synthesis: Instead of listing search results, it could directly answer complex questions by browsing, synthesizing, and summarizing information across multiple sources, presenting a coherent answer — effectively replacing the manual search-and-sift paradigm.
  • Automated Research & Comparison: A user asking “What’s the best noise-canceling headphone for long flights under $300?” wouldn’t get links; they’d get a concise report, comparative table, and perhaps even a personalized recommendation based on their past purchase history and stated preferences, dramatically reducing decision fatigue.
  • Proactive Task Completion: If you’re on a travel site, Atlas might identify your upcoming calendar event and proactively suggest hotels near your conference location, or even manage the booking process with minimal input, turning intent into seamless execution.



The Implications for the Wars:

If successful, Atlas could significantly reduce the cognitive load of web interaction, making information access more efficient and task completion more automated. It pushes the boundaries of how much the browser knows and does on your behalf, potentially challenging the existing search, content consumption, and even advertising models that underpin the current internet economy. This represents a bold, ground-up approach to seizing the future of internet interaction.


Case Study 2: Google Gemini and Chrome – The Incumbent’s Agentic Play

The Incumbent’s Response:

Google, with its dominant Chrome browser and powerful Gemini AI model, is uniquely positioned to integrate agentic capabilities. Their strategy seems to be more iterative, building AI into existing products rather than launching a completely new browser from scratch (though they could). This is a play for ecosystem lock-in and leveraging existing market share.

Current and Emerging Agentic Features:

Google’s approach is visible through features like:

  • Gemini in Workspace Integration: Already, Gemini can draft emails, summarize documents, and generate content within Google Workspace. Extending this capability directly into Chrome means the browser could understand a tab’s content and offer to summarize it, extract key data, or generate follow-up actions (e.g., “Draft an email to this vendor summarizing their pricing proposal”), transforming Chrome into an active productivity hub.
  • Enhanced Shopping & Productivity: Chrome’s existing shopping features, when supercharged with Gemini, could become truly agentic. Imagine asking the browser, “Find me a pair of running shoes like these, but with better arch support, on sale.” Gemini could then browse multiple retailers, apply filters, compare reviews, and present tailored options, potentially even initiating a purchase, fundamentally reshaping e-commerce pathways.
  • Contextual Browsing Assistants: Future iterations could see Gemini acting as a dynamic tutor or research assistant. On a complex technical page, it might offer to explain jargon, find related academic papers, or even help you debug code snippets you’re viewing in a web IDE, creating a personalized learning environment.



The Implications for the Wars:

Google’s strategy is about leveraging its vast ecosystem and existing user base. By making Chrome an agentic hub for Gemini, they can offer seamless, context-aware assistance across search, content consumption, and productivity. The challenge will be balancing powerful automation with user control and data privacy — a tightrope walk for any company dealing with such immense data, and a key battleground for user trust and regulatory scrutiny. Other players like Microsoft (Copilot in Edge) are making similar moves, indicating a clear direction for the entire browser market and intensifying the competitive pressure.


Case Study 3: Microsoft Edge and Copilot – An Incumbent’s Agentic Strategy

The Incumbent’s Response:

Microsoft is not merely a spectator in the nascent Agentic Browser Wars; it’s a significant player, leveraging its robust Copilot AI and the omnipresence of its Edge browser. Their strategy centers on deeply integrating generative AI into the browsing experience, transforming Edge from a content viewer into a dynamic, proactive assistant.



A prime example of this is the “Ask Copilot” feature directly embedded into Edge’s address bar. This isn’t just a search box; it’s an intelligent entry point where users can pose complex queries, ask for summaries of the page they’re currently viewing, compare products from different tabs, or even generate content based on their browsing context. By making Copilot instantly accessible and context-aware, Microsoft aims to make Edge the default browser for intelligent assistance, enabling users to move beyond manual navigation and towards seamless, AI-driven task completion and information synthesis without ever leaving their browser.


The Human-Centered Imperative: Control, Trust, and the Future of Work

As these Agentic Browsers evolve, the human-centered imperative is paramount. We must ensure that users retain control, understand how their data is being used, and can trust the agents acting on their behalf. The future of the internet isn’t just about more intelligence; it’s about more empowered human intelligence. The browser wars of the past were about speed and features. The Agentic Browser Wars will be fought on the battleground of trust, utility, and seamless human-AI collaboration, fundamentally altering our digital workflows and requiring us to adapt.

For businesses, this means rethinking your digital presence: How will your website interact with agents? Are your services agent-friendly? For individuals, it means cultivating a new level of digital literacy: understanding how to delegate tasks, verify agent output, and guard your privacy in an increasingly autonomous online world. The passive web is dead. Long live the agentic web. The question is, are you ready to engage in the fight for its future?

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 credit: Gemini

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

How Tangible AI Artifacts Accelerate Learning and Alignment

Seeing the Invisible

By Douglas Ferguson, Founder & CEO of Voltage Control
Originally inspired by
“A Lantern in the Fog” on Voltage Control, where teams learn to elevate their ways of working through facilitation mastery and AI-enabled collaboration.

Innovation isn’t just about generating ideas — it’s about testing assumptions before they quietly derail your progress. The faster a team can get something tangible in front of real eyes and minds, the faster they can learn what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Yet many teams stay stuck in abstraction for too long. They debate concepts before they draft them, reason about hypotheses before they visualize them, and lose energy to endless interpretation loops. That’s where AI, when applied strategically, becomes a powerful ally in human-centered innovation — not as a shortcut, but as a clarifier.

How Tangible AI Artifacts Accelerate Learning and Alignment

At Voltage Control, we’ve been experimenting with a practice we call AI Teaming — bringing AI into the collaborative process as a visible, participatory teammate. Using new features in Miro, like AI Flows and Sidekicks, we’re able to layer prompts in sequence so that teams move from research to prototypes in minutes. We call this approach Instant Prototyping — because the prototype isn’t the end goal. It’s the beginning of the real conversation.


Tangibility Fuels Alignment

In human-centered design, the first artifact is often the first alignment. When a team sees a draft — even one that’s flawed — it changes how they think and talk. Suddenly, discussions move from “what if” to “what now.” That’s the tangible magic: the moment ambiguity becomes visible enough to react to.

AI can now accelerate that moment. With one-click flows in Miro, facilitators can generate structured artifacts — such as user flows, screen requirements, or product briefs — based on real research inputs. The output isn’t meant to be perfect; it’s meant to be provocative. A flawed draft surfaces hidden assumptions faster than another round of theorizing ever could.

Each iteration reveals new learning: the missing user story, the poorly defined need, the contradiction in the strategy. These insights aren’t AI’s achievement — they’re the team’s. The AI simply provides a lantern, lighting up the fog so humans can decide where to go next.


Layering Prompts for Better Hypothesis Testing

One of the most powerful aspects of Miro’s new AI Flows is the ability to layer prompts in connected sequences. Instead of a single one-off query, you create a chain of generative steps that build on each other. For example:

  1. Synthesize research into user insights.
  2. Translate insights into “How Might We” statements.
  3. Generate user flows based on selected opportunities.
  4. Draft prototype screens or feature lists.

Each layer of the flow uses the prior outputs as inputs — so when you adjust one, the rest evolves. Change a research insight or tweak your “How Might We” framing, and within seconds, your entire prototype ecosystem updates. It’s an elegant way to make hypothesis testing iterative, dynamic, and evidence-driven.

Seeing the Invisible

In traditional innovation cycles, these transitions can take weeks of hand-offs. With AI flows, they happen in minutes — creating immediate feedback loops that invite teams to think in public and react in real time.

(You can see this process in action in the video embedded below — where we walk through how small prompt adjustments yield dramatically different outputs.)


The Human Element: Facilitating Sensemaking

The irony of AI-assisted innovation is that the faster machines generate, the more valuable human facilitation becomes. Instant prototypes don’t replace discussion — they accelerate it. They make reflection, critique, and sensemaking more productive because there’s something concrete to reference.

Facilitators play a critical role here. Their job is to:

  • Name the decision up front: “By the end of this session, we’ll have a directionally correct concept we’re ready to test.”
  • Guide feedback: Ask, “What’s useful? What’s missing? What will we try next?”
  • Anchor evidence: Trace changes to specific research insights so teams stay grounded.
  • Enable iteration: Encourage re-running the flow after prompt updates to test the effect of new assumptions.

Through this rhythm of generation, reflection, and adjustment, AI becomes a conversation catalyst — not a black box. And the process stays deeply human-centered because it focuses on learning through doing.


Case in Point: Building “Breakout Buddy”

We recently used this exact approach to prototype a new tool called Breakout Buddy — a Zoom app designed to make virtual breakout rooms easier for facilitators. The problem was well-known in our community: facilitators love the connection of small-group moments but dread the logistics. No drag-and-drop, no dynamic reassignment, no simple timers.

Using our Instant Prototyping flow, we gathered real facilitator pain points, synthesized insights, and created an initial app concept in under two hours. The first draft had errors — it misunderstood terms like “preformatted” and missed saving room configurations — but that’s precisely what made it valuable. Those gaps surfaced the assumptions we hadn’t yet defined.

After two quick iterations, we had a working prototype detailed enough for a designer to polish. Within days, we had a testable artifact, a story grounded in user evidence, and a clear set of next steps. The magic wasn’t in the speed — it was in how visible our thinking became.


Designing for Evidence, Not Perfection

If innovation is about learning, then prototypes are your hypotheses made tangible. AI just helps you create more of them — faster — so you can test, compare, and evolve. But the real discipline lies in how you use them.

  • Don’t rush past the drafts. Study what’s wrong and why.
  • Don’t hide your versions. Keep early artifacts visible to trace the evolution.
  • Don’t over-polish. Each iteration should teach, not impress.

When teams treat AI outputs as living evidence rather than final answers, they stay in the human-centered loop — grounded in empathy, focused on context, and oriented toward shared understanding.


A Lantern in the Fog

At Voltage Control, we see AI not as a replacement for creative process, but as a lantern in the fog — illuminating just enough of the path for teams to take their next confident step. Whether you’re redesigning a product, reimagining a service, or exploring cultural transformation, the goal isn’t to hand creativity over to AI. It’s to use AI to make your learning visible faster.

Because once the team can see it, they can improve it. And that’s where innovation truly begins.


🎥 Watch the Demo: How layered AI prompts accelerate hypothesis testing in Miro

Join the waitlist to get your hands on the Instant Prototyping template

Image Credit: Douglas Ferguson, Unsplash

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

Why Best Practices Fail

Five Questions with Ellen DiResta

Why Best Practices Fail

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

For decades, we’ve faithfully followed innovation’s best practices. The brainstorming workshops, the customer interviews, and the validated frameworks that make innovation feel systematic and professional. Design thinking sessions, check. Lean startup methodology, check. It’s deeply satisfying, like solving a puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly.

Problem is, we’re solving the wrong puzzle.

As Ellen Di Resta points out in this conversation, all the frameworks we worship, from brainstorming through business model mapping, are business-building tools, not idea creation tools.

Read on to learn why our failure to act on the fundamental distinction between value creation and value capture causes too  many disciplined, process-following teams to  create beautiful prototypes for products nobody wants.


Robyn: What’s the one piece of conventional wisdom about innovation that organizations need to unlearn?

Ellen: That the innovation best practices everyone’s obsessed with work for the early stages of innovation.

The early part of the innovation process is all about creating value for the customer.  What are their needs?  Why are their Jobs to be Done unsatisfied?  But very quickly we shift to coming up with an idea, prototyping it, and creating a business plan.  We shift to creating value for the business, before we assess whether or not we’ve successfully created value for the customer.

Think about all those innovation best practices. We’ve got business model canvas. That’s about how you create value for the business. Right? We’ve got the incubators, accelerators, lean, lean startup. It’s about creating the startup, which is a business, right? These tools are about creating value for the business, not the customer.

R: You know that Jobs to be Done is a hill I will die on, so I am firmly in the camp that if it doesn’t create value for the customer, it can’t create value for the business.  So why do people rush through the process of creating ideas that create customer value?

E: We don’t really teach people how to develop ideas because our culture only values what’s tangible.  But an idea is not a tangible thing so it’s hard for people to get their minds around it.  What does it mean to work on it? What does it mean to develop it? We need to learn what motivates people’s decision-making.

Prototypes and solutions are much easier to sell to people because you have something tangible that you can show to them, explain, and answer questions about.  Then they either say yes or no, and you immediately know if you succeeded or failed.

R: Sounds like it all comes down to how quickly and accurately can I measure outcomes?   

E: Exactly.  But here’s the rub, they don’t even know they’re rushing because traditional innovation tools give them a sense of progress, even if the progress is wrong.

We’ve all been to a brainstorm session, right? Somebody calls the brainstorm session. Everybody goes. They say any idea is good. Nothing is bad. Come up with wild, crazy ideas. They plaster the walls with 300 ideas, and then everybody leaves, and they feel good and happy and creative, and the poor person who called the brainstorm is stuck.

Now what do they do? They look at these 300 ideas, and they sort them based on things they can measure like how long it’ll take to do or how much money it’ll cost to do it.  What happens?  They end up choosing the things that we already know how to do! So why have the brainstorm?”

R: This creates a real tension: leadership wants progress they can track, but the early work is inherently unmeasurable. How do you navigate that organizational reality?

E: Those tangible metrics are all about reliability. They make sure you’re doing things right. That you’re doing it the same way every time? And that’s appropriate when you know what you’re doing, know you’re creating value for the customer, and now you’re working to create value for the business.  Usually at scale

But the other side of it?  That’s where you’re creating new value and you are trying to figure things out.  You need validity metrics. Are we doing the right things? How will we know that we’re doing the right things.

R: What’s the most important insight leaders need to understand about early-stage innovation?

E: The one thing that the leader must do  is run cover. Their job is to protect the team who’s doing the actual idea development work because that work is fuzzy and doesn’t look like it’s getting anywhere until Ta-Da, it’s done!

They need to strategically communicate and make sure that the leadership hears what they need to hear, so that they know everything is in control, right? And so they’re running cover is the best way to describe it. And if you don’t have that person, it’s really hard to do the idea development work.”

But to do all of that, the leader also must really care about that problem and about understanding the customer.


We must create value for the customer before we can create value for the business. Ellen’s insight that most innovation best practices focus on the latter is devastating.  It’s also essential for all the leaders and teams who need results from their innovation investments.

Before your next innovation project touches a single framework, ask yourself Ellen’s fundamental question: “Are we at a stage where we’re creating value for the customer, or the business?” If you can’t answer that clearly, put down the canvas and start having deeper conversations with the people whose problems you think you’re solving.

To learn more about Ellen’s work, check out Pearl Partners.

To dive deeper into Ellen’s though leadership, visit her Substack – Idea Builders Guild.

To break the cycle of using the wrong idea tools, sign-up for her free one-hour workshop.

Image credit: 1 of 950+ FREE quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.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.

Innovation or Not – Chemical-Free Farming with Autonomous Robots

Greenfield Robotics and the Human-Centered Reboot of Agriculture

LAST UPDATED: October 20, 2025 at 9:35PM
Innovation or Not - Chemical-Free Farming with Autonomous Robots

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The operating system of modern agriculture is failing. We’ve optimized for yield at the cost of health—human health, soil health, and planetary health. The relentless pursuit of chemical solutions has led to an inevitable biological counter-strike: herbicide-resistant superweeds and a spiraling input cost crisis. We’ve hit the wall of chemical dependency, and the system is demanding a reboot.

This is where the story of Greenfield Robotics — a quiet, powerful disruption born out of a personal tragedy and a regenerative ethos—begins to rewrite the agricultural playbook. Founded by third-generation farmer Clint Brauer, their mission isn’t just to sell a better tool; it’s to eliminate chemicals from our food supply entirely. This is the essence of true, human-centered innovation: identifying a catastrophic systemic failure and providing an elegantly simple, autonomous solution.

The Geometry of Disruption: From Spray to Scalpel

For decades, weed control has been a brute-force exercise. Farmers apply massive spray rigs, blanketing fields with chemicals to kill the unwanted. This approach is inefficient, environmentally harmful, and, critically, losing the biological war.

Greenfield Robotics flips this model from a chemical mass application to a mechanical, autonomous precision action. Their fleet of small, AI-powered robots—the “Weedbots” or BOTONY fleet—are less like tractors and more like sophisticated surgical instruments. They are autonomous, modular, and relentless.

Imagine a swarm of yellow, battery-powered devices, roughly two feet wide, moving through vast crop rows 18 hours a day, day or night. This isn’t mere automation; it’s coordinated, intelligent fleet management. Using proprietary AI-powered machine vision, the bots navigate with centimeter accuracy, identifying the crop from the weed. Their primary weapon is not a toxic spray, but a spinning blade that mechanically scalps the ground, severing the weed right at the root, ensuring chemical-free eradication.

This seemingly simple mechanical action represents a quantum leap in agricultural efficiency. By replacing chemical inputs with a service-based autonomous fleet, Greenfield solves three concurrent crises:

  • Biological Resistance: Superweeds cannot develop resistance to being physically cut down.
  • Environmental Impact: Zero herbicide use means zero chemical runoff, protecting water systems and beneficial insects.
  • Operational Efficiency: The fleet runs continuously and autonomously (up to 1.6 meters per second), drastically increasing the speed of action during critical growth windows and reducing the reliance on increasingly scarce farm labor.

The initial success is staggering. Working across broadacre crops like soybeans, cotton, and sweet corn, farmers are reporting higher yields and lower costs comparable to, or even better than, traditional chemical methods. The economic pitch is the first step, but the deeper change is the regenerative opportunity it unlocks.

The Human-Centered Harvest: Regenerative Agriculture at Scale

As an innovation leader, I look for technologies that don’t just optimize a process, but fundamentally elevate the human condition around that process. Greenfield Robotics is a powerful example of this.

The human-centered core of this innovation is twofold: the farmer and the consumer.

For the farmer, this technology is an act of empowerment. It removes the existential dread of mounting input costs and the stress of battling resistant weeds with diminishing returns. More poignantly, it addresses the long-term health concerns associated with chemical exposure—a mission deeply personal to Brauer, whose father’s Parkinson’s diagnosis fueled the company’s genesis. This is a profound shift: A technology designed to protect the very people who feed the world.

Furthermore, the modular chassis of the Weedbot is the foundation for an entirely new Agri-Ecosystem Platform. The robot is not limited to cutting weeds. It can be equipped to:

  • Plant cover crops in-season.
  • Apply targeted nutrients, like sea kelp, with surgical precision.
  • Act as a mobile sensor platform, collecting data on crop nutrient deficiencies to guide farmer decision-making.

This capability transforms the farmer’s role from a chemical applicator to a regenerative data strategist. The focus shifts from fighting nature to working with it, utilizing practices that build soil health—reduced tillage, increased biodiversity, and water retention. The human element moves up the value chain, focused on strategic field management powered by real-time autonomous data, while the robot handles the tireless, repeatable, physical labor.

For the consumer, the benefit is clear: chemical-free food at scale. The investment from supply chain giants like Chipotle, through their Cultivate Next venture fund, is a validation of this consumer-driven imperative. They understand that meeting the demand for cleaner, healthier food requires a fundamental, scalable change in production methods. Greenfield provides the industrialized backbone for regenerative, herbicide-free farming—moving this practice from niche to normalized.

Beyond the Bot: A Mindset for Tomorrow’s Food System

The challenge for Greenfield Robotics, and any truly disruptive innovator, is not the technology itself, but the organizational and cultural change required for mass adoption. We are talking about replacing a half-century-old paradigm of chemical dependency with an autonomous, mechanical model. This requires more than just selling a machine; it requires cultivating a Mindset Shift in the farming community.

The company’s initial “Robotics as a Service” model was a brilliant, human-centered strategy for adoption. By deploying, operating, and maintaining the fleets themselves for a per-acre fee, they lowered the financial and technical risk for farmers. This reduced-friction introduction proves that the best innovation is often wrapped in the most accessible business model. As the technology matures, transitioning toward a purchase/lease model shows the market confidence and maturity necessary for exponential growth.

Greenfield Robotics is more than a promising startup; it is a signal. It tells us that the future of food is autonomous, chemical-free, and profoundly human-centered. The next chapter of agriculture will be written not with larger, more powerful tractors and sprayers, but with smaller, smarter, and more numerous robots that quietly tend the soil, remove the toxins, and enable the regenerative practices necessary for a sustainable, profitable future.

This autonomous awakening is our chance to heal the rift between technology and nature, and in doing so, secure a healthier, cleaner food supply for the next generation. The future of farming is not just about growing food; it’s about growing change.

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 credit: Greenfield Robotics

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






Moving From Disruption to Resilience

Moving From Disruption To Resilience

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In the 1990s, a newly minted professor at Harvard Business School named Clayton Christensen began studying why good companies fail. What he found was surprising. They weren’t failing because they lost their way, but rather because they were following time-honored principles, such as listening to their customers, investing in R&D and improving their products.

As he researched further he realized that, under certain circumstances, a market becomes over-served, the basis of competition changes and firms become vulnerable to a new type of competitor. In his 1997 book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, he coined the term disruptive technology.

It was an idea whose time had come. The book became a major bestseller and Christensen the world’s top business guru. Yet many began to see disruption as more than a special case, but a mantra; an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Today, we’ve disrupted ourselves into oblivion and we desperately need to make a shift. It’s time to move toward resilience.

The Disruption Gospel

We like to think of ourselves as living in a fast-moving age, but that’s probably more hype than anything else. Before 1920 most households in America lacked electricity and running water. Even the most basic household tasks, like washing or cooking a meal, took hours of backbreaking labor to haul water and cut firewood. Cars were rare and few people traveled more than 10 miles from home.

That would change in the next few decades as household appliances and motorized transportation transformed American life. The development of penicillin in the 1940s would bring about a “Golden Age” of antibiotics and revolutionize medicine. The 1950s brought a Green Revolution that would help expand overseas markets for American goods.

By the 1970s, innovation began to slow. After half a century of accelerated productivity growth, it would enter a long slump. The rise of Japan and stagflation contributed to an atmosphere of malaise. After years of dominance, the American model seemed to have its best days behind it. For the first time in the post-war era, the future was uncertain.

That began to change in the 1980s. A new president, Ronald Reagan, talked of a “shining city on a hill”, and declared that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” A new “Washington Consensus,” took hold that preached fiscal discipline, free trade, privatization and deregulation.

At the same time a management religion took hold, with Jack Welch as its patron saint. No longer would CEO’s weigh the interests of investors with customers, communities, employees and other stakeholders, everything would be optimized for shareholder value. General Electric, and then broader industry, would embark on a program of layoffs, offshoring and financial engineering in order to trim the fat and streamline their organizations.

The End Of History?

There were early signs that we were on the wrong path. Despite the layoffs that hollowed out America’s industrial base and impoverished many of its communities, productivity growth, which had been depressed since the 1970s, didn’t even budge. Poorly thought out deregulation in the banking industry led to a savings and loan crisis and a recession.

At this point, questions should have been raised, but two events in November 1989 would reinforce the prevailing wisdom. First, The fall of the Berlin Wall would end the Cold War and discredit socialism. Then Tim Berners-Lee would create the World Wide Web and usher in a new technological era of networked computing.

With markets opening across the world, American-trained economists at the IMF and the World Bank traveled the globe preaching the market discipline prescribed by the Washington Consensus, often imposing policies that would never be accepted developed markets back home. Fueled by digital technology, productivity growth in the US finally began to pick up in 1996, creating budget surpluses for the first time in decades.

Finally, it appeared that we had hit upon a model that worked. We would no longer leave ourselves to the mercy of bureaucrats at government agencies or executives at large organizations who had gotten fat and sloppy. The combination of market and technological forces would point the way for us.

The calls for deregulation increased, even if it meant increased disruption. Most notably, Glass-Steagall Act, which was designed to limit risk in the financial system, was repealed in 1999. Times were good and we had unbridled capitalism and innovation to thank for it. The Washington Consensus had been proven out, or so it seemed.

The Silicon Valley Doomsday Machine

By the year 2000, the first signs of trouble began to appear. The money rushing into Silicon Valley created a bubble which bursted and took several notable corporations with it. Massive frauds were uncovered at firms like Enron and WorldCom, which also brought down their auditor, Arthur Anderson. Calls for reform led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that increased standards for corporate governance.

Yet the Bush Administration concluded that the problem was too little disruption, not too much, and continued to push for less regulation. By 2005, the increase in productivity growth that began in 1996 dissipated as suddenly as it had appeared. Much like in the late 80s, the lack of oversight led to a banking crisis, except this time it wasn’t just regional savings and loans that got caught up, but the major financial center institutions left exposed.

That’s what led to the Great Recession. To stave off disaster, central banks embarked on an extremely stimulative strategy called quantitative easing. This created a superabundance of capital which, with few places to go, ended up sloshing around in Silicon Valley helping to create a new age of “unicorns,” with over 1000 startups valued at more than $1 billion.

Today, we’re seeing the same kind of scandals we saw in the early 2000’s, except the companies being exposed aren’t established firms like Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Anderson, but would-be disrupters like WeWork, Theranos and FTX. Unlike those earlier failures, there has been no reckoning. If anything, tech billionaires like Marc Andreessen and Elon Musk billionaires seem emboldened.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that hyped-up excesses are crowding out otherwise viable businesses in the real economy. When WeWork “disrupted” other workspaces it wasn’t because of any innovation, technological or otherwise, but rather because huge amounts of venture capital allowed it to undercut competitors. Silicon Valley is beginning to look less like an industry paragon and more like a doomsday machine.

Realigning Prosperity With Security

It’s been roughly 25 years since Clayton Christensen inaugurated the disruptive era and what he initially intended to describe as a special case has been implemented as a general rule. Disruption is increasingly self-referential, used as both premise and conclusion, while the status quo is assumed to be inadequate as an a priori principle.

The results, by just about any metric imaginable, have been tragic. Despite all the hype about innovation, productivity growth remains depressed. Two decades of lax antitrust enforcement have undermined competitive markets in the US. We’ve gone through the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the worst pandemic since the 1910s.

At the same time, social mobility is declining, while anxiety and depression are rising to epidemic levels. Wages have stagnated, while the cost of healthcare and education has soared. Income inequality is at its highest level in 50 years. The average American is worse off, in almost every way, than before the cult of disruption took hold.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change course and invest in resilience. There have been positive moves. The infrastructure legislation and the CHIPS legislation both represent huge investments in our future, while the poorly named Inflation Reduction Act represents the largest investment in climate ever. Businesses have begun reevaluating their supply chains.

Yet the most important shift, that of mindset, has yet to come. Not everything needs to be optimized. Not every cost needs to be cut. We cannot embark on changes just for change’s sake. We need to pursue fewer initiatives that achieve greater impact and, when we feel the urge to disrupt, we need to ask, disruption in the service of what?

— 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.






Reclaiming a Vision of a World That Works

Reclaiming a Vision of a World That Works

GUEST POST from Robert B. Tucker

If it feels to you like the world has shifted into overdrive of late, you’re not alone. As a futurist, I observe that we’ve crossed over from the familiar Information Age and have entered the Age of Acceleration. Since COVID, the pace of change has become exponential, rather than linear, increasing at an ever-increasing rate.

In the next ten years, we will experience more change than in the past hundred. That’s not hyperbole; it’s the reality of compounding and converging technological, geopolitical, social, and environmental forces.

These MegaForces of Change are rewriting the future in real time. They are creating new winners and losers, reshaping industries and institutions overnight. They are exposing how ill-prepared we are to navigate the whitewater rapids just ahead.

At such an inflection point in human history, it’s easy to feel powerless. It’s natural to feel as if events are happening to us rather than because of us. But that’s why I wrote Build a Better Future: 7 Mindsets for the Age of Acceleration.

After three decades advising corporate managers around the world on strategies for driving growth through innovation, I’m shifting my practice. My new passion is to accelerate human flourishing in light of this accelerated age. My goal is simple: I want to assist not just managers but everybody to regain a sense of agency, purpose, and hope amidst the biggest deluge of change we’ve experienced in our lifetimes. In short, I aspire to change the direction of humanity by helping people change their mindset.

The World Is Changing — But So Can We

Yes, the world is changing crazily, but here’s the good news: the same forces that threaten to destabilize us also contain the seeds of renewal and abundance. From my research with hundreds of innovators, entrepreneurs, and futurists, I’ve found that what separates those who flourish from those who falter isn’t intelligence, resources, or position — it’s mental hygiene.

Among the seven mindsets I explore in Build a Better Future, two feel especially urgent today.

The first is the Preparedness Mindset — the discipline of scanning the horizon, challenging assumptions, and thinking several moves ahead. Prepared leaders don’t wait for the next crisis; they actively anticipate it. They train themselves and their teams to see weak signals of change before they become tidal waves.

When you start thinking like a futurist, something remarkable happens: you start thinking about the direction, implications, threats, and opportunities in change. You begin to see the connections between events rather than reacting to them one headline at a time. You learn to differentiate signals from noise. You stop being a passive consumer of the future and start proactively shaping it.

The discipline of forward-thinking prepares you to make decisions, manage risk, and allocate your attention to what matters most. You begin to pounce on opportunities earlier, adapt faster, and feel less anxious because you have a framework for making sense of the chaos. The future stops being an abstraction — and becomes something you influence, moment by moment.

From Overwhelm to Agency

The second mindset is what I call the Human Agency Mindset. As A.I. grows ever more capable, the winners will be those who focus on nurturing what makes us uniquely human: our empathy, creativity, moral judgment, and the ability to imagine future possibilities no machine can conceive.

We now possess technologies that our ancestors could scarcely imagine. We can split atoms, edit genes, and train machines to mimic human cognition. But as technological capabilities soar, our wisdom capabilities have lagged. The real question isn’t whether we can unleash a certain technology, but whether we should, and what the implications are. How to ensure that progress serves humanity, not the other way around, will be a huge issue going forward because we can’t outsource wisdom. We must cultivate it. The danger isn’t that AI will become “smarter” than us — it’s that we’ll stop exercising our own capacity for creative thought and reflection.

Reclaiming Our Dreams

At the book launch party in Santa Barbara, I told a story about starting as a young journalist working from a tiny San Fernando Valley apartment. It was so small, the joke was you had to go outside to change your mind. But I didn’t mind because I was on fire with how journalism allowed me to subsidize my curiosity. I interviewed and profiled the visionaries and thought leaders of that era, and the experience of being around these tomorrow-builders changed my life. The big thing I became aware of was the importance of mindset in realizing your potential, and in turning visions into reality.

Today, 40 years later, I believe we all need new mindsets for what’s ahead. We need loftier visions that transcend fear and fatalism and misinformation. We need to reclaim a vision of a world that works for all — a world where technology amplifies human creativity, where wisdom keeps pace with innovation, and where we dare to believe that we can solve even the most vexing problems.

With a new set of mindsets, we can see that our best days lie ahead. That our children and grandchildren are not resigned to live lives of quiet desperation. With renewed mindsets, we can believe that nothing about the future is written in stone. The future is what we make it. It’s not something to fear or flee from. It’s something we can build — one mindset, one decision, one act of imagination at a time.

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.






The Nuclear Fusion Accelerator

How AI is Commercializing Limitless Power

The Nuclear Fusion Accelerator - How AI is Commercializing Limitless Power

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For decades, nuclear fusion — the process that powers the sun and promises clean, virtually limitless energy from basic elements like hydrogen — has been the “holy grail” of power generation. The famous joke has always been that fusion is “30 years away.” However, as a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I can tell you that we are no longer waiting for a scientific miracle; we are waiting for an engineering and commercial breakthrough. And the key catalyst accelerating us across the finish line isn’t a new coil design or a stronger laser. It is Artificial Intelligence.

The journey to commercial fusion involves taming plasma — a superheated, unstable state of matter hotter than the sun’s core — for sustained periods. This process is characterized by extraordinary complexity, high costs, and a constant, data-intensive search for optimal control parameters. AI is fundamentally changing the innovation equation by replacing the slow, iterative process of trial-and-error experimentation with rapid, predictive optimization. Fusion experiments generate petabytes of diagnostic data; AI serves as the missing cognitive layer, enabling physicists and engineers to solve problems in days that once took months or even years of physical testing. AI isn’t just a tool; it is the accelerator that is finally making fusion a question of when, not if, and critically, at a commercially viable price point.

AI’s Core Impact: From Simulation to Scalability

AI accelerates commercialization by directly addressing fusion’s three biggest engineering hurdles, all of which directly affect capital expenditure and time-to-market:

  • 1. Real-Time Plasma Control & Digital Twins: Fusion plasma is highly turbulent and prone to disruptive instabilities. Reinforcement Learning (RL) models and Digital Twins — virtual, real-time replicas of the reactor — learn optimal control strategies. This allows fusion machines to maintain plasma confinement and temperature far more stably, which is essential for continuous, reliable power production.
  • 2. Accelerating Materials Discovery: The extreme environment within a fusion reactor destroys conventional materials. AI, particularly Machine Learning (ML), is used to screen vast material databases and even design novel, radiation-resistant alloys faster than traditional metallurgy, shrinking the time-to-discovery from years to weeks. This cuts R&D costs and delays significantly.
  • 3. Design and Manufacturing Optimization: Designing the physical components is immensely complex. AI uses surrogate models — fast-running, ML-trained replicas of expensive high-fidelity physics codes — to quickly test thousands of design iterations. Furthermore, AI is being used to optimize manufacturing processes like the winding of complex high-temperature superconducting magnets, ensuring precision and reducing production costs.

“AI is the quantum leap in speed, turning the decades-long process of fusion R&D into a multi-year sprint towards commercial viability.” — Dr. Michl Binderbauer, the CEO of TAE Technologies


Case Study 1: The Predict-First Approach to Plasma Turbulence

The Challenge:

A major barrier to net-positive energy is plasma turbulence, the chaotic, swirling structures inside the reactor that cause heat to leak out, dramatically reducing efficiency. Traditionally, understanding this turbulence required running extremely time-intensive, high-fidelity computer codes for weeks on supercomputers to simulate one set of conditions.

The AI Solution:

Researchers at institutions like MIT and others have successfully utilized machine learning to build surrogate models. These models are trained on the output of the complex, weeks-long simulations. Once trained, the surrogate can predict the performance and turbulence levels of a given plasma configuration in milliseconds. This “predict-first” approach allows engineers to explore thousands of potential operating scenarios and refine the reactor’s control parameters efficiently, a process that would have been physically impossible just a few years ago.

The Commercial Impact:

This application of AI dramatically reduces the design cycle time. By rapidly optimizing plasma behavior through simulation, engineers can confirm promising configurations before they ever build a new physical machine, translating directly into lower capital costs, reduced reliance on expensive physical prototypes, and a faster path to commercial-scale deployment.


Case Study 2: Real-Time Stabilization in Commercial Reactor Prototypes

The Challenge:

Modern magnetic confinement fusion devices require precise, continuous adjustment of complex magnetic fields to hold the volatile plasma in place. Slight shifts can lead to a plasma disruption — a sudden, catastrophic event that can damage reactor walls and halt operations. Traditional feedback loops are often too slow and rely on simple, linear control rules.

The AI Solution:

Private companies and large public projects (like ITER) are deploying Reinforcement Learning controllers. These AI systems are given a reward function (e.g., maintaining maximum plasma temperature and density) and train themselves across millions of virtual experiments to operate the magnetic ‘knobs’ (actuators) in the most optimal, non-intuitive way. The result is an AI controller that can detect an instability milliseconds before a human or conventional system can, and execute complex corrective maneuvers in real-time to mitigate or avoid disruptions entirely.

The Commercial Impact:

This shift from reactive to proactive control is critical for commercial viability. A commercial fusion plant needs to operate continuously and reliably to make its levelized cost of electricity competitive. By using AI to prevent costly equipment damage and extend plasma burn duration, the technology becomes more reliable, safer, and ultimately more financially attractive as a baseload power source.


The New Fusion Landscape: Companies to Watch

The private sector, recognizing the accelerating potential of AI, is now dominating the race, backed by billions in private capital. Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a spin-out from MIT, are leveraging AI-optimized high-temperature superconducting magnets to shrink the tokamak design to a commercially viable size. Helion Energy, which famously signed the first power purchase agreement with Microsoft, uses machine learning to control their pulsed Magneto-Inertial Fusion systems with unprecedented precision to achieve high plasma temperatures. TAE Technologies applies advanced computing to its field-reversed configuration approach, optimizing its non-radioactive fuel cycle. Other startups like Zap Energy and Tokamak Energy are also deeply integrating AI into their core control and design strategies. The partnership between these agile startups and large compute providers (like AWS and Google) highlights that fusion is now an information problem as much as a physics one.

The Human-Centered Future of Energy

AI is not just optimizing the physics; it is optimizing the human innovation cycle. By automating the data-heavy, iterative work, AI frees up the world’s best physicists and engineers to focus on the truly novel, high-risk breakthroughs that only human intuition can provide. When fusion is commercialized — a time frame that has shrunk from decades to perhaps the next five to ten years — it will not just be a clean energy source; it will be a human-centered energy source. It promises energy independence, grid resiliency, and the ability to meet the soaring demands of a globally connected, AI-driven digital economy without contributing to climate change. The fusion story is rapidly becoming the ultimate story of human innovation, powered by intelligence, both artificial and natural.

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 credit: Google Gemini

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






Why Words Matter

Why Words Matter

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

We all want to make progress. We all want to to do the right thing. And we all have the best intentions. But often we don’t pay enough attention to the words we use.

There are pure words that convey a message in a kind soothing way and there are snarl words that convey a message in a sharp, biting way. It’s relatively easy, if you’re paying attention, to recognize the snarl and purr. But it’s much more difficult to take skillful action when you hear them used unskillfully.

A pure word is skillful when it conveys honest appreciation, and it’s unskillful when it manipulates under the banner of false praise. But how do you tell the difference? That’s where the listening comes in. And that’s where effective probing can help.

If you sense unskillful use, ask a question of the user to get at the intent behind the language. Why do you think the idea is so good? What about the concept do you find so interesting? Why do you like it so much? Then, use your judgment to decide if the use was unskillful or not. If unskillful, assign less value to the purr language and the one purring it.

But it’s different with snark words. I don’t know of a situation where the use of snarl words is skillful. Blatant use of snarl words is easy to see and interpret. And it looks like plain, old-fashioned anger. And the response is straightforward. Call the snarler on their snarl and let them know it’s not okay. That usually puts an end to future snarling.

The most dangerous use of snarl words is passive-aggressive snarling. Here, the snarler wants all the manipulative benefit without being recognized as a manipulator. The pros snarl lightly to start to see if they get away with it. And if they do, they snarl harder and more often. And they won’t stop until they’re called on their behavior. And when they are called on their behavior, they’ll deny the snarling altogether.

Passive-aggressive snarling can block new thinking, prevent consensus and stall hard-won momentum. It’s nothing short of divisive. And it’s difficult to see and requires courage to confront and eviscerate.

If you see something, say something. And it’s the same with passive-aggressive snarling. If you think it is happening, ask questions to get at the underlying intent of the words. If it turns out that it’s simply a poor choice of words, suggest better ones and move on. But if the intent is manipulation, it must be stopped in its tracks. It must be called by name, its negative implications must be be linked to the behavior and new behavioral norms must be set.

Words are the tools we use to make progress. The wrong words block progress and the right ones accelerate it.

Why not choose the right words?

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.