Happy Brains Make Happy Doctors

Happy Brains Make Happy Doctors

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

In this day and age, many doctors have fallen into a negative rut. They are filled with cynicism, negativity, complaining and self-defeating thoughts, many of which we see posted on social media sites like LinkedIn groups and Twitter feeds.

One of your entrepreneurial habits should be to be positive. To be positive, you need to practice having positive thoughts.

Michelle Gielan’s Resilient Optimism is a science‑backed guide showing that optimism is not a fixed trait but a trainable skill, built through five core behaviors that help people stay hopeful, grounded, and effective in challenging times.

The book structures its advice around five repeatable habits:

Recalibrate your mindset – Shift focus from setbacks to what’s working, reframing negative thoughts.

Transform your stress response – Reframe pressure as a performance‑fueling resource rather than a drain.

Triage your commitments – Protect time, energy, and attention by prioritizing what matters most.

Recharge strategically – Use recovery methods that truly restore capacity, avoiding burnout.

Connect the dots – Notice and share evidence of progress and the impact of your actions.

I would add learning how to say “no”.

Having negative thoughts has a neuropsychological basis, so re-wiring will take some cortical renovation that takes practice, practice, practice.

Here are the steps to having a happy brain:

1. Start noticing when you have negative thoughts

2. Some of your negative thoughts might, in fact, have a factual basis. However, in many or most instances, they won’t, so find evidence to the contrary.

3. With practice, practice, practice you should be thinking positively in 4 months. Imagine. Happy by this Fall.

4. Step outside of yourself

5. Exaggerate the absurdity of your negative thoughts. Can you tell a joke about your negative self? Here’s one for a start:

A woman was at her hairdresser’s getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband. She mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded:

“Rome? Why would anyone want to go there? It’s crowded and dirty. You’re crazy to go to Rome So, how are you getting there?”

“We’re taking American”, was the reply. “We got a great rate!”

“American?” exclaimed the hairdresser.” That’s a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they’re always late. So, where are you staying in Rome?”

“We’ll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome’s Tiber River called Teste.”

“Don’t go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks it’s going to be something special and exclusive, but it’s really a dump, the worst hotel in the city! The rooms are small, the service is surly, and they’re overpriced. So, whatcha’ doing when you get there?”

“We’re going to go to see the Vatican and we hope to see the Pope.”

“That’s rich,” laughed the hairdresser. “You and a million other people trying to see him. He’ll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You’re going to need it.”

A month later, the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome.

“It was wonderful,” explained the woman, “not only were we on time in one of American’s brand-new planes, but it was overbooked, and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot.

And the hotel was great! They’d just finished a $5 million remodeling job, and now it’s a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They, too, were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner’s suite at no extra charge!”

“Well,” muttered the hairdresser, “that’s all well and good, but I know you didn’t get to see the Pope.”

“Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder and explained that the Pope likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I’d be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet me. Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me.”

“Oh, really! What’d he say?”

“He said: “Where’d you get the awful hairdo?”

6. Have a positive thought in reserve when it is time to change lanes.

Now that Microsoft owns LinkedIn, maybe they will begin to offer an option where group managers can ask them to flag negative posts as a form of social cognitive reappraisal. Wouldn’t that be a positive step?

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

The Software Renaissance

The Software Renaissance

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

For about two years now, I’ve been hearing the same prediction at conferences, in elevator pitches and at the occasional awkward dinner party: AI is going to write all the code, so the people who write code are finished. Usually the person saying it has the calm, slightly sad expression of someone delivering news about a distant relative.

I’d like to offer a different diagnosis. I don’t think we’re watching the end of the coder. I think we’re at the start of a software renaissance, and the coders are about to be more in demand than ever, just not for the reasons we expected.

The old math of software

Start with why software used to be so scarce. Building a custom application was expensive: months of work, a team, a project manager, a budget with a comma in it. That cost only made sense if you could spread it across a very large number of users or a very large number of dollars. So software got built for the big problems at big companies with big customer bases. Everyone else got a spreadsheet, a pile of sticky notes, and a heroic employee named Linda who “just knows how it works.”

Think about everything that never got built under that math. The scheduling tool for the 12-person plumbing company. The inventory app for the regional distributor. The intake workflow for the three-attorney law firm. The little internal dashboard that would have saved a department four hours a week. Not one of them was a bad idea. They were all just too small to justify the price tag. Linda kept the whole thing running on memory and caffeine.

What changes when building gets cheap

Now bring the cost of building software down by a large factor, which is what AI-assisted development is doing. The math flips. A project that was impossible to justify at $200,000 becomes an easy yes at a small fraction of that. All those never-built applications suddenly clear the bar.

Economists have a name for this pattern. When something gets dramatically cheaper, people don’t use the same amount of it and pocket the savings. They find a hundred new uses for it. We’ve seen it with electricity, with computing power, with bandwidth. Cheaper software won’t mean less software. It will mean vastly more software, built for far more people and far smaller problems.

And somebody has to build, direct and look after all of it.

The coder’s job is changing, not disappearing

Here’s the part the doom-sayers keep skipping. AI can generate code at a rate no person can match. It cannot, on its own, decide what the plumbing company actually needs, notice that the requirements contradict each other, judge whether the thing it built is safe, or keep it running when the world around it changes. That work takes someone who understands systems, who can ask the right questions, and who is willing to be accountable when it breaks at 7:00 a.m.

So the role shifts from typing every line to orchestrating: defining the problem clearly, directing the AI, reviewing what comes back, handling security and data, and maintaining the result. Call it conductor, not typist. And the conductor now has a whole orchestra to lead, for clients who never could have afforded one before.

Every company that couldn’t justify a development team last year has a reason to want at least one capable person this year. That’s a lot of newly interested employers.

What the data says (and doesn’t)

I like to check my optimism against the numbers, so I did. According to Indeed’s Hiring Lab, U.S. software developer job postings rose almost 15% between February 2025 and June 2026, while postings overall fell about 7% over the same stretch. That’s the opposite of what the “AI replaces coders” story predicted.

I’d be telling you only half the story if I stopped there. Those same postings are still about 27.5% below where they stood in February 2020, so this is a partial recovery from a low base, not a boom. And much of the recent growth is in senior roles and roles with AI in the title. Indeed also describes the link to AI tools as a correlation, not proof of cause.

I actually find that last point supports the renaissance thesis rather than undermining it. If the demand is for experienced people who can direct AI and own the result, that is exactly the orchestrator role I’m describing. The loss, at least for now, falls hardest on the entry-level, typing-focused end of the job. That’s a real problem, and it deserves its own conversation about how the next generation of developers gets trained. But it’s a shift in the work, not a vanishing of it.

The deflation angle

Now for the part I find most interesting, and I’ll flag that this is an argument, not a forecast.

The latest numbers show headline inflation at 3.7% in September, up from 3.4% in August. The Fed raised rates to a range of 3.75% to 4.00% last month, its first hike in three years, and has signaled more may follow. When the central bank’s main tool is making money more expensive, it works by slowing down demand. That’s a blunt instrument.

There’s another way to bring prices down: produce more with less. This is the oldest anti-inflation tool there is, and it has nothing to do with interest rates. Productivity.

Here’s how a software renaissance fits in. When a small distributor builds the inventory tool it always needed, it wastes less stock. When the law firm automates its intake, the same people handle more clients. When the plumbing company schedules its crews well, it makes more calls per day. Each of those is a small business doing more with the same or fewer resources. Multiply that by millions of small and mid-sized businesses, and you have a broad productivity gain that pushes the cost of delivering goods and services down, not up.

I don’t want to oversell it. Software alone won’t tame inflation, productivity gains take time to show up in the data, and the forces behind current prices are bigger than any one technology. But if cheap, custom software lets millions of organizations do more with less, that’s a quiet deflationary force working in the same direction as the Fed, and unlike a rate hike, it doesn’t require anyone to give up growth to get there.

What to do about it

If you run a business: make a list of the work in your organization that lives in a spreadsheet, someone’s head, or a stack of email. Each item is a candidate. Then find someone who can orchestrate the AI to build it and keep it healthy, whether that’s an employee, a contractor or a small firm.

If you’re a developer: lean into being the person who can define the problem, direct the tools, check the output and own the outcome. That skill set is in demand and is likely to stay that way.

If you’re worried about all this: I understand. Every technological shift feels like an ending to those standing in the middle of it. But I’ve spent my career studying what happens next, and the pattern is rarely “the work disappears.” It’s “the work changes, and there’s a lot more of it than anyone expected.”

Linda, for the record, will be fine. She’ll finally get to take a vacation.

Image Credits: Gemini

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

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

FutureCanvas™: A Better Way to Run Your Next Strategy Offsite

FutureCanvas™: A Better Way to Run Your Next Strategy Offsite

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I have a theory about strategy offsites. The best idea of the entire two days is usually spoken during the coffee break, by someone who then doesn’t repeat it in the room, because the room has already moved on to the next slide.

That isn’t a people problem. It’s a structure problem. Most offsites are built like a conference with homework: a sequence of presentations, a breakout or two, a ballroom full of flip charts that get photographed and then never seen again. The output is a pile of opinions with no way to see how they connect, which means the loudest opinion wins by default.

If you’re about to plan one, here’s what I’d change, and the tool I built to help you change it.

What most offsites are missing

Walk into the typical agenda and you’ll find a lot of “what should we do?” and very little “what are we actually looking at?” Teams jump to priorities before they’ve agreed on what’s changing around them. So the debate about priorities is really a hidden debate about the future, and nobody realizes they’re having it.

Two executives can sit side by side, argue for an hour about whether to invest in a new market, and never notice that one of them is picturing a world where a regulation tightens and the other is picturing a world where it disappears. They don’t disagree about the market. They disagree about the future, and nothing on the agenda gives them a place to say so.

An offsite that works needs somewhere for those hidden pictures of the future to come out into the open, be put next to each other, and be compared. That’s the job of a canvas.

Why a canvas, and why visual

There’s a reason I keep reaching for something you can see on a single surface. When people argue in words, they argue past each other, because everyone is holding a slightly different mental map. Put the map on the wall and the argument changes. “I disagree” becomes “I’d move that one over there,” which is a far more useful sentence.

That’s the idea behind FutureCanvas™, one of the tools in the FutureHacking™ toolkit. It gives a leadership team a single, shared, visual place to work through the whole arc of foresight:

  • Signals: the small, specific things people have noticed, laid out where everyone can see them.
  • Trends: the patterns those signals suggest, grouped by the team rather than handed down to it.
  • Possible futures: a set of genuinely different, plausible futures, not one forecast wearing a trench coat.
  • Your most probable future: where the team thinks things are actually heading if nothing changes.
  • Your preferred future, and the path to it: the one you’d like to build, and what it takes to get there.

Notice the order. Priorities come at the end, once the team has agreed on what the world is doing. By then the coffee-break idea has somewhere to live, because there’s a surface for it.

How I’d run the day

If I were building your offsite agenda around it, I’d keep it simple.

Before anyone arrives, collect signals. Ask each attendee, and a few people from outside the leadership team, to bring the three oddest things they’ve noticed this year. The free FutureHacking Signal Picker is a good way to get people thinking in signals instead of opinions, and it means nobody walks in cold.

Morning: put the signals on the canvas and let the group cluster them into trends. Expect disagreement. That’s the point. A trend the whole room sees the same way in five minutes probably wasn’t interesting.

Midday: build the possible futures from those trends. The rule is that every future has to be one somebody in the room could defend with a straight face.

Afternoon: choose the most probable future, then the preferred one, and only then start talking about the path. By this point the priorities almost write themselves, and they’re attached to a picture of the world everyone helped draw.

Leave with something you can actually carry out of the room: a canvas, not a camera roll of flip charts.

Try the next step

I’m putting the finishing touches on the FutureCanvas Picker, a tool that gives planners a real taste of that full arc, from signals to trends to possible futures to a preferred path, in a single sitting. It’s the fastest way I’ve built yet to feel what the canvas does before you commit an offsite to it.

I’m opening early access to a select group first: strategic planners, CSOs and leaders who are designing or running a planning process right now and can tell me honestly what works under a real deadline. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

One more thing about your agenda

Before you finalize it, find the slot where the team is supposed to agree on what’s changing in your world. If you can’t find one, that’s the slot your offsite is missing.

Put it first. Then keep the coffee break, because I’d still like to hear that idea, only this time somewhere to put it.

Image Credits: Gemini

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

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

Innovation or Not? The Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Thrusters

Innovation or Not? The Tesla Roadster With SpaceX Thrusters

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I have been writing about innovation long enough to have developed a reflex. When something dazzling shows up, I ask three questions: Is it new? Does it create value for somebody? And will anyone outside the launch event ever actually use it?

Then, once in a while, something arrives that makes me forget the questions entirely and just stare. The new Tesla Roadster, unveiled in Texas on October 15 with thrusters borrowed from SpaceX, is one of those. A car that hops over other cars. A car that climbs an inverted ramp, spins, and lands. I watched the clip and thought, “Well, that is certainly a thing that now exists.”

Here’s the video. Watch it first, then come back and argue with me.

What Tesla actually showed

The Roadster comes in three versions, and the names are doing a lot of storytelling.

Performance (“road ready”). Two seats. Active aerodynamics and what Tesla calls a multi-mode suction system, which uses fans to pull air from under the car. Tesla says it does 0 to 60 mph in under 1.6 seconds. This is the one you reserve: the reservation is $50,000, and Tesla hasn’t announced a price.

Thrust (“race ready”). Two seats, plus rear-mounted cold-gas thrusters. Under 0.9 seconds to 60 mph, according to Tesla’s figures. It’s a limited release, and reporting puts its reservation at $250,000.

Rocket (“air ready”). One seat. Thrusters around the perimeter of the car give it forward and upward push and the ability to rotate. Under 0.59 seconds to 60 mph. It’s invite-only, no price has been given, and Tesla’s own Roadster page says it isn’t approved for public road use.

Tesla also quotes more than 230 mph and more than 300 miles of range, though reports differ on whether those numbers apply to every version or only the top one. Production, in Musk’s words, is “2028, actually.”

On the hardware: engineering VP Lars Moravy described ten thrusters drawing on 600 liters of compressed air to lift and spin the car. And here’s the detail from the video that I love: the supply isn’t fixed. The car recharges its own air tanks, a bit like regenerative braking. It sucks so it can blow. Tesla says the thrusters produce four to five times the force the tires can handle. In Track Mode, the car lowers itself and deploys active wings, with downforce Tesla describes as approaching F1 levels. Those are Tesla’s claims, and nobody outside the company has measured them yet.

A little arithmetic, because I can’t help myself

Zero to 60 mph is about 27 meters per second. In 0.59 seconds, that works out to an average acceleration of around 4.6 g. Under 0.9 seconds is roughly 3 g. Under 1.6 seconds is a bit over 1.7 g. These are my back-of-the-envelope averages, not Tesla’s figures, but they give you the flavor. A tire on pavement tops out well below the top of that range, which is exactly why the thrusters matter: they push on the air, not the road.

What this could mean for racing

This is where I got genuinely excited, and then immediately got to asking questions, because the interesting part isn’t the stunt. It’s the principle.

For a century, a race car has been limited by the same thing: how much grip four small patches of rubber can deliver. Engineers have spent that century finding ways to get more of it, with wings, ground effects, tire chemistry, and clever suspensions. A thruster that adds force without relying on the tires is a different category of answer to the same problem.

So the questions I’d be asking if I ran a sanctioning body:

  • Is it a car or an aircraft that touches the ground sometimes? Racing rulebooks are written around assumptions about what a car is. This quietly breaks several.
  • Does thrust help braking and cornering, or only launches? A launch is a spectacle. Lap time is what wins.
  • What happens to the tank on lap 20? Because the car can refill its own air supply, the way regenerative braking recovers energy, the question isn’t “how much do you have?” but “how fast can you recover it, and when do you spend it?” That turns race strategy into energy management, a trick that has made other racing formats more interesting, not less.
  • – Who gets to use it? The moment a technology like this shows up, either everyone gets it or nobody does, and neither answer is easy.

Don’t hold me to any of this. Tesla showed a demo, not a season. But “what does racing look like when grip isn’t the ceiling?” is a real question now, and it wasn’t last month.

And now, the dismay

I promised you surprise. What I actually feel is closer to dismay, and I want to be honest about why.

It isn’t the engineering. By every account I’ve read, the engineering is real and impressive, and I’d be a hypocrite to say otherwise. My dismay is about what, among all the things this talent and capital could have built, the answer turned out to be.

Consider the details. Tesla says it packed pressure vessels into every usable void in the car, and the same type of vessel has been tied to rocket explosions elsewhere. Musk said “safety is not the main goal,” and that if safety is your top priority, you shouldn’t buy the Roadster. The range is roughly half of what was promised in 2017. The project has slipped repeatedly since then. The top version isn’t road legal. And Musk himself says the car doesn’t move the needle much on revenue, which makes it a halo car, an object whose job is to make you feel something about the brand.

I understand halo cars. They’ve always existed. But there’s a difference between a halo that says “look what we can do” and one that says “safety is optional, and rules are for other people.” In a world where the most pressing transportation problems are affordability, safety and charging, building the most extreme thing imaginable, and then selling reservations for it, feels like a statement about priorities. There’s also a fair amount of speculation, including in CNBC’s coverage, that the event was partly about linking Tesla with SpaceX ahead of a possible merger. If that’s true, the car is as much a story as a vehicle.

So: innovation or not?

Here’s my verdict, and you’re welcome to disagree.

Is it new? Absolutely. Putting cold-gas thrusters on a car, and making them controllable enough to land a spin, is a genuine invention.

Does it create value? For a handful of people, certainly. For everybody else, the value is the attention it earns and the questions it raises.

Will it reach people? The Performance version, maybe, in 2028, if you have $50,000 to reserve. The versions that do the flying, probably not on any road you drive.

My verdict is that it’s a remarkable invention and a so-far unproven innovation. An invention becomes an innovation when it creates and captures value at scale, and nobody can say yet whether that will happen here. But the technology underneath, force that doesn’t depend on tire grip, is worth watching long after the Roadster itself has been forgotten or perfected.

Then again, I said the same thing about every flying car I’ve ever seen. Ask me again in 2028.

What do you think? Innovation or not? Tell me in the comments.

Image Credits: Microsoft 365 CoPilot

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

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

Allocate Resources as if People and Planet Matter

Allocate Resources as if People and Planet Matter

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Business is about allocating resources to achieve business objectives. And for that, the best place to start is to define the business objectives.

First – what is the timeframe of the business objectives? Well, there are three – short, medium and long. Short is about making payroll, shipping this month’s orders and meeting this year’s sales objectives. Long is about the existence of the company over the next decade and happiness of the people that do the work along the way. And medium – the toughest – is in-between. It’s neither short nor long but bound by both.

Second – define business objectives within the three types: people, planet and profit.

People. Short term: pay them so they can eat, pay the mortgage and fund their retirement, provide healthcare, provide a safe workplace, give them work that fits their strengths and give them time to improve their community. Medium: pay them so they can provide for their family and fund their retirement, provide healthcare, provide a safer workplace, give them work that requires them to grow their strengths and give them time to become community leaders. Long: pay them so they can pay for their kids’ college and know they can safely retire, provide the safest workplace, let them choose their own work, and give them time to grow the next community leaders. And make it easy.

Planet. Short term: teach Life Cycle Assessment, Buddhist Economics and TRIZ and create business metrics for them to flourish. Medium: move from global sourcing to local sourcing, move to local production, move from business models based on non-renewable resources to renewable resources. Long: create new business models that are resource neutral. Longer: create business models that generate excess resources. Longest: teach others.

Profit. Short, medium and long – focus on people and planet and the profits will come. But also focus on creating new value for new customers.

For business objectives, here’s the trick on timeframe – always work short term, always work long term and prioritize medium term.

And for the three types of business objectives, focus on people, planet and creating new value for new customers. Profits are a result.

Image credits: Gemini

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.

Second Complaints Are the Most Expensive Ones

Second Complaints Are the Most Expensive Ones

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

During our customer service workshops, we do an exercise we call the Moment of Misery™ Grid. The short version is that participants are asked to write down all the complaints they hear and how often they hear them. We then list them in order, with the most common complaints at the top.

It always surprises me when someone says, “We hear this all the time.” I then ask, “Why?” If you hear it all the time, why haven’t you done something about it?

The next part of the exercise is to discuss ways to eliminate or at least mitigate the problems.

Before we go further, I recognize that some organizations already have this dialed in. This exercise seems obvious, but many are surprised by the responses. They know there are problems, but they can’t always tell you how often they happen, or what they cost the organization.

So, let’s take this concept to the next level. Instead of how often we hear about the same problems, consider this question:

How often do we find ourselves fixing the same problem two times (or more) for a customer?

It’s one thing to have many customers calling and complaining about the same problem. If you can eliminate the problem, consider how much time, effort, and funds could be put toward more productive opportunities.

Most Expensive Customer Complaint

But when a customer has to call you twice (or more) for the same issue, this unnecessary call wastes time and energy for both the company and the customer. How often does this happen? Just as many companies have a goal and a metric for first call resolution, there should also be metrics for the number of calls and the amount of time required to resolve the same issue. You’re looking to measure at least four issues:

  1. How often do we fail to resolve the customer’s issue the first time?
  2. How many times do customers contact us after the initial contact for the same problem?
  3. How long did it take to finally resolve the customer’s issue (one day, one week, etc.)?
  4. What’s the average time it takes to finally resolve the problem versus how long it would take if it was solved on the first call?

That last one may be the most important metric. This will tell you how much time and money were spent because you couldn’t resolve the problem on the first call.

The point is that, just as you look to eliminate problems overall, you should also look for ways to eliminate the second (or third, or fourth …) call for the same problem. If customers are calling you twice for the same issue, the problem isn’t the customer. It’s the system … so fix it! Every repeat call that is eliminated pays dividends in the form of time, money, and customer goodwill. And that’s what a great customer service experience looks like: fixing problems once, not apologizing for them twice!

Image Credits: Shep Hyken, 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.

How Should CEOs Operate?

How Should CEOs Operate?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

A post a little while ago of Dealbook with Andrew Ross Sorkin led off with a great topic: How hands-on should founders be in their companies? As Sorkin notes,

In the framing of Brian Chesky, the Airbnb co-founder and C.E.O., and Paul Graham, the Y Combinator co-founder, it comes down to “founder mode” versus “manager mode.” It’s not a new question — and it draws on longstanding examples like Steve Jobs — but it has taken on fresh significance as start-ups struggle with how to grow while keeping antsy investors happy.

This relates directly to the Zone to Win and the discipline of zone management, so I want to riff off of Sorkin’s column in a Point/Counterpoint way to tease out what I think are the key issues.

My core thesis is that “founder mode” is centered in leadership and is critical to the operating models of the Incubation Zone and Transformation Zone, and that “manager mode” is centered in management and is critical to the operating models of the Performance Zone and Productivity Zone. This is an and, not an or, situation—both are mandatory—but who is in charge where can be up for grabs.

My view, however, is that it should not be. The CEO needs to call the shots when it comes to dealing with disruption and catching the next wave, be that through incubation or transformation. In parallel, the ELT executive suite needs to be in charge of current lines of business in established categories, delivering performance and productivity. The ELT reports to the CEO, so the latter has oversight over the Performance and Productivity Zones and is accountable to the board of directors for their success, but this should largely be accomplished through hiring and promoting the most talented operators, not standing shoulder to shoulder with them on the front lines.

As for the struggle start-ups experience between how to grow and keeping antsy investors happy, the key point is that growth investors are willing to accept short-term shortfalls in financial metrics in order for the enterprise to invest in incubation and transformation initiatives to catch the next wave. Value investors are not. They prefer predictable execution of performance and productivity initiatives that leverage the inertial momentum of established categories. When a high-growth start-up goes public, they get reviewed by financial analysts who are inevitably focused on performance and productivity, and it takes all the narrative skills that the CEO and CFO can muster to build support for any kind of transformation.

Graham, as reported by Sorkin, tells a somewhat different story:

The prime example Graham cited was Chesky. The Airbnb boss shared his story at a recent Y Combinator event, and also discussed it on a podcast: “The less hands-on I was, the more I got sucked into problems. And by the time I got sucked into a problem, it was like 10 times as much work,” Chesky said on the podcast.

Instead, he decided: “I’m going to be involved in every single detail. And Airbnb is not going to do anything more than I can personally focus on.”

That has gotten results, Graham wrote, with Airbnb now having some of the best free cash flow in Silicon Valley. Then again, Airbnb’s stock price is 31 percent below its 52-week high.

Okay, there’s a lot to unpack here. Brian, in my view, is a great CEO leader. The fact that he got sucked into a lot of problems, I suspect, is not because his team does not know how to manage but because the category itself is transitioning from hypergrowth to growth, the competition is catching up, the regulators are weighing in, and so there is still a lot of pathfinding to do. As these paths become more established, he should deliberately step away from those operations to free himself for the next wave of changes. The fact that the company’s stock price is 31 percent below its 52-week high, given that Airbnb has great free cash flow, is far more likely to be due to category dynamics than management execution.

Sorkin goes on to list a number of well-known examples of CEOs, in addition to Jobs, who have taken a very hands-on approach to management, including Jensen Huang, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman. All, however, are living in the midst of categorical disruption, where leadership takes precedence over management. That is because categorical stability and inertial momentum, which are the prerequisites for management success, are simply not there yet.

Sorkin also mentions Howard Schultz, who built Starbucks from a local Seattle coffee chain into a global colossus and was famously hands-on, also fits the mold. But here I think we have a CEO who has not orchestrated the transition to management well, witnessed by the volatility in its stock price for the first half of this decade, in a category that is not under disruption.

Finally, there are a handful of examples at the end of the column that can serve as litmus tests for zone management principles:

Dan Rose, who held leadership positions at Amazon and Meta, wrote that Jeff Bezos and Zuckerberg “were both micro-managers, deep in the details of the product and business. They never set expectations of autonomy, and they fired anyone who resisted their oversight.”

Amazon has never stopped disrupting, and the core of its innovation engine, and Bezos’s personal genius, is an incredibly deep and fine-grained inspection of established processes which underpins their radical reengineering to generate astounding competitive advantage. Meta is more of a mixed bag, but again, with a quarter of the Earth’s population on the platform, it is in the midst of every disruption on the planet. The idea that management should have autonomy under such conditions is ludicrous.

Others said there were nuances. Jessica Lessin, the founder of The Information, argued that founders do need capable managers, noting that Jobs relied on Tim Cook to oversee the vast and intricate manufacturing operation that became one of Apple’s most crucial assets. A start-up investor, Henrik Torstensson, agreed that execution mattered, citing Microsoft under Satya Nadella as a “Hall of Fame example” of manager mode done right.

In both instances, Apple and Microsoft are leveraging well-established businesses in personal computing, supplemented by Apple’s success in smartphones and media distribution, and Microsoft’s in business applications and, most recently, cloud computing, while at the same time engaging with the category disruption of AI. This calls for a balance of leadership and management, which is Satya’s gift. Tim has a tougher hand to play because Steve is an impossible act to follow. But since they are running two of the most valued companies on the planet, I think they are probably doing OK.

Stepping back from this whole line of thinking, the key takeaway is that the discipline of zone management is well-equipped to deal with these challenges. The first question to answer is not who should be in charge, but rather, how should we tackle this? What zone, in other words, offers the best operating model for coping with the challenges at hand? Once we decide that, then we know whether leadership or management gets the primary nod, and, thus, whether the CEO or the ELT should take the reins.

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

— Image credit: Geoffrey Moore

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.

Cede or Seed: What’s Your Innovation Strategy?

Cede or Seed: What's Your Innovation Strategy?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

To Cede, or to Seed, that is the question:

Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of a down quarter or year,

Or to take arms against the Tyranny of Now

And by opposing overcome it.

To Cede – to withdraw,

Spend no more; and by stopping to say we end

The innovation and the thousand natural insights

That pave the way: ‘tis a necessity

Stoically to be endured

To Seed, to spend;

To spend perchance to grow – ay there’s the rub:

For in that spending on innovation what revenue may come,

When we have emerged from this uncertainty,

Must give us hope – there’s the advantage

That makes success of such a business

  • Hamlet, if he were a senior executive making budget decisions during periods of uncertainty (and with my deepest apologies to Shakespeare)
The Question

To cede or seed is the question facing so many executives right now.

The same question faced executives in 2001, 2008, and 2020.

And an answer is required.

But what’s the right answer?

As a friend likes to say, “It’s contextual.”

To Cede

Cede is the most common answer for two main reasons: (1) executives feel they don’t have a choice because super-senior executives mandated an x% budget, or (2) executives need to boost results by allocating resources to things with “guaranteed” ROI.

Whatever the reason, innovation is a luxury the business can no longer afford, and the core business is a necessity to be supported at all costs. As a result, rather than scaling back a little in a lot of places, managers believe it is safer and easier to eliminate innovation entirely and maintain, or even increase, resources for operations.

Sometimes, this is also the right answer.

If the business is hemorrhaging cash, its value is plummeting, and people are questioning whether or not it can stay in business, then Cede is the right answer. There’s no sense in investing for success in one, three, or five years if there’s little chance of seeing the next day, week, or month.

But odds are, you’re not in that situation.

To Seed

The Dot-com bubble. The Great Recession. COVID-19 recession.

The 21st century has allowed us to study the impact of different decisions during and after economic crises.

And when it comes to innovation, evidence shows that companies that continue to invest in innovation during times of economic uncertainty outperformed the market by 10% during the crisis and by up to 30% in the five years immediately following the crisis.

But not all companies.

A study of 4,700 companies during three global recessions (1980 – 1982, 1990 – 1991, and 2000 – 2002) found that “Businesses that boldly invest more than their rivals during a recession… enjoy only a 26% chance of becoming leaders after a downturn.”  However,

“Companies that master the delicate balance between cutting costs to survive today and investing to grow tomorrow do well after a recession. Within this group, a subset that deploys a specific combination of defensive and offensive moves has the highest probability—37%—of breaking away from the pack. These companies reduce costs selectively by focusing more on operational efficiency than their rivals do, even as they invest relatively comprehensively in the future by spending on marketing, R&D, and new assets. Their multipronged strategy…is the best antidote to a recession.”

The takeaway – Seed, don’t splurge.

The Answer (sort of)

It’s easy, and incredibly biased, of me to assert that there is one and only one right answer. That the executive who cuts innovation spending (along with travel budgets and probably a few other things) is woefully short-sighted and dooming his business to a never-ending cycle of cutting back, losing ground, and racing to catch up, only to cut again when the next downturn hits.

It’s also very unfair because I’d be using history and theory to judge an executive grappling with the reality of organizational mandates, limited resources, and very real responsibilities.

The right answer is the one you can live with.

Ceding makes sense in the short term, but it’s a liability in the medium and long term.

Seeding pays off in 2-3 years, but you’ll endure skepticism and risk your bonus or job while waiting.

Research says Seeding is the right answer.

Reality often dictates Ceding.

The choice is yours.

Just remember that, like Hamlet, you live (or die) with the results. Innovation

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.

Why the Incredible GE Turnaround Could be a Sign of the Times

Why the Incredible GE Turnaround Could be a Sign of the Times

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When Jack Welch took the helm at General Electric in 1981, it marked the beginning of a new era. Corporations would no longer coddle workers, but would slash costs, close factories and focus on increasing shareholder value. By 1999 he had increased revenues from $26.8 billion to nearly $130 billion and in 2000 he was named “Manager of the Century” by Fortune magazine.

Yet all the success belied serious problems rumbling underneath the surface. As David Gelles explains in, The Man Who Broke Capitalism, Welch increased profits largely by “financializing” the firm and operations suffered. Under his successor, Jeffrey Immelt, GE collapsed and was removed from the Dow index.

Yet while Welch’s rise marked a new era of shareholder capitalism, the new CEO at GE, Larry Culp has taken a different turn. He invests in workers, distributes authority and has refocused the firm on improving manufacturing productivity. The result has been one of the most dramatic turnarounds in industrial history, perhaps signaling a larger shift.

The Welch Myth

To understand why the Welch era was not what it seemed, let’s look at one common practice that took hold in the 1980s and 90s: Offshoring. From a shareholder value perspective, it has an intuitive logic. You move your factory from high wage countries such as the US to low wage countries such as China and pocket the savings. You lower costs and increase profits, at least in the short-term.

Yet that analysis omits some important factors. First of all, it undermines trust among employees, suppliers and other partners when relationships are treated as purely transactions. Also, a Harvard study found that moving the factory floor thousands of miles away from R&D reduces knowledge transfer and has a negative effect on innovation.

Looking back, it’s easy to see how this played out at GE. The company became more profitable, but less productive. For decades, it failed to innovate. Its last major invention was the CT scanner, which came out in the 1970s, before Jack Welch took the helm. For all of the hype about his management genius, in truth Welch was, in large part, living off the accomplishments of his predecessors.

One helpful way to look at managing an enterprise is to group it into two major activities: capacity building and optimization. Building capacity is a drag on profits in the short term, but builds a foundation for the future. Optimization focuses on efficiency, which drives short-term profits, but doesn’t build anything for the long term.

Welch’s layoffs created profits, but undermined GE’s ability to build capacity. The firm’s increasing reliance on its finance arm to smooth earnings masked real problems and increased risk. The stage was set for a downfall.

The Road To Ruin

In 2001, after a lengthy succession process, Jeffrey Immelt was named Jack Welch’s successor and he began his star-crossed tenure. The 9-11 attacks hit the firm’s aerospace business hard and, while he used many of the same accounting tricks involving GE finance that Welch employed, the share price continued to lag. That’s when Jeffrey Immelt set out on a journey to transform GE into a 124 year old startup.

No longer would GE be a boring old manufacturing company, but would make a “pivot” to the digital age. Although it was one of the largest private organizations in the world, with 300,000 employees, he sought to become agile and nimble enough to compete with high-flying Silicon Valley firms. A key ambition was the development of Predix, an industrial software platform.

He also brought in Lean Startup guru Eric Ries to help instill a more entrepreneurial culture and speed time to market. The initiative caught on and eventually became the FastWorks program, One of the most touted projects was the development of a gas turbine , which reduced development time by a full year while significantly increasing performance. Immelt also acquired the power division of Alstom, essentially doubling down on the same bet.

It didn’t end well. As renewable energy began to take off, demand for gas turbines declined markedly. In 2017, problems in the firm’s power division led to massive layoffs and GE’s removal from the Dow after 110 years.. Immelt was forced to step down as CEO. The company, once famous for its sound management, was now an iconic failure.

The Rebirth

In the aftermath of GE’s collapse, Larry Culp was named as the first outsider CEO in its history and he came with a very different approach. Unlike Jack Welch, he didn’t take pride in layoffs or try to be a management guru. Nor did he fall in love with Silicon Valley and fashion himself as some sort of new age hero, like Jeffrey Immelt.

Instead, he focused on improving operations through lean manufacturing, a methodology focused on continuous improvement that’s been around for over four decades, and shed debt to improve the resiliency of its balance sheet. He also broke the company up into three separate firms, reversing GE’s history of growth through acquisition.

Most of all, he shifted management’s focus from seeing its employees as cost centers to profit centers. Rather than offshoring to cut costs, lean manufacturing puts an emphasis on getting the factory floor involved, using frontline hands-on knowledge to improve productivity and efficiency. GE’s famous culture of stack-ranking and shooting the messenger has been replaced by one in which workers are encouraged to report problems so they can be solved.

The results are hard to argue with. In 2023, GE’s share price leaped by 95.8%, outperforming darlings such as Apple, Google and Microsoft and sending its market cap back over $150 billion. Perhaps most importantly, he’s shown that you can best serve shareholders by serving employees, much as MIT’s Zenep Ton argues in her book, The Case for Good Jobs.

Rethinking American Industry

General Electric has long been symbolic of the US economy. Formed in the 1890s when J.P. Morgan merged Thomas Edison’s electric company with other firms, it was one of the original components of the Dow Jones index and signaled America’s industrial rise. It also became the first major conglomerate, forming the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in 1919, which became a leading broadcaster.

That all began to change when Jack Welch took over in 1981. He led a new era of “Welchism,” in which CEO’s laid off employees, offshored factories and engaged in “financial engineering,” to goose profits. American industry followed suit, cutting investment in R&D, lobbying hard for cuts in government spending and corporate taxes, hollowing out the US industrial base.

Yet it appears that GE’s new CEO, Larry Culp, might be as emblematic for the new era as Jack Welch was for the old one. Instead of layoffs, he’s investing in lean manufacturing methods that put front-line workers at the center and instead of using acquisitions to fuel growth, he’s broken the company up to help focus on operational excellence.

This reflects a greater shift that began during the Obama Administration with the creation of the Advanced Manufacturing Office and the Manufacturing USA Institutes. It has continued under the Biden Administration with legislation such as the CHIPS Act and the IRA. The results are clear. Manufacturing employment has increased by roughly 1.5 million jobs since 2010, productivity is up and unemployment is at record lows.

The truth is that we’re moving from an era of bits to an era of atoms and that means we can’t just move fast and break things anymore. We can expect the basis of competition to shift away from design sprints, iterating, and pivoting to building meaningful, collaborative relationships in order to solve grand challenges.

Once again, what’s going on at GE might be a sign of the times.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: 1 of 1,550+ FREE quotes for you 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.

Goal-Setting That Actually Works

Goal-Setting That Actually Works

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Goal-setting is one of the most powerful tools a leader has. But most leaders don’t wield it nearly as well as they think. And if we’re honest, many treat it as just another item on the management checklist. You draft goals at the beginning of the year, plug them into your HR system, and then forget about them until the next performance review cycle. That’s not leadership. That’s busywork.

And when goals are vague, misaligned, or constantly shifting, they don’t inspire effort—they create confusion. Your team stops trusting the process. Eventually, they stop trusting you. And when that happens, performance drops, motivation tanks, and the team dynamic starts to unravel.

That’s not the kind of team you want to lead. And it’s definitely not the kind of team you want to be on.

The good news is, goal-setting doesn’t have to go wrong. But before we talk about how to fix it, we need to talk about how most leaders get it wrong in the first place.

The Most Common Goal-Setting Mistakes Leaders Make

There are a few ways leaders unintentionally sabotage themselves—and their teams—when setting goals. And one of the most well-documented comes from a study with a surprisingly catchy title: Goals Gone Wild. Researchers at Harvard found that when leaders set too many goals, or overly aggressive ones, it actually hurt performance.

Instead of building focus and momentum, teams start scrambling to hit numbers without understanding the bigger picture. They cut corners. They burn out. And they start working in silos instead of collaborating. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: metrics aren’t meaning.

And then there’s the issue of stretch goals. They’re great in theory—designed to push the team beyond business-as-usual. But stretch quickly turns into stress when the goals are unrealistic. If your team is standing at the starting line thinking, There’s no way we’ll ever hit that target, the most common reaction isn’t motivation. It’s apathy. Why try if you’re already destined to fail?

Finally, there’s the confusion between learning goals and performance goals. Performance goals are about execution—hitting a number or completing a process. Learning goals are about experimentation—trying new things and embracing occasional failure. Both are valid. But when you try to hit both at the same time, you’re essentially slamming on the gas and the brakes. And teams stall out.

Now that we’ve identified the common traps, let’s talk about how to set goals the right way.

How To Set Goals That Actually Work

Here are four research-backed strategies for goal-setting that will strengthen performance, boost motivation, and build long-term trust with your team.

1. Choose a Clear Focus

Before you start drafting goals, get clear on the kind of work your team is doing right now.

If your team is executing on something known—like running a proven process or scaling an existing strategy—then set performance goals. These should be measurable, time-bound, and tied to operational excellence.

But if your team is exploring something new—developing a prototype, entering a new market, or experimenting with a different process—then it’s time for learning goals. These goals encourage experimentation, reflection, and iteration.

You can shift between learning and performance goals over time. In fact, most innovation cycles require both. But don’t mix them in the same cycle. When everything is both a test and a target, nobody knows what matters most.

Make it clear: are we in learning mode or performance mode?

2. Clarify the Purpose Behind the Goal

Most goals focus on what to do. But few explain why it matters. And that’s a missed opportunity. Because while some people are naturally competitive—motivated by the scoreboard—most people need more than a number to stay engaged. They need meaning.

So instead of saying, “Increase repeat customer business by 15% this quarter,” clarify what that number means. For example: “Increase repeat business by 15% because that shows customers trust us enough to keep coming back—and that we’re delivering value worth repeating.”

It’s not just about the number. It’s about the impact that number represents.

That doesn’t mean you abandon metrics. Specific, measurable goals still matter. But they work best when they’re connected to something deeper. Remember: metrics guide performance. Meaning fuels it.

3. Co-Create Goals and Take Feedback Seriously

Top-down goal-setting kills motivation. If your team has no say in how their goals are defined—or no visibility into how they’re progressing—then those goals won’t inspire action. They’ll be seen as arbitrary mandates. And people disengage.

Great leaders define the “what” but collaborate on the “how.” You can set the targets, milestones, and success metrics. But bring the team in to help design the approach. When people see themselves in the plan, they take ownership. And ownership drives motivation.

That collaboration shouldn’t stop after goals are set. Check in regularly—not to micromanage, but to monitor progress, solve challenges early, and adjust course if needed. Talk about what’s working, what’s not, and what the team is learning. That ongoing feedback loop keeps goals relevant and keeps people engaged.

4. Watch for Signs of Goal Fatigue

Even the best goals can backfire if they come too fast, too often, or without a break. Goal fatigue happens when every project is urgent and every metric is top priority. When your team is always sprinting, it’s only a matter of time before they burn out.

Your job as a leader isn’t just to set goals. It’s to sustain ambition.

That means watching for early signs of fatigue—slipping deadlines, fading creativity, or a drop in team energy. And when you see those signs, don’t push harder. Take a pause.

Ask: “What’s essential right now?” Maybe it’s time to scale back or switch from performance goals to learning goals for a while. Give your team space to recover, reflect, and rebuild their sense of purpose. When motivation returns, performance will follow.

The Real Goal of Goal-Setting

When done right, goal-setting doesn’t just drive results—it builds trust. It clarifies direction, reinforces purpose, and gives people ownership in the outcome. But when done wrong, it becomes just another bureaucratic task. A checkbox. A system no one believes in.

So if your current goal-setting approach isn’t energizing your team, it’s time to change the way you lead it.

Pick a focus. Tie goals to purpose. Build them together. Check in often. And don’t forget to rest.

Because the goal isn’t just to hit a number. The goal is to build a team that’s motivated, focused, and in it for the long haul.

Image credit: Pixabay

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