Goals Require Belief to be Achievable

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

I’m all for stretch goals to help people grow. “Hey, you did this last year but I think you can do ten percent more this year. And here’s why – [list three reasons here.]” This works. This helps people grow. This is effective. This is grounded in what happened last year. This is grounded in specific reasons why you think the stretch goal is possible. And when you do it this way, you are seen as credible.

Back in the day, when elite runners were running the mile in 4:04 their coaches said “Hey, you ran 4:04 last year but I think you can do it a little faster this year. I think you can run it in 3:59. And here’s why – your time has been decreasing steadily over the last three years, you have been working out with weights and you’re much stronger and there’s a small adjustment we can make to your stride that will help you be more efficient.

As an athlete, I believe this coach. It’s true, I did run 4:04 last year. It’s true, my time has decreased steadily over the last years. It’s true, I have been working hard in the weight room. And, because all these things are true, I believe the coach when she tells me she knows a way to help me run faster. This coach is credible and I will work hard for her.

Back in the day, when elite runners were running the mile in 4:04, their coaches did NOT say “Hey, as a stretch goal, I want you to run 2:59 next year. I know it’s a big improvement, but I want to set an arbitrary and unrealistic goal so I can get the most out of you. And no, I don’t have any advice on how you can run 27% faster than last year. As the one doing the running, that’s your job. I’m just the coach.”

As an athlete, I don’t believe this coach. There’s no way in hell I will run 27% faster this year. It’s simply not physically possible. The world record is 4:01 and I can’t break it by over a minute. The coach has no clue about how I can achieve the goal, nor did he build a bridge from last year’s pace to this silly target. This coach is not credible and I will not work hard for him.

As a leader you are credible when you set an improvement goal that’s grounded in the reality of how things have gone in the past. And you’re more credible when you give specific reasons why you think the improvement goal is possible. And you’re more credible when you give suggestions on how to achieve the goal. And you’re even more credible when you tell people you will actively support them in the improvement effort. When you do it this way, people think better of you and they’ll work hard for you.

Here’s a rule: if the goal isn’t believable it’s not achievable.

As a leader, when you set an improvement goal that’s out of line with reality you are NOT credible. When you declare an improvement goal that’s disrespectful of history, it’s not a stretch goal. It’s an arbitrary edict designed to trick people into working too hard. And everyone can spot these “goals” at twenty paces. Your best people will give you the courtesy of calling you on your disingenuous behavior, but most people will just smile and quietly think less of you. And none of them will work hard for you.

When the improvement goal isn’t credible, neither are you. Think twice before you ask your people to drink the company Kool-Aid.

Image credit: Gemini

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

I Quote Dead People

Leave a reply

I Quote Dead People

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

The other day, I was talking to a friend about famous movie lines. He said one of his favorite movies was The Sixth Sense starring Bruce Willis, and his favorite line came from 9-year-old Cole, played by Haley Joel Osment, who said, “I see dead people.”

I responded, “That’s funny. I quote dead people.” He looked at me strangely. He laughed. We’re both speakers, and we often use motivational quotes to emphasize our points. I told him the story of a client who felt one of my quotes was outdated. She said, “Nobody knows who you were referring to,” even though I prefaced the quote by mentioning that most of the audience wouldn’t recognize the actor I was about to quote, but that what he said was still relevant.

I could have quoted my father, my third-grade teacher, the 16th president of the United States or Aristotle, who died in 322 B.C. The point is, it doesn’t matter if the person is recognizable, living or dead. It’s what we can learn from them.

I Quote Dead People Cartoon Shep Hyken

So my line, “I quote dead people,” is now in my standard explanation prior to quoting someone who has passed and whose name may not be recognizable. Here are six of my favorite quotes I’ve used in customer service and experience keynote speeches:

Leonardo da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Companies that are easy to do business with will win over competitors that offer complicated, cumbersome and inconvenient experiences.
Aldo Gucci said, “Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten.” Our customer service research shows that people will pay more for a quality experience.
Zig Ziglar said, “You can have everything in life you want, if you will just help other people get what they want.” Help your customers get what they want – not always what you want to sell them – and they will reciprocate by giving you business.
The 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” There are many ways you can interpret this. I’ll go with the importance of preparation. When you have an important meeting, your customers deserve your best. Take time to prepare!
Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, said, “There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.” Keep that in mind each and every time you’re interacting with a customer.
Tony Hsieh, the founder of Zappos, said, “Customer service shouldn’t be a department, it should be the entire company.”

I’ve quoted many great minds of the past – some well-known, others less recognized. Their words can be powerful, educational and inspiring. But no matter who said them, always give credit where it’s due. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do, and as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wisely said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.”

Image Credits: Gemini, Shep Hyken

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

The Nordic Way of Leadership in Business

1 Reply

The Nordic Way of Leadership in Business

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

What if there was a leadership approach that naturally fostered trust, embraced adaptability, and encouraged continuous innovation? Could this approach serve as a model for navigating today’s complex business landscape? Many organizations are finding inspiration in exactly such a model – the Nordic way. Known for its progressive approach to leadership, organizational agility, and transformative innovation, the Nordic style is gaining recognition worldwide for its unique, people-first methods.

Here’s a closer look at why the Nordic approach is a valuable inspiration for leaders globally and how its principles might apply across cultures and industries.

Leadership: Trust as the Foundation

Nordic leadership is deeply rooted in trust. Rather than micromanaging, Nordic leaders empower their employees by granting autonomy and responsibility, creating a high-trust environment that enhances motivation, engagement, and creativity. This approach not only flattens traditional hierarchies but fosters open communication and shared purpose. Employees in Nordic organizations are encouraged to think independently, take ownership of their roles, and bring their best ideas to the table – qualities essential for navigating constant change.

This trust-based model also creates an environment of psychological safety, where people feel valued and supported. It’s a model that resonates well beyond the Nordic region, offering a compelling answer to the global call for leaders who can cultivate an engaged and resilient workforce. By promoting a culture where everyone is part of the mission, Nordic leaders are creating teams prepared to face challenges collaboratively and creatively.

Agility: A Mindset of Flexibility and Collective Ownership

Nordic organizations approach agility not simply as a set of processes but as a fundamental mindset. It’s a philosophy of flexibility and shared ownership that spans the entire organization, enabling teams to pivot quickly and proactively address new challenges. By encouraging collaboration and empowering cross-functional teams, Nordic organizations instill a strong sense of collective responsibility, where employees at all levels contribute to swift decision-making and adaptive strategies.

This approach to agility is about building a resilient organization, one that can respond effectively to changes in the market, technology, or societal expectations. For organizations worldwide, adopting a similar mindset could mean going beyond structured agile practices to develop a true culture of adaptability and resilience, grounded in empowered teams and proactive collaboration.

Innovation and Transformation: Constant Evolution

Nordic companies are known for their strong commitment to innovation, but it’s not innovation for its own sake – it’s innovation with a purpose. In the Nordic approach, innovation is a continuous process integrated into everyday work, driving improvements across products, services, and even organizational practices. Rather than isolating innovation within specific departments, Nordic organizations encourage a culture of experimentation, learning, and reinvention throughout the entire organization.

This proactive approach to transformation and change is essential for maintaining relevance in a competitive world. Nordic leaders understand that sustainable innovation relies on a supportive culture, one where challenging the status quo is encouraged and continuous improvement is celebrated. For global businesses, this focus on purposeful innovation offers a framework that can help organizations evolve while staying aligned with their core values and mission.

Values as Drivers of Sustainable Success

At the heart of Nordic leadership and organizational development are values like sustainability, collaboration, and inclusivity. Nordic leaders prioritize these values not just as corporate responsibilities but as strategic drivers of success. By embedding principles of social responsibility, environmental stewardship, and inclusivity into their business practices, Nordic organizations create a competitive edge that appeals to modern consumers and stakeholders alike.

For organizations in other parts of the world, these values are increasingly relevant as they face rising expectations for transparency, ethical conduct, and positive societal impact. Nordic leaders illustrate how a values-driven approach not only enhances business reputation but also contributes to innovation and employee engagement, establishing a model that aligns organizational success with social progress.

Can the Nordic Way be a Learning Source for Global Leaders?

While the Nordic model provides valuable inspiration, it may not be universally applicable without adaptation. Here’s a closer look at its potential as a learning source for leaders globally:

Pros

Adaptable Principles: Nordic leadership’s focus on trust, collaboration, and sustainability is relevant across industries and regions. These core principles offer a framework that any organization can incorporate to enhance engagement and adaptability.
Scalability of Agility: The Nordic approach to agility as a mindset rather than a rigid framework allows for flexible application. Organizations of different sizes can tailor this mindset to suit their unique structures and goals.
Empowered Innovation: By democratizing innovation across the organization, Nordic companies empower employees to contribute ideas and take initiative, a practice that can drive change and spark innovation regardless of regional context.

Cons

Cultural Context: The success of the Nordic model is partly rooted in Nordic cultural values of equality and inclusiveness, which may not translate seamlessly into hierarchical or individualistic cultures. Adapting these principles may require significant shifts in mindset and organizational structure.
Resource-Intensive: The commitment to employee well-being, work-life balance, and continuous learning is resource-intensive. Organizations in high-pressure or resource-limited environments may find it challenging to implement these practices at scale.
Long-Term Focus: The Nordic model’s emphasis on sustainable, long-term growth over immediate profit may not align with the priorities of companies in highly competitive markets where short-term results are essential.

Why I Believe in the Nordic Way

I believe the Nordic approach to leadership can inspire global leaders, especially those who are rethinking how to create meaningful impact within their organizations. The Nordic way is not just a set of strategies or processes; it’s a philosophy that values people, purpose, and sustainable progress.

In a time when many leaders are facing complex challenges – ranging from rapid technological change to employee well-being and social responsibility – this approach offers a balanced framework that aligns with what a lot of people, inside and outside organizations, are seeking.

One of the biggest reasons it resonates globally is because of its simplicity: build trust, foster collaboration, and drive innovation with a purpose. These are universal needs, no matter where a business operates. In any organization, these principles tap into a common need to feel valued, empowered, and part of a meaningful mission. And while the Nordic model is uniquely suited to its cultural context, its core principles are adaptable and can be translated in ways that suit other environments.

Leaders in competitive, high-stakes markets might not adopt every aspect, like the high emphasis on work-life balance, but they can still take away a focus on trust, inclusivity, and adaptive agility to improve engagement and innovation.

But What are the Challenges?

What could be missing is perhaps a realistic look at the challenges Nordic leaders face within this model. While it’s admired for its human-centered approach, maintaining high trust and autonomy can be demanding. It requires leaders to be consistent, transparent, and continuously engaged with their teams, which can be difficult as organizations scale or enter competitive markets. Consider a fast-growing company where balancing autonomy with consistency becomes a daily challenge as new layers of leadership emerge.

For leaders, this means actively working to sustain the level of trust and openness that drove early success, even as the organization scales and diversifies. Another potential challenge is balancing the flexibility that empowers employees with the structure needed for consistent output.

For global leaders, the Nordic model might be most powerful if presented not just as a set of ideals but as a journey of ongoing effort and adjustment. As leaders across the globe adapt to new realities, the Nordic way offers not just a model but a mindset – one that reminds us that lasting success begins with people and purpose.

Image Credit: Pexels

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

Navigating Unwelcome Change

Leave a reply

Five Questions with Theresa Ward

Navigating Unwelcome Change

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Picture this: your boss announces a major reorganization with a big smile, expecting you to be excited about “new opportunities.” Meanwhile, you’re sitting there thinking “What the hell just happened to my job?”

Theresa Ward, founder and Chief Momentum Officer of Fiery Feather, has spent years watching this disconnect play out. Her insight? Leaders are expected to sell change while still personally struggling with it, creating what she calls “that weird middle ground” where authenticity goes to die.

Our conversation revealed why unwelcome change triggers the same response as grief, and why leaders who stop pretending they’ve got it figured out are more successful.

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

Theresa Ward: That middle managers need to be enthusiastic about a change, or at least appear enthusiastic, to lead their teams through it.

RB: It seems like enthusiasm is important to get people on board and doing what they need to do to make change happen. Why is this wrong?

TW: Because it makes you wonder if this person is being authentic. Are they genuinely enthusiastic? Do they really believe this is the right thing?

To be clear, I’m talking about Unwelcome Change. Change that is thrust upon you. How we experience Unwelcome Change is the same way we experience grief.

When we initially experience Unwelcome Change, our brain goes into shock or denial which can actually trigger an increase in engagement and productivity.

Then we move into anger and blame, which looks different for all of us. We’ve probably experienced somebody yelling in a meeting, but it can also look like turning off the camera, folding your arms, rolling your eyes, and disengaging.

Bargaining. I always think of that clip from Jerry Maguire, where he’s got the goldfish, and he says, “Who’s coming with me?” because he’s going to make lemonades out of this lemon, even if it’s a completely ridiculous condition.

Then depression sets in. It’s the low point but it’s also where you’re really ready to admit that you’re upset, sad, and grieving the change that has happened. It’s the dark before the dawn.

RB: If everyone goes through this grief process, why do some leaders seem genuinely enthusiastic about the change?”

TW: If they came up with the idea, they’re not going to be angry or depressed about their own idea.

But even if it’s one announcement, people don’t experience just one change. It’s not, “Our budget is going from X to Y” and everyone can just get used to it. It’s double or triple that! It’s a budget cut, then a reorg, then a new boss, then a friend being laid off, then a project you loved getting trashed. You’re dealing with onion layers of change.

We all go through different stages at speeds. You can’t rush it. Sometimes you just have to be like, “Oh, okay, I’m feeling pretty angry this week. I’m just gonna have to sit through my anger phase and realize that it’s a phase.”

RB: I get that you can’t rush the process, but change doesn’t slow down so you can catch up. What can people do to navigate change while they’re processing it?

TW: BLT, baby. These are 3 tools, not a formula, that you can use for different experiences.

B stands for Benefit of Change. This is finding the silver lining, something we often underestimate because it’s such a broad cliche. For it to be effective, you need to look for a specific and personal silver lining. For example, a friend of mine works for a company that was acquired. He was not a fan of how the culture was changing, but the bigger company offered tuition reimbursement. So he used that to get his master’s of fine arts for free.

L is Locus of Control. Take inventory of everything that’s upsetting you and place it into one of 3 categories: What can I control? What can I influence? What do I need to just surrender? Sitting up at night and worrying about whether the budget will be cut again is outside of my control. So, I shouldn’t spend my time and energy on that. Instead, I need to focus on what I can control, like my attitude and response.

T is Take the Long View. Every day we find ourselves in situations that get us emotional – a traffic jam, getting cut off in traffic, or flubbing a big client presentation. When we get more emotional than what the situation calls for, ask how you’re going to feel about the situation tomorrow, then in a month, then a year Because when our fight or flight brain mode kicks in, we catastrophize things. But the reality is that most of it won’t matter tomorrow.

RB: What’s the most important mindset shift leaders need to make to help their teams through unwelcome change?

TW: Find what works for you first then, with empathy, help your team. Like the Airline Safety Video, put your mask on first, then help others. It allows you to be authentic and builds empathy with the team. Two things required to start the shift from unwelcome to accepted.

Theresa’s BLT framework won’t make change painless, but it gives you permission to admit that transformation is hard, even for leaders. The moment you stop pretending you’ve got it all figured out is the moment your team starts trusting you to guide them through the mess.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Science Says You Shouldn’t Waste Too Much Time Trying to Convince People

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Experts have a lot of ideas about persuasion. Some suggest leveraging social proof, to show that people have adopted the idea and had a positive experience. Others emphasize the importance of building trust and using emotional rather than analytical arguments. Still others insist on creating a unified value proposition.

These are, for the most part, constructive ideas. Yet they are more a taxonomy than a toolbox. Human nature can be baffling and our behavior is rarely consistent. Sometimes we’ll dig in our heels on a relatively minor point and others we’ll give in on a major issue relatively easily, often without any constable rhyme or reason.

Yet consider this one simple science-based principle that explains a lot: The best indicator of what we think and what we do is what the people around us think and do. Once you internalize that, you can begin to understand a lot of otherwise bizarre behavior and work to spread the ideas you care about. Often it’s not opinions we need to shape, but networks.

Majorities Don’t Just Rule, They Also Influence

Consider a famous set of conformity studies performed by the psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s. The design was simple, but ingenuous. He merely showed people pairs of cards, asking them to match the length of a single line on one card with one of three on an adjacent card. The correct answer was meant to be obvious.

However, as the experimenter went around the room, one person after another gave the same wrong answer. When it reached the final person in the group (in truth, the only real subject, the rest were confederates), the vast majority of the time that person conformed to the majority opinion, even if it was obviously wrong!

The idea that people have a tendency toward conformity is nothing new, but that they would give obviously wrong answers to simple and unambiguous questions was indeed shocking. Now think about how hard it is for a more complex idea to take hold across a broad spectrum of people, each with their own biases and opinions.

The truth is that majorities don’t just rule, they also influence, even local majorities. So if you want people to adopt an idea or partake in an action, you need to take into account the communities they are already a part of—at home, at work, in their neighborhood and in other aspects of their social circles. That’s where their greatest influences lie.

The 3 Degrees of Influence Rule

In 1948, Congress authorized funding for the Framingham Heart Study, which would track the lifestyle and health habits, such as diet, exercise, tobacco use and alcohol intake, of 5209 healthy men and women. It was originally intended to last 20 years, but the results were so incredibly useful, it lasted for decades and even included the children of early cohorts.

More than a half century after the study began two researchers, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, began to suspect that the Framingham Heart Study could be used for a very different, but important purpose. What they noticed was that the data included not only information about people’s habits, but their social networks as well.

So they set out to see if they could identify causal links between people’s health and their social connections. Using 32 years of data, they were able to establish a strong effect in areas as diverse as happiness, smoking and even obesity. As it turns out, the people around us not only help to shape our opinions, but our health as well.

The really astounding discovery, however, was that the effect extended to three degrees of influence. So not only our friends’ friends, influence us deeply, but their friends too—people that we don’t even know. Wherever we go, we bring that long, complex web of influence with us and we, in turn, help to shape others’ webs of influence too.

So when set out to shape someone else’s opinion, we need to account for social networks. We may, for example, be able to play on a target’s emotions, give them all the facts and evidence and demonstrate strong social proof, but their communities — extending out to three degrees of influence — will always factor in. While we’re working to persuade, those invisible webs of influence may be working against us.

Thanksgiving Dinners And Earnings Guidance

There is no greater American tradition than the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. No matter what your political persuasion, you are bound to have some relative who holds very different opinions than the rest of the family and who feels no compunction about making clear to everyone at the table exactly where they stand.

As should be clear by now, the reason our crazy uncles are so impervious to persuasion is that we aren’t actually arguing with them at all, but the totality of their social networks. Their friends at work, buddies at the bar, people in their neighborhood and everybody else who they interact with on a regular basis, all get a say at our holiday table.

In much the same way, there isn’t any real reason for CEOs to provide earnings guidance for investors. Steve Jobs refused do it and Apple’s stock during his tenure. Same thing with Unilever under Paul Polman. In 2018, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and uber-investor Warren Buffett wrote a strong Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal urging CEOs to end the practice.

During the pandemic many companies stopped giving earnings guidance to investors but, as soon as things began to stabilize, they started up again. It seems incredible, because all of the experts, even McKinsey, have advised against it. Still the vast majority of CEOs are unconvinced, despite all the contrary evidence. Could their networks be playing a role?

Don’t Try To Shape Opinions, Shape Networks

We like to think we can shape the ideas of others. It can sometimes seem like a puzzle. How can we conjure up the right combination of value proposition, analysis, emotive argument and social proof, to persuade our target?. There is, in fact, an enormous communication industry dedicated to exactly that proposition.

Decades of scientific research suggests that it’s not so easy. Our thoughts aren’t just the product of neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters reacting to different stimuli, but also our social networks. The best indicator of what people think and do is what the people around them think and do. While we’re trying to score debate points, those complex webs of influence are pushing back in often subtle, but extremely powerful ways.

We need to be far more humble about our persuasive powers. Anybody who has ever been married or had kids knows how difficult it is to convince even a single person of something. If you expect to shift the opinions of dozens or hundreds—much less thousands or millions—with pure sophistry, you’re bound to be disappointed.

Instead of trying to shape opinions, we’re often better off shaping networks. That’s why we advise our clients pursuing transformational change efforts to start with a majority, even if that majority is only three people in a room of five. You can always expand a majority out, but once you’re in the minority you’re going to get immediate pushback.

Rather than wordsmithing slogans, our time and efforts will be much better spent working to craft cultures, weaving the complex webs of influence that lead to genuinely shared values and shared purpose.

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

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

A Manager’s Guide to Employee Engagement

Leave a reply

A Manager's Guide to Employee Engagement

GUEST POST from David Burkus

We need to talk about employee engagement surveys. It’s great news that organizations are paying attention to engagement and its impact on performance. The bad news is that senior leaders seem to want a clear metric to judge how satisfied and motivated their people are. Management requires metrics, after all. Decisions require data.

Employee engagement surveys are the tool of choice to measure a company’s employee experience, motivation, and overall culture. Gallup research suggests that employee engagement is linked to many other important organization metrics like productivity, employee retention, and profitability. Unfortunately, Gallup has also found engagement is on the decline across the United States, particularly among remote, hybrid, and younger workers.

Ultimately, the reasons for the recent employee engagement decline and the inability to turn it around stem from a few problems with how most leaders treat engagement as a concept and engagement surveys as a tool. In this article, we’re going to review the top three problems with employee engagement surveys and offer a solution for each one that will not only boost engagement scores…but will engage your people.

Employee Engagement Problem #1: People don’t take the surveys seriously

Employee engagement surveys are only as important as leadership says they are, and the reliability can be a little flawed. No, don’t throw out surveys completely because the data might be flawed, but it’s important to know the context of how this engagement data is collected.

Your employee gets an email. It typically goes something like this:

“Dear Valued Employees, Our company has brought in “GloboEngage360”, to survey different aspects of the company according to the point of view of its employees. This survey is not mandatory, but your feedback is greatly appreciated and will remain anonymous.” Sincerely, Management

Put yourself in an employee’s shoes. They have meetings all day. They have tasks to do and people to coordinate with. If it isn’t mandatory, something like this is going right to the bottom of the list of things to do, or just put into the trash immediately.

And most employee’s gut reaction to a message from leadership or outside consultants saying this is anonymous is, “This is definitely not anonymous.” So, will employees take this survey seriously at all? Hard to say. Is there some value to be had from collecting the data this way? A little, but it’s best used as a starting point into your own investigation into engagement.

But we also must consider leadership’s point of view. Survey goes out. The survey consultancy collects the data, makes a nice packet of insights, and boils down your people’s performance, happiness, and productivity all into nice little percentages. But the data is only as serious as the seriousness of the people who filled out the survey, and their seriousness is determined by how seriously they think leaders care about the survey.

Seriously.

Employee Engagement Solution #1: Share the results

This should be an easy thing to do. And it’s the easiest way to communicate that you’re serious about employee feedback and improving the employee experience. It’s a mystery why companies don’t typically share the results with those who took the survey. By not sharing, people can only speculate, and they’re probably going to go to draw the worst-case scenarios like “The company is going to restructure” or “My job is in jeopardy.”

So, share the results. You may not have gotten an accurate and serious picture of engagement in the results you’re sharing, but when employees see that you considered their responses and you’re making changes as a result, they’ll give these questions more consideration next time a survey is sent around.

To articulate that these surveys matter to your team, you don’t need to send them the entire data file or even the summary report the consulting firm created for you. It can be way simpler than that. Just take the time to share:

What positive results you’re proud of.
Why you’re so proud of those results.
What unexpected results you received.
And what you’ll be changing as a result.

That’s it. Just a simple email, memo, or quick video on what senior leadership learned from the survey and what they’ll be building upon or changing completely because of the survey.

Employee Engagement Problem #2: Leaders Interpret Data Wrong

After a survey is taken, the team from human resources or the consulting firm administering the survey will compile everything and prepare a summary report. And this is where things can go really wrong. Often the report is broken down by the different questions asked, and the lower scoring the question the more attention it gets. If one item is particularly low, then we start a company-wide initiative to improve on that one item. Because when leaders only look at the company-wide data, they tend to make decisions that impact everyone… company-wide.

But if your company has issues, there’s a chance it’s not in every single department or every single team. Most people’s experience of work isn’t reflective of the entire company. It’s a commentary on the parts of the company they work with. Company culture is the average of the culture on each individual team.

You know what happens next. Now your top performing teams are subject to mandatory programs that will slow them down, confuse them, and ultimately make them feel punished. Those top performing teams need to be protected!

Employee Engagement Solution #2: Look team-by-team, not company-wide

When you look at the data, don’t just take the overall metrics and run with them. If you have direct contact with the agency you used, ask them, or ask your HR or culture team, to get the metrics broken down to the team level, or as much functional or regional separation as you can get.

And then use those metrics to isolate the teams that are under-performing in whatever areas you measured and cater a solution to that team. Talk to that manager. Talk to the people on that team. See what’s going on.

The solution for that individual team is not going to be solved by a company-wide solution. Big initiatives that touch every team in a company with the intent to weed out a problem often are too broad and diluted to fix the issue.

So, break those numbers down to the team level. Then, help the team leaders that are dragging the overall numbers down-and reward the team leaders who are serving their people well. Building a company culture is about building strong team cultures. It takes time, effort, and more than just the numbers and one big solution.

Employee Engagement Problem #3: Surveys are too infrequent

Employee engagement surveys are typically done once a year. Maybe twice. Remember, people don’t want to be inundated with surveys all year, and leadership and HR teams know that. So, companies will concentrate on that one survey ask a year. And companies will rely on HR and culture teams to implement a workplace environment that is inclusive, sparking innovation, and motivates and engages people.

It makes sense not to administer formal surveys too frequently throughout the year. HR should be very judicial when sending out surveys. But just because you’re not surveying people regularly, doesn’t mean you can’t be monitoring employee engagement regularly.

Employee Engagement Solution #3: Keep the conversation going on the team level

Managers can do their own anecdotal surveys, better known as a “conversation” with their team.

You, as a leader of your team, are ultimately responsible for your employees’ engagement and for fostering a purposeful culture. A company’s culture is the aggregate of all the teams’ cultures. This work really falls to you. Have ongoing conversations with your team and in your individual check-ins. Ask them what projects are going well. Ask them what they’re energy levels are like. Ask them how they’re interacting with their teams. And most importantly, ask them if there’s anything you can help with.

If you keep an open dialogue with your team about how things are going, the metrics from a yearly survey will not surprise or shock you. If you’re good, you’ll know before the survey.

Conclusion

Remember, a company’s culture is the sum of its team cultures. Invest in your teams, have open communication, and the engagement numbers will take care of themselves.

There’s a tendency to treat employee engagement like the score of a game, and so we shouldn’t be surprised when people try to game the system and improve the score. But the point of collecting all that data isn’t to learn how to improve a number. It’s to know where we need to pay more attention to our people and how we can help them feel more connected to their work and to the team they work with.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on May 16, 2024.

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

Why Explainable AI is the Key to Our Future

Leave a reply

The Unseen Imperative

Why Explainable AI is the Key to Our Future

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

We’re in the midst of an AI revolution, a tidal wave of innovation that promises to redefine industries and transform our lives. We’ve seen algorithms drive cars, diagnose diseases, and manage our finances. But as these “black box” systems become more powerful and more pervasive, a critical question arises: can we truly trust them? The answer, for many, is a hesitant ‘maybe,’ and that hesitation is a massive brake on progress. The key to unlocking AI’s true, transformative potential isn’t just more data or faster chips. It’s Explainable AI (XAI).

XAI is not a futuristic buzzword; it’s the indispensable framework for today’s AI-driven world. It’s the set of tools and methodologies that peel back the layers of a complex algorithm, making its decisions understandable to humans. Without XAI, our reliance on AI is little more than a leap of faith. We must transition from trusting AI because it’s effective, to trusting it because we understand why and how it’s effective. This is the fundamental shift from a blind tool to an accountable partner.

This is more than a technical problem; it’s a strategic business imperative. XAI provides the foundation for the four pillars of responsible AI that will differentiate the market leaders of tomorrow:

Transparency: Moving beyond “what” the AI decided to “how” it arrived at that decision. This sheds light on the model’s logic and reasoning.
Fairness & Bias Detection: Actively identifying and mitigating hidden biases in the data or algorithm itself. This ensures that AI systems make equitable decisions that don’t discriminate against specific groups.
Accountability: Empowering humans to understand and take responsibility for AI-driven outcomes. When things go wrong, we can trace the decision back to its source and correct it.
Trust: Earning the confidence of users, stakeholders, and regulators. Trust is the currency of the future, and XAI is the engine that generates it.

For any organization aiming to deploy AI in high-stakes fields like healthcare, finance, or justice, XAI isn’t a nice-to-have—it’s a non-negotiable requirement. The competitive advantage will go to the companies that don’t just build powerful AI, but build trustworthy AI.

Case Study 1: Empowering Doctors with Transparent Diagnostics

Consider a team of data scientists who develop a highly accurate deep learning model to detect early-stage cancer from medical scans. The model’s accuracy is impressive, but it operates as a “black box.” Doctors are understandably hesitant to stake a patient’s life on a recommendation they can’t understand. The company then integrates an XAI framework. Now, when the model flags a potential malignancy, it doesn’t just give a diagnosis. It provides a visual heat map highlighting the specific regions of the scan that led to its conclusion, along with a confidence score. It also presents a list of similar, previously diagnosed cases from its training data, providing concrete evidence to support its claim. This explainable output transforms the AI from an un-auditable oracle into a valuable, trusted second opinion. The doctors, now empowered with understanding, can use their expertise to validate the AI’s findings, leading to faster, more confident diagnoses and, most importantly, better patient outcomes.

Case Study 2: Proving Fairness in Financial Services

A major financial institution implements an AI-powered system to automate its loan approval process. The system is incredibly efficient, but its lack of transparency triggers concerns from regulators and consumer advocacy groups. Are its decisions fair, or is the algorithm subtly discriminating against certain demographic groups? Without XAI, the bank would be in a difficult position to defend its practices. By implementing an XAI framework, the company can now generate a clear, human-readable report for every single loan decision. If an application is denied, the report lists the specific, justifiable factors that contributed to the outcome—e.g., “debt-to-income ratio is outside of policy guidelines” or “credit history shows a high number of recent inquiries.” Crucially, it can also definitively prove that the decision was not based on protected characteristics like race or gender. This transparency not only helps the bank comply with fair lending laws but also builds critical trust with its customers, turning a potential liability into a significant source of competitive advantage.

The Architects of Trust: XAI Market Leaders and Startups to Watch

In the rapidly evolving world of Explainable AI (XAI), the market is being defined by a mix of established technology giants and innovative, agile startups. Major players like Google, Microsoft, and IBM are leading the way, integrating XAI tools directly into their cloud and AI platforms like Azure Machine Learning and IBM Watson. These companies are setting the industry standard by making explainability a core feature of their enterprise-level solutions. They are often joined by other large firms such as FICO and SAS Institute, which have long histories in data analytics and are now applying their expertise to ensure transparency in high-stakes areas like credit scoring and risk management. Meanwhile, a number of dynamic startups are pushing the boundaries of XAI. Companies like H2O.ai and Fiddler AI are gaining significant traction with platforms dedicated to providing model monitoring, bias detection, and interpretability for machine learning models. Another startup to watch is Arthur AI, which focuses on providing a centralized platform for AI performance monitoring to ensure that models remain fair and accurate over time. These emerging innovators are crucial for democratizing XAI, making sophisticated tools accessible to a wider range of organizations and ensuring that the future of AI is built on a foundation of trust and accountability.

The Road Ahead: A Call to Action

The future of AI is not about building more powerful black boxes. It’s about building smarter, more transparent, and more trustworthy partners. This is not a task for data scientists alone; it’s a strategic imperative for every business leader, every product manager, and every innovator. The companies that bake XAI into their processes from the ground up will be the ones that successfully navigate the coming waves of regulation and consumer skepticism. They will be the ones that win the trust of their customers and employees. They will be the ones that truly unlock the full, transformative power of AI. Are you ready to lead that charge?

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

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

Subtle Leadership

Leave a reply

Subtle Leadership

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

You could be a subtle leader if…

You create the causes and conditions for others to shine. And when they shine, you give them the credit they’re due.

You don’t have the title, but when the high-profile project hits a rough patch, you get called in to create the go-forward plan.

One of your best direct reports gets promoted out from under you, but she still wants to meet with you weekly.

When you see someone take initiative, you tell them you like their behavior.

You get to choose the things you work on.

You can ask most anyone for a favor and they’ll do it, just because it’s you. But, because you don’t like to put people out, you rarely ask.

When someone does a good job, you send their boss a nice email and cc: them.

When it’s time to make a big decision, even though it’s outside your formal jurisdiction, you have a seat at the table.

When people don’t want to hear the truth, they don’t invite you to the meeting.

You are given the time to think things through, even when it takes you a long time.

Your young boss trusts you enough to ask for advice, even when she knows she should know.

In a group discussion, you wait for everyone else to have input before weighing in. And, if there’s no need to weigh in, you don’t.

When you see someone make a mistake, you ignore it if you can. And if you can’t, you talk to them in private.

Subtle leaders show themselves in subtle ways but their ways are powerful. Often, you see only the results of their behaviors and those career-boosting results are mapped to someone else. But if you’ve been the recipient of subtle leadership, you know what I’m talking about. You didn’t know you needed help, but you were helped just the same. And you were helped in a way that was invisible to others. And though you didn’t know to ask for advice, you were given the right suggestion at the right time. And you didn’t realize it was the perfect piece of advice until three weeks later.

Subtle leaders are difficult to spot. But once you know how they go about their business and how the company treats them, you can see them for what they are. And once you recognize a subtle leader, figure out a way to spend time with them. Your career will be better for it.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Mediocrity is the Enemy

Leave a reply

How Successful Companies Reclaim Their Competitive Edge

Mediocrity is the Enemy

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

In 1983, I read In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. This iconic business book featured case studies of successful companies. Forty years later, many of these companies are no longer considered “excellent.” Some are no longer in business. Many organizations that once stood as industry leaders started operating on autopilot, allowing standards to slip, not paying attention to the competition and not keeping up with their customers’ expectations.

I recently interviewed John Rossman, a former Amazon executive, on Amazing Business Radio. We discussed the business challenge of sinking into mediocrity that he writes about in his new book, which he refers to as a manifesto, The Pig, the Lipstick and the Playbook of Champions.

One of the intriguing sections in his manifesto is titled The Tragic Tale of Competitive Advantage, where he refers to Kodak, Blockbuster and Xerox as “examples of once category-defining companies that could not move beyond the success that made them disrupters.” These are the types of brands whose leaders could have benefited from reading this short but powerful work.

Below are several key takeaways from our interview. These are leadership principles that can help us avoid mediocrity—or worse, failure—and improve our chances for success.

Leadership: The Pig and the Lipstick

Rossman explains that the “pig” in the title of his leadership manifesto refers to a successful business. The “lipstick” represents the lies we tell ourselves. For example, leaders say, “Next year, we’ll grow more.” “Next year, we won’t disappoint customers.” “Next year we’ll innovate.” These lies create two challenges that businesses face today:

Once a company becomes successful, it has an increasingly difficult time reinventing its value proposition.
A gradual acceptance of mediocrity in how the employees work together, serve customers and measure success can creep in. Over time, mediocrity doesn’t just become acceptable. It becomes the target.

Embrace Humility

To break free from mediocrity, Rossman emphasizes that change must begin with humility. Companies must be willing to admit their shortcomings, whether they’ve disappointed customers or employees or failed their own ambitions. He recommends instituting a formal Voice of the Customer program and paying close attention to disappointed customers. Rossman says, “I truly believe in humility as a starting point for change. Recognizing where we fall short with customers is crucial to being able to innovate and thrive.”

Don’t Play Defense

Rossman talked about “gold standard” companies that slipped from playing at the top of their game, including Boeing, Intel, Nike and Starbucks. Rossman referenced an interview with Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, who summed up what happened as the company started changing its model. Schultz said, “The worst thing that a company can do, like a sports team, is start playing defense because you’re afraid to fail. That’s a disease.”

Rossman’s response to companies in that situation came from his Amazon days, when he learned about the concept of Big Bets.

Taking Big Bets

The concept of Big Bets is about ambition. Rossman explains, “The concept of big bets at Amazon is that the ‘big’ is the ambition, not the size of the bet. Everything is an experiment with the intention of winning, realizing that many won’t. Understanding that failure comes with the game of innovation is a critical mindset.”

In other words, an innovation mindset comes from running many small experiments with big intentions, knowing full well that many will fail, but also knowing that the ones that succeed will keep you competitive and can potentially transform the business. You must constantly place these bets, or your successes may eventually fall to the level of mediocrity as competition catches up and potentially passes you up.

A Perfect Ending

Toward the end of the manifesto, Rossman shares a Michelangelo quote that sums up his way of thinking and is a perfect way to end this article: “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short, but in setting our aim too low and ache, including Boeing, Intel, Nike and Starbucks. Rossman referenced an interview with Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, who summed up what happened as the company started changing its model. Schultz said, “The worst thing that a company can do, like a sports team, is start playing defense because you’re afraid to fail. That’s a disease.”

Rossman’s response to companies in that situation came from his Amazon days, when he learned about the concept of Big Bets.

Taking Big Bets

A Perfect Ending

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Image Credits: Pexels

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

The Importance of Over-committing

2 Replies

Strategizing Offer Power

The Importance of Over-committing - Strategizing Offer Power

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Offer power is a function of competitive separation that creates a material difference in customer benefit such that your offer is chosen over its closest alternatives. Separation, in turn, is created by over-committing to a single vector of innovation, taking it to a level that the competition either cannot or will not match. Whatever vector of innovation you choose will define your core, your claim to fame, the capability that sets you apart from the rest. Every other form of innovation will be context, meaning it will still meet market standards but will not differentiate your offering.

With respect to offer power, the most common strategic mistake is to spread the R&D budget across multiple vectors of innovation, making progress on all fronts but never achieving a level of competitive separation that is truly impactful. To offset this tendency, best practice begins with over-committing to a single value discipline, along the lines described by Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema in The Value Disciplines of Market Leaders. They call out three such disciplines: product leadership, customer intimacy, and operational excellence. Those of us in Silicon Valley might add a fourth, disruptive technology, but the key point is to be asymmetrical in the allocation of resources to take one, and only one of these disciplines, “all the way to bright.”

Value disciplines tend to align with customer sensitivity to price and performance, as illustrated by the diagram below:

Geoffrey Moore Value Disciplines

Each quadrant in this model prioritizes a different value proposition. For customers who want performance at any cost, disruptive technology is a good bet, albeit coming with risks and issues that other customers would not accept. For enterprise customers, who typically are looking for productivity gains, product leadership fills that bill. For customers who are just looking to check the box with a minimum offer, economy is their watchword, and operational excellence is the main path. And finally, for customers who need the offer but don’t want to be bothered, convenience is the value proposition that resonates most, and customer intimacy is needed to design the experience accordingly.

Whatever offer power strategy you prioritize will act as a filter on your R&D budget allocation to ensure maximum return on innovation. Here is a way to look at the landscape:

Geoffrey Moore Return on Innovation

There are three ways to get a return on R&D innovation. The first is the one we have been focused on thus far—differentiation that leads to customer preference. But there are two other sources of return, both of which have value in their own right. The first of these is neutralization. This is innovation focused on catching up to some other competitor’s differentiation in order to neutralize their competitive advantage over you. Thus, while Apple is acknowledged as a master of differentiation, Microsoft is a master of neutralization, as once-market-leading and now-defunct enterprises like WordPerfect, Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Novell, and Netscape will all testify. Neutralization allows your customer base to stay current with next-generation product advancements without having to change out vendors. The key point for vendors to keep in mind is that when neutralizing you are trying to catch up, not get ahead, and so the goal is to get to “good enough” as fast as possible and then go no further.

A third type of return on innovation comes from optimization, improving the production and delivery of your current offering without materially changing its features or benefits. This allows you to sustain market positions in mature categories, enabling you to compete on price or capture the savings for other purposes. Because this effort is associated with operational excellence, people often do not recognize it as a form of innovation, but one need only look at what Amazon has done to reengineer the entire retail experience end to end to realize how foolish an idea this is.

One final point: not all innovations create a return. Failed attempts are an inevitable element in any portfolio of innovation attempts, the key being to follow the mantra, win or learn! That said, by far the more common reason that innovation investments fail to create a return is that they fall short of delivering a meaningful impact. This is true of:

Investments in differentiation that do not go far enough to create meaningful competitive separation. Typically, the team was unwilling to be sufficiently asymmetrical in its resource allocation. As a result, while its products are indeed different, they are not so in a sufficiently compelling way to impact customer preference. This is how Oldsmobile and Mercury lost their franchises in the US auto market.
Investments in neutralization that do not get to market fast enough to get your offer into the consideration set. Typically, the team making an extra effort to outperform the competitor at their own game, a low-percentage bet at best, but in so doing has left the playing field uncontested in the meantime. By the time you get back in the game, it is too late. This is how Nokia lost its market leadership position in smartphones to Apple.
Investments in optimization that do not go deep enough to make a material difference. Typically, teams avoid the hard work of process re-engineering and settle for an “across-the-board cut,” which saves money but actually weakens rather than improves performance.

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

Image Credit: Unsplash, Geoffrey Moore

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