How Reward and Recognition Systems Boost Morale and Performance

How Reward and Recognition Systems Boost Morale and Performance

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s competitive business environment, organizations continuously seek innovative ways to enhance employee motivation and performance. Integrating effective reward and recognition systems is a crucial strategy that can significantly improve workplace morale. By acknowledging their employees’ hard work and achievements, companies can foster a culture of appreciation and motivation, ultimately leading to enhanced productivity and performance.

Understanding Reward and Recognition Systems

Reward and recognition systems are structured approaches adopted by organizations to acknowledge, appreciate, and incentivize employees. While rewards might involve monetary incentives, recognitions usually encompass expressing appreciation through non-monetary means. Both elements are crucial in building employee morale and motivation.

Key Elements of an Effective System

  • Clear Objectives: Establishing transparent and achievable goals that align with organizational values and objectives.
  • Diverse Rewards: Offering various incentives that cater to the diverse needs and preferences of employees.
  • Timely Recognition: Ensuring that recognition is timely and relevant, which enhances the impact of the acknowledgment.
  • Inclusive Participation: Inviting feedback and participation from employees to ensure the system meets their expectations.

Case Study 1: Tech Innovators Inc.

Background

Tech Innovators Inc., a leading software development company, experienced a downturn in employee engagement and productivity. The leadership team recognized the need to rejuvenate the work environment and boost morale.

Solution

The company implemented a comprehensive reward and recognition program, focusing on innovative and peer-based recognition. A digital platform was introduced, allowing employees to recognize one another’s contributions in real-time, alongside a points system that could be redeemed for various rewards.

Impact

The initiative resulted in a 30% increase in employee engagement scores and a noticeable improvement in project delivery times. Employees felt more appreciated and motivated, leading to a vibrant and supportive company culture.

Case Study 2: Greenfields Manufacturing

Background

Greenfields Manufacturing, a sustainable production company, faced challenges with high turnover rates and low employee satisfaction. Leadership realized the need for strategic intervention to retain talent and improve morale.

Solution

The organization introduced a multifaceted recognition system that celebrated milestones and daily achievements. Managers were trained to give personalized recognition during team meetings, and a monthly award ceremony was introduced for outstanding contributions.

Impact

Following the implementation, Greenfields experienced a 40% reduction in turnover rates and a substantial increase in employee satisfaction scores. Employees reported higher job satisfaction and a deeper commitment to the company’s mission and values.

Conclusion

Effective reward and recognition systems can profoundly influence organizational culture, morale, and performance. By strategically designing these systems to encompass diverse, timely, and inclusive approaches, organizations can create vibrant work environments that encourage innovation and commitment.

Both Tech Innovators Inc. and Greenfields Manufacturing demonstrate that carefully curated reward and recognition systems are powerful tools in driving employee engagement and improving overall organizational performance. Organizations striving for excellence must prioritize these systems to cultivate a motivated and dedicated workforce.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

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.

Taking Personal Responsibility – Creating the Line of Choice

Taking Personal Responsibility - Creating the Line of Choice

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

In our last blog, we described how people’s personal power is diminished when they don’t take personal responsibility for the impact of their behaviors and actions and the results they cause. Where many people are feeling minimized and marginalized, anxious as a result of being isolated and lonely, worrying about losing their security and freedom, and dealing with the instability in their working environments.  Resulting in many people disengaging from the important conversations, job functions, key relationships, workplaces, and in some instances, even from society. Where managers and leaders lack the basic self-awareness and self-regulation skills to control the only controllable in uncertain and unstable times, is to choose how to respond, rather than react to it.

We have a unique moment in time to shift their defensiveness through being compassionate, creative, and courageous towards helping managers and leaders unfreeze and mobilize to exit our comfort zones.  To take intelligent actions catalyze and cause positive outcomes, that deliver real solutions to crises, complex situations, and difficult business problems.

Why do people avoid taking personal responsibility?

People typically avoid taking personal responsibility for reasons ranging from simple laziness, risk adversity, or a fear of failure, to feeling change fatigued, overwhelmed, or even victimized by the scale of a problem or a situation.

Resulting in a range of different automatic defensive, and a range of non-productive reactive responses including:

  • Avoidant behavior, where feel victimized and targeted, people passively “wriggle” and the buck gets passed onto others, and the real problem or issue does not get addressed or resolved.
  • Controlling behavior, where people ignore their role in causing or resolving the real problem or issue, and aggressively push others towards their mandate or solution, denying others any agency.
  • Argumentative behavior, where people play the binary “right-wrong” game, and self-righteously, triggered by their own values, oppose other people’s perspectives in order to be right and make the other person wrong.

Creating the line of choice

At Corporate Vision, we added a thick line of “choice” between “personal responsibility” and “blame, justification and denial” to intentionally create space for people to consider taking more emotionally hygienic options rather than:

  • Dumping their “emotional boats” inappropriately onto others, even those they may deeply care about,
  • Sinking into their habitual, and largely unconscious default patterns when facing complex problems, which results in the delivery of the same results they always have.
  • Not regulating their automatic reactive responses to challenging situations, and not creating the vital space to pause and reflect to think about what to do next.

To enable them to shift towards taking response-ability (an ability to respond) and introducing more useful options for responding in emotionally agile, considered, constructive, inclusive, and creative ways to the problem or the challenge.

Noticing that when we, or others we interact with, do slip below the line to notice whether to “camp” there for the long term or to simply choose to make the “visit” a short one!

Doing this demonstrates the self-awareness and self-regulation skills enabling people to take personal responsibility. Which initiates ownership and a willingness to be proactive, solutions, and achievement orientated – all of which are essential qualities for 21st century conscious leadership that result in innovative outcomes that result in success, growth, and sustainability.

Shifting your location – from “you, they and them” to “I, we and us”

Developing the foundations for transformational and conscious leadership involves:

  • Supporting people to acknowledge and accept that the problem or challenge is not “out there” and is within their locus of control or influence.
  • Shifting the “Maturity Continuum” to enable leaders and managers to be both independent and interdependent.
  • Creating a line of choice to think, act and do things differently.
  • Calling out people when they slip below the line.

It involves supporting people to let go of their expectation that “they” or someone else, from the outside, will fix it, and supporting them to adopt a stance where:

  • “I” or “we” can and are empowered to do it,
  • “I” or “we” are responsible for getting above the line,
  • “I” or “we” can choose a different way of being, thinking, and acting intelligently in this situation.

Developing conscious leadership

At any time, everyone is either above or below the line because it is elemental to the type of conscious leadership we all need to survive and thrive, in a world where people are seeking leaders, managers, and working environments that require interdependence.

To operate in the paradigm of “we” – we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together.

We cooperate together by creating the line of choice where we call out to ourselves and others when we slip below it, to get above the line as quickly as possible.

Where interdependent people and communities combine their efforts, and their self-awareness and self-regulation skills with the efforts of others to achieve their growth and greatest success by increasing:

  • Transparency and trust,
  • Achievement and accountability,
  • Diversity and inclusion,
  • Experimentation and collaboration.

All of these are founded on the core principle of taking personal responsibility, which is an especially crucial capability to develop self-awareness and self-regulation skills in the decade of both disruption and transformation.

Bravely calling out self and others

When we take responsibility for managing our own, “below the line” reactive responses, by habitually creating the line of choice, we can bravely call out ourselves and others when we slip below it.

Because when we don’t call ourselves and others we interact with, we are unconsciously colluding with their emotional boats, default patterns, and automatic reactive responses, which inhibit their ability to effect positive change.

When we safely awaken ourselves and others, we can get back above the line quickly and choose different ways of being, thinking, and acting intelligently in the situation.

Alternately, people aren’t taking personal responsibility, they cannot be accountable, they will fail in their jobs, and their teams, and fail to grow as individuals and as leaders.

In fact, developing a habitual practice of emotionally intelligent and conscious leadership by safely and bravely disrupting ourselves and our people, in the face of ongoing uncertainty, accelerating change, and continuous disruption.

This is the second in a series of three blogs on the theme of taking responsibility – going back to leadership basics.

Find out about our learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, a collaborative, intimate, and deeply personalized innovation coaching and learning program, supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, starting Tuesday, October 18, 2022. It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that will give you a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem focus,  human-centric approach, and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation, and upskill people and teams and develop their future fitness, within your unique context.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

The Future of Innovation Balances Profit and Purpose

The Future of Innovation Balances Profit and Purpose

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving world, organizations are tasked with the challenge of balancing profits with purpose. As consumers become more ethically aware and demand transparency, businesses are pushed to innovate not just for financial gain, but also for social and environmental impact. The future of innovation lies in this delicate balance, where success is measured not only by the bottom line but by the positive impact one has on society. Let us explore a couple of case studies that exemplify this approach.

Case Study 1: Patagonia – Environmental Stewardship as Core Business

Patagonia, the outdoor apparel company, is a pioneer in aligning profit with purpose. Founded with a clear mission to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis,” Patagonia actively integrates sustainability into its business model.

Innovations such as their Worn Wear program, encourage customers to buy used, repair existing gear or recycle, thereby extending the life of products and reducing environmental impact. Patagonia’s decision to donate 1% of sales to environmental causes further affirms its commitment to environmental stewardship.

Despite its upfront commitment to sustainability, Patagonia’s profitability has not suffered. On the contrary, their authenticity and transparency have fostered a loyal customer base, positioning them as market leaders. The Patagonia case illustrates that a strong commitment to purpose can drive financial success and customer loyalty.

Case Study 2: TOMS Shoes – One for One Commitment

TOMS Shoes revolutionized the corporate social responsibility landscape with their One for One business model. For every pair of shoes purchased, TOMS would donate a pair to a child in need. This model was an intrinsic part of their brand ethos and attracted consumers who were eager to make purchases that fostered social good.

Over time, TOMS expanded this model to include eyewear and water initiatives, further integrating charitable giving into its business operations. While the company experienced rapid growth and increased brand awareness, it also faced challenges in ensuring the sustained impact of its giving model and responding to critiques about the complexity of aid.

TOMS has since evolved its strategy by focusing on empowering the communities they serve, providing jobs, and supporting local efforts. This shift illustrates the dynamic nature of balancing purpose and profit, emphasizing the need for continuous adaptation and re-evaluation of impact strategies.

The Path Forward: Key Considerations

The road to balancing profit and purpose requires thoughtful integration of sustainability and responsibility at every level of the business. Here are critical considerations for organizations:

  • Embed Purpose into Core Strategy: Making purpose a central aspect of business strategy ensures long-term commitment and alignment across all operations.
  • Incorporate Stakeholder Voices: Engage with customers, employees, and communities to understand their needs and perspectives, fostering collaboration and trust.
  • Measure Impact Rigorously: Develop and implement measurement frameworks to assess the social and environmental effects of business activities.
  • Foster a Culture of Innovation: Encourage creative solutions that integrate business goals with societal needs, pushing the boundaries of conventional thinking.

In conclusion, the future of innovation is intricately linked with the pursuit of purpose alongside profit. As companies navigate these waters, they will continue to redefine success in ways that benefit people, the planet, and their bottom lines. Embracing this harmonious balance promises a world where business becomes a formidable force for positive change.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

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.

Five Keys to Leading Creative Teams Successfully

Five Keys to Leading Creative Teams Successfully

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Creativity is a team sport.

It’s been that way for a long time. But the level of teamwork required to solve problems and find innovation has increased over the last decade and even century. Most of the simple problems of the world have been solved, and the ones that remain are too often too complex to be solved by any lone, individual genius.

But not all teams fair equally when it comes to creative tasks, because many team leaders are better prepared to lead teams where the work is simple and easy to define. When reaching team goals is ambiguous and requires more creative thinking it also requires a different type of leadership.

In this article, we’ll outline those differences. We’ll cover five ways to lead creative teams.

1. Show Them the Constraints

The first way to lead creative teams is to show them the constraints. It may sound a little counterintuitive—after all aren’t we supposed to “think outside the box”? But one of the first things creative teams need is an understanding of the constraints of the problem—of the box their answer needs to fit inside. Research suggests creativity is more activated when people understand the constraints of the problem. Constraints aide in the convergent thinking of sifting through ideas that needs to accompany the divergent thinking of generating lots of ideas. You need both. But you need constraints first so that people know ahead of time how to judge the ideas they generate.

2. Support Their Ideas

The second way to lead creative teams is to support their ideas. Nothing stops the creative flow of ideas on a team more than hearing “That’ll never work” or “That’s not how we do things around here.” Leaders need to champion the ideas their team puts forward, at least until the idea generation phase is complete. When people think their leadership isn’t going to consider their ideas, they stop sharing them. Leaders need to not only support ideas when the team is discussing them, but also support ideas when it comes to selling them up the chain of approval needed to implement the idea. Without that support, people just stop trying.

3. Teach Them to Fight Right

The third way to lead creative teams is to teach them to fight right. We like to think of creative teams as fun and cohesive. But the opposite is true. There’s a lot of friction on a creative team. And research suggests that the most creative teams leverage task-focused conflict to generate more and better ideas. But those teams also know how to keep it task-focused and keep it from devolving into personality fights and hurt feelings. And often that requires leaders who can demonstrate and teach their people to fight for their ideas, but not fight their teammates.

4. Test What You Can

The fourth way to lead creative teams is to test what you can. Ideally, teams are going to generate a lot of different ideas. And it’s a bad idea to chase consensus and settle on an idea too soon. Instead, the most creative teams test out multiple different ideas to learn more from what worked and didn’t work, and then combine those lessons into a new and better idea. But too often, leaders facilitate a brainstorming session, circle the idea they like best, and that’s the end of it. Instead, the best leaders test as much as they can as often as they can.

5. Celebrate Their Failures

The final way to lead creative teams is to celebrate their failures. If you’re testing a lot of ideas, your team will fail. But if they fail small on a test, they’ll reduce the chances of failing big later. In addition, failures carry all sorts of lessons that can be learned to better understand the problem and generate even better ideas. That doesn’t happen unless the team understands that failure is part of the process, which is why the best leaders celebrate the risks that team members took and the learning moments their failures generated.

In fact, that’s why all five of these methods shouldn’t be looked at as a linear process. Creativity is an iterative process of ideation, testing, failure, learning, ideation, and more testing and failure. The best leaders know the goal isn’t to get it done, but to keep getting better. And that goes for the creative process, but also the team culture. The goal is to keep getting better until everyone can do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on May 24, 2022.

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

Shifting Mindset to Lead with Innovation in Mind

Shifting Mindset to Lead with Innovation in Mind

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In our fast-paced world, continuous adaptation and innovation are crucial for success. The cornerstone of driving meaningful change is a shift in mindset. By fostering a culture of innovation, leaders can effectively guide their organizations through evolving landscapes. In this article, we explore the concept of human-centered change, focusing on two powerful case studies that illuminate the impact of mindset shifts in leading with innovation.

Understanding Human-Centered Innovation

The essence of human-centered innovation lies in recognizing the central role of people—employees, customers, and stakeholders—within the change process. By prioritizing empathy and inclusivity, organizations can design solutions that are not only innovative but also aligned with human needs and aspirations.

Case Study 1: Microsoft – Transforming Culture through Empathy

The Scenario

Microsoft, once perceived as a software behemoth lagging in innovation, needed a transformative approach to regain its competitive edge. Under the leadership of CEO Satya Nadella, a profound mindset shift was initiated with empathy at its core.

The Mindset Shift

Nadella prioritized a cultural transformation, encouraging a growth mindset across the organization. By valuing learning from failures and embracing diverse perspectives, Microsoft fostered a supportive and inclusive workplace.

The Impact

This cultural overhaul led to groundbreaking advancements, such as the remarkable success of Azure, Microsoft’s cloud computing platform. The focus on empathy and collaboration not only reinvigorated innovation but also greatly improved employee satisfaction and retention.

Case Study 2: Airbnb – Designing with Users in Mind

The Scenario

Airbnb faced significant challenges as it sought to expand globally while facing regulatory hurdles and increasing competition. The company needed to innovate its approach to maintain its unique value proposition.

The Mindset Shift

Airbnb embraced a human-centered design approach. By deeply understanding their hosts’ and guests’ experiences, they crafted solutions that addressed key pain points, enhancing trust and safety within their platform.

The Impact

Implementing these insights led to the introduction of features like “Superhost” and improved review systems, which bolstered user confidence. This user-centered innovation enabled Airbnb to solidify its market position and drive sustainable growth.

Key Takeaways

These case studies highlight the transformative power of mindset shifts rooted in human-centered principles. From fostering empathy to prioritizing user experiences, organizations can cultivate a culture of innovation by embracing these practices:

  • Encourage a Growth Mindset: Nurture an environment where failures are viewed as learning opportunities, fostering innovation and resilience.
  • Empathize with Stakeholders: Actively engage with the needs and concerns of employees and customers to ensure solutions are impactful and human-centric.
  • Promote Collaborative Environments: Break down silos and encourage cross-functional collaboration to harness diverse perspectives and drive creative solutions.

Conclusion

The journey toward human-centered innovation requires a fundamental shift in mindset. By leading with empathy, inclusivity, and a commitment to understanding human needs, organizations can unlock new levels of creativity and competitive advantage. As demonstrated by Microsoft and Airbnb, such transformation not only fuels innovation but also strengthens connections with those who matter most—people.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

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.

Learning from the Failure of Quibi

Learning from the Failure of Quibi

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 2018, Steve Blank wrote a piece in Harvard Business Review questioning the viability of the “lean startup” model. Given that Steve had pioneered lean startup techniques, I was intrigued. Why would he, all of a sudden begin, to doubt an idea that had been so successful and, to me at least, still seemed so relevant, even for large enterprises.

As it turned out, what made Steve hesitate was a new venture called “New TV” that was headed up by the dream team of legendary Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and star Silicon Valley CEO Meg Whitman. Beyond talent and cache, it had raised almost $2 billion. With that much money, how could it lose?

Now we know. The venture, which eventually came to be known as “Quibi,” recently announced it was shutting down, less than seven months after its product launch. It’s become an all too familiar tale. Multi-billion-dollar washouts, including WeWork, Better Place and others, have become all too common. We need to learn from their mistakes.

You Can Have Too Much Money

At the heart of Steve Blank’s argument against his own idea was that The Lean Startup “was an answer to a specific problem,” namely that startup companies face a limited runway due to scarce capital. In effect, he sees launching a new company as a race to identify a viable business model before you run out of money.

In Quibi’s case, however, there seemed to be unlimited capital. Its nearly $2 billion in funding would give it the ability to roll out a full-fledged business and, if things didn’t work as planned, still have the option to pivot. With access to that much money plus, presumably, ample access to even more, how could Katzenberg and Whitman go wrong?

To be honest, I never found the argument to be persuasive. I’ve launched countless businesses in my career and one thing I’ve learned is that you need to keep capital scarce in the early days. Limiting the amount of money you have around forces people to face up to problems and solve them. You can’t ignore warning signs when you’re close to broke.

Quibi, on the other hand, failed because it did ignore signals. With almost limitless programming budgets, producers knew they could sell Quibi their worst work. Infighting between Katzenberg and Whitman was ignored. Potential snafus, such as the inability for consumers to screenshot and share memes or to watch on TV screens, were overlooked.

Identify the Hair on Fire Use Case

Conventional marketing strategy dictates that you identify the largest addressable market for your product. That, after all, is where you can reach the most people, scale your business and earn the most money. So it made sense for Quibi to target Millennials in search of “quick bites” to watch while on line at Starbucks.

Yet when you’re launching something new and different, you don’t want the largest addressable market which, almost by definition, already has a lot of companies serving it. Instead, you want to identify a hair-on-fire use case—a problem that somebody needs solved so badly that they almost literally have their hair on fire. That’s where you’ll find customers to put up with the inevitable bugs and glitches that always come up.

For example, with Tesla, Elon Musk didn’t target the largest addressable market—a mid-market family model—but rather Silicon Valley millionaires who liked the idea of a high performance, eco-friendly car. Those customers weren’t price sensitive and didn’t need to depend on the car to pick the kids up at soccer practice, but did give the company a foothold in the luxury market. The mass market product, the Model 3, would come years later.

I’m sure there is a “hair-on-fire” use case for a short form video platform. Unfortunately, these things are never obvious, if they were, they would already be large addressable markets. Presumably, Katzenberg and Whitman considered themselves to be so smart that they could get it right on the first try.

Train The Monkey First

At Google’s X division, the company’s “moonshot factory,” the mantra is #MonkeyFirst. The idea is that if you want to get a monkey to recite Shakespeare on a pedestal, it’s best to start by training the monkey, not building the pedestal, because training the monkey is the hard part. Anyone can build a pedestal.

Returning to the example of Tesla and Elon much, in the case of electric cars, the “monkey” was always making a battery powerful enough to achieve an acceptable range. In the early years, that’s what the company focused on and, with an affluent customer base, they could do so without worrying too much about costs.

Once Tesla had customers, it could begin to focus on learning from them and adapting to what they wanted from an electric car. At the same time, it was able to develop manufacturing and operational capability that allowed it to scale. All of this went very slowly at first, but then accelerated at a pace that took incumbent car companies by surprise.

In the media business, the “monkey” is always to build an audience. Yet Katzenberg and Whitman chose to plow money into content, assuming that they knew what their (at that point nonexistent) audience wanted. Essentially, they blew through all of their money building the pedestal and assumed the monkey would train itself.

Your Strategy Is Always Wrong

In their letter announcing the closure of Quibi, the founders wrote, “And yet, Quibi is not succeeding. Likely for one of two reasons: because the idea itself wasn’t strong enough to justify a standalone streaming service or because of our timing… Unfortunately, we will never know but we suspect it’s been a combination of the two.”

Yet the point isn’t that Quibi got it’s strategy wrong or that the pandemic altered its chances of success, but rather that your strategy is always wrong. Everybody gets disrupted sooner or later and every business model eventually fails. The art of managing a venture isn’t to execute the “right” strategy, but to make the strategy less wrong over time.

Katzenberg and Whitman, it seems, allowed their previous success to blind them. They appear to have simply assumed that they were so smart that they could get it all right out of the gate. They didn’t allow room for error, to make mistakes or to pivot. When things didn’t go as planned, there was nowhere else to go. They had to pack it in.

Probably the most important thing we can learn from Quibi’s failure is to not believe your own PR. Plan for and prepare things to go wrong. Nobody really knows anything until it can be observed in the real world. Or, as Steve Blank might put it, no business plan ever survives first contact with a customer.

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

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

Empowering Customers with Co-Creation for Better Experiences

Empowering Customers with Co-Creation for Better Experiences

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, one thing has become clear: customers are no longer passive recipients of consumer experiences. Instead, they seek active roles, looking to co-create and shape the products and services they use. “Co-creation” has emerged as a powerful paradigm, empowering customers and driving innovation. Let’s explore why co-creation is transformative and examine compelling case studies that illustrate its impact.

The Rise of Co-Creation

Co-creation is a collaborative process where businesses engage customers directly in the development of products and services. This approach leverages the collective creativity and experience of all stakeholders, leading to offerings that truly meet customer needs. Beyond enhancing customer satisfaction, co-creation fosters deeper connections and loyalty, and can significantly boost innovation and market relevance.

Case Study 1: LEGO Ideas

Background: LEGO, the renowned toy company, recognized the potential of involving its customers in the creative process. In 2008, they launched a platform called LEGO Ideas, where fans could submit their own LEGO set concepts.

Process: Users submit ideas to the platform, and any concept that garners 10,000 votes gets reviewed by LEGO. Successful designs are transformed into official LEGO sets, with contributors receiving a percentage of the royalties.

Outcome: LEGO Ideas was a game-changer. By allowing customers to contribute directly, LEGO tapped into passionate and creative fan communities. Iconic sets like the “NASA Apollo Saturn V” and “The Flintstones” were born from this initiative. This not only revived LEGO’s innovation pipeline but also created a loyal community around their brand, reinforcing LEGO’s image as a pioneer in innovation and creativity.

Case Study 2: Starbucks’ My Starbucks Idea

Background: In 2008, Starbucks launched a platform called “My Starbucks Idea” to leverage the creativity of its customers for product and service enhancements. This was part of its broader strategy to revitalize its brand by listening to its customer base.

Process: Customers could submit ideas, vote, and comment on suggestions related to products, store improvement, and corporate social responsibility. Starbucks employees engaged directly with users, providing feedback and updates on suggestion implementation.

Outcome: Over the years, over 150,000 ideas have been submitted, leading to hundreds of implemented changes. From splash sticks to delicious seasonal drinks like the “Caramel Brulée Latte,” numerous improvements have originated from this initiative. This level of customer engagement not only drove innovation but also deepened customer loyalty by actively valuing their input.

Benefits of Co-Creation

**Enhanced Customer Satisfaction:** By involving customers in the development process, businesses can ensure that the final product aligns more closely with customer expectations and needs.

**Increased Innovation:** Co-creation brings diverse perspectives into the design process, often leading to more innovative solutions that a traditional internal team might not have considered.

**Stronger Brand Loyalty:** When customers feel their voices are heard and valued, they develop a deeper emotional connection to the brand, resulting in prolonged loyalty and advocacy.

**Market Differentiation:** Co-created products often stand out in the marketplace due to their unique customer-inspired features and keen alignment with user needs.

Implementing Co-Creation in Your Business

**Develop a Clear Platform:** Create a dedicated space or platform that allows customers to easily share their ideas, feedback, and contributions.

**Foster Open Communication:** Keep your customers informed about how their input is being used and provide regular updates on the progress of their ideas.

**Incentivize Participation:** Offer rewards or recognition to motivate customer involvement and acknowledge their contributions.

**Integrate Feedback Loops:** Use ongoing customer feedback to continuously improve products and services, making co-creation a vital part of your innovation strategy.

Conclusion

As demonstrated through LEGO and Starbucks, co-creation has the potential to transform businesses by directly engaging the valuable insights and creativity of their customer base. By empowering customers to participate in the innovation process, businesses not only enrich their product offerings but also cultivate lasting loyalty. In a consumer-driven world, embracing co-creation is not just a strategy—it’s a necessity.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

We need MD/MBEs not MD/MBAs

We need MD/MBEs not MD/MBAs

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers, M.D.

The number of MD/MBAs graduating from medical schools continues to expand with about 5% of the roughly 20,000 US medical student graduates having dual degrees. While in past times the idea was to get the knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies to manage health services organizations, many are now doing it on the way to digital health startup land.

Most all of the 38 osteopathic schools offer dual degree programs as well.

However, MBA programs are dwindling and the ones that are still around are rethinking their value proposition and restructuring their curriculum.

For example, business schools are racing to add concentrations in science, technology, engineering and math to their M.B.A. programs as they try to broaden their appeal to prospective students overseas who want to work in the U.S.

Several schools, including Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School, have unveiled STEM-designated master’s in business degrees in recent months. The University of California Berkeley’s Haas School of Business recently reclassified its entire M.B.A. program as STEM.

But, BMETALS is the new STEM.

In my view, we are training too many MD/MBAs that don’t add value to the system and that many programs should be terminated or restructured.

  1. We don’t know how much value the graduates contribute to the sick care system.
  2. The programs are usually not domain specific. Some think that’s a good thing, encouraging exposure to how other industries have solved generic problems. Others feel sick-care is so unique that the lessons are not applicable.
  3. Medical students are already up their waists in debt, most of which is taxpayer subsidized. Should additional debt be added to their student loans?
  4. Few of the programs address the needs of physician entrepreneurs.
  5. There are many substitutes for physician entrepreneurs around the world and US schools are no longer the mecca.
  6. Content has become generic and offered for free on the Internet.
  7. Connections are easy to make using social media.
  8. The MBA is losing credibility, given the large number of places that offer them, particularly those below the first-tier schools.
  9. Employers can see through the credentials.
  10. Costs continue to escalate and the programs do not accommodate the specific needs of busy clinician students.
  11. We need a thorough conversation about the policy wisdom of encouraging dual degrees, potentially side tracking graduates into non clinical roles when there is a global demand for clinicians.
  12. We need to track outcomes and roles of graduates to determine whether the dual degree adds value to the communities they are designed to serve and whether they are cost-effective in an era of skyrocketing student debt.

In addition, there is a difference between having knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies in the business of medicine, health systems science, health service organization management, leadership and leaderpreneurship and entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. There is a confusing array of dual degree programs leaving students scratching their heads and, in many instances, wasting their time and money.

Also, more medical students are jumping ship to pursue non-clinical careers. While the numbers may a small portion of the roughly 20,000 first year US medical students, the trend is evident.

Instead, we should consider re-shuffling the deck and offer a new combined MBE (Masters in Bioinnovation and Entrepreneurship) degree or dual MD/MBE or PhD/MBE program.

According to Prof. Varda Liberman, the new Provost of Reichman University and Head of the MBA in Healthcare Innovation, “Healthcare systems are going through enormous changes worldwide and with the COVID-19, these changes were accelerated. There is an immediate need for a complete redesign that will necessitate innovative multidisciplinary solutions, leveraging technology, science, information systems, and national policy. Our MBA program in Healthcare Innovation, offered by Reichman University, in collaboration with Israel’s largest hospital, the Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, is designed to prepare the future leaders of the healthcare industry to develop solutions that will enable the needed redesign. The program brings together all the unique advantages of Israeli innovation, to provide our students with the tools and skills necessary to understand the complexity of the healthcare industry today. The program brings together all the key players of the ecosystem – those coming from the healthcare system, engineering, entrepreneurship, AI, law, biomedicine, pharmacology, high tech, investment, management, and public policy”.

Here’s how it would work:

  1. A four-year program combining two years in medical school and two years in an MBE program, patterned similar to Professional Science Masters Programs.
  2. The medical school curriculum would be separate and distinct from that offered to medical students interested in practicing medicine. Among other topics, we would teach sales.
  3. Clinical rotations should start on day one, intended to instill an entrepreneurial mindset and emphasize being a problem seeker, not a problem solver at this stage
  4. Interdisciplinary education with experiential learning in project teams that includes business, science, engineering, law and other health professionals.
  5. Experiential learning and a mandatory internship with local, national or international company in biopharma, medtech or digital health.
  6. A new tuition and funding structure, possibly run by private equity or medical technology companies who sponsor applicants. The present medical education business model won’t work if it depends on short term revenue by putting butts in the seats.
  7. Project teams would be offered proof of concept funding and iCorps team support
  8. Domain experts would work with project teams
  9. Each student would be assigned an entrepreneur mentor throughout the program
  10. Social biomedical entrepreneurship and ethics would be core streams throughout training. Those interested in creating non-profits or going into public service might be candidates for tuition deferral or waiver.

Another alternative is to make medical school 3 years instead of 4 and offer a one year track in biomedical and clinical entrepreneurship.

The good news for educators is that you don’t need to start from scratch. Karolinska beat you to the punch.

The purpose of the degree program is to provide students with the knowledge, skills and abilities they need to lead global biomedical innovation. Here’s what the curriculum would include:

  1. Building Biotechnology: Introduction to biomedical entrepreneurship
  2. Regulatory Affairs and Reimbursement
  3. Life Science Intellectual Property
  4. International (Bio) Business
  5. Biotech law and ethics
  6. Internship
  7. International trip
  8. Device and digital health entrepreneurship
  9. Leading high performance teams
  10. Bioentrepreneurial finance
  11. Drug discovery and development
  12. Care delivery entrepreneurship
  13. Social entrepreneurship
  14. Electives in other aspects of entrepreneurship

The David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah is taking its top 10 ranked program for entrepreneurship to new heights with a master’s degree designed for serious entrepreneurs.

The degree is called the Master of Business Creation (MBC), and it’s the first of its kind.

Applicants must be full-time entrepreneurs who want to create, launch and scale a new business, who want more than the 9-to-5 job, who have the drive to overcome the impossible, who want to build their knowledge while doing, and who are willing to put in the hours to make it happen.

We don’t need more physician administrators. We need more physician innovators and entrepreneurs who can lead us out of our sick care mess and close global health outcome disparities. While I believe the optimal career track involves a reasonable time practicing clinical medicine, students are thinking otherwise. For those that do, they need a new path to creating the future and medical and business educators need to create educational products that meet their needs.

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.

Fostering Collaboration and Creativity in Leadership

Fostering Collaboration and Creativity in Leadership

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the ever-evolving world of business, collaboration and creativity stand as twin pillars supporting innovative solutions and driving organizational growth. As industries face unprecedented challenges and opportunities, leaders must cultivate an environment that encourages collaboration and inspires creativity. Human-centered change and innovation can unlock these potentials and foster a culture that thrives on collective intelligence and innovative problem solving.

The Importance of Collaborative Leadership

Leadership is no longer about simply directing teams or making decisions in isolation. Collaborative leadership emphasizes the importance of engaging diverse perspectives, encouraging cross-functional teamwork, and leveraging the collective strengths of individuals to achieve common goals. This approach not only improves operational efficiency but also fosters resilience and adaptability amid change.

Creativity as a Catalyst for Innovation

Creativity fuels innovation by challenging conventional thinking and encouraging new ideas. A leader’s ability to inspire creativity within their teams can lead to transformative breakthroughs. By embracing diversity, promoting a culture of experimentation, and encouraging open communication, leaders can create an environment where creativity flourishes.

Case Study 1: Google’s “20% Time”

Overview

Google is renowned for its innovative products and services, and a significant part of this success can be attributed to its “20% time” policy. This initiative allows employees to dedicate 20% of their time to projects they are passionate about, outside of their regular job responsibilities.

Approach

This model encourages collaboration and creativity by giving employees the freedom to explore ideas without the constraints of standard workflows. It promotes cross-departmental interaction and provides a platform for unconventional thinking and bold innovation.

Impact

The “20% time” policy has led to the development of groundbreaking projects like Gmail and Google News. By encouraging personnel to pursue their interests and collaborate with others across the company, Google has fostered a sense of ownership and creativity that translates into innovative products.

Case Study 2: Pixar’s “Braintrust” Meetings

Overview

Pixar Animation Studios celebrates creativity and originality in filmmaking. A key component of this success is its “Braintrust” meetings, where directors and writers present ideas to a panel of peers for open and candid feedback.

Approach

The Braintrust is characterized by a candid exchange of ideas and feedback without hierarchy. This non-judgmental space encourages honesty and respects diverse viewpoints, fostering a culture where creativity and collaboration can thrive.

Impact

Pixar’s commitment to this model has resulted in numerous award-winning films. The collective input from diverse voices leads to refined storytelling and innovative cinematography, ensuring successful and critically acclaimed productions.

Strategies for Leaders to Cultivate Collaboration and Creativity

1. Promote Psychological Safety

Create an environment where team members feel secure to voice their ideas and concerns without fear of judgment. Encourage experimentation and accept failure as a learning process.

2. Encourage Cross-Functional Teams

Build diverse teams that draw on a range of skills and perspectives. Cross-functional collaboration enhances problem-solving capabilities and spurs creative innovation.

3. Lead by Example

Embody the values of collaboration and creativity in leadership. Show openness, encourage dialogue, and be flexible in approach. Inspire your team by actively participating and valuing their contributions.

Conclusion

Fostering collaboration and creativity in leadership is essential for organizations aiming to stay competitive and innovative. By supporting a culture of openness, experimentation, and diversity, leaders can unlock the full potential of their teams, driving breakthrough innovations and sustainable growth. The success stories of companies like Google and Pixar are testaments to the power of collaborative and creative leadership. As industries evolve, embracing these strategies will be crucial for navigating the future of work.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: 1 of 850+ FREE quote slides available at misterinnovation.com

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

Good Design Makes Technology Disappear

Good Design Makes Technology Disappear

by Braden Kelley

The late Clayton Christensen wrote a little book called The Innovator’s Dilemma that many of you I’m sure have read. Many people think of it as a book about disruptive innovation, but it can be much more than that if you shift your perspective.

The Classic Disruptive Innovation Example

One of the case study examples is that of mini-mills disrupting the rolled steel producers in the steel industry by starting at the bottom of the food chain with the production of low margin re-bar and then moving upwards into higher margin steel products. This is seen as the blueprint for how you disrupt an industry. You go first where the incumbents are least likely to be concerned about new entrants – low margin products – a market that incumbents might actually be happy to lose, because their average margins will actually increase and wall street will potentially reward them in the short-term with higher stock prices.

But if you shift your perspective on this case study and apply it to emerging technology, something new emerges.

Learning and Adoption Require a Compelling Use Case BEFORE They Can Occur

I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts while I work lately. Podcasts with leading scientists from around the world. One of the core themes that continuously emerges is that innovation is really hard and takes a long time. I was really struck by iRobot co-Founder Rodney Allen Brooks speaking about how they had a target of launching the Roomba at $200 and this meant that he had FIFTY CENTS per unit to spend on a piece of silicon to power their invention. He told the story of running around Taiwan looking for a chip that was cheap enough and was handicapped in ways that wouldn’t matter for their particular application – as ALL chips in that price range are going to have severe limitations. This is a great story for highlighting some of the unexpected challenges in turning an invention into an innovation.

Another interesting innovation case study – on the failure side – is that of Google Glass. The smart glasses arrived as an overhyped and underwhelming product and died on the vine in a very short period of time. One of the key reasons for their failure was the lack of a compelling use case, and another was that technology was too front and center – so much so that Google Glass seemed like a creepy invention.

“Making access to information just instant and intuitive. By doing that, technology fades into the background, and we’re more connected with the people and things around us.”

This quote is pulled directly from the video below about Google’s reboot of their smart glasses initiative:

Google’s Live Translation Glasses arrive this time without a product page, without a formal product name and promising much less.

One of the things that really struck me in this short video is that while it is super easy to anchor on the value of the translation piece – displaying Mandarin on screen from an English voice for example – they have several other powerful uses cases, including:

  • People who have single-sided deafness
  • People who don’t want to wear hearing aids, or for whom hearing aids don’t work
  • People who are fully deaf
  • People who are trying to learn a new language

Do One Thing Really Well and Build From There

Google’s Live Translation Glasses remind me of another pair of smart glasses launched a little while back in the glow of the Google Glass failure – Amazon’s Echo Frames.

Amazon’s Echo Frames build themselves around the compelling use case of hands-free searching and calling. They have speakers and a microphone, connect to your iOS or Android smartphone, and can even be fitted with prescription lenses.

Amazon Echo Frames

Don’t Strip the Gears on Your Innovation Machine

Our ability to imagine usually outpaces our ability to execute and it can be a challenge to rein in our imagination to match our ability to not just execute, but to do so profitably and at a pace that our customers can see their way to adopt it.

When we look at my Innovation is All About Value methodology, we can also see that companies fail less often at value creation, and more frequently at value access and value translation.

When your start small and build around a compelling use case it is easier to get the value translation right and it is easier to build the key value access components to support your value creation.

Timing matters…

Price matters…

Compelling use cases matter…

What’s yours?

Keeping the end in mind and the future in sight – is important – but it is more valuable to identify where to start and add value as you go.

Don’t strip the gears on your innovation machine and keep innovating!

Image credit: The Verge, Amazon

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