Four Keys to Mastering Active Listening

Leave a reply

Four Keys to Mastering Active Listening

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Are you a good listener?

You may think you’re a good listener—maybe someone even told you were a good listener. Or maybe not. As a leader, this is a very important question. So much of your ability to solve the problems your team is bringing to you depends upon your ability to understand them. And in order to help your team feel heard and listened to when their pitching possible solutions depends on being a good listener.

No matter what you answered to the opening question, there’s good news for all. Listening well is a skill—the skill of active listening. And while that skill is crucial for communication, collaboration, and problem-solving, it’s also learnable.

In this article, we will explore the skill of active listening and how it can benefit both leaders and their teams. To do that, we will delve into the four specific skills involved in active listening using an acronym first developed by communication expert Julian Treasure: RASA—Receive, Appreciate, Summarize, and Ask.

1. Receive

The first skill of active listening is to receive. Truly paying attention and receiving the information being shared is the first step in active listening. It involves listening without interrupting or formulating a response, making eye contact, and paying attention to non-verbal cues. By actively receiving information, leaders demonstrate their commitment to understanding and valuing the speaker’s perspective.

When leaders listen without interrupting, they create a safe space for open communication and encourage the speaker to express themselves fully. Making eye contact and paying attention to non-verbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, helps leaders gain a deeper understanding of the speaker’s emotions and intentions. Taking notes, if necessary, ensures accurate reception of information and allows leaders to refer back to important points during discussions or when making decisions.

2. Appreciate

The second skill of active listening is to appreciate. Appreciation involves showing non-verbal signs of appreciation, such as nodding or making eye contact, to let the speaker know that their words are being heard and valued. By expressing appreciation through gestures, nods, and verbal cues, leaders create a positive and supportive environment that encourages open communication.

When leaders make the speaker feel valued and heard, it fosters trust and respect within the team. Genuine interest and active engagement in the conversation encourage the speaker to share more, leading to a deeper understanding of their thoughts and feelings. By appreciating the speaker’s perspective, leaders create a space where diverse ideas and opinions are welcomed and respected.

3. Summarize

The third skill of active listening is to summarize. Summarizing what the other person has said demonstrates understanding and allows leaders to check for accuracy. By reiterating the main points of what the speaker has shared, leaders show that they have been actively listening and processing the information.

Confirming understanding and giving the speaker an opportunity to clarify or correct any misunderstandings is crucial in effective communication. Leaders can use phrases like “What I heard you say is…” or “It sounds like you’re saying…” to summarize the speaker’s points and seek confirmation. This not only ensures that leaders have accurately understood the message but also makes the speaker feel heard and respected.

4. Ask

The final skill of active listening is to ask. Asking questions after a teammate has finished sharing allows leaders to delve deeper into the speaker’s thoughts and feelings, encouraging further discussion and exploration. By asking open-ended questions, leaders prompt the speaker to provide more details or insights, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.

It is important for leaders to avoid jumping to advice-giving and instead focus on understanding the speaker’s perspective. By asking thoughtful questions, leaders show genuine interest and create an environment where individuals feel comfortable sharing their ideas and concerns. This fosters better collaboration and problem-solving within teams.

Practicing and improving these four skills will improve your active listening. But more importantly, it will improve listening and communication on the whole team. Leaders set the example for their team members to follow. And as team members emulate the example and improve their own skills, that fosters an environment of trust and respect during discussions. And a team demonstrating trust and respect is a team that helps everyone do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on September 4, 2023

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

Are You Continuing to Stop and Start the Hard Way?

Leave a reply

Are You Continuing to Stop and Start the Hard Way?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

The stop, start, continue method (SSC) is a simple, yet powerful, way to plan your day, week and year. And though it’s simple, it’s not simplistic. And though it looks straightforward, it’s onion-like in its layers.

Stop, start, continue (SSC) is interesting in that it’s forward-looking, present-looking, and rearward-looking at the same time. And its power comes from the requirement that the three time perspectives must be reconciled with each other. Stopping is easy, but what will start? Starting is easy, unless nothing is stopped. Continuing is easy, but it’s not the right thing if the rules have changed. And starting can’t start if everything continues.

Stop. With SSC, stopping is the most important part. That’s why it’s first in the sequence. When everyone’s plates are full and every meeting is an all-you-can-eat buffet, without stopping, all the new action items slathered on top simply slip off the plate and fall to the floor. And this is double trouble because while it’s clear new action items are assigned, there’s no admission that the carpet is soiled with all those recently added action items.

Here’s a rule: If you don’t stop, you can’t start.
And here’s another: Pros stop, and rookies start.

With continuous improvement, you should stop what didn’t work. But with innovation, you should stop what was successful. Let others fan the flames of success while you invent the new thing that will start a bigger blaze.

Start. With SSC, starting is the easy part, but it shouldn’t be. Resources are finite, but we conveniently ignore this reality so we can start starting. The trouble with starting is that no one wants to let go of continuing. Do everything you did last year and start three new initiatives. Continue with your current role, but start doing the new job so you can get the promotion in three years.

Here’s a rule: Starting must come at the expense of continuing.
And here’s another: Pros do stop, start, continue, and rookies do start, start, start.

Continue. With SSC, continue is underrated. If you’re always starting, it’s because you have nothing good to continue. And if you’ve got a lot of continuing to do, it’s because you’ve got a lot of good things going on. And continuing is efficient because you’re not doing something for the first time. And everyone knows how to do the work and it goes smoothly.

But there’s a dark side to continue – it’s called the status quo. The status quo is a powerful, one-trick pony that only knows how to continue. It hates stopping and blocks all starting. Continuing is the mortal enemy of innovation.

Here’s a rule: Continuing must stop, or starting can’t start.
And here’s another: Pros continue and stop before they start, and rookies start.

SSC is like juggling three balls at once. Just as it’s not juggling unless it’s three balls at the same time, it’s not SSC unless it’s stop, start, continue all done at the same time. And just as juggling two balls at once isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s just two out of the three. And just as dropping two of the three balls on the floor isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s starting, starting, starting.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Don’t Bring a Can of Gasoline to a Fire

Leave a reply

Crisis Management

Don’t Bring A Can Of Gasoline To A Fire

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

This is a departure from my usual customer service and customer experience (CX) articles. While it does tie in to service and CX, it is really about leadership. In customer service and CX, resolving a complaint or crisis means resolving the issue to the customer’s satisfaction, ideally in a way that makes the customer say, “I’ll be back.” Sometimes, customers’ requests and expectations can cause frustration, but let’s put it into perspective.

Let’s say that your customer isn’t an individual or a company that calls you with a request, question or problem. Instead, that customer is a branch of the military, such as the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines or Coast Guard. Or perhaps, that customer is an entire country.

I recently had the privilege of visiting Scott Air Force Base and attending a lecture by Chief Master Sergeant Brian P. Kruzelnick, the command senior leader for the U.S. Transportation Command and principal advisor to the combatant commander and senior staff on matters concerning joint force integration, readiness, growth and utilization of the military workforce.

Chief Kruzelnick, or BK as he likes to be called, shared leadership lessons with an audience of 20 successful business owners. At the beginning of his presentation, he referred to all the people he served as customers. That caught my attention. In a way, the military is like a monopoly. If you want to “call in the troops,” you don’t shop around to determine which “brand” you want to work with, and you don’t get competitive pricing. You just get what you get.

But BK and his team take incredible pride in the work they do. They function like a group of senior leaders at a large, successful company. So, I asked, “BK, can I interview you for Amazing Business Radio and a Forbes article?” Fortunately for us all, he said, “Yes,” and the result is a number of lessons that all leaders can adopt for customer service, especially when it comes to crisis management.

BK started as if he were narrating a story: “It was 17 days in August. …” He was referring to the evacuation in Afghanistan in 2021. “We evacuated 123,334 men, women and children using 800 military aircraft. They went across nine countries and eight time zones. Unfortunately, 13 lives were lost, each one an American hero. We also had 20 babies born on those aircraft as we were evacuating them out.”

Consider the math. How many people could each plane transport? The larger C-17 planes are mainly used for cargo. They have the ability to move people, and with seats installed, usually about 120 passengers. But at one point, they put 823 people on a single aircraft. The engineers and experts knew they could do it. They actually had the passengers sat in the cargo hold and had a strap across their lap for safety. In a time of crisis, they successfully executed the largest evacuation the U.S. ever attempted.

But there was more. At the same time, there was a 7.2-magnitude earthquake in Haiti. There were wildfires in California that burned 1 million acres. A Category 4 hurricane blew through Louisiana. And if that wasn’t enough, there were safety inspections of the military’s larger aircraft that had to be completed across the entire fleet for a possible safety issue. BK proudly said, “And we got it all accomplished in 17 days in August. Wow!”

I joked about how many flight attendants it takes for 823 passengers. BK replied, “We don’t have flight attendants on C-17’s, but we have military personnel who are there to take care of business.” He shared a story about a young boy who was in the cargo hold and was laying on the floor next to his mother. He was cold and scared. One of the crew members took off his military jacket and wrapped it around the young boy, and then walked away to continue his job. Another crew member saw this and caught the moment with a photo.

BK said, “I think that defined the whole movement of what we did. Aside from everything else you hear about, that thing boiled down to humanity. Our ability to care for someone who needed to be cared for. That one picture epitomized that 17-day operation.”

In this incredible military operation, boundaries were pushed. Protocols were modified to suit the situation. The question was, how do you push or break a system that has never been stretched so far, and possibly change precedents for the future?

There is much to learn about managing a crisis from this incredible story. Let’s wrap up with BK’s six crisis management and leadership lessons:

1. Clarity in Times of Crisis: In times of crisis, there must be a clear objective that people can rally around. The goal is clarity. Everyone must understand what the commanding officer—or in the world of businesses, a leader or manager—wants and expects.

2. Extensive Training: People have to be trained to a level that makes them successful. On-the-job training is not possible in crisis situations. BK refers to this as Adventure Training. Nobody should be put into a position of questioning if something is going to work. On the contrary, there must be a level of comfort when you’re feeling the pressure of a crisis, and that comes from a foundation of strong training.

3. Prepare for the Worst: BK says, “I don’t think big companies think about their worst day. Most are building themselves to be at the best, optimal, all the time. But how many times do we think about our worst moments and how we can act and react to ensure we can still execute, perform and succeed? In the military, we run exercises all the time to make sure we can respond regardless of the situation. … There’s enough foundational training that we can operate and execute when called upon.”

4. Empowerment on Steroids: You must feel trusted enough to make decisions without fear of repercussions. BK said, “People must have the faith and trust of the organization resting on their shoulders that if they pushed the limits, which they knew they could do and still be safe, that no one would come down and try to hammer them negatively for what they did because there was trust in their expertise.”

5. Faith, Hope and Love: Let’s break these down one at a time:

  • Faith — As a leader, you must have faith in your organization, the processes, the people executing and yourself.
  • Hope — You must have hope. BK says, “Hope is critically important, because if you have hope, everybody that follows you will have hope because they’re looking to you as the leader.” I challenged that with the old saying, “Hope is not a strategy.” His quick response was, “Hopelessness is not a strategy either, so I would take hope.”
  • Love — Have passion for what you do and compassion for the people you do it with.

6. Bring Harmony to Chaos: As we came to the end of the interview, I asked for one final piece of crisis leadership advice. BK quickly responded, “Bring harmony to chaos. Don’t bring a can of gasoline to the fire!”

Image Credits: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

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

Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

Leave a reply

Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

I have just returned from a short sabbatical in Bali, Indonesia, a place of unparalleled beauty, lushness, and deep spirituality. Bali invites and fosters opportunities for retreat, reflection, and replenishment and is a vital space for restoration and renewal. As you may know, a sabbatical is an extended period away from work for study, travel, or personal growth. In my case, it was in response to an invitation to attend a deep dialogue session that included high-level leaders from many countries and sectors of society across the Asia Pacific region.  This entailed days spent in deep listening and inquiring processes involving quietening the mind, accessing the heart and respecting the body within a unique environment. It supported people through their change fatigue, unleashed their emotional energy, and sparked collective intelligence to emerge hopefulness, unity, faith, and possibility in the future of humanity.

It allowed people to emerge, diverge, and converge their positive and creative change choices to transform their worlds.

What is deep dialogue?

Dialogue can be defined as “a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that structure everyday experience”. The word “dialogue” originates from two Greek roots, ‘dia’ and ‘logos’ suggesting “meaning flowing through.”

It’s important to understand that dialogue is not the same as the often unproductive and mechanistic debates we are familiar with. Deep dialogue is a sustained collective inquiry that sparks collective intelligence through a facilitated process that delves into the values, needs, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, assumptions and certainties that shape our everyday experiences, feelings and thoughts about the future.

Deep dialogue is not just a creative conversation; it involves strategic, collective and insightful inquiry, detached observation, attention and intention, and multi-faceted listening processes.

It requires a willingness to suspend and let go of reactive and defensive exchanges and delve into their systemic causes. It helps to spark people’s collective intelligence to create moments of clarity in resolving complex and critical problems creatively and differently.

In contrast with more familiar modes of inquiry, deep dialogue involves an emergence process. It begins without an agenda and a ‘leader’ but with an accomplished facilitator and without a specific task or decision to make.

One key element in fostering productive dialogue is the role of the facilitator. The facilitator’s task is to co-create a collective holding space that encourages participants to disrupt and safely challenge their habitual thinking processes. This approach is based on the understanding that our problems cannot be solved using the same thinking that created them.

Knowing that we can’t keep on producing the results we want.

Deep dialogue evokes collective intelligence, opening new possibilities for shared thinking and fostering a sense of authenticity, unity and shared purpose in any endeavour.

What are the barriers that often hinder deep and meaningful dialogue?

The constant, relentless impact of accelerating change, disruption, and uncertainty, as well as the ongoing impact of our post-COVID isolation and people’s lack of belonging, never allows or permits us the key moments that enable us to engage in and reap the benefits that deep dialogue offers.

This lack of belonging and isolation are significant barriers to meaningful dialogue that evoke the positive changes we seek in our personal and professional lives.

As a seasoned corporate trainer, facilitator, coach, and consultant, I have observed that many people unconsciously still suffer from emotional overwhelm, causing them to lose their ‘spark’ or emotional energy. They also unconsciously suffer from cognitive overload, with little mental or thinking space to explore the impact of their thoughts and feelings on who they are, which diminishes any positivity, hope, and optimism for themselves, their teams, and organisations today and in the future.

Alternately, it is much easier and more comfortable for some people to be unconsciously reactive, defensive, and singularly focused, never developing their pause power.

By avoiding taking any personal responsibility or being accountable for interrupting their busyness and shifting their inner being, and developing the deliberate calm required to be, think, and act differently in the face of any instability, insecurity, sorrow, or unwellness, they may be experiencing in their hearts and minds.

Upon arrival, I discovered I was also unconsciously doing this despite my regular wellness routine and habits.

During the three-day process, I was encouraged to pay attention and notice how energetically, emotionally, and physically exhausted I felt and how my mind had been kidnapped and overloaded by my unconscious fears and anxiety over the state of the world.

Like many others, I had also unconsciously been wilfully pushing myself as a human doing rather than as a human being.   

This left no space or safe moments for sparking moments of clarity, never mind socialising or connecting with others to spark collective intelligence and consciously effect positive change.

Why is deep dialogue critical in today’s uncertain and disrupted world?

Fortunately, I was supported to enter and engage in deep dialogue, which allowed our group of global leaders to safely interrupt our ‘busyness’, stop, and emerge a range of vital and subtle moments.  

To cultivate and nurture our inner awareness by retreating and reflecting through mindfulness, contemplation, meditation, and silence.  

It awakened us to become conscious of the subtle world that connects our unique cognitive and emotional inner structures of thoughts and feelings to the outer world we mostly unconsciously created and experienced. 

It was a powerful, transformative experience for every one of us.

Because when we change, the world changes.

Choosing to cross the bridge consciously

We can engage in deep dialogue when we are empowered, enabled and equipped to stop, pause, retreat, and reflect.

By being curious, compassionate, and courageous in opening our hearts, minds, and will, we can spark regeneration, replenishment, and renewal of the range of options, choices, and intentions.

We can cross the bridge, individually and collectively, to re-create or co-create a compelling, sustainable, inclusive, and equitable future for everyone.

Anyone can be proactive and evoke creative sparks collectively and collaboratively to unleash our options, choices, and intentions by being in the present and bridging the past with a desirable future.

It is foundational to creating, inventing, and innovating our futures and reclaiming our inner dignity and power over our lives.

To spark our collective intelligence, all leaders must commit to consciously using this moment to create what is possible rather than reacting and passively accepting what might appear inevitable to some of us.

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

Please find out about our collective learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, presented by Janet Sernack, it is a collaborative, intimate, and profoundly personalised innovation coaching and learning program supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, and can be customised as a bespoke corporate learning program.

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 innovation context. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

I Sent AI a Survey

Leave a reply

… and the Results Were Brilliant … and Dangerous

I sent AI a survey and the results were brilliant and dangerous

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

AI is everywhere: in our workplaces, homes, schools, art galleries, concert halls, and even neighborhood coffee shops.  We can’t seem to escape it.  Some hope it will unlock our full potential and usher in an era of creativity, prosperity, and peace. Others worry it will eventually replace us. While both outcomes are extreme, if you’ve ever used AI to conduct research with synthetic users, the idea of being “replaced” isn’t so wild.

For the past month, I’ve beta-tested an AI research tool that allows you to create surveys, specify segments of respondents, send the survey to synthetic respondents (AI-generated personas), and get results within minutes. 

Sound too good to be true?

Here are the results from my initial test:

  • 150 respondents in 3 niche segments (50 respondents each)
  • 51 questions, including ten open-ended questions requiring short prose responses
  • 1 hour to complete and generate an AI executive summary and full data set of individual responses, enabling further analysis

The Tool is Brilliant

It took just one hour to gather data that traditional survey methods require a month or more to collect, clean, and synthesize. Think of how much time you’ve spent waiting for survey results, checking interim data, and cleaning up messy responses. I certainly did and it made me cry.

The qualitative responses were on-topic, useful, and featured enough quirks to seem somewhat human.  I’m pretty sure that has never happened in the history of surveys.  Typically, respondents skip open-ended questions or use them to air unrelated opinions.

Every respondent completed the entire survey!  There is no need to look for respondents who went too quickly, chose the same option repeatedly, or abandoned the effort altogether.  You no longer need to spend hours cleaning data, weeding out partial responses, and hoping you’re left with enough that you can generate statistically significant findings.

The Results are Dangerous

When I presented the results to my client, complete with caveats about AI’s limitations and the tool’s early-stage development, they did what any reasonable person would do – they started making decisions based on the survey results.

STOP!

As humans, we want to solve problems.  In business, we are rewarded for solving problems.  So, when we see something that looks like a solution, we jump at it.

However, strategic or financially significant decisions should never rely ona single data source. They are too complex, risky, and costly.  And they definitely shouldn’t be made based on fake people’s answers to survey questions!

They’re Also Useful.

Although the synthetic respondents’ data may not be true, it is probably directionally correct because it is based on millions and maybe billions of data points.  So, while you shouldn’t make pricing decisions based on data showing that 40% of your target consumers are willing to pay a 30%+ premium for your product, it’s reasonable to believe they may be willing to pay more for your product.

The ability to field an absurdly long survey was also valuable.  My client is not unusual in their desire to ask everything they may ever need to know for fear that they won’t have another chance to gather quantitative data (and budgets being what they are, they’re usually right).  They often ignore warnings that long surveys lead to abandonment and declining response quality. With AI, we could ask all the questions and then identify the most critical ones for follow-up surveys sent to actual humans.

We Aren’t Being Replaced, We’re Being Spared

AI consumer research won’t replace humans. But it will spare us the drudgery of long surveys filled with useless questions, months of waiting for results, and weeks of data cleaning and analysis. It may just free us up to be creative and spend time with other humans.  And that is brilliant.

Image credit: Microsoft Copilot

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

Disinformation Economics

Leave a reply

Disinformation Economics

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Marshal McLuhan, one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, described media as “extensions of man” and predicted that electronic media would eventually lead to a global village. Communities, he predicted, would no longer be tied to a single, isolated physical space but connect and interact with others on a world stage.

What often goes untold is that McLuhan did not see the global village as a peaceful place. In fact, he predicted it would lead to a new form of tribalism and result in a “release of human power and aggressive violence” greater than ever in human history, as long separated —and emotionally charged— cultural norms would now constantly intermingle, clash and explode.

Today, the world looks a whole lot like the dystopia McLuhan described. Fringe groups, nation states and profit-seeking corporations have essentially weaponized information and we are all caught in the crossfire. While the situation is increasingly dire it is by no means hopeless. What we need isn’t more fact checking, but to renew institutions and rebuild trust.

How Tribes Emerge

We tend to think of the world we live in as the result of some grand scheme. In the middle ages, the ontological argument posited the existence of an “unmoved mover” that set events in motion. James Bond movies always feature an evil genius. No conspiracy theory would be complete without an international cabal pulling the strings.

Yet small decisions, spread out over enough people, can create the illusion of a deliberate order. In his classic Micromotives and Macrobehavior, economist Thomas Schelling showed how even small and seemingly innocuous choices, when combined with those of others, can lead to outcomes no one intended or preferred.

Consider the decision to live in a particular neighborhood. Imagine a young couple who prefers to live in a mixed-race neighborhood but doesn’t want to be outnumbered. Schelling showed, mathematically, how if everybody shares those same inclinations that scenario results in extreme segregation, even though that is exactly opposite of what was intended.

This segregation model an example of a Nash equilibrium, in which individual decisions eventually settle into a stable group dynamic. No one in the system has an incentive to change his or her decision. Yet just because an equilibrium is stable doesn’t mean it’s optimal or even preferable. In fact, some Nash equilibriums, such as the famous prisoner’s dilemma and the tragedy of the commons make everyone worse off.

That, in essence, is what appears to have happened in today’s media environment with respect to disinformation.

The Power Of Local Majorities

A big part of our everyday experience is seen through the prism of people that surround us. Our social circles have a major influence on what we perceive and how we think. In fact, a series of famous experiments done at Swarthmore College in the 1950’s showed that we will conform to the opinions of those around us even if they are obviously wrong.

It isn’t particularly surprising that those closest to us influence our thinking, but more recent research has found that the effect extends to three degrees of social distance. So it is not only those we know well, but even the friends of our friend’s friends have a deep and pervasive effect how we think and behave.

This effect is then multiplied by our tendency to be tribal, even when the source of division is arbitrary. For example, in a study where young children were randomly assigned to a red or a blue group, they liked pictures of other kids who wore t-shirts that reflected their own group better. In another study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out-group members regardless of their race.

The simple truth is that majorities don’t just rule, they also influence, especially local majorities. Combine that with the mathematical and psychological forces that lead us to separate ourselves from each other and we end up living in a series of social islands rather than the large, integrated society we often like to imagine.

Filter Bubbles And Echo Chambers

Clearly, the way we tend to self-sort ourselves into homophilic, homogeneous groups will shape how we perceive what we see and hear, but it will also affect how we access information. Recently, a team of researchers at MIT looked into how we share information—and misinformation—with those around us. What they found was troubling.

When we’re surrounded by people who think like us, we share information more freely because we don’t expect to be rebuked. We’re also less likely to check our facts, because we know that those we are sharing the item with will be less likely to inspect it themselves. So when we’re in a filter bubble, we not only share more, we’re also more likely to share things that are not true. Greater polarization leads to greater misinformation.

Let’s combine this insight with the profit incentives of social media companies. Obviously, they want their platforms to be more engaging than their competition. So naturally, they want people to share as much as possible and the best way to do that is to separate people into groups that think alike, which will increase the amount of disinformation produced.

Notice that none of this requires any malicious intent. The people in Schelling’s segregation model actually wanted to live in an integrated neighborhood. In much the same way, the subjects in the fMRi studies showed hostility to members of other groups regardless of race. Social media companies don’t necessarily want to promote untruths, they merely need to tune their algorithms to create maximum engagement and the same effect is produced.

Nevertheless, we have blundered into a situation in which we increasingly see—and believe—things that aren’t true. We have created a global village at war with itself.

Rebuilding Trust

At its core, the solution to the problem of disinformation has less to do with information than it has to do with trust. Living in a connected world demands that we transcend our own context and invite in the perspectives and experiences of others. That is what McLuhan meant when he argued that we electronic media would create a global village.

Inevitably, we don’t like much of what we see. When we are confronted with the strange and unusual we must decide whether to assimilate and adopt the views of others, or to assert the primacy of our own. The desire for recognition can result in clashes and confrontation, which lead us to seek out those who look, think and act in ways that reinforce our sense of self. We build echo chambers that deny external reality to satisfy these tribal instincts.

Yet as Francis Fukuyama pointed out in Identity, there is another option. We can seek to create a larger sense of self through building communities rooted in shared values. When viewed through the prism of common undertaking rather than that tribe, diverse perspectives can be integrated and contribute to a common cause.

What’s missing in our public discourse today isn’t more or better information. We already have far more access to knowledge than at any time in human history. What we lack is a shared sense of mission and purpose. We need a shared endeavor to which we can contribute the best of our energies and for which we can welcome the contributions of others.

Without shared purpose, we are left only with identity, solipsism and the myth-making we require to make ourselves feel worthwhile.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Unsplash

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






Coping with the Chasm

Leave a reply

Coping with the Chasm

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

I’ve been talking about crossing the chasm incessantly for over thirty years, and I’m not likely to stop, but it does beg the question, how should you operate when you are in the chasm? What is the chasm itself about, and what actions is it likely to reward or punish?

The chasm is a lull in the Technology Adoption Life Cycle, one that comes after the enthusiasts and visionaries have made their splash and before the pragmatists are willing to commit. At this time the new category is on the map, people are talking about it, often quite enthusiastically, but no one has budgeted for it as yet. That means that conventional go-to-market efforts, based on generating and pursuing qualified leads with prospects who have both budget and intent to purchase, cannot get traction. It does not mean, however, that they won’t entertain sales meetings and demos. They actually want to learn more about this amazing new thing, and so they can keep your go-to-market engine humming with activity. They just won’t buy anything.

Crossing the Chasm says it is time for you to select a beachhead market segment with a compelling reason to buy and approach them with a whole product that addresses an urgent unsolved problem. All well and good, but what if you don’t know enough about the market (or your own product for that matter) to make a sound choice? What if you are stuck in the chasm and have to stay there for a while? What can you do?

First of all, take good care of the early adopter customers you do have. Give them more service than you normally would, in part because you want them to succeed and be good references, but also because in delivering that service, you can get a closer look at their use cases and learn more about the ones that might pull you out of the chasm.

Second, keep your go-to-market organization lean and mean. You cannot sell your way out of the chasm. You cannot market your way out either. The only way out is to find that targetable beachhead segment with the compelling use case that they cannot address through any conventional means. This is an exercise in discovery, so your go-to-market efforts need to be provocative enough to get the meeting (this is where thought leadership marketing is so valuable) and your sales calls need to be intellectually curious about the prospect’s current business challenges (and not presentations about how amazing your company is or flashy demos to show off your product). In short, in the chasm, you are a solution looking for a problem.

Third, get your R&D team directly in contact with the customer, blending engineering, professional services, and customer success all into one flexible organization, all in search of the beachhead use case and the means for mastering its challenges. You made it to the chasm based on breakthrough technology that won the hearts of enthusiasts and visionaries, but that won’t get you across. You have to get pulled out of the chasm by prospective customers who will make a bet on you because they are desperate for a new approach to an increasingly vexing problem, and you have made a convincing case that your technology, product, talent, and commitment can fill the bill.

Finally, let’s talk about what you should not do. You cannot perform your way out of the chasm. You have no power. So, this is not a time to focus on execution. Instead, you have to find a way to increase your power. In the short term, you can do this through consulting projects—you have unique technology power that people want to consume; they just don’t want to consume through a product model at this time. They are happy to pay for bespoke projects, however, and that is really what the Early Market playbook is all about. Of course, projects don’t scale, so they are not a long-term answer, but they do generate income, and they do keep you in contact with the market. What you are looking for is solution power, tying your technology power to a specific use case in a specific segment, one that you could deliver on a repeatable basis and get you out of the chasm. Often these use cases are embedded in bespoke projects, just a part of the visionary’s big picture, but with more than enough meat on the bone to warrant a pragmatist’s attention.

Sooner or later you have to make a bet. You can recognize a good opportunity by the following traits:

  • There is budget to address the problem, and it is being spent now.
  • The results the prospect is getting are not promising and, if anything, the situation is deteriorating.
  • You know from at least one of your projects that you can do a lot better.

That’s about all the data you are going to get. That’s why we call crossing the chasm a high-risk, low-data decision. But it beats staying in the chasm by a long shot.

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

Image Credit: Microsoft Copilot

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






The Hidden Cost of Waiting

1 Reply

The Hidden Cost of Waiting

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you want to do a task, but you don’t have what you need, that’s waiting for a support resource. If you need a tool, but you don’t have it, you wait for a tool. If you need someone to do the task, but you don’t have anyone, you wait for people. If you need some information to make a decision, but you don’t have it, you wait for information.

If a tool is expensive, usually you have to wait for it. The thinking goes like this – the tool is expensive, so let’s share the cost over too many projects and too many teams. Sure, less work will get done, but when we run the numbers, the tool will look less expensive because it’s used by many people. If you see a long line of people (waiting) or a signup list (people waiting at their desks), what they are waiting for is usually an expensive tool or resource. In that way, to find the cause of waiting, stand at the front of the line and look around. What you see is the cause of the waiting.

If the tool isn’t expensive, buy another one and reduce the waiting. If the tool is expensive, calculate the cost of delay. Cost of delay is commonly used with product development projects. If the project is delayed by a month, the incremental revenue from the product launch is also delayed by a month. That incremental revenue is the cost of delaying the project by a month. When the cost of delay is larger than the cost of an expensive tool, it makes sense to buy another expensive tool. But, to purchase that expensive tool requires multiple levels of approvals. So, the waiting caused by the tool results in waiting for approval for the new tool. I guess there’s a cost of delay for the approval process, but let’s not go there.

Most companies have more projects than people, and that’s why projects wait. And when projects wait, projects are late. Adding people is like getting another expensive tool. They are spread over too many projects, and too little gets done. And like with expensive tools, getting more people doesn’t come easy. New hires can be justified (more waiting in the approval queue), but that takes time to find them, hire them, and train them. Hiring temporary people is a good option, though that can seem too expensive (higher hourly rate), it requires approval, and it takes time to train them. Moving people from one project to another is often the best way because it’s quick and the training requirement is less. But, when one project gains a person, another project loses one. And that’s often the rub.

When it’s time to make an important decision and the team has to wait for missing information, the project waits. And when projects wait, projects are late. It’s difficult to see the waiting caused by missing or un-communicated information, but it can be done. The easiest to see when the information itself is a project deliverable. If a milestone review requires a formal presentation of the information, the review cannot be held without it. The delay of the milestone review (waiting) is objective evidence of missing information.

Information-based waiting is relatively easy to see when the missing information violates a precedent for decision making. For example, if the decision is always made with a defined set of data or information, and that information is missing, the precedent is violated and everyone knows the decision cannot be made. In this case, everyone’s clear why the decision cannot be made, everyone’s clear on what information is missing, and everyone’s clear on who dropped the ball.

It’s most difficult to recognize information-based waiting when the decision is new or different and requires judgment because there’s no requirement for the data and there’s no precedent to fall back on. If the information was formally requested and linked to the decision, it’s clear the information is missing and the decision will be delayed. But if it’s a new situation and there’s no agreement on what information is required for the decision, it’s almost impossible to discern if the information is missing. In this situation, it comes down to trust in the decision-maker. If you trust the decision-maker and they say there’s information missing, then there’s information missing. If you trust the decision-maker and they say there’s no information missing, they should make the decision. But if you don’t trust the decision-maker, then all bets are off.

In general, waiting is bad. And it’s helpful if you can recognize when projects are waiting. Waiting is especially bad went the delayed task is on the critical path because when the project is waiting on a task that’s on the critical path, there’s a day-for-day slip in the completion date. Hint: it’s important to know which tasks and decisions are on the critical path.

Image credit: Pexels

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






Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

Leave a reply

Delivering Real Value the Key

Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Whenever I get the chance to interview the CEO of a major CX company, I jump at the chance. I recently conducted a second interview with Alan Masarek, the CEO of Avaya, a company focused on creating customer experience solutions for large enterprises.

My first interview covered an amazing turnaround that Masarek orchestrated in his first year at Avaya, taking the company through Chapter 11 and coming out strong. Masarek admits that even with his extensive financial background, he’s always been a product person, and it’s the combination of the two mindsets that makes him the perfect leader for Avaya.

In our discussion, he shared his view on AI and how it must deliver value in the contact center. What follows is a summary of the main points of our interview, followed by my commentary.

Why Customer Service and CX Are Important: Thanks to the internet, it’s harder for brands to differentiate themselves. Within minutes, a customer can compare prices, check availability, find a company that can deliver the product within a day or two, or find comparable products from other retailers, vendors and manufacturers. Furthermore, while the purchasing experience needs to be positive, it’s what happens beyond the purchase that becomes most important. Masarek says, “Brands are now trying to differentiate based upon the experience they provide. So any tool that can help the brand achieve this is the winner.”

Customer Service Is Rooted in Communications: Twenty years ago, the primary way to communicate with a company was on the phone. While we still do that, the world has evolved to what is referred to as omni-channel, which includes voice, chat, email, brand apps, social media and more. As we move from the phone to alternative channels of communication, companies and brands must find ways to bring them all together to create a seamless journey for the customer.

Organizations Want to Minimize Voice: According to Masarek, companies want to move away from traditional voice communication, which is a human on the phone. That “one-to-one” is very expensive. With digital solutions, you have one-to-many. Masarek says, “It’s asynchronous. And the beauty is you can introduce AI utilities into the customer experience, which creates greater efficiency. You’re solving so many things either digitally or deflecting it altogether via the chatbot, the voice bot or what have you.”

AI Will Not Eliminate Jobs: Masarek says, “There’s a bull and a bear case for an employment point of view relative to AI. Will it be a destroyer of jobs, a bear case, or will it grow jobs, the bull case?” He shared an example that perfectly describes the situation we’re in today. In the 1960s, Barclay’s Bank introduced the ATM. Everyone thought it would be the end of tellers working at banks. That never happened. What did happen is that tellers took on a more important role, going beyond just cashing checks or depositing money. It’s the same in the customer service world. AI technologies will take care of simple tasks, freeing customer service agents to help with more complicated issues. (For more on how AI will not eliminate jobs, read this Forbes article from September 2023.)

The Employee Experience Drives the Customer Experience: AI is not just about supporting the customer. It can also support the agent. When the agent is talking to a customer, generative AI technology can listen in the background, search through a company’s knowledge base and feed the agent information in real time. Masarek said, “Think about what a pleasant experience that is for both the agent and the customer!”

Innovation Without Disruption: A company may invest in a better customer experience, but sometimes, that causes stress to the organization. Masarek is proud of Avaya’s value proposition, which is to add innovation without disruption. This means there’s a seamless integration versus total replacement of existing systems and processes. Regarding the upgrade, Masarek says, “The last thing you want is to rip it all out.”

The Customer-In Approach: As we wrapped up our interview, I asked Masarek for one final nugget of wisdom. He shared his Customer-In approach. Not that long ago, you could compete on product, price and availability. Today, that’s table stakes. What separates one brand from another is the experience. Masarek summarized this point by saying, “You have to set your North Star on as few things as possible. Focus wins. And so, if you’re always thinking Customer First and all your decisions are rooted in that concept, your business will be successful. At the end of the day, brands win on how they make the customer feel. It’s no longer just about product, price and availability.”

Image Credits: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

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






Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

Leave a reply

Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

“Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” – Henry Ford

The Insight: Viewing failure not as a setback but as a vital part of the learning process is a transformative approach for any leader. This mindset shift from fearing failure to embracing it as an opportunity can significantly enhance a team’s creativity, adaptability, and resilience.

The Research: While I can’t cite specific new studies, foundational research in organizational behavior underscores the value of embracing failure. For instance, Amy C. Edmondson’s concept of psychological safety, detailed in her work, highlights how creating an environment where team members feel safe to take risks and learn from failures leads to higher levels of innovation and performance.

Similarly, the principles of resilience, as discussed by Martin E.P. Seligman, suggest that learning from setbacks is crucial for developing a more agile and robust team. These theories support the idea that a culture tolerant of failure fosters an atmosphere where creativity and growth are not just encouraged but flourished.

Implement & Grow: To nurture a culture that embraces failure, start by openly discussing both successes and setbacks. Highlight the lessons learned from each failure and how these can drive future successes. Encourage your team to experiment and take calculated risks, reassuring them that failure is a step toward innovation, not a reason for punishment. Remember that the key about failure is learning.

This practice not only promotes a growth mindset but also strengthens the team’s cohesion and drive for continuous improvement.

Thus, by redefining failure as a cornerstone of learning and innovation, leaders can unlock their team’s potential and pave the way for groundbreaking achievements.

This is another post in my series on Strategies for Team Dynamics + Leadership Growth. Stay tuned for more!

Image Credit: Pixabay, Stefan Lindegaard

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