The Importance of Real-Time Feedback

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

I love talking to other Customer Experience (CX) experts, especially when they are “in the trenches,” working for companies and organizations that practice what they preach. I recently talked with one of those experts, Gabriel Masili of Granicus, a company that provides government agencies worldwide with technology and support that creates a better citizen experience. Not only does Granicus create a good CX for its customers, but it also helps its customers create a great experience for their customers. G, as he likes to be called, shared a great idea in our recent interview on Amazing Business Radio. He talked about collecting feedback during the experience in addition to asking for it after the experience.

Asking for Feedback during the Process

If this topic sounds familiar, it might be because I covered the concept of real-time feedback after interviewing Adam Alfia, whose company is called Realtime Feedback. G’s take on the concept is a little different, especially as it relates to the government’s efforts to create a better experience.

In our interview, G mentioned that asking for feedback during the process is a way to capture the customer’s general sentiment about the experience they are having. For example, if there is a digital process you’re taking the customer through, you might ask, “Do you understand what we’ve shared so far?” A simple option of yes or no will give you insight. If everyone answers “Yes,” you know you have a good process. If many customers answer “No,” you now recognize there is an opportunity to improve. But what if just a few people answer, “No”? That is when you escalate the customer to someone who can help in real time. In G’s words, “You extract the customer from the experience” and help them at that moment rather than force them to go through a process that, for them, could be confusing, cumbersome, or just not pleasant.

Real-time Feedback Cartoon Shep Hyken

‘In the Moment’ Feedback

This reminded me of an experience I am having more and more after checking into a hotel. About five or ten minutes after I’m in my room, the phone rings. It’s the person at the front desk checking with me to make sure the room is as expected. If it’s not, this “in the moment” feedback will fix any problems long before my experience is over.

The simplest example I can think of happens at a restaurant when the server comes back to our table a few minutes after the food was brought to us. He asked if everything was cooked to our satisfaction. If not, the entrée can be taken back to the kitchen. The alternative is to wait until the meal is over to find out about any problems, and by then, it’s too late.

The point is that there is a right time – even a better time – to ask for feedback, and sometimes, it is in the middle of the experience, not at the end. So here’s your homework. Sit down with your team and brainstorm how you can get feedback during the experience, not just after it. It may or may not be something you can do in your organization, but it is a conversation that is definitely worth having.

Image Credit: Pixabay, Shep Hyken

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

From Resistance to Reinvention

Leave a reply

Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Transform Innovation Capability

From Resistance to Reinvention

GUEST POST from Noel Sobelman

For large, established companies, driving innovation is more than a strategic priority, it’s a necessity for survival in competitive and fast-changing markets. Yet, fostering innovation in a legacy organization can be a daunting task, especially when cultural inertia stands in the way. This article draws on my experiences working with global companies who have undertaken the bold initiative to transform their innovation capabilities and provides practical insights into overcoming the culture and behavior challenges that stand in the way of change.

I’ll share proven methods and tactics leaders can use to drive change. While some companies have seen significant progress in areas like employee involvement and crafting compelling cultural narratives, they have also encountered challenges in achieving consistency in leadership actions and aligning incentives. These successes and setbacks highlight the complexity of applying change management techniques in real-world settings and offer valuable lessons for senior leaders grappling with similar transformations.

To illustrate how companies have navigated these transformations, I’ll examine the key mechanisms that shape change initiatives while highlighting both successes and obstacles. By analyzing initiative governance, leadership actions, system interdependence, employee engagement strategies, rewards, symbols, and HR system alignment, I will identify the factors that drive lasting change and the barriers that hinder progress. This analysis will shed light on the practical realities of fostering a culture of continuous innovation, equipping leaders with actionable insights to guide their own transformation efforts.

Making the Case for Change

For meaningful change to occur, it is essential to first establish a shared understanding of the current state, the benefits of change, the risks of inaction, the specific capability gaps, and the precise ways the organization needs to adapt. In large, well-established companies, innovation spans multiple functions, business units, geographies, growth horizons, and management levels, each presenting its own unique challenges and perspectives. Consequently, reaching consensus on the core issues is rare and it often takes a crisis, such as declining revenue, a major product failure, the departure of critical team members, or the threat of disruption to ignite change. Successful transformations begin with a sharpened and clearly communicated “why change” narrative.

Figure 1 below illustrates how one company used a benchmark analysis to compare its current innovation performance to industry best-in-class standards across multiple dimensions. The benchmark helped identify performance gaps, highlighting the need for change and enabling the company to set realistic improvement targets. The data provided objectivity and fostered a shared understanding of the need for improvement.

Figure 1. Sample Performance Gap Analysis

Establishing Ownership & Governance

Innovation is inherently cross-functional, involving multiple management layers. But when execution issues or launch failures persist, who is responsible? The tendency is to assign blame to a specific function, often R&D or Marketing in technology-driven companies, and expect that group to diagnose and fix the problem. This siloed mindset fosters finger-pointing and defensiveness while overlooking the interconnected systems required for meaningful improvement. In reality, the necessary changes extend beyond the control of any single individual or department.

To overcome these challenges, it is essential to establish a clear governance framework that aligns responsibilities across different functions and organizational levels. In large corporations, this means differentiating between corporate, business unit, and product line levels, as each operates with distinct strategies, operational objectives, and decision-makers.

Governance for transformation is most effectively managed by a cross-functional steering team consisting of leaders from each impacted business unit and function, including R&D, marketing, operations, quality, regulatory, and finance. This team provides strategic oversight, sets performance targets, approves critical design and policy decisions, removes obstacles, and ensures consistent, enthusiastic communication. Strong endorsement from the CEO is essential to guarantee unwavering prioritization of the initiative and to secure organizational buy-in, while a dedicated cross-business working team handles day-to-day activities and champions the cultural changes needed to embed innovation practices throughout the organization.

The following graphic illustrates a sample governance structure that enables this coordinated approach. It outlines the key roles and responsibilities at various organizational levels, highlighting how leadership oversight, cross-functional collaboration, and operational execution come together to drive transformation success.

Figure 2. Sample Initiative Governance Structure

Demonstrating Leadership Action

Leaders shape employee behavior through consistent actions and messages that highlight priorities and expectations, demonstrating what they do, not what they say they do. Employees listen to what leaders say, observe their actions and where they focus their attention, recognize what they value, and use these cues to align their actions and priorities accordingly. For example, a CEO who makes time on his or her calendar to meet regularly with the initiative’s working team sends a powerful signal that the effort is a top priority for the organization.

In the most successful transformations, leadership begins by aligning on a clear change roadmap. This blueprint serves as a shared vision, mapping the path from the company’s current state to its desired future with well-defined actions, sequencing, and responsibilities. Leaders must agree on initiative goals, progress metrics, organizational changes, and time horizon. The roadmap incorporates both high impact “quick wins” and longer-term, advanced capabilities, along with the relative timing of activities and dependencies across each capability-building workstream. A well-constructed and actively maintained roadmap sets clear expectations for value realization and prevents isolated initiatives from emerging. By agreeing on this roadmap, leaders ensure that their messages, decisions, and actions remain consistent throughout the organization.

Figure 3. Sample Change Roadmap

Not all transformations maintain this level of cross-functional leadership alignment and focus. Over time, the priorities of well-intentioned leaders can shift, leading to unintended consequences. As the pressures of day-to-day operations and quarterly performance demands mount, these leaders often redirect their focus to immediate business needs, allocating resources to these areas or assigning transformation responsibilities as additional work without adjusting existing workloads. Similarly, when leadership priorities shift or the organization takes on too many initiatives simultaneously, focus on the transformation declines, and a wait-and-see approach tends to emerge.

This shift in focus has a ripple effect throughout the organization. What begins as a coordinated, integrated effort becomes piecemeal. Cross-business unit collaboration weakens, as leaders prioritize their own immediate challenges over broader, long-term goals. Pockets of resistance emerge, especially among middle managers who perceive the transformation as a threat to their authority or control. These managers openly question the legitimacy of the cross-business coalitions, making statements like, “They don’t really understand the nuances of how we operate in our business unit.” Such comments sow doubt and fracture the coalition, leaving the transformation adrift.

A transformation doesn’t fail overnight, it fades when leaders stop prioritizing it. Therefore, the CEO must act as the ultimate guardian, continuously and visibly reinforcing the business imperative, aligning leadership, and holding them accountable.

Building an Interdependent Innovation System

Companies typically start their improvement journey by making changes where there is an immediate need. This may involve implementing an improved gated-development process with Agile methods to guide core business execution or adopting design thinking and lean startup approaches to discover, incubate, and scale new business models. The results these capabilities provide can be significant, but unfortunately, they represent only a fraction of the potential value they can offer, and success is hard to sustain unless they are implemented as part of an interdependent innovation system.

Figure 4. The Innovation System

The above graphic illustrates innovation as an interconnected set of capability areas, where key elements, each with their own processes, organizational structures, governance mechanisms, workflows, and tools, function together as a cohesive system. While individual elements can be enhanced independently with significant success, the greatest value is achieved when all elements operate together. The effectiveness of any single element is ultimately reliant on the strength of the others. It takes a coordinated set of integrated initiatives that support and reinforce one another to achieve truly transformational results.

Involving Employees

Employee involvement is critical to transforming a company’s culture, fostering ownership, aligning diverse perspectives, and ensuring the adoption of new methodologies for lasting change. Employees are far more likely to embrace changes they help design, particularly in innovation process transformations.

Successful transformations prioritize employee involvement from the start. Establishing a cross-functional team with representatives from each business unit ensures a shared understanding of capability gaps and improvement opportunities. Using performance benchmarks, these teams gain insights into organizational challenges and build a collective commitment to address them.

Interactive workshops play a pivotal role giving key stakeholders the experience of being involved in shaping the future state. These sessions are designed to define guiding principles for new processes, build consensus around success metrics, and identify practical steps forward. Rather than generating extensive documentation, the focus is on creating actionable, outcome-driven processes that drive meaningful progress.

Process pilots are vital for testing and refining new approaches. Instead of lengthy design phases, pilot teams implement and validate key elements right away, demonstrating success and building momentum. Visible wins convert skeptics into advocates, creating enthusiasm and offering a clear vision of how the transformation benefits employees and the organization.

Hands-on engagement during these pilots fosters a sense of ownership as employees actively design, test, and refine new processes. This approach embeds new practices into the culture and drives the transformation forward.

However, when employee involvement is mishandled or overlooked, transformations can falter. Excluding employees from early stages, such as identifying performance gaps or defining future processes, leads to disengagement. Without a clear understanding of the reasons for change, employees may see the transformation as irrelevant or forced, leading to fear, resistance, and reversion to old habits.

How many people should be directly involved in the change effort? McKinsey research, shown below, finds that involving at least 7 percent of employees as transformation initiative owners significantly increases the likelihood of outperforming sector and geographic stock indices. This 7 percent can represent hundreds of fully engaged employees, a number far above the average 2 percent involvement in most organizations.

Figure 5. McKinsey Transformation Employee Involvement Study Results

While the number of employees involved will vary with the initiative’s scope and complexity, the principle remains clear: early, meaningful involvement drives success.

Aligning Incentive Systems

Aligned incentives, such as rewards, recognition, approval, and status, play a vital role in shaping behavior and reinforcing organizational culture. Innovation, which relies on collaboration across diverse teams, succeeds when incentives align with company, business unit, product line, and project goals.

Adjusting incentive systems in established companies is challenging, as these systems are deeply rooted in organizational culture and long-standing practices. Changes often face resistance from employees concerned about fairness or uncertainty. Balancing short-term performance goals with long-term strategic priorities adds complexity, requiring careful re-calibration to prevent misaligned priorities or unintended consequences.

Effective incentive systems must align with corporate strategy. Too often, a gap exists between a company’s innovation investments and its growth ambitions. Leaders driven by quarterly targets tend to prioritize safe, short-term innovation projects, resulting in an over-reliance on incremental improvements that hinder long-term growth and increase vulnerability to disruption. Successful companies link growth strategy to a balanced innovation project portfolio optimized across growth horizons.

A major challenge for companies enhancing their innovation capabilities is transitioning from siloed functional objectives to a model of team-based accountability. In this approach, team members share responsibility for product success, fostering a culture of mutual accountability. Leading organizations tackle this shift by restructuring reward systems to prioritize team performance. For example, they evaluate more than half of a team member’s performance based on peer feedback and project outcomes, ensuring that contributions to collective success are properly recognized.

However, even with the right structural changes, incentives can still fall short if they don’t resonate with employees. Many leaders unintentionally mis-align rewards with what employees truly value, leading to disengagement rather than motivation. As Jennifer Chojnacki, Executive Director, Innovation & New Product Introduction at Carrier Corporation, explains, “Incentives are a tough topic. I see leaders get this wrong more often than they get it right, offering unrealistic rewards that can’t be fulfilled or mis-aligning incentives with what employees actually value. Too often, leaders assume their own motivations apply universally, rather than taking the time to understand what truly drives their teams.”

Financial incentives, while important, must support desired behaviors to avoid undermining transformation efforts. Misaligned rewards, such as prioritizing individual achievements over team success, can hinder collaboration and innovation. Thoughtful design ensures financial incentives complement non-financial rewards, fostering a culture where employees and teams feel both valued and motivated.

Aligning HR Systems

Aligning human resource (HR) systems with transformational change initiatives ensures that recruitment, training, rewards, and promotions support change objectives and reinforce cultural norms. Candidates are evaluated on their skills and alignment with organizational values, and employees are trained in expected behaviors. Career paths and promotions recognize those excelling in both performance and cultural fit, ensuring the organization’s values and change objectives are consistently upheld.

Successful companies also align recruitment strategies and career development to address skill gaps, enhance competencies, and teach new ways of working. Training programs are tailored to specific roles, including project team members, functional managers, and business leaders governing the innovation pipeline. Just-in-time training, meaning applied training on live projects, and role-playing exercises prove far more effective than traditional classroom methods for driving significant behavior and process changes.

To support recruitment and career progression, organizations establish clear role expectations that extend beyond standard job descriptions. These expectations define the skills, capabilities, and success criteria for roles within innovation teams, functional management, and portfolio management.

By aligning HR systems with initiative goals, organizations create a unified approach to change. This empowers employees to embrace the desired culture, building a strong foundation for sustainable innovation and long-term success.

Reinforcing Through Signals, Symbols, & Rituals

In transformational initiatives, organizations establish clear behavioral expectations to signal shared values and emphasize cultural evolution. Celebrating individuals who embody these values reinforces desired behaviors, while symbols like unique language or rituals foster belonging and alignment with the organization’s identity. These elements embed cultural messages throughout the initiative, ensuring consistent reinforcement.

Cultural alignment is strengthened by the tone and actions of senior leaders, whose influence shapes innovation teams and their approach to challenges. During project funding reviews, for instance, leaders can demonstrate trust and foster accountability through the questions they ask and the perspectives they promote. Instead of demanding, “Pull in your schedule,” they might ask, “What would it take to pull in your schedule?” This subtle shift in tone signals confidence in the team’s ability to evaluate tradeoffs and make informed recommendations. In customer-centric cultures, directives like “Start development as soon as possible” give way to “Ensure unmet customer needs are fully understood before advancing to development.” Similarly, leaders foster progress by re-framing early innovation project failure as rapid learning, celebrating cost savings when un-viable projects are identified and cancelled prior to full-scale development.

The use of distinctive language further encapsulates cultural values and reinforces the organization’s identity. Phrases like “customer obsession” or “bias for action” become part of daily conversations, serving as constant reminders of priorities. Successful companies also adapt leading innovation practices, such as lean startup, design thinking, and Agile, to suit their unique needs and culture. Instead of rigidly adhering to a single approach, they tailor terminology and processes to align with their organizational context.

Sustaining Momentum and Long-Term Commitment

Large, established companies often underestimate the effort required to achieve lasting success and embed it into the organization. Transforming the way a company innovates impacts every function and management level, necessitating significant cultural change. This is challenging because employees have operated within the existing culture for years. Some may perceive the initiative as a threat to their power and authority, while others may strongly resist any deviation from the status quo. Moreover, these changes must be implemented without disrupting daily operations.

Transformation is an ongoing process, not just a destination. While early results can emerge within months, providing momentum for the initiative, full internalization of the changes takes years. Successful rollout and adoption require all innovation teams and their leaders to experience the new processes and learn how to integrate them into their daily routines. The transformation unfolds gradually as success builds credibility and reinforces the new approach.

As Bridget Sheriff, VP of Engineering at Carrier Corporation, puts it, “I learned long ago that you never get something for nothing—true transformation demands relentless effort and stamina. Lasting change isn’t achieved through sporadic bursts of energy; it’s a journey that requires persistence, resilience, and a willingness to push through resistance. People are naturally inclined to stick with what they know, so shifting mindsets and behaviors takes time, trust, and continuous reinforcement.”

Start with the fundamentals, demonstrate success, build momentum, be willing to evolve as you learn, and layer in advanced processes, techniques, and tools over time. Leaders with a short-term outlook will struggle to sustain the necessary support for this long-term effort. Moreover, inconsistent effort, fluctuating funding, and repeated starts and stops will undermine progress and lead to change fatigue.

This is why leaders must embrace transformation as a long-term commitment, prioritizing continuous improvement, fostering a culture of learning and adaptability, and celebrating each stage of value realization. By sustaining momentum and consistently reinforcing the value of change, they can prevent complacency and drive lasting success.

Conclusion

Transforming innovation processes in large, established companies is no small feat, but the rewards of a cohesive, adaptive, and innovation-driven culture are immeasurable. The experiences shared in this article illuminate the power and complexity of cultural transformation, highlighting both the potential for extraordinary progress and the pitfalls that can derail well-intentioned efforts.

The keys to successful transformation demonstrate that success lies not in isolated actions but in a carefully orchestrated, holistic approach. From the unwavering commitment of leadership to the deep engagement of employees, aligned reward systems, compelling cultural narratives, supportive HR systems, and a commitment to stay the course, every lever plays a vital role in driving sustainable change.

However, true transformation goes beyond implementing processes and frameworks; it demands a steadfast dedication to consistency, collaboration, and learning. It calls for organizations to move beyond short-term wins to foster an enduring culture of innovation that can withstand market pressures and disruptions. Leaders must be relentless in their alignment, employees must feel empowered to design and execute the change, and integration must take precedence over fragmented solutions.

As Tobi Karchmer, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer for Baxter International, explains, “Transforming innovation capability isn’t just about changing processes, it requires shifting deeply ingrained mindsets. Without addressing cultural barriers, even the most well-designed initiatives will struggle to take hold and deliver meaningful impact.”

The lessons outlined here provide a roadmap for companies embarking on similar journeys. By embracing both the successes and the missteps, organizations can navigate the challenges of transformation and position themselves as innovation leaders. In the end, the path to innovation excellence may be complex, but it is a journey well worth taking for the organization, its employees, and the customers who value their breakthroughs.

References

Laura London, Stephanie Madner, and Dominic Skerritt, “How many people are really needed in a transformation?” McKinsey Insights, 2021
Daniel Coyle, The Culture Playbook: 60 Highly Effective Actions to Help Your Group Succeed, 2022
Charles O’Reilly, “How Microsoft Transformed Its Culture,” Management and Business Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2024

How Innovation Tools Help You Stay Safe

Leave a reply

Risk Management in Uncertain Times

How Innovation Tools Help You Stay Safe

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Risk management is critical in uncertain times. But traditional approaches don’t always help when volatility, ambiguity, and complexity are off the charts.

What many leaders overlook in their rush to safety is that many of the most effective tools for managing risk come from an unexpected place: innovation.

The Counterintuitive Truth About Risk Management

Risk Management’s purpose isn’t to eliminate risks. It’s to proactively identify, plan for, and minimize risk. Innovation is inherently uncertain, so its tools are purpose-built to proactively identify, plan for, and minimize risk. They also help you gain clarity and act decisively—even in the most chaotic environments.

Here are just three of the many tools that successful companies use to find clarity in chaos.

Find the Root Cause

When performance dips, most leaders jump to fix symptoms. True risk management means digging deeper. Root cause analysis—particularly the “5 Whys”—helps uncover what’s really going on.

Toyota made this famous. In one case, a machine stopped working. The first “why” pointed to a blown fuse. The fifth “why” revealed a lack of maintenance systems. Solving that root issue prevented future breakdowns.

IBM reportedly used a similar approach to reduce customer churn. Pricing and product quality weren’t the problem—friction during onboarding was. After redesigning that experience, retention rose by 20%.

Focus on What You Can Actually Control

Trying to manage everything is a recipe for burnout. Better risk management starts by separating what you can control, what you can influence, and what you can only monitor. Then, allocate resources accordingly.

After 9/11, most airlines focused on uncontrollable external threats. Southwest Airlines doubled down on what they could control: operational efficiency, customer loyalty, and employee morale. They avoided layoffs and emerged stronger.

Unilever used a similar approach during the global supply chain crisis. Instead of obsessing over global shipping delays, they diversified suppliers and localized sourcing—reducing risk without driving up costs.

Attack Your “Deal Killer” Assumptions

Every plan is based on assumptions. Great risk management means identifying the ones that could sink your strategy—and testing them before you invest too much time or money.

Dropbox did this early on. Instead of building a full product, they made a simple video to test whether people wanted file-syncing software. They validated demand, secured funding, and avoided wasted development.

GE applied this logic in its FastWorks program. One product team tested their idea with a quick prototype. Customer feedback revealed a completely different need—saving the company millions in misdirected R&D.

Risk Management Needs Innovation’s Tools for a VUCA World

The best risk managers don’t just react to uncertainty—they prepare for it. These tools aren’t just for innovation—they’re practical, proven ways to reduce risk, respond faster, and make smarter decisions when the future feels murky.

What tools or strategies have helped you manage risk during uncertain times? I’d love to hear in the comments.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Good Management is Not Good Strategy

Leave a reply

Good Management is Not Good Strategy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

One of the most annoying things I hear from leaders is that “we had a great strategy, but just couldn’t execute it.” That’s simply not possible. If you can’t execute it, it’s not a great strategy. Most likely, it was a fantasy cooked up by some combination of consultants and investment bankers which was enshrined in PowerPoint.

As Richard Rumelt points out in his book, The Crux, planning is not strategy. Yet that’s what managers are good at, so when they set out to create a strategy they build a plan, starting with objectives and working back to resources and operational directives, rejiggering assumptions along the way to make everything fit.

Good strategy doesn’t rely on assumptions. It changes them. When you look at visionary leaders, like Ray Kroc and McDonalds, Charles Lazarus at Toys “R” Us or Thomas Watson Jr. and the IBM 360, they all focused on solving an emerging problem. The truth is that the next big thing always starts out looking like nothing at all. Good strategy creates something new.

Defining A Problem And It’s Crux

Managers lead through objectives, or what they call in the military commander’s intent, to achieve a desired end-state. To achieve these objectives, good managers make plans, allocate resources and delegate authority to direct action. They monitor progress, give advice and guidance, and maintain an atmosphere of accountability and good morale.

But how are objectives determined? Is the prescribed end-state really desirable? Is it achievable and meaningful? As Rumelt points out, without a true strategic process in place, objectives tend to be tied to financial goals that are easily measured, such as “We want to achieve 15% revenue growth, while improving profit margins and increasing market share.”

Good strategy starts with defining a problem that addresses a particular market reality. Kroc designed McDonalds to fit with an emerging suburban lifestyle. Lazarus came up with the “everyday low price” at Toys “R” Us to solve for the huge inventory swings that sale events caused. Watson bet the company on the IBM 360 because the lack of compatibility among IBM’s machines was slowly killing the company.

Rumelt calls these “gnarly challenges” because none of them had obvious solutions, or even clear alternatives to choose from. Fast food franchises didn’t exist when Kroc got into the business. Most toys stores continued with sales even after Toys R Us came to dominate the industry. None of IBM’s competitors made a similar investment in compatibility.

What most people miss about strategy is that it’s not simply about making choices among defined alternatives. Innovation is never a single event, but a process of exploration, engineering and transformation.

What Do We Know?

Because good managers are so operationally oriented, their minds tend to focus on what they see every day. So in a typical leadership team, the CFO worries about financial and economic data, the CMO follows consumer trends, the CIO is concerned about shifts in technology, the CHRO takes note of changes in the workforce and so on.

When we first start working with a team we do something called a PDO analysis (Problems, Disruptions & Opportunities) to begin to uncover relevant challenges. What I always find interesting is how often some team members are completely unaware of issues that others consider dire threats or important opportunities.

With some further discussion and analysis, we can begin to pare down the list and prioritize a limited number of challenges. We discuss what makes them important and difficult to solve. We ask questions like, “What’s the potential impact these could have on the business?” and “How much do we actually know about them?” “Where we can find out more?”

During this exploration phase, it is important to stay disciplined and curb action-oriented managers’ tendency to want to jump immediately to a solution. At this stage, we mainly want to better understand what the desired end state might look like. Only then can we start to build a strategy to tackle the problem.

What Can Be Done?

The most salient aspect of any journey is that you don’t end up where you started. As you explore the challenges your organization faces, you will encounter insights that lead definable alternatives. You will need to make choices about, as A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin have put it, where to play and how to win.

Yet as I’ve pointed out, strategy is not a game of chess, in which we patiently move inert pieces around a well defined board of play. We need to learn to leverage ecosystems of talent, technology and information from a variety of sources, including partners, suppliers, customers and open resources as well, as from within our organization itself.

That’s why strategy isn’t made in a conference room and doesn’t live on a PowerPoint deck. It reveals itself over time. What we can do is choose a path forward, which means that we leave some attractive alternatives behind. Great businesses like McDonalds, Toys R Us and the IBM 360 didn’t arise from a flash of insight, but emerged as successful initiatives were built upon and failures discarded.

Yet it takes discipline to be able to continue on a chosen path while at the same time retaining the flexibility to adapt as the marketplace evolves. My friend Ed Morrison, whose Strategic Doing framework helps build strategies for collaborative problem solving, recommends holding monthly 30/30 meetings, which review the last 30 days and plan for the next 30.

Good Strategy Isn’t “Right,” But Becomes Less Wrong Over Time

As Mike Tyson has pointed out, “everybody has a plan until they get hit,” which is why we need to take a more Bayesian approach to strategy, in which we don’t pretend that we have the “right” strategy, but endeavor to make it less wrong over time. Good strategy isn’t a plan, but a set of choices made about how to address meaningful challenges.

Ray Kroc didn’t invent the Egg McMuffin at McDonald’s, but his strategy of allowing franchisees to experiment gave birth to it and many other things as well. Charles Lazarus started with a baby furniture store, but his quest to find repeat customers led him to create Toys “R” Us and pioneer the category killer. Thomas Watson Jr. bet the company on the IBM 360, but it was the decision to move to an 8-bit byte that would revolutionize the computer industry. None of these were planned for.

Today, we need to shift our mindset to compete in an ecosystem-driven world in which our ability to compete is no longer determined by what we can command and control, but what we can access. That’s why we need to abandon the fantasy that making a strategy successful is just a matter of executing a series of predetermined moves.

Good strategy is not a function of good management, but a process of discovery. Managing by metrics will always be limited to what came before and cannot see what lies ahead. We need to learn how to identify grand challenges that shift the competitive environment and change perceptions of what is possible.

The essence of a good strategy, as Richard Rumelt noted in Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, is that it brings relative strength to bear against relative weakness in the service of solving a meaningful problem.

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

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

Innovation or Not – Kawasaki Corleo

Leave a reply

Innovation or Not - Kawasaki Corleo

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Alright, let’s dive deep into the fascinating case of the Kawasaki Corleo, a hydrogen-powered four-legged robot, and dissect it through the lens of human-centered change and innovation. As our founder Braden Kelley would tell you, it’s not simply a matter of “yes” or “no.” Innovation is a complex beast, and we must approach it with nuance.

The Corleo: A Spark in the Hydrogen Horizon

At first glance, the Corleo is undeniably captivating. A four-legged robot, powered by hydrogen, designed to navigate challenging terrains. That’s a headline grabber. But does it translate to meaningful innovation? To answer that, we must move beyond the “wow” factor and examine its potential impact on people and the world.

Innovation: More Than Just Novelty

Innovation, in my view, isn’t just about creating something new. It’s about creating valuable new. It’s about solving real problems, addressing unmet needs, and improving lives. True innovation is human-centered; it’s about making a positive difference.

Let’s break down the Corleo through this framework:

Novelty: Yes, the Corleo is novel. A hydrogen-powered, four-legged robot is a significant technological leap. The integration of hydrogen fuel cells into a quadruped platform is a clear differentiator. Kawasaki’s expertise in robotics and hydrogen technology is evident.
Value: This is where the real questions arise. What value does the Corleo bring? Is it merely a technological demonstration, or does it offer tangible benefits?

Potential Value Propositions: Navigating the Uncharted

Kawasaki envisions the Corleo as a tool for infrastructure inspection, disaster response, and remote operations. These are areas where traditional robots or human intervention might be difficult or dangerous.

Infrastructure Inspection: Imagine the Corleo inspecting pipelines in remote areas, or bridges in hazardous environments. This could significantly reduce human risk and improve efficiency.
Disaster Response: In the aftermath of earthquakes or floods, the Corleo could navigate debris-filled areas, locate survivors, and deliver supplies.
Remote Operations: In industries like mining or offshore oil and gas, the Corleo could perform tasks in remote or challenging locations, minimizing human exposure to risk.

The Hydrogen Advantage: Sustainability and Endurance

The use of hydrogen is a critical differentiator. It offers several potential advantages:

Longer Endurance: Hydrogen fuel cells can provide significantly longer operating times than battery-powered robots, enabling extended missions in remote areas.
Faster Refueling: Hydrogen refueling is much faster than battery recharging, minimizing downtime.
Sustainability: Hydrogen, when produced from renewable sources, offers a clean and sustainable energy solution.

The Human-Centered Lens: Addressing Real Needs

To truly assess the Corleo’s innovation potential, we must consider its impact on people.

Worker Safety: By performing hazardous tasks, the Corleo can reduce the risk of injury or death for human workers.
Improved Efficiency: The Corleo can automate tasks, freeing up human workers for more complex and creative work.
Enhanced Disaster Response: By providing faster and more effective disaster response, the Corleo can save lives and reduce suffering.
Environmental Impact: The use of hydrogen, when sourced properly, can contribute to a cleaner and more sustainable future.

The Challenges and Considerations

However, the Corleo is not without its challenges.

Cost: Hydrogen fuel cells and the necessary infrastructure can be expensive, potentially limiting widespread adoption.
Infrastructure: Building a robust hydrogen refueling infrastructure is crucial for the Corleo’s practicality.
Complexity: Integrating hydrogen fuel cells into a quadruped robot is a complex engineering challenge, requiring significant expertise.
Social Acceptance: Any new technology, especially robots, can face social resistance. Addressing concerns about job displacement and ethical implications is essential.

Is It Innovation? A Conditional Yes

In conclusion, the Kawasaki Corleo has the potential to be a significant innovation. Its novelty, potential value propositions, and hydrogen advantage are undeniable. However, true innovation requires more than just technological prowess.

The Corleo’s success will depend on:

Demonstrating tangible value: Kawasaki must prove that the Corleo can effectively address real-world problems and deliver significant benefits.
Addressing the challenges: Overcoming the cost, infrastructure, and complexity challenges is crucial for widespread adoption.
Adopting a human-centered approach: Focusing on worker safety, efficiency, and environmental sustainability will be key to gaining social acceptance.

As a thought leader in human-centered change and innovation, I believe the Corleo is a promising step in the right direction. It represents a bold attempt to leverage cutting-edge technology to solve real-world problems. But the journey from novelty to true innovation is a long and challenging one. Kawasaki must demonstrate that the Corleo is not just a technological marvel, but a valuable tool that improves lives and makes the world a better place. Only then can we definitively declare it a true innovation.

The Corleo is a spark in the hydrogen horizon. Let’s see if Kawasaki can fan that spark into a flame of transformative innovation.

Image credit: Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Guest assistant writer: Open AI called in sick today, so Google Gemini is filling in

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

Leaders Must Be Truthful and Forthcoming

Leave a reply

Leaders Must Be Truthful and Forthcoming

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Have you ever felt like you weren’t getting the truth from your leader? You know – when they say something and you know that’s not what they really think. Or, when they share their truth but you can sense that they’re sharing only part of the truth and withholding the real nugget of the truth? We really have no control over the level of forthcoming of our leaders, but we do have control over how we respond to their incomplete disclosure.

There are times when leaders cannot, by law, disclose things. But, even then, they can make things clear without disclosing what legally cannot be disclosed. For example, they can say: “That’s a good question and it gets to the heart of the situation. But, by law, I cannot answer that question.” They did not answer the question, but they did. They let you know that you understand the situation; they let you know that there is an answer; and the let you know why they cannot share it with you. As the recipient of that non-answer answer, I respect that leader.

There are also times when a leader withholds information or gives a strategically partial response for inappropriate reasons. When a leader withholds information to manipulate or control, that’s inappropriate. It’s also bad leadership. When a leader withholds information from their smartest team members, they lose trust. And when leaders lose trust, the best people are crestfallen and withhold their best work. The thinking goes like this. If my leader doesn’t trust me enough to share the complete set of information with me it’s because they don’t think I’m worthy of their trust and they don’t think highly of me. And if they don’t think I’m worthy of their trust, they don’t understand who I am and what I stand for. And if they don’t understand me and know what I stand for, they’re not worthy of my best work.

As a leader, you must share all you can. And when you can’t, you must tell your team there are things you can’t share and tell them the reasons why. Your team can handle the fact that there are some things you cannot share. But what your team cannot hand is when you withhold information so you can gain the upper hand on them. And your team can tell when you’re withholding with your best interest in mind. Remember, you hired them because they were smart, and their smartness doesn’t go away just because you want to control them.

If your direct reports always tell you they can get it done even when they don’t have the capacity and capability, that’s not the behavior you want. If your direct reports tell you they can’t get it done when they can’t get it done, that’s the behavior you want. But, as a leader, which behavior do you reward? Do you thank the truthful leader for being truthful about the reality of insufficient resources and do you chastise the other leader for telling you what you want to hear? Or, do you tell the truthful leader they’re not a team player because team players get it done and praise the unjustified can-do attitude of the “yes man” leader? As a leader, I suggest you think deeply about this. As a direct report of a leader, I can tell you I’ve been punished for responding in way that was in line with the reality of the resources available to do the work. And I can also tell you that I lost all respect for that leader.

As a leader, you have three types of direct reports. Type I are folks are happy where they are and will do as little as possible to keep it that way. Type II are people that are striving for the next promotion and will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get the next job. Type III are the non-striving people who will tell you what you need to hear despite the implications to their career. Type I people are good to have on your team. They know what they can do and will tell you when the work is beyond their capability. Type II people are dangerous because they think only of themselves. They will hang you out to dry if they think it will advance their career. And Type III people are priceless.

Type III people care enough to protect you. When you ask them for something that can’t be done, they care enough about you to tell you the truth. It’s not that they don’t want to get it done, they know they cannot. And they’re willing to tell you to your face. Type II people don’t care about you as a leader; they only care about themselves. They say yes when they know the answer is no. And they do it in a way that absolves them of responsibility when the wheels fall off. As a leader, which type do you want on your team? And as a leader, which type do you promote and which do you chastise. And, how do you feel about that?

As a leader, you must be truthful. And when you can’t disclose the full truth, tell people. And when your Type II direct reports give you the answer they know you want to hear, call them on their bullshit. And when your Type III folks give you the answer they know you don’t want to hear, thank them.

Image credits: Unsplash

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

Why Customers Don’t Trust Five-Star Reviews

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

How important are online ratings and reviews? Our annual customer experience research found that 85% of U.S. customers say ratings and reviews help them decide if they want to make a purchase. That’s almost nine out of 10 customers!

However, that same number of customers (85%) also believe that some ratings and reviews are fake. While not all ratings and reviews are fake, the number of dishonest reviews has become a problem. RetailWire’s recent article about how Amazon is fighting back against fake reviews with strict policies and technology is an important place to learn how top online brands deal with the problem. The article also cites research from Fakespot estimating that 42% of Amazon reviews are fake.

It’s important to note that the fake reviews are not Amazon’s attempt to persuade consumers. On the contrary, the company is waging a war against fake reviews with stricter policies and proactive detection.

I recently made a purchase from a retailer selling through the Amazon Marketplace, which allows third-party sellers to list and sell products on Amazon. About two weeks after the purchase, I received a postcard asking me to leave a five-star review. A request to leave an honest review is acceptable, but that’s not what happened. This “third-party” seller offered a bribe for the positive review in the form of a $20 Amazon gift card or a payment directly to my PayPal account. All I had to do was send a screenshot or link to the review.

Fake reviews come in several different forms:

Friends, company employees or others—not customers—are asked to leave reviews.
Customers are bribed, like I was, to leave a positive review.
Companies take down negative reviews and only leave the good ones.

And, not all fake reviews are positive. Negative reviews left by competitors—not customers—that lie about a company’s products or customer service to make them look bad can impact the reputation of a company or brand.

But having 100% five-star ratings and/or reviews isn’t good either. Our annual research found that 76% of customers are skeptical about the authenticity of reviews if they are all positive, and 30% of customers say they won’t purchase from a company that doesn’t have any negative reviews.

So, what’s a company to do?

Make It Easy for Customers to Leave Reviews: If you want reviews, it’s okay to ask for them. Send an email with a link to leave the review.
Respond to Negative Reviews: If most reviews are good, having a bad one isn’t going to hurt, especially if the company responds to it. A good response from a company can actually improve customer trust. Use negative reviews as opportunities to demonstrate good customer service.
Respond to Positive Reviews: We coach our clients to respond to all reviews, not just negative ones. Depending on how many you get, this can seem like a daunting task. But if someone takes the time to leave a lengthy message of positive feedback, give them the respect of a simple response.
Identify Verified Customers: If you look at Amazon reviews, you’ll see the notation of “Verified Purchase” next to the review. This is credibility.
Don’t Game the System: Offering bribes and incentives for positive reviews crosses an ethical line. And, taking down negative reviews is, in effect, lying to your customers.

Almost every industry, not just B2C, has the opportunity for customers to leave reviews. Depending on the company (and industry), the review sites may not be public like a retailer’s website or a review platform like Google Reviews. Many industries in the B2B world have forums where customers can share experiences about companies and suppliers they do business with. With a shift in the importance of reviews, the company that practices the five tactics mentioned above will build trust. It’s not realistic to have 100% perfect reviews. As the research shows, customers don’t trust the “perfect” company. But they do trust and appreciate the authentic company. The best way to get excellent reviews isn’t to buy them or game the system. It’s to earn them!

Image Credit: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com

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

Should My Brand Take a Political Stand?

Leave a reply

Should My Brand Take a Political Stand?

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

Many of you may have noticed that we are in a period of unparalleled social and political polarization in the US. For better or for worse, the public is probably more engaged and more passionate about politics and related social issues than it’s ever been.

So how should we, and the organizations we are a part of respond to this? When we feel passionate about something, there is always motivation to take action. And for many of us, the place where we have the most influence, resources and leverage is via work.

Does Politics Belong at Work? So should we blur the boundary between our personal beliefs and our work? Should our marketing and communication reflect the social or political passions of ourselves, and our colleagues? It’s a question I’ve been asked a lot over the last few years, and even more over the last few months. And not surprisingly, it’s often fueled by a working group who share passionate common values.

Job Satisfaction: Acting on these shared passions certainly has potential to benefits job satisfaction, team building and even perception of work life balance. Despite this, I nearly always advise to avoid politicizing a brand, and to even be very cautious about social engagement. That’s often an unpopular opinion, especially if team members care deeply about a cause. But aligning a brand with politics opens a door that is extremely difficult to close.

Bud-Light: The news story below is a good example. Anheuser-Busch is currently facing negative social media for pulling it’s support for a Pride Festival.

https://www.fox5vegas.com/2025/03/26/anheuser-busch-pulls-out-pride-festival-after-30-year-partnership/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJRIflleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdeKDxDCkmbH0QkJNegb-TZxi1TiwDpqs35z4gcx7AwYH3nCOVH01VEscg_aem_w6v3QjCD_cWvEnFdcP2NIA

It’s not the first time Bud-Light has found itself in the news for a politically related topic. I’m sure we all remember the Bud Light controversy over it’s association with Dylan Mulvaney. That resulted in massive backlash from the ‘right’ and loss of its position as the #1 beer in the US. Now it’s facing backlash from the ‘left’ over Pride. Basically they now cannot win, and that is the core issue. Once you’ve taken a position in a controversial space, even somewhat unintentionally as Bud Lite did, it becomes a part of your brand, and that lens is applied to virtually everything you do. It is then extremely difficult to recapture a neutral position.

No-Win Scenario? It really doesn’t matter which side of the political fence a brand chooses. Once that door is open, the repercussions’ can last for years, and any course correction almost inevitably upsets one side or the other. Budweiser, Chick-Fil-A, even Pepsi have all dipped their toes in to political and social arenas, and had to manage fall-out that is typically disproportional to the original content.

All of that said, a brand following a purpose can have positive impact on internal job satisfaction, at least in the short term. At of course, it can and often does resonate positively with a subset of its customers. But unless that purpose is unambiguously and universally supported by all existing and potential customers, and frankly very little is these days, the risks almost inevitably outweigh the benefits. Even apparently successful campaigns like Nike’s featuring Colin Kaepernick, which had strong appeal for their core, younger demographic, are high risk-high reward, and come with long-term risks which are hard to quantify. Negative emotions tend to drive strong, and more resilient behavioral changes than positive ones. So even if initially polarized markets sees offsets between positive and negative consumer response, the positive tends to fade faster. Humans have evolved to more heavily weight negative experiences for good survival based reasons.

Universal Appeal and Availability: At the heart of this challenge is that growing and maintaining a brand requires reaching and appealing to as many customers as possible. Whether we view markets through the eye of Ehrenberg-Bass models, or follow more traditional volume forecasting models, the single biggest variable that enables a brand to grow is reach. And that reach needs to operate on both a mental and physical vector. Physical availability is generally achieved via wide distribution or ubiquitous access. Quite simply, if potential customers cannot find you, then most will not buy you. But mental availability is equally important. If and when shoppers do find you, they need to both desire and understand you. This is a bit more complex, and achieved by great marketing, branding, media, packaging and messaging.

But if a brand aligns with a controversial cause, it risks losing positive mental availability, and being either consciously or implicitly rejected. The reality is that pretty much any political or social cause these days carries a real risk of upsetting half of your customers. Positive Brand loyalty is often at best fickle, but once someone has decided they dislike a brand for whatever reason, that de-selection can be quite resilient.

Treat Marketing like Thanksgiving: And it can become even harder when brands try to course correct. Reversals tend to look inauthentic and manipulative, while attempts to ‘read the room’, and go with current trends risks being distrusted by both sides!! In a vast majority of cases, by far the best strategy is to treat marketing like Thanksgiving dinner, and keep out of politics and religion

Keeping Purpose Alive: So should brands abandon any form of purpose or altruism. I’d hope not. Altruism is good for community, good for employee satisfaction, good for long-term equity and more. So what should we do?

I think there are at least three important guidelines.

One is stay in your lane. Most people struggle with a drink, food or soap powder having a political or social opinion.
The second is to find ways to contribute that are at least largely universally supported, and avoid the flavor of the month’. Even in today’s polarized society, helping cancer research, disaster victims, helping kids, animal shelters, and ma minimum controversy.
The third is to ask ‘why am I doing this? Is this the best use of company money, and am doing this for the brand, the business, or is it more in support of my own values?” If it’s the latter, maybe find ways to achieve that without opening your brand to future risk
Bottom line, basically anything that politicians talk a lot about, and certainly argue about, is best avoided. And even be careful how you frame what you do to avoid affiliation with groups perceived as political. Channeling money through a non-profit can be very effective, both in endorsements and validating claims. But many non-profits have become increasingly politicized. I’m not here to make judgment on that, except that from a marketing perspective, we risk becoming aligned with that bias.

But if we are thoughtful, we can combine purpose and innovation and marketing. I think Tide’s ‘Loads of Hope’ is a great positive example. It’s about cleaning laundry, which is perfectly in lane for the brand, & it helps disaster victims, which at least for now is political neutral, and more importantly, largely future proofed.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons

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

Catalyst Cap Accelerates Innovation and Creativity

Leave a reply

Unlocking Potential through Neuro-Selective Stimulation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The time for neuro-selective stimulation has arrived!

In the landscape of human-centered innovation, one of the most intriguing concepts revolves around our ability to unlock latent potential in ourselves and others. Imagine a technology capable of selectively stimulating parts of the brain to enhance creativity, focus, empathy, or even physical dexterity. Enter the Catalyst Cap, an earth-shattering innovation that challenges our imagination and inspires conversations about the possibilities of neuro-enhancement.

What is the Catalyst Cap?

The Catalyst Cap is a wearable device designed to look like a stylish hat or cap, embedded with advanced neuro-stimulation technology. Through targeted impulses, it interacts with specific neural pathways to amplify or suppress certain cognitive or emotional traits on demand. While entirely safe, the concept pushes boundaries, urging us to explore what human enhancement looks like when designed ethically and inclusively.

Breaking Barriers in Human Potential

Traditional methods of personal development often require time-intensive practice, significant effort, or long-term interventions. The Catalyst Cap, with its instantaneous effects, offers a paradigm shift. Imagine needing razor-sharp focus for an important presentation—the Catalyst Cap activates your prefrontal cortex, allowing you to stay in the zone. Or consider an artist seeking an inspiration boost—the cap stimulates neural areas tied to imagination, unlocking a flood of creativity. The possibilities are endless.

The Ethical Considerations

No innovation exists in a vacuum. For an invention as transformative as the Catalyst Cap, ethics were paramount in its development. We asked ourselves many important questions. How do we ensure equitable access? What safeguards should be in place to prevent misuse? Can enhancing certain traits unintentionally diminish others? These are vital questions that reflect the human-centered values underpinning innovation.

The mere existence of the Catalyst Cap opens up important societal questions: Will the ability to boost empathy in leaders reduce conflict worldwide? Could enhancing focus in students democratize education outcomes? This innovation compels us to think critically about who we become as a society now that such advancements are possible.

Imagining Adoption and Impact

The Catalyst Cap, as transformative as it is, will likely follow a phased adoption curve. Early adopters will likely include competitive professionals, creatives, and educators eager to test its potential. However, mass-market integration will require public trust, clinical trials, and regulatory approval. Its impact on industries such as healthcare, education, and entertainment could be profound, reshaping how we view self-improvement.

Beyond individual users, organizations could deploy the Catalyst Cap to enhance team dynamics, foster innovation, and tackle challenges more effectively. Picture a world where collaboration and problem-solving are not hindered by cognitive limitations but enhanced by technological augmentation.

Conclusion: Inspiring Real Innovations

While entirely fictional and created in honor of this incredibly important day, the Catalyst Cap represents more than just an imaginative flight of fancy — it serves as a symbol of possibility. By exploring fake innovations like this, we engage our minds in thinking creatively about the future and challenge ourselves to consider the implications of what we create. What might the real-world equivalent of the Catalyst Cap look like? How can we ensure that future technologies prioritize the human experience?

Human-centered innovation is not just about inventing—it’s about inspiring. Let the Catalyst Cap spark your imagination and propel you toward creating what’s next.

April Fools!

Image credit: Microsoft CoPilot

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

What Playing the Flute Taught Me About Business Growth

Leave a reply

What Playing the Flute Taught Me About Business Growth

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Ideas and insights can emerge from the most unexpected places. My mom was a preschool teacher, and I often say that I learned everything I needed to know about managing people by watching her wrangle four-year-olds. But it only recently occurred to me that the most valuable business growth lessons came from my thoroughly unremarkable years playing the flute in middle school.

6th Grade: Following the Manual and Falling Flat

Sixth grade was momentous for many reasons, one being that that was when students could choose an instrument and join the school band. I chose the flute because my friends did, and there was a rumor that clarinets gave you buck teeth—I had enough orthodontic issues already.

Each week, our “jill of all trades” teacher gathered the flutists together and guided us through the instructional book until we could play a passable version of Yankee Doodle. I practiced daily, following the book and playing the notes, but the music was lifeless, and I was bored.

7th Grade: Finding Context and Direction

In seventh grade, we moved to full band rehearsals with a new teacher trained to lead an entire band (he was also deaf in one ear, which was, I think, a better qualification for the job than his degree). Hearing all the instruments together made the music more interesting and I was more motivated to practice because I understood how my part played in the whole. But I was still a very average flutist.

To help me improve, my parents got me a private flute teacher. Once a week, Mom drove me to my flute teacher’s house for one-on-one tutoring. She corrected mistakes when I made them, showed me tips and tricks to play faster and breathe deeper, and selected music I enjoyed playing. With her help, I became an above-average flutist.

Post-Grad: Five Business Truths from Band Class

I stopped playing in the 12th grade. Despite everyone’s efforts, I was never exceptional—I didn’t care enough to do the work required.

Looking back, I realized that my mediocrity taught me five crucial lessons that had nothing to do with music:

Don’t do something just because everyone else is. I chose the flute because my friends did. I didn’t choose my path but followed others—that’s why the music was lifeless.
Following the instruction manual is worse than doing nothing. You can’t learn an instrument from a book. Are you sharp or flat? Too fast or slow? You don’t know, but others do (but don’t say anything).
Part of a person is better than all of a book. Though spread thin, the time my teachers spent with each instrumental section was the difference between technically correct noise and tolerable music.
A dedicated teacher beats a distracted one. Having someone beside me meant no mistake went uncorrected and no triumph unrecognized. She knew my abilities and found music that stretched me without causing frustration.
If you don’t want to do what’s required, be honest about it. I stopped wanting to play the flute in 10th grade but kept going because it was easier to maintain the status quo. In hindsight, a lot of time, money, and effort would have been saved if I stopped playing when I stopped caring.

The Executive Orchestra: What Grade Are You In?

How many executives remain in sixth grade—following management fads because of FOMO, buying books, handing them out, and expecting magic? And, when that fails, hiring someone to do the work for them and wondering why the music stops when the contract ends?

How many progress to seventh grade, finding someone who can teach, correct, and celebrate their teams as they build new capabilities?

How do what I should have done in 10th grade and be honest about what they are and aren’t willing to do, spending time and resources on priorities rather than maintaining an image?

More importantly, what grade are you in?

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Asking for Feedback during the Process

‘In the Moment’ Feedback

Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Transform Innovation Capability

Making the Case for Change

Establishing Ownership & Governance

Demonstrating Leadership Action

Building an Interdependent Innovation System

Involving Employees

Aligning Incentive Systems

Aligning HR Systems

Reinforcing Through Signals, Symbols, & Rituals

Sustaining Momentum and Long-Term Commitment

Conclusion

References

Related articles for a deeper dive on the topic:

Risk Management in Uncertain Times

The Counterintuitive Truth About Risk Management

Find the Root Cause

Focus on What You Can Actually Control

Attack Your “Deal Killer” Assumptions

Risk Management Needs Innovation’s Tools for a VUCA World

Defining A Problem And It’s Crux

What Do We Know?

What Can Be Done?

Good Strategy Isn’t “Right,” But Becomes Less Wrong Over Time

The Corleo: A Spark in the Hydrogen Horizon

Innovation: More Than Just Novelty

Potential Value Propositions: Navigating the Uncharted

The Hydrogen Advantage: Sustainability and Endurance

The Human-Centered Lens: Addressing Real Needs

The Challenges and Considerations

Is It Innovation? A Conditional Yes

Unlocking Potential through Neuro-Selective Stimulation

What is the Catalyst Cap?

Breaking Barriers in Human Potential

The Ethical Considerations

Imagining Adoption and Impact

Conclusion: Inspiring Real Innovations

6th Grade: Following the Manual and Falling Flat

7th Grade: Finding Context and Direction

Post-Grad: Five Business Truths from Band Class

The Executive Orchestra: What Grade Are You In?