Invention Through Co-Creation

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

It was an article in the Harvard Business Review, “Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything,” by Steve Blank, that caught my attention more than ten years ago and caused me to shift my mindset about entrepreneurship and innovation. He described a lean start-up as “favoring experimentation over elaborate planning, customer feedback over intuition, and iterative design over big design up front” developments. It sparked my fascination and ignited my curiosity about start-ups and how the start-up approach could be applied to creating a collaborative, intrapreneurial, entrepreneurial, and innovative learning curriculum that supported learning new ways of co-creation in the invention and innovation processes.

Why co-creation matters

One of the essential keys to success in innovation, whether as a start-up entrepreneur, corporate intrapreneur, innovation team, aspiring innovative leader, or organization, is your ability to collaborate, experiment, create, invent, and innovate. This involves actively embracing and incorporating the lean start-up approach alongside design thinking, adult learning principles, experiential learning techniques, and change management disciplines, especially in a world that is quickly becoming dominated by AI, to both create and capture value in ways people appreciate and cherish.

What is co-creation?

Invention through co-creation involves a collaborative design process in which stakeholders and customers work together to create and invent innovative solutions. It is a challenging process because it requires people to co-create a shared purpose, ensure equal contribution, and make collective decisions to guarantee that the final product meets the needs and preferences of its users. For these core elements to be successfully implemented, start-up founders and key stakeholders must have high levels of conscious self-awareness, a willingness to accept responsibility for their thoughts and behaviors, strong listening and inquiry skills, and self-mastery to navigate and adapt to the instability and uncertainty of a constantly changing environment.

Failure of innovation educators

With extensive experience in designing and developing bespoke experiential learning programs, I quickly realized that most traditional innovation education programs in tertiary institutions mainly focus on applying project management disciplines to creative ideas. Organizations relied on idea-generation tools, applying design thinking, and agile methodologies to improve efficiency and performance. While these disciplined approaches are vital for the success of start-ups and innovation initiatives, they rarely lead to systemic awareness and continuous learning, which are essential for innovation. Other options tend to involve quick, episodic “innovation theater” or entirely chaotic open innovation initiatives, which also fail to deliver the desired or potential long-term productivity, performance improvements, and growth!

Balancing and integrating chaos and rigidity

When people concentrate on balancing and integrating the chaos of creativity with the rigidity of disciplined methodologies, they can co-create, innovate, and deliver forward-thinking solutions by being agile, adaptable, and emotionally resilient. This forms the essential foundation for start-ups, entrepreneurs, teams, and organizations to achieve balance, focus, and flow while remaining resilient in the post-pandemic era of instability and uncertainty. At the same time, the outcome of integration is harmony; the lack of integration results in chaos, unpredictability, instability, and rigidity, where individuals unconsciously display inflexible and controlling behaviors.

The Start-Up Game™ Story

The Start-Up Game™ is based on the principle that “anyone can earn to innovate”, as it has been co-created as an immersive hybrid board game that combines achievement, competition, and an AI learning component. It is a co-creation tool that guides players to think, behave, and act differently by safely exploring the language, key mindsets, behaviors, and innovative thinking skills of successful intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs, and innovators within a socially responsible start-up environment. The game provides a safe, playful, and energizing space for players to experiment, take strategic risks, iterate, pivot, and co-create sustainable, future-ready, innovative solutions to survive and thrive on the innovation roller-coaster ride.

TechCrunch’s Innovation initially inspired our co-creation. We wondered how we could bring our vision to life by designing a two-hour board game that delivered value beyond mere engagement. We sought to create an immersive, playful, and interactive experience that participants could enjoy and gain from, within a risk-free learning environment, while generating an unprecedented level of lasting impact. The challenge we faced was heightened by today’s shorter attention spans and the fast-paced nature of our world, all within the constraints of an online learning environment.

Traditionally, business games create an environment where participants can make decisions, take risks, and learn from mistakes, all without real-world consequences. At the same time, they encourage better teamwork, collaboration, networking, and relationship-building opportunities. However, the value we aimed to deliver went beyond that, seeking to broaden players’ horizons, change their ways of thinking, and introduce new language, mindsets, and behaviors of innovation by playing the lean start-up way.

To ensure a lasting impact, we integrated advanced technology and hybrid, blended learning processes designed to enhance delivery. This extended beyond the in-game experience to include pre-game elements, establishing the foundation and providing context for the game. A key feature is the use of Generative AI avatars for content delivery, supported by written versions to accommodate different learning styles. By applying experiential and adult learning principles and techniques, we created team pause points and check-ins to encourage teams to regularly observe and reflect on their performance, while also fostering reflection and deeper discussions on how to improve during their current phase of the game.

Invention through co-creation

Being both creative and methodical

Invention through co-creation is not an easy process; in fact, it can be highly challenging and often chaotic, requiring people to balance creative chaos with disciplined order. Many start-ups, innovation teams, and digital and innovation transformation initiatives frequently fail because they do not mitigate risks by integrating the chaos of creativity with a disciplined and methodical approach. This is why design thinking and agile have become so popular, as they involve robust, structured methodologies that are easy to learn, follow, and implement. Design thinking principles and techniques are vital to the invention process, helping to manage key stages of the co-creation cycle:

Identify the user and their problem,
Ideating a hypothetical solution,
Developing a prototype,
Getting user feedback,
Iterating the prototype,
Getting user feedback,
Pivoting prototype,
Finalising the solution.

One of the most important lessons was recognizing the need to balance the creativity of chaos with disciplined order, which is why it is crucial to introduce creative energy, passionate purpose, and innovative thinking to drive and maintain that balance. To create, invent, and innovate successfully and avoid failure, co-creators must be attentive and intentional in:

a) Developing self-regulation strategies that support co-creation:

Flow with the uncertainty of success in an unstable environment.
Be willing to disrupt their habitual thinking and feeling habits and be cognitively agile in constantly shifting their mindsets and developing multiple perspectives.
Accept responsibility for their operating styles and ensure that they have a constructive impact on each other and their stakeholders.

b) Maintaining self-management strategies that enable co-creation:

Develop conscious and systemic awareness.
Generate both deep and agile thinking processes.
Sustain their emotional energy in capturing and creating value.
Adapt to stay ahead of change; be resilient, hopeful, and optimistic.

This involves the co-creators opening their minds, hearts, and will to unleash possibilities, emerge, diverge, and converge on new ideas, while withholding evaluation and judgement through deep observation, inquiry, and reflective listening practice. To cultivate people’s neuroplasticity through structured play, encouraging new growth, wonder, and a game-based mindset, and building the foundations for thinking differently. To foster honesty, courage, and provocation in using cognitive dissonance, creative tension, and contrarian behaviors to facilitate generative debate.

Key success factors

It involves blending the generative learning process with the discipline and rigor of adopting a methodical design thinking approach. The goal is to be brave and bold, compassionate and empathic when faced with challenges, both in being challenged and challenging others to think, act, and be differently. It includes experimenting through beta testing, managing the risks and demands of limited self-funded options, while co-creating a professionally designed set of user interfaces as the start-up navigates the start-up curve and the innovation roller-coaster, aiming to reach the Promised Land.

The Start-up Game™ is ideal for corporates, academic institutions, business schools and small to medium businesses to introduce the language, key mindsets, behaviors, and innovative thinking skills as an engaging, blended and experiential learning activity at innovation and strategy off-sites and in leadership development programs, cross-functional team-building events, culture change initiatives and sustainability and ESG engagement workshops to:

Promote inclusivity, collaboration, and real co-creation through playful experimentation and equal partnership.
Enable people to make sense of innovation in the context of entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship involves bringing an innovation culture to life.
Build both awareness and the application of innovative thinking and problem-solving to real-life challenges and business problems.

Successful co-creation yields increased engagement, collaboration, experimentation, enhanced understanding, and the delivery of innovative solutions and outcomes.

Through integrating both creative and inventive people with disciplined systems, processes, and methodologies.

This is an excerpt from our upcoming book, “Anyone Can Learn to Innovate,” scheduled for publication in early 2026.

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

Discover 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 personalized innovation coaching and learning program supported by a global group of peers over nine weeks. It can be customized as a bespoke corporate learning program. It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that provides a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem-focused, human-centric approach and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation. It will also up-skill people and teams, developing their future fitness within your unique innovation context. Please find out more about The Start-Up Game.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

Mismanaging Uncertainty & Risk is Killing Our Businesses

2 Replies

Mismanaging Uncertainty & Risk is Killing Our Businesses

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

During September 2011, the English language officially died. That was the month that the Oxford English Dictionary, long regarded as the accepted authority on the English language published an update in which “literally” also meant figuratively. By 2016, every other major dictionary had followed suit.

The justification was simple: “literally” has been used to mean “figuratively” since 1769. Citing examples from Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield, Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, they claimed they were simply reflecting the evolution of a living language.

What utter twaddle.

Without a common understanding of a word’s meaning, we create our own definitions which lead to secret expectations, and eventually chaos.

And not just interpersonally. It can affect entire economies.

Maybe the state of the US economy is just a misunderstanding

Uncertainty.

We’re hearing and saying that word a lot lately. Whether it’s in reference to tariffs, interest rates, immigration, or customer spending, it’s hard to go a single day without “uncertainty” popping up somewhere in your life.

But are we really talking about “uncertainty?”

Uncertainty and Risk are not the same.

The notion of risk and uncertainty was first formally introduced into economics in 1921 when Frank Knight, one of the founders of the Chicago school of economics, published his dissertation Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. In the 114 since, economists and academics continued to enhance, refine, and debate his definitions and their implications.

Out here in the real world, most businesspeople use them as synonyms meaning “bad things to be avoided at all costs.”

But they’re not synonyms. They have distinct meanings, different paths to resolution, and dramatically different outcomes.

Risk can be measured and/or calculated.

Uncertainty cannot be measured or calculated

The impact of tariffs, interest rates, changes in visa availability, and customer spending can all be modeled and quantified.

So it’s NOT uncertainty that’s “paralyzing” employers. It’s risk!

Not so fast my friend.

Not all Uncertainties are the same

According to Knight, Uncertainty drives profit because it connects “with the exercise of judgment or the formation of those opinions as to the future course of events, which…actually guide most of our conduct.”

So while we can model, calculate, and measure tariffs, interest rates, and other market dynamics, the probability of each outcome is unknown. Thus, our response requires judgment.

Sometimes.

Because not all uncertainties are the same.

The Unknown (also known as “uncertainty based on ignorance”) exists when there is a “lack of information which would be necessary to make decisions with certain outcomes.”

The Unknowable (“uncertainty based on ambiguity”) exists when “an ongoing stream [of information] supports several different meanings at the same time.”

Put simply, if getting more data makes the answer obvious, we’re facing the Unknown and waiting, learning, or modeling different outcomes can move us closer to resolution. If more data isn’t helpful because it will continue to point to different, equally plausible, solutions, you’re facing the Unknowable.

So what (and why did you drag us through your literally/figuratively rant)?

If you want to get unstuck – whether it’s a project, a proposal, a team, or an entire business, you first need to be clear about what you’re facing.

If it’s a Risk, model it, measure it, make a decision, move forward.

If it’s an uncertainty, what kind is it?

If it’s Unknown, decide when to decide, ask questions, gather data, then, when the time comes, decide and move forward

If it’s Unknowable, decide how to decide then put your big kid pants on, have the honest and tough conversations, negotiate, make a decision, and move on.

I mean that literally.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Why Big Ideas Often Fail to Survive Victory

Leave a reply

Why Big Ideas Often Fail To Survive Victory

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I still vividly remember a whiskey drinking session I had with a good friend in my flat in Kyiv in early 2005, shortly after the Orange Revolution had concluded. We were discussing what would come after and, knowing that I had lived in Poland during years of reform, he was interested in my opinion about the future. I told him NATO and EU ascension was the way to go.

My friend, a prominent journalist, disagreed. He thought that Ukraine should pursue a “Finnish model,” in which it would pursue good relations with both Russia and the west, favoring neither. As he saw it, the Ukrainian people, who had just been through months of political turmoil, should pursue a “third way” and leave the drama behind.

As it turned out, we were both wrong. The promise of change would soon turn to nightmare, ending with an evil, brutal regime and a second Ukrainian revolution a decade later. I would later find that this pattern is so common that there is even a name for it: the failure to survive victory. To break the cycle you first need to learn to anticipate it and then to prepare for it.

The Thrill Of A New Direction And An Initial Success

In the weeks after the Orange Revolution I happened to be in Warsaw and saw a huge banner celebrating democracy movements in Eastern Europe, with Poland’s Solidarity movement as the first and Ukraine’s Orange revolution as the last in the series. Everyone thought that Ukraine would follow its neighbor into peace and prosperity.

We were triumphant and it seemed like the forces of history were on our side. That’s one reason why we failed to see the forces that were gathering. Despite our enthusiasm, those who opposed our cause didn’t just melt away and go home. In fact they redoubled their efforts to undermine what we had achieved. We never really saw it coming.

I see the same thing in my work with organizational transformations. Once people get a taste of that initial success—they win executive sponsorship for their initiative, get a budget approved or even achieve some tangible progress on the ground—they think it will all get easier. It never does. In fact, it usually gets harder.

Make no mistake. Opposition doesn’t erupt in spite of an early success, but because of it. A change initiative only becomes a threat to the status quo when it begins to gain traction. That’s when the knives come out and, much like my friend and I after the Orange Revolution, most people working to bring about change are oblivious to it.

If you are working for a change that you believe in passionately, chances are you’re missing a brewing storm. Almost everyone does the first time around (and many never learn to recognize it).

Propagating Echo Chambers

One of the reasons we failed to see trouble brewing back then was that, as best we could tell, everyone around us saw things the same way we did. Whatever dissenting voices we did come across seemed like an aberration to us. Sure, some people were still stuck in the old ways, we thought, but with history on our side how could we fail?

Something similar happened in the wake of the George Floyd protests. The city council in Minneapolis, where the incident took place, voted to defund the police. Taking its cue, corporate America brought in armies of consultants to set out the new rules of the workplace. In one survey, 85% of CHRO’s said that they were expanding diversity and inclusion efforts. With such an outpouring of news coverage and emotion, who would dare to question them?

The truth is that majorities don’t just rule, they also influence in a number of ways. First, decades of studies show that we tend to conform to the views around us and that effect extends out to three degrees of relationships. Not only people we know, but the friends of their friends—most of whom we don’t even know—affect how we think.

It isn’t just what we hear but also what we say that matters. Research from MIT suggests that when we are around people we expect to agree with us, we’re less likely to check our facts and more likely to share information that isn’t true. That, in turn, impacts our informational environment, helping to create an echo chamber that reinforces our sense of certainty.

The Inevitable Backlash

Almost as soon as the new Ukrainian government took power in 2005, the opposition went on the offensive. While the new President, Viktor Yushchenko was seen positively, they attacked the people around him. His Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was portrayed as a calculating and devious woman. When Yushchenko’s son got into trouble, questions were raised about corruption in his father’s administration.

A similar pattern took hold in the wake of the George Floyd protests. Calls for racial justice were portrayed as anti-police and law enforcement budgets across the country increased as “We Support Our Police” signs went up on suburban lawns. Critical Race Theory, an obscure legal concept rarely discussed outside of universities, became a political punching bag. Today, as layoffs increase, corporate diversity efforts are sure to take a hit.

These patterns are not exceptions. They are the rule. As Saul Alinsky pointed out, every revolution inspires a counter-revolution. That is the physics of change. Every reaction provokes a reaction. Every success impacts your environment and some of those changes will not be favorable to your cause. They will expose vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those who oppose your idea.

Yet Alinsky didn’t just identify the problem, he also pointed to a solution. “Once we accept and learn to anticipate the inevitable counter-revolution, we may then alter the historical pattern of revolution and counter-revolution from the traditional slow advance of two steps forward and one step backward to minimizing the latter,” he writes.

In other words, the key to surviving victory is to prepare for the backlash that is sure to come and build a strategy to overcome it.

Building A Shared Future Rooted In Shared Values

In the two decades I have been researching transformation and change, the failure to survive victory is probably the most consistent aspect of it. In fact, it is so common you can almost set your watch by it. Amazingly, no matter how many times change advocates experience it, they rarely see it coming. Many, in fact, seem to take pride in how many battles they have lost, seeing it as some kind of badge of honor.

The uncomfortable truth is that success doesn’t necessarily begat more success. Often it breeds failure. People mistake a moment for a movement and think that their time has finally come. Believing change to be inevitable, they get cocky and overconfident and miss the networks of unseen connections forming in opposition. They make sure to press a point, but fail to make a difference.

Lasting change always needs to be built on common ground. That’s what we failed to see all those years ago, when I began my journey. You can never base your revolution on any particular person, technology or policy. It needs to be rooted in shared values and if we truly care about change, we need to hold ourselves accountable to be effective messengers.

We can’t just preach to the choir. Sometimes we need to venture out of the church and mix with the heathens. We can be clear about where we stand and still listen to those who see things differently. That doesn’t mean we compromise. In fact, we should never compromise the values we believe in. What we can do, however, is identify common ground upon which to build a shared future.

These principles hold true whether the change you seek is in your organization, your industry, your community or throughout society as a whole. If you fail to learn and apply them, don’t be surprised when you fail to survive victory.

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

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

Five Triggers of Burnout at Work

Leave a reply

Five Triggers of Burnout at Work

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Demands at work have been piling on in recent years. Including the demand on employees to continue to do more with less. And those demands come with a lot of potential burnout at work. Burnout at work is a series problem for most organizations. Burnout can lead to decreased productivity, increased absenteeism, and even physical and mental health issues.

It’s incumbent on every leader to be aware of and attempt to avoid burnout on their teams. But burnout isn’t always caused by asking too much of employees. Being overcapacity can be one element that triggers a burned-out team. But there are other triggers leaders need to be aware of.

In this article, we will explore the five triggers of burnout at work and discuss how leaders can mitigate them to create a more engaged and productive team.

Trigger 1: Lack of Margin

The first trigger of burnout at work is a lack of margin. As said above, often burnout happens because people are just at capacity. In many organizations, the reward for good work is more work. This can lead to employees constantly feeling overloaded with assignments and overwhelmed. To mitigate this, leaders can redistribute tasks more equitably and avoid rewarding good work with additional responsibilities. And they can identify priorities more clearly so teammates know what tasks matter most and which can afford to wait until later. In addition, regular individual check-ins and team-wide huddles can also help identify areas where margin can be borrowed from other team members, ensuring that everyone has a manageable workload.

Trigger 2: Lack of Control

The second trigger of burnout at work is a lack of control. Employees who feel they lack autonomy over their work are dramatically more likely to burnout than employees who can control certain elements of their job. In addition, employees who feel left out of the decision-making process and lack the necessary resources to do their job can quickly become burnt out. Leaders can address this trigger by providing employees with more autonomy in when, where, or how they work. This could involve flexible work hours, remote work options, or giving employees a say in the decision-making process. By empowering employees and giving them a sense of control over their work, leaders can help prevent burnout and increase job satisfaction.

Section 3: Lack of Clarity

The third trigger of burnout at work is a lack of clarity. Leaving employees without clear expectations or without a firm belief that increased effort will increase performance is leaving employees open to burnout. Vague job descriptions and frequent changes in roles and tasks can leave employees feeling uncertain and overwhelmed. This trigger can often sneak up on employees and their leaders because the demands of a job change over time, and gradually move people away from the role they were initially hired for. Without frequent updating of expectations and clear feedback, the job becomes ambiguous. Leaders can help avoid this through regular check-ins, clear project definitions, and resources to help employees achieve their tasks. Clear communication and setting realistic goals can go a long way in reducing burnout caused by a lack of clarity.

Section 4: Lack of Civility

The fourth trigger of burnout at work is a lack of civility. Working in a toxic team or organization can be extremely detrimental to one’s mental well-being and job satisfaction. Whether it’s a single individual or a bad boss, negative experiences in the workplace can quickly lead to burnout. This can happen even in overall positive company cultures, because one toxic boss or dysfunctional team can have an outsized effect on the team and its potential for burnout. Leaders can address this trigger by modeling respectful behavior and reinforcing expectations of respect and cohesion. Creating a positive and inclusive work culture where everyone feels valued and supported can help prevent burnout and foster a more harmonious work environment.

Section 5: Lack of Social Support

The fifth trigger of burnout at work is a lack of social support. Humans are social creatures—and work often meets a small or large part of our social needs. Feeling isolated and lonely at work can significantly contribute to burnout. Without social connections and friendships, employees may struggle to find motivation and support in their roles. Leaders can create opportunities for social support and friendships within the team by organizing team-building activities, encouraging collaboration, and fostering a sense of community. You can’t force people to be friends, but you can create the environment where friendships develop. And having friends at work can not only drive productivity but also decrease stress and enhance overall job satisfaction.

By addressing these triggers of burnout, leaders can create a work environment that promotes employee well-being, engagement, and productivity. Redistributing tasks, providing autonomy, ensuring clarity, promoting civility, and fostering social support are all essential steps in preventing burnout and creating a more positive and fulfilling work experience. And a positive work experience helps everyone do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on June 26, 2023.

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

Charlie Kirk and Innovation

Leave a reply

What We Can Learn and Build in the Wake of His Tragic Death

Charlie Kirk and Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Innovation is not born in silence. It emerges from the friction of ideas, the collision of perspectives, and the courage to challenge assumptions. In this light, the public discourse shaped by figures like Charlie Kirk — whether you agree with his politics or not — offers a fascinating lens through which to examine the dynamics of innovation in a polarized age.

The Power of Rational Debate

Charlie Kirk built his platform by engaging in live debates on college campuses, inviting ideological opponents to challenge him directly. This practice, though often contentious, embodies a core principle of innovation: constructive conflict. Rational debate is the crucible in which ideas are tested, refined, and sometimes transformed.

Innovation thrives when we create safe spaces for disagreement. Kirk’s willingness to engage with critics — sometimes fiercely — demonstrates the value of showing up, listening, and responding. These are not just political acts; they are innovation behaviors.

In my work on human-centered change, I emphasize the importance of dialogue over monologue. Whether you’re designing a new product or reimagining a business model, innovation demands that we hear from diverse voices. Kirk’s approach, though polarizing, reminds us that progress often begins with uncomfortable conversations.

Empathy in the Arena

Empathy may not be the first word that comes to mind when discussing Charlie Kirk. Yet, beneath the surface of his confrontational style lies a strategic understanding of audience. Kirk speaks to young conservatives who often feel alienated in academic environments. He validates their concerns, gives them language, and builds community. That’s empathy in action.

Innovation leaders must do the same. We must understand the emotional landscape of our stakeholders—what they fear, what they hope for, and what they value. Empathy is not agreement; it’s connection. And connection is the foundation of co-creation.

“Charlie made it normal to be active in politics, made it cool, and made it something that people should be more interested in.” — Krish Mathrani, Michigan GOP Youth Chair

When we design change initiatives, we must ask: Who feels left out? Who needs to be heard? Who needs to be invited in? Kirk’s success in mobilizing youth reminds us that innovation is not just about ideas—it’s about people.

Challenging Assumptions

One of the most provocative aspects of Kirk’s career was his willingness to challenge the status quo — even within his own ideological camp. He faced criticism from far-right figures for being “insufficiently radical,” especially during the Groyper Wars of 2019. Yet, he persisted in advocating for positions like granting green cards to high-skilled international graduates — an idea that, ironically, aligns with innovation policy.

Innovation demands that we challenge assumptions, even sacred ones. Whether it’s the belief that “we’ve always done it this way” or the notion that certain groups don’t belong in the conversation, progress requires us to interrogate our mental models.

When Kirk said “America is full” in response to visa expansion for Indian professionals, he sparked outrage — but also dialogue. Critics argued that such policies would harm the U.S. innovation pipeline. The debate itself illuminated the tension between nationalism and global talent — an issue every innovation leader must grapple with.

Innovation in the Age of Polarization

We live in a time when polarization threatens the very conditions that make innovation possible. The assassination of Charlie Kirk during a campus event was a tragic reminder of what happens when dialogue breaks down. Violence is the antithesis of innovation. It silences voices, erodes trust, and fractures the social fabric.

Yet, Kirk’s legacy — his insistence on showing up, speaking out, and engaging — offers a blueprint for how we might reclaim the public square. Innovation requires courage. It requires us to stand in the arena, even when the crowd is hostile.

Conclusion: The Innovation Imperative

Charlie Kirk was not an innovation theorist. But his methods — debate, empathy, and assumption-challenging — mirror the behaviors we must cultivate to drive meaningful change. Whether in politics, business, or society, the innovation imperative calls us to engage, not retreat.

As we mourn the loss of a controversial yet catalytic figure, let us recommit to the principles that make innovation possible. Let us debate fiercely, empathize deeply, and challenge boldly. Because in the end, innovation is not just about what we build — it’s about who we become.

Postscript: One Way We Could Honor Charlie’s Legacy

Imagine if rational debate were a mandatory course from middle school onward in the United States. Embedding the principles of respectful discourse, critical thinking, and evidence-based argument into our education system would not only cultivate a generation of more thoughtful citizens — it would dramatically increase our national innovation capacity. When students learn to listen actively, challenge ideas without attacking individuals, and articulate their own perspectives with clarity and empathy, they become better collaborators, problem-solvers, and leaders. Over time, this cultural shift could reduce the divisiveness of our politics by replacing tribalism with curiosity, and outrage with understanding. Innovation flourishes in environments where ideas are exchanged freely and respectfully — and that starts in the classroom.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

How to Not Get Depleted

Leave a reply

How to Not Get Depleted

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

On every operating plan there are more projects than there are people to do them and at every meeting there more new deliverables than people to take them on. At every turn, our demand for increased profits pushes our people for more. And, to me, I think this is the reason every day feel fuller than the last.

This year do you have more things to accomplish or fewer? Do you have more meetings or fewer? Do you get more emails or fewer?

We add work to people’s day as if their capacity to do work is infinite. And we add metrics to measure them to make sure they get the work done. And that’s a recipe for depletion. At some point, even the best, most productive people reach their physical and emotional limits. And at some point, as the volume of work increases, we all become depleted. It’s not that we’re moving slowly, being wasteful or giving it less than our all. When the work exceeds our capacity to do it, we run out of gas.

Here are some thoughts that may help you over the next year.

The amount of work you will get done this year is the same as you got done last year. But don’t get sidetracked here. This has nothing to do with the amount of work you were asked to do last year. Because you didn’t complete everything you were asked to do last year, the same thing will happen this year unless the amount of work on this year’s plan is equal to the amount of work you actually accomplished last year. Every year, scrub a little work off your yearly commitments until the work content finally equals your capacity to get it done.

Once the work content of your yearly plan is in line, the mantra becomes – finish one before you start one. If you had three projects last year and you finished one, you can add one project this year. If you didn’t finish any projects last year you can’t start one this year, at least until you finish one this year. It’s a simple mantra, but a powerful one. It will help you stop starting and start finishing.

There’s a variant to the finish-before-you-start approach that doesn’t have to wait for the completion of a long project. Instead of finishing a project, unimportant projects are stopped before they’re finished. This is loosely known as – stop doing before start doing. Stopping is even more powerful than finishing because low value work is stopped and the freed-up resources are immediately applied to higher value work. This takes judgement and courage to stop a dull project, but it’s well worth the discomfort.

If you want to get ahead of the game, create a stop-doing list. For each item on the list estimate how much time you will free up and sum the freed-up time for the lot. Be ruthless. Stop all but the most important work. And when your boss says you can’t stop something because it’s too important, propose that you stop for a week and see what happens. And when no one notices you stopped, propose to stop for a month and see what happens. Rinse and repeat.

When the amount of work you have to get done fits with your capacity to do it, your physical and mental health will improve. You’ll regain that spring in your step and you’ll be happier. And the quality of your work will improve. But more importantly, your family life and personal relationships will improve. You’ll be able to let go of work and be fully present with your friends and family.

Regardless of the company’s growth objectives, one person can only do the work of one person. And it’s better for everyone (and the company) if we respect this natural constraint.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Customers Love These Five Words

Leave a reply

Customers Love These Five Words

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

“So you don’t have to …” These five words are powerful, and whether or not customers realize it, they love them.

Think about what makes certain companies stand out from their competitors. Is it their product? Is it price? These matter, but as I’ve been preaching for decades, the differentiator is the customer experience. And specifically, the experience I want to focus on in this article is convenience.

These five words, “So you don’t have to,” form a statement that embodies the essence of creating a convenient customer experience. When companies take on certain responsibilities, eliminate friction points and other tasks to make the buying process easier for a customer, they are sending a message to their customers that says, “We’ll handle this so you don’t have to.”

Amazon delivers packages to your doorstep … so you don’t have to drive to the store.
Online grocery delivery services shop for your food and deliver it … so you don’t have to spend time in the store, pushing the cart, waiting in line to check out, and like Amazon, you don’t even have to drive to the store.
Auto-renewal subscriptions charge you automatically … so you don’t have to remember to re-subscribe.

Shep Hyken Five Words Cartoon

I can go on with numerous examples. The So You Don’t Have To experience is about making it easy for your customers and saving them time, energy and effort. My annual customer service and experience research consistently shows that convenience is a major driver of customer loyalty. In fact, 66% of customers say convenience is more important than friendly service, and 58% of customers are willing to pay more for it.

So, how can you deliver the So You Don’t Have To experience to your customers? Here are four ideas to get you started:

Identify Your Customers’ Friction Points – Identify any areas of stress or effort in your process that can be changed or eliminated to make it easier for your customers.
Practice Proactive Service – Train your team to solve customers’ problems proactively before they contact you – ideally before they even know there is a problem. Examine the reasons for these problems and find ways to eliminate them altogether.
Become Your Customer – Look at your processes as if you are the customer. Mystery shop your own business and experience what your customers experience.
Don’t Be Shy – If you’re going to make it easy for your customers, let them know. Explain why doing business with you is different.

Every time you remove a step, eliminate a form, reduce waiting time or simplify a process, you’re telling the customer you value their time. Whether the words are explicitly stated or implied through your actions, you’re saying, “We’ll handle this … so you don’t have to.”

Image Credits: Unsplash, Shep Hyken

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

Have We Made AI Interfaces Too Human?

Leave a reply

Could a Little Uncanny Valley Help Add Some Much Needed Skepticism to How We Treat AI Output?

Have We Made AI Interfaces Too Human?

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

A cool element of AI is how ‘human’ it appear’s to be. This is of course a part of its ‘wow’ factor, and has helped to drive rapid and widespread adoption. It’s also of course a clever illusion, as AI’s don’t really ‘think’ like real humans. But the illusion is pretty convincing. And most of us, me included, who have interacted with AI at any length, have probably at times all but forgotten they are having a conversation with code, albeit sophisticated code.

Benefits of a Human-LIke Interface: And this humanizing of the user interface brings multiple benefits. It is of course a part of the ‘wow’ factor that has helped drive rapid and widespread adoption of the technology. The intuitive, conversational interface also makes it far easier for everyday users to access information without training in search techniques. While AI’s they don’t fundamentally have access to better information than an old fashioned Google search, they are much easier to use. And the humanesque output not only provides ‘ready to use’ and pre-synthesized information, but also increases the believability of the output. Furthermore, by creating an illusion of human-like intelligence, it implicitly implies emotions, compassion and critical thinking behind the output, even if it’s not really there

Democratizing Knowledge: And in many ways, this is a really good thing. Knowledge is power. Democratizing access to it has many benefits, and in so doing adds checks and balances to our society we’ve never before enjoyed. And it’s part of a long-term positive trend. Our societies have evolved from shaman and priests jealously guarding knowledge for their own benefit, through the broader dissemination enabled by the Gutenberg press, books and libraries. That in turn gave way to mass media, the internet, and now the next step, AI. Of course, it’s not quite that simple, as it’s also a bit of an arms race. With this increased access to information has come ever more sophisticated ways in which today’s ’shamans’ or leaders try to protect their advantage. They may no longer use solar eclipses to frighten an astronomically ignorant populace into submission and obedience. But spinning, framing, controlled narratives, selective dissemination of information, fake news, media control, marketing, behavioral manipulation and ’nudging’ are just a few ways in which the flow of information is controlled or manipulated today. We have moved in the right direction, but still have a way to go, and freedom of information and it’s control are always in some kind of arms race.

Two Edged Sword: But this humanization of AI can also be a two edged sword, and comes with downsides in addition to the benefits described above. It certainly improves access and believability, and makes output easier to disseminate, but also hides its true nature. AI operates in a quite different way from a human mind. It lacks intrinsic ethics, emotional connections, genuine empathy, and ‘gut feelings’. To my inexpert mind, it in some uncomfortable ways resembles a psychopath. It’s not evil in a human sense by any means, but it also doesn’t care, and lacks a moral or ethical framework

A brutal example is the recent case of Adam Raine, where ChatGPT advised him on ways to commit suicide, and helped him write a suicide note. A sane human would never do this, but the humanesque nature of the interface appeared to create an illusion for that unfortunate individual that he was dealing with a human, and the empathy, emotional intelligence and compassion that comes with that.

That may be an extreme example. But the illusion of humanity and the ability to access unfiltered information can also bring more subtle issues. For example, while the ability to interrogate AI around our symptoms before visiting a physician certainly empowers us to take a more proactive role in our healthcare. But it can also be counterproductive. A patient who has convinced themselves of an incorrect diagnosis can actually harm themselves, or make a physicians job much harder. And AI lacks the compassion to break bad news gently, or add context in the way a human can.

The Uncanny Valley: That brings me to the Uncanny Valley. This describes when technology approaches but doesn’t quite achieve perfection in human mimicry. In the past we could often detect synthetic content on a subtle and implicit level, even if we were not conscious of it. For example, a computerized voice that missed subtle tonal inflections, or a photoshopped image or manipulated video that missed subtle facial micro expressions might not be obvious, but often still ‘felt’ wrong. Or early drum machines were so perfect that they lacked the natural ’swing’ of even the most precise human drummer, and so had to be modified to include randomness that was below the threshold of conscious awareness, but made them ‘feel’ real.

This difference between conscious and unconscious evaluation creates cognitive dissonance that can result in content feeling odd, or even ‘creepy’. And often, the closer we got to eliminating that dissonance, the creepier it feels. When I’ve dealt with the uncanny valley in the past, it’s generally been something we needed to ‘fix’. For example, over-photoshopping in a print ad, or poor CGI. But be careful what you wish for. AI appears to have marched through the ‘uncanny valley’ to the point where its output feels human. But despite feeling right, it may still lack the ethical, moral or emotional framework of the human responses it mimics.

This begs a question, ‘do we need some implicit as well as explicit cues that remind us we are not dealing with a real human? Could a slight feeling of ‘creepiness maybe help to avoid another Adam Raine? Should we add back some ‘uncanny valley’, and turn what used to be something we thought of as an ‘enemy’ to good use? The latter is one of my favorite innovation strategies. Whether it’s vaccination, or exposure to risks during childhood, or not over-sanitizing, sometimes a little of what does us harm can do us good. Maybe the uncanny valley we’ve typical tried to overcome could now actually help us?

Would just a little implicit doubt also encourage us to think a bit more deeply about the output, rather than simply cut and paste it into a report? By making AI output sound so human, it potentially removes the need for cognitive effort to process the output. Thinking that played a key role in translating search into output can now be skipped. Synthesizing and processing output from a ‘old fashioned’ Google search requires effort and comprehension. With AI, it is all to easy to regurgitate the output, skip meaningful critical thinking, and share what we really don’t understand. Or perhaps worse, we can create an illusion of understanding where we don’t think deeply or causally enough to even realize that we don’t understand what we are sharing. It’s in some ways analogous to proof reading, in that it’s all to easy to skip over content we think we already know, even if we really don’t . And the more we skip over content, the more difficult it is to be discerning, or question the output. When a searcher receives answers in prose he or she can cut and paste into a report or essay, less effort effort and critical thinking goes into comprehension and the critical thinking, and the risk of sharing inaccurate information, or even nonsense increases.

And that also brings up another side effect of low engagement with output – confirmation bias. If the output is already in usable form, doesn’t require synthesizing or comprehension, and it agrees with our beliefs or motivations, it’s a perfect storm. There is little reason to question it, or even truly understand it. We are generally pretty good at challenging something that surprises us, or that we disagree with. But it takes a lot of will, and a deep adherence to the scientific method to challenge output that supports our beliefs or theories

Question everything, and you do nothing! The corollary to this is surely ‘that’s the point of AI?’ It’s meant to give us well structured, and correct answers, and in so doing free up our time for more important things, or to act on ideas, rather than just think about them. If we challenge and analyze every output, why use AI in the first place? That’s certainly fair, but taking AI output without any question is not smart either. Remember that it isn’t human, and is still capable of making really stupid mistakes. Okay, so are humans, but AI is still far earlier in its evolutionary journey, and prone to unanticipated errors. I suspect the answer to this lies in how important the output is, and where it will be used. If it’s important, treat AI output as a hypothesis. Don’t believe everything you read, and before simply sharing or accepting, ask ourselves and AI itself questions around what went into the conclusions, where the data came from, and what the critical thinking path is. Basically apply the scientific method to AI output much the same as we would, or should our own ideas.

Cat Videos and AI Action Figures: Another related risk with AI is if we let it become an oracle. We not only treat its output as human, but as super human. With access to all knowledge, vastly superior processing power compared to us mere mortals, and apparent human reasoning, why bother to think for ourselves? A lot of people worry about AI becoming sentient, more powerful than humans, and the resultant doomsday scenarios involving Terminators and Skynet. While it would be foolish to ignore such possibilities, perhaps there is a more clear and present danger, where instead of AI conquering humanity, we simply cede our position to it. Just as basic mathematical literacy has plummeted since the introduction of calculators, and spell-check has reduced our basic literary capability, what if AI erodes our critical thinking and problem solving? I’m not the first to notice that with the internet we have access to all human knowledge, but all too often use it for cat videos and porn. With AI, we have an extraordinary creativity enhancing tool, but use masses of energy and water for data centers to produce dubious action figures in our own image. Maybe we need a little help doing better with AI. A little ‘uncanny Valley’ would not begin to deal with all of the potential issues, but maybe simply not fully trusting AI output on an implicit level might just help a little bit.

Image credits: Unsplash

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

Back to Basics for Leaders and Managers

Leave a reply

Back to Basics for Leaders and Managers

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Imagine that you are the CEO working with your CHRO on a succession plan. Both the CFO and COO are natural candidates, and both are, on paper, equally qualified and effective.

The CFO distinguishes herself by consistently working with colleagues to find creative solutions to business issues, even if it isn’t the optimal solution financially, and inspiring them with her vision of the future. She attracts top talent and builds strong relationships with investors who trust her strategic judgment. However, she sometimes struggles with day-to-day details and can be inconsistent in her communication with direct reports.

The COO inspires deep loyalty from his team through consistent execution and reliability. People turn down better offers to stay because they trust his systematic approach, flawless delivery, and deep commitment to developing people. However, his vision rarely extends beyond “do things better,” rigidly adhering to established processes and shutting down difficult conversations with peers when change is needed.

Who so you choose?

The COO feels like the safer bet, especially in uncertain times, given his track record of proven execution, loyal teams, and predictable results. While the CFO feels riskier because she’s brilliant but inconsistent, visionary but scattered.

It’s not an easy question to answer.

Most people default to “It depends.”

It doesn’t depend.

It doesn’t “depend,” because being CEO is a leadership role and only the CFO demonstrates leadership behaviors. The COO, on the other hand, is a fantastic manager, exactly the kind of person you want and need in the COO role. But he’s not the leader a company needs, no matter how stable or uncertain the environment.

Yet we all struggle with this choice because we’ve made “leadership” and “management” synonyms. Companies no longer have “senior management teams,” they have “senior/executive leadership teams.” People moving from independent contributor roles to oversee teams are trained in “people leadership,” not “team management” (even though the curriculum is still largely the same).

But leadership and management are two fundamentally different things.

Leader OR Manager?

There are lots of definitions of both leaders and managers, so let’s go back to the “original” distinction as defined by Warren Bennis in his 1987 classic On Becoming a Leader

Leaders	Managers
· Do the right things· Challenge the status quo· Innovate· Develops· Focuses on people· Relies on trust· Has a long-range perspective· Asks what and why· Has an eye on the horizon	· Do things right· Accept the status quo· Administers· Maintains· Focuses on systems and structures· Relies on control· Has a short-range view· Asks how and when· Has an eye on the bottom line

In a nutshell: leaders inspire people to create change and pursue a vision while managers control systems to maintain operations and deliver results.

Leaders AND Managers!

Although the roles of leaders and managers are different, it doesn’t mean that the person who fills those roles is capable of only one or the other. I’ve worked with dozens of people who are phenomenal managers AND leaders and they are as inspiring as they are effective.

But not everyone can play both roles and it can be painful, even toxic, when we ask managers to take on leadership roles and vice versa. This is the problem with labeling everything outside of individual contributor roles as “leadership.”

When we designate something as a “people leadership” role and someone does an outstanding job of managing his team, we believe he’s a leader and promote him to a true leadership role (which rarely ends well). Conversely, when we see someone displaying leadership qualities and promote her into “people leadership,” we may be shocked and disappointed when she struggles to manage as effortlessly as she inspires.

The Bottom Line

Leadership and Management aren’t the same thing, but they are both essential to an organization’s success. They key is putting the right people in the right roles and celebrating their unique capabilities and contributions.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Sometimes Ancient Wisdom Needs to be Left Behind

Leave a reply

Sometimes Ancient Wisdom Needs to be Left Behind

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I recently visited Panama and learned the incredible story of how the indigenous Emberá people there helped to teach jungle survival skills to Apollo mission astronauts. It is a fascinating combining and contrast of ancient wisdom and modern technology, equipping the first men to go to the moon with insights from both realms.

Humans tend to have a natural reverence for old wisdom that is probably woven into our DNA. It stands to reason that people more willing to stick with the tried and true might have a survival advantage over those who were more reckless. Ideas that stand the test of time are, by definition, the ones that worked well enough to be passed on.

Paradoxically, to move forward we need to abandon old ideas. It was only by discarding ancient wisdoms that we were able to create the modern world. In much the same way, to move forward now we’ll need to debunk ideas that qualify as expertise today. As in most things, our past can help serve as a guide. Here are three old ideas we managed to transcend.

1. Euclid’s Geometry

The basic geometry we learn in grade school, also known as Euclidean geometry, is rooted in axioms observed from the physical world, such as the principle that two parallel lines never intersect. For thousands of years mathematicians built proofs based on those axioms to create new knowledge, such as how to calculate the height of an object. Without these insights, our ability to shape the physical world would be negligible.

In the 19th century, however, men like Gauss, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Riemann started to build new forms of non-Euclidean geometry based on curved spaces. These were, of course, completely theoretical and of no use in daily life. The universe, as we experience it, doesn’t curve in any appreciable way, which is why police ask us to walk a straight line if they think we’ve been drinking.

But when Einstein started to think about how gravity functioned, he began to suspect that the universe did, in fact, curve over large distances. To make his theory of general relativity work he had to discard the old geometrical thinking and embrace new mathematical concepts. Without those critical tools, he would have been hopelessly stuck.

Much like the astronauts in the Apollo program, we now live in a strange mix of old and new. To travel to Panama, for example, I personally moved through linear space and the old Euclidean axioms worked perfectly well. However, to navigate, I had to use GPS, which must take into account curved spaces for Einstein’s equations to correctly calculate distances between the GPS satellites and points on earth.

2. Aristotle’s Logic

In terms of longevity and impact, only Aristotle’s logic rivals Euclid’s geometry. At the core of Aristotle’s system is the syllogism, which is made up of propositions that consist of two terms (a subject and a predicate). If the propositions in the syllogism are true, then the argument has to be true. This basic notion that conclusions follow premises imbues logical statements with a mathematical rigor.

Yet much like with geometry, scholars began to suspect that there might be something amiss. At first, they noticed minor flaws that had to do with a strange paradox in set theory which arose with sets that are members of themselves. For example, if the barber who shaves everyone in town who doesn’t shave themselves, then who shaves the barber?

At first, these seemed like strange anomalies, minor exceptions to rules that could be easily explained away. Still, the more scholars tried to close the gaps, the more problems appeared, leading to a foundational crisis. It would only be resolved when a young logician named Kurt Gödel published his theorems that proved logic, at least as we knew it, is hopelessly broken.

In a strange twist, another young mathematician, Alan Turing, built on Gödel’s work to create an imaginary machine that would make digital computers possible. In other words, in order for Silicon Valley engineers to code to create logical worlds online, they need to use machines built on the premise that perfectly logical systems are inherently unworkable.

Of course, as I write this, I am straddling both universes, trying to put build logical sentences on those very same machines.

3. The Miasma Theory of Disease

Before the germ theory of disease took hold in medicine, the miasma theory, the notion that bad air caused disease, was predominant. Again, from a practical perspective this made perfect sense. Harmful pathogens tend to thrive in environments with decaying organic matter that gives off bad smells. So avoiding those areas would promote better health.

Once again, this basic paradigm would begin to break down with a series of incidents. First, a young doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis showed that doctors could prevent infections by washing their hands, which suggested that something besides air carried disease. Later John Snow was able to trace the source of a cholera epidemic to a single water pump.

Perhaps not surprisingly, these were initially explained away. Semmelweis failed to format his data properly and was less than an effective advocate for his work. John Snow’s work was statistical, based on correlation rather than causality. A prominent statistician William Farr, who supported the miasma theory, argued for an alternative explanation.

Still, as doubts grew, more scientists looked for answers. The work of Robert Koch, Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur led to the germ theory. Later, Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain would pioneer the development of antibiotics in the 1940s. That would open the floodgates and money poured into research, creating modern medicine.

Today, we have gone far beyond the germ theory of disease and even lay people understand that disease has myriad causes, including bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, as well as genetic diseases and those caused by strange misfolded proteins known as prions.

To Create The Future, We Need To Break Free Of The Past

If you were a person of sophistication and education in the 19th century, your world view was based on certain axiomatic truths, such as parallel lines never cross, logical propositions are either true or false and “bad airs” made people sick. For the most part, these ideas would have served you well for the challenges you faced in daily life.

Even more importantly, your understanding of these concepts would signal your inclusion and acceptance into a particular tribe, which would confer prestige and status. If you were an architect or engineer, you needed to understand Euclid’s geometric axions. Aristotle’s rules of logic were essential to every educated profession. Medical doctors were expected to master the nuances of the miasma theory.

To stray from established orthodoxies carries great risk, even now. It is no accident that those who were able to bring about new paradigms, such as Einstein, Turing and John Snow, came from outside the establishment. More recently, people like Benoit Mandelbrot, Jim Allison and Katalin Karikó had to overcome fierce resistance to bring new ways of thinking to finance, cancer immunotherapy and mRNA vaccines respectively.

Today, it’s becoming increasingly clear we need to break with the past. In just over a decade, we’ve been through a crippling financial crisis, a global pandemic, deadly terrorist attacks, and the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II. We need to confront climate change and a growing mental health crisis. Yet it is also clear that we can’t just raze the global order to the ground and start all over again.

So what do we leave in the past and what do we bring with us into the future? Which new lessons do we need to learn and which old ones do we need to unlearn? Perhaps most importantly, what do we need to create anew and what can we rediscover in the ancient?

Throughout history, we have learned that the answer lies not in merely speculating about ideas, but in finding real solutions to problems we face.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: 1 of 950+ FREE quote slides from http://misterinnovation.com

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