Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

Leave a reply

Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

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

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

What is deep dialogue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because when we change, the world changes.

Choosing to cross the bridge consciously

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

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

It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that will give you a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem focus, human-centric approach, and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation, and upskill people and teams and develop their future fitness, within your unique innovation context. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

I Sent AI a Survey

Leave a reply

… and the Results Were Brilliant … and Dangerous

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

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

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

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

Sound too good to be true?

Here are the results from my initial test:

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

The Tool is Brilliant

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

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

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

The Results are Dangerous

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

STOP!

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

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

They’re Also Useful.

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Microsoft Copilot

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

Disinformation Economics

1 Reply

Disinformation Economics

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

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

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

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

How Tribes Emerge

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

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

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

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

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

The Power Of Local Majorities

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

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

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

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

Filter Bubbles And Echo Chambers

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

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Coping with the Chasm

1 Reply

Coping with the Chasm

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Microsoft Copilot

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






The Hidden Cost of Waiting

1 Reply

The Hidden Cost of Waiting

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Pexels

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






Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

Leave a reply

Delivering Real Value the Key

Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credits: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

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






Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

Leave a reply

Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Pixabay, Stefan Lindegaard

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






ISO Innovation Standards

Leave a reply

The Good, the Bad, and the Missing

ISO Innovation Standards

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In 2020, the International Standards Organization, most famous for its Quality Management Systems standard, published ISO 56000, Innovation Management—Fundamentals and Vocabulary. Since then, ISO has released eight additional innovation standards. 

But is it possible to create international standards for innovation, or are we killing creativity?

That’s the question that InnoLead founder and CEO Scott Kirsner and I debated over lunch a few weeks ago.  Although we had heard of the standards and attended a few webinars, but we had never read them or spoken with corporate innovators about their experiences.

So, we set out to fix that.

Scott convened an all-star panel of innovators from Entergy, Black & Veatch, DFW Airport, Cisco, and a large financial institution to read and discuss two ISO Innovation Standards: ISO 56002, Innovation management – Innovation management systems – Requirements and ISO 56004, Innovation Management Assessment – Guidance.

The conversation was honest, featured a wide range of opinions, and is absolutely worth your time to watch. 

Here are my three biggest takeaways.

The Standards are a Good Idea

Innovation doesn’t have the best reputation.  It’s frequently treated as a hobby to be pursued when times are good and sometimes as a management boondoggle to justify pursuing pet ideas and taking field trips to fun places.

However, ISO Standards can change how innovation is perceived and supported.

Just as ISO’s Quality Management Standards established a framework for quality, the Innovation Management Standards aim to do the same for innovation. They provide shared fundamentals and a common vocabulary (ISO 56000), requirements for innovation management systems (ISO 56001 and ISO 56002), and guidance for measurement (ISO 56004), intellectual property management (ISO 56005), and partnerships (ISO 56003). By establishing these standards, organizations can transition innovation from a vague “trust me” proposition to a structured, best-practice approach.

The Documents are Dangerous

However, there’s a caveat: a little knowledge can be dangerous. The two standards I reviewed were dense and complex, totaling 56 pages, and they’re among the shortest in the series. Packed with terminology and suggestions, they can overwhelm experienced practitioners and mislead novices into thinking they have How To Guide for success.

Innovation is contextual.  Its strategies, priorities, and metrics must align with the broader organizational goals.  Using the standards as a mere checklist is more likely to lead to wasted time and effort building the “perfect” innovation management system while management grows increasingly frustrated by your lack of results.

The Most Important Stuff is Missing

Innovation is contextual, but there are still non-negotiables:   

  • Leadership commitment AND active involvement: Innovation isn’t an idea problem. It’s a leadership problem.  If leadership delegates innovation, fails to engage in the work, and won’t allocate required resources, you’re efforts are doomed to fail.
  • Adjacent and Radical Innovations require dedicated teams: Operations and innovation are fundamentally different. The former occurs in a context of known knowns and unknowns, where experience and expertise rule the day. The latter is a world of unknown unknowns, where curiosity, creativity, and experimentation are required. It is not reasonable to ask someone to live in both worlds simultaneously.
  • Innovation must not be a silo: Innovation cannot exist in a silo. Links must be maintained with the core business, as its performance directly impacts available resources and influences the direction of innovation initiatives.

These essential elements are mentioned in the standards but are not clearly identified. Their omission increases the risk of further innovation failures.

Something is better than nothing

The standards aren’t perfect.  But one of the core principles of innovation is to never let perfection get in the way of progress. 

Now it’s time to practice what we preach by testing the standards in the real world, scrapping what doesn’t work, embracing what does, and innovating and iterating our way to better.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Building Competence Often More Important Than a Vision

Leave a reply

Building Competence Often More Important Than a Vision

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1993, when asked about his vision for the failing company he was chosen to lead, Lou Gerstner famously said, “The last thing IBM needs right now is a vision.” What he meant was that if IBM couldn’t figure out how to improve operations to the point where it could start making money again, no vision would matter.

Plenty of people have visions. Elizabeth Holmes had one for Theranos, but its product was a fraud and the company failed. Many still believe in Uber’s vision of “gig economy” taxis, but even after more than 10 years and $25 billion invested, it still loses billions. WeWork’s proven business model became a failure when warped by a vision.

The truth is that anyone can have a vision. Look at any successful organization, distill its approach down to a vision statement and you will easily be able to find an equal or greater success that does things very differently. There is no silver bullet. Successful leaders are not the ones with the most compelling vision, but those who build the skills to make it a reality.

Gandhi’s “Himalyan Miscalculation”

When Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in 1915, after more than two decades spent fighting for Indian rights in South Africa, he had a vision for the future of his country. His view, which he laid out in his book Hind Swaraj, was that the British were only able to rule because of Indian cooperation. If that cooperation were withheld, the British Raj would fall.

In 1919, when the British passed the repressive Rowlatt Acts, which gave the police the power to arrest anyone for any reason whatsoever, he saw an opportunity to make his vision a reality. He called for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience, called a hartal, in which Indians would refuse to work or do business.

At first, it was a huge success and the country came to a standstill. But soon things spun wildly out of control and eventually led to the massacre at Amritsar, in which British soldiers left hundreds dead and more than a thousand wounded. He would later call the series of events his Himalayan Miscalculation and vowed never to repeat his mistake.

What Gandhi realized was that his vision was worthless without people trained in his Satyagraha philosophy and capable of implementing his methods. He began focusing his efforts on indoctrinating his followers and, a decade later, set out on the Salt March with only about 70 of his most disciplined disciples.

This time, he triumphed in what is remembered as his greatest victory. In the end, it wasn’t Gandhi’s vision, but what he learned along the way that made him a historic icon.

The Real Magic Behind Amazon’s 6-Page Memo

We tend to fetishize the habits of successful people. We probe for anomalies and, when we find something out of the ordinary, we praise it as not only for its originality, but consider it to be the source of success. There is no better example of this delusion than Jeff Bezos’s insistence on using six-page memos rather than PowerPoint in meetings at Amazon.

There are two parts to this myth. First is the aversion to PowerPoint, which most corporate professionals use, but few use well. Second, the novelty of a memo, structured in a particular way, as the basis for structuring a meeting. Put them together and you have a unique ritual which, given Amazon’s incredible success, has taken on legendary status.

But delve a little deeper and you find it’s not the memos themselves, but Amazon’s writing culture that makes the difference. When you look at the company, which thrives in such a variety of industries, there are a dizzying array of skills that need to be integrated to make it work smoothly. That doesn’t just happen by itself.

What Jeff Bezos has done is put an emphasis on communication skills, in general and writing in particular. Amazon executives, from the time they are hired, learn that the best way to get ahead in the company is to learn how to write with clarity and power. They hone that skill over the course of their careers and, if they are to succeed, must learn to excel at it.

Anyone can ban PowerPoint and mandate memos. Building top-notch communication skills across a massive enterprise, on the other hand, is not so easy.

The Real Genius Of Elon Musk

In 2007, an ambitious entrepreneur launched a new company with a compelling vision. Determined to drive the shift from fossil fuels to renewables, he would create an enterprise to bring electric cars to the masses. A master salesman, he was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars as well as the endorsement of celebrities and famous politicians.

Yet the entrepreneur wasn’t Elon Musk and the company wasn’t Tesla. The young man’s name was Shai Agassi and his company, Better Place, failed miserably within a few years. Despite all of the glitz and glamour he was able to generate, the basic fact was that Agassi knew nothing about building cars or the economics of lithium-ion batteries.

Musk, on the other hand, did the opposite. He did not attempt to build a car for the masses, but rather for Silicon Valley millionaires who wouldn’t need to rely on a Tesla to bring the kids to soccer practice, but could use it to zoom around and show off to their friends. That gave Musk the opportunity to learn how to manufacture cars efficiently and effectively. In other words, to build competency.

When we have a big vision, we tend to want to search out the largest addressable market. Unfortunately, that is where you’ll find stiff competition and customers who are already fairly well-served. That’s why it’s almost always better to identify a hair-on-fire use case—something that a small subset of customers want or need so badly they almost literally have their hair on fire—and scale up from there.

As Steve Blank likes to put it, “no business plan survives first contact with a customer.” Every vision is wrong. Some are off by a little and some are off by a lot. But they’re all wrong in some way. The key to executing on a vision is by identifying vulnerabilities early on and then building the competencies to overcome them.

Why So Many Visions Become Delusions

When you look at the truly colossal business failures of the last 20 years, going back to Enron and LTCM at the beginning of the century to the “unicorns” of today, a common theme is the inability to make basic distinctions between visions and delusions. Delusions, like myths, always contain some kernel of truth, but dissipate when confronted with real world problems.

Also underlying these delusions is a mistrust of experts and the establishment. After all, if a fledgling venture has the right idea then, almost by definition, the establishment must have the wrong idea. As Sam Arbesman pointed out in The Half Life of Facts, what we know to be true changes all the time.

Yet that’s why we need experts. Not to give us answers, but to help us ask better questions. That’s how we can find flaws in our ideas and learn to ask better questions ourselves. Unfortunately recent evidence suggests that “founder culture” in Silicon Valley has gotten so out of hand that investors no longer ask hard questions for fear of getting cut out of deals. \

The time has come for us to retrench, much like Gerstner did a generation ago, and recommit ourselves to competence. Of course, every enterprise needs a vision, but a vision is meaningless without the ability to achieve it. That takes more than a lot of fancy talk, it requires the guts to see the world as it really is and still have the courage to try to change it.

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

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






How to Cultivate Respect as a Leader

1 Reply

How To Cultivate Respect As A Leader

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Margaret Thatcher once famously quipped that “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” As a leader, the same could be said about respect. If you wonder if you’re team respects you, they probably don’t.

Being a leader is not just about having authority and power; it’s about earning the respect and trust of your team. Your title may have made you the boss. But your team’s respect makes you the leader.

In this article, we will explore how to earn respect as a leader through five essential actions that earn respect and create a positive work environment. By following these strategies, leaders can not only gain the respect they deserve but also motivate and inspire their team members to perform at their best.

Set The Example

The first way to earn respect as a leader is to set the example. Leaders must lead by example. One way to earn respect is by acting in a fair and equitable manner. The team needs to see that you’re not playing favorites or political games. Additionally, meeting deadlines and being punctual demonstrates reliability and professionalism. If you set high standards, they need to know you hold yourself accountable to those standards as well.

Another crucial aspect of setting the example is upholding the core values of the organization. When leaders align their actions with the values they expect from their team, it establishes a strong foundation of integrity and consistency.

Ask For Their Input

The second way to earn respect as a leader is to ask for your team’s input. Great leaders understand that they don’t have all the answers. They recognize the importance of seeking input and feedback from their team members. By actively listening and valuing their opinions, leaders create an inclusive and collaborative work environment.

Brainstorming options collectively before making decisions is another effective way to involve the team in the decision-making process. This approach not only encourages creativity and innovation but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment among team members.

Explain Your Decisions

The third way to earn respect as a leader is to explain your decisions. Leaders often find themselves in situations where they need to referee conflicts and make final decisions. However, it is essential to consider the input received from the team and explain the reasoning behind those decisions. By doing so, leaders demonstrate transparency and fairness, which helps team members understand and accept the outcome.

Furthermore, leaders should take the time to consider rejected options and highlight their strengths. This shows that all ideas were valued and considered, even if they were not ultimately chosen. Additionally, training the team to understand the leader’s thought process can help them align their own thinking and decision-making with the overall goals of the organization.

Protect Your People

The fourth way to earn respect as a leader is to protect your people. Leaders have a responsibility to protect their team members from negative influences within the organization. This includes addressing and resolving conflicts, promoting a culture of respect, and ensuring that team members are treated fairly.

Additionally, leaders should ensure that their team has the necessary resources and support to perform their tasks effectively. By providing the tools and guidance needed, leaders empower their team members and enable them to succeed. Understanding the team’s capacity and preventing overload is also crucial. Leaders should be aware of their team members’ workload and ensure that they are not overwhelmed with excessive tasks. This demonstrates care and consideration for their well-being, which in turn fosters trust and respect.

Respect Them First

The final way to earn respect as a leader—and maybe it should have been the first—is to respect the team first. Respect is a two-way street. To earn respect as a leader, it is essential to show respect and appreciation for the contributions of your team members. Recognizing the value and strengths of each individual creates a positive and motivating work environment.

Leaders should respond positively to their team members’ ideas and feedback, encouraging open communication and collaboration. By actively acknowledging and considering their input, leaders empower their team members and make them feel valued. Creating a culture of respect and appreciation is crucial for building strong relationships within the team—and as a leader, you go first in extending that respect.

Earning respect as a leader is not an easy task—it doesn’t come with the new title or the corner office (assuming you’re not just working from a spare bedroom in our house). But it is essential for creating a positive and productive work environment. By setting the example, asking for their team’s input, explaining decisions, protecting their people, and respecting them first, leaders can establish trust, loyalty, and mutual respect. These strategies not only enhance the leader’s reputation but also inspire and motivate team members to do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on August 28, 2023

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