Grow Your Business by Answering Two Questions

Grow Your Business by Answering Two Questions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Two important questions to help you grow your business:

  1. Is the problem worth solving?
  2. When do you want to learn it’s not worth solving?

No one in your company can tell you if the problem is worth solving, not even the CEO. Only the customer can tell you if the problem is worth solving. If potential customers don’t think they have the problem you want to solve, they won’t pay you if you solve it. And if potential customers do have the problem but it’s not that important, they won’t pay you enough to make your solution profitable.

A problem is worth solving only when customers are willing to pay more than the cost of your solution.

Solving a problem requires a good team and the time and money to run the project. Project teams can be large and projects can run for months or years. And projects require budgets to buy the necessary supplies, tools, and infrastructure. In short, solving problems is expensive business.

It’s pretty clear that it’s far more profitable to learn a problem is not worth solving BEFORE incurring the expense to solve it. But, that’s not what we do. In a ready-fire-aim way, we solve the problem of our choosing and try to sell the solution.

If there’s one thing to learn, it’s how to verify the customer is willing to pay for your solution before incurring the cost to create it.

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.

Creating Long-Term Customer Loyalty

Creating Long-Term Customer Loyalty

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Many years ago, I sold a home. My real estate agent made a value proposition for me. If I hired her to sell my home, I could walk out of the house and never come back. She would manage everything related to maintaining the home and keeping it “showroom ready.” That included lawn care, cleaning and much more. If anything broke, she would take care of. If a painter needed to touch up a wall, she would hire “her painter.” Other than showing up at the closing to sign papers, my only responsibility would be to reimburse her for any expenses she incurred.

She explained that she had a network of preferred vendors who gave her preferential pricing, and she would pass only the actual costs onto me. In addition to her stellar reputation, what she promised to do—make selling my house easy and hassle-free—was the reason I hired her.

At the time, I wondered, “Why don’t other real estate agents do this?” Another question was, “Why don’t more businesses, regardless of the industry they are in, do this?”

It turns out there are people, companies and brands that do. However, many struggle to put together a program like this and find out it’s harder than they thought. Furthermore, what if a company could profit from these recommendations and referrals? What if the referrer received a commission or finder’s fee for recommending the right vendor?

Meet Mikhail Naumov, the founder and CEO of Paylode, a company that helps his clients do exactly what my real estate agent did for me. Naumov says, “If you’re a car company, you’re selling cars. If you’re a pet adoption agency, you’re helping people adopt a new puppy. For the most part, that’s where your job begins and ends. However, the moment the customer buys a car or adopts a puppy, they suddenly have a dozen other problems or pain points they now must solve due to the purchase.”

Naumov’s version of my real estate agent story is that he moved from California to Miami, rented an apartment, and the moment he signed the lease, he thought, “I now need to find renter’s insurance, moving trucks, a storage unit, furniture, appliances, food and more.” His entrepreneurial mind kicked in and he realized there was an opportunity to help apartment rental companies (and now companies across many other industries, including travel, hospitality, and insurance) create a system to take care of their customers’ secondary and tertiary needs. His company, Paylode, was born.

Paylode helps its clients find companies and vendors that their customers need. Sometimes the clients get a referral fee. They typically negotiate discounts that get their customers better rates, and even with the referral fees, the customer still saves money.

While this offers Paylode’s clients an alternative revenue stream by monetizing the products and services they recommend, Naumov quickly realized that it was not the most important reason. The No. 1 reason is making the client’s life easier by helping them with what they need, related to but outside of what their actual business does. This ultimately creates a better customer experience, which in turn drives core business metrics (i.e., retention, engagement, LTV, repeat purchase, and more).

In a sense, the Paylode program is like offering a perk to the customer. Naumov says, “We live in an incentive economy.” Customers love to be rewarded with a perk for doing business with a company. That perk could be, as mentioned, a negotiated discount with a secondary business. But what if you took that further and offered other perks? For example, an apartment rental company could offer six months of free internet with popular streaming channels like MAX and AppleTV. A perk like that becomes an incentive behind a customer’s buying decision, which is why Naumov has named this feature of his platform “Paylode Boost,” focusing on a perk that incentivizes a customer to take a desired action, or choose one company over another.

Companies and brands spend most of their time focused on their own business. Naumov says they have tunnel vision and makes the case for companies from all industries—both B2C and B2B—to step outside of that tunnel and think about their customers’ needs beyond the core product or service they offer. It starts by asking the question, “What new problems show up in my customers’ lives as a consequence of buying from me?”

Sit down with your team and work out the answer, and consider Naumov’s suggestion to “Help customers solve those secondary and tertiary problems in a way that creates loyalty, engagement and gratitude from your customers for life.”

Image Credits: Unsplash

This article originally appeared 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.

Performance Management and Accountability

Performance Management and Accountability

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Accountability begins with a voluntary commitment to put yourself in service to bringing about an outcome. To frame this effort for you and your team, I have found Salesforce’s V2MOM management system to be an invaluable tool. In that context:

  1. Vision describes the outcome you are all in service to.
  2. Values shape the approach you will all take to bringing it about.
  3. Methods present what each one of you will do to achieve the outcome and are assigned to single accountable leaders.
  4. Obstacles call out the challenges the leaders anticipate having to deal with, and
  5. Measures are the objective signals that everyone will use to assess your degree of success.

Performance management begins with securing each individual’s voluntary commitment to the outcomes associated with their jobs to be done as well as to the values to be honored while doing it. It then moves on to review their methods, obstacles, and measures to test them for coherence, feasibility, and credibility, and to ensure each person is confident they are set up to succeed and that they want to be held accountable for that success. The day-to-day work of performance management consists of inspecting, detecting, dissecting, course-correcting, and resurrecting the stream of work to keep it on track. Most of this effort consists of self-management, supported by regular check-ins with the team leader and quarterly reviews with the higher-ups. The majority of the work is focused on the near term, but this must be balanced with investments in the mid and long-term for sustained success.

That all said, that is not what most people think of when you bring up the topic of performance management. Instead, they associate it with a mandate to manage out under-performers. The word under-performer has unfortunate connotations, and this has cast a cloud over the entire effort.

To set things straight, begin by realizing that everyone is an under-performer at something. If you are unsure about what you personally under-perform at, just ask your spouse or your children, and they will let you know. The point is, there is no shame in under-performing per se. We just don’t want to persist in it.

When it comes to the workplace, under-performance shows up as a series of repeated shortfalls in our measures despite our best efforts to overcome our obstacles by course-correcting our methods. To ignore these signals without taking remedial action is to fall prey to Einstein’s definition of insanity, namely, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Instead, one needs to intervene by invoking the “horse, rider, trail” principle. The horse is the offering, the rider is the person accountable for its success, and the trail is the target market. Changing any one of these factors will materially alter the dynamics of the situation such that you can expect a different result. Just understand that you probably won’t get to do this more than once, so choose wisely.

Finally, understand that while everyone is an under-performer at something, they are also likely to be an overachiever at something else. As a manager, you should act as a steward of your team members’ careers. If they are not the right fit for the job they are in, then both they and you need them to move on. Under-performing in this context is just nature’s way of telling us we are playing the wrong position, perhaps even playing the wrong game. Nobody likes to under-perform, and nobody is served by it. Meanwhile, our world is a needy place, so the sooner we can get people into their right roles, the better we all shall be.

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

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.

Collaboration Being Killed by Collaboration Software

Collaboration Being Killed by Collaboration Software

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In our race to enable and support hybrid teams, our reliance on collaboration software has inadvertently caused us to forget the art of true collaboration. 

The pandemic forced us to rely on digital platforms for communication and creativity. But as we embraced these tools, something essential was lost in translation. Last week, I watched team members sitting elbow-to-elbow spend two hours synthesizing discovery interviews and debating opportunity areas entirely by chat.

What collaboration is

“Collaboration” seems to have joined the ranks of meaningless corporate buzzwords.  In an analysis of 1001 values from 172 businesses, “collaboration” was the #2 most common value (integrity was #1), appearing in 23% of the companies’ value statements. 

What it means in those companies’ statements is anyone’s guess (we’ve all been in situations where stated values and lived values are two different things).  But according to the dictionary, collaboration is “the situation of two or more people working together to create or achieve the same thing.”

That’s a short definition with a lot of depth. 

  • “The same thing” means that the people working together are working towards a shared goal in which they have a stake in the outcome (not just the completion). 
  • “Working together” points towards interdependence, that everyone brings something unique to the work and that shared goal cannot be achieved without each person’s unique contribution. 
  • “Two or more people” needing each other to achieve a shared outcome requires a shared sense of respect, deep trust, and vulnerability.

It’s easy to forget what “collaboration” means.  But we seem to have forgotten how to do it.

What collaboration is not

As people grow more comfortable “collaborating” online, it seems that fewer people are actually collaborating.   

Instead, they’re:

  • Transacting: There is nothing wrong with email, texts, or messaging someone on your platform of choice.  But for the love of goodness, don’t tell me our exchange was a collaboration. If it were, every trip to the ATM would be a team-building exercise.
  • Offering choices:  When you go out to eat at a fast-food restaurant, do you collaborate with the employee to design your meal?  No.  You order off a menu.  Offering a choice between two or three options (without the opportunity to edit or customize the options), isn’t collaboration.  It’s taking an order.
  • Complying: Compliance is “the act of obeying a law or rule, especially one that controls a particular industry or type of work.”  Following rules isn’t collaboration, it’s following a recipe
  • Cooperating Cooperation is when two or more people work together independently or interdependently to achieve someone else’s goal.  Collaboration requires shared objectives and ownership, not just shared tasks and timelines.

There’s nothing wrong with any of these activities.  Just don’t confuse them with collaboration because it sends the wrong message to your people. 

Why this matters

This isn’t an ivory-tower debate about semantics.

When people believe that simple Q&A, giving limited and unalterable options, following rules, and delivering requests are collaboration, they stop thinking.  Curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving give way to efficiency and box-checking.  Organizations stop exploring, developing, and innovating and start doing the same thing better, faster, and cheaper.

So, if you truly want your organization to grow because it’s filled with creative and empathetic problem-solvers, invest in reclaiming the true spirit of collaboration.  After all, the next big idea isn’t hiding in a chat log—it’s waiting to be born in the spark of genuine collaboration.

Image credit: 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.

A Shared Language for Radical Change

A Shared Language for Radical Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

One of the toughest things about change is simply to have your idea understood. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. People need a reason to believe in change, but they never need much convincing to allow things to go along as they always have. Inaction is the easiest thing in the world.

This can be incredibly frustrating. It doesn’t matter if you’re a political revolutionary, a social visionary or an entrepreneur, if you have an idea you think can impact the world, you want people to be as excited about it as you are. So you try to describe it in vivid language that highlights how wonderfully different it really is.

The pitfall that many would-be revolutionaries fall into is they fail to communicate in terms that others are able to accept and internalize. Make no mistake. Nobody needs to understand your idea. If you think your idea is important and want it to spread, then you need to meet people where they are, not where you’d like them to be. That’s how you make change real.

The Importance Of Finding Your Tribe

There’s no question that Pixar is one of the most successful creative enterprises ever. Yet in his memoir, Creativity, Inc., Pixar founder Ed Catmull wrote that “early on, all of our movies suck.” Catmull calls initial ideas “ugly babies,” because they start out, “awkward and unformed, vulnerable and incomplete.” Few can see what those ugly babies can grow into.

That’s why it’s important to start with a majority. You can always expand a majority out, but once you are in the minority you will either immediately feel pushback or, even worse, you will simply be ignored. If you can find a tribe of people who are as passionate about your idea as you are, you can empower them to succeed and bring in others to join you as well.

There is, however, a danger to this approach. Consider a study that examined networks of the cast and crew of Broadway plays. The researchers found that if no one had ever worked together before, results tended to be poor. However, if the networks among the cast and crew became too dense— becoming a close-knit tribe—performance also suffered.

The problem is that tribes tend to be echo chambers that filter outside voices. Consensus becomes doctrine and, eventually, gospel. Dissension is not only discouraged, but often punished. Eventually, a private language emerges that encodes the gospel into linguistic convention and customs. The outside world loses internal tribal relevance.

The Pitfalls Of A Private Language

Every field of endeavor must navigate the two competing needs: specialization and relevance. For example, a doctor treating a complex disease must master the private, technical language of her field to confer with colleagues, but must also translate those same concepts to a public, common language to communicate with patients in ways they can understand.

Yet as the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein explained, these types of private languages can be problematic. He made the analogy of a beetle in a box. If everybody had something in a box that they called a beetle, but no one could examine each other’s box, there would be no way of knowing whether everybody was actually talking about the same thing or not.

What Wittgenstein pointed out was that in this situation, the term “beetle” would lose relevance and meaning. It would simply refer to something that everybody had in their box, whatever that was. Everybody could just nod their heads not knowing whether they were talking about an insect, a German automobile or a British rock band. The same also happens with professional jargon and lingo.

I see this problem all the time in my work helping organizations to bring change about. People leading, say, a digital transformation are, not surprisingly, enthusiastic about digital technology and speak to other enthusiasts in the private, technical language native to their tribe. Unfortunately, to everyone else, this language holds little meaning or relevance. For all practical purposes, it might as well be a “beetle in a box.”

Creating A Shared Identity Through Shared Values And Shared Purpose

The easiest way to attack change is to position it as fundamentally at odds with the prevailing culture. In an organizational environment, those who oppose change often speak of undermining business models or corporate “DNA.” In much the same way, social and political movements are often portrayed as “foreign” or “radical.”

That’s why successful change efforts create shared identity through shared values and shared purpose. In the struggle for women’s voting rights in America, groups of Silent Sentinels would picket the White House with slogans taken from President Woodrow Wilson’s own books. To win over nationalistic populations in rural areas, the Serbian revolutionary movement Otpor made the patriotic plea, “Resistance, Because I Love Serbia.”

We find the same strategy effective in our work with organizational transformations. Not everybody loves technology, for example, but everybody can see the value of serving customers better, in operating more efficiently and in creating a better workplace. If you can communicate the need for change in terms of shared values and purpose, it’ll be easier for others to accept.

Even more importantly, people need to see that change can work. That’s why we always recommend starting with a keystone change, which represents a clear and tangible objective, involves multiple stakeholders and paves the way for future change. For example, with digital transformations, we advise our clients to automate the most mundane tasks first, even if those aren’t necessarily the highest priority tasks for the project.

Would You Rather Make A Point Or Make A Difference?

One of the most difficult things about leading change is that you need to let people embrace it for their own reasons, which might not necessarily be your own. When you’re passionate about an idea, you want others to see it the same way you do, with all its beautiful complexity and nuance. You want people to share your devotion and fervor.

Many change efforts end up sabotaging themselves for exactly this reason. People who love technology want others to love it too. Those who feel strongly about racial and gender-based diversity want everyone to see injustice and inequality just as they do. Innovators in any area can often be single-minded in their pursuit of change.

The truth is that we all have a need to be recognized and when others don’t share a view that we feel strongly about, it offends our sense of dignity. The danger, of course, is that in our rapture we descend into solipsism and fail to recognize the dignity of others. We proudly speak in a private language amongst our tribe and expect others to try and find a way in.

Yet the world simply doesn’t work that way. If you care about change, you need to hold yourself accountable to be an effective messenger. You have to make the effort to express yourself in terms that your targets of influence are willing to accept. That doesn’t in any way mean you have to compromise. It simply means that you need to advocate effectively.

In the final analysis, you need to decide whether you’d rather make a point, or make a difference.

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






Leadership Best Quacktices from Oregon’s Dan Lanning

Leadership Best Quacktices from Oregon's Dan Lanning

by Braden Kelley

For the first time since 2012 (a couple years before Marcus Mariota won the Heisman Trophy) the University of Oregon football team is ranked number one in the NCAA football rankings and in the pole position in the race to the national championship playoff picture.

Make no mistake, this year’s Oregon Ducks’ football team is full of talent, but in sports like in business, the difference between a winner and a loser is often the character of its leadership and culture.

In the ever-changing landscape of college athletics, the role of a coach extends far beyond strategizing plays and winning games. It involves shaping young athletes into well-rounded individuals equipped not only for their sports careers but for life. Dan Lanning, head coach of the Oregon Ducks football team, exemplifies this human-centered leadership. His approach demonstrates qualities that every leader (whether in sports, business, or any other field) can learn from and apply. Here, as a passionate advocate of human-centered change and innovation, I’ll explore the key facets of Coach Lanning’s leadership that make him effective and inspiring while building a winning culture.

1. Empathy and Understanding

Coach Dan Lanning excels in creating an environment that prioritizes empathy and understanding. He recognizes that every player is unique and has different motivations, challenges, and aspirations. This individual focus allows him to connect with players on a personal level, fostering an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. Through active listening and consistent communication, Lanning ensures that his athletes feel heard and valued, both on and off the field.

2. Commitment to Development

A true leader invests in the growth and development of their team members. Coach Lanning adopts a holistic approach to player development, emphasizing education, character building, and life skills alongside athletic prowess. By encouraging his players to excel academically and engage with their communities, Lanning instills a sense of responsibility and maturity. This well-rounded development is crucial in preparing athletes for the varied challenges of life.

3. Cultivating a Winning Mindset

While empathy and development are central to Lanning’s approach, he also understands the importance of instilling a competitive spirit. Lanning is adept at fostering a winning mindset among his players without compromising sportsmanship and integrity. He emphasizes setting ambitious goals, maintaining discipline, and embracing the process. This mentality not only contributes to the team’s success on the field but also prepares athletes to tackle future obstacles with resilience and determination. You’ll notice that even in victory, the team’s focus is brought back to the process, brought back to reinforcing a commitment to growth.

4. Innovation and Adaptability

In a rapidly evolving sports landscape, innovation and adaptability are key. Coach Lanning leads by example in embracing change and encouraging creative problem-solving. Whether it’s integrating new training technologies or developing novel game strategies, Lanning shows a willingness to experiment and adapt. This not only keeps his team competitive but also inspires his players to think outside the box and continually evolve. In the video we pick up a team meeting conversation going into the game where they are talking about looking for an opportunity to use a creative formation and play call to steal a first down, and then they perfectly executed it in the game to steal a first down.

5. Building a Strong Team Culture

Coach Lanning understands that success in sports is fundamentally a team effort. He places great emphasis on building a cohesive and inclusive team culture where every member feels they belong. By fostering collaboration and unity, Lanning creates a support system where players are encouraged to look out for each other and celebrate each other’s successes. This strong sense of community enhances team morale and motivates players to perform at their best.

6. Leading by Example

Finally, great leaders lead by example, and Dan Lanning is no exception. His work ethic, commitment, and positive attitude serve as a powerful model for his players. Lanning’s transparency and humility encourage an open dialogue where athletes feel comfortable contributing their own ideas and perspectives. This participative leadership style not only empowers players but also reinforces the collective pursuit of excellence.

Conclusion

Dan Lanning’s greatness as a leader is not measured solely by his achievements with the Oregon Ducks but by the profound impact he has on his players’ lives. His human-centered approach demonstrates that effective leadership is about nurturing potential, fostering growth, and enabling individuals to exceed their expectations. As we consider leadership in any field, Lanning’s example reminds us of the transformative power of empathy, innovation, and community.

And finally, Go Ducks!

p.s. Be sure and follow both my personal account and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation community on LinkedIn.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons

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






Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of October 2024

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of October 2024Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are October’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. The Runaway Innovation Train — by Pete Foley
  2. How Leaders Make Employees Feel Respected — by David Burkus
  3. Innovation is Combination — by Greg Satell
  4. Why Modifying This One Question Changes Everything — by Robyn Bolton
  5. Acting on Strategy and Tactics — by Mike Shipulski
  6. Push versus Pull in the Productivity Zone — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  7. Next Generation Leadership Traits and Characteristics — by Stefan Lindegaard
  8. Humanizing Agility — by Janet Sernack
  9. Creating More Digital Value for Customers — by Howard Tiersky
  10. False Choice – Founder versus Manager — by Robyn Bolton

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in September that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

SPECIAL BONUS – THREE DAYS ONLY: From now until 11:59PM ET on November 11, 2024 you can get the hardcover version of the SECOND EDITION of my latest bestselling book Charting Change for 40% OFF using code HARDC50. This deal won’t last long, so grab your copy while supplies last!

Accelerate your change and transformation success

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last four years:

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






Don’t Wait for the Wheels to Fall Off

Don't Wait for the Wheels to Fall Off

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When your most important product development project is a year behind schedule (and the schedule has been revved three times), who would you call to get the project back on track?

When the project’s unrealistic cost constraints wall of the design space where the solution resides, who would you call to open up the higher-cost design space?

When the project team has tried and failed to figure out the root cause of the problem, who would you call to get to the bottom of it?

And when you bring in the regular experts and they, too, try and fail to fix the problem, who would you call to get to the bottom of getting to the bottom of it?

When marketing won’t relax the specification and engineering doesn’t know how to meet it, who would you call to end the sword fight?

When engineering requires geometry that can only be made by a process that manufacturing doesn’t like and neither side will give ground, who would you call to converge on a solution?

When all your best practices haven’t worked, who would you call to invent a novel practice to right the ship?

When the wheels fall off, you need to know who to call.

If you have someone to call, don’t wait until the wheels fall off to call them. And if you have no one to call, call me.

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.






Change Requires Work and Choice

Change Requires Work and Choice

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

At the end of the CEO’s speech to his employees, he said, “And one other thing, we want to deliver better customer service.” Then he walked off stage.

Delivering better customer service is a good idea, but just saying you want to do so will not make it happen. Most likely, it will remain just a good idea, because, without the right implementation, the idea will never come to anything. Nothing will change.

A big part of my business is serving as a keynote speaker on customer service and CX for all kinds of companies and organizations. I always ask, “Why is this topic important to you and this audience?” Most of the time, clients have a good answer, but occasionally, I hear something like, “We have terrible customer service, and we need someone like you to come in and share what we can do to be better.”

Trying not to sound flippant, I ask, “So you think that having me or someone like me do a one-hour speech is going to fix that?”

This leads to a bigger discussion about the company’s desire to change and the resources – time, talent, and dollars – it requires to make that happen. I then continue with a few more questions:

  1. What makes you think you need help with your customer service or CX?
  2. What would happen if you continued to do what you do and didn’t make a change?
  3. What does success look like, and how quickly do you want to see results?

The answers to these questions are the fuel needed to make the choice to change an easy one.

Then, there is another series of questions to determine the investment they are willing to make to carry out this choice to change. It’s going to take time. It’s going to take training, which is about talent. And then there are the dollars. And one final choice must be made, and it may be the most important of all. Will the leadership get behind the choice to change?

To summarize, the choice to change, especially in customer service and/or CX, is more than a verbal commitment. It requires substantial and sustained effort backed by resources and leadership support. Simply expressing the desire for improvement is not enough. Real change demands actionable plans and the alignment of time, talent, and investment. Companies must determine their current service levels, define success, and commit to the necessary steps and time to achieve it.

One more question: Are you ready to invest in a future where exceptional service is not just an aspiration but a reality? Act now! Your customers and your business can’t afford to wait.

Image Credits: Pexels, Shep Hyken

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 Most Successful Innovation Approach is …

The Most Successful Innovation Approach

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

There are three primary approaches to innovation. In our work with large brands focused on digital transformation, we have observed that the most effective of the three is also the least common. Which approach do you use?

Approach #1: The Artist

“I create for myself. I hope my customers like it.”

Georgia O’Keeffe said of art, “Whether you succeed or not is irrelevant; there is no such thing. Making your unknown known is the important thing.” And this philosophy of creating from one’s own mind and heart, of bringing to the world your unique and individual expression, is a powerful driving force for many innovators. Steve Jobs was the penultimate artist innovator. When asked what type of market research he had conducted in creating the Macintosh he replied, “Did Alexander Graham Bell do any market research before he invented the phone?” He also said, “Some people say, ‘Give customers what they want.’ But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, ‘If I’d have asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted a faster horse!’ People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page. Great art resonates with people–it inspires and moves them to action. This is true of Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings as well as Steve Jobs’ creations. They create from their instinct and their passion, and their work has been wildly successful commercially. However, there is a key challenge with the artist approach to innovation: Are you Steve Jobs? How many Georgia O’Keeffe’s do you have on your team? Because for every Jobs or O’Keeffe, there are thousands of others who have followed their gut to create an endless myriad of technology projects that have not resonated. For each Georgia O’Keeffe, there are vast numbers of aspiring painters following their hearts but who never achieve commercial success. Now if what O’Keeffe says is really true for you–if success does not matter if the mere expression of your idea in the real world is sufficient to satisfy you– then this may be an effective path. But if you are seeking commercial success, the reality is that only a small percentage of the personal expressions of people’s hearts will reach out to and resonate with a mass audience. So unless you are an innovator with a proven track record of doing that, or willing to take that chance, this is a highly unpredictable approach to innovation. We often see companies designing products, be they physical or digital, by getting a small team in a room with a whiteboard. Or there is an executive who has a vision he has imagined for a product that he wants his team to bring to life. This is, in fact, probably the most common method of corporate innovation, and it very often fails.

Approach #2 The Researcher

“Give people what they want. What you want is unimportant.” – Pete Waterman, record producer
Commercial success in innovation comes from creating something new that resonates with the customer– that solves a problem for the customer or empowers them in a new and exciting way, like the Post-it or Uber. So the research approach to innovation involves simply asking the customer what they want and giving it to them. The classic focus group is an example of this; however, there are several problems with this approach to innovation. First, Steve Jobs was right: Customers often don’t know what they want. They may tell you what they think they want, but in fact, their real-world behavior after a product is launched is often inconsistent with what they have told you in a focus group. There is probably no better example of this than the disastrous launch of New Coke in 1985. Prior to the launch, Coca-Cola spent $4 Million (in 1985 dollars!) on conducting over 190,000 taste tests of different formulations to find the one that customers would like best. Based on that research they changed the taste of Coke and then spent considerably more on a massive launch of New Coke, only to be followed by massive public backlash and the eventual need to restore “Classic” Coke. How could research lead us so disastrously astray? We see all the time in our own work that when customers are asked for the features, they would like to see in an app or for ideas for new products, the results are often weak. Also, when customers passionately identify innovations they would like to see, it’s common to discover that those same customers don’t actually use the innovations they requested. In fact, customers like to be artists too, and they like to share their personal vision of what a product could be. That doesn’t mean, though, that they are Steve Jobs any more than you are, and they often have poor insight into their own future behaviors. This “researcher” approach in some form is the second most common approach we see taken to innovation projects. It can be successful to some degree for incremental changes. For example, if many users of your product are clamoring for a different sorting option in a reporting application, then sure, listening to their feedback and integrating those priorities is probably a path to incremental improvement. But that is quite different from wholesale innovation. In that area, asking users what they want rarely proves to be a useful activity.

Approach #3: The Research-Ideation Cycle

The most successful approach that we see used is what we call the research-ideation cycle, an approach that blends science and art. Customer research is core to this approach. However, the goal of the customer research is not to ask customers what they want, but rather to understand their current experiences, goals, and points of pain or inefficiencies. Uber effectively understood that the moment when a customer arrives at their destination and has to wait to get out of the car to deal with paying the driver was a small point of pain, that once removed, creates a far better experience. In the research-ideation cycle, we first create a detailed picture of the different customer segments and use techniques like ethnography to truly understand how they are accomplishing the tasks we are targeting with our innovation, whether it’s vacation planning, home decorating or rebuilding a diesel engine. Once that research is complete we can access our inner artists, but not for the purpose of self-expression, but with the goal of problem solving. In fact, creativity is usually at its greatest when a problem is brought into clear focus via detailed customer research and anecdotes. Ideation cycles involve inventing a number of solutions to the customer problems identified through the initial research. Once those ideas are generated, they can be tested with customers. But unlike the New Coke research, the goal of the testing is not to ask users what they think. It’s nice to ask because it’s polite, but it’s not the primary data source. Rather, we observe users using prototypes of our ideated solutions and use that data to gauge the effectiveness of our solutions in solving the previously identified problems. Very often we have partial success in initial rounds and use the insights from the research to further ideate ways to improve the solution. Then the cycle goes back to research, and so on between ideation and research until we have a solution that appears market-worthy. Even then typically there is a small market test or beta test, with research to understand the actual usage patterns, and the iteration process continues.

“You’re not supposed to give people what they want, you’re supposed to give them what they don’t know that they want yet.” -Diana Vreeland, Editor-in-chief of Vogue
When we understand the problems and challenges users face, creative teams can invent novel solutions that the users may never have dreamed of or suggested directly.

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog

Image Credits: Dall-E

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