Are We Suffering from AI Confirmation Bias?

Are We Suffering From AI Confirmation Bias?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

When social media first appeared on the scene, many of us had high hopes it could play a positive role in community development and civic affairs, as indeed it has. What we did not anticipate was the long-term impact of the digital advertising model that supported it. That model is based on click-throughs, and one of the most effective ways to increase them was to present content that reinforces the recipient’s existing views.

Statisticians call the attraction to one’s existing point of view confirmation bias, and we all have it. As individuals, we believe we are in control of this, but it is obvious that at the level of populations, we are not. Confirmation bias, fed first by social media, and then by traditional media once it is converted to digital, has driven political and social polarization throughout the world. It has been further inflamed by conspiracy theories, malicious communications, fake news, and the like. And now we are faced with the advent of yet another amplifier—artificial intelligence. A significant portion of the fears about how AI could impact human welfare stem from how easily it can be put to malicious use through disinformation campaigns.

The impact of all this on our political life is chilling. Polarized media amplifies the impact of extremism and dampens the impact of moderation. This has most obviously been seen in primary elections, but it has now carried over into general elections to the point where highly unqualified individuals who have no interest in public service hold some of the most important roles in state and federal government. The resulting dysfunction is deeply disturbing, but it is not clear if and where a balance can be found.

Part of the problem is that confirmation bias is an essential part of healthy socialization. It reflects the impact that narratives have on our personal and community identities. What we might see as arrant folly another person sees as a necessary leap of faith. Our founding fathers were committed to protecting our nation from any authority imposing its narratives on unwilling recipients, hence our Constitutional commitment to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

In effect, this makes it virtually impossible to legislate our way out of this dilemma. Instead, we must embrace it as a Darwinian challenge, one that calls for us as individuals to adapt our strategies for living to a dangerous new circumstance. Here I think we can take a lesson from our recent pandemic experience. Faced with the threat of a highly contagious, ever-mutating Covid virus, most of the developed economies embraced rapid vaccination as their core response. China, however, did not. It embraced regulation instead. What they and we learned is that you cannot solve problems of contagion through regulation.

We can apply this learning to dealing with the universe of viral memes that have infected our digital infrastructure and driven social discord. Instead of regulation, we need to think of vaccination. The vaccine that protects people from fake news and its many variants is called critical thinking, and the healthcare provider that dispenses it is called public education.

We have spent the past several decades focusing on the STEM wing of our educational system, but at the risk of exercising my own confirmation bias, the immunity protection we need now comes from the liberal arts. Specifically, it emerges from supervised classroom discussions in which students are presented with a wide variety of challenging texts and experiences accompanied by a facilitated dialog that instructs them in the practices of listening, questioning, proposing, debating, and ultimately affirming or denying the validity of the argument under consideration. These discussions are not about promoting or endorsing any particular point of view. Rather, they teach one how to engage with any point of view in a respectful, powerful way. This is the intellectual discipline that underlies responsible citizenship. We have it in our labs. We just need to get it distributed more broadly.

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

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.

The AI Agent Paradox

How E-commerce Must Proactively Manage Experiences Created Without Their Consent

LAST UPDATED: November 7, 2025 at 4:31 PM

The AI Agent Paradox

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

A fundamental shift is underway in the world of e-commerce, moving control of the customer journey out of the hands of the brand and into the hands of the AI Agent. The recent lawsuit by Amazon against Perplexity regarding unauthorized access to user accounts by its agentic browser is not an isolated legal skirmish; it is a red flag moment for every company that sells online. The core challenge is this: AI agents are building and controlling the shopping experience — the selection, the price comparison, the checkout path — often without the e-commerce site’s knowledge or consent.

This is the AI Agent Paradox: The most powerful tool for customer convenience (the agent) simultaneously poses the greatest threat to brand control, data integrity, and monetization models. The era of passively optimizing a webpage is over. The future belongs to brands that actively manage their relationship with the autonomous, agentic layer that sits between them and their human customers.

The Three Existential Threats of the Autonomous Agent

Unmanaged AI agents, operating as digital squatters on your site, create immediate systemic problems for e-commerce sites:

  1. Data Integrity and Scraping Overload: Agents typically use resource-intensive web scraping techniques that overload servers and pollute internal analytics. The shopping experience they create is invisible to the brand’s A/B testing and personalization engines.
  2. Brand Bypass and Commoditization: Agents prioritize utility over loyalty. If a customer asks for “best price on noise-cancelling headphones,” the agent may bypass your brand story, unique value propositions, and even your preferred checkout flow, reducing your products to mere SKU and price points. This is the Brand Bypass threat.
  3. Security and Liability: Unauthorized access, especially to user accounts (as demonstrated by the Amazon-Perplexity case), creates massive security vulnerabilities and legal liability for the e-commerce platform, which is ultimately responsible for protecting user data.

The How-To: Moving from Resistance to Proactive Partnership

Instead of relying solely on defensive legal action (which is slow and expensive), e-commerce brands must embrace a proactive, human-centered API strategy. The goal is to provide a superior, authorized experience for the AI agents, turning them from adversaries into accelerated sales channels — and honoring the trust the human customer places in their proxy.

Step 1: Build the Agent-Optimized API Layer

Treat the AI agent as a legitimate, high-volume customer with unique needs (structured data, speed). Design a specific, clean Agent API separate from your public-facing web UI. This API should allow agents to retrieve product information, pricing, inventory status, and execute checkout with minimal friction and maximum data hygiene. This immediately prevents the resource-intensive web scraping that plagues servers.

Step 2: Define and Enforce the Rules of Engagement

Your Terms of Service (TOS) must clearly articulate the acceptable use of your data by autonomous agents. Furthermore, the Agent API must enforce these rules programmatically. You can reward compliant agents (faster access, richer data) and throttle or block non-compliant agents (those attempting unauthorized access or violating rate limits). This is where you insert your brand’s non-negotiables, such as attribution requirements or user privacy protocols, thereby regaining control.

Step 3: Offer Value-Added Agent Services and Data

This is the shift from defense to offense. Give agents a reason to partner with you and prefer your site. Offer exclusive agent-only endpoints that provide aggregated, structured data your competitors don’t, such as sustainable sourcing information, local inventory availability, or complex configurator data. This creates a competitive advantage where the agent actually prefers to send traffic to your optimized channel because it provides a superior outcome for the human user.

Case Study 1: The Furniture Retailer and the AI Interior Designer

Challenge: Complex, Multivariable E-commerce Decisions

A high-end furniture and décor retailer struggled with low conversion rates because buying furniture requires complex decisions (size, material, delivery time). Customers were leaving the site to use third-party AI interior design tools.

Proactive Partnership:

The retailer created a “Design Agent API.” This API didn’t just provide price and SKU; it offered rich, structured data on 3D model compatibility, real-time customization options, and material sustainability scores. They partnered with a leading AI interior design platform, providing the agent direct, authorized access to this structured data. The AI agent, in turn, could generate highly accurate virtual room mock-ups using the retailer’s products. This integration streamlined the complex path to purchase, turning the agent from a competitor into the retailer’s most effective pre-visualization sales tool.

Case Study 2: The Specialty Grocer and the AI Recipe Planner

Challenge: Fragmented Customer Journey from Inspiration to Purchase

An online specialty grocer, focused on rare and organic ingredients, saw their customers using third-party AI recipe planners and shopping list creators, which often failed to locate the grocer’s unique SKUs or sent traffic to competitors.

Proactive Partnership:

The grocer developed a “Recipe Fulfillment Endpoint.” They partnered with two popular AI recipe apps. When a user generated a recipe, the AI agent, using the grocer’s endpoint, could instantly check ingredient availability, price, and even offer substitute suggestions from the grocer’s unique inventory. The agent generated a “One-Click, Fully-Customized Cart” for the grocer. The grocer ensured the agent received a small attribution fee (a form of commission), turning the agent into a reliable, high-converting affiliate sales channel. This formalized partnership eliminated the friction between inspiration and purchase, driving massive, high-margin sales.

The Human-Centered Imperative

Ultimately, this is a human-centered change challenge. The human customer trusts their AI agent to act on their behalf. By providing a clean, transparent, and optimized path for the agent, the e-commerce brand is honoring that trust. The focus shifts from control over the interface to control over the data and the rules of interaction. This strategy not only improves server performance and data integrity but also secures the brand’s place in the customer’s preferred, agent-mediated future.

“The AI agent is your customer’s proxy. If you treat the proxy poorly, you treat the customer poorly. The future of e-commerce is not about fighting the agents; it’s about collaborating with them to deliver superior value.” — Braden Kelley

The time to move beyond the reactive defense and into proactive partnership is now. The e-commerce leaders of tomorrow will be the ones who design the best infrastructure for the machines that shop for humans. Your essential first step: Form a dedicated internal team to prototype your Agent API, defining the minimum viable, structured data you can share to incentivize collaboration over scraping.

Image credit: Google Gemini

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

The Unpredictability of Innovation is Predictable

The Unpredictability of Innovation is Predictable

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

A culture that demands predictable results cannot innovate. No one will have the courage to do work with the requisite level of uncertainty and all the projects will build on what worked last time. The only predictable result – the recipe will be wildly successful right up until the wheels fall off.

You can’t do work in a new area and deliver predictable results on a predictable timetable. And if your boss asks you to do so, you’re working for the wrong person.

When it comes to innovation, “ecosystem,” as a word, is unskillful. It doesn’t bound or constrain, nor does it show the way. How about a map of the system as it is? How about defined boundaries? How about the system’s history? How about the interactions among the system elements? How about a fitness landscape and the system’s disposition? How about the system’s reason for being? The next evolution of the system is unpredictable, even if you call it an ecosystem.

If you can’t tolerate unpredictability, you can’t tolerate innovation.

Innovation isn’t about reducing risk. Innovation is about maximizing learning rate. And when all things go as predicted, the learning rate is zero. That’s right. Learning decreases when everything goes as planned. Are you sure you want predictable results?

Predictable growth in stock price can only come from smartly trying the right portfolio of unpredictable projects. That’s a wild notion.

Innovation runs on the thoughts, feelings, emotions and judgement of people and, therefore, cannot be predictable. And if you try to make it predictable, the best people, the people that know the drill, will leave.

The real question that connects innovation and predictability: How to set the causes and conditions for people to try things because the results are unpredictable?

With innovation, if you’re asking for predictability, you’re doing it wrong.

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.

Why Amazon Paid $3.9 Billion to Get into the Healthcare Business

Why Amazon Paid $3.9 Billion to Get into the Healthcare Business

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Amazon is known for its amazing customer experience, despite most customers never talking to an Amazon employee. How does this digital experience — with no human interaction—drive so much loyalty? The short answer is confidence. There is very little that goes wrong with an Amazon experience, and if by chance it does, its system takes care of almost all problems—again, without human interaction. That said, if a customer does need to talk to a human, which is very seldom, the customer support team is there.

But what happens if you combine technology with a high-touch business, like a doctor’s office? You get One Medical, which Amazon bought in 2023 for $3.9 billion. One Medical’s founder, Dr. Tom Lee, is a Harvard-trained primary care physician who then went on to Stanford to get an MBA. Before opening his first clinic, he asked himself, “Why do we do these in healthcare like we’ve always done them? Why does every waiting room look like some sterile IKEA? Why do I wait in a reception area and then wait again in the exam room?” It was questions like these that caused Lee to tinker with and disrupt the traditional medical visit model.

Starting with one clinic, Lee created a different experience. He built an app and charged patients an $89/year subscription that gave them access to doctors. He focused on simple things like getting an appointment without making a call. Those little things were the start of what turned out to be a stellar experience that allowed him to expand, ultimately catching the eye of Amazon.

When the Amazon deal was completed, HealthCare Dive reported that Amazon now had a network of more than 220 medical offices in 27 U.S. markets with more than 836,000 members plus 9,000 enterprise clients. Neil Lindsay, SVP of Amazon Health Services said, “We’re on a mission to make it dramatically easier for people to find, choose, afford and engage with the services, products and professionals they need to get and stay healthy, and coming together with One Medical is a big step on that journey.” That’s what Amazon does. They make it easy for customers.

Joseph Michelli, bestselling business author of numerous books that tell the stories of iconic brands like The Ritz-Carlton, Starbucks, Mercedes and others, recently released a new book, All Business Is Personal: One Medical’s Human-Centered, Technology-Powered Approach to Customer Engagement, that tells the One Medical story. I had a chance to interview him on Amazing Business Radio, and here are the highlights that will give you some insight into why Amazon became interested in acquiring this amazing company.

Question Everything

Just ask, “Why?” It doesn’t matter what type of business you are in, there are reasons for everything. Often the reason a company or person does something is because “We’ve always done it this way.” So, question everything. Maybe you’ll still do it the way you’ve always done it, but at least you will have tried to find a better way.

Create a Stellar Customer (Patient) Experience

As Lee created a Customer Experience (CX) that drove impressive ratings, he looked at the friction most patients experienced. He started with an obvious pain point, the waiting room, which is, as the name implies, a room for people to wait. Some patients in traditional medical practices are forced to wait for unreasonable amounts of time. But not at One Medical. In addition to being easy to get a same-day or next-day appointment, Michelli shared that 95% of patients are seen within three minutes of their scheduled times. As already mentioned, Lee questioned every aspect of the patient’s experience, and he found many ways to make it better.

Blend Technology with the Human Touch

Technology, like apps and AI, makes life more convenient for customers by allowing things like easy online scheduling or getting immediate answers from AI chatbots. Often, technology can feel cold and impersonal, especially in healthcare. The best use of technology is to make things faster and simpler, but smart businesses, like One Medical, know to offer human backup when a customer/patient needs it. Finding the right balance between tech and the human touch keeps your business from being a commodity—just “another faceless service.”

Convenience Is King

People love doing business with companies that create convenient experiences. For One Medical, this means offering same-day appointments, speedy callbacks or handling many issues online versus the phone, so the patient doesn’t have to wait on hold or wait for a callback. Research shows that 73% of customers will pay more for a convenient experience. The easier you make someone’s experience, the more likely they will come back as well as tell others about you.

Make It Personal, Not Just Personalized

It’s great to remember a customer’s name or recall past purchases. That’s personalization. To take it a step further, make it personal. Make the customer feel that you care about them. That means when the customer (or patient) talks to an employee, they feel cared for, listened to and valued. Personal connections build trust and confidence, which leads to repeat business and potential loyalty.

The Effort Is Worth It

These five reasons (and a few more) are what gave Amazon 3.9 billion reasons (as in dollars) to acquire One Medical. Even if you were to practice these reasons flawlessly, you may never catch Amazon’s attention, but you will catch your customers’ (and potential customers’) attention. And that will make the effort worthwhile.

Image Credits: Pixabay

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.

How to Make Your Employees Thirsty

LAST UPDATED: November 5, 2025 at 5:11PM

How to Make Your Employees Thirsty

by Braden Kelley

Last month I had the opportunity to attend Customer Contact Week (CCW) in Nashville, Tennessee and following up on my article The Voicebots Are Coming I’d like to dig into what Shantel Love had to say about the importance of keeping employee engaged as artificial intelligence (AI) starts to take over, and a framework she shared that can help you do so.

Shantel spoke about how Gallup statistics show that for U.S. employees in early 2025, 31% are engaged, 17% are actively disengaged, and 52% are not engaged. This reflects a decade-low engagement level, with active disengagement also at 2014 levels. The global cost of disengagement is estimated at $8.8 trillion annually, or about 9% of global GDP. These statistics are shocking. Do you think they represent reality? If not, leave a comment below supporting your dissent.

Shantel also spoke about how employee disengagement can seep into your profits, customer experience and culture, and that while you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink, but you can make it thirsty. Right on queue comes in Shantel’s WATER framework, for which I have summarized some of the key insights for each of the key components below.

Work That Matters

  • Does anyone even care about this?
  • 70% of employees disengage because they can’t connect their work to purpose (World Economic Forum)
  • If your team disappeared tomorrow, what would the business lose?
  • Write down what the business would lose and tell your team to give them the why (their value and their purpose)

AI as an Accelerator not a threat

  • AI won’t replace you but it will replace the invisible employee
  • Employees are still left with the work that nobody notices
  • As an exercise, ask AI to take your last big project and rewrite it in language that makes your leadership visible
  • How can I make our customer sentiment visible to leadership? (inputting the sentiments with this AI prompt)

Transparency and Trust

  • Disengagement is a hidden problem – a profit leak
  • “Psychological safety is the strongest predictor of innovation across distributed teams.” (MIT Sloan)
  • People don’t leave a company, they leave a manager – 70% of disengagement starts at the manager level – Managers account for 70% of the variance in team engagement (Is the real point this second one?) — Gallup
  • What is one belief my team or customer needs restored right now? (transformation you will lead – what you will act on)

Embrace Personal Branding

  • Most organizations believe that if you encourage your employees to invest in their personal brand, then they are going to leave
  • Most people achieve less than 20% of their true potential (Forbes)
  • 73% of social media managers say employee post have double the engagement of regular business posts, and 26% say employees triple brand engagement (GaggleAMP)
  • The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement

Recognition That’s Real

  • “79% of employees quite because they feel underappreciated.” (OC Tanner research)
  • You made an impact this week because …

It goes without saying that if you lead your employees to WATER you will find them more engaged (meaning they are no longer disengaged) and as a result they will be of greater service to your customers, and by extension your shareholders. Employee engagement matters, and the pursuit of it by your managers will not only create better leaders, but it will also engage your managers. So, are you ready to give your employees a drink of WATER or are going to insist on keeping them thirsty?

Image credits: Customer Management Practice (CMP)

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

Eight Types of Innovation Executives

Revisited

Eight Types of Innovation Executives

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Over the past few decades working with corporate innovation, I’ve noticed recurring patterns especially when it comes to executive leadership.

True, we shouldn’t put leaders in boxes. But we also can’t afford to ignore the signs. That’s why I created this visual: an overview of eight (8) types of innovation executives.

It’s a simple ‘tool’ to help you recognize behaviors, traits, and (in)actions that influence your organization’s innovation capabilities.

By spotting these patterns, you can better understand where your executive team stands and how to move forward with initiatives that strengthen your ability to innovate.

I am curious: which of these types do you recognize in your organization? Or maybe even in yourself? Feel free to drop a comment.

1. No Problem

Best-case scenario: executives who understand innovation and get personally involved.

Hint: Leverage their support to upgrade other key leaders.

2. No Need

“We don’t need innovation.” If that’s the belief, you’ve got a deeper issue.

Hint: Understand the mindset. If change isn’t possible, consider walking away.

3. No Results

“We tried, it didn’t work.” Past failures lead to present resistance.

Hint: Deliver quick wins, back up with data, and rebuild credibility.

4. No Time

“Too busy.” Innovation gets pushed aside by daily demands.

Hint: Integrate with existing priorities—show how everyone wins without adding work.

5. No Money

There’s no budget for innovation, capabilities, or execution.

Hint: Shift the focus to people. Show impact. Demonstrate ROI.

6. No Walk

They say the right things, but take no real action.

Hint: Test for walk vs. talk. Use respectful confrontation to prompt real commitment.

7. No Responsibility

“Not my job. Go ask someone else.” Ownership is missing.

Hint: Innovation is everyone’s responsibility — starting at the top. Align ownership.

8. No Clue

“I’ve never been trained in this.” A lack of understanding, not resistance.

Hint: This is workable. Provide support, context, and practical tools.

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard

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

74% of Companies Will Die in 10 Years Without Business Transformation

According to Executives

74% of Companies Will Die in 10 Years Without Business Transformation

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

One day, an architect visited the building site of his latest project. There he saw three people all laying bricks. He asked each what they were doing. “I’m laying bricks,” the first responded. “I’m building a wall,” said the second.  “I’m building a cathedral,” exclaimed the third.

The parable of the Three Bricklayers is a favorite amongst motivational speakers, urging their audiences to think beyond today’s tasks and this quarter’s goals to commit to a grandiose vision of eternal success and glory.

But there’s a problem.

The narrative changed

The person who had a vision of building a cathedral? They now believe they’re building ruins.

Is the C-Suite Quietly Quitting?

Recently published research found that three out of four executives believe that “without fundamental transformation* their organization will cease to exist” in ten years. That’s based on data from interviews with twenty-four “current or former CEOs who have led successful transformations” and 1,360 survey responses from C-Suite and next-generation leaders.

And, somehow, the news gets worse.

While 77% of C-suite executives report that they’re committed to their companies’ transformation efforts, but 57% believe their organization is taking the wrong approach to that transformation. But that’s still better than the 68% of Next-Gen executives who disagree with the approach.

So, it should come as no surprise that 71% of executives rate their companies’ transformation efforts as not at all to moderately successful. After all, it’s hard to lead people along a path you don’t agree with to a vision you don’t believe in.

Did they just realize that “change is hard in human systems?”

We all fall into the trap of believing that understanding something results in commitment and change.

But that’s not how humans work.

That’s definitely not how large groups of humans, known as organizations, work.

Companies’ operations are driven only loosely by the purpose, structures, and processes neatly outlined in HR documents. Instead, they are controlled by the power and influence afforded to individuals by virtue of the collective’s culture, beliefs, histories, myths, and informal ways of working.

And when these “opaque dimensions” are challenged, they don’t result in resistance,

They result in inertia.

“Organizational inertia kills transformations”

Organizations are “complex organisms” that evolve to do things better, faster, cheaper over time. They will continue doing so unless changed by an external force (yes, that’s Newton’s first law of motion).

That external force, the drive for transformation, must be strong enough to overcome:

  1. Insight Inertia stops organizations from getting started because there is a lack of awareness or acceptance amongst leaders that change is needed.
  2. Psychological Inertia emerges when change demands abandoning familiar success strategies. People embrace the idea of transformation but resist personal adaptation, defaulting to comfortable old behaviors.
  3. Action Inertia sets in and gains power as the long and hard work of transformation drags on. Over time, people grow tired. Exhausted by continuous change, teams progressively disengage, becoming less responsive and decisive.

But is that possible when 74% of executives are simply biding their time and waiting for failure?

“There’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.”

Did you see the crack in all the doom and gloom above?

  • 43% of executives believe their organizations are taking the right approach to transformation.
  • 29% believe that their organizations’ transformations have been successful.
  • 26% believe their company will still be around in ten years.

The majority may not believe in transformation but only 33% of bricklayers believed they were building a cathedral, and the cathedral still got built.

Next week, we’ll explore how.

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.

Why Going AI Only is Dumb

I’m Sorry Dave, But I Can’t Do That

LAST UPDATED: November 3, 2025 at 4:50PM

Why Going AI Only is Dumb

by Braden Kelley

Last month I had the opportunity to attend Customer Contact Week (CCW) in Nashville, Tennessee and following up on my article The Voicebots Are Coming I’d like to dig into the idea that companies like Klarna explored of eliminating all humans from contact centers. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

When I first heard that Klarna was going to eliminate humans from their contact centers and go all in on artificial intelligence I thought to myself that they would likely live to regret it. Don’t get me wrong, artificial intelligence (AI) voicebots and chatbots can be incredibly useful, and that proves out in the real world according to conference speakers that almost half of Fanatics calls are automated on the phone without getting to an agent. A lot of people are experimenting with AI but AI is no longer experimental. What Klarna learned is that when you choose to use AI to reduce your number of human agents, then if the AI is down you don’t have the ability anymore to just call in off duty agents to serve your customers.

But, on the flip side we know that having AI customer service agents as part of your agent mix can have very positive impacts on the business. Small businesses like Brothers That Just Do Gutters have found that using AI agents increased their scheduling of estimate visits over humans alone. National Debt Relief automated their customer insufficient funds (CIF) calls and added an escalation path (AI then agent) that delivered a 20% revenue lift over their best agents. They found that when an agent gets a NO, there isn’t much of an escalation path left. And, the delicate reality is that some people feel self conscious calling a human to talk about debt problems, and there may be other sensitive issues where callers would actually feel more comfortable talking to a voicebot than a human. In addition, Fanatics is finding that AI agents are resolving some issues FASTER than human agents. Taken together these examples show that often a hybrid approach (humans plus AI) yields better results than humans only or AI only, so design your approach consciously.

Now let’s look at some important statistics from Customer Management Practice research:

  • 2/3 of people prefer calling in and talking by phone, but most of that is 55+ and the preference percentage declines every ten years younger you go until 30% for 18-24
  • 3/4 of executives say more people want self service now than three years ago
  • 3/4 of people want to spend less time getting support – so they can get back to the fun stuff, or back to business

Taken together these statistics help make the case for increasing the use of AI agents in the contact center. If you happen to be looking to use AI agents in servicing your customers (or even if you already are) then it is important to think about how you can use them to remove friction from the system and to strategically allocate your humans towards things that only humans can do. And if you need to win support from someone to go big with AI voicebots then pick an important use case instead of one that nobody cares about OR even better, pick something that you couldn’t have done before (example: a ride sharing company had AI voicebots make 5 million calls to have drivers validate their tax information).

Finally, as I was listening to some of these sessions it reminded me of a time when I was tasked with finding a new approach for staffing peak season for one of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies in the United States. At that time AI voicebots weren’t a thing and so I was looking at how we could partner with a vendor to have a small number of their staff on hand throughout the year and then rely on them to staff and train seasonal staff using those seasoned vendor staff instead of taking the best employees off the phone to train temps.

Even now, all contact centers will still need a certain level of human staffing. But, AI voicebots, AI simulation training for agents, and other new AI powered tools represent a great opportunity for creating a better solution for peak staffing in a whole host of industries with very cyclical contact demand that is hard to staff for. One example of this from Customer Contact Week was a story about how Fanatics must 5x their number of agents during high seasons and in practice this often results in their worst agents (temps they hired only for the season) serving some of their best customers (high $$ value clients).

Conclusion

AI voicebots can be a great help during demand peaks and other AI powered tools (QA, simulations, coaching, etc.) can help accelerate and optimize both your on-boarding of full-time agents, but also of seasonal agents as well. But don’t pare back your human agent pool too far!

What has been your experience with balancing human and AI agents?

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Stealing From the Garden of Eden

Stealing From the Garden of Eden

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The story of the Garden of Eden is one of the oldest in recorded history, belonging not only to the world’s three major Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but also having roots in Greek and Sumerian mythology. It’s the ultimate origin archetype: We were once pure, innocent and good, but then were corrupted in some way and cast out.

As Timothy Snyder points out in his excellent course on The Making of Modern Ukraine, this template of innocence, corruption and expulsion often leads us to a bad place, because it implies that anything we do to remove that corrupting influence would be good and just. When you’re fighting a holy war, the ends justify the means.

The Eden myth is a favorite of demagogues, hucksters and con artists because it is so powerful. We’re constantly inundated with scapegoats— the government, big business, tech giants, the “billionaire” class, immigrants, “woke” society — to blame for our fall from grace. We need to learn to recognize the telltale signs that someone is trying to manipulate us.

The Assertion Of Victimhood

In 1987, a rather drab and dull Yugoslavian apparatchik named Slobodan Milošević was visiting Kosovo field, the site of the Serbs humiliating defeat at the hands of the Ottoman empire in 1389. While meeting with local leaders, he heard a commotion outside and found police beating back a huge crowd of Serbs and Montenegrins.

“No one should dare to beat you again!” Milošević is reported to have said and, in that moment, that drab apparatchik was transformed into a political juggernaut who left death and destruction in his path. For the first time since World War II, a genocide was perpetrated in Europe and the term ethnic cleansing entered the lexicon.

In Snyder’s book, Bloodlands, which chronicled the twin horrors of Hitler and Stalin, he points out that if we are to understand how humans can do such atrocious things to other humans, we first need to understand that they saw themselves as the true victims. When people believe that their survival is at stake, there is very little they won’t assent to.

The assertion of victimhood doesn’t need to involve life and death. Consider the recent Twitter Files “scandal,” in which the social media giant’s new owner leaked internal discussions about content moderation. The journalists who were given access asserted that those discussions amounted to an FBI-Big Tech conspiracy to censor important information. They paint sinister pictures of dark forces working to undermine our access to information.

When you read the actual discussions, however, what you see is a nuanced discussion about how to balance a number of competing values. How do we balance national security and public safety with liberty and free speech? At what point does speech become inciteful and problematic? Where should lines be drawn?

The Dehumanization Of An Out-group

Demagogues, hucksters and con men abhor nuance because victimhood requires absolutes. The victim must be completely innocent and the perpetrator must be purely evil for the Eden myth sleight of hand to work. There are no innocent mistakes, only cruelty and greed will serve to build the narrative.

Two years after Milošević political transformation at Kosooe field he returned there to commemorate the 600 anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, where he claimed that “​​the Serbs have never in the whole of their history conquered and exploited others.” Having established that predicate, the stage was set for the war in Bosnia and the atrocities that came with it.

Once you establish complete innocence, the next step is to dehumanize the out-group. The media aren’t professionals who make mistakes, they are “scum who spread lies.” Tech giants aren’t flawed organizations, but ones who deliberately harm the public. Public servants like Anthony Fauci and philanthropists like Bill Gates are purported to engage in nefarious conspiracies that undermine the public well-being.

The truth is, of course, that nothing is monolithic. People have multiple motivations, some noble, others less so. Government agencies tend to attract mission-driven public servants, but can also be prone to overreach and abuse of power. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk can have both benevolent aspirations to serve mankind and problematic character flaws.

It is no accident that the states in the US with the fewest immigrants tend to have the most anti-immigrant sentiment. The world is a messy place, which is why real-world experience undermines the Manichean worldview that demagogues, hucksters and con artists need to prepare the ground for what comes next.

The Vow For Retribution

It is now a matter of historical record what came of Milošević. After the horrors of the genocides his government perpetrated, his regime was brought down in the Bulldozer Revolution, the first of a string of Color Revolutions that spread across Eastern Europe. He was then sent to The Hague to stand trial, where would die in his prison cell.

Milošević made a common mistake (and one Vladimir Putin is repeating today). Successful demagogues, hucksters and con artists know to never make good on their vows for retribution. In order to serve its purpose, the return to Eden must remain aspirational, a fabulous yonder that will never be truly attained. Once you actually try to get there, it will be exposed as a mirage.

Yet politicians who vow to bring down evil corporations can depend on a steady stream of campaign contributions. In much the same way, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs who rail against government bureaucrats can be enthusiastically invited to speak to the media and at investor conferences.

It is a ploy that has continued to be effective from antiquity to the present-day because it strikes at our primordial tendencies toward tribalism and justice, which is why we can expect it to continue. It’s a pattern that recurs with such metronomic regularity precisely because we are so vulnerable to it.

Being Aware Is Half The Battle

In my friend Bob Burg’s wonderful book, Adversaries into Allies, he makes the distinction between persuasion and manipulation. Bob says that persuasion involves helping someone to make a decision by explaining the benefits of a particular course of action, while manipulation takes advantage of negative emotions, such as anger, fear and greed.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that those who want to manipulate us tell origin stories in which we were once innocent and good until a corrupting force diminished us. It is that narrative that allows them to assert victimhood, dehumanize an out-group and promise, if given the means, that they will deliver retribution and a return to our rightful place.

These are the tell-tale signs that reveal demagogues, hucksters and con artists. It doesn’t matter if they are seeking backing for a new technology, belief in a new business model or public office, there will always be an “us” and a “them” and there can never be a “we together,” because “they,” are trying to deceive us, take what is rightfully ours and rob us of our dignity.

Yet once we begin to recognize those signs, we can use those emotional pangs as markers that alert us to the need to scrutinize claims more closely, seek out a greater diversity of perspectives and examine alternative narratives. We can’t just believe everything we think. It is the people who are telling us things that we want to be true that are best able to deceive us.

Those who pursue evil and greed always claim that they are on the side of everything righteous and pure. That’s what we need to watch out for most.

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

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.

Is There a Real Difference Between Leaders and Managers?

Is There a Real Difference Between Leaders and Managers?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

The debate between leaders vs managers has been a long-standing conversation in professional circles. Some elevate the role of leaders, casting them as visionaries who inspire, while relegating managers to the shadows of administrative drudgery. But does this distinction really matter? More importantly, how can a manager evolve into a true leader? Let’s explore the heart of this conversation and break down why separating leadership from management can sometimes lead to dangerous misconceptions.

Why the Debate Between Leaders vs Managers Matters Less Than You Think

Much of the debate over leaders vs managers hinges on over-idealization. Leaders are often depicted as charismatic figures, visionaries who drive change and inspire their teams. Managers, by contrast, are often painted as the ones who carry out routine, less glamorous tasks. However, this binary thinking is a gross oversimplification. When we separate leaders vs managers too starkly, we set both roles up for failure.

In reality, great leaders need managerial skills to succeed. Likewise, strong managers must cultivate leadership qualities if they aim to have a meaningful impact. Consider recent examples: Adam Neumann of WeWork or Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos—visionaries without the grounding managerial skills to make their ambitious plans a reality. Even Steve Jobs, who is lionized as a leader, struggled as a manager and needed skilled managerial partners like Tim Cook to bring his vision to life. This demonstrates the inherent interdependence of the leader vs manager roles.

Management as a Foundation for Leadership

To understand why leadership is inseparable from management, let’s break down what being a manager entails. In the leader vs manager conversation, management often gets short-changed as “administrative,” but it encompasses setting objectives, removing obstacles, allocating resources, delegating tasks, and ensuring accountability. These tasks are not merely about managing people; they are about creating results and making progress happen.

In contrast, leaders serve to inspire, unify, and mobilize teams around a shared mission. They cast a vision of what can be, rallying people to pursue a goal together. But what use is vision if there is no plan for how to achieve it? This is why the idea of leaders vs managers being wholly distinct from one another can be damaging; leadership without a managerial foundation is fragile.

The Leader vs Manager Hybrid in Action

Successful professionals embody the blend of both roles in the leaders vs managers debate. Consider Steve Jobs again: his visionary prowess would not have led to Apple’s success without the operational grounding provided by Tim Cook. The true distinction between effective leaders and ineffective ones often boils down to their ability to marry visionary leadership with operational execution, revealing that the line separating leaders vs managers is not as clear as it might seem.

Great leaders do not abandon their managerial roots. Even CEOs, often perceived as paragons of leadership, must manage resources, oversee strategy, and allocate people effectively. Leadership might soar at 30,000 feet, but it always requires an anchor on the ground—a reminder that even the most inspiring figures must master the duality inherent in the leader vs manager dynamic.

Evolving From Manager to Leader

For those starting out in management, the path from manager to leader is not instantaneous. When you are first assigned a managerial role, your primary tasks center around administrative competence: running effective meetings, managing budgets, and ensuring project deadlines are met. This foundational period is essential for anyone navigating the leader vs manager journey. Only by mastering these skills can you then focus on expanding your influence, building relationships, and inspiring others.

True leadership emerges gradually. It begins with influence over your team and, as you grow, expands to influence your broader organization. The journey from manager to leader involves understanding the company’s strategic direction, aligning your team’s objectives with broader organizational goals, and participating in or leading conversations about that strategy. For those grappling with the leaders vs managers dichotomy, take note: growth happens through learning and doing, not simply by aspiring.

The Practical Blend of Leaders vs Managers

Ultimately, the debate between leaders vs managers is less important than understanding their interconnectedness. Every organization needs individuals who can inspire and guide while also ensuring operational discipline. Leaders who lose sight of practicalities can steer organizations into chaos. Managers who refuse to inspire can stifle innovation and morale. The true magic lies in combining these strengths: casting a compelling vision and navigating the gritty realities that make it possible.

By blending strong leadership qualities with grounded managerial skills, you become the kind of leader who doesn’t just talk about vision but delivers results. In the end, the best leaders are those who understand their dual responsibility in the leader vs manager equation—and execute both roles masterfully.

Image credit: Unsplash

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