Is AI Saving Corporate Innovation or Killing It?

Is AI Saving Corporate Innovation or Killing It?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

AI is killing Corporate Innovation.

Last Friday, the brilliant minds of Scott Kirsner, Rita McGrath, and Alex Osterwalder (plus a few guest stars like me, no big deal) gathered to debate the truth of this statement.

Honestly, it was one of the smartest and most thoughtful debates on AI that I’ve heard (biased but right, as my husband would say), and you should definitely listen to the whole thing.

But if you don’t have time for the deep dive over your morning coffee, then here are the highlights (in my humble opinion)

Why this debate is important

Every quarter, InnoLead fields a survey to understand the issues and challenges facing corporate innovators.  The results from their Q2 survey and anecdotal follow-on conversations were eye-opening:

  • Resources are shifting from Innovation to AI: 61.5% of companies are increasing the resources allocated to AI, while 63.9% of companies are maintaining or decreasing their innovation investments
  • IT is more likely to own AI than innovation: 61.5% of companies put IT in charge of exploring potential AI use cases, compared to 53.9% of Innovation departments (percentages sum to greater than 0 because multiple departments may have responsibility)
  • Innovation departments are becoming AI departments.  In fact, some former VPs and Directors of Innovation have been retitled to VPs or Directors of AI

So when Scott asked if AI was killing Corporate Innovation, the data said YES.

The people said NO.

What’s killing corporate innovation isn’t technology.  It’s leadership.

Alex Osterwalder didn’t pull his punches and delivered a truth bomb right at the start. Like all the innovation tools and technologies that came before, the impact of AI on innovation isn’t about the technology itself—it’s about the leaders driving it.

If executives take the time to understand AI as a tool that enables successful outcomes and accelerates the accomplishment of key strategies, then there is no reason for it to threaten, let alone supplant, innovation. 

But if they treat it like a shiny new toy or a silver bullet to solve all their growth needs, then it’s just “innovation theater” all over again.

AI is an Inflection Point that leaders need to approach strategically

As Rita wrote in her book Seeing Around Corners, an inflection point has a 10x impact on business, for example, 10x cheaper, 10x faster, or 10x easier.  The emergence and large-scale adoption of AI is, without doubt, an inflection point for business.

Just like the internet and Netscape shook things up and changed the game, AI has the power to do the same—maybe even more. But, to Osterwalder’s point, leaders need to recognize AI as a strategic inflection point and proceed accordingly. 

Leaders don’t need to have it all figured out yet, but they need a plan, and that’s where we come in.

This inflection point is our time to shine

From what I’ve seen, AI isn’t killing corporate innovation. It’s creating the biggest corporate innovation opportunity in decades.  But it’s up to us, as corporate innovators, to seize the moment.

Unlike our colleagues in the core business, we are comfortable navigating ambiguity and uncertainty.  We have experience creating order from what seems like chaos and using innovation to grow today’s business and create tomorrow’s.

We can do this because we’ve done it before.  It’s exactly what we do,

AI is not a problem.  It’s an opportunity.  But only if we make it one.

AI is not the end of corporate innovation —it’s a tool, a powerful one at that.

As corporate innovators, we have the skills and knowledge required to steer businesses through uncertainty and drive meaningful change. So, let’s embrace AI strategically and unlock its full potential.

The path forward may not always be crystal clear, but that’s what makes it exciting. So, let’s seize the moment, navigate the chaos, and embrace AI as the innovation accelerant that it is.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

Nominations Closed – Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023

Nominations Closed for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023Human-Centered Change and Innovation loves making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because we truly believe that the better our organizations get at delivering value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

As a result, we are eternally grateful to all of you out there who take the time to create and share great innovation articles, presentations, white papers, and videos with Braden Kelley and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation team. As a small thank you to those of you who follow along, we like to make a list of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers available each year!

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022

Do you just have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023.

The deadline for submitting nominations is December 24, 2023 at midnight GMT.

You can submit a nomination either of these two ways:

  1. Sending us the name of the blogger and the url of their blog by @reply on twitter to @innovate
  2. Sending the name of the blogger and the url of their blog and your e-mail address using our contact form

(Note: HUGE bonus points for being a contributing author)

So, think about who you like to read and let us know by midnight GMT on December 24, 2023.

We will then compile a voting list of all the nominations, and publish it on December 25, 2023.

Voting will then be open from December 25, 2023 – January 1, 2024 via comments and twitter @replies to @innovate.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions by an author to this web site will be a contributing factor.

Contact me with writing samples if you’d like to publish your articles on our platform!

The official Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023 will then be announced on here in early January 2024.

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

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






We Change the World with Ecosystems Not Inventions

We Change the World with Ecosystems Not Inventions

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Imagine yourself as the CEO of a Dow component company in 1919. You are fully aware of the technological forces that would shape much of the 20th century, electricity and internal combustion. You may have even be an early adopter of these technologies. Still, everything seems like business as usual.

What you don’t see, however, is that these inventions are merely the start. Secondary technologies, such as home appliances, radio, highways and shopping malls, would reshape the economy in ways that no one could have predicted. Your company has a roughly 50% chance of remaining on the Dow a decade later.

We are at a similar point today. New inventions, such as quantum computing, neuromorphic chips, synthetic biology and advancements in materials science already exist. It is not those inventions, however, but the ecosystems they spawn that will shape the decades to come. We’re all going to have to learn how to compete in a new era of innovation.

A 50-Year Boom In Productivity

By 1919, electricity was already a 40-year old technology. In 1882, just three years after he had almost literally shocked the world with his revolutionary electric light bulb, Thomas Edison opened his Pearl Street Station, the first commercial electrical distribution plant in the United States. By 1884 it was already servicing over 500 homes.

Yet although electricity and electric lighting were already widespread in 1919, they didn’t have a measurable effect on productivity and a paper by the economist Paul David helps explain why. It took time for manufacturers to adapt their factories to electricity and learn to design workflow to leverage the flexibility that the new technology offered. It was the improved workflow, more than the technology itself, that drove productivity forward.

Automobiles saw a similar evolution. It took time for infrastructure, such as roads and gas stations, to be built. Improved logistics reshaped supply chains and factories moved from cities in the north — close to customers — to small towns in the south, where labor and land were cheaper. That improved the economics of manufacturing further.

Yet all of that was just prelude to the massive changes that would come. Electricity spawned secondary innovations, such as household appliances and radios. Improved logistics reshaped the retail industry, shifting it from corner stores to supermarkets and shopping malls. As Robert Gordon explains in The Rise and Fall of American Growth, these changes resulted in a 50-year boom in productivity between 1920 and 1970.

The Digital Revolution

In 1984, Steve Jobs and Apple launched the Macintosh, which heralded a new era of computing. Based on technology developed for the Xerox Alto in the early 1970s, with a bitmapped screen, a graphical user interface and a mouse, it made computing far more accessible to regular consumers.

Before long, personal computers were everywhere. Kids would use them to write term papers and play video games. Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software became a staple for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Desktop publishing helped democratize the flow of information. The computer age had begun in earnest.

Yet much like electricity and internal combustion earlier in the century, the effect on productivity was negligible, causing the Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow to quip, “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” In fact, it wouldn’t be till the late 90s that we saw a measurable impact from computers.

Once again, it wasn’t any particular invention that made the difference, but an ecosystem that built up over years. The Internet paved the way for open-source software. Hordes of application developers created industry specific tools to automate almost every imaginable business process. Computers converged with phones to create the mobile era.

The 30 Years Rule

Look back at the two major eras of technology in the 20th century and a consistent theme begins to emerge. An initial discovery of a new phenomenon, such as electricity and internal combustion, is eventually used to create a new invention, like the light bulb or the automobile. This creates some excitement, and builds the fortunes of a few entrepreneurs, but has little impact on society as a whole.

Yet slowly, an ecosystem begins to emerge. Roads and gas stations are built. Household appliances and personal computers are invented. Secondary inventions, such as shopping malls, home appliances, the Internet and application software help create new business models. Those business models create new value and drive productivity.

The truth is that innovation is never a single event, but a process of discovery, engineering and transformation. As a general rule of thumb, it takes about 30 years for all of this to take place, because thousands, if not millions of people need to change their behavior, coordinate their activity and start new businesses.

That’s why the future will always surprise us. It is not any one great event that tips the scales, but some hardly noticeable connection that completes the network. Network scientists call this type of thing an ‘instantaneous phase transition’ and there’s really no way to predict exactly when it will happen, but if you learn to look for telltale signs, you can see one coming.

A New Era Of Innovation

Today, we appear to be in a very similar situation to what those executives faced in 1919. We have decoded the human genome. Artificial intelligence has become a reality that everyone, for the most part, accepts. New computing architectures, such as quantum computers and neuromorphic chips, are in late stages of development by a variety of companies.

Yet once again, the impact has been negligible and it’s not hard to see why. While these inventions, in some cases at least, are relatively mature, they have yet to create the ecosystems that can drive a true transformation. Today, however, we can clearly see those ecosystems being created.

In fact, in artificial intelligence we can already see a fairly well developed ecosystem emerging already. In synthetic biology and genomics we can begin to see one as well, although it is still nascent. IBM has created a Q Network of major companies, research labs and startups to support quantum computing.

Here’s what’s important to know: We can’t predict exactly when the system will tip, but it’s a good bet it will happen in the next decade. It is also likely that the impact will be equal to or greater than the 50 year boom that began in the 1920s. Finally, it won’t be driven by any particular invention, but by ecosystems. You need to start figuring out how you will connect.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and an earlier version appeared on Inc.com
— 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.






Two Kinds of Persistence – What’s Your Habit?

GUEST POST from Dennis Stauffer

I suspect you’ve heard all your life that it’s important to be persistent, whether that’s studying hard, practicing a sport, launching a new business, or attempting some innovation. You’re told that you need to stick with it until you find success. You need to have GRIT.

But what’s so often lost in that advice is that there’s more than one way to be persistent, and which one you have can make a HUGE difference.

Type 1

The first kind of persistence is sticking with something despite setbacks. That’s the marathoner who pushes through exhaustion and pain. It’s the student who studies until they really “get” the subject matter. It’s the entrepreneur putting in long hours to pursue a dream. That kind of persistence sees a target, pushes toward it, and blocks out any distractions that keep them from pursuing it.

Type 2

The other kind of persistence is about being creative and resourceful. It’s trying more than one way to reach your goals, and sometimes adjusting those goals to fit the realities you confront. It’s the entrepreneur that pivots to a new business model because the first one isn’t working. It’s the student who changes their career plans because it better fits their personal strengths and preferences. It’s the athlete who changes their technique to improve rather than just practicing the same approach.

Type 1 versus Type 2

These are radically different—opposing—strategies, and you can be quite good at one of them and lousy at the other.

That first kind of persistence is helpful when things are predictable and the rules are clear, when you know what will work. You just need to go do it. That’s useful at times, but much of life rarely works that way.

The challenges you face are often not so clear, and one of the biggest mistakes you can make is thinking they are when they’re not. That’s the entrepreneur that falls in love with an idea and keeps pursuing it long after getting signals that it’s not really working. Thinking: if I just push a little longer. When they need to change course.

It’s called being stubborn.

Skilled innovators—and those who are most effective generally—favor that second kind of persistence. They don’t just keep plugging along. They’re willing to rethink their strategy, seek feedback and gain new insights. Instead of assuming they know what works, they strive to figure out what works.

That’s not mindless pushing, and it’s not just trying random alternatives. It’s a disciplined process you can learn. A process of innovation that reflects a mindset that values flexibility, adaptability and resourcefulness, more than raw determination.

Which kind of persistence do you believe in? Which do you use?

Here is the video version of this post for all of you:

Image Credit: Pexels

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

Stuff Your Stoking with Innovation for $4.24

Stuff Your Stoking with Innovation for $4.24

Wow! Exciting news!

While supplies last you can get the hardcover version of my best-selling book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire for only $4.24 (88% off), including free delivery in the USA from Amazon!

Sorry, unfortunately Amazon doesn’t have a discount on the kindle version, which remains at $28.00, so this is quite the deal!

  • The offer is only valid while supplies list (or until Amazon changes the price) so act fast!

Quick reminder: Everyone can download lots of free tools from this web site, including:

  • 700+ quote posters
  • The Experiment Canvas™
  • Visual Project Charter™
  • 10 Free Human-Centered Change Tools
  • Nine Innovation Roles card design

Follow this link to select multiple items and download them ALL AT ONCE!

And finally, I created the Human-Centered Change methodology to help organizations get everyone literally all on the same page for change. The 70+ visual, collaborative tools are introduced in my book Charting Change, including the powerful Change Planning Canvas™. The toolkit has been created to help organizations:

  • Beat the 70% failure rate for change programs
  • Quickly visualize, plan and execute change efforts
  • Deliver projects and change efforts on time
  • Accelerate implementation and adoption
  • Get valuable tools for a low investment

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.






Do the Right Thing

Do the Right Thing

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

100% agreement means there’s less than 100% truth. If, as a senior leader, you know there are differing opinions left unsaid, what would you do? Would you chastise the untruthful who are afraid to speak their minds? Would you simply ignore what you know to be true and play Angry Birds on your phone? Would you make it safe for the fearful to share their truth? Or would you take it on the chin and speak their truth? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

Best practice is sometimes a worst practice. If, as a senior leader, you know a more senior leader is putting immense pressure put on the team to follow a best practice, yet the context requires a new practice, what would you do? Would you go along with the ruse and support the worst practice? Would you keep your mouth shut and play tick-tack-toe until the meeting is over? Would you suggest a new practice, help the team implement it, and take the heat from the Status Quo Police? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

Truth builds trust. If, as a senior leader, you know the justification for a new project has been doctored, what would you do? Would you go along with the charade because it’s easy? Would call out the duplicity and preserve the trust you’ve earned from the team over the last decade? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

The loudest voice isn’t the rightest voice. If, as a senior leader, you know a more senior leader is using their positional power to strong-arm the team into a decision that is not supported by the data, what would you do? Would you go along with it, even though you know it’s wrong? Would you ask a probing question that makes it clear there is some serious steamrolling going on? And if that doesn’t work, would you be more direct and call out the steamrolling for what it is? As a senior leader, I’d do the last two.

What’s best for the company is not always best for your career. When you speak truth to power in the name of doing what’s best for the company, your career may suffer. When you see duplicity and call it by name, the company will be better for it, but your career may not. When you protect people from the steam roller, the team will thank you, but it may cost you a promotion. When you tell the truth, the right work happens and you earn the trust and respect of most everyone. As a senior leader, if your career suffers, so be it.

When you do the right thing, people remember. When, in a trying time, you have someone’s back, they remember. When a team is unduly pressured and you put yourself between them and the pressure, they remember. When you step in front of the steamroller, people remember. And when you silence the loudest voice so the right decision is made, people remember. As a senior leader, I want to be remembered.

How Do You Want to Be Remembered?

  1. Do you want to be remembered as someone who played Angry Birds or advocated for those too afraid to speak their truth?
  2. Do you want to be remembered as someone who doodled on their notepad or spoke truth to power?
  3. Do you want to be remembered as someone who kept their mouth shut or called out the inconvenient truth?
  4. Do you want to be remembered as someone who did all they could to advance their career or someone who earned the trust and respect of those they worked with?

In the four cases above, I choose the latter.

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.






Adapting Your Business For A New Generation

The Zero Consumer Revolution

Adapting Your Business For A New Generation

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

There’s a new type of customer in town, and you need to know and understand them. McKinsey has coined the term Zero Consumer, defined as a consumer who shops across different channels, expects excellent service (including fast shipping) and sustainable products. But even if you provide all of that, there’s one more critical thing to know—they show little loyalty.

For 40 years, I’ve preached the famous concept from Harvard Business School professor emeritus and former editor of Harvard Business Review, Dr. Theodore (Ted) Levitt, that the function of a business is to get and keep customers. Furthermore, research from many reputable sources tells us that it’s less costly to maintain and keep customers than to keep finding new ones. However, this new customer, the Zero Consumer, can make the second part of Dr. Levitt’s function (keeping customers) more challenging.

In addition to that, Dr. Levitt is also known for stating that “companies should stop defining themselves by what they produce and instead reorient themselves toward customer needs.” This is further explained in his article, What Business Are You In?: Classic Advice from Theodore Levitt. I love his example about gasoline.

In this article, Levitt states, “Let’s start at the beginning: the customer.” He uses the example that a consumer driving a car “strongly” dislikes the experience of buying gasoline. He said, “People actually do not buy gasoline. They cannot see it, taste it, feel it, appreciate or really test it. What they buy is the right to continue driving their cars.” He refers to a gas station as a tax collector that is paid a “periodic toll” as the price of customers using their cars.

My take on this is that the gas station is a commodity. People buy from a specific gas station out of convenience, including location (proximity to the customer’s home or place of work) and ease of entrance and egress (e.g., the gas station is on the right side of a busy street). Price is also a consideration. It seems gasoline is gasoline, regardless of where you buy it.

This ties into the McKinsey Zero Consumer concept. The majority of Zero Consumers seem to be Gen-Z and Millennials. Here are some general characteristics of this new group of consumers:

  • Zero Consumers have zero boundaries in that they are influenced by social media, celebrities and content (articles, blogs, videos, etc.). They expect omnichannel options and move through different buying channels to make purchases. In other words, be prepared to sell to them when they are ready and on whatever channel is most convenient to them: in a physical store, on an app, on a website, etc.
  • Zero Consumers no longer fall in the middle. Their shopping habits are tougher to define. They either try to save money or are willing to spend more on what they want. McKinsey’s research finds that mid-priced goods and services have declined 10%. That doesn’t seem like much, but the average consumer is “trading down” to lower-priced goods. But at the same time, 40% say they plan to splurge on their spending, especially in travel, apparel and restaurants.
  • Zero Consumers have zero loyalty. That’s a bold statement from McKinsey. In 2002, they found that half of consumers claimed to switch brands versus one-third two years earlier. Furthermore, they say, “Absent truly differentiated, exclusive offerings, the retailer will soon become a utility—just a means of distribution. This sounds a lot like Dr. Levitt’s gasoline example. If you’re delivering a commoditized, same-as-everyone-else experience, don’t expect to be treated differently than a commodity.
  • Zero Consumers have zero patience. This trend has been around since Amazon started teaching customers what fast and convenient service is all about. Consumers don’t need to wait, and if you can’t deliver at their expected speed, they will find another company that will.

I’ve taken direction on this article from McKinsey content and research. McKinsey is one of the go-to resources for understanding all things business. Regardless of the type of business you’re in or the type of customers you sell to, you must consider how the broader consumers behave. Your customers compare you to their favorite experiences, including their retail brand experiences. While you may or may not be a retailer and be subjected to this type of customer, you must understand they expect whatever they love from other places they do business with from you as well. The more you know and understand them, the better decisions you’ll make on how to market, sell and service them.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

Image Credit: 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.






Achieving a Transformation Vision for a Better Future

Achieving a Transformation Vision for a Better Future

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

A major challenge that most large enterprises face is the lack of a true transformation vision.

Most organizations have a basic vision for growth: to serve the maximum number of people, to sell the maximum amount of product, to grow different segments, or to expand in new areas. But in most large enterprises I’ve worked with, that vision is usually about doing more of the same. They optimize what they already have, expand what they already do, update the way that they’re currently selling to very similar customer groups, and interact with their customers in a way very similar to their current operations.

For most organizations to be successful as the world changes around them, they need to change and adapt more profoundly than that. During times of change, driving growth within an organization using tactics similar to current ones don’t often work well. The most common technique I see leaders of large enterprises using to drive growth is to go to each individual area and tell them to continue driving growth in their area. For example, product groups get, “Make new products.”; channel groups get, “Find new channels.”; and the sales group gets, “Sell more stuff!” If you multiply all the effect of these different areas of growth together, you get something that looks like pretty good growth for the organization overall.

Imagine a caterpillar trying to figure out become a butterfly, and having every part of its body come up with its own strategies and methods to contribute. A segmented approach can work when you’re just trying to multiply the scale of what you’re already achieving, with little to no optimization in the different areas.

But there’s a problem with this method. Imagine a caterpillar trying to figure out become a butterfly, and having every part of its body come up with its own strategies and methods to contribute. A segmented approach can work when you’re just trying to multiply the scale of what you’re already achieving, with little to no optimization in the different areas. But it doesn’t work when you’re trying to transform an entire organization, and entire transformation is what we need to do to keep up with the quickly changing digital world. A vision for the whole transformation is what’s going to truly coordinate your entire organization.

You are probably familiar with Lana Turner, movie star from the ’40s and the famous story of her discovery that made her Hollywood starlet. The story goes: Around 1934, 16-year-old Judy Turner (her real name), is skipping school and having a Coke at the Schwab’s Pharmacy counter in Hollywood. She’s spotted by a famous movie director who says, “You’re beautiful and have a wholesome look. You’d be great in a movie. I’m going to take you in for a screen test.” He brings her to the back lot, does the screen test, and it’s fantastic. He puts her in a movie, and she becomes one of the top stars in Hollywood. The rest is history!

There are two problems with this story. First, it’s not actually true. The whole story is fiction, dreamed up by 1930’s Hollywood PR teams. But even if it happened to be true, it would be an extreme outlier. Transformation doesn’t just happen by accident or good luck. It doesn’t even happen because it’s deserved, or because of inherent merit. The other day, I was listening to Howard Stern interviewing Jennifer Hudson about her success. He asked her if, when she was a child and sang in church, everyone knew that she was going to be a star. She said, “No, because there were a lot of kids in my church who could sing like that, and there were a lot of people in my family who could sing like that.” The difference was that, besides the talent, she also had the drive, determination, and the vision to succeed.

This idea of needing vision to succeed isn’t new. The great poet and three times Pulitzer Prize Winner, Carl Sandburg, said, “Nothing happens unless first a dream.” American inventor George Washington Carver, said, “Where there is no vision, there is no hope.” And Helen Keller said, “The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”

What is this transformation vision that you need to create? What are its components?

There are two parts to a transformation vision. The first is a vision of how the world is changing. How are your customers going to be changing over the next few years? How is technology going to change, and what do you think your competitors, old or new, might do with the changing landscape?

The second component is to determine what new products and services you can bring to market. How can you take advantage of these changes in environment and your customers, and how will you compete with what your competitors are doing? How does your business model need to change, based on new technology capabilities, or new customer behaviors? How will your operations, cost structure, and ultimately, interaction with our customers, change? Will we be delivering on different channels, serving and supporting them in different ways, or will we be dealing with an entirely new set of customers?

It might seem like you need to be able to see into the future to answer these questions, and I think that’s a major reason why many enterprises don’t have a true transformational vision. They may have a five-year plan, but it isn’t really a vision for transformation — more of just a hopeful projection of growth based on where they are now. They believe they can’t see far enough into the future for it to be practical to have a vision of the future. But here’s the thing: you can foretell the future. I’ll do it right now: It’s about 4:30pm here in New York. I think that in the next couple hours, many people in my area will be having dinner. I’m heading to the airport shortly, for a flight to London, and I predict that there will be lines at the TSA checkpoints that I’ll have to take into account to get on my flight on time. The truth is, we can see into the future to some degree, based on previous experience. We might not always be right, but there’s a lot of information we can use to get a reasonable hypothesis of what the future is going to look like.

Was the iPhone that much of a shock, after the Blackberry Treo and other smartphones that came before? True, it had aspects that we might not have anticipated, and the precise timing might not have been predictable by someone who wasn’t in on Apple’s plans, but its existence on the market was relatively predictable.

To get into the business of predicting the future, we have to get over the fear of being wrong. As Seth Golden said, “The cost of being wrong is less than the cost of doing nothing.” I believe this is absolutely true.

Here’s one last thought about creating transformation visions: It’s important to be able to think in terms of transformation time. Sometimes our focus is so much in the next quarter or the things that we have to get done right now. And that is the reality of the world of the large enterprise, especially if it’s a public company. But in order to be successful long-term, you have to be able to think in terms of transformation time, to think a few years ahead. Why? Because the transformations that you need are often going to take a few years. Products and solutions that burst onto the market, like the iPhone, are in development for years before they ever see the light of day. So many of the things that we see as overnight successes are really the result of long-term visioning, planning, R&D efforts and product development, and there are products that don’t succeed that went through those processes, too. Risk tolerance is important for transformation vision since you have to be ready for a number of potential futures. Those that are successful will be those that define the future of the company.

To recap, take the time to predict the future and be willing to be wrong. Track the changes in the world, and engage yourself in ongoing research, both to initially develop your long-term transformation vision and then to continue to see whether your predictions appear to be coming true. Is the timeframe you initially anticipated changing? If so, adjust your transformation vision to align with what is actually happening. Most importantly, be willing to get it wrong. Second, look at the fundamental value proposition your company brings to your customers. How would that value proposition be best delivered in this future that you envision? If you built a new company today that was going to launch three years from now, how would we build that for where we think the world will be in a few years? You can use that exercise as a way of defining what your transformation vision should potentially be. Take bets, consider and prepare for different possible futures, so you can be prepared for the actual future when it arrives.

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog
Image Credit: Pixabay

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






Don’t Waste Your Time Talking to Customers

(until you answer these 3 questions)

Don’t Waste Your Time Talking to Customers

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

You know that customer insights are important.

You spend time and money to collect customer insights. 

But are you using them?

And by “using,” I don’t mean summarizing, synthesizing, discussing, PowerPointing, and presenting the insights.  I mean making decisions, changing strategies, and rethinking plans based on them.

I posed this question to a few dozen executives.  The awkward silence spoke volumes.

Why do we talk to customers but not listen to them?

In a world of ever more constrained resources, why do we spend our limited time and money collecting insights that we don’t use meaningfully?

It seems wild to have an answer or an insight and not use it, especially if you spent valuable resources getting it.  Can you imagine your high school self paying $50 for the answer key to the final in your most challenging class, then crumpling it up, throwing it away, and deciding to just wing the exam?

But this isn’t an exam.  This is our job, profession, reputation, and maybe even identity.  We have experience and expertise.  We are problem solvers.

We have the answers (or believe that we do).

After all, customers can’t tell us what they want.  We’re supposed to lead customers to where they should be. Waiting for insights or changing decisions based on what customers think slows us down, and isn’t innovation all about “failing fast,” minimal viable products, and agility?

So, we talk to customers because we know we should. 

We use the answers and insights to ensure we have brilliant things to tell the bosses when they ask.

We also miss the opportunity to create something that changes the game.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

What do you NEED to learn?

It’s easy to rattle off a long list of things you want to learn from customers.  You probably also know the things you should learn from customers.  But what do you need to learn?

What do you need to know by the end of a conversation so that you can make a decision?

What is the missing piece in the puzzle that, without it, you can’t make progress?

What insight do you need so badly that you won’t end the conversation until you have it?

If the answer is “nothing,” why are you having the conversation?

Will you listen?

Hearing is the “process, function, or power of perceiving a sound,” while listening is “hearing things with thoughtful attention” and a critical first step in making a connection.  It’s the difference between talking to Charlie Brown’s teacher and talking to someone you care about deeply.  One is noise, the other is meaning.

You may hear everything in a conversation, but if you only listen to what you expect or want to hear, you’ll miss precious insights into situations, motivations, and social dynamics.

If you’re only going to listen to what you want to hear, why are you having the conversation?

Are you willing to be surprised?

We enter conversations to connect with others, and the best way to connect is to agree.  Finding common ground is exciting, comforting, and reassuring.  It’s great to meet someone from your hometown, who cheers for the same sports team, shares the same hobby, or loves the same restaurant.

When we find ourselves conversing with people who don’t share our beliefs, preferences, or experiences, our survival instincts kick in, and we fight, take flight, or (like my client) freeze.

But here’s the thing – you’re not being attacked by a different opinion. You’re being surprised by it. So, assuming you’re not under actual physical threat, are you willing to lean into the surprise, get curious, ask follow-up questions, and seek to understand it? 

If you’re not, why are you having the conversation?

Just because you should doesn’t mean you must.

You know that customer insights are important.

You spend time and money to collect customer insights. 

But are you using them to speed the path to product-market fit, establish competitive advantage, and create value?

If you’re not, why are you having the conversation?

Image Credit: Pexels

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

Four Change Empowerment Myths

Four Change Empowerment Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

We live in a transformational age. Powerful technologies like the cloud and artificial intelligence are quickly shifting what it means to compete. Social movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter are exposing decades of misdeeds and rewriting norms. The stresses of modern life are creating new expectations about the relationship between work and home.

Every senior manager and entrepreneur I talk to understands the need to transform their enterprise, yet most are unsure of how to go about it. They ordinarily don’t teach transformation in business school and most management books minimize the challenge by reducing it to silly platitudes like “adapt or die.”

The truth is that change is hard because the status quo always has inertia on its side. Before we can drive a true transformation, we need to unlearn much of what we thought we knew. Change will not happen just because we want it to, nor can it be willed into existence. To make change happen, we first need to overcome the myths that tend to undermine it.

Myth #1: You Have To Start With A Bang

Traditionally, managers launching a new initiative have aimed to start big. They work to gain approval for a sizable budget as a sign of institutional commitment. They recruit high-profile executives, arrange a big “kick-off” meeting and look to move fast, gain scale and generate some quick wins. All of this is designed to create a sense of urgency and inevitability.

That works well for a conventional initiative, but for something that’s truly transformational, it’s a sure path to failure. Starting with a big bang will often provoke fear and resistance among those who don’t see the need for change. As I explain in my book, Cascades, real change always starts with small groups, loosely connected, united by a shared purpose.

That’s why it’s best to start off with a keystone change that represents a concrete and tangible goal, involves multiple stakeholders and paves the way for future change. That’s how you build credibility and momentum. While the impact of that early keystone change might be limited, a small, but successful, initiative can show what’s possible.

For example, when the global data giant Experian sought to transform itself into a cloud-based enterprise, it started with internal API’s that had limited effect on its business. Yet those early achievements spurred on a full digital transformation. In much the same way, when Wyeth Pharmaceuticals began its shift to lean manufacturing, it started with a single process at a single plant. That helped give birth to a 25% reduction of costs across the board.

Myth #2: You Need A Charismatic Leader And A Catchy Slogan

When people think about truly transformational change, a charismatic leader usually comes to mind. In the political sphere, we think of people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. On the corporate side, legendary CEOs like Lou Gerstner at IBM and Steve Jobs at Apple pulled off dramatic turnarounds and propelled their companies back to prosperity.

Yet many successful transformations don’t have a charismatic leader. Political movements like Pora in Ukraine and Otpor and Serbia didn’t have clear leadership out front. The notably dry Paul O’Neill pulled of a turnaround at Alcoa that was every bit as impressive as the ones at IBM and Apple. And let’s face it, it wasn’t Bill Gates’s Hollywood smile that made Microsoft the most powerful company of its time.

The truth, as General Stanley McChrystal makes clear in his new book, Leaders: Myth and Reality, is that leadership is not so much about great speeches or snappy slogans or even how gracefully someone takes the stage, but how effectively a leader manages a complex ecosystem of relationships and builds a connection with followers.

And even when we look at charismatic leaders a little more closely, we see that it is what they did off stage that made the difference. Gandhi forged alliances between Hindus and Muslims, upper castes and untouchables as well as other facets of Indian society. Mandela did something similar in South Africa. Martin Luther King Jr. was not a solitary figure, but just one of the Big Six of civil rights.

That’s why McChrystal, whom former Defense Secretary Bob Gates called, “perhaps the finest warrior and leader of men in combat I had ever met,” advises that leaders need to be “empathetic crafters of culture.” A leader’s role is not merely to plan and direct action, but to inspire and empower belief.

Myth #3: You Need To Piece Together A Coalition

While managing stakeholders is critical, all too often it devolves into a game theory exercise in which a strategically minded leader horse trades among competing interests until he or she achieves a 51% consensus. That may be enough to push a particular program through, but any success is bound to be short-lived.

The truth is that you can’t transform fundamental behaviors without transforming fundamental beliefs and to do that you need to forge shared values and a shared consciousness. It’s very hard to get people to do what you want if they don’t already want what you want. On the other hand, if everybody shares basic values and overall objectives, it’s much easier to get everybody moving in the same direction.

For example, the LGBT movement foundered for decades by trying to get society to accept their differences. However, when it changed tack and started focusing on common values, such as the right to live in committed, loving relationships and to raise happy, stable families, public opinion changed in record time. The differences just didn’t seem that important any more.

In a similar vein, when Paul O’Neill took over Alcoa in 1987, the company was struggling. So analysts were puzzled that when asked about his strategy he said that “I intend to make Alcoa the safest company in America.” Yet what O’Neill understood was that safety goes part and parcel with operational excellence. By focusing on safety, it was much easier to get the rank and file on board and, when results improved, other stakeholders got on board too.

Myth #4: You Will End With The Vision You Started With

When Nelson Mandela first joined the struggle to end Apartheid, he was a staunch African nationalist. “I was angry at the white man, not at racism,” he would later write. “While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”

Yet Mandela would change those views over time and today is remembered and revered as a global citizen. In fact, it was the constraints imposed by the broad-based coalition he forged that helped him to develop empathy, even for his oppressors, and led him to govern wisely once he was in power.

In much the same way, Lou Gerstner could not have predicted that his tenure as CEO at IBM would be remembered for its embrace of the Internet and open software. Yet it was his commitment to his customers that led him there and brought his company back from the brink of bankruptcy to a new era of of prosperity.

And that is probably the most important thing we need to understand change. In order to make a true impact on the world, we first need to change ourselves. Every successful journey begins not with answers, but with questions. You have to learn how to walk the earth and learn things along the way. You know you’ve failed only when you end up where you started.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and an earlier version appeared on Inc.com
— 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.