Turning Around Declining Customer Satisfaction

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

One of our subscribers asked, “How can I reverse our company’s declining customer satisfaction ratings?”

Not knowing specifics about the company, its customer feedback, how long the scores have declined, and other details makes it a difficult question to answer. Still, I felt compelled to share something that could help. What I came up with is a list of three “to-dos” that any company should use to find out what’s causing a downward trend.

As I was writing down my ideas, I realized that this list could also be used to find out what is causing customer satisfaction to go up. After all, don’t you want to know why customers are happy – and then do more of the same? Think about that as you read my short list. With that in mind, we’ll focus on the question of declining customer satisfaction.

Feedback Collection Cartoon Shep Hyken

My first response was three words: Find the friction!

Often, there are specific places in the customer’s journey that cause a drop in satisfaction. I refer to those as friction points. We want to eliminate or at least mitigate them. So how do you find these places? Three ideas:

1. Mystery shop your company. If you want to find out what customers experience, become a customer of your own company. Find out what customers experience during busy times, how long they have to wait on hold, how long it takes for someone to respond to an email and more.
2. Ask your customers. Get feedback through surveys and direct communication. When you hear about a complaint, follow up directly with the customer to learn more. Don’t assume it’s a one-off situation. If it’s happening to one customer, it could happen to many.
3. Ask your employees. The people working the front line, which includes the customer support team, salespeople and anyone else who interacts directly with customers, hear customer comments, both good and bad. Have ongoing conversations with front liners to learn what they are hearing.

Learning what customers are experiencing firsthand and having conversations with customers and employees is far different than reading a report. There’s nothing wrong with a report, and I advocate for that as well, but why not both? And once you have the information, don’t just talk about it. Do something about it. Find where there’s friction. Learn what makes customers unhappy. Change what needs to be changed. Then, watch for a trend of declining complaints and start to reap the benefits of rising customer satisfaction.

Image Credits: Pexels, Shep Hyken

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

Building Psychological Safety

Leave a reply

Team Dynamics Explained

Building Psychological Safety

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Psychological safety is the foundation of strong team dynamics. In this post, we will explore why creating a safe environment for team members to speak up, take risks, and make mistakes is essential for collaboration, creativity, and innovation. Your thoughts and feedback are always welcome.

What is the Challenge?

Many teams struggle to foster open communication and risk-taking because of a lack of psychological safety. When team members fear judgment or backlash, they’re less likely to share ideas, admit mistakes, or take initiative. This leads to limited collaboration and stifles innovation.

Why Does This Matter?

Psychological safety is crucial for high-performing teams. It allows members to trust one another, be honest about challenges, and share unique perspectives without fear. Teams that prioritize psychological safety are more resilient, adaptable, and effective at problem-solving. Without it, teams often fall into groupthink or miss out on diverse ideas.

How to Overcome It

The key enabler of psychological safety is creating a culture of trust, respect and openness. Here are steps to build psychological safety within your team:

Model Vulnerability as a Leader: Leaders should openly share their own challenges and uncertainties. By showing vulnerability, leaders signal to the team that it’s okay to speak up and be honest.
Encourage Open Dialogue: Create regular opportunities for team members to share their thoughts and experiences. Make it clear that all voices are valued, and avoid interrupting or dismissing ideas.
Enhance Learning from Mistakes: Reinforce that mistakes are part of the growth process by focusing on lessons learned rather than blame. This shift helps build a learning-oriented culture.
Promote Empathy and Respect: Encourage team members to listen actively and respect each other’s viewpoints. Empathy fosters understanding and helps create a safe space for honest exchanges.
Recognize Contributions: Acknowledge and celebrate the unique contributions each team member brings, whether it’s a fresh perspective or constructive feedback. This reinforces their value within the team.

What This Means for Your Teams / Organization

Building psychological safety transforms teams into collaborative, innovative, and resilient units. With a strong sense of safety, team members are more willing to share bold ideas, take risks, and support each other. Over time, this results in a high-performing team that adapts well to change and challenges.

More Inspiration – Thought Leaders, Case-Study

Thought Leader: Amy Edmondson, author of The Fearless Organization
Case Study: Google’s Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as the top factor in successful teams.

This post is part of my Corporate Innovation Explained series. You can also follow my Leadership Growth Explained and Team Dynamics Explained series if you like this kind of inspiration.

Team Dynamics Explained

Image Credit: Pexels

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

Escaping the Fear Trap

Leave a reply

What We Can Learn from Wildfire Fighters About Leading Through Uncertainty

Escaping the Fear Trap

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

What does a lightning strike in a Spanish forest have to do with your next leadership meeting? More than you think.

On June 14, 2014, lightning struck a forest on Spain’s northeast coast, only 60 miles from Barcelona. Within hours, flames 16 to 33 feet high raced out of control toward populated areas, threatening 27,000 acres of forest, an area larger than the city of Boston.

Everything – data, instincts, decades of firefighting doctrine – prioritized saving the entire forest and protecting the coastal towns.

Instead, the fire commanders chose to deliberately let 2,057 acres, roughly the size of Manhattan’s Central Park, burn.

The result? They saved the other 25,000 acres (an area the size of San Francisco), protected the coastal communities, and created a natural firebreak that would protect the region for decades. By accepting some losses, they prevented catastrophic ones.

The Fear Trap That’s Strangling Your Business

The Tivissa fire’s triumph happened because firefighters found the courage to escape what researchers call the “fear trap” – the tendency to focus exclusively on defending against known, measurable risks.

Despite research proving that defending against predictable, measurable risks through defensive strategies consistently fails in uncertain and dynamic scenarios, firefighter “best practices” continue to advocate this approach.

Sound familiar? It should. Most executives today are trapped in exactly this pattern.

We’re in the fire right now. Financial markets are yo-yoing, AI threatens to disrupt everything, and consumer behaviors are shifting.

Most executives are falling into the Fear Trap by doubling down on protecting their existing business and pouring resources into defending against predictable risks. Yet the real threats, the ones you can’t measure or model, continue to pound the business.

While you’re protecting last quarter’s wins, tomorrow’s disruption is spreading unchecked.

Four Principles for Creative Decision-Making Under Fire

The decision to cede certain areas wasn’t hasty but based on four principles enabling leaders in any situation to successfully navigate uncertainty.

1. A Predictable Situation is a Safe Situation.

Stop trying to control the uncontrollable. Standard procedures work in predictable situations but fail in unprecedented challenges.

Put it in Practice: Instead of creating endless contingency plans, build flexibility and agility into operations and decision-making.

2. Build Credibility Through Realistic Expectations.

Reducing uncertainty requires realism about what can be achieved. Fire commanders mapped out precisely which areas around Tivissa would burn and which would be saved, then communicated these hard truths and the considered trade-offs to officials and communities before implementing their strategy, building trust and preventing panic as the selected areas burned.

Put it in practice: Stop promising to protect everything and set realistic expectations about what you can control. Then communicate priorities, expectations, and trade-offs frequently, transparently, and clearly with all key stakeholders.

3. Include the future in your definition of success

Traditional firefighting protects immediate assets at risk. The Tivissa firefighters expanded this to include future resilience, recognizing that saving everything today could jeopardize the region tomorrow.

Put it in practice: Be transparent about how you define the Common Good in your organization, then reinforce it by making hard choices about where to compete and where to retreat. The goal isn’t to avoid all losses – it’s to maximize overall organizational health.

4. Use uncertainty to build for tomorrow.

Firefighters didn’t just accept that 2,057 acres would burn – they strategically chose which acres to let burn to create maximum future advantage, protecting the region for generations.

Put it in practice: Evaluate every response to uncertainty on whether it better positions you for future challenges. Leverage the disruption to build capabilities, market positions, and organizational structures that strengthen you for future uncertainty.

Your Next Move

When the wind shifted and the fire exploded, firefighters had to choose between defending everything (and likely losing it all) or accepting strategic losses to ensure overall wins.

You’re facing the same choice right now.

Like the firefighters, your breakthrough might come not from fighting harder against uncertainty, but from learning to work with it strategically.

What are you willing to let burn to save what matters most?

Image credit: Pexels

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

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

1 Reply

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

“The single most important message in this book is very simple,” reads the first line in John Kotter’s highly regarded The Heart of Change. “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.

Really? That’s the important message? That emotive arguments are more powerful than factual arguments? What about other reasons why people change their behavior, such as social proof, conformity, incentives or coercion? By setting up a binary and artificial choice between two communication alternatives, he eliminates important strategic and tactical options.

It’s not just Kotter either, who is a well respected professor at Harvard Business School. The truth is that a lot of management thinking is surprisingly shoddy, with arbitrary notions and cognitive biases dressed up as scholarly work. We need to be more skeptical about “research” that comes out of business schools and consultancies. Here are three things to look for:

1. WYSIATI And Confirmation Bias

Kotter’s point about emotive vs. analytic arguments is, of course, completely valid. The fundamental error he makes is that he focuses on that particular aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Daniel Kahneman calls this WYSIATI, or “what you see is all there is.” Once you get tunnel vision on a particular fact or idea, it’s hard to see anything else.

Consider this thought experiment: You go to a conference featuring a powerful, emotive presentation on the need to combat climate change. You see glaciers melting, polar bears losing their habitat and young children starving from drought. Then you go back to the office, fired up and ready to do something about it, but everyone else has a strong argument against acting on climate change.

What is likely to happen next? You convince you co-workers—including your bosses— about the urgency of the crisis? Or, surrounded by skeptics, your conviction begins to wane? When all we see is the poor polar bears and starving in an echo chamber of likeminded people, we forget about other considerations, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

An issue related to WYSIATI is confirmation bias. Kotter proudly points out that he worked with Deloitte to conduct extensive research for his book. Amazingly, after analyzing over 200 interviews, he ended up with the same 8-step process he cited in his earlier work. So what was the purpose of the research, to gain actual insights or to confirm what he thought he already knew?

Perhaps not surprisingly, after decades of organizations applying Kotter’s ideas about change McKinsey still finds that more than two-thirds of transformational efforts fail. Maybe there is actually more to change than communication strategy.

2. Halo Effects And Confounding Variables

One of the most popular modes of analysis that business thinkers use is to examine successful companies and see what they do differently. A number of bestselling management books, such as In Search of Excellence, have used this method. Unfortunately, when doing so they often fall prey to a cognitive bias known as the halo effect.

For example, in 2000, before the dotcom crash, Cisco was flying high. A profile in Fortune reported it to have an unparalleled culture with highly motivated employees. But just one year later, when the market tanked, the very same publication described it as “cocksure” and “naive.” Did the “culture,” under the very same leadership, really change that much in a year? Or did the perceptions of its performance change?

Cisco had a highly motivated and, some would say, aggressive sales force. When the company was doing well, analysts assumed it was their aggressiveness that produced good results and when its fortunes changed, that same aggressive behavior was blamed for its failures. This is what’s known as a confounding error, the fact that an aggressive sales force correlated with specific results doesn’t mean that the aggressive sales force caused the results.

Every organization has things which it does differently, that are idiosyncratic to its management and culture. In some market contexts those traits will be advantageous, in other environments they may not be. It takes work—and some humility—to separate what’s truly a success factor, what’s merely fit for a narrow purpose and what’s not really relevant.

3. Survivorship Bias

Business school professors and consultants gain fame—not to mention large fees—when they are able to define a novel concept or success factor. If you are able to isolate one thing that organizations should do differently, you have a powerful product to sell. A single powerful insight can make an entire career, which is probably why so many cut corners.

For example, in their study of 108 companies, distinguished INSEAD professors W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne found that “blue ocean” products, those in new categories without competition, far outperform those in the more competitive “red ocean” markets. Their book, Blue Ocean Strategy, was an immediate hit, selling over 3.5 million copies.

Bain consultants Chris Zook and James Allen’ book, Profit from the Core, boasted even more extensive research encompassing 200 case studies, a database of 1,854 companies, 100 interviews of senior executives and an “extensive review” of existing literature. They found that firms that focused on their ”core” far outperformed those who strayed.

It doesn’t take too much thinking to start seeing problems. How can you both “focus on your core” and seek out “blue oceans”? It betrays logic that both strategies could outperform one another. Also, how do you define “core?” Core markets? Core capabilities? Core customers? While it’s true that “blue ocean” markets lack competitors, they don’t have any customers either. Who do you sell to?

Yet there is an even bigger, more insidious problem called survivorship bias. Notice how “research” doesn’t include firms that went out of business because there were no customers in those “blue oceans” or because they failed to diversify outside of their “core.” The data only pertains to those that survived.

It’s hard to think of any other field where researchers could get away with such obviously careless work. Can you imagine medical research that didn’t include patients that died, or airplane research that didn’t include the flights that crashed? Suffice it to say that since the two books were published two decades ago, they’ve shown no capacity to predict whether a business will succeed or fail.

Don’t Believe Everything You Think

When I’m finishing up a book, I send out sections to be fact-checked by experts and those who have first-person knowledge of events. I’m always amazed at how much I get wrong. In some cases, I make truly egregious errors about facts I should have known (or did know, but failed to take into account). It can be an incredibly humbling process.

That’s why it’s so important to not to believe everything you think, there are simply too many ways to get things wrong. As Richard Feynman put it, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” I would also add a second principle that just because you’ve managed to fool others, doesn’t mean you’ve gotten it right.

Unfortunately, so many of the popular management ideas today come from people who never actually operated a business, such as business school professors and consultants. These are often people who’ve never failed. They’ve been told that they’re smart all their lives and expect others to be impressed by their ideas, not to examine them thoroughly.

The problem with so much business thinking today is that there is an appalling lack of rigor. That’s the only way that obviously flawed ideas such as “blue oceans,” “profiting from the core” and John Kotter’s ideas about change management are able to gain traction. It’s hard to imagine any other field with such a complete lack of quality control.

That’s why I send out fact checks, because I know how likely I am to think foolish and inaccurate things. I’ve also noticed that I tend to be most wrong when I think I’ve come up with something brilliant. Much as Tolstoy wrote about families, there are infinitely more ways to get things wrong than to get things right.

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

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

Do We Really Need Managers?

Leave a reply

Do We Really Need Managers?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

There have been SO many articles and books about this idea of flat organizations. No managers, no bosses, just passionate people solving problems and collaborating at ease.

Sounds great, right? Well, not if you’re a manager, obviously. But the concept sounds great, right? Less oversight, more trust, more autonomy, we all want that!

What these articles get wrong is this: the idea of managers, especially middle managers, being senseless buffoons or mere pawns with all the authority of a mall cop has gone too far. And the role of a middle manager needs a refresh, not an elimination. Middle managers are the unsung heroes of organizations. But these managers need to be leaders, not just human project management tools.

Where do we stand with managers, today?

The workplace changed a lot during the pandemic. We all came together, huddled from home, turned our kitchen table into a workstation, then our guest room or a corner in our living room to our home office, and overall, stayed productive. In the end, a lot of us felt we didn’t need a person hovering over our shoulder to keep us on track and working. So, logically, a lot of us felt we didn’t need a manager, and a lot of senior leaders felt maybe we could cut out some middle managers.

A survey by GoodHire in 2022, of workers in a variety of fields including education, finance, health care, marketing, and even science- found that 83% of American workers said they could do their own job without their managers. But paradoxically, GoodHire also found that 70% of American workers strongly enjoy or somewhat enjoy working for their manager. This finding is backed up by Pew Research which just released data in late 2023 finding that “a majority of workers give their boss high ratings.”

So, people like their bosses, but could do without them. What’s really going on here?

Why do we hate managers? (or think we do)

The brainless middle manager trope. It’s an old one. They’re in our shows, our movies, our social media posts. And, yeah, in our lives too. They show up late, leave early. They scrutinize everything you do. Track your tasks. Track your productivity. Track your success. Track your failures.

Middle managers today are basically glorified task managers, and that really must change. But…why are they glorified task managers in the first place?

Gallup just published the results of a massive study on managers. A key finding was that, right now, managers have more work to do, on a tighter budget with new teams. Managers are more likely to be burnt out, disengaged, and looking for a new job.

More work: Remember the remote and hybrid culture you probably had to facilitate from scratch with no experience with video software like Zoom and Webex? That was a huge undertaking. Managing people’s well-being wasn’t in the managerial job description before. Adding it may be long overdue, but it was still a task that managers feel ill-equipped to take on officially.

Less budget: The economy was a roller coaster for all industries over the last 4 years. And in response a lot of budgets froze or got tightened. Your company was probably hit in negative ways that affected resources that make your role easier.

New teams: There was a lot of quitting, layoffs, hiring, and job hopping that happened. Now, teams are shaken up, gone, or brand new.

When all these things compound, it makes sense middle managers are feeling squeezed, as Gallup put it.

And when you’re burnt out, disengaged, and looking for the next place to work, you’re going to become the bare minimum “glorified task manager” just making sure the wheels are spinning.

A manager should be a leader. Plain and simple. This isn’t just semantics. A leader is an inspirational figure that facilitates great work. Tools like Jira, Trello, Asana, they can keep track of tasks and you can check them from time to time. But it shouldn’t be the first thing a manager does: check the management software. Instead, check on the people!

What About Manager-less Companies?

It’s worth stating here that, none of this is new. The discussion about whether managers make a difference has been going on for a while, with both sides citing examples to suit their opinion.

On the manager-less company side, Washington-based Valve Software gets cited often. If you’ve ever played some of their most critically acclaimed video games like Half-Life and Portal, you’ve probably heard of them. They also created the Steam platform, which, again if you’re a gamer, you know well. Valve was started by two former Microsoft employees in the early 1990s and began, from the start, as a flat company. No managers, beyond the executive c-suite level. People decided what to work on, what to prioritize, and the company became a huge success. By a lot of metrics, it’s been a success. A little late on deadlines for game releases, but because they are so good, they’re often forgiven.

But here’s where it fell short. Priority is only given to what the majority of the organization prioritizes. At Valve, it was the product, the critically acclaimed games and the Steam platform. What wasn’t prioritized? Diversity. Even for a tech company, even for a gaming company, the demographics are predominantly white and male. This discrepancy came to a boiling point in 2020 when the executive leaders were blindsided by rising social issues and criticized for their silence both internally and externally.

Other companies like Medium and Zappos rolled back their manager-less structures. At Medium, they said the structure-less structure impacted the ability to scale and the time-consuming nature of it all. It also negatively affected recruiting. It all seemed cool, but risky. Zappos said it took the attention away from the customer, and customer service was what they were known for.

These aren’t the only organizations to have ever tried manager-less organizational designs. There’s a whole organization that catalogs them. In total, about 250 companies use a manager-less structure. But most of them have under 50 employees. And nearly all of them started as a manager-less company-they didn’t just wake up and decide their thousands of employees could suddenly manage themselves.

I should be clear: I’m rooting for those places and others to work. I’m in favor of any organization that helps people do their best work. I just personally believe it’s better to bet on talented people and great teams than on a seemingly perfect organizational design.

Managers have a great impact, good and bad

When you think about who your mentors are or people who have impacted you the most in life, outside of your family, I bet you’re thinking of a teacher that really inspired you early in your life, maybe your first basketball coach, or some other authority figure that took the time to understand you and teach you some valuable skills. In other words, you think of a manager.

In organizations, managers make up about 70% of the variance in team engagement. They have a tremendous impact on whether companies succeed or fail. 82% of American workers said they would potentially quit their job because of a bad manager. The impact and stakes are REAL.

Like it or not, the work we do in our lives defines a big chunk of who we are. And managers really hold the power in making our work fulfilling, or a mindless grind. Right now, things are bleak. The more work, less budget, brand new teams, the burn out. The ripple effects that come from the manager level go so far and so wide. But there is a way to help them.

Employees need more training and paths upward

People who are promoted to managers often are promoted because they are really good at their individual contributor skillset, and the only way to climb the corporate ladder is to get promoted and manage people. Hard truth here: not everyone is cut out to be a manager; not everyone even wants to be a manager.

Gallup found that only 48% of managers strongly agree that they currently have the skills needed to be exceptional at their job. And only three in 10 hybrid managers have received any formal training on leading hybrid teams.

Authors and McKinsey consultants Bill Schaninger, Bryan Hancock, and Emily Fieldhave an interesting thought about this in their newest book. Instead of promoting someone who is really good at their craft to a management role, there should be master tracks for technical areas. And putting your best technical person in a management role might drain them of that fire that made them so good in the first place.

Moving up in your company should not be tied exclusively to managing people. And if you promote people to those roles, you need a plan to train them. In fact, before promoting them it’s worth creating a trial project they can manage or put them in charge of interns for a summer. As Bill Schaninger said, “The first time someone does something shouldn’t be after they’ve already gotten the job.”

As a manager, it’s also part of your job (I know, another task, but it’s important) to develop members of your team. Maybe they’ll be managers one day, maybe they’ll even be your manager one day if you train them well enough. Your team is on a path in their career. Their jobs will fluctuate, people will move on, move up, change course, and so coaching them is crucial. Remember, the impact of a manager on someone’s life can be huge. There’s a lot of influence here.

Managers are not task managers, they are leaders.

Focus on the team, not the individual

Now, if you are a manager, it’s imperative that you resist the tendency to micromanage-the feeling of every little task being tracked is likely what created the motivation to fire managers in the first place. So, focus on the team as a whole, not the individual. Great leadership is about letting the team hold itself accountable.

You need to do your one-on-one meetings to check-in with your people and make sure there’s not any glaring individual performance issues. But great leaders are about teaching the team to hold itself accountable. Great leaders often come off more as facilitators who are there to guide and support the team as they divvy up tasks and co-create the best strategy.

Even when you’re doing your individual check-ins, I recommend a 10–10–10 format. If you have 30 minutes to check in with each person every other week, then spend only 10 minutes of that time focused on their actual performance as an individual. Spend the next 10 minutes focused on the team, how the team is supporting them, and how they are contributing to the team. Then spend the final 10 minutes on how you’re doing as their manager. Ask where you could improve and what support they need from you.

No one wants a 30-minute discussion around their performance flaws, but most people respond positively when the bulk of the time is spent focused on how their team and their boss can help them.

Final Thoughts

So, do we really need managers? Yes, but in a capacity that reflects the evolving needs of modern workplaces. As we look ahead, let’s champion a new breed of leaders-managers who not only oversee projects but also empower people, shape culture, and turn challenges into opportunities for growth.

Image credit: Pexels, Pew Research

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on April 16, 2024.

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

Why Elastocalorics Will Redefine Our World

1 Reply

The Silent Revolution

Why Elastocalorics Will Redefine Our World

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Here at Human-Centered Change & Innovation our focus is always on the intersection of human needs, innovative solutions, and the transformative power of change. In a world clamoring for sustainable answers to pressing problems, it’s easy to get lost in the hype cycles of AI and quantum computing. But sometimes, the most revolutionary advancements are quietly simmering beneath the surface, waiting for their moment to redefine our future. Today, I want to pull back the curtain on one such unsung hero: Elastocalorics.

This isn’t just another scientific curiosity; it’s a profound shift in how we might manage temperature, offering a genuinely human-centered approach to a challenge that impacts every facet of our lives – from the comfort of our homes to the efficiency of our industries.

The Unseen Revolution: Why Elastocalorics Matters

Let’s cut through the jargon. At its core, elastocalorics harnesses the fascinating property of certain materials (often shape-memory alloys like nickel-titanium) to absorb or release heat when subjected to mechanical stress. Stretch them, and they warm up. Release the tension, and they cool down. Think of it as a solid-state heat pump, a silent, elegant dance between material science and thermodynamics.

Why is this a game-changer? Because the status quo of cooling and heating is fundamentally unsustainable. Traditional vapor-compression systems, while effective, are energy hogs. They rely on refrigerants with high global warming potentials, contribute significantly to our carbon footprint, and are far from the ideal solution for a planet grappling with climate change.

Elastocalorics offers an alternative that is:

Energy-Efficient: By directly converting mechanical energy into thermal energy, these systems promise significant energy savings, drastically reducing the power required for cooling and heating.
Environmentally Friendly: No harmful refrigerants means zero ozone depletion potential and vastly reduced global warming potential. This is a truly green technology.
Compact and Quiet: Without the need for bulky compressors and fans, elastocaloric systems can be significantly smaller and operate with minimal noise, opening up new design possibilities for appliances and buildings.
Durable and Reliable: Solid-state systems typically have fewer moving parts, leading to increased longevity and reduced maintenance needs.

This isn’t just about saving a few bucks on your utility bill; it’s about fundamentally rethinking our relationship with temperature control in a way that aligns with our collective human responsibility to the planet.

Case Study 1: Reinventing Refrigeration – The Quest for a Greener Kitchen

Imagine a refrigerator that hums along silently, using a fraction of the energy of its conventional counterpart, and with no harmful chemicals circulating within its coils. This is the vision that elastocaloric technology is bringing to life in the appliance sector.

For decades, refrigerator design has been constrained by the limitations of vapor-compression cycles. Engineers and designers have been forced to work around bulky compressors, noisy fans, and the specific requirements of refrigerants. With elastocalorics, the paradigm shifts.

One pioneering effort, though still in research and development phases, involves startups exploring elastocaloric refrigeration units for commercial and residential applications. These companies are developing prototypes that utilize a series of stretching and relaxing bands of elastocaloric material, perhaps arranged in a carousel or linear array. As the material stretches, it releases heat to the ambient environment; as it relaxes, it cools down, absorbing heat from the refrigerator’s interior. This cyclical process efficiently moves heat out of the insulated compartment, maintaining a consistent low temperature.

The human-centered innovation here is profound. Beyond the obvious environmental benefits, elastocaloric refrigerators could lead to entirely new kitchen layouts. Imagine integrated cooling drawers that disappear into cabinetry, or silent, compact mini-fridges that fit seamlessly into any office or bedroom. The absence of noisy compressors enhances domestic tranquility, and the peace of mind knowing your appliance isn’t contributing to climate change is an intangible, yet powerful, benefit. This isn’t just a new fridge; it’s a new living experience.

Case Study 2: Precision Cooling for Tomorrow’s Data Centers – A Silent Revolution in Silicon Valleys

Data centers are the beating heart of our digital world, consuming staggering amounts of energy, with a significant portion dedicated to cooling the thousands of servers that power the internet. The heat generated by these machines is immense, and traditional cooling methods are expensive, inefficient, and often involve large-scale water consumption.

This is where elastocalorics enters as a potential game-changer. Consider research initiatives funded by major tech companies and government grants aimed at deploying elastocaloric cooling solutions directly within server racks. The idea is to move beyond room-level air conditioning and bring the cooling mechanism closer to the heat source itself.

Imagine elastocaloric cooling chips or modules directly integrated into server motherboards or mounted within individual server units. These tiny, silent heat pumps could efficiently draw heat away from processors and memory modules, transferring it to an external heat sink or a liquid cooling loop. This “point-of-source” cooling approach drastically reduces the energy wasted moving cool air across an entire data hall.

The human-centered aspect here might seem less obvious, but it’s critical. Efficient data centers mean less energy consumption, reducing the overall carbon footprint of our digital lives. For the engineers and operators, it means potentially smaller, quieter, and more reliable cooling infrastructure, reducing operational costs and freeing up valuable floor space. For society, it means a more sustainable digital future, allowing us to continue innovating and connecting without exacerbating our environmental challenges. It’s about enabling the human endeavor of connectivity and information exchange in an environmentally responsible way.

The Architects of a Cooler Future: Elastocaloric Market Leaders and Startups

The field of elastocaloric cooling, recognized by the World Economic Forum as a top emerging technology, is still largely in its research and development phase, but a number of key players are beginning to define the market. Established companies like Carrier and Daikin are actively exploring elastocaloric systems as a sustainable alternative to traditional HVAC, leveraging their existing expertise in heat pump technology. Additionally, materials science and industrial giants such as Ferrotec Holdings Corporation and Coherent Corp. are leading the way in developing the specialized alloys, like Nitinol (nickel-titanium), that are at the heart of this technology. On the startup and academic front, there’s a hive of innovation. A German consortium led by the Saarland University and the Center for Mechatronics and Automation Technology (ZeMA), with partners like Irish company Exergyn, is pioneering prototypes for residential and automotive cooling. Meanwhile, researchers at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) have made a significant breakthrough with the world’s first kilowatt-scale elastocaloric cooling device, pushing the technology closer to commercial viability. These innovators, both large and small, are laying the groundwork for a future free from environmentally harmful refrigerants.

The Road Ahead: From Lab to Living Room

Elastocalorics, while incredibly promising, is still in its nascent stages. There are challenges to overcome: optimizing material fatigue life, scaling up production, and integrating these systems seamlessly into existing infrastructures. However, the pace of innovation is accelerating. Researchers are constantly discovering new materials with even better elastocaloric properties, and engineers are devising ingenious ways to harness these effects efficiently.

As a thought leader in human-centered change and innovation, I see elastocalorics not just as a technology, but as a paradigm shift. It challenges us to rethink fundamental aspects of our built environment and industrial processes. It invites us to imagine a future where temperature control is not an environmental burden but an elegant, efficient, and almost invisible part of our lives.

The beauty of elastocalorics lies in its elegant simplicity and profound potential. It’s a testament to the fact that true innovation often lies in rediscovering and re-engineering the basic principles of physics in new, more sustainable ways. Keep an eye on this space; the silent revolution of elastocalorics is coming, and it has the power to cool our world in more ways than one.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credit: Gemini

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

Building a Business with Feelings and Emotions

Leave a reply

Building a Business with Feelings and Emotions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you use your sane-and-rational lenses and the situation doesn’t make sense, that’s because the situation is not governed by sanity and rationality. Yet, even though there’s a mismatch between the system’s behavior and sane-and-rational, we still try to understand the system through the cloudy lenses of sanity and rationality.

Computer programs are sane and rational; Algorithms are sane and rational; Machines are sane and rational. Fixed inputs yield predicted outputs; If this, then that; Repeat the experiment and the results are repeated. In the cold domain of machines, computer programs and algorithms you may not like the output, but you’re not surprised by it.

But businesses are not run by computer programs, algorithms and machines. Businesses are run by people. And that’s why things aren’t always sane and rational in business.

Where computer programs blindly follow logic that’s coded into them, people follow their emotions. Where algorithms don’t decide what to do based on their emotional state, people do. And where machines aren’t afraid to try something new, people are.

When something doesn’t make sense to you, it’s because your assumptions about the underlying principles are wrong. If you see things that violate logic, it’s because logic isn’t the guiding principle. And if logic isn’t the guiding principle, the only other things that could be driving the irrationality are feelings and emotions. But if you think the solution is to make the irrational system behave rationally, be prepared to be perplexed and frustrated.

The underpinnings of management and leadership are thoughts, feelings and emotions. And, thoughts are governed by feelings and emotions. In that way, the currency of management and leadership is feelings and emotions.

If your first inclination is to figure out a situation using logic, don’t. Logic is for computers, and even that’s changing with deep learning. Business is about people. When in doubt, assess the feelings and emotions of the people involved. And once you understand their thoughts and feelings, you’ll know what to do.

Business isn’t about algorithms. Business is about people. And people respond based on their emotional state. If you want to be a good manager, focus on people’s feelings and emotions. And if you want to be a good leader, do the same.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Boring AI is the Key to Better Customer Service

Leave a reply

Boring AI is the Key to Better Customer Service

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Boring can be a good thing. When something works the way it’s supposed to, it shouldn’t be a surprise. There shouldn’t be friction or drama if a customer has a problem or wants a question answered. It should just be easy. And when it comes to customer service, “easy” and “boring” are good. The experience should just happen the way the customer wants it to happen. You might call that boring. I call that excellent.

That was the beginning of a conversation I had with Damon Covey, general manager of unified communications and collaboration for GoTo, on Amazing Business Radio. GoTo is one of the leading cloud communications companies, providing software and solutions to companies of all sizes and helping them implement AI systems that work, without the complexity and stress that can come from new technology. Covey’s goal for our conversation was to demystify AI, cutting through the noise and complexities of flashy AI and taking it down to a practical level. Boring was the word he liked to use, emphasizing it should be easy, simple and uncomplicated.

In our discussion, Covey said that large companies used to make six- and seven-figure investments to implement AI. Today, AI technology is far superior and, at the same time, much less expensive, so even the smallest companies can afford it. They can get advanced technology for hundreds of dollars, not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Covey said, “For example, a small bike shop or an automotive dealership can now provide the same advanced customer service options as large corporations.” With that in mind, here are the main takeaways from our conversation:

Conversational AI

Until recently (within the past two or three years), a basic chatbot had to follow pre-set rules. Conversational AI provides a much broader opportunity, allowing a computer to interact with people in a natural, human-like manner. Today, AI can understand and respond to customers’ questions and issues with much more flexibility. It has the capability to recognize different languages and understand fumbled phrases, much like a human would. By using conversational AI, businesses can provide 24/7 service, allowing them to respond to customer queries and schedule appointments even when the customer contacts them outside of regular business hours.

Treat AI Like a Team Member

If you hire a new employee, you train them. Treat your AI solutions the same way. Covey said that, similar to training an employee, you need to set specific parameters and provide the AI with the necessary information to ensure it stays within the scope of your business requirements. He emphasized the importance of making sure the AI only draws from the information provided by your business, such as your website, FAQ pages, product manuals, etc., rather than pulling from a source outside of your company, to maintain accuracy and relevance. Covey said that AI should be continuously optimized and trained over time to improve its performance, much like you would train and coach a human employee to expand their capabilities.

Productivity: Automating Processes

Covey talked about automating processes. Anything you do more than three times can be a candidate for AI automation. For example, AI can integrate with a business’ telecommunications system to automate the process of taking notes during calls. It can then summarize the call, put the information into the customer’s record and create a list of next steps, if appropriate. This is a simple function that helps employees be more productive. Instead of an employee typing notes and summarizing the call, AI can handle the task so the employee can move on to helping the next customer.

Augmenting the Business

AI can help businesses do things they don’t normally do, such as remain open for certain functions (like customer support) after hours. It can act as an after-hours receptionist, answering phone calls, setting appointments or providing basic information to customers after business hours. That turns a business that’s typically open during traditional hours to a 24/7 operation.

It is Easier Than You Think

At the end of the interview, Covey dropped a nugget of wisdom that is the perfect way to close this article. For many, especially smaller organizations, deciding what technology to use and how to best use AI can be a daunting decision. It shouldn’t be. Covey says, “Start with the problem you want to solve, and solve for that problem.” He added that you should start using the technology for small problems. Once you understand how it works, the more complicated issues will be easier to solve for.

And that brings us back to where we started. AI doesn’t need to be complicated or flashy. It should be boring—in a good way. Start small, focus on one problem at a time and let AI do what it’s supposed to do: make customer service easier and more efficient. When done right, your customers won’t be amazed by the AI—they’ll just be amazed by how easy it is to do business with you.

Image Credit: Unsplash

This article was originally published on Forbes.com

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

Strategizing Market Power

1 Reply

Target Market Initiatives

Strategizing Market Power - Target Market Initiatives

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Market power derives from addressing an urgent mission-critical use case in a particular vertical industry requiring a specialized solution that the incumbent vendors either cannot or will not provide. Power aggregates around a single vendor who is the first to provide an end-to-end solution (what Ted Levitt taught us to call the whole product), typically with the support of partners whom the vendor has recruited to the task. Once success has been verified, prospective customers rally around the new solution, making it the de facto standard for that market segment, effectively excluding all other competition. This dramatically lowers the cost of acquisition and maximizes the lifetime value of the addressable market.

The mechanism for obtaining market power is called a target market initiative. It begins with the selection of a target market segment. Here the criteria for selection are three:

Big enough to matter. The goal is to win well over 50% of the total segment within a three-year horizon, with the resulting revenue providing a material portion of the organization’s total revenue, and an even more meaningful portion of its profit contribution.
Small enough to lead. Again, if your organization is going to win over 50% of the segment within a three-year period, the segment must be small enough to make this feasible given your current size and funding.
Good fit with your crown jewels. To address an intractable problem requires breakthrough capability that others do not have, or what we like to call your “crown jewels.” These accelerate your path to success and provide a barrier to entry to protect your market segment leadership position once it is attained.

The playbook for running a target market initiative is described at length in Crossing the Chasm. It is organized around the following set of factors:

Target Customer. The bullseye target is the business process owner for the broken mission-critical process. They will provide the subject matter expertise. A secondary target is their executive sponsor. They will create budget to fund the effort.
Compelling Reason to Buy. The use case has to be both mission-critical and urgent, in order to overcome a pragmatist’s normal inertial resistance to embracing anything categorically new. Here pain, not gain, is the source of the trapped value that moves the customer to lean in and collaborate, and all your sales and marketing should be focused on the relevant pain points and their remedies.
Whole Product. This is the bill of materials for the complete solution, everything the customer needs to take the problem off the table, with nothing extra added. It is designed backward from the customer’s problem, not forward from your supply chain or your financial goals and objectives.
Partners and Allies. Whatever is on the whole product’s bill of materials that is not provided by your company must come from a partner. One of the functions of a target market initiative is to orchestrate the coming together of such partners to ensure timely delivery of the whole product. The focus is on completing the solution, not adding sales coverage.
Distribution. Target market initiatives require a direct sales channel to execute a consultative sales process, organized around a diagnostic/prescriptive approach, supported by marketing that speaks directly to the business process owner and their executive sponsor. This must not be outsourced, as it is through these direct interactions that you establish your company as the market segment leader.
Pricing. Pricing is value-based, calibrated by the consequences of the current as-yet-to-be-fixed broken mission-critical business process. Discounting is never appropriate as the customer is far more concerned about addressing their urgent needs than saving on the purchase price.
Competition. There are two classes of competitors in play. The first is the incumbent vendor who is not solving the problem satisfactorily at present but who could throw people at it in an attempt to get to “good enough.” The other is a vendor with breakthrough capabilities similar to yours who has not made the commitment to deliver the whole product but who has a partner that might try to do so.
Positioning. You are the breakthrough vendor who has made the whole product commitment, meaning you have demonstrated a deep understanding of the customer’s industry and its problem process, and you have developed a repeatable solution that will get better as each new instantiation leads to more useful features and a more engaged ecosystem of partners.
Next Target Customer. For start-ups, this will normally be an adjacent segment, either a new use case from the same customer base or the same use case from a different segment. For established enterprises whose size dictates that target market segments can never be material to total revenues, winning a target market segment creates a hook for M&A as well as makes you a lot more knowledgeable about which companies are worth acquiring.

Target market initiatives are the most reliable play in the B2B innovation playbook, as witnessed by the staying power of Crossing the Chasm, currently in its fourth decade of being in print, pushing two million copies in total sales worldwide. In closing, then, let me leave you with eight great reasons for building one into your next annual plan:

Gain market adoption for a disruptive technology. This is the classic chasm-crossing play.
Penetrate a new geography. Establish your reputation as a worthy vendor.
Get out from behind the market leader. Gorillas can never defend themselves against highly focused chimps. All they can do is try to isolate you from making any further progress.
Anchor a turnaround. When your enterprise has been on a losing streak, it is critical to “win one for the Gipper.” Target market initiatives are your best bet.
Solve for the “stuck in neutral” problem. When the macro economy is in the doldrums, and customers are slow to buy anything, a truly problematic use case overcomes their hesitancy.
Capitalize on a great niche opportunity. There are use cases where the size of the market is small, but the trapped value is enormous, and you can build a major franchise without ever leaving the segment, as has happened in CAD, Wall Street, health care, and aerospace.
Exploit the “granularity of growth.” In mature markets where average growth rates are in the low single digits, there are always pockets of double-digit growth around problematic use cases. You just need to target them directly.
Capitalize on a market in transition. As markets are working through long-lead transitions, short-term progress can be made locally rather than globally. The evolution of the hybrid workplace would be a current example.

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

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

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

3 Secret Saboteurs of Strategic Foresight

Leave a reply

3 Secret Saboteurs of Strategic Foresight

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

You’ve done everything to set Strategic Foresight efforts up for success. Executive authority? Check. Challenging inputs? Check. Process integration? Check. Now you just need to flip the switch and you’re off to the races.

Not so fast.

While the wrong set-up is guaranteed to cause failure, the right set-up doesn’t guarantee success. Research shows that strategic foresight initiatives with the right set-up fail because of “organizational pathologies” that sabotage even well-designed efforts.

If you aren’t leading the right people to do the right things in the right way, you’re not going to get the impact you need.

Here’s what to watch out for (and what to do when it happens).

Your Teams Misunderstand Foresight’s Purpose

People naturally assume that strategic foresight predicts the future. When it doesn’t, they abandon it faster than last year’s digital transformation initiative.

Shell learned this the hard way. In 1965, they built the Unified Planning Machinery, a computerized forecasting tool designed to predict cash flow based on trends. It was abandoned because executives feared “it would suppress discussion rather than encourage debate on differing perspectives.”

When they shifted from prediction to preparation, specifically to “modify the mental model of decision-makers faced with an uncertain future,” strategic foresight became an invaluable decision-making tool.

Help your team approach strategic foresight as preparation, not prediction, by measuring success by the improvement in discussion and decision-making, not scenario accuracy. When teams build mental flexibility rather than make predictions, wrong scenarios stop being failed scenarios.

People are Paralyzed by Fear of Being Wrong

Even when your teams understand foresight’s purpose, managers are often unwilling “to use foresight to plan beyond a few quarters, fearing that any decisions today could be wrong tomorrow.”

This is profoundly human. As Webb wrote, “When faced with uncertainty, we become inflexible. We revert to historical patterns, we stick to a predetermined plan, or we simply refuse to adopt a new mental model.” We nod along in scenario sessions, then make decisions exactly like we always have.

Shell’s scenario planning efforts succeeded because it made being wrong acceptable. Even though executives initially scoffed at the idea of oil prices quadrupling, they prepared for the scenario and took near-term “no regrets” decisions to restructure their portfolio.

To help people get past their fear, reward them for making foresight-informed decisions. For example, establish incentives and promotion criteria where exploring “wrong” scenarios leads to career advancement.

Your Culture Confuses Activity with Achievement

Between insight and action, the Tyranny of Now reigns. In even the most committed organizations, the very real and immediate needs of the business call us away from our planning efforts and consume our time and energy, meaning strategic foresight is embraced only when it doesn’t interfere with their “real” jobs.

Disney’s approach made strategic foresight a required element of people’s “real jobs” by integrating foresight activities and insights directly into performance management and strategic planning. When foresight teams identified that traditional media consumption was fracturing in 2012, Disney began preparing for that future by actively exploring and investing in new potential solutions.

Resist the Tyranny of Now’s pull by making strategic foresight activities just as tyrannical – require decisions based on foresight insights to occur in 90 days or less. These decisions should trigger resource allocation reviews, even if the resources are relatively small (e.g., one or a few people, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars). If strategic foresight doesn’t force hard choices about investments and priorities, it’s activity without achievement.

How You Lead and What People Do Determine Strategic Foresight’s Success

Executive authority, challenging inputs, and process integration are necessary but not sufficient. Success requires conquering the deeper organizational and human behaviors that determine whether strategic foresight is a corporate ritual or a competitive advantage.

Image credit: Pexels

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