Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

What the C-Suite Actually Asks

Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every Customer Experience (CX) leader I’ve worked with believes, correctly, that their organization needs a customer experience audit. Very few of them get the budget approved on the first try. The gap almost never comes down to whether the need is real — it comes down to whether the person championing it walked into the room prepared for the four questions a C-suite reliably asks, in roughly this order.

“What does this cost us if we do nothing?”

This is the opening question, and it’s the one the CX ROI Calculator exists to answer. Walk in with your own churn rate, revenue per customer, and a modeled range — conservative to optimistic — rather than an industry statistic borrowed from a research report. A number that’s obviously yours survives scrutiny. A number that’s obviously generic invites the room to argue with the source instead of the substance.

“Why an audit, and not just another survey?”

This is where most business cases quietly fall apart, because the honest answer requires admitting a limitation of what you’re already doing. Your NPS and CSAT programs measure what customers are willing to tell you. An audit measures what’s actually happening in the journey, including the parts customers work around instead of reporting. If your organization has been running satisfaction surveys for years and CX metrics still haven’t moved the way they should, that’s not evidence the audit is unnecessary — it’s usually the single best evidence that it is. Surveys have had their chance to find the problem. They haven’t. A different method is the correct next step, not a redundant one.

“What will we actually be able to do differently afterward?”

An executive approving a budget is not funding a diagnosis for its own sake — they’re funding the decisions the diagnosis will enable. The strongest version of this answer is specific: an audit produces a prioritized list of friction points ranked by business impact, not a general health score. Walk in already able to name the kind of decision it unlocks — “we’ll know whether to fix onboarding or billing first” is a far stronger sentence than “we’ll understand our customers better.”

“How disruptive is this, and how long until we see something?”

This is the question that kills otherwise-approved initiatives at the last step, usually because nobody addressed it until it was asked live in the room. Have the realistic timeline ready before you’re asked for it, not after: when the audit starts, what it requires from internal teams, and when the first findings arrive. Vagueness here reads as risk, even when the actual answer would have been reassuring.

Sequencing the case correctly

The order matters as much as the content. Lead with the cost of inaction (the number), and the room is primed to hear the diagnosis as the obvious next step rather than an added expense. Lead with the audit itself, and you’re immediately negotiating from a weaker position — explaining a cost before anyone in the room has agreed there’s a problem worth solving.

If you haven’t run your own numbers yet, start with the calculator — it’s the fastest way to walk into that first conversation with your own defensible figure instead of someone else’s. When you’re ready to talk about what an audit specifically finds and how it runs, the audit page has the detail, and I’m glad to answer the disruption and timeline questions directly if you’d rather hear them from me before you’re asked them by your own leadership.

Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit

Image Credit: Gemini, ChatGPT

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

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

You Need a Strategy Not a Slogan to Overcome Resistance to Change

You Need a Strategy Not a Slogan to Overcome Resistance to Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When we’re passionate about an idea, we want others to see it the same way we do, with all its beautiful complexity and nuance. We want to believe that if others can just understand it, they will embrace it. That’s why most change management practices focus on persuasion, explaining the need for change and creating a sense of urgency.

But consider recent research that finds that we can’t even agree on simple concepts such as what a penguin is and it becomes clear that for any given initiative, people are bound to see it differently. The simple truth is that change doesn’t fail on its own, it fails because people resist it. If we are to bring about genuine change, our first job is to overcome that resistance.

We need to internalize that humans form attachments to people, ideas and other things and, when those attachments are threatened, we act in ways that don’t reflect our best selves. Every change strategy has to begin with that. Clever gimmicks or snappy slogans won’t bring about true transformation. We have to build a strategy to overcome resistance from the start.

First, Follow The Energy

There’s something about human nature that, when we’re really excited about an idea, makes us want to go convince the skeptics. That’s almost always a bad idea. A much better strategy is to start with people who are enthusiastic about your change, who want it to succeed. They can help you strengthen it and spread it to others, who can spread it further still.

For example, in his efforts to reform the Pentagon, Colonel John Boyd began every initiative by briefing a group of collaborators he called the “Acolytes,” who would help hone and sharpen the ideas. He then moved on to congressional staffers, elected officials and the media. By the time general officers were aware of what he was doing, he had built up too much support to ignore.

In a similar vein, a massive effort to implement lean manufacturing methods at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals began with a single team at one factory, but grew to encompass 17,000 employees across 25 sites worldwide and cut manufacturing costs by 25%. The campaign that overthrew Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević started with just 5 kids in a coffee shop.

One advantage to starting small is that you can identify your apostles informally, even through casual conversations. In skills-based transformations, effective change leaders often start with workshops and see who seems enthusiastic or comes up after the session. Your apostles don’t need to have senior positions or special skills, they just have to be passionate.

“You have to go where the energy is,” John Gadsby, who built a movement for process improvement inside Procter & Gamble that has grown to encompass 60,000 employees, told me. “We’ll choose energy and excitement and enthusiasm over the right position, or the person at the right leadership level, or the person whose job it is supposed to be to do that.”

Identify Shared Values

Humans naturally form tribes. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out-group members. Similar results were found in a study involving five year-old children and even in infants. Evolutionary psychologists attribute this tendency to kin selection, which explains how groups favor those who share their attributes in the hopes that those attributes will be propagated.

So it’s natural that when we feel passionately about an idea, we want to focus on how it’s different, to create our own tribe. For example, the Agile Manifesto has inspired fierce devotion and helped build a vibrant community around Agile product development. So it shouldn’t be surprising that when evangelists try to attract others to the movement, it’s the Agile Manifesto that they want to emphasize.

Yet for those outside the Agile development community, its principles can seem strange and impractical. It emphasizes adaptability over planning which can appear to be chaotic for those who are used to a more traditional approach. If you want to bring in new people, it’s better to focus on shared values, such as the ability to produce better quality projects faster and cheaper.

One of the biggest challenges in driving transformation is that while differentiating values make people excited about an idea, it is shared values that help build genuine and widespread support. That doesn’t mean you abandon or water down your beliefs. It just means that you need to meet people where they are, not where you wish them to be.

Design A Dilemma Action

Unfortunately, building a shared purpose isn’t always possible. Whenever we set out to make a significant impact you are bound to get pushback, not for any rational logic, necessarily but because, for whatever reason, but because for whatever reason, it offends some people’s dignity, their identity, their sense of self. A simple truth is that we all form irrational attachments and when those are threatened, we tend to act out in ways that don’t reflect our best selves.

When that happens — and it always does eventually — we can get sucked into a conflict, which will likely take us off course and discredit what we’re trying to achieve. Yet, here too, developing empathy skills to identify shared values can be extremely helpful. They can help us to design a dilemma action, which puts the opponents into an impossible position.

Dilemma actions have only recently become an active area of research, but have been used by practitioners for at least a century — famous examples include Gandhi’s Salt March, King’s Birmingham Campaign and Alice Paul’s Silent Sentinels. They are just as effective in an organizational context, using an opponent’s resistance against them.

One of the great things about dilemma actions is that you approach them exactly the same way you approach building allies — by identifying a shared purpose. Once you do that, you can design a constructive act rooted in that shared purpose that advances your agenda. Your opponent then has a choice: they can disrupt the act and violate the shared value or they can let it go forward and let change progress.

For example, I was once leading a transformation project that was being impeded by a sales director hogging accounts. Although it was agreed that she would distribute her clients, she never got around to it, so I set up a meeting with a key account and one of our salespeople. When she tried to disrupt the meeting, she violated the shared value we had established, was dismissed from her position and everything fell into place after that.

Planning To Survive Victory

Many change leaders assume that once they win an initial victory that everything will get easier after that. They work for months — and sometimes years — to get a project off the ground. Yet just when they think they’re turning the corner, when they’ve won executive sponsorship, signed up key partners and procured enough financing to have a realistic budget, all the sudden things seem to get mired down.

That’s no accident. Just because you’ve won a few early battles doesn’t mean opposition to your idea melts away. On the contrary, faced with the fact that change may actually succeed, those who oppose it have probably just begun to redouble their efforts to undermine it. These efforts are often not overt, but they are there and can easily derail an initiative.

As Saul Alinsky once put it, every revolution inspires its own counterrevolution. That’s why every change effort must plan from the beginning to survive victory. You need to anticipate resistance, think about where you’re vulnerable and how you’ll mitigate those attacks by leveraging shared values.

The truth is that change is always a journey, never a particular destination, which is why lasting change is always built on the common ground of shared values. The answer doesn’t lie in any specific strategy or initiative, but in how people are able to internalize the need for change and transfer ideas through social bonds. A leader’s role is not necessarily to plan and direct action, but to inspire and empower belief.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— 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.

Time to Rethink Pitch Fests and Business Plan Competitions

Time to Rethink Pitch Fests and Business Plan Competitions

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Pitch fests happen almost every week somewhere in the US, They happen in primary schools, high schools, institutions of higher learning , incubators and accelerators. In addition, the spring and the fall are B school business plan competition season, so look for tweets about who won and pictures of those smiling millennial faces holding big cardboard checks.

These competitions serve many purposes, but, fundamentally the objective is 1) to practice your presentation skils, 2) to get feedback, 3) to find money

I have participated on both sides of the check, as both pitcher and catcher (judge) and have always found the format wanting.

Carl Schramm describes the problem:

 If you look at all our older major corporations — U.S. Steel, General Electric, IBM, American Airlines — and then you look at our newer companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, none of these companies ever had a business plan before they got started. Empirically, it appears as if you don’t need a business plan.

Second, the business planning process is largely generated as a preview for venture capital. As I show in my book, from empirical studies, much less than 1% of all new startups ever see a venture capitalist. Much less than 1% of all new companies every year have venture backing of any kind. So, I largely view the creation of a business plan as something of a waste of time.

The third problem is that it seems to make starting a business somewhat like a cookbook. If you do this, and then you do this, and then you do this, the cake will come out okay. And that’s really not how it happens.

I think it is time to rethink these events, and, it seems, so do some investors who are moving towards data-driven investing.

EQT Ventures in Europe takes data-driven investing to a new extreme. The 2-year-old VC firm, which is part of private equity group EQT, uses an AI-driven data platform called Motherbrain to help it make investment decisions. The firm’s €566 million fund backs companies at all stages—except seed—with €3 million to €75 million checks. So far, the firm has invested in 22 startups.

Analytics partner and former VP of analytics at Spotify, Henrik Landgren, said Motherbrain could’ve identified Spotify and Uber as unicorns in the companies’ early days. He believes letting software play a key role in crafting one’s portfolio is “the next evolution of VC.”

Conditional on getting to the stage of submitting a business plan, the judges’ scores have almost no predictive power in determining which entrepreneurs will succeed.

1. The whole notion of writing a business plan v a business model canvas has been called into question given the reality that no battle plan survives the first shot. A colleague suggested “Wild Ass Guess” competition as another way to brand them.

2. Pitches should be limited to no more than m5inutes. Who, in this day and age, watches anything for more than 3 minutes before moving to the next You Tube? Like the hangman’s noose, it focuses the mind. Taking it one step further, idea pitches should last no more than 1 minute.

3. The award money has to be spent on the business, not be used to finance a trip to Europe this summer

4. Winners must commit to passing it forward. There should be an expectation that they will contribute money, effort, time , mentorship or other things to future events and applicants

 5. We should publish rates of startups, success rates, exits and the contributions made to the local, regional and national economy

6. We should require that applicants participate in a pre-submission bootcamp to get their presentations ready for prime time in an effort to not waste the time of volunteers who were hesitant to help in the first place. Here are the skills we want participants to practice:

  1. The professionalism of the technical parts and the presentation itself
  2. Was the presentation appropriate for the audience?
  3. Did you talk about the why or the how of your idea and why did you choose to do that?
  4. Did you tell a story and did it have a biginning, a middle and an end with heros and villains?
  5. Could someone with a fifth grade reading level understand it?
  6. Did you props and other media?
  7. Did you end with a strong call to action?
  8. Did you pitch to the heart or the head of your audience
  9. Did this look like your first rodeo or did you practice?
  10. Was your presentation scripted, look like you “winged it” or did you appear more confident and relaxed?

7. Spend most of the time in front of judges “defending their thesis”. They should be required to think on their feet, answering “what ifs” , since that’s what they will have to do the moment they walk out of the award ceremony.

8. Awardees should be required to participate in iTeams to develop and further test and validate their ideas. They should be encourged to resubmit their business ideas in Phase 2 to apply for money to scale their validated models, similar to the SBIR process. Call it the Scalerator Competition.

9. Awardees must agree to submit testimonials, what the Disney Corporation calls Magical Moments, telling their stories not just about success, but how they overcame adversity and failure.

10. Awardees should spend some time in a real startup, perhaps with the sponsors who put up the bucks to help pay for the event, as an experiential learning opportunity

11. The winner take all format leads to churn and discourages further participation by those who are not the winners

12. Judges come with biases they apply to their decisions whether they use instinct or analysis. There are many false negatives (passing on ideas that are eventually successful) and false positives (getting on ultimate failures).Since we don’t really track long term outcomes of these events, we don’t know many there are.

13. Picking one winner or loser is different than picking a number of companies as part of a risk portfolio. Picking winners in a calm market is something first-timers do just as well as old hands, but avoiding losers is where skill and experience matters.

14. Customers are the ultimate arbiters of success or failure. Rewards should go those teams who have demonstrated they have created them.

15. Here’s another way to launch entrepreneurs and their ideas.

Another issue is the lack of consistency, criteria and implicit bias judging business plans. Business plan judging software has made things more consistent, but as long as humans are applying subjective criteria, there will be some variation. For example, here are some do’s and don’ts from one HBS judge.

Business plan competitions , to some, are a waste of time. Instead, maybe we should have Business Model or just idea competitions.

Encouraging students to submit pie in the sky plans that have little or no validity, judging them using vague and unproven methodologies, awarding them money that they don’t even have to spend on their business ideas and cutting them loose afterwards means the biggest winner is the B school building brand equity. For doctors, scientists and engineers, pressing them to write a business plan before using a validation method is like writing a scientific paper and then doing experiments to find the data you used to justify the conclusions.

Can you imagine pitching at a Quantum Business Plan competition?

We need to stop reality TV B school business plan competitions and pitch fest reward structures and get real about business model and idea competitions.

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.

The Customer Experience Costs Your ROI Calculator Can’t See

The Customer Experience Costs Your ROI Calculator Can't See

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

If you’ve run your numbers through the CX ROI Calculator, you already have a real, defensible number — built on your churn rate, your revenue per customer, and the same research-backed value chain I’ve written about before. That number is useful. It’s also almost certainly an undercount, and it’s worth understanding exactly why before you present it as the whole picture.

The model only sees what you’re already measuring

The four-step value chain — metric moves, behavior changes, revenue follows — is a genuinely good way to translate NPS or CSAT into dollars. But notice what it depends on: an experience metric you’re already tracking. That’s the model’s strength and its blind spot in the same breath. It can only quantify the friction that shows up in a score someone bothered to give you.

Four Step Value Chain

Most friction doesn’t show up in a score. It shows up nowhere, until it shows up in the renewal number six months later.

Three costs that live outside the metrics

The silent downgrade. A customer who’s frustrated rarely cancels immediately. More often, they quietly reduce usage, delay an upgrade they were considering, or let a seat go unfilled at renewal instead of adding the three they’d planned to add. None of that trips a churn alert — churn alerts fire on cancellation, not on quiet contraction. By the time it’s visible in a churn dashboard, you’re measuring the outcome of a decision the customer made months earlier, for reasons nobody on your team ever heard about.

The workaround. When something in the experience is broken, customers don’t reliably tell you — they build a workaround and keep using your product anyway. I’ve sat in on customer interviews where someone described, almost proudly, a twelve-step manual process they’d built to avoid a feature that didn’t work the way they needed. That customer will show up in your NPS survey as a “7” — not a detractor, not a promoter, just quietly tolerating a cost you don’t know exists. A workaround is a real cost to serve, it just never gets coded as a support ticket or a complaint.

The frontline save. Your support and success teams are, right now, absorbing friction on your behalf — smoothing over a confusing invoice, manually fixing what an automated process got wrong, apologizing for something they didn’t cause. Every one of those saves is a real cost (in time, in morale, in the eventual departure of your best frontline people), and every one of them is specifically designed, by the person doing it, to be invisible to leadership. That’s their job. It also means your dashboards are structurally blind to exactly the problems your best people are working hardest to hide from you.

Why this isn’t an argument against the calculator

None of this is a reason to skip the ROI modeling — a defensible number beats no number, and if you haven’t run yours yet, start there. It’s a reason to be honest about what the number represents: a floor, not a ceiling. It quantifies the experience gaps you can already see. It has no way to quantify the ones nobody’s told you about yet.

That’s the specific gap a Customer Experience Audit is built to close. Where the ROI model starts from your existing metrics and works outward, an audit starts from the actual customer journey — walked directly, not inferred from a survey response rate — and finds the workarounds, the silent downgrades, and the frontline saves before they’ve had time to show up as a number at all. (If terms like “cost to serve” or “revenue leakage” aren’t consistent vocabulary across your team yet, the Experience Design Glossary is a quick way to get everyone aligned before that conversation.)

Run the calculator first. It’ll tell you the size of the problem you already know about. The audit tells you what else is there.

Get the CX ROI Benchmark Report — the full industry benchmark table with sources, the CX Value Chain framework, and answers to the five objections a CFO is most likely to raise. Enter your email and we’ll send it straight to your inbox.


If after exploring the ROI calculator you would like to explore unlocking revenue opportunities for your business with a Customer Experience Audit, contact me directly. I’m happy to have a no-obligation conversation about whether an audit makes sense for your current situation.

Image Credit: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

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

What is Your Problem?

What is Your Problem?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you don’t have a problem, you’ve got a big problem.

It’s important to know where a problem happens, but also when it happens.

Solutions are 90% defining and the other half is solving.

To solve a problem, you’ve got to understand things as they are.

Before you start solving a new problem, solve the one you have now.

It’s good to solve your problems, but it’s better to solve you customers’ problems.

Opportunities are problems in sheep’s clothing.

There’s nothing worse than solving the wrong problem – all the cost with none of the solution.

When you’re stumped by a problem, make it worse then do the opposite.

With problem definition, error on the side of clarity.

All problems are business problems, unless you care about society’s problems.

Odds are, your problem has been solved by someone else. Your real problem is to find them.

Define your problem as narrowly as possible, but no narrower.

Problems are not a sign of weakness.

Before adding something to solve the problem, try removing something.

If your problem involves more than two things, you have more than one problem.

The problem you think you have is never the problem you actually have.

Problems can be solved before, during or after they happen and the solutions are different.

Start with the biggest problem, otherwise you’re only getting ready to solve the biggest problem.

If you can’t draw a closeup sketch of the problem, you don’t understand it well enough.

If you have an itchy backside and you scratch you head, you still have an itch. And it’s the same with problems.

If innovation is all about problem solving and problem solving is all about problem definition, well, there you have it.

Image credits: Pixabay

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

De-Googlize Your Company

De-Googlize Your Company

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

This article answers the question: How can a company grow and outperform competitors without relying on Google search rankings or paid advertising?

What company doesn’t want to rank high in Google searches? When a customer is looking for whatever you sell, wouldn’t you want to be ranked at the top of the first page? Unless you’re willing to pay and advertise, you have to naturally get there, and that typically takes quite a bit of expertise and effort.

But, what if Google didn’t matter to your business? What if there were another way to get new customers without vying for high search engine rankings?

If you’ve been following my work, you probably know the answer. Once you have a customer, provide the experience that not only makes them come back, but makes them want to tell others about you. And if you want to make it competitive, like outranking your competition on Google, then out-service them.

De-Googlize Your Company Shep Hyken Cartoon

So, how do you out-service your competition? Here are five ways:

  1. Ensure your Net Promoter Score (NPS) is high. For those who don’t know, NPS is about the likelihood of a customer recommending you. The question on a survey usually is this: On a scale of 0-10, what’s the likelihood that you would recommend us? If the customer gives you a high score (a 9 or 10), they are a promoter. Depending on the type of business, don’t just feel good about the number. If appropriate, follow up with a customer and ask them, “Who would you recommend us to?”
  2. Find out why your customers would choose to do business with a competitor. This one and the next one come from my “I’ll Be Back” conversation to get customers to say, “I’ll be back.” What are they doing that you aren’t? If it’s something you should be doing, do so, but make it your own. Don’t just copy a competitor. Put your own spin on it to make it yours.
  3. Have a discussion with your team about favorite companies to do business with outside of your industry. Discuss what they do to make you love them. If there is something they are doing that would work for your business, do it. This is a powerful idea that can take you from best-in-your-industry to world-class.
  4. Ask customers why they left. If a customer is willing to share with you why they no longer do business with you, it’s a gift. Learning firsthand from past customers could help save future customers from leaving for the competition.
  5. Ask customers why they didn’t choose you. If there is a way to follow up with customers who you thought would do business with you but didn’t, take advantage of the opportunity. Their feedback is a gift.
  6. Measure how easy it is to do business with you. You may have a great product, and you may offer friendly and knowledgeable customer support, but is it easy to do business with you? My annual customer service and experience research finds that 71% of customers said a convenient experience alone would make them come back. Be easier than your competition, and you’ll win more business.

When you “de-Googlize” your business, you stop chasing clicks and start creating customer evangelists who not only love you but also tell their friends about you. The best search engine in the world isn’t online. It’s in your customers’ minds. Deliver an experience that’s so good customers don’t search for you. They remember you, return to you, and recommend you. That’s how you outrank your competition!

Image Credits: Shep Hyken, Unsplash

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

Why CSAT Can Look Fine While Revenue Leaks

Why CSAT Can Look Fine While Revenue Leaks

by Braden Kelley

Your dashboard says customers are satisfied. CSAT is green. The quarterly deck gets a polite nod. Meanwhile, expansion stalls, renewals quietly soften, and support costs creep up — and nobody can point to a single “bad” survey score that explains it.

That isn’t a mystery. It’s a metric paradox: CSAT can look fine while revenue leaks, because satisfaction surveys and financial outcomes measure different things on different clocks.

If you lead CX, product, support, or a P&L, this gap is where budget conversations die. Leaders feel the leak. The score refuses to confess. So the investment stalls.

What CSAT Actually Measures (and What It Doesn’t)

CSAT usually answers a narrow question: how satisfied was someone with a specific interaction or recent experience? That’s useful. It is also incomplete.

CSAT tends to miss:

  • Silent churn — customers who never complain, then don’t renew, don’t expand, or quietly reduce usage
  • Effort and friction — people who “succeed” after three workarounds and still tick Satisfied because the alternative was worse
  • Non-respondents — the angry and the indifferent often skip the survey; the polite remain
  • Journey seams — handoffs between marketing, sales, onboarding, billing, and support where trust dies between touchpoints
  • Lag — revenue damage compounds for months before it shows up as a churn spike leadership will fund

So the score can stay “fine” while the experience failures draining your P&L keep working.

The Metric Paradox in Plain Language

Here’s the pattern I see in Customer Experience Audits:

  1. A customer hits friction (confusing onboarding, surprise fees, repeated authentication, a broken promise after purchase).
  2. They still complete the task — eventually — so the transactional CSAT looks acceptable.
  3. They tell fewer colleagues. They stop exploring add-ons. They price-shop next renewal. They open more tickets.
  4. Finance sees softer expansion and higher cost-to-serve. CX sees a green dashboard.
  5. Both sides are “right” inside their metrics — and wrong about the business.

CSAT is not lying. It’s answering a different question than the one the CFO is asking.

Why Leaders Trust the Wrong Green Light

Organizations over-index on CSAT (and sometimes NPS) because the number is:

  • Familiar in the board pack
  • Easy to benchmark
  • Simple to own in a slide

What’s missing is the chain from experience → behavior → dollars. Without that chain, “improve CX” sounds like a vibe. With it, friction becomes a funding conversation.

I’ve written separately about how to calculate customer experience ROI using that chain. This piece is about why you need it even when — especially when — CSAT looks fine.

Five Signs CSAT Is Masking Revenue Leakage

  1. High CSAT, flat or falling expansion — satisfied enough to stay, not inspired to buy more.
  2. High CSAT, rising contact rate — people are “satisfied” with heroic recoveries you shouldn’t need.
  3. High CSAT in support, weak onboarding completion — you’re measuring the rescue, not the journey.
  4. Promoters who still churn on price — affection without switching costs or realized value.
  5. Teams arguing about the score instead of walking the journey — the map has replaced the territory.

If two or more of these feel familiar, your dashboard is under-reporting risk.

What to Measure Alongside CSAT

Keep CSAT. Add instruments that speak to money and effort:

  • Leading behaviors: activation, time-to-value, repeat purchase, expansion, referral attempts
  • Effort: CES or task completion without assistance
  • Cost-to-serve: contacts per customer, repeat contacts, escalation rate
  • Experience Level Measures (XLMs): human-success metrics tied to specific “ugh” moments — not just uptime SLAs (more on XLMs here)
  • Journey evidence: what an outside-in audit finds when someone actually walks the experience

Scores without journeys produce false calm. Journeys without dollars produce false urgency. You need both.

Put a Number on the Leak (Even a Conservative One)

You don’t need false precision. You need a credible range that makes the paradox discussable in a budget meeting.

Start with what you already know — customers, revenue per customer, churn, service cost — and estimate what a realistic improvement in retention or cost-to-serve is worth annually.

Customer Experience ROI Calculator

Use the free Customer Experience ROI Calculator →

It runs that estimate with your numbers (or industry starting points), and you can copy a summary for a slide. The point isn’t to worship the model. The point is to stop pretending a green CSAT tile equals a healthy P&L.

From Estimate to Action

Once you have a number, the next question is where the leak lives. That’s what a human-centered Customer Experience Audit is for: walk the real journey, find the friction inventory, and prioritize fixes by revenue impact — not by whoever shouted loudest in the last QBR.

CSAT can look fine while revenue leaks. The organizations that pull ahead are the ones willing to measure the leak — then fix the experience that caused it.

Next step: Run the CX ROI Calculator (about two minutes). If the estimate bothers you, that’s useful information — and a good reason to talk about an audit.

The fastest way to see this framework in action is to run it against your own business — enter your customer count, revenue per customer, and current churn rate (or start from an industry benchmark), and it estimates the annual revenue and cost-to-serve impact of a defined experience improvement, along with a summary you can paste straight into a slide.

Get the CX ROI Benchmark Report — the full industry benchmark table with sources, the CX Value Chain framework, and answers to the five objections a CFO is most likely to raise. Enter your email and we’ll send it straight to your inbox.


If after exploring the ROI calculator you would like to explore unlocking revenue opportunities for your business with a Customer Experience Audit, contact me directly. I’m happy to have a no-obligation conversation about whether an audit makes sense for your current situation.

Image Credit: Cursor

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Cursor to clean up the article and add images.

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

A Tale of Two Narratives on Polarization

A Tale of Two Narratives on Polarization

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

In a time of increasing polarization, amplified by social media and exacerbated by malicious actors, we all need to deepen our understanding of just what we are into. Polarization, as I described in a previous blog on this subject, is best understood as an artifact of people binding their identities to explanatory narratives that validate their experience of the world, especially those experiences that activate their deepest fears. Binding to narrative per se is fundamental to both psychological and social stability, and in that context, it is natural and healthy. But when the narrative is being deliberately corrupted in order to manipulate public opinion, it fosters increasingly antagonistic relationships, dehumanizing the antagonists and inflaming the protagonists, both of which encourage us to treat fellow human beings as targets for marginalization, incarceration, or elimination.

In contemporary culture, there are two framing narratives that are driving this kind of polarization (and let me give shout out to Tangle for calling them to my attention):

  1. Civilization vs the Barbarians. In this narrative, “we” are the defenders of what is good, noble, and sacred in human culture, and “they” are agents of evil, degradation, and blasphemy. Thus, “we” can consider ourselves exempt from ethical accountability in our actions against them because “they” are threatening the very foundation of ethics itself.
  2. Oppressed vs the Oppressors. In this narrative, “we” are the victims of political, social, and economic exploitation by “them,” an overclass that has acquired a disproportionate share of power, wealth, and entitlements illegitimately at our expense. Thus, “we” can consider ourselves exempt from ethical accountability in our actions against them because “they” have unethically disenfranchised us.

Both narratives can be legitimate under extreme conditions, but each also lends itself to inflammatory purposes as well. Historically, the role of news reporting has been to help us distinguish between these two states. What is disgraceful about today’s media is that major broadcast networks, as well as previously highly respected publications, have not just abandoned this role but are actively engaged in subverting it. Let’s look a little more closely at what they are up to.

Civilization vs the Barbarians

This is the narrative framework that underlies Israel’s stance about its war with Hamas. It is also the one the US used to justify its post-9/11 actions against both Iraq and Isis. In both instances, provoked by starkly violent surprise attacks against purely civilian targets, outrage and righteous indignation fueled a demand for massive retaliation. There was simply no room for acknowledging any mitigating circumstances, any possible responsibility for creating the conditions that might have led to the terrorist attacks, or any accountability for subsequent acts of retributive retaliation regardless of how appalling they, in turn, might have been.

Now, given the extremity of the provocations, it is hard to see how any of this could have been avoided. But the civilization-vs-barbarians narrative is being used much more broadly in contemporary political discourse to address concerns that are much less extreme, including the following:

  • Right-wing outrage over illegal immigration
  • Left-wing outrage over anti-abortion legislation
  • Right-wing outrage over students demonstrating over the war in Gaza
  • Left-wing outrage over climate change deriders
  • Right-wing outrage over DEI initiatives
  • Left-wing outrage over 2020 election deniers.
  • Right-wing outrage over atheism
  • Left-wing outrage over book-banning

The key term here, in case you missed it, is outrage. Outrage uses righteousness to legitimize an explosion of anger against a community-sanctioned target. But the roots of that anger are not in the object of its attention. They are in the subject that has been carrying that burden around internally and who has now found a socially acceptable way to release it. And don’t think this applies just to “other people.” No one (except maybe a saint) is exempt here. You and I are as subject to the power of narratives as anyone else—it is only the trigger narratives themselves that separate us.

Look back over the bullet points above. Each of them is encased in a narrative, be it based on fact or urban legend. We should not be naïve about the power of these narratives to shape public opinion and influence elections. Psychologically, they play upon some of our deepest fears and then offer us a protective shield that is both internally coherent and externally impenetrable. That’s what makes the civilization-vs-barbarians narrative such a powerful political tool.

Oppressed vs the Oppressors

This is the narrative framework that underlies US college student protests in support of the Palestinians and against Israel’s sustained offensive in the Gaza Strip, as well as NATO support for the Ukraine and US support for Taiwan. Inside the US, it underpins support for the homeless, defunding of the police, and decriminalization of drug use. In each case, in order to relieve the debilitating conditions these communities are living under, the narrative calls for a radical change in the status quo, including a willingness to deprioritize legal justice in order to achieve social justice.

There are two separate audiences this narrative seeks to engage. Ostensibly, it is the oppressed themselves, but this can be misleading. Under exceptional circumstances, it is true that such narratives can trigger a revolution of the oppressed, but more commonly, these folks are in no position to take action on their own behalf. The far more frequent audience is people of means who have the power to take action and who empathize with the cause. This results in two kinds of calls to action—a revolutionary path, led by the oppressed, which seeks to overthrow the oppressors through violent means, and a liberal path, led by the empathizers, which seeks reform by working within the system.

Although we associate the oppressed-vs-the-oppressors narrative primarily with the left, we should note that the far right is leveraging it as well, as witnessed by the following widely held claims:

  • The woke liberal establishment is imposing socialist agendas around climate change and DEI on the oppressed white middle class.
  • Parental rights are under attack, threatened by liberal ideologies that have taken over public schools.
  • The 2020 election was rigged by Democrats, and Republicans, therefore, need not accept the results of the 2024 election because it also could be rigged.
  • Donald Trump did not get a fair trial because it, too, was rigged.
  • (And at the far right) the tyranny of the Deep State is so oppressive it warrants patriotic citizens taking up arms and shedding blood.

The Implications

To sum up, both political parties are using both narratives, but in very different contexts.

  • US Right: “Oppressors are the woke liberal establishment imposing socialist agendas around climate change and DEI on the oppressed white middle class.”
  • US Right: “Barbarians are the illegal immigrants seeking to invade our country and take over our democracy by outnumbering the civilized native white citizenry.”
  • US Left: “Oppressors are the conservative capitalist establishment imposing unjust requirements on disadvantaged populations, including illegal immigrants, the homeless, and the addicted.”
  • US Left: “Barbarians are the far-right politicians and pundits undermining the rule of law with fake news and demagogic rhetoric to block reproductive rights, equal opportunity programs, and climate change initiatives.”

Any attempt to argue people off of any of these positions is almost certain to fail, not because the arguments that support them are especially persuasive, but because people have bound their identities to them so tightly that they cannot break with them. As part of this binding, society self-segregates into “Us” and “Them,” each with its own amplifying media sources, its own signals of solidarity, its own righteous indignation, its own contempt for the other side.

Given all that, what could anyone seeking a better way possibly do? That is a question for a future blog post, one that is still very much in the works. For now, we should just note when these narratives are being used in corrupt ways to legitimize illegitimate claims and do our best to detach ourselves from them.

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

— Image credit: Pixabay

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

Why Collective Intelligence is the New Scarce Resource in an Age of Abundant AI

The Coordination Dividend – An AI Soft Landing Scenario

Why Collective Intelligence is the New Scarce Resource in an Age of Abundant AI

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


Throughout history, every major technological revolution has fundamentally altered the landscape of scarcity. The Industrial Revolution transitioned physical labor from a precious commodity into an abundant input; the Information Age did the same for data; and the Internet democratized communication, rendering the friction of distance nearly obsolete. Today, we are witnessing the latest iteration of this pattern: Artificial Intelligence is rapidly making individual intelligence, once our most guarded and limited asset, an abundant utility.

But if intelligence is becoming commoditized, what becomes scarce next? Many leaders are still trapped in a race to build “smarter” systems, yet the evidence suggests that smarter algorithms alone will not generate the competitive advantage we seek. The real bottleneck for progress in the coming decade is no longer how smart we are, but how effectively we coordinate our human and AI systems toward shared goals.

I call this the Coordination Dividend. It is the measurable surplus value created when diverse groups of humans and autonomous agents align seamlessly, communicate with minimal friction, and operate within shared mental models. As we navigate the AI transition, the winners will not be those with the most powerful models, but those who design the best operating systems for collective intelligence. Innovation, leadership, and organizational design are no longer just about optimizing technology, they are about perfecting the human-centered architecture of our future collaboration.

Section 1: Why Intelligence Is No Longer the Bottleneck

For years, we have been conditioned to believe that the primary lever for organizational success is the acquisition and application of specialized intelligence. We hired for it, we optimized our internal processes around it, and we built our competitive moats upon it. However, we are now entering an era where expert-level reasoning, sophisticated code generation, and nuanced creative synthesis are becoming commoditized utilities, accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a subscription.

The danger in the current market environment is the pursuit of the “Solo Genius” myth — the belief that an individual, super-powered by an AI agent, will be the primary driver of value. While AI augmentation significantly boosts individual output, it does not inherently solve the challenges of friction, misalignment, or slow execution that plague most organizations. In a world where intelligence is abundant, the strategic advantage shifts from the individual to the system.

This creates a critical pivot point for leaders:

  • Moving Beyond Capability: We must stop asking “How can AI make our people smarter?” and start asking “How can we orchestrate our people and AI together to move faster?”
  • The End of the Intelligence Moat: If your organizational strategy relies solely on being the smartest player in the room, your edge will evaporate as those capabilities are integrated into foundation models.
  • The Shift to Agility: The true test of an organization is now its ability to reconfigure itself in real-time. We must transition our focus from maximizing raw intelligence to maximizing organizational agility — the capacity to pivot, integrate new tools, and align collective energy without the usual administrative drag.

When intelligence is everywhere, the most successful entities will be those that master the flow of information and intent between human operators and synthetic agents. The future belongs to those who recognize that the intelligence itself is merely the raw material; the finished product is the coordinated outcome.

The Scarcity Shift Matrix

Section 2: Anatomy of the Coordination Dividend

To capture the Coordination Dividend, we must move past the idea that AI is a tool we “use” and begin to see it as a partner we “integrate” into our operational fabric. Coordination is no longer just about human-to-human interaction; it is about establishing a high-fidelity interface between human intent and synthetic execution.

The architecture of this dividend rests on three foundational pillars:

  • Shared Mental Models: In a hybrid workforce, humans and AIs must operate from the same baseline of context. This requires a shift in how we document strategy, culture, and operational constraints. If the AI doesn’t understand the “why” behind the “what,” it will optimize for the wrong outcome. Building a shared mental model is about encoding human values and strategic intent into the persistent memory of our systems.
  • Adaptive Governance: Traditional, top-down hierarchies act as friction points that prevent the rapid exchange of information necessary for coordination. We need to transition toward fluid, purpose-driven collaboration where decision rights are clear but execution is decentralized. Governance in this new era means setting the boundaries and the goals, then empowering human-AI teams to navigate the space in between autonomously.
  • Low-Latency Feedback Loops: The speed of business is accelerating. The organizations that win will be those that have engineered out the “wait states” in their decision-making processes. By creating real-time feedback loops — where performance data is instantly processed by AI to inform the next human action — we turn planning into a continuous, iterative flow rather than a static, periodic event.

Ultimately, these pillars define the difference between an organization that is merely “using AI” and one that is “AI-coordinated.” The former will continue to struggle with siloes and misalignment, while the latter will discover the efficiency gains that come from true systemic harmony.

The Anatomy of Human-AI Orchestration

Section 3: Impact Across the Ecosystem

The Coordination Dividend is not merely an internal efficiency metric for corporate operations; it is a fundamental restructuring of how value is created across every layer of modern society. When we solve the coordination problem between human intent and synthetic intelligence, the ripple effects transform everything from enterprise strategy to civic infrastructure.

Consider how this dividend manifests across key dimensions of our economic and societal ecosystem:

  • Innovation & Product Design: The traditional innovation pipeline is notoriously clogged by friction — the delay between ideation, prototyping, testing, and scaling. In an AI-coordinated environment, teams can run hundreds of parallel experiments simultaneously. The bottleneck is no longer generating or executing ideas, but curating the highest-impact concepts and aligning multidisciplinary teams around rapid deployment.
  • Organizational Design & Culture: Traditional departmental silos are the ultimate tax on coordination. The Coordination Dividend dismantles rigid organizational charts in favor of dynamic, cross-functional “pod” structures where human domain experts, experience designers, and specialized AI agents form transient units around specific outcomes, dissolving once the goal is reached.
  • Leadership & Change Management: The role of the leader fundamentally pivots from “commander of resources” to “architect of coordination.” Tomorrow’s leaders will win not by issuing directives, but by designing the collaborative systems, guardrails, and psychological safety needed for humans and AI agents to co-create without friction or paralysis.
  • Civic Infrastructure & Public Systems: At a societal scale, the inability to coordinate remains our greatest challenge — evident in healthcare delivery, urban planning, and educational equity. When local governments and institutions leverage low-latency, AI-augmented coordination, we can optimize complex public networks (from smart traffic management to personalized learning pathways) in real time while maintaining a deeply human-centered ethos.

Across every sector, the lesson remains constant: technology supplies the velocity, but coordination supplies the vector. Without systemic alignment, speed simply leads to faster friction.

The Coordination Dividend: Ecosystem Impact

Section 4: Measuring the Dividend

If coordination is the core source of competitive advantage in an AI-abundant era, we must develop new frameworks to measure it. Traditional productivity metrics — focused on output volume, lines of code, or hours logged — are entirely obsolete when generative systems can flood an organization with synthetic artifacts in seconds. Measuring volume only incentivizes noise; we must instead measure alignment and velocity.

To quantify the Coordination Dividend, forward-looking organizations will monitor key operational indicators:

  • Coordination Friction Index: Calculating the latent delay between intent and execution. How many handoffs, approval bottlenecks, or misaligned rework cycles occur between a strategic decision and its initial market feedback?
  • Context Parity: Assessing how accurately human teams and AI agents share operational context. High context parity eliminates hallucinated priorities and ensures autonomous workflows remain tightly bound to strategic goals.
  • Adaptive Velocity: Measuring an organization’s ability to reconfigure workflows, redeploy human talent, and integrate new AI models without triggering operational paralysis or cultural burnout.

Crucially, this dividend must be rooted in human-centricity. High-tech coordination without human-centered design risks creating hyper-efficient panopticons — systems that optimize for throughput at the expense of psychological safety, creativity, and trust. The ultimate metric of a successful coordination model is whether it frees humans to focus on judgment, empathy, and strategic intuition, or simply traps them in a high-speed hamster wheel of machine management.

Measuring the Coordination Dividend

Conclusion: The New Operating System for Civilization

As we navigate the ongoing shifts of the AI transition, it is easy to become captivated by the exponential performance curves of new models and raw processing capabilities. Yet, history reminds us that technology alone is never the destination — it is merely the catalyst. Just as steam power required the invention of the factory, and the Internet required the creation of networked platforms, artificial intelligence demands a radical overhaul of our collaborative architecture.

The Coordination Dividend represents the next frontier of organizational and societal evolution. In a world of abundant intelligence, value migrates to those who can master the art and science of synthesis — uniting human empathy, judgment, and creativity with machine scale, precision, and speed. The defining challenge of the next five years will not be building smarter algorithms, but designing better systems of human-AI orchestration.

For leaders, innovators, and experience designers, the directive is clear: stop obsessing solely over AI tools, and start designing for systemic alignment. By prioritizing low-latency feedback loops, shared mental models, and human-centered governance, we can ensure that artificial intelligence does not fragment our efforts, but elevates our collective capability. Intelligence provides the raw energy for our future, but coordination is the steering system that ensures we achieve a soft landing — and build a resilient, high-performing society on the other side.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the “Coordination Dividend”?

The Coordination Dividend is the measurable surplus value created when groups of humans and AI systems align seamlessly, communicate with minimal friction, and operate toward shared goals. As AI makes raw intelligence abundant, competitive advantage shifts from individual smarts to collective coordination speed and efficiency.

Why does intelligence cease to be the primary bottleneck in the AI era?

Generative AI democratizes access to expert reasoning, code generation, and strategic synthesis. When expert-level capability becomes a low-cost utility available to everyone, having intelligent individuals or models is no longer a distinct moat; the true bottleneck becomes how effectively an organization can connect, align, and execute across human-machine teams.

How do organizations measure and capture the Coordination Dividend?

Rather than tracking traditional volume metrics (e.g., hours logged or lines written), organizations quantify coordination by measuring the Coordination Friction Index (delay between intent and execution), Context Parity (shared context between humans and AI), and Adaptive Velocity (speed of reconfiguring workflows without burnout).


EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a visualization of but one possible future. I will be publishing other possible futures as they crystallize in my mind (or as you suggest them for me to explore).

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

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

Why Are What We Know and What We Do Often So Different?

Why Are What We Know and What We Do Often So Different?

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1988, a young management student named John Krafcik published an article in MIT’s Sloan Management Review entitled, Triumph of the Lean Production System. Based on his study of 90 manufacturing plants in 20 countries, it argued that manufacturing could be made vastly more productive, while improving quality at the same time.

These methods would grow into the lean manufacturing movement and their effectiveness has been well documented. Krafcik himself went on to have a successful career in the auto industry, taking over Google’s self-driving division, Waymo, in 2016. There is an amazingly strong case for manufacturers to adopt lean methods.

Yet surprisingly few do. In fact, a recent survey found that less than 15% of manufacturers have adopted lean methods. This dilemma is much more common than you’d think. We’ve been conditioned to believe that a good idea, once proven out, will prevail in the marketplace, but that’s not really true. There is often a large gap between what we know and what we do.

A New World Of Work

Clearly the world of work has changed. When I began professional life in the mid-90s, laptops were still new and few people had access to the Internet. Work was something you did in your office. We largely communicated by phone and memos typed up by secretaries. Data analysis was something you did with a pencil, paper and a desk calculator.

Today, on the other hand, work is largely something we do with each other. We are increasingly collaborating in teams and our work has become more social and less cognitive. For example, the journal Nature noted that the average scientific paper today has four times as many authors as one did in 1950 and the work they are doing is far more interdisciplinary.

The truth is that we spend most of our time in meetings, collaborating with colleagues to solve problems, rather than working alone in our offices to execute tasks. Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been no shortage of concepts developed, such as psychological safety, agile development and diversity & inclusion policies, designed to help us succeed and prosper in this new world of work.

Yet much like with lean manufacturing, the reality of most workplaces rarely reflects the pundits’ rhetoric. The reason for this is simple. The status quo has inertia on its side and that is an incredibly powerful force. Change takes effort and is often disruptive. The costs are clear and present while the benefits can seem distant and remote.

The New, New Economy

In 1982, when Steve Jobs was trying to lure John Sculley from Pepsi to Apple, he asked him, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?” The ploy worked and Sculley became the first CEO of a major conventional company to join a Silicon Valley startup.

Yet since then, besides for a relatively short period between 1996 and 2004, labor productivity has remained depressed, except during recessions when businesses cut workers. At the same time, income inequality has increased and business has become less dynamic, with fewer startups and less churn among market leaders. I don’t think those are the changes Jobs was talking about.

It seems amazing that given all of the technological progress, including mobile and cloud computing, artificial intelligence and Industry 4.0 manufacturing technologies, that so little has been accomplished, but in their recent book, Power and Progress, economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson argue that market and technological forces, if left to their own devices, tend to favor elites rather than society as a whole.

We can’t simply leave our fates to the impersonal whims of market and technological forces. The historical record shows that innovations that displace workers do not necessarily make us better off. In fact, we have strong reasons to suspect that many of these technologies impoverish our society and corrode our culture.

Technology and markets were created by humans to serve people. That is their purpose and should be, by any reasonable analysis, the measure of their value. We need to take a hard look at the last 30 years and ask how we’re better off, how we’re worse off, what we need to do differently and how we can forge a better path.

The End Of History?

In 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama published an essay in the journal The National Interest titled The End of History, which led to a bestselling book. Many took his argument to mean that, with the defeat of communism, US-style liberal democracy had emerged as the only viable way of organizing a society.

He was misunderstood. His actual argument was far more nuanced and insightful. After explaining the arguments of philosophers like Hegel and Kojeve, Fukuyama pointed out that even if we had reached an endpoint in the debate about ideologies, there would still be conflict because of people’s need to express their identity.

Humans tend to build stories that support our notions of who we think we are. If you work hard at your job, new ideas about lean manufacturing or agile development can seem like an affront. In much the same way, entrepreneurs like to think that their businesses have social value and the denizens of the tech universe like to think that their code changes the world.

If you believe that the forces of history are on your side, pursuing your path seems like a calling and an obligation. The benefits you receive are just more proof that you are headed in the right direction and whatever costs that are incurred by others may seem like mere table stakes to be paid for the price of progress.

That’s why tech billionaires write silly manifestos and politicians are able to fleece them for outrageous amounts of money. It is not enough to earn a good living and live in comfort. People have a need to be recognized and they will cling to the the identity they have built for themselves. Asking them to change can often seem more than a simple shift in behavior, but an affront to who they are.

Dismantling the Cult of Inevitability

We’d like to think that if something is a good idea, can be proven to work, improve performance and make people’s lives better, that market and technological forces will somehow make it inevitable. Unfortunately, the history of the last half century makes it clear that’s not true. Most people in developed countries are worse off than a generation ago.

Yes it’s true that our TV’s have gotten better and we have infinitely more channels. We carry supercomputers around in our pockets that give us unprecedented access to information and emerging services like ChatGPT give us almost superhuman powers to process it. Yet the cost of basics, such as housing, healthcare and education have impoverished us.

This wasn’t inevitable. Consider that in the US per capita GDP has nearly doubled since 1985 but median household income has risen only 27% and you begin to see the problem. In my work with organizational transformation it is clear that similar forces are at work in the corporate world. For all the talk about disruption and change, the status quo usually prevails.

We need to be more cognizant of the stories we tell ourselves. We have a primal need to be the heroes in our own narratives, to tell ourselves that we are on the right path while others are just fooling themselves, to look for information that confirms our choices and neglect evidence to the contrary. It is not a character flaw, but a reality of human nature.

Ironically, it is through awareness of our failings that can help us overcome them. Decades of research show that shifts in knowledge and attitudes don’t necessarily result in changes in behavior. Once we know that we can be more vigilant and hold ourselves to a higher standard. What we know and what we do are two different things, but with effort we can narrow the gap.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— 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.