Is China Our New Sputnik Moment?

Is China Our New Sputnik Moment?

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first space satellite, into orbit in 1957, it was a wake-up call for America. Over the next year, President Eisenhower would sign the National Defense Education Act to spur science education, increase funding for research and establish NASA and DARPA to spur innovation.

A few years ago, a report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) argued that we are at a similar point today, but with China. While we have been steadily decreasing federal investment in R&D over the past few decades, our Asian rival has been ramping up and now threatens our leadership in key technologies such as AI, genomics and quantum information technology.

Clearly, we need to increase our commitment to science and innovation and that means increasing financial investment. However, what the report makes clear is that money alone won’t solve the problem. We are, in several important ways, actually undermining our ability to innovate, now and in the future. We need to renew our culture of innovation in America.

Educating And Attracting Talent

The foundation of an innovation economy is education, especially in STEM subjects. Historically, America has been the world’s best educated workforce, but more recently we’ve fallen to fifth among OECD countries for post-secondary education. That’s alarming and something we will certainly need to reverse if we are to compete effectively.

Our educational descent can be attributed to three major causes. First, the rest of the world has become more educated, so the competition has become stiffer. Second, is financing. Tuition has nearly tripled in the last decade and student debt has become so onerous that it now takes about 20 years to pay off four years for college. Third, we need to work harder to attract talented people to the United States.

The CFR report recommends developing a “21st century National Defense Education Act” to create scholarships in STEM areas and making it easier for foreign students to get Green Cards when they graduate from our universities. It also points out that we need to work harder to attract foreign talent, especially in high impact areas like AI, genomics and quantum computing.

Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way. The number of international students to American universities is declining. Policies like the muslim ban and concerns about gun violence are deterring scientific talent coming here. The denial rate for those on H1-B visas has increased from 4% in 2016 to 18% in the first quarter of 2019.

Throughout our history, it has been our openness to new people and new ideas that has made America exceptional. It’s a legitimate question whether that’s still true.

Building Technology Ecosystems

In the 1980s, the US semiconductor industry was on the ropes. Due to increased competition from low-cost Japanese manufacturers, American market share in the DRAM market fell from 70% to 20%. The situation not only had a significant economic impact, there were also important national security implications.

The federal government responded with two initiatives, the Semiconductor Research Corporation and SEMATECH, both of which were nonprofit consortiums that involved government, academia and industry. By the 1990s. American semiconductor manufacturers were thriving again.

Today, we have similar challenges with rare earth elements, battery technology and many manufacturing areas. The Obama administration responded by building similar consortiums to those that were established for semiconductors: The Critical Materials Institute for rare earth elements, JCESR for advanced batteries and the 14 separate Manufacturing Institutes.

Yet here again, we seem to be backsliding. The current administration has sought to slash funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that supports small and medium sized producers. An addendum to the CFR report also points out that the administration has pushed for a 30% cut in funding for the national labs, which support much of the advanced science critical to driving American technology forward.

Supporting International Trade and Alliances

Another historical strength of the US economy has been our open approach to trade. The CFR report points out that our role as a “central node in a global network of research and development,” gave us numerous advantages, such as access to foreign talent at R&D centers overseas, investment into US industry and cooperative responses to global challenges.

However, the report warns that “the Trump administration’s indiscriminate use of tariffs against China, as well as partners and allies, will harm U.S. innovative capabilities.” It also faults the Trump administration for pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which would have bolstered our relationship with Asian partners and increased our leverage over China.

The tariffs undermine American industry in two ways. First, because many of the tariffs are on intermediate goods which US firms use to make products for export, we’re undermining our own competitive position, especially in manufacturing. Second, because trade partners such as Canada and the EU have retaliated against our tariffs, our position is weakened further.

Clearly, we compete in an ecosystem driven world in which power does not come from the top, but emanates from the center. Traditionally, America has positioned itself at the center of ecosystems by constantly connecting out. Now that process seems to have reversed itself and we are extremely vulnerable to others, such as China, filling the void.

We Need to Stop Killing Innovation in America

The CFR report, whose task force included such luminaries as Admiral William McRaven, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and economist Laura Tyson, should set alarm bells ringing. Although the report was focused on national security issues, it pertains to general competitiveness just as well and the picture it paints is fairly bleak.

After World War II, America stood almost alone in the world in terms of production capacity. Through smart policy, we were able to transform that initial advantage into long-term technological superiority. Today, however we have stiff competition in areas ranging from AI to synthetic biology to quantum systems.

At the same time, we seem to be doing everything we can to kill innovation in America. Instead of working to educate and attract the world’s best talent, we’re making it harder for Americans to attain higher education and for top foreign talent to come and work here. Instead of ramping up our science and technology programs, presidential budgets regular recommend cutting them. Instead of pulling our allies closer, we are pushing them away.

To be clear, America is still at the forefront of science and technology, vying for leadership in every conceivable area. However, as global competition heats up and we need to be redoubling our efforts, we seem to be doing just the opposite. The truth is that our prosperity is not a birthright to which we are entitled, but a legacy that must be lived up to.

— 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.

Rethinking Customer Journeys

Rethinking Customer Journeys

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Customer journeys are a mainstay of modern marketing programs. Unfortunately, for most companies, they are pointed in the wrong direction!

Most customer journey diagrams I see map the customer’s journey through the vendor’s marketing and sales process. That’s not a customer journey. That is a vendor journey. Customers could not care less about it.

What customers do care about is any journey that leads to value realization in their enterprise. That means true customer journey mapping must work backward from the customer’s value goals and objectives, not forward from the vendor’s sales goals and objectives.

But to do that, the customer-facing team in the vendor organization has to have good intelligence about what value realization the customer is seeking. That means that sales teams must diagnose before they prescribe. They must interrogate before they present. They must listen before they demo.

That is not what the typical sales enablement program teaches. Instead, it instructs salespeople on how to give the standard presentation, how to highlight the product’s competitive advantages, how to counter the competition’s claims—anything and everything except the only thing that really matters—how do you get good customer intelligence from whatever level of management you are able to converse with?

The SaaS business model with its emphasis on subscription and consumption creates a natural occasion for reforming these practices. Net Revenue Retention is the name of the game. Adoption, extension, and expansion of product usage are core to the customer’s Health Score. This only happens when value is truly being realized.

All this is casting the post-sales customer-facing functions of Customer Success and Customer Support in a new light. These relationships are signaling outposts for current customer status. Vendors still need to connect with the top management, for they are the ones who set the value realization goals and provide the budgets to fund the vendor’s offerings, but for day-to-day reality checks on whether the value is actually getting realized, nothing beats feet on the ground.

So, note to vendors. You can still use your vendor-centric customer journey maps to manage your marketing and sales productivity. Just realize these maps are about you, not the customer. You cannot simply assign the customer a mindset that serves your interests. You have to genuinely engage with them to get to actionable truth.

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

Image Credit: Pexels

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

10 Days to Save on Charting Change

Charting Change for an Outstanding 2023

Wow! Exciting news!

From now until April 19, 2023 you can get my latest best-selling book Charting Change in hardcover for only $24.99 – plus FREE shipping!

Sorry, unfortunately this sale doesn’t have a discount on the eBook, meaning the hardcover is temporarily cheaper.

You must go to SpringerLink for this Cyber Sale:

  • The offer is valid until April 19, 2023 on the hardcover only
  • Free shipping worldwide – with a few restrictions (check the restrictions carefully)

Click here to get this hardcover deal

*This offer is valid for English-language Palgrave hardcover books and is redeemable on link.springer.com only. Titles affected by fixed book price laws, forthcoming titles and titles temporarily not available on link.springer.com are excluded from this promotion, as are reference works, handbooks, encyclopedias, subscriptions, or bulk purchases. The currency in which your order will be invoiced depends on the billing address associated with the payment method used, not necessarily your home currency. Regional VAT/tax may apply. Promotional prices may change due to exchange rates. This offer is valid for individual customers only. Booksellers, book distributors, and institutions such as libraries and corporations please visit springernature.com/contact-us. This promotion does not work in combination with other discounts or gift cards.

The Trust Network – Part Two

The Trust Network - Part Two

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

I stand by my statement that trust is the most important element in business (see The Trust Network.)

The Trust Network are the group of people who get the work done. They don’t do the work to get promoted, they just do the work because they like doing the work. They don’t take others’ credit (they’re not striving,) they just do the work. And they help each other do the work because, well, it’s the right thing to do.

Sometimes, they use their judgement to protect the company from bad ideas. But to be clear, they don’t protect the Status Quo. They use their good judgement to decide if a new idea has merit, and if it doesn’t, they try to shape it. And if they can’t shape it, they block it. Their judgement is good because their mutual trust allows them to talk openly and honestly and listen to each other. And through the process, they come to a decision and act on it.

But there’s another side to the Trust Network. They also bring new ideas to the company.

Trying new things is scary, but the Trust Network makes it safe. When someone has a good idea, the Network positively reinforces the goodness of the idea and recommends a small experiment. And when one installment of positivity doesn’t carry the day, the Trust Network comes together to create the additional positivity need to grow the idea into an experiment.

To make it safe, the Trust Network knows to keep the experiment small. If the small experiment doesn’t go as planned, they know there will be no negative consequences. And if the experiment’s results do attract attention, they dismiss the negativity of failure and talk about the positivity of learning. And if there is no money to run the experiment, they scare it up. They don’t stop until the experiment is completed.

But the real power of the Trust Network shows its hand after the successful experiment. The toughest part of innovation is the “now what” part, where successful experiments go to die. Since no one thought through what must happen to convert the successful experiment to a successful product, the follow-on actions are undefined and unbudgeted and the validated idea dies. But the Trust Network knows all this, so they help the experimenter define the “then what” activities before the experiment is run. That way, the resources are ready and waiting when the experiment is a success. The follow-on activities happen as planned.

The Trust Network always reminds each other that doing new things is difficult and that it’s okay that the outcome of the experiment is unknown. In fact, they go further and tell each other that the outcome of the experiment is unknowable. Regardless of the outcome of the experiment, the Trust Network is there for each other.

To start a Trust Network, find someone you trust and trust them. Support their new ideas, support their experiments and support the follow-on actions. If they’re afraid, tell them to be afraid and run the experiment. If they don’t have the resources to run the experiment, find the resources for them. And if they’re afraid they won’t get credit for all the success, tell them to trust you.

And to grow your Trust Network, find someone else you trust and trust them. And, repeat.

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.

Don’t Confuse Culture with Strategy

Culture is the Who and How We Work; Strategy is What We Do

Don't Confuse Culture with Strategy

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Culture is quite different from strategy. It’s what a company is and stands for. Peter Drucker, the legendary management guru, once said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” It’s not that strategy isn’t important. It absolutely is. However, culture must come first. Then strategy must align with the culture.

One of several definitions of culture by Merriam-Webster is:

“The set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.”

That is exactly what culture should be. However, there can be problems.

Some companies state their culture in mission, vision and/or values statements. However, those are just words—they are meaningless if not lived. And they can’t be aspirational. They must be true in the moment. A culture that is not actively practiced by leadership and employees is just a dream—just words on paper that are somewhat meaningless, regardless of how well-written and aspirational they are.

For a culture to be successful, leadership must live it and be the role model for others to emulate. And while most people think of leadership as the executives who sit in the C-suite, it is really anyone of authority. It could be anyone in management, in a supervisory position, or anyone who has direct reports. And while leaders must be role models, everyone must know and understand the culture. In the “perfect” organization, everyone is in alignment.

That is why Target is a great case study for how the right culture works. The title of this article is a quote from Christina Hennington, chief growth officer of Target, who sat on a panel at the recent 2023 National Retail Federation (NRF) Big Show. Hennington says, “We use culture as a guidepost, as a set of filters for the decisions we make in the business, both big and small. That’s all in the pursuit of our purpose, which is to help all families discover the joy of everyday life.”

Just last year, Target was No. 2 in Fortune’s Best Workplaces in Retail. It was also No. 1 in People’s Companies that Care, and No. 12 in Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For. Those are some fine accolades, and with good reason. A RetailWire article noted that in 2021, when most companies were struggling to hire and keep employees, Target had its lowest turnover rate in five years. A good paycheck is a start. Good benefits are also important, and they go beyond medical benefits. For example, Target has a debt-free college program in which all full-time and part-time employees can participate. Another benefit is that Target likes to promote from within. Employees starting on hourly wages can become leaders. They take care of their people, and in turn their people take care of their customers.

Mark Ryski, founder and CEO of HeadCount Corporation, says, “Target continues to set the standard for driving up worker pay. I can only believe there is one key reason why—because a well-compensated, appreciated, happy workforce delivers better results. Imagine how it must feel to work for a company like Target that continues to look for ways to enrich employees.”

Melissa Kremer, EVP and chief human resources officer at Target, said, “Our team is at the heart of our strategy and success, and their energy and resilience keep us at the forefront of meeting the changing needs of our guests year after year.”

So, Target has nailed a big part of the culture, in that it has taken the words on paper to the people who work there. The message from Target’s leadership is clear. Build a culture that starts with a focus on your own people. Take care of them, and they will in turn, take care of the company, which includes the company’s customers.

Does that sound familiar? If you’ve been following my work for any length of time, it probably reminds you of my Employee Golden Rule: Do unto employees as you want done unto your customers. And it looks like it’s working.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

Image Credit: Pexels

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

What Have We Learned About Digital Transformation Thus Far?

What Have We Learned About Digital Transformation Thus Far?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

We are well into our first decade of digital transformation, with both the successes and the scars to show for it, and we can see there is a long way to go. Realistically, there is probably never a finish line, so I think it is time for us to pause and take stock of what we have learned, and how best we can proceed from here. Here are three lessons to take to heart.

Lesson 1: There are three distinct levels of transformation, and operating model transformation is the one that deserves the most attention.

Geoffrey Moore Pyramid Model

The least disruptive transformation is to the infrastructure model. This should be managed within the Productivity Zone, where to be fair, the disruption will be considerable, but it should not require much in the way of behavior change from the rest of the enterprise. Moving from data centers to cloud computing is a good example, as are enabling mobile applications and remote work centers. The goal here is to make employees more efficient while lowering total cost of IT ownership. These transformations are well underway, and there is little confusion about what next steps to take.

By contrast, the most disruptive transformation is to the business model. Here a company may be monetizing information derived from its operating model, as the SABRE system did for American Airlines, or overlaying a digital service on top of its core offering, as the automotive makers are seeking to do with in-car entertainment. The challenge here is that the economics of the new model have little in common with the core model, which creates repercussions both with internal systems and external ecosystem relationships. Few of these transformations to date can be said to be truly successful, and my view is they are more the exception than the rule.

The place where digital transformation is having its biggest impact is on the operating model. Virtually every sector of the economy is reengineering its customer-facing processes to take advantage of ubiquitous mobile devices interacting with applications hosted in the cloud. These are making material changes to everyday interactions with customers and partners in the Performance Zone, where the priority is to improve effectiveness first, efficiency second. The challenge is to secure rapid, consistent, widespread adoption of the new systems from every employee who touches them. More than any other factor, this is the one that separates the winners from the losers in the digital transformation game.

Lesson 2: Reengineer operating models from the outside in, not the inside out.

A major challenge that digital transformation at the operating model level must overcome is the inertial resistance of the existing operating model, especially where it is embedded in human behaviors. Simply put, people don’t like change. (Well, actually, they all want other people to change, just not themselves.) When we take the approach of internal improvement, things go way too slowly and eventually lose momentum altogether.

The winning approach is to focus on an external forcing function. For competition cultures, the battle cry should be, this new operating model poses an existential threat to our future. Our competitors are eating our lunch. We need to change, and we need to do it now! For collaboration cultures, the call to action should be, we are letting our customers down because we are too hard to do business with. They love our offers, but if we don’t modernize our operating model, they are going to take their business elsewhere. Besides, with this new digital model, we can make our offers even more effective. Let’s get going!

This is where design thinking comes in. Forget the sticky notes and lose the digital whiteboards. This is not about process. It is about walking a mile in the other person’s shoes, be that an end user, a technical buyer, a project sponsor, or an implementation partner, spending time seeing what hoops they have to go through to implement or use your products or simply to do business with you. No matter how good you were in the pre-digital era, there will be a ton of room for improvement, but it has to be focused on their friction issues, not yours. Work backward from their needs and problems, in other words, not forward from your intentions or desires.

Lesson 3: Digital transformations cannot be pushed. They must be pulled.

This is the hardest lesson to learn. Most executive teams have assumed that if they got the right digital transformation leader, gave them the title of Chief Transformation Officer, funded them properly, and insured that the project was on time, on spec, and on budget, that would do the trick. It makes total sense. It just doesn’t work.

The problem is one endemic to all business process reengineering. The people whose behavior needs to change—and change radically—are the ones least comfortable with the program. When some outsider shows up with a new system, they can find any number of things wrong with it and use these objections to slow down deployment, redirect it into more familiar ways, and in general, diminish its impact. Mandating adoption can lead to reluctant engagement or even malicious compliance, and the larger the population of people involved, the more likely this is to occur.

So what does work? Transformations that are driven by the organization that has to transform. These start with the executive in charge who must galvanize the team to take up the challenge, to demand the digital transformation, and to insert it into every phase of its deployment. In other words, the transformation has to be pulled, not pushed.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There is still plenty of work on the push side involved, and that will require a strong leader. But at the end of the day, success will depend more on the leader of the consuming organization than that of the delivery team.

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.

How Has Innovation Changed Since the Pandemic?

The Answer in Three Charts

How Has Innovation Changed Since the Pandemic?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

“Everything changed since the pandemic.”

At this point, my husband, a Navy veteran, is very likely to moo (yes, like a cow). It’s a habit he picked up as a submarine officer, something the crew would do whenever someone said something blindingly obvious because “moo” is not just a noise. It’s an acronym – Master Of the Obvious.

But HOW did things change?

From what, to what?

So what?

It can be hard to see the changes when you’re living and working in the midst of them. This is why I found “Benchmarking Innovation Impact, from InnoLead,” a new report from InnoLead and KPMG US, so interesting, insightful, and helpful.

There’s lots of great stuff in the report (and no, this is not a sponsored post though I am a member), so I limited myself to the three charts that answer executives’ most frequently asked innovation questions.

Innovation Leader Research 2023 Chart 1

Question #1: What type of innovation should I pursue?

2023 Answer: Companies are investing more than half of their resources in incremental innovation

So What?:  I may very well be alone in this opinion, but I think this is great news for several reasons:

  1. Some innovation is better than none – Companies shifting their innovation spending to safer, shorter-term bets is infinitely better than shutting down all innovation, which is what usually happens during economic uncertainty
  2. Play to your strengths – Established companies are, on average, better at incremental and adjacent innovation because they have the experience, expertise, resources, and culture required to do those well and other ways (e.g., corporate venture capital, joint ventures) to pursue Transformational innovation.
  3. Adjacent Innovation is increasing –This is the sweet spot for corporate innovation (I may also be biased because Swiffer is an adjacent innovation) because it stretches the business into new customers, offerings, and/or business models without breaking the company or executives’ identities.

Innovation Leader Research 2023 Chart 2

Question #2: Is innovation really a leadership problem (or do you just have issues with authority)?

2023 Answer: Yes (and it depends on the situation). “Lack of Executive Support” is the #6 biggest challenge to innovation, up from #8 in 2020.

So What?: This is a good news/bad news chart.

The good news is that fewer companies are experiencing the top 5 challenges to innovation. Of course, leadership is central to fostering/eliminating turf wars, setting culture, acting on signals, allocating budgets, and setting strategy. Hence, leadership has a role in resolving these issues, too.

The bad news is that MORE innovators are experiencing a lack of executive support (24.3% vs. 19.7% in 2020) and “Other” challenges (17.3% vs. 16.4%), including:

  • Different agendas held by certain leadership as to how to measure innovation and therefore how we go after innovation. Also, the time it takes to ‘sell’ an innovative idea or opportunity into the business; corporate bureaucracy.”
  • Lack of actual strategy. Often, goals or visions are treated as strategy, which results in frustration with the organization’s ability to advance viable work and creates an unnecessary churn, resulting in confused decision-making.”
  • “Innovations are stalling after piloting due to lack of funding and executive support in order to shift to scaling. Many are just happy with PR innovation.”

Innovation Leader Research 2023 Chart 3

Question #3: How much should I invest in innovation?

2023 Answer: Most companies are maintaining past years’ budgets and team sizes.

So What?:  This is another good news/bad news set of charts.

The good news is that investment is staying steady. Companies that cut back or kill innovation investments due to economic uncertainty often find that they are behind competitors when the economy improves. Even worse, it takes longer than expected to catch up because they are starting from scratch regarding talent, strategy, and a pipeline.

The bad news is that investment is staying steady. If you want different results, you need to take different actions. And I don’t know any company that is thrilled with the results of its innovation efforts. Indeed, companies can do different things with existing budgets and teams, but there needs to be flexibility and a willingness to grow the budget and the team as projects progress closer to launch and scale-up.

Not MOO

Yes, everything has changed since the pandemic, but not as much as we think.

Companies are still investing in incremental, adjacent, and transformational innovation. They’re just investing more in incremental innovation.

Innovation is still a leadership problem, but leadership is less of a problem (congrats!)

Investment is still happening, but it’s holding steady rather than increasing.

And that is nothing to “moo” at.

Image credits: Pixabay, InnoLead

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.

Questions Are More Powerful Than We Think

Questions Are More Powerful Than We Think

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I was 27, I moved to Warsaw, Poland to work in the nascent media industry that was developing there. I had experience working in media in New York, so I was excited to share what I’d learned and was confident that my knowledge and expertise would be well received.

It wasn’t. Whenever I began to explain how a media business was supposed to work, people would ask me, “why?” That forced me to think about it and, when I did, I began to realize that many of the principles I had taken for granted were merely conventions. Things didn’t need to work that way and could be done differently.

That’s when I first learned the power of a question. As Warren Berger explains in A More Beautiful Question, while answers tend to close a discussion, questions help us open new doors and can lead to genuine breakthroughs. Yet not all questions are equal. Asking good questions is a skill that takes practice and effort to learn to do well. Here’s where to start.

Why?

When we are young, we ask lots of “why?” questions. Why is the sky blue? Why can’t we fly like birds? Why do I have to go to bed at a certain time? It is through asking why that we learn basic things about the world. Yet as we get older, we tend to think we know things and stop questioning fundamental assumptions.

That’s where I was when I first arrived in Poland. I had gone through extensive training and knew things. I was proud of the knowledge that I had gained and didn’t question whether those things were necessarily true. My new Polish colleagues, on the other hand, were emerging from 50 years of communism and so were unencumbered with that illusion of knowledge.

In researching my book, Mapping Innovation, I spoke to dozens of world class innovators, and I was amazed how often breakthroughs started with a “Why?” question. For example, Jim Allison, a prominent immunologist who had lost family members to cancer, asked himself why our immune system doesn’t attack tumors.

“Why?” questions can be frustrating, because there are rarely easy answers to them, and they almost always lead to more questions. There’s even a technique called the 5 Whys that is designed to uncover root problems. Nevertheless, if you want to get beyond fundamental assumptions, you need to start with asking “why?”

What If?

While asking “why?” can help alert us to new opportunities, asking “What if” can lead us into new directions and open new doors. Einstein was famous for these types of thought experiments. Asking “What if I would ride on a bolt of lightning?” led to his theory of special relativity and asking, “What if I was riding on an elevator in space?” led to general relativity.

Often, we can use “What if?” questions to propose answers to our “Why?” questions. For example, after Jim Allison asked himself why our immune system doesn’t attack tumors, he followed it up by asking, “what if our immune system actually does attack tumors, but shuts off too soon?”

That took him in a completely new direction. He began to experiment with regulating the immune response and achieved amazing results. Eventually, he would win the Nobel Prize for his role in establishing the new field of cancer immunotherapy. It all started because he was able to imagine new possibilities with a “What if?” question.

Another way we can use “What If? questions is to remove or add constraints. For example, we can ask ourselves, “What if we didn’t have to worry about costs?” or “What if we could only charge our customers half of what we’re charging now?” Asking “What if? Questions can often alert us to possibilities what we weren’t aware of.

How?

Asking “Why?” and “What if? questions can open up new opportunities, eventually we need to answer the “How?” question. “How?” questions can be especially difficult because answering them often involves knowledge, resources and capabilities that we do not possess. That’s what makes “How?” questions fundamentally more collaborative.

For example, as a research executive at Eli Lilly, Alph Bingham became interested in why some chemistry problems never got solved. One observation he made was that when he was in graduate school, if there were 20 people in a class, they would often come up with 20 different approaches to a problem, but in industry scientists generally worked alone.

Long an admirer of Linux, he was fascinated with the way thousands of volunteers were able to create and advance complex software that could compete with the best proprietary products. So he began to think “What if we could do something like Linux, but with a bounty?” He thought that if he got more people working on the “How?” question, he might be able to solve more problems.

The fruit of his efforts, called Innocentive went live in June 2001 with 21 problems, many of which the company had been working on for years. Although the bounties were small in the context of the pharmaceutical industry — $20,000 to $25,000 — by the end of the year a third of them were solved. It was an astounding success.

It soon became clear that more challenges on the site would attract more solvers, so they started recruiting other companies to the platform. When results improved, they even began inviting competitors to post challenges as well. Today, Innocentive has over 100,000 solvers that work out hundreds of problems so tough that even the smartest companies can’t crack them.

Building A Culture Of Inquiry

When I first arrived in Poland, I was prepared to give all the answers, because that’s what I was trained for. The media business in New York had been around for a long time and everything was supposedly worked out. Follow the model, I was told, and you’ll be successful. That’s why the questions my new colleagues posed took me by surprise.

Yet once I started asking questions myself, I began to see opportunities everywhere. As I travelled and worked in different countries, I found that everywhere I went, people ran nearly identical businesses in completely different ways and most were convinced that their way was the “right” way. Most saw little utility in questioning how things were done.

That’s why most people can’t innovate. In fact, while researching Mapping Innovation, I found that the best innovators were not the ones who were the smartest or even the ones who worked the hardest, but those who continually looked for new problems to solve. They were always asking new questions, that’s how they found new things.

The truth is that to drive innovation, we need to build a culture of inquiry. We need to ask “why” things are done the way they are done, “what if” we took a different path and “how” things can be done differently. If you don’t explore, you won’t discover and if you don’t discover, you won’t invent. Once you stop inventing, you will be disrupted.

— 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.

Building A Positive Team Culture

Building A Positive Team Culture

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Teams are a central part of our work experience. Jobs that could have been solitary at one time or another happen more efficiently and at higher quality because we work in teams. The number of teams we form, along with the size of those teams, has increased dramatically in recent decades.

And much of a team’s performance comes down to its culture. Yes, the talents and skills of individuals matter. But without a positive team culture, those same individuals will fail to achieve the level of performance they’re capable of. The common set of norms and behaviors on a team are what guide their collaboration and determine their performance.

In this article, we’ll outline 5 practical ways to build a positive team culture that will help your team thrive and succeed.

Clarify Objectives

The first way to build a positive team culture is to clarify objectives to the whole team. This might seem like a very basic way to start, but so much of what triggers conflict and disengagement on a team stems from the team working to complete vague tasks in the service of unclear goals. Clarifying the team’s goals, it’s plan of action, and its deadlines and deliverables provides the foundation on which a positive team culture can be built. It brings a sense of contribution and importance to each member of the team to know how their work fits in with the team’s purpose and how that fits into the larger organizational mission. And it provides an accountability to the team that’s difficult to enforce without that level of clarity.

Outline Expectations

The second way to build a positive team culture is to outline expectations to the team. People need to know what is expected of them, that’s what is meant by clarify objectives. Expectations takes it a step further and outlines that a completed objective looks like, so the team knows how to tell that they’ve achieved it. But outlining expectations also means outlining the expectations of behavior on a team—especially interpersonal communication and collaboration expectations. Many times, the relationships between teammates get strained because of taken for granted assumptions or assumed responses that don’t match reality. So, clarifying how we’re going to interact (even going so far as clarifying what medium of communication will be used for which topic) can go a long way toward eliminating assumptions and improving communication.

Include All

The third way to build a positive team culture is to include all. One of the more consistent findings in organizational psychology is that high-performing teams, and teams with great cultures, are marked by conversational turn taking—ensuring everyone on the team is heard. Inclusion is a vital part of a positive team culture for obvious and nonobvious reasons. It’s obvious because who wants to be part of a team that ignores them? But less obvious is the way that being deliberate about hearing and including all opens up a diversity of ideas and possible solutions and makes it more likely new and better ways of achieving objectives are found—without that diversity teams can get stale and performance can start to slide.

Recognize Good

The fourth way to build a positive team culture is to recognize the good behaviors you see. As a leader, one rule of thumb you can count on is that you’ll get more of the behaviors that you celebrate. So, when teammates demonstrate civility in dialogue or inclusion in discussion, celebrate their positive interactions. When teammates go above and beyond, praise it. Teams with great cultures (and great performance) praise and appreciate each other more than standard teams. It’s a habit for them. And that habit of praise starts with leaders who are deliberate and consistent about praising good behavior and good results any time they see it.

Reinforce Purpose

The fifth way to build a positive team culture is to reinforce purpose. Positive team cultures are cultures where teammates feel a sense of purpose, and meetings are imbued with a sense of collective purpose. Specifically, positive team cultures are ones where everyone on the team knows who is served by their doing a good job—and so they work harder and support each other to do a better job. This can be difficult for individual teams. Organizations have mission statement or vision statements—but it’s hard to see how a specific team fulfills that mission. Positive team cultures are ones where leaders (typically) have taken the time to discuss how the day-to-day work of the team serves that mission and then who benefits from that mission being accomplished. It’s not about reciting the mission statement; it’s about recalling why the task at hand matters.

If you’re starting from a negative team culture, it may take some time before these actions start turning around the culture of your team. That’s okay. Stay deliberate and stay consistent on each one of them and overtime as expectations get clearer and purpose gets reinforced, teammates behaviors will change for the better. Culture is a habit, and habit aren’t built overnight. But habits (and hence culture) are the difference between teams that drain us and teams that allow us to do our best work ever.


Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on March 27, 2023.

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.

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of March 2023

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of March 2023Drum roll please…

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

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

  1. Taking Care of Yourself is Not Impossible — by Mike Shipulski
  2. Rise of the Prompt Engineer — by Art Inteligencia
  3. A Guide to Effective Brainstorming — by Diana Porumboiu
  4. What Disruptive Innovation Really Is — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  5. The 6 Building Blocks of Great Teams — by David Burkus
  6. Take Charge of Your Mind to Reclaim Your Potential — by Janet Sernack
  7. Ten Reasons You Must Deliver Amazing Customer Experiences — by Shep Hyken
  8. Deciding You Have Enough Opens Up New Frontiers — by Mike Shipulski
  9. The AI Apocalypse is Here – 3 Reasons You Should Celebrate! — by Robyn Bolton
  10. Artificial Intelligence is Forcing Us to Answer Some Very Human Questions — by Greg Satell

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

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

Have something to contribute?

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

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

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