News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Life
Culture & Art
Hobbies
News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Culture & Art
Hobbies
When Things Seem Hopeless And That Nothing Will Ever Change, You Need To Prepare For The Next Window Of Opportunity | Digital Tonto
We often see events as decisive. A road forks and it feels like our fate has been set. Yet that’s rarely ever true. There will be more forks ahead that represent new possibilities. When times seem bleak, it’s crucial to remember this and focus on preparing for those future moments, so you’re ready to seize the opportunities they bring. I remember moving to Poland in 1997, shortly after the Berlin Wall had fallen. The Cold War was had ended, capitalism and democracy had emerged victorious. There was a sense of triumph in the air. The future felt not just bright but assured. Across Eastern Europe, people were embracing newfound freedom and prosperity. It seemed inevitable that this model was the path everyone would aspire to follow. Yet, many twists and turns lay ahead. There would be the 1998 Ruble Crisis, the Color Revolutions of the early 2000s, Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Each came with their own triumphs and heartaches, but none were decisive—there was always another chapter waiting to unfold. I was honored to have played a small role in these events and fortunate to know others who played far larger ones. One key lesson I learned is that the most effective people are always preparing for the next trigger—an unforeseen event that could shift the landscape in their favor —in order to be ready when the winds of fortune turned more favorable. So that’s what I try to do when things are bleak. That’s the discipline I try to build. When things don’t go your way and you feel like you’ve been knocked to the ground, lay down there for a moment, focus on the foundational ideas and values that make the fight important to you in the first place, and then return to the fray with renewed vigor.
The Best Way To Help Innovation Take Hold Is To Design A Co-optable Resource | Digital Tonto
The global activist Srdja Popović once told me that the goal of a revolution should be to become mainstream, to be mundane and ordinary. If you are successful it should be difficult to explain what was won because the previous order seems so unbelievable. Yet many leaders approach change initiatives as if they were swashbuckling heroes in their own action movie. The simple truth is that every change initiative starts out weak and vulnerable, without an internal track record of success. People are bound to be suspicious. They already have everyday struggles and don’t want someone else’s idea to add to their burden. Most often, they’ll nod their head, pay lip service, take a “wait and see” approach and then turn away at the first sign of trouble. To create genuine transformation we need to get out of the business of selling ideas and into the business of selling success. That can’t be done through persuasion, we have to start by identifying people who are already enthusiastic about change. Change isn’t about communication, but empowerment and the best way to empower is to give people resources with which they can pursue their own goals and dreams. If we can help allies to make change successful, even on a small scale, they can bring in others who bring in others still. The best way to do that is to design a resource that is both accessible and impactful, which people can co-opt to further ambitions and goals they pursue for their own reasons, even if those are different from your own.
Gradually, Then Suddenly: Why Change Seems To Happen So Slowly, And Then All At Once | Digital Tonto
Bent Flyvbjerg, author of How Big Things Get Done, frequently highlights the planning fallacy as a key reason why projects go awry. We tend to trust too much in our plans, often underestimating setbacks and complications. This issue becomes even more pronounced in change initiatives, where the change itself can provoke resistance, creating additional obstacles that slow progress. The truth is that things that change the world always arrive out of context, for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet. Samuel Adams starts a Committee of Correspondence in Boston. Five kids meet in a cafe in Belgrade. At first, few noticed. But connections were forged and networks began to expand. What people do notice is when an event triggers a moment of opportunity. Shots are fired in Lexington, a tyrant attempts to steal an election, an innocent is killed or some other injustice is perpetrated. That’s when it shows whether you’ve put in the work when it really mattered, long before the issue was on most people’s radar, when the groundwork needs to be done. When that moment happens, it’s already too late. We know from centuries of history as well as decades of research that change follows an s-curve. It starts out slowly and then, if the ground has been prepared, it can accelerate exponentially. But you need to start building networks long before, when nobody is watching and there is no credit to claim. That’s what makes the difference between a movement that succeeds and those countless others that catch some limelight, make a little noise and then sputter out and fade away into obscurity. And when that happens, many will throw up their hands and complain that nothing ever changes
Communicate A Vision To Shift Strategy, Shape Networks To Change Behavior | Digital Tonto
The 18th century French enlightenment writer Voltaire once said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms,” and we need to approach transformation with a similar mindset. Some transformations require changes in investments, while others require changes in behaviors and these have very different challenges. Until fairly recently, our economy was based on atoms and transformations were usually focused on strategic decisions such as building a new factory, entering a new market or launching a new product line. These types of decisions fall squarely within the authority of senior managers and rarely inspire much internal resistance. It is to communicate clearly at every stage so that the rest of the organization can effectively align. However, when a transformation is focused on changing behaviors, leaders should expect significant resistance. With these types of transformational programs, early alignment is not possible and leaders need to form a coalition. It’s important to start slowly, identify people who are enthusiastic about the change, want it to succeed and focus on an early keystone change to gain traction, before the project can accelerate. What leaders need to recognize is that the vast majority of transformations today are not strategic and consensus-driven, but focused on shifting behaviors and coalition-driven. Over-communicating can provoke early resistance and will likely undermine what you’re trying to achieve. Decades of research shows that people adopt behaviors that they see working for people around them, not those they just hear about or that are dictated to them from above. So the first thing you need to ask before undertaking any transformational effort is whether the goal is to change a strategic asset or to shift behaviors. The answer will determine how you need to move forward.
We Live In Dangerous, Confusing Times. Here’s How To Make Sense Of Them. | Digital Tonto
Western society tends toward reductionism. We focus on our own particular area of expertise, learning subtle nuances largely invisible to those outside the field. As a result, we tend to overvalue developments within our realm of knowledge, while that which lies outside our immediate attention often seems less relevant. Yet the reality is that everything is connected. We simply can’t separate the forces of technology, economics and identity. So while Silicon Valley types wax glowingly about the wonders of the latest advance, waves of disruption crash through people’s lives, creating crises of identity that result in backlash, undermining progress that could have potentially been made. These forces can bubble beneath the surface for decades, while incumbent institutions try to keep a lid on them, curbing the worst of the turmoil, confusion and disorder they create. But eventually, they must be dealt with and some fundamental change to the existing order—a revolution— needs to take place. That is the point at which the danger is greatest. History tends to converge and cascade around certain points and we seem to be at one now. The philosopher Martin Heidegger thought about technology in terms of both revealing and building. The forces of the universe being what they are, we do not have much choice in what we uncover. Yet how we create and channel technologies such is very much in our control. The choices we make not only reflect who we are, but what we will become. We can’t separate the forces of technology and economics from that of identity, because they are inextricably intertwined. We are, no doubt, at a time of great potential, with technology advancing to such a point that we may soon have the power to create infinite energy, shape biology and conquer space. What we lack is a shared vision for what we want the world to be. Surviving progress is always a matter of identifying and leveraging shared values. As Francis Fukuyama has written, “Identity can be used to divide, but it can also be used to integrate,” and that is how we navigate to the other side.
The Identity Trap | Digital Tonto
On September 17th, 2011, protesters began to stream into Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan and the #Occupy movement had begun. “We are the 99%,” they declared and as far as they were concerned, it was time for the reign of the “1%” to end. The protests soon spread like wildfire to 951 cities across 82 countries. Despite all the hoopla, within a few months, the streets and parks were cleared. The protesters went home and nothing much changed. Occupy was, to paraphrase Shakespeare, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eventually, even its founder had to admit it was all a dismal failure, while he voiced support and admiration for Donald Trump. This pattern of hype leading to discredit is not just for social justice warriors. Business leaders are prone to many of the same pitfalls. Fads like six sigma, stack ranking and the war for talent emerge for a time and create a cascade in which adherents rush to not only adopt a practice, but signal their inclusion into the tribe. Later, when the idea is found wanting, it is discarded and something else comes along. A lot of damage is done along the way. This is the identity trap: if we're not careful, signaling our identity can become more important than the underlying idea itself. Yet, our identities are not fixed. They grow and evolve over time as we add new elements and shed of others—switching careers, moving to new places, or shifting relationships. “Identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate,” Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book on the subject. And that is the challenge for anyone who wants to lead an endeavor of any significance: How can you create an inclusive identity that doesn't divide and ostracize those who don’t belong, but that integrates and empowers? If you are to achieve anything meaningful, you can’t just preach to the choir, but must venture out of the church and mix with the heathens.
Why Incentives So Often Fail | Digital Tonto
Many managers spend a lot of time and energy designing compensation schemes to incentivize performance. Yet as Daniel Pink explained in Drive, decades of studies show incentive pay often decreases productivity, especially for tasks that require creative thinking. He argues that the best way to motivate people is to give them opportunities for autonomy, mastery and purpose. The 19th century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed strongly in the notion of dignity, which he defined as treating people as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. I’ve found that Kant’s ideas about dignity are essential to managing employees, customers and partners. Nobody wants to be a cog in somebody else’s machine. When you treat people as ends in themselves you make their goals your own. You want employees to do more than perform tasks, but to attain their potential. You see customers as more than a way to pay the bills, but as central to the mission of the enterprise. You want communities to be invested in your success, rather than just tolerate your existence. So rather than working to construct some Rube Goldberg-like incentive structure and then adjusting it every time you want a change in behavior, try treating people with dignity. Think about what they want to achieve in terms of autonomy, mastery and purpose and make it clear how their actions can advance your collective mission. Sound leadership is not about prodding to get people to do what you want, but attracting those who want what you want and leading them with shared values in pursuit of a shared purpose.
To Lead Change, You Need To Shift From A Manager Mindset To A Changemaker Mindset | Digital Tonto
Most of the time, we operate with a manager mindset and that works fine. We build consensus and execute with predictable outcomes. Our colleagues are motivated, customers are satisfied and everybody is happy. In an era of disruption, however, it’s only a matter of time until we need to adapt and drive transformation. That’s never easy. To pull it off we need to shift from a manager mindset to a changemaker mindset in which we no longer assume an environment of predictability but explore unknowns in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Not everybody will be willing to make the journey with us, so rather than relying on a consensus, we will need to build a coalition and leave some people behind. Effective leaders need to master both mindsets and mode shift between them. Clearly, we need to pursue change, but that doesn’t mean we can just abandon day-to-day operations, which require a stable environment to coordinate and execute complex tasks. At the same time, if we try to pursue change with that same manager mindset, we will surely fail. We need to internalize the fact that these two mindsets are not in conflict with one another. In fact, they support each other to some extent. Change always involves a certain amount of disruption, so benefits from the atmosphere of stability and psychological safety which norms, rituals and existing behaviors can provide. In a similar vein, without change, everyday operations will eventually fail to compete. Leading transformation isn’t something most leaders do well. If you want to be among the few that can succeed, the first thing you need to change is your mindset.
Sometimes The Future Demands A Vision. This Is Probably Not One Of Those Times. | Digital Tonto
Over the past two centuries, we have seen echoes of the same pattern first established in the late 18th century: a wave of new ideas is resisted by the dominant powers, as tensions build below the surface and eventually explode. Sometimes order holds and sometimes it gives way to a period of chaos and destruction before, eventually, finding some sort of homeostasis. These are the “Noah effects” and “Joseph effects” that Mandelbrot described. History during this time has largely been defined by inflection points. 1776 brought both the Declaration of Independence, The Wealth of Nations and the steam engine. With 1919 came a peace treaty establishing a new world order as well as a crippling epidemic. Within a single momentous month in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and the World Wide Web was born. Waves of revolution in 1848 and 1968 marked important shifts that helped define what came after. We are now in the later stages of this cycle. Clearly, 2020 marked a critical junture, where significant disruptions challenged the prevailing order, but it’s not clear what comes next. Authoritarianism challenges democracy, while demands for new rights from the left are met with reactionary forces on the right. As the Boomer generation recedes, Millennials are emerging. Major shifts in technology, demography, resources and migration add more stress to the system. Some eras call for a vision, while in others certain forces are set in motion and our task is to merely survive them, averting the worst of possible calamities, overcoming the deluge so that we can make it to the other side. It seems that what we are experiencing today is the latter. There is no doubt that the future holds great promise. Technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing will power new sciences like synthetic biology and nanotechnology, which will, in turn, revolutionize healthcare, energy and manufacturing. We can, as trite as it sounds, heal the planet. But first we need to heal ourselves.
We Need To Rethink Competition And Collusion For An Artificially Intelligent World | Digital Tonto
Back in the Gilded Age of the 19th century, it was taken for granted that industrialists were all powerful. Men met in smoke-filled back rooms, traded information and, much like Adam Smith described, conspired against the public to raise prices and increase profits. Eventually, the public could bear no more, political pressure built, and legislation was passed to prevent collusive and predatory behavior. As ProPublica described in an investigative article about RealPage’s “Yieldstar” software, companies are using algorithms to do essentially the same thing. As they point out, if we wouldn’t let “a guy named Bob,” collect and pool private information of market participants and then make pricing recommendations, then we shouldn’t let algorithms do it either. The problems will only get more pervasive as we constantly feed information into artificial intelligence platforms like ChatGPT. As I wrote along with Josh Sutton five years ago in Harvard Business Review, we need algorithms that are explainable, auditable and transparent. Yet it seems like we’ve gone in the opposite direction. Many would argue that, today, we are in a new Gilded Age, in which powerful industrialists, unbeholden to the rule of law, regularly engage in predatory behavior, but their actions are often shielded from view by technology, buried in complexity. When they are called before congress, the people’s representatives seem lost, unable to penetrate technical jargon. Yet as the RealPage case shows, the situation really isn't that complicated. The burden of proof should be on corporations to show that they aren’t screwing us, not the other way around. The standards of explainability, audibility and transparence aren’t unreasonably onerous. We should demand they be met.
We Have Decades Of Research Telling Us How Change Works. We Need To Start Following The Evidence | Digital Tonto
The biggest misconception about change is that once people understand it, they will embrace it. That’s almost never true. If you intend to influence an entire organization— or even an entire society—you have to assume the deck is stacked against you. The status quo has had years—and sometimes decades or longer—to build connections and form networks. The good news is that we have over a half-century of research and practice that can inform our efforts. Yet to be effective, we have to put that learning to work. It makes no sense, for example, to “create a sense of urgency” around change when we know that transformation follows an s-shaped curve, starting slowly and then accelerating after a tipping point. Doing so is more likely to trigger resistance than to move things forward. In much the same way, if we know that shifts in knowledge and attitudes don’t necessarily result in changes in practice and that ideas about change are transmitted socially, we should focus our efforts on empowering enthusiasts rather than wordsmithing and broadcasting slogans. People tend to adopt the ideas and actions of those around them. We need to think about change as a strategic conflict between the present state and an alternative vision. The truth is that change isn’t about persuasion, but power. To bring about transformation we need to undermine the sources of power that underlie the present state while strengthening the forces that favor a different future.
3 Myths That Underlie Transformation Theater | Digital Tonto
It’s tough to imagine how anyone who is familiar with the evidence would ever assume that change is linear, that it is a good idea to “create a sense of urgency around change,” or that you should move quickly to publicize an early win. Yet, more often than not, that’s what otherwise smart, accomplished people set out to do. There are a few reasons that this is the case. The first is that change itself has changed. Consider that research shows in 1975, 83% of the average US corporation’s assets were tangible assets, such as factories, machinery and buildings. When your assets are tangible, change is largely about communicating strategic decisions made from above. There’s little anybody can do to resist them anyway. However, the very same research finds that by 2015, 84% of corporate assets became intangible, such as licenses, patents and research. Change is no longer about making decisions about strategic assets, but about what people think and do everyday. You can’t try to force or overpower that kind of change, you need to attract and empower. Yet today's cult of disruption often favors those who make a lot of noise. CEOs who are able to create a lot of hoopla in the media can often keep the stock price up long enough for their options to vest and cash out. Even more junior managers can make a name for themselves with big, splashy initiatives and then switch jobs before it all comes crashing down. Some have made big careers that way. That’s what makes transformation theater so destructive. It seeks to ennoble the change leader rather than the enterprise or its mission. It is, quite simply, how incompetent managers attempt to take on the appearance of a high-performance culture, without ever doing the hard work needed to actually build one.
Happy 15th Birthday Digital Tonto! | Digital Tonto
It’s funny how things can turn out. We’re heading in a particular direction, focused on the future and things somehow go awry. We try in vain to get back on track, but instead we end up setting out in a new direction, exploring avenues we scarcely knew existed. Before we know it, we’ve gotten to
Here’s Why It’s So Hard To Change A Culture | Digital Tonto
My friend Stephen Shapiro argues that best practices are stupid. It’s not that he believes they can’t be useful, in fact in areas of low-competence they can be very helpful in helping a team get up to speed. Yet Steve’s point is that you can’t separate a practice from its context. Copying Netflix’s Culture Deck or Amazon’s six-page memo is unlikely to improve your performance if you don’t develop the norms and rituals to support them. Bob Sutton and Huggy Rao explained in The Friction Project how organizations will cling on to rituals, such as processes and paperwork, in ways that are so nonsensical they are almost comical, because they support norms embedded in the culture. Often, stakeholders compete for power over norms and rituals because they signal status and create privilege. Consider the expense authorization ritual. The ability for a clan to deny an authorization gives them power, which they can barter for other goods, such as respect, deference and maybe a favor here or there. They can then, in turn, give deference to other powerful clans, building up clout with which they can use to gain power over other rituals and rites. That’s what makes cultures so hard to transform. You can’t change behaviors without changing norms and rituals that underlie them. We are, as much as we may hate to admit it, evolved to signal identity and seek status. These truths rarely make it into PowerPoint charts or quarterly strategies, but they lie at the core of every enterprise. Culture is, among other things, deeply rooted in norms and rituals and, if we aim to change behaviors, that’s where we need to start.
Why The Future Of Technology Is Always More Human | Digital Tonto
Bill Gates recently wrote that, “The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone.” Yet the unspoken problem is that none of those technologies, except for the Internet, had a significant impact on productivity. In fact, since 2005, we seem to be caught in a second productivity paradox. In 2016, while researching my book Mapping Innovation, I noticed that we were entering a new era of innovation, which became the title of the last chapter. That’s largely become true, we are on the precipice of leveraging a number of new technologies including, along with artificial intelligence, things like quantum computing and synthetic biology. Yet as we have seen clearly throughout history, it is ecosystems, not inventions that truly change the world and we are the crucial missing link. It took the redesigning of factories to make electricity impactful and the reorganization of retail to make the automobile a transformational technology. Whether these new technologies have an impact depends more on us and how we put them to use than any details about the technology itself. Using large language models to dump more crap on the Internet, will not get us far, just as our newfound ability to shape the genetic code will not fix our broken healthcare system. The future of technology is always more human and that has never been more true than today. As Todd McLees points out, it is on human skills and human behaviors that we must focus to tackle the challenges ahead.
3 Questions Every Change Consultant Should Be Able To Answer | Digital Tonto
The ugly truth about change management is that the traditional change models simply don’t work. They aren’t based on any serious research and have shown themselves, over a period of decades, to fail consistently. Often, organizational change management units are used by consulting firms and vendors to cheerlead a larger engagement. That isn’t to say it’s some sort of con. In my experience, organizational change management practitioners are well-meaning and under the impression they make a positive impact. They are hired for engagements, make proposals, deliver on what they promised and leave their clients happy. They usually aren’t around to see the wreckage after the engagement ends. You can’t just cheerlead change. It’s not a communication exercise and wordsmithing slogans will get you nowhere. That’s why you need to ask hard questions like, “What evidence is our strategy based on?” “How will we overcome resistance?” and “How will we leverage organizational dynamics to gain traction and scale the transformation? All too often, we treat people who ask tough questions as enemies who seek to undermine what we’re trying to achieve. But good questions don’t close doors, they open them. In fact, asking hard questions in the beginning will help you identify obstacles that you can then work to build strategies to overcome. Today, every enterprise needs to adopt and scale change. That doesn’t just happen by itself. You need to go into it with open eyes and be ready to accept hard truths. The best way to start is by asking the right questions.
We Say We Want Change, But The Status Quo Almost Always Wins Out. Here’s Why: | Digital Tonto
We tend to see change as an engineering problem. There is a desired end state, so we design a logical strategy to achieve it, build a timeline and execute the plan. We expect some obstacles along the way, work to identify sticking points and maybe even devise some plans to address them. It seems that, with some will and determination, we should be able to push through. Yet that’s not how the world really works. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. It has had years—and sometimes decades or longer—to build connections and form networks. If we are to achieve genuine transformation, it’s that underlying ecosystem we need to address. That’s why we need to think less like engineers and more like gardeners. Engineers believe in laws that can be understood and put to specific use, so they build machines to perform specific tasks. Gardeners believe in complexity and emergence. They don’t design their garden as much as tend to it, nurture it and support its surrounding ecosystem. They don’t expect the same result every time, but understand' they'll need to adjust as they go. That’s why we need to think less about individual nodes and focus on networks. It is small groups, loosely connected, but united by a shared purpose that bring about transformational change. That can’t be mandated and it’s never top-down or bottom-up, but travels from side-to-side, propagating through social bonds. Or, as General Stanley McChrystal put it, "It takes a network to defeat a network." We can’t simply think of strategy as a game of chess, but must weave networks by widening and deepening connections in order to influence the sources of power that support the status quo.
Why You Often Need To Start Slow In Order To Go Fast | Digital Tonto
When I first moved overseas in 1997, email was still relatively new. There was no social media. Mostly, we communicated by landline and that was expensive. You couldn’t always reach who you wanted to, so things necessarily moved slower. We had to be more thoughtful because we didn’t really have any other choice. Today we live in a much more technological age, where many things move faster and we’ve come to expect nearly instant gratification. We communicate at the speed of light at negligible cost. We can order things online with little more than a few strokes on a smartphone and things almost magically appear on our doorstep. Yet our brains still operate at the relatively slow pace they always did and there’s no indication we build trust any faster. So we essentially operate at two speeds. Our operating speeds move much faster than they once did, but human relationships still go at their turtle-like, ancestral pace. That’s why effective leaders need to master both a manager mindset, to handle operations, and a changemaker mindset, to innovate and take on projects that are new and different. When you’re doing something big, new or different, you can’t assume an environment of predictability. You need to take the time to explore unknowns in an atmosphere of uncertainty. There’s simply no way to speed that up. You need to go slowly, figure out the stuff you don’t know how to do, examine possible points of failure and build strategies to overcome them. As Jerry Seinfeld put it, when you're in a creative process, “If you’re efficient, you’re doing it the wrong way. The right way is the hard way.”
The Best Way To Overcome Resistance And Defeat Doubters: Start with a Resistance Inventory | Digital Tonto
The story of Blockbuster video is one that is often repeated, but rarely understood. The CEO, John Antioco, did not, as is frequently assumed, ignore the Netflix threat but devised an effective strategy to meet it head on. However, tensions with shareholders eventually boiled over, a salary dispute led him to resign and the strategy was abandoned. Antioco’s mistake wasn't a lack of a market strategy, but a lack of a resistance strategy. He would later tell me, “throughout my career, I had learned that whenever you set out to do anything big, some people aren’t going to like it. I’d been successful by defying the status quo at important junctures and that’s what I thought had to be done in this case.” Simply pushing through resistance isn’t enough, though. You need to actively anticipate it and devise plans to overcome it. That’s why when we start working with an organization on a transformational initiative one of the first things we do is go through a detailed resistance inventory, identifying the five major categories of resistance and how they are likely to play out. You can't anticipate everything, but with a little bit of thought, you can proactively prepare to mitigate foreseeable problems. Read this post to learn more...
There Is No Secret Formula. Effective Leaders Need To Master Mode Shifting. | Digital Tonto
About a decade ago I made the trip out to see Brian Robertson, the creator of Holacracy, the leaderless management governance method. It was all the rage at the time, with high-flying firms such as Zappos and Medium adopting it enthusiastically. Brian was kind enough to spend a few hours with me, explaining the ins and outs of how it all worked. But even then I was skeptical and I told him so. My experience running organizations taught me that the most important thing a leader does is make decisions and that often requires you to switch directions, exchanging one set of principles for another to adapt to different contexts. There are no easy guides to making these mode shifts and you can’t just take a vote. You have to take responsibility for making the decision. For creative challenges, giving everyone a say leads to better results, but when you need to execute operations, especially complex ones, everybody needs to play their role and there can be no questioning of authority. Innovation requires you to identify what kind of problem you have before you can identify the right strategy to solve it. You can’t pursue change with the same mindset with which you pursue everyday operations. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, “no course of action can be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.” We have to have the courage to make decisions and that often means we need to exchange one mode of logic for another.
Why Bad Ideas Don’t Just Die | Digital Tonto
I recently read David Sanger’s new book, "The New Cold Wars," which was excellent in many ways. It was very well sourced, often insightful and excellently written. It was also riddled with relatively minor errors. These didn’t really affect the story he was trying to tell, but they were annoying and undermined an otherwise excellent book. What probably happened is that the fact checker was intimidated by Sanger’s prominence and didn’t call him out or didn’t bother checking facts that, truth be told, are not really his area of expertise. (Being much less prominent, my fact checkers didn’t have the same reluctance with my books). So the errors persist and Sanger looks a little bit silly. What’s important to understand is that, in the publishing world, someone like David Sanger isn’t just a person, but a powerful ecosystem, which includes his agent, his editor and a number of other people who depend on him to make a living. If they see those relationships being threatened, they will tend to lash out. So you can sympathize with a low status fact checker being intimidated. The thing is, as Annalee Saxenian explained in her book "Regional Advantage" that chronicled the rise of Silicon Valley, the tech giants in Boston that reigned in the 60s and 70s, built very insular ecosystems and were unable to adapt when things changed. Silicon Valley, on the other hand, built much wider networks in which information flowed much more freely. The rest, as they say, is history. We get to choose what types of networks we build. We can build networks of control, in which power determines truth. Or we can build networks where information flows freely and new ideas can take hold, grow and cascade to where they can create the most value. Those choices will determine whether new ideas can gain traction and take hold or bad ones persist.
The 3 Pillars Of The Changemaker Mindset | Digital Tonto
Most of the time, we operate with a manager mindset and that works fine. We build consensus and execute with predictable outcomes. Our colleagues are motivated, customers are satisfied and everybody is happy. However, in an era of disruption it’s only a matter of time until we need to adapt and drive transformation. That’s never easy. Top performers learn to switch between mindsets. Athletes need to be able to switch between training mindsets and competition mindsets. Navy SEALs have a “command and control mindset,” when executing a mission in the field and then a “take off your stripes, everyone is equal” mindset for debriefs when working to innovate and improve. The three elements of the Changemaker mindset are: Where do you start? Who do you start with? And how do you sustain? Those are the questions you need to ask before you start any transformational initiative and the answers are rarely obvious. It takes work to analyze the situation and identify viable answers. But if we want to put an end to the track record of failure that’s what we need to do. We need to start small, with a single Keystone Change; to start with people who are already enthusiastic and not try to create and maintain the energy ourselves and to sustain our efforts through empowering allies, with co-optable resources and other platforms. Perhaps most of all, and often most difficult, we need to accept that when we shift to a changemaker mindset not everyone will be coming with us. Some will have to take a different path; choose another journey and we will have to leave them behind. That doesn’t mean betrayal, but it does mean you’ve arrived at a fork in the road and choices need to be made.
Why Do Pundits Work So Hard To Deny These 3 Things About Human Nature? | Digital Tonto
In "Homo Deus," author Yuval Noah Harari asserted that “organisms are algorithms.” Much like vending machines are programmed to respond to buttons, Harari argues that humans and other animals are programmed by genetics and evolution to respond to “sensations, emotions and thoughts.” When those particular buttons are pushed, we respond, much like a vending machine does. He gives evidence for this point of view. For example, he describes psychological experiments in which, by monitoring brainwaves, researchers are able to predict actions, such as whether a person will flip a switch, even before he or she is aware of it. He also points out that certain chemicals, such as Ritalin and Prozac, can modify behavior. Yet the argument only feels persuasive because it is selective, focusing on some facts while ignoring others. Yes, much like software, we come with built-in programming, but we are also built to adapt, forming new pathways in our brains while discarding others as we go through experiences and learn new things. Adults in even primitive societies are expected to overcome basic urges, govern their behavior and invest resources in the future. That’s why it’s important to understand human nature. Once we know that our motivations are not always clear to us, we can be more thoughtful about our actions. If we accept that humans are naturally hierarchical and status-driven, we can both work within those parameters while at the same time We work to better know ourselves not to surrender to our inherent nature, but to transcend it. We need to know our limitations in order to go past them.
Is AI Selfish? | Digital Tonto
When evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claimed that genes are selfish, he didn’t mean that he thought they are cognisant, with a will of their own. Rather, that genes act as if they are selfish, working to replicate themselves in the most efficient way, regardless of what that entails for the organism that carries them. In When evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claimed that genes are selfish, he didn’t mean that he thought they are cognisant, with a will of their own. Rather, that genes act as if they are selfish, working to replicate themselves in the most efficient way, regardless of what that entails for the organism that carries them. In other words, the phrase "survival of the fittest" applies to our genes, not to us. The concept led to the idea of memes, elemental bits of culture that compete to be replicated in the marketplace of ideas. Then Susan Blackmore introduced the concept of temes, elemental bits of technology, like lines of code sitting in Github, that are competing to replicate in order to survive in future technological artifacts. Once you start thinking about selfish genes, memes and temes, and begin applying those concepts to artificial intelligence, it becomes clear that AI must be selfish as well, competing to get itself replicated through us. That in turn, raises some very important questions: What is the context we are creating for this competition and how will the rules affect our own fate? If, like genes, memes and temes, in order to compete and survive algorithms must be selfish, we need to take responsibility for shaping the environments in which they compete. We have the power to design every aspect of the game, from which biases get encoded into our systems to what determines success and what the rewards are. In her new book, "Data, Strategy, Culture & Power," data expert Nicole Radziwill, PhD introduces “Radziwill’s Law,” which states: “Data cannot be decoupled from power. Organizations create and use data, analytics, and AI in ways that embed and reflect the power structures and power differentials between the people that develop and use them.” We are far from helpless. We have, throughout history, shown that we can overcome basic human urges that flow from our brains’ varying levels of neurotransmitters. Citizens of Ancient Rome were taxed to pay for roads that led to distant lands and took decades to build. Medieval communities built churches that stood for centuries. We managed to contain nuclear weapons and curb the dangers of genetic research. AI is different, though, because of the way it interacts with us. It is constantly not only learning from our behavior, it is also generating cultural content that helps to shape our identities and how we pursue status. We at once players and referees; teachers and learners; influencers and influenced. It’s a game we cannot escape If it is true, as Daniel Dennett asserted, that a scholar is a library’s way of creating more libraries, then we are are an algorithm’s way of creating more algorithms. We have to recognize that we are creating the rules that determine which algorithms survive, replicate and shape our future.
This Is One Big Reason Why So Much Business Thinking Is Crap | Digital Tonto
Management fads tend to come from people who did well in school. Many of these are business school professors and consultants, who’ve never operated a business. They are often people who’ve never failed, been told that they’re smart all their lives and expect others to be impressed by their ideas, not to examine them thoroughly. They tend come up with their ideas by talking to other smart, successful people about their experiences. These ideas get picked up by more smart, successful people and are propagated further. The elite hivemind then puts these ideas into practice, rarely checking what evidence the ideas are based on. When the ideas fail, they are rarely questioned. Shortcomings are blamed on poor execution by less smart, successful people. We need to own up to some basic truths. Case studies can be useful, but are enormously flawed and highly susceptible to bias. People recounting events usually tell self-serving accounts and researchers conducting interviews are often trying to confirm their own hunches. The interviews themselves are almost never subjected to any serious review. We need to be more vigilant. We can do better. While it is true that researching organizations is notoriously difficult and that interviewing executives is often the best we can do, we can seek to corroborate findings from other fields, explore counternarratives and apply greater scrutiny. We can’t just go around believing everything we think. As Richard Feynman put it “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.”
11 Books That Will Make You A Better Communicator | Digital Tonto
More than a decade ago I published an article in Forbes about IBM’s Watson. With the system’s triumph, beating the best human players at Jeopardy!, everybody was wondering whether humans had a future or whether we would all be at the mercy of “our new robot overlords.” It was an exciting and confusing time. Yet
Look Out For These 3 Telltale Signs Of Transformation Theater | Digital Tonto
Genuine transformation is notoriously difficult, but transformation theater is relatively easy. There’s never any shortage of corporate hucksters, gurus and other con artists looking to sell us the change gospel, weaving visions of “burning platforms,” in a VUCA world. Many build impressive careers, moving from failed initiative to failed initiative, without ever actually accomplishing anything. The problem is, of course, transformation theater does an incredible amount of senseless damage to our organizations, our mental health and our societies. We need to learn to recognize the telltale signs and call them out when we see them or we can only expect more of the same and nothing will change. When leaders create a false sense of urgency, rush the process in a manner that quells dissent and seek out publicity before any real results have been achieved, they are pursuing transformation theater rather than genuine transformation. They are not pursuing a solution to a genuine problem, but preying on our bias for action in order to glorify themselves. Yet we have the power to choose what we glorify. We can ask hard questions, apply strict scrutiny and demand common sense. There’s always someone trying to sell us something, but we can decide what we’re willing to buy. There’s certainly no reason that we need to accept that every change is equally valid just because it’s different from what we’re doing now. In the final analysis, innovation should serve people, not the other way around and that’s the standard we need to apply. Every transformational initiative should be able to answer the question: “What problem is being solved and who will benefit?”
There Are Things That Machines Can’t Do (And Never Will) | Digital Tonto
For the past century or so, the most reliable path to success has been the ability to retain information and manipulate numbers. That’s what gained entrance into the most prestigious schools and led to a career at a prestigious firm. Yet the reason that information processing has been so highly valued is precisely because humans are so bad at it. Today’s super-powered algorithms can mine vast stores of information and then express that information in writing, images, even sound and film. So it shouldn’t be surprising that computers are taking over what were long regarded as high-level human tasks. Yet once a task becomes automated, it becomes commoditized and value shifts somewhere else. The key to winning in the era of AI is not to try to compete with machines, but to become more human, to be a better listener, collaborator and to support other humans as they work to identify and pursue their own intentions and ambitions. In Supercommunicators, author Charles Duhigg explains how the most successful leaders learn to match and respond to others’ mind states. In a similar vein, many scientists believe that in ancient times religion conferred an evolutionary advantage because the connections and community it built around spiritual life enabled collective action to pursue important projects. Today, Todd McLees has developed a human skills curriculum to help organizations achieve something similar—enable humans to serve humans by collaborating with machines. The key to succeeding in an artificially intelligent world is not to learn more about machines, but to learn more about ourselves. The future of technology is always more human.
Why The Suckers Always Think They’re Playing It Smart | Digital Tonto
At any given time, there are literally thousands of people looking to fool us. Grifters, politicians and nation states looking to sow discord are constantly bombarding us with falsities mixed with just enough truth to seem plausible. Often, these messages reach us through trusted friends and family members and, when we go to verify them online, we’re likely to find confirmation (often from the same sources that duped our peers). Anybody can get fooled. If we are to avoid getting taken in we need to be hyper-vigilant and aware that our brains have a tendency to fool us. Our minds will quickly grasp onto the most readily available data and detect patterns that may or may not be there. Then they will seek out other evidence that confirms those initial hunches while disregarding contrary evidence. This is especially true of smart, accomplished people. Those who have been right in the past and have proved the doubters wrong, are going to be less likely to see the warning signs. In many cases, they will even see opposition to their views as evidence they are on the right track, given that they’ve seen their hunches pay off before. Merely checking ourselves isn’t nearly enough, we need to actively seek out other views and perspectives. Some of this can be done with formal processes such as pre-mortems and red teams, but a lot of it is just acknowledging that we have blind spots, building the habit of reaching out to others and improving our listening skills. Perhaps most of all, we need to have a sense of humility. It’s far too easy to be impressed with ourselves and far too difficult to see how we’re being led astray. There is often a negative correlation between our level of certainty and the likelihood of us being wrong. We all need to make an effort to believe less of what we think.
Here’s Why “Creating Awareness” Is Usually A Waste Of Time | Digital Tonto
In one of my favorite essays the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.” I can think of no greater example of this simple axiom than the practice of change management, especially with regard to communication. There is an enormous track record of failure—study after study finds that the vast majority do not succeed. These efforts frequently devolve into transformation theater that goes nowhere, but wastes enormous amounts of resources. Consider that, after decades of trying, skills like lean manufacturing, agile development and overcoming unconscious bias are woefully under-adopted in most organizations and you begin to understand the scale of the challenge. Part of the problem is that the most predominant change management models are not based on rigorous research, but rather case study interviews that are subject to high levels of bias. Executives are strongly motivated to spin yarns about how effective their strategies were and interviewers interpret what they hear through the lens of prior assumptions. Seldom, if ever, is any rigorous social science research referenced. Yet when more serious research is examined, many of the change management narratives about “promoting awareness” and “creating a sense of urgency” are undone Comprehensive research of the civil rights movement, to take one example, finds that messaging from passionate, mission-driven activists often backfires. It’s hard to see how poorly trusted corporate communication campaigns fare any better. Communication about change needs to trod a narrow, perilous path that attracts supporters but does not ignite resistance campaigns by detractors. The good news is that we have decades of research that also show that you only need a small minority of advocates for change to hit a tipping point and trigger a cascade. Change isn’t about persuasion, but collective dynamics. People adopt the changes that they see working around them, not the ones they just hear about. Change can’t be mandated and it can’t be wordsmithed or smart-talked. It can only be empowered.
Jack Welch’s GE Was The Wrong Model To Take From The 90s. Lou Gerstner’s IBM Is The Right One | Digital Tonto
When Jack Welch was named “Manager of the Century” by Fortune magazine in 1999, it was still unclear what his legacy was going to be. Yet all the success belied serious problems rumbling underneath the surface. Welch increased profits largely by “financializing” the firm. Innovation languished. Yet perhaps the greatest indictment of Welch is those he chose to carry on his legacy. Jeffrey Immelt, quite famously, ran GE into the ground. Other proteges such as Bob Nardelli and Jim McNerney went on to do untold damage at iconic firms such as Home Depot, Chrysler, 3M and Boeing. Far from a model to emulate, Jack Welch’s legacy seems more like a cautionary tale. Cost cutting and efficiency will only get you so far. Lou Gerstner understood that and his tenure at IBM produced not only outstanding financial results, but genuine discoveries, such as quantum teleportation, that would serve IBM well for decades. He made it possible for the nearly century-old firm to become a pioneer in open-source development, artificial intelligence and genomics. Perhaps most of all, great leaders serve the mission of the enterprise by crafting a culture that honors it. As Gerster himself put it, “culture isn't just one aspect of the game; it is the game. In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value…What does the culture reward and punish – individual achievement or team play, risk taking or consensus building?" That’s why if you want to be an effective leader, you need to clearly define what you are leading toward. Leading implies a direction and a purpose. The ancient Greeks would call it telos. Wise leaders act in the service of something bigger than themselves, poor ones for their own aggrandizement. We learn from the past only if we take the right lessons.
Why The Right Way Is Usually The Hard Way | Digital Tonto
One of the things that I’ve learned in over two decades researching innovation, transformation and change is that things that change the world always arrive out of context, for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet. Ideas start out feeble, weak and alone. They need ecosystems to make an impact on the world. Einstein's ideas about relativity started out as a boyhood dream about riding on a bolt of light. Penicillin languished in a medical journal for more than a decade before someone noticed it could be useful. Charlie Bennett first got interested in the ideas that led to quantum computing by imagining DNA as some kind of a computer and Jennifer Doudna discovered CRISPR gene editing by researching an obscure defense mechanism in bacteria. When you look at enough breakthroughs a consistent pattern begins to emerge: First, a seemingly useless idea surfaces, then a period of exploration ensues to identify a problem the idea can solve, resistance from the establishment in favor of some status quo and, eventually, the formation of an ecosystem that can deliver a solution at scale. There is simply no way to navigate all that with a linear approach. To innovate, leaders need to shift from a manager’s mindset, in which they build consensus, operate in an atmosphere of predictability and focus on execution, to a changemaker’s mindset in which they build coalitions, operate in an environment of uncertainty and focus on exploration. That’s why, when it comes to innovation, transformation and change, the right way is the hard way. The next big thing usually starts out looking like nothing at all. You don’t get from nothing to something without accumulating some scars along the way.
Change Always Involves Strategic Conflict. Here’s How You Build Strategies To Win: | Digital Tonto
The biggest misconception about change is that once people understand it, they will embrace it. That’s almost never true. If you intend to influence an entire organization, you have to assume the deck is stacked against you. You not only need to build support for an alternative vision of the future, you have to undermine the forces supporting the status quo. That’s why we need to think about change as a strategic conflict between the present state and an alternative vision. The truth is that change isn’t about persuasion, but power. To bring about transformation we need to undermine the sources of power that underlie the present state while strengthening the forces that favor a different future. To bring about transformational change we need to first identify the relevant institutions we need to target and then mobilize the constituencies to influence those institutions. We’re always mobilizing someone to influence something and those are the two questions we need to ask about every action we take: “Who are we mobilizing and to influence what?” Your targets determine your tactics. You don't start by deciding to, say, launch a social media campaign, design a training program or to hold a hackathon. To bring genuine transformation about you need to identify and analyze sources of power so that you can bring relative strength to bear against relative weakness. The truth is that effective strategy is more of a journey than a destination, you can never be sure beforehand where exactly you will find it, but it will become clear once you’ve arrived
Pundits Love To Blame Bureaucracy. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Listen To Them: | Digital Tonto
Over the past few decades pundits have become enamored by the change gospel. We’re told that we live in a VUCA world that is more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous and therefore our only option is to disrupt the status quo, which is bureaucratic and bumbling. We need to move fast and break things. The simple fact is that it’s much easier to talk about genuine transformation than produce it. Ed Hansen and I call this “Transformation Theater.” Consider the fact that transformational initiatives usually take 3-5 years to complete successfully, while the average executive tenure has fallen to 4.8 years, and it’s easy to see the attraction for careerists: Launch exciting new initiatives, make a lot of noise and move on before the sham is exposed. The blueprint for this type of hoax is Bob Nardelli’s tenure at Home Depot. After getting past over for the top job at GE, he landed at the Atlanta-based retail giant with a plan to transform the culture, implementing Six Sigma to ruthlessly cut costs and create efficiency. In the process, he undermined the firm’s famous service culture and allowed rival Lowe’s to gain the competitive advantage. Nardelli was fired and walked away with $210 million. We need to notice the telltale signs: First, there is a false sense of urgency calling for drastic action when none is needed. Second, is a rushed process, with little or no time taken for analysis or to listen to dissenting voices. Third, is a large public rollout that trumpets the initiative before there is any real evidence of success. To pull it all off successfully, transformation thespians need a bugbear and bureaucracy is always a convenient target. When someone raises it, we should be skeptical. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
There Is No Formula For Success. We Need To Prepare For Luck. | Digital Tonto
The French writer Albert Camus believed our existence was absurd. He compared the human condition to Sisyphus, the mythical Greek king condemned to roll a boulder uphill, only to see it roll back down, for eternity. Incredibly, Camus imagines Sisyphus, returning to his labors at the foot of the mountain, as happy, having found meaning in his task. That is the nature of existential rebellion, to find meaning for yourself in a universe that provides none. In two decades researching innovation, transformation and change, one constant I have found is that you can’t control your luck. Anything can happen. “Sure things” often fail while low-probability events occur all the time. Bill Haley performed “Rock Around The Clock,” because it spoke to him, even over the objections of the record labels. He had no way of knowing it would be a hit for the ages. In a similar way, Einstein pursued physics as a clerk at the Swiss patent office to answer his own questions. Anti-corruption activists worked for years in Ukraine—at great risk to themselves—when it seemed pointless or even, absurd. Yet it is not hard to imagine Haley joyfully jamming away, even if incredible fortune had not smiled on him, and that Einstein would have lived a fulfilling life even if his miracle year had never happened. Activists like Dasia Kaleniuk and Vitaliy Shabunin continue to investigate corruption in Ukraine, even while being subjected to vicious attacks. It is a simple truth that we can’t control our luck and luck greatly influences our successes and failures. But we can pursue meaning in things that we define ourselves—an idea, family, justice, compassion or anything else. Or, as the mathematician G.H. Hardy put it, “The case for my life, then… is this: that I have added something…”
If You Want To Lead, You Need To Embrace The Basic Human Need For Status | Digital Tonto
A simple truth about status games is that we all play them, whether we are aware of it or not. It is our drive for status that helps us form and signal identity, figure out who we are in relation to others and derive a sense of meaning about our existence, whether that meaning is rooted in achievement, care for those around us or our ability to enforce our will on others. One of the reasons that the various schemes of leaderless organizations that have arisen over the past decade ago have not taken root is that they ignore these basic facts of human nature. They are, in large part, a cop-out. Without the formal recognition of status conferred by a hierarchy, people resort to informal signals and, often, a kind of law of the jungle takes root. One of the things that I’ve learned in two decades of studying social movements such as the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe is that, while to the outside they may look amorphous, the ones that are successful have very clear governance structures. They are explicit about their values. Everybody knows the rules and follows them. As leaders, we also need to understand that the drive for status is also an underlying element of culture. Lou Gerstner wrote that “I came to see, in my time at IBM, culture isn’t just one aspect of the game—It is the game. In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value…What does the culture reward and punish – individual achievement or team play, risk taking or consensus building?” So we need to ask ourselves, how are we conferring status on others? Do we recognize those who take credit or those who support their colleagues? Do aspiring executives get credit for launching new initiatives that never go anywhere, or successfully managing operations? Do we prize cruelty over kindness, avarice over honesty, dominance over hard work? Everything is a choice, whether we know we’re making it or not.
If You’re Serious About Change, You Need To Be Explicit And Focus On Shared Values | Digital Tonto
John Lennon wrote that life is what happens when you're planning other things and truer words were never spoken. We live life in the moment and moments are dictated by events. That’s why so many change efforts fail, because they do what feels good, choosing to signal identity rather than leverage shared values. Never underestimate the primordial need to signal identity. We want to show that we are not only a full-fledged member of our tribe, but a star player on the team. That’s why we engage in the type of moral outbidding that results in a purity spiral. Before you know it, we are voicing opinions and taking actions that are not only out of the mainstream, but that actually turn away those who might support our objectives. That’s why Occupy protesters slept in parks and shouted obscenities, why women wore pussy hats after the election of Donald Trump, why DEI activists claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is racist, why a Cornell professor said he was exhilarated by the murder of innocents, and why America's far-right activists identify with murderous dictators. It feels good to show that we are different, that we have status. Yet while these efforts may make their point, they fail to make a difference. Occupy protesters soon went home and achieved nothing. The World Economy Forum has found that MeToo has undermined women in the workplace. DEI programs across the country are being crushed, Hamas has lost legitimacy, even with Palestinians and hundreds of January 6th insurrectionists have gone to jail. The challenge and discipline for leading change is to focus on shared values, so even people who don’t agree with you can identify with your motives. The truth is that success doesn’t depend on how radical or how moderate your vision, but how well you can appeal to common goals. Or, as Nelson Mandela himself put it, “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
Every Revolution Needs To Anticipate Its Own Counterrevolution | Digital Tonto
Saul Alinsky noted that every revolution inspires its own counter-revolution. “Once we accept and learn to anticipate the inevitable counterrevolution, we may then alter the historical pattern of revolution and counterrevolution from the traditional slow advance of two steps forward and one step backward to minimizing the latter,” he wrote. We are at an inflection point, with multiple pendulum’s beginning to swing the other way. The Business Roundtable denounced shareholder capitalism, Russia’s failures in Ukraine, military and otherwise, exposed not only the bankruptcy of the realists but the importance of values and living up to them. The New Brandeis movement is beginning to strengthen antitrust enforcement and promote greater market competition. Underlying these trends is a convergence of power shifts the most important of which is demography. The Boomer generation, because the Generation X which followed was so small, has wielded political dominance since the 80s, but is now being displaced by Millennials and Zoomers who hold vastly different values and priorities. Yet as power is shifting, we need to ask where it is shifting to, who will benefit, what narratives they will build. The ultimate adversary of genuine, lasting change is excess. The ideas that are now being discredited arose for a reason. They filled legitimate needs and produced real benefits. That’s how they gained traction in the first place. That’s why if we really care about change, we need to learn to love our haters. They’re the ones who can keep us in check, point out flaws in our ideas and even point us toward shared values and shared purpose. Transformation can’t be an end in itself, it needs to be in service of the people it affects.
We Need To Embrace The Genius Of The Obvious | Digital Tonto
Ockham’s Razor, or the “principle of parsimony,” is often interpreted as another version of the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) rule. Yet it is far more profound than that. A far more accurate translation from the original latin is, “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” In other words, we should think before we add things that complicate matters. In modern life we are constantly adding things. William of Ockham was a monk, who led a simple existence. We’re expected to build things and, as we do, principles, rules and procedures accumulate over time and, as a matter of course, multiply unnecessarily. We need to do the hard work of subtraction, taking out things that might have once made sense but don’t anymore. When I’m writing, I always like to think my readers have a “cognitive budget” that they are willing to spend on a particular blog post, email, article or book chapter. When I edit, I always go through and ask, “is this worth the cognitive budget?” If there’s a doubt, I take it out. I’ve learned to apply the same principle to other facets of my life, to take out what doesn’t need to be there. That’s the genius of the obvious. Simple truths are rarely left out in the open, but obscured by the flotsam and jetsam of everyday life. It takes work to dig them out and that work requires focus. It doesn’t happen by itself, but takes determination to whittle down to the core, so that the truths we seek can reveal themselves to us. We all need to hold ourselves accountable. Uncovering the obvious is not a simple thing, but the work of a lifetime.
Is What’s Good For General Electric Good For America? | Digital Tonto
General Electric has long been symbolic of the US economy. Formed in the 1890s when J.P. Morgan merged Thomas Edison’s electric company with other firms, it was one of the original components of the Dow Jones index and signaled America’s industrial rise. It was also became the first major conglomerate, forming the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in 1919, which became a leading broadcaster. That all began to change when Jack Welch took over in 1981. He led a new era of “Welchism,” in which CEO’s laid off employees, offshored factories and engaged in “financial engineering,” to goose profits. American industry followed suit, cutting investment in R&D, lobbying hard for cuts in government spending and corporate taxes, hollowing out the US industrial base. Yet it appears that GE’s new CEO, Larry Culp, might be as emblematic for the new era as Jack Welch was for the old one. Instead of layoffs, he’s investing in lean manufacturing methods that put front-line workers at the center and instead of using acquisitions to fuel growth, he’s broken the company up to help focus on operational excellence. This reflects a greater shift that began during the Obama Administration with the creation of the Advanced Manufacturing Office and the Manufacturing USA Institutes. It has continued with under the Biden Administration with legislation such as the CHIPS Act and the IRA. The results are clear. Manufacturing employment has increased by roughly 1.5 million jobs since 2010, productivity is up and unemployment is at record lows. The truth is that we’re moving from an era of bits to an era of atoms and that means we can’t just move fast and break things anymore. We can expect the basis of competition to shift away from design sprints, iterating, and pivoting to building meaningful, collaborative relationships in order to solve grand challenges. Once again, what’s going on at GE might be a sign of the times.