The only way we can make ourselves is through making each other. And we always have a choice in how we make others. Do we do it using generative, both/and, mutually thriving stories, thoughts, and language, or do we do it using narcissistic, better than, zero-sum ideas? The choices we make for how we make others drives who “we” are.
Here’s a talk I gave last week on some methods and benefits to thinking in the long term, even when there are urgent short term events taking up our attention.
There is often a gap between how fast technology changes, and how fast human institutions respond to this change. This Governance Gap is one of the core problems of management today.
There is randomness and uncertainty in innovation. But this doesn’t mean that it can’t be managed.
The hype around innovation right now seems overwhelming. Does this mean that we’ve hit Peak Innovation? No – we’ve hit Peak Innovation Hype. To avoid the hype, we need to understand what is already known about the substance of innovation.
We often look for shortcuts to change, but there are none. The design process used by Charles and Ray Eames gives us insight into how we have to do the hard work if we want to change the world.
Being average isn’t enough – we need to be awesome at something if we want to win.
Is technology about to disrupt your market? Chunka Mui and Paul B. Carroll think so, and they have some good suggestions about how to respond.
TL;DR – when attention spans get shorter, we can either accommodate this by going short ourselves, or we can do the opposite and go deep.
It’s not enough to want to innovate more. We have to build the habits that will help us take the daily actions that will achieve this goal.
Tacit Knowledge and Why It’s Important There is a mining CEO in Australia who often says in private conversation something like: When it comes to new ideas, we’re anxious to be second They want to use a fast follower strategy. And there’s some sense to this approach. After all, trying to be first is risky. […]
