Settled Science: Breakfast Edition

To understand how absurd a notion is settled science, we needn’t tread the politically inflammatory territory of weather, climate change, and global warming. Nor do we need go so far as to read — let alone comprehend — the one tract that utterly debunks the possibility that science can, should, or will ever be settled. Nope. In fact, we need go no farther than our breakfast tables to understand how profoundly unsettled, and unsettling, science can be.

Case in point: Should you harbor any doubts about the deleterious consequences of drinking your morning coffee, this article, warning us that coffee is the worst thing in the world for us, should put all such trepidation to rest. Here’s why:

 Those good vibes and the boost in energy you get from drinking a cup of coffee are the results of temporarily reversing the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal. In other words, that euphoric short-term state that you enter after drinking coffee is what non-habitual caffeine consumers are experiencing all of the time.

Who’d have thought the only pleasure to be derived from coffee would be negative — that is, the only sensual benefit is not withdrawing from caffeine? Wow. Talk about a buzzkill. I guess that explains why … wait … no, it doesn’t.

And, should you harbor any doubts about the hygienic prudence of drinking your morning coffee, this article, reassuring us that coffee is the best thing in the world for us, should put all such trepidation to rest. Here’s why:

A growing body of research shows that coffee drinkers, compared to nondrinkers, are:

  • less likely to have type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia
  • have fewer cases of certain cancers, heart rhythm problems, and strokes

“There is certainly much more good news than bad news, in terms of coffee and health,” says Frank Hu, MD, MPH, PhD, nutrition and epidemiology professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.

As if all this contradictory but oh-so-settled science weren’t confounding enough — and as if the notion that some of us might genuinely enjoy coffee for its taste were so utterly far-fetched — we also have to contend with the feel-good busybodies who just can’t seem to get through the day or attain any level of self-satisfaction without telling the rest of us what to do.

So much for settled science.

Does Past Success Prevent Future Success?

Is most of your revenue from products, services, or business models more than three years old? If so, and even if your revenue is growing, that should be a warning signal that you’re not innovating effectively. All industries are competitive and, by not moving forward, you’re falling behind.

There are numerous examples of former market leaders that failed to innovate and eventually fell victim to their markets. Companies like Kodak, Digital Equipment Corp., and Blockbuster all share a sad story of allowing their past successes to prevent exploration for new ideas.

Kodak, as reported by Startup Talky:

The Eastman Kodak Company’. It was the most famous name in the world of photography and videography in the 20th century. Kodak brought about a revolution in the photography and videography industries. At the time when only huge companies could access the cameras used for recording movies, Kodak enabled the availability of cameras to every household by producing equipment that was portable and affordable.

Kodak was the most dominant company in its field for almost the entire 20th century, but a series of wrong decisions killed its success. The company declared itself bankrupt in 2012.

Kodak failed to understand that its strategy of banking on traditional film cameras (which was effective at one point) was now depriving the company of success. Rapidly changing technology and evolving market needs made the strategy obsolete.

  • The ignorance of new technology and not adapting to changing market needs initiated Kodak’s downfall

  • Kodak wasted time promoting the use of film cameras instead of emulating its competitors. It completely ignored the feedback from the media and the market

  • When Kodak finally understood and started the sales and the production of digital cameras, it was too late. Many big companies had already established themselves in the market by then and Kodak couldn’t keep pace with the big shots

  • Kodak invested its funds in acquiring many small companies, depleting the money it could have used to promote the sales of digital cameras.

Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), as reported by MIT Sloan Review:

The DEC story is one of a dramatic rise and fall: DEC was an entrepreneurial computer company that grew to $14 billion in sales and employed an estimated 130,000 people worldwide at one point, but Digital failed to adapt successfully after the personal computer eroded its minicomputer market.

Blockbuster, as reported by Indigo Digital:

Blockbuster was extremely popular. It was the largest video rental company in the world with over 9,000 stores and over 50 million members. So what happened? While most talk of Blockbuster’s demise centers on the rise of Netflix, Blockbuster made many strategic errors throughout its history that caused it to have such a stunning fall from grace.

  • Walking away from the deal of the century. Blockbuster made a critical error when it walked away from a deal with Netflix. Netflix wanted to sell its company to Blockbuster for $50 million in 2000. At the time Blockbuster could have afforded the purchase price since it had raised $465 million in an IPO a year earlier.

  • An inability to pivot quickly. Blockbuster was skeptical about the potential of renting DVDs online and sending them to customers via mail the way Netflix did. But customers enjoyed Netflix’s service because it was convenient. As Netflix continued to gain subscribers it took Blockbuster six years to launch a similar service of its own in 2004 called Blockbuster Online. Companies rarely die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly,” said Reid Hastings, Netflix’s co-founder and CEO.

  • “I’ve been frankly confused by this fascination that everybody has with Netflix…Netflix doesn’t really have or do anything that we can’t or don’t already do ourselves,” said Keyes in 2008. Two years later Blockbuster was bankrupt. A healthy degree of hubris ended up being the fatal thorn in Blockbuster’s side. Blockbuster couldn’t see pass its previous success to see the change on the horizon and then once it did it was too slow to react.

Each of these companies was in an enviable market position, but their leaders believed they knew what it took to be successful and continued doing what they’d always done. By being unwilling to look ahead, take the small risks required to innovate new products, services, or business models, they eventually took the biggest risk a company could take … and failed.

Look at the composition of your revenue. Is it the canary in the coal mine? If so, look at the way you innovate or whether you innovate at all. Is there discipline, mindset, process, exploration, a framework, and investment in innovation? If any of these elements are lacking, it will be difficult to effectively develop new products, services, or business models. If you’re seeing warning signs, EinSource can help you to avoid the demise of some other great companies.

Don’t let past success prevent future success.

Prophets and Loss

What’s the most valuable attribute of successful people? We can find lots of answers to the question from lots of sources: Courage. Vision. Imagination. Persistence. Willingness to fail. Iconoclasm. Lunacy. Every one of those attributes is a factor in the equation that yields success. But none of them is the most important. The most important attribute of every successful person is objectivity.

Think about it: In every job you’ve ever had, in any business you’ve ever founded, in any set of circumstances in which you’ve created or revealed value, how and when did you do it? In all likelihood, you did it by seeing things that other couldn’t see. And in most cases, you did it early in your tenure, at a point at which you still retained an outsider’s perspective.

At that point — whether it was recognized or not, whether it was characterized this way or not — you had the status of a prophet. You were a seer, an oracle, a breath of fresh air, a font of wisdom and knowledge, a source of new perspectives and sound advice. And then you weren’t. What happened?

What happened is what always happens. It’s why every honeymoon ends. It’s why today’s heroes are tomorrow’s wallpaper. It’s why people get taken for granted. It’s why ordinary becomes acceptable. We lose our objectivity. Our preoccupations become subjective, be they ego, power, ostensible correctness, or garden-variety selfishness. And the straight lines we once intended to follow to our objectives become directionless circles.

In case you’re curious, this isn’t a new phenomenon. As this excerpt from Luke 4:14-29 indicates, we’ve been ignoring our prophets forever:

I tell you the truth, no prophet is accepted in his hometown.

Nobody’s perfect, and nothing lasts forever. But if you’ve been wise enough to acquire the objectivity your business needs, running your prophet out of town too soon may be your loss.

Higher and Hierarchy

I recently became aware of a consulting company that compels its clients to begin strategic business planning with a sales and marketing review. That’s the rough equivalent of compelling architects and contractors to build skyscrapers from their lightning rods down. And it invites five perennially perplexing questions, as intriguing as they are troubling and, as yet, unanswered:

  1. Why do so many organizations create the position, VP of Sales and Marketing?
  2. Why is the VP of Sales and Marketing typically a sales person?
  3. Is the chief responsibility of the VP of Sales and Marketing sales or marketing?
  4. Why do we persist in giving one person two sets of responsibilities?
  5. Why do the people we saddle with those two sets of responsibilities always seem to struggle with both?

The answers are in the Strategic Hierarchy — or the lack thereof.

The relationship between sales and marketing is perennially misunderstood and consistently misaligned. That’s because the Strategic Hierarchy is equally misunderstood and misaligned. And it’s a wasteful shame because it should be this easy:

  1. The organization strategy is the organization’s reason for being. It’s the dream. “We recognize that, and we can capitalize by creating this.” It’s the why.
  2. The marketing strategy marketing program is the plan by which this does that. It’s the what. It’s the creation of the (realization of) the need.
  3. The sales strategy is the plan by which the fulfillment of the need is delivered. It’s the how. (Remember: Marketing is not a sales-support function. Sales is a marketing-fulfillment function.)
  4. Prospect qualification is the point at which prospects’ needs align with their desire to buy.
  5. Conversion is the point at which qualified prospects become become customers.

Even if most companies get steps 1 through 3 right (many don’t), dysfunction sets in between steps 4 and 5, after which business-generating activities come unglued because the gap between strategic marketing and feet-on-the-street sales is never bridged. Confusion reigns. Finger-pointing begins. Circular firing squads are assembled. And lost opportunity multiplies.

With the Strategic Hierarchy established and employed — with the organization and its activities structured in accordance with it — the gap starts to close itself, one unmade mistake at a time. The organization doesn’t expect prospects to contact it because it don’t assume its outbound communications are irresistible. The organization doesn’t imagine marketing and sales are inbound activities. And it initiates contact with prospects because it realizes the odds of prospects initiating contact with it are against it.

With the Strategic Hierarchy in place, organizations also recognize the burdens they place on VPs of Sales and Marketing are unrealistic. It requires the position to serve two masters and master two disciplines. It lets sales drive marketing. It tries to establish momentum from the bottom up.

And it forces organizations to realize gravity can’t, after all, be defied.

The Introverted Business Leader

It’s taken me most of my career to get comfortable with the idea that I’m an introverted business leader. Like many, I expect business leaders to be gregarious and charismatic. Through experience, though, I’ve learned reserved colleagues make significant contributions even when they’re not holding the attention of a room. I’m an introvert, but I like people. I can enjoy time in a group, but I don’t get energy from groups or do my best thinking in groups.

I’m a believer in collaboration, but I’ve learned it doesn’t begin or end with a group session. I’ve read that 50 percent of us are introverts. If that’s true, there are some simple ways to get valuable contributions from the quiet half of your colleagues.

Before the Meeting

Introverts do their best thinking alone, so give them some time with a challenge before calling a group session. Publish an agenda early. Agendas aren’t just useful for keeping a group on task in a meeting; agendas give people the opportunity to think and prepare. I need this before-the-meeting think time. Otherwise, I tend to receive information in the meeting and analyze it later. If a colleague expects me to be an active participant or to make a decision in the meeting, I’ll be reluctant unless I’ve had time to consider the topic in advance. Preparation doesn’t mean I’ve made a decision or that I won’t actively deliberate in a meeting. It means I’ve given the issues some thought, but I remain open-minded. When I’m prepared, I bring the best of what I can offer to the group.

In the Meeting

In meetings in which I’m the facilitator, and even in some in which I’m a participant, I may ask for input from colleagues who haven’t said much. I do this carefully because introverts may not do their best thinking with an audience. Even so, the group benefits from additional perspectives on a topic. If we’re making a decision, I’m careful to leave the door open to additional input. I usually say something like, “This is what we’ve decided, but if people have additional thoughts or ideas in the coming days, please let me know.” 

After the Meeting

I recommend publishing meeting minutes, writing a recap, or sending a note to thank the group for participating. This practice is polite, it provides documentation, and it gives introverts another opportunity to express themselves. In my follow-ups, I invite people to share additional ideas. At times, these new insights can cause the group to reconsider and improve their decisions, or at least to have a deeper understanding of an issue.

Even though we all get a lot of messages, I carefully read emails from colleagues. Introverts tend to express themselves best in writing. When someone has considered an issue and penned a well-thought-out email, know that may be their best way to share valuable information.

Last Thought

I’m a believer in collaboration. The best decisions are made with by groups but not necessarily during meetings. When soliciting input from colleagues, I’ve trained myself to ensure introverts are heard. I think of getting input from introverts like a hidden-image puzzle (stereogram): When I free myself from the dominant image, I can see the hidden image. While feedback from extroverts is easy to see, input from introverts takes a little more effort but is equally valuable. If you can draw input from everyone, you’re making better-informed decisions.

This is serious stuff.

If introverts aren’t given a way to be heard, they’ll leave. Introverts don’t like to be the center of attention, but they want to contribute. If their input is routinely ignored, they’ll look for another place in which to make a difference.

In the Soup

I read a story on Medium recently called, “Why Thomas Edison Required Job Applicants To Eat Soup In Front Of Him”. According to the article:

The reason for this soup test was that the famous inventor wanted to see if the applicants added salt and pepper before tasting what was in their bowl, or if they waited until they tasted it before proceeding with the seasoning. Edison immediately rejected the premature seasoners, as he reasoned he didn’t want employees who relied on assumptions. In his opinion, those who were content to abide by preconceived notions had no place in his business because the absence of curiosity and willingness to ask questions were antithetical to innovation.

Reading that — and learning about Edison’s aversion to preconceptions and habitual suppositions — reminded me of a little-known philosophy.

Yeah, But …

SASS (self-absorbed self-satisfaction), is a philosophy, not to be confused with its homonymic variant: SaaS (software as a service). SASS is the twin sibling of stubbornness. It’s also the bane of creative productivity. It can be stated in one simple sentence: “We do it this way because this is the way we do it.”

Unlike other philosophies, SASS requires no founding figures, no manifestos to serve it, no books to be written about. College courses need not be dedicated to it. It’s entirely self-contained and utterly self-limiting. There is nothing more to it because its adherents won’t allow anything else. And those adherents are perfectly happy about all of that, thank you very much.

The source of this philosophy is as simple as its expression and as dangerous as its manifestation. It’s simple because we have just two fundamental motivators: hope and fear. SASS might appear to derive from hope. Its devotees might seem to possess the self-confidence to do as they see fit to do, without doubt, hesitation, second-guessing, or the need to entertain options or other points of view. Look again.

On Further Review …

Would a hopeful person refute differing perspectives? Would hope compel one to disdain alternative activities or methods? Could hope engender close-mindedness? Could hope explain the anger that typically ensues from challenging practitioners of SASS to try something new or different — or, more illustratively, to trustfully delegate the authority to try something new or different? No. And what do SASS adherents fear?

  1. Change. Most people fear change. The devil you know beats the devil you don’t know in every race. And one of the most perverse aspects of human psychology is preferring the known to the unknown, even if the known is miserable.
  2. Being exposed. Most people think they’re getting away with something or just getting by. Change the status quo, and the new light might show a chink in the armor or a lack in performance. Result? We’ll stay right here and keep doing it this way.
  3. Being bettered. If what we do is the only thing we do and the only way we do it, we resist the idea that we might be able to do it better. We put up the shields, retract into the shell, and hope no one does it better than we do.

First we make our habits, then our habits make us. (Charles C. Noble)

What if …?

Until we break our habits — or permit something different to be done on our behalf — how do we know what will happen? Why do we think we can or should know? Why are we so sure it won’t be positive? Why don’t we imagine it’ll exceed our craziest expectations, rather than assuming it’ll crash and burn?

It’s not about certainty, it’s about hope. And adherents to SASS fail for fear of changing.

That’s why a seat in the proverbial comfort zone is likely to put you in the soup.

Food For Sales Thought

Since I’ve been a marketing guy for most of my working life, my Spidey Sense has been tingling since I caught my first whiff of marketing automation (the artist formerly known as inbound marketing). The promise of marketing automation is seductive, indeed. I do have to grant that. It promises prioritized leads from multiple campaigns and more data than you can shake a stick at.

The pitch typically goes something like this:

By evaluating and reacting to each of your website’s visitors, RainbowPot’s proprietary platform enables you to establish innumerable digital relationships. You’ll be able to consider each of these ephemeral, anonymous relationships a prospect; score them by whatever arbitrary criteria you like; drill down to find out who really loves you; and be able to inundate them with your sales-ready spam, whenever you want to, at least until they unsubscribe. Then you’ll be able to engage them in meaningful conversations with automated, personalized emails.

Innumerable digital relationships? You’ll be able to consider each of these ephemeral, anonymous relationships a prospect? What? By what criterion has each of those ephemeral, anonymous relationships qualified to be even a suspect? Have I missed the boat?

Hi, I’m 0101010101

I’ve never bought anything from a digit. I’m not even sure I have anything I’d consider a digital relationship. Can you have a drink with a digit? Of this I’m sure: I’ve never had a conversation with an email. And I have no idea how an automated email can be personal.

Have you ever had a meaningful conversation with a form letter? Isn’t a form letter the impersonal, snail-mail equivalent of an automated email? The closest I’ve ever come to a meaningful conversation with a form letter was the response I sent to one summoning me to report for jury duty. And I responded only because I would have been arrested, quite personally, if I didn’t.

If you work for Acme Zoogers, it won’t matter if your job is in sales, if it’s in marketing, or if you’re a professional data-driller. RainbowPot may very well help you sell more zoogers than your boss ever dreamed of, especially if you’re selling those zoogers for a buck apiece.

But if you’re selling products or services with six- or seven-figure price tags, the only things you’ll be automating with RainbowPot are stagnation (what’s more stultifying than aggregating numbers of the sake of aggregating numbers?), alienation from your prospects (most automated emails have never heard of Dale Carnegie), and failure.

The Bottom Line

Relationships can’t be automated. Neither can sales.

People buy from people.

The Nerf Bat

I’m fortunate enough to be connected with a gentleman on LinkedIn named Dr. Barry Brownstein. Dr. Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore and the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. His essays have appeared in publications such as the Foundation for Economic Education and Intellectual Takeout.

Dr. Brownstein recently wrote an article for the American Institute for Economic Research — “Taming the Dictator Within, Part 1” — in which he cited the disconnect between leaders’ political views and their leadership styles. He wrote this:

Some understood that central planning is a failed approach to economic policy and yet did not understand that strict hierarchical management practices often cause businesses to run inefficiently and unhappily. Employees don’t enjoy being ordered around or feeling blocked from using and developing their skills.

In other words, invitation is better than domination. I’ll explain.

The Culture Effect

Hierarchies are inevitable because they’re effective for ensuring structure and order. But organizational hierarchies need not be rigid or imperious. They need not work against cultures of cooperation and innovation. They need not preclude senses of trust, security, and fulfillment. In fact, hierarchies can foster and nurture healthy and productive cultures. As I wrote in an earlier post:

Culture is not a cause. It’s an effect. It’s a symptom, a result. It’s the product of treating individuals with respect, of giving them senses of belonging, of encouraging their participation, of giving them responsibility and the commensurate decision-making authority.

Studies have shown people in organizations in which they’re not beaten over the head are happier, more productive, and more willing to contribute in ways that exceed their positions, their titles, and the expectations their organizations have for them. They also suffer fewer concussions.

Choose Wisely

Louisville Slugger

Nerf Bat

A Nerf Bat is much more effective leadership tool than a Louisville Slugger.

It’s a much better tool for creating cultures of innovation — of experimentation, of willingness to fail, of determination to learn from failure, of consistent accomplishment, of fulfillment and gratification, and of collegial collaboration — than a Louisville Slugger. The Louisville Slugger will instill more fear, raise more lumps, and cause more serious cranial injuries. But the Nerf Bat will instill feelings of safety wellbeing. And it’ll ensure people will have a greater willingness to contribute and to take chances.

A famous expression says, “No pressure, no diamonds.” That’s true, of course. But human beings are only about 18 percent carbon, give or take. They aren’t refined or rarefied by constant pressure. Rather, they’re wounded and defeated. People who are wounded and defeated will never be innovative. They’ll only be wounded and defeated.

That’s no way to treat people. And it’s no way to run a successful organization.

Use the Nerf Bat. Save the Louisville Slugger for the baseball diamond.

People First

We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. (Charlton Ogburn, 1911-1998)

We once helped a company enter a new market. The company had hired a consulting professor from a prestigious university to help it with an organizational transformation. The transformation was to be completed in 90 days, start to finish. And the professor had written a book on how to undertake such a thing (natch). We arrived around day 60.

The book prescribed assigning all employees, regardless of title or responsibility, to cross-departmental, cross-disciplinary teams. Each team was given a process or practice to transform. The ideas in those groups blazed like wildfire in a bone-dry forest — operational improvements, process-engineering concepts, counter-orthodox proposals, and more. The only thing hotter than the ideas was the enthusiasm they generated.

Based on those ideas, the organization was operationally re-evaluated and completely restructured. Most of the employees were given new roles and responsibilities based, in part, on the ideas they helped germinate. But …

Unintended Consequences

On the morning after, the company, its hopes high and its sights set higher, found itself in a state of despondent dysfunction. Productivity tanked. Product development ground slowly. Responsiveness declined, along with customer satisfaction. Management was mystified. It had created the perfect garden, had it not? But nothing grew. Everyone who’d known to whom to turn for knowledge and support in their old positions lost all their lifelines in their new ones.

The CEO expressed his bewilderment and his anger at people for not performing. We asked, “If you dropped seeds in sand and they didn’t sprout, would you be angry at the seeds? Or would you put them in a more fertile environment?”

Alas, Fearless Leader was not a man for analogy and metaphor. His inclinations were more along the lines of divide, distance, intimidate, and conquer. The closest he came to figurative speech was, “Floggings will continue until morale improves.” And his idea of change was that it should be top down, driven only by and comfortable only to him. So, heads started to roll, which only exacerbated the problem by introducing insecurity into an environment of unfamiliarity and uncertainty.

Throwing folks into the deep end may seem like a sound, hard-nosed management approach. But it reflects disrespect for people and disregard for their humanity.

Reality Check

Organizational transformation begins with people, not processes. Had the company known that, its reorganization would have been fluid, rather than rigid. People would have slid more productively into functional position, rather than being force-fit into mandatory line. They would have adapted to and improved the new processes into which they were moved, rather than running blindly along with processes they didn’t understand. And they would have been able to forge alliances with their new positional colleagues as they transitioned in, rather than being left without safety nets when they were pushed out on the wire.

The effects of overlooking your people are neither pretty nor productive. And the only thing that suffers more than your people when they’re ignored is your ability to innovate.

People first. Always people first.

Who’s Your Bertha Benz?

I happened to find a blog post on the website for CRS Automotive entitled, “Bertha Benz: The First Driver in the World”. Bertha was the wife of Karl Benz, who’s credited with building the first car with an internal combustion engine (among other things.) I was probably no more than moderately engaged by the post until I read this:

While Karl Benz was a genius engineer, what he wasn’t was a visionary or a very savvy businessman … no one wanted to buy [his car]! People needed it – Bertha was convinced of that – but they hadn’t realized it yet. And that is where Bertha played a crucial role. She realized that people were wary of everything new, feared it even, and just needed to be convinced that having and driving a horseless carriage would make their lives easier … Bertha realized that what people needed was a definite proof that the vehicle was reliable and could also master long-distance routes. Thus, she devised a plan … a first-ever road trip in the Benz Patent Motorwagen No. 3!

Since the trip took place in 1888, it’s unlikely anyone thought to call Bertha’s undertaking innovation. In all likelihood, if they called it anything — and since they were German, after all — they might have called it die Neueinführung (translated as the new launch). What they called it was marginally important at best.

What Bertha realized was everything.

Wary of Everything New

Benz Patent Motorwagen No. 3

Bertha was no psychologist. But what she realized about human nature in 1888 remains true today: We resist change. We’ll stick with the familiar even if it’s uncomfortable and undesirable. We’ll play safely in our comfort zones, resisting risk and ignoring the potential rewards. And we’ll miss more opportunities than we’ll ever recognize.

By way of example, consider this from Quote Investigator:

Attorney Horace Rackham … drew up the incorporation papers for Henry Ford’s automobile company in 1903. Rackham was asked to become an investor, but his health was poor, and he feared risking his precious savings. So he visited an unnamed leading banker to obtain advice … The banker took him to a window. “Look,” he said pointing to the street. “You see all those people on their bicycles riding along the boulevard? There is not as many as there was a year ago. The novelty is wearing off; they are losing interest. That’s just the way it will be with automobiles. People will get the fever; and later they will throw them away. My advice is not to buy the stock. You might make money for a year or two, but in the end you would lose everything you put in. The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty — a fad.”

That Knocking You Hear is the Future

Every organization needs a Bertha. In fact, every organization that aspires to innovative resilience needs to encourage and support as many Berthas as possible, systemically and systematically. People don’t need to be visionaries to have good ideas. But they do need environments in which their ideas are welcomed and evaluated objectively, in which they’re allowed to make mistakes and to learn from them, in which their failures are forgiven and their successes are recognized and rewarded.

Who are your Berthas? How will you find them? How will you support and encourage them?

Given the rate of change, you should start looking now.