by Robyn Bolton | Feb 2, 2026 | AI, Leadership, Strategic Foresight, Strategy
It was a race. And the whole world was watching.
In 1911, Captain Robert Scott set out to reach the South Pole. He’d been to Antarctica before and because of his past success, he had more funding, more expertise, and more experience. He had all the equipment needed.
Racing him to fame, fortune and glory was Norwegian Roald Amundsen. Originally heading to the North Pole, he turned around when he learned that Robert Peary had beaten him there. He had dogs and skis, equipment perfect for the Arctic but unproven in Antarctica.
Amundsen won the race, by over a month.
Scott and his crew died 11 miles from the South Pole.
When the Playbook Stops Working
Scott wasn’t guessing. He’d tested motor sledges in the Alps. He’d seen ponies work on a previous Antarctic expedition. He built a plan around the best available equipment and the general playbook that had served British expeditions for decades: horses and motors move heavy loads, so use horses and motors.
It just wasn’t right for Antarctica. The motors broke down in the cold. The ponies sank through the ice. The plan that looked solid on paper fell apart the moment it met the actual environment it had to operate in.
The same thing is happening today with AI.
For decades, when new technologies emerge, executives have followed a similarly familiar playbook: assess the opportunity, build a business case, plan the rollout, execute.
And for decades it worked. Cloud migrations and ERP implementations were architectural changes to known processes with predictable outcomes. As time went on, information grew more solid, timelines became better understood, and the playbook solidified.
AI is different. Executives are so focused on picking the right AI tools and building the right infrastructure that they aren’t thinking about what happens when they hit the ice. Even if the technology works as designed, you have no idea whether it will deliver the intended results or create a ripple of unintended consequences that paralyze your business and put egg on your face.
Diagnose Before You Prescribe
The circumstances of AI are different too, and that requires a new playbook. Make that playbooks. Picking the right playbook requires something my clients and I call Calibrated Decision Design.
We start by asking how long it will take to realize the ultimate goals of the investment. Do we need to break even this year, or is this a multi-year bet where results slowly roll in? Most teams have a sense of this, so it allows us to move quickly to the next, much harder question.
What do we know and what do we believe? This is where most teams and AI implementations fail. To seem confident and indispensable, people present hypotheses as if they are facts resulting in decisions based on a single data points or best guesses. The result is a confident decision destined to crumble.
Where you land on these two axes determines your playbook. Apply the wrong one and you’ll either waste money on over-analysis or burn through budget on premature action.
Pick from the Four Playbooks
Go NOW!: You have the facts and need results now. Stop deliberating. Execute.
Predictable Planning: You have confidence in the outcome, but the payoff takes patience. Build a flexible strategy and operational plan to stay responsive as things progress.
Discovery Planning: You need results fast, but you don’t have proof your plan will work. Run small, fast experiments before scaling anything.
Resilient Strategy: The time horizon is long and you’re short on facts. The worst thing you can do is go all in. Instead, envision multiple futures, identify early warning signs, find commonalities and prepare a strategy that can pivot.
Apply it
Which playbook are you using and which one is best for your circumstance?
by Robyn Bolton | Jan 25, 2026 | AI, Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty
Spain, 1896
At the tender age of 14, Pablo Ruiz Picasso painted a portrait of his Aunt Pepa a work of brilliant academic realism that would go on to be hailed as “without a doubt one of the greatest in the whole history of Spanish painting.”
In 1901, he abandoned his mastery of realism, painting only in shades blue and blue-green.
There’s debate over why Picasso’s Blue Period began. Some argue that it’s a reflection of the poverty and desperation he experienced as a starving artist in Paris. Others claim it was a response to the suicide of his friend, Carles Casagemas. But Bill Gurley, a longtime venture capitalist, has a different theory.
Picasso abandoned realism because of the Kodak Brownie.
Introduced on February 1, 1900, the Kodak Brownie made photography widely available, fulfilling George Eastman’s promise that “you press the button, we do the rest.”
An ocean away, Gurley argues, Picasso’s “move toward abstraction wasn’t a rejection of skill; it was a recognition that realism had stopped being the frontier….So Picasso moved on, not because realism was wrong, but because it was finished.”
Washington DC, 2004
Three years before Drive took the world by storm, Daniel Pink published his third book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future.
In it, he argues that a combination of technological advancements, higher standards of living, and access to cheaper labor are pushing us from a world that values left brain skills like linear thought, analysis, and optimization towards one that requires right brain skills like artistry, empathy, and big picture thinking.
As a result, those who succeed in the future will be able to think like designers, tell stories with context and emotional impact, and combine disparate pieces into a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Leaders will need to be empathetic, able to create “a pathway to more intense creativity and inspiration,” and guide others in the pursuit of meaning and significance.
California, 2026
Barry O’Reilly, author of Unlearn, published his monthly blog post, “Six Counterintuitive Trends to Think about for 2026,” in which he outlines what he believes will be the human reactions to a world in which AI is everywhere.
Leadership, he asserts, will cease to be measured by the resources we control (and how well we control them to extract maximum value) but by judgment. Specifically, a leader’s ability to:
- Ask better questions
- Frame decisions clearly
- Hold ambiguity without freezing
- Know when not to use AI
The Price of Safety vs the Promise of Greatness
Picasso walked away from a thriving and lucrative market where he was an emerging star to suffer the poverty, uncertainty, and desperation of finding what was next. It would take more than a decade for him to find international acclaim. He would spend the rest of his life as the most famous and financially successful artist in the world.
Are you willing to take that same risk?
You can cling to the safety of what you know, the markets, industries, business models, structures, incentives that have always worked. You can continue to demand immediate efficiency, obedience, and profit while experimenting with new tech and playing with creative ideas.
Or you can start to build what’s next. You don’t have to abandon what works, just as Picasso didn’t abandon paint. But you do have to start using your resources in new ways. You must build the characteristics and capabilities that Daniel Pink outlines. You must become the “counterintuitive” leader that embraces ambiguity, role models critical thinking, and rewards creativity and risk-taking.
Do you have the courage to be counterintuitive?
Are you willing to embrace your inner Picasso?
by Robyn Bolton | Jan 17, 2026 | AI, Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Stories & Examples
You’ve clarified the vision and strategy. Laid out the priorities and simplified the message. Held town halls, answered questions, and addressed concerns. Yet the AI initiative is stalled in ‘pilot mode,’ your team is focused solely on this quarter’s numbers, and real change feels impossible. You’re starting to suspect this isn’t a “change management” problem.
You’re right. It’s not.
The Data You’re Not Seeing
You’ve been doing what the research tells you to do: communicate clearly and frequently, clarify decision rights, and reduce change overload. And these things worked. Until employees went from grappling with two to 10 planned change initiatives in a single year. As the number went up, willingness to support organization change crashed, falling from 74% of employees in 2016 to 43% in 2022.
But here’s what the research isn’t telling you: despite your organizational fixes, your people are terrified. 77% of workers fear they’ll lose their jobs to AI in the next year. 70% fear they’ll be exposed as incompetent. And 66% of consumers, the highest level in a decade, expect unemployment to continue to rise.
Why doesn’t the research focus on fear? Because it’s uncomfortable. Messy. It’s a people (Behavior) problem, not a process (Architecture) problem and, as a result, you can’t fix it with a new org chart or better meeting cadence.
The organizational fixes are necessary. They’re just not sufficient to give people the psychological reassurance, resilience, and tools required to navigate an environment in which change is exponential, existential, and constant.
What Actually Works
In 2014, Microsoft was toxic and employees were afraid. Stack ranking meant every conversation was a competition, every mistake was career-limiting, and every decision was a chance to lose status. The company was dying not from bad strategy, but from fear.
CEO Satya Nadella didn’t follow the old change management playbook. He did more:
First, he eliminated the structures that created fear, including the stack ranking system, the zero-sum performance reviews, the incentives that punished mistakes. These were Architecture fixes, and they mattered.
And he addressed the messy, uncomfortable emotions that drove Behavior and Culture. He role modeled the Behaviors required to make it psychologically safe to be wrong. He introduced the “growth mindset” not as a poster on the wall, but as explicit permission to not have all the answers. When he made a public gaffe about gender equality, he immediately emailed all 200,000 employees: “My answer was very bad.” No spin. No excuses. Just modeling the vulnerability that he expected from everyone.
Ten years later, Microsoft is worth $2.5 trillion. Employee engagement and morale are dramatically improved because Nadella addressed the structures that fed fear AND the fear itself.
What This Means for You
You don’t need to be Satya Nadella. But you do need to stop pretending fear doesn’t exist in your organization.
Name it early and often. Not just in the all-hands meeting, but in the team meetings and lunch-and-learns. Be honest, “Some roles will change with this AI implementation. Here’s what we know and don’t know.” Make the implicit explicit.
Eliminate the structures that create fear. If your performance system pits people against each other, change it. If people get punished for taking smart risks, stop. If people ask questions or make suggestions, listen and act.
Be vulnerable. Share what you’re uncertain about. Admit when you don’t know. Show that it’s safe to be learning. Demonstrate that learning is better than (pretending to) know.
The stakes aren’t abstract: That AI pilot stuck in testing. The strategic initiative that gets compliance but not commitment. The team so focused on surviving today they can’t prepare for tomorrow. These aren’t communication failures. They’re misaligned ABCs that allow fear to masquerade as pragmatism.
And the masquerade only stops when you align align the ABCs all at once. Because fixing Architecture without changing your Behavior simply gives fear a new place to hide.
by Robyn Bolton | Dec 16, 2025 | Just for Fun, Leadership, Tips, Tricks, & Tools, Uncategorized
Everybody loves a Top X list. This past week I’ve read the Top 100 Best Comedy Movies of All Time, The 100 Best Episodes of the Century, and the NYT’s 100 Notable Books of 2025. And all this before we’re inundated with the Top 10 lists sports, politics, celebrity news, world news, and whatever other topic a writer can dream up.
Top X Lists are about big things, events that affect everyone or that will be remembered for decades. And while those Macro-moments are what stand out in our memories, they rarely define our everyday existence.
What are Micro-moments?
I first heard of Micro-moments in an interview between Dan Shipper, founder of Every, and Henrik Werdelin, founder of Prehype (and incubator that helped launch Barkbox and Ro Health). According to Werdelin:
Micro-moments for me are things when I’m in flow and things where I’m happy. It can’t be a big thing like having a family. It has to be a very concrete things like I like walking over the Brooklyn Bridge in the morning. It’s just something I get profoundly happy about, right? Or I like being in brainstorm meetings with (other entrepreneurs)
But his list of Micro-moments isn’t just a new-age happiness manifestation, it’s an actual decision-making tool. Werdelin explains:
I was basically trying to figure out what to do next and I was keeping all my options open. I got offered a job to run BBC Digital on the international side and then I got offered a job at a design agency called Wolf Collins who had an incredible CEO.
And so, I ended up having these 30 concrete [moments] where I’ve done stuff and then I started to use that as a way to measure options that would be thrown at me. The BBC sounded like it would be a lot of money, and it was like a cool job, and it would give me, I guess, self-esteem for a second. But then when I looked at what it would entail, none of the Micro-moments would be included so I was like, “ah, probably not for me.”
My first Micro-reactions
- Eye roll: Thank goodness you had a list of Micro-moments so you could avoid the soul sucking horror of running BBC Digital!
- Righteous indignation: Do you have any idea how hard it is out there to find a job? People would be thrilled to have a job that delivers only ONE Micro-moment of happiness?!
- Breathe: What a second. What if Mico-moments don’t determine your role. What if Micro-moments…perhaps…mean a little bit more! (yes, that is a terrible rephrasing of the Grinch’s epiphany)
Micro-moments are more than moments of flow and joy. They’re the moments that make up our lives, relationships, and view of the world. They’re the moments that should be on our Top 10 lists but too often get crowded out by noisier, bigger moments.
They’re also things we can create, design for, and sometimes even control.
What are YOUR Micro-moments?
As the period of end-of-year reflection approaches, think about your Micro-moments. What small, concrete moments that brought you flow, joy, or peace, this year? Where were you? What were you doing? Who were you with? Jot them down
When the new year dawns, go back to your list and get curious. What are the common themes, people, places, and activities in your Micro-moments. Write down what you notice.
As the year kicks into gear and everyone settles back into work and school routines, return to your list and start planning. How might you create more Micro-moments?
Life is made up of moments. Many of them are beyond our control. But some of them aren’t. And wouldn’t it be great to know which ones make us happiest so we can experience them more often?
by Robyn Bolton | Nov 11, 2025 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty
The business press has a new obsession with courageous leadership.
Harvard Business Review dedicated their September cover story to it. Nordic Business Forum built an entire 2024 conference around it. BetterUp, McKinsey, and dozens of thought leaders and influencers can’t stop talking about it.
Here’s what they’re all telling you: If you’re playing it safe, stuck in analysis paralysis, not innovating fast enough, or not making bold moves, then you are the problem because you lack courage.
Here’s what they’re not telling you: You don’t have a courage problem. You have a systems problem.
The Real Story Behind “Courage Gaps”
The VP was anything but cowardly. She had a track record of bold moves and wasn’t afraid of hard conversations. The CEO wanted to transform the company by moving from a product-only focus to one offering holistic solutions that combined hardware, software, and services. This VP was the obvious choice.
Her team came to her with a ideas that would reposition the company for long-term growth. She loved it. They tested the ideas. Customers loved them. But not a single one ever launched.
It wasn’t because the VP or the CEO lacked courage. It was because the board measured success in annual improvements, the CEO’s compensation structure rewarded short-term performance, and the VP required sign-off from six different stakeholders who were evaluated on risk mitigation. At every level, the system was designed to kill bold ideas. And it worked.
This is the inconvenient truth the courage press ignores.
That success doesn’t just require leaders who are courageous, it requires organizational architecture that systematically rewards courage and manages risk.
What We’re Really Asking Leaders to Overcome
Consider what we’re actually asking leaders to be courageous against:
- Compensation structures tied to short-term metrics
- Risk management processes designed to say “no”
- Approval hierarchies where one skeptic can overrule ten enthusiasts
- Cultures where failed experiments end careers
The courage discourse lets broken systems off the hook.
It’s easier to sell “10 Ways to Build Leadership Courage” than to admit that organizational incentives, governance structures, and cultural norms are actively working against the bold moves we tell leaders to make.
What Actually Enables Courageous Leadership.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t a need for individual courage. There is.
But telling someone to “be braver” when their organizational architecture punishes bravery is like telling someone to swim faster in a pool filled with Jell-O.
If we want courage, we need to fix the things the systems that discourage it:
- Align incentives with the time horizon of the decisions you want made
- Create explicit permission structures for experimentation
- Build decision-making processes that don’t require unanimous consent
- Separate “learning investments” from “performance expectations” when measuring results
- Make the criteria for bold moves clear, not subject to whoever’s in the room
But doing this is a lot harder than buying books about courage.
The Bottom Line
When you fix the architecture, you don’t need to constantly remind people to be brave because the system enables. Individual courage becomes the expectation, not the exception.
The real question isn’t whether your leaders need courage.
It’s whether your organization has the architecture to let them use it.
If you can’t answer that question, that’s not a courage problem.
That’s a design problem.
And design is something that, as a leader, you can actually control.
by Robyn Bolton | Oct 28, 2025 | Leadership, Strategy
Last week, I shared that 74% of executives believe that their organizations will cease to exist in ten years. They believe that strategic transformation is required, but cite the obvious problem of organizational inertia and the easy scapegoat of people’s resistance to change.
Great. Now we know the problem. What’s the solution?
The Obvious: Put the Right People in Leadership Roles
Flipping through the report, the obvious answers (especially from an executive search firm) were front and center:
- Build a top team with relevant experience, competencies, and diverse backgrounds
- Develop the team and don’t be afraid to make changes along the way
- Set a common purpose and clear objectives, then actively manage the team
The Easy: Do Your Job as a Leader
OK, these may not be easy but it’s not that hard, either:
- Relentlessly and clearly communicate the why behind the change
- Change one thing at a time
- Align incentives to desired outcomes and behaviors
- Be a role model
- Understand and manage culture (remember, it’s reflected in the worst behaviors you tolerate)
The Not-Obvious-or-Easy-But-Still-Make-or-Break: Deputize the Next Generation
Buried amongst the obvious and easy was a rarely discussed, let alone implemented, choice – actively engaging the next generation of leaders.
But this isn’t the usual “invite a bunch of Hi-Pos (high potentials) to preview and upcoming announcement or participate in a focus group to share their opinions” performance most companies engage in.
This is something much different.
Step 1: Align on WHY an “extended leadership team” of Next Gen talent is mission critical
The C-Suite doesn’t see what happens on the front lines. It doesn’t know or understand the details of what’s working and what’s not. Instead, it receives information filtered through dozens of layers, all worried about positioning things just right.
Building a Next Gen extended leadership team puts the day-to-day realities front and center. It brings together capabilities that the C-Suite team may lack and creates the space for people to point out what looks good on paper but will be disastrous in practice.
Instead, leaders must commit to the purpose and value of engaging the next generation, not merely as “sensing mechanisms” (though that’s important, too) but as colleagues with different and equally valuable experiences and insights.
Step 2: Pick WHO is on the team without using the org chart
High-potentials are high potential because they know how to succeed in the current state. But transformation isn’t about replicating the current state. It requires creating a new state. For that, you need new perspectives:
- Super connecters who have wide, diverse, and trusted relationships across the organization so they can tap into a range of perspectives and connect the dots that most can barely see
- Credible experts who are trusted for their knowledge and experience and are known to be genuinely supportive of the changes being made
- Influencers who can rally the troops at the beginning and keep them motivated throughout
Step 3: Give them a clear mandate (WHAT) but don’t dictate HOW to fulfill it
During times of great change, it’s normal to want to control everything possible, including a team of brilliant, creative, and committed leaders. Don’t involve them in the following steps and be open to being surprised by their approaches and insights:
- At the beginning, involve them in understanding and defining the problem and opportunity.
- Throughout, engage them as advisors and influencers in decision-making (
- During and after implementation, empower them to continue to educate and motivate others and to make adaptations in real-time when needed.
Co-creation is the key to survival
Transforming your organization to survive, even thrive, in the future is hard work. Why not increase your odds of success by inviting the people who will inherit what you create to be part of the transformation?
