Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

For eight days, the Tartan Army filled Boston’s streets with kilts, bagpipes, and the constant refrain of “No Scotland. No Party.”  Bars ran out of beer, traffic cones adorned statues, and resident’s souls were healed.

Now, some are saying corporate managers should have the same effect on the people around them (presumably without consuming all the beer in the office).

The possibility of collective effervescence

Collective effervescence is everywhere right now: in New York at the Knicks’ championship parade, the Tarps Off shirtless section at baseball games, at every unexpected draw or win at the World Cup.

It’s the “emotional electricity or excitement that lifts people outside of themselves and makes them feel like they’re connecting to something transcendent,” explains Christina Simko, and associate professor of sociology at William College. “They (members of a crowd) have to have a common focus and a common mood, and through that physical interaction, they generate something … greater than the sum of its parts.”

Greater than the sum of its parts.

Where have a I heard that before?

Could it be in every press release announcing an acquisition, all-hands meeting kicking of a transformation, and email confirming a re-org?

Which explains why I’m reading about the need for executives to create collective effervescence to ensure the success of transformational initiatives.

Seventy percent of transformations fail and one of the leading causes of failure is insufficiently high aspirations. Collective effervescence is sufficiently high but setting that as a metric of success will only drive up the failure rate.

The probability of emotional contagion

Emotional contagion is also everywhere: in the laugh that spreads through a room, the frown that moves around a conference table, the yawns that can’t be suppressed in meetings.

It’s the “phenomenon in which a person unconsciously mirrors or mimics the emotions of those around them” through nonverbal, conversational, or behavioral cues. It can be positive, like smiles and laughs, or negative like frowns or the tension from a tough conversation.

That’s good news for executives.

Leaders are “emotional amplifiers” because team members are more likely to mirror the leader’s tone than their peers. Research out of USC also indicates that, historically, positive emotions are more contagious than negative ones.

It’s also bad news for executives.

The emotional amplifier role cuts both ways and research shows that people tend to “overperceive” negative cues from leaders, even magnifying small emotional cues well beyond what a leader intended.

That means the frown everyone on the company-wide Zoom was most likely interpreted as disagreement, even opposition, to what was being discussed. And not that your shoes are too tight.

 The reality of leading humans through change

Leading people through change is hard. It’s even harder when you’re under a microscope and every smile, frown, sigh, cough, and eye roll is scrutinized and interpreted as if it were a secret code foretelling the future of thousands.

It’s not. But your team believes it is.

And perception is reality.

Here’s how to start shaping reality to make the changes happen:

  • Start with self-awareness. What is your mood right now? If it’s useful to the team, spend time with them. If it’s not, reschedule the meeting or send a proxy.
  • Make direct eye contact with people. According to the research, eye contact during verbal communication activates brain regions that help us understand what someone is saying and what they mean. Just don’t stare. That’s creepy.
  • Neutralize the negativity publicly. A bit of skepticism can be healthy for teams going through change but too much easily crosses over into pessimism and even hostility that spreads throughout the team. So stop the spread by publicly and patiently calling out the behavior and seeking to understand the root cause.

You don’t need collective effervescence to successfully lead change.

You do need spread the belief that change is possible and beneficial.

And you can do that without wearing a kilt.

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

We have entered the “do more with less” era of management edicts.

And, just like the eras of “fail fast,” “synergy,” and “we’re a family,” the phrase is met with eye rolls, silent groans, and a deepening certainty that management is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

But what if doing more with less is possible without the extra hours and stress that lead to burnout?

 

(Re)Define “more.”

When we hear “more,” we naturally think of work. More meetings. More emails. More Slacks, texts, Zooms. For most of my career, I believed the more emails I received, meetings I attended, and documents I wrote, the more valuable I was.

Volume does not equal value.

“More” can’t (and shouldn’t) mean more work. It must mean something else.

More value creation. Less box checking.

More progress. Less process.

More meaningful work. Less meaningless activity.

What is the “more” you want from your team? Define it or you’ll get more emails, meetings, and documents. Name it (value, efficiency, progress), and your team will figure out how to do it.

 

Experiment with “less.”

A client’s team stopped sending meeting summaries. They didn’t send shorter ones, change the distribution list, or even share the link to the AI note-taker. They just stopped.

No one noticed.

Six months later, a new team member asked if they would send a meeting summary. The team leader said no but offered to recap next steps before everyone left the room. No one argued. Everyone left the meeting with clarity on what they needed to do next.

Activity does not equal achievement.

 Our days are filled with BS work, tasks that we do because we’ve always done them, because they feel important, and because we worry what happens if we stop.

Documents don’t ensure that people are informed, aligned, or are ready to act.

Meetings don’t guarantee that everyone has thoughtfully considered and agreed on a decision.

Meeting summaries don’t make people complete their next steps.

It doesn’t mean we don’t need documents, meetings, or meeting summaries. But “less” is possible.

Ask your team what you can do less of. Stop doing things and see if people notice. If you can’t stop something completely, ask what less of it looks like. Instead of a meeting summary, send next steps. Instead of a presentation, write a one-page summary. Instead of a spreadsheet build a visual dashboard.

 

Rethink “indispensable.”

The managers in my client’s training program were in roles that everyone called the most pivotal in the company. They didn’t feel pivotal. They felt reactive and overwhelmed, with no control over their own calendars.

The COO’s fix was simple. Just stop attending.

It surprised him that they wouldn’t. They couldn’t. The fear of missing something kept them in every room, including the ones that ran fine without them.

You’re in every meeting because you’re good at your job. Being good got you invited into every decision, and somewhere along the way no one uninvited you. Now you stay out of habit, not need. The permission to step back is usually there. You just haven’t tested it long enough to know what happens.

 Presence does not equal performance.

Look at your calendar for the meetings you sit in out of habit. Pick one this week to not attend. Resist the urge to instructions. Simply tell the team lead you won’t attend and that you trust them to keep things moving.

Your absence isn’t dropping the ball. It’s demonstrating that you trust the team and empowering them to do their jobs. It’s the rare version of less that gives you more time and your team their autonomy.

 

“Do more with less” isn’t a demand to work harder

The constraint isn’t going anywhere. Volume isn’t value. Activity isn’t achievement. Presence isn’t performance. It’s a reason to finally drop what doesn’t matter.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities?  Look to Nebraska.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities? Look to Nebraska.

In October, at InnoLead’s annual conference in Boston MA, everything was AI. When the facilitator of a LEGO Serious Play workshop announced we would not talk about AI, the room erupted in applause.

In April, at Inside Outside Innovation’s biannual conference in Lincoln NE, everything was human. By day’s end, speakers and attendees alike were celebrating the sweet relief of a human-led, AI-supported future.

Why the difference? AI hasn’t fallen out of the news cycle, nor have AI-driven layoffs ceased.

Perspective.

InnoLead’s conference featured practitioners living the day-to-day reality of change and innovation. IO 2026 spotlighted thought leaders like Eric Ries, David Bland, and Erin Stadler, advisors able to see across organizations and invited into the C-Suite’s inner sanctum.

One conference talks about what is. One about what will be.

So, if you want to know what your C-Suite will task you with in six months, look to Nebraska.

 

To move forward, we must face hard truths

Eric Ries, the creator of Lean Startup and author of the forthcoming Incorruptible, exposed the myth that free markets reward value creation. They reward value extraction. Companies focused on extraction forget their purpose, serve themselves over their customers, and ultimately fail.

Elliott Parker, CEO of Alloy Partners and author of  The Illusion of Innovation, declared corporate innovation to be alchemy. Isaac Netwon spent his life pursuing alchemy (creating calculus was just a side quest) but failed because the basic building block of matter, the atom, is immutable. The same is true of big company executives pursuing innovation. The atomic elements of corporations (efficiency) and entrepreneurship (autonomy, passion, urgency, skin in the game, and freedom) are immutable and incompatible. Just as lead cannot become gold, companies can’t create like startups.

 

 

To do better, we must focus on people

Erin Stadler, founder of Design Culture and author of one of my all-time favorite articles on innovation, shared a forgotten truth: “When we lead with people, the human element, the science, the innovation comes with it.”  To do this requires leaders and organizations to find and state their purpose, to build principles and values, and to act on them every day

Dan Hassenplug, VP of Design at sport tech company Hudl, boldly declared that customer obsession is the “real AI strategy.”  After all, getting 10x faster at something doesn’t matter if it’s on something that doesn’t matter. And what matters are your customers. Living with them, talking to them, listening to them. You’ll get radical and game changing insights that no competitor, survey, or synthetic persona can.

David Bland, founder of Precoil and author of Testing Business Ideas, implored the audience to flip the 80/20 ratio of feasibility experiments to desirability experiments. Why? “We can make anything these days. It doesn’t matter if you can make it if no one wants it.”

 

 

To focus on people, we must serve them

Ted Ullrich, co-founder of Tomorrow Lab, reminded us that “simplicity is earned,” not a starting point. We start by trying to do all the thingsfor customers, but that’s overwhelmng and unnecessary. Only by listening to humans and staying humble can we create the simple solutions that create value.

Julie Ann Crommet, founder of Collective Moxie and former VP at Disney, dazzled us with the simple fact that “the more specific the story, the more universal.”  She backed this up with data that films with Authentically Inclusive Representation perform nearly 3x better at the box office and the story behind how Coco became Pixar’s highest grossing movie in China, despite content that is typically banned.

 

 

The future is wonderfully human

AI isn’t going away and it will change almost all aspects of life and work. But if the thought leaders, advisors, and designers in Nebraska are right (and I think they are), the future will be far more human than machine.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

“AI is the new cigarette.”

When a colleague said this in the waning days of 2022, days after ChatGPT burst on the scene, she took my breath away. The idea that this miracle would kill us seemed confined to hysterical handwringing foretelling the birth of Skynet.

She was right.

But neither of us knew it was designed to be that way.

 

Designed for addiction

My friend predicted that ChatGPT would stay free and helpful until usage reached “critical mass,” and then we’d have to pay. Less than three months after its November launch, OpenAI introduced its $20 per month service.

But it’s not the “first one’s free, the next one will cost you” aspect of drugs that makes AI addictive. It’s the design decisions at its core that keeps you coming back:

  • Purchase Decoupling in which you convert real money into tokens, creating psychological distance between you and your actual spending
  • Difficulty Curve where skills and benefits accumulate quickly giving you the sense that you’re becoming more capable over time and therefore more committed after progress slows.
  • Skill Atrophy where every skill you stop practicing because the machine does it for you, quietly disappears.

Even casual AI users have experienced one or more of these:

  • You get a message mid-chat telling you you’ve used all your tokens and need to come back in three hours even though you’ve paid your monthly $20 fee
  • You’re prompting in all caps because it’s the only way you can think of to get the LLM to stop hallucinating, while reminiscing about the days when it was a brilliant thought-partner
  • You’ve relied on AI to outline articles for the last several months, but you need to write in a different style and have no idea how to get started.

And yet, we keep going back.

But it’s not just individuals who are addicted. It’s entire organizations.

 

Signs that your organization is addicted to AI

Your CFO asks for the total AI spend across the organization. Three weeks and four departments later, the number is three times what anyone expected because the licenses are buried in IT infrastructure budgets, the pilots are expensed as innovation projects, and half the tools were purchased by business units on corporate cards.

The board approved the AI transformation initiative based on the pilot results. Eighteen months later, the pilot case study slide hasn’t changed, headcount has been reduced in anticipation of productivity gains that haven’t materialized, and the team running the pilot has quietly moved on to other work.

You eliminated the analyst pool two years ago because AI could do in minutes what they did in days. Now you need to evaluate whether the AI’s output is actually correct, and you’ve just realized there’s nobody left in the organization to check it because everyone who’s done it is gone.

Sound familiar? Your organization is an addict.

 

Recovery is possible

Addiction can’t be cured, only managed. The same is true for AI.

The road to recovery starts in a similar place: Visibility

  • Centralize AI spending the way you centralize other business processes AND allow some flexibility by setting strict spending limits and clear decision-making criteria and ownership.
  • Start pilots with the end in mind by establishing success metrics and scaling plans at the start of the pilot, not when it’s already in process.
  • Treat certain human capabilities as strategic reserves the same way you’d treat any critical operational dependency. Before automating a function, explicitly document what judgment and expertise currently lives there, who holds it, and what it would cost to rebuild it if needed.

Unlike cigarettes or gambling, we’ve reached a point where we can’t quit AI.

But we can be aware of our addiction and we must manage it.

The first step is admitting that it’s real.  And by design.

AI Layoffs Won’t Help You Grow.  But They Will Help You Go Bankrupt.

AI Layoffs Won’t Help You Grow. But They Will Help You Go Bankrupt.

Thursday, February 26.

3:35 pm PST – Jack Dorsey said thank you and goodbye to 4,000 people. Block;s profitability was  growing, but the promise of “intelligence tools…paired with flatted teams” enabled a fundamental shift in how the company could be run

4:12 pm PST – He posted his farewell announcement to X for the world to read. In it he wrote, “I know doing it this way might feel awkward. I’d rather feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.”

Is there anything more darkly humorous than a CEO trying to avoid appearing efficient and cold when communicating a decision to make the company more efficient and cold?

Only the moment when your boss calls to ask how your plans to grow the business and going and then informs you that the C-Suite wants a plan “to do what Dorsey just did”

Tuesday, March 10.

Time unknown – The agenda of Amazon’s weekly “This Week in Stores Tech” focused solely on investigating why “the availability of the site and related infrastructure has not been good recently.”

More specifically, why, for SIX HOURS, Amazon customers could not access their accounts, view product prices, or complete checkout. That is nearly $300M in lost revenue assuming the outage only affected North America.

All because, after years of cutting headcount and ramping up AI, junior engineers basically vibe-coded production changes..

As best practices and safeguards are yet to be “concretized,” it’s now the responsibility of senior engineers to review all production changes prepared by junior programmers.

How efficient is that AI looking now?

 

What we lose when we bet on hype, not proof

Researchers at Oxford have documented companies using AI as justification for cuts they had already planned. A January 2026 survey of 1,006 global executives found that 60% have or will make cuts in anticipation of AI’s impact while 29% plan to slow hiring. Only 2% have laid off staff as a result for actual AI-driven results.

Thousands of people are being laid off based on hype, not proof.

It’s reasonable to expect that, one day, AI will live up to the hype and deliver on all the promises promoters are making. But that’s a long-term bet that only pays out if you survive the inevitable crashes in efficiency, revenue, and institutional knowledge.

 

When organizations swap out people for “intelligence tools,” they lose institutional memory, the subtle, often unspoken, sometimes subconscious knowledge that makes things work. These are the people who understand your clients, your controls, and why past decisions were made. AI can automate workflows. It cannot replicate that knowledge. And once it’s gone, it’s gone.

And the loss continues even amongst the people who remain.

Research from MIT shows that regular AI use reduces activity in brain networks responsible for creativity and analogical thinking by 55%, and the atrophy persists even after people stop using AI tools. You are not trading people for AI. You are trading people for AI while simultaneously reducing your remaining team’s capacity to think creatively, adapt quickly, and catch mistakes. Operations get fragile. Innovation stalls. And when the AI-assisted work fails, as it did at Amazon, there’s no one left to fix it.

 

The root of growth is never hype

When the call comes down from on high to “do what Dorsey did” it’s hard to counter with cautionary tales like Amazon or reality checks about the state and capability of the organization.

But you can ask questions:

  1. Are you cutting based on what AI has delivered or what we expect it to?
  2. How will we ensure essential institutional knowledge isn’t lost?
  3. If (when) AI-assisted work fails, who fixes it? Amazon’s answers were still on staff. Will ours be, too?

Growth is essential to every organization. But you can’t cut your way to growth.

AI doesn’t change that fact.

It just makes it easier to believe the hype.