In 1966, Bruce Henderson, the founder of the Boston Consulting Group, articulated what would become one of the most influential ideas in the history of business strategy: the experience curve. Its origins date back to T. P. Wright’s original 1936 pape…
Southwest Airlines CEO Bob Jordan says too many execs mistake packed calendars for productivity. He’s found a “crazy” solution.
In 2012, Google conducted research to identify the factors that determine effective teams. This research, now famously known as Project Aristotle, analyzed hundreds of teams and individual members to crack the code on what enables some to operate at high levels while others flounder. What their study revealed is something Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson had discovered almost two decades prior: the most important factor for high performing teams is psychological safety. That is to say, teams perform better when their members feel safe taking risks and being vulnerable with each other, without fear of punishment. Google’s watershed study brought light to Edmondson’s groundbreaking research and thrust psychological safety into the zeitgeist—and onto the tips of tongues of scholars, executive coaches, and business leaders alike across a wide array of categories.
However, despite the adoption of this critical contribution to business practice, far too often, safety is erroneously mistaken for comfort—and the two couldn’t be more different. Safety is a matter of protection from harm, as in “I feel safe to jump off this rock” because the likelihood of harm is mitigated. Comfort, on the other hand, is a state of ease, where I feel comfortable jumping off the rock because it’s easy. You see the difference? One embraces risk because the consequences are low, while the other sees no risk at all. One leads to breakthroughs and the other leads to routine.
Comfort, as the radio broadcaster Stan Dale once declared, is a “plush-lined coffin” that prevents individuals from stretching themselves, which subsequently mitigates the possibilities of their collective collaboration. With all the best intentions, I’m certain, many leaders attempt to foster a psychologically safe environment by ensuring their employees feel comfortable in the office. As such, they prioritize niceness and harmony over candor and conflict, unknowingly eroding the necessary conditions that help us do hard things and, ultimately, lead to innovations within an organization. Difficult things aren’t always comfortable, but that’s where growth and advancement happen. Therefore, our aim should not be to promote comfort from hard things, but rather, to create a space where people feel safe enough to try.
I see this in the classroom every day. Some of the brightest minds across the globe enroll in the MBA program at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, to increase their business acumen and venture out into the world as the “leaders and best.” When these students enter the classroom, they expect to be challenged with new ideas and provocations because they know, intuitively, that this is where the learning happens. If they’re presented with something they already know, something easy, they don’t learn much at all. Therefore, in an effort to foster an environment where learning is optimized, the classroom can’t be comfortable (i.e. easy); it must be challenging enough to stretch them but safe enough for them to stretch.
The psychologist Lev Vygostky, best known for his pioneering work on cognitive development, refers to this sweet spot of difficulty as the Zone of Proximal Development. This zone represents tasks that sit just outside of a student’s skill level and challenges them to stretch further with the assistance of a teacher who possesses greater knowledge or ability. It’s not easy, but it’s not impossible. It’s achievable but you have to jump to do it. If people don’t feel safe, they typically won’t jump. Therefore, it is the job of the instructional leader to facilitate a classroom environment where students feel protected enough to fail. Why? Because in these safe spaces, growth happens and the classroom improves.
So, students ask “dumb questions” without fear of embarrassment. They say what could potentially be the wrong answer because they know if they miss the mark, they won’t be punished for it. They do it not because it’s easy, but because it’s not dangerous. The same thing goes in our organizations. If we want people to take big swings, to jump off the rock of comfort into the lake of big ideas, then we must reduce the risk, not the challenge. The differences lead to wildly different outcomes.
We invited Sherlen Archibald, co-founder of idea agency We The Roses, onto the FROM THE CULTURE podcast to explore how his organization uses natural settings to foster safe environments that stretch teams to uncover new ideas and creative explorations. Check out the full episode here.
The billionaire philanthropist’s 48-hour feedback rule is designed to replace anger with honesty, and it eliminates surprises at performance reviews.
Jessica Thompson, 47, said she earned $65,000 a year as a senior sales manager in Rockford, Illinois, while a male colleague with similar credentials had earned $87,000.
The announcement comes as the Bank of Montreal holds an investor day
It would take the typical New York private-sector worker 82,863 years to earn as much as one of the 10 wealthiest billionaires did last year on average, according to a new Oxfam America report.
Harvey CEO Winston Weinberg says in today’s fast-moving business world, employees must constantly prove their value—or risk being left behind.
Candidates in today’s brutal job market are being evaluated in ways they may not even realize.
At a recent retreat I was attending, I found myself in one of those “hallway moments.” Walking out of a lecture, I was engaged in conversation with a fellow attendee. Soon it became clear we had differing opinions about the topic. As I felt myself getting tense, formulating my response in my mind, I caught a glimpse of myself in a wall of mirrors as we walked by a pilates studio on the property. I didn’t like what I saw—it was not my best self. I did not look calm, cool and collected; instead, I looked tense and ready to charge. The exact opposite vibe that was the goal of this retreat. That quick glimpse of myself helped me to check myself, adjust my face, slow down my thinking and turn to the person, more readily available to consider their perspective.
That moment of self-awareness—when observation sparked reflection—captures something counterintuitive emerging in workplaces today. In an era when we fear AI is making us less human, a new generation of tools is doing something unexpected: they’re teaching us to be more emotionally intelligent.
The Hawthorne Effect, reimagined
Nearly a century ago, researchers at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works factory in a Chicago suburb discovered something surprising: workers became more productive when they knew they were being observed, regardless of whether conditions improved or worsened. The conclusion? Simply knowing that someone was paying attention changed behavior.
Rick Fiorito, co-founder of CivilTalk and its conversational intelligence tool Clarion AI, has witnessed this phenomenon play out in real-time. When his team introduced AI-powered observation into university classrooms—designed to assess emotional intelligence in peer-to-peer discussions—they braced for conflict. What happened instead stunned them.
“When people asked us what we do when participants behave badly, our answer was: ‘They don’t,’” Fiorito told me. “When people know they’re in a situation where they’re being observed for civility, they behave more civilly.”
This is the Hawthorne Effect for the AI age: not surveillance that breeds resentment, but awareness that cultivates better behavior. The technology isn’t forcing compliance; it’s creating the conditions for people to show up as their better selves.
Beyond observation: The power of the reframe
But observation alone isn’t transformation. What makes tools like Clarion AI distinctive is what happens after the conversation ends. The platform doesn’t just identify when emotional intelligence is present or absent—it offers something Fiorito calls “reframing.”
Consider a heated discussion about a contentious topic. One participant erupts: “You have a right to your opinion, but you don’t have a right to your facts!” The conversation spirals. Emotions eclipse substance. Nothing productive emerges.
The AI observer catches this moment and offers an alternative: “That is your opinion. What facts do you use to support it?” Same intention. Different outcome. The technology identifies the breakdown, explains why it derailed the exchange, and models a more emotionally intelligent path forward.
This follows the classic leadership principle: praise in public, correct in private. The AI becomes a coach, not a critic.
The business case for emotional infrastructure
For skeptics who dismiss emotional intelligence as “soft skills,” the data tells a harder story. Sixty-one percent of executives believe emotional intelligence will be a must-have competency in the next five years as automation grows. Emotional intelligence accounts for 58% of job performance across industries—making it the strongest predictor of success among 34 essential workplace skills. And employees with empathetic leaders report 76% higher engagement and 61% greater creativity.
As Fiorito frames it, the real value proposition isn’t technological efficiency, it’s human effectiveness. “Likability, credibility, and dependability,” he says. “Those three factors have nothing to do with technology. They are all related to emotional intelligence.”
The paradox is clear: in an age when AI threatens to automate technical skills, the distinctly human capacities of empathy, self-regulation, social awareness, become the competitive advantage that technology cannot replicate.
Einstein on your shoulder
When people express fear about AI taking over, Fiorito offers a reframe of his own: “How can you not want Einstein on your shoulder?”
Having worked at the leading edge of technological innovation for three decades—from the early days of cell phones to internet payments to AI-powered lending—Fiorito sees a consistent pattern. Technology itself holds no inherent value. “It’s in the application,” he emphasizes. “It’s what you do with it, and how you use it.”
The most promising application isn’t using AI to replace human connection, it’s using AI to amplify it. Tools like Clarion don’t compete with counselors, mediators, or leaders. They give those professionals an observer who catches nuances they might miss, documents patterns they couldn’t track, and identifies points of agreement obscured by emotional noise.
What this means for you
The rise of AI-powered emotional intelligence tools offers three immediate opportunities:
- Embrace the observer effect intentionally. The Hawthorne research shows that attention itself changes behavior. Create contexts where your team knows their interactions matter—not through surveillance, but through genuine investment in how people communicate.
- Build reframing into your culture. Rather than punishing communication breakdowns, model the alternative. Ask: “How might you have said that differently?” This transforms conflict into learning.
- Use AI as a starting point, not an endpoint. The real skill isn’t prompting AI—it’s what you do after. Let technology surface insights, then step away from the screen. Tinker with those ideas. Engage with other humans about what you’ve discovered.
The future doesn’t belong to those who fear AI or those who blindly worship it. It belongs to those who recognize that the most powerful technology is one that makes us more human—one conversation at a time.
