Observations on leadership, ethics, complexity, and what it means to remain human by design.
Human by Design
If AI lets you finish in six hours what used to take eight, what happens to the other two?
Most answers arrive fast, and most of them are about volume and speed. More output. More throughput. More of whatever we were already doing. Fewer people ask the question underneath it: what are we optimizing for, and why?
That question is where Human by Design starts.
Human by Design is a way of thinking about leadership, organizations, and change that begins with purpose, understands context, and then deliberately cultivates the human capabilities technology cannot replace. It is both a worldview and an operating principle, which means it has to show up in how things get built and executed, not only in how they get described.
In practice, that means designing the conditions that let people, teams, organizations, and communities think clearly, exercise sound judgment, collaborate well, and move forward together. The conditions come first, not the org chart.
None of this is a reaction to AI. The questions predate this moment by decades. But AI has raised the stakes and shortened the timeline.
At the heart of this work are three enduring questions
How does a person remain fully human inside systems that ask something different of them?
In an age of relentless optimization, where the speed of transaction outruns the capacity for curiosity, courage, or depth of connection, how do we keep these capabilities in practice rather than theory?
And are we cultivating them deliberately, or assuming they will survive on their own?
As you reflect on what it means to be Human by Design in your own context, what are you optimizing for, and why?
Open this note on its own page →
Leading in Context
If my earlier work and writing focused on what it means to lead from within, recent years have invited altogether different questions.
How do we lead effectively in context?
Beyond the work of becoming our authentic selves, how do we balance inner alignment with the outer responsibility of leading our teams, organizations, and those broader communities we serve?
How do we work within systems where structural, financial, cultural, and/or performance incentives often shape behavior more than the moral premise of a given leader?
As I write this, there is tremendous and important work being done to develop values-aligned leaders through the character-based leadership work originating at world-class institutions like Oxford and Wake Forest University, and beyond.
Skills alone are insufficient, and character is foundational to developing tomorrow's leaders. Foundational, but not sufficient. And while the ethics of AI and the ever-increasing focus on optimizing for speed, efficiency, and profit have accelerated this conversation, the ability to exercise good judgment, understand competing and often shifting values, incentives, and levers, and effectively navigate the inevitable trade-offs, is nothing new.
Decades ago, while working in economic development, I represented a global consumer company considering the acquisition of an existing manufacturing facility of a competitor in decline. I was asked and agreed to keep the announcement confidential until the company could communicate the deal with employees, knowing that some roles would be eliminated, while others were critical to retain for the future success of the operation. As the project lead, I assumed I had the authority to make and keep that promise, failing to consider larger organizational dynamics at play.
The next morning, the deal appeared prominently in one of the city's major business publications — not because I broke my commitment, but because the senior leadership I served made a different calculation about what served the institution best. In that moment, unbeknownst to me, the organization chose to optimize for visibility, timing, and media leverage, over a promise a project lead made on its behalf. My client felt understandably betrayed. I had kept my word. And yet, in a meaningful sense, we had not.
I have never forgotten that moment, or the questions it left me with
What does integrity require when the individual and the institution are operating from different commitments?
What authority does a leader need in order to honor a promise?
When two competing values clash, what guides your choice in determining the highest good?
And what happens when the system rewards behavior that undermines the very trust its people are expected to build?
At some point in nearly every leader's career, character alone will not resolve the choice. Competing obligations will require trade-offs, and every available option may carry a cost.
As you reflect on what it means to lead in context, I invite you to consider the questions above in your own leadership journey. From an organizational design perspective, where are those places where structural incentives potentially conflict with the stated goals, values, or culture? From a capital and technology standpoint, what are the guardrails and governance that survive the pressure of optimization for efficiency and profit?
Open this note on its own page →
More to come this fall — dispatches from three decades spent working at the intersections of strategy, human systems, and the problems frameworks alone cannot solve.
