Topic 23 Posts


Too busy to read my new article?

Want to make an impact? Change your questioning habits.
Here are four ways to help employees become more reflective and more productive.

You probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you that the best way to ensure impact is to turn your organization into a collective reflection space where everyone asks each other questions.

You might even think that reflection:

🚫  Prevents quick decisions and actions
🚫  Makes people focus on themselves
🚫  Increases the strategy execution gap
🚫  Weakens your position and impact

But it’s actually the other way around.

The less time people in your organization spend reflecting and asking questions, the less they align with one another on what’s important, and the greater the risk that they are busy doing things that have no impact.

Working with Teija Saari and her team in GRUNDFOS and Søren Sjøgren and his fellow officers at Forsvarsakademiet, I learned that collective reflection spaces are the key to:

🌿  Quicker and better decision making
🌿   More collaboration across teams
🌿  Local anchoring of strategic decisions
🌿  Strategic alignment and global impact

Too busy to reflect on how to do that?

Read my new strategy+business article.

Why do we call it artificial intelligence?

Yesterday I had a conversation with Niels who suggested it's because we don't understand this kind of technology.

And when we don't understand something, we either:

🤷‍♀️   Consider it inevitable
🙅‍♀️   Refuse to have anything to do with it, or
🙇‍♀️   Ascribe a higher 'intelligence' to it

Instead of accepting that there is something we don’t understand (yet), we create myths about magic machines and intelligent black boxes.

But what should we do instead?

My truly intelligent colleague said that we should acknowledge that there is always an element of fear in what we don’t understand.

And instead of covering up that we are afraid, we should create contexts where we take our fear seriously.

All technology is potentially dangerous, so we should be vigilant when using technology we don’t understand.

So, maybe the important question is not how to understand and use artificial intelligence.

Maybe the important question is how to design technology that makes us more vigilant?

Podcast: Få det til at ske

‎ADFÆRDSLEDELSE: Få Det Til At Ske med Pia Lauritzen & spørgsmålene on Apple Podcasts
‎Show ADFÆRDSLEDELSE, Ep Få Det Til At Ske med Pia Lauritzen & spørgsmålene - 10 Oct 2021

Nogle gange bliver det bare for meget. Jeg får nok af al den snak om confirmation bias, dovne hjerner og nudging. Orker ikke flere adfærdseksperter, der vil gøre det LET at træffe "de rette valg".

"Det er IKKE let!", får jeg lyst til at råbe. Og:

"Det er ikke DIN opgave at afgøre, hvad der er "de rette valg". Det er MIN opgave at træffe MINE valg! Så hvis du vil hjælpe mig og de forandringer jeg er en del af på vej, så skal du gøre det lettere for mig at træffe mine EGNE valg!"

Sidste gang det blev for meget for mig skrev jeg en artikel på LinkedIn, der hed: The real secret to making change easy - and why it's kept a secret.

Den læste Henrik Dresbøll, og det fik ham til at invitere mig med i hans podcast FÅ DET TIL AT SKE.

Selvom vi først optog podcasten et par uger efter jeg havde skrevet artiklen, var jeg stadig ikke faldet til ro. Jeg råbte ikke, men jeg talte meget hurtigt og havde travlt med at fortælle om alt det, jeg er sikker på, vi kan gøre bedre - hvis vi alle sammen tænker os om.

Henrik er verdensmester i at få det til at ske, så jeg håber, du vil lytte med og dele dine overvejelser om spørgsmålet:

Bør forandringsledelse handle om at gøre ny adfærd let eller om at gøre det lettere for folk at træffe deres egne valg?

Now what?

Imagine you were a senior executive who just received a mapping of the questions your employees ask each other.

What would you do next?

My job is to help senior executives in large companies collect and analyze the thousands of questions their employees ask each other.

I help them translate the qualitative question-and-answer data into informal network mappings, maturity assessments, alignment scores, themes and recommendations.

But one question always remains:

What should the executives do next?

Yesterday I suggested that the executive team in a large company use the question data to distinguish between:

1. The questions they consider it their responsibility to answer,
2. The questions employees should collaborate on answering, and
3. The questions that are not supposed to be answered yet

The team responsible for Qvest in the company especially liked the third category, because it allows the executive team to embrace and demonstrate the fact that the organization is evolving and therefore still has a lot to learn.

But what do you think? Would you find this distinction valuable if you were a senior executive in a large company?

Or do you know of other approaches that would make it easier for the organization to move forward together?

You can always share your questions, tips and tricks in an email to or in comments to my posts on LinkedIn.

Would your organization pass The Monkey Test?

My favorite emojis are the little monkeys. And this weekend it occurred to me how perfectly they illustrate what happens when large organizations undergo a transformation.

Whether it’s a digital, strategic or organizational transformation, employees go through four stages:

🙊  Inactive

They don’t talk about the transformation

🙈  Reactive

They blindly repeat other people’s words about the transformation

🐵  Interactive

They use input from other people to discuss the transformation in their own words

🐒  Proactive

They use their own words and experience to deal with the transformation

The Monkey Test maps the distribution of employees across the four different stages, and responsive leaders use this mapping to adjust their initiatives.

For example by saying:

"65% of our employees are inactive or reactive, so we will slow down our overall transformation activities and instead focus on: 1) empowering frontrunners to pave the way, and 2) getting everyone on board."

Of course, not all leaders are responsive.

Some prefer to 🙉🙉🙉🙉

P.s. Ironically, you cannot take The Monkey Test with SurveyMonkey or other survey tools. To map and support the progress of your transformation, you need Qvest.

Want diversity? Forget being unbiased

Spirit of the Times: "What do you do to ensure that your analyzes are unbiased?"

Me: “I don't strive to make unbiased analyzes”

Spirit of the Times: "But aren’t you afraid that there are too many assumptions behind your analyzes and recommendations then?"

Me: “No. If anything I'm afraid that there are too few assumptions behind my analyzes and recommendations.”

Spirit of the Times: "I'm not sure I understand...?"

Me: "When people hear about Qvest, they often think that the data you get when you let employees ask each other questions is unbiased"

Spirit of the Times: "And that's not the case?"

Me: "No. When you let employees exchange questions and answers about important topics, you don't get unbiased and unambiguous data, but rather multi-biased and diverse data."

Spirit of the Times: "And that's a good thing?"

Read why my answer is YES in the full version of my conversation with the Spirit of the Times about her notion that algorithms and analyzes should be unbiased in my latest LinkedIn article:

Want diversity? Forget being unbiased

Finans: Store virksomheder transformerer sig ihjel

Store virksomheder transformerer sig ihjel
Tre transformationer på tre måneder! Under en pandemi, hvor de fleste arbejder hjemmefra. Og markedet er komplet utilregneligt. Undskyld, kære topledere, men hvad i alverden tænker I på?

Det kan lyde som en selvmordsmission.

Jeg er medejer af en lille startup, der hjælper store erfaringstunge virksomheder med at lykkes med deres digitale, strategiske og organisatoriske transformationer. Og så skriver jeg en klumme med titlen:

Store virksomheder transformerer sig ihjel.

Er det ikke at tage brødet ud af munden på mig selv at lægge op til, at de store virksomheder slår bremsen i? Stopper op. Sætter transformationerne på pause.

Måske. Men det problem, vi står overfor, er større end mig og mit levebrød. Det truer millioner af arbejdspladser og i sidste ende balancen på det globale marked.

Så jeg tager chancen.

The questions that are never asked

"Is agile the right thing for us right now?"

I help large companies collect and analyze the questions their employees ask each other. But to be honest, I'm more curious about the questions employees do NOT ask.

I look for things that cannot be questioned because those are the things that prevent us from learning, innovating and evolving.

I am currently working with three of the most successful companies in Europe. Two Danish and one German.

Working with these companies confirms my belief that the reason they are so successful is that their employees ask brave questions - such as:

“We hear about big transformations, many challenges, everybody needs to be ready for change...and so on. Can you give me one good and concrete example of what kind of benefits our customers can expect?”

Successful executives respond to such questions with great gratitude. But what about the questions that are never asked?

When I look at tens of thousands of questions across hundreds of different companies, I miss questions such as:

- Is agile the right thing for us right now? - and
- Should we pause the digital transformation?

Are these the same questions that are hard to ask (out loud) in your organization? Or would you add some to the list?

"Men de kender jo ikke alle svarene"

Mig: “Det er vigtigt, at du gør plads til dine medarbejderes spørgsmål”

Lederen: “Jamen, jeg har ikke tid til at svare på alle de spørgsmål”

Mig: “Hvem siger, at det er dig, der skal svare på spørgsmålene?”

Lederen: “Hvem skulle det ellers være?”

Mig: “Måske kan medarbejderne besvare hinandens spørgsmål?”

Lederen: “Men de kender jo ikke alle svarene”

Mig: “Gør du det?”

Lederen: “Nej - altså, det er jo ikke min opgave at være nede i alle detaljerne…”

Mig: “Så er det måske meget smart, at medarbejderne hjælper hinanden med at få styr på de detaljer, som det er deres opgave at have styr på?”

Lederen: “Tjaeh... så hvad skal jeg gøre?”

Mig: "Du skal skabe rammerne for, at de kan stille og besvare de spørgsmål, de har brug for at stille og besvare"

Lederen: "Hvordan gør jeg det?"

Mig: "Du skal gøre det nemt for medarbejderne at stille spørgsmål til de tiltag, der er vigtige for virksomheden. Og så skal du sørge for at få adgang til medarbejdernes spørgsmål og svar, så du kan bruge deres indsigter og ideer til at informere dine beslutninger"

Lederen: "Men jeg har jo flere tusinde medarbejdere...?"

Mig: "Så meget desto vigtigere er det, at du ved, hvad der rører sig forskellige steder i organisationen"

Lederen: "Men kan det gøres nemt og billigt?"

Mig: "Ja"


Kender du det, at nogen stiller dig et spørgsmål, som du fornemmer handler om noget andet end det, de spørger om?

Jeg oplever det især, når det første folk spørger om efter jeg har fortalt dem om Qvest er: "Ligger der noget forskning bag?"

"Ja, gu fanden ligger der forskning bag! Jeg har lige fortalt dig, at det er mig, der har opfundet og udviklet metoden, og at den er baseret på mine mange års filosofiske forskning i spørgsmål!"

Har jeg lyst til at råbe.

Men det gør jeg ikke. Jeg siger forsigtigt, at jeg har en ph.d. fra Københavns Universitet og at Carlsbergfondet finansierede min post.doc.-forskning på Aarhus Universitet.

Nogle gange nævner jeg også, at jeg har skrevet 5 bøger og at 2 af dem er oversat til engelsk.

Men det gør ingen forskel. Folk er fløjtende ligeglade.

De spørger nemlig ikke, om der ligger forskning bag, fordi de er interesseret i min forskning. De spørger om der ligger forskning bag, fordi de er interesseret i noget andet.

Hvad det er og hvordan jeg finder ud af det, aner jeg ikke. Jeg ved blot, at det har uendeligt lidt med mig at gøre.

Derfor vil jeg begynde at gøre noget andet, når nogen stiller mig dette spørgsmål. Og derfor spørger jeg dig:

Hvad gør du, når nogen stiller dig et spørgsmål, som handler om noget andet end det, de spørger om?

P.s. Hvis du har erfaringer, tips eller tricks, du gerne vil dele med mig, er du altid velkommen til at besvare mine nyhedsmails eller skrive en kommentar på LinkedIn. Tak for at du læser med 💛

A slight pivot in thought

Curious Change Catalyst: "Hi Pia! I Just saw your post about Qvest considering to expand also into consulting/advisory territory. How exciting, and also a bit divergent from where I heard you were thinking when we met!  I would love to hear more about why the slight pivot in thought."

Me: "Thanks for reaching out. Yes, you could say it's a slight pivot in thought. Thanks for letting me explain 🤓

When I invented Qvest 13 years ago I was working as a strategy consultant, and I desperately needed a tool like Qvest.

Using the tool made me dream of a world where companies don't need external consultants because the tool unleashes all the energy and insight the organization needs to develop by itself.

I still have that dream!

However, the past couple of years have taught me that most companies (more accurate: most leaders) are not quite ready to let go of their consultants, and when we collaborate with the best consultants out there I understand why.

So, instead of fighting the consultants, we've decided to build a community of what you could call self-disruptive consultants who use the Qvest technology to empower responsible organizations.

I hope it makes sense?"

"Wait a minute! Do we even know if this will work?"

Leaders: “We’ve decided to make a new strategy”
Employees: “Nice. In the meantime, we’ll keep things running”

Leaders: “We’re ready to tell you about the new strategy”
Employees: “Okay. We’re pretty busy, so please keep it short”

Leaders: “Now we expect you to execute the strategy!”
Employees: “Wait a minute! Do we even know if this will work?”

Leaders: “We can’t wait to see how much this will improve everything!”
Employees: “Hmm… I wouldn’t count on it”

I’ve seen A LOT of models of what leaders go through when a company launches a new strategy.

I haven’t seen a model of what employees go through.

So, I made one that shows both. It’s a simple four-step model on how to reach important goals. Together.

The model shows the four phases from both a leadership and employee perspective. It also includes recommendations for what to do to ensure leaders and employees are strategically aligned.

Comment ‘Together’ on LinkedIn and I’ll send it to you.

Who would you wish had a perfect conversation?

Strategy invites culture for breakfast - this is how it happened
Culture: "Hello..

A perfect conversation is one where people take turns: Talking and listening. Asking and answering questions. Sometimes I miss these kinds of conversations in society and companies. And then I fabricate them myself 👩‍💻

Like this dialogue between Strategy and Culture.

And the follow-up dialogue I had with Strategy a couple of weeks later.

Who would you wish had a perfect conversation?

🎄🗓 – Dec 14: What is the best way to pique curiosity?

I must admit: I have not heard this question on the radio. Nor has it been submitted by one of you. This is MY question.

I want to be part of making a more curious, creative and collaborative world, but the thing about curiosity, creativity and collaboration is that it takes a village.

Or, at least SOMETHING to be curious about and SOMEONE to create and collaborate with 😊 💛 😊

I'm lucky to have both. I'm obsessively curious about questions, and I have a wonderful network.

I build Qvest with an amazing team. I collect comments on LinkedIn (I also like likes, but I looove comments). And right now I co-create The Curious Christmas Calendar with everyone who loves questions 🎄

I'm lucky. And yet I want more.

More curiosity. More creativity. More collaboration.

So, tell me: What is the best way to pique curiosity?

Is it to prompt people to ask "what if...?" questions (as my favorite curiosity expert, Francesca Gino, says is one of her favorite tricks)? Is it to prompt people to ask any kind of questions (as I tend to do 🤓)?

Or is it something else?

Please write a comment on LinkedIn where you:

  • Share your favorite trick on how to pique curiosity, or
  • Tag people who pique your curiosity

The secret to shared responsibility

What is the hardest thing for leaders to let go of:

The DEFINITION power, or

The DECISION power?

For 12 years I have told leaders:

  • Not to be the only ones who ask questions, and
  • Not to be the only ones who provide answers

I’ve come to realize that most leaders are willing to EITHER share their definition power OR share their decision power.

But to empower shared responsibility for the problems companies are facing, leaders must be willing to do both. That's why I designed Qvest to help leaders:

  1. Communicate why a problem is everyone’s problem
  2. Anchor the problem in each employee’s everyday work
  3. Empower local dialogue on potential solutions
  4. Create shared responsibility for the solution

It's my experience that a lot of leaders put a lot of efforts into 1. And they say they want 4. But what about 2 and 3?

Is it your experience that leaders would rather share the responsibility for defining the problem than the responsibility for deciding how to solve it?

Or is it the other way around?

How to make Culture listen

When Strategy asked me how to make Culture listen — this is what I said
Strategy: “You see, we both want our company to do better, but we have a really hard time collaborating.” Me: “I think it’s a two-way street. For your company to do better, you and Culture must align…

Strategy: “I’m considering sending Culture a survey to find out what she needs from me.”

Me: “I wouldn’t do that.”

Strategy: “Why?”

Me: “Because if you don’t know what she needs, you won’t know what questions to put in your survey.”

Strategy: “Good point.”

Me: “She will feel like you are wasting her time, and you will not get the insight you need.”

Strategy: “You’re right — so, what should I do?”

I answer Strategy's question in this Medium-piece.

I mangel af bedre ord

Hvordan skaber man noget, man ikke har noget sprog for?

De fire superskarpe strategifolk vidste præcis, hvad de ville:

  • Vi vil sætte strategien fri
  • Vi vil gå i dialog med organisationen
  • Vi vil understøtte organisationens dialog med sig selv
  • Vi vil skabe en kultur, hvor vi bliver ved med at undersøge, hvad der er vigtigt
  • Vi vil arbejde dynamisk og cirkulært med strategien

Og så kom det: “I mangel af bedre ord er vi lige nu i lanceringsfasen”.

I mangel af bedre ord.

Udover “lanceringsfasen” talte de om en lang “research fase” og at de lige om lidt skal “implementere” deres nye strategi.

I mangel af bedre ord.

For hvordan arbejder man dynamisk og cirkulært, når det sprog organisationen har for strategi er statisk og lineært? Hvordan skaber man noget, man ikke har noget sprog for? Eller endnu værre: Noget der er i direkte modstrid med det sprog, man har?

“Det er svært at bevæge sig væk fra top-down, når man arbejder med strategi”, som de sagde. Men det slår dem ikke ud. De har det rette MINDSET, og de sagde, at deres direktion har det rette MOD til at gøre noget andet end de plejer.

Så nu ville de vide, om Qvest er den rette METODE.

Problemet med store virksomheder

Hvorfor vil folk gerne arbejde i store virksomheder?
- fordi de gerne vil løse store problemer sammen med andre

Hvorfor holder folk op med at arbejde i store virksomheder?
- fordi de er trætte af at løse små problemer alene

Når man er en lillebitte virksomhed, der har sat sig for at løse et kæmpestort problem kan man godt blive lidt misundelig på de virksomheder, der har mange tusinde ansatte. Tænk på al den brain power og handlekraft, de har adgang til. Alle de erfaringer og ideer de kan basere deres beslutninger på. Alle de dialoger med kunder og samarbejdspartnere, der hjælper dem med at fastholde deres position på markedet.

Og tænk så over, hvor tit du hører om siloer, ineffektivitet, fejlslagne transformationer, suboptimering og stress. Hvor er det, det går galt? Har jeg ret i, at problemet er, at for mange mister følingen med:

  1. det problem, de gerne ville være med til at løse, og
  2. hinanden

Eller handler det om noget helt andet?

How to build an agile culture

What if agile isn’t about product development, innovation or leadership, but about cultivating all levels of your organization to better adapt to change?

What if agile transformation isn’t about implementing SAFe, ART and Scrum, but about supporting a collective and collaborative approach to the problems your company is facing?

And what if the change management work you’re doing is preventing the people working in your organization from adapting to change and solving problems together?

I wouldn’t say agile frameworks and programs always prevent organizational agility, but I would definitely say that there is a risk that the means counteract the end. And I think there is a simpler way.

My new blogpost is titled “How to build an agile culture in four easy steps”.

Finans: Fremtidens leder

Fremtidens leder beskæftiger sig mindst af alt med ledelse
I stedet for at fokusere på ledelse, koncentrerer fremtidens ledere sig i 99 pct. af tiden om det samme, som deres medarbejdere.

Orker du heller ikke at læse flere bøger om ledelse - og da slet ikke i din sommerferie - og frygter du også, at efteråret byder på de sædvanlige ledelsesevalueringer og trivselsmålinger?

Så se Ringenes Herre.

Tænk på Elrond som bestyrelsesformand, Gandalf som administrerende direktør og Aragorn som driftschef.

Og spørg så dig selv, hvad du kan lære af den ‘quest’, Frodo og hans venner drager ud på for at redde verden fra den ene ring, der hersker over dem alle.

Mit bud er, at du kan lære alt, hvad du behøver at lære.

Distributed alignment

The new normal is here. What we do now will make or break our companies. So what do we do? Whatever we decide, we shouldn't do it alone. Strategic alignment lies at the heart of any successful organization. But how do we ensure strategic alignment in a distributed world?

In my new blogpost, How to ensure strategic alignment in a distributed word, I encourage all of us to remember that:

  • Our go-to tools are not designed for strategic alignment
  • Informal conversations make formal communication work
  • Contradicting tools prevent strategic alignment
  • Effective strategic alignment tools emulate human behavior


Du skal forestille dig et digitalt værktøj, der kombinerer den nyeste forskning i adfærdsdesign med de mest avancerede teknologier indenfor kunstig intelligens.

Og så skal du forestille dig, at værktøjet er designet i direkte forlængelse af dine agile metoder og ADKAR-modeller og derfor passer perfekt ind i dine komplekse strukturer og ledelsessystemer.

Waauuh! Er det dét, I har skabt med Qvest?


Qvest er et digitalt værktøj, der kombinerer filosofisk grundforskning med en simpel teknologi, der gør det nemt for mennesker at tænke og udvikle sig sammen.

Det lyder ikke lige så dyrt som det første. Men det virker.

Who knows the shared purpose?

Something beautiful has happened to me during this corona lockdown: I have found myself a new thinking partner. To me, a thinking partner is someone who:

  1. Shares his experience in a way that makes me understand my own experience better
  2. Listens to my questions and responds in a way that inspires me to ask new questions
  3. Empowers me to share my experience in a way that helps us move forward together

Greg Satell ticks all these boxes and that is why I'm excited to share what we've been thinking and talking about the past couple of weeks.

In this session we discuss questions like: Who knows the shared purpose of your company? Your CEO? The people who have worked in the company the longest? Or maybe your customers?