There’s no arguing that we’re living in a time of immense change, and most industries are
reeling from what all of this means. In the United States, organizations are grappling with talent shortages, supply chain disruptions, impending increases in the cost of goods, and additionally trying to figure out what role AI will and will not play in the future of their enterprises.
Personally, I’m a believer that times of change and confusion often create some of the very best opportunities for leaders to elevate their workforce, lean into strong culture, and leverage the information and data around them to make the best possible decisions, many of which would never have been made in the past. However, as a result of all of this uncertainty, when we go online, websites, blogs, news articles, podcasts, and even social media posts are overflowing with would-be experts and some actual experts giving advice for a world that no longer exists.
Imagine someone who was incredibly successful in the 1930s trying to explain to someone in the 1980s how to get into college, pay for college, and secure a great career. The reality is that the job market of the 1930s and the 1980s were dramatically different. Similarly, people who had tremendous success in the 1980s are oftentimes ill-prepared for our current environment, not because they lack intelligence, but because they’re attempting to apply strategies that worked four decades ago to a time period that operates completely differently. And it’s not just that we’re living in a different time period. The rate of change itself is different. It’s the difference between knowing how to shoot a layup into a hoop and then suddenly being asked to shoot a layup into a hoop that’s oscillating. The target isn’t staying still anymore, and that’s the environment leaders are operating in right now.
So when we think about future business strategies that can help innovative leaders succeed, we first have to recognize that we need different thinking. First off, we have to go beyond the gut. Gut instinct has obviously led some companies to extraordinary outcomes in the past. When we think about leaders like Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, or Winston Churchill, these are individuals known for relying heavily on instinct, oftentimes against the advice of advisors or others around them. But it’s important to understand that these leaders were operating during periods of far less disruption. By and large, they were the ones creating the change. They weren’t shooting at a moving target. They were the moving target.
Now we’re living in a time where the prices of raw goods can double in a matter of weeks,
consumer behaviors can shift rapidly, and technologies emerge faster than organizations can
fully adapt to them. Planning becomes more difficult, which means leading becomes more
difficult. That doesn’t mean leaders should completely abandon instinct, but instinct alone is no longer enough. Leaders have to combine instinct with data and learn how to track trends and signals themselves so they can begin to see where things are likely heading. As Wayne Gretzky famously said, organizations need to skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been.
Before we go any deeper, though, I need to disabuse people of the idea that AI is the magical solution to all of this. We’re living through a bit of an AI hype cycle right now. That’s not to say artificial intelligence isn’t important or that it won’t reshape portions of business. It absolutely will. However, its capabilities relative to the cost of tokens, infrastructure requirements, energy
consumption, natural resources, and the expansion of data centers make it less straightforward
than some proponents would have us believe. In fact, according to Deloitte’s 2026 State of AI in the Enterprise report, while 66% of organizations have seen efficiency gains from AI, only 34% are using it to deeply transform their core business models, creating a massive opportunity for organizations willing to integrate technology directly into their future business strategies rather than simply layering AI on top of outdated systems.
Now, to be clear, using AI for innovation can absolutely be helpful, but it can also become cost prohibitive, and leaders need to teach teams when AI should and should not be used. One of the challenges with AI is that while working on a systems thinking project for graduate school, one of the things I uncovered through looking at articles and research on how companies are innovating with AI is the existence of two very concerning reinforcing loops. A reinforcing loop is when you map out how something works and realize it’s feeding itself in a cycle that continues accelerating over time. So imagine two cogs locked together where one spinning
causes the other to spin even faster.
On one hand, as organizations use artificial intelligence, especially for innovation, they’re finding they can generate outputs faster than humans can. As a result, they invest even more heavily into AI and increase employee reliance on it. But the challenge is the second loop connected to it. The more employees rely on AI, the more they experience something called cognitive offloading, meaning they become less practiced in the mental activities they once regularly performed. Critical thinking weakens. Creativity weakens. Problem-solving muscles weaken. The more cognitive offloading occurs, the more employees then rely on artificial intelligence to compensate for the gap, which encourages organizations to invest even more heavily into AI. So over time, more and more of the innovation process shifts toward the artificial intelligence while humans become less capable of original thought.
What’s fascinating, though, is that artificial intelligence still isn’t capable of the level of creativity humans possess. AI excels at pattern recognition, but humans can connect unrelated ideas, notice emotional nuance, and experience the type of unexpected spark that often drives true innovation. Several studies suggest AI-generated outputs can become increasingly predictable because they’re built from existing patterns. Humans, on the other hand, can create something entirely new. So for leaders looking at future business strategies, one of the biggest mistakes they can make is overrelying on AI when it comes to R&D and ideation because over time, they may unintentionally weaken the very human capabilities that drive breakthrough thinking in the first place.
So what are some future business strategies leaders should actually be using? First, organizations need to become much more intentional about gathering information related to where their industry is likely heading. That might mean tracking innovations happening within clients’ organizations. It might mean monitoring developments related to the future of work. It means reading industry periodicals, white papers, gray papers, international sources, NGO reports, nonprofit research, and analysis from actual experts actively working within the field. At the same time, organizations should pair that external information with intelligence from frontline employees. Leaders need to become comfortable surveying employees regularly and rewarding them for identifying gaps, blind spots, inefficiencies, or customer frustrations. Ask them what they’re hearing from clients. Ask them what competitors appear to be doing differently. Ask them where they believe the organization may be vulnerable.
And importantly, leaders need to surface and reward useful input. That might happen through focus groups, idea portals, quarterly discussions, or direct conversations. But organizations that stay ahead of trends are usually led by people willing to listen closely both to the marketplace and to the individuals closest to customers. Once enough information is gathered, the next step is looking for patterns. That’s what futurists actually do. We look for patterns to determine whether a trend is emerging. Sometimes we notice something even earlier than a trend. In foresight, we call that a signal, a small indicator attempting to get your attention before the broader market fully notices it. And when we talk about innovation leadership, it really comes down to leaders who can move beyond instinct alone and learn how to synthesize data, human
insight, signals, and trends into actionable decisions.
One tool I highly recommend is creating a risk matrix. Start by identifying the two trends or
uncertainties most likely to impact the organization. Create an X and Y axis and build four
quadrants. One trend goes on the X axis and the other goes on the Y axis. The bottom-left
quadrant represents a future where neither event occurs. What would that future look like for the organization, employees, and customers? What actions should be taken now to prepare for it? The upper-left quadrant represents a future where only the Y-axis trend occurs. The bottom-right quadrant represents a future where only the X-axis trend occurs. And finally, the upper-
right quadrant, what I jokingly call the “Hades Quadrant,” represents the scenario where both disruptive events happen simultaneously.
The exercise forces leaders to think through multiple possible futures instead of assuming
tomorrow will resemble today. More importantly, once leaders identify two or three actions
within each scenario, they can begin looking for overlaps. If a solution works across multiple
possible futures, that’s often where organizations should focus resources first. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy scenario planning so much. It allows leaders to think beyond immediate pressures and start building resilience into the organization itself. Because ultimately, the organizations that thrive in the future won’t necessarily be the ones with the most technology. They’ll be the ones that learn fastest, adapt thoughtfully, and combine human insight with smart tools in ways competitors haven’t yet considered.
