Marketers often assume that visibility and buzz tell them when consumers are ready to try a new technology. But these don’t tell the full story. The real trigger for consumer adoption is attention—created when people suddenly have a bit of unexpected time.

Our research shows that “found time”—a genuine, unexpected gain in free time—nudges people to explore complex, hard‑to‑grasp ideas more than any spike in publicity. This finding has profound implications for marketers of new technologies and other innovations.

Consider our research into blockchain, a new technology that started gaining traction at the start of this decade. Even five years ago, most people recognized the term “blockchain,” but taking the first step to learn more about it required mental bandwidth, not only hype.

The early months of COVID‑19 created a natural experiment. As out‑of‑home obligations dropped, people had more leisure time—and in 118 counties across California and New York, searches for blockchain‑related terms rose in step with staying home. Searches aren’t adoption, but they’re a low‑risk first move that signals curiosity turning into action.

The practical message for marketers is simple: You cannot create time when selling something complex, but you must be ready when unexpected time appears. Consumers’ curiosity window opens when three things align: a reason to care (motivation), mental bandwidth (attention created by a genuine time gain) and a clear front door (accessible information). If any one of these elements is missing, the moment passes. Motivation without attention is noise; attention without information is wasted; information without motivation sits unread. When those three elements come together, even complex ideas shift from “I’ve heard of this” to “I took a first step.” A marketer’s job is to supply the third piece, accessible information, at exactly the right moment, so that a consumer can move from passive awareness to the first stage of exploration.

CAPTURING TIME GAINS

For marketers, capitalizing on longer time gains means having an effective playbook in place: Meeting consumers with resources that allow them to embark on the exploration journey, such as tutorials, trial experiences or long-form content. Therefore, pair these longer curiosity window wins with a ready path, from a crisp explainer to a short, guided project or sandbox that converts time into understanding.

BE PREPARED FOR MEANINGFUL EXPLORATION.

Time gains give consumers the bandwidth to go beyond casual browsing, enabling brands to offer depth rather than superficial nudges. . When consumers gain unexpected time, they are more open to offerings that normally feel too demanding. Marketers should have rich, substantive experiences ready to meet them when the time frees up.

MATCH THE MOOD.

Time alone doesn’t guarantee curiosity; emotional context matters. A sudden free evening may feel like a gift, but a lockdown paired with anxiety may not spark exploration unless the brand resonates with the mood. To capture curiosity, managers must ask not just “Do consumers have time?” but “What mindset are they in?” Matching emotional tone to context can make the difference between ignored opportunities and actual exploration.

Time is often treated as a backdrop, something consumers allocate in fixed ways. Our findings suggest otherwise: Time is a catalyst for exploration, even for complex topics. Marketers and team managers who prepare for these moments by offering depth, matching mood and lowering the cost of exploration will be the ones to convert curiosity into the earliest stages of adoption.

The notion of psychological safety is an idea first developed in the 1950s that has been extended in important and careful ways in recent years. The core of the idea is that a context that is psychologically safe is one where people feel they won’t experience interpersonal harm — being ridiculed or otherwise personally attacked — if they try to speak up, make mistakes, take risks or ask for help. There is a lot of very strong evidence that creativity, learning and exploration are better where psychological safety is higher.

But is psychological safety always good?

One issue concerns jobs that consist of repetitive and standardized tasks where we want employees to follow rules and not take risks, especially where we cannot afford mistakes. The second issue is, how much psychological safety is useful?

We addressed both issues — what does psychological safety look like in typical jobs and how much is useful — in five independent settings. The good news for fans of psychological safety is that we find that even doing routine work that is not creative, job performance improves when you move from up from low levels of psychological safety — what you might think of as unsafe situations — to average levels.

But when you move from average to high levels of psychological safety, we found that performance in these typical jobs actually declined.

As we suggest, it could be that an environment where bosses push the “no bad ideas here!” view encourages people to take risks when they shouldn’t. But there is a more fundamental issue linked to the aspect of psychological safety that says, “Mistakes will not be held against me.”

Suppose you had a team whose members reported that there was almost zero chance that they would be held accountable for making mistakes. Psychological safety would be rated as very high there. That is fine if your job requires taking risk; it’s not fine if mistakes matter.

Evidence supporting the view that high levels of psychological safety are associated with contexts where being held accountable for mistakes is low comes from another workplace characteristic: collective accountability, where employees feel they are together as a group responsible for performance even if they are not held accountable as individuals. When that collective accountability is very strong, it can offset the negative effects we otherwise see on job performance from high levels of psychological safety. But achieving high levels of collective accountability is just as much of a challenge — and perhaps an even bigger one — than getting high levels of psychological safety.

A practical problem for employers that is hard to duck is that supervisors at all levels are constantly being pressed by their leaders to be tougher about job-performance problems and to hold employees accountable for them. Pressing them at the same time to create psychologically safe environments where employees feel mistakes will not be held against them is very hard to pull off. Pushing them to drive psychological safety ever higher — past an average level — pulls them in two difficult directions.

Any salesperson will tell you that they’re far more likely to lose a deal to “no decision” than to the competition. In a large-scale study of more than 2.5 million recorded sales conversations, we found that anywhere between 40% and 60% of deals today end up lost to customers who ultimately fail to act. These customers will often go through the entire sales process — consuming valuable seller time and organizational resources — only to end up not crossing the finish line.

Sales organizations have spent untold amounts of time and money on sales training, coaching and enablement designed to get customers to say “yes” to their offers. But these techniques don’t work as well as they once did. In fact, they can actually be counterproductive when it comes to getting customers off the fence.

Top sales representatives have developed a second playbook for overcoming customer indecision and winning the sale. Many of these behaviors are contrary to the playbook that has been taught by sales trainers for years.

Here’s how to implement this new approach, which we’ve dubbed the “JOLT method.”

1. JUDGE THE LEVEL OF CUSTOMER INDECISION. From the very first interaction in the sales process, high performers actively probe and listen for signs of indecision that can derail a deal. If a customer seems only moderately indecisive, they may forecast the opportunity to close further out. But they will disqualify highly indecisive customers altogether and move onto other accounts.

2. OFFER YOUR RECOMMENDATION. Star reps look to offer their recommendation, effectively shifting gears from asking the customer what they want to buy to telling them what they should buy. This approach stands in stark contrast to what has been taught to sellers for years: that the key to closing deals is diagnosing customer needs. When reps relied solely on diagnosis skills (and offered no recommendation), win rates were at only 14%. But when they combined diagnosis with a strong personal recommendation, win rates were 36%.

3. LIMIT THE EXPLORATION. High performers know that the more information the customer consumes, the lower the probability they will end up finding the answers they seek. In fact, when reps continue to indulge the customer’s requests for additional information across the course of the sale, win rates are only in the 16% range. The best reps look to demonstrate their own expertise and credibility. This helps to forestall superfluous information requests and leads to win rates of more than 42%.

4. TAKE RISK OFF THE TABLE. Finally, to get customers to commit to the deal, top reps look for ways to take risk off the table by offering creative safety net options that make customers feel like they have some assurance of success. From simple opt-out clauses to complex, tailored contract structures, these options instill confidence in customers about their decisions and mitigate any uncertainty. When reps offer no options for limiting downside risk, they experience win rates in the 22% range as compared to the 46% conversion rate when they do.

For sales leaders, managers and reps, the “no decision” problem is one that is worth solving. Figuring out a way to overcome customer indecision represents the single greatest opportunity to boost growth for the average business.

When a major U.S.-based financial institution needed help with an organization-wide transformation, they turned to Debora, a seasoned executive coach and change consultant. The institution was grappling with technological disruption, shifting customer expectations, and mounting regulatory pressures, and they viewed their transformation program as the natural solution to these challenges.

Upon arrival, Debora spent time talking with employees across all levels, many of whom described their post-transformation workplace in a negative light, using such terms as “war room” and “Hunger Games.” The findings from a recent company pulse survey reinforced what she had heard: Although employees understood why change was needed, they felt they were already stretched too thin to take on any new initiatives.

Debora had arrived ready to coordinate initiatives across the organization’s existing transformation program. But she soon realized that a more-fundamental change was in order: The company’s program needed a set of strategies that could be tailored to each department’s specific challenges and constraints. Without such tailoring, even sound transformation initiatives might falter or backfire.

We are H.R. strategy advisers and professors who have studied transformations across industries for more than 15 years, and we have designed a five-step process to drive successful transformation initiatives. In this article, we’ll briefly sum up the process.

ALIGNING STRATEGIES AND MOTIVATION STYLES

Many leaders attempting transformation initiatives fail in three ways. First, they don’t clearly define the type of change their organization or departments are facing, which means they can’t clearly define their specific objectives. Second, they often apply a one-size-fits-all strategy to their situation and don’t assess what sort of balance it calls for between exploration (innovating and risk-taking) and exploitation (optimizing existing processes). And third, they don’t consider who will drive the change and how employees’ differing skills and readiness for change will affect success.

Our research has revealed that underlying these failures lies a crucial factor: Motivation styles are the hidden drivers of change initiatives. Building on the work of Heidi Grant and E. Tory Higgins and their article “Do You Play to Win — or to Not Lose?” we’ve identified three key styles: Play to Win (thriving on growth and opportunity), Play Not to Lose (valuing stability and caution) and Balanced (seeking the middle ground). These styles aren’t merely about skills — they reflect how employees are inherently wired for change.

Aligning change strategies with employee motivation styles is crucial for success.

1. DIAGNOSE YOUR CHANGE TYPE.

Before launching a change initiative, determine whether you need to focus on exploration or exploitation. Different change types require different adaptive behaviors.

Some departments need a strategy of exploration (especially those facing digital disruptions, which demand innovation), while others needed one of exploitation (especially those hoping to optimize existing processes to meet regulations and deliver quality service).

For each department, start by using a decision tree to lay out your needs for radical and incremental change. Next, explore the potential risks of focusing solely on exploration or exploitation for each change theme. This process helps reveal blind spots and guides you toward a balanced, tailored approach.

2. MAP MOTIVATIONAL STYLES.

With your change type identified, the next step is to map out your employees’ motivational styles. When we did this at Debora’s financial institution, we found the following overall distribution: Play to Win (45%), Play Not to Lose (40%) and Balancers (15%).

When working on this task, pay close attention to how team members approach tasks and challenges. Do they focus on potential gains, moving quickly toward solutions? Or do they prioritize avoiding mistakes, taking a more cautious, methodical approach?

3. MATCH MOTIVATIONS TO INITIATIVES.

With a clear understanding of both your change type and the motivational styles of the employees on your teams, you can now strategically assign employees to projects that align with their natural tendencies.

In the case of Debora’s financial institution, we matched Play to Win employees with exploratory projects that involved the development of new financial products, and we matched Play Not to Lose employees with projects focused on regulatory compliance and risk management. Not surprisingly, we placed Balancers in roles that required both innovation and careful execution.

4. TAILOR YOUR CHANGE MESSAGING.

Effective communication about change also isn’t one-size-fits-all. Tailor it to resonate with different motivational styles. At Debora’s financial institution, we coached leaders to frame changes differently across departments, depending on their dominant styles. Examples include: “With this new platform, we’ll lead the market by offering innovative services and products that our competitors can’t match, positioning us as a front-runner in the industry” (Play to Win); “If we don’t implement these changes, we risk falling out of compliance, losing our trusted position with regulators and clients and endangering our reputation and long-term security” (Play Not to Lose); “This transformation will enable us to innovate and stay competitive, while also maintaining the operational security and regulatory compliance that we depend on” (Balancers).

5. ENCOURAGE A PARADOX MINDSET.

Even with the best alignment between change types and motivational styles, organizations will inevitably face situations where contradictory goals must be pursued simultaneously. Encouraging a paradox mindset — so that employees get comfortable in that zone of contradiction — is crucial for sustained adaptability.

Debora applied this approach in the customer experience division of the financial institution she was working with, which needed to innovate to improve customer relationships but also had to implement strict cost controls. She was able to foster a paradox mindset in the division by designing projects that balanced opposing objectives — and by then encouraging open discussions about the inherent tensions that arise. Leaders should model this approach, navigating competing demands transparently. Regular team reflections on these practices reinforce the mindset across the organization.

For years, organizations have chased the perfect transformation plan, yet often they keep failing. The pattern is clear: Well-intentioned change initiatives fail when organizations rush into one-size-fits-all transformations without understanding who they’re asking to change and why. Our research and Debora’s implementation of our five-step process show that success comes from understanding exactly what type of change each department needs and how their employees are wired to deliver it. It is not about the perfect strategy but about making change fit your people, who are the ones who will make it happen.