La skill che orienta nel caos

Il telefono vibra, le notifiche si accavallano, ci sono due richieste urgenti, un dato che non torna e una mail senza contesto che pretende una risposta immediata. Una delle tue mattine, no? Niente è chiaro. Niente è lineare. Un caos che non fa rumore ma ti drizza i peli come elettricità statica.

E poi succede sempre quella cosa. Involontaria, inevitabile, incontrovertibile come la fetta di pane che – per una legge non scritta dell’universo – cade sempre dal lato imburrato: la mente si mette in moto.

Scarta un’ipotesi, ne considera un’altra. Collega un dettaglio dimenticato ieri con un’informazione arrivata stamattina. Dà priorità, costruisce una logica, illumina un percorso. In pochi secondi nasce un senso. Non dal caso, non dal caos. Da te. È un atto silenzioso. Elegante. Potentissimo.

Solo alla fine della giornata te ne accorgi: la chiarezza non era lì fuori. L’hai generata tu, mentre tutto si muoveva. E senza neppure sporcare di burro il tappeto buono.

Che cos’è davvero il sensemaking (e perché non è intuizione)

Il sensemaking non è “capire al volo”. Non è fiuto manageriale. Non è esperienza che guida la mano ma ciò che accade tra lo stimolo e la risposta: quel micro-spazio mentale in cui prendi informazioni sparse – a volte incomplete, a volte contraddittorie – e le trasformi in qualcosa che assomiglia a un orientamento.

È la capacità di costruire significato quando il contesto non te lo offre spontaneamente. Di creare una bussola quando non c’è una mappa. Di dare una forma al caos.

È la base silenziosa di ogni decisione complessa: senza sensemaking puoi agire, certo, ma non puoi capire davvero perché stai agendo. Come puoi intuire, è un processo cognitivo raffinato e, oggi più che mai, strategico.

Perché oggi il sensemaking è la soft skill più ricercata (e meno capita)

Non è esatto che il lavoro è diventato più complesso. Lo sarebbe se, per esempio, mancassero le informazioni. Ma ne abbiamo fin troppe. Quindi il lavoro è diventato più ambiguo, semmai. Perché se le informazioni non mancano, spesso manca il loro senso. Le variabili cambiano all’improvviso, le priorità si sovrappongono, gli scenari mutano mentre li osservi. Volatilità dei mercati, trade-off troppo rapidi e pressioni che non ti aspettavi sono all’ordine del giorno.

È qui che entra in gioco il sensemaking, la skill-ponte che collega ciò che vedi a ciò che decidi e ciò che decidi a come lo comunichi. Né intuizione, né logica pura, è il processo che scioglie i nodi della realtà, quando sembra ingarbugliata. I dati globali parlano chiaro (World Economic Forum, Accenture, McKinsey): il mercato la richiede. Le aziende la desiderano. Ma quasi nessuno sa come misurarla.

Come si manifesta il sensemaking: i 5 indizi che non puoi ignorare

Il sensemaking è invisibile finché non impari a rilevarlo. Non si accende una spia sulla fronte di chi lo sta usando. Si manifesta in piccoli segnali, minuscoli comportamenti che, messi insieme, rivelano una mente capace di orientarsi anche quando per gli altri tutto vibra e resta sfuocato.

Il primo indizio è quando riconosce uno schema nel rumore. Dove altri vedono disturbo, chi fa sensemaking intravede un ordine nascosto.

Il secondo è la capacità di collegare ciò che sembra scollegato. Un dettaglio marginale diventa improvvisamente la chiave dell’intero quadro.

Poi c’è l’abilità di formulare ipotesi e testarle al volo, senza attaccarsi alla prima spiegazione disponibile.

Anche la flessibilità cognitiva è indicativa. Una mente del genere ricalibra, quando entra un nuovo elemento, senza irrigidirsi.

Infine, il tratto più raro: sa comunicare la complessità rendendola semplice. Ma senza banalizzarla.

Cinque indizi, tutti osservabili ma in determinate condizioni…

Perché il sensemaking non puoi valutarlo in un colloquio (né su un CV)

Questa è la parte scomoda. Il sensemaking non vive nei CV. Nessuno scrive “so costruire il senso quando tutti i pezzi sono sparsi e muovono caoticamente”. Nei colloqui, forse, c’è una piccola speranza di individuarlo, ma meno di quante ne hai di vedere un camaleonte a caccia tra il fogliame di una foresta pluviale. Chiunque può sembrare lucido, coerente e brillante… finché le domande sono lineari e il contesto è statico. E nelle prove tradizionali (questionari, test chiusi, esercizi prevedibili) questa skill semplicemente evapora.

Quelle dinamiche non hanno abbastanza “vita” per far emergere come una persona pensa davvero. Perché il sensemaking ha una regola non negoziabile: emerge solo quando qualcuno apre una finestra e una folata di corrente d’aria spariglia improvvisamente le carte in tavola. La priorità che cambia, compare un’informazione nuova, ciò che sembrava chiaro smette di esserlo. In altre parole, quando non stai più rispondendo, ma stai reagendo.

Le simulazioni immersive sono il contesto ideale in cui emerge il sensemaking

Questo genere di prove ha una peculiarità determinante: si muovono. Cambiano, si complicano, contraddicono ciò che sembrava chiaro un attimo prima. In altre parole, le simulazioni immersive ricreano l’unico habitat in cui il sensemaking può mostrarsi davvero.

In un ambiente simulato, il candidato non risponde e basta: reagisce. Una priorità si ribalta, un’informazione nuova entra in scena, una scelta “ovvia” smette di esserlo. È in questi micro-scarti che affiora il suo modo di pensare. Cioè come riorganizza la logica, come rivaluta le alternative, come dà senso alla complessità mentre prende forma.

È questione di tempi verbali: le simulazioni immersive non chiedono che cosa faresti, ma che cosa fai quando tutto cambia. È in quel movimento – proprio nel pieno del flusso, non a posteriori – che il sensemaking diventa osservabile, misurabile e sorprendentemente nitido.

Il sensemaking non è un superpotere ma un muscolo. Ecco perché

Il sensemaking viene spesso trattato come se fosse un dono raro, una virtù celeste riservata a pochi eletti, “nati leader” per bontà divina inappellabile. Una mitologia comoda, certo, ma priva di fondamento scientifico.

La verità è decisamente più umana: il sensemaking non è un superpotere. Le neuroscienze mostrano che è un meccanismo neurocognitivo reale. Quando ci troviamo in contesti ambigui, si attivano le reti dinamiche della corteccia prefrontale coinvolte anche nel decision-making complesso, nella flessibilità cognitiva e nella costruzione di significato. Questa attività della mente trasforma segnali disordinati in un orientamento coerente. Quindi è qualcosa che il cervello fa. E proprio perché lo fa, può farlo sempre meglio.

Possiamo metterla così: il sensemaking è una sorta di “muscolo cognitivo”. Non nasce perfetto, non si attiva per magia dopo l’età dello sviluppo né si eredita geneticamente come la fossetta del mento. Ce l’abbiamo tutti, chi più chi meno. Ma si può sviluppare e rafforzare nel tempo.

Ogni volta che riorganizzi informazioni contraddittorie, ogni volta che colleghi due dettagli lontani, ogni volta che trasformi una variabile imprevista in una decisione sensata… stai allenando quel muscolo. Come ogni muscolo, infatti, prende forza solo quando lo costringi a spingere: carico, resistenza e quella dose di sforzo che trasforma il movimento in progresso.

Ecco perché la simulazione immersiva funziona. È l’equivalente cognitivo di una sessione di fitness. Ti mette davanti ambiguità, cambi di rotta, priorità che slittano, gli stessi “pesi” che nella realtà ti costringono a dare forma al senso mentre tutto si muove. Non serve il favore degli dei né fare il bagno nello Stige. Serve allenamento. E la consapevolezza che il senso non si trova, si costruisce.

Il senso non si trova. Si costruisce. L’abbiamo già detto?

Vale la pena ripeterlo. E alla fine della giornata, quando le notifiche si sono spente e la casella di posta sembra meno minacciosa di com’era al mattino, ti accorgi che non è cambiato il mondo: sei cambiato tu. O meglio, hai fatto ciò che la mente fa da sempre quando la realtà si muove troppo in fretta: hai armeggiato con ago e filo logico per ricostruire il tessuto del senso.

Il sensemaking è questo: non un lampo mistico, non un’intuizione salvifica, ma l’atto ordinario e straordinario con cui diamo forma a ciò che non la possiede ancora. È la competenza che trasforma eventi sparsi in un percorso, segnali deboli in direzione, ambiguità in orientamento.

E qui arriva la verità: il valore non sta nell’avere tutte le risposte, ma nel saper generare senso prima che le risposte esistano. È questa la competenza che separa chi seleziona persone da chi legge il loro potenziale. Perché il sensemaking non descrive cosa fa un candidato, ma quanto lontano può arrivare.

E allora la scena del mattino – il caos, il pane imburrato eccetera – non è solo un aneddoto da ufficio. È un promemoria professionale: il senso non è un requisito che il contesto può avere o meno, è una costruzione della mente. Prodigioso, sì, ma perché umano.

In the HR world, artificial intelligence is often discussed as if it were a pivotal referendum: AI yes or AI no? This dichotomy belongs neither to the present nor the future. Technology is not a crossroads; it is a tool. The real question is not whether to use it, but how o guide it so that it enhances—and does not hinder—what makes an HR professional irreplaceable: their ability to read people, contexts, and nuances.

It is from this perspective that InPlayAI: not as an alternative to the human capacity for assessment, but as its technological extensionAn intelligent assistant that does not replace your intuition but brings it into high definition. Therefore, it does not take away work; it takes away noise. And it does not decide for you; it allows you to decide better, more clearly, with more consistency, and, paradoxically, with more humanity. To fully understand what this means, one must look at the philosophy that guided the design of InPlayAI.

The Philosophy of InPlayAI

Let's clarify one thing: an intelligent assistant does not "do the work for you," but it allows you to do it with more clarity, precision, and coherence. When you use InPlayAIyou are not delegating an evaluation. You are enriching your point of view with a level of depth that would be impossible to obtain "with the naked eye."When you use InPlayAI it is as if you are observing a decision very closely, almost from within: you understand the candidate's choices, what logics they follow, what levers they activate, what they prioritize, and what they neglect. It is a microscope for the mind. A tool, as we said. And it is in your hands. To understand how it works, well, just notice its name.

The Name Itself Tells Its Story

To understand the essence of InPlayAI, just read its name carefully. "InPlay" recalls the world of simulations, role-plays, and immersive scenarios where the candidate is an active participant in a situation. They do not fill out a questionnaire or respond in the abstract: they act, choose, and decide under pressure or among ambiguous alternatives, just as happens in real work.

And the reference to InBaskets is not accidental: InPlayAI carries that spirit—the operational challenge, the complexity to dismantle, the pressure that conditions choices—but makes it digital, interactive, and dynamic. It is the same grammar as our managerial simulation games, made sharper by an analysis engine that does not limit itself to the surface of the what, but delves into the fabric of the how. And this how does not come from a prominent presence...

The Colleague Who Doesn't Make Noise

Perhaps the most interesting thing is this: artificial intelligence is not front and center. It remains in the background. It doesn't lead; it pushes. It doesn't order; it suggests. It acts behind the scenes, like a colleague you can trust, who doesn't get tired, distracted, or lose information along the way. You are always the one who decides. You are the HR professional. You make the final synthesis.

InPlayAI observes linguistic patterns, behaviors, decisional consistencies, emotional signals, and implicit biases. It does so with an open and transparent logic, building replicable, structured, and above all, equitable assessments. And while many fear that AI "dehumanizes" selection processes, the exact opposite happens: by eliminating noise, prejudices, distractions, and uncontrollable variables, the human dimension emerges more clearly.

Talent Attracts Talent

InPlayAI is a tool designed for those who want to choose better, communicate better, and grow better. But also for those who want to improve their image as an employer: using innovative tools means attracting talent who appreciate the seriousness, consistency, and modernity of the processes. And functionality is not the only thing that makes a difference.

The Aesthetic Element That Is Not Just Aesthetics

Even the form tells a story. The visual identity of InPlayAI — the pictogram reminiscent of the infinity symbol, the fluid shapes, the orange that dialogues with dark gray — tells the tale of the fusion between human creativity and technological solidity. It is a brand that distances itself from cold hyper-technicism to convey flexibility, accessibility, and pleasure of use. Behind that symbol, in fact, is the idea that technology becomes useful only when we guide it, when it doesn't invade but accompanies.

So, What Is InPlayAI?

Now we will tell you, but starting with what it is not. InPlayAI is not a program. It is not (just) a test. It is not a synthetic HR. It is a new way of looking at people: more precise, more respectful, and more conscious. Continuing the same game of contrasts, it does not add a filter; it expands the field of vision. It does not replace intuition; it supports it, structures it, and strengthens it.
In the end, we return to the starting point: it is not an AI yes/AI no choice. It is choosing to see better. It is choosing to give HR decisions an increasingly solid, transparent, and equitable foundation. It is choosing an AI that does not make you less human, but an HR professional of the new generation.

A long time ago, during a recruiting panel, the speaker on stage asked a seemingly simple, almost trivial question:

«In your opinion, what is the first clue that tells us: "we are doing employer branding the right way"?»

With a reaction time comparable to sprinters after the starter's gun, those present in the room unleashed a barrage of pronouncements that, regardless of the level of self-assurance with which they boomed from mouth to ear, all sounded, without a shadow of a doubt, appropriate. We were seated more or less in the center of the audience and had the impression of being caught in a crossfire of:

«When you publish many interesting job offers»
«When you go viral on LinkedIn»
«When you are invited to the most important events»
«When you find your desk buried under CVs»

Then a clear and steady voice thundered from the back, and everyone fell silent:

Most of us (the ones without cervical problems) began craning our necks like owls, searching both sides of the room for the owner of that voice. And as we confusedly exchanged glances, we caught reflected in each other's faces the astonishment of those who have just heard something that sounds incredibly true.

In the dimension of talent acquisition, we believe in the same doctrine as in marketing: getting noticed is not enough, you must be remembered. Between the two, ça va sans dire, you must manage to be quoted, recounted, and shared.

Effective employer branding is not the message; it is the echo. It is not only measured in “impressions” on social media or in megabytes of the inbox at job@yourcompany.com. It is not just about quantity. It is weighed primarily in terms of perception built over time. It is a matter of quality. How sharply is the image of your company focused in people's minds? Does it shine with its values? And do these values resonate in the voice of candidates?

Ours is an innovative format, even if it is no longer a novelty. The upcoming one is the third edition. To our great pride, having designed and managed it directly, it is becoming a benchmark for those who want to position themselves where talent is born, grows, and decides whom to follow.

University Talent Challenge is not an event. It is a strategic action. When we conceived it, we didn't want it to be a career day disguised as a competition. That's why we created a digital employer branding format, designed to be experiential, selective, and memorable.

It doesn't just invite talent to "step forward" but also invites companies to be found in the right place, at the right time, by those who have a lot to offer but haven't chosen who to offer it to yet.

Every edition is an opportunity to:

• Be perceived as a reference brand by students and recent graduates selected from the best academic profiles in the fields of engineering, economics, finance, statistics, computer science, and physics;
• Observe talent in action, not just on paper: through business games, role-playing, self-pitches, and realistic simulations;
• Forge authentic relationships that go beyond the job post and the CV.

Our experience in the field of gamification applied to recruiting and training has shown that the most powerful employer branding is built with shared experiences.

Every company that participates in the University Talent Challenge enters a different narrative.
It is not a simple "sponsor." It is a mentor, observer, and direct interlocutor.

Candidates don't read brochures: they listen, interact, and ask questions. They participate and they don't forget. Those who "play" then share and talk about their experience on their own channels. And that story – made up of anecdotes, insights, moments of discussion, and emotions – is your employer branding traveling on the words of others.

Our Challenge is still young, and perhaps you don't know it. Or maybe you've heard about it from a colleague but haven't been able to form a precise idea of it. After all, you won't succeed with words, ours or those of other HR professionals. Only by participating will you understand how the University Talent Challenge is a moment in which the company that is seeking begins to be sought. A project where employer branding stops being planned and starts being lived. Exactly what that clear and steady voice meant when it rose above the audience during that panel held quite some time ago, but which we have never forgotten.

Discover the third edition of the University Talent Challenge.

None of us witnessed that moment. No account has reached us, except as a blurred echo, but what we know today through science offers us another reading possibility. Imagine, then, that at the very instant man took form from the dust of the earth, the same was happening for woman. Not from a rib, nor from a part of man, but from the same original substance, created to be a part of the whole, complementary in being other yet equal.

There was no sequence, no superiority. There was a simultaneity, a primordial bond. There was thought, movement, being, created together, like two sides of the same coin. The woman was not derived from the man, just as the man was not derived from the woman. They completed each other, like day and night, like heaven and earth, like thought and action.

Yet, as time went by, the memory of this genesis was obscured, annihilated by accounts that preferred to explain the origin of what we see with the language of division, rather than that of synthesis.

Man was born to lead, and he possesses the suitable physique and temperament to do so. Leadership has always been his nature: a man with vision, decision, and authority is the very definition of success. This is what history has told us, and if we look at the numbers for 2025, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to the contrary. The LinkedIn Global Gender Gap Report 2025 tells us that only slightly more than 30% of leadership positions are held by women, despite them now constituting half of the global workforce. And this is not a coincidence. Cultural, social, and structural barriers continue to limit women's growth opportunities, preventing them from accessing the top ranks.

But where is it written that leadership is a male domain? Why shouldn't women lead if they possess the same (if not superior, we can discuss that later) capabilities in strategic thinking, problem-solving, and complex vision? And yet, the 2025 data tells us something different. It is time to review the paradigm. There is no cognitive or biological handicap that justifies this disparity.

Throughout the 20th century, one of the most tendentious debates circulating in the "good salons" of the scientific community concerned the alleged biological superiority of men in leadership roles. This was often justified by theories attributing a direct influence on decision-making and leadership to male hormones (such as testosterone). It was argued that, thanks to a genetic and biological predisposition, men were naturally more suited to command roles and high-risk decisions.

Contemporary neuroscience, however, has refuted the idea that there is an innate biological difference that makes men more suited for leadership. In-depth studies have shown that men and women are equally skilled in exercising advanced cognitive abilities, including strategic analysis, complex problem-solving, and collective leadership.

Indeed, in many cases, women exhibit a greater capacity for multidimensional thinking, empathy, and emotional management. All qualities that are now fundamental for modern leadership. Neurosciences have also demonstrated that brain differences between men and women, while existing, do not significantly influence decision-making capacity or leadership potential. In fact, it is precisely the relational and communicative qualities of women that make them particularly suited to managing interconnected teams and navigating complex contexts.

In other words, leadership effectiveness does not depend on a biological difference, but on the ability to connect people, lead with vision, and manage inclusively. Neuroscience, therefore, confirms that the gender gap in leadership is not biologically determined, but is the result of cultural, organizational, and social barriers that have prevented women from reaching top positions.

The gender gap, therefore, is something supernatural. In the sense that it exists despite the fact that it shouldn't. It is a spectre that haunts organizations, feeding on structural and cultural prejudices that reinforce its presence and make the chains that hinder the promotion of women into top roles increasingly heavy and noisy. Its most insidious shadows are mainly three:

Cultural Barriers and Implicit Bias. These deep-rooted prejudices are the basis of a vicious cycle that self-perpetuates. Implicit biases often reduce the visibility and authority of women, especially in male-dominated environments. But there's more: when leaders rely on stereotypes, women are continuously underestimated, leading them to remain on the sidelines. This creates a distorted reality, where women see themselves as "less prepared" for top roles, reinforcing the initial idea of male superiority.

Limited Access to Development Opportunities.The mentoring networks that men spontaneously create and dominate are often inaccessible to women. Partly because they are underrepresented in senior positions. And partly because, as mentioned earlier, the powerful biases that cause a lack of confidence in their own skills and fear of being considered inadequate, push them to self-exclude from growth opportunities. The lack of active "sponsorship" by male leaders leaves them vulnerable and trapped in the perception of difficulty, slowing down their careers.

Inadequate Corporate Policies. What are women's needs? Pay attention to the question: female managers are not asking for favours, but concrete opportunities to compete on an equal footing. Often, however, corporate policies do not offer them the necessary tools to balance work and private life. A necessity that goes far beyond comfort. Access to flexible working, equal pay, and policies that promote mental health and family care are not options. They are sacred and inviolable necessities that every woman in a career has the right to receive to be fully valued in her role. The difficulty of managing family and career, for example, is not a female limitation but a defect of an organizational system incapable of adapting to modern needs.

Yes, we know, everyone talks about inclusivity and equity. We are certainly not the ones who can propose definitive solutions. But sometimes change is not so much about discovering a new magic formula, as it is about making the best use of the tools we already have to move closer to change. At the very least, to trigger or encourage it.

Gender diversity is a topic that – enough already – it's absurd that we still have to talk about it today. Companies that do not address it are losing fundamental opportunities for growth and innovation. That said, discussing solutions requires coming to terms with a reality where change cannot be a stroke of luck, but a structured path.

But let's talk about what we know. Practical tools for establishing and consolidating a mindset oriented towards gender equality exist. To be clear, our intention is not to lecture but to offer a contribution based on what we know how to do. Immersive simulations (like our Skill Mosaico, Business Game, and Web InBasket) have the advantage of being tools that, while training leadership, are perfect both for evaluating talent by dodging biases and for detecting the ability of others to act without prejudice. Those "others" (in the masculine just because the Italian language, at the moment, works that way) who deserve to lead a team, regardless of the quantity of X in their chromosomal makeup. Since we all know the theories by now, perhaps it's time to start putting what we know into practice.

If only we would abandon old stories and look with new eyes, we would see that every difference between the sexes is not a barrier, but a component that enriches leadership as a whole. The time to recognize this symmetry is now. There has been talk of superiority, of drawn lines, of hierarchies that have never had any basis other than our interpretations. Because, it is so, man and woman are two entities equal in value, endowed with complementary strength. There is no significant difference. There is complementarity.

And so, the peculiarities we see—physical, psychological, behavioural—are only nuances of the same essence. An equation that makes no distinction between the value of one and the other. Man and woman are not opposites, they are the same concept that has taken shape on different planes. And so, it is time to understand and admit that, if we want to talk about differences, they are elements that, when juxtaposed, restore symmetry where for too long there has been asymmetry.

Veramente Freddie Mercury diceva Flash!, cantando l’epopea fumettosa di un eroe biondo abbagliante che salva l’universo sfidando a colpi di laser e battutacce un perfido tiranno intergalattico vestito come il Divino Otelma.

Stress, dicevamo: blackout della creatività, intasatore del workflow, arcinemico delle deadline. Non serve viaggiare verso galassie lontane per beccarsi questa specie di subdolo virus: basta aprire la posta elettronica il lunedì mattina. Solo i monaci zen e Carlo Conti ne sono immuni.

Eppure lo stress non è (solo) un nemico. È come il carburante di un razzo: può spingerti in orbita, se non ti fa esplodere sulla rampa di lancio. Tutto dipende da come lo gestisci. Chi regge? Chi crolla? Chi prende in mano la situazione? Non solo questione di nervi saldi ma anche di capacità di autoregolarsi. Ecco perché vogliamo parlarne.

Quando si parla di stress in ambito lavorativo, spesso lo si intende in modo indistinto: troppi stimoli, poco tempo, pressione crescente. Ma per comprenderlo davvero – e valutare chi lo gestisce al meglio – è utile distinguere due competenze complementari:

• Tolleranza allo stress (stress tolerance): è la capacità di reggere la pressione senza perdere lucidità. Serve a non farsi travolgere, a mantenere la barra dritta anche con il mare forza nove. È la base della resilienza, quella che ti permette di “tenere botta” anche nelle giornate più burrascose. Keanu Reeves in qualsiasi talk show: lo travolgono di domande, fan impazziti, aneddoti bizzarri… e lui? Zen. Sguardo calmo, tono basso. Neanche una piega.
• Gestione dello stress (stress management) è il passo successivo. Non si limita a farci resistere, ma interviene attivamente per regolare lo stato interno. Chi possiede questa competenza sa dosare energie, prevenire il sovraccarico e adottare tecniche consapevoli per mantenere l’equilibrio. Serena Williams sotto 5-1 nel set decisivo. Si prende il tempo, rallenta il gioco, cambia tattica. Non subisce la pressione: la orchestra.

La prima è difensiva, la seconda è strategica. Insieme permettono di affrontare situazioni ad alta pressione con maggiore efficacia, evitando reazioni impulsive, blackout decisionali o rigidità che compromettono performance e relazioni.

Le due cose non vanno confuse. Resistere alla tentazione di urlare contro un collega che ti ha appena segnalato un errore alle 18:29 di venerdì è autocontrollo. Riuscire a restare lucido dopo tre riunioni (una live tipo death match e due in video-call con la rete a singhiozzi), 2 deadline mancate e una notifica Slack che suona come la sigla dell’Apocalisse è regolazione dello stress.

Tornando seri, l’autocontrollo è il piede sul freno che impedisce di schiantarsi contro una reazione impulsiva, distruttiva, socialmente sconveniente. Trattiene l’impulso grezzo prima che prenda il volante.

La regolazione dello stress, invece, è il sistema di ammortizzatori che impedisce all’intero veicolo di sobbalzare a ogni buca o curva a gomito. Serve a mantenere l’assetto stabile anche su strade imprevedibili, quando l’ambiente esterno cambia di colpo e la tenuta mentale è tutto.

Un professionista che sa regolarsi non solo “non esplode”. Pianifica, gestisce l’energia, distribuisce gli sforzi, mette in pausa (e non in stand-by) l’ansia.

Perché lo stress, in azienda, non è un’eccezione. La dura verità. È un rumore di fondo sempre presente. Scadenze che si accavallano, priorità che si ribaltano, imprevisti che non suonano il campanello. La pressione è una costante nei contesti ad alta complessità. E se pensi di poterla sgonfiare con un abbonamento all’ultima app-camomilla da cinque stelle sul play-store, sei come un pompiere che affronta un incendio con la pistola ad acqua.

Saperla regolare fa la differenza tra chi resta lucido e chi si chiude in un loop emotivo. Tra chi prende decisioni ponderate e chi le prende di fretta. Tra chi guida il team e chi rischia di travolgerlo con la propria ansia. Non è (solo) questione di sopravvivenza. È questione di performance sostenibile. In termini concreti, la capacità di regolare lo stress si traduce in:

• Miglior problem solving: la mente resta più agile, anche sotto pressione.
• Leadership credibile: chi mantiene la calma diventa un punto di riferimento per il team.
• Meno errori, più efficienza: lo stress mal gestito distorce la percezione e mina la precisione.
• Comunicazione efficace: chi regola lo stress non alza la voce, alza il livello.
• Cultura organizzativa più sana: lo stress è contagioso, ma anche la stabilità.

Un’azienda che sa valutare e potenziare questa competenza si assicura non solo un ambiente più resiliente, ma anche più strategico. Perché chi riesce a regolare lo stress riesce a far funzionare bene cose e persone in ogni situazione. Ed è esattamente quel tipo di profilo che ogni HR dovrebbe imparare a riconoscere. Magari prima che sia il caos a renderlo evidente.

La WHO ha inserito la gestione dello stress tra le abilità chiave per il benessere lavorativo nel XXI secolo. Non è (più) un nice to have: è un vantaggio competitivo.

“Ottima gestione dello stress” è un classico nei CV. Come “ottima conoscenza del pacchetto Office”. Peccato che non funzioni così. Insomma, non è che Nietzsche abbia risolto i suoi problemi solo perché scriveva del superuomo.

Per capire davvero se una persona sa regolare lo stress, serve osservarla mentre lavora sotto pressione. Perché nei momenti di routine questa competenza ovviamente non emerge. È quando il sistema aziendale alza la temperatura che la regolazione dello stress si manifesta. Ecco alcune situazioni in cui si vede chi ha l’aria condizionata interna… e chi suda panico:

• Nei momenti critici: quando qualcosa va storto e c’è da reagire. Chi sa regolarsi mantiene lucidità e comunicazione chiara, anche se il progetto slitta, il cliente impazzisce o l’ennesimo tool “non funziona”.
• Nel day-by-day: non solo durante le emergenze. Anche la gestione delle priorità, il rispetto delle scadenze e la risposta a carichi elevati di lavoro parlano chiaro. Chi si regola bene non trasforma ogni urgenza in un dramma.
• Nelle interazioni con il team: una persona capace di regolare lo stress non “scarica” tensione sugli altri. È quella che, quando il clima si scalda, fa da termostato anziché da combustibile.
• Nella qualità decisionale: lo stress influisce sul giudizio. Osserva chi riesce a ponderare e comunicare scelte anche sotto pressione: lì si vede il vero equilibrio.

Ma un momento, per un pelo non ci sfuggiva: la regolazione dello stress non coincide con la calma apparente. Ci sono poker face che dentro implodono come una supernova. Non è di loro che abbiamo bisogno. La differenza la fanno le azioni osservabili, non il tono della voce. Perciò, nei colloqui, negli assessment e nelle dinamiche di gruppo, la regolazione dello stress non si ascolta: si osserva.

I segnali? Stanno in come la persona si comporta quando qualcosa va storto, quando il tempo stringe, quando la tensione sale. Ecco alcune domande-guida che aiutano a decifrare le sue reazioni:

• Davanti a un imprevisto, si irrigidisce o si adatta?
• Sotto pressione, cambia modo di comunicare?
• Mantiene lucidità e pensiero critico anche nel caos?
• Riesce ad aiutare gli altri a riorganizzarsi?

Le risposte non stanno nelle parole, ma nei comportamenti. E chi sa cosa guardare, vede molto di più.

Ok, adesso viene il bello. Perché qui entriamo nella nostra comfort zone, fatta di scenari complessi, pressione alle stelle, lancette che ruotano vertiginosamente e persone che imparano a stare al centro del vortice senza farsi travolgere.

Questa soft skill si allena esattamente come una competenza tecnica: in contesti realistici, con ostacoli veri (anche se simulati) e dinamiche che attivano mente ed emozioni.

I business game e le simulazioni gamificate sono perfetti per questo. Mettono alla prova il comportamento sotto pressione, rendono visibili reazioni, scelte e strategie di adattamento.

Perché quando il tempo scarseggia, le variabili si moltiplicano e il team guarda a te per una decisione, non puoi improvvisare e sperare d’azzeccare la prossima mossa, devi ponderare e agire velocemente e in maniera appropriata.

E se riesci a farlo, in quel momento capisci che non stai solo gestendo una dinamica di gioco. Stai regolando te stesso.

Per questo crediamo – e lo conferma anche l’American Psychological Association, nei suoi studi sulla formazione esperienziale – che la simulazione non sia solo uno strumento formativo: è un laboratorio emozionale controllato, dove è possibile sperimentare pressioni simili a quelle reali, ma con la libertà di sbagliare, imparare e migliorare. Insomma, la simulazione non è un rifugio, è un acceleratore.

Allenare la regolazione dello stress in un ambiente simulato non significa semplicemente “fare pratica”. Significa guardarsi dentro, riconoscere il proprio modo di reagire quando qualcosa va storto, quando il tempo stringe, quando le aspettative salgono. È in quel microclima ad alta pressione che impari a decifrare i messaggi in codice che mente e corpo ti trasmettono sotto attacco, senza andare nel panico. Un addestramento che ti insegna a mantenere il controllo del campo e a non confondere il fragore con la fine dell’ordine.

Perché in quei momenti, quando la situazione si fa incandescente, hai due scelte: lasciare il comando al “Generale Istinto” – impulsivo, imprevedibile e spesso rumoroso – o attivare il “quartier generale del pensiero strategico”. E guidare la manovra con lucidità.

E mentre chi gioca impara a leggere i propri segnali interni e a scegliere risposte più consapevoli, chi osserva – coach, HR, assessor – ha davanti una finestra nitida sulla tenuta emotiva, la capacità di adattamento e la prontezza decisionale.

È questo il valore della simulazione: un laboratorio a doppio raggio. Allena e rivela.

Il talento si allena a restare centrato anche sotto pressione. L’azienda scopre chi ha le carte giuste per restarci in situazioni reali. E ha il tempo di capirlo prima che il caos si verifichi davvero.

In contesti ad alta complessità non vince chi fa più rumore. Vince chi sa ascoltare, filtrare, dosare. Perché il valore della performance – proprio come nella musica – non è dato solo da ciò che si fa, ma da ciò che si sceglie consapevolmente di non fare.

Nel caos, l’istinto ti spinge a riempire ogni spazio, a dire qualcosa, a decidere subito. Ma chi sa regolare lo stress sa che la qualità dell’azione nasce dalla qualità dell’attenzione. E questo richiede disciplina emotiva, visione lucida, capacità di stare in pausa senza perdere il ritmo.

È una forma di leadership silenziosa, ma potentissima. Ed è ciò che distingue chi subisce la pressione da chi la trasforma in energia direzionale.

In una sinfonia aziendale fatta di deadline, scelte complesse e interazioni continue, il talento che sa “suonare lo stress” senza “essere suonato” è quello che tiene insieme l’orchestra. E tu, HR, lo sai, non sempre puoi riconoscerlo a orecchio.

It’s not doing a lot. It’s not even having a spring-loaded show of hands. Proactivity is knowing how to act before things happen. It’s the art of reading weak signals, predicting problems and taking action without anyone asking. If you’re thinking of a LinkedIn version of Nostradamus – “Strategic foresight since 1503, author of predictions that no one understands… until they happen” – you’re like an 80s Jeep… way off track. As Mary Poppins would say, pulling a fire extinguisher out of her purse: “Proactivity is not a fire to be put out, it’s a match not to be lit.

From the coffee machine to the printer room, from the reception desk to the bathroom antechamber, office legends about this skill move fast and uncontrolled, passing from mouth to mouth like company gossip. It is said that:

• It's an innate gift → No sir, instead it can be learned and trained.
• It is synonymous with hyperactivity → But acting a lot ≠ acting well and in advance.
• It is only used in positions of responsibility → Even an intern can be proactive (and shine).

In short, in the corridors, proactivity is often poorly told. It is up to us to rewrite the story, equipping ourselves with the right tools to recognize and cultivate it. Because true talents do not wait for the problem to arise. They go towards it, like the “Professor” in Money Heist, with a plan in their head to deal with them.

In a stable environment, being proactive is useful. In an unstable environment, it is essential. Today, companies operate in changing contexts like those dreams in which everything changes every time you walk through a door. And if you turn around to go back, poof, the door is gone. In such a scenario, you cannot wait for the written order or the perfect brief. You need clarity, intuition and the habit of acting before the context changes again. Those who are proactive:

• Intercept critical issues before they become crises.
• Accelerate innovation.
• Increase team cohesion and resilience.

In practice, a proactive person is one who, when the context changes shape, does not turn the map over and over again to understand if there is still a valid path, but draws a new one as soon as he or she senses that changes are about to manifest themselves. And it is precisely this flash of anticipation that makes the difference.

Proactivity is an alchemical mix of transversal skills. It does not arise from a single attitude, but from the combination of multiple skills that, acting together, transform a reactive behavior into a strategic attitude. Within this blend we find:

• Critical thinking, to read the situation clearly and recognize weak signals;
• Personal initiative, to act without waiting for instructions;
• Systemic vision, to assess the medium-long term consequences;
• Time management, to understand when is the right time to intervene.

Just like in an alchemy laboratory, what matters is not only having all the ingredients, but knowing how to dose them in a harmonious and calibrated way. Because being proactive does not mean doing more, but doing better and sooner, with a clear intention and well positioned in the context.

And precisely because it is born from the interaction between skills that are developable, observable and measurable, proactivity can be trained. It takes method, it takes experience, it takes tools capable of simulating real scenarios. Only in this way, from a rough mix of skills, can that transmutation be triggered that makes instinctive action a conscious choice. It is there that proactivity stops being a rare gift and becomes gold for the organization.

You can read all you want about this skill, but if you don't experience it in context, you don't really develop it. Being proactive means act under pressure, in complex environments, where time is short and variables are many. Only immersive experiences, which simulate realistic scenarios, put you in a position to take the initiative without following a script. It's not enough to know what to do. You have to try it, make mistakes, understand, correct. Better to do it in a simulated context, right? That way you can dare without risking doing damage.

Gamified simulations are shortcuts to awareness. Because in those games you are not passing the time: you are deciding, taking risks, collaborating, solving. The dynamic is this:

1. You enter a realistic simulated scenario
2. You find yourself faced with a challenge that breaks the mold
3. You have to act before something goes wrong
4. Understand how your mind really works

Every choice you make becomes feedback about who you are. The proactive reflex is like muscle memory: it is not instinct, it is trained technique. The more you train it in realistic scenarios, the more natural it will be to use it when you really need it. And immersive simulations can offer that progressive load to transform every uncertainty into confidence, every slowdown into momentum.

You don’t need a 90-minute psycho-aptitude test. Three well-posed – and well-reasoned – questions are enough to begin to understand whether in your daily professional life you act in advance or by reaction. Ready? Go!

If you only take action when the problem has already manifested itself, you are a great firefighter. But proactivity requires another approach: that of the bomb disposal expert.

Proactive people don't wait for the alarm: they watch for weak signals and take action before the sirens sound.

But you can only do this if you can “read” a situation and predict its critical issues before they materialize.

Those who wait for the perfect brief risk being stuck. In a complex and uncertain world, personal initiative makes the difference.

Proactive people don't seek permission, they seek leverage. They launch ideas, take the first step, explore gray areas.

This is because they are able to identify an appropriate margin of action on their own.

Proactivity is not acting randomly or out of frenzy. It is acting quickly, yes, but with full knowledge of the facts. It requires speed, of course, but also clarity. Those who are proactive have trained timing, because critical thinking guides them.

He can distinguish between an emotional reaction and a conscious decision.

Do you recognize yourself in the answers to these questions? Great, then keep training.
Do you have any doubts? It's okay, come on, because awareness is already a first step. And if inside you said "I would like to be more", here's some good news: you can, you just need to train.

Ok, so far we have talked about individual proactivity. But now it's your turn to lead teams or evaluate people: are you really creating a context that favors it?

Do this mini-check:

• Do I encourage those who prevent or only those who solve?
• Do I leave room for initiative or do I discourage it without realizing it?
• Do I reward ideas or just perfect execution?
• Can I distinguish between those who are activated and those who react well but with a delayed reaction?

If you put even just one “ni”, maybe it’s time to review the formula. Because talent must not only be found: it must be cultivated. And proactivity, like certain lactic ferments, gives its best in a lively, active, stimulating environment.

“Let’s analyze the situation.” It’s not just a call for order. It’s the moment when you decide which side to look at. 8:45 a.m., improvised war room in the headquarters of a multinational pharmaceutical company. Faces are tense, coffee cups are steaming. The marketing campaign has already started, but logistics are struggling and regulatory constraints are becoming more complicated. The imminent launch of a new product risks derailing. Each department has its own version but there’s no synthesis, there’s no direction. And the data, without a gaze that can truly read them, is silent. Someone will have to break down the chaos and decipher the details. And to do that, something more than experience is needed: it’s the moment when a skill often overlooked on resumes emerges – clear and powerful: analytical thinking.

In the language of neuroscience, analytical thinking is an advanced function of the mind that allows us to examine a complex problem by breaking it down into simpler and more comprehensible components. One of the most well-known theoretical references is the “two systems” model developed by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. We have already talked about it on this blog. According to the Nobel Prize winner, the efficiency of our mind depends on the interaction between the fast System 1, intuitive and automatic, and the slower System 2, which presides over deliberate and reflective activities.

It is precisely System 2 that is activated when we need to reason logically, evaluate contradictory data, make thoughtful decisions. This type of thinking does not occur automatically: it requires conscious attention, control, and a cognitive effort that our brain often tries to avoid.

Numerous studies (Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Diamond, 2016) demonstrate that this ability is directly related to skills such as working memory, cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control. In simple words: Thinking analytically means pausing instinct, holding back initial conclusions, and looking deeply at the data at hand.
For those who work in human resources, understanding how capable a candidate or employee is of activating this type of thinking can make the difference between reacting and acting strategically.

Analytical thinking is not a trend born with big data. It has roots as deep and penetrating as the daggers of ancient generals. Do you remember Publius Cornelius Scipio, known as Africanus? The man who defeated Hannibal and changed the fate of Rome in the Second Punic War. Scipio did not win with force but with analysis. He was the first to understand that the enemy is faced where he is least comfortable. He studied maps, interpreted troop movements, but above all he picked up on weak signals (logistical, political, cultural) that others overlooked. Like the strategic potential of a young pretender to the throne of Numidia, Massinissa, who he transformed from an unstable ally to a decisive resource in the victory against Carthage.

Scipio was an analytical thinker ante litteram and his victory at Zama was a lesson in multilevel thinking: seeing beyond the troops, beyond the battles, beyond the immediate. A lesson that is still valid today. Because that lucid gaze, capable of reading complexity, is the same one we are looking for in today's decision makers, those professionals who know how to move in VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) scenarios with ease and without getting lost.

In increasingly interconnected and information-intensive organizational contexts, analytical thinking proves to be a high-impact soft skill. This is determined by the fact that it allows you to:

• Understanding the root of problems rather than just the symptoms.
• Evaluate multiple scenarios, simulate consequences, make informed decisions.
• Work effectively with data, dashboards, KPIs, without getting lost in the details.

In HR, analytical thinking is not only useful, it is crucial. Knowing how to read patterns in engagement, turnover or performance data allows you to prevent critical issues and direct targeted training investments. Furthermore, in selection and assessment processes, it helps to distinguish those who know how to deal with complexity from those who suffer from it.

Skills in Sync: Analytical Thinking in the Problem Solving System
Analytical thinking is a strategic cog, but it cannot work in isolation. Only when it moves together with other key skills does it set the problem-solving mechanism in motion. Critical thinking is the closest cog, it evaluates what has just been broken down, tests its coherence and discards weak hypotheses. Decision-making corresponds to that part of transmission that converts analysis into action: it selects a direction and gives the system a concrete push. Around it, other soft skills – such as communication, collaboration and cognitive flexibility – act as a lubricant, allowing the system not to jam, even under pressure.
To better understand, just think of a project manager who, during a meeting, discovers that the delay is not due to production but to an overlap in the approval chain. Without accusing, he proposes a reorganization of the workflow and an intermediate verification system. Now, this is analytical thinking that translates into leadership.

It is not a skill that is easily intercepted, especially during an interview. Analytical thinking is revealed more in behaviors than in words, through signals that, for a careful eye, function as markers. It is detected when a person asks questions that dig deep (“What are the critical variables in this process?”), mentally structures information, segments, prioritizes, makes their reasoning explicit (“If A, then B. But if C intervenes, the sequence changes”). Those who think analytically show rigor even in uncertainty: they do not immediately look for the answer but first for the context in which a possible answer makes sense.
All this cannot be read in a resume. But it can emerge in simulated scenarios, where complexity does not remain still on the theoretical level but becomes action. This is why moments of experiential evaluation are a necessity.

Everyone knows that engaged employees produce better results. But measuring how and to what extent engagement actually impacts performance is a different story and requires analytical thinking, applied on a large scale. This is exactly what Clarks, the historic British footwear brand, has done with a retail network distributed across the world.

The company conducted a massive people analytics operation, analyzing over 450 variables for each store. Among the data collected: engagement levels, sales performance, team composition, seniority of the manager, staff turnover. The goal was ambitious: to identify the factors that really determine the differences between high- and low-performing stores.

The results left no doubt: an increase of 1% in average employee engagement generated, on average, an increase of 0.4% in point of sale performance. A strong correlation, statistically significant, and above all translatable into strategy.
From this analytical insight, Clarks has developed a support toolkit for managers (a collection of practical tools and guidelines) designed to help them:

• correctly read your team's engagement data;
• intervene in critical areas with practical and measurable actions (e.g. optimizing team composition, improving internal communication, simplifying decision-making processes);
• replicate the most effective practices of high-efficiency teams in underperforming stores.

This case demonstrates unequivocally that the analytical thinking, if rooted in HR culture, can become a transformative lever. It is not just about reading data, but about relating qualitative and quantitative information to guide strategic actions. In a sector in which one often acts by experience (or habit), seeing with analytical eyes has produced a real, measurable, replicable competitive advantage.

Evaluating (and developing) analytical thinking requires dynamic environments, where the candidate or internal resource can interact with complex variables, make choices, analyze data. This is where the managerial simulation tools that we develop at Artémat come into play.

In our Business Games, players must manage a virtual company in a competitive market. Each round involves strategic decisions that affect financial, production and reputational KPIs. At each cycle, “unexpected events” emerge that require an analytical recalibration of the strategy.

This high fidelity playground It allows HR to observe analytical thinking in action (what data is being read? how is it being interpreted?) and team members to train it. In this way, participants learn to isolate relevant variables in uncertain environments, simulate scenarios (“what-if”) and adapt their decision-making model based on feedback from the system. A traditional assessment could not provide the same level of depth. This is why tools of this kind are essential in the most advanced HR strategies.

Returning to the war room of the pharmaceutical company, unblocking a stalemate like the one imagined in the incipit is not a question of job title, nor of seniority. Not necessarily. It takes the ability to read the context analytically. And for this you do not need a different lens, but eyes that see differently.

The situation described is imaginary but up to a certain point: similar cases have actually occurred (and occur) in large pharmaceutical companies, as demonstrated by an analysis conducted by Indegene and Everest Group (2023). It has highlighted how factors such as the supply chain, regulatory constraints and marketing choices can undermine (or save) the success of a launch, making analytical thinking a decisive resource. In short, in times when complexity is the norm, those who know how to read beneath the surface are not only useful. They are necessary.

First he is thrown violently against a column of the dojo. Then he falls ruinously from a skyscraper.

Finally, distracted by a disturbing stranger dressed in red, he narrowly misses getting shot in the forehead. In The Matrix, Neo fails every test he is put through.

I am immersive and realistic simulations (sound familiar?) that highlight the skills and weaknesses of the candidate for the role of “chosen one”. Those tests predict how he will behave in real actions. So to speak, this being the Matrix.
Business Games are also immersive tests and work in the same way: they realistically replicate business contexts where participants, by “playing”, reveal their potential and how they would deal with (for example) stress and unexpected events in real work.

This means that They are incredibly effective predictive tools. Furthermore, the more realistically a test reproduces business dynamics, the more it is able to predict future performance. This is confirmed by numerous studies.
For example, research published in Computers in Human Behavior (2020) found that scores obtained in a “serious game” show a significant correlation with the results that are actually obtained in the field.

Why do they work? Because Business Games recreate real situations without the pressure of a formal exam. Here, candidates’ real reactions emerge, free from anxiety, fear and self-censorship: how they tackle problems, collaborate and decide. And the behavioral data that can be collected in these sessions often faithfully reflects future performance.

But wait, let's go back to The Matrix for a moment: Neo fails during the tests. Well, both in reality and in the cinematic fiction, Simulations are not “pass/fail” quizzes. If Morpheus had taken that result as a prediction, the film would have ended after less than an hour!
The leader of the human resistance against the domination of machines, on the other hand, is the emblem of the recruiter who knows his stuff. In HR terms, in fact, failure in the simulation does not necessarily exclude a candidate: on the contrary, it can be a great opportunity to observe how he reacts to the mistake, whether he learns from the experience and how quickly he adapts.

And then, is it really essential that the candidate passes the test on the first try? After all, "everyone falls the first time." But if during the test he somehow shows that he is willing to push himself beyond his limits, he will probably succeed the next time. In a metaphorical sense and not.

In 1975, an engineer named Steven Sasson invented the first digital camera.
It was a toaster-sized device that used a sensor to capture images and stored them on a cassette, similar to a Walkman. If you can imagine a front end somewhere between a cassette player and a slide projector, that's roughly what it looked like.
Sasson knew he had created something revolutionary. But the management of the company he worked for was skeptical. “It’s a nice idea, but who would want to look at a photo on a screen?” they said, putting the project in a drawer to continue focusing on film. Kodak dominated the market and did not want to risk cannibalizing its core business.
The rest is history. Today, digital photography is everywhere and Kodak, once synonymous with photography, has missed the innovation train. Because change waits for no one.

The Kodak affair is just one of many examples that demonstrate how change can be perceived as a threat, even in the most structured organizations. But why does it happen? Why, even when faced with clear signals and obvious opportunities, do individuals and companies prefer to remain anchored to the past? Ok, enough questions. Now some answers.

The first, at least in part, is in our brain. Neuroscientists have shown that change activates the amygdala, the “fear and stress department” inside our head. That’s where the little voice that whispers to us comes from: “You’ve always done it this way, why would you do it? Suppose you make a mistake.” It happens because every transformation, even the smallest, is interpreted as a potential risk to our stability. If this brain area were a room, the following would be written in clear letters on the door: “He who leaves the old road for the new, knows what he leaves behind but does not know what he will find…”.

According to research published in Nature Neuroscience, our gray friend likes predictability. Familiar situations require less cognitive energy and are perceived as safer.. When a company or an individual is faced with a turning point, the console in the control room lights up like a Christmas tree and the brain barricades itself behind automatic barriers, laser beams and other defense mechanisms to maintain the status quo.

But we are not meant to be hostages to these primitive impulses. Neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to reorganize itself in response to new experiences, shows that we can train ourselves to become more adaptable. The more we are exposed to changes, the more we learn to manage them with less stress.. Or rather, we are predisposed to change. After all, without adaptability, how could we have survived through the climatic and environmental transformations of our evolutionary history? But turning off the new road instead of staying on the comfortable, old, familiar highway is a question of mentality.

According to Carol Dweck, psychologist and author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, there are those who have a static mindset (fixed mindset) and those who have a growth mindset (growth mindset). The former tend to consider their abilities as immutable and fear failure, which is why they avoid change. Their fearless cousins, on the other hand, see change as an opportunity for learning and development. Transposing the concept into business, Companies with a growth mindset culture are innovative, resilient and ready to face market transformations. They not only survive but thrive.

Of course, it is never the individual who determines the fate of an organization, but the way in which it cultivates change, placing it at the forefront of its cultural paradigm and transforming it into opportunities. Here is a fact that speaks for itself: a study conducted by McKinsey & Company revealed that Companies with a culture open to change are 2.5 times more likely to succeed in digital transformation than those with a fixed mindset. Why? Because they are able to experiment, iterate, and adapt before it’s too late.

And if this still seems a bit abstract to you, here are a couple of concrete cases. Take Microsoft. In 2014, the company was still anchored to its historical products (Windows and Office). But the axis of the IT planet was inexorably tilting in the direction of cloud computing. So it began to swim vigorously by exploiting the currents of the market, quickly transforming itself into a cloud-first company. Today, Azure, its cloud platform, generates more than 50% of corporate profits and gives Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud a run for their money.

In the sea of tech companies, there are also those who have chosen to act like salmon, paying the price. Until 2007, Nokia dominated the mobile phone market, with a global share greater than 40%. Then Android arrived, an open and scalable ecosystem. Google proposed that Nokia adopt its operating system but the company's top management refused. It almost seems like we can hear what could have been the famous last words: "We've always done it this way". The result? In a few years, Nokia almost disappeared from that market. To stay afloat and then return to being a leader, they still had to dive into other oceans, implementing a transformation.

Openness to change is not a stand-alone skill, but part of a broader ecosystem of interconnected skills. Obviously, you know that, in companies, change is a bit like when a warning light with an ambiguous meaning suddenly comes on in your dashboard and the mechanic makes hypothesis after hypothesis, increasing your sense of confusion and making you consider switching to electric. It rarely arrives in a predictable and linear way and often manifests itself in the form of uncertainties, critical issues to be resolved and new opportunities to be seized on the fly. For this reason, to be truly effective, openness to change must walk side by side with other fundamental, complementary soft skills.

Critical thinking helps you clearly evaluate available options, distinguishing real risks from unfounded resistance. Problem-solving allows you to translate uncertainty into concrete solutions, transforming obstacles into growth opportunities. Leadership, on the other hand, plays a key role in guiding teams and organizations through transitions, creating an environment in which change is not perceived as a threat but as an opportunity. Finally, stress management and cognitive flexibility allow you to adapt quickly without losing sight of objectives and strategies. In this mosaic of skills, openness to change is the central piece: without it, the risk is to remain immobile as the world moves forward.”

Dealing with change is not just a matter of competence, but also of mindset. The mindset can be acquired, consolidated. For this reason Gamification is an increasingly popular approach in the corporate world to train mental flexibility and adaptability. Thanks to digital HR tools like those designed by Artémat, company team members can experience transformational situations and train to manage uncertainty.

The immersive experiences offered by our tools, for example, present participants with challenges that require them to abandon habitual patterns, think outside the box, and collaborate to find innovative solutions. In this sense, gaming becomes a safe but realistic “testing field,” where it is possible to make mistakes without negative consequences and to learn from them.

Furthermore, Gamification helps trigger an immediate gratification mechanism, which stimulates engagement and reduces natural resistance to change. With its power to transform a potentially stressful process into a motivating experience, this methodology has proven to be an excellent catalyst for the adoption of new strategies and the management of transitions.

The Kodak story we started with teaches us that openness to change is not an option but a strategic necessity. Especially in the times we are living in, characterized by the enormous transformations introduced by the democratization of artificial intelligence. Reinventing and adapting is not only possible, but can become a springboard to new successes. As the other two stories we have told demonstrate.

Investing in openness to change means building a corporate culture that values curiosity, innovation, and the courage to face the unknown. It also means using tools and adopting approaches that foster and enhance this mindset.

Ultimately, it’s not just about surviving, it’s about thriving. Companies that embrace change not only resist market transformations, but become protagonists, guiding them according to their own vision. Because, as we’ve seen, change waits for no one: it’s better to be the first to focus on the future than to be immortalized with your eyes closed in a faded photo of the past.