“No, we’re not going on vacation with Google Maps. They just want our data. We plan our travel route intuitively. After all, we’ve been driving to ­Italy for ten years,” a colleague once told me to my amazement. Aside from the fact that roads may have been built during those ten years of which my colleague was more than likely unaware, he was repeatedly frustrated by the many traffic jams enroute that we easily circumvent by means of the app. Sure, Google gathers data, including information about where we spend our vacations, but does that justify such categoric refusal to use a technology enabling us to arrive at our destinations not only in greater safety and comfort and, in our case, even in less time? We’ve been using the app for several years now and for some magical reasons have repeatedly enjoyed 20 percent less driving time to our destinations in the dolce vita country. Experiences like that have inspired me to systematically search for explanations and indications of successful and unsuccessful integration of technologies into people’s personal lives as part of my research. It is indeed important to understand why some of us are struggling with this technologically defined world.

Because technology keeps evolving at an unparallelled pace the challenge to humanity consists not only of keeping up with but of seamlessly integrating itself into this rapidly changing landscape. The key to success in this technology-centric world lies in traits of our personalities. That has in fact been the focus of research we’ve been doing together with a team of the Northern Business School and my colleague Achim Wortmann. For that purpose, we investigate a thing called technology conviction, in other words, people’s attitudes about experimenting with and using new technologies. Added to this are measurement tools for things like curiosity or adaptability. These traits enable us not only to master the complexity of modern technologies but also to use them for personal and professional growth. What are the outcomes of that type of research?

The power of (professional) curiosity

Curiosity, our urge to experiment and explore, is the driving force behind our commitment to new technologies. It motivates us to ask questions, search for new information, and to experiment with unknown tools. In a world in which technology is in a state of constant further development, curiosity is essential to staying up to speed and having current skills. In 2023, a fellow psychologist in fact demonstrated that curiosity accounts for 53 percent of the learning success in a digital training program. The trial participants simply stayed interested for longer periods of time and learned more intensively. And that was the trick: instead of starting with one question and immediately looking for answers, the participants collected up to 20 different questions. During that process, questions emerged that entail totally different perspectives of the new technology.

Starting with one question and then looking for answers puts the mind into solution mode and thinking starts to narrow. Collecting 20 questions is a little unusual but leads to people jotting down questions that never crossed their minds before. And that instantly opens the mind for the necessary change in perspectives.

In 2016, we worked with Porsche Consulting, completely converting their approach to innovation in that way. As an aside, a little facetiously, we include the “app rejecters” in the category of uncurious people: They still pay cash because they’ve never been curious enough to learn how mobile payment apps work. Because of that, they slow down the line at a coffee shop while trying to pay with coins while everyone else simply reaches for their smartphone and moves on.

Future-courage

Trust, confidence, robustness, and realistic optimism: Actually, the name of this bundle of characteristics is called “psychological capital” but that always sounds like a convoluted mix of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, so we renamed it. Now it’s called “future-courage” consisting of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. In a world in which technological progress can often appear overwhelming future-courage is central.

Famous misjudgments revealing a lack of future-courage

A case in point: Less than 150 years ago, many so-called experts smiled upon the idea of the incandescent light bulb. Thomas Edison was already an impressive personality in the world of science following his invention of the phonograph but having performed that feat wasn’t enough for people to place trust in him when it came to his latest big idea. When in 1878 the stock for gas tanked because Thomas Edison announced that he was working on an incandescent lamp the British parliament established a committee to investigate the matter – and its conclusion was anything but flattering for Edison. In 1880, Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, commented on Edison’s incandescent light bulb: “Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure.” But Edison was not discouraged by that verdict, believed in his idea, and continued to pursue it – you know the rest of the story because we all have had incandescent light dawning on us at one time or another.

When dealing with new technologies, people with large psychological capital tackle challenges with an “I can do that” attitude. They may, for instance, initially struggle with new software at work but instead of giving up they remain confident that they’re ultimately going to master it and that they’re going to find various ways to solve their problem. This perseverance based on confidence and trust in one’s own abilities is indispensable in a world in which technology keeps changing and new skills are constantly required.

On the other hand, imagine someone with minimal psychological capital trying to use a new digital tool at work. They encounter a minor problem and instead of solving it or asking for help they throw up their hands in frustration, shouting, “I’m just not good with technology!” This mindset of resignation not only keeps them from moving forward but also makes them increasingly resistant against future technological changes.

Fit for the future with AQ

Adaptability to new conditions, I also like to refer to that as adaptation intelligence or AQ for short, may be the most important trait in a world in which technological progress constantly occurs. People that are adaptable can quickly learn new systems, adopt new practices, and change their ways as needed. Such flexibility is crucial for integrating new technologies into everyday life.

A company called Research in Motion (RIM) presented to us a case of denial and subsequent lack of adaptability. You may remember that RIM invented the “Blackberry.” A breakthrough, a mobile device with a keypad. It was the first of its kind at the time. It became a hit, but the world kept turning. Mr. Jobs launched a phone that no longer had a physical keypad at all, so how did RIM respond? Following the sale of more than 100 million Blackberrys – RIM had 50 percent of the whole cellphone market in their pockets at the time – internal memos circulating at RIM in 2007 reflected the view that a switch would be impossible because consumers deeply loved the keypad. A little later (and ultimately too late) the defenders of the status quo realized that that love was not as deep as they thought because cellphone buyers defected to the competition. Americans would say, “adapt or die.”

A valued friend and colleague of mine in Cologne experienced how inhibiting a lack of innovation integration can be when she was seeking to obtain a grant for a startup. The document that was sent to her by email called for a signature. Was a digital signature acceptable, she asked. The answer was no. Would it be acceptable to just print out the last page for the signature and to send it (after all, it was a good-sized request with more than 30 pages)? The answer to that question was another no, so she had to print the whole document, sign the last page, and then she was allowed to scan and send the document to the government agency. But the analog worst was yet to come: Three months later, three employees of the government agency appeared on her doorstep. “We’d like to see the printout of the request you sent,” they said. – “Pardon? The printout?” – Yes, we need to see that you printed and signed the document.” Fortunately, my colleague still had the printout. There was no response to her question of what would have happened if the printout had no longer existed and, if in that case, she’d have had to print the previously signed and scanned version again.

Conclusion

In a technology-driven world, curiosity, future-courage, and adaptability aren’t just nice-to-have traits but crucial ones for successful integration into this rapidly developing landscape. Curiosity drives the desire to explore and to learn, psychological capital offers the resilience for mastering challenges, and adaptability ensures that we can adjust to new conditions and technologies. By cultivating those traits, we can not only keep pace with technological progress but also be successful in an increasingly digital world. So, the next time you’re facing a technological obstacle think about this: a little curiosity, a dash of psychological capital, and ample adaptability can help keep you from being outsmarted by your own smart devices.