Navigating the Inevitable — Ruth Silver on Leading Through Change
We’re living through a moment of extraordinary change, and architecture, engineering, and construction firms are being asked to adapt on multiple fronts. At Oomph, we’ve been tracking these shifts since our launch in 2020—watching digital disruption gain ground across the AEC sector. But today’s challenges go far beyond technology. Condo and office markets have cooled. Campus development has slowed. AI and industrialized construction methods are raising new questions. At the same time, leadership transitions, succession planning, and shifting client expectations are reshaping how firms operate—and what they need to thrive.
Most people find change difficult—and for many firms, this moment feels overwhelming. But those who can navigate uncertainty, adapt strategically, and lead with clarity will be best positioned for the future.
To help us understand how to lead through this moment, we’re speaking with Ruth Silver, a change strategist, organizational design thinker, and founder of Groundswell Projects. Ruth works with clients across industries to help them build adaptive cultures, navigate complexity, and lead boldly through change. Her "listening as leadership" methodology enables organizations to detect weak signals others miss—and to transform not just in reaction to disruption, but in anticipation of it.
Ruth holds a Master’s in Landscape Architecture from Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, has taught at the Daniels Faculty of Architecture at the University of Toronto, and practiced as a landscape architect at a leading Toronto urban design firm. Today, she brings deep insight into how mission-driven, design-led organizations can evolve while remaining true to their values.
LOCKED IN THE PAST: HOW SUCCESS PATTERNS BECOME ROADBLOCKS
Oomph: The AEC industry has long been conservative, risk-averse, and slow to embrace change. In Canada, that was reinforced by a 25-year stretch of uninterrupted growth—especially in markets like Toronto and Vancouver—largely untouched by the 2008 financial crisis.
So, it’s no surprise that many firm leaders have been slow to recognize the shifts already underway, or to respond to the recent drop in demand. Most people resist change until it’s forced on them. Few anticipate it, and even fewer prepare. And when the time comes to act, many freeze. Can you speak to this dynamic?
Ruth Silver: You see this across almost every industry—it’s not unique to AEC. But what you’re describing is a classic case of getting locked into success patterns from a previous era. After 25 years of stability, the AEC industry built deeply embedded assumptions about how projects get delivered, how clients engage, and what success looks like.
Now, we’re in an era of rapid, overlapping disruption—a true polycrisis. New sustainability standards, shifting user expectations, changing procurement models, and evolving business structures are all forcing AEC firms to rethink how they operate. What once made firms successful has, in many cases, become a barrier.
“Real breakthroughs happen when leaders stop asking, “how do we get clients to understand our process?”, and start asking, “What are the needs of our clients and the people they serve today? What is the context in which our work will be experienced?” ”
You see this in other sectors too: organizations become so good at solving yesterday’s problems, they can’t recognize today’s opportunities—let alone imagine tomorrow’s. Real breakthroughs happen when leaders stop asking, “how do we get clients to understand our process?”, and start asking, “What are the needs of our clients and the people they serve today? What is the context in which our work will be experienced?”
And in AEC, that question matters even more—because our work lasts. It must stand up 50 to 100 years from now, in a world where temperatures will be higher, storms more intense, air quality poorer. The built environment will be a frontline response to those challenges.
Firms that will lead this next era aren’t just adapting faster—they’re getting curious. They’re rethinking the fundamental relationship between design, delivery, and user experience in a world that’s changing all around them.
LISTENING AS AN AGENT OF CHANGE AND COMPETITIVE EDGE
Oomph: You’ve worked across sectors. What distinguishes organizations that lead change from those that fall behind?
Ruth Silver: Listening. Organizations that lead change make space to listen to the people their services weren’t originally designed to serve. They expand the circle—inviting end users, community members, and team members across levels into the design and decision-making process.
Reactive firms stay focused on optimizing their existing delivery model. But forward-thinking organizations build a broader, more inclusive intelligence.
In the values-driven organizations we work with, we often refer to this as circular leadership. It means bringing in diverse perspectives: end users, community members, interdisciplinary voices, and employees at all levels—not just to shape the final product, but to influence the design process itself.
LEADING THROUGH UNCERTAINTY
Oomph: When it comes to change, there are usually two scenarios. In the first, we know what’s changed—and the challenge is deciding how to respond. But it’s much harder to manage change that’s fluid and uncertain. One of the biggest challenges firms face today is not knowing how things will change—especially around emerging technologies. Deciding what to invest in, what to adopt, and how to move forward can feel overwhelming.
What’s your advice for navigating change when the situation is unclear and constantly evolving? And how do you help leaders build confidence—and bring their teams along—when they’re not even sure where to begin?
Ruth Silver: You build foresight capacity. That doesn’t mean predicting the future. It means tuning into signals—small emerging patterns that may grow into trends. The more attuned your organization is to those signals, the more prepared you’ll be to adapt with intention.
Foresight work has become an essential part of leading through change—especially in industries like AEC where the built environment is both long-lasting and slow to adapt. While research and consultation remain foundational, organizations now also need structured ways to sense what’s coming. That’s where futures thinking comes in, it’s an approach to thinking about the future and exploring possible, plausible, and preferred futures that aim to inform strategies and decision-making by taking long-term considerations into account.
“You build foresight capacity. That doesn’t mean predicting the future. It means tuning into signals—small emerging patterns that may grow into trends. The more attuned your organization is to those signals, the more prepared you’ll be to adapt with intention.
The goal isn’t to know exactly where the industry is going. That’s a common source of paralysis. There is no crystal ball. But what confident leaders do is focus on strengthening their organization’s capacity to navigate uncertainty.
That means building trust, encouraging rapid learning, and treating your firm like a learning system, not a fixed structure. ”
Firms should build practices that treat the organization as a learning system, not a fixed structure.
The goal isn’t to know exactly where the industry is going. That’s a common source of paralysis. There is no crystal ball. But what confident leaders do is focus on strengthening their organization’s capacity to navigate uncertainty.
That means building trust, encouraging rapid learning, and treating your firm like a learning system, not a fixed structure. It means shifting from the “guru model”—where one expert leads—to a culture of collective intelligence, where different skills, insights, and perspectives can flex in response to change. So, when new technologies or project types emerge, the question isn’t “Should we invest in this tool?” It’s “How do we build the capacity to evaluate and integrate new approaches—continuously?” That kind of adaptability only happens when you share the load across a strong, empowered team.
AEC FIRMS NEED A BIG-PICTURE VIEW
Oomph: One of the things we’ve been advising clients is to designate someone—alongside their day-to-day role—to keep a broader, strategic view. Not just tracking new materials or tools, but asking: How is the industry changing? How are our systems changing? It’s about understanding innovation beyond products—recognizing geopolitical shifts, cultural trends, and environmental pressures—and helping the team stay connected to the larger context they’re operating in.
Firms often stay current on materials but lose sight of the bigger picture. And that’s the gap I see most often. I’m curious—what’s your take on that?
Ruth Silver: Well, I’d say that’s 100% my job—so yes! I absolutely believe firms should have this kind of role. I’ve seen it done well, even outside AEC. A friend of mine was a futurist embedded in a large law firm, and it gave them a huge edge in business and partnership development.
You can imagine how powerful that would be in architecture—a larger firm that really understands where things are headed might partner with a manufacturing company to co-develop a new technology, or with a digital firm to create a tool tailored to an emerging need. That kind of foresight helps firms move faster and more strategically.
This focused role isn’t something a designer can do off the side of their desk. It’s a function that belongs in strategy, business development, and conceptual design.
SMARTER TOGETHER: POOLING RESOURCES TO KEEP PACE
Oomph: This theme runs through so much of what we’ve talked about: the need for someone—or a small group—to hold the bigger picture. Not just keeping up with materials or tech but understanding the wider context: where the industry is headed, how cities are changing, how people will live and work in the years ahead. Big firms do this well. It’s one of the pillars of their success. But for smaller firms—especially the many that are solo practitioners or teams of 2, 3, 10, maybe 15 people—it’s a real challenge.
You do see some young, innovative studios launching with a bold point of view right out of school. But for the majority, testing new tools—especially AI—is daunting. They don’t have the bandwidth or the resources. I remember when BIM first came on the scene. Many small engineering firms were told, “You need to adopt this.” So, they bought it—at great expense—but didn’t use it, because most of their work still ran on AutoCAD. Fast forward to 2022 or 2023, and now every RFP requires BIM. They had to dust it off, retrain, and catch up.
The explosion of AI tools feels similar—but even more overwhelming. If you're a six-person firm, where do you even start?
Ruth Silver: That’s a great point. What I often suggest is forming communities of practice. In AEC, we rarely work in isolation—landscape architects, engineers, architects, contractors—there’s always a network. Smaller firms aren’t always competing with one another, so why not team up with peers you trust? Create a collaborative multidisciplinary group. Hire someone like us to lead a series of workshops. Talk through what’s coming, identify your firm’s unique assets and aspirations, and figure out how to evaluate what’s worth pursuing.
Oomph: Exactly—and that’s advice we give our clients, too. Smaller firms operate in ecosystems. On any significant project, you’ve got contractors, engineers, code consultants, maybe fire and building envelope specialists. These aren’t competitors. They’re potential partners. So why not pool resources? Form working groups. Centralize business development. Share market intelligence. But it’s rare to see it happen. People love the idea but often don’t act on it. Why do you think that is?
Ruth Silver: First, people are stretched thin. The idea of adding one more thing feels overwhelming. Second, for something like this to work, there must be a clear sense of return. That lack of certainty might be part of the hesitation. But I think it’s ultimately about mindset. These kinds of collaborations aren’t just operational—they’re strategic. They build adaptive capacity.
Smaller firms can also take cues from the larger players. Look at where big firms are investing. It’s not always about growth—it’s about positioning. A small consortium could mirror that strategically. You might not have a formal innovation lab, but you could replicate the function collectively.
Gensler comes to mind. Their innovation group is grounded in design thinking and user insight. That kind of capacity allows them to spot opportunities—like retrofitting underused office towers—and move quickly.
GETTING “UNSTUCK” TO MANAGE CHANGE
Oomph: Exactly—and that brings us to the next topic: managing change, and what it means for design firms to get stuck or unstuck. I agree with you—once you have someone (or a group) looking at the broader world and where things are heading, you start to see opportunities for new relationships, partnerships, and linkages that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred to you. And the firms that are pulling ahead are doing exactly that.
But let’s get into the nitty-gritty. One of the values in speaking with someone like you is giving readers a few practical takeaways—things they can actually use. In your work leading change, you’ve seen organizations that resist it and others that embrace it. How does that dynamic play out in a design firm? Can you tell when a firm is stuck? And what are the warning signs that they’re resisting change rather than managing into it?
Ruth Silver: The biggest red flag is treating challenges as one-offs. Whether it’s a new accessibility code, shifting workplace norms, or evolving client expectations, successful firms don’t dismiss these as inconveniences—they see them as signals that something deeper is shifting in how design serves people.
One of the most powerful tools I’ve learned—personally and professionally—is curiosity. Firms that stay curious treat every challenge as an opportunity to learn, not just a problem to solve.
Another key practice is boundary-spanning—looking beyond the industry for insights. Forward-thinking firms seek out different voices, study how other sectors adapt, and bring those lessons into their own context.
In contrast, firms that downplay or ignore these signals often face crisis—not because of one major disruption, but due to the slow buildup of small issues they never addressed. I once worked with a leadership team that blamed frontline staff for disengagement. In reality, there was a lack of clarity, poor communication, and a reluctance to let go of “the way we’ve always done it.”
Most blind spots aren’t technical—they’re relational. Evolving firms invest in listening systems: to clients, to staff at all levels, to the people they design for. They don’t wait for things to break. They adjust continuously tuning into small shifts before they become big problems.
MANAGING CHANGE FATIGUE
Oomph: Change fatigue is real—and I’ve felt it myself. Marketers are often the canaries in the coal mine, the first to feel the impact when disruption hits. I lived through the dot-com bust and the global financial crisis—both of which hit the marketing industry hard. And honestly, the past 25 years have felt like a constant wave of change. It’s exhausting.
Now, the AEC industry is entering its own era of sustained disruption. We’ve already seen major shifts in sustainability—how buildings are designed, how materials are specified, how performance targets are met, new tools. But nothing compares to the pace of change since 2020. COVID, macroeconomic and geopolitical shifts, AI, demographic transitions, changing expectations around work—it’s relentless. So how do you help leaders cope with that kind of fatigue? What strategies or mindset shifts can help them stay grounded and resilient?
Ruth Silver: It always comes back to relationships—and having a clear long game. I often compare it to marriage: change is constant, but the purpose stays the same. When you’re grounded in that, the small stuff matters less. You stay connected to why you’re doing the work.
That’s where I focus with leaders. Resistance often reveals what people are afraid of losing. With something like AI, it’s rarely about the technology itself—it’s about the fear of losing the human side: the design relationship, the craft, the purpose that gives the work meaning.
The best response is deep listening—to yourself and your team. Ask: What do we want to protect as we evolve? How might this change strengthen our design capabilities? Approaching change from an asset mindset helps leaders show how AI—and other shifts—can enhance, not replace, design thinking. At its core, resistance often reflects insecurity. But when leaders trust themselves and their teams, they can hold space for both uncertainty and possibility. That’s how you find your footing in times of change.
You’ve probably heard this story—possibly apocryphal, but widely told—about JFK visiting NASA during the height of the space race. As the story goes, he walked through the facility meeting people at all levels: scientists, engineers, admin staff, janitorial and workers. And no matter who he spoke to, when he asked, “What’s your job?” the answer was the same: “I’m helping to put a man on the moon.” Whether or not it actually happened, the story endures because it captures something powerful: when an organization has a clear, shared vision, everyone understands how their role contributes to the bigger goal.
Regardless of someone’s role, when there’s a clear and shared mission, everyone sees how their work contributes to it. I can imagine an architecture firm with a purpose like: “We’re building beautiful, lasting, and safe spaces for humanity—today and tomorrow.” And then the question becomes: How does something like AI help us do that better?
Oomph: Right—and once you reframe it that way, these tools no longer feel like threats or obstacles. They become opportunities to advance your mission and deepen the work you're already doing.
Ruth Silver: Exactly.
Oomph: It’s a powerful shift. Subtle, but transformative—because once you see it through that lens, everything looks different.
MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Oomph: What happens when a leader is ready for change, but the team isn’t? How do you manage internal resistance?
Ruth Silver: You accept that not everyone will come along. Some people will opt out—and that’s okay. Change starts with mindset. I use a tool called the “Curiosity Curve” to help shift teams from certainty to openness.
Instead of judging resistance, get curious. What are people afraid of losing? What strengths can change actually build on? When people feel heard and respected, it’s easier for them to engage with the unknown.
YOUR MOST POWEFUL CHANGE TOOL? CURIOSITY
Oomph: If someone reading this interview were to take one small but meaningful action tomorrow, what would you recommend?
Ruth Silver: Years ago, I worked at a firm called Curiosity, led by Karen Ward—my design thinking fairy godmother. She believed so strongly in curiosity that she named the entire practice after it. And she was right. Curiosity changes how we relate to everything.
“There’s a framework I often share called the Curiosity Curve. On one end, you have zones of certainty:”
Now imagine applying that inside a firm. What if a leadership team regularly asked, What’s shifted for you this week? What did you learn? How are you experiencing the firm differently? It builds a culture of listening, learning, and shared evolution.
If you want to expand your leadership circle, start by shifting the mindset—from certainty to curiosity. Ask more questions. Lead with curiosity. Pick a recurring challenge and explore it deeply. Ask: What are we not seeing? What would need to shift? What would a better outcome look like? And then listen. Don’t stop at the first answer. Dig deeper. Ask why. Ask how. That’s how you create space for change to take root.
Ruth’s Playbook
Oomph: Are there any thinkers or frameworks you turn to regularly?
Ruth Silver:
I’m a total nerd—I have a very full playbook. One of my biggest influences is Adrienne Maree Brown’s Emergent Strategy, which shows how small relational shifts can spark large-scale systemic change.
If I could only bring three books to a desert island, Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer would be one of them. Her insights on Indigenous knowledge, reciprocity, and learning from natural systems have profoundly shaped my thinking on organizational intelligence. I minored in Indigenous Studies during my undergrad and continue to look to Indigenous knowledge keepers for insight and direction- especially now, when circularity and interdependence feel essential.
Those same values show up in Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, which advocates for regenerative models that prioritize collective well-being over extraction. Joanna Macy is another major influence—her idea of active hope and her framework for moving from despair to engaged action are central to how I support leaders. She recently passed away, and I hope this brings a renewed interest in her work, as it’s an incredible body of work that is essential to where humanity is at.
From a systems lens, James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory is deeply compelling. If we see Earth—not as a resource, but as an intelligent living system—then our organizations become part of that intelligence. How do we design them to reflect that same resilience and adaptability?
And of course, I draw from foundational futurists like Alvin Toffler, Buckminster Fuller, and Donella Meadows—brilliant thinkers whose work continues to shape how we understand the complex systems we’re now navigating.
