In the Lead With Jordan Sun

In the Lead with...is a conversation with industry leaders on key trends and leadership challenges. In this issue, we spoke with Jordan Sun, Vice President of Product at Softbank Robotics America. Here he discusses the importance of a human-centered, problem-solving approach to innovation and leadership.

Ruchin Kansal (RK): I met Jordan Sun during my tenure at Siemens Healthineers, where he was serving as director of venture development. A fellow NYU-Stern alum, Jordan currently is the vice president of product at Softbank Robotics. A veteran of the Army and the U.S. Department of State, he also served as chief innovation officer for the city of San Jose.

Jordan, you are committed to making the world a better place. How do you define better?

Jordan Sun (JS):  Leaving the world in a better place comes down to how I grew up. I come from a marginalized community and saw folks around me struggle with everything. One, being able to leave that ZIP code, and two, being able to overcome some of the inherent challenges that I picked up in my formative childhood years, is humbling. So, I would say, if I could give young people better access to opportunity and make people deep down inside feel a little bit more hopeful for what’s to come among the challenges and opportunities that they’re facing now, then I think that’s already leaving the world in a better place. When people have their backs against the wall and they feel like they have no other opportunity, if we can make them feel hopeful and believe that life will get better, then I think they’re less willing to commit themselves to short-term thinking that sometimes leads to very negative consequences.

RK: Very inspiring, Jordan. A couple of follow-ups on that one: Describe more of the community you come from. I’m also very curious, why do you want to do this?

JS: When I served in San Jose in the City Hall, I reflected a lot on this — about my upbringing in South Texas along the Texas-Mexico border, and then in Houston in a predominantly Asian Latino neighborhood. There was a lot of crime around me — a lot of youthful energy being misdirected or simply not having any direction. I was fortunate to go to a school outside of my ZIP code by magnet program. I’m very thankful for those small turns in life that then led to something greater.

As a city, we did significant investments in bridging the digital divide for 100,000 residents, passed a digital privacy policy as the foundation to prepare us for emerging technology adoption, built a data team to make more informed policy decisions, and explored how artificial intelligence and autonomy can improve resident experiences.

RK: Was there a mentor or someone who inspired you the way you want to inspire others?

JS: During my childhood years, my parents always stood out to me as folks who, as immigrants, were willing to take a risk for a better life and to try to pursue a dream. My dad came from Taiwan, and he just knew that he needed to be in America, the land of freedom and opportunity. I am guided by the same principles, pursuing that better opportunity rather than settling early on is I think helpful for me. The other part of it was understanding the importance of education. I didn’t grow up with tiger parents. They weren’t on me like a hawk. But their overall philosophy of pursuing opportunity and innately knowing that is what I give credit to. Seeing the smart kids around me in high school and doing what they did was helpful. I remember asking them what they were doing that weekend and they said they were going to SAT prep. I asked, what's SAT prep? That really woke me up — oh, my gosh, there’s a whole list of things that people are doing to prepare, and I need to focus on that too. Because that gets me out of this place and into another place.

RK: I wish I knew this side of your story a long time back, Jordan. I’m really inspired. So how did you go from those early beginning into military and then leading innovation in health care, public sector and now robotics?

JS: I think innovation is an overused word these days. And I rarely actually use it. I would prefer if my titles didn’t have “innovation.” In fact, what is more important is to understand how to manage change.
The word innovation fundamentally stems from when an organization or an industry has realized that there is change that needs to be undertaken, but they really can’t (a), define what that change needs to be, and (b), what are the problems inhibiting that change? And most importantly, getting people to change, which is a people process and often the greatest inhibitor to innovation.

RK: So very interesting. What you’re saying is we don’t need to call everything organizations do differently as innovation?

JS: It is change and not innovation that has a significant disruptive impact.

RK: Is it then accurate to say that your definition of change is the paradigm shift to where an industry is, where it needs to be, and how it gets there?

JS: Yeah, I would say that that would be a very fair definition.

RK: And why do you say that you don’t want the term “innovation” in your title?

JS: Innovation often is misconstrued as technology. There is also the myth that if we follow certain processes, we will get to an innovative outcome. Remember when human centered design was all the rage? I must give credit to the early waves of innovation, but we need to ask if that definition still holds. Or are we talking about something else now?

What I'm saying is that we need to have a process to look at problems, to define them, to make further discovery, to try to quantify and to iterate on that. And I think we could do better by being specific rather than lumping them all under “innovation.” For instance, once the pursuit of “innovation” has identified the fundamental challenges or blockers to adoption; using the term innovation I don’t think fully captures or clarifies what needs to change. In the defense industry, people often identify procurement reform as the significant blocker to getting the warfighter solutions they need to be successful.

RK: Let’s go back to your time in the industry. Describe for me an experience that you would call innovative, disruptive or transformative, and then use that example to define the term innovation.

JS: My current company, SoftBank, did a fundamental shift in our robotics investments when we moved from a single product portfolio to a multi-OEM (original equipment manufacturer) product portfolio. It is a monumental shift to go from an OEM to a robot integrator, and I give a lot of credit to the team.

What we’ve come to realize is that we need to be hyperfocused on what does the market needs from us.

When we talk to a lot of robot founders now versus 10-20 years ago, people are less in love with simply building robots and more focused on solving problems with robots. For example, AMP robotics recently raised a large sum of money and brought in a new CEO who is a veteran of the waste and recycling business, and the founder CEO became the chief technology officer. We’re starting to see this movement where robotics companies are maniacal about solving problems in the industries they want to live in.

Which is what I think makes a good robotics company today. Robotics companies need to move away from the traditional industrial, manufacturing and logistics-use cases into the next wave of unlocking opportunity where robots can really make a difference in our society and in our businesses.

In the dot-com era, every company was an internet company. We have seen the same trend with generative AI and robotics. I think we’re starting to break from the fact that you don’t need the product or the product category in your company name itself. Rather, you need to be hyperfocused on solving a problem, what are the fundamental drivers of the problem, and a deep understanding of how to drive change management. Otherwise, you are just an innovation project and kind of missing the point.

RK: What you are essentially saying is innovation is not just coming up with a product or an idea. Innovation is when you can apply an idea to solve a problem and generate a return.

JS: Yes. Industries that are getting digitized around robots right now have traditionally not been impacted by technology as much. So, you must think about what all the holdback was, you just really must be obsessed with that industry, its customers and with solving their problems. I think that’s where the most successful founders will be. For instance, we have so much opportunity to rethink managing and operating buildings in the commercial real estate world. However, when you walk into an office building or mall right now, you might wonder how much of the experience is digitized or automated. What would digitization or automation improve in the occupant or visitor’s experience — let’s say in a shopping mall? We can think about how floors are cleaned, how security systems are managed to reduce theft or active shooter risks, or how do you surface relevant products or restaurants to the shopper.

RK: Talk about the challenges a leader faces in driving such change?

JS: One, a leader must understand what the core of the organization cares about. If one is not able to understand and internalize it, you’re really going to lose sight of it. So, to be an effective change agent, either you come from within the core, or you’re able to drop in but still build deep trust and a collaborative spirit with that core. Two, you must be clearly able to articulate your strategy and your goals. You must build and narrate a story that points to what success looks like, that it's doable, and that together you can go even higher. It’s important to be able to do that mapping exercise first and foremost. You must be well balanced in terms of what success looks like. Three, you must figure out how to gather talent — internally. And finally, you must think through and implement process and policy changes that need to happen. At the end of the day, there is always an impact component, and a cost component, because people look at risk rewards. Being able to clearly articulate the risk and reward is very important.

RK: Interestingly, you did not mention technology at all.

JS: Yes, because you need to be able to define the problem first. Technology is a means to get you to the solution. For example, with robotics, all you need to know at the start is whether there is connectivity in the building, coupled with basic privacy and cyber constraints. I would say the best people that I see do this well repeatedly are salespeople that are good at solution selling. They may only have a handful of technologies they need to sell or have available at their disposal, but they do problem mapping very well.

RK: Talk to me about three values, leadership behaviors or traits that make Jordan Sun a successful leader of change.

JS: My first is being able to very quickly catch up on any new problem set or environment that I’m in, and to be able to see through the fog and really focus on what needs to get done. And then being able to articulate a vision, gain consensus and alignment around that vision, and build a plan for execution. I would credit this ability to my experience working in very high-friction markets for the last 15 years. The second is having a high tolerance for ambiguity and chaos and being able to stabilize others around me. It’s never easy and sometimes takes longer than you anticipate. So really being able to be calm about it and calm others is important, because you don’t want to lose your best talent. Also, good things just take a little bit longer, and so being able to negotiate that time is important and part of it is keeping folks’ calm. The third I would say is having a good sense of the basic management principles, focusing on business outcomes, and being detail oriented. The ability to speak to finance, ability to understand the numbers, or having people do that for you and trusting them in doing that. Knowing who to bring along with you and being able to delegate to the experts when you need to is really important as well.

RK: You answered two aspects of managing change. One, that you need to understand the environment, the expected outcomes, the constraints and your ability to operate under that. Two, you described the characteristics of you as a change agent, which is being able to live with ambiguity, see through the fog, to be able to stay calm and keep your team calm. Three, being business results oriented.

Is that a good formula to drive change overall? Is that your message to other leaders?

JS: I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach. I think it depends on the industries or sectors that you're in, your own personality, and the people that are willing to join you for the ride. And there are a lot of X-factors in all those mixes.

This is just the mix that works for me so far, and I would say I need to constantly evolve myself. In terms of what I need to do better and how I need to improve. Because if you lose sight of that, then you become a relic of the past.

RK: Yeah, absolutely. If you don’t learn, you become a regular quickly. Now you know this issue of In the Lead is about leading innovation, which you say should be redefined. Anything else that you would like to share with the readers?

JS: I would say two things — humility and trust. I think humility is important to be a constant learner. Humility is especially important when dealing with people. You’re not omnipotent, and there’s always something someone would know that you don’t. The second is trust. You need to always be building trust and maintaining that trust. Trust can be easily broken. My parents used to tell me — you can do 100 things right, you can do 99 things right, but it only takes one wrong to lose someone’s trust, and you can never really make up for it. I think integrity is a key underlying factor of building trust.

RK: Jordan, thank you to your parents for raising you and giving you all these values. You must be proud of them. I’m honored to know your story.

JS: I appreciate the opportunity, and I’m honored to have shared my journey with you. I really appreciate how the world has brought us together over and over again, so thank you.

---

In the Lead magazine is a collaboration between the Buccino Leadership Institute and the Stillman School of Business’s Department of Management. This edition reaffirms Seton Hall’s commitment to fostering innovative, ethical and impactful leadership. Stay ahead of the curve — explore the Spring 2025 issue of In the Lead.

Categories: Business, Science and Technology