Category Archives: Leadership

The Nordic Way of Leadership in Business

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

What if there was a leadership approach that naturally fostered trust, embraced adaptability, and encouraged continuous innovation? Could this approach serve as a model for navigating today’s complex business landscape? Many organizations are finding inspiration in exactly such a model – the Nordic way. Known for its progressive approach to leadership, organizational agility, and transformative innovation, the Nordic style is gaining recognition worldwide for its unique, people-first methods.

Here’s a closer look at why the Nordic approach is a valuable inspiration for leaders globally and how its principles might apply across cultures and industries.

Leadership: Trust as the Foundation

Nordic leadership is deeply rooted in trust. Rather than micromanaging, Nordic leaders empower their employees by granting autonomy and responsibility, creating a high-trust environment that enhances motivation, engagement, and creativity. This approach not only flattens traditional hierarchies but fosters open communication and shared purpose. Employees in Nordic organizations are encouraged to think independently, take ownership of their roles, and bring their best ideas to the table – qualities essential for navigating constant change.

This trust-based model also creates an environment of psychological safety, where people feel valued and supported. It’s a model that resonates well beyond the Nordic region, offering a compelling answer to the global call for leaders who can cultivate an engaged and resilient workforce. By promoting a culture where everyone is part of the mission, Nordic leaders are creating teams prepared to face challenges collaboratively and creatively.

Agility: A Mindset of Flexibility and Collective Ownership

Nordic organizations approach agility not simply as a set of processes but as a fundamental mindset. It’s a philosophy of flexibility and shared ownership that spans the entire organization, enabling teams to pivot quickly and proactively address new challenges. By encouraging collaboration and empowering cross-functional teams, Nordic organizations instill a strong sense of collective responsibility, where employees at all levels contribute to swift decision-making and adaptive strategies.

This approach to agility is about building a resilient organization, one that can respond effectively to changes in the market, technology, or societal expectations. For organizations worldwide, adopting a similar mindset could mean going beyond structured agile practices to develop a true culture of adaptability and resilience, grounded in empowered teams and proactive collaboration.

Innovation and Transformation: Constant Evolution

Nordic companies are known for their strong commitment to innovation, but it’s not innovation for its own sake – it’s innovation with a purpose. In the Nordic approach, innovation is a continuous process integrated into everyday work, driving improvements across products, services, and even organizational practices. Rather than isolating innovation within specific departments, Nordic organizations encourage a culture of experimentation, learning, and reinvention throughout the entire organization.

This proactive approach to transformation and change is essential for maintaining relevance in a competitive world. Nordic leaders understand that sustainable innovation relies on a supportive culture, one where challenging the status quo is encouraged and continuous improvement is celebrated. For global businesses, this focus on purposeful innovation offers a framework that can help organizations evolve while staying aligned with their core values and mission.

Values as Drivers of Sustainable Success

At the heart of Nordic leadership and organizational development are values like sustainability, collaboration, and inclusivity. Nordic leaders prioritize these values not just as corporate responsibilities but as strategic drivers of success. By embedding principles of social responsibility, environmental stewardship, and inclusivity into their business practices, Nordic organizations create a competitive edge that appeals to modern consumers and stakeholders alike.

For organizations in other parts of the world, these values are increasingly relevant as they face rising expectations for transparency, ethical conduct, and positive societal impact. Nordic leaders illustrate how a values-driven approach not only enhances business reputation but also contributes to innovation and employee engagement, establishing a model that aligns organizational success with social progress.

Can the Nordic Way be a Learning Source for Global Leaders?

While the Nordic model provides valuable inspiration, it may not be universally applicable without adaptation. Here’s a closer look at its potential as a learning source for leaders globally:

Pros

Adaptable Principles: Nordic leadership’s focus on trust, collaboration, and sustainability is relevant across industries and regions. These core principles offer a framework that any organization can incorporate to enhance engagement and adaptability.
Scalability of Agility: The Nordic approach to agility as a mindset rather than a rigid framework allows for flexible application. Organizations of different sizes can tailor this mindset to suit their unique structures and goals.
Empowered Innovation: By democratizing innovation across the organization, Nordic companies empower employees to contribute ideas and take initiative, a practice that can drive change and spark innovation regardless of regional context.

Cons

Cultural Context: The success of the Nordic model is partly rooted in Nordic cultural values of equality and inclusiveness, which may not translate seamlessly into hierarchical or individualistic cultures. Adapting these principles may require significant shifts in mindset and organizational structure.
Resource-Intensive: The commitment to employee well-being, work-life balance, and continuous learning is resource-intensive. Organizations in high-pressure or resource-limited environments may find it challenging to implement these practices at scale.
Long-Term Focus: The Nordic model’s emphasis on sustainable, long-term growth over immediate profit may not align with the priorities of companies in highly competitive markets where short-term results are essential.

Why I Believe in the Nordic Way

I believe the Nordic approach to leadership can inspire global leaders, especially those who are rethinking how to create meaningful impact within their organizations. The Nordic way is not just a set of strategies or processes; it’s a philosophy that values people, purpose, and sustainable progress.

In a time when many leaders are facing complex challenges – ranging from rapid technological change to employee well-being and social responsibility – this approach offers a balanced framework that aligns with what a lot of people, inside and outside organizations, are seeking.

One of the biggest reasons it resonates globally is because of its simplicity: build trust, foster collaboration, and drive innovation with a purpose. These are universal needs, no matter where a business operates. In any organization, these principles tap into a common need to feel valued, empowered, and part of a meaningful mission. And while the Nordic model is uniquely suited to its cultural context, its core principles are adaptable and can be translated in ways that suit other environments.

Leaders in competitive, high-stakes markets might not adopt every aspect, like the high emphasis on work-life balance, but they can still take away a focus on trust, inclusivity, and adaptive agility to improve engagement and innovation.

But What are the Challenges?

What could be missing is perhaps a realistic look at the challenges Nordic leaders face within this model. While it’s admired for its human-centered approach, maintaining high trust and autonomy can be demanding. It requires leaders to be consistent, transparent, and continuously engaged with their teams, which can be difficult as organizations scale or enter competitive markets. Consider a fast-growing company where balancing autonomy with consistency becomes a daily challenge as new layers of leadership emerge.

For leaders, this means actively working to sustain the level of trust and openness that drove early success, even as the organization scales and diversifies. Another potential challenge is balancing the flexibility that empowers employees with the structure needed for consistent output.

For global leaders, the Nordic model might be most powerful if presented not just as a set of ideals but as a journey of ongoing effort and adjustment. As leaders across the globe adapt to new realities, the Nordic way offers not just a model but a mindset – one that reminds us that lasting success begins with people and purpose.

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Navigating Unwelcome Change

Leave a reply

Five Questions with Theresa Ward

Navigating Unwelcome Change

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Picture this: your boss announces a major reorganization with a big smile, expecting you to be excited about “new opportunities.” Meanwhile, you’re sitting there thinking “What the hell just happened to my job?”

Theresa Ward, founder and Chief Momentum Officer of Fiery Feather, has spent years watching this disconnect play out. Her insight? Leaders are expected to sell change while still personally struggling with it, creating what she calls “that weird middle ground” where authenticity goes to die.

Our conversation revealed why unwelcome change triggers the same response as grief, and why leaders who stop pretending they’ve got it figured out are more successful.

Robyn Bolton: What’s the one piece of conventional wisdom about leading change that organizations need to unlearn?

Theresa Ward: That middle managers need to be enthusiastic about a change, or at least appear enthusiastic, to lead their teams through it.

RB: It seems like enthusiasm is important to get people on board and doing what they need to do to make change happen. Why is this wrong?

TW: Because it makes you wonder if this person is being authentic. Are they genuinely enthusiastic? Do they really believe this is the right thing?

To be clear, I’m talking about Unwelcome Change. Change that is thrust upon you. How we experience Unwelcome Change is the same way we experience grief.

When we initially experience Unwelcome Change, our brain goes into shock or denial which can actually trigger an increase in engagement and productivity.

Then we move into anger and blame, which looks different for all of us. We’ve probably experienced somebody yelling in a meeting, but it can also look like turning off the camera, folding your arms, rolling your eyes, and disengaging.

Bargaining. I always think of that clip from Jerry Maguire, where he’s got the goldfish, and he says, “Who’s coming with me?” because he’s going to make lemonades out of this lemon, even if it’s a completely ridiculous condition.

Then depression sets in. It’s the low point but it’s also where you’re really ready to admit that you’re upset, sad, and grieving the change that has happened. It’s the dark before the dawn.

RB: If everyone goes through this grief process, why do some leaders seem genuinely enthusiastic about the change?”

TW: If they came up with the idea, they’re not going to be angry or depressed about their own idea.

But even if it’s one announcement, people don’t experience just one change. It’s not, “Our budget is going from X to Y” and everyone can just get used to it. It’s double or triple that! It’s a budget cut, then a reorg, then a new boss, then a friend being laid off, then a project you loved getting trashed. You’re dealing with onion layers of change.

We all go through different stages at speeds. You can’t rush it. Sometimes you just have to be like, “Oh, okay, I’m feeling pretty angry this week. I’m just gonna have to sit through my anger phase and realize that it’s a phase.”

RB: I get that you can’t rush the process, but change doesn’t slow down so you can catch up. What can people do to navigate change while they’re processing it?

TW: BLT, baby. These are 3 tools, not a formula, that you can use for different experiences.

B stands for Benefit of Change. This is finding the silver lining, something we often underestimate because it’s such a broad cliche. For it to be effective, you need to look for a specific and personal silver lining. For example, a friend of mine works for a company that was acquired. He was not a fan of how the culture was changing, but the bigger company offered tuition reimbursement. So he used that to get his master’s of fine arts for free.

L is Locus of Control. Take inventory of everything that’s upsetting you and place it into one of 3 categories: What can I control? What can I influence? What do I need to just surrender? Sitting up at night and worrying about whether the budget will be cut again is outside of my control. So, I shouldn’t spend my time and energy on that. Instead, I need to focus on what I can control, like my attitude and response.

T is Take the Long View. Every day we find ourselves in situations that get us emotional – a traffic jam, getting cut off in traffic, or flubbing a big client presentation. When we get more emotional than what the situation calls for, ask how you’re going to feel about the situation tomorrow, then in a month, then a year Because when our fight or flight brain mode kicks in, we catastrophize things. But the reality is that most of it won’t matter tomorrow.

RB: What’s the most important mindset shift leaders need to make to help their teams through unwelcome change?

TW: Find what works for you first then, with empathy, help your team. Like the Airline Safety Video, put your mask on first, then help others. It allows you to be authentic and builds empathy with the team. Two things required to start the shift from unwelcome to accepted.

Theresa’s BLT framework won’t make change painless, but it gives you permission to admit that transformation is hard, even for leaders. The moment you stop pretending you’ve got it all figured out is the moment your team starts trusting you to guide them through the mess.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Science Says You Shouldn’t Waste Too Much Time Trying to Convince People

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Experts have a lot of ideas about persuasion. Some suggest leveraging social proof, to show that people have adopted the idea and had a positive experience. Others emphasize the importance of building trust and using emotional rather than analytical arguments. Still others insist on creating a unified value proposition.

These are, for the most part, constructive ideas. Yet they are more a taxonomy than a toolbox. Human nature can be baffling and our behavior is rarely consistent. Sometimes we’ll dig in our heels on a relatively minor point and others we’ll give in on a major issue relatively easily, often without any constable rhyme or reason.

Yet consider this one simple science-based principle that explains a lot: The best indicator of what we think and what we do is what the people around us think and do. Once you internalize that, you can begin to understand a lot of otherwise bizarre behavior and work to spread the ideas you care about. Often it’s not opinions we need to shape, but networks.

Majorities Don’t Just Rule, They Also Influence

Consider a famous set of conformity studies performed by the psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s. The design was simple, but ingenuous. He merely showed people pairs of cards, asking them to match the length of a single line on one card with one of three on an adjacent card. The correct answer was meant to be obvious.

However, as the experimenter went around the room, one person after another gave the same wrong answer. When it reached the final person in the group (in truth, the only real subject, the rest were confederates), the vast majority of the time that person conformed to the majority opinion, even if it was obviously wrong!

The idea that people have a tendency toward conformity is nothing new, but that they would give obviously wrong answers to simple and unambiguous questions was indeed shocking. Now think about how hard it is for a more complex idea to take hold across a broad spectrum of people, each with their own biases and opinions.

The truth is that majorities don’t just rule, they also influence, even local majorities. So if you want people to adopt an idea or partake in an action, you need to take into account the communities they are already a part of—at home, at work, in their neighborhood and in other aspects of their social circles. That’s where their greatest influences lie.

The 3 Degrees of Influence Rule

In 1948, Congress authorized funding for the Framingham Heart Study, which would track the lifestyle and health habits, such as diet, exercise, tobacco use and alcohol intake, of 5209 healthy men and women. It was originally intended to last 20 years, but the results were so incredibly useful, it lasted for decades and even included the children of early cohorts.

More than a half century after the study began two researchers, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, began to suspect that the Framingham Heart Study could be used for a very different, but important purpose. What they noticed was that the data included not only information about people’s habits, but their social networks as well.

So they set out to see if they could identify causal links between people’s health and their social connections. Using 32 years of data, they were able to establish a strong effect in areas as diverse as happiness, smoking and even obesity. As it turns out, the people around us not only help to shape our opinions, but our health as well.

The really astounding discovery, however, was that the effect extended to three degrees of influence. So not only our friends’ friends, influence us deeply, but their friends too—people that we don’t even know. Wherever we go, we bring that long, complex web of influence with us and we, in turn, help to shape others’ webs of influence too.

So when set out to shape someone else’s opinion, we need to account for social networks. We may, for example, be able to play on a target’s emotions, give them all the facts and evidence and demonstrate strong social proof, but their communities — extending out to three degrees of influence — will always factor in. While we’re working to persuade, those invisible webs of influence may be working against us.

Thanksgiving Dinners And Earnings Guidance

There is no greater American tradition than the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. No matter what your political persuasion, you are bound to have some relative who holds very different opinions than the rest of the family and who feels no compunction about making clear to everyone at the table exactly where they stand.

As should be clear by now, the reason our crazy uncles are so impervious to persuasion is that we aren’t actually arguing with them at all, but the totality of their social networks. Their friends at work, buddies at the bar, people in their neighborhood and everybody else who they interact with on a regular basis, all get a say at our holiday table.

In much the same way, there isn’t any real reason for CEOs to provide earnings guidance for investors. Steve Jobs refused do it and Apple’s stock during his tenure. Same thing with Unilever under Paul Polman. In 2018, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and uber-investor Warren Buffett wrote a strong Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal urging CEOs to end the practice.

During the pandemic many companies stopped giving earnings guidance to investors but, as soon as things began to stabilize, they started up again. It seems incredible, because all of the experts, even McKinsey, have advised against it. Still the vast majority of CEOs are unconvinced, despite all the contrary evidence. Could their networks be playing a role?

Don’t Try To Shape Opinions, Shape Networks

We like to think we can shape the ideas of others. It can sometimes seem like a puzzle. How can we conjure up the right combination of value proposition, analysis, emotive argument and social proof, to persuade our target?. There is, in fact, an enormous communication industry dedicated to exactly that proposition.

Decades of scientific research suggests that it’s not so easy. Our thoughts aren’t just the product of neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters reacting to different stimuli, but also our social networks. The best indicator of what people think and do is what the people around them think and do. While we’re trying to score debate points, those complex webs of influence are pushing back in often subtle, but extremely powerful ways.

We need to be far more humble about our persuasive powers. Anybody who has ever been married or had kids knows how difficult it is to convince even a single person of something. If you expect to shift the opinions of dozens or hundreds—much less thousands or millions—with pure sophistry, you’re bound to be disappointed.

Instead of trying to shape opinions, we’re often better off shaping networks. That’s why we advise our clients pursuing transformational change efforts to start with a majority, even if that majority is only three people in a room of five. You can always expand a majority out, but once you’re in the minority you’re going to get immediate pushback.

Rather than wordsmithing slogans, our time and efforts will be much better spent working to craft cultures, weaving the complex webs of influence that lead to genuinely shared values and shared purpose.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

A Manager’s Guide to Employee Engagement

Leave a reply

A Manager's Guide to Employee Engagement

GUEST POST from David Burkus

We need to talk about employee engagement surveys. It’s great news that organizations are paying attention to engagement and its impact on performance. The bad news is that senior leaders seem to want a clear metric to judge how satisfied and motivated their people are. Management requires metrics, after all. Decisions require data.

Employee engagement surveys are the tool of choice to measure a company’s employee experience, motivation, and overall culture. Gallup research suggests that employee engagement is linked to many other important organization metrics like productivity, employee retention, and profitability. Unfortunately, Gallup has also found engagement is on the decline across the United States, particularly among remote, hybrid, and younger workers.

Ultimately, the reasons for the recent employee engagement decline and the inability to turn it around stem from a few problems with how most leaders treat engagement as a concept and engagement surveys as a tool. In this article, we’re going to review the top three problems with employee engagement surveys and offer a solution for each one that will not only boost engagement scores…but will engage your people.

Employee Engagement Problem #1: People don’t take the surveys seriously

Employee engagement surveys are only as important as leadership says they are, and the reliability can be a little flawed. No, don’t throw out surveys completely because the data might be flawed, but it’s important to know the context of how this engagement data is collected.

Your employee gets an email. It typically goes something like this:

“Dear Valued Employees, Our company has brought in “GloboEngage360”, to survey different aspects of the company according to the point of view of its employees. This survey is not mandatory, but your feedback is greatly appreciated and will remain anonymous.” Sincerely, Management

Put yourself in an employee’s shoes. They have meetings all day. They have tasks to do and people to coordinate with. If it isn’t mandatory, something like this is going right to the bottom of the list of things to do, or just put into the trash immediately.

And most employee’s gut reaction to a message from leadership or outside consultants saying this is anonymous is, “This is definitely not anonymous.” So, will employees take this survey seriously at all? Hard to say. Is there some value to be had from collecting the data this way? A little, but it’s best used as a starting point into your own investigation into engagement.

But we also must consider leadership’s point of view. Survey goes out. The survey consultancy collects the data, makes a nice packet of insights, and boils down your people’s performance, happiness, and productivity all into nice little percentages. But the data is only as serious as the seriousness of the people who filled out the survey, and their seriousness is determined by how seriously they think leaders care about the survey.

Seriously.

Employee Engagement Solution #1: Share the results

This should be an easy thing to do. And it’s the easiest way to communicate that you’re serious about employee feedback and improving the employee experience. It’s a mystery why companies don’t typically share the results with those who took the survey. By not sharing, people can only speculate, and they’re probably going to go to draw the worst-case scenarios like “The company is going to restructure” or “My job is in jeopardy.”

So, share the results. You may not have gotten an accurate and serious picture of engagement in the results you’re sharing, but when employees see that you considered their responses and you’re making changes as a result, they’ll give these questions more consideration next time a survey is sent around.

To articulate that these surveys matter to your team, you don’t need to send them the entire data file or even the summary report the consulting firm created for you. It can be way simpler than that. Just take the time to share:

What positive results you’re proud of.
Why you’re so proud of those results.
What unexpected results you received.
And what you’ll be changing as a result.

That’s it. Just a simple email, memo, or quick video on what senior leadership learned from the survey and what they’ll be building upon or changing completely because of the survey.

Employee Engagement Problem #2: Leaders Interpret Data Wrong

After a survey is taken, the team from human resources or the consulting firm administering the survey will compile everything and prepare a summary report. And this is where things can go really wrong. Often the report is broken down by the different questions asked, and the lower scoring the question the more attention it gets. If one item is particularly low, then we start a company-wide initiative to improve on that one item. Because when leaders only look at the company-wide data, they tend to make decisions that impact everyone… company-wide.

But if your company has issues, there’s a chance it’s not in every single department or every single team. Most people’s experience of work isn’t reflective of the entire company. It’s a commentary on the parts of the company they work with. Company culture is the average of the culture on each individual team.

You know what happens next. Now your top performing teams are subject to mandatory programs that will slow them down, confuse them, and ultimately make them feel punished. Those top performing teams need to be protected!

Employee Engagement Solution #2: Look team-by-team, not company-wide

When you look at the data, don’t just take the overall metrics and run with them. If you have direct contact with the agency you used, ask them, or ask your HR or culture team, to get the metrics broken down to the team level, or as much functional or regional separation as you can get.

And then use those metrics to isolate the teams that are under-performing in whatever areas you measured and cater a solution to that team. Talk to that manager. Talk to the people on that team. See what’s going on.

The solution for that individual team is not going to be solved by a company-wide solution. Big initiatives that touch every team in a company with the intent to weed out a problem often are too broad and diluted to fix the issue.

So, break those numbers down to the team level. Then, help the team leaders that are dragging the overall numbers down-and reward the team leaders who are serving their people well. Building a company culture is about building strong team cultures. It takes time, effort, and more than just the numbers and one big solution.

Employee Engagement Problem #3: Surveys are too infrequent

Employee engagement surveys are typically done once a year. Maybe twice. Remember, people don’t want to be inundated with surveys all year, and leadership and HR teams know that. So, companies will concentrate on that one survey ask a year. And companies will rely on HR and culture teams to implement a workplace environment that is inclusive, sparking innovation, and motivates and engages people.

It makes sense not to administer formal surveys too frequently throughout the year. HR should be very judicial when sending out surveys. But just because you’re not surveying people regularly, doesn’t mean you can’t be monitoring employee engagement regularly.

Employee Engagement Solution #3: Keep the conversation going on the team level

Managers can do their own anecdotal surveys, better known as a “conversation” with their team.

You, as a leader of your team, are ultimately responsible for your employees’ engagement and for fostering a purposeful culture. A company’s culture is the aggregate of all the teams’ cultures. This work really falls to you. Have ongoing conversations with your team and in your individual check-ins. Ask them what projects are going well. Ask them what they’re energy levels are like. Ask them how they’re interacting with their teams. And most importantly, ask them if there’s anything you can help with.

If you keep an open dialogue with your team about how things are going, the metrics from a yearly survey will not surprise or shock you. If you’re good, you’ll know before the survey.

Conclusion

Remember, a company’s culture is the sum of its team cultures. Invest in your teams, have open communication, and the engagement numbers will take care of themselves.

There’s a tendency to treat employee engagement like the score of a game, and so we shouldn’t be surprised when people try to game the system and improve the score. But the point of collecting all that data isn’t to learn how to improve a number. It’s to know where we need to pay more attention to our people and how we can help them feel more connected to their work and to the team they work with.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on May 16, 2024.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Subtle Leadership

Leave a reply

Subtle Leadership

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

You could be a subtle leader if…

You create the causes and conditions for others to shine. And when they shine, you give them the credit they’re due.

You don’t have the title, but when the high-profile project hits a rough patch, you get called in to create the go-forward plan.

One of your best direct reports gets promoted out from under you, but she still wants to meet with you weekly.

When you see someone take initiative, you tell them you like their behavior.

You get to choose the things you work on.

You can ask most anyone for a favor and they’ll do it, just because it’s you. But, because you don’t like to put people out, you rarely ask.

When someone does a good job, you send their boss a nice email and cc: them.

When it’s time to make a big decision, even though it’s outside your formal jurisdiction, you have a seat at the table.

When people don’t want to hear the truth, they don’t invite you to the meeting.

You are given the time to think things through, even when it takes you a long time.

Your young boss trusts you enough to ask for advice, even when she knows she should know.

In a group discussion, you wait for everyone else to have input before weighing in. And, if there’s no need to weigh in, you don’t.

When you see someone make a mistake, you ignore it if you can. And if you can’t, you talk to them in private.

Subtle leaders show themselves in subtle ways but their ways are powerful. Often, you see only the results of their behaviors and those career-boosting results are mapped to someone else. But if you’ve been the recipient of subtle leadership, you know what I’m talking about. You didn’t know you needed help, but you were helped just the same. And you were helped in a way that was invisible to others. And though you didn’t know to ask for advice, you were given the right suggestion at the right time. And you didn’t realize it was the perfect piece of advice until three weeks later.

Subtle leaders are difficult to spot. But once you know how they go about their business and how the company treats them, you can see them for what they are. And once you recognize a subtle leader, figure out a way to spend time with them. Your career will be better for it.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Leaders’ Responsibility is Their Response

Leave a reply

Leaders' Responsibility is Their Response

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When you’re asked to do more work that you and your team can handle, don’t pass it onto your team. Instead, take the heat from above but limit the team’s work to a reasonable level.

When the number of projects is larger than the budget needed to get them done, limit the projects based on the budget.

When the team knows you’re wrong, tell them they’re right. And apologize.

When everyone knows there’s a big problem and you’re the only one that can fix it, fix the big problem.

When the team’s opinion is different than yours, respect the team’s opinion.

When you make a mistake, own it.

When you’re told to do turn-the-crank work and only turn-the-crank work, sneak in a little sizzle to keep your team excited and engaged.

When it’s suggested that your team must do another project while they are fully engaged in an active project, create a big problem with the active project to delay the other project.

When the project is going poorly, be forthcoming with the team.

When you fail to do what you say, apologize. Then, do what you said you’d do.

When you make a mistake in judgement which creates a big problem, explain your mistake to the team and ask them for help.

If you’ve got to clean up a mess, tell your team you need their help to clean up the mess.

When there’s a difficult message to deliver, deliver it face-to-face and in private.

When your team challenges your thinking, thank them.

When your team tells you the project will take longer than you want, believe them.

When the team asks for guidance, give them what you can and when you don’t know, tell them.

As leaders, we don’t always get things right. And that’s okay because mistakes are a normal part of our work. And projects don’t always go as planned, but that’s okay because that’s what projects do. And we don’t always have the answers, but that’s okay because we’re not supposed to. But we are responsible for our response to these situations.

When mistakes happen, good leaders own them. When there’s too much work and too little time, good leaders tell it like it is and put together a realistic plan. And when the answers aren’t known, a good leader admits they don’t know and leads the effort to figure it out.

None of us get it right 100% of the time. But what we must get right is our response to difficult situations. As leaders, our responses should be based on honesty, integrity, respect for the reality of the situation and respect for people doing the work.

Image credit: 1 of 900+ FREE quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.com

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Building Psychological Safety

Leave a reply

Team Dynamics Explained

Building Psychological Safety

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Psychological safety is the foundation of strong team dynamics. In this post, we will explore why creating a safe environment for team members to speak up, take risks, and make mistakes is essential for collaboration, creativity, and innovation. Your thoughts and feedback are always welcome.

What is the Challenge?

Many teams struggle to foster open communication and risk-taking because of a lack of psychological safety. When team members fear judgment or backlash, they’re less likely to share ideas, admit mistakes, or take initiative. This leads to limited collaboration and stifles innovation.

Why Does This Matter?

Psychological safety is crucial for high-performing teams. It allows members to trust one another, be honest about challenges, and share unique perspectives without fear. Teams that prioritize psychological safety are more resilient, adaptable, and effective at problem-solving. Without it, teams often fall into groupthink or miss out on diverse ideas.

How to Overcome It

The key enabler of psychological safety is creating a culture of trust, respect and openness. Here are steps to build psychological safety within your team:

Model Vulnerability as a Leader: Leaders should openly share their own challenges and uncertainties. By showing vulnerability, leaders signal to the team that it’s okay to speak up and be honest.
Encourage Open Dialogue: Create regular opportunities for team members to share their thoughts and experiences. Make it clear that all voices are valued, and avoid interrupting or dismissing ideas.
Enhance Learning from Mistakes: Reinforce that mistakes are part of the growth process by focusing on lessons learned rather than blame. This shift helps build a learning-oriented culture.
Promote Empathy and Respect: Encourage team members to listen actively and respect each other’s viewpoints. Empathy fosters understanding and helps create a safe space for honest exchanges.
Recognize Contributions: Acknowledge and celebrate the unique contributions each team member brings, whether it’s a fresh perspective or constructive feedback. This reinforces their value within the team.

What This Means for Your Teams / Organization

Building psychological safety transforms teams into collaborative, innovative, and resilient units. With a strong sense of safety, team members are more willing to share bold ideas, take risks, and support each other. Over time, this results in a high-performing team that adapts well to change and challenges.

More Inspiration – Thought Leaders, Case-Study

Thought Leader: Amy Edmondson, author of The Fearless Organization
Case Study: Google’s Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as the top factor in successful teams.

This post is part of my Corporate Innovation Explained series. You can also follow my Leadership Growth Explained and Team Dynamics Explained series if you like this kind of inspiration.

Team Dynamics Explained

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Escaping the Fear Trap

Leave a reply

What We Can Learn from Wildfire Fighters About Leading Through Uncertainty

Escaping the Fear Trap

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

What does a lightning strike in a Spanish forest have to do with your next leadership meeting? More than you think.

On June 14, 2014, lightning struck a forest on Spain’s northeast coast, only 60 miles from Barcelona. Within hours, flames 16 to 33 feet high raced out of control toward populated areas, threatening 27,000 acres of forest, an area larger than the city of Boston.

Everything – data, instincts, decades of firefighting doctrine – prioritized saving the entire forest and protecting the coastal towns.

Instead, the fire commanders chose to deliberately let 2,057 acres, roughly the size of Manhattan’s Central Park, burn.

The result? They saved the other 25,000 acres (an area the size of San Francisco), protected the coastal communities, and created a natural firebreak that would protect the region for decades. By accepting some losses, they prevented catastrophic ones.

The Fear Trap That’s Strangling Your Business

The Tivissa fire’s triumph happened because firefighters found the courage to escape what researchers call the “fear trap” – the tendency to focus exclusively on defending against known, measurable risks.

Despite research proving that defending against predictable, measurable risks through defensive strategies consistently fails in uncertain and dynamic scenarios, firefighter “best practices” continue to advocate this approach.

Sound familiar? It should. Most executives today are trapped in exactly this pattern.

We’re in the fire right now. Financial markets are yo-yoing, AI threatens to disrupt everything, and consumer behaviors are shifting.

Most executives are falling into the Fear Trap by doubling down on protecting their existing business and pouring resources into defending against predictable risks. Yet the real threats, the ones you can’t measure or model, continue to pound the business.

While you’re protecting last quarter’s wins, tomorrow’s disruption is spreading unchecked.

Four Principles for Creative Decision-Making Under Fire

The decision to cede certain areas wasn’t hasty but based on four principles enabling leaders in any situation to successfully navigate uncertainty.

1. A Predictable Situation is a Safe Situation.

Stop trying to control the uncontrollable. Standard procedures work in predictable situations but fail in unprecedented challenges.

Put it in Practice: Instead of creating endless contingency plans, build flexibility and agility into operations and decision-making.

2. Build Credibility Through Realistic Expectations.

Reducing uncertainty requires realism about what can be achieved. Fire commanders mapped out precisely which areas around Tivissa would burn and which would be saved, then communicated these hard truths and the considered trade-offs to officials and communities before implementing their strategy, building trust and preventing panic as the selected areas burned.

Put it in practice: Stop promising to protect everything and set realistic expectations about what you can control. Then communicate priorities, expectations, and trade-offs frequently, transparently, and clearly with all key stakeholders.

3. Include the future in your definition of success

Traditional firefighting protects immediate assets at risk. The Tivissa firefighters expanded this to include future resilience, recognizing that saving everything today could jeopardize the region tomorrow.

Put it in practice: Be transparent about how you define the Common Good in your organization, then reinforce it by making hard choices about where to compete and where to retreat. The goal isn’t to avoid all losses – it’s to maximize overall organizational health.

4. Use uncertainty to build for tomorrow.

Firefighters didn’t just accept that 2,057 acres would burn – they strategically chose which acres to let burn to create maximum future advantage, protecting the region for generations.

Put it in practice: Evaluate every response to uncertainty on whether it better positions you for future challenges. Leverage the disruption to build capabilities, market positions, and organizational structures that strengthen you for future uncertainty.

Your Next Move

When the wind shifted and the fire exploded, firefighters had to choose between defending everything (and likely losing it all) or accepting strategic losses to ensure overall wins.

You’re facing the same choice right now.

Like the firefighters, your breakthrough might come not from fighting harder against uncertainty, but from learning to work with it strategically.

What are you willing to let burn to save what matters most?

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

1 Reply

3 Reasons Why Bad Business Thinking Exists

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

“The single most important message in this book is very simple,” reads the first line in John Kotter’s highly regarded The Heart of Change. “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.

Really? That’s the important message? That emotive arguments are more powerful than factual arguments? What about other reasons why people change their behavior, such as social proof, conformity, incentives or coercion? By setting up a binary and artificial choice between two communication alternatives, he eliminates important strategic and tactical options.

It’s not just Kotter either, who is a well respected professor at Harvard Business School. The truth is that a lot of management thinking is surprisingly shoddy, with arbitrary notions and cognitive biases dressed up as scholarly work. We need to be more skeptical about “research” that comes out of business schools and consultancies. Here are three things to look for:

1. WYSIATI And Confirmation Bias

Kotter’s point about emotive vs. analytic arguments is, of course, completely valid. The fundamental error he makes is that he focuses on that particular aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Daniel Kahneman calls this WYSIATI, or “what you see is all there is.” Once you get tunnel vision on a particular fact or idea, it’s hard to see anything else.

Consider this thought experiment: You go to a conference featuring a powerful, emotive presentation on the need to combat climate change. You see glaciers melting, polar bears losing their habitat and young children starving from drought. Then you go back to the office, fired up and ready to do something about it, but everyone else has a strong argument against acting on climate change.

What is likely to happen next? You convince you co-workers—including your bosses— about the urgency of the crisis? Or, surrounded by skeptics, your conviction begins to wane? When all we see is the poor polar bears and starving in an echo chamber of likeminded people, we forget about other considerations, but that doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

An issue related to WYSIATI is confirmation bias. Kotter proudly points out that he worked with Deloitte to conduct extensive research for his book. Amazingly, after analyzing over 200 interviews, he ended up with the same 8-step process he cited in his earlier work. So what was the purpose of the research, to gain actual insights or to confirm what he thought he already knew?

Perhaps not surprisingly, after decades of organizations applying Kotter’s ideas about change McKinsey still finds that more than two-thirds of transformational efforts fail. Maybe there is actually more to change than communication strategy.

2. Halo Effects And Confounding Variables

One of the most popular modes of analysis that business thinkers use is to examine successful companies and see what they do differently. A number of bestselling management books, such as In Search of Excellence, have used this method. Unfortunately, when doing so they often fall prey to a cognitive bias known as the halo effect.

For example, in 2000, before the dotcom crash, Cisco was flying high. A profile in Fortune reported it to have an unparalleled culture with highly motivated employees. But just one year later, when the market tanked, the very same publication described it as “cocksure” and “naive.” Did the “culture,” under the very same leadership, really change that much in a year? Or did the perceptions of its performance change?

Cisco had a highly motivated and, some would say, aggressive sales force. When the company was doing well, analysts assumed it was their aggressiveness that produced good results and when its fortunes changed, that same aggressive behavior was blamed for its failures. This is what’s known as a confounding error, the fact that an aggressive sales force correlated with specific results doesn’t mean that the aggressive sales force caused the results.

Every organization has things which it does differently, that are idiosyncratic to its management and culture. In some market contexts those traits will be advantageous, in other environments they may not be. It takes work—and some humility—to separate what’s truly a success factor, what’s merely fit for a narrow purpose and what’s not really relevant.

3. Survivorship Bias

Business school professors and consultants gain fame—not to mention large fees—when they are able to define a novel concept or success factor. If you are able to isolate one thing that organizations should do differently, you have a powerful product to sell. A single powerful insight can make an entire career, which is probably why so many cut corners.

For example, in their study of 108 companies, distinguished INSEAD professors W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne found that “blue ocean” products, those in new categories without competition, far outperform those in the more competitive “red ocean” markets. Their book, Blue Ocean Strategy, was an immediate hit, selling over 3.5 million copies.

Bain consultants Chris Zook and James Allen’ book, Profit from the Core, boasted even more extensive research encompassing 200 case studies, a database of 1,854 companies, 100 interviews of senior executives and an “extensive review” of existing literature. They found that firms that focused on their ”core” far outperformed those who strayed.

It doesn’t take too much thinking to start seeing problems. How can you both “focus on your core” and seek out “blue oceans”? It betrays logic that both strategies could outperform one another. Also, how do you define “core?” Core markets? Core capabilities? Core customers? While it’s true that “blue ocean” markets lack competitors, they don’t have any customers either. Who do you sell to?

Yet there is an even bigger, more insidious problem called survivorship bias. Notice how “research” doesn’t include firms that went out of business because there were no customers in those “blue oceans” or because they failed to diversify outside of their “core.” The data only pertains to those that survived.

It’s hard to think of any other field where researchers could get away with such obviously careless work. Can you imagine medical research that didn’t include patients that died, or airplane research that didn’t include the flights that crashed? Suffice it to say that since the two books were published two decades ago, they’ve shown no capacity to predict whether a business will succeed or fail.

Don’t Believe Everything You Think

When I’m finishing up a book, I send out sections to be fact-checked by experts and those who have first-person knowledge of events. I’m always amazed at how much I get wrong. In some cases, I make truly egregious errors about facts I should have known (or did know, but failed to take into account). It can be an incredibly humbling process.

That’s why it’s so important to not to believe everything you think, there are simply too many ways to get things wrong. As Richard Feynman put it, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” I would also add a second principle that just because you’ve managed to fool others, doesn’t mean you’ve gotten it right.

Unfortunately, so many of the popular management ideas today come from people who never actually operated a business, such as business school professors and consultants. These are often people who’ve never failed. They’ve been told that they’re smart all their lives and expect others to be impressed by their ideas, not to examine them thoroughly.

The problem with so much business thinking today is that there is an appalling lack of rigor. That’s the only way that obviously flawed ideas such as “blue oceans,” “profiting from the core” and John Kotter’s ideas about change management are able to gain traction. It’s hard to imagine any other field with such a complete lack of quality control.

That’s why I send out fact checks, because I know how likely I am to think foolish and inaccurate things. I’ve also noticed that I tend to be most wrong when I think I’ve come up with something brilliant. Much as Tolstoy wrote about families, there are infinitely more ways to get things wrong than to get things right.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Do We Really Need Managers?

Leave a reply

Do We Really Need Managers?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

There have been SO many articles and books about this idea of flat organizations. No managers, no bosses, just passionate people solving problems and collaborating at ease.

Sounds great, right? Well, not if you’re a manager, obviously. But the concept sounds great, right? Less oversight, more trust, more autonomy, we all want that!

What these articles get wrong is this: the idea of managers, especially middle managers, being senseless buffoons or mere pawns with all the authority of a mall cop has gone too far. And the role of a middle manager needs a refresh, not an elimination. Middle managers are the unsung heroes of organizations. But these managers need to be leaders, not just human project management tools.

Where do we stand with managers, today?

The workplace changed a lot during the pandemic. We all came together, huddled from home, turned our kitchen table into a workstation, then our guest room or a corner in our living room to our home office, and overall, stayed productive. In the end, a lot of us felt we didn’t need a person hovering over our shoulder to keep us on track and working. So, logically, a lot of us felt we didn’t need a manager, and a lot of senior leaders felt maybe we could cut out some middle managers.

A survey by GoodHire in 2022, of workers in a variety of fields including education, finance, health care, marketing, and even science- found that 83% of American workers said they could do their own job without their managers. But paradoxically, GoodHire also found that 70% of American workers strongly enjoy or somewhat enjoy working for their manager. This finding is backed up by Pew Research which just released data in late 2023 finding that “a majority of workers give their boss high ratings.”

So, people like their bosses, but could do without them. What’s really going on here?

Why do we hate managers? (or think we do)

The brainless middle manager trope. It’s an old one. They’re in our shows, our movies, our social media posts. And, yeah, in our lives too. They show up late, leave early. They scrutinize everything you do. Track your tasks. Track your productivity. Track your success. Track your failures.

Middle managers today are basically glorified task managers, and that really must change. But…why are they glorified task managers in the first place?

Gallup just published the results of a massive study on managers. A key finding was that, right now, managers have more work to do, on a tighter budget with new teams. Managers are more likely to be burnt out, disengaged, and looking for a new job.

More work: Remember the remote and hybrid culture you probably had to facilitate from scratch with no experience with video software like Zoom and Webex? That was a huge undertaking. Managing people’s well-being wasn’t in the managerial job description before. Adding it may be long overdue, but it was still a task that managers feel ill-equipped to take on officially.

Less budget: The economy was a roller coaster for all industries over the last 4 years. And in response a lot of budgets froze or got tightened. Your company was probably hit in negative ways that affected resources that make your role easier.

New teams: There was a lot of quitting, layoffs, hiring, and job hopping that happened. Now, teams are shaken up, gone, or brand new.

When all these things compound, it makes sense middle managers are feeling squeezed, as Gallup put it.

And when you’re burnt out, disengaged, and looking for the next place to work, you’re going to become the bare minimum “glorified task manager” just making sure the wheels are spinning.

A manager should be a leader. Plain and simple. This isn’t just semantics. A leader is an inspirational figure that facilitates great work. Tools like Jira, Trello, Asana, they can keep track of tasks and you can check them from time to time. But it shouldn’t be the first thing a manager does: check the management software. Instead, check on the people!

What About Manager-less Companies?

It’s worth stating here that, none of this is new. The discussion about whether managers make a difference has been going on for a while, with both sides citing examples to suit their opinion.

On the manager-less company side, Washington-based Valve Software gets cited often. If you’ve ever played some of their most critically acclaimed video games like Half-Life and Portal, you’ve probably heard of them. They also created the Steam platform, which, again if you’re a gamer, you know well. Valve was started by two former Microsoft employees in the early 1990s and began, from the start, as a flat company. No managers, beyond the executive c-suite level. People decided what to work on, what to prioritize, and the company became a huge success. By a lot of metrics, it’s been a success. A little late on deadlines for game releases, but because they are so good, they’re often forgiven.

But here’s where it fell short. Priority is only given to what the majority of the organization prioritizes. At Valve, it was the product, the critically acclaimed games and the Steam platform. What wasn’t prioritized? Diversity. Even for a tech company, even for a gaming company, the demographics are predominantly white and male. This discrepancy came to a boiling point in 2020 when the executive leaders were blindsided by rising social issues and criticized for their silence both internally and externally.

Other companies like Medium and Zappos rolled back their manager-less structures. At Medium, they said the structure-less structure impacted the ability to scale and the time-consuming nature of it all. It also negatively affected recruiting. It all seemed cool, but risky. Zappos said it took the attention away from the customer, and customer service was what they were known for.

These aren’t the only organizations to have ever tried manager-less organizational designs. There’s a whole organization that catalogs them. In total, about 250 companies use a manager-less structure. But most of them have under 50 employees. And nearly all of them started as a manager-less company-they didn’t just wake up and decide their thousands of employees could suddenly manage themselves.

I should be clear: I’m rooting for those places and others to work. I’m in favor of any organization that helps people do their best work. I just personally believe it’s better to bet on talented people and great teams than on a seemingly perfect organizational design.

Managers have a great impact, good and bad

When you think about who your mentors are or people who have impacted you the most in life, outside of your family, I bet you’re thinking of a teacher that really inspired you early in your life, maybe your first basketball coach, or some other authority figure that took the time to understand you and teach you some valuable skills. In other words, you think of a manager.

In organizations, managers make up about 70% of the variance in team engagement. They have a tremendous impact on whether companies succeed or fail. 82% of American workers said they would potentially quit their job because of a bad manager. The impact and stakes are REAL.

Like it or not, the work we do in our lives defines a big chunk of who we are. And managers really hold the power in making our work fulfilling, or a mindless grind. Right now, things are bleak. The more work, less budget, brand new teams, the burn out. The ripple effects that come from the manager level go so far and so wide. But there is a way to help them.

Employees need more training and paths upward

People who are promoted to managers often are promoted because they are really good at their individual contributor skillset, and the only way to climb the corporate ladder is to get promoted and manage people. Hard truth here: not everyone is cut out to be a manager; not everyone even wants to be a manager.

Gallup found that only 48% of managers strongly agree that they currently have the skills needed to be exceptional at their job. And only three in 10 hybrid managers have received any formal training on leading hybrid teams.

Authors and McKinsey consultants Bill Schaninger, Bryan Hancock, and Emily Fieldhave an interesting thought about this in their newest book. Instead of promoting someone who is really good at their craft to a management role, there should be master tracks for technical areas. And putting your best technical person in a management role might drain them of that fire that made them so good in the first place.

Moving up in your company should not be tied exclusively to managing people. And if you promote people to those roles, you need a plan to train them. In fact, before promoting them it’s worth creating a trial project they can manage or put them in charge of interns for a summer. As Bill Schaninger said, “The first time someone does something shouldn’t be after they’ve already gotten the job.”

As a manager, it’s also part of your job (I know, another task, but it’s important) to develop members of your team. Maybe they’ll be managers one day, maybe they’ll even be your manager one day if you train them well enough. Your team is on a path in their career. Their jobs will fluctuate, people will move on, move up, change course, and so coaching them is crucial. Remember, the impact of a manager on someone’s life can be huge. There’s a lot of influence here.

Managers are not task managers, they are leaders.

Focus on the team, not the individual

Now, if you are a manager, it’s imperative that you resist the tendency to micromanage-the feeling of every little task being tracked is likely what created the motivation to fire managers in the first place. So, focus on the team as a whole, not the individual. Great leadership is about letting the team hold itself accountable.

You need to do your one-on-one meetings to check-in with your people and make sure there’s not any glaring individual performance issues. But great leaders are about teaching the team to hold itself accountable. Great leaders often come off more as facilitators who are there to guide and support the team as they divvy up tasks and co-create the best strategy.

Even when you’re doing your individual check-ins, I recommend a 10–10–10 format. If you have 30 minutes to check in with each person every other week, then spend only 10 minutes of that time focused on their actual performance as an individual. Spend the next 10 minutes focused on the team, how the team is supporting them, and how they are contributing to the team. Then spend the final 10 minutes on how you’re doing as their manager. Ask where you could improve and what support they need from you.

No one wants a 30-minute discussion around their performance flaws, but most people respond positively when the bulk of the time is spent focused on how their team and their boss can help them.

Final Thoughts

So, do we really need managers? Yes, but in a capacity that reflects the evolving needs of modern workplaces. As we look ahead, let’s champion a new breed of leaders-managers who not only oversee projects but also empower people, shape culture, and turn challenges into opportunities for growth.

Image credit: Pexels, Pew Research

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on April 16, 2024.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.