root-cause mind-sets

Mind-sets ingrained by past management practices remain ingrained far beyond the existence of the practices that formed them, even when new management practices have been put in place.

Here are three business examples that underscore the perils of ignoring this lesson. Example one: a bank that identified how its high performers succeeded in cross-selling decided to roll out a change program with support scripts and good profiling questions for the other bankers to use—and was dismayed to find that these moves had a negligible impact on sales. A second example: a telco introduced a dramatically simplified process and rating system for performance reviews only to find that its leaders still avoided delivering tough messages. Finally: a manufacturer invested hundreds of millions in a knowledge-management technology platform meant to discourage hoarding and encourage collaboration—only to declare, several months later, that the system had been a complete failure.

In all these examples, the companies did a good job of recognizing the behavioral change needed to achieve the desired goals. Yet they didn’t take the time, or use the tools available, to understand why smart, hard-working, and well-intentioned employees continued to behave as before.

At the bank, for instance, two seemingly good but ultimately performance-limiting mind-sets accounted for the failure of the new sales-stimulation tools and training. The first was “my job is to give the customers what they want”; the second, “I should follow the Golden Rule and treat my customers as I would like to be treated.” At the telco, employees had a deep-seated, reasonable-sounding belief that “criticism damages relationships.” At the manufacturing company, people had an underlying conviction that “around here, information is power, and good leaders are powerful leaders.”

The upshot? By looking at—and acting on—only observable behavior, company leaders overlooked its underlying root causes. Consequently, the change efforts of all three organizations led to disappointment.

Once the root-cause mind-sets are identified, the next step is to reframe those beliefs and thereby expand the range of reasonable behavioral choices employees make, day in and day out. That creates the caterpillar-to-butterfly effect described earlier. Would different beliefs, for example, have inspired expanded and better-informed behavioral choices for average-performing bankers? If so, which beliefs? Suppose they believed that their job—indeed, the way they add value for others—was to “help customers fully understand their needs” rather than “giving customers what they want.” Also, what if instead of applying the “Golden Rule,” bankers applied the “Platinum Rule”: treating others as they (rather than bankers) want to be treated.

And what if the telco executives, in their performance-management discussions, had believed that “honesty—combined with respect—doesn’t damage relationships; in fact, it is essential to building strong ones”? And what if the manufacturing managers had thought that “sharing information rather than hoarding is the best way to magnify power”? Had they believed that, the company very likely wouldn’t have needed an expensive (and ultimately futile) knowledge-management system to help employees reach out to one another and share best practices.

Beneath each of the reframes described above, it’s important to note, lies a deeper shift in worldview. For example, moving from the giving-customers-what-they-want mind-set to helping them fully understand what they really need reflects a move from subordinate to peer. Recognizing that honesty builds rather than destroys relationships reflects a shift from victimhood to mastery. And choosing to believe that power is expanded by sharing information, not that hoarding information is power, focuses on abundance, not scarcity.

"Getting personal about change," by Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger. McKinsey Quarterly. August 21, 2019. 

leadership that pulls

For fourteen years, my father conducted one of the country’s leading amateur Bach choirs in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. For a few of those years, I played in the orchestra and had the opportunity to watch his work up close.

My father’s voice was so soft it was often hard to hear in normal conversation, and on a crowded stage, practically impossible. Yet I noticed that when he spoke during rehearsals, not a single musician ever missed a word. Why not? Because when he began speaking, they would grow so quiet a dropped pin would have sounded like the cannonfire in the 1812 Overture.

He would speak — and everyone would lean in, craning to hear his every word.

He pulled them in.

I saw the most cynical, don’t-tell-me New York union musicians turn into putty when my father made a suggestion to start this passage with an up-bow, or to take that passage sotto voce so we could more clearly hear the tenors. People would turn themselves inside out to follow him — and they would follow him anywhere.

There were two reasons for this. First was that he was superb at what he did. He knew this music inside and out; it was in his bones; it was his life.

And second? He treated them with absolute respect. He didn’t tell them what to do; he collaborated with them…

Take an ordinary window fan and place it in a window, blowing inward. Switch it on. How far can you push a column of air into the room? Not far: within a few feet it starts doubling back on itself. But now, reverse the fan’s position so that it is blowing out — and you can pull that column of air all the way from a single open window clear on the other side of the house, even hundreds of feet away.

There is leadership that pushes. And there is leadership that pulls.

How far can you push people? Only so far. How far can you pull them? An awfully long way, if your leadership style embraces total respect for those you lead as its foundation.

When that second kind of leadership speaks — even when in a voice as soft as my father’s — people listen, because they feel valued, and because of that, they trust.

That kind of leadership, we’ll follow anywhere.

John David Mann

"Leadership That Pulls," Huffpost. April 30, 2016

the behaviors of engaged teams

Engaged teams are productive, enthusiastic, and focused. But how can managers keep a pulse on their team when these are very subjective traits to measure?

Engaged teams and employees often:

• Confide in and show trust in their leadership team
• Identify problems and take on challenges proactively
• Work with a win-win mindset
• Provide better performance on day-to-day tasks
• Work with purpose and reevaluate priorities without instruction
• Challenge priorities and push back on assignments when they don’t see the value of them
• Collaborate with team members (and other departments) with a positive attitude

On the other side, disengaged teams and employees do the following:

• Shuffle responsibility from person to person
• Approach projects with a defeatist attitude
• Prioritize individual work over teamwork
• Fail to speak up or contribute during team meetings
• Come to one on ones without any agenda items 
• Fail to follow through on commitments

These are the telltale signs that something has gone awry. Yet, managers may not have the visibility to identify these signs early when managing remote and distributed teams. 

Marlo Oster

"How to Increase Remote Team Engagement" Workpatterns. December 10, 2020

4 communication approaches

Effective communications: a combination of four approaches:

1. Leaders who have to tell and retell a story over and over again should remind themselves to approach it with a “beginners’ mind” – and not lose sight of what it’s like to tell and hear the story for the first time. As Alan G. Lafley, former CEO of P&G notes, “Excruciating repetition and clarity are important – employees have so many things going on in the operation of their daily business that they don’t always take the time to stop, think, and internalize.” Paolo Scaroni, who has led three Italian public companies through major change as CEO of Techint, Enel, and Eni, agrees as he indicates the key to successful communications is “repeat, repeat, and repeat… throughout the organization.”

2. Ensure the message sticks by coining and relentlessly repeating language that is simple and memorable. Consider Walmart’s “10-foot rule,” which reminds frontline employees of the company’s customer service aspiration: whenever you are within 10 feet of a customer, look them in the eye, smile, and ask how you can help.  At Microsoft, at the end of every meeting the question is called as to, “Was that a growth mindset or a fixed mindset meeting?” This acts not just as a reminder of the desired shift, but also prompts the act of continuous learning that a growth mindset is meant to manifest. As Willie Walsh, former CEO of British Airways, explains, “The simpler the message, the easier it is to deliver. The simpler the message, the more likely it is to be consistent. The simpler the message, the easier it is to control and manage the communication.”

The language not used can be just as powerful as that which is. When Australian telecommunications and media company Telstra wanted to improve internal collaboration, it banned people from using the word “they” in conversations about other teams and unites to remind employees to work as one organization. Posters proclaiming, “no ‘they’,” like the one below appeared everywhere, and people started to call attention to references to “they” and “them” even in casual conversations.

3. Move from “telling” to “asking.” This has the benefit of also leveraging the “lottery ticket” effect to build ownership. With this technique, even chance conversations can be put to good use. At Emerson Electric, CEO David Farr makes a point of asking virtually everyone he encounters the same four questions: “How do you make a difference?” (to find out whether people are aligned on the company’s direction); “What improvement ideas are you working on?” (to emphasize execution edge health recipe); “When did you last get coaching from your boss?” (to probe on the people development management practice); and “Who is the enemy?” (emphasizing collaboration – the right answer is to name a competitor and not some other department!). This sends a clear message that these issues matter. If employees don’t have good answers for you right at the moment, you can bet they will when they are asked next time. 

4. Ensure the story doesn’t just come from leaders and instead is reinforced through as many channels as possible: speech, print, online, actions, symbols, rituals, and so on. Using multiple channels reinforces the consistent message…. The most progressive two-way communications programs take what’s known as a “transmedia” approach – not just telling the same story through multiple channels but telling different aspects of the story through different channels that all add up to the integrated picture in ways that otherwise wouldn’t be possible to build. 

Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger

Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019

when we’re personally involved

Daniel Kahneman performed an experiment involving a lottery run with a twist. Half the participants were randomly assigned a numbered lottery ticket. The remaining half were given a blank ticket and a pen and asked to choose their own lottery number. Just before drawing the winning number, the researchers offered to buy back all the tickets. They wanted to find out how much they would have to pay people who wrote their own number compared with people who were handed a random number. 

The rational expectation would be that there should be no difference. After all, a lottery is pure chance. Every number, whether chosen or assigned, should have the same value. An even more savvy answer would be that you should have to pay the people  who write their own number ever so slightly less, because of the possibility that there will now be duplicate numbers that, if chosen, would mean the size of the price would be cut in half. 

Neither of these turned out to be the right answer. Regardless of nationality or demographic group, people who wrote their own number always demanded at least five times more for their ticket. This reveals an important truth about human nature. When we’re personally involved in “authoring” an outcome, we are far more committed to it because we feel we own it. The underlying psychology relates to our need for control, which is a deep-rooted survival instinct.

…The lesson for change leaders? If you want to increase the motivation for (and therefore, speed of) the implementation of change, it pays to involve others in creating the aspiration, even when the answer may already be clear in the mind of the leader…. Change programs whose aspirations phase is characterized by an organization-wide, collaborative effort are 1.6 times more likely to succeed. 

Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger

Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019

resilience like a muscle

There is an inherent fallacy in the way people view resilience, believing it to be a trait rather than a skill. Thus, people operate under the false mantra that “you either have it or you don’t.”

The truth is that resiliency is much like a muscle — over time it grows stronger through effective leadership. That’s not to say a workforce constantly exposed to adversity will eventually become more resilient. Rather, leadership needs to create a culture where hardships can also be seen as an opportunity to evolve both the individual and the organization.

Resilience can also be misinterpreted as overconfidence. People who are resilient are often seen as tough, self-reliant, and unaffected by the same stresses and negative emotions others might face. This can lead others to believe that resilient individuals don’t need any help. Not only does this stifle collaboration, but it can have a negative effect on the mental wellbeing of resilient individuals.

It’s important that leadership understands how these misconceptions can be detrimental to their organization. Furthermore, leadership has to realize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to building resilience in the workplace. Rather, it requires a robust strategy.

"5 Ways to Build Resilience in the Workplace" FTI Journal. October 2020

humble, unassuming people

The research is clear: when we choose humble, unassuming people as our leaders, the world around us becomes a better place.

Humble leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run because they create more collaborative environments. They have a balanced view of themselves – both their virtues and shortcomings – and a strong appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, while being open to new ideas and feedback. These “unsung heroes” help their believers to build their self-esteem, go beyond their expectations, and create a community that channels individual efforts into an organized group that works for the good of the collective.

For example, one study examined 105 small-to-medium-sized companies in the computer software and hardware industry in the United Studies. The findings revealed that when a humble CEO is at the helm of a firm, its top management team is more likely to collaborate and share information, making the most of the firm’s talent.

Another study showed that a leader’s humility can be contagious: when leaders behave humbly, followers emulate their modest attitude and behavior. A study of 161 teams found that employees following humble leaders were themselves more likely to admit their mistakes and limitations, share the spotlight by deflecting praise to others, and be open to new ideas, advice, and feedback.

Margarita Mayo

"If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists?" Harvard Business Review. April 7, 2017

reinforce growth mindset

Mission statements are wonderful things. You can’t argue with lofty values like growth, empowerment, or innovation. But what do they mean to employees if the company doesn’t implement policies that make them real and attainable? They just amount to lip service. 

Organizations that embody a growth mindset encourage appropriate risk-taking, knowing that some risks won’t work out. They reward employees for important and useful lessons learned, even if a project does not meet its original goals. They support collaboration across organizational boundaries rather than competition among employees or units. They are committed to the growth of every member, not just in words but in deeds, such as broadly available development and advancement opportunities. And they continually reinforce growth mindset values with concrete policies.

Carol Dweck

"What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means". Harvard Business Review. January 13, 2016.

the necessity of compromise

I've known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history, true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties, and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. And they often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important, to the continued success of our Republic. And our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I'm not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today.

John McCain

"Sen. McCain Calls For Compromise In Return To Senate Floor" NPR 7/25/2017

multiple minds working together to solve problems

When I was a junior designer, my creative director asked me to design a mascot with the rather uninspiring instruction to reorder the shapes of the famous 2012 Olympics logo. Having little choice but to accept my task, I threw myself into it with all the boundless, panicked energy that comes from needing to impress the powers above, trusting my superior to steer me in the right direction.

Three weeks later I was distraught, the entire weight of our complete and utter failure to win the pitch resting on my shoulders.

It would be easy to put that loss down to inexperience—after all, I totally missed the brief, and every other pitch was better. But when I think about it a little more thoroughly, I can see that the real problem was one of access. I longed to understand the full project details, but was instead privy to mere bits and pieces of projects, attempting to cobble together an unknown whole. It was like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle whilst looking at it through a keyhole.

Many organizations—faced with the challenge of bringing together multiple projects, departments, and skillsets—fall back on the traditional combination of hierarchy, method, and structure. This can breed a culture of complacency, leading to outcomes that are narrow in their vision, team members who feel restricted and undervalued, and a workforce that operates under ceaseless pressure to either get it right, or get out.

When I look back on my ill-fated Olympic experience, I can see that I didn’t have the full picture. I was unable to bring my own ideas to the table, powerless to create change. I was subordinate; my relationship with my superiors was distant, and the most integral aspects of the design process—research, exploration, and discussion—were entirely absent. It wasn’t collaboration of any kind. No wonder that I lost both the pitch and the plot!

It doesn’t have to be that way. When I co-founded the creative studio Gravita, I learned what collaboration really looks like: multiple minds working together to solve problems. By doing this, our complementary skillsets are free to blend together in surprising ways—unconstrained, we’re better equipped to deliver inventive solutions.

This kind of collaborative culture is possible, whether you’re freelancing, in an agency environment, or in-house. You only need to do three things:

1. Remove assumptions
2. Emphasize project roles over job titles
3. Create a supportive environment for new ideas

Rosie Manning

"Structuring a New Collaborative Culture" A List Apart. 7/1/2014

there is always a way forward

Navigating severe challenges requires strong, courageous, and authentic leaders. That’s what Alan Mulally offered at Ford Motor....

Mullaly... set up mandatory weekly management meetings he called the business process review (BPR) for his top executives to get to the root cause of Ford’s long-standing problems. He quickly discovered that Ford’s challenges went way beyond financial losses: the culture at Ford was broken and in need of massive transformation. He observed, “Ford had been going out of business for 40 years, and no one would face that reality.”

In response, Mulally developed One Ford, an initiative based on “focus, teamwork and a single global approach, aligning employee efforts toward a common definition of success.” He started by redesigning internal meetings. As described in Bryce Hoffman’s American Icon, meetings had become “arenas for mortal combat” in which employees practiced self-preservation, trying to identify flaws in each other’s plans instead of recommending solutions to their problems.

Mulally reframed these meetings from negative to positive, fostering a safe environment where people had open and honest discussions without fear of blame. Instead of attacking executives for the issues they brought to the table, Mulally encouraged collaborative approaches to problem solving. He noted, “If you have a common purpose and an environment in which people want to help others succeed, the problems will be fixed quickly.”

Mulally introduced a “traffic light” system to weekly BPRs in which executives indicated progress on key initiatives as green, yellow, or red. After four meetings in which all programs were labelled green, Mulally confronted his team, “We are going to lose $18 billion this year, so is there anything that’s not going well?” His question was met with stony silence.

The following week, Ford’s North American President, Mark Fields, showed a red indicator that a new vehicle launch would be delayed. Other executives assumed Fields would be fired over the bad news. Instead, Mulally began clapping and said, “Mark, that is great visibility.” He asked the group, “What can we do to help Mark out?” As he frequently told his leaders, “You have a problem; you are not the problem.”

Mulally describes his leadership style as “positive leadership—conveying the idea that there is always a way forward.” He says a critical part of positive leadership is “reinforcing the idea that everyone is included. When people feel accountable and included, it is more fun. It is just more rewarding to do things in a supportive environment.”

With determination and positive leadership, Mulally created a culture of effective problem solving and teamwork. As a result, his team kept Ford out of bankruptcy, reversed market share losses with improved auto designs and quality, brought jobs back to the U.S. from overseas plants, and restored the company’s profitability by becoming cost competitive with foreign producers.

Bill George

"The Massive Difference between Negative and Positive Leadership" Forbes. 3/21/2016

quantifiable culture

Because culture is no longer a “soft” feature of organizational success, it must be measured quantifiably so change can occur if necessary. The right company culture drives employee engagement, which can be measured by employee’s beliefs that they feel connected, are able to execute on a high level, and can collaborate with those around them.... According to [Executive Leadership Coach] John [Mattone], just 15% of companies measure culture, while 70% measure employee engagement. In order to better align employees with culture, leaders must accurately measure both and ensure that they’re aligned. In his new book, John discusses five key “cultures” that determine a company’s operational success:

• Can-do culture: To what extent does your organization develop the inner-core values, beliefs and emotional make-up, and outer-core competencies and skills of employees that help the organization succeed?
• Will-do culture: To what extent is your organization’s vision, mission and purpose one that excites and motivates leaders and employees? Do employees truly believe that they can positively impact the business and add value to customers and society?
• Must-do culture: To what extent is there a clear vision and strategy for the organization? Do different parts and levels of the organization share the same vision?
• Individual culture: To what extent are leaders and employees true “role models”? Is there a culture of individual excellence and execution? Do employees “walk the talk”?
• Team culture: To what extent is there a team and collaborative approach to getting things done in the organization?

If organizations have these five engines operating at a high level, they will experience a strong culture that employees identify with, resulting in high operational success. 

Alyssa Drury

"Why a Strong Corporate Culture Requires Disruptive Leadership" BostInno. 2/3/2016

the best way to predict your future is to create it

A vision builds trust, collaboration, interdependence, motivation, and mutual responsibility for success. Vision helps people make smart choices, because their decisions are being made with the end result in mind. As goals are accomplished, the answer to “What next?” becomes clear. Vision allows us to act from a proactive stance, moving toward what we want rather than reactively away from what we don’t want. Vision empowers and excites us to reach for what we truly desire. As the late management guru Peter Drucker said, “The best way to predict your future is to create it.” 

Ken Blanchard

Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations (Revised and Expanded Edition). FT Press, 2009. p.18

engage face to face

Despite being a denizen of the digital world, or maybe because he knew all too well its potential to be isolating, Jobs was a strong believer in face-to-face meetings. “There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and iChat,” he told me. “That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say ‘Wow,’ and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.”

He had the Pixar building designed to promote unplanned encounters and collaborations. “If a building doesn’t encourage that, you’ll lose a lot of innovation and the magic that’s sparked by serendipity,” he said. “So we designed the building to make people get out of their offices and mingle in the central atrium with people they might not otherwise see.” The front doors and main stairs and corridors all led to the atrium; the café and the mailboxes were there; the conference rooms had windows that looked out onto it; and the 600-seat theater and two smaller screening rooms all spilled into it. “Steve’s theory worked from day one,” Lasseter recalls. “I kept running into people I hadn’t seen for months. I’ve never seen a building that promoted collaboration and creativity as well as this one.”

Jobs hated formal presentations, but he loved freewheeling face-to-face meetings. He gathered his executive team every week to kick around ideas without a formal agenda, and he spent every Wednesday afternoon doing the same with his marketing and advertising team. Slide shows were banned. “I hate the way people use slide presentations instead of thinking,” Jobs recalled. “People would confront a problem by creating a presentation. I wanted them to engage, to hash things out.

Walter Isaacson

"The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs." Harvard Business Review the Magazine. April 2012.

never been closer than this

Americans who are tired of politics as usual should demand a clear answer to a simple question from every candidate: What will you do to unite all of us?

Our country deserves a candidate courageous enough to select a member of the other party as a running mate. Our country deserves a president humble enough to see leadership not as an entitlement but as a privilege.

The speculation about my candidacy reminds me of a lesson from a great Jewish leader. A decade ago, I visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem with Nosson Tzvi Finkel, a widely respected rabbi in Israel. As we approached one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the rabbi halted about 10 yards away as a crowd of admirers gathered nearby. I beckoned him further.

“I’ve never been closer than this,” the rabbi told me. Astounded, I asked why.

“You go,” he said. “I’m not worthy.”

Howard Schultz, CEO Starbucks

America Deserves a Servant Leader. The New York Times. 8/6/2015

collaboration

The classic model of leadership was to find the smartest person in the room and have that person tell everybody else what to do. That’s not the kind of leadership that produces the innovation that the world needs. The kind of leader who succeeds today is the leader who can bring people together and make great things happen through collaboration.

Bill Boulding, dean of Duke's Fuqua School of Business

How to make a good business leader. Washington Post. 8/6/2015

conversation and collaboration

Sustainable organizational change happens through conversation and collaboration, not by unilateral action by a few.

Ken Blanchard

Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations. FT Press. 2010.

willing to sacrifice

[Simon] Sinek mentions Captain William Swenson, who was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor in 2013. When his column came under ambush in Afghanistan, Swenson ran into live fire to rescue the wounded officers. Someone captured the entire experience on camera, including the moment when Swenson bent over to kiss a wounded soldier before putting him in a helicopter.

At first, Sinek thought altruistic people like Swenson were simply drawn to military service. Then he realized it works the other way around — the military environment can prompt anyone to act selflessly.

Unfortunately, this is hardly the current environment in most organizations.

“In the military, they give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to people who are willing to sacrifice others so that we may gain. We have it backwards,” he quips.

But moving ahead at the expense of others teaches your subordinates to do the same, to the detriment of the organization as a whole. That’s because employees spend time competing with and fearing each other instead of joining forces and protecting the company from external threats.

A truly effective leader knows to put her employees’ well-being before her own, so that her employees ultimately do the same for her and for the organization. 

“When a leader makes the choice to put the safety and lives of the people inside the organization first, to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice the tangible results, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong, remarkable things happen,” Sinek says.

Shana Lebowitz

"Why effective managers act like military leaders." Business Insider. 8/14/2015

collaboration. not efficient... most effective

Collaboration is a time-tested practice on the path to greater results. The concept is so elementary it doesn’t need much explanation or defense. If you can create the environment for men and women to pool their experience, expertise, education and passion to tackle your most challenging problems, you can create huge competitive advantage....

We have to invest more time together to gain the benefits we seek. Time together is the price you pay for better results. We are discovering this can be both formal, scheduled time, and informal. Regardless, time is essential to be a more collaborative team....

Collaboration is not the most efficient way to work. However, we believe it is the most effective way to work. The more work we have to do the more we need to collaborate; even though it requires more time. This may feel counterintuitive – it is!

Mark Miller

"One Word... Collaboration." Great Leaders Serve. 8/17/2015

be an ally

An ally is someone who has your back, not just on the good days, but on the tough days too. They are the people who cheer you on when things are going well, and provide the tough-love and candid feedback when needed. Your success is dependent on those who work with and for you, and if you want to create a culture of candor and debate, collaboration and teamwork then the time to take action is now.

Morag Barrett

6 steps to great leadership. CIO. 8/10/2015