Leadership by design: Lessons in mentorship success from Project1932 in Saudi Arabia

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

PwC Strategy&/Project1932, June 2025

by Fadi Adra, Dr. Shihab Elborai, Chadi N. Moujaes, and Jana Yamani



As the large-scale transformation initiatives in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries come to fruition, they require newly skilled and expanded workforces and many new leaders. We estimate that economic diversification, advanced technologies, and the shift to knowledge-based work will create the need for an additional 700,000 top and middle managers in the region by 2030, which is 30 percent more than were required in 2024.

GCC governments have prioritized human capital development, principally through education reforms and workforce localization. These efforts have increased workforce participation of GCC nationals and women significantly. However, they are insufficient to equip young professionals with all the practical capabilities and soft skills necessary to meet the coming workforce requirements.

Mentorship programs, which draw upon the Arab world’s historical legacy of apprenticeship, can bridge that gap. When systematically structured and executed, mentoring fosters the functional and industry knowledge of emerging leaders, hones their acumen and soft skills, and prepares them for the technological advances shaping the future of work.

Findings drawn from Project1932, a Saudi-based initiative cultivating emerging leaders by connecting them with experienced mentors, indicate that the design of successful mentorship programs entails five elements and three enablers. The elements are shared purpose, synergistic matchmaking, a structured and relevant curriculum, mentoring for mentors, and community power. Successful programs are enabled by strong leadership, robust monitoring and evaluation systems, and coherent financial sustainability strategy.

Further, surveys and interviews of Project1932 participants have revealed five insights for fostering mentoring success. Successful programs challenge mentees to leave their comfort zones, train mentors in active listening so they can provide tailored guidance, build strong mentor–mentee relationships, encourage calculated risk taking, and empower mentees to question the status quo.

Project1932 demonstrates that systematic mentorship programs conducted at scale can bridge the GCC’s gap between leadership demand and supply. Read the rest here.

How to Productively Disagree on Tough Topics

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, November 13, 2023

by Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow

Neil Webb/theispot.com


Conversations about identity, diversity, and justice are some of the thorniest human interactions of our time. Consider Uber’s head of diversity, who hosted a workplace event titled “Don’t Call Me Karen” to highlight the “spectrum of the American White woman’s experience” and foster an “open and honest conversation about race.” Following backlash from employees of color, she was placed on a leave of absence.

Or consider Stanford Law School’s associate dean for diversity, who tried to “de-escalate” student protests during a speech by conservative judge Kyle Duncan. The dean tried to placate the students, who were angered by the judge’s anti-LGBTQ+ views, while giving the judge the space to finish his talk. But her intervention led to a public furor due to a perception that she had prioritized students’ feelings over the judge’s right to free speech. She, too, was placed on leave.

If these conversations stymie senior diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals, what hope do ordinary leaders have? More than you might think.

We lead a research center at the New York University School of Law dedicated to issues of diversity, inclusion, and belonging. Together and separately, we’ve taught tens of thousands of individuals from all walks of life to have more meaningful and effective conversations across their differences. We focus our efforts on coaching people in positions of power because they have the greatest opportunity to transform the dynamics of these interactions — to foster empathy instead of provoking fear and division.

While the people we coach struggle with many types of identity conversations, disagreements are often the most agonizing. It’s relatively easy to participate in identity conversations when you and the other person are aligned. When you disagree, you’re likely to be flooded with angst and self-doubt. You might wonder: Am I as enlightened as I thought I was? Will people feel hurt or betrayed by me?

You might be tempted to respond to such angst by capitulating to whatever your conversation partner says. Yet that approach is often not desirable, because it compromises your dignity and authenticity. We believe it’s still possible to disagree on identity issues, even in today’s polarized and overheated political climate. The key is to do it respectfully. Here’s how. (Read the rest here.)

A kinder, gentler deal

strategy+business, June 2, 2022

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Say-Cheese

Split the Pie: A Radical New Way to Negotiate 

by Barry Nalebuff, Harper Business, 2022

Anyone who has been the underdog in a negotiation is going to eat up Barry Nalebuff’s new book, Split the Pie. The Milton Steinbach Professor at the Yale School of Management, who cofounded Honest Tea as a side gig, combines logic and empathy in a strategy that undercuts power-driven negotiating tactics.

The simple principle that drives Nalebuff’s approach is this: the negotiation pie—that is, the value produced by the deal, over and above the value that the parties to the deal can create on their own—should be equally spilt. It doesn’t matter who has the most power or who needs the deal the most—what matters is the value stemming from the deal and the inability of either party to achieve it without the other. In this sense, all the parties to the deal have a legitimate claim to an equal share of the negotiation pie.

Nalebuff illustrates this concept with an easily followed example: a pizzeria will give Alice and Bob a 12-slice pizza if they can agree how to split it. If they can’t, it will give them half a pie, but unequally divided: four slices to Alice and two slices to Bob. These no-deal slices comprise what Roger Fisher and William Ury called the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) in their best-selling negotiation book, Getting to Yes.

Nalebuff’s solution is to focus on the additional slices that Alice and Bob get if they make a deal. He splits the six additional slices in half. This gives Alice a total of seven slices (her BATNA of four slices plus her half of the six slices in the negotiation pie) and Bob gets five slices (his BATNA of two slices plus his half of six slices in the negotiation pie). Voilà.

“The pie framework will change the way you approach negotiations in business and life,” writes Nalebuff, who has been teaching this approach to MBA students and executives at Yale for the past 15 years, as well as online at Coursera. “It will allow you to see the negotiation more clearly and more logically. It will lead you to an agreement where the principle applied doesn’t depend on the specifics of your situation. It will help you make arguments that persuade others by identifying inconsistencies in their approach.” Read the rest here.

Persuasion, Hollywood style

strategy+business, May 23, 2022

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Archive Holdings Inc.

I usually associate pitching with characters like the late inventor and pitchman Ron Popeil, who earned a spot in America’s cultural history—and a small fortune—hawking products such as the Chop-O-Matic, the Pocket Fisherman, spray-on hair, and the Showtime Rotisserie and BBQ oven on late night TV. (“Set it, and forget it!”) But that’s a reductionist view, at best. Pitching is a form of interactive selling that business leaders at all levels need to master.

“We define a pitch as a scheduled meeting for the specific intention of trying to promote an idea, business project, or script,” write Peter Desberg and Jeffrey Davis in their new book, Pitch Like Hollywood. As the title suggests, Desberg, a clinical psychologist and a professor emeritus at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and Davis, a screenwriter and professor at Loyola Marymount University School of Film and Television, look to the film industry for lessons in pitching. And rightly so. Movies and TV shows are typically sold on the strength of a pitch to studio executives that can take anywhere from an hour to several days, depending on the size of the project.

Though CEOs tend to be polished presenters, pitching a new strategy to the board or an acquisition offer to the founders of a promising startup is not the same thing as making a presentation. “The biggest difference is the interactivity. Pitching is not a one-way presentation—it’s not, ‘I’m gonna tell you, and you’re gonna sit and listen to me,’” Davis told me during a video interview with the two authors. “A pitch is less controlled. If your pitch is good, you’re involving the people you’re pitching. You are trying to get their opinions, to get to what’s important to them, and to get them to help you shape your pitch to really make it work.”

This interactivity gets to the root cause of many failed pitches—mishandling criticism. “If a catcher asks a pitcher a hostile question or points out a flaw, and the pitcher gets defensive or counterattacks, the conversation dies,” said Desberg.

For their pitch to avoid this fate, leaders should take a lesson from a story the authors relate about a creative director at an ad agency who pitched six potential campaigns to a tire company executive. When he’d finished, the exec looked at him and said, “I hate everything you’ve shown me.” Unflustered, the creative director asked, “Which one do you hate the least?” That question led to a conversation that ended in a successful campaign.

Like the creative director, good pitchers see criticism as a green light. “They’re thinking, ‘This person is trying to enter a creative collaboration with me. I’ve got to nurture the heck out of that,’” said Davis. “Show business, like all business, is more collaborative than ever. If you’re not a collaborator, you have no future in business.” Read the rest here

Getting and staying motivated

strategy+business, May 5, 2022

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by ATU Images

Get It Done: Surprising Lessons from the Science of Motivation
by Ayelet Fishbach, Little, Brown Spark, 2022

In the early years of the last century, Hanoi had a rat problem. To solve it, the French colonial government placed a one-cent bounty on the rodents, which could be claimed by anyone who delivered a rat’s tail. Thousands of tails were tendered, but Hanoi’s rat population didn’t shrink. Instead, tailless rats were running through streets, and rat farms were discovered. To make money selling rats’ tails, you need lots of rats breeding more rats. The moral of the story: be careful which behaviors you reward.

Ayelet Fishbach, the Jeffrey Breakenridge Keller Professor of Behavioral Science and Marketing at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, tells the tale of Hanoi’s rats in Get It Done. The book is a deep dive into a veritable ocean of behavioral research, including a substantial number of studies conducted by the author. This area of scholarship is so full of codicils and complications that it’s a wonder that managers can motivate themselves, let alone the people in their charge.

Consider the role that progress plays in motivation. Will you be more motivated if you focus on how far you’ve already traveled toward a goal or if you keep your attention trained on how far you have left to go? The not-so-simple answer, explains Fishbach in chapter 5, is: it depends. What’s your emotional predilection—are you a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kind of person? Is the goal you are pursuing a conditional one with all-or-nothing benefits that are paid on completion or an accumulative one from which you derive benefits as you go? And how far along on the path are you: how close are you to reaching your goal? Your answers to those questions determine how you should use progress as a motivational force. What’s more, if you don’t ask those questions and answer them properly, the progress that you’ve made toward your goal could become a demoralizing force and an obstacle to its achievement.

Every chapter in Get It Done reiterates the multifaceted nature of self-motivation and underscores the critical nuances in the kind of advice found in sound bites on social media... read the rest here

A Field Guide for Human Capital Decision Intelligence

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand on this field guide:

Deloitte, March 22, 2022

By Dan Roddy, David Mallon, and Marc Solow

Organizations everywhere are standing on the threshold of a new era in decision-making. A global mining company uses data captured from the work itself to sense changes in worker skills needed over time, inform workforce development investments, and guide individual employee career choices. A logistics company anticipates truck repair needs, ensuring people and parts are at the ready. A consumer products company uses real-time visualizations of their distribution channels to identify the root causes of customer service issues within minutes and assign resources to solve them. A high tech company tracks the markers of company culture across a virtual workforce, ensuring their “secret sauce” isn’t diluted by distance.

So here companies stand, with a newfound capability for making better work, workplace, and workforce decisions within their reach and yet, just beyond their grasp. In Deloitte’s 2020 Global Human Capital Trends survey, conducted a few months before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a mere 3% of nearly 9,000 respondents—only 3 in 100 globally—told us they had all the information needed to make people decisions.

The situation hasn’t improved in the COVID-19 context. If anything, people issues are murkier—and the ability to respond to them more urgent—today than before the pandemic struck. Witness the many business headlines featuring managerial missteps, even among the world’s most sophisticated companies. For most, the decision intelligence necessary to align and optimize work, workplace, and workforce in pursuit of mission and strategy remains at best an unfulfilled promise.

The technological enablers needed to consistently deliver actionable insights to leaders at all levels of the organization are at hand. They promise to support a new decision intelligence—to help leaders make sound and timely decisions—from the strategic-level choices made in the C-suite to the myriad tactical choices made by supervisors and teams every day.

The disconnect between the means of decision intelligence, such as data and sophisticated analytics, and the motivation and ability to wield them in a coherent, consistent manner across an organization is a serious challenge. In a world moving ever faster, employee and corporate performance are at stake, and financial results along with them. The success—and sometimes, the survival—of many companies hinges on their ability to navigate in what John Seely Brown, former cochair of Deloitte’s Center for the Edge, calls a “whitewater world.” To do this, leaders must be able to continuously and quickly identify and respond to internal and external challenges and opportunities arising at the intersection of the workforce, the workplace and work itself. 

What, then, is holding companies back? Read the rest or download free here.

Follow your S curve

strategy+business, February 28, 2022

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by R A Kearton

Recently, someone on LinkedIn asked me for career advice. LOL. The ink line of my career is a random squiggle with lots of breaks and blotches. It isn’t until about halfway through that the line begins to look like it might be going somewhere. That’s the point at which I found something I enjoyed doing that paid enough for me to keep doing it. I grabbed that like a drowning man does a life ring.

I grabbed Whitney Johnson’s new book, Smart Growth, with similar enthusiasm, because it seemed there might be a more rational and ordered way to view my career. There is. As Johnson might tell it, I didn’t flounder for years; I followed the “S Curve of Learning.”

Johnson, a consultant and speaker, has a knack for picking out theories from the discipline of innovation and applying them to individual growth. In her 2015 book, Disrupt Yourself, she used Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation as the foundation for a guide to career-changing moves. In Smart Growth, Johnson applies Everett M. Rogers’s theory of innovation diffusion to forging a career path.

In his 1957 doctoral dissertation, Rogers showed that the number of Iowan farmers adopting a new weed killer followed an S curve: adoption started slowly, with only a few farmers willing to take a chance on the new product; shot upward as the majority of farmers became convinced of its benefits; and then leveled off as the remaining, most cautious farmers finally committed. By the time Rogers’s seminal Diffusion of Innovations was published in 1962, the rural sociologist was convinced that the S curve of innovation diffusion depicted “a kind of universal process of social change.” Indeed, S curves have been used in many arenas since then, and Rogers’s book is among the most cited in the social sciences, according to Google Scholar.

Johnson’s S Curve of Learning follows this well-established path. There’s the slow advancement toward a “launch point,” during which you canvas the (hopefully) myriad opportunities for career growth available to you and pick a promising one. Then there’s the fast growth once you hit the “sweet spot,” as you build momentum, forging and inhabiting the new you. And, finally, there is “mastery,” the stage in which you might cruise for a while, reaping the rewards of your efforts, before you start looking for something new, starting the cycle all over again. Read the rest here.

Pay attention to your attention

strategy+business, February 10, 2022

by Theodore Kinni


Illustration by Sean Gladwell

Once upon a time, the Segway was going to revolutionize the transportation industry. Steve Jobs reportedly said that Dean Kamen’s invention had the transformative potential of the personal computer, and venture capitalist John Doerr predicted that Kamen’s startup would reach US$1 billion in sales—a lot of money in 2001, when nobody but tweens believed in unicorns—at record speed. Instead, sightseeing tours and mall cop beats were nearly the only things the two-wheeled, self-balancing personal transporter transformed.

There are many reasons why the Segway never achieved its purported promise, but a lot of them track back to the misplaced focus of Dean Kamen. He didn’t see the forest for the trees. He was so intently focused on one narrow aspect of the Segway—the innovative technology that enabled its intuitive, automatic balance and operation—that he and his early boosters were unaware that its markets were extremely limited. Where in a nation of cities and towns that considered skateboards too dangerous for the sidewalks would hundreds of thousands of Segway riders be allowed to zip around? And short of that, who was going to pay $5,000 to take a Segway for a spin in the driveway?

An overly intense focus on a goal can lead to what cognitive psychologists call goal neglect. That may seem counterintuitive to the average goal-oriented MBA or entrepreneur, but take, for example, the dynamic at work in micromanagement. Often, when leaders micromanage employees, an intense focus on task performance distracts those leaders from the larger goals of the company. They obsess over the trees and neglect the forest—and drive employees crazy while they’re at it.

Where you direct your focus is a function of the brain’s attention system. This system has three subsystems, which Amishi Jha, a professor and the director of contemplative neuroscience for the Mindfulness Research and Practice Initiative at the University of Miami, describes as the flashlight (or orienting system), which enables you to selectively direct and concentrate your attention; the floodlight (or alerting system), which enables you to take in the larger picture; and the juggler (or executive function), which enables you to align your actions to your aims. “What happens with goal neglect is that the flashlight is pointed very intently, but the floodlight is not quite working,” she told me in a recent Zoom interview.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the flashlight or the floodlight—leaders need both. In both cases, writes Jha in her new book, Peak Mind: Find Your Focus, Own Your Attention, Invest 12 Minutes a Day, “we are paying attention. But our attention is too narrow or too wide, too stable or too unstable. You’re paying attention in some way successfully—but it’s not appropriate for the moment.”

This cognitive error arises from using the flashlight or the floodlight in an unconscious way. An Australian helicopter rappeller gave Jha a dramatic example of this when he told her about fighting one section of bush fire with such intensive focus that he lost track of the rest of the fire until he heard the air being sucked up behind him. The fire had nearly engulfed him. “There is a very enticing emotional quality to dominating something in that way, and so, it pulls you in,” said Jha. “It’s even hard to pull yourself back.”

The feeling of intense focus—of being fully and productively engrossed in a task—is a good indicator that it is time to take a step back and assess if your attention is properly directed. Even better, and more proactively, according to Jha’s research, you can hone your meta-awareness. Read the rest here.

Getting proactive about reactance

strategy+business, January 18, 2022

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by Klaus Vedfelt

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a case study in human contrarianism. In staggering numbers, people refused—and still refuse—to comply with mask and vaccine mandates. Some bridled at being sent home to work and at their kids being sent home from school. When everyone was summoned back, some bridled at that, too. It’s an ongoing, large-scale lesson in reactance, a concept with which any leader charged with trying to enact change should have at least a passing acquaintance.

The theory of psychological reactance originates in the 1960s with Jack Brehm, who developed it when he was a professor at Duke University. Brehm said that humans are negatively aroused when they perceive a threat to their freedom. What constitutes a threat to freedom? That’s your call. If you think a mask mandate restricts your freedom, Brehm’s theory suggests that reactance will not only increase your desire not to wear a mask but may also prompt you to refuse to wear a mask, even to the point that you get yourself dragged off a plane.

I ran across reactance in a recently published book, The Human Element: Overcoming the Resistance That Awaits New Ideas, by Loran Nordgren, an organizational psychologist and professor at the Kellogg School of Management, and David Schonthal, a clinical professor at Kellogg and director of its venture accelerator program. Nordgren and Schonthal seek to add what they call friction theory to the discipline of change management, arguing that corporate change initiatives often fail because leaders focus their attention on attracting people to their cause, while neglecting four frictions that work against change: inertia, effort, emotion, and yes, reactance.

A lot of leaders become leaders because of their charisma and their ability to sell a vision,” Schonthal explained to me during a video interview with both authors. “But you have to balance the ability to sell a vision with a willingness to clear away some of the friction and actually help employees get started on the path to that vision.”

“Leaders aren’t thinking about the barriers to action,” Nordgren added. “Shifting your focus to friction requires moving away from the idea and thinking about the audience. Taking that perspective requires empathy, it requires understanding the context, and it requires more effort and attention.” Read the rest here.

Best Business Books 2021: Taming collaborative dysfunction

strategy+business, November 8, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Illustration by Serge Bloch


In the 1920s, Mary Parker Follett put forth the heretical idea that managers should pursue power with—not power over—employees. “It is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power,” argued Follett, whom Peter Drucker dubbed “the prophet of management.”

A century later, Follett’s vision is a reality. “Today, practically everything you do at work is a collaboration,” writes Rob Cross, the Edward A. Madden Professor of Global Leadership at Babson College, in Beyond Collaboration Overload, this year’s best business book on the topic of management. “When you attend your morning meeting, when you confer with a direct report, when you help the new person figure out the right expert to speak with about a project, when you page through your emails, when you pause to chat with a colleague, when you move from one webinar to the next while simultaneously addressing instant messages that seem to have urgent time frames—again and again, you’re collaborating.”

If that description seems to be taking on a manic tinge, welcome to the manager’s world. “The collaborative intensity of work has exploded over the past few decades,” writes Cross. Drawing on a series of studies conducted under the aegis of Connected Commons, a consortium of more than 100 large employers, where Cross serves as chief research scientist, he finds that 85% or more of employee time is devoted to collaborative activities. And yet companies have “no idea what impact this time has on corporate performance, individual productivity, or—perhaps most disturbing—employee well-being.”

But Cross has an idea of the impact. Organizational network analysis, performance metrics, and extended structured interviews reveal that many managers collaborate too much—becoming obstacles to organizational performance and their own well-being in the process.

Take Scott, a manager of 5,000 people working in three business units of a large company. In just one of those units, which employed 1,800 people, a staggering 118 people on an average day were going to Scott with requests. Worse, more than 65% of them—78 people—said they couldn’t hit their business goals without more of his time. “This is another obscene number,” writes Cross. “When we see that figure edge up past 25% of a leader’s immediate network, we know we’ve got trouble. Although the leader doesn’t feel it while racing from meeting to meeting, he or she is slowing things down significantly.” The results are burnout, attrition, and lower engagement scores because people can’t get their work done. Indeed, Cross learned that Scott, whom many people in the company considered the leading candidate to succeed the CEO, was about to get fired.

If you’re lucky, your level of collaboration overload is nowhere near Scott’s level. But if you are feeling hard-pressed to keep up with the collaborative demands on your time, and those demands are taking a toll on your performance and well-being, Cross offers succor: he says he can show you (or someone with whom you work or live) how to “reclaim 18 to 24% of your collaborative time”—about one day per week. Read the rest here.

A transactional approach to power

strategy+business, October 13, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Metamorworks

Transactional has become something of a dirty word in the business world. It suggests a short-term, one-off mindset and a commoditized approach to value. Nobody wants transactional relationships with employees, suppliers, or customers. But when it comes to exercising power, understanding power as a transaction may be a leader’s best bet.

That’s because power is something leaders are commonly thought to possess, either by force of personality or by dint of positional authority. The mistaken idea that you are inherently powerful can be extraordinarily seductive—and comes with a variety of leadership pitfalls. Hubris (an exaggerated sense of self-confidence) is one of them. Arrogance (the belief that you are smarter than everyone else) is another. Worst of all is omnipotence—the conviction that you are above the rules. From there, it’s only a short hop to becoming living proof of Lord Acton’s famous line, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There are lots of worthy prescriptions for avoiding the pitfalls of power, including servant, humble, and empathic leadership. But they depend on a level of self-awareness and mindfulness that can be difficult to muster on a day-to-day basis. If you struggle with the siren call of power, it might be easier to rethink your view of power than to remake yourself.

Organizational behavior professors Julie Battilana of Harvard Business School and Tiziana Casciaro of the Rotman School of Management offer leaders (and followers) such a reframing in their new book, Power, for All: How It Really Works and Why It’s Everyone’s Business. They do it by tapping power dependence theory, a branch of social exchange theory that was developed starting in the 1960s by Richard Emerson, then a sociologist at the University of Cincinnati. Read the rest here.

Leading under pressure

strategy+business, September 14, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Marco VDM

Pressure is a goad. Whether it arrives in the guise of a burning platform or a project deadline, a strategic goal or a performance target, a high-stakes deal or an aggressive competitor, pressure can help leaders attain new heights of performance and achievement. You know the adage: no pressure, no diamonds.

The problem with this pithy observation, attributed to 19th-century Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle, is that it is both true and false. Though pressure can drive outsized results, it can also become an insurmountable obstacle to performance and achievement. It can overwhelm a leader and result in missteps that torpedo companies and careers.

The powerful effects—and vagaries—of pressure were dramatically illustrated during the Tokyo Olympics when gymnast Simone Biles unexpectedly withdrew from the women’s team finals. The extraordinarily talented and seemingly unshakable Biles, who was considered a shoo-in to repeat her 2016 gold medal win in the all-around gymnastics event, cited her mental health. Later, she said that she had been suffering from the “twisties,” a condition that leaves gymnasts disoriented midair and can lead to serious injury. The twisties are thought to be caused by performance pressure and stress, both of which were surely running higher than usual in an Olympics held during a pandemic.

When I mentioned Biles to Dane Jensen, CEO of performance consulting firm Third Factor and author of the new book The Power of Pressure, he suggested that she may have fallen prey to an imbalance in what he calls the pressure equation. Jensen finds that pressure grows more intense across three elements, as the levels of importance (how much something matters), uncertainty (how unclear the outcome is), and volume (how many other demands there are on your time) rise. Read the rest here.

Why you want what you want

strategy+business, August 12, 2021

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by Catherine Falls Commercial

In the new book Wanting, Luke Burgis, entrepreneur-in-residence and director of programs at the Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, takes readers down the rabbit hole of mimetic theory. Developed by French social scientist and philosopher René Girard in the 1960s and 1970s, mimetic theory seeks to explain human relations and culture in terms of desire. Girard’s theory and Burgis’s book are worthy of executive attention because they offer leaders insights into their own behavior and careers, as well as the behavior of the many stakeholders they are charged with understanding and influencing.

Our desires—above and beyond our innate human needs—are the driving force of mimetic theory. Girard’s analysis starts out, innocently enough, by suggesting that desire, which shapes every aspect of our lives, stems from observing other people and adopting them as models in an often-unconscious manner.

In short, what we want is what someone else has. The 1957 film Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? offers a satirical example that may hit uncomfortably close to home for some leaders. Tony Randall plays a lowly ad man who desires an executive’s salary and prestige. But when he hits upon a scheme to promote a client’s lipstick using Jayne Mansfield’s lips and then rockets to the top spot in his Madison Avenue agency, he wonders why he wanted to get there in the first place. He leaves to raise chickens.

Girard’s theory isn’t as humorous. He argued that mimetic desires spawn rivalries as people vie to realize their ambitions. Sometimes, when the resources desired are limited, the competition intensifies into conflict. And because most people don’t understand or admit the true nature of the resulting conflicts, they scapegoat others. Girard believed these innocents are unjustly sacrificed in a kind of relief valve for societal pressure. Witness the Holocaust and Nazi Germany’s demonization of Jews.

Girard went on to identify Judeo-Christianity as a historical aberration that subverted the scapegoat process. With the crucifixion of Jesus, the sacrifice of scapegoats was revealed as an unjust mechanism, writes Burgis, and “a veil was lifted on the recurring cycle of violence in human history.” (Unfortunately, lifting the veil has eliminated neither the scapegoating nor the violence.)

Like Girard, Burgis sees mimetic desire everywhere, and he interprets all sorts of events through its prism, including his own entrepreneurial ambitions. Read the rest here.

Becoming a leader of conscience

strategy+business, August 2, 2021

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by phototechno

Say what you will about economist Milton Friedman’s position on the responsibility of business, the idea that increasing profit within the rules of the game was the sole and righteous goal of executives clearly simplified leadership values and ethics. I suspect that is one less-recognized reason that so many CEOs avidly embraced Friedman’s monolithic view for so long. But now as more and more leaders are expanding the scope of their responsibilities and companies are adopting—and compensating leaders on—ESG (environmental, social, and governance) metrics, an increasing number of thorny ethical dilemmas are sure to come along with it.

G. Richard Shell, chair of Wharton School’s Legal Studies and Business Ethics department, pointed out during a recent interview for this column two generic types of ethical problems that leaders face. One type involves a personal problem in which the leader is aware of an ethical lapse—perhaps a colleague’s conflict of interest or behavior that puts the company at risk. “Class one ethical dilemmas are ones in which executives feel the burden of their own conscience,” explains Shell. “These problems have an emotional quality to them. You feel the tug of conflicting loyalties, or you feel guilty if you don’t do something.”

The second type of dilemma is organizational in nature. “Class two involves values that relate to the firm and its relationship to society,” Shell says. “They more often have to do with your responsibilities to the firm, its brand and stakeholders, and its code of conduct in terms of the firm’s social role. They are more cognitive than emotional because you have to process costs and benefits.” Coca-Cola’s response to Georgia’s voting rights bill is an example of this kind of dilemma.

Although the two kinds of ethical dilemmas have different dimensions, they can be assessed using the same framework, according to Shell. He calls the framework CLIP—consequences, loyalties, identity, and principles—and describes it in his new book, The Conscience Code: Lead with Your Values, Advance Your Career. Read the rest here.

How noisy is your company?

strategy+business, May 19, 2021

by Theodore Kinni



Illustration by SI photography

Companies live and die by the ability of the people who work within them to make sound judgments. Their judgments determine what strategy to follow, where to invest R&D funds, how to set prices, who to hire and promote, and a myriad of other decisions. Some of the decisions are one-offs; others are made repeatedly. There’s just one problem, assert Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass Sunstein: “Wherever there is judgment, there is noise — and more of it than we think.”

Noise is the major source of variability in judgment and, thus, a major cause of decisions that miss their mark, according to the professorial supergroup (henceforth, KSS). Kahneman was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work as a behavioral economist; Sibony is an expert on decision-making who teaches at HEC Paris and Oxford’s Saïd Business School; and Sunstein is the Harvard prof whose work on nudges has been influential in public policy.

Noise is also the title of the trio’s new book, a 400-page tome that should leave executives who take the time to wade through it more than a little unsettled. Their uneasiness should stem from the likelihood that they have been underestimating the negative effects of noise on decision-making in their organizations. When KSS asked 828 senior executives in a variety of industries how much variation they expected to find in expert judgments, their median answer was 10 percent.

In reality, the variation in expert judgments can be four to five times that. When two members of KSS ran a noise audit for an insurance company, they discovered that the median difference in the pricing determined by its underwriters for identical policies was 55 percent, and the median difference in the payouts determined by its claims adjusters for identical claims was 43 percent. “One senior executive estimated that the company’s annual cost of noise in underwriting — counting both the loss of business from excessive quotes and the losses incurred on underpriced contracts — was in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” they write. Read the rest here.

All the Feels: Why It Pays to Notice Emotions in the Workplace

Insights by Stanford Business, May 13, 2012

by Theodore Kinni


iStock/shapecharge

Alisa Yu first became intrigued with emotional acknowledgment while interviewing nurses working in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. The nurses told her that verbally acknowledging their young patients’ fears and stress created trust, which enabled them to do their jobs more effectively. “From then on, I began to see emotional acknowledgment everywhere,” recalls Yu, a PhD candidate in organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

This realization prompted Yu to team up with Justin Berg, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at Stanford GSB, and Julian Zlatev, an assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, to conduct a series of studies exploring the effects of emotional acknowledgment in the workplace. Their findings, published in May in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, illuminate a straightforward yet powerful technique leaders can use to build trust with their employees.

Emotional acknowledgment is the simple act of noticing a nonverbal emotional cue — like a frown or grin — and mentioning it. This mention can be a question or a statement such as “You look upset,” or “You seem excited.”

The authors borrow from costly signaling theory, a concept proposed by evolutionary biologist Amotz Zahavi in the 1970s, to suggest that this small act can have a powerful effect because it is read as a sign of genuine intentions. As an example, Zahavi argued that when peacocks fan out their tails to attract mates, it is an “honest signal” of their reproductive fitness. That’s because the colorful display also attracts predators, a potentially fatal risk for weaker peacocks.

Similarly, Yu and her coauthors argue that in a work environment, a supervisor who shows concern for others’ emotional state is signaling a willingness to get involved in a potentially messy situation. “A leader could very easily see someone in distress and choose to ignore it,” Yu says. “But only a leader who truly is benevolent and cares about employees would risk getting involved by voluntarily acknowledging the distressed employee. Thus, employees might take this as a signal that this leader is someone who can be trusted with their well-being.” Read the rest here.

Leader, know thyself

strategy+business, April 22, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Thomas Barwick

Twenty-five hundred years ago, someone inscribed Know thyself on a column at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, where the Pythian priestesses famously uttered their prophecies. Socrates, whom one priestess pegged as the wisest man in the ancient world, discussed the maxim with his pupils Xenophon and Plato, creating the foundation for its modern meaning as an exhortation to be self-aware (versus an admonition to subordinate ourselves to the gods). And today, self-awareness — or metacognition, as psychologists and neuroscientists call it — is just as relevant, especially for leaders.

Metacognition, explains Stephen M. Fleming, principal investigator at the Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, and author of Know Thyself: The Science of Self-Awareness, is “our mind’s ability to reflect on, think about, and know things about itself, including how it remembers, perceives, decides, thinks, and feels.” Literally, it is your ability to think about your own thinking.

This ability is built into the circuitry of our brains and based on two processes — one that is often unconscious and estimates uncertainty and another that is usually conscious and monitors our internal state and actions. Fleming likens the way this implicit and explicit metacognition work together to the interaction of the autopilot system and the pilot on a plane. The autopilot monitors and adjusts the actions of the plane, and the pilot monitors and adjusts the actions of the autopilot, he explains, “except now the interaction is all taking place within a single brain.”

Oddly, although our brains are equipped for metacognition, we are not particularly good at being self-aware. “There are three Things extremely hard, Steel, a Diamond, and to know one’s self,” wrote Benjamin Franklin in the 1750 edition of Poor Richard’s Almanack. If it were easier, the Wikipedia page that lists nearly 200 cognitive biases might be considerably shorter, and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman might not have needed to issue this warning in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow: “Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.” Read the rest here.

Expansionists, brokers, and conveners

strategy+business, March 31, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by John M Lund Photography Inc.

When David Rockefeller, grandson of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank in the 1970s, liked something, he really liked it. He liked collecting beetles, and left a horde of 150,000 specimens to Harvard on his death. He also liked collecting people. His Rolodex (remember those?) contained more than 100,000 contacts; laid out end to end, its cards would have stretched 16 miles.

In the terminology of personal networks, Rockefeller’s custom-made Rolodex is a good example of an “expansionist network,” according to Marissa King, a professor of organizational behavior at Yale School of Management. In her book Social Chemistry, a wide-ranging but rather unconnected exploration of how we connect with other people, King explains that expansionists “have extraordinarily large networks, are well-known, and have an uncanny ability to work a room.” Expansionists create value by connecting contacts to each other. They are collectors and manipulators of what sociologist Mark Granovetter identified as “weak ties.”

But size doesn’t really matter when it comes to networks, says King. Rockefeller, for example, had to overcome the inherent difficulties of maintaining and leveraging an expansionist network by recording detailed information about his contacts on his Rolodex cards. When the Wall Street Journal got a peek after Rockefeller died at age 101 in 2017, it reported that there were 35 cards documenting his meetings with Henry Kissinger dating back to 1955. What really matters is the quality of your contacts and the structure of your network...read the rest here

The Positive Side of Negative Emotions

Insights by Stanford Business, March 12, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


iStock/Deagreez

The benefits of “cognitive reappraisal” — the widely used self-help strategy of reframing distressing situations to move past the negative emotions they engender — are well established.

Studies have shown that when employees use reappraisal techniques, they are more satisfied with their jobs and are less susceptible to stress and burnout. The research also links reappraisal to higher employee performance.

Given these findings, it’s not surprising that many companies are teaching and encouraging employees to embrace the strategy. Google’s “Search Inside Yourself” training program is a notable example. The program, which includes reappraisal among other practical techniques for mindfulness, self-awareness, and self-management, was created by Chade-Meng Tan, one of the company’s engineers, in 2007. Demand for the program prompted Tan and others to found a nonprofit that went on to teach the techniques to employees in companies ranging from American Express to Volkswagen.

But what if the outcomes of cognitive reappraisal aren’t entirely beneficial? One team of researchers — Matthew Feinberg and Brett Ford at the University of Toronto, along with Francis J. Flynn at Stanford Graduate School of Business — suspected that might be the case.

“Cognitive reappraisal lessens negative emotions by reframing situations in positive terms, but negative emotions serve important social functions,” explains Feinberg, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford GSB and Stanford Medicine’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education. “They help ensure that individuals behave in socially acceptable ways and encourage adherence to group norms.” Read the rest here.

Does Your C-Suite Have Enough Digital Smarts?

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, March 3, 2021

by Peter Weill, Stephanie L. Woerner, and Aman M. Shah


Image courtesy of Anna & Elena Balbusso/theispot.com

There’s little doubt that the future of business is digital. Companies that are in the lead implementing digital technologies have radically improved their operational efficiency and their customers’ experiences. And, even more important, the new capabilities unlocked by digital technologies have allowed them to reimagine their purposes and their business models.

Having a digitally savvy top leadership team — that is, a team in which more than half of the executive members are digitally savvy — makes a huge difference. Our latest research shows that large enterprises with digitally savvy executive teams outperformed comparable companies without such teams by more than 48% based on revenue growth and valuation.

Digital savviness is an understanding, developed through experience and education, of the impact that emerging technologies will have on a business’s success over the next decade. Sharing this understanding across the top management team is a key ingredient in the success of corporate transformation. As Jean-Pascal Tricoire, chairman and CEO of energy management company Schneider Electric, told us, “When every business becomes a digital business, every executive needs to take digital transformation personally. The last thing you want in your team is the belief that digital is somebody else’s problem.”

Unfortunately, the demand for digital savviness in the upper echelons of leadership has grown far more quickly than the supply. In 2019, when we studied the boards of directors in 3,228 large U.S.-listed companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenues, we discovered that only 24% of boards were digitally savvy. In 2020, we extended our research to encompass top management teams — C-level executives and leaders of functions and geographic territories — in 1,984 large companies globally. Our new findings indicate that only 7% of companies have digitally savvy executive teams.

In this article, we report the findings of our research into the level of digital savviness among top management teams, the business value it delivers, and the actions that companies can take to increase the digital savviness of their senior executives. Read the rest here.