McKinsey’s infamous stat haunts every executive: 70% of all change management efforts fail. Despite decades of expertise, this number seems frozen in time. Why?
In the 35th episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I sat down with a true transformation veteran, Rupert Brown, author of the eye-opening book, ‘Lost in Transformation’.
Rupert is an experienced Chief People Officer and change management specialist with deep expertise in M&A, digital transformation, and turnarounds, having advised giants like Procter & Gamble and Maersk.
This wasn’t just a discussion of tactics; it was a candid, emotionally intelligent discussion on how Transformations can be handled better.
Tune in to learn about:
Why Transformation projects continue to fail
The difference between Change and Transformation
The Bad Reputation of the word ‘Transformation’
Why we still struggle with Change Management
In-Groups and Out-Groups in Change Management Processes
Chief Acceleration Officers
Trust is Energy
Crises as Catalysts for Change
The impact of our Permacrisis on Change Management
Behavioral Skills to cope with the BANI world’
Change Management and AI
If you’re leading a transformation—or struggling to survive one—you can’t afford to miss this. Rupert delivers the hard truths and the practical guidance needed to shift from ‘being Lost’ to becoming ‘the Leader of change’.
► You can watch or listen to a podcast with our conversation on:
🚫 Many organizations mistakenly relegate Learning & Development (L&D) to a “nice-to-have” status. It’s seen as something every HR organization needs to have (if only for the optics), but often the prevailing attitude is that, while great L&D is a pleasant surprise, if it falls short, there’s no serious harm done to the organization.
❗This is often reflected in bland L&D offerings, which, more often than not, are so generic, that they fail to address the strategic issues organizations need to address
⁉️ However, what would happen if organizations truly would treat Learning & Development as a strategic instrument?
🎙️ In the 29th episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I interview Nick van Dam about ‘The Strategic Value of Learning & Development’. Nick van Dam is an internationally recognized thought leader, advisor, executive coach, researcher, facilitator, and best-selling (co-) author of more than 29 books on Leadership, Organizational Behavior, and Corporate Learning & Talent Management.
► During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:
Most of us are acutely aware of the gap between how organizations aspire to operate and the everyday reality of working within them.
This discrepancy often has a negative impact on the motivation and well-being of employees, ranging from a decrease in employee engagement, to mental health issues,
In her book ‘Badly Behaved People’, my fellow executive coach Zena Everett describes a number of real-world cases about how this discrepancy can manifest itself, and, perhaps more importantly, how we can address them
What I particularly like about about this book is how Zena makes complex psychological concepts (for instance, Transactional Analysis) accessible without oversimplifying them, and demonstrates how they can be applied in the workplace.
In our conversation about her book, Zena and I discussed the following topics:
Earlier this week, one of the most important business books on the Future of Work was published by Harvard Business Review Press: ‘Employment Is Dead: How Disruptive Technologies Are Revolutionizing the Way We Work’ by Deborah Perry Piscione and Josh Drean.
The central theme of this book is that traditional employment models are becoming outdated due to the evolving needs and expectations of the modern workforce, in combination with, and enabled by, disruptive technologies.
This will lead to the end of the traditional employment model, as well as the traditional form of companies, as we know them today.
Monday, just hours before the book was released, I had the chance to interview Deborah Perry Piscione for my Leadership 2.0 Podcast.
► In our conversation, we touched on the following topics:
The image of the banking industry has been severely tarnished by the financial crisis (2007-2008), which led to increasing regulatory and compliance demands. At the same time, the industry is experiencing emerging competition from FinTechs, evolving business models, and disruptive technologies.
In light of these challenges, I recently spoke with Ralph Hamers, to explore his views on what effective leadership in the banking sector entails.
In our conversation, we touched on the following topics:
In many recruitment processes, human beings are reduced to commodities, and human dignity has become an afterthought.
More often than not, recruitment has become a volume-driven exercise, where metrics like ‘time to fill’ have replaced the craftsmanship essential for identifying the best candidate for the role. As a result, candidates often find these processes unsatisfactory, as their potential unique contributions and value to organizations are not adequately recognized.
FOUND, a Swiss-based start-up company, wants to disrupt this traditional approach to recruitment. I recently interviewed Victor Akwunwa, the Chief Sales Officer of FOUND for my Leadership 2.0 podcast.
During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:
It is tempting for CEOs to try to appease their shareholders by reducing corporate overhead costs. It seems to be the corporate equivalent of a ‘Get Out of Jail Free card’ in Monopoly: it is free and can get a CEO out of a tricky situation.
The reason is that everyone loves the notion of lowering corporate overhead costs, and especially reducing the number of people in corporate roles.
Whereas the supervisory board occasionally might call for caution, you will never hear shareholders or analysts complain and Business Unit leaders usually love the perspective of lower corporate charges and more independence. Most often, corporate functions cannot count on a lot of sympathy from the rest of the workforce either. They are seen as overpaid ‘bureaucrats’, ‘paper pushers’, and ‘PowerPoint wizards’ in ‘back-office’ roles.
Reducing overhead is also not very difficult. Usually, there are plenty of young runners-up in large organizations dying to prove themselves to corporate leaders. If not, consulting firms are happy to line up for beauty parades to show off their capabilities in this area.
It is also not that hard – at least, I have never seen a corporate cost savings initiative not achieving its short-term financial objectives.
So eliminating or reducing these corporate functions is a great idea, right?
Unfortunately, it depends…
Eliminating or reducing corporate functions poses risks for CEOs in three areas:
There are some companies I deeply admire, and On, the Swiss sports and apparel brand is definitely one of them! Not only do they make amazing products and have an extremely powerful brand, they also have a unique company culture.
For this reason, I was thrilled to sit down with Alessandra Del Pino, Head of Engagement & Talent Growth at On, to discuss the company culture of On, or, as Alessandra describes it, their ‘secret sauce’.
During our conversation, we covered the following topics:
‘A transformational read that every leader of today needs’.
These were the words Head Judge, Jacq Burns used when she announced that ‘Leader As Healer’, written by Nicholas Janni was selected as the overall winner for the 2023 Business Book Awards.
In his book, Nicolas Janni argues that we need a new leadership model to address the challenges our society faces.
Our current leadership model is one where we see great leaders as warriors ‘on the battlefield of relentless competition’, who drive action, pursue instrumental (shareholder value related) goals, and maintain transactional relationships.
Instead, Nicholas Janni pleads for leaders who are empathetic, intuitive, present, skilled in mindfulness and deep listening, and who can inspire colleagues to engage and collaborate.
In this episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I discuss with Nicholas:
I recently heard an HR leader proudly explain her rigorous selection process for a basic leadership program aimed at newly appointed people leaders. She first pre-selected potential participants based on their performance ratings, then personally interviewed all the top performers. Those who passed were sent by her for a final interview with a senior business leader, and only the successful candidates were allowed to attend the training.
While I appreciated her personal involvement and the engagement of the business leader in the selection process, I do not think this is the right approach.
With the publication of his bestseller ‘HR Champions’ in 1997, Dave Ulrich signaled the potential for HR functions to develop themselves from ‘administrative support functions’ into strategic and mission-critical ones (my words—not Dave’s!).
The book served as a catalyst for a vast number of HR organizations to critically review their roles, activity portfolios and structures. As a result, many organizations defined HR strategies, and initiated HR transformation projects to realize these.
All in all, Dave published over 200 articles and book chapters and over 30 books. He edited Human Resource Management 1990-1999, served on the editorial board of 4 other journals and on the Board of Directors for Herman Miller (16 years), has spoken to large audiences in 90 countries; performed workshops for over half of the Fortune 200; coached successful business leaders, and is a Distinguished Fellow in the National Academy of Human Resources.
During our conversation, Dave and I discussed the following topics:
Culture change is firmly back on the map! More and more companies are starting to reflect (again) what their culture is and what it should be.
More often than not, such a culture review is initiated by the CEO. The reason is that CEOs have a unique position in organizations: they often see both the current performance of the organization, as well as its unrealized potential. In case CEOs do not see this unrealized potential themselves, their Supervisory Boards, analysts and (activist) shareholders will point it out to them quickly enough.
‘I defy anybody to be energized by most appraisal systems I have seen in my career’ – Sally Bibb
As HR professionals and line managers (present company included!), we tend to take the strengths of our staff for granted and focus most of our attention on their ‘development areas’ (a euphemism for weaknesses).
The question is, however, how effective this is, and which business opportunities we miss, by following this approach.
Sally Bibb, partner at PA Consulting, leader and author in the field of strengths-based approaches to people and organisations, proposes a radically different approach and advocates focusing on strengths instead of weaknesses.
To find out what Strength Management is, and how we can implement it, I interviewed her for my Leadership 2.0 podcast.
During our conversation, Sally and I discussed the following topics:
0️⃣1️⃣ What Strength Management is
0️⃣2️⃣ How Sally became interested in the topic
0️⃣3️⃣ Is Strength Management incompatible with a Growth Mindset?
0️⃣4️⃣ Why most HR professionals remain focused on Development Areas
0️⃣5️⃣ Implementing Strength Management in HR Processes
0️⃣6️⃣ How can appraisals be improved?
0️⃣7️⃣ Is strength management a generational phenomenon?
0️⃣8️⃣ Will AI support Strength Management?
0️⃣9️⃣ Issues Sally is asked to address by her clients
➡️ No time to watch or listen to podcast now? Here is a short summary of our conversation ⤵
Dirk Verburg: I was classically trained as a line manager to focus on development areas to create “all-round” people. What are the advantages of focusing on a person’s strengths instead?
Sally Bibb: A strength is something you are naturally drawn to, that energizes you, and that you’re good at. Twenty years of neurobiological evidence shows that when people use their strengths, they are happier, more resilient, and perform better. Football managers, for example, know each player’s strengths and don’t try to make them all-rounders. While a team can be good at everything, an individual cannot. Focusing on strengths is not about ignoring weaknesses, but about intentionally using what you’re great at. Spending too much time on things you’re not good at will cause your motivation to drop, and your performance will be good at best—not great.
Dirk Verburg: Where does your personal interest in strengths come from? Did you have an experience that inspired you to focus on this topic?
Sally Bibb: My interest stems from an early experience in my career. I was promoted from a job I loved, which involved crewing ships, to one that required doing research for trade union negotiations. I was good at the first job because it leveraged my strengths in connecting with people and problem-solving. The second job, however, was a poor fit. I felt a loss of confidence and didn’t understand why until years later at a conference. A Harvard professor spoke about the emerging field of positive psychology and focusing on what’s right with people. That was a lightbulb moment for me. I realized there was nothing wrong with me; I was just a square peg in a round hole. This experience inspired me to study what makes great salespeople so successful, which was my first foray into applying strengths to the workplace.
Dirk Verburg: How do you see the relationship between strengths management and the desire to adopt a “growth mindset”? Are they contradictory, or do they strengthen each other?
Sally Bibb: I think they are highly complementary. A growth mindset—the belief that you can learn and grow—is important whether you are playing to your strengths or working on something you’re not good at. The growth mindset is not about being good at everything, but about being open to learning. For example, I worked with an executive who had never been in an innovative environment before. By having a growth mindset, he discovered a new strength in “joining the dots” and making connections. Had he not been open to this, he might have boxed himself in, assuming he wasn’t an innovative person. A growth mindset helps you discover new strengths and apply existing ones to new challenges.
Dirk Verburg: Why do you think many people in HR and talent management still focus so much on areas of development, even though the thinking has moved on?
Sally Bibb: I think a lot of it is organizational inertia. Organizations tend to do what they’ve always done, like using traditional competency frameworks and appraisal systems, even when they know these systems don’t energize people or get the best results. The organizations I work with that adopt a strengths-based approach do so because they want different outcomes, like improved performance and morale. Adopting this approach is a gradual process that requires a leader with a clear focus and determination to change things. I hope that in the next ten years, a strengths-based approach will be the norm, with new generations of leaders recognizing the benefits of this way of thinking.
Dirk Verburg: How would you practically conduct a strengths-based interview?
Sally Bibb: First, you have to know what strengths are needed for the role. For example, we studied the strengths of exemplary midwives in charge of labor wards. We found that the best ones share certain strengths beyond their clinical competencies, like a strong sense of doing the right thing. In a strengths-based interview, you ask candidates about those specific strengths. For example, “Tell me about a time when you had to ensure the right thing was done.” If it is a genuine strength, you can see their face light up and they can easily provide examples. In contrast, if you don’t know what “great” looks like for that role, a strengths interview is difficult to do effectively. The key is to match the candidate’s natural inclinations with the specific strengths that you know are critical for success in that job.
Dirk Verburg: What can we do to make classic performance interviews more meaningful by applying a strengths-based approach?
Sally Bibb: A strengths-based performance discussion should be an ongoing conversation throughout the year, not just a one-off event. It should focus on three things: the strengths you’re using regularly, the strengths you have that you might not be using, and the “weaknesses that matter”—the ones that are really getting in your way. Instead of criticizing, you can have a collaborative conversation about how to mitigate those weaknesses. This could involve using your strengths to compensate, getting help from colleagues, or finding ways to avoid the task altogether. This approach makes people feel relaxed and authentic because they don’t have to pretend to be perfect. The conversation becomes focused on potential and how to make the person even better at what they already do well.
Dirk Verburg: I have the impression that focusing on strengths comes more naturally to younger generations than to baby boomers or millennials. Would you agree with that observation?
Sally Bibb: That’s an interesting observation, and I’m not aware of any specific research on it. However, people in their 20s and 30s were raised in an era of “positive parenting” and a greater focus on self-esteem. They are often less modest and more willing to talk about their strengths. In contrast, older generations can be more modest. This is also culturally influenced. In the United States, people are generally more comfortable discussing their strengths, whereas in the UK and Switzerland, modesty can be a national sport. I see modesty as being a bit overrated, as not talking about your strengths can inhibit your ability to serve others and be overlooked for opportunities.
Dirk Verburg: You work with very big clients. What are the starting points for you in those conversations when a client wants to think about a strengths-based approach?
Sally Bibb: Clients rarely ask for a strengths-based approach directly. They come with business problems like: “We need to improve our performance,” “We need to improve our safety,” or “We need to improve staff morale and engagement.” These are the real-world problems that a strengths-based approach can solve. When clients see the impact of this approach, they like it because it connects with people and makes common sense. It’s not just a psychometric tool; it translates into hard returns and measurable outcomes. The private equity sector, for example, has been a leader in this thinking because they know that having the right combination of strengths in a leadership team is critical to a successful investment.
Dirk Verburg: We’ve discussed a lot of elements around strengths. Is there anything we haven’t touched on that you would like to mention?
Sally Bibb: There’s just one thing that’s very dear to my heart. From women in prison to senior executives, people often don’t really know their strengths or their value. The strengths-based approach makes people feel good about themselves and the contribution they make. This is the best starting point for helping people realize their potential. If we could bring this thinking into the public and political arena, there would be less burnout, less imposter syndrome, and more satisfaction and engagement at work. It’s a win-win-win for individuals, employers, and society as a whole.
▶ About Sally Bibb
She started her career working for BT International and then moved into an international role at The Economist Group before founding the strengths consultancy Engaging Minds in 2012. In 2021, she joined PA Consulting as a partner to advance her vision of bringing strengths to many more employers worldwide.
In this role, she leads strengths-based organizational change work in Europe, the USA, and Asia, and has built a track record of achieving transformational results for a number of high-profile clients in both the private, as well as in the public sector.
Sally has an MSc in organizational change from the University of Surrey and has (co-)authored eight books. A full list can be found here: https://sallybibb.com/my-books/
She is a fellow of the RSA (Royal Society of Arts) and a member of the steering committee of The Daedalus Trust, a charity founded by Lord David Owen to promote research into hubris syndrome in business.
Besides the fact that these failures often have a traumatic impact on the individuals involved, the costs for the organisations are huge. Not only in terms of image and hiring costs but, more importantly, in terms of opportunity costs.
To find out why leadership transitions prove to be so hard, and what companies and individuals can do about it, I interviewed Michael Watkins for my Leadership 2.0 podcast.
‘We live in a world of organizations – and we do not understand them’
This is one of the statements Henry Mintzberg, one of the leading thinkers in the field of Management, made when I interviewed him for my Leadership 2.0 Podcast about his latest book ‘Understanding Organizations…Finally’.
During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:
0️⃣1️⃣ The importance for organizations to get their structure ‘right’ 0️⃣2️⃣ The evolvement of Henry’s thinking about organizations 0️⃣3️⃣ ‘Every (organization) form contains the seeds of its own destruction’ 0️⃣4️⃣ ‘Emergent structures’ versus large-scale reorganizations 0️⃣5️⃣ The fit between the leader and the structure of the organization 0️⃣6️⃣ The structures of Apple and Tesla and the personalities of their founders 0️⃣7️⃣ The complementary role of conflict and culture in organizations 0️⃣8️⃣ The relationship between the structure and the culture of an organization 0️⃣9️⃣ The gap between formulators and implementers of corporate strategies 1️⃣0️⃣ The interest in structuring organizations in academia and business
You can watch or listen to this podcast episode on:
Scenario thinking enables organizations to establish possible visions of the future in the form of scenarios.
These scenarios enable decision-makers to think through the different ways in which the environment of their organizations could evolve, based on different sets of assumptions. It enables leaders to ‘think through ‘a wide range of what if questions’: ‘What if the dollar…’, ‘What if China…’, ‘What if scientific developments make it possible in the near future to…’, etc. This enables them to mentally prepare themselves for possible ‘Black Swans’, and review the ability of their organization to cope with, or, iedeally, benefit from these.
One of the companies that is best known for its scenario-thinking activity is Shell. For decades, Shell’s scenarios have supported the decision-making of Shell leaders, academics, governments, and businesses.
Jeremy Bentham led this activity in Shell between 2006 and his retirement in 2022 as Shell Scenarios & strategy Leader and VP Global Business Environment. In this episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I am interviewing Jeremy Bentham about scenario thinking and leadership.
During our conversation, Jeremy and I discussed the following topics:
Karl Marx famously said, ‘A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism’. Nowadays we can say ‘A specter is haunting the business world – the specter of AI’.
Everyone seems to be riding on the AI bandwagon nowadays, and, as a result, many business leaders are suffering from corporate FOMO.
One thing is clear though, all business leaders need to reflect on the impact AI will have on their organizations. Too many organizations have disappeared because of technological disruptions, including the likes of Kodak, Polaroid, DEC, Motorola, Blackberry, SUN Microsystems, and Blockbuster, to name a few.
Of course, it is tempting to have an intellectual debate about which technologies are disruptive and which ones are not. This is especially the case if technologies are built on other technologies (which is almost often the case). Without the transistor, the modern computer would not have existed, does that mean that microchips are not disruptive?
For this reason, I like this definition in Investopedia:
A disruptive technology is an innovation that significantly alters the way that consumers, industries, or businesses operate. A disruptive technology sweeps away the systems or habits it replaces because it has attributes that are recognizably superior.
Based on this definition, I think AI definitely qualifies as a disruptive technology.
When it comes to dealing with disruptive technologies, business leaders need to ask themselves four questions:
The World Health Organization estimates that 12 billion working days are lost every year due to depression and anxiety. This costs $1 trillion in lost productivity.
McKinsey research showed that ‘60 % of employees have experienced at least one mental-health challenge at some point in their lives’. According to the same study ‘Failing to address the effects of mental health and well-being challenges is a missed opportunity for employers’.
Employees dealing with mental health issues are 4x more likely to say they intend to leave, 3x more likely to report low job satisfaction, 3x more likely to experience toxic workplace behavior, and 2x more likely to report low engagement.
At the same time, classic Employee Assistance Programs do not seem to work…
Vlad Gheorghiu experienced mental health issues firsthand, whilst working for McKinsey.
This experience inspired him to design solutions. First for McKinsey, and later by co-finding a start-up company called Kyan Health.
In my conversation with Vlad, we covered the following topics:
1️⃣ Vlad’s background
2️⃣ Vlad’s engagement with mental health
3️⃣ The gap in the workplace between the mental health support employees need and receive
4️⃣ The concept of Kyan Health
5️⃣ Measuring impact
6️⃣ Creating a start-up company: Three Dos
7️⃣ Creating a start-up company: Three Dont’s
8️⃣ Vlad’s role models as an entrepreneur
If you are interested, you can watch our conversation on YouTube.
The vast majority of global companies have regional leadership teams. These teams are often uncomfortably situated between the corporate executive team, and their own national (sales) organizations(s).
They usually have a tough job.
Typical challenges for regional leadership teams
Regional leadership teams often find themselves being caught in a sandwich.
On the one hand, they are being kept responsible for realizing the revenue and profit targets for their geographic area (’their’ business), whilst also ensuring ‘compliance’ in all relevant areas.
Everyone is an expert in Leadership Development, or at least has an opinion about it.
However, if that is the case, why do global organizations spend more than $60 billion every year on leadership development programs, but is it so hard to ensure the ROI of these programs?
To find the answer to this question, I decided to interview Ayse Yemiscigil for my Podcast Leadership 2.0.
Ayse Yemiscigil is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Fordham University’s Gabelli School of Business and a Research Affiliate with the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University.
In February 2023, she, Dana Born, and Horace Ling, published an article for HBR.org of the Harvard Business Review titled: ‘What Makes Leadership Development Programs Succeed?’
During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:
Current thinking in Psychology is that there are five dimensions we can use to describe the most important personality dimensions. Dr. Ralph Piedmont discovered the 6th one: ‘the Numinous’.
The five-factor model of personality (FFM) is a set of five broad trait dimensions or domains, often referred to as the “Big Five”: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (sometimes named by its polar opposite, Emotional Stability), and Openness to Experience (sometimes named Intellect). The Big Five/FFM was developed to represent as much of the variability in individuals’ personalities as possible, using only a small set of trait dimensions. Many personality psychologists agree that its five domains capture the most important, basic individual differences in personality traits and that many alternative trait models can be conceptualized in terms of the Big Five/FFM structure (www.oxfordbibliographies.com).
Recently I had a conversation with Saskia Schepers about her book on Neurodiversity in the workplace with the title ‘Als alle breinen werken – Waarom ruimte voor neurodiversiteit op het werk goed is voor iedereen’ (‘When all brains are switched on – Why space for neurodiversity in the workplace benefits everyone’).
Around 80% of mankind is neurotypical, and 20% is neurodivergent. We tend to ‘equip’ people in the latter category with labels like ADD, DHD, bipolar, autistic, etc.
Most leaders find it hard to integrate neurodivergent people in their teams.
The reason is that most of us have preconceived ideas about the way people in the workplace should behave. For instance, we expect people to like attending and participating in meetings, do their work in teams, be productive in open-plan offices, and socialize with their colleagues after work.
People who do not fit this mold are seen as bad ‘team players’, and are often criticized for this behavior, e.g. during annual performance review meetings.
The book almost immediately reached the number 1 position in the Dutch bestseller list of management books, was quickly sold out, and is now in its third printed edition.
An English translation is in the making and will be published in 2024.
During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:
One of the big temptations we as leaders face is our urge to add value to the work of our staff. Typically, we add this value in the form of change or additional requests.
There are three reasons why adding value is tempting for us:
Accountability – We are accountable for the work of our staff. If something goes wrong, we as leaders suffer the consequences (‘It happened on your watch’)
Know-how – We know it better than our staff. Seriously. That is most often the reason why we were appointed
We like it – As leaders it is often tempting to take a break from the daily grind of budgets and office politics, to dive back into the content we love(d) so much (‘Let me show you how it is done’)
As with every temptation in life, we need to fight this one as well. There are fivereasons for this:
Everyone who ever worked in a large organization, can probably relate to at least one of the following examples of conflicts that regularly occur in organizations:
A sales leader wants to close a deal with a low margin to meet her targets and to safeguard the relationship with the customer. The product manager does not want to sign off on the deal, because she wants to protect the margin of the product in the longer term
A business leader wants to hire a star performer working for another company, and is prepared to pay her more than the maximum of the corporate salary band for these types of roles. The HR Business Partner tries to prevent this because he does not want to create a precedent that can create upward pressure on the salary costs of the company
The head of a shared service department wants to hire an independent contractor for a project for USD 1.200 a day. The Purchasing department forces him to work with a consultant from a well-established firm on the preferred supplier list, for a fee rate that is 3 times as high as the one of the independent contractor
These, and other types of conflicts, seem to be an inevitable part of life in large organizations. The question is: why we have those types of conflicts, and if and how we can prevent them?
What do the notorious former marketing director of American Apparel, Ryan Holiday, and renowned Dutch reformed theologian Bram van de Beek have in common? They both have written a book about the danger of egocentricity.
Social media…are not to blame
Social media offers endless possibilities to promote ourselves and serve as outlets for our vanity. It enables us to humble brag about our professional achievements on LinkedIn, share evidence of our successful ‘friends & family’ life on Facebook, and demonstrate our cutting-edge lifestyle on Instagram.
However, looking at our current society and world history, it seems we as human beings always have been prone to self-centeredness and self-promotion. Social media therefore merely enables us to express something that is already deeply rooted in us.
In all walks of life, there are people who have deeply held convictions about how the world works, and act accordingly. The business world is no exception.
Examples I encountered during my career were business leaders that held and acted according to the following convictions:
The only way you gain respect by ‘the business’ as a staff department, is by reducing your headcount to the absolute minimum
Partnering with other vendors to deliver an integrated solution for clients is unnecessarily complex and has a negative impact on the margin
Teams perform at their best if the annual bonus of individual members is linked to individual financial targets
Customizing services for individual clients equals to sub-optimization
Strong convictions usually stem from the successes they brought us in the past. They also tend to become stronger over time: every time we successfully act in accordance with one of our convictions, our inclination to use it in similar situations increases.
Strong convictions offer several advantages
Strong convictions help us to make sense of the world around us and to simplify our decision-making processes. They save us time and effort. When we are confronted with an issue on which we have a strong conviction, our mental muscle memory immediately kicks in to prescribe the decision we need to take.
Another advantage of strong convictions is the potential it offers to persuade others. Because we feel strongly about a topic and have an active ‘personal repository’ of evidence (previous cases in which a particular course of action worked for us), we can speak convincingly to others about it.
Something I struggled with for a long time is chronic neck and shoulder pain when working with my computer. For the largest part of my life, I sat behind my computer like the hunchback of Notre Dame.
Well meant ergonomic advice, a standing desk, and using the mouse with my left hand only gave temporary relief.
The only thing that solves the problem structurally is going to the gym.
The problem is that I experienced being in the gym as exciting as watching grass grow. Besides, I always took the words of the apostle Paul “For bodily exercise profiteth little” (1 Tim 4:8) perhaps a little too close to heart.
If getting back in shape is part of your past summer holiday intentions – here are three things that got me back in the gym earlier this year!
When I had just been appointed in my first proper line management role, I decided to organize an offsite with my team. The purpose of this offsite was to finalize the development of a number of HR policies and processes.
Around 11 o’clock in the first morning, in a characterless conference room in the basement of the conference center, we completed our first round of brainstorming. When the time came to write up the output of our first session in a flow chart format, I said I wanted to use a specific methodology I had used as a management consultant, and would be happy to do the write-up.
One of my direct reports looked disappointed, because she wanted to create the flowcharts herself, but a colleague of hers consoled her, and said: ‘Sure, if Dirk knows how to do it and has a strong passion for it, why do we not let him do so?’ The others agreed, and they left the room to leave me to it.
I spend the next 1.5 hours working on my own in the aforementioned characterless conference room in the basement. When I was ready I went upstairs to look for my team. I found them on the terrace, enjoying the sun, cappuccinos, orange juice, and each other’s company.
Fortunately enough they thought my work was ok…
Do it yourself?
A lot of leaders frequently want to do the work of their direct reports. They have a variety of reasons for this, including
I spent a significant part of my working life developing leaders in organizations. What strikes me is that during COVID-19 the demand for this type of work has not decreased; if anything, the demand for leadership development has increased. That is remarkable. During the financial crisis in 2007-2008, for instance, most companies tried to save money, and one of the first things they considered was decreasing the out-of-pocket costs associated with these, and other kind of developmental activities.
Recently I was asked why companies continue to invest in the quality of their leadership at all levels of the organizations, despite the economic uncertainty they are facing.
In my opinion, the reason is that companies have come to realize the growing importance of the quality of leadership at all levels of the organization. I believe that this is a good thing, especially because leadership roles have become more demanding in the last couple of decades, not only for senior leaders, but also for first, and second-level leaders in organizations.
Let me start with a confession:I never liked receiving negative feedback, and have spent the largest part of my professional life ignoring it.
I found ignoring negative (or perhaps I should euphemistically say ‘corrective’) feedback to be quite easy. Depending on the situation, I either did not take the person who gave me feedback seriously (‘that is rich – from him?’), comforted myself that the feedback concerned only a minor issue in the grand scheme of my behavior (and that other aspects of my behavior would compensate this), or convinced myself that the person giving me feedback did not understand the context in which I acted the way I did or said the things I said.
It was not until I hit a serious roadblock in my career, that I started to see the fact that systematically ignoring feedback was not necessarily a great idea.
Critical self-reflection is difficult to acquire, but extremely important for leaders
By Dirk Verburg
For several reasons I love reading autobiographies of leaders in business and politics. The first reason is plain curiosity: the possibility to take a look behind the stage of well-known events. The second reason is because these autobiographies provide a unique opportunity to understand decision making processes from the perspective of the decision makers. Why did they take certain decisions in specific situations? Were they aware of certain developments? From whom did they obtain advice? What was the role of important stakeholders? etc. Continue reading →
A number of change initiatives in organizations do not add, but rather destroy value. In this post, the reasons for this are explained and recommendations are given on how to prevent the launch of such initiatives. Concrete examples are provided to illustrate the issues.
Change has become a necessary and constant factor
In 1965 Bob Dylan wrote the iconic song ‘It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)’ with the prophetic line: ‘He who is not being born is busy dying’.
The ability to ‘Being born’ is not only important for individuals, the capability to effectively change (or transform) the organization based on changes in its environment, is also vital for organizations.
Organizations that do not adapt themselves in the right way and at the right time to changes in their environment often cease to exist, with all the associated broader economic and social consequences.
Fortunately, most organizations are equipped with leaders who realize this and are able to initiate and implement changes in their organizations in an effective manner. If they are under the impression that they are not capable of handling this effectively themselves, can elect help out of the armies of external consultants on the market who are more than capable and eager to assist.
Change for the sake of change
So if changes are necessary and most organizations are able to handle them effectively, what is the problem?
Dirk Verburg 