Burpees are an effective move to incorporate into any workout, but the traditional ones can get boring. Check out these variations on the classic move.
To me, The Nevadebate was like listening to a pair of amped up high school seniors, the super-smart egghead girl vs. the uncouth classless clown, going at each other in front of all their cheering and jeering friends in the hallway in front of the lockers. Last night was all on the record and today it is all about the spin. Trump, for example, will no doubt say, "I did not say "nasty woman." What I did say, immediately after I said 'No one respects women more than I do," was "Nestea, woman." I was asking for a nice cold beverage. He will also claim that the word "bigly" is actually Chinese for huge as in "I buy bigly amounts of Chinese steel instead of creating jobs in Pittsburgh." By the way, Webster just called: it's not a word and he none of his dead friends are voting for you. Ah, illiteracy in America. Though somehow that works for the man who I like to call the American arm candy-date. Now for their outfits, I'm guessing that not one single thread on that lumbering bear's body was made in America. Though I'm sure you can get a great deal for the same suit at The Men's Un-awarehouse. Hilary's outfit, to me, said, "Which one of us is wearing the pants now, pussy boy?" If Ringling Brothers are no longer going to have animal acts, I suggest that they take Donald out on the road, because he is more trainable that anyone thinks. He was clearly told to PACE himself. Start slowly, speak lowly and use bigly, while you aim and shoot her down the way your sons Crisco greasy henchmen sons, Fredo and Skittles, murder innocent grazing animals for sport on the Serengeti. And then wave her sawed off tail triumphantly for the big internet photo op But here's the thing. And perhaps this is why Barnum and Bailey will take a pass on this act. After about twenty minutes or so, the tranquilizer dart drugs clearly began to wear off and out surged Leroy, the chest pounding orangutan who started swinging from vine to vine, grunting, grimacing, interrupting and snorting his way through the men's-only jungle where me no like lady, Beyond that, once he was settled down a few times by the surprisingly agile Chris Wallace in the Fox vs. Orangutan showdown, Trump then transformed into Beuford T. Shithead of Appalachia, spitting out gobs to-bacee into his nearby spa-toon while spouting baseless vitriol from the chair of Floyd's Barber shop with all the evidence required by Archie Bunker. We all know how we got here. The GOP, in a clear and present effort to treat our new black president like he was the uppity slave to their southern Birth of a Nation-style good ol' boy plantation owners, made it a blood promise pledge to defeat any significant bill that was created on behalf of the people. It was destroy his legacy from day one. And when it came time to take on Obamacare, they mangled it and then instructed their puppet state governors to make sure that little Bobby, who was dying with say, the precondition of terminal Leukemia, should drop dead. Fuck him. It was the same NRA backed, smug attitude they all took on while pretending to defend the second Amendment, just like when they trampled on the souls and graves of the lost children of Sandy Hook. I'm a Jew and I'm a fuck load more Christian than any of them will ever be. And per the whole right to life thing, they clearly and obviously do not give a shit about the lives of our living, in-need children. They are pandering to the clueless faithful of America who NEED to believe that someone is HEARING them. Fox and conservative was a great propaganda machine for them to spread the fake word while pretending that it was all fair and balanced. And the truly rich of America backed them too for all their quid quo pro tax breaks. And then suddenly, a pregnancy appeared: the one single pregnancy that should have aborted: Baby Boy Trump came along and instead of escorting him right to Planned Parenthood, they not only let him live...they personally raised him. The big joke is that je is the pure spawn of them. Ah. But he is not them. He's worse. He's a rogue agent. A violent, combustible, unpredictable and uncooperative disrupter who has no allegiance to anyone other than his own salivating need for money and power. It's misplaced manhood 101. See: living in the shadow of your far more successful, intimidating and domineering daddy. Also see: George W. Bush and John McCain. By the way: Obamacare does cover that. Trump is literally the monster of their own Garden of Eden and creationism has finally caught up with them. They're right on one point: Trump is proof positive that evolution has not taken place. It is not surprising that Trump has appeared on the stage of World Wrestling Entertainment. Everyone knows and accepts that it's basically the equivalent of a Bazooka Joe comic, but the throngs pour into those arenas, many of whom have more than one head, are exactly who has shown up to his rallies. The ones who despise education (as in Obama: code once again for racism), and think that global warming is a hoax (as in I know better than scientists and nuclear physicists. Wasn't it Trump who said he knows more about ISIS than the generals?) Trump is the Vince McMahon of American Politics who has taken American down to the very same level of Raw or Smack Down. What you saw last night, in WWE parlance, was the villain vs. the baby face. It was two different Americas brought before you. It was the thug wrestler vs. the skilled, civilized pugilist. And it was clear who won every single round by unanimous decision. Substance won. Decency won. Education won. Ideas won. Civilized society won. To paraphrase Meet John Doe: The people: try to lick em'. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Минниханов одобрил резидентство инновационной лаборатории «Ак Барс Цифровые технологии» в Иннополисе
Президент Татарстана Рустам Минниханов одобрил резидентство инновационной лаборатории «Ак Барс Цифровые технологии» в ОЭЗ «Иннополис».
To become a digital, agile company, data must flow across divisions, applications must be integrated, and business processes can’t be siloed.
General Dynamics Corporation's (GD) business unit, General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., has won a contract from U.S. Navy, worth $176.2 million.
Jennifer Maravillas for HBR In 1960, Harvard professor Theodore Levitt published a landmark paper in Harvard Business Review that urged executives to adapt by asking themselves, “What business are we really in?” He offered the both the railroad companies and Hollywood studios as examples of industries that failed to adapt because they defined their business incorrectly. Yet today, the railroads don’t seem to be doing too badly. Union Pacific, the leading railroad company has a market capitalization of over $80 billion, about 60% more than Ford or GM. Disney, the leading movie studio company, has a market capitalization of about $150 billion. That doesn’t seem to shabby either. While nimble startups chasing the next trend are exciting, the truth is that companies rarely succeed by adapting to market events. Rather, successful firms prevail by shaping the future. That can’t be done through agility alone, but takes years of preparation to achieve. The truth is that once you find yourself in a position where you need to adapt, it’s usually too late. Microsoft Consider the case of Microsoft, which failed horribly to adapt to mobile computing. In fact, when the iPhone came out, the company’s CEO Steve Ballmer dismissed it, saying, “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.” Other attempts to adapt to Apple’s innovations, such as the Zune mp3 player, didn’t gain traction either. You would think that by so totally misreading the market that Microsoft would be near bankruptcy, but actually the opposite happened. Over the past 10 years, the company has grown revenues at the impressive annual rate of about 10% and maintains margins of nearly 30%. Those are strong numbers. Take a look at Microsoft’s cloud business and you’ll understand why. The company recently reported that it’s growing at an annual rate of over 100%. This, however, is not a new initiative, but a direct consequence of Microsoft’s old servers and tools business that it began building for more than a decade ago. Microsoft is not a nimble company. It doesn’t impress anybody with brilliant market forecasting or slick branding. What it has done has made substantial investments in the research division it set up in 1991. When you are building capacity in your business decades ahead of time, you really don’t need to be that fast. Google One company that’s become famous for its agility is Google. So when Facebook emerged as a serious rival, it was no surprise when the search giant jumped nimbly into the space. It launched Google Wave, Google Buzz and then Google+. None met with significant success. Customers don’t flock to you just because you move fast. Still, Google is thriving and recently passed Apple to become the world’s most valuable company. To understand how, take a look at the innovation ecosystem that it’s built. It invests heavily into research and allows promising projects to incubate at its Google X division. The company is also active in the research community, regularly publishing openly in scientific journals as well as on its own blog. It invites academics to spend sabbaticals at the company, giving them access to Google’s unparalleled data sets, while they add to the firm’s knowledge and understanding of cutting edge technologies. Some of this new knowledge goes to create completely new products, like self-driving cars. Yet most of it gets plowed back into the core business. That may be boring, but it’s incredibly profitable. IBM There has been probably no company that’s transcended as many technology cycles as IBM. It was a leader in punch card machines, then dominated mainframes and led the charge in the PC era. It then built a phenomenal business around consulting services that helped design, build and maintain sophisticated systems for enterprises. Today, as those installed systems are moving to the cloud, IBM’s business is reeling with revenue dropping for 17 straight quarters. Many would say that the company desperately needs to become more agile and adapt. Yet IBM seems to be doing just the opposite, doubling down on bets it made decades ago. Take the company’s cognitive computing initiative, also known as Watson, which CEO Ginni Rometty sees as central to the company’s future. IBM has been working on the basic technology for decades. Other long term efforts, such as quantum computing and neuromorphic chips, are focused on powering the company long after we reach the limits of silicon chips. These new businesses aren’t likely to have a measurable impact until sometime around 2020, but when they do, most firms will be struggling to adapt. IBM won’t have to. Agility is overrated Agility is a very positive thing. Apple didn’t create the first digital music player, the first smartphone, or the first tablet computer, yet it came to dominate each category. Amazon wasn’t the first to sell books on the Internet, either. These companies succeeded not because they were faster, but because they developed products that were demonstrably better than their competitors. But truly great companies don’t scramble to adapt to the future, because they create the future. Take a look at any great business and it becomes clear that what made it great wasn’t the ability to pivot, but a dedication to creating, delivering, and capturing new value in the marketplace. The technology companies that endure are the ones who spend years — or even decades — to create the next generation of products. Which brings us to something else Theodore Levitt said, “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch hole.” Clearly it is not a particular business category that defines a company, but its ability to solve problems for its customers. And you can’t solve really tough problems by simply moving faster. Great companies prepare the ground long before. And that’s really the point. Business that focus on solving big problems and are willing to invest in them for years —or even decades — can get a lot of other things wrong.
How does your organization manage the money it spends on digital? One surprising finding of my research is that most do not distinguish between different types of digital investments, treating all in a similar way. This situation exists because, believe it or not, a lot of organizations lack any mechanisms to help them actively manage the evaluation, selection, monitoring, and adjustment of digital investments to achieve clearly defined business results while meeting clear risk and return expectations. In essence, digital investments should be planned and managed according to their current and future contribution to business performance. Just think about it: Not all digital investments make a similar contribution to achieving business results. For example, some may provide a source of competitive differentiation like the investment that German manufacturer Bosch is making in its internet of things (IoT) data platform. Others are essential to running the existing business but don’t necessarily provide a competitive advantage. A retailer’s point of sale (POS) system falls into that category. Instead, they should use a portfolio tool that classifies all existing, planned, and potential digital investments into four categories based on an assessment of their current and future contribution to business success. With this model, an investment can be defined as strategic, key operational, support, or high potential. Strategic investments are critical to future business success. They create or support a transformation in how the organization conducts its business, with the aim of providing competitive advantage. For example, it might be a new business model shaped by digital. Note that whether the technology used is “leading edge” is secondary. The primary criterion is the contribution of the investment to the competitive position of the business. Key operational investments sustain existing business operations, helping to avoid any disadvantage. The organization currently depends on these investments for success. It can be argued that in many industries substantial numbers of digital applications — for example, online channel to customers and ERP systems — have become so pervasive that they have become mandatory for survival in the industry. For key operational investments, the focus is about improving the performance of existing activities, which often entails looking for opportunities for integration and rationalization to speed up business processes and remove inefficiencies. Digital investments to assist meeting specific industry legislation also fall into this category. Support investments are those that improve business efficiency and management effectiveness but, in themselves, do not sustain the business or provide any competitive advantage. They are about achieving cost reduction and efficiency improvements through automation or meeting government requirements. Executives can sometimes struggle differentiating between key operational and support investments. The difference between the two is the impact if the system in question were unavailable. If it would have an immediate business impact, such as the impact that an airline’s loss of its reservation systems would have, then it is likely to be a key operational investment. For most businesses, e-mail, payroll, HR systems, and general ledger would be support investments. High potential investments are those that may create opportunities to gain a future advantage or enable core operations to be conducted more efficiently. They are essentially R&D investments in unproven ways to use digital technologies. They are driven by novel ideas or perhaps a new technology. Today, for example, many banks, insurance companies and law firms are exploring how they might exploit blockchain technologies. The portfolio tool can be used as a common frame of reference in management discussions about a number of areas. Let us look at several of them. Investment appraisal. A defining aspect of the digital portfolio is that different criteria should be used to evaluate the business cases for investments in the four quadrants. As investments in each make a different contribution to business success, it is only sensible that they should be evaluated differently. This is in contrast to the situation in most companies where all digital investments are typically appraised in the same way, using the same criteria. So while strategic investments should be evaluated on how they could be used to achieve strategic objectives and meet key business drivers (and then their success in doing so), support investments should be assessed on their ability to produce demonstrable reductions in costs. Implementation criteria. For each investment category, the generic critical success factors of time, cost, and quality will be different, requiring trade-offs to be made. For strategic investments, time to market is critical as the window of opportunity is likely to be narrow: Once you go live with a customer-facing application, it is only a matter of time before competitors try to imitate what you have done. The perfect solution, fully integrated with legacy systems, may not be feasible in the time available. Moreover, the early version probably won’t be able to provide all the sought-after functionality; features will have to be added as the application evolves and customer feedback can be incorporated. Given that a company depends on its core systems, non-availability or sub-optimal performance is not an option. So maintaining quality is the key criteria and cannot be compromised. Development approaches. Because of the uncertainty over outcomes (and customer reaction), what is to be built, and the cost of change, investments in the top two quadrants are more suited to agile approaches (such as scrum) for software development. In contrast, due to both greater certainty in investment context and the criticality of systems in the bottom quadrants for current operations, I recommend employing either a lean approach or the more conventional waterfall methodology in the development effort. Selecting project managers. The individuals managing investments in each of the quadrants of the portfolio should also have different skills, attitudes, and motivations. For example, a project manager leading a high potential investment should be entrepreneurial, personal achievers — perhaps even a bit of a maverick and risk taker. But it is unlikely that you would want such an individual managing projects in the key operational quadrant (remember your business currently depends on these!). Given that you are seeking long-term, quality solutions in the key operational quadrant, you need stability; therefore the projects in this quadrant should be managed by someone who is conservative and is good at reducing business risks. Investment life-cycle management. Over time, the contents of the portfolio will change, and for any organization, the contents of segments of the portfolio will be influenced by a variety of internal and external factors. Many ideas and technologies enter the portfolio in the high potential quadrant, where they are evaluated, perhaps via a pilot, following the organization’s innovation process. Some will exit the portfolio after having been deemed inappropriate, immature, or possibly too costly. The objective is to identify a small number that can move into the strategic quadrant, subject, of course, to meeting the investment criteria of this quadrant. Over time, investments that were once sources of competitive differentiation move into the key operational quadrant, becoming part of the organization’s core systems. When this happens, it is important that they become fully integrated into the core operating environment and are possibly re-engineered for long-term use. It is important to point out that key operational and support digital investments can also be made directly without necessarily emanating from the high potential quadrant, assuming, of course, that investment criteria are met. An example might be the decision to deploy a software package or cloud-based software solution to replace a bespoke application. *** The power of the digital portfolio is that with one tool executives have logic, a common frame of reference, and a starting point for meaningful discussions about digital that is centered on the business imperatives, not technology.
Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 is the world's largest defense program.
http://www.weforum.org/ By 2025, over 250 million young people will enter the Indian workforce. What new skills will be needed to thrive in an increasingly global, digital and innovation-driven economy? Dimensions to be addressed: - Creating an agile and entrepreneurial workforce - Leveraging technical skills in manufacturing - Prioritizing digital literacy · Akshay Kothari, Managing Director, LinkedIn Corporation, India · Sergio Picarelli, Regional Head, Italy, Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and India, Adecco Group, Switzerland · Shikha Sharma, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Axis Bank, India Moderated by · Shekhar Shah, Director-General, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), India
Anyone who has visited Samsung’s office towers in Seoul, South Korea, will not be surprised to know that the Lee family – the dynasty that controls the conglomerate – runs a tight ship. The three towers, which dominate the landscape of the Gangnam district, were built to consolidate many of the activities of the firm; their imposing presence is emblematic of the company’s hierarchal culture. Inside, elaborate security procedures, long working hours, and deference to senior managers are all in plain view. Also in plain view is the firm’s recent decision to issue a massive recall of and then terminate the Galaxy Note 7. Killing products isn’t easy. Engineers and managers toil for months, often years, to conceive, develop, and launch new products. They invest significant resources in research, marketing, and distribution. So to see those products go down in flames (literally, as in the case of the Samsung Note 7), often creates a very difficult choice: try to improve the quality and support for products or terminate them. In our five-year study of global handset makers, we found that most firms pull products when they turn out to be obvious disasters such as the Note 7. What proves trickier is to yank lackluster offerings with sales that mildly disappoint — products that perform poorly but are not clear-cut cases for withdrawal. In such cases, managers often hang on in the hope of an eventual uptake. More often than not the result is a confusing proliferation of middling offerings. Our research suggests that given the challenges of letting go of these weak products, companies like Samsung put important product decisions – like exit – in the hands of more senior managers. While centralizing decision making in this way can often overburden managers and be a drag on the creative freedom of designers, it has one clear advantage: it speeds the termination of products. Our research suggests that, on average, more centralized decision making structures are more likely to pull poorly performing products from the market. Centralizing product termination decisions does three things: 1) Focuses attention on the entire portfolio; 2) Manages the ripple effect that exit has on the firm’s ecosystem; and 3) Mitigates potential disagreements and delays owing to internal politics. Thus, centralized firms more quickly rid themselves of unsuccessful products – almost twice as fast as their more decentralized peers. These findings are especially useful for any companies facing a large portfolio of products, continuous technological change, short life cycles, and high levels of product obsolescence. Know the big picture Centralized structures speed product termination because they aggregate information about the whole portfolio at the top. Companies in our sample, which included all the major mobile handset manufacturers, had an average of 24 products in a major market at any given time. When you consider the number of all models across all regions, portfolios can become quite large. However, lower level managers charged with managing one or two products, are not likely to have visibility across the entire portfolio. They are focused on a narrow set of products under their purview. Decision makers at higher levels are able to get a better sense of how well or poorly products perform relative to other products. Therefore, decentralized firms may have delegated termination decisions to a product manager, to whom the underperforming product might look satisfactory, centralized firms are more sanguine and ready to pull. Also, the difference in responsibility and authority given to product and senior managers means they respond to performance problems differently. Lower-level managers may be less willing to give up on their products or give excess resources to a competing product team. Instead they would prefer to maintain the products and make adjustments to promotions or advertising. Senior managers, who have greater authority to move around resources, are more likely to withdraw support for flops and re-direct resources to winners. For example, right after Sanja Jha was appointed head of Motorola’s mobile devices unit in 2008, he immediately took control of the portfolio, cutting the firm’s entire Symbian product line and focusing the firm on fewer products and the Android platform. Terminating products such as mobile devices is a complex process that involves an ecosystem of design companies, carriers, applications developers, software companies, content providers, and manufacturers. Product termination requires the adjustment of a range of interdependent activities such as product road maps, factory schedules, and supply chains. The presence of so many external factors creates the need for communication and coordination internally across functions and product managers, and with outside carriers and suppliers. This makes it tricky for timing termination correctly. Firms might leave products on the market well past their prime. In industries characterized by short product life cycles and rapid technological change moving faster is generally better. Not only does this ensure “old” products are cleared out, but it makes room for new products, ensuring that managers can give them enough time and attention. Rapid change requires rapid decisions However, employees in a decentralized decision making structure must engage in constant communication to understand the factors affecting each other’s decisions and to properly coordinate exit. Under such conditions there are many more opportunities for disagreement and errors in decision making. Vertical hierarchies are much more efficient at processing information. An emphasis on vertical communication limits the potentially dense lateral communication flows that would be otherwise required to coordinate among termination activities. Centralization may improve coordination and yield better timed termination. In our sample, we found that the average run of a device was just over a year – but for Samsung it was about eight months. Our research also made clear that decentralized handset makers gave product managers great freedom to make decisions. While this provides for rich discourse and creative license, it may inadvertently create multiple fiefdoms. Given how difficult it is to achieve consensus in even just one such discussion between employees of multiple political allegiances and interests, one can imagine that decisions take time to reach. Internecine battles for resources may ensue and fuel debate over the best course of action. Centralized decision making also avoids the numerous (often contentious) interactions between product managers required to decide which products to terminate and to coordinate exit. Companies have to manage multiple opinions in decentralized organizations, making it difficult to set and agree on priorities. Centralized firms like Samsung were better able to free resources by abandoning middling products and to double down on new growth drivers. Much has been made of the fact that autocratic leaders like Steve Jobs are often key to success in innovation. What has been less apparent but no less important is the flipside of entry, namely exit. Here centralization plays a role too, as our research points out. Managers would be well advised to streamline their product withdrawal decisions if speed and agility is the name of their game.
The best of Broadway gathered Monday night (their one night off, host Billy Crystal joked) to celebrate Hillary Clinton, the presidential candidate most likely to get a free ticket to “Hamilton.” “Broadway for Hillary” featured an impressive cast of recognizable faces from Hollywood and the Great White Way. Yes, Neil Patrick Harris was there. So was Hugh Jackman. (And Alan Cumming, Bernadette Peters, Dame Helen F**king Mirren ... the list goes on.) Speaking of “Hamilton,” Lin-Manual Miranda showed up with his former costar Renée Elise Goldsberry to perform a rewritten version of the song “The World Was Wide Enough.” It’s not difficult to draw parallels between the politics of two centuries ago and the politics of today ― stolen correspondence, foreign meddling, a rich and entitled New Yorker running for office, etc. But in case you were having trouble, the original stars of the “Hamilton” musical are here to help with a useful parody. Below are the entire lyrics of the rewritten song listed as “The World Was Wide Enough” in the program (though some are referring to it as a “Ten Duel Commandments” parody), as sung by Miranda and Goldsberry: One-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nineThere are ten things you need to do (number one!) You register to vote and it’s onYou post that Hillary sign up on your lawn (number two!) Call some undecideds in your crewYour cousins in Ohio maybe try and flip ‘em blue (number three!) Watch Hillary examine the terrainWatch her campaign with the man Tim KaineTim Kaine in the membraneTim Kaine in the brain (number four!) Hillary makes each decisionLooking at the world from a rarefied positionA public servant with tenacity, agilityMi gente, experience is not a liability (number five!) Now we all know this is the timeWhen the other side tries to fly low we go high (six!) We know that our Hillary is no quitterWe watch as her opponent sits and fiddles with his Twitter (seven!) Confession time? All in a burstI want to vote for a candidate who puts our kids first (November 8!) Your last chance to participateRoll up to your polling place, vote up in your home state It’s down to the nitty grittyThree weeks to go, are you ready New York City? Yes, in a world gone berserkHillary rolls up her sleeves and goes to work!I have only one overwhelming feelingAnybody here wanna shatter a glass ceiling? (nine!) Look them in the eye, clear your throatSummon all the time you can devoteThen count (one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine-number-ten, paces, vote!) YES @Lin_Manuel @reneeelisegolds debut new, perfect #Hamilton lyrics: "Anybody here wanna shatter a glass ceiling?!" #BroadwayForHillary pic.twitter.com/zQoEzDUFdg— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) October 18, 2016 Some other highlights from the night: Ayodele Casel’s tap dance performance, Harris’ “Origin of Love” rendition (accompanied by ballerina Stella Abrera), Barbra Streisand as the voice of God, Jon Hamm and Jake Gyllenhaal’s “It Can’t Happen Here” skit, Sarah Jessica Parker and Andrea McArdle’s “Annie” homage, Cynthia Erivo’s absolutely arresting “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” Angela Basset’s reading of “Ain’t I a Woman?” and Julia Roberts’ f-bombs. The event, held at the St. James Theater in New York City, streamed on YouTube Monday. Despite the seemingly endless hellscape that is this election season, for just a moment, the world was a little happier. Or, at least, filled with more show tunes. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
You have an ambitious team member who’s asking to be promoted to manager. He’s great at his job, but is he really ready to lead? How do you judge his skills and experience? What’s the best way to measure his potential? What the Experts Say As a manager, you’re always on the lookout for the next generation of talent in your organization. But trying to figure out whether a particular direct report is management material is not always straightforward, says Anna Ranieri, executive coach and author of the forthcoming Connecting the Dots: Telling the Story to Advance Your Career. “It requires different skills to manage than to be an individual contributor,” she says. “And since you want your decision to promote to be the right one, you wonder, ‘How do I make a sure enough bet?’” The good news is that, “people can develop their capacity to lead,” says Linda Hill, professor at Harvard Business School and the coauthor of Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader. “What you’re looking for is behavioral evidence that this person has the potential and talents to manage.” If you’re successful in the evaluation stage, you’ll be in a better position to “anticipate the person’s weaknesses so you can help onboard him into a management role when the time comes.” Here are some ways to go about it. Gauge interest A good starting point, according to Ranieri, is to determine whether your ambitious direct report is, in fact, “interested in,” and, “geared toward management,” and not just “going through the motions, and thinking that she’s been at the organization a certain number of years so it’s time for a promotion.” The best way to find out is to ask her. “Say, ‘Do you want to be in management? What’s your view of what that means? And what makes you think you would be good for that kind of role?’” Of course, notes Hill, you must “pay attention to what the person has done, not just what she says.” Ask yourself, “Have I ever seen an instance where this candidate took on a leader-like role, not just a star performer role?” You should also try to figure out whether the person has “the right motivation to want to lead,” which Hill defines as the desire to “shape the context and coach others.” Assess experience Hill then recommends finding out what other management experiences the person has had. After all, roles like captaining a college field hockey team or editing a school literary magazine provide valuable leadership experience. She also suggests asking, “How do you spend your time outside of work? Perhaps this person volunteers and recently ran a campaign for a nonprofit. That shows she likes to mobilize others and lead.” Having the experience is key, but you’re also looking for evidence of growth, says Ranieri. “It’s important to test the person on his people skills and self-knowledge,” she says. The goal is to identify, “how he inspires others to work hard and give it their best. Ask, ‘What made you believe you were successful in that role?’” Test organizational know-how Once you have a sense of the aspiring manager’s interest level and past experience, you need to get a handle on her “understanding of the organization—its culture, its needs, and where she thinks it’s going,” says Ranieri. “If you think her opinions are inaccurate [or disagree with her assessment], it’s appropriate to push back or at least continue the conversation,” she says. “Maybe you will learn something.” Raneiri suggests asking the candidate to provide examples of current managers who are successful and—without naming names—cite ways in which other executives could improve. Your goal is judge whether this candidate understands the role and find out how she would run this particular team. It’s also important to evaluate the candidate’s contextual intelligence or CQ, says Hill. “Can he see the big picture? Can he connect the dots? Can he think systemically?” CQ, according to Hill, is a critical component of leadership “given the complexity of management today. Without it, you have trouble prioritizing and thinking about what your group should be working on, not just what it could be working on.” Seek other opinions Even if the ultimate hiring decision is yours, Ranieri suggests you discuss the prospective manager’s potential with other colleagues and fellow team leaders. Your inquiry needn’t be stealth. Ranieri recommends asking the candidate for references by saying something like, “‘I would like to talk to other people who’ve seen you act in a managerial way.’ This gives the individual time to seek out colleagues and remind them of examples [that speak to] his management potential.” It’s imperative, says Hill, to “solicit feedback from a range of individuals” in the business. She recommends paying special attention to what the candidate’s close associates have to say. “Maybe the bosses are happy, but peers tell a different story,” she says. That’s valuable information. Observe It’s also important to observe your ambitious report in action, says Ranieri. Notice whether she is “a person who comes to staff meetings and has ideas not only about her tasks but also about other things going on in the organization.” In other words: does she have a vision for the company and “is she someone who wants to have a broader reach?” Think about your impressions of this person. Is she curious? Is she a learner? When she faced setbacks, did she exhibit resilience? Who does she go to for assistance? Is she a loner or does she have a network? If you don’t see evidence of the traits you’re looking for or you remain uncertain of her capabilities, Hill suggests providing “little experiences” that will prepare her for a leadership role. You might, for instance, ask your report to lead an upcoming project. Or suggest she spearhead a new initiative. “Encourage the person to take the opportunity to practice these skills,” she says. Heed red flags When evaluating management potential, there are certain negative characteristics to be on the lookout for, according to Hill. Beware of those who are not open to feedback. And think twice about candidates “who very rarely take into account other people’s points of view.” Try to determine whether or not the person exhibits professional courage. “If he won’t stretch himself, to me that shows he is not ambitious enough,” she says. Also look out for those who are not generous. “A person who doesn’t work well with other people and who thinks he’s smarter than, or better than, others,” does not make for a good manager. “You want leaders who give credit freely, who acknowledge the achievements of others, who don’t punish people for their foibles, and who are willing to help.” Have faith The thing is, “no one is going to score a perfect 10,” says Hill. Don’t lose sight of the fact that you’re “measuring a person’s potential” and determining whether someone is ready to be a boss isn’t a perfect science. Ranieri points out that it’s also helpful to remember your own experience. “Think back to when you took on your first managerial role or your first big project,” she says. “Maybe you weren’t sure you could do it. But someone took a leap of faith on you. Even if you weren’t 100% successful the first time, you eventually got there.” Besides, if you do decide to promote this ambitious colleague, she won’t be jumping without a safety net. “It’s your job to help other people develop.” Principles to Remember Do Ask the candidate what she thinks management entails and how she would manage a team. Try to evaluate a candidate’s people skills, including empathy and self-knowledge. Get a sense of the candidate’s grasp of the organization by asking her how she views its culture, needs, and direction. Don’t Overlook a candidate’s management experiences outside of work; leading an athletic team or a squad of volunteers provides solid leadership practice. Ignore red flags. If a person isn’t curious or doesn’t work well with others, reconsider his candidacy. Forget that someone earlier in your career showed faith in you. If you believe the candidate has the potential and talent to lead, help her develop. Case Study #1: Measure the candidate’s interest in management and solicit feedback on his performance Erick Tai, head of engineering and co-founder at Reflektive, the San Francisco-based agile performance management software company, says he tries to gauge his employees’ interest in management on their very first day on the job. “When people start on the team, I ask them, ‘What are your personal goals? What would you like to put on your resume here in the next two years?’ This makes their goals, such as management, natural to talk about in one-on-one meetings.” When “Rob,” was hired as an engineer, he answered Erick’s questions by saying he was interested in management. Over time, Erick watched Rob. He noticed that Rob was a “pragmatic thinker” and that he put his team’s needs above his own. During a one-on-one meeting, Erick broached the subject again. “I said, ‘Rob, you’re doing great. And I think you could be a great manager. Is that something that you’re still interested in?’” Rob said he wanted to make the leap. To ensure that Rob was indeed ready, Erick says he created opportunities for him to interact with team members from different departments and to lead projects and guide younger engineers. He then paid close attention to the results. “[I saw how Rob] created processes that made his teammates more effective,” says Erick. “He guided projects across multiple team members to completion, knowing that there was a business goal we were trying to achieve. And he was very aware of why his work, and the work of those around him, mattered to the company deadlines.” Erick also solicited feedback on Rob’s style from other colleagues. “Oftentimes, we as managers don’t see the day-to-day interaction between our different team members,” he says. “One coworker highlighted how great Rob is at communicating technical situations in a non-technical way. Another told me how patient he was with their team. Having the insight as to how Rob treated people—not just his manager—is important.” Rob got the promotion and is doing very well in his new role. “Today Rob is running critical areas of our system—mentoring other engineers and nurturing their own leadership qualities.” Case Study #2: Note red flags and observe how a candidate involves and inspires colleagues When Marcy Fetzer—a principal consultant at DecisionWise, the Springville, Utah-based company that focuses on employee engagement—assesses candidates for leadership roles, she looks for evidence that they appreciate the importance of an empathetic and participative culture. For Marcy, one of the biggest red flags is an aspiring manager who doesn’t effectively make use of his colleagues. “I have seen many individual contributors who are superstars but don’t have the ability to work through others and multiply others’ potential,” she says. Recently, she evaluated a member of her team, “Sean,” for a potential supervisory position. Sean had impressed Marcy with his “personal drive” and “passion” for his job, and he told her that he was “hypothetically” interested in a leadership role should one arise. Not too long after that, a job that involved directing a large team opened up in Sean’s division. To determine whether or not Sean was ready for it, Marcy gave him an important assignment and then carefully observed how he handled it. The task involved building a custom training program for the team he might one day manage. Sean spent many hours beyond the requirements of his regular workweek to “meet and exceed the expectation of the assignment,” according to Marcy. He was not shy about asking colleagues for help and feedback. “There was a great moment of honesty where he said [to his team], ‘I could use some additional guidance and even a hand on building this.’” Marcy says the finished product showed Sean and the team’s “collaborative effort” because it “incorporated others’ suggestions and participation.” Sean’s “initiative and engagement in the work,” served as motivation to her and fellow colleagues. “That is what I want to see in leaders: someone who takes something, makes it greater, and inspires others along the way.” Sean got the promotion.
12 октября в Москве состоялся Teradata форум 2016, посвященный аналитике данных для бизнеса. Эксперты Teradata и представители компаний-клиентов и партнеров рассказали о передовых технологиях работы с большими массивами данных и их анализа. Также выступающие поделились опытом использования этих технологий для принятия решений в области бизнеса. Ключевой на форуме стала тема Sentient Enterprise, как эволюция современного бизнеса . Под Sentient Enterprise подразумевается модель предприятия, которое чутко воспринимает гигантские объемы данных, мгновенно анализирует их и автоматически принимает самостоятельные решения в режиме реального времени. Оно также умеет отслеживать микротренды и реагировать на них как единый организм, не сдерживаемый специализированными системами. Глава Teradata в России Андрей Алексеенко в своем выступлении выделил пять этапов становления Sentient Enterprise: Agile Data Platform, Behavioral Data Platform, Collaborative Ideation Platform, Analytical Application Platform, Autonomic Decisioning Platform. Стивен Бробст, главный технический директор корпорации Teradata, выступил с докладом Развертывание аналитических решений для обработки данных с использованием лучших практик Agile . Традиционно в форуме приняли участие представители крупнейших системообразующих российских банков - Сбербанка и ВТБ24. Выступление советника президента председателя правления ПАО Сбербанк Сергея Адаменко было посвящено месту и роли СХД в Группе Сбербанк. Также слушатели узнали о дальнейших перспективах совершенствования аналитических систем в ВТБ24 и месте облачных технологий в этом процессе. Вторая часть форума состояла из нескольких параллельных сессий: Аналитика в стратегии бизнеса Клиентская аналитика Data Science Технологии и подходы Teradata На сессиях выступили представители компаний лидеров российского и мирового рынка. Также свои доклады представили эксперты Teradata, рассказав о последних решениях компании, таких как Customer journey, Teradata IntelliFlex и о подходе RACE- гибкой методологии Teradata для ведения быстрых проектов.
Джефф Сазерленд (Jeff Sutherland), военный летчик (совершивший более 100 боевых вылетов во Вьетнаме), cоавтор Agile-манифеста и CEO Scrum. Здравствуйте! Сегодня я хочу поговорить о жизни, свободе и поиске счастья — о Великой Американской мечте, которая зачастую так и остается неисполненной. Как сказал поэт Роберт Бёрнс: «Даже самые тщательно выстроенные планы идут крахом и у мышей, и у людей», что не может не вызывать неудобств и психологического дискомфорта, вместо ожидаемого удовлетворения. Впервые я столкнулся с этой проблемой, будучи курсантом военной академии США. Во время нашего обучения нам пришлось пройти через огонь, воду и медные трубы, а в год перед выпуском меня назначили офицером роты Л2, которой требовалось разрешить проблему со строевой подготовкой, поскольку им предстояло участвовать в военном параде. Рота считалась чем-то вроде аутсайдера, потому что за целую сотню лет они ничего не смогли поделать с уже сложившейся репутацией полной посредственности и расхлябанности. Десятилетия уходили на бесплодные попытки научить их чему-то и заставить тренироваться с большими усилиями. Читать дальше →
Now we’re not trying to slow your grind and hold up your workout, but there’s a case for rest-pause training as it has been shown to increase strength.
A decade after the launch of the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), Amazon Web Service (AWS) is still the leader in Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud computing. However, ten years into a market, companies are expecting more than cheap infrastructure. Cloud conversations have shifted to business agility and advanced [...]
Развитие дистанционных сервисов, анализ все возрастающего объема данных, цифровой маркетинг все это невозможно без адаптации банком самых современных технологий. Приоритетной для ИТ-департамента банка остается задача поддержания непрерывности и устойчивости функционирования всех банковских систем, обеспечение безопасности. Приглашаем к участию: CIO ведущих банков; представителей ИТ-департаментов банков; представителей подразделений розничного бизнеса; представителей департаментов развития каналов ДБО; маркетологов; продакт-менеджеров. На конференции будут обсуждаться вопросы, актуальные для каждого банка: Как организовать проектный офис в банке и как оптимально выстроить работу ИТ-департамента и бизнес-подразделений с точки зрения управления процессами? Как совместить AGILE-подход и РЕЛИЗНЫЙ порядок работы? Как возможно вообще применение гибких методик в банке? Как СТРОИТЬ отношения между банком и вендорами? И многие другие. В программе КЕЙСЫ от лучших экспертов в сфере управления проектами в банках, живые ДИСКУССИИ, МАСТЕР-КЛАСС по гибкому управлению процессами. Как это было в 2015 году Участие для одного представителя банка, МФО, страховой компании бесплатное. За каждого последующего делегата от одной организации 9000 рублей + НДС. Для представителей прочих компаний и организаций стоимость делегатского участия в конференции 15 000 рублей + НДС. Для второго участника от одной компании скидка 10%, для третьего участника от одной компании скидка 15%. Зарегистрироваться: [email protected], +7 (495) 739-52-55, доб. 203, моб. тел.: +7 (905) 503-92-34. По вопросам спонсорского участия: Олеся Сидоренко, [email protected], раб. тел.: +7 (495) 739-52-55, доб. 201, моб. тел.: +7 (916) 298-98-23.
Alexander Osterwalder invented the Business Model Canvas, co-founded strategyzer.com and was the lead author of Business Model Generation which sold a million copies in 30 languages. Alexander and I often collaborate on new ideas for corporate innovation. Here's his guest post on what bad habits to avoid inside of a company. --- Big companies have great execution habits to manage and improve successful business models and value propositions. But the habits that foster execution can easily kill new growth initiatives inside your company. Bad Habit #1: The current business model dominates the agenda In most companies the future suffers at the expense of the present. Companies are great at improving their existing business model and value propositions, but fall short when it comes to inventing entirely new business models, value propositions, and growth engines. In fact, by the time a company realizes it needs to reinvent itself for future success, it's often too late. This happens because managing the present often takes oxygen away from inventing the future. Rita McGrath, a Columbia Business School professor says, "there's pleasing today's customers and there's developing tomorrow's business." You need to be excellent at both. Remedy: Create a protected space in your org chart where you invent and test new business models and value propositions. Equip this "space" with power and prestige. Become an ambidextrous organization -- one that is excellent at managing and improving your existing business, alongside inventing new ones. Bad Habit #2: One-size-fits-all decision making hurts speed & inventiveness Companies that grow in size and scale proven products and services can quickly fall into a trap of slowness, unthoughtful risk aversion, and failure to experiment. As Jeff Bezos puts it, one-size-fits-all decision making "hurts speed and inventiveness" inside large organizations. In fact, Bezos constantly adjusts Amazon's culture to ensure that the company never slows down and loses its entrepreneurial and nimble approach to finding future business success. Remedy: Amazon distinguishes between non-reversible decisions with substantial sunk costs (like e.g. investing in a new warehouse in Amazon's case), and reversible decisions like experimenting with a new offer. The former requires slow and careful decision making. The latter requires speed and agility. Bad Habit #3: Insisting on untested and detailed business plans Most established companies require detailed business plans for new ideas. This results in carefully crafted and thought-through documents with detailed spreadsheets and a great focus on how an idea will be implemented. However, the first goal of an innovator should not be to think hard about an idea and describe its implementation. First and foremost, an innovator's job should be to rapidly, cheaply, and continuously test and adapt ideas until there's enough evidence from the field to prove they will work. Only the latter helps avoiding big flops because it systematically reduces the risk and uncertainty of new ideas. Business plans actually maximize the risk of failure because of the focus on executing an unproven idea rather than testing it. Remedy: Use business plans only for execution of existing businesses. Don't ask innovators for business plans. Instead, implement processes that force innovators to systematically prototype and test ideas, reduce risk and uncertainty, and ultimately provide the evidence that an idea will work and is worth doing. Bad Habit #4: Opinions matter more than evidence Senior leaders acquire a lot of knowledge and experience about their business over the course of their career. Unfortunately, this knowledge may be irrelevant when it comes to new value propositions and new business models. For example, the knowledge that Kodak's leaders acquired during their successful decades in analog film didn't equip them for digital photography. Quite the contrary. The rules to compete in the digital age are completely different. That's why it's so important for companies to "get out of the building" and interact with customers. Steve Blank, father of the Lean Startup movement, stresses that you will never know enough about your customers if you are holed up inside a boardroom. A good idea might still be a bad idea because customers don't care about it. Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT, emphasizes that "a testable idea is better than a good idea". Remedy: Educate leaders that judging ideas for new value propositions, business models, and growth engines requires evidence from the field rather than just "expert opinion" from leadership. Implement processes that judge ideas based not on how they look, but based on the evidence from the field that support them. Bad Habit #5: Outsourcing customer discovery and testing Large companies have a habit of hiring outside agencies to do market research and customer discovery. That's dangerous when it comes to developing new value propositions, business models, and growth engines. You can't hire outside professionals to test and learn from customer interactions and make decisions for you. New ideas require many rapid iterations between prototyping, immediately testing with customers, and then deciding how to adapt your idea based on the acquired insights. Remedy: For radically new ideas you should defer hiring outside agencies until you've found product/market fit. Instead, roll up your sleeves and internalize the hard work of rapid prototyping, testing, learning, and deciding. Third parties can help you with the process, but they can't do the work for you. Bad Habit #6: Senior leadership too busy for hands-on innovation Senior leaders are very busy and time pressed people. Typically, they see the "getting out of the building" to test ideas with customers as a task to be performed by subordinates. But leaders have to be more than just sponsors of new business ideas. Decision makers are the ones who can make things happen. They are the ones who need to feel the market and talk to (potential) customers to learn that some of their initial assumptions or strong opinions might be completely wrong. Equipped with these market insights they can help move things faster. Remedy: Distinguish between senior leaders who manage the present like running factories, and senior leaders who are involved in creating the future and need to "get out of the building". Bad Habit #7: Obsessing about competitors rather than customers Unfortunately, many companies are more obsessed by their competition than their customers. Your customers are far more important than your competitors. Your (potential new) customers can tell you how to beat your competitors. Customer have the evidence your organization needs to validate or invalidate new business ideas and potential growth engines. That doesn't mean you should completely ignore the competition. After all, business models and value propositions aren't designed in a vacuum. However, competitors should not be your primary focus. As Steve Blank says, "You can't drive forward by looking in the rear view mirror." Remedy: Obsess over your customers first when developing and testing new value propositions, business models, and growth engines. Then, evaluate how these new ideas perform in the competitive landscape. Bad Habit #8: Focus on technology risk at the expense of other risks New business ideas face many different risks. The California design firm IDEO distinguishes between three types of risk when they assess prototypes: desirability, feasibility, viability. Desirability is about the risk of your customers not being attracted by your new value proposition. Feasibility is about technology and infrastructure risks. Viability is about financial risks. We added a fourth risk, adaptability. Adaptability is about the risk of a business model and value proposition not being fit for evolving external factors, like competition, technology change, or regulation (risk: external threats). Remedy: Make sure you test all four types of risks: desirability, feasibility, viability, and adaptability. Bad Habit #9: Innovation is career limiting In many companies being an innovator is not an attractive career path. First, in most organizations any type of failure is seen as a negative for your career. Yet good innovation processes require rapid experimentation and failure to gain insights, adapt, and ultimately succeed. Second, corporate incentives are geared to rewarding execution, where failure is not an option. Third, in most companies, innovation is still seen as a department for pirates and "the crazy ones" who really add no value to revenue and profit. And finally, prestige in companies is measured by who commands the largest budget and staff. But great innovation programs always start small. Remedy: Create different incentive systems for the people focused on execution, and the people focused on innovation. Make innovation a prestigious job in your company. After all, the innovators are ensuring your organization's survival in an age of constant change. Bad Habit #10: Innovation is siloed from Execution Companies struggle to get the "execution engine" and "innovation engine" to collaborate, rather than to compete. Rather than realizing that managing the present and inventing the future are equally important and should be equally resourced, they often fight for the same resources. Often the execution engine deprives the innovators from access to valuable resources like customers, brand, or skills. That means the innovators end up competing without any competitive advantage against the more nimble and agile startups. Remedy: Create a culture where executors and innovators collaborate because they understand each other's value to the organization. Create processes and incentives that grant innovators access to customers, brands, and skills so they can outcompete the more nimble and agile startup ventures. Bad Habit #11: Integrating new ideas into the execution engine too quickly New ideas are fragile and they need to be carefully nurtured and scaled before they are integrated into the execution engine with its rigid processes, key performance indicators rules, and procedures. If you integrate new ideas before they fully mature you might kill them. For example, Nespresso, the successful daughter company of Nestlé, only survived and thrived because they were physically distant from Nestlé's headquarters. Remedy: Protect new ideas until they fully mature; for example, like in Nestlé's case, by locating the project outside of the company's headquarters. Join Alex Osterwalder at the Business Model Canvas Masterclass in San Francisco, Nov. 3 - register here Steve Blank's blog: www.steveblank.com -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Rescue 21 is one of General Dynamics' state-of-the-art communications network systems, which enables the Coast Guard to execute its search and rescue (SAR) activities with far greater agility and efficiency.
Too many business leaders today are out of touch with the employees they lead. Edelman estimates that one in three employees doesn’t trust their employer — despite the fact that billions are spent every year on leadership development. Part of the problem: Our primary method of developing leaders is antithetical to the type of leadership we need. The vast majority of leadership programs are set curricula delivered through classroom-taught, rationally based, individual-focused methods. Participants are taken out of their day-to-day workplaces to be inspired by expert faculty, work on case studies, receive personal feedback, and take away the latest leadership thinking (and badges for their résumés). Yet study after study, including my own, tells us the qualities that leaders in today’s world need are intuitive, dynamic, collaborative, and grounded in here-and-now emotional intelligence. The mismatch between leadership development as it exists and what leaders actually need is enormous and widening. What would work better? Over the last 16 years I have carried out research into how leaders create change, and I’ve worked in the change leadership field for 25 years in multinational corporations. Over that time, I’ve come to appreciate four factors that lie at the heart of good, practical leadership development: making it experiential; influencing participants’ “being,” not just their “doing”; placing it into its wider, systemic context; and enrolling faculty who act less as experts and more as Sherpas. Make it experiential. Neuroscience shows us that we learn most (and retain that learning as changed behavior) when the emotional circuits within our brain are activated. Visceral, lived experiences best activate these circuits; they prompt us to notice both things in the environment and what’s going on inside ourselves. If leadership development begins in the head, leaders will stay in their heads. We can’t simply think our way out of a habit. But in experience, and novel experience in particular, our intentional mind can be more engaged as we make conscious decisions about our behavior. Insight Center Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders Sponsored by Korn Ferry How talent management is changing. In practice, this mean setting up what I call “living laboratory” leadership development. Throw out pre-planned teaching schedules, content, lectures, and exercises that ask you to think about your world and how you need to lead it. In its place, switch to constructing self-directed experiences for participants that replicate the precise contexts they need to lead in. In such experiences the group dynamics at play in the room become the (at-times-uncomfortable) practice arena. Business simulations or unstructured large group dialogues are examples of this. I have also used experiences that challenge participants to self-organize visits outside of their companies to stakeholder groups that matter for their future, such as a carbon-dependent energy provider visiting environmental NGOs. All can act as powerful experiential catalysts for learning and change. Influence participants’ “being,” not just their “doing.” In soon-to-be-published research, Malcolm Higgs, Roger Bellis, and I have found that leaders need to work on the quality of their inner game, or their capacity to tune into and regulate their emotional and mental states, before they can hope to develop their outer game, or what it is they need to actually do. So leadership development must start by working on the inner game. It’s very hard for leaders to have courageous conversations about unhelpful reality until they can regulate their anxiety about appearing unpopular and until they’ve built their systemic capacity to view disturbance as transformational, not dysfunctional. In order for leadership development to influence being-level capacities, the learning experience needs to offer stillness and space for intentional, nonobstructed contemplation. It’s difficult to teach how to be! Training people with tools and models is very different from simply holding a space for leaders to be. In practice, I have found that offering participants experiences such as mindfully walking outdoors in nature, sitting silently in peer groups to hear colleagues share their life stories, and providing out-of-the-ordinary tasks such as stone carving, enables leaders to tap into their inner world as a powerful instrument for cultivating the vital skills of purpose, self-awareness, empathy, and acute attentional discipline. Such approaches might sound a million miles from the chalk-and-talk model on which leadership development was built over the last century. But do we really believe that inner capacities can be developed in this way? Place development into its wider, systemic context. In their HBR article, “Why Leadership Training Fails – and What to Do About It,” Michael Beer, Magnus Finnström, and Derek Schrader talk cogently about the need to attend to the organizational system as a vehicle for change before companies simply send their leaders on training programs to think and behave differently. Too often I have seen the “parallel universe” syndrome, in which leaders attend courses that promulgate certain mindsets and ways of working only to go back to the workplace and find that the office (and especially top leadership) is still stuck in old routines. I have an additional spin on this need. And that is to use the lived leadership development experience as an opportunity to tune into and shift that very system, because they are intimately connected. Recently I directed a three-year change intervention in which the top 360 leaders of one company (including the board) attended a leadership development program in 10 waves of participants, with 36 leaders in each. Given the uncertainty in their industry, it was impossible for senior management to know what their long-term business strategy or organizational model would look like. However, the CEO did know that all he could do in such a dynamic context was build new capacities for agility and change in his organization. Each wave of participants joined the leadership development at a different stage of the company’s change journey, and at each stage we used the development experience not just for personal training but also as a vehicle to import and work with the shifting systemic dynamics of the company through time — helping them move through the “change curve.” This meant, of course, that the program for each of the 10 waves felt very different, all set course designs had to be thrown out, and we as faculty had to continually adapt the program to the shifting context. Enroll faculty who act less as experts and more as Sherpas. Finally, you have to attend to the required skills and characteristics of the people who lead these programs. In the above example, we found that no single provider could provide a facility that was holistic enough. We needed a faculty group with egos not wedded to any particular leadership methodology or school of thinking and who could work skillfully with live group dynamics, creating psychological safety in the room for participants to take personal risks and push cultural boundaries. We required the educational equivalent of Sherpas, people able to carry part of the load in order to guide participants toward their personal and organizational summits. This required not just hiring a bunch of individuals with such guiding skills but also developing ourselves continuously as a robust faculty team. We needed to be able to work with a continually changing curriculum design, and with the group projecting their discomfort with the wider change — and how it was being experienced in the program — onto the faculty. Make no mistake, attending to all four of these factors is a sizable challenge. Whether you are a corporate or business school leader, a head of leadership and organizational development, or a senior business leader sponsoring and attending leadership development programs, take a long, hard look at how you are currently delivering leadership development. The price of failed leadership is already too high for us not to attend to the process through which we develop it.