By Rodger Dean Duncan

In this rush-rush digital age, many people rely on email and text messages for their communication. Smartphones and keyboards can certainly provide efficiency.

But if effectiveness is what you’re after, human conversation is still the best way to connect with other people to reach mutual understanding and solve problems.

Unfortunately, a lot of people still don’t know how to talk. Oh, sure, they can fill a void with a lot of words. But many five-year-olds can do that. Real connection and collaboration require more than just the exchange of words.

George Bernard Shaw had it right when he said “the single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

In exploring this all-important issue of how people communicate (or fail to), I reached out to Craig Weber. He’s the author of Conversational Capacity: The Secret to Building Successful Teams That Perform When the Pressure is On.

To build their conversational capacity, Weber says, people must subordinate their base, ego-driven impulses to the finer aspects of their humanity. This requires cultivating candor, courage, curiosity, and humility.

Most of us spend so much time at work that it’s bound to affect who we are. The only question is how. Will we allow our workplace experience to reinforce the primal, self-centered aspects of our nature, or the more noble, more purpose-driven aspects of our humanity?

Weber says the key to building more skill with conversations is to become less cautious and more candid, less timid and more courageous, less critical and more curious, less arrogant and more humble. His insights are well worth digesting.

Rodger Dean Duncan: What do you mean by “conversational capacity”?

Craig Weber: Conversational Capacity is a discipline, or a conversational martial art, that I define in two basic ways:

First, it’s the ability—of an individual or a team—for engaging in constructive, learning-focused dialogue about difficult subjects, in challenging circumstances, and across tough boundaries. It’s easy to see this ability in a team. A team with high conversational capacity can accomplish really good work even when dealing with its most troublesome, contentious issues. A team with low conversational capacity can see its performance derailed over a minor difference of opinion.

So the more difficult the issues we’re facing, the more challenging the problem we’re trying to solve, the more stringent the differences of personality or opinion around the table, the more important our conversational capacity becomes.

Here’s a second way to think about conversational capacity. There’s a place a team wants to be working when they’re dealing with an important issue or decision. I call this place “the sweet spot”—that place in a meeting or conversation where things are open, constructive, balanced, and learning-focused. The sweet spot is where we don’t just have smart people around the table—it’s where we can readily access their smarts.

Duncan: How can a team maintain focus on that sweet spot?

Weber: What holds us in this sweet spot is balance between two critical things. First, candor. The conversation is open, honest, forthright, and direct. But unadulterated candor isn’t always productive, so in the sweet spot it’s balanced with lots of curiosity. People are open-minded, inquisitive, interested in new ideas and contrasting perspectives. This is what holds us in the sweet spot—balance between candor and curiosity. And when we leave the sweet spot, it’s almost always because we’ve let go of one pole or the other.

We can define conversational capacity, therefore, as the ability to work in the sweet spot in difficult circumstances. A team with high conversational capacity can stay focused on learning and do good work in difficult situations because team members don’t allow their defensive reactions to pull them off center.

Duncan: Why else is conversational capacity so important?

Weber: It’s a pivotal variable in both personal and team performance. Any team, for example, is a mix of people with different personalities, educations, life experiences, cultural backgrounds, and areas of functional expertise. High conversational capacity coupled with these differences can be a source of strength because the differences can be leveraged for learning. On the other hand, low conversational capacity coupled with these differences can produce a vulnerability to defensiveness and dysfunction.

Duncan: What are the telltale signs that a team doesn’t yet have this capacity?

Weber: When conversational capacity is lacking, there are two telltale symptoms—

• Undiscussable issues. When candor is low, we avoid or downplay difficult topics and problems. Then they’re more likely to come up in the hallway than in the meeting.

• Unproductively discussable issues. When curiosity is low, people butt heads, argue, dismiss one another, and stop listening. So while issues may come up, they’re not addressed productively. This means they boomerang around to another meeting, or the issue is re-assigned to the undiscussable list—“I’m not bringing that up again. I’m not stupid.”

These symptoms provide a clear signal that the conversational capacity of a team is inadequate. They’re important signals to recognize because no amount of technical sophistication or good intentions will compensate for a team’s inability to balance candor and curiosity under pressure. Even if a team is staffed with skilled people who trust, like, and respect one another, and even if they have all the technical pieces in perfect place—strategy, structure, processes, and policies—the team still won’t perform if their conversational capacity is too low.

Duncan: Why doesn’t conversational capacity come naturally?

Weber: That’s a great question. Balancing candor and curiosity is simple in concept but tough in practice for a daunting reason—human nature works against us.

We’re born with two powerful tendencies—emotional reactions—that throw us off balance in surprising and disturbing ways. And what makes these tendencies so hard to manage that they’re grounded in the fight-flight response—powerful, knee-jerk reactions to a perceived threat, be it physical or social. When our need to “minimize” the level of tension, discomfort, embarrassment, or risk is triggered, we tend to leave the sweet spot by becoming less candid. When our need to “win”—to be right, to get our way, to convince others to see things our way and agree with us—is triggered, we tend to leave the sweet spot by dropping curiosity.

There are stunning examples of this, such as co-pilots not speaking up when they see a pilot making a grave mistake, or surgeons fist-fighting in an operating room because they disagree over who gets to perform the procedure. But it’s usually not that extreme. When conversational capacity is low it’s more likely that we’ll not address an issue in a direct way or we’ll not listen, not be open to other views, or we’ll shut one another down. Either way, learning is hampered and performance suffers.

So the discipline of conversational capacity involves learning to recognize when our emotional reactions threaten to separate our behavior from our intentions and then to act more deliberately despite them. The goal isn’t to stop being triggered, it’s learning to act intentionally even while you’re being triggered. This is why conversational capacity has been referred to as “operationalized emotional intelligence.”

Duncan: You say relationships based on trust, loyalty, and respect—the holy grail of many team-building endeavors—offer no guarantee of high conversation capacity. Why? Is it because “nice” comes at the expense of candor?

Weber: That’s part of it. Good intentions are never enough. An intentional conflict is a clash between our good intentions and our need to be comfortable or right. I want to bring up a tough issue but I don’t want to rock the boat, or I want to be a good team player but I want my colleagues to realize I’m right and just do what I’m telling them to do.

When we like, respect, admire, or love someone, it can create a huge intentional clash.

In my work with executive teams, for example, people report that it’s often much harder to raise a difficult issue with a boss they respect and admire than it is with a boss they loathe or fear—especially if they’re concerned they might upset the person, damage the relationship, or look stupid in their eyes.

I’ve also seen teams that get along well—where there is great trust, camaraderie, and respect—but they aren’t as candid as they need to be. I observed a team that suffered from this problem. They prided themselves on their close, collegial, warm relationships, but then no one would bring up tough issues because no one wanted to screw up a good thing. They were nowhere near the sweet spot because, without consciously realizing it, they placed a greater value on collegial relationships than candid conversation. They sacrificed their candor on the altar of “agreeableness.”

Duncan: Why does conversational capacity seem to be under-appreciated in many organizations?

Read more

Drawing on her experience as both a psychologist and one of the earliest executive coaches, Frankel explores how childhood conditioning, workplace culture, and social expectations shape leadership behavior. She argues that while being “nice” is absolutely valuable, it is not sufficient for career success if it prevents women from speaking up, setting boundaries, taking visibility seriously, or claiming their place in leadership conversations.

Whether you are an emerging professional, an experienced leader, or someone committed to creating healthier workplace cultures, this episode offers direct and actionable insights into leadership, communication, and career growth.

• Being “nice” is valuable, but it is not enough for career success — Women often need to pair kindness with complementary leadership behaviors such as visibility, assertiveness, and boundary-setting.

• Many career-limiting behaviors operate unconsciously — Childhood messages, workplace expectations, and social conditioning can quietly shape how women communicate, participate, and advocate for themselves.

• Leadership visibility matters — Speaking early in meetings, being physically present, and intentionally building relationships all contribute to executive presence and long-term opportunity.

1. Pay attention to behaviors that may unintentionally minimize your presence — Waiting too long to speak, sitting at the periphery, or avoiding visibility can quietly reduce influence over time.

2. Practice setting boundaries through negotiation rather than automatic refusal — Clear communication and realistic expectations often work better than simply saying yes or no.

3. Focus on progress rather than perfection — Excellence matters, but repeatedly exceeding what the situation actually requires may drain time and energy unnecessarily.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

“People are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.”

That may sound like a line from a comedian. But it’s actually from Bertrand Russell. You know—the British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, essayist, social critic and Nobel laureate. Not known for comedy.

Intentionally or not, Russell provided a fair description of what often occurs in organizational cultures: Rules masquerade as reason. Sketchy thinking becomes strategy. Hair-brained ideas become products destined for the discount warehouse. Unchallenged nonsense evolves into the status quo. People go along to get along.

Such unproductive environments are rarely the work of a single person. This kind of imprudence is nearly always a group activity, a collusion of silent partners.

The result is what management innovator John Brandt calls Nincompoopery.

Yes, it’s a made-up word. But of course all words are made up. And this one aptly describes behaviors that can frustrate managers, demoralize employees, and run customers to the competition.

Brandt offers some excellent antidotes in Nincompoopery: Why Your Customers Hate You—And How to Fix It.

Rodger Dean Duncan: You say individual nincompoops are not the big problem, it’s the nincompoopery—i.e., the meta-foolishness—of the companies and systems in which people are forced to work. Give us a couple of high-profile examples of nincompoopery in the workplace.

John R. Brandt: When the Segway was introduced, the company predicted sales of 10,000 per week—at $5,000 each. Unfortunately, as cool as a stand-up, self-balancing, motorized scooter may be, most people couldn’t imagine why they needed one. Segway ended up lowering its prices and focusing mainly on police, industrial, and tourism markets—and sold 24,000 over the first five years (or roughly 2,576,000 fewer units—and about $13 billion less in revenue—than expected), at lower margins.

This is innovation nincompoopery on a grand scale. Too many leaders believe that innovation is only or mostly about technological wizardry. It’s not. In fact, if your technological innovation is too early—before customers see a clear need and payoff in adopting a new technology, which experience has taught them is likely to be painful, prolonged, and often unrewarding—you’re in big trouble. There’s no lonelier feeling than trying to convince customers to buy something they’ve never heard of and don’t understand, while commanding a premium price. Evangelism has its rewards, but they’re usually redeemed far in the future, or after you’re dead. Neither time frame is helpful in delivering profits today.

Another great example of how important (and lucrative) it can be for companies to manage and minimize their own nincompoopery is what McKinsey & Company calls the “moment of truth.” This is when there’s an opportunity for something to go dramatically right with a customer, or, perhaps more often, immediately after something goes drastically wrong. How we respond—with empathy or apathy— will shape our relationship with that customer forever.

A study in Europe found that 87% of bank customers who had positive experiences during moments of truth (a check put on hold, a bank error, receiving financial advice) increased their share of wallet with the bank. Just as telling: 72% of customers who had negative experiences downsized their relationships with the bank. Banks—and other companies—win or lose based on how well they minimize nincompoopery.

Duncan: Why—and how—do smart, well-intentioned people fall into a pattern of nincompoopery? What are the early warning signs?

Brandt: Part of it is human nature. We get comfortable, we fall into routines, and we find ways to slip past our own unease at the fact that things don’t work as well as they should. Or, even worse, we start ignoring or ridiculing the frustration of our customers.

How many times have you heard someone say, in jest or not, that their job or business would be terrific—if it weren’t for their cranky, stupid customers? Newsflash: Those customers aren’t stupid, but they are cranky because not only are you screwing up, you’re not listening to them even as they try to help you. A customer complaint is a gift, because the customer is saying that he or she cares enough about you, and what you do, that he or she wants you to do it better. You’ve been given a chance to deepen your relationship with that customer.

So the clearest warning sign of impending nincompoopery is when senior leaders create a culture in which legitimate concerns or complaints, whether from customers or employees, aren’t heard or tolerated. This can be due to active suppression, as leaders stifle dissent or disagreement because they see them as challenges to authority. Or it can be slower and more insidious, as leaders avoid the place where real work is done (the production line, a service call) and where real customers live and work (in homes or businesses).

Net promoter scores and customer satisfaction surveys are no substitute for listening to real people who buy things from you, and the employees who help them.

Duncan: What do you see as some of the trends that make it challenging for leaders to avoid nincompoopery?

Brandt: Think about the amount and speed of change we’re wrestling with: The original telephone needed 50 years to move from 5% to 50% reach into US households. Smartphones went from 5% to 40% in four years—during the worst economic downturn in 70 years.

Globally, the number of Internet users reached 3.9 billion in 2018, roughly half the world’s population. Yet even as we connect to others, we’re individually dazed and confused. With more than seven billion smartphones in use today, we’ve created an environment in which we and our employees can, if we want to, work 24/7, checking our phones up to 150 times a day. We think we’re all more productive, thanks to connectivity and multitasking, but research says we’re not. In fact, we lose up to 40% of our productivity by switching between tasks. The more we switch, the worse our performance.

And that’s just scratching the surface of what we’re trying to manage. Employees and managers are overwhelmed, which can lead to decision fatigue and paralysis—and nincompoopery.

Duncan: What sort of “audit” can be done to identify and begin the eradication of corporate nincompoopery?

Brandt: It comes back to listening. If your organization doesn’t have a program in which every employee—from CEO or owner to frontline worker—spends at least some time with a customer at least once per year, you can’t expect to outperform competitors, or maybe survive. And this time can’t be spent selling or attending the big game. You have to figure out how to work directly alongside the customer, in his or her workplace or home, observing how he or she operates in his or her own environment. This is the only way to identify nagging problems and new challenges that you can solve, as well as finding out how badly you’re currently goofing up on your responsibilities.

Small companies, which are often closer to their customers than large companies, should have a huge advantage here, though they often squander it.

Duncan: What can an individual worker do to avoid falling victim to corporate nincompoopery?

Read more

In this conversation with Rodger Dean Duncan, Zane explains how instinct shapes everything from consumer behavior and leadership influence to political movements and personal branding. Drawing on decades of experience with companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Bain & Company, she argues that sustainable growth comes not from overwhelming people with facts, but from intentionally shaping the positive associations that live in the unconscious mind.

Whether you are leading a business, building a personal brand, introducing change inside an organization, or trying to communicate more effectively, this episode offers practical insights into how instinctive influence really works.

• People make decisions instinctively before they rationalize them consciously — Facts and logic still matter, but subconscious associations often determine which ideas, products, and people instinctively feel right.

• Strong brands build large positive “connectomes” in the mind — Sustainable influence comes from continually reinforcing positive associations while carefully layering new ones over time.

• Persuasion works best when people feel ownership of the idea — Leaders gain more traction when they involve others early, invite collaboration, and build familiarity gradually rather than presenting fully polished solutions.

1. Pay closer attention to the subconscious associations connected to your leadership, team, or organization — People often respond to emotional and instinctive cues long before they analyze facts.

2. Introduce important ideas earlier than feels comfortable — Building familiarity gradually can create stronger buy-in than waiting until every detail is fully perfected.

3. Reinforce what people already value while introducing change — Radical shifts often create resistance, while thoughtful evolution helps people stay connected to the familiar.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

Enjoy the little things, because one day you’ll look back and realize they were the big things.

That may sound like a line from a syrupy greeting card. But it turns out to be an important ingredient in workplace issues like engagement, wellbeing, productivity, and even profit.

Star Dargin knows a bit about the rough-and-tumble of competitive business. Earlier in her career, she led hundreds of professionals in producing a bestselling software product that generated more than $500 million in annual revenue.

Then she left engineering to become a leadership coach.

Dramatic career shift? She doesn’t think so. In fact, she points out, both engineering and leadership coaching focus on making intangibles tangible.

Over the past two decades, Star has worked with hundreds of clients including high-tech firms and NASA. Her emphasis today is on gratitude.

Yes, gratitude.

As a conscious practitioner of gratitude, Star has done extensive research showing gratitude’s considerable benefits beyond the obvious “feel good” factor. She shares many of her discoveries in Leading With Gratitude: 21st Century Solutions to Boost Engagement and Innovation. Her suggestions for personal and workplace behavior make good sense.

And, yes, they can brighten your day.

Rodger Dean Duncan: Many people intuitively understand that gratitude is a key to happiness and good relationships. What’s the science supporting gratitude’s role in effective leadership?

Star Dargin: The study of leadership is as old as humans, but only recently is the business world recognizing the value of gratitude within it. It’s difficult to quantify the relationship between leadership and gratitude because there are hundreds of definitions of leadership—and because effective leadership changes over time and cultures. It’s always evolving.

There are many leadership studies that recognize gratitude as a trait of successful leaders, albeit sometimes disguised as appreciation. Brené Brown is my favorite scientist who has done research on effective leadership.

In earlier works, Brown says, the definition of leadership intersects with the definition of vulnerability because leadership is the ability to flourish in a state of flux, to manage people through uncertainty. Brown adds that, through her studies, she has found that the quickest way to become more vulnerable is to have a strong gratitude muscle, making this trait foundational for effective leadership.

Gratitude is a positive in the workforce in many different ways. Current science shows that gratitude improves our personal and social lives, health, and wellbeing. People who are grateful live longer, heal faster, have less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts. For instance, research has found that waitresses who are authentically appreciative get larger tips and board game players who are shown gratitude win more often because they take more risks. You can start to connect these types of gratitude studies to the development of more effective leadership skills.

Duncan: The notion of gratitude seems to be ingrained in many of the words found in leadership literature—words like engagement, celebration, recognition, and appreciation. What are the advantages of using the word gratitude explicitly in discussing leadership practices?

Dargin: It’s very true that gratitude is ingrained in many leadership practices today, often by using different terms. In fact, I’ve pulled over 50 books on leadership off my shelves and, in all of them, words such as appreciation, recognition, positivity, and thankfulness appear. Yet, these are all flavors of gratitude without being gratitude themselves. What do I mean?

Engagement has become the gold standard because, when an engaged employee feels appreciated, it can be measured and tied to return on investment, or ROI. While that makes it an important and complicated word related to gratitude, it is still not gratitude since an employee can be engaged without having gratitude.

Celebration and recognition are similar in that they are ways a leader can express gratitude, but are not gratitude itself. Plus, not every individual gives or wants to receive gratitude the same way. For example, calling out an individual accomplishment publicly can be highly motivating for some and painful for others. This makes learning the various way of giving and receiving gratitude important in the workplace.

Duncan: What about a simple thank you?

Dargin: Saying thank you is certainly another option, but not all thank yous express gratitude.

For example, I’ve identified three types of thank yous. The first is cultural, learned, and ingrained in many of us since birth. In the U.S., for instance, this type occurs when we thank someone who gives us a gift, even if we dislike it. My German friend even complains that when she goes back home, she has to remember to stop saying thank you so much.

The second type of thank you expects reciprocity. In other words, you give it to get something in return. An example is bringing food to an optional meeting in exchange for attendance.

The last type of thank you is the only one that actually expresses gratitude. You are truly grateful and say thank you consciously and authentically, with nothing expected in return.

In essence, explicitly using the word gratitude in an authentic way cuts through the heaviness of other gratitude-encompassing words like engagement. It is simple and comes from the heart, so why not say, “I’m grateful” instead of using these other words?

Duncan: How does gratitude manifest itself in the observable behavior of an effective leader?

Dargin: Leaders operating from gratitude are more engaged and innovative. Rather than blaming or becoming defensive, fearful, or avoiding, they listen better and are more open and accepting. Their behavior also becomes one of natural curiosity, making them generally more creative in their collaborative problem-solving efforts. The bottom line is improved when leaders are most productive. This happens when leaders are creative and engaged. Of course, productivity leads to more gratitude, which creates a reinforcing cycle of positivity.

As an example, one of my coaching clients was a brilliant and talented technical director at a large international company. However, one of the biggest challenges he faced was working with a CIO who had a different personality type than his. He believed the CIO was belittling and undermining him. This difference meant that he didn’t feel gratitude, so he avoided the CIO and even considered leaving the company.

Through some tough coaching sessions, we were able to shift my client to a place of gratitude, a place where he could see a few things to be grateful for about the CIO and the situation. As a result, he has become more innovative and started finding ways to interact with the CIO. It didn’t happen overnight, but my client is fully engaged at the company and is no longer thinking about leaving.

Additionally, after teaching communication classes for decades, I noticed that no matter what technique was applied, unless you came at it with a positive mindset, it didn’t work as well. Starting from a place of gratitude always seems to improve communication, regardless of which technique is used.

Duncan: How can an organization make gratitude a more central part of its culture—and what are the benefits?

Read more

In this conversation with Rodger Dean Duncan, Harter explains why so many organizations continue to struggle with disengagement despite overwhelming research showing what works. He explores the critical role managers play in shaping culture, why traditional performance reviews often fail, and how continuous coaching conversations build trust, accountability, and productivity.

Whether you lead a global organization, manage a small team, or simply want to create a healthier and more productive work environment, this episode offers practical insights grounded in decades of research and real-world application.

• Great managers drive engagement more than any other factor — Gallup’s research shows that roughly 70% of the variance in team engagement can be traced directly to the manager and the quality of daily leadership behaviors.

• Continuous conversations outperform episodic performance reviews — High-performing cultures are built through frequent coaching discussions rather than quarterly or annual evaluations that arrive too late to be useful.

• Hybrid and remote work require intentional relationship-building — Psychological distance increases quickly without consistent, meaningful weekly conversations and carefully planned in-person collaboration.

1. Evaluate whether your management conversations are continuous or merely episodic — Waiting for formal reviews may allow problems, confusion, and disengagement to grow unchecked.

2. Identify the barriers preventing people from doing great work — Burnout often stems less from long hours and more from frustration, unclear expectations, or lack of support.

3. Make weekly connection a leadership discipline — Even brief but meaningful conversations can strengthen trust, alignment, accountability, and engagement over time.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

Are you a clutter bug?

Has that treadmill become no more than a place to hang laundry?

Is your garage so crammed with litter that your car spends every season out on the driveway?

Does your basement resemble an archeological dig?

What about your home office? Is the file you desperately need for the next Zoom call buried under that stack of catalogues from a store where you haven’t shopped since 2009?

In your heart of hearts do you realize you have a problem with “too much stuff” but you just can’t seem to get a grip on how to manage it?

Yes, you are a clutter bug.

You could benefit by a piece of advice from Wendell Berry. He says, “Don’t own so much clutter that you will be relieved to see your house catch fire.”

Who is Wendell Berry? He’s an environment activist. How ironic.

An excellent source of specific “how to” advice on simplifying your life is Tracy McCubbin. She’s owner of a home organization company called dClutterfly. Her books are Making Space, Clutter Free and Make Space for Happiness. She’s regularly featured in major media including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, NBC and others.

McCubbin has identified seven “emotional clutter blocks” that contribute to the landfills in people’s home and work environments. Be honest, do any of these sound familiar?

#1 My Stuff keeps me in the past. Children’s artwork (but no more children). Outdated clothes that no longer fit. Garden tools that are no longer used.

#2 My stuff tells me who I am. Stacks of shipping boxes, evidence of excessive online shopping. Multiples of items. Brand flaunting.

#3 The stuff I’m avoiding. Unfiled paperwork. Unopened mail. Unfinished projects. Unreturned items.

#4 My fantasy stuff for my fantasy life. Lots of items you’ve never used. Clothes with the tags still on. Exercise equipment that’s never been assembled.

#5 I’m not worth my good stuff. A closet full of designer clothes, but your clients wear only sweatpants. Unlit candles, unused bath salts, packed away china and silver.

#6 Trapped with other people’s stuff. Multiple sets of china. Boxes of memorabilia. Inherited furniture that no one sleeps/sits on.

#7 The stuff I keep paying for. “But I paid a lot for that.” “I don’t want it to go to waste.” “That could be useful someday.”

McCubbin says that during her first five years as a professional organizer, she heard the same stories over and over and noticed a pattern.

“Everyone has at least one clutter block,” McCubbin says. “And most people have more than one. As your life changes, so will your clutter blocks. When we can identify what’s holding us back, then we can break free of our clutter.”

Most people think they need much more than they actually do, she says. “Think about when you travel. You don’t spend the trip longing for the stuff you have at home. You get by perfectly with what’s in your suitcase. It’s a lesson in how little we actually need.”

So why is it so common for people to find themselves burdened by clutter?

“It’s a one-two punch of over-acquiring, buying because we think the stuff will fix us and then not being able to let go because we’ve created an attachment (emotional, sentimental or economical) to our stuff,” McCubbin says.

She says everyone has voids to fill: not feeling loved, low self-confidence, sadness, grief. “Whatever that void is, we’ve tried to fill it with stuff. We buy, keep, and collect because we think things will make us all feel better. But the stuff doesn’t fix us. In fact, it does the opposite. The more clutter we have the less likely we are to connect with others. We tend to hide behind our clutter, thereby missing out on true connection with friends and family, which is what will ultimately help us fill our voids.”

In what ways have easy-to-use shopping venues (think Amazon Prime) contributed to people’s challenges with clutter?

“Before online shopping, you actually had to put pants and drive to a store,” McCubbin says. “Now, shopping is available at all times and with only a keystroke. Also, now that we rarely spend with actual cash we don’t feel the actual cost of buying, it just gets thrown on a credit card and the dollars get moved from one account to another.”

Online shopping plays into the reward center in people’s brains, she says. They get a hit of dopamine when they put something in their cart, when they click buy now, and then when the package gets delivered. So online shopping has become another way we chase the dopamine high.

Social media platforms play a role in the clutter epidemic. Back in the days before social media (can you remember?) we had radio and only a handful of TV channels. So when commercials were playing we knew we were being targeted by marketers. But social media hums along 24/7 with influencers masquerading as our friends.

“We’re constantly being marketed to and we’re losing our media literacy,” McCubbin says. “Also, everyone’s home looks “perfect” on social media, so we think if we buy what they have, our homes will be perfect too. The pressure to buy is coming at us from all directions now.”

Read more

Marcus unpacks the research behind his new book Design Love In, revealing how extreme positive experiences drive extraordinary behavior and why leaders must rethink the way they build culture, manage performance, and create connection. He also walks through the five sequential feelings that create love in organizations: control, harmony, significance, warmth of others, and growth.

• Love Is a Measurable Business Force

  Extreme positive experiences drive extraordinary loyalty, resilience, productivity, and growth.

• The Founder’s Flame Must Be Protected

  Organizations lose their humanity when operational machinery replaces human passion and purpose.

• Great Leaders Design Experiences People Love

  The most effective leaders intentionally create environments that people genuinely want to be part of.

1. Evaluate Your Workplace Through a Loving Lens

   Examine whether your systems and leadership practices create experiences people genuinely value and enjoy.

2. Create Greater Clarity and Emotional Awareness

   Help people understand the “rules of the game” while also recognizing and responding to their emotional realities.

3. Design for Human Connection, Not Just Performance

   Look for intentional ways to make people feel seen, supported, and connected inside your organization.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

You may be familiar with Peter Drucker’s assertion that management is doing things right and leadership is doing the right things.

According to Drucker’s view, you might say that a manager makes sure you climb a ladder efficiently while a leader makes sure your ladder is leaning against the right wall.

These are succinct definitions, but of course in reality the roles often overlap. Some managers are very good at helping people catch the vision of what’s possible, while some leaders are equally adept at making sure day-to-day deliverables are properly handled.

Still, in most organizations there’s a clear distinction between the roles of managers and leaders. And despite the many workplace paradigm shifts that occurred during the Covid pandemic, the view persists that career advancement requires a move from manager to leader.

Adam Bryant offers a cogent analysis of the subject. He’s the creator and former author of the iconic Corner Office column in The New York Times, and is now senior managing director at The ExCo Group, a leadership development and executive mentoring firm. Based on his work with hundreds of successful CEOs and fast-rising executives, Bryant has distilled his key insights into The Leap to Leader: How Ambitious Managers Make the Jump to Leadership.

What questions should people be asking themselves if they think they’d like to move into a leadership role?

“They should invest the time to think about why they want to lead others because these roles are often much harder than they appear,” Bryant says. “As a leader, you’re dealing with a lot of people problems and you’re putting out a lot of fires. Because it’s hard to get work done at work, you’re often facing a three-shift day and the work will bleed into weekends.”

Too often, Bryant says, “people can get enticed by a bigger title and the financial rewards that come with it rather than pausing and asking themselves if they really want to do the work that the job entails. Similarly, companies, when they are looking at their leadership pipeline and succession plans, too often just assume that every person wants to move up. So be clear about your ‘why’ to help you get through the tougher patches, because the sense of reward from a bigger title and higher pay tend to wear off.”

Bryant says the biggest challenge for people who make the leap to leadership roles is the mindset shift they’re required to make. “As a manager, there’s usually an explicit outcome that you are expected to deliver,” he says. “You’re given resources such as time, manpower and a budget to execute the plan. As a leader, you have to think more broadly about opportunities and what the organization needs that maybe other leaders haven’t considered. Doing that requires courage, and a willingness to take bets and own the consequences if things go wrong.”

Bryant says “selfless versus self-centered” is the central paradox facing leaders.

“Leaders who are more selfless think first about the people they are leading and the organization,” Bryant says. “What’s best for the people? They see their role more in terms of coaching people to unlock and develop their skills.”

One of the paradoxes of leadership, Bryant says, is that the role is simultaneously about you and not about you. “Yes, you set the tone and direction as the leader, and all the signals you send—verbal and nonverbal—will carry an outsized impact. But the role isn’t about you.”

Bryant quotes Christian Klein, the CEO of software company SAP, who said, “For me, what’s important is that I’m able, when I look at myself in the mirror in the morning, to answer the question, ‘Is what we are doing absolutely the right thing to do in the midterm and the long term?’ And as long as I can answer that question by saying yes, I know that I’m doing the right thing for all stakeholders.”

Some managers seem to assume that a Starbucks coffee card is the best (certainly one of the easiest) ways to recognize employee performance. What forms of recognition has Bryant found to be most helpful in reinforcing good performance?

Read more

Shannon Bream draws from personal experience, journalism, and biblical narratives to show how leaders can move forward through fear, doubt, and adversity. Reflecting on her own season of chronic pain, along with years of covering conflict, crisis, and uncertainty in the news, she brings a grounded perspective to what it means to endure and keep moving forward. From Gideon’s self-doubt to Moses’ hesitation and Joshua’s repeated call to courage, she illustrates that leadership is rarely about confidence at the outset, but about trust, preparation, and persistence over time. By combining faith with action, preparation with prayer, and courage with humility, Shannon offers a practical framework for leading through uncertainty while remaining grounded in purpose.

• Leadership often begins before you feel ready — many effective leaders step into roles with uncertainty, fear, and a sense of inadequacy

• Faith and preparation work together — prayer provides direction, but preparation equips you to act when the opportunity comes

• Expect resistance and setbacks — progress is rarely linear, and challenges often intensify before things improve

1. Take the next step before you feel ready — act on what you know instead of waiting for complete confidence

2. Prepare thoroughly and stay grounded — combine intentional preparation with reflection, prayer, or quiet focus

3. Anticipate challenges without losing direction — expect setbacks and remain committed to the path forward

By Rodger Dean Duncan

Most of us have experienced well-intentioned leaders who miss the mark. At one extreme is the command-and-control leader whose “my way or the highway” approach alienates more than inspires. At the other end of the spectrum is the crowd-pleaser whose need to be liked gets in the way of positive performance.

Neither approach ends well.

Dr. Nate Regier offers smart counsel on how to deal with the conundrum. He’s author of Compassionate Accountability: How Leaders Build Connection and Get Results. CEO and founder of a global leadership firm, Regier hosts a podcast, writes a weekly blog, and contributes to multiple industry publications.

Why, you might ask, do so many people seem to find it difficult to reconcile compassion with accountability?

Regier explains: ”Human beings are social beings,” he says. “We’re programmed to seek connection. Humans are also achievement oriented, motivated to solve problems and get results. But under stress or when the stakes are high, people often default toward one or the other. We’ve discovered that this tendency toward either connection or results has a cultural component and is also strongly influenced by personality.”

Perhaps that’s why many people see compassion and accountability as opposites, somehow working against each other. It doesn’t have to be this way, Regier says. Compassion, in its truest form, includes accountability. You can’t have one without the other.

So, what’s the differences between accountability and responsibility?

Regier says responsibility relates to those things over which we have individual control—our own feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. No more, no less. Accountability, on the other hand, is about the scope of outcomes for which we must account. “For example, if I’m the chief financial officer, I must account for the financial performance of the organization,” Regier says. “But I’m not responsible for the individual spending behaviors of the employees. I am, however, responsible for how I conduct myself in my role.”

Regier says a lot of problems arise when leaders try to assume responsibility for other people’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors to soothe their own anxiety about outcomes or to compensate for their inability to positively influence others in more effective ways. “Either taking too little, or too much, responsibility can compromise a leader’s ability to be accountable,” he says. “For example, if I’m worried about how my team’s performance will reflect on me as a leader and I don’t take personal responsibility for this by being transparent and asking for help, I might tend to micromanage them. This lowers morale, undermines their capability and autonomy, and hurts the results of my department for which I’m accountable.”

Clearly, compassion versus accountability is a false dichotomy. So, what happens when leaders fall victim to it?

“When leaders fall victim to this false dichotomy, they feel pressure to choose one over the other,” Regier says. “Choosing compassion over accountability causes problems with consistency, follow-through, goal achievement, and quality. Leaders are liked but not respected. Choosing accountability over compassion causes problems with morale, trust, and safety. Leaders are feared, but not respected. Compassion without accountability gets you nowhere. Accountability without compassion gets you alienated. Either way, integrity suffers.”

Regier says trust and integrity are the two most significant benefits to an organization where compassionate accountability is widely practiced. He says compassionate accountability answers two critical trust questions: “Am I safe with you?” and “Can I count on you?”

With compassionate accountability, he says, people experience trust at a deeper level because it combines psychological safety with a commitment to follow-through.

“Integrity is about consistency between values and behaviors,” Regier says. “Compassionate accountability doesn’t compromise values and standards to keep the peace. Neither does it compromise human dignity in the pursuit of results. By separating the person from their behavior, people can be treated with care, concern and empathy while also holding them accountable for behavior.”

As you would imagine, command-and-control leaders can find it challenging to convert to a compassionate accountability mindset.

Regier says many command-and-control leaders have learned two unproductive, but functional habits: vulnerability is weakness, and fear gets short-term results.

“Replacing these habits with compassionate accountability is difficult because these leaders have achieved their goals this way in the past,” he says. “But relationships suffer.”

Regier points out that command-and-control tactics get diminishing returns, and eventually begin to cause turnover and morale problems. “Today’s younger workforce won’t tolerate compromises in either compassion or accountability,” he says. “Command-and-control leaders who want to evolve to become relevant and effective must learn new strategies for influencing people without force and they must open themselves up to being more vulnerable.”

In recent years, there’s been a lot of research on toxic workplace cultures. How can compassionate accountability help transform a culture in a positive, more productive direction?

“Culture is the sum of every interaction between people,” Regier says. “Leaders account for up to 70% of the variance in employee engagement and retention. When leaders use compassionate accountability as a framework for leadership, each interaction is an opportunity to affirm people’s value, capability, and responsibility within the culture.”

Regier says that when people are treated as valuable, they feel safer and confident. This improves trust. When people are treated as capable, they feel more empowered to take initiative. This improves innovation. And when people are treated as responsible, they take more initiative and experience more ownership. This improves follow-through.

He describes what he calls the Compassion Mindset, and explains the keys to adopting it to make compassion a natural, automatic behavior.

“Compassion is the practice of demonstrating that people are valuable, capable, and responsible in every interaction,” he says. “The Compassion Mindset is an attitude, a decision to view ourselves and others as valuable, capable, and responsible. A handy acronym is VCR.”

Imagine three switches that any leader can turn on for themselves and others—VCR. Each switch is necessary, but not sufficient for compassionate accountability.

Read more

Juliet Funt challenges the modern obsession with busyness and introduces the intentional use of “white space.” Rather than moving from one task to the next without pause, she shows how creating small moments, or “wedges”, between activities allows leaders to process what just happened, reset, and prepare for what’s ahead. By building these pauses into the day, leaders can think more clearly, make better decisions, and bring greater focus and energy to their work.

• Busy work crowds out meaningful work — excessive meetings, emails, and tasks create constant motion without clear direction

• Small pauses have outsized impact — short “wedges” between activities allow time to digest, reset, and prepare

• Much urgency is self created — many pressures and timelines are arbitrary and can be adjusted to improve outcomes

1. Review your day for patterns — identify where you move from one task to the next without time to think

2. Create small spaces between activities — add brief pauses to reflect on what just happened and prepare for what’s next

3. Reduce unnecessary urgency — revisit timelines and expectations that may be creating avoidable pressure

By Rodger Dean Duncan

The world seems to be awash with pithy advice on how to make good decisions:

• “Unsuccessful people make decisions based on their current situation; successful people make decisions based on where they want to be.”

• “Don’t base your decisions on the advice of those who don’t have to deal with the results.”

• “Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions.”

• “Unnecessary fear of a bad decision is a major stumbling block to good decisions.”

• “Indecision is a decision.”

One might think that with so much data available on nearly every conceivable issue, decision-making today would be easier than ever. But then there’s that pesky thing called information overload.

An excellent guide in navigating this challenge can be found in Decisions Over Decimals: Striking the Balance Between Intuition and Information by Christopher Frank, Paul Magnone, and Oded Netzer.

The authors have credentials that seem tailor-made for such a book. Frank is vice president of Global Marketplace Insights at American Express where he leads the communications and brand research analytics group. He’s also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. Magnone is head of the Global Strategic Alliances group at Google. As a systems thinker and business builder, he previously worked at Deloitte and IBM. Netzer is vice dean of research and a professor at Columbia Business School. He’s a world-renowned expert in data-driven decision-making and extracting meaningful insights from data.

So, what do these smart guys have to say about making smart decisions? Listen in on our conversation.

Rodger Dean Duncan: Quantitative Intuition (QI)^TM, you say, can produce more effective and more efficient decisions. In a nutshell, how does it work?

Christopher Frank: Simply put, Quantitative Intuition, or QI, is the ability to make decisions with incomplete information via a three-prong approach. First, ask powerful questions. Second, put the data into context. Finally, synthesize (as opposed to summarizing) the information by combining the information with judgment.

With the abundance of data, there is the erroneous belief that we can achieve the perfect decision. However, the perfect decision does not exist. We still need to use intuition and judgment in decision-making. But it’s a different type of intuition—one that combines information with human judgment, which we call QI.

Oded Netzer: For many years at Columbia University we’ve been teaching classes on QI to executives. As part of the programs, we’ve asked executives to identify the aspect of decision-making they think represents the biggest gap in their organizations when it comes to making smarter data-driven decisions. Across thousands of executives, we’ve found that the biggest gap is not in having more data or a better analysis tool to crunch the numbers. The gaps lie in defining the essential question, generating meaningful insights, and converting these insights into action. The problem in today’s data-rich environment is not information, but rather the judgment to use it.

Duncan: What mindset adjustments are required of someone who wants to employ QI?

Paul Magnone: A decision represents change, and humans are not wired for change. Most of us retreat to comfort zones—some to data and others to gut instinct.

Great decision-makers judiciously explore opportunities with probing curiosity. They’re open to alternatives while being focused on essential outcomes. You also must get past the belief that you need to be a math expert to make sound, fact-based decisions. People avoid using quantitative analysis because they believe they won’t have the ability to navigate the data. The data is the means and not the end.

The QI decision-maker uses the combination of precision questioning, contextual analysis and synthesis to see the whole situation to move forward despite incomplete information.

Duncan: What kind of biases affect people’s decision-making—for good or for ill?

Netzer: The beauty of the human race is that individuals are not robots. We all have opinions shaped by factors we’re unaware of, preconceptions we don’t know we have, and beliefs we don’t know we hold. The decisions we make will always be affected by bias. There are biases related to relying primarily on intuition and not using data, such as overconfidence and availability bias.

Overconfidence prevents leaders from turning to data to question their intuition, and availability bias directs decision-makers to the most easily accessible data. On the other hand, confirmation bias occurs when people look primarily for information that confirms their intuitive view.

To be able to foster and develop our quantitative intuition, we must be aware of our biases and the impact they have on us. Contrasting your intuition with data and paying careful attention to the cases in which the two disagree is a key to identifying potential biases. Creating diverse teams can help mitigate the effect of biases because while the data is factual, different people will see the same data from different perspectives.

Duncan: What role does skill in asking questions play in a person’s ability to make sound decisions?

Netzer: The smartest person in the room is not the one with an answer, but the person asking the powerful questions. If you seek bolder decisions, ask better questions.

Questioning is analogous to pulling threads on a sweater. Some loose threads will just come out; others can unravel the whole sweater. Questioning enables you to quickly pull threads to see which are superfluous, integral, or consequential. Questioning helps your team make inferences and connections about data and open up viewpoints or analysis that’s not apparent. This exploration mindset encourages trial and iteration. As a leader, you should strive to create a learning environment that fosters the question-learning loop. Building a team of questioners is the path to winning, to achieving the robust growth many companies seek.

Duncan: You write about a sequence of statements you refer to as IWIK—“I wish I knew.” You say IWIKs enable people to focus quickly on the most essential questions so they can prioritize their efforts to make efficient and effective decisions. Please give us an example of how this approach works.

Read more

Fisher’s insights remind leaders that communication is less about perfect words and more about intentional presence. By regulating their own emotions, acknowledging others, and framing conversations clearly, leaders can turn moments of tension into opportunities for deeper understanding and stronger relationships.

• Winning the argument often means losing the relationship

  Fisher argues that approaching conversations with the goal of “winning” creates resentment and damages trust. Effective communicators treat conflict like a knot to untangle rather than a contest to conquer, focusing instead on restoring flow in the relationship.

• Connection requires both understanding and acknowledgement

  Fisher describes connection as a kind of “two-factor authentication.” People need to feel both understood and acknowledged before real communication can happen. Simply asking one more thoughtful question or validating another person’s experience can transform a conversation.

• Great communicators control themselves before trying to control others

  When conversations become heated, self-regulation becomes essential. Pauses, silence, and thoughtful framing slow the conversation down and create space for clarity. Leaders who manage their own tone and pace signal confidence and stability to everyone involved.

1. Shift your goal from winning to understanding

   The next time conflict arises, resist the urge to prove your point. Instead, focus on untangling the issue and preserving the relationship.

2. Acknowledge before you respond

   When someone shares an experience or concern, pause to validate what they said before adding your own perspective. That small act can dramatically increase connection.

3. Frame important conversations clearly

   Before beginning a difficult discussion, explain what you want to talk about, what outcome you hope to reach, and invite the other person’s participation. Clear framing reduces anxiety and keeps the conversation productive.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

Téa Angelos is a visionary on a mission.

Educated in both business and the law, she has multiple options for her own career. Sign up with a big corporation and get lost in the crowd? Nope. Her quest is to help people one at a time.

So, what is she doing and how is she doing it?

She’s founder and CEO of Smart Women Society (SWS). It’s one of the largest and fastest-growing online platforms helping a thriving community of more than 400,000 women get smarter about their money, careers, wellbeing, and relationships.

This isn’t some dare-to-be-fabulous scheme fueled by rah rah cheerleading. SWS features online courses and other solid resources to help women (and men) navigate life successfully.

Angelos recently released her book Smart Moves: Simple Ways to Take Control of Your Life. It’s earning accolades around the world for its practical, no-nonsense approach to common challenges.

For example, if you’re in a job interview, what questions should you be prepared to ask?

“At the end of a job interview, the interviewer will often invite you to ask questions,” Angelos says. “You should use this opportunity strategically to show that you’re genuinely interested in the role and the company, as well as to determine if the job aligns with your goals and values.”

She says questions you might consider are What does a typical day in this role look like? What are some of the growth opportunities in this role? and What is your favorite thing about working here?

These questions will help you understand more about the company, the role and its responsibilities, as well as any points that were not already discussed in the interview. Prepare a few questions before your interview and ask the most relevant ones based on your discussion with the interviewer.

Another important job-related interview is the one you have when leaving a position.

Aside from “don’t burn any bridges,” what advice does Angelos have for how to resign from a job before leaving for a new one?

“Whether you love or hate your existing role or manager, resigning from your job can feel daunting,” she says. “I know it is easier said than done, but try not let your emotions get the better of you. Resigning on good terms will give you confidence during the transition that you have made the right decision and are closing the chapter on that previous role.”

She recommends scheduling a meeting (preferably in person) to share the news with with your manager. “If you experience any pushback, stay calm, polite and keep it as brief as possible,” she advises. “Submit a formal resignation letter, which includes key details like your last day of work. Before finishing off at the company, assist with handing over your work and projects to your team or the next person taking your job.”

What about that bridge-burning thing? “As tempting as it may be to bad mouth your employer, stay professional and end things on good terms,” Angelos says. “You never know when you will cross paths with or need to reconnect with colleagues and mentors again. People move around in their careers, so staying connected may lead to your next big role or help you find employees when you become a manager yourself. Get people’s personal email addresses and connect with them on LinkedIn to stay in touch.”

As eager to please as good employees tend to be, there are some occasions when it’s simply smart to say no to a workplace request. Angelos offers tips on how to do it without coming across as impolite, insubordinate, uncooperative, or otherwise unprofessional.

“Learning when to say no is one of the most important skills to acquire in the workplace,” she says. “Not only does it protect you from being overworked and taken advantage of, but it also helps protect the passion and drive you have for your job. Too often, eager employees are cursed with saying yes to everything, leading them to be exhausted, frustrated and resenting the job which they once loved.”

She suggests a number of situations where you should consider saying no

• When the task interferes with your actual responsibilities

• The deadline is unrealistic

• You’re on leave

• You’re being taken unfair advantage of

• You are not qualified (or the best qualified) to complete the task

• You’re asked to do something unethical or unsafe

“Getting comfortable with saying no to your boss, colleague or client takes practice,” she says. “Be polite and don’t over-explain yourself. A simple ‘I don’t have capacity at the moment’ or ‘I’m on leave that day, so won’t be able to assist’ is sufficient. You are setting a boundary to protect your time and energy, so be confident and stay firm if there’s any pushback. Having a strong understanding of why you are saying no to the request will allow you to do so with conviction.”

Some conversations at work (and elsewhere, of course) can be uncomfortable and even risky. Angelos offers tips for handling them well.

“There will be many times throughout your career when you’ll need to have those scary conversations,” she says. “Whether you’re asking for a pay rise, raising a complaint, or advocating for a change, these conversations all require planning, execution and accountability. Prepare and practice what you want to say beforehand and be clear on the result or outcome that you’re seeking. Find the right time to have the conversation and be open to discussion with the other party. Always focus on coming to a solution and be sure to follow up and check in once the conversation is over.”

Most everyone makes occasional mistakes at work. An important thing is how one bounces back from a mistake.

“Making a mistake at work can take a toll on your self-confidence and have you questioning your ability in your job,” Angelos says. “Recovering from a mistake can take time, but being able to bounce back will boost your confidence and allow you to grow both personally and professionally. You will make plenty of mistakes over your career, no matter what rank or stage you are at, so it’s important to familiarize yourself with the mistake cycle and embrace the situation as a learning opportunity instead of a set-back.”

Here are the steps she suggests:

Read more

In this conversation, Ram Charan brings a sobering and practical perspective on the evolving global landscape. Drawing from decades of advising top CEOs and boards, he outlines how large-scale economic strategies are reshaping industries and exposing vulnerabilities that many leaders have underestimated. More importantly, he shifts the focus from awareness to action—highlighting what leaders must do now to prepare for what lies ahead.

At its core, this is not just a conversation about global competition. It is a conversation about leadership in a world of increasing complexity. The leaders who succeed will be those who stay externally aware, think systemically, and continuously adapt their organizations to realities that are changing faster than ever before.

• Leaders Must Think Externally, Not Just Internally

  Awareness of global trends, policies, and shifts is now essential for effective leadership.

• Coordination Beats Fragmentation

  Success increasingly depends on aligned, cross-functional and cross-organizational efforts.

• Continuous Learning Is a Leadership Requirement

  Leaders must actively update their knowledge and skills to remain relevant.

1. Build Cross-Functional Alignment

   Ensure key areas like operations, finance, and strategy are working together toward shared goals.

2. Commit to Continuous Learning

   Develop a habit of learning new skills and staying informed beyond your immediate role.

3. Ask Better Strategic Questions

   Focus on what could disrupt your business, not just what is currently working.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

Look around you. You’re surrounded by creative people. Or at the very least, you’re surrounded by the work of creative people.

Consider that smart watch on your wrist. What about your TV remote that responds to your voice commands? And the home where you live? It’s the product of architects, designers, and even artists.

The food you eat reached your table because of someone’s creativity (think agricultural scientists, farmers, truck drivers.)

In fact, every single convenience—and necessity—that you may take for granted comes to you by way of someone else’s creativity.

But guess what? You are creative, too. And likely more so than you imagine.

Dr. Seuss had some wise advice on the subject: “Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try.”

Someone else who offers some relevant insight is Dr. Steven Kowalski. He’s a leading voice in the global movement for conscious creativity and a seasoned coach and consultant in organizational development. His book is CREATIVE TOGETHER: Sparking Innovation in the New World of Work.

Rodger Dean Duncan: You say that some people have CDD—Creative Disruption Disorder. Tell us what you mean by that.

Steven Kowalski: Actually, most all of us have some form of CDD. It comes from believing an old story about what creativity is, how it works, and who we each are as creators. If we’re walking around with that old story, we most likely believe that creativity is an ability, and some people are just more creative than others. Or we confuse creativity with a special talent, like in the arts. We stop paying attention to the many ways our creativity might show up on any given day. The truth is that creativity is a potential, not an ability. That means it’s there when we need it. Every one of us can access this potential when the circumstances call for it. Walking around with CDD, and believing the old story disables and diminishes access to our creative potential. Embracing the new story frees us to reclaim our creative potential and use it more consciously in our work and lives.

Duncan: In today’s economic climate, many people in traditional jobs are giving entrepreneurship a close look. How can they activate creativity within themselves to improve their chances for success in their fresh career paths?

Kowalski: The key in today’s new world of work is to get creative together.

Maybe you’re working to develop a new product or technology or to improve a manufacturing process. Maybe you’re cutting waste, looking to connect differently with customers, or coming up with ways to mitigate risks. Whatever your goal, in the new world of work, we have to bust the myth that we can create alone. And often, entrepreneurs who start with a strong vision of their “own” can struggle to scale and sustain their vision as it meets with constraints and obstacles out in the world. They can also struggle to inspire and motivate others—especially if there’s no room for others’ creativity to help shape and iterate the entrepreneur’s original vision.

In our hyperconnected, interdependent, and complex world of work, I advocate for shifting to a kind of entrepreneuring that’s founded on co-creation—where we’re generating new value together in ways we couldn’t on our own.

Duncan: What role does clarity of purpose play in people’s ability to unleash their creativity?

Kowalski: Purpose, as it turns out, is the most powerful force that gives rise to conditions that call for creativity. It’s the reason why your creativity might show up at any given moment. The same reason why the status quo doesn’t serve your goals and aspirations any longer. And clarity of purpose is essential to ignite creative potential—especially when that purpose is developed together with others and experienced as “shared.” That means the purpose is crafted together, versus handed down like a mandate.

Purpose generates gravitational pull. It activates creativity. But remember: poorly defined or “weak” purposes generate weak conditions—not “less” creative potential. Strong purposes that are shared and meaningful drive us to overcome the many challenges and obstacles we will likely encounter on a creative venture.

Duncan: The so-called imposter syndrome seems to affect a lot of people’s self-confidence. What’s your advice on dealing with self-doubt?

Kowalski: Self-doubt is a natural component of any creative effort when we are changing and challenging the status quo and venturing into the unknown on a journey of discovery. The problem arises when we let self-doubt stop us in our quest. What would happen if we recognized it as a likely test along the way—instead of something to be ashamed of? Then, we could greet our self-doubt with curiosity and even humor rather than with dread. The key is to distinguish when self-doubt is an appropriate response to what’s emerging, like when our next step is unclear, and we are wondering if we need to adjust our approach or change our plan. That’s completely different than when self-doubt is coming from what I call our “inner critic.” That’s the voice of judgment in our head that criticizes and stifles creativity, learning, and exploration. If we recognize our inner critic is stirring up self-doubt, we must adopt a zero-tolerance approach and psyche out the critic.

Duncan: How can members of a team collaborate in ways that take greatest advantage of each other’s creativity?

Kowalski: I like to focus on two critical practices for teams working on projects, initiatives, and ventures that require creativity and innovation: co-creating and sharing leadership.

First, in co-creation, teams jointly produce a tangible product or solution that adds new value—something they could not generate alone. An example from the life sciences industry might be what we call an “integrated healthcare solution.” That’s a constellation of products and services that are integrated to serve a patient’s need more effectively. Co-creation on efforts like these requires individuals on teams to work differently, like iterating and experimenting in shorter cycles and learning when to lean in and advocate for your perspective, and when to let go and support someone else’s perspective.

Second, to share leadership, we have to unbuckle ourselves from the idea that some people have power over others. That means letting go of the power of position and any hint of “command and control.” Instead, we stand together so that anyone can step forward into leadership as the circumstances shift and evolve.

Duncan: What can leaders do to help establish a workplace culture that both encourages and cultivates creativity?

Kowalski: That’s a big question. Mostly because the components of culture operate below the visible surface—things like shared norms, values, and practices that take time to change and evolve.

To evolve culture in ways that foster creativity and innovation, I focus on three arenas—(1) working with leadership and the “shadow” leaders and managers cast on the organization; (2) building skills and capabilities that turn creativity into innovative results; and (3) developing a pipeline of innovation projects/initiatives where people can create tangible, new value.

With respect to the first, the leader’s role, a couple of key watchouts are important. First, be sure that your own “tolerance for ambiguity” is not shutting down exploration and discovery too early in the process. Second, make space for others’ ideas. Your “power of position” can easily lead people to adopt your ideas without questioning, challenging, or disagreeing. And finally, consciously choose when to give answers, and when to ask questions that open up space for others.

Duncan: You say people can claim their “Creative License” by practicing five actions that amplify their potential. What are those actions?

Read more

In this conversation, Bill Stainton challenges conventional thinking by reframing innovation as a mindset rather than a moment. Drawing from his experience producing a long-running television show that required continuous creativity, he reveals how innovation can be practiced consistently, not occasionally. Through powerful stories and practical strategies, he shows how leaders can unlock the ideas already within their teams—often from voices that are overlooked.

At its core, innovation is about solving problems in better ways and creating value from ideas. The leaders who succeed are not those waiting for the next big breakthrough, but those who build environments where ideas can emerge, be tested, and evolve. Innovation is not a private club. It is a skill anyone can develop—and a responsibility every leader must embrace.

• Innovation Is a Mindset, Not a Moonshot

  Breakthrough results come from consistent thinking patterns, not rare flashes of brilliance.

• Great Ideas Often Come from Unexpected Voices

  Valuable insights are frequently overlooked because of hierarchy, personality, or assumptions.

• Better Questions Lead to Better Innovation

  Shifting the question can unlock entirely new possibilities and solutions.

1. Make Innovation a Daily Habit

   Look for small opportunities to improve processes rather than waiting for major change initiatives.

2. Invite Every Voice into the Conversation

   Actively create space for quieter or less senior team members to contribute ideas.

3. Reinforce a Culture of Safe Experimentation

   Recognize effort and learning, not just successful outcomes.

By Rodger Dean Duncan

If you were to write the job description for “leader,” one of the bullet points would likely be something related to “engagement.” The leader’s responsibility is not to create followers. It’s to create more leaders. This cascading effect is what gets things done. It requires appealing to people’s heads, hearts, and hopes.

While it’s true that self-starting achievers typically don’t need a lot of strokes, giving too little feedback is a common trust buster.

I once heard a so-called leader say “My people should just be grateful to have jobs. If they do something wrong, I’ll let ‘em know. Otherwise, they should just press on. There’s too much work to do to take time with a bunch of back-slapping.”

In that same conversation, this guy wondered aloud why his people didn’t seem very engaged in the work.

It’s been said that feedback is the breakfast of champions. Unfortunately, a lot of the feedback offered in the workplace is a meal worth missing.

Here’s an example. Let’s say you’re talking with Phil about his job performance and you deliver a speech that goes something like this: “Okay, Phil. As you know, we’re raising the bar around here. We need to get more out of you this coming year. It seems like you’re not really stretching, and you need to stretch. You’re definitely in the ‘Needs Improvement’ category, and we need you to step up to the ‘Meets Expectations’ slot. So get out there and show us what you can do.”

That little speech may sound like something from a Saturday Night Live skit, but it’s virtually verbatim from the kind of drivel that some people try to pass off as helpful feedback.

If you’re the Phil in that scenario, you’ll likely go home and tell your wife: “I don’t know what those people expect of me. I’m already working my tail off and all they tell me is that I need to ‘stretch.’ What’s that’s supposed to mean?”

Frustrating? Yes. Does feedback need to be an unpleasant, even harmful experience? Absolutely not.

Tamra Chandler offers some great tips on how to help people grow and develop through insightful observation and coaching. She’s author of Feedback: Why We Fear It, How to Fix It.

Rodger Dean Duncan: What is it about “feedback” that seems to make many people break out in a cold sweat?

Tamra Chandler: Most of us have been conditioned—through bad experiences that start in our youth and continue throughout our lives—to expect feedback to hurt. This conditioning creates connections in our brains that trigger our “fight or flight” reactions when presented with feedback.

When we look closely at what really frightens us about feedback, it boils down to this: identity and connection. At the heart of our fear is our identity, and how that identity is shaped and reinforced by our connections to and affiliations with the rest of the world. Humans are social beings; we instinctively want to be included and valued. The need to stay connected with and accepted by our communities drives our actions without our intellectual complicity. In the end, this desire for belonging gets seriously in the way of giving and receiving feedback.

Duncan: When people are struggling with “ghosts of feedback past,” how can a leader help them shift to a more pro-feedback perspective?

Chandler: We need to wipe the slate clean and start anew. Our first step is to redefine feedback to support our true intent and desired outcomes. We propose this new definition—

Feedback (NOUN): Clear and specific information that’s sought or extended for the sole intention of helping individuals or groups improve, grow, or advance.

Pay particular attention to “with the sole intention of helping.” Too often in our interactions, the feedback we receive is simply not helpful. If it isn’t intended to help individuals or teams thrive and grow, then why offer it or seek it?

It’s equally important to tune into what’s not in our definition: feedback is not intended as evaluation, blame, or judgment. We see feedback as insight that helps us look forward, to a better version of ourselves, our organization, or our team. Raking our past performance over the coals and attaching an evaluative label to it will not create a better you, me, or us.

Duncan: Everyone seems to favor employee engagement. What role does feedback play in engagement?

Chandler: Feedback gets to the heart of two things employees need to thrive: vitality and learning.

At its simplest level, vitality comes from a strong sense that what we do makes a difference. Learning means we’re building our skills and capabilities while simultaneously boosting our confidence in our potential growth.

It’s not hard to understand the connection between vitality, learning and feedback. Significant drivers of vitality include relationships, connections, recognition, and clarity—all outcomes of healthy, ongoing feedback conversations. Learning is the result of insights we gain that help us improve, expand, and advance –outcomes of trusted and specific feedback relevant to our growth.

So, if you’re looking to drive stronger performance from—and better experiences for—your people, fuel their sense of vitality and learning through inspiring and insightful feedback.

Duncan: Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck has done years of research on mindset, which she describes as a self-perception of self-theory. How does mindset affect people’s resistance to—or effective use of—feedback?

Chandler: Mindset is a key factor in influencing our potential to grow and improve. Dweck coined the terms “fixed mindset” and “growth mindset”. People with a fixed mindset believe that their intelligence and talent are fixed, that talent alone creates success. People with a growth mindset believe their talents and abilities can develop with hard work—they believe growth and improvement can happen.

When managers and organizational cultures adopt a growth mindset, people are more willing to ask questions, venture ideas, embrace challenges and focus on progress over perfection. To use feedback effectively as a catalyst to change, shift, grow and improve, both extenders and receivers of feedback need to operate from a growth mindset.

Duncan: Every great feedback experience, you say, is anchored in fairness, focus, and frequency. Please elaborate.

Read more

By Rodger Dean Duncan

As multiple studies continue to show, employee “engagement” is still a challenge in organizations across all industries. Silo mentality impedes collaboration and innovation. Blame and finger-pointing dilute accountability. A dangerously high number of people simply “check out” on the job. They may show up for work, but their hearts are not really invested.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that fragile trust is a primary cause of this disengagement—and fragile trust can be fixed. Moreover, it’s possible to make high trust the key ingredient in any relationship or organizational culture.

That’s the thesis of The 10 Laws of Trust: Building the Bonds That Make a Business Great.

Author Joel Peterson, former chairman of JetBlue and a Stanford University business professor, brought decades of experience to the subject of culture-building. He worked firsthand with more than 2,300 businesses, hundreds of partners, and thousands of leaders.

Trust, Joel said, develops one conversation, one assignment, one deal at a time. Sadly, Joel passed away in November 2025. This conversation reflects the legacy of wisdom he left.

Rodger Dean Duncan: You say you lack the paranoia gene—that you’re naturally inclined to trust other people. How does extending trust to others influence them to behave in trustworthy ways?

Joel Peterson: When people trust me, I don’t want to let them down. That is the secret to the power of trust. Being trusted often fuels exceptional performance. Most people respond to being trusted by being trustworthy—a reflection of a built-in sense of reciprocity.

Duncan: Character, competence, and authority, you say, are the three conditions of trust. Tell us about the competence part. What specific behaviors help people “get better” at trust?

Peterson: We trust those who deliver on promises. If competence is lacking, people are simply incapable of delivering, no matter their good intentions. For example, while most mothers have the character to be trustworthy, most don’t have the training to be trustworthy pilots. Therefore we know not to trust (most of) them to fly a plane.

Duncan: What do you tell people who are reluctant to extend trust because they’ve been betrayed by someone they trusted? How can they get comfortable in trusting someone else?

Peterson: First, heal the betrayal right away. If it’s not something that can be healed, move on and don’t look back. Recriminations will diminish both parties, as will wallowing in the betrayal.

When building a high-trust relationship, grant trust incrementally. Start with small and simple assignments. If performed well and on time, grant more trust, give more complex assignments. Built gradually, evaluated and repaired in the moment, trust can be a reliable and powerful currency.

Duncan: It’s been said that organizations get the kind of culture they tolerate. What does that suggest about behaviors that either build or erode trust?

Peterson: If you fail to address breaches of trust, or permit behaviors that erode trust, you’ll naturally develop a low trust organization. It always starts with the “tone at the top,” with the leadership team. Their trustworthiness will radiate to the broader organization. Feedback loops can be a positive or negative—in either case self-reinforcing to build a high-trust culture, or devolving into the politics, recriminations and conflicts that ensure a low-trust culture.

Duncan: Empowering others is a good way to build trust. How can a leader practice “smart trust” when delegating responsibility?

Peterson: Leaders should be attuned to competence, character and authority as the factors that permit the development of trust. The pseudo-trust that omits any one of them is a recipe for betrayal and disappointment.

Not only is well-founded trust the most powerful currency of any leader, but it is also the most fragile. A high-trust brand will take years to develop, but it can be shattered in an instant.

Duncan: What behaviors do you see as some of the most important “deposits” a person can make in building trust accounts with others?

Peterson: Besides delivering on promises and being transparent, taking responsibility when something doesn’t go according to plan can be a powerful way to build trust. Reflecting credit and absorbing blame is a good way to build trust with team members. Not allowing oneself to be a victim is another.

Duncan: What behaviors do you see as some of the most common “withdrawals” from people’s trust accounts with others?

Peterson: Of course, there are the obvious ones like lying outright or failing repeatedly to deliver on expectations. However, what is more insidious (and common) are the withdrawals that accompany “spin” or a lack of transparency.

Read more