Category: Le Podcast – Season Two

  • Playful Leadership: Helping Others Be Their Best

    Playful Leadership: Helping Others Be Their Best

    Portia Tung is an Executive and Personal Coach, an Executive Agile Coach, a play researcher, and a keynote speaker. In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, we explore something many workplaces still misunderstand: the gift of play.

    Portia offers a definition of leadership that stays with you:

    “Leadership is helping others to be the best of themselves.”
    — Portia Tung

    And she makes a strong case that play is not a distraction from serious work. It’s one of the ways we become more creative, more connected, and more human.

    A simple one-to-one that changes everything

    Portia wrote The Dream Team Nightmare, a novel where your decisions determine the outcome. Inside that book, she shared a one-to-one exercise that I’ve reused countless times since.

    Portia calls it a ping pong or table tennis introduction:

    • pair up
    • each person asks three questions
    • take turns, one question at a time
    • one rule: you can always ask for a different question

    It’s an icebreaker, a warm-up, and a trust-building tool. The rule looks small, but it changes everything. It creates safety for the asker and the answerer, and it frees people to be honest.

    It also reveals something surprising: people rarely mirror the same question back. Instead, they bring their own curiosity, and the relationship becomes real.

    Play is serious, and it’s safe

    Portia’s play research brings a key idea: true play is safe play, fair play, and being a good sport.

    And that means play requires courage. If you show up with a mask at work, people won’t play. If you show up as yourself, you invite others to do the same.

    This is where play becomes a leadership practice, not a “fun activity.”

    Work and play are not opposites

    Portia challenges an old assumption: that play is what we do after work, and work is what we do before we earn the right to relax.

    She draws from Dr. Stuart Brown’s work and explains that:

    • work gives purpose and helps build competence
    • play supports creativity, learning, and human development
    • we need both to be whole

    Separating “serious work” from “human connection” is one of the reasons people feel they need to hold their breath all day… and only become themselves after two glasses of wine.

    How to introduce play in serious environments

    A practical highlight of the episode is Portia’s approach to introducing play in workplaces that might resist it.

    She often avoids the word “game” at first. Instead she offers:

    • a simulation
    • with clear goals and acceptance criteria
    • and a real invitation: participate as much as you choose

    It’s not hiding play. It’s respecting adults and giving them choice.

    She also references tools like the XP Game to help teams see how they behave during delivery, without preaching.

    The 5 Rs of playful leaders

    Portia noticed something about change agents, even when they have no formal authority. The people who help transformations move tend to share five traits:

    • Resourceful
    • Respectful
    • Responsible
    • Resilient
    • Real

    Those are the leaders people trust, the ones who can invite others into experimentation without forcing them.

    Leadership beyond ego and title

    Portia shares how uncomfortable she was for years with leadership, mostly because she saw too much leadership-as-ego.

    Her “working assumptions” evolved into something simpler and stronger:

    • leadership is personal
    • leadership is being authentic
    • leadership is raising your hand first when you make a mistake
    • leadership is helping others become their best

    And transformation doesn’t happen through a methodology machine. It happens one person at a time, enabling themselves.

    Where Portia gets her energy

    Near the end, Portia shares a checklist she uses to choose engagements. It starts close to home, then widens:

    1. Is it good for me?
    2. Is it good for my daughter?
    3. Is it good for my family?
    4. Will it make the world a better place?

    It’s a grounded way to protect energy, stay aligned, and still do ambitious work.

    References mentioned in the episode

    The Four Seasons of Play (Portia’s events) to the episode here:

    The Dream Team Nightmare

    Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul by Stuart M. Brown Jr.

    The XP Game

    The Deming Red Bead Experiment

    Here is the transcript of the episode

    Alexis:

    Hey Portia. How are you? And can you tell us a bit more about you and your background?

    Portia Tung:

    Salut, Alexis. Delighted to be here today. I at work as an executive coach and executive agile coach, as well as a play researcher. And I’m doing very well under the circumstances that we’re all under at the moment.

    Alexis:

    I’m doing very well under the circumstances, you need to tell me a little bit more about that. What changed in your work with working with people and teams?

    Portia Tung:

    I presume we’re referring to the pandemic and how my work has changed. And I think what’s been fascinating is with everyone going online, that we’ve actually changed the way we interact with each other, but more fundamentally the way we perceive and treat each other. And one of the things I’ve noticed is that certainly in the people I interact with, there’s a lot less shaming of not knowing how to do technical stuff online, but much more supportive and nurturing ways of interacting with one another. And I think in many ways that’s been a gift from COVID, Alexis.

    Alexis:

    Wow. It’s an interesting thing to notice. Before the pandemic, would you say that majority of your time was working face to face with people and teams or you were already working online?

    Portia Tung:

    I would say it was a mix because of the different organizations work in and they range in terms of trust. I would do some of my work online, so remotely, but also face-to-face, but I would say it was predominantly face-to-face.

    Alexis:

    I need to switch nearly all of the sudden to full online, or are you back to do some face-to-face now?

    Portia Tung:

    Oh, still all online. And Alexis, like I said, it’s been a gift. And what I mean is it’s been a real challenge of how to share my passion and energy and knowledge and experience through this online medium, which people have been so critical and possibly weary or afraid of. And in my experience, when you are able to bring your true, authentic self to work and to your family and to those around you, the medium isn’t so important.

    Alexis:

    We need to go deeper into that. But speaking of gifts, you offered me a gift a few years back, you don’t know that. The gift was a book. You wrote a book, The Dream Team Nightmare. And for me, it was already a fantastic book. I think I tried to ride all the different options that you have in the book, because it’s an interesting story. And there’s one thing that I still have with me all the time. It’s the way that the heroin is meeting with people one-on-one and your way of doing one-on-ones to discover someone else, it’s something that I, since then, I’m sharing that with a lot of people around me. I’m doing it and I’m showing it and I love it. So it’s really gift and that’s that gift of how to create a relationship. Can you tell us a little bit how it works, how the idea come to you and how it really works?

    Portia Tung:

    Sure. So it works as both an icebreaker between people who’ve never met before, but also as a warmup exercise for people who already know a bit about each other, but maybe not as well as they assume. So it’s a game of table tennis is the way I call it, but without the table and without the ball. And the idea is you come in a pair and each person gets to ask one another three questions.

    Portia Tung:

    So in a pair and each person gets to ask the other person three questions and they take turns, right? So they swap around. So the first person will ask one question, and then the second person will ask their first question. And so it goes. So, a bit like ping pong, table tennis. That’s the way I explain it. And there is only one rule to this game that I suggest, which is we each reserve the right to ask for a different question.

    Portia Tung:

    And then, so we start and I invite them to say, well, who would like to start? And they might say, oh, you go first. Or they might choose to go first. And it’s a lot of fun of what gets revealed about the relationship and about each other as we play with this introduction.

    Alexis:

    I was always surprised with the questions people are asking. The easy thing is if I ask you the question, what would be your dream job that you will do or your dream activity if you were not doing what you are doing right now?

    Portia Tung:

    That’s what I’m doing now, Alexis.

    Alexis:

    This is a beautiful answer.

    Portia Tung:

    And I think it’s really interesting, the importance of setting intention. But my latest intention, I’ll circle back to the question is to live my dream. I think for dreams to come true, you have to live them. And so by living them, they become real. And you know what the secret to it is, you have to remember to be present because you can’t live your dream if you’re not in the present and that’s why it can not become real.

    Alexis:

    Oh, whoa. There’s a lot to unpack with that.

    Portia Tung:

    And Alexis, I love, I just love French cinema and I’m sure there’s some kind of film in that, but I will answer your question, which is what would I be doing if I could do my dream job as it were. And it is what I’m doing now, spending time meeting remarkable, playful leaders who are trying to make the workplace and indeed the world a better place through their passion and through nurturing people. And that’s what I do in organizations working mostly with senior leadership now, and those teams there, but also on occasion with agile teams as well, working on delivery.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. And with the way of doing it in the ping pong way, I always assumed at the beginning that when I start by asking you a question, the person in front of me will just return the same question and in reality it nearly never happened that way. They always have a different question, which I found is so enriching and so surprising though that I already love that fact. What would be your question?

    Portia Tung:

    To you?

    Alexis:

    Mm-hmm (affirmative).

    Portia Tung:

    What is your favorite place to be on this planet?

    Alexis:

    Oh, I don’t know. I don’t know. I never thought of it this way. There’s a lot of places that are so beautiful. There’s a lot of places that I would like to visit, but I feel that I’m very well where I am now. I think it’s more the people I am with. I have to admit, I would love to meet more people and to travel a little bit. That’s probably being in the same place for more than one year now. I think I love where I am now.

    Portia Tung:

    You love where you are now. That’s an incredible answer, Alexis.

    Alexis:

    It’s funny. I never thought of it this way.

    Portia Tung:

    If understand correctly, then that means you are exactly where you’re supposed to be.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. And at the same time when I say that, I’m thinking, there’s so many options and probably I should explore, I should ask myself the question. I had that idea of at some point wanted to live in a farm to do permaculture on to eat what the farm will produce and so on. But it’s, first of all, I know nothing about all that. Of course, I cannot do it, I need learn it first. So there’s a few obstacles in the way, but it’s always something that is for the future.

    Alexis:

    It’s not something for now. So I think that’s a good question to ask yourself, regularly: “am I at the right place right now?” It’s interesting. So I guess with those two questions and our answers, the people that are listing can understand how powerful it can be to just try to answer openly to a question that you don’t know in advance. And I think that’s the power of that ping pong interview that you propose. And I think it’s really a gift.

    Portia Tung:

    And Alexis, I think a key reason why you seem to enjoy the exercise so much and the people you play it with seem to find it so enriching is because you help create a safe environment, right? That magic rule of we each reserve the right to ask for a different question, really frees people up from the questioners point of view, but also from the person answering’s point of view. And I think that really helps create that so-called psychological safety and trust between two possible strangers.

    Alexis:

    It’s true. And the simple fact that you’re seeing it, that you can pass or you ask a different question, it’s a better way of phrasing it, it nearly never happens. Usually you are ready to answer any questions. There was probably once there was a question where I was really just … I felt uncomfortable to share something about that, but it happened once and I did it a lot of time and I realized that I was about to say no, ask me something else. And I finally answer anyway.

    Portia Tung:

    Oh, that’s lovely. And what did you discover? Did you discover something useful as a result of answering?

    Alexis:

    It was how people would perceive me. That was something that I did not realize that I would send that message to some people, they will see me in a certain way. I was a little bit surprised but I guess that was connected with the circumstances and the particular place we were and so on. So, that was interesting.

    Portia Tung:

    And, Alexis I’d like to add as well, the power and this ever so seemingly simple ice breaker slash warmup exercises that it takes real courage to actually offer it in the first place. And that’s the way I work ever since kind of really deepening my play research because true play is safe play, fair play and being a good sport. And with play, you need to show up as yourself. There’s no pretending because if you put a mask on and you’re in a different kind of Alexis or a different kind of Portia when you’re at work and it’s not really you, people won’t play.

    Portia Tung:

    They’ll say, oh no, that’s not for me. Let’s just move on to why we’re having this meeting. But the fact that when you offer it and people receive it, is a clear sign of your presence and your courage and of course your playfulness and that’s ever such a great superpower to have.

    Alexis:

    Absolutely. So you mentioned that you are working with team and leaders. You said it in a way that you want to help them achieve their goals in a way. And how do you work with them? Tell us more with how it works when you engage with teams.

    Portia Tung:

    For me, I think play is a mindset and it’s a set of behaviors and I don’t think they’re really opposites, but it might be because of bad marketing or misconception of what it is. And this dates back right back to the middle ages, right? At best play was perceived as a distraction back in the middle ages, and at worst it was considered something evil brought on by the devil, right?

    Portia Tung:

    And children would be smacked for playing when they should have been sweeping chimneys or doing other things throughout the history of humanity. So I think play has had a lot of bad press and misconception for a long time until we really looked at child development and really human development and the necessity of play. So play leads to creativity and innovation, as we can see in the creative companies amongst us like Apple and Google, but work isn’t the opposite of play.

    Portia Tung:

    Work is what gives us a sense of purpose and it allows us to improve our competence. And these are observations made by Dr. Stuart Brown, who was a play expert and wrote a book on play called Play. And I think that’s really important to recognize that actually play and work are not opposites, but they’re very complimentary. And without one you couldn’t really be a whole person, you need to do both together. The kind of like yin and yang.

    Alexis:

    So a sense of purpose and a way to be together that will unleash the creativity to serve that purpose. That’s a little bit the way you want to frame it?

    Portia Tung:

    Yeah. So when I work with teams and leaders, most of them will have looked me up. So they’ll know that play is my bag. So people who come to me like yourself have already, in some ways accepted an invitation and openness to be playful. So it’s not that difficult. People who might not know my play reputation and they might never know, simply perceive me probably as someone who’s quite resourceful, respectful, responsible, resilient, and real.

    Portia Tung:

    And those are the five Rs, I call them Alexis, the five Rs of playful people. And I actually stumbled across them because when I started playing more in organizations and taking riskier decisions in terms of how far can we go with this transformation, what I noticed is that the people around me, the true change agents and they didn’t need to be people with titles or leader in their title, they would be people who would be very responsible, very resourceful, respectful, resilient, and then they’d be real as well.

    Portia Tung:

    So when I discovered these five Rs, I call them, these key characteristics of playful leaders, if you like, that enables me to then go into my toolkit or treasure box, I call it my treasure trove of tools and techniques to then offer them much like the icebreaker exercise. And it’s finding the right fit with the person that you’re meeting and playing with.

    Alexis:

    So I guess in teams, even if someone hire you because of your playfulness in teams, some people will not see that play is part of what needs to be done. They will want to be serious. They will want to be to the point, how it works with them?

    Portia Tung:

    Yes. So I rarely offer play upfront. So I will say something like, well, you’ve invited me to give you some agile training, so we’ll be doing a simulation. I don’t use the word game because it might scare some people. So it’s not that I’m trying to hide it. It’s just, it’s a simulation. We have some clear goals and acceptance criteria for why we’re doing the simulation.

    Portia Tung:

    We’ll be able to use the simulation. My favorite one is the XP game invented by Pascal Van Cauwenberghe and Vera Peeters. And that’s a fantastic way of seeing how a team will behave and perform during an actual sprint or iteration, right? So when I offer something, I rarely call it a game. I don’t necessarily have to mention play. And it’s so funny, Alexis, I think if we talked 10 years ago, I’d be much more flamboyant and say, oh, let’s do play, get out your bags and Lego and have lots of colorful things in the room and do that right upfront in the first instance when I meet a new group. And I think it can be quite intimidating.

    Portia Tung:

    And in many ways, now I look back at it, it can be disrespectful if people don’t realize that it’s an option. And I think this is the key thing, right? So true play as Dr. Stuart Brown describes it is safe play, fair play and being a good sport. So in that sense, I now make sure that I say whatever we do in the next 90 minutes during the simulation, it’s an option. It’s an invitation. You decide how much you take part in and how much you sit out. But, rest assured how much you get out determines on how much you put in. And then I leave it as that. And this ability to treat people with respect and as adults is really important in play and relationships.

    Alexis:

    I guess it will give a lot of ways to people to really find their way to invite others in an activity that is a little bit different from what they are proposing usually. I use the word stimulation a few times too. I remember one time I played the red bead experiment, that thing that was invented by Deming to teach people statistics a little bit, and to teach them about the bad management practices.

    Alexis:

    And I played that with a customer and one of the workers in the game was in fact, the CEO of the company. And that was interesting because of course that worker wanted to do great in front of her team. And of course the game is strict against her, so the worker cannot be good. That’s nearly impossible. That would be pure luck. And so I was playing the manager and the manager is ready harsh the game. And so I was ready harsh with her, and at some point I said, “We will poorly stop the simulation there,” because she told me something like, oh, you know what, I will break your face.

    Alexis:

    And I said, “Maybe we need to pause the game for a second,” but she’s really into it. And now we need to cool down a little bit, but that was really interesting how powerful it was. And it changed the relationship in the team and it changed the way she was reacting to some surprises in the work we were doing. So it was really powerful. So I really loved it. I was maybe a little bit more careful with the way I was introducing it in other teams.

    Portia Tung:

    Well, Alexis, risky play, there’s an element of play, right? Because without taking risks, why would you bother? Where would be the fun in something that’s 100% safe? That would just be boring, right? So it’s great you took a risk and that this leader when offered the chance to grow and reflect, took the opportunity, and that’s a great gift to offer. And this is the thing about play, I guess in some ways, it’s a tool that’s so powerful that you really need to take care of how you handle it and what happens, not when it backfires, but what happens when you are under-prepared yourself? Because I had a similar incident playing the XP game where I happen to have a business analyst in one of the teams, she was a real business analyst in real life.

    Portia Tung:

    And during one of the rounds, they hadn’t gathered the requirements at all. So when I was the product owner and I declined and said, “No, that hasn’t passed the acceptance criteria. You’re going to have to rework that.” She threw the user story back at me. And it was fascinating because she was part of a third party working for the organization that I worked in as a permanent member of staff, which made me realize, oh gosh, if people behave in this way, right, to their client, what is it like in real life?

    Portia Tung:

    And this is the power of play, right? When we get into play, we become ourselves. Our minds are curious. And so actually, thanks to kind of neuroscience we recognize now when you are curious, because your mind is open, because it can’t be any other way, it cannot be critical as well. And so you start flowing 100% as yourself. And if you are maybe super competitive, because that’s your thing, then that will come out. And so it’s about really creating a safe environment where people can be their true selves, learn from it and not feel judged by others.

    Alexis:

    And I feel it’s much more powerful. Usually the way we were organizing or of day when we had the face-to-face meetings, it’s you are in the meeting room working already or looking at presentation, engaged in discussions, really serious, and then at the end of the day, you are going to play a bowling or whatever, or game or something that is really pure distraction. And then you have dinner or the opposite.

    Alexis:

    It was interesting to see that people are saying, but that part of the meeting, when we are done with the meeting at the end of the day, we are going out, we are having dinner, having a drink, playing a game, that distraction part is really great to build bonds in the team. It’s really the team building part.

    Alexis:

    And I was trying to tell them, can we bring a little bit of that in our day because why not? Why not building those bonds? Why are you not building those relationships? Why not being ourselves in the day? Why do we have to separate both? And it’s sometimes a little bit difficult, but do you think we can do to help to foster that, to create more that space in the day?

    Portia Tung:

    That’s a great question, Alexis. I think it’s important to reflect on the history of humanity and where we’ve come from as well, the really bigger context of this because in Western culture, we’re so good at dividing things up, from school subjects, science and history and math, they’re all different apparently, but actually, the children know that they are more intertwined than the adults think.

    Portia Tung:

    And likewise it is with the socializing and the working right, in humanity’s bit to optimize where we want to be and who we want to be, we kind of cut out the fun because we think that’s extra. But if you look at child development, it’s absolutely essential for physical development, cognitive development, social development and emotional development. And if we don’t really look at people and teams as a whole in this way, the result is yes, we compartmentalize everything, we will have fun between six and eight o’clock. And only in the evenings, only after we’ve had a glass of wine with our colleagues and then we can be ourselves, right?

    Portia Tung:

    And that always makes me giggle because it’s a bit like, you have to hold your breath throughout the day until that two glasses of wine, which is a very unreasonable ask. And I think that’s also why children find it so difficult to be amongst unplayful adults because they have to hold the breath and not be themselves. And that’s not the way for healthy living. So what I tend to do is encourage play through modeling that playful mindset and behaviors. So from the moment I meet people, we do the icebreaker exercise you’ve enjoyed. I write my emails in a playful way. I sign them off as wishing you a playful week.

    Portia Tung:

    And I know some people might find that offensive, but that’s not my intent. And it is a genuinely good wish. So I am really, I guess, thoughtful if you like about the way I approach people and express myself. And in that way, people are very quick to then say, oh, I’m glad you said that because I stayed up all night the other night playing chess and I had such a great time. And often I’m like, oh, they’re a chess player. And that’s why they were so tired at the standup. Now I understand.

    Portia Tung:

    And I think that’s really about what it is. When we are a playful leader, we bring our full selves to work. We are prepared to take risks. And the biggest risk of all is to look in the mirror and acknowledge what is in front of us.

    Alexis:

    Oh yes. Absolutely. That brings me to a question about leadership. I strongly believe that leadership is not about title. It could be for people that are really people manager of course, but also for individual contributors, it’s not really about titles or your role. What are your beliefs about leadership? What does being a leader mean to you?

    Portia Tung:

    So I would say I wouldn’t call them beliefs. I can share some stories and maybe describe as working assumptions so they can change, working assumptions about leadership. When I reflect back about my relationship with leadership, Alexis, I would say I’ve been uncomfortable with it, probably for most of my working life and so much so I would shy away from it. And I think in the first six, eight years of my working life, when I started off as a Java developer and then, moved into development management and then, agile coaching, I remember thinking this leadership stuff isn’t for me, why are people so bothered about the titles?

    Portia Tung:

    This is about getting the right things done and doing them right. It’s as simple as that. And because of the differences in our understanding of leadership, mine is much more aligned with yours, it really put me off and I would spend so much time reading books, from Tom Peters and all of this stuff and Warren Bennis and in the end I stopped reading them because I was like, well, hang on a minute, in the textbooks, it says to be a good leader is to eat last like Simon Sinek and all of this stuff.

    Portia Tung:

    And the leaders around me weren’t doing that. They were too preoccupied with what other people’s saw in the reflection in the mirror than what actually needed to be done. So for the first part of my working life, I was really put off leadership. And it’s only really until the last few years when I got more and more into the play research, I said to myself, what is it that I’m so afraid about leadership that I don’t want to associate myself with it?

    Portia Tung:

    And I realized it is about people who put their ego first and put themselves first rather than the greater good. So I changed the game and came up with this idea of playful leadership. And for me, that concept means being your authentic self. So when you make a mistake, you’re the first one to raise your hand. And if you haven’t had the presence of mind to spot it in time to raise your hand first, then I thank the person who points it out quickly.

    Portia Tung:

    I know these sound like such simple things, but they’re very difficult to do in the environments that we find ourselves in. And when I reflect back on, I’d say my golden moment as a leader, it’s when I was at school. I remember when I was 17 and the head teacher said to me, “So Portia, we’d like to make you an offer.”

    Portia Tung:

    And I was like, “What’s the offer?” And she said, “We’d like to make you head girl,” the person who would represent the school because I was in the oldest year at my school and I said, “Oh, that’d be great.” And I was ready to snaffle it up and embrace it. She said, “It comes with some conditions.” And I said, “Oh, what’s that then?” And she said, “You have to promise us that you will not sacrifice your grades in order to take this role too seriously in doing the best for the school.” And she said, “We’ve talked about it with all the teachers and they feel that’s the biggest concern. And if you are unable to do that, you cannot have the head girl-ship.”

    Portia Tung:

    I was like, oh God, they know me so well. So I made sure I studied hard enough, but maybe not quite as hard as I could’ve. And I had such a great time being a head girl. And when they offered it, Alexis, it wasn’t because of the title I wanted, it was because I thought, phew, I can stop hiding all the good things I want to do and was doing for the school in my spare time, because I felt it was such an enriching thing to be part of a community and helping other people become best versions of themselves.

    Portia Tung:

    And I think that’s what put me off in the workplace. When I started work, I felt so cheated, Alexis. I was like, this is nothing like what school and university said that leadership would be, what am I doing here? And it’s not until I really embraced my playful self and started taking risks and say, no, actually I’m not going to be that kind of leader that people seem to model and revere.

    Portia Tung:

    It’s not just about the money that can not be the only measure of a human being success, that I changed the game and then I played it my way. And I think that’s really the key for me. That’s what leadership is. And where I’ve come to with the thinking now is my focus is on personal leadership, leadership coaching with individual leaders. One-to-one because that’s how we create change, right? We don’t just wheel in an agile machine that then gives off a beautiful floral scent. And then everyone goes, oh, we’re ready to do agile, and everything will be optimized. That’s not how change happens, right? Change happens with one person at a time and it’s them enabling themselves.

    Alexis:

    Yes, absolutely. One person at a time and they are enabling themselves. I love what you said about helping others to be the best of themselves, the best version of themselves. How do you find that energy for yourself?

    Portia Tung:

    Oh, you as such fun questions, Alexis? Well, I have a checklist. So I realized that when I became a mom eight years ago, my brain was unable to contain a lot of information and make good decisions in real time. So I came up with a checklist and as I observed looking at my work in progress and seeing how much I had on my plate, as a mom and a working mom as well, I realized I needed a set of criteria by which I made decisions in my life.

    Portia Tung:

    And I have different sets of criteria, ranging from personal values to the day-to-day. But the checklist I’d like to share with you is this, in the top of the checklist is number one, is it good for me? Whenever I make any decision, is it good for me? If it’s no good for me then it’s off the list and I’m not doing it.

    Portia Tung:

    The second item is, is it good for my daughter? So obviously, if it’s quite stressful as an engagement, and that means I’m going to come home a little bit more negative and grumpy than I would otherwise, is it good for my daughter? Well, if it fails that test, then that goes out the window. Then the third one is, is it good for my family? So I think about my husband, my daughter and me, so the whole family and if it fails that, then it goes out the door.

    Portia Tung:

    There was the fourth one, actually, since we were friends and which is, will it make the world a better place? And if it passes that test after the first three, then I’ll go, yeah, I’m definitely doing it. And I think for me, it’s become like a shopping list of criteria. When I started looking for clients and ways of creating change, that’s how I shop around for the engagements that I’m able to take part in, because I think it’s so important to have a fair exchange, right?

    Portia Tung:

    I want to be the best version I am when I rock up and work with my clients and teams. And that is the balance of exchange. And in return, together we maximize the return on investment for their effort and time.

    Alexis:

    I think it’s really a beautiful way to end that conversation for today. I would love to have more conversation with you and I hope they will make the world a better place really seriously. Thank you very much Portia up for that conversation today.

    Portia Tung:

    Thank you, Alexis. Mille Mercis.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more help, to increase your impact on such section at work, drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello, and until next time to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by Ben 

  • Blessed, Grateful, and Human

    Blessed, Grateful, and Human

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I’m joined by Avi Liran, Chief Delighting Officer at Delivering Delight.

    Avi has been a CMO several times, an entrepreneur, a trade commissioner, and an investor. He also shares something rare in leadership conversations: he made a lot of money three times and lost it all three times. Those experiences shaped his decision to focus on what he calls a “delightful workplace” where people can lead others to success.

    When I asked Avi how he was doing, he answered:

    “Like every day, I feel blessed and grateful.”
    — Avi Liran

    That answer looks simple. It carries a whole worldview.

    Delight starts with authenticity

    Avi’s first ingredient for delightful leadership is not charisma, and not being liked.

    It is authenticity.

    Leaders don’t need to perform. They don’t need to become someone else. They can have bad days. In fact, Avi connects delight to a deeper definition of happiness: sometimes it is the ability to be sad and still be supported, or supportive.

    Know your values, know your why

    Avi repeatedly comes back to values. He asks leaders to identify them clearly, and many people need time to answer.

    Values are not a nice poster on a wall. They shape why you lead, how you decide, and what you believe about people. That belief matters: if you believe people are good, you lead differently than if you believe trust must always be earned first.

    Avi also invites leaders to look back:

    • who were your best leaders, peers, employees
    • what adjectives describe them
    • and what kind of leader you want to be, so others will follow you

    The delightful leaders he has met share something in common:
    they are focused less on what they get, and more on creating success for others.

    The power to ask

    One of the most practical parts of the conversation is about asking.

    Avi argues that many situations do not change simply because people do not ask directly. Fear of rejection and fear of “no” keep people silent, indirect, or overly explanatory.

    His approach is blunt and kind: ask for what you need.

    It sounds obvious. It isn’t common.

    And it connects with another idea he repeats throughout the episode: build a better relationship with the word no.

    “No” is rarely the end

    Avi suggests listening carefully to what comes after a no.

    “No” often means:

    • not now
    • I’m busy
    • come back when you’ve upgraded your approach
    • you’re asking the wrong way
    • you’re missing something

    If you listen and adjust, you can return stronger.

    He also adds a useful stance: when you ask for help, come as a giver, not as a taker. Relationships grow when you bring value, not when you extract it.

    Toxic people, boundaries, and staying yourself

    Avi does not pretend that leadership is always positive. He acknowledges toxic colleagues, bosses, and customers.

    His framework includes:

    • empathy, compassion, and kindness when possible
    • and when it isn’t possible, a surprising tool: pity

    Pity, for him, is a way not to take toxicity personally. It becomes a reminder:
    it’s not about me, it’s about their pain.

    He also insists on boundaries, not as self-protection only, but as clarity for everyone.
    Boundaries prevent the minefield.

    Engagement is your brand

    One of Avi’s strongest points is about engagement.

    He argues that disengagement is a choice, and that choosing disengagement hurts your brand. Even in a difficult environment, you can choose to:

    • learn
    • contribute
    • build capability
    • prepare your next move
    • stay the best version of yourself today

    It is not naive optimism. It is personal leadership.

    Leading on a bad day: “Blessed, grateful… and”

    The episode closes with a practical method Avi uses when people are having a bad day.

    He reframes the reality of life: we tend to focus on what is missing, but many foundational things are already there. From that place, you can be authentic without pretending.

    Avi’s final formula is simple and powerful:

    Blessed, and grateful, and sad.
    Blessed, and grateful, and angry.
    Blessed, and grateful, and frustrated.

    It makes space for real emotion, without losing perspective.

    And it creates psychological safety for others to do the same.

    References mentioned in the episode

    • Avi’s TEDx talk (mobile phone analogy): Can you train yourself to deal with difficult times?
    • Chip Conley
    • Everlasting Optimism: 9 Principles for Success, Happiness and Powerful Relationships by Lenny Ravich
    • Marina Bay Sands
    • WildCard Conference
    • Mojo Session with Emily Chang (The Spare Room)
    • Tony Hsieh

    Listen to the episode here:

    Here is the transcript of the episode

    Alexis:

    Hello, Avi. Can you tell us a little bit more about you?

    Avi:

    Bonjour, Alexis. Hello from Singapore. A little about me. Well, I was made in 1962 in Tel Aviv. My parents had a radio and a sofa. Since I like to sing, I think I know where they made me. As an Israeli, I’m a little bit aggressive and creative. I was an officer in the army, an economist, MBA in entrepreneurship and marketing, and I was a CMO of two companies.

    Avi:

    Afterwards, I joined the government. I was a Deputy Director in the Foreign Trade Administration. Then, I went to be the trade commissioner in Singapore. Created two funds between Israel and Singapore, then worked with Singapore Telecom to invest in nine companies in Israel. I made lots of money three times. Lost it all in the dot com in 2008 and another time that was pretty embarrassing to come to your family and say, “Oh. We made so much and we lost it all.”

    Avi:

    In 2006, I got a book that is called Everlasting Optimism that made me laugh and changed my life course to go and add value to other people, because I realized that I’ve been through so many things and I still managed to keep my spirit, make other people delighted. I say, “Why not we going to go and have a delightful workplace, where people are going to wake up, and they’re going to be able to lead their teams to success?”

    Avi:

    We started to research it, because when we started the first workshop, people started to change. We were crazy about it. How is it possible?

    Alexis:

    That’s quite impressive. I will have a lot of questions about all that, coming after that. First, how are you today? Seriously?

    Avi:

    Like every day, I feel blessed and grateful.

    Alexis:

    Okay. You’re delivering delight and you are blessed and grateful. There’s something that is missing for me. What does it take to be a delightful leader?

    Avi:

    Well, I think the first thing is you need to be authentic. The last two and a half years, we’ve been embarking on the research about first time leadership. We interviewed 220 leaders in 37 countries, in six continents. More than 50 percent of them are ladies, because when we thought about leadership, we were under the impression that you need to be likable in order to get promoted, in order to be successful.

    Avi:

    What we found is that, if you ask any good leader, “Do you want the people that you promote to be likable?,” they actually said, “Absolutely not,” because they may compromise on making tough decisions. They may be pleasers, which will make them do the wrong decisions, because they’re going to go for short term.

    Avi:

    Interestingly, instead of that, they say, “What we expect them to be is authentic.” That is the first prerequisite. People want you to be you. People don’t want you to be fake. People don’t want you to be Bill Gates. People don’t want you to be Steve Jobs. You are the version of yourself and you are entitled to have a bad day.

    Avi:

    Researching about positive psychology and happiness, the first thing that I could tell you about being a delightful leader is, for yourself and for others, sometimes happiness is the ability to be sad and being able to be supported or supportive to people that are sad.

    Avi:

    That’s the beginning of where we start. Be authentic. That’s the first ingredient. In my program, there are two parts. The first part is the why of becoming a delightful leader. Then, I take you and I bring you to explore your values. I’m going to ask the audience, “Do you know what are your values?” Surprisingly, when I ask this questions, nine out of ten people need time to think. They can’t tell me immediately, “Number one. Number two. Number three. Number four. Number five.”

    Avi:

    The second interesting thing, that nine out of ten will tell me integrity, or honesty, or trust as the first or second value. Nine out of ten will stop at three. The reason is, they have so many other values to bring, and only two left.

    Avi:

    The first thing I’ll encourage you, if you want to decide to be a leader, you need to know, “Why do you do the things that you do?” That’s where your values are. Also, I must say that where your beliefs are. If you believe that people are good, you are going to behave in a different way than if you believe that everybody is bad. If you believe that everybody needs to earn your trust first, or you’re a more trusting person, or somewhere in the middle. This will affect your why.

    Avi:

    The second thing that they do over there, is I ask questions about your experience. Who were your best leaders? Who were your best peers? Who were your best employees? I ask you to draw the adjectives and try to portray what kind of leader did you enjoy the most. Interestingly, chances are that that is who you want to be, so other people will follow you.

    Avi:

    We have many exercises to really try to find, “What is your leadership credo?” Why do you do what you do? Why do you want to lead people? The delightful leaders that I’ve met, thousands of them, have something in common. They are not looking for what is there for themselves. They are looking, as delightful leaders, how to create success for others. That is something that is common to all the delightful leaders that I’ve met.

    Avi:

    The second part of the program that I lead is about the how of delightful leadership. How do you become a delightful leader? I can expand later on.

    Alexis:

    When you ask the question, “What are your values?,” I paused for a second. That reminded me of an exercise that we did with Chief of Staff, that was identifying our values and see where the connections between the values that we had. Interesting what you said, because we all needed some time to answer that question. That was not one person needed some time. That was all of us. I’m not surprised with the nine out of ten. Who do you look up to as a leader?

    Avi:

    I’m inspired by everything. I have a tendency to be very jealous of successful people. I use the energy of jealousy in order to learn from them. For example, when I was doing research, I found a gentleman named Chip Conley. He was the founder and CEO of Joie de Vivre hotels. Later on, he became the Chief Commercial Hospitality Officer of Airbnb, as a modern elder. He was responsible to let them understand what hospitality means.

    Avi:

    I saw what it did and I tried to get to connect to him, because I wanted to learn from him. I managed to pass his secretary and they were very nice. He finally gave me five minutes of his time. He said, “If you want to meet me, come to San Francisco.” I bought a ticket. I flew to San Francisco, stayed in his hotel for one hour to meet him.

    Avi:

    That hour became a relationship of mentorship. He came to Singapore. I arranged for him to perform for my clients, who learned immensely from him. Then, I managed to read all his book, learn about his program, watch him delivering, understanding.

    Avi:

    One of the things that I would recommend, just think about who impresses you. Just try to get to them. Don’t take no as an answer. About no, this is something very Israeli that people may wish to know. Number one, a lot of people would like to give you what you want. You just need to get to them. Number two, when you go to ask someone to help you, come as a giver, not as a taker.

    Avi:

    I managed to get gigs for cheap, that made thousands of thousands of dollars for him, that he saw that I’m not a taker. I’m not there to get something just from him. Have a new relationship with the word no. When you receive a no, whether you’re trying to sell something, whether you’re trying to get something, no usually has something after the word no. No, which means not now. No, because I’m busy. No, because you need to upgrade yourself before you come to me. If you listen to the things after the no and upgrade yourself, you can retry.

    Alexis:

    It made me think about something that one of my friend’s told me last week, I think. I was trying to ask him something. At some point, he paused and he said, “Okay. I’m interesting with what you are saying, but you know what? One thing that could be helpful is, when you want something, ask it directly. You spoke for five minutes to explain to me all the rationale behind what you wanted to do. I was listening. It was interesting, but I trust you. I don’t need all that. If you need something from me, ask directly. It’s okay. If I need to know more about it, I will ask you. Don’t worry.” I said, “Oh. Okay. That’s interesting.” Why I do that?

    Avi:

    You mentioned a very human phenomenon. When people feel that you want to ask something, they don’t want you to go around the bush, because they don’t like to be manipulated. They could see through you.

    Avi:

    Interestingly, one of the features … We have more than 30 features of how you become a delightful leader. What I do is, I make an analogy to the mobile phone operating system. I call it Delight Operating System. I ask people to imagine that they could switch on and off options on their phone, like flight mode, or flight mode off. I say, “Flight mode or delight mode?”

    Avi:

    One of the settings of becoming a delightful leader is the power to ask. I suggest to people, ask for what you need. Let me do an experiment with you. Alexis, would you help me now? I would like to ask you to give me a raving round of applause right now. Would you do that for me?

    Alexis:

    Of course. With great pleasure. I would like to try that. I will do my best to do it. Of course, it’s just me.

    Avi:

    Fantastic. If you’re listening to me at home, please do that as well. Okay. Now, why did you do that?

    Alexis:

    Because you asked.

    Avi:

    Exactly. Now, if it was so easy to ask and receive, why do people don’t ask for what they need?

    Alexis:

    I don’t know. They are afraid to be rejected. They are afraid of receiving a no.

    Avi:

    Why do most people don’t ask for what they need, if it’s so easy? When I ask this question, someone in the audience will say, “Because we are afraid.” Then I ask, “Why are you afraid?” Then the answer is, “Afraid of rejection.” I would say, “That’s okay. You’re going to be rejected many times in your life.” That’s, again, the relationship that you have with no.

    Avi:

    A very interesting story, when I worked with Marina Bay Sands, we work with them for seven months. When we started to work with them, they got a very bad review. 140th place on TripAdvisor. Within seven months, they went to 36th position. At the end of the first workshop, a gentleman called Evo, who was one of the top managers, arranged for us a banquet. It was a fantastic party with champagne and everything. It was really fantastic.

    Avi:

    Then, he wanted to buy the book of Everlasting Optimism. We asked him, “Why would you like to spend your own money? Why don’t you ask your boss to buy it for everyone, so you don’t have to buy it?” He immediately went to the boss, he asked, and he got it. He was so enthusiastic, because he immediately applied the power to ask.

    Avi:

    Next to him was Sonja and Michael. There was a refrigerator of Coca-Cola. Sonja looks at Michael and says, “You know how many times I asked to get this Coca-Cola fridge for my team?” Michael say, “But you didn’t ask me.” She said, “Michael, may I ask you to have this fridge?” He said, “Yes. This fridge is going for your team.”

    Avi:

    Sometimes, people are so happy to give it to us as much as we are happy to give to us. If you are a parent, many times people are just waiting for the kids to ask them for advice, ask them for something. A lot of people are waiting to give you what you want. At the same time, the engine of delight will be very helpful for you, because when you deposit so much things inside, people will love to give you whatever you wish for.

    Alexis:

    Maybe it doesn’t feel as real. It doesn’t feel really possible for everybody, because sometimes you really deal with people that are really toxic. That could be a toxic colleague, or a toxic boss, or a toxic customer. It doesn’t fit that picture that you draw just before. How do you deal with that?

    Avi:

    I’ll give you a theory and a story. In one of the chapters in my book, I talk about your universe. I ask you to draw your solar system, and put on your solar system, you are the sun of your own solar system. Alexis is the sun of Alexis’s solar system. Avi is the sun of Avi’s solar system. I’m a planet on your solar system and you’re a planet on mine.

    Avi:

    I ask people to decide what are the orbits and name the orbits. It’s family, and close friends, and less close friends, and colleagues, and so on. We have rules for each one of these orbits. I ask you to write down, “What are the rules? What are the expectations that you have from each one of the orbits?”

    Avi:

    Then, I ask you to put the people that are most important to you and place them on the orbits. If there is a mismatch between the expectation that you have, with the orbit that the person is, sometimes what you need to do is to take that person and put them on a more remote place. On that remote place, you have less expectations. You’re going to give less and you’re going to be much happier.

    Avi:

    You need to, first, align your solar system. What you’re talking about, about toxic people in our life, I make an analogy for them that they are black holes. When you see someone is a black hole, you have to be careful. Either you place it a very remote orbit or, alternatively, first you can talk to them.

    Avi:

    To your question about toxic bosses, I hear this a lot, and I will give you an interestingly unconventional answer. I usually suggest to leaders to deal with people with empathy, compassion, and kindness. However, not always it works.

    Avi:

    Now, the first assumption that I have is that every person that I meet has pain, has experienced problems in their life, have been humiliated in the past, maybe have been abused. Maybe they have, at home, a kid that is suffering from severe autism or maybe there is someone that just passed away. Maybe they have a terrible health condition that they are not able to tell to someone.

    Avi:

    Once you make the assumption that whoever sits in front of you has a pain in their life, I’ve yet to see a person that does not have any pain in their life. Separation, death, loss of money, loss of friends. I didn’t see yet, the perfect person that doesn’t have pain in their life.

    Avi:

    If you could have the first three of empathy, compassion, and kindness, and you can manage with that to not get into a problem or a heated discussion, you’re a winner. Sometimes, the toxic people would be beyond repair and you will not be able to affect their life with your kindness. At that time, I think the secret weapon that I call it pity. The minute that I have a pity for a person, that person is not anymore in my level. It’s like looking at the drunk person. If a drunk person was going to tell me, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” I don’t pay attention to that, because I know that that person is drunk. I classify that person that is drunk.

    Avi:

    Instead of taking the toxicity from that person, I just bend and let it go above my head. That’s basically helping me not to take it personally. Here is something that I put in my head as a mantra. It’s not about me. It’s about him. It’s about her. It’s her pain, not mine. She or he is trying to inflict their pain on me. Sorry, it’s not my pain. I will want to stay myself. I have a brand. I’m Avi. I’m kind. I don’t want to go and become toxic to the toxic.

    Avi:

    Having say that, I am enjoying making something that is called boundaries. Again, a lot of people think that making boundaries is to protect myself. I say no. Putting boundaries is to help everybody, because beyond the boundaries, there is a minefield. When you cross the boundaries of someone, you’re definitely going to go and explode. By me putting a sign, “This is my boundary,” if you’re going to cross that boundary, everybody going to explode. You’re going to explode and I’m going to explode.

    Avi:

    This is kindness, because when you don’t tell people where the boundaries are … Two stories. One about Major Biran. He told me I’m never going to be an officer. I’m going to be an officer over his dead body. I was frustrated. I really wanted to become an officer in the army.

    Avi:

    Then, one of the reservist guys, his name was Efi. He came to me and he said, “Avi, can you put your hand on your shoulder?” I did and he said, “Imagine that the pigeon has pooped on you.” Then, he showed me how he scratches it, and push it away from the shoulder, and take it out. He said, “That’s what you need to do as shit is being dropped on you. What you don’t do, Avi, and this is what you did. You took the shit in your hands and put it on your face, and then you tried to talk to everyone. I am shit. That is not helpful. Just take it away. It’s not for you. Anybody that would have walked there would get the shit. It’s not for you. It’s not about you. It’s about the bird. The bird has shit. That’s it.”

    Avi:

    That was extremely helpful when someone tried to insult me. I am a human being. Sometimes, I’m going to get upset and that’s okay, because I’m human. Most of the time, I will either use empathy, compassion, and kindness. If we have time, we’re going to talk about the differences. If that doesn’t work, I’ll use pity.

    Avi:

    Seriously, when you pity someone, you can’t get angry at them. They’re like a cripple. They’re like a child. You don’t go and judge them, and you keep your brand, and you keep who you are up.

    Avi:

    The second story is, after being CMO, where everybody listened to me, I have teams that I say, “A, it’s A. B, it’s B.” I got paid very well. I joined the government. I got 20 percent of the paid. I got employees that are totally disengaged. I got a toxic boss.

    Avi:

    By the way, I saw that engagement or disengagement is a choice. A lot of people say, “No. How you can be engaged when your boss is toxic, when the environment is like this?” I said, “You chose to be here today. If you don’t like it, why don’t you find another place? Make yourself the best talent that you can. Hunt for another job, but today you are here. Make it a great day. Be the best version of yourself. Get to learn something new.” It doesn’t make any sense to be disengaged, because you’re hurting your brand.

    Avi:

    What I managed to do is, I managed to interest my team, that was absolutely disengaged, to understand what they do, why they do, and the impact that they do. For example, we had the First Minister from India came to Israel. I told them about all the things and about the excitement. I taught them everything that I learned about India. They were so excited with me, because we were creating history together. Suddenly, I had a team that were much better.

    Avi:

    With my toxic boss, I ended up to be his boss. If you are handling people, believe in yourself and be your own brand, and you’re going to be able to overcome as long as you are there.

    Avi:

    One last story. On the first day of officer course, they throw us in the desert. Minus three degrees. The winter of 1983. We didn’t have good clothes. We didn’t have food. We didn’t sleep. They were really making us tired and exhausted, and they were bullying us as a part of the first week.

    Avi:

    Now, 78 of 80 were miserable. Two out of the 80 were extremely happy. Why? Because the same time will go if you suffer or if you enjoy. It’s the same no food. It’s the same no sleep. It’s the same harassment. If you keep your smile, and you help each other, you create comradery. The best time to get relationship is the time of tough time. You see who you are really in tough times. Not when everything is great. Some of my best friends are from exactly that time, when we had hardship.

    Alexis:

    I first saw you in a conference you gave at The World Conference. I had the pleasure to be invited by some of the organizers, Simon Jaillais and Jerome Bourgeon. I’m really grateful. I need to thank them. I hope I did. This was really an interesting conference.

    Alexis:

    I joined that conference and I’ve seen the mobile phone analogy. I was thinking, “Yeah. In reality, this is exactly that. This is exactly what I’m trying to say.” I’m trying to say that to myself and I’m trying to say that to others, that at some point, you’re making the choice. You cannot change the circumstances, but you can change how you deal with that.

    Avi:

    Actually, we are living great life. I totally agree with you. Thank you very much for the compliment. I try every day to learn new things, and to hone what I do, and see more research, so when I speak to you and speak to others, I can give them more example, more rigor, more research, more studies, so when I tell you, “This is what I suggest that you consider,” it’s based on measurement. It’s based on something that they see that really works.

    Avi:

    What I notice is that people that make these choices have three things that they always have. Number one, they make everybody around them more successful. Number two, they are true investors in other human beings. As investment means, there is a return on investment. They get 10 times fold more than what they give, because they sow seeds like farmers. From seed to tree, there’s a lot of investment, but the tree gives you so much yield. The best time to invest in people is when they need you. That, they’ll remember forever. The third thing that happens, when you make everybody more successful, when you invest in people, you’re also so much happier. People love to follow you. People trust you.

    Alexis:

    Beautiful. In a way, this is putting pressure on yourself to do things, but it’s something that you can do. That’s not something unreachable. That’s not, “I want to be like someone else.” You mentioned that before. That’s more, “Yeah. I can do something to help people that needs it around me. I always can do something that’s not something impossible to do.”

    Avi:

    What I found in my life is that, being likable, being loved, being trusted, being happy, when we set them as a goal, we’re going to fail and we’re going to miserable. If we’re going to do the right things, if we’re going to be loving, people will love us. If we’re going to be contributors, people will trust us. If we’re going to do it consistently and unconditionally, that will happen. We’re going to be likable if people will see that we are congruent and authentic. We deliver and we care for them. These are all results. They’re not goals.

    Alexis:

    That’s the consequence of what we are doing.

    Avi:

    Yeah. If you just focus on, “Why do you lead?” If you lead and you just want everything for yourself, you’re going to struggle, because all the time you need to feed yourself and to feed your ego. I have a theory about the ego that it’s very, very thirsty. When the ego wants to take is when you screw it up, but when the ego gives, you get everything.

    Avi:

    I want to change the definition of self interest. If you want to be successful, it is your self interest to delight other people, not the other way around. If you’re going to try to delight yourself … You know, I love Tony Hsieh. Rest in peace. The one that created the culture of Zappos. He became a multi-millionaire. He made a very happy company. He was obsessed with happiness, to the extent that he was not happy himself.

    Avi:

    That’s where I caution all the delightful leaders. Happiness is not pursuit. Don’t run after it. Create it for yourself and others, and invest in yourself, and make sure that when you talk about the how of delightful leadership … The first thing that I do with a leader is talk to them. Make them go through, “How are they going to understand their own well being and their own resilience?” The second is how they communicate effectively with clarity, and joy, and care. The third one, how to lead with positivity.

    Avi:

    With all of the things that we’re going through, there’s a lot of fun things that we do. There’s a lot of rigor of studies that shows you that exactly when you do that kind of a thing, you really get things out of that.

    Alexis:

    The WildCardConf was a conference organized for charity. I heard that you are doing also other things for charity purpose.

    Avi:

    I do it for me. I don’t believe that there’s anybody on earth, including of Bill Gates, that do this for others. When we do it for others, we are admittedly nourished. We are physically and emotionally wired for contribution. We are wired for giving.

    Avi:

    The minute that you are kind to someone else, you give a dosage of significance to someone else, what happens in your brain is the hippocampus releases oxytocin, which is the love hormone. It makes you feel loved. It’s the same hormone that the lady exudes when she delivers a baby. That immediately kick starts the reward circuitry in your brain releases dopamine, that makes you happier. You get a cocktail that comes with serotonin, that makes you feel a sense of belonging.

    Avi:

    What happens, three people enjoy. The giver, the receiver, and even the witness. What happens when I give to somebody else? I become happier with myself. I have higher self esteem about myself. I say, “Avi actually is a nice guy.” I see myself in a better light. My confidence goes up. My happiness goes up.

    Avi:

    I don’t give bullshit to other people that I do things for others. I actually do it for myself. I enjoy it. When you’re going to smile, when you’re going to get the value, when you’re going to get value from this podcast, I’m going to be extremely happy, because I felt I got a new friend. This is fabulous.

    Alexis:

    I was also grateful that you invited me to one of your module sessions. The one with Emily Chang. She shared about the spare room idea. The idea that you always have a spare room. If someone needs it, you can welcome them to your place. That was her thing to offer. Not everybody would want to have someone at their place, but she is able to do that. She can be a host, and she has a spare room, and she can welcome people and help them when they need to. That was her offer to the world.

    Alexis:

    I really like the way she framed that. Thank you. Thank you, Avi, for organizing that. It was really good.

    Avi:

    The one that is coming up this month, with Dalia, really absolutely gorgeous story of transformation. Lead Like a Girl. It’s a great thing for the months of the World Women Day.

    Alexis:

    Sometimes people will ask me that question and I cannot fake that I’m really having a bad day. How can I still be a delightful leader, delight the people around me, when I’m really having a bad day? How can I handle it?

    Avi:

    I got this question first time seven years ago, from a lady called Rawa in a HR conference. She was the HR director of the University of Dubai. I asked her, “Rawa, tell me. When you are on a bad day” … And I said, “When people ask you, ‘How are you?,’ what are you saying?” I opened it to the audience. The audience say, “Good. Okay.” Some of them even say, “Great. Fantastic.”

    Avi:

    I told them the different between what you feel and what you say is the energy that’s going to be evaporated from you at the end of the day. If you need to pretend that everything is great, you’re going to be exhausted at the end of the night. I ask them, “Okay. If I’m going to give you two words plus one, that every time you’re going to say them, you’re going to feel better, the people around you are going to feel better, and you’re going to be authentic, and you’re going to be able to tell everybody exactly how you feel, while uplifting them.” If I’m going to tell you that, would you be happy, Alexis?

    Alexis:

    Yeah. Of course. Of course, I would be happy.

    Avi:

    What I would like to ask you, and the audience that is listening, I would ask you to put your hands next to your eyes, as if they were blinders for horse. You put them for the horse to see only the way straight. You can imagine, as you put your hands there, that when you wake up in the morning, the only thing that you see is what is not there. You see your errands, the problems that you have, the things you need to solve, your schedule, your to do list, the people that harassed you, the people that are trying to get you, and so on. That is primarily majority of what happens now in your life, what you need to do. But is that really the life that you have?

    Avi:

    Now, what I’m asking the audience at this point of time, I say, “Every time you’re going to say yes, I want you to say it loud.” I will need your participation, Alexis, for that. At the same time when you say it, I’d like you also to move your hands one inch to the side and one inch up, every time you’re going to say yes. Are you ready?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Okay. Did you sleep on a bed?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Okay, so you put your hands one inch to the side and one inch up. You know that many people did not have a bed. Millions of people sleep on the floor. Do you have a place to live in?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Okay. Another inch to the side and up. Over a billion people don’t have a place to stay. Do you have running water?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Yes. You know that over a billion people need to walk more than a kilometer to get water. Are you living in a free country?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Yes. There are many people that live under oppression. Do you have a job?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Yes. Do you have people that you love and they love you?

    Alexis:

    Yes.

    Avi:

    Yes. The list go on and on. By this time, if you said yes to everything that I asked, you may have your hands like a Y from the YMCA song. They are open towards the sky. If you have all this, this is the reality that you live in. Not what you don’t have. This is the reality that you have at this moment. If you have all this, are you blessed?

    Alexis:

    Oh yes.

    Avi:

    If you are blessed, can you be grateful?

    Alexis:

    Absolutely. I should be grateful.

    Avi:

    What I ask you to do is take your hands, and put them in namaste position, and say, “I’m grateful.”

    Alexis:

    Yes. I’m grateful.

    Avi:

    Alexis, please ask me, “Avi, how do you feel on a bad day?”

    Alexis:

    Avi, how do you feel on a bad day?

    Avi:

    Blessed, and grateful, and sad. Blessed, and grateful, and angry. Blessed, and angry, and frustrated. I understand that 90 percent of my being is blessed and grateful. The 10 percent is a temporary negative feeling that I experience. I have no issue expressing that, because what it means as a leader is that I’m authentic. People understand that this is a tough time for me. I still understand the context of my life, that 90 percent is working.

    Avi:

    Today, I heard a story of a brave father that has to take care of a kid that is dysfunctional at age of 12. It’s amazing how much that leader helps the wife and the kid, and still manages so much. He is smiling and he feels blessed, grateful, and extremely concerned for my son. That’s okay.

    Avi:

    By having this blessed and grateful mentality, you’re going to be authentic. You’re going to be empowering other people to show the true feelings. You’re going to create this psychological safety for people to tell you, “I don’t feel good, but I understand that I’m blessed and grateful.” Then you can say, “You know what, Janet? Why don’t you rest for an hour. I’m going to take your duties for the next one hour.”

    Avi:

    Actually, it happened to me today, because Kim, who is my PA, she is on medical leave. What I asked her to do is, “Please don’t work. You need to rest.” Delightful leadership is exactly about that. Be authentic and put your money where your mouth is. It’s so easy to tell Kim, “We have so many things to do,” but I take over. That’s a delightful leadership. That’s investment. That’s understanding that other people have their days and so are you.

    Avi:

    Maybe a story within a story. I was one of the youngest basketball coaches in my country. Actually when I was 18, I could dunk, even though I’m just 186 centimeters. On the last leg of coaches school, we were trained by the deputy head coach of the number one team in Israel, which was also the champion of Europe, is Maccabi Tel Aviv.

    Avi:

    What he did, he made us all play on the first day of the camp from 8 o’clock in the morning until 12 at night. We were scrimmaging. It was crazy. We were so exhausted. The next morning, all of us had a smell of Bengay. You know the cream that you put when you have cramps all over?

    Avi:

    He told us on that morning, “We did it to you on purpose. We want you to feel how it is. When you’re going to be a coach, you’re going to be tempted to put your star to play from the minute the game start until the end, so you’re going to get the most points. You don’t understand that you’re going to kill that person. You’re going to make them injured. We wanted you to feel, so you’re never going to remember in your life. You are outside. They’re in the trenches. You are asking them to do things. You need to understand their limitations and you need to take care of them. They are your responsibility. If you’re not going to do that, they’re going to end up exactly like you now.”

    Avi:

    That was a lesson of leadership that I know … As a delightful leader, taking care of your team is your number one responsibility. Delightful leadership is a responsibility, not a privilege.

    Alexis:

    Thank you very much, Avi. That was a perfect way to end that discussion. Thank you for joining the show today. Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for references mentioned in the episode and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. Until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by Kenny Krosky 

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Build the Right Product, with Gojko Adzic

    Build the Right Product, with Gojko Adzic

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I’m joined by Gojko Adzic. Gojko is an AWS Serverless Hero, a long-time product builder, and the author of Impact Mapping (a book I still use constantly, especially when working on OKRs) and Specification by Example.

    We talked about building products, avoiding waste, and creating a shared understanding of value across business and technology.

    “If you are not keeping score, you are practicing, not playing.”
    — Gojko Adzic

    “The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build.”
    — Fred Brooks

    The story behind Impact Mapping: great code, zero value

    Gojko wrote Impact Mapping after a brutal experience: a team that was technically excellent, ahead of its time in automation and delivery, and still delivered no value.

    They built with high quality, high speed, and high confidence. They also burned through the budget.

    That moment forced a shift: technical excellence matters, but it is not enough. Product decisions, assumptions, and value validation have to be part of the work, and engineers need to engage with product thinking, not as gatekeepers, but as collaborators who can help challenge ideas and shape better decisions.

    What Impact Mapping is

    Impact Mapping is a simple visual method to connect:

    • a business goal
    • to actors (who can influence that goal)
    • to impacts (behavior change)
    • to deliverables (what we build)

    The key idea is the middle layer: impacts as observable behavior changes. Impacts give teams a shorter feedback loop than business outcomes like revenue or market share.

    If we change the product and people:

    • stay longer
    • complete tasks faster
    • make fewer mistakes
    • adopt a feature
    • return more often

    …then we have evidence we are moving in the right direction.

    Impact Mapping creates a bridge between the “problem world” and the “solution world” through measurable behavior change.

    Simple is not always easy

    Impact Mapping is simple to explain quickly. It is not always easy to do well.

    But the point is not perfection on day one. The point is to create a shared map that reduces uncertainty, helps prioritization, and supports learning as the team iterates.

    Scoreboards, leading indicators, and accountability

    Gojko connects Impact Mapping to execution discipline: focusing on what matters, measuring leading indicators, and revisiting decisions frequently.

    The message is practical:

    • do not measure only outcomes you’ll see in 6–12 months
    • measure what helps you decide what to do next week
    • make the “score” visible to the team
    • build a cadence to inspect value and adapt

    This is how you avoid the trap of delivering what someone asked for and calling it “valuable” just because it was requested.

    Pair programming, quality, and sustainability

    Gojko also shares how he works today across two products:

    • one built with continuous pair programming for shared context and quality
    • one built solo to maximize flow and creative immersion

    Pair programming can be demanding. It can also be a powerful way to produce a better product, avoid corner-cutting, and design more thoughtfully, especially in very small teams.

    “If you are not keeping score, you are practicing not playing”

    Gojko Adzic

    Conflict, alignment, and the power of examples

    When collaboration becomes tense, Gojko relies on two patterns:

    • provoke clarity by offering an option people will react to
    • bring the conversation back to concrete examples

    Examples cut through ambiguity across roles. They create shared reference points that business, design, engineering, and testing can all discuss.

    This connects directly with the spirit of Specification by Example: examples are not only about tests. They are first a tool for understanding.

    The industry evolves in an upward spiral

    Gojko ends with a broader reflection: the software world moves in cycles, but progress is not purely repetitive. It’s an upward spiral.

    When one bottleneck is solved, the next becomes visible. Teams improve development, then testing becomes the bottleneck. Teams improve delivery, then product discovery becomes the bottleneck.

    We keep returning to Brooks’ point: deciding what to build remains the hardest part.

    “The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build.”

    Fred Brooks

    Listen to the episode here:

    Here is the transcript of the episode

    Alexis:

    Hey, Gojko, glad to have you here. How are you and can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Gojko:

    Hey, wonderful to be on the show. I’m a developer, currently working on two products. I’ve worked as a consultant, I wrote some books, effectively, I really like coding. And since I started on a developer job 20 something years ago, I realized that in order to do good coding, I have to learn how to do good testing, how to do good product management and a bunch of other things. And my interests seem to be going around in a spiral, I tend to learn a lot about doing some coding thing. And then that leads me to making more complex product so I need to learn more about how to test it well. That leads me to figuring out well, how do I reduce the amount of things I need to do in order to do all of this well, so I need to learn more about product management, and then it gives me more capacity to do more development and start new products. It’s kind of going on in a spiral and every time I touch one of these subjects, I end up writing a book about it, I guess, is a way of doing a memory dump so I can free more random access memory for myself.

    Alexis:

    I love that. I love the way you are describing that. And I love the fact that it’s a virtuous spiral that is leading to more books, because I already enjoyed reading your books. So that’s a really good news. Of course, one of those books that I’m using radio a lot is Impact Mapping. Can you tell us a little bit more about what led you to that book? And probably what is impact mapping? You will need to explain that once again.

    Gojko:

    What led me to the book is I was CTO of a company that basically ran into a wall and spent all the money that it could spend. And it did that in the worst possible time where kind of 2008, 2009 it was almost impossible to get any good investment, and we ran out of money. And I was a minority investor in that company as well so I didn’t take any salary. And I was left almost without the money to pay the rent next month, that’s how stupid I was. And we were incredibly, incredibly efficient in terms of software production. It was by far the best team I’ve ever worked with, even till today, in terms of technical competence. And we were doing things that became buzzwords later before they had a name. So we were doing stuff like continuous delivery before people knew the continuous delivery buzzword, we were doing cloud based deployments back then, we were doing almost 100% automated testing. And it was wonderful. The code quality was wonderful, but we delivered no value.

    Gojko:

    And because we were really, really efficient, we efficiently burn through our core budgets. And as a CTO of that company, I was really embarrassed when it came to the point that I had to admit to myself what we’re doing is wrong. Because I thought we were doing so well. Up until then I really focused on on the technical quality of what the product is. And I’ve realized that there’s a lot more and as a technical person, I need to engage a lot more with product people. Not in a sense of not trusting them, but in a sense of being able to more efficiently challenge their ideas and help them make better decisions, and help facilitate a discussion between technology and product. And that led me to a lot of research and trying to figure out what we did wrong. And I started studying the emerging discipline of product management in software and how to kind of people do product management and deal with assumptions. That’s, I think, roughly around the time when the Lean Startup came out, and the software world really started awaking to how much we waste on stupid work and stupid products.

    Gojko:

    And one of the really wonderful things about software for me is it’s almost like magic. You literally turn ideas into products. You sit and drink coffee and turn something you have in the back of your head with some magic words. We don’t use Abracadabra, we use const value, and for each and things like that, but that’s magic, create products out of nothing. But at the same time, if what we build is missing the point, then you can spend a ton of cash and it just vaporizes, it disappears in thin air. There’s nothing to show for it. And the research I was doing back then to figure out what we did wrong and how would I never repeat that mistake in my life led me to learn about this technique called effect courting that the E news agency in Sweden was developing. And I just saw how incredibly wonderful that is for facilitation.

    Gojko:

    And the reference book for what they were talking about then was in Swedish day, there was an English version of that book, but wasn’t that popular. And I have very high respect for E News people and I don’t want this to sound like I’m kind of disparaging them, but I don’t think the book was accessible to the average software developer or the average software stakeholder. And I decided that I’m going to just try this out, and trying it out I saw how good it can be. And then decided to kind of write a book that will make this technique more approachable to people, especially doing interactive software delivery. And that’s basically the story of the book.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. I love the story. And I love it. It’s anchored in something that is really important to you. People always love to talk about their successes and how great they were, nut it’s always interesting to learn about something that didn’t really work well in the end, and what you can learn from that is really important. So I love the story behind the book.

    Gojko:

    Yeah. I think there’s so much wasted potential today in what we do as an industry. I mean, if you look at how much software gets produced and how much energy and how much effort people spend building these things, and then you look at the results of some of these efforts, most of it is just going to mediocre, most of it doesn’t go anywhere, a lot of it is kind of pointless. And it’s very difficult to even know in the short term if what we’re delivering makes sense or not. One of the best examples of this, a few years ago there was a project that the British Broadcasting Corporation where it was shut down, it was a personalization project for the video player, and it was shut down after a few years when they spent something like, I think 75 million pounds, can find the link and send it to you so that you can attach it in the podcast. I don’t remember exactly now. I think it was about 75 million pounds, something like that. It was shut down because it delivered no value.

    Gojko:

    And because this is a publicly funded cooperation, it’s a public broadcast that the government Office of National Audit got involved to figure out how can you possibly spend so much money on software and deliver no value. And the conclusion at the end, I’ll send you the link to that you can put it in the podcast links for your audience, was they could do it because it was urgent. And what that meant is that every month what they delivered, somebody was evaluating to say, well, is this good? Is it bad? Is it valuable? And the stakeholders were deluding themselves where they were making the decision if something was valuable or not. And it was basically somebody in the company told some developers, “Well, I want this feature.” They deliver the future and say, “Well, is it valuable?” They say, “Well, yeah, that’s what I asked you to do.” And it’s completely pointless. It’s just running around in circles and having no way to actually understand if we’re going in the right direction or not.

    Gojko:

    And I think impact mapping is the easiest solution I found to that problem. It’s not the best solution, there are probably better solutions out there but they’re very, very academic, very difficult to apply. The most popular process for goal driven requirements engineering in the academia is something called the iSTAR. And the basic book on iSTAR is about six or 700 pages. You must provide some wonderfully precise way of measuring value, but I don’t think any of the people I ever worked with would understand that and have time for it, where impact mapping is something that you can explain in 10, 15 minutes to business stakeholders and one afternoon later they will already have an impact map. And that’s why I love about the practice. It’s it’s kind of fast, it’s collaborative, and it really helps people solve an actual problem.

    Alexis:

    Can you explain impact mapping in a few minutes for us?

    Gojko:

    Absolutely. So impact mapping is a visualization technique that helps developers, business stakeholders, product representatives, analyst, UX people, people from different backgrounds, have a really good conversation on how the plan or a proposed deliverables connect to the value and how do we know that we’re going in the right direction, what is the value of what we’re going to deliver. And they help people visualize the big picture for what needs to be achieved and create a good way of measuring if we’re going in the right direction or not. Impact mapping does that by connecting the business goals through impacts, through changes to the users behavior or changes to the customer’s behavior, and to the deliverable. So it presents this middle layer that helps us measure change in a short term. What’s really wonderful about that is that behavior changes are observable on a shorter timescale. So if we change some software over there, and people start staying longer on the website, or they start interacting better with their friends, or they can administer Linux systems easier, or they can create larger server farms faster, then we’re delivering value. And behavior change is something that can be measured in the short term, it can be measured with a trial population of users, it can provide a leading indicator of value. And that’s why it’s so important.

    Gojko:

    And I remember reading Michael Jackson’s book, of course the consultant architect not the singer, I don’t think the singer wrote any books, about problem frames probably 20 years ago, or even more. And he said that one of the biggest problems in software delivery is creating a connection between the problem machine and the solution machine. And impact mapping creates a connection between the problem world and the solution world through these impacts and behavior changes and allows us to see where we’re going, allows us to measure that what we’re doing makes sense and allows us to focus on solving problems instead of just delivering solutions.

    Alexis:

    That sounds really easy said this way. And I think it’s exactly why the approach is so useful. It’s because it’s really easy. And once you started asking yourself the questions, it really helps you to do exactly that; connect the impact you want to achieve with the solution you want to break. And that’s really, really helpful. I love that.

    Gojko:

    So one of the one of the books I really love, I read this book a few years ago and I’m really sorry I’ve not discovered it a longer time ago, is Four Disciplines of Execution. For people that have been doing a good product management or can do delivery in a good way, there’s nothing revolutionary new in the book, but they’ve explained things so well it’s amazing. So I think even if you are the total expert in your field, it’s worth reading that book because the book is so well written and the ideas are so well explained that it’s totally amazing. And they boil down the difference between organizations that are excellent in executing their plans, compared to organizations that are not who they execute in their plans to kind of four big differences. The first big difference of the first kind of discipline of execution is focused on the wildly important, which is really keep your eyes on the ball and focus on the ball and work towards that. Impact mapping helps with that, because you have this one goal at the center of the map, and you’re really focusing on delivering that.

    Gojko:

    I’ve worked with organizations where once we start creating an impact map and have 50, 60 ideas in a backlog connected to a single impact, and the first two epics deliver the impact, then we can just say, “Look, we don’t have to do the other 48, we focused on the goal. We’re not focused on delivering the solution, we’re focused on delivering the results. And we’ve delivered the results so let’s move on.” The second thing they talk about is focus on leading metrics of value, on leading indicators of value. They say that every organization can very easily measure at the end if an initiative succeeded or failed. If you start something to increase your market share, or increase revenue, or increase profit, six months after you finish or a year after you finish, you will be able to know if you did it or not. Very easy. The measurements are there. But those measurements are irrelevant, really, for knowing what should you do next week. Like if you have 50 user stories that address the same impact, which of these user stories should you do and which you shouldn’t do? You can’t know that if you only measure the results six months later. If you’re like, the BBC in the eye player project, and four years later you wasted 75 million pounds, that’s game over. We need leading indicators of value.

    Gojko:

    And impact mapping helps incredibly with that because it provides this glue layer in between that is these impacts that we can start measuring, are we going in the right direction or not. And there’s a wonderful story from Mark Schwartz in his book, The After Business Value, where they talk about this project they’ve done at the US Immigration Services, where it was a massive, massive government project but they looked at how many cases a human case worker can process per day. And that’s a leading indicator of value that then you can focus on. And they were measuring the behavior change for these people. So every time they deliver a piece of software they were measuring if humans are processing more cases per day. If yes, we are delivering value, if not, what we deliver is incomplete, pointless, damaging whatever. And impact maps help amazingly with that. The third discipline of execution that they talk about in the book is to create a team scoreboard. Create a way for the team that delivers to know are they going in the right direction not. Not to have to wait on external feedback from some third party that three years later says well, this is valuable or not. But look at really focusing on providing value to the people that providing information to people that deliver so they can make better decisions.

    Gojko:

    And they have a wonderful quote in the book, I love it. They say if you’re not keeping score, you’re just practicing, you’re not playing. And for a lot of organizations, we throw some software against the wall, we have no idea if it delivers any value or not. And again, impact maps help with that because they make it clear, well, this story is related to this impact. Our scoreboard, the way we measure the score, should be is this impact happening or not. And this opens up some really, really interesting discussions that can happen. There’s a wonderful piece of research, and I’ll give you the link, I think it’s interesting for your readers to understand as well, from Microsoft, where a guy called Bronco Harvey went to analyze if the stuff that was promised in PowerPoint actually came through for some initiatives. And his conclusion was that about 1/3 of initiatives that they looked at actually moved the numbers that were supposed to move in the right direction, about 1/3 actually created no statistical impact on the numbers that were supposed to improve, and about 1/3 actually damaged the numbers they were supposed to improve.

    Gojko:

    Microsoft is a pretty good software development company, and if you look at it from that perspective, they don’t get things always right. And of course, they don’t get things always right because the business people are not clairvoyant. They don’t have a crystal ball, they don’t control the competition, they don’t control the market. And writing the scoreboard allows us to actually see in a shorter cycle are we delivering or not. And the fourth discipline of execution they talk about is creating a good cadence of accountability. The last discipline they talk about in the book is creating a cadence of accountability. And really, that means reviewing the plans as we’re going along very frequently, and being honest about are we delivering value or not. Being honest about is what we’re doing providing what we expected it to provide. And if not, then there’s something unexpected going on. Then we need to do a bit more research, we need to inspect whether there’s something blocking our users from realizing the value we expected. Or maybe the ideas we have they’re just bad ideas. And from that perspective, impact mapping really helps connect all these things together. And it’s a wonderful visualization technique that’s really simple.

    Gojko:

    And you said it was easy, I think there’s a nice distinction we need to start making between simple and easy. I think impact mapping is simple as a way we can explain it in 15 minutes. I don’t think it’s incredibly easy to do, there are some challenges about doing it. It’s not too difficult to do, but it’s much, much easier to do than a lot of other very complex bureaucratic things. And that’s why I love it.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, that’s true. It’s simple to understand, it can be hard to get to a map that you really like. The thing is, it’s easy to start, you can have something really fast, it will not be perfect but if you accept that you will keep that map and you will continue to improve it, you have something you can work on, and you can improve it. And it’s convenient to visualize it. And it really helps with prioritization and saying, okay, we will focus on that particular impact now. And that’s good. We are good with that. So yeah, you’re right. It’s simple, it’s not necessarily easy.

    Gojko:

    One of the things I think helped me a lot was reading that habits book on how to measure anything. That’s kind of when I was doing this research for my benefit on how do we get good business metrics out, I came across that book, and it’s a wonderful book. And in the book, he talks about how lots of people discovered metrics that are not perfect, because they don’t totally eliminate uncertainty. And he says that good metrics don’t necessarily need to eliminate uncertainty, it’s really difficult to eliminate uncertainty. But good metrics help reduce uncertainty. So I think impact mapping is one of these things where it will reduce uncertainty and the more you do it, the more it will reduce uncertainty. And even if you start and you don’t get the perfect map, you don’t get the totally mathematically correct thing you need to do, it’s useful, as you said, because it’s better than what people were doing before. So it reduces it a bit.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, exactly. Exactly. When we scheduled the call, you told me that you were available before a certain time in the day, because after that you were programming. And of course, I’m very interested in collaboration and in close collaboration like pair programming. Is it something that you are always doing, pair programming? Or is it something that you’re doing just for the moment for a specific product you’re working on?

    Gojko:

    I work on two products at the moment. One is relatively kind of successful and more stable. We’ve been developing that since 2013. And there are two people working on that product, There’s me and a colleague of mine, David, and we pretty much pair program all the time on it, because that allows us to share the knowledge of what’s going on. And that allows us to create a better product, that allows us to keep each other honest, and not cheat and not cut corners. And it genuinely leads to much better design, because we can have two pairs of eyes looking at something instead of one pair of eyes. And we develop this product that basically stands on its own, it doesn’t require almost any support. And it allows me to travel around when there’s no Corona and the planes are flying, and it allows David to do his own things in his time.

    Gojko:

    So it’s very important for us that the quality of the product is allowing us to work at a sustainable pace. Because there’s only two of us, we cannot spend time fielding customer support calls or fixing bugs and things like that because then we’re not producing value on the product. So what comes out has to be really, really good. And I think pair programming is absolutely critical for that. Having said that, I honestly enjoy programming more on my own. I find a lot of joy in programming. Programming is one of the best things I can do to lift my spirits up and enjoying my day. And pair programming can be brutal, it can be very difficult because you’re always having to explain everything you’re doing. And I found that I cannot get really immersed in the problem, I can’t get in the flow if I’m pair programming. As I said, it does produce a better product. And from a product development perspective, it’s the right thing to do. From a enjoyment perspective, I also like spending a long period of time just on my own, listening to music and very quietly being immersed in a problem and trying to solve it. And that’s kind of what brings me into the flow.

    Gojko:

    The other product I’m building is a very young one, I kind of literally launched it commercially less than six months ago, I think in October. It launched commercially in April last year, it launched as a betta. It’s a video editing tool that is saying that people who are not video editing professionals and they want to very quickly create a video from assets such as images or screenshots, and it does. For developers and techie people in particular it’s really good because it allows you to convert a markdown file into a video, which means you can have video on the version control. And it helped me a lot doing stuff for the previous product, actually. That’s how I came with the idea. Because there’s only two of us, we have to do programming, we have to do support, we have to do sales, we have to do product management. And one of the things I ended up doing is creating videos for users to learn how to use the product. And then every time we changed something small on the screen, I have to re record everything again. And because I’m not a video editing professional doing a five minute demo video takes me two or three hours or took me two or three hours.

    Gojko:

    So I started looking for ways to automate that. And then I figured out well, I can just automatically compose screenshots into video and even integrate with text to speech engines that have improved significantly over the last five or six years. And they can do English better than I can. I mean, I can’t get rid of my accent so if you hear me speak in a video, that’s not as nice as hearing a nice gentle voice that speaks in a perfect English accent. And I can do that with machine learning voices now. So basically you get the markdown document, you compile it, and it gives you a video. And then I realized, when I automated for this other thing, there’s a product here. So I’ve kind of extracted that into a separate product and launched it. And for that, I’m programming on my own. And I enjoy that immensely. So I can spend 10 hours immersed in a problem and not notice how much time has passed. And I realized if I work on my own, I enjoy it a lot more. But pair programming creates a better product.

    Alexis:

    This is excellent. So the first product is Mind Map, right?

    Gojko:

    Yes, the first product is Mind Map. It’s a mind mapping tool mostly used by schools and universities. We have some kind of project management cases and also some people are using it for describing the testing plans and outlining books and writing, but it’s mostly used in educational setting.

    Alexis:

    And the second one is Naraeet?

    Gojko:

    The second one is Narakeet. Yes, exactly. Thank you very much for investigating so much. That’s amazing.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. I have to admit that I’m really excited about Narakeet because I wanted to have a short video to explain something. And now that I know that I can even just create a slide in Google slide and start from there, I’m really excited about it. I’m working on it right now.

    Gojko:

    Thank you very much. Yes. So it started this a bunch of shell scripts actually to get everything editing. I don’t know, I have this flaw in my mind where if I see something that I do five times, because I’m lazy in a good way. I don’t like repeating myself. And if I see something I do five times manually, I cannot have an urge to automate it in shell scripts. And this thing actually started as a shell script, and then evolved into a nice web service for people. So I’m really glad you can use that as well.

    Alexis:

    This is really good. This is really good. I have a question for you. When we are in close collaboration with someone, it’s sometimes a little bit difficult to get things across in the right way. How do you deal with that? How do you deal with the potential conflict? How do you deal with not being on the same page when you work so closely with people?

    Gojko:

    So I have two techniques I tend to apply to resolve situations like that. One is, I don’t know who I stole this idea from, so I can’t really give you the exact source of this. But I think I stole it from Michael Bolton, the tester not the singer, of course. The idea that I phrase it like now, I think he phrased it slightly differently, is that it’s much easier for people to complain than to tell you what they want. So if I’m working with people and I can’t really get them to say what they actually want, I throw something that I know that they’re going to complain about. Like I propose something idiotic, and then we get to a good conversation that actually makes sense. The other technique that really helps me clarify things is to offer realistic examples. And I think, examples of how something is supposed to work, examples of how we might want to use something, are again, concrete enough for people to really understand that there’s an additional case here, or we’ve not covered everything, or we need to discuss something in a better way.

    Gojko:

    And examples are a wonderful technique. This goes back all the way to I think Jerry Weinberg’s work on exploiting requirements from 1989, or even longer, on giving people something that is concrete that everybody can agree on. In a complex organization that delivers a product, you have people from lots of different backgrounds, and they all use different sources of truth and different forms of explaining information. UX designers use wire frames, developers use code, testers use some kind of testing scripts, business people use PowerPoints. And it’s really difficult for all of them to agree on anything. But everybody can talk about realistic examples. And that’s something that has turned out to be an almost universal tool for good communication.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Is this the route ideas that lead to write the book Specification by Examples?

    Gojko:

    I think so, yeah. Spec by Example, again, came out of a slightly different journey for me, where I was working for a company where they had lots of database developers who only looked at Oracle PL SQL code, and application developers who looked at Java back then I guess, or C# wasn’t out yet properly. And business analysts wrote all these kind of log documents where nobody was reading them. And I was really trying to figure out how do we avoid the long testing cycles? And how do we avoid getting stuck in something that we deliver and at the end it turns out it was the wrong thing. And that led me back then to discover, I think, fifth from what coming home and fitness that came around that time. And I started thinking about this from a perspective of this is going to help us automate testing. But I realize there’s so much more to this. And it’s actually kind of a good communication technique. And test automation really becomes secondary, once you have a good understanding. It’s easy to test, but kind of the tests almost become secondary. So the book Spec by Example came out to kind of that learning journey.

    Gojko:

    I told you earlier, I think, once I remove a bot with me doing code, I realize something else is a bottleneck. And in that case, testing was the butt link so I had to learn how to do testing. And that led me to this whole idea of what was back then, example driven development or acceptance test driven development. Behavior driven development as a phrase didn’t exist yet back then. I think Dan North came up with that phrase around the same time. And most people would call that stop behavior driven development now, but there was a very interesting situation where we actually… I think XP, when XP became popular or started becoming popular, early 2000s, developers were the first to jump on the train. And then we remove the bottleneck, lots of organizations removed the bottleneck from development. And then they all realized, well, the next bottleneck is testing. And as Jerry Weinberg says, once you solve your number one problem, your number two problem gets a promotion. I think the community that invested a lot in solving this kind of developer tester communication gap and that’s what led me to examples and Spec by Example.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, it’s excellent. I love the idea of looking at the world process and looking at the bottlenecks. You remove the first bottleneck on development, you have a bottleneck on testing. And then you can say, “Oh, yeah, we need to deliver.” You solve the bottleneck on delivery, although it’s absolutely perfect. And then you realize that you are not delivering the right product. And you are going back to the beginning saying, “Okay, what is the missing link between the users and the value they want and the definition of the product itself?” And you solve that also a problem. It’s interesting how you connected all those dots. I love it.

    Gojko:

    Yeah. I think it’s not cyclical, I think it’s an upward going spiral. You solve one problem and then it takes you to another problem. And I think our industries is very cyclical but the cycles are quite long. If you look at what’s happening now in the technical infrastructure space, in essence, we’re almost back to the time of mainframes, or the time of mainframes is coming back again. In the 70s and early 80s before the PC revolution, people were renting, effectively, CPU cycles from mainframes with timeshares and things like that. And now you have people renting CPU cycles from Amazon, or Google or Microsoft, either using virtual machines or using severless functions now. And in a sense, it’s a much better mainframe and much more accessible mainframe than it was before, but it’s timeshare, we’re coming back to that. And-

    Alexis:

    Exactly.

    Gojko:

    … really interesting after this timeshare, there’s going to be the new equivalent to the PC revolution or something like that, where we go back to client server software in some new way. But my best guess is it’s going to be client server software on very small devices like IoT, or things like that, that’s kind of emerging. And we’re going to end up in in really silly situations and some wonderful situations. You can really see some examples of that. I think there was an outage at Amazon in the US East one region, that’s kind of the first Amazon cloud that went up in North Virginia. There was an outage a few months ago where the message distribution system, Kinesis, that they use, brought down a bunch of other services. And there were people locked out of their homes because they had these smart lock devices that were talking to the Amazon cloud. And now you have this mainframe going down, and people can’t go into their homes. And that’s ridiculous. So after the mainframe, we’re going to go back to smarter clients. Because if the cloud goes down, you still still need to go back to your home, obviously. So cyclical, but the cycles are slow and people don’t really notice that much.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, I think during the PC revolution people were mocking the, I don’t remember who was the person at IBM that said we will probably need five computers in the world at the beginning of the computer story. And people were mocking those saying, now you can see how many computers we have now, but from a big mainframe perspective, we are probably on our way to have five big computers in the world.

    Gojko:

    There is three computers that, maybe four computers really matter. I don’t know enough about the Asian market. But really, we have Amazon, and Microsoft, and Google. And I think, unfortunately, IBM missed the game. It’s incredible how IBM kind of totally missed the mobile, and the web and the clouds. And it’s very interesting to see if they will catch up. Oracle is trying to build their own cloud, but I don’t know anybody who’s using that. And you effectively have three computers that matter. And maybe there’s Alibaba or somebody like that in China, I’m not really sure about that market. I think that’s an emerging markets. And I need to learn more about that. But yeah, we’re coming back to three or four computers effectively, and everybody else having down terminals that connect to that.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. And the smart computer at the edge, that’s exactly that edge revolution, because the example you mentioned about not being able to go back to your home, that’s exactly what you don’t want when you have a car and the intelligence should be in the car and some of the data should be in the car because you want the car to be able to break or find its way to some places without the need to even connect it to the network.

    Gojko:

    And things are so so connected that it’s ridiculous now. I remember, two or three years ago, Amazon S3 went down for a couple of hours, I think. And it took down half of the internet with it, it took down Reddit, it took down about a bunch of other services. So everything is connected to everything else now. And that’s amazing, because you have this kind of information distribution that anywhere you go in the world, you carry all the world’s knowledge in your pocket effectively. But because everything is connected to everything else, crucial service like that going down for a couple of hours might mean yeah, car stop working now, and that’s ridiculous. So yeah, we are going back to those cycles. But the reason why I mentioned this, I think is we’re having the same type of cycles, I think, in the software development world as well. Because we unlock one bottleneck as a community and that changes the context, and then we go and unlock another bottleneck. And then at some point it comes back. So I fully expect at some point that programming will become the bottleneck again, and then we’ll have to come up with much, much better techniques for programming or better languages or better ways of doing things.

    Gojko:

    And whether that’s because everybody settled on JavaScript, that is the worst possible language you can think of in terms of language design. But it’s incredibly productive for people, and it turns everywhere. So now we have these monstrosities like TypeScript that’s trying to kind of fix it, and WebAssembly that’s trying to allow compilation of JavaScript and other things. And maybe when it comes back to that, we’ll have better languages, finally, to work that run everywhere. Who knows? But it is a cyclical thing. And I think it’s worth reading stuff that happened in the previous cycle. When I was trying to figure out how to improve the developer testing cooperation at this large company, I was reading stuff that people were writing about in the 80s and 70s. And there’s lots of good material there. People today, chase the current fad, and always look at whatever next shiny thing gets invented. But we tend to… Software industry is not really old but it’s already gone through a couple of these cycles. And it’s really worth looking at what people were writing about in the previous cycle to figure out what ideas can we take from that and apply in the new context.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, I agree. You, if you look at Frederick Brooks or Melvin Conway, you can see those things that oh, yeah, they exactly describe the problem I have now and it was 40 or 50 years ago.

    Gojko:

    Fred Brooks said the most difficult problem in software is deciding exactly what to build. And look at where most people are now, or at least people I have worked with as a consultant. The bottleneck is not in programming, the bottleneck is not in testing, the bottleneck is in product management for a lot of people. So we came back to the most difficult thing being deciding what to build.

    Alexis:

    Exactly. It’s really an interesting conversation. I’m really grateful you accepted to join the podcast today, Gojko. Is there’s anything else you want to share today?

    Gojko:

    Well, I don’t know. Let’s leave it at this, I think. It was a really enjoyable talk. And thank you very much for inviting me.

    Alexis:

    With great pleasure. Thank you, Gojko.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com. For the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback or just to say hello. until next time to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by ThisIsEngineering from Pexels

  • Hiring and Diversity Without Dropping the Bar

    Hiring and Diversity Without Dropping the Bar

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure to welcome Lucinda Duncalfe, serial entrepreneur and Founder and CEO of AboveBoard, an inclusive hiring platform focused on executive and board roles.

    We explored the overlap between hiring, diversity, and the top of organizations. The conversation is full of practical hiring insights, but also deeper reflections on leadership and team building.

    “Being a leader is about setting out a future for people and then bringing them together to reach that future.”
    — Lucinda Duncalfe

    Why start at board level?

    Lucinda explains why she chose to focus on boards and executives. Change can happen bottom-up, but it is often easier to shift systems from the top. Diverse boards tend to drive:

    • better business performance
    • more holistic decision-making
    • stronger alignment with customers

    Boards shape what organizations value, who gets promoted, and what becomes possible.

    Diversity is not a pipeline problem

    Lucinda shares a pattern she has heard many times:
    “We’re doing nothing wrong. It’s just the pipeline.”

    Then she gives two examples of hiring practices that quietly reduce diversity:

    1) Comfort questions
    A question like “Would you like to have a beer with this person?” screens for familiarity, not capability. Humans naturally feel more comfortable with people who resemble them.

    2) Showmanship in interviews
    Live whiteboard coding tests can favor a certain style: instant performance under pressure. That can penalize people who are excellent problem-solvers but work better with reflection and time.

    And then comes the biggest barrier: when candidates meet a team that looks identical, they often receive an implicit message:
    “This company is not for you.”

    Lucinda’s approach was direct: candid conversations, clear commitment, and getting a few people over the hurdle so momentum could build.

    The job description trap: too many bullets

    Lucinda confirms something many hiring teams observe:

    Women and underrepresented candidates often apply only when they match every requirement. Many men will apply when they match a few.

    Too many bullet points can create an artificial “pipeline problem” you designed yourself.

    Move from CVs to capabilities

    AboveBoard aims to shift hiring away from brand-name CVs toward an assessment of competencies:

    • What do you need this person to be able to do?
    • What have they actually accomplished?
    • What capabilities can they demonstrate, with examples?

    This changes everything downstream, because interviews can become structured around specific competencies instead of a free-flow conversation that mostly confirms first impressions.

    Leadership and building teams like a stew

    Lucinda’s definition of leadership is clear:

    • leadership is not authority or title
    • leadership is about envisioning a future and bringing people together to reach it

    When building leadership teams, she starts with hard skills, but then deliberately designs for complementary profiles.

    She uses a simple metaphor: a stew needs variety. Adding the same ingredient repeatedly makes it boring.

    She even builds a table to track what a team has and what it lacks, across dimensions like:

    • pace-setters and risk balancers
    • extroverts and thoughtful voices
    • celebrators and improvement seekers

    Diversity is one of those dimensions. Not a separate “nice to have”, but part of building a better team.

    “I don’t want special treatment”

    This part matters.

    Lucinda highlights a tension: top performers do not want to be hired as a quota. They want a fair shot as the best candidate. The goal is not a handout. The goal is to remove the invisible filters that prevent fair access in the first place.

    And she challenges a common objection:
    “I don’t want to drop the bar.”

    Her response is sharp:

    • why assume diversity means lower quality?
    • why isn’t diversity part of the bar, like any other dimension that makes a team stronger?

    Mentoring is a network

    Lucinda reframes mentoring as a set of relationships over time, not one formal mentor. Different people teach different things at different stages.

    One advice to grow as a leader: intentionality

    If Lucinda had one principle to share, it would be this:

    Be intentional.

    • set an intention for your week
    • reflect after meetings
    • act deliberately
    • review what worked and what didn’t

    She believes the difference between people who progress and people who sleepwalk is intentionality.

    A final image: skiing and risk

    Lucinda closes with a simple mindset:
    “What’s the worst that can happen?”

    Fall. Fail. Learn. Try again.

    Here is the transcript of the episode

    Alexis:

    Hey Lucinda. Great to have you here. Can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Lucinda:

    Absolutely. It’s great to be talking with you today, Alexis. So I am what is known as a serial entrepreneur in the tech world. So I have founded and/or led a number of venture capital backed technology companies, high growth firms. I started doing that when I was quite young and I’ve been doing it for 25 years now. My most recent company is one that is called AboveBoard, which is an inclusive platform for hiring at the executive and board level.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Thank you, Lucinda. Inclusive platform. That means I will be able to ask you questions about diversity and hiring? Right?

    Lucinda:

    exactly. That’s the world I live in, is the overlap between three circles in a Venn diagram: hiring, the executive and board level, and diversity. Exactly.

    Alexis:

    Why do you think it’s important to start at the board level?

    Lucinda:

    So, I think when I was younger, I probably thought that sort of power to the people and you can change things from the bottom up. And I still do believe that you can do that. I’m a little older and wiser now, and I know it’s actually a lot easier to change things from the top. And so if we start at the board level that then will flow down through the organizations. I have a very deep belief, which is backed by data, that first of all, companies that have more diverse boards of directors have better business performance. And we can talk about why that is. You know, I think you get a diversity of perspectives, you’ll tend to get a better answer. You’ll have a board that tends to look more like your customers, and therefore you’ll align the company better with your customers. So that is really key, is that you’re going to drive performance.

    Lucinda:

    Also, if you turn and look down the other way, if we think about legacy, I have also a very strong belief that diverse boards of directors make more holistic decisions. And that that ultimately is better for the world. You know, I’m an American. I went to business school, I’m a capitalist. And I think that the reality is the way businesses operate is one of the most powerful drivers of what we do in society. So to the degree we can increase diversity, we’ll have more perspectives that the board will, as I said earlier, have better performance. And then we’ll also have boards that are making better decisions in terms of the world and our society on it.

    Alexis:

    That reminds me of a conversation I had with the leadership team that was in engineering and software engineering. As you can guess, the great diversity we add in our teams, it was not great at all. We were discussing in the leadership team about diversity and basically one of the member of the team said, “We are doing nothing wrong. That’s just how it is.” And I said, “Okay, so we are all white, all male, and we are doing nothing wrong?” So how do we expect the situation to change?

    Lucinda:

    Yeah, I mean Alexis, so the last company I ran was a large software company. And when I first joined, I joined a CEO in a more mature company. We had the same exact symptom, the same exact situation. And I’ve heard the same exact thing from the team. It’s a pipeline problem, this isn’t anything we’re doing. Well, when you dig into that, I’ll give you two specific examples of what the team was doing and it was ineffective. One was that a question in the wrap around a candidate, so we’re sitting around and talking about them, was “Would you like to have a beer with this person?” Well, how is that relevant to what they’re doing in their work, right? It was about comfort. And as humans, we tend to be comfortable most with people who are most like us. And so we were screening out great candidates there.

    Lucinda:

    The second, which is maybe more subtle, but I think actually maybe even more damaging, is part of the interview process was a live code test. So literally here’s a problem. Let’s code it together on the whiteboard. And what was happening there was there a certain cultures where that was just difficult, right? The showmanship required, the instantaneous response versus folks who maybe were even better problem solvers in a more thoughtful, quiet way. So we changed those two things and it did start to change. The biggest challenge once those two were knocked down was that candidates who weren’t straight white males came and saw the team and got the implicit message, “Oh, this company is not for me. Not only is there no one here who looks like me, there’s no one here who is different at all.”

    Lucinda:

    And so then it got to be hard to hire them, to actually get offers submitted. And the way we handled that was, I just had personally very candid conversations with them. So that if we got a candidate who would add some diversity to the mix, I would literally reach out to them and I would tell them here’s what the deal is, and we’re completely committed to this, and we got a couple of them over the hurdle that way, and then it took off. But it’s very challenging and it starts with the recognition that there’s a problem.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. I think that’s a really big thing in our world is that we have a problem. It’s not that we are doing intentionally something wrong, but in reality, we are doing something wrong.

    Lucinda:

    Exactly, exactly. And you know, that’s a typical human thing. And leadership, you have to be careful because people feel badly about being accused as they feel of doing something wrong. So it’s more about diagnosing the process or the culture and depersonalizing it so that people are more open to looking at it in a different way.

    Alexis:

    I had a really interesting conversation with one- of the talent acquisition that I was working with. I was hiring for a position and a tendency, usual tendency, laziness. I asked for the previous job description for that position. And I started from that page that was not blank. That was more comfortable. And I discussed with the talent acquisition that was working with me. And I explained what I wanted of inducing more diversity in our teams and so on. And she looked at the description and she told me, “Okay, there’s a few things that you need to fix.” Of course, I was thinking about the gender on things and I said, “There’s nothing on this.” No, there’s a problem. You have eight bullet points in the requirements. That will never work. You will only have one type of people that will look at that list and say, “Oh yeah, I’m covering two of them. I’m good.” But you will miss all the others. So you need to be already careful with that.

    Lucinda:

    That’s right. We see that over and over again. We actually see it in the statistics on AboveBoard itself, is that women and underrepresented minorities will only apply for a job if they have every single one of those bullets, whereas men will generally look at it and say, “Oh, I have two of those. I can do this.” And so you’re setting up a pipeline problem for yourself that way. That’s exactly right.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. So I was already impressed of that. So in what you are doing with AboveBoard, are you also advising your customers in changing those kinds of things? In addressing those kinds of things?

    Lucinda:

    Yes, we are. There’s a few things that we’re doing. One is that we’re pivoting away from a typical CV and towards an assessment of capabilities. So if you think about it, you’re looking for people and in our world, for example, they’ve been at Google and Facebook and you think, “Oh, perfect. This people are awesome.” But the reality is you don’t know how good they were at Google or Facebook. What did they actually accomplish? And so if you instead frame the need in terms of competencies, what do I need this person to be able to do? Not what places have they worked, or what roles have they held? But rather what have they done at those? What competencies have they grown and shown? Then you can change the conversation downstream so that people start to interview or use other assessments against that specific set of competencies. And that’s our long-term goal is to be able to map competencies against roles, assess competencies for individuals, and then be able to match the two.

    Alexis:

    So it means in the interview process, the customer will have to work on himself to say, or herself, to make sure that they are assessing for one competency and they are looking for examples, illustration, of how those candidates demonstrate those competency.

    Lucinda:

    That’s exactly right. And so you’re asking all those same, giving you an example, when questions. You’re asking those questions against a very specific list of competencies that you’re looking for.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. I really try to do that now, but I have to admit that for a long time, that was just a free flow conversation. And I enjoyed the conversation with some people that was leading to more interesting questions. And at the end I had a good time and I was really happy with that candidate. And for other candidates, the first 15 seconds, I knew that I did not want to work with those people and I was done.

    Lucinda:

    That’s right. You know, that’s just, really, honestly, that’s a more sophisticated version of the would you like to have a beer with them approach.

    Alexis:

    Exactly. Yeah. That’s exactly that. That’s how to fight your first impression that could be really good or really bad, but you don’t know nothing about the person if you stay on that first impression.

    Lucinda:

    Exactly.

    Alexis:

    It’s interesting. So you work with a lot of leaders. You’ve worked with a lot of leaders in the past, and you are working currently with a lot of leaders. What does being a leader mean to you?

    Lucinda:

    Oh, this is such a big question, and books and books and books written about this question. So I think to start with what being a leader does not mean to me, it’s not about authority. It’s not about a title or a position in an organization. Being a leader is about setting out a future for people and then bringing them together to reach that future. So it’s about how do we motivate and organize? How do we create the structure within which people can be successful? It’s about being a pace setter.

    Lucinda:

    I sometimes use the analogy, you know, in the world I live where speed is of the essence, I talk about driving, and I will admit I maybe drive more quickly than I should, but I always feel like I’m in more control when I’m going a little bit faster than everyone else. And it’s because I’m able to lead. I’m able to set a path through the traffic versus sitting and following somebody else. That’s great too, and required, but I don’t think that’s leadership. So I think that’s what it is. Now, there’s a whole array of things that come underneath that. I think there’s always an interesting conversation about what’s leadership and what’s management. I think they’re quite different. I think someone can be a great manager and a poor leader and vice versa. I would say that I was a better manager when I was earlier in my career, and I’m a better leader now that I’m later in my career. So that’s what I think it is. It’s about how do you bring people together to drive towards a future that you’ve envisioned.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. And when you build a company, I think you have to assemble different leaders that will form that company, that will drive that company. How do you form those teams? How do you assemble those characters together?

    Lucinda:

    So the first thing, which is not particularly interesting, but it is the first thing, is hard skills, right? So you’re putting someone in a role. Do they know how to do that? Do they have experience? And back to the point I made earlier, the competencies, have they proven competencies in terms of how you manage a function or manage whatever it is that they’re going to be given? Because in corporate life, you don’t get to just lead. You have to manage as well. So that’s table stakes. I then think about it always as a stew. So to make a stew, we’re going to need a variety of ingredients, right? You keep adding the same thing. It’s going to be pretty boring. So I think of it in terms of, because it starts with me typically, right, as an entrepreneur, what am I missing?

    Lucinda:

    So I’ll give you a really concrete example. You know, Alexis, the way you and I first met was because I was looking for a chief of staff. And the reason I was looking for a chief of staff is that I am very, very good at big picture, at visioning and strategy. I’m good at selling. Really not so great at making the machine work. I’m really just not good at it. I can sort of do it in a pinch, but it’s not my thing. And so I needed someone who was balanced to me, who could do those pieces. So could understand and work with me and challenge me and be a sounding board in terms of those bigger picture issues and selling, and who would be crackerjack at making the machine actually run. And that continues. So as you add more people, I think you can make the list more comprehensive and you start to look for adding different personality types.

    Lucinda:

    Adding some people who are more run and guns, some who are much more thoughtful. You want some people who are sort of extroverted and are going to celebrate, and other people who are the ones who are going to be constantly looking for what’s wrong and how to improve it. And what you’re doing there is really thinking about diversity in all of its guises. So it is completely true that someone who is a different gender or ethnic background, they are de facto going to have had different life experiences and bring something to that stew. That’s one of the many dimensions that you’re looking for, how the pieces fit together.

    Lucinda:

    The challenge with that is to balance it with a foundation that is commonly held. And the way I think about that is value set. So, in the case of AboveBoard, you want really clear mission alignment. You have to care about what we do, it has to be important to you. And then values like integrity, like quality. You have to have a set of people who have these core things in common so that you can all work together, and above that bring very different things, soft, hard, personality skills, all these things, so that you can get the maximum possible packed into a leadership team.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. This is really an interesting job to do, to balance those different aspects. That you are balacing those different aspects, right?

    Lucinda:

    It’s so much fun. This is really my favorite thing. And there’s more art to it than science, but I do think there’s science to it. So I will literally, as I’m building a team, make a table that has the people or the open functions across one axis, and the other axis is the things that I think are most important to this business in terms of the softer side. So I won’t hire anyone who I don’t think is at the very top of the game in their function. Then once you have that, what are the other things I’m looking for? And try to spread the check marks in the boxes in that table, across the team, right? So you want someone who’s more of a rah rah person and someone who’s more risk averse. And so you’re looking across each one of those and making sure that somebody is filling that box in.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. So that means that you are really looking into it consciously, and looking at the gaps that you want to fill, not only on skills, but also on personality types, or kind of things. Yeah. That’s really interesting.

    Lucinda:

    Yeah. And I think actually that dovetails in to a discussion about diversity. Because I spend most of my days talking to people about this and how to actually action adding diversity at the most senior levels. One of the things that I think is very difficult for the folks who are the driving, you know, the straight white middle-aged males who hold most of these positions today, they will often say to me, “Well, I don’t want to drop the bar.” Which, first of all, candidly is a little insulting. So for those people who are listening, right, this presumption that in order to add someone who’s not that is going to drop the bar. Why would you make that assumption?

    Lucinda:

    The second thing that I really try to get people to think through, at least as a challenge, is why is bringing some piece of diversity not part of the bar? Why is that a separate thing? Why isn’t it that if you were making a stew, for example, is why I use that analogy, and you already had meat, would you go get more meat? Or would you add some vegetables or herbs? You’d want some vegetables or herbs to make a stew better, right? So the requirement when you go to the grocery store, isn’t the best possible grocery. It’s the best possible carrot or the best possible thyme.

    Lucinda:

    And I think that if you start to think about team construction in the way I described, diversity is one of the axes that you need to think through because different people bring a different perspective, and that’s additive to the entirety of the team. It makes the whole team better because you’re going to have more valuable perspectives in the room. And you’re therefore going to make better decisions as a team. Whereas adding one more person who doesn’t have that, they’re going to be helpful in terms of hard skills and whatever else, but they’re not going to add something that’s going to lift the rest of the team up as well.

    Alexis:

    Exactly. This is very, very, very important. And about dropping the bar, that comment, I did not realize, for example, one time that when we were looking at female engineering leader in the organization. We were lacking females at all levels, but especially after a few years, we were seeing really a gap in leadership, so that there was something missing. It seems that we were losing the female software engineer before they were going into a leadership position either as manager or as individual contributor. That was really concerning. And we were trying to understand why, what was happening, and so on. And I told one of them that was in a leadership position that we should encourage and help them and so on. And she looked at me and said, “I don’t want a special treatment.”

    Lucinda:

    Yeah, that’s right.

    Alexis:

    And I was really struggling with that thing. I think it’s not a special treatment, but if I’m not giving you a special treatment, what I’m doing? And she looked at me and said, “I just want all people to be treated fairly.” And if you look at it, why people are leaving, they are leaving because they feel they are not treated fairly. The others have promotions before them. And they think it’s unfair. So they are okay to wait for one more year, and after some point they leave because they think their future is somewhere else.

    Lucinda:

    That’s right. Yeah. Alexis, this is one of the most critical things for people to understand is the very best performers, the last thing they want is a handout. They don’t want to have a job because they were the best Black candidate. They want a fair shot at the job as the best candidate. And I think what you’re seeing today, at least in the US, is there is such a focus on this topic after the murder of George Floyd in particular. The best performers are allergic to being hired in because of a program or that sort of thing. It’s the downside of quotas. Now, I think there’s a place for quotas.

    Lucinda:

    If you look at what’s happening in some European countries and California within the US, on boards, as there are requirements to have a certain number of women, that breaks it open. And I think in a case where the numbers are so terrible that’s probably the only way you can start, but I sure hope we can drop them soon, and realize that you just want the best directors, and “Oh, women actually brings something special to the table.” And so it’s completely fair and right to consider the special thing that they bring to the table. What we don’t want is to be brought on only because of that. If that makes sense. It’s a little bit of a duality. You have to keep both of those things in your mind at the same time.

    Alexis:

    Exactly. But I think that’s really an important point. I spoke about leadership and I’m curious, what do you look up to as a leader or learn from, are inspired from? And why, of course?

    Lucinda:

    Yeah. Yeah. So this is, I think, such a hard question to answer because it’s so many people in so many ways. So the first thing I would say, and I think this is really valuable, maybe for other people as a way to think about this, is I don’t look at a single person and say, “Wow, that’s the leader I want to be.” Instead, I look at people and I’ll talk about them and think about something specific that they do that I want to emulate or learn from. And I think that’s really important because you can only be an authentic leader if you’re yourself. And every one of us is completely different. So we can’t copy who somebody else is as a leader and be successful. Rather, I think we need to look at them and say, “Oh, that is a fabulous way to do that, or approach, or attribute. I want to do that.”

    Lucinda:

    And so in answer to this question, it’s not really that I look to any one person. It’s rather what I’ve learned from so many through the years. I think one that comes to mind is a man named Carl Moreno, who was early in my career, I was probably in my late twenties. And he was a leader within the company I was working for. I was working in a financial services company and he was at the time general counsel and then moved over into other roles. And what I learned from him was about clarity and trust. So he was great at being really clear with what we were trying to get done. And I don’t mean that in a very tactical way. I don’t mean in terms of goals. More on a strategic level, here’s what we’re trying to do, here’s how it fits in, and then supporting while letting me and others run free.

    Lucinda:

    So we ended up getting this alignment, getting the very best from people, because we were so excited about where we were going and we felt both trusted and supported, right? I think sometimes people tend to either throw somebody in the deep end or micromanage. The trick is how do you give people the free reign to be their very best, while at the same time knowing that you always have them as a backstop. So no one would know who Carl is. He’s just been a CEO of a few companies now, but he was probably the earliest leader who I had personal contact with, who I have tried to emulate in that and many other ways.

    Lucinda:

    And then I pull other pieces out. So one of them that I’ve been really thinking about recently is Martin Luther King, specifically for his prowess in public speaking, right? I’m talking about issues now that he talked about, and there’s a style and a drive coming out of the Black church in America that I look at and think, how do I inspire people to be willing to think about this differently than they have before? How do I support the people who are our members and simultaneously change the minds of people who I think should be hiring these people? So those are two examples and I could go on and on.

    Lucinda:

    Oh, there’s one other story I wanted to tell. I’m a member of a group called the Conscious Capitalism Group, which is about why it’s good from a pure shareholder perspective and how to think across more than just the shareholder perspective. It’s mostly big companies, CEOs, and I was originally invited as a program like let a few venture backed kids come. And so it literally felt like that. There were four of us and we show up and it’s the CEOs of fortune 100 companies. And these four of us running $5 million, little companies. And we’re sitting at a table and felt like were the kids’ table.

    Lucinda:

    And there was a guy who had come in as CEO of Home Depot, who talked and he gave the story about how he came in. The organization at the time when he came in was really in trouble, super dysfunctional. And he started off making all these changes. So he’d spend his day having meetings with sets of people and making decisions and moving to the next thing. And he was very open about the whole thing. And he said, he was feeling like he was doing this great job because he’s making all this change and driving through. And you had a director working with him on these things, young and post-MBA kid. They had one of these meetings, they’re maybe six weeks into this or something, and the meeting ends and the kid sticks his head back in and says, “Can I talk to you for a second?”

    Lucinda:

    And he said, “Sure.” And he’s sitting at his big desk in his big office. And the kid looks at him and said, “You are really screwing this up.” Taken aback he said, “What do you mean I’m screwing this up? I think I’m doing great.” He said, “You know, you’re managing 250,000 people. You make these changes at your level. You’re making six of them a week. They drive all the way through to the floor level in the stores. And the poor guy who’s stocking shelves, it’s like, one day it’s this, then it’s this, then it’s this, it’s too much. You can’t manage a company like this.”

    Lucinda:

    And it so impacted me for the following reasons. First of all, here’s the 60 plus year old white guy, you know? And I was, I don’t know, however old I was, in my forties at the time. It was the first time I ever had interacted with a CEO who I did look up to and think, “Oh, I want to be like him.” And he’s not demographically like me, but he had the same value set, right? Authenticity, his openness, his drive. I just thought I could be that. And I had really thought before then that I didn’t want to ever run a big company because you couldn’t be those things. So that was really meaningful and opened me up to his message.

    Lucinda:

    The second thing was his authenticity. So here he is in front of a pretty big deal audience of his peers, telling a story about this kid being the one who gives him the feedback. And having established a culture where the kid felt free to do that and how important it is to have that openness to the people who are working for you. As a CEO, you tend to get in this bubble, and as much as you want feedback, people don’t give it to you. So thinking about how he did that and how you manage people and interact with people in a way that they’ll give you the real feedback. And then very tangibly, it was a big lesson for me in terms of the difference in pace in an organization.

    Lucinda:

    I later had a conversation about it with the president of Comcast, Comcast NBCUniversal, really big company. And he told me that, yes, he really can’t make more than a decision a quarter. And really it’s better if it’s once every six or 12 months. Because the reality is the size of those decisions are so huge. And the ripple effects through the organization are so meaningful that you have to be very careful picking. Contrast that to a company like AboveBoard. I’m making decisions multiple times a day that change direction because I’m running a little PT boat versus a big, giant cruise liner. He’s the other one who I would call out as very specifically having been very meaningful to me in those ways.

    Alexis:

    Really, really great example. And I’m making the connection with what you said at the beginning with the competencies, because what you are looking at, it’s really how those people behave, and what kind of specific things they have that you want to emulate and would want to learn. That makes me think about mentoring and hearing regularly that people should have a mentor, or should mentor others? And I’m thinking that it’s more network of mentor that people should have. What are your thoughts about mentoring?

    Lucinda:

    Yeah. I think what you just said, Alexis is exactly right. Is that you need people who will help teach you different things at different stages, have different perspectives on you. I think that’s been really critical. I used to say, I didn’t have any mentors. People used to ask me this. And I had a model in my head of a person who takes you under their wing and teaches you. And I really never had that. On the other hand, I had many people who taught me really important things and were supportive and helpful to me. And those change over time, right? Because you grow, the situation changes, and they need to be different.

    Lucinda:

    I think those kinds of relationships are very important for both people in them. And so it typically is really fun for the mentor to have an impact, to pass on what you know, and impactful from the mentee. I’ve never been in one of those formal programs. I don’t have a sense of whether they work. My guess is it’s a little hit or miss. Great when it does, there has to be some personality match, you have to actually enjoy it on both sides. So maybe it helps to drive those, but certainly they’re fun for the mentor and incredibly rewarding for the mentee. And yes, I think you need a whole set of people through a career.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I guess that my other question would be the kind of advice, let’s say, if you had one advice to give to people who want to develop themselves as leaders, what would that advice be?

    Lucinda:

    Oh, by far I’ve been talking about people in general. This is the advice I try hard to give to myself all the time is intentionality. So I think what separates people who are really successful, by which I don’t necessarily mean making money or whatever, being successful is accomplishing the things that you want to accomplish, including things like a balanced life or whatever it is, are intentional about what they do. Too many people, I think, sleepwalk through life, they just sort of take the next thing that comes. And I think if you decide that’s how you want to live your life, that that in fact is being intentional, but in a professional environment, think about what it is you’re trying to do. Think about what it is you’re trying to do for your organization, for yourself. I take this probably to an extreme, I walk out of almost every meeting, unless I’m really, really rushed, I walk out of every meeting and think, “Okay, how could I have done that better? What went well, what didn’t?”

    Lucinda:

    I look at my calendar for the week and have an intention about what I’m trying to do this week, and do maybe something very tangible, like I want to close that deal, or it may be really intangible, like I need to get more space for thinking strategically, or maybe I’m feeling tired, I better back off some this week. So I think it’s about being very aware of what you’re trying to do, setting that intention, acting deliberately against that intention, and then assessing whether you accomplished it or not. I think that is foundational difference between people who succeed, more or less.

    Alexis:

    It is excellent. I think I will reuse that way of explaining that. I love it. This is really good. I’m wondering what are the things that are really giving you energy, and what are the things that are draining your energy?

    Lucinda:

    I will share this. I find, especially if I was doing sort of an in-person talk, I’m pretty high energy and people often assume that I’m an extrovert, and I am absolutely not an extrovert. I’m an introvert. I love those sorts of environments. And I really love working with a team of people that I know. I get energy from that, but ongoing interaction with humans is actually also really draining for me. And so when I think about what gives me energy right now, it’s about the mission and purpose of what we’re doing. If I’m on a sales call or a partner call, I get really amped up and excited. And then it also was exhausting. So it’s a little bit of a yin and yang in terms of people both giving me energy and exhausting me.

    Lucinda:

    The foundational drivers, the things that really I think give me energy is I love to build things and I love to see things come together. I get so much energy from that and it can be honestly, anything. Doesn’t have to be a work thing or a company thing. I really get energy from building. And then the other thing I’d say that is apropos nothing professionally, but I just love kids. Just being around kids makes me tremendously energetic. So I live in New York City, and one of the things I love about it is, my kids are older now, but you’re just constantly seeing kids and interacting with kids. And so I find that’s one of the things that really works for me. I am a city dweller, so I know nature is supposed to be the key thing, and I do love nature, but I don’t need that. Let me walk through the street. I will literally absorb the energy of New York City. So those are the things that come top to mind.

    Alexis:

    That’s a very, very good one. I love that. And that can resonate with me a lot. That’s always difficult for me to admit, that as interacting with people, I already like that, I you like the exchange of ideas and working with them, but at some point I need some time for myself.

    Lucinda:

    Exactly, exactly. Enough, enough. I need to unplug, exactly. And it never fails. A startup, it’s such an intense life, so many hours. And it never fails when I sort of just find 45 minutes in the middle of my day to do whatever it is, [inaudible 00:36:31], and somebody calls me. And I always answer. Not always, but almost always answer. And I’m always fine afterwards, but it is funny how, as one of the things as a leader, I think is you have to give of yourself, right? You have to be willing to just constantly, actually not just willing, want to give of yourself. And I say, that’s one of the rare moments as a CEO when I’m like, “Ugh. Okay. Now I have to do this thing.” Mostly I’m just energized by it. But sometimes it’s a little much.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Last question. Is there something you’ve always dreamed of doing, but never dared to?

    Lucinda:

    So I wouldn’t say never dared to. The closest I can get is I’ve yet to be to Antarctica. And I’d really, really like to go to Antarctica. It’s just a time and priorities thing I haven’t done. I actually think one of the things that I’m really lucky about is I have a pretty balanced way of viewing risk. So I’ll give you an example I use a lot, is I learned to ski really late in life. I didn’t start skiing until I was 48. And I’m a pretty good skier now. And yet, still, I get to the top of a hill. And you know when you’re at a very steep slope and you’re standing at the top, if there’s other skiers and your tips are just out over open space. And from that perspective, it looks basically like it’s just a straight drop. Of course it isn’t, but that’s how it feels.

    Lucinda:

    And I always stand there and think to myself, and I go through, “Oh, can I get on the lift and go back down? Is there another way to get down from here?” And I’m going, “Okay.” I just think to myself, and this is the point of this story, I think to myself, “Well, what’s the worst thing that’s going to happen?” Worst thing is I’m going to fall. I’ve fallen all the time, right? It’s fine. And then I go. And so I think about almost everything in life that way. Is what’s really the risk? And so it’s not hard to quote unquote dare myself to do things. When I think, “Well, what’s really going to happen?” I’d fail. Okay. I fail, I fall, or whatever. Which means I’ve been pretty lucky because most of the things that I’ve wanted to do, I’ve done.

    Alexis:

    It’s really inspirational. I loved it. I love the way you end on that question. I have to admit that’s typically the question I would have trouble to answer myself, but I love the way you did it.

    Alexis:

    That was really great to have you on the show, Lucinda.

    Lucinda:

    Oh, it was so much fun to talk with you. Thank you for asking me.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of the podcast. Go to Alexis.Monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. You can also check the episode with Ally Kouao for more about diversity, equity, and inclusion. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. And until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by Tim Mossholder

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Leadership and Teamwork in a Crisis

    Leadership and Teamwork in a Crisis

    In this episode of Le Podcast, I had the pleasure to welcome Jeremy Brown, Chief Product and Technology Officer at Traveldoo (Expedia Group). We talked about leadership and teamwork in a conversation that quickly became emotional, because the travel industry has been hit brutally hard by the pandemic.

    Jeremy describes the last year as a shock to the system: a sharp drop in activity, painful downsizing, and a heavy human cost for the people who left and for the people who stayed.

    Leadership when the context is not yours to control

    Jeremy shares a powerful reflection: it’s easy to be a leader when everything is going well. It’s much harder when things are not going well, and even harder when you don’t control what makes it hard.

    And yet, he sees growth in himself and in his leadership team. Not the kind of growth you would choose, but the kind you can’t avoid.

    What leadership means to Jeremy

    Jeremy makes a clear distinction between leaders and managers.

    For him, leadership has two parts:

    1) Direction, and explaining why
    He uses a simple image: when you navigate a forest, the leader is the person who climbs a tree, looks out, and points the direction.

    2) Being human
    Leadership is not about performing perfection. It is about staying connected to people, admitting the struggles, and creating space for the complexity everyone is carrying, especially when work and home blur.

    He also links leadership to self-awareness: the more he gets to know himself, the better he becomes as a leader.

    From office-first to remote, then to asynchronous

    Traveldoo moved from an office-first culture to fully remote work. Jeremy explains that the first phase was about replicating office habits with video calls and Slack. Then, over time, the team used retrospectives to learn and adjust.

    A key shift: moving status reporting and coordination toward asynchronous collaboration.

    One example Jeremy shares: a release meeting that started as an in-person ritual became a video call, and later turned into a Slack workflow. The direction is clear: fewer meetings, more written collaboration, more focus time.

    Inclusion and participation in remote settings

    Jeremy notes something interesting: remote work can be more inclusive when you intentionally change behaviors.

    They introduced simple mechanics like hand signals in video calls, explicitly inviting quieter voices, and asking the question that often brings the best insight:
    “I notice you didn’t comment, is there something you want to add?”

    It’s not perfect, but it’s a real move toward better collaboration.

    Recognition, energy, and the long game

    Jeremy shares something many leaders can relate to. As a developer, he loved moments of flow: losing track of time while creating something.

    As a leader, the reward changes. It becomes more long-term:

    • seeing the payoff of investing in people
    • watching language and behaviors spread across the organization
    • noticing progress in the metrics over time

    He’s also very clear on recognition: he prefers continuous call-outs and small wins over big award ceremonies. Recognition close to the moment has more impact and is more fair.

    What drains energy

    Jeremy mentions two drains:

    • toxic or immovable behaviors that resist change no matter the investment
    • the frustration of caring deeply and feeling others don’t understand why it matters

    He connects this to his CliftonStrengthsFinder profile: his top strength is Belief, which makes him go all-in when he commits to something. When the “why” doesn’t land with others, it can be draining.

    Advice for leaders who want to grow

    Jeremy’s guidance is straightforward and practical:

    • know yourself (tools can help: CliftonStrengthsFinder, Kolbe, others)
    • choose your environment (the people around you shape your growth)
    • seek challenge (you grow when others challenge your behaviors)
    • deliver results without burning people
    • invest in relationships across the organization

    And if you’re not in an environment that helps you grow, change it.

    †

    If you think about trying to navigate through a forest, they’re the person that climbs up the tree and looks out over the forest, and points you in the direction where you need to go. I think that, typically, I would expect leaders to have a clear vision of where we are going, and perhaps more importantly, explaining why we’re going in that direction.

    Jeremy Brown

    Here is the transcript of the episode:

    Alexis:

    Hey Jeremy, thank you for joining Le Podcast. Can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Jeremy:

    Hey, Alexis. It’s great To be here. So yeah, a little bit about me. I’m Jeremy. I’m Irish. I’m actually half Irish, half Finnish. I live in Paris, where I’ve been here for about five years. Currently, I guess my background, I’m an engineer. That’s been my history, but I think I have also probably one of the most, I think, fairly diverse backgrounds for someone in my position, because while I’ve worked as an engineer on low-level things like the operating system of mobile phones, I’ve worked as a consultant doing very large scale Java implementations. I worked in pre-sales. I’ve worked in sales as an actual sales person. I, with a friend, started a startup incubator in Cameroon of all places and helped local entrepreneurs start tech businesses in Cameron 10 years ago. So it was pretty crazy. Yeah. So really lots of different things. And I would say my background and my passion is about building products and the teams and the systems that build those products. I think that’s really my passion and what everything has led me to today.

    Alexis:

    Today you are chief product and technology officer at Traveldoo, right?

    Jeremy:

    Yes. Yes.

    Alexis:

    So it directly connects to your passion of building products.

    Jeremy:

    Exactly. Yeah. And building products, and we’ve been, Traveldoo is a subsidiary of Expedia. We’ve been changing how we work as well. And I think that the majority of my work has been a little bit less on the product and actually more on how we build the product and how can we change how we do that that has a material impact on our customers and our users.

    Alexis:

    So of course, as soon as we said travel in the current context, I need to ask you a question about all that current situation that pandemic is affecting your business and the way you work.

    Jeremy:

    Alexis, this past year has been, I think, one of the hardest that I’ve personally experienced on multiple levels. Obviously, like everybody else just in a personal level of trying, the pandemic clearly had an effect on our personal lives. And we have a small child at home. He’s less than two. And we were, in March, we were all at home, and there was no crash. And we were busy juggling him and trying to get on with work.

    Jeremy:

    But of course, more than that our business is a travel and expense SAS business. And we went from people booking travel, where we were doing millions of transactions in a year to 80%, 90% down on the previous year. So from a business perspective, we’ve had, I would say, an extreme shock to the system.

    Jeremy:

    There’ve been a lot of implications to us as a company and the product team. We’ve had to let go of our contractors that we had. We’ve had to half of our team are contractors based in India, and we had to significantly downsize that team as well. And the people cost for us has been really high, not only for the people that we had to let go, and contractors, I really saw them as our own staff, but then for the people who are still here with us, they’ve had to, not only like everybody else, had to make a transition from being co-located in two different offices, one office in Paris and one office in India. But they’ve also had the personal challenges. And then, I think when you’re in one of the companies that’s heavily affected by the pandemic, it adds an extra stress and a worry for the staff compared to one of the companies where they’re benefiting from the current situation, because there are winners and losers right now. We’re definitely a loser. So it’s been hard. Yeah. That’s how I’ll summarize it. It’s been a tough year. Yeah.

    Alexis:

    I can hear that. It’s, of course, always difficult to imagine what people feel about it. I understand that you’re focused on, of course, the business is impacted, but that’s the big people cost. And I’m sure that if you see people around you let go,, it’s always affecting you. You cannot just be satisfied of being lucky and still having a job. That’s not the way it works. Of course, it’s very hard. So, yeah. It’s difficult to go to the next question.

    Jeremy:

    Well, all I would say is that that this has been, I think, a test for all of us, for myself. While it’s really tough. I would say that the growth in yourself, I guess like in hard times, you grow more like, just like you prune plants to help them grow in the next growing season. I think, I feel like the one thing that this has done for me is it’s helped me grow as a leader. It’s very easy being a leader when everything’s great. It’s much harder being a leader when things are not great, and it’s even harder when you don’t control a lot of the things that make it not great. I don’t just speak personally for myself. I speak for my leadership team and what they’ve had to handle.

    Jeremy:

    And I would also add that, we have dealing with customers who are also many of them struggling, because I would say that a large part of our business is with travel agencies. They’ve been even more heavily impacted than ourselves. We’ve been fairly fortunate. We’ve kept most of our staff from being furloughed so that we can continue to build a product. A lot of our partners that we do business with, they’re not in the same situation. So it’s been an interesting learning and growing experience, not one that you would choose to ever go through. But I’ll take it because, first of all, you don’t have a choice. But secondly, I do see the positive growth in myself and the others around me as well through all of this.

    Alexis:

    That’s really bringing me to the next question about what does being a leader mean to you?

    Jeremy:

    Yeah. I was actually thinking about this question when you sent me some of the questions you might ask beforehand. And I was wondering actually, what leader means change because of this experience as well. And I would say, first of all, I don’t know if it has. For me being a leader, there’s a couple of parts of this. I believe that there’s a big difference between leaders and managers. And I believe that a leader is definitely someone who’s kind of, if you think about trying to navigate through a forest, they’re the person that climbs up the tree and looks out over the forest and points you in the direction where you need to go. They have, I think they typically, I would expect leaders to have a clear vision of where we are going, and perhaps more importantly, explaining why we’re going in that direction.

    Jeremy:

    And really then I think the second part of leadership for me is really about being a human being. I’ve always believe this very strongly, and I think it’s become more important through the pandemic and managing things. But yeah, I really believe that not being disconnected from people, but really showing you’re not perfect and not painting a perfect picture of yourself, being human and looking into seeing how are your people doing and coming alongside them, if you can, and encouraging them to not… We’ve had people that have overworked, a lot of people, I guess. They’re out home, and there’s no, the lines blur between work and home. And you can really start to see the stress build.

    Jeremy:

    And I think the two parts to all of this is kind of showing that you yourself are having the same struggles as everybody else. Because I think that that’s important. Certainly I’m not the kind of person who would want to hide that.

    Jeremy:

    And secondly, providing space for people to manage the extra complexity that everybody’s currently managing. So I guess, yeah, for me, that leadership is about direction, and more importantly, explaining why that direction is important. And secondly, being human. The one thing I’ve learned in my journey, and I can say I’m far from perfect, but the one thing where I’ve had breakthroughs as a leader is where I’ve gotten to know myself more. The more self-aware I become and the journey I progress on that journey, the better leader I become as well. So yeah, that’s leadership for me.

    Alexis:

    It’s very inspiring. Being self-aware, being human. That’s not the first thing all times. And I think it’s really important. And I feel that the people around me are more and more aware of that and are more and more ready to be themselves and to be a real person in their work environment. And I see that as really a positive evolution of the world.

    Jeremy:

    I agree. It’s a world I want to be part of. I don’t know, Alexis, but just a quick comment on this. But I do think as work changes, creativity and collaboration are actually the things that we want to encourage in the workplace in order to really bring value to the businesses that we work in. I think that this is the kind of leadership that people respond best to to help people be inspired to bring their best and do their best. And so for me, it kind of goes together with the nature of work changing. I think the nature of leadership has to change a little bit too.

    Alexis:

    I think the kind of leader that was more kind of manager, that was showing the artifact of success could be a big car, a big watch, the nice clothes and inspiring respect or things like that, that’s already gone. That’s not the kind of feet our people are ready to follow now and wants to work with now. It’s interesting that shift that is happening.

    Jeremy:

    Yeah. And you know that because we’re not all in the office anymore, it’s harder to flex like that. It’s just you with, in your, home with a camera. You can’t flex in that same way that… I don’t know. Yeah. It’s different. When you’re in the office, there’s all sorts of power that happens that kind of, it changes clearly, but like the bad micromanagers come out still. But yeah, I think this new way of distributed work doesn’t really facilitate people to do that either.

    Alexis:

    Speaking of offices, I remember a passionate conversation with you about gathering, about how to assemble the team in a space and all to design the space to make the collaboration happen. We did discuss a lot of that. I assume that your way of working change, of course, from colocated you said that to fully remote. How you change those things? How you change your way of working to still be able to foster that creativity and that collaboration you were mentioning?

    Jeremy:

    Yeah. So I’m fortunate enough at least to have when I worked at Red hat before, Red Hat is kind of, I would say, pretty good with remote work. And a lot of, I would say, a large percentage of people who work there were kind of remote workers. And certainly, I was, though I saw my team face-to-face a lot, and we did have a lot of face time. We just definitely haven’t got that now. But here in Traveldoo, we had basically a team co-located in the office in Paris with a kind of a really office first culture. And the same thing in Cocci and in South India and Carola. And it was a pretty sharp change to not be in the office anymore.

    Jeremy:

    And I would say that the first phase of our transition was kind of just replicating the way that we worked in the office, but with video instead of face-to-face, and we heavily used, we were using Slack already, but I think we went a bit even more into Slack. And I think that was the first sort of transition out.

    Jeremy:

    And then we used the retrospective in the team, probably not as… Everyone says they use retros. We do use retros. I would say, it’d be nice if we used them more at the same time. But we tried to learn. And what we realized was, first of all, I started to hear my skip level conversations, especially with the tech leads, that they were in a lot of meetings and actually not able to code that much. And we still have that problem today, but I think we’re a little bit better than when we first left the office.

    Jeremy:

    We started to change the way we communicated. We started intentionally moving more and more things to asynchronous. I think I would say that if you looked at my calendar a few weeks after we had moved out of the office, and then you look at my calendar now almost a year later, it’s very different. We’ve definitely moved basically all of our status reporting to asynchronous. We’ve reduced the amount of time we spend in meetings. We’ve intentionally cut repeated lead meetings and asked why we’re doing that. And we’re moving more and more of what we do to even shorter form meetings. So that’s, I think, meetings is like one area where we’ve actually also, we had a release meeting, and we had people getting around at lunchtime and spending 15 minutes talking about the next release. And then that release meeting moved to a video call. And now today, it’s moved to a Slack workflow. So it’s fully asynchronous. And yeah, I think it’s incremental changes that we’re moving. And we’re moving in this continuum towards more and more written and asynchronous.

    Jeremy:

    We’re not there yet. I wouldn’t say, you look at companies like Automattic, the company that makes WordPress and so on. They’re very well known for how they work. We’re not there yet, but we’re definitely nudged towards them in how we do things, which is a very positive thing.

    Jeremy:

    Certainly we’ve seen while our team size has reduced, productivity overall has actually increased for all of us. I think that we’ve surveyed our staff, and we have a healthy percentage, like 20%, 30% staff who would like to stay remote and actually would like to even leave Paris. And we have another percentage of people who, the majority, the rest, would say, I’d like to go to the office, but I don’t want to be there five days a week, which is what we had before, where we had one or two people that worked two days a week remote, and they were the exception. So we’re really moving in a different way.

    Alexis:

    Have you noticed, of course, when we speak about companies like Automattic or Basecamp that are really working with people fully remote and putting a lot of attention to written communication and asynchronous communication, they are a thing that enables people that are usually more shy or more introverted to contribute better, and that enabled the better thinking. Have you noticed a change in the contribution of people? Have you noticed that some people were able to contribute more? Or what do you think?

    Jeremy:

    Yeah, I will say the extroverts still are the most chatty people on Slack. Their personality still comes through. Yeah, I think we’ve seen that nudging. I don’t think we’re at that stage of where Automattic are, but I do think that the one thing I will say is video calls or chat and email and all are more inclusive if you operate using them differently. Certainly, we’ve intentionally adopted a number of different behaviors, just to give you some examples, in video calls, we’ve introduced hand signals to say, I agree, or I disagree. We’ve introduced a hand signal to say, I’d like to talk. We do try to intentionally ask people who are not talking to say, hey, I see you didn’t really comment here. Have you got something to say? And I’ve always found that that question generates the most powerful insight in the meeting. So we’ve definitely, through the retros and stuff, introduced more behaviors like that.

    Jeremy:

    And I don’t think it’s as easy to do that in real life because definitely the extroverts dominate that much more. And you kind of… But you do sense the body language in a room, but it’s not… Yeah. I still think that this is still pretty inclusive, and it’s definitely, even through this, we’ve become more inclusive. Maybe if we would go back to the office, we’ll also have learned from that and still be like that. But it seems a bit weird to hold your hand up in a room and to stick your thumbs up in a room, whereas on a video call that feels now natural. So I don’t know.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. I remember the first time I had a workshop using sociocracy or using the core protocols. And you are asked to make hand signals in the meeting room and not talk to talk to signal your agreement to a proposal that is made. And it’s really odd. It sounds counterintuitive, but at the third round of the table, going around the table, it’s starts to become more interesting, because you are already focused on what people are saying. And you look around, you see the hand signal, you see that suddenly you catch the opinion of people that you would have probably not even noticed before. It creates something different. So I think it’s odd to put in place in a room in the physical environment. Interestingly, I’m curious about what will happen when we are coming back once we learned those things remotely.

    Jeremy:

    Yeah, me too. I’ll tell you the one thing that I’m looking forward to when we can like see each other is to see each other. We do have like little coffee conversations, and we realized at times that some of the middle management were getting more and more disconnected in different departments., And they have like regular coffee hours together, which has really worked out well. But yeah, I think, for me, that the hybrid approach where you charge up your face to face time, and you get that small talk and stuff, I think is super important. And I think even where teams are fully remote in the future, certainly on my side, I intend to have regular face to face time for those teams because I think it’s important.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, absolutely. In the company like Automattic and Basecamp, they have face time events when they gather all together. So there’s a need for that definitely.

    Alexis:

    We spoke about leadership and what it means. Who do you look up to as a leader? Where are you inspired from?

    Jeremy:

    There’s been a couple different books I’ve read from different leaders that have inspired me. And maybe even more than, like nudge is maybe too weak a word, like really kicked me in the direction. And I would say David Marquet and Turn the Ship Around! has definitely altered the course of how I try to be a leader. I would say that Simon Sinek has really transformed how I go into work, start with why and a lot of the thinking that he puts into work. And I would say that he’s certainly inspired what I feel is my personal purpose for what I want to achieve and how I turn up and work. So there’s probably a few others like that, but yeah, I think those are the two that instantly come to my mind when you asked that question.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, good. And what gives your energy?

    Jeremy:

    When I was a developer, you had these periods where you entered flow, and you could lose track of time, and you were achieving something and making something, and you just felt so happy, and you don’t think about it. But afterwards you realize that those are those moments. I think as a leader, as a manager, you don’t have that kind of creator schedule and a maker schedule. And it took me a long time to feel reward and energized by some of that. Today I think it’s long-term for me. It’s the investment that you make in people and the pay off that you see. And it kind of three months later, a year later, and this, you made this change for the person, or you coach them towards a certain way of turning up into work. And then you see that paying off, or you have a one-on-one with someone, and they say, I did that thing that you said, and it just worked so well. That’s the big energizing moment for me now.

    Jeremy:

    And I accept that they’re not every day, but yeah, I think that that’s very rewarding for me. And also, I think in nudging an organization over a period of time where, as a kind of a leader, you’re you feel you’re repeating yourself over and over again, saying the same things. And I think there’s two rewards. One is that the language that you insert into the situation to try and nudge things starts to be repeated by others without, the same terminology that you introduced. And the second is you see the metrics that you use to track how we’re doing actually making it significantly changing. And those are also super rewarding and energizing.

    Alexis:

    This is really good that made me think of things in a different way. Right now, this is really good.

    Alexis:

    I have a question about, of course, what drains your energy, the opposite side of that coin?

    Jeremy:

    The opposite side, so one is, I think toxic people, and maybe also just people that no matter how much you invest, you can’t seem to get them to see the world differently or to change. And I think it’s also frustrating for me because I feel like there’s probably a way to nudge everybody forwards and into different way of behaving. And there’s a level of maybe frustration in me. So that’s one.

    Jeremy:

    And I would say that we’re all different. I’m a big fan of the Clifton StrengthsFinder and the idea of each of us having unique strengths that are in different orders. And my number one strength is belief. And what that means is that it’s a kind of an actually an execution strength. And if I believe in something, I’m going to go after it with all my energy and passion and everything else. And I think one of the things that kills that and drains it and creates bad behaviors in me is where I feel like people don’t get why I’m so passionate about that thing and why they should also be passionate about it. And so that can be really, for me, at least, that really is, it drains me a lot. That’s at least the things that I think about.

    Alexis:

    I think if you form a club about on that, I would join happily. I think you are not alone with that kind of frustration and a belief that, yes, we could all and get to somewhere different ways to change our mindset. And sometimes you don’t find the way, and it’s frustrating. That’s true.

    Jeremy:

    I would just say that when you’re energized like that, you want everyone to move fast, and you can’t… The fact that it’s not moving as fast as you want is also part of that kind of frustration. But then you get these payoffs, and boom, you’re back in the game, and you’re, yeah, we did actually make progress. It wasn’t as bad.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. Sometimes you need the feedback from others saying, no, you don’t remember how it was six months ago. It seems you don’t realize the progress we made. You say, oh, okay. Oh, yeah. That was nice. Well, that’s good. You need to do that every six months, a small paragraph like this will really help me if you can continue, maybe add it to your calendar 🙂

    Jeremy:

    But I’ve tried very hard to build a culture where we speak out those things more. And it definitely energizes people, not just me. But yeah, to call out and say, thank you and to call out those little wins, repeatedly. We now introduce weekly updates. We actually have that built into it. And we have a biweekly kind of all hands just within the product and tech team. And we spend probably 15 minutes of that meeting just thanking people for the last different call outs for the last week, last two weeks. So, yeah, I think as you build that, and we’ve only been really introducing more and more of that in the last six months, you do start to see it popping up more and more, and then you get a few compliments yourself, and it’s rewarding.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. It’s incredible, the impact that it has. And it’s difficult at the beginning, but I like that way of celebrating. I feel that the regular celebration close to when the event happens is really more efficient than the big awards ceremony.

    Jeremy:

    Exactly. Yeah. Actually I just personally hate big awards ceremonies because you always have to give awards to some people, and you can’t give it to all the people who really deserved it. I’m actually really kind of an anti those. I prefer the continuous kind of call outs and encouragement than plaques and awards and things like that. Yeah. At least that’s my personal, relatively strong belief. If I was leading an organization, I definitely wouldn’t have something like that there.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. The question a little bit other is, is there something you’ve always dreamed of doing but never dared to?

    Jeremy:

    Yeah. Difficult question. I think I’m quite, I’ve taken quite a few risks in my career, but I think, and I did start a company already. But yeah, I’d like to start another company. I’d like to build a real business from scratch or acquire one or do something like that, and really built a different kind of business, one that stands for different things in society. I’m very energized to turn up to work to do that. But I think that when you run a company, you can really shape it in a different way. And ideally, more in the sense of like Basecamp or folks like that, where they’re really, they don’t have to do something specific for their VC, the funders and things like that. They can really grow the company at the pace that they believe that it should grow at. And yeah, I think that would be the thing.

    Alexis:

    This is nice. I love it. I hope you will.

    Jeremy:

    Oh, me too. Me too.

    Alexis:

    Apart from work, is there something that you’re passionate about that you want to share today?

    Jeremy:

    I’m a geek. I’m passionate about lots of things, and probably like maybe a lot of men, I’m also, my passion is like, I would say obsessions change from time to time, but I do like to get out on my bicycle and go cycling. I really enjoy cycling. And my partner and I are very fortunate also to have a son, and he’s just about to turn two in a couple months. There’s definitely my passion has shifted being a father. That’s definitely like where a lot of my energy also goes, and probably why I’m doing a little bit less cycling these days as well, apart from just the pandemic. And certainly, in the lockdown, in Paris, we had a one kilometer radius that you could leave your home. So cycling wasn’t really a thing you could do so easily.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, of course, of course. What would be the really your advice to people who want to develop themselves as leaders?

    Jeremy:

    I think a lot of people who aspire to leadership, there’s getting to being a manager of people is something that they can all achieve and be entrusted with managing a team. And I think that there’s clearly certain skills that are needed for that. And they can learn and grow that. But to really push through, to break through kind of up another couple of levels, I think that there’s a bit more that needs to be developed. And it goes back to what I said earlier, but I do think knowing yourself, going deeper in yourself, I highly recommend people to take some kind of tests, like the Clifton StrengthsFinder, and there’s others, like I think Kolbe and a few others. Often people’s work will pay for those, or even people have done a bunch of those. I think if one doesn’t really work for you, try a few, but use some of those tools.

    Jeremy:

    I think being in the right environment of having the right people around you is super important. And if you’re not getting that in the environment that you’re in, change it. Find people that are going in the same direction as you and passionate about that, because I think we take each other on the journey together. And you’re not going to really be tested in going deeper in yourself without other people willing to challenge you. And then, I would say that my current team, there are people in there who have challenged me on my behavior, and that’s helped me grow. So yeah, I think going deeper in yourself.

    Jeremy:

    And then clearly in the kind of executive world, I think there’s a couple of things here. One is that you definitely have to be able to deliver results. Ideally, the good kind of execs do that without people paying a price, like taking people with you. Second is just managing the relationships with execs of other departments that are not directly related to yours, managing the politics and the… Just it’s relationship thing. And those are critical skills, but you can test, you can, every level of your career, you can definitely develop them. But I think it gets a bit harder the more senior you go. And often people get a bit stuck at a certain level. Yeah. And for me, the breakthroughs come when you either, and I think you also, you need to be willing to move a little bit to change jobs, to get those experiences and get the right people around you, or even to fail and then move again and try again. So yeah, that would be my advice.

    Alexis:

    I love the advice.

    Jeremy:

    Thank you.

    Alexis:

    Very tempting advice. I hope that people will be appealed to that, knowing yourself and looking at your environment and look at if the people around you are helping you to grow. I think it’s a really, really good one. Love it.

    Jeremy:

    My parents taught me that, Alexis. I just hear their voice at the back of my head when I’m thinking that, because that’s from my parents. I definitely learned that from them.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Excellent. Yeah, we learn all the time, and sometimes you remember the things we learned are coming from a long time ago. It’s really good.

    Jeremy:

    Exactly.

    Alexis:

    Thank you very much, Jeremy, for having joined the podcast today. I really appreciate your time and your insights. It was really beautiful. I’m really glad that we had that conversation. Thank you.

    Jeremy:

    Thank you, Alexis. It’s been a pleasure.

    Jeremy:

    Yeah. I’ve been a long time listener of your podcast. So it’s great to be here, and yeah, please keep going with the podcast. It’s great.

    Alexis:

    Thank you.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to alexis.Monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode. And to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work, drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. And until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by Annie Spratt 

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Chief of Staff: The Role, the Craft, the Community

    Chief of Staff: The Role, the Craft, the Community

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure to welcome Scott Amenta. Scott is a community builder, co-founder of Propel, and founder of the Chief of Staff Network. We explored community, leadership, and the evolving value of the Chief of Staff role in modern companies.

    What a community builder actually does

    Scott frames community building as a craft: putting people together intentionally around shared interests, challenges, and goals, then creating the content, infrastructure, and scenarios that help them connect, learn, and grow.

    He also points out how communities evolved in two parallel ways:

    • open communities that anyone can join (often on large platforms)
    • more curated communities that can be private, sometimes paid, and designed to create a different level of experience

    The Chief of Staff role: ambiguous and powerful

    One reason the Chief of Staff role is both challenging and interesting is ambiguity. Chiefs often have very different responsibilities from one company to another, depending on the executive they support and the context of the business.

    Scott describes a key benefit: the role offers broad exposure to what it takes to grow a company, sometimes earlier in a career than other paths would allow. It is a role where people from very diverse backgrounds can contribute, because there is no single “Chief of Staff profile.”

    Why build a Chief of Staff community?

    Scott created the Chief of Staff Network for two reasons:

    1. Support for the people doing the job
      Chiefs need peers, resources, and an infrastructure layer to learn faster and perform better in a role that can be lonely.
    2. Education of the market
      When a role is poorly understood, every Chief ends up having to explain it. A community can define shared language, share narratives, and collectively educate the wider industry on what the role is and why it matters.

    A Chief of Staff helps build the leadership team

    We also discuss something that resonates with my own experience: supporting the principal is not only about execution, it is also about shaping the leadership system around them.

    Scott explains that because a Chief of Staff typically does not own a specific P&L, they can focus on the holistic picture and help the organization run more smoothly by reducing bottlenecks. And yes, the principal can be the bottleneck.

    Scott’s view of leadership

    Scott offers a clear framing of leadership in three parts:

    • creating a vision and mission people can get behind
    • building the team that can achieve that vision
    • inspiring people to do hard things and stay engaged

    One idea I particularly liked is the concept of exponential add: hiring people who are not just incremental additions, but who change what the team can do. Scott ties this to diversity, not as a slogan, but as a practical advantage: diverse experience can lead to different decisions, better ideas, and more original outcomes.

    Energy, meetings, and cadence

    Scott shares what gives him energy: one-to-one relationships and seeing community members succeed.

    What drains him: internal meetings that could have been handled asynchronously and never reach a conclusion. He makes a strong point that this is also where a Chief of Staff can help, by reviewing meeting cadences and removing what is unnecessary.

    Scott’s recommendation for developing yourself

    Scott’s advice is simple and actionable:

    • find a mentor who can give direct feedback
    • find a community aligned with your interests

    His point is reassuring: for almost any niche, there is probably a community waiting for you and people who share the same challenges and are willing to help.

    Here is the transcript of the episode:

    Alexis:

    Community and leadership are the two main topics for exploring this episode of Le Podcast. Le Podcast equips you to make a positive change in your organization. Each episode turns insight into actions that you can use straight away to be build momentum and create lasting change from yourself to your team, from your team to other teams, and other teams to the entire organization. I’m your host, Alexis Monville, and I believe in the ability of people on teams to find better ways to increase their impact and satisfaction. That’s jump right into the conversation with Scott to learn more about what it needs.

    Alexis:

    Hey Scott, can you tell us a bit more about you and your background?

    Scott:

    Hey, Alexis, great to chat with you today. I’m Scott, come from New York, currently living in Berlin. I’ve spent most of my career at early and growth-stage companies really working across a number if difficult fields like operation, business development, strategy and even finance at times. I spent a good part of my career at companies going from five upwards to 500 employees, really operating in a generalist role, without any clear definition of what to call that.

    Scott:

    And it wasn’t around 2014, I joined an early-stage e-commerce marketplace called Spring based in New York. At the time was looking at chiefs of staff coming out of companies like LinkedIn and Google, and obviously hailing from the political space as well, and thought that there was a clear potential need for that same position within these early and growth-stage companies. And so started to carve out that position for myself at Spring. And in 2016, officially became the Chief of Staff there, after growing the company to around 80 employees, in two fast years. Then shortly after that, started a Chief of Staff community titled Chief of Staff Network, I’ve continued to grow that community and learn a lot from the members that we have within it.

    Alexis:

    Thanks for sharing Scott. What is a community builder?

    Scott:

    I think if you look at the history of communities online, really the first emergence of communities was on some of the major platforms like Facebook, Reddit, LinkedIn, and you see these kinds of very large groups of people that are organizing around similar personal interests or professional interests, and potentially have a lot to gain from one another, but without necessarily the same intimacy that you might get from an online meetup, as an example.

    Scott:

    I think the idea of a community builder is really a person that is willing to set aside the time to put those people together in an interesting scenarios. So, identifying common problems, common needs, common interests, whether they’re personal or professional goals and building the content resources, platform and infrastructure necessary to connect those people, bringing them together to solve and grow and learn.

    Alexis:

    Of course, I have a big bias on that. When we speak about community, my first thoughts are on open source communities. Do think there’s something to learn from open-source communities in what you are doing?

    Scott:

    Yeah, absolutely. I think the nature of communities today has evolved in two different parallels. So on one hand, you’ve got open source communities where people are free to join, free to self identify with other members of the group. On the other side you’re starting to see more of these kinds of private communities that exist. Some of which are free, some of which are potentially paid for. I think there can be value in getting a higher end experience. Not that the open source communities can’t provide that, but a higher end experience knowing that there is some gateway or wall that’s identifying members before they come across that boundary to engage and interact with other people.

    Alexis:

    You mentioned that you started that community of Chief of Staff. What is special about the Chief of Staff role according to you?

    Scott:

    The Chief of Staff role obviously has been very prevalent in the political space for, I think most of the history of America at least. And has only very recently emerged as an interesting position within early and growth stage tech companies, albeit it has existed for a little bit longer at some of the larger tech organizations, Google and LinkedIn being the two most prominent.

    Scott:

    I think what’s so interesting about the position it’s A, highly ambiguous role. And so, at every different company for every different executive that hires a Chief of Staff, that Chief of Staff tends to have quite different responsibilities. What that leads to is a role where you have people from very diverse backgrounds coming into it. I meet chiefs of staff that come from marketing backgrounds, that come from business development backgrounds like myself, that come from strategy and finance backgrounds, and, they’re entering into that position because it gives them in some senses, unparalleled access to see the entire purview of what it takes to grow a company.

    Scott:

    And what that means is, you can often have chiefs of staff that are in some cases earlier in their career, but operating at the highest levels of these organizations. I think that’s probably one of the most interesting things about the role. Certainly was for myself when, when I was younger and certainly for other chiefs of staff coming into it and growing within it.

    Alexis:

    The exposure to a larger scope is definitely different for people. It’s an interesting part of the role necessarily. Why your community for Chief of Staff?

    Scott:

    Well, I think in looking at that ambiguity of the position, two things are immediately evident. One is, chiefs of staff need resources and support and an infrastructure layer, with other chiefs of staff to help them grow and level up those skills to be able to Excel at the position. At the moment, or at least when I was a Chief of Staff, there weren’t any dedicated resources talking about the position, helping me identify the areas where I should be focused, helping me think about what my career path might be. That was immediately evident that at least somebody needed to start writing about this position and really sharing their own personal narrative and experiences to help the others that were entering in to the same challenges.

    Scott:

    The other side of the coin here is really education of the market. I was immediately aware of the Chief of Staff role being on my resume, knowing that I was going to have to take that narrative and describe my responsibilities and my accomplishments as a Chief of Staff to another company with the potential of that company not understanding what a Chief of Staff role was. My belief is that it’s not up to one individual to define and describe that role to an entire industry. It’s really up to a community to do that. I felt that there was nothing better than taking a group of people that were in our role with, again, a lot of ambiguity being able to define that experience together and therefore educate the entire industry about what that role would mean and the strategic importance of it.

    Alexis:

    I really like that community to support you so you can excel and grow. The role is the radio, the lonely role. You also bought in your principal that could be the CEO or high level executive. You’re working with the leadership team, join in a little bit of a lonely positions, where to find some support and where to find the resources and the peers that will help you to excel in your world and to grow in your role. That’s where I think the community is really valuable.

    Alexis:

    I didn’t saw about that part about educating the market, but based on the number of time I need to explain what a Chief of Staff is, I think it’s a very good point.

    Scott:

    And, I think to be fair, we’re still a long way away from a world where everybody understands what a Chief of Staff is, and again, the strategic importance of it.

    Alexis:

    In the Chief of Staff role, I really think that building the leadership team around the principal is something important. And part of the responsibility of the Chief of Staff. Do you think it’s part of that role?

    Scott:

    Yes, I certainly do. I think if you look at the Chief of Staff role and the reporting structure, a Chief of Staff doesn’t tend to be an owner of any specific P&L within the organization. What that means is that they don’t have ownership over any particular group or unit, and instead can focus on the holistic picture of the company. The organization needs to be designed around a principal and the Chief of Staff is there to support that principal and making sure that other direct reports are getting the information, getting the resources and getting the attention that they need from that principal. It really becomes this inter oping layer so that the organization can run more smoothly, more effectively without any individual bottleneck. And, the principal tends to be that bottleneck sometimes.

    Alexis:

    Very good point. What does being a leader mean to you?

    Scott:

    I look at leadership in a few different contexts. The first thing that a great leader really does is creating a vision for the team, a vision and a mission that the team can really get behind that they understand, and that they’re motivated to work towards. I think the second core component there is really then, how do you build the team? How do you choose and pick the right players that vibe together well on a cultural level, but also have the skills, the tactical skills necessary to achieve that vision. So that every new person that you add to that team is not just an incremental add, but is an exponential add.

    Scott:

    And then, I think really the third thing that drives a great leader is the ability to inspire. In order to create the motivation to go and achieve great things, to work on difficult challenges, you need to be able to inspire the people around you. That takes, I think a lot of courage to stand up, give great examples, tell great stories and make sure that people are really interested in the work that they’re doing and have that dedication to the challenges that they’re trying to solve.

    Alexis:

    Really difficult challenge. I really love the way you are framing that. I particularly love the idea of exponential add, which means that will need to look at a diverse team, not only adding skills with people that are similar, I guess.

    Scott:

    Exactly. I think that diversity means a lot to a team. So that’s diversity in experiences, diversity in terms of where that person is coming from and the types of problems that they’ve worked on before. I worked for an e-commerce company back in New York, as I said as a Chief of Staff. And very few of the people that we hired were from the e-commerce role. They were from the retail world. But that diversity led to the creation of some very unique product experiences for our consumers that were in a lot of ways, fundamentally different than what the rest of the industry was doing at the time. That really speaks to the value of hiring a diverse set of candidates that can run the organization properly.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. What do you think are really the first steps when you build a leadership team?

    Scott:

    I think there’s a few things to look for when building a proper leadership team. The first is really background and experience. I think that goes without saying. You want to make sure that the people that you’re hiring are equipped to do the job. And, going back to the three points I made around leadership, that they’re able to bring those elements to the table to inspire not just their immediate reports, but also the rest of the company. You have to imagine that any leader that you’re hiring on the executive team can step into, essentially run the entire organization if they needed to. In the absence of the CEO, for example, could that person stand in front of the company and drive the same level of motivation and inspiration that the CEO may be doing every day.

    Scott:

    I think the second piece really is around cultural fit, does that person meld well with the way that the company was built? From the beginning, the way that the employees have come to reflect their culture, do they prescribe to the values and mission that the company has, and what are the examples of that, that they’ve demonstrated in their own careers?

    Scott:

    And then I think the third element is really around work style. Is the way that they work, the way that they think about even work-life balance, does that also correspond to the way that the company has been operating? These are the things that in some cases can be written in stone, things like culture or things like work style, and it can be very difficult to have one leader that is swimming against the grain of those things and try to convince the rest of the team that it’s okay. You really need a leader that sets examples. And ideally those examples are things that the company has already been prescribed to.

    Alexis:

    Great summary. What do you look up to as a leader to learn from, to be inspired from, and of course, why?

    Scott:

    I think one person that I certainly look to as an inspiration for leadership, and certainly within the context of community building is Alexis Ohanian, CEO of Reddit. And, I think his story is in a lot of ways, fascinating, not just in the sense that he started a company, sold that company, left as CEO, and then later rejoined as CEO to lead it into its next chapter. Alexis has always been there as a person, really fostering again, back to this idea of open source communities, the idea of connecting people, helping people foster relationships online that in other ways was very difficult to do. Reddit is always been a source and destination for great information, interesting people. You name the niche should probably exist on Reddit. And, I think Alexis Ohanian’s vision is really, really behind that and he’s championed that even from the early 2000s. I’ve got a lot of respect for what he’s built there.

    Alexis:

    Very good one. Definitely something that I need to look at in more detail. What gives you energy? Where do you find your energy and what drains your energy and maybe your tactics to avoid those energy drainers.

    Scott:

    I think the thing that gives me the most energy, and honestly, the reason that I really enjoy this idea of community building is really this one-on-one relationships. Never really found myself as driven or as eager, even having worked at companies that have hundreds of thousands or millions of users, those users ended up becoming numbers on a spreadsheet and, numbers that we’re looking at in terms of retention and conversion, growth, never really with that one-on-one personal touch.

    Scott:

    What I found with the idea of community building is, even with thousands of members, you still have a very personal relationship with each one of those people. They may not be your best friend, but, you know them almost by name, you know their backgrounds, you have conversations with them. What I’ve come to realize is you can build substantial businesses that are built on top of communities and still retain that personal nature of the business.

    Scott:

    And so, every time I get off the phone with a Chief of Staff, it’s new reinvigorated energy to just keep doing it, to continue building resources, to continue fostering more relationships, to continue connecting people together. And, seeing their successes is essentially my success. That’s a really rewarding part of the experience.

    Alexis:

    So the other face of the coin is what drains your energy.

    Scott:

    Most recently, Zoom calls, but, I think we’re hopefully moving on from a world where, everything is just virtual. The thing that drains my energy the most are frankly, internal meetings, meetings that could otherwise have been solved by email, by Slack, by more asynchronous or synchronous methods of communication that don’t require 10 plus people in a room where the conversation never really comes to a conclusion, it just comes to more work and more to do is for everyone where, the problem may never have needed to be solved in the first place. I’m lucky now to be working as a co-founder of a company and, can really set the cadence and way that the company operates around that internal communication style. But it’s certainly not something I missed is working for, some of the larger companies I’ve worked with that just have way too many internal meetings and never enough time to do actual work.

    Alexis:

    That’s a good one. I like your tactics to avoid those ones because, there’s a lot that can be achieved with a synchronous communication with the tools that we have today. So absolutely. Sometimes a shared document is much better than trying to define a problem statement with 10 people in the room.

    Scott:

    Yeah. And look, I think in some ways this is the benefit of having a Chief of Staff is, they can really be there to help figure out what that cadence is for companies that have, in some ways lost their direction when it comes to too many internal meetings. Certainly something I’ve done as a Chief of Staff is really review every team’s internal cadence and do a deep dive on the importance of each one of those meetings and scratch them if they’re not necessary.

    Alexis:

    Yep. Really good advice. What would be the first things you would recommend to people who want to improve their skills in whatever their domain is?

    Scott:

    I think the first thing that I would recommend is try to identify a mentor for yourself. That mentor can be someone that works at your company, that maybe is not on your direct team, but someone that you look up to as a leader, it can be someone external to the company maybe that you’ve met through former classmates or former colleagues. But having that person, not necessarily a professional coach, although that’s equally important, but having a mentor or person that you can ask deep questions to about your career, ask questions that are more tactical focused on some of your day-to-day challenges with unabashed advice is super critical to being able to get that real-time feedback and that confidence to take the next steps in your career. Those are the things that have probably helped me the most as I look back over the last 15 years.

    Alexis:

    Very cool and very important part. Is there any resources you would want to recommend to people?

    Scott:

    From a resourcing perspective, the most obvious thing to say is, well, there’s probably a community out there waiting for you. And so, the best thing to do is to go out and look for the online communities that are available to you again, based on your personal interests, based your professional interests. I’ve seen communities in basically every industry at this point. And I think if there’s a niche that you’re interested in, it probably exists in one way or another, and those people are there waiting for you. And, you’ll be surprised at how many people share those same passions as you and are going through some of the same challenges as you as well, and are willing to help.

    Alexis:

    Wow. That was, of course the answer that you will provide, but you’re absolutely right. I like what you’re saying about, think about any niche that exists, there’s probably a community waiting for you. You are not alone. It’s a very good one, and we have the opportunity to reach out to those people.

    Alexis:

    This is very cool, very inspiring. Thank you Scott, for having joined today the podcast. Thank you very much for that.

    Scott:

    Thank you, Alexis. It was a pleasure. I really appreciate it.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback or just to say hello. And, until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    Photo by Priscilla Du Preez

  • Belonging, Identity, and Better Hiring,

    Belonging, Identity, and Better Hiring,

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure to welcome Ally Kouao, Developer Advocate and Solution Architect at Red Hat. We talked about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), not as an abstract concept, but as something that shows up in daily conversations, hiring decisions, and the small moments that shape belonging.

    Allyship is not a label

    One of the strongest points Ally makes early is simple: saying you are an ally is not enough. What matters is what you do.

    Ally shares a definition that captures the intent and the posture of allyship:

    Allyship means acknowledging, accepting, and embracing our similarities and differences. It means being open to listening, avoiding complacency, making an effort to understand, and being proactive where helpful, while continuously educating ourselves and others with empathy, respect, and kindness.

    The part that stayed with me is the humanity of it: you will not do everything perfectly, and still you can show up with sincerity and effort.

    Education gives power, especially when history is incomplete

    We also talk about how much recent history is missing from many school curricula, and how this shapes our understanding of today.

    Ally’s suggestion is direct: educate yourself beyond what school offered, seek perspectives that are not centered on a single narrative, and do it continuously. The internet is free, but the intention to learn must be real.

    Belonging can be fragile for immigrants and their children

    We discuss a painful pattern: people who are second or third generation immigrants can feel they do not belong in the country where they live, while also being seen as outsiders in the country of their parents or grandparents.

    The result is a kind of “nowhere to go” feeling that can last for years. Ally’s response is not to offer a quick fix, but to name what helps: surrounding yourself with people who are open to learning and listening. You cannot force someone to change, but you can choose environments where curiosity becomes respect, not interrogation.

    The question “Where are you from?” and what it can signal

    This episode includes a moment of discomfort that is worth sitting with.

    I share how I used to love the question “Where are you from?” because it can open many doors. Ally explains why the same question can land very differently depending on context, intent, and what happens next.

    If someone answers “I’m from London” and the next question is “No, where are you really from?” the question stops being small talk. It becomes a signal: you do not fully belong here.

    Ally offers a line that should make all of us pause:

    When you ask that question, you may be prioritizing your curiosity over their feelings.

    The intent may be innocent. The impact may not be.

    Bias in hiring is real, even when we believe we are fair

    We then move into hiring, and the discomfort that comes with it.

    Most people believe they are objective. And still, patterns appear: leadership teams that are overwhelmingly similar, interview processes that favor familiar backgrounds, and subtle filters that exclude people before the conversation even begins.

    We discuss a concrete practice that reduces bias in resume screening: stripping out signals that invite stereotyping (name, address, school prestige, formatting differences) so that reviewers focus on relevant criteria.

    Ally also addresses a common argument:

    “Are we compromising on quality to increase representation?”

    Her answer is clear: we do not have to compromise. Talent exists everywhere. What changes is the effort and the system used to find it, evaluate it, and give it a fair chance.

    A simple test for hiring managers

    One story Ally shares is both funny and brutal: a recruiter gave interviewers their own early-career resumes and asked them to evaluate them. Many rejected themselves.

    It highlights a blind spot: we often forget that everyone has a starting point. We judge potential through a narrow lens, and then call it “quality.”

    A good question to sit with is:

    Would you hire yourself today for the first job you took in your current company?

    Where to start

    Ally recommends a book that offers multiple perspectives across generations:

    • Girl, Woman, Other by Bernardine Evaristo

    More broadly, her advice is practical:

    • use the internet intentionally, not passively
    • learn from diverse perspectives
    • have real conversations with people you do not yet know well
    • be open to noticing what you did not notice before

    Because improvement starts with awareness, and awareness starts with paying attention.

    Below is the transcript of the podcast:

    Ally Kouao:

    In that moment when you’re asking that question, you’re really prioritizing your curiosity over their feelings.

    Alexis Monville:

    That’s Ally Kouao, developer advocate and solution architect at Red Hat.

    Ally Kouao:

    Honestly, allyship means something different to everyone, and I think just having that shared understanding and that shared motivation to listen and to be there for the people who want their voices heard.

    Alexis Monville:

    Ally Kouao explaining what allyship means. Diversity, equality and inclusion are what we explore in this new episode of Le Podcast. Le Podcast equips you to make a positive change in your organization. Each episode turns insight into actions that you can use straight away to build momentum and create lasting change from yourself to your team, from your team to other teams, and from other teams to the entire organization. I’m your host, Alexis Monville, and I believe in the ability of people and teams to find better ways to increase their impact and satisfaction.

    Alexis Monville:

    Let’s jump right into the conversation with Ally to learn more about what it means. Hey, Ally. Can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah, so first of all, thank you for having me on this podcast. I joined Red Hat back in 2019. Prior to that, I was actually a software engineering student in a university in Wales. In terms of my personal background, I actually grew up in London. I’ve lived in London my whole life, and I moved to Wales for university when I was 19. The rest is history. I’ve been at Red Hat for just over a year now. I’m a solution architect on the Red Hat graduate program, and yeah, it’s been a really good experience so far.

    Alexis Monville:

    Excellent. I think I first heard about you because you ran a 14-day program, To a More Knowledgeable You. And it was fantastic. Each day resonated with me big time. Could you tell us the motivation behind the program?

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah, sure. I feel like the main reason this program came about was aside from the fluctuating levels of COVID globally, it felt like there was definitely a bark to highlight the continued civil unrest that’s been magnified and brought back to the surface after the brutalities and documented injustice that has been going on in the US. What I thought was important to do alongside one of my colleagues was to make a point of the fact that not only is it possible for black people located outside of the US to be affected by what’s going on, but there are experiences shared by black people and some other minorities in their everyday lives that have been frequently glazed over, or not much attention’s been paid to it.

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah, so as a result, some Red Hatters and I came together and created an initiative that we now know as 14 Days To a More Knowledgeable You, that provides the safe space to offer daily insight, be it through an article or podcast episode or a personal story, into the realities of their fellow black colleagues, friends and family in the UK and Ireland.

    Alexis Monville:

    What would you say are the main aspects of the program?

    Ally Kouao:

    That’s a really good question. I feel like what really brings the program to life I would say are people’s personal stories. I think we had a total of three personal stories from three different people who contributed to the initiative. I felt like it really brought things closer to home. I think it definitely helped make people realize that there definitely is another person behind the screen, or another person at Red Hat who can relate to this sort of thing. I think it makes it even more significant that it’s personal stories in the UK.

    Ally Kouao:

    Something that I’ve definitely heard throughout my life really, even until now, just the fact that … not the fact, but just people’s opinions that black people here don’t have it as hard as in the US, I would say it’s definitely true to an extent in regards to the brutalities, but I feel like in the UK, that there’s so much more that happens under the surface such as microaggressions, that I feel would be really beneficial for people to keep an eye out for and be conscious of.

    Alexis Monville:

    It made me think a lot. It’s really comfortable for me to say that at Red Hat, we are an open, inclusive meritocracy, and I can repeat that every day, and I’m really comfortable with that, and I think it’s really good and so on. There’s no question about that. But one thing that made me realize, and I will draw a parallel with, I have three kids. I have two daughters. The youngest one is 18, so they are not really young any more. I bought from a charity organization feminism T-shirts, that were really … I thought they were really fun, and I wore one, and I offered the others to the girls and to everybody in the family in reality. The message was fun, because I thought it was fun. That will not work with everybody. And it was written, “Girls just want to have fun.” Then under that, it said, “Fundamental rights.” So it’s a good joke from my perspective.

    Alexis Monville:

    Once, I remember one of the girls saying, “Oh, and you are doing that and you’re saying you are a feminist.” I was puzzled because I thought there was no necessary connection between what she was observing and the fact that I thought I would want to consider a woman as equal, and there was no question about that in my mind. But I realized that the connection was not obvious.

    Alexis Monville:

    During the program … That was a long intro to that. During the program, I realized that in my young age, I was actively involved in anti-racism organizations, and I was demonstrating about that. And after some time, it faded away. All that introduction to ask a question. I thought I was an ally, and I wonder if I am really an ally, and I wonder even if being an ally is enough. What do you think?

    Ally Kouao:

    That was such a lovely intro to that question. I would honestly say that well, at least from my personal experience and from my personal opinion, that to just say that you’re an ally probably isn’t enough. It’s more so what you do. So obviously going back to your personal examples, it’s really good that you were active in terms of being feminist, so wearing the T-shirt supporting them … I think it’s quite hard, because quite a lot of people compare what their standards of being an ally is to what other people’s standards of being an ally is. I would say overall there is no real checklist of what it takes to be an ally, because everyone has their own interpretation of the term, and there’s no one way to do it.

    Ally Kouao:

    But something that I would say is the gist of being an ally, personally, is listening and amplifying the voice of marginalized groups, so like you said when you did it before, people who did experience racism or advocating women’s rights. I do have an extract with me of my input of what allyship means to me in one of my colleagues’ blogs on the importance of allies. So if you don’t mind, I’ll just quickly go through it.

    Ally Kouao:

    On the blog, I said, “Personally, allyship to me means acknowledging, accepting and embracing our similarities and differences. Where are differences are present, this branches out to being open to listening, avoiding complacency, and making an effort to understand and be proactive where helpful, while continuously educating ourselves and others with empathy, respect and kindness in areas where we may fall short. Allyship means understanding that at the end of the day, we are all human, and even if you can’t do everything perfectly, you’re wholeheartedly making an effort to do what it is you do to the best of your ability.”

    Ally Kouao:

    That’s just a little sneak peek of my input. For anyone who is listening to this who also works at Red Hat, I would also recommend that you check out part two of the Diversity and Inclusion: the Importance of Allies series blog post, where you’ll see a bit more about what I have to say about allyship in more detail, and hear from all the other wonderful diversity and inclusion leaders at Red Hat.

    Ally Kouao:

    Just to sum up everything that I’ve said in just one sentence, I would say honestly, allyship means something different to everyone, and I think just having that shared understanding and that shared motivation to listen, and to be there for the people who want their voices heard.

    Alexis Monville:

    Yeah, it’s beautifully written. I need to copy/paste the extract in the blog post that will be a companion to this podcast. It’s really beautiful, and it really resonates with me. It really says, “Being human,” and being your whole self and being human is something really important. I wonder if it’s suddenly that I’m getting old, and I realize more things now, but I feel I’ve learned a lot during those past years, and I continue to learn. I feel the more I learn about that, the more I have to learn and to understand.

    Alexis Monville:

    I will give you another example. I spent 15 hours with Laurence Fishburne, the American actor, and he told me the story of Malcolm X. Of course, I did not really spend 15 hours with Laurence Fishburne. It’s an audio book, and it’s the autobiography of Malcolm X, and the narrator is Laurence Fishburne. But I had that feeling, and that’s always the feeling with audio book, that you have someone who is telling you a story.

    Alexis Monville:

    All that to say that at some point, Malcolm X described the fact that he is considering the people from New York, fighting for social rights, going into Alabama, and he’s saying they are totally wrong. They should not do that, and when I read that, I said, “No, no, no, no. That’s … What is wrong with that?” He said, “They should fight for civil rights in New York, because there’s a lot to do there.” I realized that yeah, I did in a way the same thing. I was demonstrating against apartheid in Strasbourg while apartheid was in South Africa, and I hope it had an impact, but I’m not really sure about that. But what was I doing in Strasbourg?

    Alexis Monville:

    I remember one of my friends at that time coming from Algeria. He was French, but he was born in Algeria. That’s the kind of thing that you will wear all your life on your face. And he was telling me, “I’m considered a stranger, a foreigner, by everybody in there.” And I have to admit that at that time, I hope it changed, foreigners were not necessarily welcome in small cities in the country. And he told me, “I tried to back to Algeria, to say, ‘Okay, I will end my study there, and I will continue my study in Algeria.’” And he told me, “It’s not possible, because over there, they are calling me the French guy, and so I have nowhere to go.”

    Alexis Monville:

    I was horrified by that, and I didn’t know what I could do for that person. How would you say we can deal with our past as a country, and we can have people that … I don’t really know how to formulate the question, but how to deal with that kind of situation for people?

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah. Honestly, I would say that that’s probably not the first time I’ve heard a story where someone’s recounted their experiences of going to one place and feeling like they don’t belong, and then going to place that people say they belong, and then not belonging there either. I think that’s something that is experienced by quite a lot of people, but also I can’t put a number to it. But in terms of addressing that … Sorry, could you remind me of your question?

    Alexis Monville:

    In a way, it’s addressing our colonial past, or addressing the fact that we have people that are coming from probably the … They are the second- or third-generation immigrants from another country.

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah. Okay, brilliant. That’s put me back on track. I was just going off on a tangent forgetting what the question was. So yeah, in terms of second- and third-generation immigrants or people who’ve moved to a country because their parents did or family did, I would say in order to educate people who are already in that country, or probably not even educate people, because everyone is accountable for their own learning, I think it’s definitely worth keeping in mind that it’s important to surround yourself with people who you know are open to learning. You can’t really force it down anyone’s throat. You have to be open to the fact that people probably don’t want to change the way they want to think, or be open to the fact that people are really interested in learning more, like learning about ways that they can become closer to you or learn more about an ethnicity or a culture in more detail.

    Ally Kouao:

    I think if I had to give advice to younger generations out there, I would honestly say it’s important to educate yourselves as well, even if some people say that they belong to generations of immigrants or anything. We don’t know everything, right? There’s always something more to learn, and especially in terms of the educational curriculum, it can’t cover completely everything. And that was definitely another topic that was touched on in the 14 Days to a More Knowledgeable You initiative. Something that we noted was that in the British education curriculum, they don’t really cover all aspects of slavery or all aspects of the things that happened in the past or things that happened that wasn’t quite so English or quite so European-centric.

    Ally Kouao:

    Obviously, it’s something … In terms of the world’s history, it’s quite hard to encapsulate that all into one history lesson and one history curriculum. So I would advise younger generations of immigrants and other people who would like to learn more, to just go out and educate yourselves. The internet is very much free. There’s probably a lot of sources, a lot of stories, a lot of recounts of things that have happened in the past, and there’s no such thing as knowing it all or knowing too much, because there’s always some sort of learning that you can do.

    Ally Kouao:

    My main point here is education, that where there is knowledge there is power, and as long as more people are … I feel like the younger generation’s definitely becoming … From what I’ve seen from the Black Lives Matter protests and not even protests, but the Black Lives Matter movement, people are taking a stance on what’s going on, and people are realizing that it’s wrong, people are taking this opportunity to educate themselves a lot more, or in greater depth. I think that’s definitely a step in the right direction, but there’s definitely a lot more education or self-education that needs to be taught and given to oneself, for there to be that good amount of change and to avoid more recounts of experiences, as you’ve previously mentioned with your Algerian friend.

    Alexis Monville:

    Yeah, I love the advice of learning more about history, and especially the recent history. That’s definitely something I did not learn in school, and I had to learn that by myself, and there was a really good series in France about … It was Behind the Maps, and that was fascinating, about our recent history and all the things that we don’t know, but in a way we think we know, and in reality, we absolutely don’t know. We don’t know why it happens and when it happens, really, and all the reasons behind. And when we know something, we know only one perspective of it, and that perspective is of course biased. It’s only one perspective. So that’s a very, very good advice.

    Alexis Monville:

    I think connected to that question, there’s that question that I love to ask to people, and I realize that it’s not a good question. I love to ask a question that is, “Where are you from?” I love to ask that question, because in some contexts, people answer, “Oh, I’m from the finance department,” or, “I’m from Alabama.” And I love that, because it was a question that could open so many doors, and so many different doors, because based on what the people are thinking at the moment, they answer something different. So I love that question.

    Alexis Monville:

    I realized that that question was not so good when we moved to the US with my family a few years back, and of course, my accent, people are able to catch that I’m not from Boston, even if I just say hello or thank you. The next question from people, “Where are you from?”, and I realized it was not a good question because my wife was a little bit offended by that question, and she was systematically answering, “We are from …”, and the town where we lived at that time. So I had that discussion with her, and she was saying, “Yeah, why are people asking me where I’m from like if I don’t belong? I live here. That’s where I live. That’s my home.” She was really sensitive with that. What do you think is happening in that situation?

    Ally Kouao:

    I don’t know. I think that sort of question is a matter of people not really saying what they want to say, but not wanting to be impolite. But either way, they come out … I guess the interpretation of the receiver of that question can vary so widely, so yes, there’d be some people who wouldn’t take offense, and there would be some people who … like you mentioned with your wife, would take offense because it’s just like, “What do you really want to know from that question?” It’s not … If I give you an answer would you be like, “Where am I really from?”, or would you keep pushing until you get the answer, like you want that validation, that confirmation, that you had in your mind?

    Ally Kouao:

    This is definitely something that we touched on in the 14 Days to a More Knowledgeable You initiative, where that’s a question that’s commonly asked, and it’s not just asked of people of color, but it’s also asked of people in places where people … I don’t know. I guess it’s sometimes seen as a conversation starter, and I can see why it is, but I think it’s the way in which the question’s asked. It also depends on what answer the person who’s asking the question is willing to settle for in front of the person they’re asking it to.

    Ally Kouao:

    In terms of the initiative, we really tackled the “Where are you really from?” question, because an experience that many other black associates have been able to relate to, and I’m sure many other people would be able to relate to, being at a party or something or just meeting someone in a formal professional context, and people asking where you’re from. So if I had to give a personal example, so for example if I went to someone and they asked me, “Where are you from?”, I would naturally say, “Oh, I’m from London.” A response that I do often get is, “Oh, okay,” and then there’d be that really awkward pause, and then they’d be like, “But where are you really from? I know you’re from London, but where are your parents from?” And it’s like, well, I could do … I think it’s quite important that people are very specific in their questions.

    Ally Kouao:

    I’ve had friends who have been even more vague about their answer to make a point out of it. So someone would be like, “Oh, where you from?”, and they’d be like, “Oh, I’m from a very specific area about where they’re living at the moment,” and they’d be like, “Oh, but where are you really from?”, and they’d be like, “Oh, I’m from Britain.” And they’d be like, “Oh, but where are you from?” They’d be like, “Oh, I’m from Europe.” Like, just making a point to show that it’s just a really silly question to ask if you just keep digging it at.

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah, I just feel like in regards to the “Where are you really from?” question, it’s often the case that people want confirmation that the person isn’t British or isn’t from wherever the location is they are, or if their location sounds completely … their country of origin sounds completely different to where’d they’d typically think they’re from … I’m not quite sure if I formulated that correctly.

    Ally Kouao:

    But one of my colleagues, he was born in Zimbabwe, I believe. He was just saying that when he asked people where they’re from who have a Zimbabwean accent, it’s because he recognizes that accent, and that’s why he asks them where they’re from, just for confirmation of where they’re from. So like I said, it’s definitely the intent behind the question. I think it’s definitely worth clarifying with the person before asking, but I think when people do ask that question, something that they do do and should keep in mind is that it’s really important to approach the question towards the person you want to ask it to with sensitivity and clarity.

    Ally Kouao:

    If you approach the question “Where are you from?” or “Where are you really from?”, in that moment when you’re asking that question, you’re really prioritizing your curiosity over their feelings. You’re prioritizing your curiosity over how comfortable they feel or how much they belong in that moment in time, so you may receive a really guarded response. So someone giving a really vague answer like, “Oh, I’m from this really specific area,” because it’s a really silly question, honestly, I don’t really think you need to ask where people are from. Then again, I can also understand the conversation. It’s like, for example, we go to one of the Red Hat events. Well, from last year, we went to a Red Hat event called RHTE (Red Hat Tech Exchange), I met so many different people, and people are asking where you’re from because they’re curious to know which office you’re located in or where your accent is from. I can see how that can take a turn for the worst, depending on the motives of the person who is asking the question or the way in which they ask it.

    Alexis Monville:

    Yeah, I think it’s a very precious … I like the point about prioritizing curiosity over feelings. It’s a really important point. Whatever is your intent or the motivation behind the question, we need to realize that it’s not a good question, that adding “really” to it will not really help. That’s an horrible question in reality. If people want to share about where they are coming from and if they are from Scotland and their grandfather were coming from Ireland or whatever, that’s their problem. If they want to share that with you at some point, maybe they will, and that’s good. But why are you asking that? Yeah.

    Ally Kouao:

    Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. It’s such an odd question. There’s always that awkward pause after someone’s asked it, because when people ask me, in my mind I’m just like, “Are they trying to ask what I think they’re trying to ask, or are they genuinely curious on where I grew up and my accent?” Because I often get the question about where my accent’s from, because I’ve just moved from London to Wales, and somehow that’s just messed up my accent and people are just like, “Oh, where are you from?” So I think definitely it depends on the intent behind the question, but I would just say try and avoid it, like you said. You don’t have to know. If you did happen to know the person, and if you became a lot more close to the person or seemed to be chatting with them on a more regular basis, then you’d probably have that space or that comfort to be able to ask that question, or them be able to tell you themselves.

    Ally Kouao:

    I think it’s definitely an interesting question to ask upon first meeting someone. Some people just can’t really think on their feet off the bat, or it’s probably just to fill in the awkward silence when you first meet people.

    Alexis Monville:

    I did a training about hiring, improving your hiring practices. It reminds me something, because I was pushing some managers to say that maybe they have some biases in their hiring practices, and this is dangerous territory, and usually people are convinced they have absolutely no biases, and they are doing the right thing. What I was saying is that it’s not easy to do the right thing.

    Alexis Monville:

    There is a lot of biases that we have, and you need to admit that you are able to judge someone in the first 15 seconds you are seeing them. The problem is if you are not conscious of that, you will just use your intellect to confirm your first impression. This is exactly how the biases are working, so you need to be conscious of that. That’s why you need to write down all the questions you will ask in an interview beforehand. Then you are forced to go through those questions. You cannot escape that path and ask other questions that will confirm your first impression. So it’s really challenging.

    Alexis Monville:

    I told them I worked with a small system integrators in Paris a long time ago. It’s probably more than 10 years ago, and in the first gathering of the whole company in Paris, there was probably 150 people or something. There was something that was visibly different from other system integrators I worked with at that time. There was a lot more women, and a lot more people coming from various diversities that we have in France. France is at the crossroads of a lot of different countries, so of course there’s a lot of diversity present in the population, not necessarily in all the companies. But in that company, that was obvious that it was different from the others.

    Alexis Monville:

    I inquired about their hiring practices. That’s something our HR person is doing. She’s changing all the resumes, and stripping out all the information about the location where the people live, their first names, where they did their studies, and to keep only the things that we are supposed to make assumptions on. She’s rewriting all the resumes so they are all in the same format, so there’s no way to know things about that. And I said, “But you don’t judge people from where they live,” and they say, “Yeah, we also think that.” But the result is in our resume selection, we are selecting different people for the interview, and the result is when we see people, that we interview them and we hire them, people we would have probably never selected because they are coming from whatever, Saint Denis or whatever. Do you think that example is just an example, just a point in time? Do you think we have a problem in our hiring practices, and do you think there’s ways to fix that?

    Ally Kouao:

    That’s a really good question. I would just like to say off the bat that that hiring process or that process of hiring in regards to hiding people’s information, I think that sounds brilliant. It definitely strips back the identity that’s behind it, because there’s so much that people who’d probably be unconsciously biased on, such as the person’s name or where they studied or even their home address, like you said. So I think it’s really good that that recruiter definitely took time out of her day to put their main information into the resume, but present it in a similar format so there was no space for deviation. I think that’s definitely a good way to go about it.

    Ally Kouao:

    But in terms of general hiring processes, that’s definitely quite a tricky question, because different organizations can tackle hiring differently. It’s a double-edged sword. It depends on how you want to recruit different individuals. Overall, I think that’s important that there’s representation in a company, and a frequent argument that I tend to hear in response to that is, “Are you compromising on the quality of the candidates in favor of representation?” The answer to that can be, “We don’t have to compromise on anything.” I think there are very much skilled people of different ethnicities from different locations everywhere, and I think it’s just putting that extra effort into scouting them out and finding them.

    Ally Kouao:

    Something that I do tend to frequently see on LinkedIn is … I think I signed up to this girls’ page. I’m not quite sure where it is, but I think it’s a women’s empowerment page, and they tend to give empowering quotes or showing people who’ve started to rise into more senior positions, like women rising into more senior positions in companies, because you’re definitely seeing more of it today. You’re definitely seeing people in companies or industries where it used to be traditionally male-dominated. You’re seeing more women come through and excel in their fields and prove themselves.

    Ally Kouao:

    Something that I have seen quite a lot of, those pages highlighting women of color who are pushing those boundaries, reaching really cool careers or reaching a new level of success, and they thought it’s a really good idea to praise them, and I completely agree. Something that I did frequently see in the comments is people going, “Ah, we shouldn’t be pointing out their race at all. It should just be about their motivation. It should just be about their successes.”

    Ally Kouao:

    Something that I think is really important to note from these posts or posts that do celebrate women and women of color, is that sometimes this attention does need to be paid to them. For now, we do need to pay this attention so that it becomes something we do naturally. The reason why we are highlighting it is because it’s not something you see often, and when we do see it, we want to celebrate it because it’s something we should see more of, and I think we all want that shared goal of not having to think about race any more or think about the location that someone comes from or think about what their history was, in favor of getting that perfect candidate.

    Ally Kouao:

    But I feel like where we are at the moment, where people are still growing and learning and learning to overcome their unconscious bias, I think it’s really important we do make a point of celebrating those people who are reaching new levels that it’s not so common to see, and wasn’t so common to see before. Yeah, I think there are different ways to go about it.

    Ally Kouao:

    Going back to your question regarding the hiring process, I would honestly say … Just to link it to that little … I can’t even describe it. Just to link it back to what I said regarding highlighting women of color who are doing really well or people of color who are doing really well, I think it’s really important that we … Or I think it would be really beneficial if we did take that stance in hiring as well, so yeah, even though we are paying more attention to the fact that we are trying to have a more diverse or representative workforce, the end goal is that hopefully we won’t need think about this when we’re hiring. Hopefully it’s something that comes naturally to people and it’s something that … We hire them for what their talents are, and we don’t hire them because they don’t look like us or they don’t have qualifications that we’re also familiar with.

    Ally Kouao:

    So yeah, I think that’s my overall answer in terms of hiring. I think it’s important to pay extra attention, especially now, so that … If we pay attention now and don’t continuously stall, I feel like that will just help us to get to that end goal so much faster, and we won’t need to strip back the information like the woman you were talking about did. You could just present that person’s information, and they’d be treated just as equally as all the other candidates.

    Ally Kouao:

    I think that would definitely be the ultimate goal, definitely an approach that I think more organizations should take. I think Red Hat is definitely going in the right direction from even offering that sort of training to begin with in terms of right for Red Hat, and having unconscious biases, because it’s something that’s very real, and it’s something … Like the title says, it’s unconscious. People aren’t aware that they do have their biases until they realize that their whole team is not really representative, but there’s so much diversity and representation in the UK and Ireland, at least from my personal experience. Yeah, sorry for the long-winded answer, but that’s what I was getting at.

    Alexis Monville:

    Yeah, and I really appreciate all the details you shared. This is exactly the problem I think we have. I think it’s not easy to handle that problem, because we would like to do the right thing. We would like to think that we are doing the right thing, and it’s uncomfortable to realize sometimes that we are not. I had that conversation with the team, and at some point I stopped them and said, “Okay, so we are doing the right thing. That’s absolutely perfect, and we are all white, all male, in that leadership team. So that’s totally representative of the population of the world. You’re absolutely right, all of you. All of us are absolutely right.” And so even if we are not consciously doing something wrong, we are not helping. So there was a lot of things around that, the fact that the job description could push away categories of people directly because there was too many requirements or too many …

    Alexis Monville:

    That was fascinating to me, learning about those studies that are real studies. That’s not one idea of someone. It’s real studies that have been proven. It’s fascinating to me. I have a friend who is … His first name is Samir. He told me that when he was sending his resume, if he was stripping the “ir” at the end of his first name, he was called back for an appointment immediately.

    Ally Kouao:

    Oh. Interesting.

    Alexis Monville:

    But if he was leaving his first name like this, he had no appointment. He told me he tried that several times. Of course, he told me, “The problem is, when I’m going to the appointment, usually people who would have struck me from the selection in first place are not necessarily taking me there seriously.” But it’s fascinating.

    Ally Kouao:

    Yeah, I think it’s definitely more common than we think, that people are feeling the need to change their traditional names, because it doesn’t sound quite like what they think the recruiters would want. So for example, in Britain, some people would change their cultural or their traditional names to make it sound more European or more British, and I think that’s definitely a shame. I feel like unless someone really wants to do it because they really liked a name, I feel like the people who do do it because they feel like they’d have better chances of getting recruited, I think that’s definitely part of the problem. It’s just a shame that people would have their names changed, and it just makes it really awkward, because they get hired, they get recruited, and it’s like they don’t feel like they were able to put their original best self forward to begin with.

    Ally Kouao:

    Like I said before, it is very common where people do tend to alter their name or completely change it and strip back what they are originally just to appeal to recruiters. Yeah, like I said, that’s definitely a shame. I also saw a post … Just browsing the internet, I did see there was a post on … I think it was a recruiter talking about how there were some people in her company … Not her company, the company that she worked in, interviewing candidates, and she realized that they were being really tough on the candidates.

    Ally Kouao:

    She thought she’d play a little trick on them and give them their own resumes from when they first applied to their jobs, because obviously they’d been in their jobs for a long time. And they all rejected themselves, and it was so crazy, because I was just like … The fact that they said the people weren’t qualified enough, I thought this was just quite interesting, because I was like, “The fact that you’d … I understand that you were in a better position than where you were when you first began with, but everyone has that beginning of their journey. Everyone has a starting point.” And it was just so interesting to see that they wouldn’t even give themselves a chance if they were in that hiring seat.

    Ally Kouao:

    I feel that was definitely a good takeaway lesson, in regards to the fact that you might not see something that you see in yourself where you are now, but I think it’s definitely important to give everyone that chance, that starting point, where they’d be able to grow and excel, because that’s where they are now, and it definitely made me chuckle seeing that, because I was just like … It’s crazy, because if you can’t accept yourself from your starting point, how much harder it would be if you don’t see yourself in the person who you’re interviewing, or you don’t feel that they’re the right fit because they’re so different to what you have in mind? So I think that’s definitely something that hiring managers or people involved in the interview process should definitely keep in mind.

    Alexis Monville:

    It’s a very, very good one. I love that experiment. It’s really important to work on our biases and the way we handle our emotional system and our intellectual system, and we use it to confirm the other and so on. Ally, it was really great to have you on the show today.

    Ally Kouao:

    Thank you for having me.

    Alexis Monville:

    What would be the first thing you would recommend to people who want to improve?

    Ally Kouao:

    Ooh. Ooh. Ooh, that’s quite a good question. I’ve really enjoyed reading the book Girl, Woman, Other. That focuses on perspectives of different women of color, different ages, from different generations. I think it’s quite an interesting insight into how they grew up, how they lived life differently in Britain, in Europe. That definitely could not be the starting point for everyone, but if someone did want a source to have a little read of and become a little bit more of a knowledgeable version of themselves, then yeah, I think that’s definitely a good book to read.

    Ally Kouao:

    But at the end of the day, I can’t really tell you where to start. Everyone’s on their own journey, and everyone can consume material differently. But I’d say definitely just make use of the internet. It’s very much free, like I said before, and you can find so many good resources. Have conversations with your loved ones, have conversations with people who you might not speak to too often, and get to know them, because we’re all living different timelines, and it’s important to be aware of that, and be open to others. But yeah, that’s all from me.

    Alexis Monville:

    Excellent. Thank you very much, Ally. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show today.

    Ally Kouao:

    Thank you.

    Alexis Monville:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello, and until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • What Software Teams Can Learn from Sporting Teams

    What Software Teams Can Learn from Sporting Teams

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure of welcoming Chris Foley. Chris is a Principal Systems Design Engineer at Red Hat, and also a sports coach. Together, we explored a simple question that leads to surprisingly concrete insights: can software teams learn from sporting teams?

    A great team starts with clarity

    Chris begins with something that often gets lost in modern software organizations: role clarity.

    In sport, successful teams have:

    • clarity on what each role is supposed to do
    • awareness across the team of what each individual brings
    • responsibility that comes with that clarity

    In software, teams are becoming more cross-functional: they do not just write code, they deliver and run services. This is a positive evolution, but it increases the need for explicit agreements. When “your role is not the color on the org chart,” clarity has to be created intentionally.

    Momentum changes everything

    One of the strongest ideas Chris brings from sport is momentum.

    In sport, a goal can trigger positive momentum: confidence rises, energy rises, and the team builds on it.

    The reverse is also true: conceding a goal can trigger negative momentum. If the team cannot stop it, a second goal often follows, and the game can slip away.

    In software, the triggers are different, but the phenomenon is the same.

    Positive momentum can be triggered by:

    • a release that lands well
    • a demo where stakeholders are genuinely happy
    • a burn-down that is on track
    • a big PR merged
    • progress becoming visible and shared

    Chris makes a practical point: if momentum is positive, you can build on it. Use the goodwill to unlock something valuable, like a spike in an area the team wanted to explore.

    Negative momentum also has familiar triggers:

    • a severe production issue
    • a bug that is not contained quickly
    • pressure escalating beyond the team
    • a growing feeling of being behind, losing control

    The key is awareness. Momentum is not only a feeling. It is a pattern that grows if it is not addressed early.

    Leadership is not a role, it is a behavior

    Chris maps sports roles to software roles:

    • the player is a team member (engineer, QE, docs, etc.)
    • the captain is similar to the team lead
    • the coach or manager is closer to the engineering manager

    But his point is not about titles.

    In successful sporting teams, leadership is fostered across the board. Coaches give ownership. Captains are not the only leaders.

    In software, the parallel is clear: when team leads invite others to lead on investigations, knowledge sharing, and decisions, they are building leadership capacity, not dependency.

    Teams win games

    This line matters because it shifts the focus away from hero culture.

    Chris insists that in sport, teams win games, not individuals. In software, it is the same. Quality, delivery, learning, and progress are team outcomes.

    This is why positive reinforcement inside the team matters. Recognition should not be reserved for managers. Mature teams build a culture where team members notice contributions and say it out loud.

    How do you keep score in software?

    In sport, the score is obvious.

    In software, it is easy to fool ourselves if we do not create visible checkpoints.

    Chris points to an important evolution: more frequent delivery and more frequent feedback loops make it easier to track progress and detect misalignment earlier. In waterfall-style projects, teams could “discover the score” after months. With shorter cycles, the feedback loop becomes part of the work.

    Feedback loops exist in sport too

    A useful correction Chris brings is that sport does not only have feedback during games.

    Sport has:

    • frequent training
    • short loops
    • coaching feedback after each session
    • small challenges focused on specific improvements

    This creates a learning rhythm. A coach might say: you did this well. Now reduce that mistake from ten times to six.

    It is not grand transformation. It is focused improvement.

    Training versus performance: software can rebalance

    One of the most interesting parallels is the difference between training and performance.

    Sports teams train often and perform less often.

    Software teams perform almost all the time. Training becomes rare, generic, or disconnected.

    Chris suggests a different approach: use what happens during performance to define what to train next. Not “go learn a random technology,” but focused training based on real frictions:

    • improve charting and visibility
    • automate a painful part of the pipeline
    • remove a recurring quality issue
    • sharpen stakeholder communication
    • strengthen a weak coordination habit

    Training becomes small, intentional, and tied to value.

    Play to your strengths, not only fix weaknesses

    Chris also brings a sports habit that software teams often underuse: play to your strengths.

    Software retrospectives often drift toward what went wrong, what needs to be fixed, what was missing. That is useful, but incomplete.

    Sports teams also ask: what are we already good at? How do we win on our terms?

    For software teams, this can mean:

    • using strong technical skills to raise standards and speed
    • using strong teaching skills to onboard faster
    • using strong product sense to influence direction
    • using strong communication to make the team’s value visible

    Weaknesses matter. But strengths are where disproportionate value often comes from.

    Owning the product, the process, and the tools

    Chris ends with a theme that connects everything: ownership.

    Successful teams own:

    • the product they build
    • the processes they use
    • the tools they rely on
    • the way they improve

    And they extend ownership outward by influencing stakeholders, decisions, and direction. That requires a final capability: communicating at the right level, without hiding behind jargon.

    Because the ability to explain simply is often what makes a team easy to support, easy to trust, and easier to follow.

    Here is the transcript of the conversation:

    Alexis:

    Hey Chris, can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Chris:

    Hi, Alexis. Thanks for having me. Yes, of course. So my name is Chris Foley, principal engineer at Red Hat in software for about approximately 23 years now, I was with Erickson initially out of college, worked under 3G. I have a management system, developing for about five or six years, moved into telecoms research after us for about six years and worked on kind of FP7, so Framework Seven European Research Projects. Then went back to industry and went into the financial domain and into the Airlie lifecycle software life cycle around gathering requirements, kind of done some business system analyst role there, and then went back to telecoms with a company called Oracle and worked as a senior engineer team lead in distributed antenna systems. So basically that’s networks and then to Red Hat and was involved with the mobile product in Red Hat, and fulfilling kind of engineering improvements role inside Red Hat in the child services department.

    Alexis:

    Very interesting and diverse background, Chris. We are here today because we had a chat about sporting teams and software teams, and I’m really deep into what makes a team a team. What makes a team, a group of people that will really increase their impact and satisfaction? What’s make a team a great team? You told me there’s probably things we can learn from sporting teams about that. And I’m curious about what it is and how it works for you.

    Chris:

    So maybe a little background on my sporting life. So I started playing sports right from a very early age of nearly four or five, was heavily involved in the Gaelic games here in Ireland, hurling and football played soccer. A lot of my forte is predominantly team sports, even though I played individual sports. So I feel the role as a player as a senior player on the group, as a captain, on to coach for juvenile and adults, and then even to manage juvenile and adult teams. So that’s a little bit flavor of my sporting background and I continued to be involved as a coach. My playing career is over now, but I’ve been looking up to be involved with successful teams. But also have took many of these things on sports teams. So as you know, sometimes you learn more from your defeats than your victories.

    Chris:

    There’re many aspects I think that makes a good team. A lot of the best teams have a lot of clarity in their role, in what they’re trying to do. I think that clarity of role is something that in a group that’s successful. There’s an awareness across the group. That’s an awareness individually of what your role is. And in turn, I think there’s an awareness across the group of what each individual brings to the group. That’s something that’s very evident in success for sporting teams. If we looked across at the software team and looked at that same kind of artifact currently in software, now we are actually creating very cross-functional multi-purpose teams, which is a very good thing. So they don’t just develop software. Now they actually deliver software, they develop, they write the docs, they test the architects. They have all of the components.

    Chris:

    We are trying to share that responsibility, which is very positive, but I think ensuring that we keep clarity within the group is also, we shouldn’t forget that because with clarity of where our role becomes, there’s a responsibility and there’s an ownership. And once you have that within the group, I think that makes it very strong. I think one aspect is clarity of your role and responsibilities is a fundamental piece that with a successful sporting team, they’re very clear and evident and in turn with software, especially now as we transition across to the multi-purpose cross-functional teams that we have, so we don’t just write the code and throw it over the fence, the testing team that doesn’t happen anymore. So we’re very intertwined and ensuring we keep clarity is key. That’s one aspect, I would say.

    Alexis:

    It’s a very important one. And as you said, that as we evolve to more cross-functional teams, we don’t have the traditional roles of division by functions. So your role is not the color of your chart. That’s probably something more septal. So we need to clarify the roles, make sure that the expectations are clear. We can have a real team working. What else do you think are things that are connecting what happens in sporting teams and software teams?

    Chris:

    So there’s one piece that I think that is very evident on the sporting side, but maybe yeah, I think it’s happening on the software side, but maybe people that does not as, it’s not as clear and evident. So the whole concept of momentum in sport is a very big thing. So what do I mean by momentum? Like if you look at a sporting game, one team score the goal. Once that happens, what you’ll see is that team that scores, their confidence increases, as they play the game. Even their aggression levels, all of them go upwards what’s happened is momentum has been triggered the team that are starting to harness that confidence and positivity and that momentum. And then what you’ll often see is that they’ll actually score a second goal. So they are actually build on it and they used that to their benefit.

    Chris:

    So that’s an example of positive momentum. You must also consider there’s negative moment. And on the negative side, it’s the team that’s actually conceived that goal. So they’ve taken a hit or a blow, conceded a goal. It’s their reaction to that. It will define them if that builds, that negative momentum builds and they concede that second, then potentially the game is over. So it’s how they react to negative momentum and how the team that scored, who reacts to positive. And the other thing there is to know what triggers that. In this example, the goal is very simple trigger. Now, what does that look like on the software side?

    Alexis:

    Yeah. I’m already curious how we can apply that, how we can benefit or how we can realize what are the triggers, how to build on the positive momentum or the opposite. How to make sure that we are not engaged in a downward spiral.

    Chris:

    Yes, the potential triggers, they’re there in every day software kind of live sector, right? So like if you do a release after a sprint, that’s a positive impact on the team. They have achieved. And if you do a sprint demo and it does go as well, and your product owner or your stakeholders are giving you a big thumbs up and they’re delighted with the work, that is a trigger positive momentum. If your manage a big PR, it even could put it on to that level. If you look at your burn-down chart for the team and it’s on track, or maybe it’s ahead of your schedule delivery days, all of that are potential positive triggers for the group. How do you actually build on that then?

    Chris:

    You’ve done your sprint demo went really well. And your team lead maybe there was an area that they wanted to investigate for the last couple of weeks but didn’t get an opportunity. You talk to your manager and say, “Look, this went really well. First, could we, could we do a spike into this specific area?” And your manager says, “Of course, yeah.” Your harness and the momentum at that point, the goodwill that’s around us and the team got this opportunity maybe to do a spike in an area that they’d love to investigate. So that’s a potential parallel missing the positivity and momentum.

    Chris:

    On the other side or negativity, so severity one bulb comes in on yourself for like, if you don’t get on top of that quickly, if you don’t stand the tide there potentially, that goes on for hours and maybe some days to negativity builds around the team that there’s severity one bulb in there. So really getting the group to put their shoulder to the wheel there and try and stop it in its tracks is very key, because of the rolling stone and it gets bigger and bigger. In software, it’s having the awareness of these things to happen and being able to pick up on that and either harness it or address it as quickly as possible.

    Alexis:

    Can you give me an example of one thing that really is building negativity and how you choose to address it? How you raised the awareness and the team to address it.

    Chris:

    That big bug coming in, right? So it’s not like we all look bugs in software. It happens. But if there’s not some resolution to that reasonably quickly, then the manager hears about it, the product owner hears, or most of the stakeholders, it just gets bigger. And have no, it’s not the team’s fault, but it’s the team’s responsibility to try and address that. Try and put some resolution in place such that can assess the underlying problem, if that goes on over time and it’s not addressed that increases the whole negativity increases around it. And that’s the same as conceding the score and maybe conceding the second score and another one. And then once it picks up that, as I said negative momentum, it can be very hard to stop. It’s the team lead or the manager or the engineers the group, and the team awareness. Let’s try and put a resolution in place as quickly as possible.

    Alexis:

    You mentioned in your background, in your sporting background, there were roles, like player, captain, coach, or manager, how does that relate to the roles in the software team? It’s probably very different, but maybe there are some similarities.

    Chris:

    Yeah. So I think that the player is your team member, right? So on the software side could be your software engineer, your QE, your docs person could be any of them team member. And I think the captain maps fairly clearly to the team lead. And then the coach manager side is kind of the engineering manager on the outside in a one sense or what I would say, I know from the sports side, we would have a term like teams win games, right? So it’s not really the management it’s the group, it’s the players and captain and in software, it’s that software team like it’s the engineers. They do the work, they release the software, they test the software, they ensure it’s of high quality. So I think that’s why the focus on the team is so strong, in sporting terms.

    Chris:

    And I think it’s heading that way as well on the software side. And the other thing is just to call out the captain concept there. In the sports side, yes there is a captain boss, successful sporting teams encourage leadership across the board. So they foster leadership. And how do they do that? They give ownership of, to a young player coming in and say, “You take the corners for the soccer team.” So they give them that ownership. So they foster leadership. It’s not just the captain leads. It’s everybody, if at all possible. And I think in the software side, it’s the team lead, or tech lead for the group, saying to an engineer, “Could you investigate this area and come back and talk to the group?” You’re fostering leadership there in the sense that you’re given the opportunity to investigate a new area.

    Chris:

    And then you’re asking them to come back and articulate the group. So you’re doing knowledge sharing as well. So I think a very clear overlap between what’s happening on the sporting side and on what’s happening on the software side. But I think again, really good team. It’s not about which hat you wear, are you a team member or your team captain? It’s about contributing to the goal of the team and what’s right for the group. And I think on the outside the manager, they are really like, they’re just facilitators. They’re ensuring that there’s no blockers in the way of the team. They have what they need to do their job and do it well. And that’s what you’ll find again, in the sporting side, the manager or coach really facilitates the team, once the team start to, once they really start to mature and become strong, they will drive a lot of it themselves.

    Alexis:

    You said, teams win games. I love it. But I feel that for a soccer team, it’s fairly easy to know when you win or when you lose, it’s fairly easy to identify your progress. The score is really clear for everybody. At least the results will be already clear for everybody. And you can measure the progress during the game. What happens for software team? How do you keep the score and how to make sure that we all agree what it means, what winning means?

    Chris:

    I think software is changing a lot. At least when I started working in software a good while ago, when I was that’s nearly more than 20 years ago, we were very much in that waterfall model. We started and we drawn a big plan as to what the project would achieve. And then we may be developed for months, months on end. Maybe even a year and then we’d go and try and test it all. And maybe at the end we find, “Oh, maybe this is not where we want it to be.” It was very difficult I think, to keep the score when the methodology was like that. Now I think it’s improving. I think we’re starting to deliver more frequently. I think that has helped certain teams now are starting to move towards more and more agile approach.

    Chris:

    They attempt to deliver maybe quarterly in a year or even some of them down to every sprint, which would be every two, three weeks. You will get checkpoints more frequently there. You can track them whether the team is, let’s say, winning or producing what the stakeholders are looking for with regard to, if you were in the waterfall approach, you might hit that issue until maybe six months or maybe 12 months on. So I think keeping the score on that was easier and software is in a sense, a young science towards other sciences. So I think it’s really made massive strides over the last decade, I would say. So that has helped a lot keeping the score now because there’re checkpoints, which are customer, or your stakeholders very frequently. So that’s a big help.

    Alexis:

    There’s one aspect that I don’t find exactly in the same way when I was thinking about the parallel between sporting teams and software teams. When we deliver more frequently in a software team, we have the opportunity to get feedback from our users and to know if what we are working on is the right thing. That feedback loop is interesting. In sporting teams, I’m not sure where is the feedback loop. Are the public or the fans the user of the game? Or how does it, how would you make the parallel between the two?

    Chris:

    The feedback loop on the sporting side actually happens very frequently and I would even leave the fans out of it to a degree. Yes, there’s feedback from the fans. Of course, if you’re successful or not. The feedback you’d want in the sporting world. Like if they play on say the weekend, when they train Tuesday, Thursday. After every training session, and I speak from experience here because I’m currently coaching. At the end of every training session, we would take 10 minutes talk to the players and say, “You done this well. I was impressed with…” You’re giving them very positive feedback there. Very frequently. You’re at least giving them Tuesday, Thursday feedback. On the negative side there if you want to, there was an issue often I would add in a challenge for them.

    Chris:

    Like if they can see the 10-3s I would say, “Can we reduce that? Can we get that down to six or under?” So sporting side, the feedback loop is very frequent actually. And when you’re in that environment, you’ll see that. It’s good on the software side that we get feedback from our stakeholders may be every three weeks. Maybe we could even do more within the team, within the group. What you’ll see the benefits of the feedback on with, from sporting side, you’ll see the player, reacting, the team reacting, reducing that number of threes. So maybe I think there’s a learning there in software that within the team itself, that’s okay. Maybe you don’t do it on your daily standup, but maybe your facilitation in another way in your say, three weeks sprint there’s feedback and saying this done, this was really good. That positivity is so important to the group. And I think we could harness that.

    Alexis:

    You introduced a lot of interesting concepts there. First of all yes, of course the sporting team are not performing every day. Even if they perform every weekend or every week, they will train more often than they perform. So that was the first thing that is an interesting learning probably for all teams. So let’s come back to that in a minute, but I noticed that when you speak about feedback after the training sessions, you nearly only spoke about positive reinforcement. And do you see that as the best way to provide feedback and do you see that happening in the software world?

    Chris:

    Early in my sporting career, if you went back, I think sports has changed to be honest, all you think that it was more negative feedback when I was younger in my career. I think it has changed massively. I’m not sure what exactly influenced that change, but it’s quite clear that reinforcing the positives, there’s more value. You’re dealing with human beings here. If you keep praising them, you don’t get anything back. If you try and highlight the benefits in what they’re good at and trow in the challenge, then I think that it’s to have that balance that you highlight the positives and also notice the improvements. That’s so important for any of the leading, either leading players, captain, coach noticing improvements and calling them out, and then adding in your challenge to bring them to the next level. We would always talk in the sports world about having smaller wins. It’s not about going out to win the championship. It’s about maybe improving a skill or being able to execute a skill more frequently. Positive reinforcement there brings value to the whole group. So I would say, definitely think that’s very important.

    Alexis:

    And if we look at what the software team is doing is the role of providing that positive reinforcement, providing that feedback that, “Oh, you done that really well.” Is it something that is the sole responsibility of the coach or the manager, or is it something that the team members the players could do themselves?

    Chris:

    Yeah, I think this is what the mature team that are successful and performing really well. You will see that it’s not just a manager. You have this shared awareness among the group. As I said, it doesn’t matter what hat you’re wearing in the group. You can say, “Alexis, that’s a really good job there, that’s very beneficial to the group what you’ve done.” So I think absolutely the very good team that’s performing well have a shared responsibility, not just for the work they do, but for being aware of the benefits others bring to the group and sharing that and calling that out. The responsibility lies with everybody. And it might just be that maybe you created some pipeline to test the software or something. And if I got a lot of benefit over that, just as a team member. Calling that out is really good, just that positivity within the group is massive I think.

    Alexis:

    Let’s come back to the train and perform part. I feel that the train and perform balance for sporting teams, they are performing from time to time and training a lot. And I feel that for software teams, they are performing all the time and not training at all. Do you have a different experience of that? And then how can we introduce more balance?

    Chris:

    When I originally started to kind of think through this whole thing, the angle was can software teams learn from sporting teams? I think in this scenario, I think the learning maybe go some way or the other way. And the example I gave here is that in sporting world, you could train for two weeks and maybe your game is coming in three weeks’ time. Sometimes you would go and play a challenge game. We played a game and you’d often hear the coacher or mentor saying after, “Hey guys, this has worked for your training session.” What the methods that’s common true there is that there’s more value to be got by playing rather than training. So I think the sporting world has some way some learnings there. The question then is have the software world, are they like they’re probably 95% performing while 5% training.

    Chris:

    One thing I would say is the learning that you could take from sport here is once the sporting team plays, and I know I’ve done this myself as a coach, you will see things in the game that you’ll say to yourself, actually, we need to improve somewhat there. Or I might see that player is very strong in certain skill or certain area or certain position. So my reaction would be the week after the training, I would organize the training such that I might try and improve maybe weakness that I saw, or I might say that, “Oh, this player’s really good in this position.” So I would restructure the training to see what that work again. So the training is very focused on the previous game. Now, how could software do that? Like I think the training that we do in software is, “Go do a course on NodeJS or Java or OpenShift.

    Chris:

    So it’s probably generic, but maybe we could focus our training better in smaller pieces to say that maybe the charts that we produce from the data that we gather in the system, maybe they could be better. Something very focused and small. Maybe there was a comment in a sprint review, maybe pulling the team together and focus in on how could we improve that the charting? Such that we get more value from the data we gather? So I think that there’re learnings both ways there that training on the software side could be a lot more focused for that team where as I said, I think there’re learnings on the sporting side too, that they need to play more and train less.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, it’s interesting. So we can learn from a formal training sessions and we can learn from the game we play. So what that means in the software world, even if the balance between training and performing is different we should intentionally learn from when we are performing. That’s what you say, in a way?

    Chris:

    Yes, exactly. Yeah. That’s where you learn more. And that’s where the comment that you’ll get in this. As I said, in that sporting analogy of the challenge game, the code saying this has worked five training sessions. And what they’re really saying, is the learnings that we’ve got here are so important that we wouldn’t maybe have seen in the training environment. So I think the software side, because they play so frequently, there’s continual learnings there and there’s checkpoints like our sprint review, et cetera, demos to stakeholders, there’s all the learnings there. And not even on the stakeholder side, even within the team dynamic that maybe some of the pipelines maybe not as automated as we would like. Smaller tweaks there could bring a big improvement and more automation could give us time to do other things. So there’s lots of opportunity to pieces out that with a small bit of focus training could reap our rewards.

    Alexis:

    So it’s interesting, you mentioned two different kinds of improvement, there’s improvement we can make on the product itself, on the results of what we are working on. An improvement we can make on our wealth working, on our tuning. So it’s even three aspects of it. Being intentional of seizing the opportunities to improve is something really important. How do you get to that mindset of having all the team that is really interested in working on those things? Interested in learning on improving?

    Chris:

    Like, I think the key is identifying clear value. We’re not doing something just for the sake of, “Oh, look, we’re trying to improve this.” It’s identifying clear areas where we can extract the value. So if we invest time, there’s value to be gone. If team members see that, then they’re a lot more inclined or a lot more motivated to put that effort in for improvement. That trying to identify value is of the product value that’s clear and the team are not the only people need to do that. Your product owner stakeholders, et cetera. So clear value is on the product side, clear value on the tooling, clear value in our process.

    Chris:

    So we don’t introduce process just for the sake of it. If we introduce some process that we get some value back, then the team will invest in general. But don’t just do things just because we’re seen to be trying to improve. Identifying the value, getting the team in that mindset. If you think there’s value there, let’s discuss it. Let’s have the discussion to see. So I think that’s what you’re trying to get their mindset thinking that way is to say where’s the value to be out here.

    Alexis:

    So in reality, they own improving the value on all the different aspects. So they own the process. They own the tooling. They own the product as a result. They can really work on the value on improving the value because they own those benefits too.

    Chris:

    Yes. I know at the start I mentioned ownership and responsibility. Successful teams feel responsible for the group or for what they’re trying to achieve or in the software world for the product they’re trying to build, for the process that they go through that helps them build that product or helps and release that software. That sense of ownership is absolutely key. And if you don’t have that, if you’re trying to impose teams on the team and they don’t feel that they’re responsible and own, then it’ll be different. But if they take up the mantle and seize the ownership, then again, I go back and say on the sports side, you’ll hear that the best teams are what our player driven. So the team drive them what that is, is responsibility and ownership. And they’re taking the lead. It’s the same with software. If you have that taking the lead on the product, helping steer the direction with the stakeholders, ensuring the process facilitates them well. If you have that in place, that team would be successful.

    Alexis:

    When clearly the team is not in short of some aspects and that’s outside of the team that maybe decisions are made or whatever. And you mentioned the stakeholders and working with the stakeholders to do it. So it means, yes you can earn your future in a way that you will, of course, work within your team to do something, but you will also work outside of your team to influence the decisions that are made outside of the team.

    Chris:

    Yes. I think it’s massive in the software side, because you do have the engineers working at the coal phase. So they understand the products or the subsystem really well. So I would envisage them as key contributors or key stakeholders to the direction of that subsystem or product. Obviously, they need to work with the more business stakeholders, with the architects so it’s a bigger group. But they have a big say. And I think another aspect here comes to the fore is the team need to be able to communicate that at the right level. So sometimes you’ll find engineers will talk technical. So it’s another skill set of a very good team that they can abstract that value kind of away from the technical details, if necessary, and to pitch it to the other stakeholders, to say, “Here’s an avenue or here’s a direction that could be worth considering,” Such that the stakeholders can grasp that.

    Chris:

    That it’s not entangled in technical details, that they can see the value. So that’s another part the team can, should be able to play that they communicate and articulate at the correct level, such that their view is taken into consideration at the direction of the product.

    Alexis:

    This is really an important one. I remember working with several teams and there was teams I realized in my personal reflection that I didn’t really want to work with them. I didn’t really want to talk with them. And there was also teams that I was really happy to work with them, to engage with them, to try to listen to what they were doing to try to help them. And I was thinking why it’s happening. So I was thinking maybe it’s the people, maybe there are some seeing that. And I realized, no, it was not that. There was teams when I was discussing with them, I was unable to understand what they were discussing. Everything sounded so complicated that I was unable to understand what they were trying to achieve. So I felt excluded and I was not able to contribute to help them. And there were teams, I had that impression that when they were explaining something, I was really smart.

    Alexis:

    I was able to understand everything. And I realized that it was not the technology. They were working on the same product that was just pieces of the same product. So it’s not the complexity of the technology. It was the ability to explain to outsiders what they were trying to achieve and to put it in simple words enough. So I could understand where I could play a part. And that was really incredible. And that was just a few people that were able to do that, who will care about doing that in a way. So I bet they understood that if they want to reach to external help, that was already good way to do it.

    Alexis:

    It took me some time to realize what was going on there at the beginning. I was looking ready for personal relationship. When you have a good fit with someone. And I realized it was not that it was exactly that ability to communicate at the right level. They were in a way, probably communicating with me at a more easy level. They were, their technology for them is just for me. So I would be able to help them. That was an interesting realization at some point.

    Chris:

    I think it’s very important for the software team to have that skill set. It may not be all the members of the team have that. They definitely need one, two members that can understand the business schools and be able to meet in the middle to say, “Technically, we can do this, and I know your business ask is this.” And to kind of talk in that medium, in the middle of such that we have full engagement with the business side of the house. The technical side is portrayed in an understandable way. And often I think, because I played the role as a business systems analyst and product owner, I feel the role is more play them. But I think that’s absolutely key that if the communication’s lost there, because they talk different languages. If you go down and sit in your daily stand up with the engineering team, or if you sit in maybe product roadmap discussions with the business unit, they could be talking about the same product, but are very different. Even terminology, language, everything. So being able to bridge the gap between both is I can really big scale for the team itself.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. You mentioned that you worked in the Telco world. And my first encounter with some people in Telco. I think after the five, the five first minute there was, there were so many acronyms they mentioned that I was totally lost. And I said that “Okay, I have a problem that I’m totally foreign to your world. I am not able to even think I will be able to engage with you.” And one of them said, “Oh yeah, that’s not a problem. In reality, it’s really simple. Let me draw a simple picture to you so you will understand the basic concept of all that.” And he drew a simple, he made a simple drawing about where you have an antenna or how it’s called. And then you realize that you are able to understand, you can see your mobile phone is there, that’s your internet at home is there. And that’s how it works. And then that’s how it goes back in the network. And that’s all those things.

    Alexis:

    And then he put all the acronym on it and I said, “Oh yeah, okay. I understand how it works.” And now when there was an acronym mentioned, I was able to connect that with the big picture he drew on the white board. And that was so much easier. And he did that in five minutes. And I asked him about that. And he said, “You are not the first one that is trying to come into our world. So I’m really good now at doing the drawing because I did it probably hundreds of times.” That’s absolutely not a problem. And I totally understand that you need it. Yeah. We need those kinds of people that really care about being inclusive of other people in teams. That was really an amazing experience for me too, to have that opportunity.

    Chris:

    Teams that don’t want to say controlled or destiny, or at least to kind of bring their team and their product in the right direction. We actually realize that they need to be able to do this. They need to be able to communicate and articulate at the right level with other stakeholders. So you’ll get the very good teams need and become aware of that very quickly. And then speak the language that allows that to happen. That their voice now is heard and understood. For another aspect there, I think that’s worth calling out is in the sporting world there’s a term like play to your strengths. Sometimes maybe in the software world. Sometimes we focus a little bit on where we hear a weak there. Like if you do your retro after your sprint or after your release, you’ll say like, you do look and say, look, this went well. But it often drifts towards, this didn’t go that well, this needs an improvement, which is perfectly fine.

    Chris:

    What you would find in the sporting world is they will, they’re constantly saying “We’re good at this. We have speed in our attack. Let’s try and play that game. So let’s try and use the strengths we have.” That’s maybe another learning that software could take is that understand the strengths of the team really harness them by all means improve weaknesses. A lot of the time, the strengths of the group, if somebody is really good. Maybe developer, Java developer, no, Java developer, should you have them kind of maybe architecting, maybe not. That their strength is in development. And normally what you’ll see is that their strength is there because they enjoy use, I think software could definitely look at that side somewhat more that really harness your strengths and even build on them.

    Chris:

    If you’re good at something, why not, you can get better. So I think what you’ll see is sport do that a lot. Sport and teams, they would even use the term like, they want to play the game on their own rules. And what they’re really saying there is, “we want to play a real physical game, or we want to play a really fast game.” Because that’s what they’re good at. Once a problem arises in a sporting team like that. One of our defenders is struggling because their opposition are too physical. What will happen is the coach will go and find one of their physical player to bring them across, to kind of address the issue, playing to your strengths, making them all of them and building on them is something maybe that software can incorporate maybe more.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, this is a very good one. And you think that we can really play off strengths and overcome or weaknesses playing our strands.

    Chris:

    I think there’s more to be got. There’s more value to be extracted. Those are strengths. Don’t get me wrong. You should always try and address your weaknesses by all means. But I think sometimes we don’t have that balance that the weaknesses get more attention. And we try and improve that, which is all well and good. But maybe there’s a different solution. Maybe we have other strengths in the team that we could solve that wish for the group as a whole to try and understand that. Do we have the strengths in this group to address whatever problems there, or to enhance some things? So I think that keeping that in mind is important and there’s more value to be extracted from your strengths than maybe we are doing currently.

    Alexis:

    It’s not an individual realization. It’s a realization as a team. So you are several strengths in the team and maybe you are missing some. And so you will maybe try to find that outside of the team, external support, or in your next hiring session, you will focus on specific strengths that you are looking at, that you miss in the team. So it’s not just looking at the individual and hoping that you will have perfect player that have all the strengths possible in the world. That’s looking at as a result, how the team is composed and what do you have in the team? What kind of strengths do you have already?

    Chris:

    Yes, exactly. And that’s the awareness of the group. The leaders in the group, at least the senior members should have a really good feel for the skill sets. And it’s not just the technical skill sets. One other thing we have noticed, in the software side actually, sometimes a team with a member who has a kind of teaching acumen or a knowledge sharing skill, some team members might be very kind of focused on getting their job done, where others might have a great skill to share knowledge. That’s a great skill set in the team, because if you bring in somebody in a new member having that kind of teacher/coach-like skill in your group, you can pair them up. So bringing somebody up to speed very quickly. So there’s lots of skills you can harness, but the awareness that they’re there is the first step.

    Alexis:

    Thank you very much, Chris, for sharing all that today. Maybe one additional last word?

    Chris:

    Yeah, I think it’s kind of a cross-pollination of ideas from different domains can often be very rewarding. And I think, I suppose I should maybe do the reverse and say what sports can learn from software. The team is the fundamental piece and the fundamental building block. And I do think software has absolutely realized that and are investing in that. And it’s great to see, and I think that’s a harness thing that positivity and momentum is beneficial for everybody. And if you get that team functioning well, everything else falls out of that. I think investment in the team culture team dynamics awareness is so fundamental for all enterprises, not just software. People are really now at this time, fully aware of the impact of good, strong, healthy, functional teams. So it’s great that we’re even having this conversation I think Alexis, and I appreciate the time for us to have this chat.

    Alexis:

    Thank you very much, Chris. I learned a lot today. I really enjoyed your parallel between sporting teams and software teams and yes, you’re right. Probably all teams. I really love that level of awareness is there. And I hope it will reach more people in the world. Thank you very much, Chris.

    Chris:

    Thank you.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. And until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    The picture is by Danylo Suprun.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Agile and Open Innovation: Building the Bridge Between Tech and Business

    Agile and Open Innovation: Building the Bridge Between Tech and Business

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure of welcoming Mary Provinciatto, author and engagement lead at Red Hat Open Innovation Labs.

    Mary started her career as a software developer at 17. A few years in, she made a decision that shaped everything that followed: she wanted to be closer to people, mentoring and coaching teams, and creating a bridge between technology and business.

    Because for her, one frustration kept coming back: building things without clarity on why and for whom.

    You cannot force practices, even when you know the theory

    Mary’s book Sprint a Sprint tells the story of an agile team transformation through both mistakes and progress.

    One of her most important lessons is simple and practical: you cannot just walk in and tell a team what to do.

    Even if you know the theory.

    Instead, Mary describes a journey where the team learns together through principles and values, and adapts practices to fit their context. That shift changes everything: it moves a team away from “one person tells everyone what to do” toward “we think together.”

    Psychological safety is built through intention, not slogans

    Mary comes back several times to the idea of a safe environment.

    Not as a buzzword, but as something observable.

    In her experience, psychological safety shows up when people can:

    • ask questions without fear of looking stupid
    • admit they do not know something
    • talk about mistakes without shame
    • address conflicts instead of avoiding them

    One practice Mary used consistently was safety checks, especially at the beginning. Over time, the safety checks made progress visible: at first, people avoided difficult topics. Later, they became able to talk about anything.

    Team building that actually changes the team

    Mary shares a story that illustrates what she means by team building.

    A distributed team struggled with punctuality in the daily standup. The team changed the time, but one person kept arriving late. Frustration grew.

    Instead of forcing another rule, Mary facilitated an activity where people shared their routines before, during, and after work. The team discovered the late teammate was dealing with heavy traffic while taking his wife and kids where they needed to be.

    No one was trying to “solve the standup problem.”

    And yet the problem got solved because the team gained context, empathy, and then adjusted their standup schedule in a way that worked.

    This is a useful reminder: some coordination problems are not solved by tighter enforcement. They are solved by better understanding.

    What is an Engagement Lead at Red Hat Open Innovation Labs?

    Mary explains that the Engagement Lead role emerged inside the Open Innovation Labs.

    The Labs run immersive customer engagements called residencies, typically 4 or 12 weeks, pairing Red Hat specialists with customer teams to achieve real business outcomes while building long-term capability.

    An Engagement Lead focuses on:

    • outcomes over outputs
    • helping teams understand why they are doing what they are doing
    • coaching practices and feedback loops so the customer can continue after the residency ends

    Mary highlights something important: this approach often looks hard at first. People doubt it will work. Then short feedback loops and continuous improvement prove what is possible.

    Transparency as an engine for learning

    Mary describes how the Labs improve their approach through transparency and repetition:

    • bi-weekly calls to share learnings
    • weekly reports (including what is working and what is not)
    • showcases at the end of each iteration to demo increments and share learning

    A showcase is more than a demo. It is a moment where teams share what they built and what they learned about product, process, and collaboration.

    One surprising benefit of virtual residencies is that people around the world can attend showcases and learn across regions.

    Writing a book as an agile practice

    Mary also shares what she learned while writing Sprint a Sprint.

    Her biggest lesson: apply agile principles to your own life.

    For her, that meant embracing MVP thinking and time-boxing. She and her co-author Paulo realized they were spending too much energy on title and cover. They time-boxed the decision, shipped an early version, and used feedback to iterate.

    Mary quotes a line attributed to Reid Hoffman that captures the spirit:
    If you are not embarrassed by the first version, you launched too late.

    A practical resource: the Open Practice Library

    Mary encourages listeners to use and contribute to the Open Practice Library, a collection of practices created, tested, and shared by practitioners.

    You can explore it here:
    https://openpracticelibrary.com

    It is an open repository. You can submit practices, learn from others, and build your own toolbox for outcomes, team foundations, and continuous improvement.

    References

    Red Hat Open Innovation Labs (Engagement Lead role, residencies, showcases)

    Sprint a Sprint (Mary Provinciatto, Paulo Caroli)

    Open Practice Library: https://openpracticelibrary.com

    Here is the transcript of the episode:

    Alexis:

    Hey Mary, can you tell us a bit more about you and your background?

    Mary:

    Yeah, sure. So hello everyone, I’m Mary Provinciatto. I’m from Brazil, but I’m currently living in Berlin, Germany. And a little bit about my background, I started my career as a software developer when I was 17. And that was what I did during five years of college, but after a while I realized I really liked being closer to people, mentor, and coach them, facilitate practices and help creating like a bridge between technology and business. Because it was very frustrating for me as a software developer, when I couldn’t understand why I was doing things and for whom I was building things. I wanted to change that, and I wanted to help creating that bridge.

    Mary:

    I know that a lot of things are different now. But when I started back in 2007, Agile wasn’t such a big thing. And most of the software development projects I was part of they were waterfall, and this was something that was very frustrating as well. So being like a Scrum Master at the beginning, and this was how I saw I could create a bigger positive impact on those projects. After I realized that I went through several different roles like Scrum Master, project manager, account manager, and now I’m an engagement lead. So besides the roles that I had until now, I studied computer science, and I have two MBAs, project management and marketing, because I wanted to understand more about the business side.

    Alexis:

    This is really impressive Mary. Can you tell us a little bit more about when you say mentoring and coaching, what are you doing exactly?

    Mary:

    This is pretty much the story I tell in my book, Sprinter Sprint. I realized when I was working with that team, that I couldn’t just force the other theory that I knew. I couldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, or we should… Let’s use compound now, let’s use this practices. If I did that they wouldn’t understand why are… Sometimes they could be resistant. We went through a journey to discover those things together. Even though I had that theory, I knew those things that the concepts, I couldn’t just tell them that’s what they had to do. I had to help them understand why to do that. And so we’ve worked with the principles and values to help them understand why they were doing those practices they could also prevent, and maybe do a little like changes on how they were applying those things to better considered the scenario and their own context.

    Mary:

    At the beginning it was hard for me and it was hard for the team as well, because we were failing a lot. We were having a lot of problems. I was patient and I let them learn from the experience, and I was giving them a little bit of what I experienced so far so they could understand, start applying those concepts by their choice instead of having someone else telling them what to do. And this was important because at the end we were working as a team, and not having just one person telling what everybody should do. This was important to identify scenarios that not even I knew what to do. We had a lot of people thinking together instead of just one.

    Alexis:

    Makes a lot of sense for me when I look at the first sentence of the Agile Manifesto. We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. And what you just said is, instead of trying to tell people what to do, we need to embark on a journey and discover together what we should do that will already suit our needs. I think it’s really powerful, it’s probably a little bit more scary than I think someone that is telling you, “Okay, I know what to do, do it and everything will be fine.” How people react to the idea that you are the expert, you are supposed to know what to do but you don’t want to tell them, you want all the team to work together to find a way.

    Mary:

    Sometimes we think that only by working and having a product thing like team, things will just flow and it will magically work because we are working with the long lead product team. But this is not true most of the time, because people are complex and it’s not only about the product, it’s not only about the practices and frameworks and methods that we use, but we have to look at people as individuals. And sometimes this will demand that we have difficult conversations as a team, sometimes with individuals. And one thing that helped us to go through this and let people start trusting each other, and ask each other what to do without being afraid that that was a stupid question, being afraid that they couldn’t say that they don’t know something was creating this environment that people felt safe.

    Mary:

    So since the beginning we were always doing a lot of team building activities. We had like our own budget to go out together every month at least, but we were doing more than that, we were having lunch together very often. We were building distrust because it’s important that people can create empathy, and they can understand why other people are doing things. So one of the examples that I always do when I talk about why individuals and interactions is more important is that, we were discussing about our daily standup, because we already changed the time we were doing it. We were doing it… I don’t remember the exact time, but let’s say it was around 9:00 AM, and people were always late. So we changed it but started to do it at 10:00 AM.

    Mary:

    And there was this person that he continued to be always late, and the team members… The other team members they were very mad. They were complaining about it all the time. And they were like, “Oh, what’s the point of changing it if he is going to be late all the time, he is not being careful with our time. And we shouldn’t care if he is part of the data standard or not.” And instead of just force them to change the time again, or even talk to the person to make sure he was going to attend at that time, we had a team building activity where we were discussing the different roles each people have before the work, during work and after work. We could understand a little bit more about the routine of each other.

    Mary:

    And it was funny because we weren’t like trying to solve this problem, but the team directive helped us to solve the daily stand up problem because, we were able to find out that that person was spending a lot of time before arriving at work to own traffic because he was taking his wife to work, his kids to school. And the traffic was very, very bad, and he was a spending hours. He couldn’t predict when he would arrive at work. And when the team listened to that they were like, “Oh, now we understand why you’re never on time.” And they decided to move this stand up in the afternoon and it worked. So, this is how team building activities can help the team creative party and work better with each other.

    Alexis:

    Okay. I was a little bit worried when you said team building activities, because I’m always a little bit uncomfortable with team building activities because sometimes I can get the different aspect of it, but I don’t really see the result being a team is built. I went to one activities where we are throwing axes to targets and drinking beers. Okay, that’s cool. We had fun. Indian, I’m not sure the team was built. So what you’re describing is something much more intentional about building a team that we add people to get to know each other better. Do you have other examples of team building activities that you think are already working well?

    Mary:

    Hmm, I say that would depend on the context, and I always try to identify what is important and that scenario. For this team I noticed that we didn’t know anything about each other, because we were distributed. We had part of the team in one city and the other part in another city. So even though we were having lunch together sometimes one half of the team, we didn’t know about the life of the people. So we didn’t know if they had families or anything like that. I wanted to do something that would allow people to know a little bit more about each other. And of course, sometimes we have a barbecue, or we go out to drink together.

    Mary:

    And this can also be helpful, but it is something that we have to do often to make sure people are talking about their lives. If they’re just going there to play something together but they’re not having conversations, it can be harder and it will take more time too so people can connect and create empathy. I usually try to tailor the activity based on what I want to achieve. I can try to think about other activities now and maybe I can mention them later.

    Alexis:

    Tell me a bit more about the book. Why did you wrote that book?

    Mary:

    I always wanted to write a book, but I wanted it to be very practical. I wanted it to be something people can read and have ideas about how to apply the concepts. We usually see people talking about how something works, but I wanted to expand their learning, also considering what could go wrong while trying to put something in place. If you read the book you will see that we tell all the issues that we had with so, like everything that went wrong and how we dealt with the situations. And working with this team from the book it was a perfect scenario to do this, because like I said before, we had all the theory. We knew what to do considering the theory, but how could we apply that?

    Mary:

    How could we go on a journey that we would allow people to understand that beyond just theory. So that’s why I wrote this book. If you never worked with Scrum, Kanban, or any of the other frameworks methods or practices that we mentioned in the book, we have like the first session is, we explain all the concepts in a very simple and straightforward way. That’s the first part of the book. And the second part is the main session, section where we tell the story of the team, and we tell everything that happened since day one since we started to work together and since after the MVP, after we put the MVP in production as well. And the third section, the last section of the book, is where we have a lot of templates that we used, so people can download them online, or you can see them on the book. We have templates for user stories, how to write user stories for a definition of ready Kansas MVP, and also others.

    Alexis:

    The team that you are referring to in the book it’s a real team? It’s really something that happened? Or is it something that you pulled from your experience, and you inventing that team setup for the book?

    Mary:

    No, it is a real team, I worked with them in 2018. I don’t mention their names and the company, because I didn’t want to identify them. But it was a real team.

    Alexis:

    But when it’s a real team, you’re forced to speak about the things that went wrong. Is it something that you were comfortable with to say, okay, we tried that and it didn’t work?

    Mary:

    That’s why we didn’t expose their names, because I wasn’t really sure they would feel comfortable about having everything that we did that went wrong, and being told the entire that are in the book. So I prefer to avoid that. To be honest, I think the team was very open to it, because we were sharing everything internally at the company. And we had the mindset, we had the mentality of continuous improvement. We were talking about our mistakes. At the beginning of course it wasn’t like that, but after we created that safe space, a safe environment, we were doing it all the time. Every week we were exposing our mistakes so we could learn from them. And this was something very important.

    Alexis:

    I really like that. I understand that trust is something important. You mentioned several time safe in a safe space. How do you know that the team reach a point where they are comfortable enough, they are safe to speak about their mistakes for example? All those things.

    Mary:

    We were always doing safety checks, and I also tell that in the book. At the beginning, if you look at the safety checks that we had, you will see that the safety wasn’t very present there, people were usually saying that they didn’t feel comfortable to talk about difficult things. They were comfortable to talk about work, but if it was something complicated or a conflict they would avoid it. At the beginning we could identify this kind of behavior with the safety tech checks. But after a while we were doing it all the time, and we realized that they were open to talk about anything. So, this is how we noticed that the safety was improving by doing safety checks at the beginning of team building activities, or retrospectives, or other practices that we had to do.

    Alexis:

    Definitely something that needs to be implemented in a lot of teams. Just to get a sense of where we are now. There is no judgment being that, that’s just understanding where we are. You mentioned you have different roles that you took in different teams. You’ve said Scrum Master, I think people heard that before I know what it is. But you also said engagement lead, can you tell me a little bit more about engagement lead?

    Mary:

    Before I talk about that, let me tell you a little bit about the open innovation labs, because the engagement lead brow was created by Red Hat, by the open innovation labs. At least that was the first time I saw it when I joined Red Hat. And open innovation labs exists to accelerate the delivery of our customers innovative ideas. So we want to empower the customer so they can deliver success stories. And to do that we work together in a very immersive way. We pair Red Hat specialists with people from the customer, and we achieve real business outcomes. While we’re doing that, we also make sure people are learning and developing capabilities so they can continue working this way, this new way of work, the Agile, Lean DevOps. And they can also achieve even more outcomes after we are gone, after the engagement.

    Mary:

    And we call this engagement residency. As an engagement lead, I am making sure we are applying this way of working and we are coaching the customer so they can understand why to do that. And we are very outcomes driven. So, as an engagement lead, I try to facilitate this process, I ask questions, I help people understand what are the outcomes instead of just trying to think about the outputs that they should deliver at the end of the engagement. I make sure that people understand why they’re there, and I help them, I facilitate a process where they will be able to develop this new capabilities.

    Alexis:

    How long is a residency?

    Mary:

    It can be four weeks or 12 weeks, that’s the range.

    Alexis:

    Okay. And that means over the course of four to 12 weeks in the residency working with you, people will be able to adopt a new way of working after that. And you’ve seen that happening?

    Mary:

    Yeah, several times. And usually at the beginning they tell us at least some of them our way, I don’t see how this is going to happen, but we believe in continuous improvement. We are applying it, since day one we are having a lot of feedback loops to help us learn not only about the process that we are taking and using, but also about technology, about the product that we are building, about our users, about several things. We are always learning in a very short feedback loop, and this is how people can achieve those business outcomes so fast, and also learn a lot of things and develop new capabilities.

    Alexis:

    Impressive. You mentioned before that you were in Germany, I assume that you did residencies in Germany, maybe in other countries in the world. Do you see some cultural difference in how the people adopt that mindset of continuously improve not only the outcomes, but also their way of working?

    Mary:

    Yes, I do. Sometimes I work with teams that they are like very new to Agile and Lean and DevOps, and I… And like for me in this scenario, I think it is easier to help them understand the values and the principles behind it, because they are being exposed to it for the first time. But sometimes depending on the country and the culture, they went through this already and they worked with other companies, or at their previous job they had a lot of issues with Scrum or another framework. And they are very resistant. They’re like, “Oh, I don’t believe in Agile, I don’t think this is a good thing.”

    Mary:

    Usually it is harder when this happens but we try to take a step back, and let them know that it’s not about the framework, it’s not about the method, we could change that, we can give it another name, it doesn’t matter. It is about the principles and the values. When we get to that point it doesn’t matter where in the world we’re working, people are always able to understand. And since we are also focused on business outcomes, we change the conversation to help them to facilitate this process where they will achieve what they’re looking for.

    Alexis:

    Okay. When you say it does not matter where in the world we are working, when people start to really understand and engage with principles and values. Where in the world have you tried that?

    Mary:

    I’ve worked with the team in Indonesia. I also worked with several teams in Brazil, Chile, Mexico. And to be honest since I got here like two months ago, I didn’t have opportunity to run a residency here yet but it will happen soon.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. How many engagement leads do we have in the world?

    Mary:

    I don’t know how to answer that question. Because the team is growing all the time, and I don’t know how many engagement leads we have now. But we have several engagement leads in North America. The team in Latin now is growing fast. I was the first engagement lead there and now we have a very strong team with several engagement leads. Also in the media we have a lot of engagement leads as well. And in the APAC, I couldn’t tell the exact amount, but we are a strong team and we are covering all the regions now.

    Alexis:

    There’s engagement teams all over the world, and you are all using the same approach. Do you improve that approach after each residency? How does that work for you to use your feedback loop improvement approach?

    Mary:

    Yes, of course, we drink our own champagne. That’s how we call it. We have bi weekly calls where we talk about the things that we are learning, and we try to adapt the approach based on the learnings. And we share. We have like weekly reports when someone is running a residency, when an engagement lead is running a residency, he or she is always sharing internally and also with the customer the learnings by sending a weekly report, and telling everything, and sharing also videos, pictures. We could also learn from our experience and from the others as well. It’s awesome because I am always like… Even though I’m not delivering a residency in North America, I can learn from the experience of an engagement lead there and see what is working and what is not working, and apply that here in Germany as well.

    Alexis:

    So you achieved a level of transparency that is really important because, that means that all the people that are working on the same thing can share what they are doing. And I assume that they share what is going well, and also what is not necessarily working well for them, right?

    Mary:

    Yes. And also besides the weekly report and the bi weekly call that we have. There are also the showcases where we invited the customer, and since we are doing the virtual residency now people can attend the showcase virtually. The situation with COVID helped us to attend different showcases around the world, and being closer to teams even though we are in a very different region.

    Alexis:

    Let’s spend some time on that. Can you tell us what is a showcase, and who to go after that on? You really said the pandemic helped us. What is a showcase first?

    Mary:

    Okay. The showcase is a practice that we use at the end of a sprint or a iteration depending on how the team is working. And doing the showcase the team is going to showcase the product increment that they built during the sprint. And besides showing them the product increment, they usually talk about their learnings as well about the process, about automation and other kinds of things that they did during this sprint. And before the pandemic, people were doing showcases in person. So sometimes we wouldn’t like have a camera filming yet so but we were doing it in the room, in a meeting room. And now because of the virtual residency we are doing it online, so people can attend even though they aren’t there.

    Alexis:

    And so you get to a rhythm with the customer and the team involved, that they are okay to showcase their increment of work at the end of the sprint, and they are also ready to showcase their learnings and share that openly with the wider community than only their team?

    Mary:

    Yes.

    Alexis:

    This is really good. In a sense that going to virtual residency, that’s why you said the pandemic elders because I guess everybody was more comfortable to have residencies in person?

    Mary:

    Yes, of course. It helped us to… Like in this case of being able to attend several showcases, but it was a big challenge for us, it was as well another different aspects.

    Alexis:

    At the beginning I guess if I understood well, the residency were all in person. When did you switch to virtual tool?

    Mary:

    When the pandemic started and we couldn’t be together anymore, we had to pivot and find a way of working the same immersive way, the same way we were doing in residency but in a virtual environment. And it was a big challenge, we put a working group together from different regions to create this new product, that is the virtual residency. And we had to adapt to create templates that we could use on Miro, and see how we could facilitate those practices using this remote environment. And how we could make sure the team were working together, we were doing like team building activities even though we weren’t together anymore, we weren’t in the same room. We had several conversations about it, and we are now running several virtual residences. And we did finish some of them as well, and we are improving this new approach. We had success in all of them so far.

    Alexis:

    Thank you very much for telling us more about the open innovation labs and engagement lead role. I think it’s really impressive the way you pivot to via two. And the way you are able to not only use yourself those improvement feedback loops, but to teach that to customers that are not necessarily seeing that as a really incredible positive things at the beginning. But let’s go back to book writing. You told us a little bit more about why you did it. What did you learn in the process of writing that book?

    Mary:

    Okay. That’s a question that I’m going to answer, and then I want to hear your answer as well because I know you’re an author. And I’m always interested learning and knowing more about what people are learning from this process, right? My favorite thing about sharing something is that I get to learn, and it wasn’t different with the book writing. I learned a lot in the process. And one of the biggest lessons for me was to apply what I was doing with product teams in my own life. The principles and values they don’t work only with software development. Once you truly understand what they mean you can finally live by them, and actually we did apply them while writing the book as well.

    Mary:

    I wrote a blog post about how people can apply Agile practices and principles while writing a book, and I tell with a lot of examples how I applied this in this process. But the most important thing for me was this MVP concept, because I was also out, I was always talking about this with product teams. When I was writing the book it was hard for me to apply it, because I wanted it to be perfect. I remember that Paolo, the co-author, Paolo and I we were struggling a lot to come up with a good title and with a good cover. And at some point we noticed that we were putting a lot of energy on it, but we weren’t spending time on what was going to bring more value to writing the book.

    Mary:

    He decided that we should time-box it, and we did. We like “Oh, in 20 minutes we’re going to think about the title and create a cove and that’s it. This is going to be the first title in the first cover, and we can change it later but we are not going to spend more time on it. And that’s what we did. And I remember the Reid Hoffman sentence he says that, “If we you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you will launch it too late.” And I was very embarrassed with the first version of the book because the cover was so ugly, the title was terrible, it was so big that every time I had to talk about the book, I was mentioned a different title because I was confused about the wording. And I was saying a different thing all the time.

    Mary:

    This was the first version and we publish it only by the way. We put it there so people could read and give us feedback. And I was so embarrassed of the first version, but I learned how to apply this to my whole life, into the writing process. And this helped me to relate and to have more empathy when I was having this conversation with product owners or with product teams. And after a while after receiving all the feedback, we were able to come up with a better title, a better cover. And it was fantastic because if we try to do that upfront at the beginning, we would never be able to have this final version of the book that I really like.

    Alexis:

    I really like it. I remember that you said you will answer but I shouldn’t swear too. Oh, it’s odd, I prefer to ask questions. For the first book I think what I really liked was, people were asking me questions and my intent was to find a way to answer those questions in telling a story, in telling what I’ve learned in the process. I think I fell into the perfection trap really, really badly. And I tried for several years to write it. And I changed the angle, I changed everything. The title, the story, I restart from the beginning. And at some point I have said okay, that’s enough. Let’s have a first version out, Leanpub, and let’s see what people would think about it. I learned a lot in the process because yes, as you said, sharing is learning.

    Alexis:

    As soon as you try to explain what you’ve learned, you learn more. You understand better. You connect the dots. There was a lot of things that were, I knew intuitively how to do things. Or I was able to see something, everything. Oh, yeah, let’s do that. Or I was ready to ask good questions, but I didn’t really know why. And though, writing was helping me to already understand and consolidate what I knew. It helped me a lot to be better at what I’m doing. It’s a good thing. You don’t necessarily need to write a book, but at least if you write your journal or if you write two blog posts that will help you to learn. That’s the first thing.

    Alexis:

    And the second thing is, definitely I launched too late. That was a little bit overwhelming for people to give me… To provide me feedback. Because then you have a finished product, where to start. Where to start giving you feedback. You can have really constructive and interesting feedback from all the authors, because they’ve went through that so they know how to give you feedback and they know how to help. You can have also good interesting feedback from book clubs. That’s probably the two sources that gave me a really interesting feedback. And then I worked on the version two with two friends, John Poelstra and Michael Doyle. We worked on it, we already definitely improved it. We worked in an iterative fashion so, and we had our weekly call that was really amazing.

    Alexis:

    We add version two out roughly in the time we said we will have to, that was good. Yep, I launched too late and that was a mistake. I was not able to connect enough with people earlier so they could give me feedback. For the second book I tried to do something different, so the first book was changing your team from the inside. For the second I worked with Michael Doyle, I’m a software engineer and I’m in charge. We wanted really to tell a story and to have a real business fable like the goal, or like the Phoenix project or like the title, no radical focus or there’s a lot of books that our business favorites are. The five dysfunctions of a team or things like that. To help people understand through the story to me really identify themselves to some of the characters in the story, so they can know what to do.

    Alexis:

    By points of view is always whatever your role, you can always have an impact to change things. In that story of the second book we worked on that. I think working with the quarter was really helping, because it pushes you to work in an iterative way, and to have regular check points, and not to spend too much time on things you don’t know. And to try to check that. And so we checked our assumptions with reviewers, we ask people to give us feedback on really pretty minor if they’re shown off. Even just the introduction or the first chapter. And it worked much better, because then we were working not only on our own assumptions, but on the feedback of the default reviewers. And it was interesting because, we were force to accept that there were a thing that we will not make a choice.

    Alexis:

    There was reviewers that were saying, “Oh, yeah, I think you should start with the story. I don’t care about that small paragraph that you put at the beginning, that is telling me why I should care about reading that chapter.” And there was also people saying, “Oh, yeah, that’s really great that you have that small paragraph that is telling why we should care about the chapter. I think it set context really clearly for the story.” And so you have opposite feedback from the reviewers, and you’re looking at it say, “Okay, what can we do now?” We cannot take into account all of them, but at least we understand why some people like that, and why some people don’t like that. I think the learning thought was, you need really to release often and early, and you need to have the group of people that are diverse enough that they will give you really that different feedback. So sorry, that was a long guns fire. I was not really not ready to answer a question now. What do you think?

    Mary:

    That’s awesome. I love their experience, and it is very similar to some of the things that I learned as well while I was writing this book.

    Alexis:

    I checked a while ago and the book is in Portuguese, right?

    Mary:

    mm-hmm (affirmative).

    Alexis:

    Have you planned to have the book in all the languages?

    Mary:

    Yes. Paulo Carolee and I, we are translating the book to English now. Time is an issue, and the process is lower than we wanted because I moved, relocated from Brazil to Germany, and I spent a lot of time dealing with this relocation. So the process is slower than we wanted, but we are working on it and we want to publish the English version early next year.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Now delivered in Portuguese is not good enough for me to read the book entirely in Portuguese, I can read blurbs of it but not the whole book I think.

    Mary:

    We are also planning to publish a version in Spanish, but I don’t know when this is going to happen because we are prioritizing the English version now.

    Alexis:

    Okay, that’s really good. What else do you want to share with the audience today?

    Mary:

    I think I already mentioned this during the whole conversation, but as you can see, for me it’s really important to continue… The continuous improvement it is very important to me, and I’m very glad that I get to do this at work every day. Like as part of the open innovation labs team as an engagement lead, working for Red Hat I get to do this every day and I love this. I love that I am able to understand why I’m doing things that I know the outcomes of my work, and that I have this clarity about it. I wanted to share this experience with people because I’ve been the other side, I know how frustrating it can be when you don’t know why you’re doing things. Or when you don’t understand it, when you don’t know to more building it for.

    Mary:

    I understand that feeling and I want to share with people that they can maybe use the open practice library, that’s something that we use a lot as the open innovation labs. And we put there a lot of different practices that people can use to understand their business outcomes that they want to achieve. Or also practices to set the foundation to work as a high performing team. There are different practices there. I use a lot of them. And there are a few practices that I have to put there that I created. But if you’re really focusing on continuous improvement, and trying different things and learning from your mistakes, then you’re always getting better. And this is like the big message I want to send with the book, and with pretty much everything I do.

    Alexis:

    I love it, and I assume that open practice library mean that we can contribute to it?

    Mary:

    Yes.

    Alexis:

    If you add practices you can contribute there?

    Mary:

    Yes, it is an open… Sorry, open source with repository, so you can also submit your practices there.

    Alexis:

    Really cool. I know the opportunity to learn from sharing. Thank you very much Mary for being on the podcast today.

    Mary:

    Yeah. I want to thank you for inviting me to record this podcast, and to give me this space to talk a little bit about myself, to talk about the book, and to share some of the things that I learned in this journey so far. So, I hope you all enjoyed and thank you again.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more tips to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. And until next time to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    The header picture is from Riccardo Annandale.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Radical Focus: OKRs, Cadence, and the “Seduction of the Task”

    Radical Focus: OKRs, Cadence, and the “Seduction of the Task”

    OKRs are often presented as a goal-setting tool.

    Christina Wodtke’s perspective is sharper: OKRs are a way to create focus, alignment, and learning — as long as you avoid a common trap: setting goals and forgetting them.

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure of welcoming Christina Wodtke, author of Radical Focus and The Team That Manages Itself, lecturer at Stanford, and long-time builder of teams and products in companies such as Yahoo!, Zynga, and LinkedIn.

    OKRs in one sentence

    Christina describes the objective as a qualitative goal:

    A mission for three months.

    Then key results answer a simple question:

    How would we know we actually fulfilled that mission?

    The key shift is moving from tasks to outcomes.

    If a key result reads like “install a new CRM”, Christina pushes the conversation further:

    What would be different in the world if that CRM were installed?

    That is where the key result belongs: outcomes that help you evaluate impact, explore alternatives, and avoid mistaking activity for progress.

    Christina has a phrase I plan to reuse a thousand times:

    Avoid the seduction of the task.

    The real power of OKRs is cadence

    One of the strongest points in the conversation is that OKRs are not “set and forget”.

    Christina insists that what makes OKRs work is cadence:

    • weekly check-ins to ask what is moving you closer to the goal
    • regular celebration of progress
    • a retrospective to learn what slows you down and what speeds you up

    This cadence creates organizational learning, and learning is what keeps teams competitive.

    Why a fable?

    Radical Focus is written as a fable, and Christina explains why.

    Stories teach better than facts alone. They help people recognize themselves in real mistakes and real tensions. They also increase retention and comprehension because human beings learned through storytelling long before we learned through writing.

    A surprising side effect of fiction is that readers often learn things the author didn’t explicitly intend to teach, because stories create layers of meaning.

    OKRs are not only for startups, but cascading doesn’t scale

    Christina is currently working on an updated edition of Radical Focus. One major reason is that many people using OKRs are not startups.

    In larger organizations, cascading becomes a problem. In some companies, it can take weeks, which defeats the purpose.

    Christina’s alternative is alignment:

    • the company sets the strategic direction
    • teams decide how they can contribute based on their role and context

    She also makes an important point: OKRs don’t work well in command-and-control cultures. If OKRs are used to squeeze productivity, tied to compensation, or imposed as “make it or else”, they become an anti-OKR and invite sandbagging or cheating.

    Her framing is very simple:

    If you are hiring A players, why not let them be A players?

    When OKRs are useful and when KPIs are better

    Christina offers a practical lens using the BCG portfolio model:

    • question marks are a great space for exploratory OKRs
    • stars benefit from OKRs because growth and learning still matter
    • cash cows often don’t need OKRs and can move to KPIs
    • dogs also fit better with KPIs and clear thresholds for when to stop

    A subtle but important idea emerges here:

    Sometimes the humane choice is to reach a high level of performance and then stay there. Not everything needs endless growth.

    Individual OKRs usually backfire

    Christina is very direct on individual OKRs: she has rarely seen them end well.

    The two big issues:

    • it is hard to keep them truly separate from compensation and pressure
    • the cognitive load becomes too high when you stack company, department, team, and individual OKRs

    Exceptions exist:

    • a “business unit of one” role might experiment with them carefully
    • personal OKRs set by individuals can work well, especially with an accountability group

    For performance management, Christina suggests separating what is often muddled together:

    • fulfilling the role you were hired for
    • contribution to shared goals
    • growth of skills and knowledge
    • contribution to the culture (mentoring, hiring, collaboration)

    OKRs are one tent pole, teams are the rest

    Christina frames high performing teams through three areas:

    • goals
    • roles
    • norms

    Goals are where OKRs help.

    Roles and norms are what make the team capable of delivering without constant management. When norms support feedback, conflict becomes workable instead of destructive. Psychological safety becomes something the team practices weekly, not something you hope for.

    This connects to Christina’s other book, The Team That Manages Itself, and to a view of leadership that feels closer to “first among equals” than command and control.

    Bonus: drawing, learning, and pareidolia

    We also detour into one of Christina’s other passions: drawing.

    Her point is practical and liberating: you don’t need to draw well. Humans are pattern-matching creatures. Even rough drawings can communicate clearly.

    She mentions pareidolia, our tendency to see meaning and faces in simple shapes. It is a permission slip to start drawing, and to start sharing ideas visually without waiting to be “good”.

    She ends with a line that sticks:

    Doodling is a joy.

    Listen to the episode here or on your favorite podcast platform:

    If you are hiring A-players, why don’t let them be A-players?

    References:

    Here is the transcript:

    Alexis:

    Hey Christina, can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Christina:

    I definitely took the scenic route to get where I am today. So, I actually went to art school and changed from painting to photography because all the painting professors were abstract expressionists, and I wanted to work realistically. That’s when I first discovered computers. There were Macs there, and I started becoming interested in… This was before Photoshop, I was working on manipulating digital imagery.

    Christina:

    Then after I graduated, I moved to San Francisco thinking I was going to work in computers, but ended up going back to painting and basically painted and waited tables for several years. One day, a friend of my current boyfriend said, “Hey, we’re building a Yahoo killer. Would you like to help?” I said, “Sure.” I just fell in love with the web. I was reviewing 50 websites a week, and just the amazingness of it.

    Christina:

    Not to tell the background story in too long, but once I started falling in love with the web, I started learning how to code, became a programmer, then switched over to an information architect because I was very interested in why websites are so terrible, basically. Became an interaction designer, then became… So, I was starting to move up, and I was like, “Okay, maybe if I’m a manager, I can make better websites. I can make things work better on the web.” I’ve been an entrepreneur a couple of times, starting a couple of different companies. I started a nonprofit. My question is always why aren’t things better? Why do we launch things that we’re not happy with? Why is it so hard to work with other people? I’ve worked at Zynga and Myspace and LinkedIn and obviously Yahoo! I’ve worked as a consultant with people like the New York Times.

    Christina:

    When you go into this new thing, if only I could be in charge, I could do things better than everybody else. What I’ve really learned is that you need great teams, everything happens. So if you don’t know how to work with other people, if you don’t know how to connect to people, you really can’t get anything significant done. Of course, there’s single people who will build a cool game here or there or a cool website there. But if you really want to make a difference in the world, you have to figure out, “How can I work with other people?”

    Christina:

    That question has driven a lot of my work with OKRs and with high-performing teams, trying to figure out how do we make everything better for people? How do we make work better for people who work? How do we make the websites, the applications, the software that we interact with so much these days, how do we make it more humane? I’m now a lecturer at Stanford, teaching HCI, human computer interaction, still asking the same question I did way back in 1998. How do we make stuff suck less for the human beings that are affected by it?

    Alexis:

    I think that’s a great mission. I hope that there will be a lot of people that will follow your course. Christina, you’re also the author of a book that I already love and I recommended that book to a lot of people. The book is Radical Focus. I need to move a Post-it on the book to read the subtitle. It’s Achieving Your Most Important Goals with Objectives and Key Results. I left the book on my desk when I was traveling abroad, when I was in the US at that time. When I come back, I said, “No, that’s weird. I thought there was a book somewhere.”

    Alexis:

    I said, “Okay.” I forgot about it. A few days later, the book came back on my desk and with the Post-it notes, and it was mentioned, “Alexis, [french Language 00:05:17].” Of course, I’m French. People will probably recognize my accent. The book enjoyed traveling to India and back, and is looking forward to attract new friends. I love Wodtke’s approach. That was a great background. Jeff.” I was thinking, “Yeah, that’s cool.” Now, I have the proof point that the book is really cool and really great and really important. First of all, I’ve said objectives and key results, or OKRs. How would you explain OKRs?

    Christina:

    Well, thank you for that incredibly kind story. That just makes my day. So, OKRs, I always joke that I was writing a book about an acronym, and the only way I could make it interesting was to tell a story because I love OKRs. I think they can be really transformative to a person or a company. I’ve seen it over and over again. A lot of folks really focus on the OKR part, the objective and key results.

    Christina:

    So the objective is qualitative. It’s an inspirational goal. Sometimes I talk about it saying, “It’s a mission for three months.” Every company has a five-year mission or a mission statement. If you could make a mission statement for just a quarter, what would it be? It has to inspire people. Then you have the key results, which answer the question, how would we know, how would we know if we’d actually fulfilled this mission that we’re setting for ourselves over this three months? What would change in the world? What numbers would move? You have to avoid the seduction of the task, right? It’s very tempting to put down things you’ll do. If you do that, you might not get the results you want.

    Christina:

    So when I work with clients, I often say, “Okay, if you build this” … Let’s say somebody wrote for a key result, they wrote, “Install a new CRM.” I’m like, “Okay. So, what do you think would happen if you install this new CRM?” They’d say, “Oh, well, we would get better returns from our existing customers.” I’m like, “Well, how much more?” Have them guess at that, and I’m like, “There’s your key result.” Our current customers return back to us 20% more often. Then you can say, “Well, is the CRM really the best way to do it, or are there other things we could try?”

    Christina:

    So, by setting this qualitative and quantitative goal, you can unite the company. If you think about it, if you talk to the Biz Dev folks or maybe sales, they’re all about the numbers. We want to move these numbers. If you talk to design or customer service or other folks, they maybe care more about making a difference in the world, making a better experience for people, creating a better community.

    Christina:

    So, the OKR format really does unite these different points of view, so that everybody gets pointed in the same direction. By setting the objective and key results as the outcomes, I know in the lean community and other product manager communities, we talk a lot about outcomes over output. Output is just doing stuff and hoping something happened. Outcome is like, “We want to move these numbers. We want to make a difference in the world. Therefore, we’re going to think through all the different ways we can do it. We’ll guess how likely we think it will work. We’ll start running experiments to get smarter.” It’s just a better way to work if impact is your goal. If impact isn’t your goal, well, I’m not sure why you’re still in business, but this is a really desired thing.

    Christina:

    So, the thing to know about OKRs is that they’re not like a smart goal. Just setting and forgetting is dangerous. That’s the biggest danger you have. So, some people will spend tons of time word crafting, word crafting, getting just the right numbers, looking up everything. Then they’ll set that OKR, and then they’ll forget about it within a couple of weeks because the world is full of shiny objects. There’s always somebody yelling at you. There’s always an emergency. There’s always something on fire, literally, for me right now, unfortunately, since I’m in California. So, how do you make sure you still are doing the most important strategic things, despite the chaos of everyday life?

    Christina:

    The thing that makes OKRs great is that cadence. It’s all about the cadence. It’s that weekly… Looking at your goals and saying, “What are we doing to get closer to those goals?” On Fridays celebrating, “Look, we’re getting closer to our goals.” Then the retrospective at the end to learn what slows us down and what speeds us up. So, the cadence of the OKRs also create amazing organizational learning. That organizational learning is what keeps you competitive in the market.

    Alexis:

    I love it.

    Christina:

    [crosstalk 00:10:13]

    Alexis:

    The fact that we are aiming for an impact, it’s something really important. You can see that as an individual, as a team, as a company and as a society. You said avoiding the seduction of the task. I think I will reuse that 1000 time now. That’s really interesting. I would like to ask you, the book is a fable. What was the driver for you to use a fable?

    Christina:

    I’m a big fan of business fables and case studies, to be honest. I mean, HBR, the Harvard Business Review, used to open every magazine with a case study. I’d always be really excited to read it, to hear the stories of people struggling with the same questions I had. Then of course, Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team is a wonderful book, the goal. The Phoenix Project is another good one.

    Christina:

    So, I’m actually fond of this little, tiny, weird sub genre. I love fiction. I love stories. When I was a nerdy kid growing up, I read Lord of the Rings in the seventh grade. So, I found out recently that Reid Hoffman reads Lord of the Rings every year, which I think is wild. He was, of course, the CEO and founder of LinkedIn. He was one of the founders of PayPal. Now, he’s a VC dude. Stories are more important to us than we think they are.

    Christina:

    So, I thought if I could just show people this mistake that so many people make, which is set and forget, if I can show a small company that’s easily recognizable, and I don’t know how well you know the Silicon Valley, if you read it closely, you can probably guess where a lot of people said, “Oh, I know the Starbucks where they meet, the VC. I know that Starbucks.” So I really wanted to put a lot of places into it that would be recognizable.

    Christina:

    Through that journey that you go along with Hannah and Jack, you actually can see why they make the mistakes they make and how they fix it and how they get to where they are. I think a story is just a really great way to do it. What I didn’t know is that some people… So, when you write straight non-fiction, which is what my first book was, Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web, you learn exactly what people tell you to learn. But when you write fiction, you put in a world and you put in trouble and you put in challenges.

    Christina:

    I had an email recently from a reader who said, “I am so grateful to the part where Hannah fires that jerk.” The programmer, who’s messing with the code. He says, “Because I had to fire someone who was like that, and I didn’t know how to handle it.” When he saw how Hannah handled it, it really helped him. So, I think there’s a richness in fiction and ability to put in layers of meaning that you might not be able to do with nonfiction. Then the second half of course is where I just lay it out really simply and cleanly for people who want the cheat sheet of how to do it.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. This is really funny because I was thinking about business fable that I love. On my notes, I wrote The Goal, the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, The Phoenix Project. I had one more. I will give it to you because if you didn’t read that one, I think it’s a good one. It’s The Gold Mine by Michael Balle, a book about someone we will discover. It’s a manufacturing book. So, the setting is different. It’s trade industry. But I think it’s really a good one. I love fable.

    Alexis:

    It’s interesting that you said your first book was not a fable and your second one is a fable. When I wrote my first book, Changing Your Team From the Inside, I tried to be really serious about change. For the second one, I tried to learn from my mistakes in the first one. It’s a combination of a fable with experiments that people can try. So, I would like to interview readers to understand what they learn. That’s not a book about learning how to fire jerks, but that’s really interesting that someone can pick that. That’s a good one. That shows that the story is real. I wanted to know the end of the story, I was reading it. I was not able to stop because I want to know what happens next.

    Christina:

    Well, that’s the other thing is like, we learn better when we’re enjoying learning. So, I teach at Stanford. That means I spend quite a bit of time digging into learning theory. Stories are actually a better way to learn because of how our brains are set up to learn. I’ve seen that people say, if all of human history was a clock, right, a 24-hour clock, we’ve only started writing things down at 11:00 PM, which means that for thousands and thousands of years, the only way we could pass on knowledge, the way that we made sure people knew, donate those berries, they’ll make you sick, or stay out of that cave. There’s a big, fluffy thing with claws. Don’t go the, was storytelling. That’s how we learned. So, our brains are literally evolved to learn from stories.

    Christina:

    Using a fable is just taking advantage of how we’re hard wired to learn. It has a downside, too, that’s why if you have the anti-vaxxers, and they’re telling stories about this one kid who apparently became autistic, that’s going to be more powerful than a ton of facts. What I found over time is that if you can take facts and you wrap them in story, that people enjoy learning more, and they have higher comprehension and they have higher retention. So storytelling, it’s just better. It’s better for you. It’s better for me. It’s better for everyone.

    Alexis:

    In the book. The story’s about a startup. Do you think OKRs are only for startup, or do you see them being useful in other kind of environment?

    Christina:

    That’s such a good question. I told you, I’m writing 2.0 of Radical Focus. The number one reason I’m doing it is because so many people are not startups, and they’re trying to use it. Some of the techniques that were designed for startups don’t scale very well to larger companies. So, I realized I wrote it, what, five years ago? It seems like forever. Since then, I’ve had a lot of people come to me, big companies, small companies, struggling to figure out how to make certain things work with OKRs, working with them, trying different things. I’ve managed to come up with several techniques for larger companies.

    Christina:

    One of the more obvious examples would be the problem of cascading. So, if you’re in a little startup, then you have one, maybe two layers of management, cascading is not a big deal. You figure out your company, OKR, and then you figure out the team OKRs, and you’d go to town, you’re done. When you have multiple layers of hierarchy, you can’t possibly cascade. I’ve heard stories of large companies where it would take them a month to cascade. At that point, you’ve lost a third of your quarter to be able to execute. That’s ridiculous. At which point you want to move away from cascading and much more towards alignment, where the company sets the goal and then you trust the people underneath you to say, “What can we do as an organization or a group to help the company meet its goal?” If you can’t meet this quarter’s company’s goals, what is the appropriate thing to set, considering your function, your role within an organization? That was a big one where it just doesn’t work at all.

    Christina:

    I’ve been talking a lot to Marty Cagan. He was really kind and contributing to the book. He and I have both come to the same conclusion, which is if you’re an organization that is really all about command and control, OKRs are probably not going to be for you. We see a lot of people trying to use OKRs just to squeeze a little more productivity out of people. That’s not what they’re for. More times, it ends up with cheating. So, if you think about the Volkswagen scandal or the Wells Fargo scandal, those weren’t OKRs per se, but they were ridiculously difficult numerical goals that were handed from the top down, that were tied to people’s livelihood. You don’t get your bonus. You might lose your job if you can’t fulfill these goals that can’t be fulfilled, at which point people turned to cheating because they didn’t really have a lot of choices.

    Christina:

    So, in these really nasty companies, setting really ridiculous goals from the top down and saying, “Make it or else,” that’s like an anti-OKR. If an OKR could have a dark twin, an evil twin version of itself, it would be that. Where OKRs are much better at is saying, “Here’s what we want to see, figure out what you can do about it. We empower you.” Marty’s next book is going to be called Empowered. I’m really excited by it because I think that’s a message that more people need to hear, work is much more satisfying, much more pleasurable when somebody says, “Hey, here’s this ridiculous thing. I trust you to see what you can do with it. If you don’t make it, well, I’m going to believe that you tried your best.” A little more faith, a little more trust. If you’re hiring A players, why not let them be A players, right?

    Alexis:

    Absolutely. So that’s neither a top-down system, neither a totally bottom-up system. It’s something that is both a top-down and bottom-up, and people will figure out how they can contribute to achieve those higher-levels objectives. There’s the kind of reconciliation in between?

    Christina:

    Yes, exactly. When your company says, “This is our most important strategic initiative, this is the thing that we’re going to move into the European market, or we’re going to move out of B2B to B2C,” whatever strategic goal the company has, then everybody can ask themselves, “What does that mean for us? How can we contribute?” I will go even farther. I think that there’s always a possibility that there’s some groups that don’t actually need OKRs. The legal team, are they really constantly striving to be better? Or is there a level where they’re like, “Yeah, we’re good. We’re solid.” Or maybe the finance department, maybe they might do one OKR one quarter because they feel like they’re not being responsive enough or people are complaining about them. But once you’ve gotten good, there’s no higher level to take it.

    Christina:

    I don’t know what it’s like in France as much. But I do know in America, we seem to think the sky’s the limit, that things can always grow endlessly, and everything can be better. I think that can be very grueling on people. I think it can be disheartening on people. So, getting yourself to a really high level of performance and then staying there, moving away from OKRs and maybe just to KPIs. So you’re measuring, so you know if something’s changing or if things are getting worse, sometimes there are groups who go into a steady state, and that’s okay. That should be actually quite okay.

    Christina:

    Businesses need to be a little more humane. OKRs are really good at strategy because that’s the space where we’re asking, “What’s possible? What could we do here? When is the market actually saturated? What is the answer to these questions that we or a company are asking?” So I don’t think that every group, and maybe not even every company should have OKRs.

    Alexis:

    So, if there’s no behavioral change anymore that is needed, you don’t need OKRs. That’s an interesting perspective.

    Christina:

    Yeah. It’s a little different. But I think it’s a little saner, perhaps. The other thing that I’ve been working with, with companies is thinking about the relationship of strategy and OKRs. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the old Boston Consulting Group, 2×2, where they talked about how the dogs-

    Alexis:

    Yeah.

    Christina:

    Yes, exactly. So, if you think about it, if you have this complete unknown space, that’s the potential. You don’t know what’s really there. It’s a question mark. You have high hopes, but you don’t know. That’s a great place to do exploratory OKRs or hypothesis OKRs, where you say… instead of saying to go back and to moving into a new market, maybe your objective is have a product that resonates with Mexico. Then we say, “Okay. How are we going define resonate? Is it going to be a NPS? Is it going to be units moved? Is it going to be star ratings on Amazon or whatnot?” You come up with your OKRs, but you’ll notice that it just says, “Have a product.” It’s very open and very loose. At which point, then people can just run tons of experiments until they find the thing.

    Christina:

    So that’s a place where you can start finding your product market fit and use the OKRs to know when to stop. I know a lot of startups and innovation groups. The question is, how long do we keep up this thing? When do we say, “Okay, let’s cut our losses. Let’s get out?” So, the OKRs then create this cadence that allows you at the end of the quarter to say, “Do we want to keep working on this? Have we learned anything new? Is it time to pivot, or is it time to shut it down?” So, that’s good.

    Christina:

    With stars where you don’t know where the top is. You’ve got this really successful product. That’s going crazy. That’s a great place for OKRs because I don’t care if we keep pushing, pushing. Let it grow bigger, let it get better. But then when you get to the cash cows, which are a market that you’ve put a really strong product into, it’s not really growing anymore. Maybe you’ve been trying a bunch of things with OKRs and you can’t move the needle. You’re like, “Okay, let’s just move to KPIs. Let’s leave a handful of solid people. Let’s make as much money as we can as long as the going is good.” They don’t need OKRs, and dogs don’t. Maybe there was something that was working really, really well. Now everybody’s moved on. Maybe it’s a fax machine. There’s no growth in that market. There’s a little bit of money to be made still, but it’s going down. That’s another place where you have the KPIs. When it goes into the red, when it costs more money to keep it alive than it does that you’re making off of it, then you can put it to bed.

    Christina:

    So, you really want to be thinking about your entire product portfolio when you’re a larger company because you want to think where is growth possible and where am I just extracting value? It’s the old explore-exploit question.

    Alexis:

    OKRs for companies, for teams that wants to grow, what is your perspective on using OKRs for team members, for individuals, for people themselves?

    Christina:

    I got to tell you, for five years, I’ve seen people try it, and it just never ends well. There’s a couple of exceptions. So, let’s start with why it doesn’t end. When a upper manager is giving people an OKR, it’s really hard to say your compensation isn’t going to be tied to this OKR. That’s one of the things that if you do tie compensation to the OKR, that’s where we get into the situation of either you end up sandbagging the OKRs, you set them so low, you could easily make them, or you get into a situation where you’re being asked to do something ridiculous. Because your livelihood is on the line, your ability to feed your family is on the line, you are going to cheat. So, individual OKRs usually are terrible.

    Christina:

    The other reason is if you think about an individual within an organization, they’ve got the company OKR to think of. So that’s probably, if you have one objective and three key results, that’s four items you have to hold in your head. What’s really nice about OKR is whenever you’re trying to decide, “Where do I spend my time,” you can just say, “Oh, well, this quarter, the company is trying to do this. So I should really put the bulk of my work week towards that.” So, you’ve got the four things at the company level. Let’s say, you’ve got four things at the department level, and then you’ve got four things at the team level. Then you’ve got your four items. That’s too much stuff to hold in our brain. Our working memory just can’t hold that much stuff.

    Christina:

    There’s a reason I called my book Radical Focus, and I didn’t call it a guide to OKRs. It’s because it’s really, really important to say this is the single most important thing. Just for the sanity of it, just to simplify matters. I don’t think you should have individual OKRs. What are the exceptions? Exceptions are, if you have an individual that’s also basically a business unit of one, let’s say, you’ve hired a growth hacker, you can probably just set the rates, set the salary and say, “Here’s your goals. Let’s see what we can do.” But again, you can’t tie any compensation to it. It’s more a way of saying, “Okay, what’s possible here?” Again, I don’t super love that one. It’s slightly better. I have seen that one work.

    Christina:

    The other thing I have seen work really well is when individual human beings decide to set personal OKRs. This quarter, I’m going to work on taking care of my back because I’m spending so much time on screens because we’re all working from home. I’m finally going to get ergonomic. Letting individual people set their own OKRs, that they then either hold themselves accountable, or they are a part of an accountability group, that seems to work just fine. But I think the manager, individual relationship, when I tell people this, they’re like, “Well, how do I do performance management?” I’m like, “Oh my god. Okay. I can’t believe you don’t know how to do performance management, but sure. Let’s talk about that.”

    Christina:

    When you think about performance management, you want to think, “Okay, I hired you for a role. How well are you fulfilling that role?” There’s just a bunch of stuff you have to do as a manager. You’re a manager of a engineering team. You’re still going to have to give people feedback and manage projects and stuff like that. So, you’ve got fulfilling the role. You have contributions towards the OKRs. That’s a way of thinking of it.

    Christina:

    What amazing thing happened? Maybe, we were trying to go to the moon, and we didn’t make it to the moon, but we’ve now got Tang, and we’ve got Velcro, and that’s awesome, too. So let’s celebrate those contributions. Then you want to think about knowledge and skill growth, and have your people commit to some personal professional growth. You want to be growing your people. That’s something I personally believe in. It’s not necessary for everyone, but I think if you’re helping people become the kind of people they want to be, the kind of person that will benefit the company, let people study negotiation strategies or let them explore a new framework for engineering. Did you make time to grow? Did I, as your manager, allow you to make time to grow? That’s sometimes a good piece of the puzzle. Some of the companies I’ve worked with have added a fourth piece, which is, “Are you fulfilling the culture that we want to have? Are you helping hire? Are you mentoring other people? Are you pair programming? Whatever.

    Christina:

    One of the things about performance reviews that makes them hard is, again, the set and forget. We write up a job description. Maybe we steal it off the web, and then, we forget about it. So, when it’s time to do performance review, you’re actually asking yourself, “Do I feel good about this guy? Does he seem like he’s doing good stuff for us?” Sure. Okay. That’s fine. It’s one of the reasons I wrote the team that manages itself, it was really a followup to Radical Focus because OKRs aren’t everything. There’s part of the puzzle.

    Christina:

    So, yay, you’ve got OKRs, but you also have to figure out how do you make sure the roles on the team are really clear. Are you writing the job descriptions? Are you managing people? Are you supporting them? Then, are you creating a culture of high performance? Are you dealing with culture clashes? I mean, here I am talking to you. You have a French background. I have an Iowa background. Our teams look like that now, they’re European, they’re Asian. So, we really have to think about how are all these different cultures coming together to work effectively. So, OKRs are just one of, I think, the three tent poles of a high-performing team.

    Alexis:

    That conversation about personal goals was bringing us nicely to your second book, your third book, I think. The team that managed itself. Goals are not everything. The way to achieve goals is to have a real interesting, important team, and having people that are able to work as a team. When you said a team that managed itself, does that mean that there’s no managers needed anymore?

    Christina:

    I think that, yes, actually. I do think that it’s good to have a leader of some sort, a tiebreaker, somebody who can have time to manage up. It’s a real thing. But I think if you have a highly, a very healthy team, they manage themselves. They really do. When I was doing a ton of research, I already had my own personal experiences working in tech for, gosh, I don’t know how long, since ’95, before I switched over to academia, about five, six years ago. I realized that the people who really accomplish things through high-performing teams had some similar characteristics. Then I did a literature review, looking at books like The Fearless Organization, which is a wonderful book about psychological safety, the wisdom of teams. I think that’s one of the best books on teams.

    Christina:

    I’ve written a bunch of academic papers and just did a synthesis of all that, and came up with these three key areas, which are goals, roles, and norms. So goals, OKRs, that’s great. Do you have clearly defined roles that people have, that they’re accountable for? Are they growing in it? We’re really talking about hiring, firing and feedback here, especially that last one feedback. People tend to be conflict averse. They’re not always very good at giving the kind of feedback that they need to. Then the last one is norms. How do we interact with each other? As I was saying earlier, we have all these different cultures working together in a company, but I would argue even different companies have different cultures.

    Christina:

    So, when I worked at Yahoo!, the number one thing in the employee surveys were always, I love my teammates. We all love each other. It’s such a wonderful place to work. But it was very passive aggressive. There was no overt conflict. So, if you wanted to get something done, you had to go have a personal conversation with everybody. When I went to Zynga, I was in shock because they weren’t passive, aggressive, they were aggressive, aggressive. It was like another… A general manager would come up to you and say, “I’m going to take your game away from you. Or we’re going to crush you in these numbers.” It’s a real challenging. This is such a different culture.

    Christina:

    I’ve been in companies where all meetings start 10 minutes late, and I’ve been in cultures where every meeting starts on time. So taking the time to say, as a team, “Who are we? How are we going to interact with each other? How are we going to disagree? How are we going to make decisions?” That commitment to doing that followed up with a retrospective every week, remember cadence is everything, allows you to reduce the conflict and increase the output. Also, it helps keep people from quitting because if you’re working in a wonderful team, where you really feel listened to and you feel supported and you have the psychological safety, you’re not going to gamble that on another company.

    Christina:

    So, there’s so many reasons to set up a good, healthy culture. Yeah, OKRs are not a silver bullet. They don’t do everything. They’re really a great way to set goals and make goals, but without a healthy team, without the right people in it, you can’t accomplish it. They’re not standalone. They’re not a one-stop fix.

    Alexis:

    Do you feel that the people in the team, when they are clear on their norms, they know how to communicate out, to deal with conflict, how the acceptable behavior is defined? They know what their roles, and they know what is the roles of others. Do you feel it’s enough for them to be able then to manage themselves?

    Christina:

    Oh, yes. I think that’s the heart and the beating heart of a high-performing team is that they don’t need to be managed. If you think about it, like ask yourself, “What does a manager do?” Well, do they make sure everybody’s doing their job? Do you really need that if you’re hiring A players? Again, if you’re very careful about your hire, you’re hiring the right people that are really smart and strong. They’re motivated to do great work. They want to be at your company because they’re excited by it. It doesn’t matter if you’re making mechanical keyboards or a social network. People are excited to do that kind of work. There’s a lot of studies that show that people want meaning from their work. It makes them happy. So, you’ve got this team that knows what their roles are.

    Christina:

    Then being able to have a conversation around feedback is really critical. So, you think of managers doing what else. They’re hiring? Well, the team can get together as a group and say, “Here’s what we think we need from the new role.” Then, you headed off to HR to find people or do it yourself. It doesn’t matter. If you think about what a manager does in weekly check-ins, well, if you’re doing retrospectives weekly, and you’re talking about what’s working and what’s not working, if you have a healthy enough relationship, where I can come up to you and say, “Alexis, you were interrupting me in that meeting, and it doesn’t make me feel comfortable enough to be able to share new ideas. I just wanted to point this out to you because it’s making it hard for me to work with you.”

    Christina:

    If you have that level of psychological safety, where people can bring up conflicts like that, and actually work through them very quickly, that works really well. At which point then the manager becomes really… I’ve heard it called first among equals. I’ve heard it called service leadership. I like to just think of it as moving from being a manager to being a leader, instead of managing people. You’re really there to remind people, “Don’t forget, this is the goal we’re heading towards. Let me make sure that other parts of the company know what we’re trying to accomplish. Let me spend some time with the CEO or the general manager, and make sure that our group is doing what the company needs to do.” But it’s a very, very different role than the command and control, and “I’m going to boss you around.”

    Christina:

    If you can do that, just imagine how much head space is freed up for that leader. Now, instead of dashing around trying to solve, “Oh, I don’t know, I didn’t get the mock-ups from the designer,” all these little fusses and fights. If you’re freed up from that, you can spend time doing things like strategy and competitive analysis, and looking into new markets. It’s such a waste of our time to try to dash from person to person, just trying to Band-Aid an unhealthy team. Instead, you want to move your team into a strong, healthy team so that you can spend time on much more meaningful activities.

    Alexis:

    Oh, yeah. I totally agree with that. This is impressive how you’re summing up that very nicely.

    Christina:

    Well, I’ve talked a little bit about the second edition. While I’m coming back to it, I’ve talked a little bit about how I’m bringing in strategy and such. The team that manages itself is actually my fourth book, believe it or not. So, I don’t know if you know this, but I had started writing the team that manages itself. Then, I have a developmental editor that I love working with, Cathy Yardley. She got breast cancer, needed to go to treatment. Thanks to our fabulous American health care system, had to take a full-time job for a while to pay for her treatment. I’m so glad that she got better. I think we live in a time of miracles, medically, but the miracles have a price in America.

    Christina:

    So, I put aside the team that managed itself, and I wrote a book that I felt didn’t need a traditional development editor. I did do peer reviews because I’m a big fan of working lean with my books. It’s called Pencil Me In. It’s all about the importance of drawing your ideas. So, the first half of the book teaches you how to draw. The second half teaches you what to draw, things like personas and various different kinds of models and org charts and wireframes and all the things that people like to do. A lot of really great folks contributed the drawings they do. I have some wonderful sketches from game designers, Alex Osterwalder, who wrote the Business Model Generation book. He also gave me an essay and some of his drawings. You know he’s very, very visual. All his books are very visual.

    Christina:

    It was just a fun thing to do that was different than the fables. It was a bit of a… It was a labor of love. I’ve never been so happy while writing a book. Then when Cathy got better, we dove back into the team that managed itself. I always like to point it out because I’m very fond of it. I feel grateful to folks like Teresa Torres, who are now using it in her product management trainings as well because I think that none of us have to become great artists, but a little bit of facility with drawing. Just enough, so you’re not afraid to get up on the whiteboard and share what you’re thinking about. It makes all the difference in the world.

    Alexis:

    Now I have another book on my reading list. I’m really thankful for that. I love reading. Yeah, drawing is always the thing that… I love to draw things, to explain things on whiteboard or wherever. People are always saying, “Oh, yeah. Your drawings are so nice. How do you do it?” I’m always thinking, “No, my drawings are really crappy,” but that’s not the problem. I’m just doing it. That’s just the difference between not doing it and doing it. So, if there’s a book that can help people feel more comfortable just to start, just to try, that would be nice. If I can give them some tips, I will be happy to help more people to today how to draw things. So that’s a good recommendation. I love it.

    Christina:

    I agree completely. What’s funny is nobody expects you to sit down in front of a piano, having never played and be able to put out some show pawn, right? Everybody’s like, “Oh, I can’t draw. It’s so embarrassing.” You have to learn, you have to practice. You have to teach your hand how to obey your brain. It’s not a lot of learning. It’s much easier than piano, I would argue. But you can at least get to chopsticks and do a lot. I think human beings are really interesting.

    Christina:

    I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of this, it’s called a pareidolia. But it’s our ability to see faces and other patterns and everything. So, if you ever looked at the front of a car and said, “Oh, it looks like that Volkswagen is smiling,” or if you looked at an outlet in the wall and you say, “It looks like a little face,” that’s humans. So, you can actually draw really, really badly. Human beings can figure out what it means. We’re pattern matching creatures.

    Christina:

    So, I always try to encourage people to make crappy pictures. I’m like, “Please just make a crappy picture because there are times when a picture is just going to be more effective.” When you’re trying to talk about a user funnel, you’re going to want to draw a terrible upside down triangle to show the funnel. Just a little bit of facility can take you so far. It’s fun. Dang. I like to do in the evening, I just sit and get myself a glass of wine. Maybe the TV is on, I’m watching a little Trevor Noah. I’ll just make circles and make triangles and make goofy-looking little people just, again, to train my hand to obey my mind. It’s so relaxing.

    Christina:

    I feel like in this high-stress time with all the wackiness in the world, anything that can help you chillax is absolutely required. When you don’t have any pressure on your drawing, it’s just doodling, and doodling is a joy. So, you can do it for work or you can just do it for the pure happiness of letting yourself relax a little bit. I think that matters.

    Alexis:

    That gives us another really good reason to try it. Doodling is a joy. I know that’s a really good way to end our discussion, I think. Christina, I want to thank you for your time and all your advices. Thank you for sharing all your experience and knowledge in your books. Thank you for being in the Le Podcast today.

    Christina:

    Oh, it’s such a pleasure to talk to you, a joy. Thank you.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode, and to find more and to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback, or just to say hello. Until next time, to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    Picture by CoWomen

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Human-Centric Agility Coaching: The Expert Paradox and the Ideology Paradox

    Human-Centric Agility Coaching: The Expert Paradox and the Ideology Paradox

    When I first saw Geof Ellingham’s work on Human-Centric Agility Coaching, I was skeptical.

    Why do we need yet another model?
    And why “human-centric” when the Agile Manifesto already states that we value people and interactions over processes and tools?

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, Geof Ellingham — business agility champion, leadership coach, and psychotherapeutic counselor — joins me to explore these questions in depth.

    His answer to the “human-centric” question is both simple and uncomfortable:

    We haven’t really lived up to that value.

    Why “human-centric” matters

    Geof describes how much of the agile world still centers on:

    • processes and tools
    • speed, cost, and business outcomes
    • “doing agile” rather than improving how people work together

    His interest, and his outcome as a coach, is different: improving what happens within the group of people doing the work. Internal communication, collaboration, and the team’s ability to be at its best.

    A model that came from research, not ambition

    The Human-Centric Agility Coaching model did not start as “let’s create another framework”.

    It emerged from research Geof conducted while completing a Master’s in coaching. His goal was to understand what happens moment by moment inside agile coaches as they work.

    Not what coaches should do.
    What is actually going on internally.

    From deep interviews with coaches, two paradoxes consistently surfaced.

    Paradox 1: the expert paradox

    Agile coaches are hired as experts. Clients expect answers, solutions, and certainty.

    And yet coaching, especially professional coaching, rests on a different stance:

    • clients are whole
    • they have the capacity to solve their problems
    • the coach is there to walk alongside, not take control

    Geof describes the tension viscerally: the pull to step in as an expert when you see an opportunity for improvement, and the pull to step back to protect ownership and learning.

    We explore how existing coaching models don’t always capture how embodied and difficult that shift can be.

    Paradox 2: the ideology paradox

    The second paradox is more systemic.

    Ideology can be a shortcut to change. It can rally people, create momentum, and align language and behavior. “Agile” can become a shared identity.

    But if ideology takes root too strongly, it can freeze an organization into a new rigidity:

    • a new set of rules
    • a new orthodoxy
    • a new “agile machine”

    And that directly contradicts one of the deepest intentions of agility: staying adaptive.

    Meeting people where they are, without doing harm

    Geof also introduces the idea of developmental “columns” in his model. Without turning it into a diagnostic tool, the model offers a way for coaches to reflect on:

    • how clients see their organization
    • what kind of language will resonate
    • and what the next reachable step might be

    A key part of our conversation is the risk of harm:

    • models can easily become boxes
    • boxes become judgments
    • judgments become contempt

    We explore the tension between using a model privately as reflective practice and sharing it openly with clients, and why transparency matters.

    Using teams’ language instead of imposing a model

    One practical takeaway from Geof is that even if you use a model internally, working with teams is often more effective when you start from their own metaphors.

    Instead of explaining stages, you can ask:

    • “When you think about your team, it’s like what?”
    • “When you say that, what do you mean?”

    This helps people understand each other’s models of the world without forcing a framework onto them.

    An invitation to iterate

    Geof closes with an important stance: the model is not finished.

    It is shared under Creative Commons and meant to evolve through collaboration. He explicitly invites people to treat it with skepticism, curiosity, and a willingness to iterate.

    If you want to connect with Geof, LinkedIn is the easiest channel. You can also email him at geof.ellingham@gmail.com.

    A final thought

    This episode is a reminder that agility is not a set of ceremonies or a process upgrade.

    It is about people.
    And the work of coaching is not just about change in the organization — it is also about the internal stance and responsibility of the coach.

    Here is the transcript of the episode:

    Alexis:

    Geof, can you tell us a little bit more about you and your background?

    Geof:

    I can. I’ve had a very varied background. So I started life after school as a programmer, then went off to do a music degree, I became an elementary school teacher for five years. And then went back into IT again and started working for one of the big five consultancies, spent time as a consultant, had children and decided to move into a more flexible role where I could be closer to home. So I worked as a head of IT within local government for about 10 years. And then, I guess about five, seven years ago, I started training as a coach, initially as a professional coach.

    Geof:

    But I trained in agile way back in the 1990s. In my work in local government, I’ve been starting to really bring those agile practices back in, because we’re starting to deliver digital services and so on and so I started to bring the two things together. So I started off separately as someone involved in agile and someone who was a coach and bringing them together as an agile coach is something I’ve only been doing for the last five years or so. Then most recently, I got really interested in what drives people to be the way that they are, the people that they are, and I did some more training.

    Geof:

    I’m now practicing as a psychotherapeutic counselor, so that I’m kind of interested in the full spectrum of human experience, and especially internal experience and how that plays out when people are in a group setting or an organizational setting. So that’s a that’s a long story. But it’s… There are lots of different bits to my story and I tried to bring them all together in the work that I do now.

    Alexis:

    Wow, this is really impressive. I think about all what you said. My mind was stuck with being an elementary school teacher. Because I was thinking, “Oh, that’s some time I feel that I should have those skills to be able to capture the attention of a few people in the room that are not necessarily highly motivated to engage in the conversation.”

    Geof:

    Yeah, they weren’t chosen to be there.

    Alexis:

    Yeah.

    Geof:

    I love teaching. As I said, I did that for five years as a full time teacher and then three years as a part time teacher, after that, I was a music specialist and my degree was in music. So I did these big shows with kids, I took these big whole school singing assemblies, all that kind of stuff and it was very intense. And I just decided that there was no way I was going to be able to keep that intensity up for another 40 years. So either I had to leave behind this career that I really loved, and do something different, or I could watch myself fade over the years as that intensity dropped. I just decided I’d go out while I still loved it. But I do still look back on those years very fondly and I’ve enjoyed going in and doing work with my kids when they were a little younger in their schools and stuff like that.

    Geof:

    But being able to being able to hold the attention of people who have not chosen to be with you is a challenge.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, absolutely. I’m really surprised and the first time when you shared with me, your article about Human-Centric Agility Coaching, I was really surprised about the Human-Centric part. I felt that agile was already something that was putting people first in a way, the Agile Manifesto start with the idea of individuals and interactions that are valued more than processes and tools. So I saw that people were already first, can you tell us a little bit more about the model and maybe the why behind the model?

    Geof:

    So that said, there may be two parts to that question. So I’ll answer it twice, if that’s okay, more generally, why Human-Centric? Why am I interested in this, when, as you say, “It’s already the first line in the Agile Manifesto values.” And I think the reason is that we haven’t really lived up to that value. I spend a lot of time at conferences and so on and it seems to me that processes and tools remain the driving force for a lot of the economy of the agile community certainly and a lot of the focus that we have on our agile initiatives is on business outcomes or speed or cost.

    Geof:

    And it seems to me that the focus of agility, in terms of what I’m interested in, I’m interested in what’s going on within the group of people who are engaged in the work, improving their internal communication, the ability for that group of people to achieve more than they could as separate individuals. So my outcome when I’m working with teams is all about the team’s ability to be its best. And I’m not sure that that’s… I know, lots and lots of agile coaches absolutely adhere to that principle. But I think as a community, we haven’t really managed to live up to that. So I see myself as one of the many people out there trying to just come back to that, that basic value, this is what we’re trying to achieve, we’re trying to achieve a situation where with a combination of principles and values and some practices we’ve built up over time, we can create added value in all senses, happiness, outcomes for people on planet, we can be better when we work together in teams in these ways, and I keep it as broad as possible. So that’s the first answer.

    Geof:

    The second answer is about the model itself. So the model itself does not come out of me wanting to do something, me wanting to create a model, the model comes out of a piece of research. So my intention was to get into the heads of agile coaches and find out what’s really going on when agile coaches are working. We’ve got some great literature around agile coaching, like Lyssa Adkins book, most of it is about kind of what should happen, what do we think coaches ought to do? And we haven’t really got much that looks into what actually happens moment by moment, what’s the internal experience in an agile coach, what’s really going on? And I was really interested in that internal experience, because I know that for me, as an agile coach, there’s a huge amount of internal conversation that’s going on when I’m working with a team. And I know that my internal conversation will be different to other agile coaches and we learn by understanding, our own models of the world. So I set about doing a piece of research as part of a Master’s I was doing in coaching.

    Geof:

    And my question was just sitting down with coaches for 90 minutes in depth interview and no structure. It was just tell me what is going on for you when you’re working with the team. And the model came out of that research through some paradoxes that emerged there that I guess we’ll talk about. So the model was a consequence of the research rather than something I intended to produce.

    Alexis:

    Really, really valuable. I was absolutely not aware of that and I really love it. I was thinking why do we want to produce another model, yet we have a model? The perspective that you bring in, what is happening when you interview agile coaches, about what is going on when they work, I think that’s a really interesting angle and you mentioned two paradoxes.

    Geof:

    Yeah.

    Alexis:

    Those paradoxes really resonated with me. Can you tell us more about those two?

    Geof:

    Yeah, sure. So there are two, in the research they did, there are actually some other tensions. But I decided that these were the two that came through most strongly for all of the coaches that I interviewed. So the first I’ve called the expert paradox. An expert paradox is, it’s there in the name of the role agile coach, because our clients hire us to be agile experts.

    Geof:

    To understand this particular approach to solving problems of organizations and end users, and so on. So, our clients hire us as experts in agile. But we’re coaches and those of us that have done training as professional coaches will have this strong idea in us that as a coach, we’re bringing a lens, a mirror, a set of tools to help people frame their problems, but we’re not bringing solutions, that we come to our clients as whole human beings who possess everything they need to solve their problems and all we’re doing is walking with them along the way. So when you put those two things together, you get a paradox, how can I be at the same time, someone who stands back from my own expertise and walks with my client, and believes in my client’s ability to solve their own problems, and at the same time, bring expertise around how to approach problems, how to make this agile stuff work better.

    Geof:

    For all of the coaches that I interviewed, this was a really powerful paradox that they felt themselves pulled, almost viscerally in both directions. So when they spotted an opportunity to improve process, that expert really comes to the fore and wants to step in. But there’s a part of them that recognizes that the more they can step back and allow their clients to be whole and complete and in control of their own destiny, the better their overall outcomes.

    Geof:

    I didn’t think that our existing coaching models really helped us with that tension. Because if you take for example, the Lyssa Adkins as your coach institute model, which is, you may know it’s a kind of it’s a cross drawn on the ground with some segments. And the idea is that you can walk across this model and take up a different stance. So sometimes you’ll be in a coaching stance, sometimes you’ll be in a teaching stance. And that for me doesn’t capture the kind of embodied challenge of moving between those two poles, that they’re so different inhabiting the expert, inhabiting the coach, is so different, that we need to understand more about what we need as agile coaches to enable us to do that for our clients. So that’s the first of the two paradoxes.

    Geof:

    So the second is, I’ve called the ideology paradox. And this, again, came out from my interviews, this strong tension and it also comes from a piece of academic research into based at Pivotal Labs in the States. The idea here is that agile as an ideology, as a cult, as a kind of magnificence, we are the truth in a way, and we know the answer to how to make the world a better place that I certainly know that I hold within myself, I try to hold it lightly. But I know that it’s there, I know that there’s a sense of, this is something really important and valuable we’re bringing to the world, that this ideology has plays in different ways. So when we’re trying to transform an organization, we’re trying to take an organization on this journey of change towards agility, we are taking an existing culture, an existing model of the world, and we’re looking to change that model, or uproot, in some ways destroy that cultural model and replace it with something new, these new values, these new ideas, and there’s a shortcut to doing that, which is to use ideology.

    Geof:

    Ideology has always been used as an instrument of change. Because if you can get people believing in this new way, as something that, where we can bring in group thing, we can get this, everybody walking the same walk, talking the same language using the same terminology and we’re all in this together, agile is our way that actually that does help to make that transformation easier. The tension, the problem is that if we use ideology as a way of transforming, then we were still left with an ideology. And if our root value is to continue to be flexible, and continue to iterate on what’s good and to continue to adapt, inspect and adapt at every level of the organization.

    Geof:

    An ideology is just something else that freezes us and we end up trapped in ways of doing things that are just as hard to get away from the culture that we started with. So ideology is something that pulls us it’s something that’s attractive, believing that agile is somehow special, is a really attractive proposition and our clients find it attractive. But allowing that ideology to take root can freeze an organization in a state that makes you have to continue to be adaptive.

    Alexis:

    I really love those two paradoxes, I have said that they really resonated with me. I can empathize totally with that idea of you’re coming in an organization, you are the expert, you are asked to really every time improve. I remember one time, I was working with a really small startup. And they were, not a lot, but they knew that there was a lot of traction for what they were providing and so they needed to grow really fast. The people in charge, there were three of them that were managing the company at the beginning. They were telling me, “Okay, Alexis or we will do the thing.” I remember the CTO telling me, “Okay, we will hire a manager for that, manager for that, manager for that, manager for that and then they will hire their teams and so on.”

    Alexis:

    I said, “I don’t think that can work. Because you still need to deliver a lot of things. So instead of hiring those managers that will then hire their team and so on, probably we should focus on the people that will already do the work.” And the question was, “But how they will be organized?” And I said, “we will adopt an agile way of working. So your goal is to have small teams that will be able to deliver end to end value to your customers.”

    Alexis:

    And he was asking me but, “What is the target organization? At the end, how will we be organized? How the company will be organized?” I was trying to stay on my stance again, “We will have smaller teams, and they will be organized to deliver value end to end.” And we’re thinking, “Oh, but I understand what you say. But can you draw me the organization in the end?” I said, “No, I can’t because I don’t know, we will design the organization along the way. There is no model, there is no end game. We need to agree on those principles and we will design the organization along the way.” And he was still trying to ask me that, “I’m pretty sure you know but you don’t want to tell me.” I tell him, “I don’t know.”

    Alexis:

    That was really hard for him to discuss with the expert. And at the same time that the expert is studying that. I don’t know, I don’t know the results. I know we can do it, I know we’ll do it along the way, but I don’t know the end game and the results.

    Geof:

    Yeah, exactly.

    Alexis:

    It was really a hard time. If you explain that, that was my expert, thought of… destroyer that I was feeling that was okay. I need to old on that line. Because if I don’t, then I will design everything by myself and it will be totally wrong for the people in the company.

    Geof:

    Yeah. So you’ve led me beautifully into the model and I wonder whether this is a time to kind of bring the model out of the box and start talking about it a little bit. Because I think that particular encounter that you had really is one of the things I was trying to address in the model.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, please.

    Geof:

    So the model is organized into columns and the columns are based on work by a whole sequence of academic and practical research is going back to Piaget, who was working in child development 150 years ago. And the terminology I’ve used comes from a guy called Bill Joiner, who writes about leadership agility. But the basic principle idea is that as children, we go through stages of development, and they’re pretty well understood now. Children start off as babies not being able to differentiate themselves from their parents and from the world. And then they learn that they’re separate and you go through these very explicit concrete stages of development. The idea that was put forward by this, all of this chain of researchers, and people will be familiar with things like Laloux and Reinventing Organizations and Spiral Dynamics, there’s a whole bunch of stuff out here. They’re all based on the same principle, which is, “As adults, we also go through these stages of development.”

    Geof:

    We start off and in turn, in terms of the first column in my model, we start off with what Bill Joiner calls expert, and an expert, it’s all about our skill, our ability to perform a task really well. And we see the world in quite mechanistic ways. So I’ve… The title of the column in the model is machine. So we kind of see the world as a machine and our idea is that if we can just put the things together in a way that we understand it’s kind of all logical, it all fits together and I understand what my purpose is in this machine. I’m really expert at it. When I become a manager, I can tell other people how to be expert. I can teach other people

    Geof:

    It’s very mechanistic view of the world and many people. So Bill Joiner reckons that something like 35% of people in management roles are still locked into this kind of expert role and the accounts that you had was with someone who had that view of the world, they want to see their organization as a machine, that’s the way that they conceive of how things work. So I’ve got a machine at the moment, it works like this, you’re going to come in, and you’re going to help me build a new machine that works differently. So show me what it looks like, what’s the blueprint, I want to be able to see it then I’ll understand.

    Geof:

    And if people are in that column, that’s where you have to meet them. So the challenge that many coaches come across is they’re looking to move people into a different way of thinking, and the person they’re talking to just doesn’t yet have the language or the model of how the world works enables them to participate in that conversation. So we have to move people across the columns. So the columns in my model go, start with this machine, the next column is family. So this is what Bill Joiner calls achiever and this is where we start to understand that the groups of people in organizations have these kind of, these complicated power structures going on and these different in groups and out groups and ways of communicating and that people have all kinds of little daily struggles and conflicts that are some sometimes part of the business of the business.

    Geof:

    Sometimes they’re to do with people’s personal lives, and it all comes together in a big mess. And that organizations aren’t like machines that actually the groups of people within organizations act much more like families where power is contingent, the idea that families have a head of the household and anyone listening who has a family knows that that’s not how power works in organizations. Power is slippery and difficult, and it’s all over the place. And a family doesn’t work like a machine and things are always changing, people are always finding different roles.

    Geof:

    So the reality is whatever structure you have written down on paper, that’s not really what’s happening in your organization, stuff is moving around. So that’s the next step is to recognize that and to stop being so focused on what people are doing, and start being focused on what people are achieving. So we stopped being interested in the process, and telling people what to do, because that’s what experts do, is they say do it like this, and it’ll work, we start stepping back and saying, “Okay, this is what I want to happen.” And you lot organize yourself and make it happen.

    Geof:

    So people who are in that second column are able to step back a little bit, if the person that you’ve been speaking to, within that green family kind of column, they would have been able to meet you more easily and be a bit more flexible and say, Okay, I get it, it’s going to be a little bit complicated, it’s going to emerge, and stuff will happen. So that’s the second column. The third column is living system. So this is what Bill Joiner calls catalyst. And at this point, people are able to move a step further and start seeing that their organization isn’t a little bubble, separate from the rest of the world, but the actually is part of a much bigger set of systems.

    Geof:

    So this is the living system column, we start to see that those power structures that I talked about at family that are kind of flexible and fluid, that actually there are systems at play here. But the team itself is a system, each individual person is a system of thoughts and desires, that groups of systems the different teams interact with each other in systemic ways. And that you can follow, you can understand what’s happening when you start to look at those interactions and start in a systemic way and you can start to see the organization as part of a wider world.

    Geof:

    People who are able to meet you at that in that column and build your records. There’s only 5% or so of managers who are in that column, people are able to meet you in that column will get agility in a completely different way to the expert, because they will immediately understand that what we’re doing here is working with a system and helping the team to see its own systemic processes to be able to understand what’s happening between you and me and this person over here and to be able to inspect and adapt not just the work that we’re doing but but who we are as a group of people. So they’ll meet you in a different place.

    Geof:

    Then my fourth column is called wonderland. The idea that almost it’s kind of post agile, really, this is where we’re stepping back from the idea of ideology completely and saying, “All right, we are now about being curious about everything, about getting out of any silos that we might be in being open to experience, we might start really allowing different value systems to compete within the same organization in the same team, where we’re able to deal with things like conflict in a completely different way, we’re able to take the scratchiness and challenge the world and just get interested in and use that as a source of information.”

    Geof:

    So those are the kind of four columns and one of the first reasons that I wanted this model was as a way of helping us to understand as agile coaches, where we are meeting our clients. So first question is, where am I? So as an agile coach, where do I recognize myself in these columns? And it might be that in some parts of what I do, I’m in one column in some parts of what I do, I’m in another. None of this is black and white. This isn’t about putting people in boxes. But it’s about understanding, what’s my capacity for taking that curious route. There’s a concept called transcended include, which is that every time we move through the levels, we still have all of the capabilities we had in the previous level.

    Geof:

    So as I move through to living system, and I’m getting to the point where I’m past the kind of this is how agile should work. I’m getting really interested in systems and I’m using systems thinking, and I’m working with teams and that way, I can still step into expert, I can still go back into that first column and inhabit that. But I can do it from a different stance. So I take my curiosity and I’ll step in deliberately, intentionally into that expert teacher role. And I’ll share that with the team I’m working with now say, “Okay, I think that there’s something I know about that that might be able to help you here. Do I have your permission to put a different hat on and to step in?” And I can do that in a way that that allows me to still be me, I don’t have to be a different person. But I can just step into that different role and then I can step back again, or what I’m interested in helping coaches to do with this model is to find the learning edge of their clients and meet them there.

    Geof:

    So if you understand that your client is sitting in that first expert column, they’re going to be focused on process and machine. So we have to meet them there, we have to show them something that they can get a handle on. But in doing so we want to pull them into this next stage into family, we’re not going to get them into systems thinking straightaway, we’re going to have to take them through and just help them to understand what’s going on within their teams that they might be interested in, isn’t just about their role definitions and how they handoff works one another. It’s about the quality of the communication and relationships between people in those teams and that’s where we need to focus on next energy.

    Geof:

    So that’s really where the model comes from. It’s taking those paradoxes and recognizing that both of those paradoxes exist because of the need to move between these columns as an agile coach in a way that professional coaches don’t have to, if you’re a professional coach, you typically operate within one column with one client, I’m either here to… I’m here as a skills coach, I’m going to teach you how to do something, I’m here as a transformational coach, I’m going to sit back and work with you and you’re going to tell your story and we’re going to create a new narrative for you however we’re working. With agile coaches, we’re constantly having to move around these different columns. If as an agile coach, we are still ourselves, but they’re very much on the left hand side of that model, we just need to recognize our own limitations in what happens when we meet a client who’s further to the right.

    Alexis:

    This is exactly that kind of difficult realization. I was looking at, where my client is not necessarily where I am now and I think a that’s an important thing to realize that if you are in the system, you are in a complex system, you are part of it, whatever you want, you are still there. That’s really an interesting first thought on that. The thing that I’m struggling a little bit with is considering the client, considering a team or as being in one column. How do you deal with teams that the individuals in the team, the people in the team are not in the same column? How do you deal with that situation?

    Geof:

    So the individuals within teams are rarely in the same column, certainly in my experience. Again, for me, what’s helpful about the model is understanding, so where’s the center of gravity of the team? What does that mean for the people who are outliers? So if the center of gravity of the team is in that family column, then you’re probably going to have some experts there who are struggling with the fact that, what they want to do is just do their job. So my job is to sit here and write this code, or my job is to whatever and their understanding of their role is they have something to do in which they have expertise. And yet around them, this team is, is having completely different conversations about trying to collaborate on this and do this, be adaptive in this way, and it just doesn’t make sense.

    Geof:

    So what we’re going to have to work out is how do we manage that potential discrepancy? Are we going to do some work with the team to help them to get into each other’s models of the world. So some of the work that I’m doing at the moment is with Caitlin Walker, systemic modeling. She’s a British woman who has worked for years with groups and started her work with teenagers who were disenfranchised, disillusioned about school and she realized that when you have a group that’s really heterogeneous, lots of really different kind of things going on in that group and there’s conflict, that giving people the language to understand each other’s model of the world is really important. So if I have a group that’s like that, then I might bring in some of that systemic modeling language, to help the people in the teams to get into when you say this, this is what I’m making up about what you mean, now you tell me what you really mean and I’ll try to understand what your model of the world is and then I’m going to share that with you.

    Geof:

    This is my model of the world, when I say this, this is what I mean, and really giving people the language to understand that we have different models of the world and if I’m going to challenge my own model, my biggest challenge to my model is that despite the fact that I said earlier, I don’t like putting people in boxes, I think it’s difficult to use a model like this without putting people in boxes. So if there’s a way of evolving this model in the future, to be less boxy, that’s what I would want to do next. Because as you say, “People don’t inhabit these boxes, teams certainly don’t. But I do think that there is value in understanding, I think these four columns give you a way of understanding where abouts people are in relation to each other and therefore, where the potential tensions might lie, and how you can think about, do you just have to just allow those tensions? Do you find a way of bringing people into the same space? Do you just help people to understand what’s going on for each other? So you have some choices to make.

    Geof:

    I think the model helps with just understanding where people are and what choices you might have, what levers you might be able to pull.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, and those columns are even more like scales and that’s how you are somewhere on the scale.

    Geof:

    Yeah.

    Alexis:

    I assume that if you are making assumptions about other people, you will probably move yourself on the scale to try to fit what they want or what they need. I can observe that in my team when some people are really hierarchical in their mindset. So they assume things about the boss, that the boss should do certain things. And they expect the boss will do that. But unfortunately for them, the boss is not in the same hierarchical view of the world. So they frustrated about the lack of things that the boss should do. It’s an interesting situation to be in. So I’m trying to meet them somewhere in the middle and it’s an interesting situation to be in, try to say, “Okay, that’s your expectation about the world and you need to realize that the older people expect you to do things.” That’s that’s an interesting tension.

    Geof:

    Yeah, for sure.

    Alexis:

    So, if we see that as scales, we can move along those scales to adjust to where the people are. Explaining the model can help them see that the others are not necessarily seeing the world the same way?

    Geof:

    Yes.

    Alexis:

    Okay, and you’re really using the model this way with your customers, with the teams you are working with?

    Geof:

    Yeah, so one of the one of the challenges is, so at the moment, the model is still very much in its kind of early iterations. It’s in its current form for quite a while, but COVID has kind of interrupted a lot of things. So I’ve been using it. I haven’t been using it explicitly with clients, so I haven’t been sharing it and I have mixed feelings about sharing it. And the reason I have mixed feelings is comes back to this question about putting people in boxes and about the idea of assessing people. So at the moment, I’m using it as a way of, as part of my reflective practice. So I will, if I’m working with a team, I will use the model as a way of thinking about, “Okay, so here are my key individuals whereabouts do I think they are? Where would I meet them? What does this help? What does this tell me?” So I use it as part of my reflective practice, but I’m not sharing the model explicitly.

    Geof:

    Now, there’s a part of my coaching practice that says, if I’m using a model, to think about my clients, then generally speaking, I want to be open and share that model with my clients. Because, there’s danger of doing violence to clients by modeling them without them knowing that’s what I’m doing. So there’s a bit of a tension there. So at the moment, I’m using the model in my reflective practice, but I’m not explicitly using it with teams, and I’m not sure that in its current form, I would advocate using it in that kind of transparent way with teams. I might use some of the language and certainly, I might use some of that some of the underlying language about our views of the world, how do we think that organizations work? But I would probably do it in a more of that systemic modeling way that way of getting people to use their own language about how do they see the world?

    Geof:

    So if I think that what’s going on in a team is that some people are locked into the machine expert column, and some people are kind of happily living in the family, and maybe even getting into living systems, what I might do is invite people to talk about, “Okay, so when you’re coming into the organization, and you’re in your team, and you’re working with your team, that’s like what?” And see what people come up with and see what metaphors might arise from people and see, it might be that somebody says, “Well, I kind of see the team a bit like, it’s a bit like a watch, there’s this really intricate little cog, that’s me, I’m over here, and then there’s this big hand over here that goes round.”

    Geof:

    So you might start to hear the metaphors coming out, you might find that machine metaphor come out. And somebody else might say, “No, it’s more like, I feel more like we’re, we’re kind of like pebbles in the ocean,” or whatever it is that comes out. So I think I would, at this point, I would use the model as a way of doing reflective practice. But in my work with teams, I’m more likely to use their own language, and test my reflective thoughts against what comes up in the team’s own words.

    Alexis:

    Excellent, I thank you for sharing that. I remember when I read the Laloux book about organization, that’s Preventing Organization, I think, I was really excited about trying to explain to different stages of organization. I was ready already to explain that to everybody.

    Geof:

    Yeah.

    Alexis:

    And I realized that the first time I started to explain the different levels, I was definitely in an oriental organization really no machine organization. And they were thinking, “Okay, it will not end well,” because I’m trying to explain something that will not really resonate with them and basically, I will tell them, “You are not good. That’s not how you should be, that will not work.” And I was thinking, “Okay, now I need to escape that conversation. This was exactly not the thing to do.

    Geof:

    Yeah, exactly. And to build on that, not only when we’re doing that, not only if we expose the model, we risk doing harm, but actually if we keep the model to ourselves, but we’ve already made that determination, there’s a risk of harm because there’s a risk that we’re holding that organization in contempt because of the hierarchical view that we have about what a good organization looks like. I think that the one of the things that models can do if we use them well is to recognize some of those internal biases and the contempt that we might be holding, and use the model as a way of providing a warning that Okay, so if I think this organization is a machine orange, what does that mean about the way I’m going to think about the people in this organization and what care do I need to take to ensure that I’m seeing every human being in this organization as a fully competent human being?

    Alexis:

    Yep. This is a very good point. Our expectations or our biases, and when we start elaborating organization or even worse people, we are blocking our thinking and we are not able to interact with them in an efficient way in a really human way. We are seeing them as problems instead of seeing them as human beings that are fully responsible of who they are, how they are interacting with the world?

    Geof:

    Yeah, exactly.

    Alexis:

    I was surprised in organization that are more mechanistic more machines, the people in those organizations, some of them are, let’s say, comfortable with their position and their role. And some of them are suffering in those position and would like to change things. How to come in support of those people, all of them is an interesting challenge.

    Geof:

    Yeah, absolutely. Because, as I said earlier, one way that organizations do that, is this use of ideology and to some extent the way that we use frameworks, I think falls into this, You see people, almost subverting some of the ideas of agility by saying to someone who’s comfortable in that orange expert column, are actually you can still be like that in this new world. I’m just giving you a new process, I’m just giving you a new machine, it’s okay. And there’s a danger in doing that and there’s comfort in doing that. So there’s a real tension in the way that we approach those people who are very comfortable with the world the way that is. Yeah, I think that’s a really good point.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, I remember to using Scrum. Yeah, as you said, as an ideology that will enable you to start a transformation, to start to change. With some teams after the first or two or three iterations, they were starting to reconsider the framework itself, they will start to reconsider that they could change things, how they were doing things, because that was not necessarily the best way for them. Which was really interesting and I’ve seen teams using exactly the scrum by the book for months. And you say, “Okay, there’s something broken there.” The probability that it’s still the best way of doing things for you is really low. So instead of using the framework as a starting point, you are stuck with that framework now. That’s your new way of working, that is not necessarily the best way.

    Geof:

    Yeah, your new machine.

    Alexis:

    Yeah, exactly. When we send order, and when we see the columns and the tables, and it can feel a little bit like the metrology model that some people are selling and it’s really scary. But when we listen to you explaining the model, it changed everything and now, I’m totally with you on calling it a Human-Centric approach. Because I understand that it’s really what it is, based on what you say, it’s really fascinating. Is there other things that you would like to share today?

    Geof:

    I think the thing that I would like to share is that this model is very much a first iteration. And I touched on this earlier, this is not how it ends up. This is a first attempt at taking what I learned from this research and putting it onto paper in a way that I think certainly helps me to think about where things set, I know that my personal bias is to work in a bubble for longer than is helpful. So really, what I want to do at this point is invite people to kind of join a conversation with me, if people think there’s value in this model, then to get into a conversation about, “Okay, what next? How do we try out some of these ideas in practice? How do we get some feedback on what happens when we use them? And what might the next version of this model or next iteration look like?” It’s published under Creative Commons, that’s my intention, it’s not mine, my intention is that if there’s value in it, then I’d like the world to do something with it.

    Geof:

    So I think that’s the thing I would say is don’t treat it as a fixed artifact. Don’t treat it as something that I think is finished, treat it with some skepticism come at it with curiosity and intend to iterate and collaborate. And anyone who would like to collaborate with me on it, please do get in touch because I’m going to be putting together a group of people who are interested and we’ll collectively see what happens next.

    Alexis:

    Very cool. I love it. And to contact you, they can contact you through LinkedIn?

    Geof:

    LinkedIn is probably the easiest way. My email address is geof.ellingham@gmail.com and Geof is G-E-O-F, slightest strange spelling, but LinkedIn is probably the easiest place to find me.

    Alexis:

    Perfect. I will put that in reference and I will of course put the article in reference of that recording.

    Geof:

    Right.

    Alexis:

    Thank you, Geof for joining the podcast today. That was really amazing to have you. I’ve learned a lot and I bet the people who listen, we’ll learn a lot too. I’m eager to continue to discuss with you after that. Thank you very much.

    Geof:

    You’re very welcome. I’ve really enjoyed having the conversation. Just to add that every time I have a conversation about the model, I learn new stuff about what might happen next. So these conversations are just so valuable.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to Alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode and for more help to increase your impact and satisfaction, drop a comment or an email with your feedback or just to say hello, and until next time to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    Picture by Dylan Gillis.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • The Job of an Open Leader: Context, Trust, and Growing Others

    The Job of an Open Leader: Context, Trust, and Growing Others

    Open leadership is often described through principles such as transparency, inclusivity, or collaboration.

    But what does the job of an open leader actually look like, day to day?

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure of welcoming Preethi Thomas, Software Engineering Manager at Red Hat, to explore this question through her own journey and experience.

    From individual contributor to manager

    Preethi’s career started as a software developer, then moved through quality engineering, before she joined Red Hat as an individual contributor.

    Like many experienced engineers, she eventually reached a crossroads:

    • stay an individual contributor, or
    • move into a management role

    What helped her navigate that decision was reflection, guidance from her manager, and the OPT model used at Red Hat.

    Finding the right intersection: the OPT model

    The OPT model stands for:

    • Opportunity
    • Passion
    • Talent

    Preethi shares how she realized that her passion was centered on people and growing others, that she had the talent to support that, and that she needed to actively look for opportunities to explore management.

    Participating in Red Hat’s Aspiring Managers Program gave her the space to experiment, learn, and decide intentionally.

    The four axes of leadership

    During the conversation, we explore leadership through four complementary axes:

    • People: attracting, developing, and supporting others
    • Business: understanding strategy, customers, and the broader context
    • System: removing obstacles and improving the environment
    • Execution: delivering outcomes

    A key insight Preethi shares is that execution is often a result of the other three. When people, business context, and systems are taken care of, execution follows.

    Context and trust as foundations

    A recurring theme in the episode is the importance of providing context.

    Preethi explains how transparency and communication help people understand the “why” behind decisions, connect their work to the bigger picture, and collaborate more effectively.

    Context and trust, together, become the roots of collaboration.

    Open organizations in practice

    We also explore the five characteristics of open organizations:

    • transparency
    • inclusivity
    • adaptability
    • collaboration
    • community

    Rather than ranking them, Preethi highlights how they reinforce each other and ultimately build trust.

    Inclusivity, in particular, shows up through everyday signals:

    • who speaks and who doesn’t
    • how disagreements are handled
    • whether people feel safe to contribute

    Open leadership means noticing these signals and acting when something feels off.

    Mentoring: you need a village

    One of the strongest threads in the conversation is mentoring.

    Preethi shares how having mentors radically accelerated her growth, and why she believes:

    “You need a village to help you succeed.”

    Mentoring is not transactional or time-boxed for her. It is a long-term relationship where both mentor and mentee learn, reflect, and grow.

    She also encourages everyone, regardless of seniority, to both have a mentor and be a mentor. Everyone has something to teach, even if they don’t realize it yet.

    Learning, confidence, and short-term wins

    Transitioning into management came with its own challenges. Preethi reflects on:

    • the importance of short-term wins to build confidence
    • how difficult it can be to recognize relational work (like one-on-ones) as “real work”
    • why naming and valuing these responsibilities matters

    These insights apply well beyond management roles.

    Books and resources that shaped the journey

    Preethi recommends several books that supported her growth:

    • The First 90 Days
    • The Manager’s Path
    • The Making of a Manager
    • The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

    Combined with mentoring and reflection, these resources helped her navigate different phases of her leadership journey.

    A final thought

    Open leadership is not about control or visibility. It is about creating conditions where others can grow, contribute, and scale their impact.

    As Preethi beautifully puts it, the job of an open leader is to help others succeed — and in doing so, to build something far greater than individual performance.

    Here is the transcript of the episode:

    Alexis:

    Can you tell us a little bit more about your background?

    Preethi:

    Thank you, Alexis and thank you for inviting me for this opportunity. Like you said, my name is Preethi Thomas. I’m a manager for the Containers team at Red Hat. So a little bit of background about myself. I have a background in computer science, I have a master’s in computer applications from a university in India, and I moved to the US. I worked for a little bit in India, maybe, a few months in India before I moved to the US. So I’ve been here 20 plus years now. I started off as a software developer, remember programming and visual basic C, C++.

    Preethi:

    I can remember when it probably was because of an opportunity that I moved to quality engineering. So at the time when I moved to quality engineering there was a lot more manual testing and things of that sort going, but then I enjoyed that part of being on the customer side of things, maybe the first customer getting to use a software. So I went back and forth. After I moved to the US, I went back and forth between development and software engineering, or software development and quality engineering or quality assurance for a little bit.

    Preethi:

    Once I had my kids, I decided quality engineering was more where I could focus a little bit more while managing my kids. I found my passion there. So later on, I think I applied to Red Hat three times before I finally got a job at Red Hat. I got hired at Red Hat and as a quality engineer so I was an individual contributor. So I think that is where my most of my career for worse apart until like maybe a few years into the career I was at the cross roads as in where do I move? Do I stay an individual contributor or move to a leadership role?

    Preethi:

    I think my manager at the time kind of guided me through my questions. So at Red Hat, we followed the OPT model. I remember listening to a session at QE camp in Brno about the OPT model. And that’s when I really thought about what it is that I’m passionate about and where the opportunities are.

    Alexis:

    You need to tell us a little bit more about what is the OPT model?

    Preethi:

    All right. So the OPT model is the intersection of the opportunities, your talent, and the passion. I always have felt that I am passionate about people and growing people or being there for people. And I thought as a parent and my passion, I have the talent to do that. And then the next thing was the opportunity. So finding that opportunity, and I wasn’t sure where I would find that opportunity or how to go about that.

    Preethi:

    Doing a little bit more research into it, I found there was the training program that Red Hat offers called Aspiring Managers Program or AMP training. So I took that and I decided that I wanted to try it. Two years ago I decided to take it the opportunity or move into management. And then here I am. So far I have to say, I’m enjoying this.

    Alexis:

    You were an individual contributor, or you were already within Red Hat so within an organization that is an open organization where the individual contributor can really be real leaders and you wanted to go to management. Nice thing I like with Red Hat is that Aspiring Manager training that can give you a lot of tools, insights if you decide to stay an individual contributor to really increase your impact as a leader, as an individual contributor, or can help you decide if you really want to switch to manager.

    Alexis:

    So you already mentioned that you wanted to go there because you like growing people, helping people be the best of themselves. What were all the aspects that were attracting you to be a manager?

    Preethi:

    I felt at the time that I was a little bit more focused on just what I am doing. So I liked the thought that just to get a little bit more perspective into the company’s vision, or yes, as an individual contributor, I could do that, but I felt like I would have a little bit more opportunity to learn that and be passionate about what the company is passionate about and be able to help other people who likes to be the individual contributor and help them along as well. And get them to understand that make the connection a little bit better.

    Alexis:

    I love it. When I try to describe what is the role of leader, I have a four default axis. My first axis is the execution piece. That’s how what you deliver or what your organization delivers. And second axis, it’s the people, it’s how to attract, retain, develop people so they can really be the best of themselves. Usually I’m saying the people part is the first axis by the way, but that’s too bad. I failed on that.

    Alexis:

    You touch on what we can do for the business. That’s my other axis, the business axis where we think about the strategy, we think about where the industry is going, we think of what our customers really want to achieve and how can we support them with our partners are doing, with all the communities are doing and how we can be involved in that or support that or change the way it works already to think larger than what our team is really doing. And our team can contribute to that or influence the direction where we are going.

    Alexis:

    And the last axis is the system part. We live in the system, we have to improve that system so that the people can work in the right way. That’s a bad system will beat people each time so that we need to really improve the system. And I think as a leader, you need to consider the four axis to be able to work on that. How do you feel about those four axis, execution, people, business and system?

    Preethi:

    Yes. I think I completely agree with you on that four axis, because we need all that to have a successful product or a company. I think I would probably call execution as the last piece, at least in my opinion, because once you have a strategy, once you have a business problem that you’re trying to solve, and you have people and you’re taking care of your people and removing obstacles-

    Alexis:

    The system part, absolutely, removing obstacles is a great summary of it. Yep.

    Preethi:

    Yes. The system part. And then once you have all those three taken care of, I think the execution comes naturally, or that is, I think I would say execution is a product of the three.

    Alexis:

    It’s relatively a rare that people have that level of clarity. I had some into your contributors or even manager when I was asking them about their role, they were 100% focused on execution. And when I was asking about all those things, either they were saying it’s a, “That’s a manager problem,” or “That’s my manager’s problem,” it’s not theirs.

    Preethi:

    Yeah. I think for, especially for people, when you take care of people and create context for people, the why, it makes them understand the bigger picture. As an individual contributor, I think there were times that I was too focused on what I was doing. So I think once I started thinking outside of the box I think it kind of, I made the connection and then that my passion increased.

    Alexis:

    The open organization it’s said that they have five main characteristics, transparency as a foundation for everything, inclusivity, adaptability, collaboration, and community. Do you feel that in your work you experience in a way those characteristics? Is there one in particular that you feel is really really important compared to others or are they all important?

    Preethi:

    I think each of them has its own… I mean, each of them are important in its own way. A product of all that together is the trust. And without trust, I feel like you lose that. So when you have open communication and transparency, I feel like you are creating a culture of collaboration. So then it becomes easy to gain people’s trust and help them move forward. However, as a leader you create that passion in them by following these open management principles. To me, transparency is extremely important. So I think transparency and communication helps create that context for my people.

    Alexis:

    Creating context for the team is really important. By being transparent, we can provide the information that everybody needs to make those decisions. What about the inclusivity, welcoming others’ perspectives?

    Preethi:

    Yes, absolutely. So to have a healthy and collaborative community, you have to be inclusive. As a woman there is different contexts that you see, there is people not being inclusive. So you kind of notice a little when you are a minority group if I say so. Then I think that having a healthy, inclusive community makes it easy for people to grow and collaborate better. So if you have a hostile community, people don’t want to be part of that. So like a meeting, the end result of not being inclusive is you end up having a retention problem. People who are of a diverse opinion may not want to be in that organization when it is not inclusive. Like I said, I think the five aspects, I don’t know what is better than the other.

    Alexis:

    That’s probably not the right question. It seems that they are all really important.

    Preethi:

    Mm-hmm (affirmative).

    Alexis:

    You’re right. On the inclusivity aspect, I feel that it’s sometimes difficult to realize if the team or the community is inclusive enough. What are the signs we should look at?

    Preethi:

    Well, I’m not an expert at that, but then again, I’ll try. I don’t think there is a bar as in how much inclusivity is enough. So I think the more inclusive you are, there is always room for improvement. I think a couple of things that you would notice if a community is not inclusive would be fewer contributions from the outside of the project or someone, especially on a company sponsored project. If you have fewer people coming in contributing, then that means there is something not right.

    Preethi:

    Another way to look at it is be mindful of the platforms that you use in the communication channel, email lists, or even GitHub conversations where you get those hostility to see if there are people being really mean to each other. Okay. It’s okay to have really good discussions and sometimes the discussions getting heated, but then there is also… I think, looking for signs of those… If the results have really heated discussion as people leaving the community, then you’re not doing something right. I think there are, I think, signs that you can watch for, if you are paying attention, it’ll show itself out.

    Alexis:

    How do you get people in your team paying more attention to those signs and how can you help them to fix those issues?

    Preethi:

    Really paying attention, and making sure that if there is a conversation that happens, that you noticed and making awareness for that. If one of your associates is you see that something’s happening, sometimes you’re not watching it all the time, or someone raises it to you, that there is this incident that happened and getting to the why behind it, and being able to talk and coach your people on the right behaviors. Or even making sure that they are aware that some of these might have caused someone to feel a certain way or not included in that, I think making sure that you say something when you see something.

    Alexis:

    I love it.

    Preethi:

    To me, something that I feel, if I feel something is not right, that doesn’t mean that you feel the same way, but then I have that opportunity to raise it to you saying, “Okay, I felt this. It doesn’t mean that you may have…” But then the next time this happens, you might think, “Oh, this may be something that is going to be offensive to X, Y, and Z.”

    Alexis:

    Do you feel that it’s the job of the manager in particular, in that context or is it the job of anybody in the team?

    Preethi:

    I think it’s the job of anybody in the team. A manager may not be watching all the conversations or everything that is happening, especially in the open source community, right? If you have a set of standards, making sure other people in the team are aware of this. A manager cannot be a gatekeeper for the community. We can make sure the expectations are known to the team so that the team can to be inclusive. It’s everyone’s responsibility to be inclusive.

    Alexis:

    Yeah. Excellent. So, that’s where I can see the power of the team agreements, or the code of conduct in communities so we can raise the awareness of what are the expected behavior from each other. As you said before, when you see something, you say something and you are expected to speak up when there’s something that is not going well.

    Alexis:

    I know you mentioned, if I recall to encouraging and using mentoring in your team to help people grow in their roles. Can you tell us more about that?

    Preethi:

    Oh, absolutely. That is something that I’m very passionate about. I think in my journey to be here right now, you need a village to help you succeed. I have a village of mentors, but then I did not have a formal mentor until like maybe four years ago or five years ago. So once I got a mentor, my growth has been exponential. I think it helped me come to terms, to crystallize my goal so what I want. I came in even to the point that as in, even though it was in the back of my mind, it was I found it from within me, but then someone helped me get to that by asking the right question.

    Preethi:

    The thing about me, I think I’ve read somewhere that you use a mentor for a certain period of time, and then you find other mentors. But then with me, I’ve had excellent relationship with all my mentors and you know that as well. I keep learning from all my mentors. So I don’t want to stop the relationship. I say, “Now okay, this is two months into it. Okay, I’m done. I achieved this goal so let me move on to another mentor.” It’s not that for me, it’s my village of support that I need. Because I’ve personally experienced that relationship and what it can do to grow you in your career, as well as, as a person, I really encourage my team to be mentors and mentees.

    Preethi:

    Each one, wherever they are in their career I think they have an aspiration to do whatever the next thing is. And everyone has something to teach. That I think, it took a long time for me to realize that, “Okay, there may be something that I can teach others too.” And then I’m like, “Okay, I can be a mentor for someone and I have something to offer as well.” So yes, I think mentor and having a mentor and mentee is super important. And that is something that I think you learn from a mentor as much. And you learn from your mentee as well.

    Alexis:

    How it works for the people that you nudge or you pushed to become a mentor of others, we always have something to teach to other how to… How it works? Because I guess some people were more reluctant than others to try to be a mentor.

    Preethi:

    So in my team, I think I’ve mentioned this too, I’m very open and creating that context is really important to me. I’m open and honest about my journey as in how this has helped and how this relationship is super important and how that can help them grow as an individual contributor and however they want to grow their career. I keep repeating or I’m honest about and answering about any questions that they have in those contexts and my experience, I’m always willing to share that my experience that can inspire others.

    Preethi:

    I think when people hear stories and when they see the value, people do not hesitate. And I always tell them that even now sometimes I feel I don’t have anything to offer to a mentee, but then I have to think of myself and my journey, there may be someone who was looking for something, what I was looking for at the time that I was looking for.

    Alexis:

    Very good point. I have an experience like, I think last week I had a discussion with a mentee. She started the call asking me question about what I was doing. And I was surprised because usually people start with, they come with their problems and they want to discuss those problems. They don’t necessarily come to ask me questions. So I was not ready for that. I started to discuss that and at some point she stopped and says, “Oh, this is interesting, what you are saying, because it make me think about something I’m working on right now. I didn’t think I was ready to discuss that, but maybe we can discuss that topic.”

    Alexis:

    Until we discussed her topic and I realized discussing her topic that we were in the discussion designing something that could be a solution to one of the problems I had. So it was really interesting to see, okay, that we went back and forth discussing both our different challenges we were working, perfectly helped each other design solutions for us. I’m always saying it’s a social learning experiment. And we both learned that one call, that was 40 minutes call and it was really the embodiment of everything I’ve seen. Those relationships, those discussions are really special to me. That’s really something that I hope everybody will be able to experience.

    Preethi:

    Yeah absolutely.

    Alexis:

    Have you experienced things that are similar to that?

    Preethi:

    Oh, absolutely. Red Hat has the mentoring program, I have a mentee now and we were talking about something or even last week. As I’m asking her questions I keep thinking, “Okay, this is where I was, and I think this is, while I’m preaching, am I doing this as well?” So maybe there is a room for improvement for me in implementing what I am suggesting, or we are talking about. So what is it that…

    Preethi:

    I think it kind of instills the qualities a little bit more into your brain too, like inspires you to try them out as well, to come to a solution that works. You’re helping someone, but then at the same time you are learning as you go. You come up with ideas that you can try on yourself as well. Yes. So I think I’m completely with you on that.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. We covered a lot during that call and I’m really glad that we cover those things about being an open leader, could be an individual contributor or the manager. When you started your journey, what is the one thing you wish you should have known?

    Preethi:

    I think more recently, the one thing that I would say, or I don’t know if it just ended up being one thing, it probably ended up being multiple things. So, it’s like, I felt like I had the tools to try it out, but then again, I didn’t have like a practical experience. I remember reading this, I came upon this book, First 90 Days when I started my management journey, I think I started reading that around maybe around 60 days into my new job and I was, “Maybe I should have done a little bit more research and read this book before I started.” Because in that book, there was things like, okay, what are your short-term wins and your long-term wins.

    Preethi:

    I think that short-term wins really would have helped me realize, okay or give you that confidence that, okay, you may be on the right path. It’s like for the first three months, I felt like I didn’t know what I’m doing. I was doing it anyway. Just thinking, “Okay, this may be right or maybe, otherwise someone will tell me,” but I think having those tangible things that you can check off that first few months of you are navigating a new job or new role would definitely help you give you that inspiration to go on or the motivation to go on.

    Alexis:

    It’s interesting because it’s at the same time, the inspiration to go on, it’s the motivation to go on. And it’s really building the confidence that you need to do all of that.

    Preethi:

    Exactly.

    Alexis:

    Short term wins are really, really important in that process. So it’s already good one. I think whatever role you’re starting, it’s really an important insight.

    Preethi:

    One of the biggest thing that I felt when going from individual contributor to a management role was that quantifying your achievements or quantifying what you’re doing. It took me a long time for example, it took me a long time to admit that, to myself, that my one-on-one is part of my job or it is something that I can say, “Okay, this is my responsibility.”

    Preethi:

    To me, it felt like, “Okay, I’m just having a conversation. I’m not verifying a bug. I’m not writing any code.” It wasn’t quantifying enough for me. Seeing that written down as in, okay, this is part of my job, this is my responsibility, this is a check mark that I can do, was important to me.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. Is there a question I should have asked you?

    Preethi:

    I think along with the mentors, my manager, I think the village, the village that helped me grow and still continuing to help me grow has been I think another thing that I’ve picked up over the last two years that has been a little bit more helping me grow more it’s been some of the business books. So I think a couple of a few books that I really enjoyed and helped me find these little nuggets everywhere so I have these post-its from multiple books that is on my desk in my room. So I think a couple of books that I really want to call out are The First 90 Days, I really recommend it to anyone who is starting a new job.

    Preethi:

    So the two other ones were to help me earlier on in my management path is A Manager’s Path and The Making of a Manager, both are written by people who’ve been in individual contributors in tech space growing into management. And then they’re really honest, really stories about things that didn’t work for them, things that kind of, they figured out on their journey. Those have been really helpful for me.

    Preethi:

    And then I think I’ve felt like I’ve been going from what I can do as a manager and now I’m getting into how I can help my team. So I think I’m in my journey in that right now. So how can I, as a manager, help my team grow, be there for my team. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, it was another great one that I really enjoyed reading. I feel like I’m growing in the books that I find too.

    Alexis:

    It’s really interesting because that in the book you mentioned, I read a few of them. When you combine the book reading, when you combine that with having several mentors, like you said, I love your expression that you need a village to help you succeed, I think combining that book reading, mentoring, and probably having those kinds of distribution about the insights or the nuggets you find, this can be already powerful in helping you in your journey. Thank you for mentioning those books. I will put that in reference in the blog post that will-

    Preethi:

    Oh, thank you.

    Alexis:

    … at Le Podcast. Okay. Anything else you want to share to the audience today, Preethi?

    Preethi:

    I think one other thing that I would definitely say is I’m really thankful for the Red Hat mentoring program. And I think that really helped me grow and really gave this opportunity to connect with you too. I think, with my personality, I’m an introvert, so I would not have on my own have had that opportunity to reach out to you and talk to you before. So I think that got us to here. So I’m really grateful for the program that I have found me mentors. And I think I’ve really enjoyed this journey so far and shout out to all the people in my village.

    Alexis:

    Excellent. I hope they will listen to you and appreciate your progress in your journey. I’m pretty sure your mentees will also love that and see the path forward for them, that they will help other people to grow and in this way scale their impact. And I think this is really the job of an open leader, really helping the others to scale their impact. Thank you very much, Preethi, that was really great to have you on Le Podcast.

    Preethi:

    Thank you so much for this opportunity. I enjoyed this as well.

    Alexis:

    Thank you for listening to this episode of Le Podcast. Go to blog-blog-alexis.monville.com for the references mentioned in the episode and to find more help to increase your impact and satisfaction at work. Drop a comment or an email with your feedback or just to say hello. And until next time to find better ways of changing your team.

    The music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0)

    The picture is by Jehyun Sung.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One