Tag: podcast

  • 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

  • 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

  • Celebrating the First Season!

    Celebrating the First Season!

    Yay! The first season of Le Podcast comes to an end! It is time to celebrate and thank the guests and the listeners!

    Season One is composed of 15 episodes covering leadership and team building. The top 3 (in terms of audience, I love them all equally 🙂 ) is:

    1. Do you want 10x Engineers? with Julien Danjou
    2. All about OKRs with Bart with Bart den Haak
    3. Grow your Software Engineering Career with Emilien Macchi

    A big thank you to all the guests!

    • Emilien Macchi
    • Jason McKerr
    • Bart den Haak
    • Julien Danjou
    • John Poelstra
    • Michael Doyle
    • Michael DeLanzo
    • Frank Jansen
    • Jerome Bourgeon
    • Michael Reid
    • Valentin Yonchev
    • Matt Takane

    Another big thank you to all the listeners!

    Now it is time for me to prepare Season Two with even more book authors, conference speakers and people who inspire better ways of leading and building a better world. (Yes! You can still send me suggestions!)

  • Growing as a Software Engineer: Learning, Sharing, and Impact

    Growing as a Software Engineer: Learning, Sharing, and Impact

    Career growth in software engineering is often described as a matter of accumulating technical skills, mastering new tools, or moving into more complex systems.

    In reality, the journey is more nuanced.

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I had the pleasure of welcoming Emilien Macchi, Senior Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, to discuss how learning and sharing have shaped his career.

    Learning as a continuous practice

    Emilien is a long-time contributor to OpenStack, having been involved nearly since the inception of the project. Originally from France and now based in Canada, he has built his career in distributed, open-source environments.

    A recurring theme in our conversation is that learning never stops. And more importantly, learning rarely happens alone.

    We discuss how practices such as:

    • peer reviews
    • pair programming
    • open discussions
    • and shared problem-solving

    contribute not only to better code, but to better engineers.

    Collaboration, including remote work

    Emilien shares a perspective that may surprise some: he believes that collaboration can be easier and better in remote contexts.

    We explore why remote work, when supported by the right practices, can:

    • improve focus
    • encourage clearer communication
    • and create more inclusive collaboration

    This naturally connects with earlier conversations on distributed teams and asynchronous work.

    Growing beyond technical skills

    Of course, I also asked Emilien what he believes are the most important things to develop as a software engineer.

    The answer goes beyond technical skills.

    We talk about:

    • communication
    • curiosity
    • responsibility
    • and the ability to learn with others

    These capabilities shape long-term impact far more than any specific technology.

    A reflection on practitioner leadership

    As Emilien was also one of the first people to leave a written review on Goodreads, I asked him what he thought of I am a Software Engineer and I am in Charge.

    This led to a broader reflection on responsibility, ownership, and how engineers can increase both their impact and satisfaction at work.

    A final thought

    If you are a software engineer wondering how to grow without chasing titles or hype, this episode offers a grounded and inspiring perspective.

    Growth, as Emilien shows, is less about standing out and more about learning, sharing, and contributing over time.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • The Anatomy of Peace: Leadership Starts With Who You Are

    The Anatomy of Peace: Leadership Starts With Who You Are

    Many change efforts focus on behavior: what people should do differently, what processes should change, what practices should be adopted.

    The Anatomy of Peace invites a deeper shift.

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, John Poelstra and I explore the book The Anatomy of Peace by the Arbinger Institute and what it teaches about leadership, responsibility, and inner stance.

    From behavior to being

    John first recommended The Anatomy of Peace in our previous conversation on how (not) to provide feedback. I read it twice and fell in love with it.

    In Changing Your Team From The Inside, I write that change starts with you.


    The Anatomy of Peace pushes this idea further:

    Change starts with who you are.

    Not with techniques. Not with intentions. With the way you relate to others, and to yourself.

    A heart at peace or a heart at war

    One of the core ideas of the book is the distinction between:

    • a heart at peace, and
    • a heart at war.

    When our heart is at war, we tend to see others as:

    • obstacles
    • objects
    • or threats

    When our heart is at peace, we see others as people, as human beings with their own needs, struggles, and intentions.

    This inner stance profoundly shapes how we lead, collaborate, and respond to conflict.

    Boxes, judgment, and responsibility

    We discuss the idea of being “in the box”:
    stories we tell ourselves such as I deserve, I’m better than, I need to be seen as, or I’m worse than.

    These boxes justify our behavior and keep us stuck. We also explore how this maps well with Christopher Avery’s Responsibility Process, where responsibility increases as we move away from blame and justification.

    The book reminds us that we always have a choice:

    • to honor or betray our senses and desires
    • to judge others or to become curious
    • to judge ourselves or to show compassion

    Signals from the body and inner practices

    Another powerful idea we discuss is how our body gives us signals when our heart is at war. Tension, discomfort, and reactivity can become cues to pause and reflect.

    We also touch on practices that support this inner work, such as:

    • Hoʻoponopono
    • meditation

    These practices help create space between stimulus and response, allowing more intentional leadership.

    Further resources

    You can find more information and resources about The Anatomy of Peace on the Arbinger Institute website.

    A final thought

    Leadership is often described as something we do to or for others.

    This episode is an invitation to see leadership as something that starts within:
    with how we see others, how we relate, and who we choose to be in each interaction.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Psychological Safety: Creating Teams Where People Can Speak Up

    Psychological Safety: Creating Teams Where People Can Speak Up

    Psychological safety is a term coined by Amy Edmondson, author of The Fearless Organization.

    At its core, psychological safety describes an environment where people feel safe to speak up, ask for help, take risks, and admit mistakes without fear of being blamed or rejected.

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I explore why psychological safety is such a foundational condition for effective teamwork.

    Psychological safety as a conversation starter

    I first discussed psychological safety with my team when sharing Google’s work on Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as the most important factor in high-performing teams.

    What made it powerful was not the conclusion itself, but the conversations it enabled. Psychological safety gave us a shared language to talk about:

    • fear and risk
    • mistakes and learning
    • inclusion and respect

    Assessing psychological safety in a team

    In the episode, I share a simple set of questions that can be used to assess psychological safety within a team. Each question can be answered on a scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”.

    • When someone makes a mistake on my team, it is often held against them
    • In my team, it is easy to discuss difficult issues and problems
    • In my team, people are sometimes rejected for being different
    • It is completely safe to take a risk on my team
    • It is difficult to ask other members of my team for help
    • Members of my team value and respect each other’s contributions

    These questions are not a diagnostic tool. They are an invitation to reflect and to start meaningful conversations.

    Beyond safety as comfort

    Psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as being “nice” or avoiding challenge.

    In reality, it enables:

    • honest feedback
    • learning from mistakes
    • healthy disagreement
    • shared responsibility

    Without psychological safety, teams tend to hide problems, avoid risks, and limit their contribution.

    Further reading

    In the episode, I also mention several books that explore related themes:

    • The Fearless Organization by Amy Edmondson
    • The Coddling of the American Mind
    • In Great Company

    Each of these books, in different ways, examines how environments shape behavior and learning.

    A final invitation

    Psychological safety is not something you install. It is something you practice, through everyday interactions and leadership choices.

    If this topic resonates with you, I would love to hear your feedback and experiences.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One

  • Changing Your Team from the Inside: A Practitioner’s View on Leadership

    Changing Your Team from the Inside: A Practitioner’s View on Leadership

    Changing a team is often associated with authority, plans, or Changing a team is often imagined as a top-down initiative. A new structure. A new process. A new framework.

    But in practice, some of the most meaningful change starts much closer to the work, through everyday leadership choices.

    In this episode of Le Podcast on Emerging Leadership, I share a conversation with John Poelstra about the ideas behind my book Changing Your Team From The Inside.

    A conversation worth revisiting

    This conversation was originally recorded on John’s show. John later suggested that we cross-publish it on our respective podcasts.

    To do that, I had to re-listen to the episode. And I genuinely enjoyed it.

    Yes, there is some ego involved in listening to yourself talk. Fittingly, ego is also one of the topics we explore in the episode.

    What makes a team great

    Beyond the book itself, the conversation explores broader questions such as:

    • what makes a team truly great
    • how leadership shows up in everyday interactions
    • how individuals can influence their environment without waiting for permission

    We talk about leadership not as a role or a title, but as a practice that shapes how teams work together.

    Leadership from the inside

    A central idea throughout the episode is that changing a team does not require being “in charge”.

    It requires:

    • attention to how work is done
    • responsibility for how we show up
    • and the willingness to experiment and learn

    This is what Changing Your Team From The Inside is really about.

    A final invitation

    If you are looking for practical ways to improve how your team works, without waiting for a reorganization or a new mandate, this episode is a good place to start.

    Give it a try, and let us know what you think.

    Le Podcast – Season Two

    Le Podcast – Season One