In this episode, Pascal sits down with Brian Brault, a leadership development expert who runs programs at MIT with the Entrepreneurs Organization, to explore how leadership has fundamentally evolved in our rapidly changing world. Brian shares insights on the shift from traditional “smartest person in the room” leadership to emotionally intelligent, authentic leadership that prioritizes building teams and genuinely caring for people. The conversation delves into the fascinating duality modern leaders face: being vulnerable and empathetic with human teams while maintaining strict control and boundaries when managing AI agents and systems. Brian emphasizes the critical difference between “being vulnerable” and “leading with vulnerability,” explaining how authentic leaders can acknowledge uncertainty while still providing direction and commitment. The discussion covers the future of organizational structures, the continuing importance of middle management despite Silicon Valley trends, and practical advice for leaders navigating the “messy middle” of technological disruption. Brian concludes with actionable guidance for emerging and established leaders looking to adapt their leadership style, including the power of mentorship and leveraging personal strengths rather than focusing on weaknesses.
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction and Leadership Evolution
01:10 The Shift from IQ to EQ in Leadership
04:00 Trust, Authenticity, and Stakeholder Balance
05:50 The AI Leadership Paradox: Humans vs Machines
09:17 Data Accuracy and Decision-Making in the AI Era
11:35 Outdated vs Essential Leadership Skills
12:22 Brian's Story: Learning to Lead Without All the Answers
16:17 Creating Organizations of Leaders, Not Followers
17:44 Leading Into the Unknown and Career Transitions
21:48 Building Empowered Teams and Strategic Clarity
22:15 The Future of Organizational Structure and Middle Management
26:24 Defining Vulnerable vs Leading with Vulnerability
28:57 Practical Advice for Adapting Leadership Style
33:40 Where to Find Brian and Legacy of Significance
↗ Brian's company: Legacy of Significance
↗ Connect with Brian on LinkedIn
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I mentioned the era of Jack Welch and the the people with
the highest IQ are the ones evolving into leadership.
It's not that IQ is an important, but one of the one of
the aspects of today's world is that getting information and the
intellectual side of business isso readily available through AI
and and other technological advances that the IQ side of
(00:22):
being a leader is is in large part is accessible through
machine learning and AI. Disrupt Disruption.
Hey everybody, Pascal here. Time for another episode of
(00:42):
Disrupt Disruption. Today's guest is the definition
of a builder. Brian Broad steered not one but
two companies onto Ink Magazine's fastest growing list.
Advanced Facility Services cracked the top 400, employed
more than 300 people, and Brian's favorite accolade was
voted one of Western New York's Best Places to Work.
(01:05):
Pure Wellness Rooms reinvented hotel stays with healthier,
hypoallergenic Rooms 1, Cornell's Innovator of the
Hospitality Industry Award, and also landed on the Inc 500.
Beyond the boardroom, Brian is acornerstone of the global
entrepreneurial community. He's a past chairman of the
17,000 Member Entrepreneurs Organization, where he forged A
(01:27):
partnership with the United Nations, created E OS Key
Executive Program, and still chairs the legendary
Entrepreneurial Master's programat MIT.
In 2018, Brian founded Legacy ofSignificance, a coaching and
executive education firm devotedto helping leaders live their
best lives. He's an executive coach, sought
(01:48):
after speaker, forum facilitator, and when he's not
shaping companies, he's shaping communities, serving on
nonprofit boards, staying activein his church, and enjoying life
with his wife Jean, three grown kids, and seven grandchildren.
From scaling companies and shaping cultures to mentoring
the next generation of founders,Brian lives to create positive
(02:11):
impact. Let's dive in and see what
Disrupt Disruption looks like for Brian.
Brian, it's awesome to have you on the podcast.
Thank you so much for taking thetime.
Pascal I I love spending time with you.
I love the way you help everyonearound you just think
differently and I am no exception.
(02:31):
I always get such energy by the questions you ask, the
perspectives you have, and the way you get us.
Maybe a little uncomfortable about challenging our own
thought processes and and way ofapproaching life and showing up
in life. So today is a fun day.
I've been looking forward to this.
It's also perfect timing becauseyou and I are heading out to
(02:52):
Boston to for me to speak at a program you run at MIT on the
MIT campus with the Entrepreneurs Organization,
which is their flagship program on leadership.
I'd be very curious. Let me ask you a first question.
I know that you've been doing this for quite a while and we
(03:13):
like to talk about this idea or this notion that I do think that
our leadership skills, the necessity for our skills, the
type of our skills, the things we do has evolved quite a bit
and continues to evolve since, you know, whatever, like 10
years even even might even be shorter.
We had COVID, we've got AI, we've got changing geopolitics.
(03:37):
All of these kind of things create this interesting messy
middle. And I'd be just curious, maybe
as a first thought on your end, as you're reflecting back on
this program you're running, howhave you seen the leadership
challenges and the tools and theframeworks and the things people
need to bring to the fore have evolved over these the time you
(03:59):
run this program now? So do we have 12 hours for me to
answer this question? I mean, that is a, that is that
is a very profound question. And I think there's AI think
there's a few things there that you bring up.
And one is, yes, things are changing, but I think at its
core, true leadership is the same.
(04:24):
But let me tell you where those things come in.
So there's, there's some changesin the way the world is
selecting its leaders, I think. And 1 is so going back more than
10 years, maybe 25 years ago, the era of Jack Welch and GE and
the smartest person in the room would evolve into leadership
(04:45):
has, has changed. And that that is, and this is
really highlighted by Bill George in his book Discover True
North, is that people with higher emotional intelligence,
people who genuinely care about the people they're leading,
people who are really good building teams, those are the
people who are being selected and evolving into leadership
(05:07):
today. So I think there's a
transformation around the way welook at leaders in the role that
leaders play. And I think also there is a
heightened awareness that the way we show up in in as a leader
in one aspect of our life reallyshows up in all areas of our
(05:30):
life. And so there was a point in time
when maximizing shareholder value was pretty much far and
away the most important role of CE OS of of companies.
And I think that will always certainly be important when you
especially in a capitalist society, you know, creating
(05:50):
shareholder value will always beimportant.
But how we do that, I think has shifted.
And I think it's shifted from recognizing that people are not
simply tools or a simple resource to manage to maximize
shareholder value, but that human beings and people are
(06:12):
people that we need to invest inand care about.
And in so doing, create an environment where people are
committed to the goals of the organization.
And and it's due it it that happens through people feeling
seen, people feeling valued, people feeling heard.
(06:33):
And I think that is an evolutionover the past 10 to 15 years of
the style of leadership. But when you when you look back
at the era of Enron, in the fallof Enron, what happened was you
could put in another half a dozen well known companies that
could fit that same profile. What happened is we, you know,
we as a society started to question how much we trust some
(06:57):
of our leaders. And it's come to a point now
where leaders, the people that we really truly want to follow
are those that we trust and trust comes from being an
authentic leader, showing up as a vulnerability, A vulnerable
leader. And there's a difference between
showing up and being vulnerable and being a vulnerable leader.
(07:21):
And if you want, we can certainly dig into that.
But gosh, you know, you're, you just RIP the Band-Aid off with
this one because it's, this is, I think there's a whole there.
There's a plethora of ways that we could explore the concept of
leadership and how things are changing.
And then, and then you threw in technology and technological
advances in AI. And, and so it's a combination
(07:43):
of saying, Hey, what is happening in the world and how
do we need to embrace this, but embrace it in a way that that
serves our customers, serves ourpeople and serves our
shareholders. And so it's, it's really
understanding the balance between the two is, is really
become an important part for I guess maybe a balance between
(08:04):
the three that leadership is starting to evolve.
So. Interesting.
Allow me to throw a curveball atyou.
And this was a curveball which was thrown at me.
So I will just volley it back toyou.
So on our last podcast, I had myformer boss, Scott Wingo,
incredible leader in the e-commerce space, is now
building an AI startup. And I 100% agree with what you
(08:30):
have said about the role of the leader and the leader being more
empathetic, vulnerability plays a role there, etcetera.
And I like to talk about the notion that when you think about
managing an organization, it's much more about the fluidity of
managing it rather than the org chart and the like, this idea of
(08:52):
command and control and order versus chaos.
And you might remember we have this, we'll talk about this in
our time together this week. Scott mentioned to me, when it
comes to AI, you turn this back on its head.
So his whole point was, which I get, is that basically is that
like the moment you have AI agents working on your behalf,
(09:14):
you actually have to control them in a very, very deliberate
order, control boundary conditions, very like military
style. Everybody needs to know what
they're doing and there's very clear boundaries around those.
I found this interesting and I never really thought about it,
but I found it interesting because it brings up an
interesting challenge, I think for me, which is I like to talk
(09:37):
a lot about this notion in a different context that leaders
have to become ambivert. They need to have all of these
tools in the context I like to talk about it, the notion that
you have to on one hand manage the core of your organization,
which is all about efficiency, effectiveness, getting the
productivity numbers up. And you need to to manage the
edge of your organization where you try new things.
(09:59):
And there it's all about learning and experimentation and
like being agile. And you have to hold both of
these truths at the same time. And it's really hard.
And I think now we're doing the same with with leading people
and machines where or machine intelligence where on one hand
you want to be empathetic, you want to be vulnerable, you want
(10:20):
to be like squishy. On the other hand, you have to
be like Iron Fist, very clear rules don't cross the borders
and the lines. I'd be curious to hear how do
you think about this duality andare you seeing it and how do you
manage it? Yeah, that's a, that's a
fascinating question and I appreciate the fact that you got
(10:42):
stumped on this with your formerboss and now you're throwing it
to me. So this is great, but it's it's
a profound question. So there's a couple of things.
You know, it's interesting because I mentioned and, and
I'll come back to this, I mentioned the era of Jack Welch
and the, the people of the highest IQ are the ones
involving the leadership. It's not that IQ is an
important, but one of the, one of the aspects of today's world
(11:04):
is that getting information and the intellectual side of
business is so readily availablethrough AI and, and other
technological advances that the IQ side of being a leader is, is
in large part is accessible through machine learning and AI.
And so it's, we have the abilityto have data at our fingertips
(11:28):
that wasn't available 2025 yearsago.
So there's, there's the difference with that.
And, and I think, and this is just off the top of my head, but
I think where the rigidity that Scott talks about probably comes
into play is as it relates to how do we manage the data that
(11:50):
we're using. And the reason I say that is if
we start to become very reliant on data and research and AI in
terms of where we get the information that we need to make
decisions, we have to make sure that that system with which we
are getting our information fromperfect is too strong of a word.
(12:13):
But it needs to be accurate. Because if we are not doing the
due diligence that we once did or doing all the research that
we once did, which in the process of doing that work, we
see inconsistencies or irregularities in the data that
we're getting, that's when we can come back.
And when we put forth a report of information, we have a high
(12:36):
degree of confidence. It's accurate.
If we go to a source of information and there's
something that's not right in it, all our data could be wrong.
I, you know, I had a business partner once that at first I
thought he was just being difficult.
But when he would read a financial report and there was
one number wrong, he would say, this is of no use to me now I
(13:01):
need you to go back and do it and make sure it's perfect.
And I challenged him at one point he said, listen, he said,
I'm not the expert and I found an error.
And I'm going to, we're going tomake decisions based on this
report. If this, if I don't have the
confidence that this report isn't accurate, then I, I can't
confidently make decisions with this.
(13:22):
And so maybe Pascal, maybe that's where Scott was heading
with that. And that is that when it comes
to our data and how we share information so that we're
protecting our data, the world was supposed to and the way
we're gathering information, that there's very strict rules
and rigidity around how we do that so that we make sure we're
(13:45):
making decisions with accurate information.
And whether that's the right answer or not, I'm going to say
it confidently so that it soundsgood.
I love it. I'd be curious from a leadership
skill perspective. There's a set of leadership
skills which we carry through our careers, which hasn't
(14:06):
haven't changed much. There's leadership skills we
might have needed to learn new. There's leadership skills we
have adapted or changed. I'd be curious to hear from your
experience, you know, again, like working with countless
leaders doing really interestingstuff.
I'd be curious to hear from you.Are there leadership skills you
found, maybe even you have taught or have seen people teach
(14:30):
1020 years ago, which we put nowon the pile of you shouldn't
really do this anymore? When I look back 20 or 30 years
ago, it may have been a different approach to leadership
or it may have simply been my understanding and maybe a lack
of maturity on my part. But there was a time when I I
(14:51):
believe people looked to leadersto have all the answers and
there was an expectation that leaders would have the answers
and the story before. But one of my businesses in 2010
became a grand standard for Hyatt hotels, which means in the
test market of the Americas, every Hyatt hotel in Canada, the
(15:13):
US and the Latin America and Caribbean was required to have
our program. It was an awesome time to be in
that business. It was we were building, we are
growing fast. We were building teams were
executing with precision and a very short window of time.
It was just fun and it was it, it was really rewarding.
That was in 2010. In late 2013, there was a change
(15:38):
in some leadership at height at the highest levels in our
program was downgraded from a brand standard, which means it
was required to a brand recommendation, which means we
like your program, but it's not required.
We'll support hotels that want to do that.
Well, we knew that without that requirement we could very well
lose 30% of our business. We were nervous so we, I called
(16:02):
the meeting of, of all the leadership in our company and
they all flew in from around thecountry.
And I remember I, I'd said a prayer that I would have the
right words to say when that meeting started.
And I felt like I was failed because the meeting started.
We were sitting in my office at a table and the meeting started
and I was looking down for what felt like 10 minutes.
(16:22):
It was probably 5 seconds. And I looked up and I said, hey,
we all know why we're here. And I wish I had the answer but
I don't. And in saying that, I just, I
felt like a failure as a leader.And their eyes got really big.
And I said, but what I'm pretty confident in is that the answers
(16:43):
are in this room and we're goingto figure it out.
And their eyes got really big. Then like 10 seconds later,
finally someone said, what if wedid this?
And then someone else said, yeah, or we could do this.
Well, the conversation started and two hours later, the meeting
was done. We had a plan.
It wasn't perfect, but we had a plan.
And I just remember being so thankful the meeting was done
(17:06):
and I just wanted to crawl back into my shell.
And as everyone was leaving, this one woman from Houston was
the last to leave. And she came over to me and she
said thank you. And I said, why are you thanking
me? She said, because I've never
seen you be as strong of a leader as you were today.
And I felt the exact opposite. And I said, why do you say that?
(17:27):
And she said, because we're all,we were all scared coming in
here today. And you admitted that you didn't
necessarily have the answer, butyou empowered us to step up and
be part of it. And I think we've got a really
good plan. And it was in that moment,
Pascal, that I realized that I guess I don't have to have all
(17:47):
the answers. What I do have to have is a
commitment and help lead our organization to finding them.
But it doesn't always have to beme.
In fact, it's probably a better result because we had a plan,
because they could have come in and I could have dictated what
we were going to do. And I can promise you it
wouldn't been, wouldn't have been nearly as strong of a plan.
(18:08):
But I realized in that moment, it's about being authentic.
It's about being vulnerable, notsimply saying I don't have the
answer, what are we going to do?It's, I don't have the answer,
but we do have it in this room and I'm committed to making sure
we have a plan going forward. That's what I think authentic
leadership is. That's what I think or an aspect
of it. That's what I think
(18:29):
vulnerability based leadership is.
So that that is something that feels like it's changed over
time, that this whole notion of imposter syndrome, which is seem
to become a trend or at least a more popular where people are
willing to share that. And what's interesting is
imposter syndrome in and of itself isn't a bad thing.
(18:50):
Because when we feel like we don't have all the answers, we
tend to look to surround ourselves with people who are
really strong. And when we surround ourselves
with strong leaders and we empower them to step up and help
make decisions of substance, that to me is when organizations
scale because that bottleneck that was once just us, we start
(19:11):
to widen by empowering other strong leaders.
You know, that's kind of like a $20 answer to a $0.25 question,
so I apologize. No.
This is great. It reminds me a lot about we
have this notion around for a leader.
I believe one of the core skillsand maybe core challenges today
is that you have to lead into and then in the unknown, just
(19:34):
because we live in a, in a worldof like such an increased
uncertainty, nobody can tell youlike, you know, like take AI for
example. Nobody can literally tell you
what AI will look like in two years and what will do to your
organization. You have got like you can make
guesses and you can do some scenario planning around it.
I have an interesting question for you, which I think a lot of
people struggle with. Because if you think about the
(19:55):
typical career of a, a leader isyou go to school and you
typically are rewarded in schoolfor having a right answer.
You take some entry level job and you're typically being
promoted for having the right answer.
You take some middle level job, you get promoted from having the
right answer. And now suddenly you find
yourself at the helm of the organization.
And now you need to flip the script from I know to I don't
(20:18):
know, how do you help a leader to make this leap?
How do you it's well and good totell them this.
And I think intellectually like people understand.
But how do you actually, as a leader, step into this ability
to say, I don't know. I that's an interesting
question. I think there's a concept around
when we lead, when we're lookingfor input, speakers should go
(20:42):
last, speak last because otherwise you're going to direct
the conversation. When we're looking for
vulnerability, leaders should speak first.
And so maybe it's a matter of especially like you said, I
mean, you said we're not exactlysure where AI is going to be in
two years. We may not even know where it is
in six months. It's changing so fast.
And I think we're leaders can create an environment of making
(21:07):
it OK for people to maybe not have the answers in the moment
because you you're spot on. We're rewarded in school,
rewarded, rewarded in university.
We're rewarded in our career climb because we have the right
answers. That's how we come up with those
answers is fascinating though, because I believe that is I'm
(21:28):
building organizations and I'm developing A-Team.
What I want is people who can help create an environment for
getting the right answers on a sustainable basis and having the
right, getting the right answerswhen that person isn't even in
place in the moment. That they can go on vacation for
two weeks and incorrect answers will continue to evolve out of
(21:50):
their organizations. And they do that by creating a
sense of empowerment, investing in our people.
You're about to join me at a theentrepreneurial master's program
at MIT. That is all the visionary
leaders, all this the CE OS of their organizations.
One of the things that I've doneas I've created an additional
program, which is not only the entrepreneurs, but it's also
(22:13):
their leadership team there. Because what happens is, you
know, we join organizations likethe Entrepreneurs organization
or EO or YPO or Vistage. And there's there are
opportunities for us as leaders to continue to learn and grow.
And yet so often our team doesn't have those same
opportunities. So I'm committed to helping to
(22:34):
make sure that we're advancing our teams at the same time.
And it's it's, you know, I believe there's three things
that a leader needs to make surethe people they're leading can
answer. And that is, where are we going?
What do we need to do to get there?
And what is my role and where are we going?
Is that very clearly articulatedvision?
And then what do we need to do to get there's the strategic
(22:55):
plan that we need to put in place to achieve that vision.
So then what I look at it is that is a broader discussion.
That is a discussion where we have, we have the players that
are going to make that happen, be part of the discussion.
And then what is my role from the CEO of the organization or
(23:15):
that the top of the organizationdown to the person from the
front lines that was just hired yesterday?
What is my role in executing on that strategic plan to reach
that vision? And, and I think, I think
recognizing that no single person has the answer, including
the CEO is really a powerful wayto engage people to help them to
(23:40):
understand that as a leader, we don't create followers, we
create more leaders. And we do that by seeing
leadership abilities and others,by nurturing, empowering and
mentoring them to be able to step up into leadership.
And so that we have an organization of people who feel
seen and heard and like they have a voice and an opinion that
(24:02):
matters, so that it's an organization of decision makers.
Curious in this context, are youenvisioning that the future of
the organization is flatter and leaner than what we have?
Is it going to be about the same?
There's a lot of conversation around in Silicon Valley,
particularly around this idea was like, let's get rid of all
(24:23):
of the middle managers. We don't need them and machine
can AI can help us with all of that stuff, which I think is,
and we had this on the podcast on the very first episode of the
second season. We had Jonathan Mendesa
Nightingale on here who basically said the exact
opposite. They're like, this is the
dumbest thing on the planet. Middle management has a very,
very, very important role to play.
(24:43):
I'd be curious to see from your perspective, working with so
many leaders, are you seeing trends towards like organization
getting flatter and leaner, organizations kind of staying
the way there are or even maybe we need to hire better managers
to help us with all of this work?
Boy, again, like I said at the beginning, you always challenge
the status quo, Pascal So there's there, there's quite a
(25:07):
bit there. I tend to be a fan of flatter
organizations, but not because Ithink there's too much middle
management. I think it's because more that I
always felt it's important for anyone in the organization to
have access to leadership. So when I say a flatter
(25:30):
organization may be flatter isn't the right term, maybe it's
more transparent and accessible organization.
You know, I think if management is responsible for gathering
data and providing information that type of management, then
(25:50):
yes, maybe as we develop with our, you know, our technological
advances in AI that we're dealing with that those people
may be there need for those people may be less and less.
However, leading human beings isnot something that I see taking
(26:11):
the place of middle management. It's because, you know, it's a
matter of recognizing the humanity of people that we are
leading and recognizing that, hey, maybe we leverage, maybe we
leverage. So let me step back.
Being a flat organization means it's flatter and not as deep.
(26:34):
Maybe it's narrower, but probably just as deep.
And what I mean by that is you may be able to use data to make
decisions faster. However, managing people and
recognizing the humanity of the people we lead is will I don't
think will ever go away. And this is what I mean by
(26:56):
recognizing humanity. Being a compassionate leader,
being a servant minded leader oran authentic leader does not
mean 1 is a soft leader. What I think it means is we
absolutely get results and we, we meet the commitments that
we've made to each other, our shareholders and our customers.
But that we recognize that it's like we're human beings and life
(27:20):
is going to happen. And that I may be 100% committed
to being excellent and show up every day in the way I, I, I
come to work, but I could have family issues.
I could be struggling with something that just has me
distracted, maybe not as focusedas I normally would be.
And it what that means is, hey, Pascal, I need to have a
(27:40):
conversation with you. We've made a commitment to
achieve these certain results and we need to figure out how to
do that in the time frame we've committed to.
But something seems to be different about you.
And I just want to make sure you're OK.
I want to make sure, is there something going on that maybe we
can step in and help you with? Or maybe we can bring in some
people to help deliver the results we've committed because
(28:02):
we have to deliver those results.
But I also understand you're you're a great part of our team
and that maybe something's goingon.
That's kind of what leaning in with and recognizing the
humanity of each other. I don't think that will ever go
away. And I don't think that having
understanding leadership styles,again, we may leverage
technology to better understand leadership styles and analyze
(28:25):
data about someone's personalitytraits and they're the way some
of the many assessments that areout there.
But having those difficult conversations, having fierce
conversations, holding people accountable to metrics and KPIs,
the human side of that, I don't ever see going away.
In this context, you said multiple times and use the word
(28:47):
vulnerability and at the very beginning of our conversation,
and if you allow me to double click on this just for a second,
you distinguish between being vulnerable and I don't want to
put words in your mouth. There was something around how
you like demonstrate vulnerability and you said that
there's a difference between it.If you wouldn't mind
elaborating. Yeah.
So the great, great question thethere being vulnerable, I can
(29:13):
say we need to be vulnerable. You may have one definition of
what that is. I may have a different
definition. And SO11 definition could be
that you know, you you wear youremotions on your sleeve that you
show up to your organization, whether to work or
not-for-profit or something, andyou you allow yourself to cry or
(29:35):
be emotional. And that could be being
vulnerable. It could also be talking,
sharing all sorts of informationabout your personal life and,
and even maybe the things that aren't great, that might be be
considered being vulnerable. What I really mean about the use
of vulnerability as a leader is more it's, it's like more about
(29:55):
being authentic that I am authentically me.
And if I'm feeling overwhelmed, I'll acknowledge that I'm
feeling overwhelmed. If I don't feel like I have the
right answer or the best answer,or I don't have the information
I feel I need to make a good answer, I'll share that.
Leading with vulnerability is taking it a step further and
(30:16):
saying, hey, I'm not sure I havethe right answer, but I am
committed to making sure we as an organization figure this out
and find the right answer and move forward.
Hey, yes, I'm feeling overwhelmed, but I'm committed
to making sure that I gather myself, the resources so that I
can meet my commitment to the organization and all of you.
(30:37):
It's it's taking it a step further and saying, hey, if I'm
being authentic, this is what I'm struggling with, but I'm
committed to finding a path forward.
I love that. I love that distinction and I
think it's so, so, so important for people because as you said,
like I think there's the term isa little bit overused these and
everybody leans into it and has their own kind of definition of
(30:59):
it. And I think that it, it got
tainted a little bit towards thenegative as in, as you mentioned
earlier, it's like weak or soft,which I love your point about it
being about being human and the humanity in it.
Brian, absolutely phenomenal conversation.
I would love to bring this to a close with a question for you,
which is for anyone who's listening, if you are a leader,
(31:22):
either you're an emerging leader, you're leader of a big
organization, established incumbent company.
What do you think? What is your best advice for a
leader if they're thinking aboutlike, hey, I need to step into
this messy middle. I really need to think about
leadership differently, but I kind of don't know where to
start. I don't have the exact like the
(31:43):
blueprint and like, here's my three things I need to work on.
What do you think is a good starting point for people?
Like maybe you've got a resource, I don't know, a book,
a course, whatever it is. I just curious to hear where if
I were to come to you, Brian, and say, man, I feel a little
lost. I feel like the stuff I learned
and did didn't like, which served me very well so far made
(32:07):
might not serve me very well in the future.
Where do I start? Wow.
So there's there's a couple waysto respond to that.
One is, I think if you can identify a person that you
really truly admire as a leader,reaching out and asking them if
they would consider mentoring you would be really powerful.
(32:28):
And most people who would be great mentors never get asked.
And the reason they don't get asked is because people are
nervous. They're very busy, they're very
important. They would never do this.
They don't have the time for me.Some mentors charge for their
time, other mentors don't. It's really, it's a, and it's
interesting. I had a conversation with
someone earlier and he was saying, oh, there's this group I
(32:48):
mentor, He said, but I'm pretty convinced I probably get at
least as much out of those sessions that they do.
And I said that's usually the sign of a pretty good
relationship when both the mentor and the mentee find real
value in those interactions. So there's that.
And so just have the courage. Worst thing they could do is say
no. They just don't have the
capacity or interest in doing so.
(33:08):
The second part is again, looking at the kind of people
that you lead are that I'm sorry, the looking at the people
that you view as the kind of leader you really want to be.
And I hope that is the kind of person who is has a real good
combination of consistently delivering excellence and
delivering a result, but also balanced with someone who makes
(33:31):
you feel valued and and cared about.
That's my approach. So if you can find someone who
consistently does both of those things, really try to understand
what is it about that person that you really admire?
What are all the traits that youcan just write them down as much
as you can. And then I would say, you know,
(33:51):
there's all sorts of assessmentsthat are out there.
There's Pat Lanchoni and the Table Group are probably one of
the premier management development, leadership
development organizations out there.
And Wiley is partnered with themfor the five behaviors.
And so there's an assessment about how you show up as a
leader and how you lead in a team.
That is a great assessment. And it, it's partnered with the
(34:12):
disk model, but there's all sorts of, there's all sorts of
assessment models that are out there from, there's at least at
least a half a dozen that are out there.
Whichever you like, take your own assessment and then look at
your results and compare your strengths and areas to that of
the leader that you really admire and identify what are the
strengths that I have that matchthem?
(34:34):
And how can I really, how can I maximize how I lean into my
strengths to to be more like a leader like this person?
I'm not a fan of people spendingan inordinate amount of time on
their weaknesses. Hey, I'm 61 years old.
Chances are I am going to be much more successful by leaning
(34:58):
into my strengths then at my age, trying to fix those
weaknesses because for 61 years I've had them.
I'm not saying that I write it off and it's an excuse, but it's
really a matter of saying, OK, are there one or two things that
I think are really holding me back that I could improve on?
Great, focus on them, but then lean into your strengths as much
(35:18):
as you can that mirror the person that you admire as a
leader. That's wonderful.
Brian, last question, if someonewants to follow you, of course
there is the EOEMP program. You have to be a member of the
Entrepreneurs organization, which EO, which I highly
recommend. Just generally if you hit the
(35:40):
criteria, it's an insane community.
I'm very privileged to be working with them for years now
and been working with you for years now.
But where can people find more about you if they want to be in
touch with you? Because you do more than just
this one program. You do a lot of stuff which is
also outside of the context of EO.
Yeah. So great question.
We at this point our company Legacy of Significance helps
(36:04):
develop leaders across all dimensions of their life.
So in work life for sure and organizations, but also in our
family relationships. So in our romantic relationships
and as well as when we serve in the community, very often we're
we're on boards and we're leading other strong leaders.
So learning how to lead leaders is something that we work with
(36:24):
as well. So Legacy of significance.com is
a great way to have access to all our programs and that ranges
from executive education to leadership development to
developing manager. So we have a manager development
program that most organizations are great at building widgets,
but not great at manage developing and training their
(36:46):
managers. They just kind of throw them in
and say a prayer and hope that they learn how to lead people.
And that's usually that's why nearly 80% of managers fail
within two years because there'sjust no training program.
But there's that's probably. And then you can follow me on
LinkedIn as well. And maybe I can share that in
the the podcast notes and we'll go from there.
(37:09):
Absolutely. We'll put links to both the
organization, your LinkedIn, andother resources into the Into
the Show, notes Brian. This was an insanely insightful
conversation. It is a glimpse into what I know
you did deliver in the program we're going to be part of this
week. I can't wait.
And my friend, thank you so muchfor for taking the time.
(37:29):
Thank you Pascal, you're awesome.
Disruption.
I mentioned the era of Jack Welch and the the people with
the highest IQ are the ones evolving into leadership.
It's not that IQ is an important, but one of the one of
the aspects of today's world is that getting information and the
intellectual side of business isso readily available through AI
and and other technological advances that the IQ side of
(00:22):
being a leader is is in large part is accessible through
machine learning and AI. Disrupt Disruption.
Hey everybody, Pascal here. Time for another episode of
(00:42):
Disrupt Disruption. Today's guest is the definition
of a builder. Brian Broad steered not one but
two companies onto Ink Magazine's fastest growing list.
Advanced Facility Services cracked the top 400, employed
more than 300 people, and Brian's favorite accolade was
voted one of Western New York's Best Places to Work.
(01:05):
Pure Wellness Rooms reinvented hotel stays with healthier,
hypoallergenic Rooms 1, Cornell's Innovator of the
Hospitality Industry Award, and also landed on the Inc 500.
Beyond the boardroom, Brian is acornerstone of the global
entrepreneurial community. He's a past chairman of the
17,000 Member Entrepreneurs Organization, where he forged A
(01:27):
partnership with the United Nations, created E OS Key
Executive Program, and still chairs the legendary
Entrepreneurial Master's programat MIT.
In 2018, Brian founded Legacy ofSignificance, a coaching and
executive education firm devotedto helping leaders live their
best lives. He's an executive coach, sought
(01:48):
after speaker, forum facilitator, and when he's not
shaping companies, he's shaping communities, serving on
nonprofit boards, staying activein his church, and enjoying life
with his wife Jean, three grown kids, and seven grandchildren.
From scaling companies and shaping cultures to mentoring
the next generation of founders,Brian lives to create positive
(02:11):
impact. Let's dive in and see what
Disrupt Disruption looks like for Brian.
Brian, it's awesome to have you on the podcast.
Thank you so much for taking thetime.
Pascal I I love spending time with you.
I love the way you help everyonearound you just think
differently and I am no exception.
(02:31):
I always get such energy by the questions you ask, the
perspectives you have, and the way you get us.
Maybe a little uncomfortable about challenging our own
thought processes and and way ofapproaching life and showing up
in life. So today is a fun day.
I've been looking forward to this.
It's also perfect timing becauseyou and I are heading out to
(02:52):
Boston to for me to speak at a program you run at MIT on the
MIT campus with the Entrepreneurs Organization,
which is their flagship program on leadership.
I'd be very curious. Let me ask you a first question.
I know that you've been doing this for quite a while and we
(03:13):
like to talk about this idea or this notion that I do think that
our leadership skills, the necessity for our skills, the
type of our skills, the things we do has evolved quite a bit
and continues to evolve since, you know, whatever, like 10
years even even might even be shorter.
We had COVID, we've got AI, we've got changing geopolitics.
(03:37):
All of these kind of things create this interesting messy
middle. And I'd be just curious, maybe
as a first thought on your end, as you're reflecting back on
this program you're running, howhave you seen the leadership
challenges and the tools and theframeworks and the things people
need to bring to the fore have evolved over these the time you
(03:59):
run this program now? So do we have 12 hours for me to
answer this question? I mean, that is a, that is that
is a very profound question. And I think there's AI think
there's a few things there that you bring up.
And one is, yes, things are changing, but I think at its
core, true leadership is the same.
(04:24):
But let me tell you where those things come in.
So there's, there's some changesin the way the world is
selecting its leaders, I think. And 1 is so going back more than
10 years, maybe 25 years ago, the era of Jack Welch and GE and
the smartest person in the room would evolve into leadership
(04:45):
has, has changed. And that that is, and this is
really highlighted by Bill George in his book Discover True
North, is that people with higher emotional intelligence,
people who genuinely care about the people they're leading,
people who are really good building teams, those are the
people who are being selected and evolving into leadership
(05:07):
today. So I think there's a
transformation around the way welook at leaders in the role that
leaders play. And I think also there is a
heightened awareness that the way we show up in in as a leader
in one aspect of our life reallyshows up in all areas of our
(05:30):
life. And so there was a point in time
when maximizing shareholder value was pretty much far and
away the most important role of CE OS of of companies.
And I think that will always certainly be important when you
especially in a capitalist society, you know, creating
(05:50):
shareholder value will always beimportant.
But how we do that, I think has shifted.
And I think it's shifted from recognizing that people are not
simply tools or a simple resource to manage to maximize
shareholder value, but that human beings and people are
(06:12):
people that we need to invest inand care about.
And in so doing, create an environment where people are
committed to the goals of the organization.
And and it's due it it that happens through people feeling
seen, people feeling valued, people feeling heard.
(06:33):
And I think that is an evolutionover the past 10 to 15 years of
the style of leadership. But when you when you look back
at the era of Enron, in the fallof Enron, what happened was you
could put in another half a dozen well known companies that
could fit that same profile. What happened is we, you know,
we as a society started to question how much we trust some
(06:57):
of our leaders. And it's come to a point now
where leaders, the people that we really truly want to follow
are those that we trust and trust comes from being an
authentic leader, showing up as a vulnerability, A vulnerable
leader. And there's a difference between
showing up and being vulnerable and being a vulnerable leader.
(07:21):
And if you want, we can certainly dig into that.
But gosh, you know, you're, you just RIP the Band-Aid off with
this one because it's, this is, I think there's a whole there.
There's a plethora of ways that we could explore the concept of
leadership and how things are changing.
And then, and then you threw in technology and technological
advances in AI. And, and so it's a combination
(07:43):
of saying, Hey, what is happening in the world and how
do we need to embrace this, but embrace it in a way that that
serves our customers, serves ourpeople and serves our
shareholders. And so it's, it's really
understanding the balance between the two is, is really
become an important part for I guess maybe a balance between
(08:04):
the three that leadership is starting to evolve.
So. Interesting.
Allow me to throw a curveball atyou.
And this was a curveball which was thrown at me.
So I will just volley it back toyou.
So on our last podcast, I had myformer boss, Scott Wingo,
incredible leader in the e-commerce space, is now
building an AI startup. And I 100% agree with what you
(08:30):
have said about the role of the leader and the leader being more
empathetic, vulnerability plays a role there, etcetera.
And I like to talk about the notion that when you think about
managing an organization, it's much more about the fluidity of
managing it rather than the org chart and the like, this idea of
(08:52):
command and control and order versus chaos.
And you might remember we have this, we'll talk about this in
our time together this week. Scott mentioned to me, when it
comes to AI, you turn this back on its head.
So his whole point was, which I get, is that basically is that
like the moment you have AI agents working on your behalf,
(09:14):
you actually have to control them in a very, very deliberate
order, control boundary conditions, very like military
style. Everybody needs to know what
they're doing and there's very clear boundaries around those.
I found this interesting and I never really thought about it,
but I found it interesting because it brings up an
interesting challenge, I think for me, which is I like to talk
(09:37):
a lot about this notion in a different context that leaders
have to become ambivert. They need to have all of these
tools in the context I like to talk about it, the notion that
you have to on one hand manage the core of your organization,
which is all about efficiency, effectiveness, getting the
productivity numbers up. And you need to to manage the
edge of your organization where you try new things.
(09:59):
And there it's all about learning and experimentation and
like being agile. And you have to hold both of
these truths at the same time. And it's really hard.
And I think now we're doing the same with with leading people
and machines where or machine intelligence where on one hand
you want to be empathetic, you want to be vulnerable, you want
(10:20):
to be like squishy. On the other hand, you have to
be like Iron Fist, very clear rules don't cross the borders
and the lines. I'd be curious to hear how do
you think about this duality andare you seeing it and how do you
manage it? Yeah, that's a, that's a
fascinating question and I appreciate the fact that you got
(10:42):
stumped on this with your formerboss and now you're throwing it
to me. So this is great, but it's it's
a profound question. So there's a couple of things.
You know, it's interesting because I mentioned and, and
I'll come back to this, I mentioned the era of Jack Welch
and the, the people of the highest IQ are the ones
involving the leadership. It's not that IQ is an
important, but one of the, one of the aspects of today's world
(11:04):
is that getting information and the intellectual side of
business is so readily availablethrough AI and, and other
technological advances that the IQ side of being a leader is, is
in large part is accessible through machine learning and AI.
And so it's, we have the abilityto have data at our fingertips
(11:28):
that wasn't available 2025 yearsago.
So there's, there's the difference with that.
And, and I think, and this is just off the top of my head, but
I think where the rigidity that Scott talks about probably comes
into play is as it relates to how do we manage the data that
(11:50):
we're using. And the reason I say that is if
we start to become very reliant on data and research and AI in
terms of where we get the information that we need to make
decisions, we have to make sure that that system with which we
are getting our information fromperfect is too strong of a word.
(12:13):
But it needs to be accurate. Because if we are not doing the
due diligence that we once did or doing all the research that
we once did, which in the process of doing that work, we
see inconsistencies or irregularities in the data that
we're getting, that's when we can come back.
And when we put forth a report of information, we have a high
(12:36):
degree of confidence. It's accurate.
If we go to a source of information and there's
something that's not right in it, all our data could be wrong.
I, you know, I had a business partner once that at first I
thought he was just being difficult.
But when he would read a financial report and there was
one number wrong, he would say, this is of no use to me now I
(13:01):
need you to go back and do it and make sure it's perfect.
And I challenged him at one point he said, listen, he said,
I'm not the expert and I found an error.
And I'm going to, we're going tomake decisions based on this
report. If this, if I don't have the
confidence that this report isn't accurate, then I, I can't
confidently make decisions with this.
(13:22):
And so maybe Pascal, maybe that's where Scott was heading
with that. And that is that when it comes
to our data and how we share information so that we're
protecting our data, the world was supposed to and the way
we're gathering information, that there's very strict rules
and rigidity around how we do that so that we make sure we're
(13:45):
making decisions with accurate information.
And whether that's the right answer or not, I'm going to say
it confidently so that it soundsgood.
I love it. I'd be curious from a leadership
skill perspective. There's a set of leadership
skills which we carry through our careers, which hasn't
(14:06):
haven't changed much. There's leadership skills we
might have needed to learn new. There's leadership skills we
have adapted or changed. I'd be curious to hear from your
experience, you know, again, like working with countless
leaders doing really interestingstuff.
I'd be curious to hear from you.Are there leadership skills you
found, maybe even you have taught or have seen people teach
(14:30):
1020 years ago, which we put nowon the pile of you shouldn't
really do this anymore? When I look back 20 or 30 years
ago, it may have been a different approach to leadership
or it may have simply been my understanding and maybe a lack
of maturity on my part. But there was a time when I I
(14:51):
believe people looked to leadersto have all the answers and
there was an expectation that leaders would have the answers
and the story before. But one of my businesses in 2010
became a grand standard for Hyatt hotels, which means in the
test market of the Americas, every Hyatt hotel in Canada, the
(15:13):
US and the Latin America and Caribbean was required to have
our program. It was an awesome time to be in
that business. It was we were building, we are
growing fast. We were building teams were
executing with precision and a very short window of time.
It was just fun and it was it, it was really rewarding.
That was in 2010. In late 2013, there was a change
(15:38):
in some leadership at height at the highest levels in our
program was downgraded from a brand standard, which means it
was required to a brand recommendation, which means we
like your program, but it's not required.
We'll support hotels that want to do that.
Well, we knew that without that requirement we could very well
lose 30% of our business. We were nervous so we, I called
(16:02):
the meeting of, of all the leadership in our company and
they all flew in from around thecountry.
And I remember I, I'd said a prayer that I would have the
right words to say when that meeting started.
And I felt like I was failed because the meeting started.
We were sitting in my office at a table and the meeting started
and I was looking down for what felt like 10 minutes.
(16:22):
It was probably 5 seconds. And I looked up and I said, hey,
we all know why we're here. And I wish I had the answer but
I don't. And in saying that, I just, I
felt like a failure as a leader.And their eyes got really big.
And I said, but what I'm pretty confident in is that the answers
(16:43):
are in this room and we're goingto figure it out.
And their eyes got really big. Then like 10 seconds later,
finally someone said, what if wedid this?
And then someone else said, yeah, or we could do this.
Well, the conversation started and two hours later, the meeting
was done. We had a plan.
It wasn't perfect, but we had a plan.
And I just remember being so thankful the meeting was done
(17:06):
and I just wanted to crawl back into my shell.
And as everyone was leaving, this one woman from Houston was
the last to leave. And she came over to me and she
said thank you. And I said, why are you thanking
me? She said, because I've never
seen you be as strong of a leader as you were today.
And I felt the exact opposite. And I said, why do you say that?
(17:27):
And she said, because we're all,we were all scared coming in
here today. And you admitted that you didn't
necessarily have the answer, butyou empowered us to step up and
be part of it. And I think we've got a really
good plan. And it was in that moment,
Pascal, that I realized that I guess I don't have to have all
(17:47):
the answers. What I do have to have is a
commitment and help lead our organization to finding them.
But it doesn't always have to beme.
In fact, it's probably a better result because we had a plan,
because they could have come in and I could have dictated what
we were going to do. And I can promise you it
wouldn't been, wouldn't have been nearly as strong of a plan.
(18:08):
But I realized in that moment, it's about being authentic.
It's about being vulnerable, notsimply saying I don't have the
answer, what are we going to do?It's, I don't have the answer,
but we do have it in this room and I'm committed to making sure
we have a plan going forward. That's what I think authentic
leadership is. That's what I think or an aspect
of it. That's what I think
(18:29):
vulnerability based leadership is.
So that that is something that feels like it's changed over
time, that this whole notion of imposter syndrome, which is seem
to become a trend or at least a more popular where people are
willing to share that. And what's interesting is
imposter syndrome in and of itself isn't a bad thing.
(18:50):
Because when we feel like we don't have all the answers, we
tend to look to surround ourselves with people who are
really strong. And when we surround ourselves
with strong leaders and we empower them to step up and help
make decisions of substance, that to me is when organizations
scale because that bottleneck that was once just us, we start
(19:11):
to widen by empowering other strong leaders.
You know, that's kind of like a $20 answer to a $0.25 question,
so I apologize. No.
This is great. It reminds me a lot about we
have this notion around for a leader.
I believe one of the core skillsand maybe core challenges today
is that you have to lead into and then in the unknown, just
(19:34):
because we live in a, in a worldof like such an increased
uncertainty, nobody can tell youlike, you know, like take AI for
example. Nobody can literally tell you
what AI will look like in two years and what will do to your
organization. You have got like you can make
guesses and you can do some scenario planning around it.
I have an interesting question for you, which I think a lot of
people struggle with. Because if you think about the
(19:55):
typical career of a, a leader isyou go to school and you
typically are rewarded in schoolfor having a right answer.
You take some entry level job and you're typically being
promoted for having the right answer.
You take some middle level job, you get promoted from having the
right answer. And now suddenly you find
yourself at the helm of the organization.
And now you need to flip the script from I know to I don't
(20:18):
know, how do you help a leader to make this leap?
How do you it's well and good totell them this.
And I think intellectually like people understand.
But how do you actually, as a leader, step into this ability
to say, I don't know. I that's an interesting
question. I think there's a concept around
when we lead, when we're lookingfor input, speakers should go
(20:42):
last, speak last because otherwise you're going to direct
the conversation. When we're looking for
vulnerability, leaders should speak first.
And so maybe it's a matter of especially like you said, I
mean, you said we're not exactlysure where AI is going to be in
two years. We may not even know where it is
in six months. It's changing so fast.
And I think we're leaders can create an environment of making
(21:07):
it OK for people to maybe not have the answers in the moment
because you you're spot on. We're rewarded in school,
rewarded, rewarded in university.
We're rewarded in our career climb because we have the right
answers. That's how we come up with those
answers is fascinating though, because I believe that is I'm
(21:28):
building organizations and I'm developing A-Team.
What I want is people who can help create an environment for
getting the right answers on a sustainable basis and having the
right, getting the right answerswhen that person isn't even in
place in the moment. That they can go on vacation for
two weeks and incorrect answers will continue to evolve out of
(21:50):
their organizations. And they do that by creating a
sense of empowerment, investing in our people.
You're about to join me at a theentrepreneurial master's program
at MIT. That is all the visionary
leaders, all this the CE OS of their organizations.
One of the things that I've doneas I've created an additional
program, which is not only the entrepreneurs, but it's also
(22:13):
their leadership team there. Because what happens is, you
know, we join organizations likethe Entrepreneurs organization
or EO or YPO or Vistage. And there's there are
opportunities for us as leaders to continue to learn and grow.
And yet so often our team doesn't have those same
opportunities. So I'm committed to helping to
(22:34):
make sure that we're advancing our teams at the same time.
And it's it's, you know, I believe there's three things
that a leader needs to make surethe people they're leading can
answer. And that is, where are we going?
What do we need to do to get there?
And what is my role and where are we going?
Is that very clearly articulatedvision?
And then what do we need to do to get there's the strategic
(22:55):
plan that we need to put in place to achieve that vision.
So then what I look at it is that is a broader discussion.
That is a discussion where we have, we have the players that
are going to make that happen, be part of the discussion.
And then what is my role from the CEO of the organization or
(23:15):
that the top of the organizationdown to the person from the
front lines that was just hired yesterday?
What is my role in executing on that strategic plan to reach
that vision? And, and I think, I think
recognizing that no single person has the answer, including
the CEO is really a powerful wayto engage people to help them to
(23:40):
understand that as a leader, we don't create followers, we
create more leaders. And we do that by seeing
leadership abilities and others,by nurturing, empowering and
mentoring them to be able to step up into leadership.
And so that we have an organization of people who feel
seen and heard and like they have a voice and an opinion that
(24:02):
matters, so that it's an organization of decision makers.
Curious in this context, are youenvisioning that the future of
the organization is flatter and leaner than what we have?
Is it going to be about the same?
There's a lot of conversation around in Silicon Valley,
particularly around this idea was like, let's get rid of all
(24:23):
of the middle managers. We don't need them and machine
can AI can help us with all of that stuff, which I think is,
and we had this on the podcast on the very first episode of the
second season. We had Jonathan Mendesa
Nightingale on here who basically said the exact
opposite. They're like, this is the
dumbest thing on the planet. Middle management has a very,
very, very important role to play.
(24:43):
I'd be curious to see from your perspective, working with so
many leaders, are you seeing trends towards like organization
getting flatter and leaner, organizations kind of staying
the way there are or even maybe we need to hire better managers
to help us with all of this work?
Boy, again, like I said at the beginning, you always challenge
the status quo, Pascal So there's there, there's quite a
(25:07):
bit there. I tend to be a fan of flatter
organizations, but not because Ithink there's too much middle
management. I think it's because more that I
always felt it's important for anyone in the organization to
have access to leadership. So when I say a flatter
(25:30):
organization may be flatter isn't the right term, maybe it's
more transparent and accessible organization.
You know, I think if management is responsible for gathering
data and providing information that type of management, then
(25:50):
yes, maybe as we develop with our, you know, our technological
advances in AI that we're dealing with that those people
may be there need for those people may be less and less.
However, leading human beings isnot something that I see taking
(26:11):
the place of middle management. It's because, you know, it's a
matter of recognizing the humanity of people that we are
leading and recognizing that, hey, maybe we leverage, maybe we
leverage. So let me step back.
Being a flat organization means it's flatter and not as deep.
(26:34):
Maybe it's narrower, but probably just as deep.
And what I mean by that is you may be able to use data to make
decisions faster. However, managing people and
recognizing the humanity of the people we lead is will I don't
think will ever go away. And this is what I mean by
(26:56):
recognizing humanity. Being a compassionate leader,
being a servant minded leader oran authentic leader does not
mean 1 is a soft leader. What I think it means is we
absolutely get results and we, we meet the commitments that
we've made to each other, our shareholders and our customers.
But that we recognize that it's like we're human beings and life
(27:20):
is going to happen. And that I may be 100% committed
to being excellent and show up every day in the way I, I, I
come to work, but I could have family issues.
I could be struggling with something that just has me
distracted, maybe not as focusedas I normally would be.
And it what that means is, hey, Pascal, I need to have a
(27:40):
conversation with you. We've made a commitment to
achieve these certain results and we need to figure out how to
do that in the time frame we've committed to.
But something seems to be different about you.
And I just want to make sure you're OK.
I want to make sure, is there something going on that maybe we
can step in and help you with? Or maybe we can bring in some
people to help deliver the results we've committed because
(28:02):
we have to deliver those results.
But I also understand you're you're a great part of our team
and that maybe something's goingon.
That's kind of what leaning in with and recognizing the
humanity of each other. I don't think that will ever go
away. And I don't think that having
understanding leadership styles,again, we may leverage
technology to better understand leadership styles and analyze
(28:25):
data about someone's personalitytraits and they're the way some
of the many assessments that areout there.
But having those difficult conversations, having fierce
conversations, holding people accountable to metrics and KPIs,
the human side of that, I don't ever see going away.
In this context, you said multiple times and use the word
(28:47):
vulnerability and at the very beginning of our conversation,
and if you allow me to double click on this just for a second,
you distinguish between being vulnerable and I don't want to
put words in your mouth. There was something around how
you like demonstrate vulnerability and you said that
there's a difference between it.If you wouldn't mind
elaborating. Yeah.
So the great, great question thethere being vulnerable, I can
(29:13):
say we need to be vulnerable. You may have one definition of
what that is. I may have a different
definition. And SO11 definition could be
that you know, you you wear youremotions on your sleeve that you
show up to your organization, whether to work or
not-for-profit or something, andyou you allow yourself to cry or
(29:35):
be emotional. And that could be being
vulnerable. It could also be talking,
sharing all sorts of informationabout your personal life and,
and even maybe the things that aren't great, that might be be
considered being vulnerable. What I really mean about the use
of vulnerability as a leader is more it's, it's like more about
(29:55):
being authentic that I am authentically me.
And if I'm feeling overwhelmed, I'll acknowledge that I'm
feeling overwhelmed. If I don't feel like I have the
right answer or the best answer,or I don't have the information
I feel I need to make a good answer, I'll share that.
Leading with vulnerability is taking it a step further and
(30:16):
saying, hey, I'm not sure I havethe right answer, but I am
committed to making sure we as an organization figure this out
and find the right answer and move forward.
Hey, yes, I'm feeling overwhelmed, but I'm committed
to making sure that I gather myself, the resources so that I
can meet my commitment to the organization and all of you.
(30:37):
It's it's taking it a step further and saying, hey, if I'm
being authentic, this is what I'm struggling with, but I'm
committed to finding a path forward.
I love that. I love that distinction and I
think it's so, so, so important for people because as you said,
like I think there's the term isa little bit overused these and
everybody leans into it and has their own kind of definition of
(30:59):
it. And I think that it, it got
tainted a little bit towards thenegative as in, as you mentioned
earlier, it's like weak or soft,which I love your point about it
being about being human and the humanity in it.
Brian, absolutely phenomenal conversation.
I would love to bring this to a close with a question for you,
which is for anyone who's listening, if you are a leader,
(31:22):
either you're an emerging leader, you're leader of a big
organization, established incumbent company.
What do you think? What is your best advice for a
leader if they're thinking aboutlike, hey, I need to step into
this messy middle. I really need to think about
leadership differently, but I kind of don't know where to
start. I don't have the exact like the
(31:43):
blueprint and like, here's my three things I need to work on.
What do you think is a good starting point for people?
Like maybe you've got a resource, I don't know, a book,
a course, whatever it is. I just curious to hear where if
I were to come to you, Brian, and say, man, I feel a little
lost. I feel like the stuff I learned
and did didn't like, which served me very well so far made
(32:07):
might not serve me very well in the future.
Where do I start? Wow.
So there's there's a couple waysto respond to that.
One is, I think if you can identify a person that you
really truly admire as a leader,reaching out and asking them if
they would consider mentoring you would be really powerful.
(32:28):
And most people who would be great mentors never get asked.
And the reason they don't get asked is because people are
nervous. They're very busy, they're very
important. They would never do this.
They don't have the time for me.Some mentors charge for their
time, other mentors don't. It's really, it's a, and it's
interesting. I had a conversation with
someone earlier and he was saying, oh, there's this group I
(32:48):
mentor, He said, but I'm pretty convinced I probably get at
least as much out of those sessions that they do.
And I said that's usually the sign of a pretty good
relationship when both the mentor and the mentee find real
value in those interactions. So there's that.
And so just have the courage. Worst thing they could do is say
no. They just don't have the
capacity or interest in doing so.
(33:08):
The second part is again, looking at the kind of people
that you lead are that I'm sorry, the looking at the people
that you view as the kind of leader you really want to be.
And I hope that is the kind of person who is has a real good
combination of consistently delivering excellence and
delivering a result, but also balanced with someone who makes
(33:31):
you feel valued and and cared about.
That's my approach. So if you can find someone who
consistently does both of those things, really try to understand
what is it about that person that you really admire?
What are all the traits that youcan just write them down as much
as you can. And then I would say, you know,
(33:51):
there's all sorts of assessmentsthat are out there.
There's Pat Lanchoni and the Table Group are probably one of
the premier management development, leadership
development organizations out there.
And Wiley is partnered with themfor the five behaviors.
And so there's an assessment about how you show up as a
leader and how you lead in a team.
That is a great assessment. And it, it's partnered with the
(34:12):
disk model, but there's all sorts of, there's all sorts of
assessment models that are out there from, there's at least at
least a half a dozen that are out there.
Whichever you like, take your own assessment and then look at
your results and compare your strengths and areas to that of
the leader that you really admire and identify what are the
strengths that I have that matchthem?
(34:34):
And how can I really, how can I maximize how I lean into my
strengths to to be more like a leader like this person?
I'm not a fan of people spendingan inordinate amount of time on
their weaknesses. Hey, I'm 61 years old.
Chances are I am going to be much more successful by leaning
(34:58):
into my strengths then at my age, trying to fix those
weaknesses because for 61 years I've had them.
I'm not saying that I write it off and it's an excuse, but it's
really a matter of saying, OK, are there one or two things that
I think are really holding me back that I could improve on?
Great, focus on them, but then lean into your strengths as much
(35:18):
as you can that mirror the person that you admire as a
leader. That's wonderful.
Brian, last question, if someonewants to follow you, of course
there is the EOEMP program. You have to be a member of the
Entrepreneurs organization, which EO, which I highly
recommend. Just generally if you hit the
(35:40):
criteria, it's an insane community.
I'm very privileged to be working with them for years now
and been working with you for years now.
But where can people find more about you if they want to be in
touch with you? Because you do more than just
this one program. You do a lot of stuff which is
also outside of the context of EO.
Yeah. So great question.
We at this point our company Legacy of Significance helps
(36:04):
develop leaders across all dimensions of their life.
So in work life for sure and organizations, but also in our
family relationships. So in our romantic relationships
and as well as when we serve in the community, very often we're
we're on boards and we're leading other strong leaders.
So learning how to lead leaders is something that we work with
(36:24):
as well. So Legacy of significance.com is
a great way to have access to all our programs and that ranges
from executive education to leadership development to
developing manager. So we have a manager development
program that most organizations are great at building widgets,
but not great at manage developing and training their
(36:46):
managers. They just kind of throw them in
and say a prayer and hope that they learn how to lead people.
And that's usually that's why nearly 80% of managers fail
within two years because there'sjust no training program.
But there's that's probably. And then you can follow me on
LinkedIn as well. And maybe I can share that in
the the podcast notes and we'll go from there.
(37:09):
Absolutely. We'll put links to both the
organization, your LinkedIn, andother resources into the Into
the Show, notes Brian. This was an insanely insightful
conversation. It is a glimpse into what I know
you did deliver in the program we're going to be part of this
week. I can't wait.
And my friend, thank you so muchfor for taking the time.
(37:29):
Thank you Pascal, you're awesome.
Disruption.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.