April 28, 2025 • 49 mins
Truly innovative teams distinguish themselves not by what happens within their team rooms, but by how actively they engage with the world outside. In a powerful conversation, Professor Henrik Bresman of INSEAD draws from his decades of research and his book X-Teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate and Succeed to challenge traditional ideas of high-performing teams. He emphasizes that while internal alignment is important, it is no longer enough in today's fast-changing environment. Instead, teams must first reach outward—connecting with knowledge, power, and work structures—before turning inward.
Bresman explains that many leaders resist this "external-first" approach because of outdated mental models and a fear of disrupting internal harmony. Ironically, prioritizing short-term comfort by avoiding external feedback undermines long-term success and real team cohesion. The teams that succeed practice key activities like sensemaking, ambassadorship, and task coordination, constantly cycling through phases of exploration, experimentation, and exportation to remain dynamic and relevant.
This conversation redefines leadership for an uncertain world, where pretending to have all the answers breeds false security and true innovation comes from admitting what we don't know. Bresman's insights offer practical guidance for leaders at all levels, showing how to build teams that not only adapt to change but actively drive it. Listeners are encouraged to explore more of his work at xleadco and join a growing movement to rethink how teams can lead and innovate in complex environments.
🌐 Connect with Henrik:
• Website: http://www.bresman.com/
https://www.xlead.co/
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/henrikbresman/
📚 You can purchase 's book on Amazon:
• X-Teams, Revised and Updated: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1647824761/
✅ Follow The Leadership Project on your favourite podcast platform and listen to a new episode every week!
📝 Don’t forget to share your thoughts on the episode in the comments below.
🔔 Join us in our mission at The Leadership Project and learn more about our organisation here: https://linktr.ee/mickspiers
📕 You can purchase a copy of the Mick Spiers bestselling book "You're a Leader, Now What?" as an eBook or paperback at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZBKK8XV
If you would like a signed copy, please reach out to sei@mickspiers.com and we can arrange it for you too.
If you're thinking about starting a podcast or upgrading your hosting, Buzzsprout is a great option! This link will give both of us a $20 credit when you upgrade:
👉 https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=1701891
Create forms easily with Jotform! Sign up with my link: https://www.jotform.com/?referral=AkWimLxOBz
Get extra Dropbox space—sign up with my link: Dropbox Referral Link
Wise Referral link: https://wise.com/invite/dic/michaels11434
...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mick Spiers (00:01):
What makes a team truly successful in today's fast
changing world? Is it enough forteams to simply work well
together, or is there somethingmore? Could it be that the best
teams aren't just greatinternally, but are masters at
reaching outward, leadinginnovation beyond their walls.
(00:22):
Today, I'm joined by ProfessorHenrik Bresman of INSEAD, a
world renowned expert inOrganizational Psychology and
behavior. Henrik will share whytraditional team models no
longer fit the demands oftoday's environment, and how
outward reaching, adaptive teamscan drive real innovation and
(00:43):
success. We're in for a realtreat today. Let's get started.
Hey everyone, and welcome backto The Leadership Project. I'm
greatly honored today to bejoined by Professor Henrik
Bresman. Henrik is a professorof organizational psychology and
behavior at INSEAD. He leadsINSEAD development programs, the
(01:07):
flagship programs of leadershipfor organizations, and he wants
us to reimagine how we build andlead teams, and that's what our
conversation is going to beabout today. This led him to co
author a book with Deborah andKona, who's also leads
leadership development programsat MIT so two amazing professors
(01:29):
coming together to develop abook called X teams, how to
build teams that lead, innovateand succeed, and that's what
we're going to be unpackingtoday. I can't wait to get into
today's conversation so withoutany further ado. Henrik, I would
love it if you say hello to theaudience, and I'd love to know
what inspired the work that youdo and why you say reimagine how
(01:54):
we build and lead teams?
Henrik Bresman (01:57):
First of all.
Mick, thank you very much forhaving me. It's a true privilege
to be here. And then a littlebit of a warning to you as a
professor, I have this habit ofstarting to profess if you let
me, so you should feelabsolutely free to interrupt me
at any time. So the topic, howdid I come to that? Well, I did
have a real job once before Ibecame a professor, I actually
(02:17):
worked in a few different roles.
At first as a manager in a largeelectrical engineering firm. I
then worked in a startupsituation a bit. I worked a bit
as a consultant. Now, in all ofthese roles, I found, of course,
that leadership is absolutelycritical, and I found that the
fundamental unit of leadership,wherever you sit in an
(02:41):
organization is in the team,whether if you're at the top or
at the front line, that's wherethe crucible of leadership
really happens, in these smallmoments in the team. So I got
really interested in in teams,how to make them work, why they
don't work, and so on. So thisgets you a second question, why
(03:02):
do we need to reimagine how wethink about building and leading
teams? And that really gets aninsight that I had very early
on, when I started my doctoralstudies, when I was I was
already in my 30s, when Istarted, was that there was a
model of high performing teamsthat have been proven over over
(03:23):
decades, which is about how andto be a successful team, you
need to create internalalignment in a team around
goals, roles, processes,interpersonal relationships. And
what I found was lacking, andvery much this was the road that
(03:44):
my co author, Deborah kohner,was already on was well, how
about alignment externally? Andwe found in our studies that you
could actually have anabsolutely perfectly aligned
team internally, and you willstill likely fail if you're not
aligned with your stakeholders,externally. So the reimagination
(04:05):
is really about this how to besuccessful in today's world.
Because the world has beenchanging. We like to call it.
Call it an exponentiallychanging world that is volatile,
uncertain, complex, ambiguous,increasingly asynchronous,
diverse, changing at a furiouspace. Something has shifted. The
external world. Has always beenimportant, but now is absolutely
(04:27):
critical, and often explainsmore of the performance in a
team than what's going oninternally. So I'm going to try
to summarize in one sentencewhat it is that you need to do
today that perhaps you didn'thave to do a couple of decades
ago, and that is for a team tobe successful today, you need to
(04:47):
go out before you go in. Youneed to go out before you go and
you need to be you need to careas much about the external world
as the internal world in yourteam you.
Mick Spiers (05:00):
Yeah, really good, Henry. Now, I've have to
confirm, based on my livedexperience working for multiple
multinational companies, thatwhen we talk about high
performance teams, we nearlyalways look inwards. First. We
use a Drexel civic teamperformance model or something
like that, or even Tuckman just,you know, forming, norming,
(05:20):
storming, performing, is it? Noforming, storming, norming,
performing using some kind ofmodel like that, but it's, but
it's very internally. And then,if you're lucky, I'm going to
say, then sometimes we catchourselves and realize, oh, hang
on a second, we haven't thoughtabout our customer for a while,
or other stakeholders, for thatmatter, that we have to interact
with. So I have to say it's,it's very true. One thing I'm
(05:45):
curious to know, with the workthat you and Deborah have done
and the research you said, youknow, there's high performing
teams then there's other teamsthat don't perform as well. I'm
going to put to you that no teamarrives at work going, we're
going to do a bad job today.
Where do we go wrong? Likeeveryone turns out, with the
right intent, where do we gowrong?
Henrik Bresman (06:06):
Absolutely so if we, of course, there are 100
different ways in which you cango wrong, but if I connect
specifically to where westarted, then then we're some
say something about how we gowrong in terms of how to connect
externally, there are many waysin which you can go wrong
internally. You might think thatyou're aligned around a goal,
(06:29):
but you haven't checked yourassumption you're wrong, and
then you go in differentdirections, and there's conflict
before because of that. Sointernally, a lot of things can
happen, but if we focusexternally, I'd say that there
are, there are two mainblockers. One is our our mental
model. If I ask a group ofexecutives, what's a great team
(06:52):
in their experience, they have avery clear model of what a high
performing team is, and it'salmost always goes back to to
what's going on internally. Sothe first reason why teams go
wrong in that they they don'tthink enough about what's going
on externally, is that that'snot part of the mental model we
(07:15):
think about the people who arein our team room or in our Zoom
Room, and that's the team andpeople are not there, out of
sight, out of mind. So thatmental model seems to be burnt
into our brains. But it is evenmore difficult than that,
because it turns out going outand actively working with the
(07:40):
various external stakeholders weneed to work with. It can be
kind of punishing. We can talkmore about exactly how to how to
think about the world out there,but for now, I'm just going to
generalize to say, say it can bekind of punishing to work with
people. If you ask a customerwhat they really think the
(08:02):
response can be punishing. Ifyou talk to someone who's a
particularly powerfulstakeholder, maybe an investor,
maybe a CEO, will be verydifferent things, depending on
what kind of context you're in,the response might be punishing.
And we know this and therefore,and one thing we know about
(08:22):
teams is that we do likeharmony, and so what we do when
we go out is that we bring indisharmony and anxiety, and we
don't like that so often, notnecessarily consciously, but
unconsciously. We closeourselves off, and we do not do
(08:42):
those things that we probablyshould know that we need to do.
I mean, it's not rocket scienceto say that. Well, you probably
need to go out there and talk toyour customer or you probably
need to talk to your investorsand so on. And yet, we just
don't do it. And I think a lotof it has to do with with our
(09:03):
our need for harmony and thisfast changing world out there,
we just don't get it. Now, ofcourse, what I'm saying then is,
yeah, you can get harmony in theshort run by closing yourself
off, but in the long run, yourperformance will will suffer and
there will be no harmonyanymore. But those are two
(09:23):
things. One is our mental model,and two is often the unconscious
decision not to go out therebecause we don't want to deal
with the Incoming, incoming firefrom doing that.
Mick Spiers (09:34):
Yeah, so I am hearing two things there,
Henrik, and one is just gettinginto a pattern that this is the
way we've always done it, a biton autopilot. When we get
together as a team, we do focusinternally, and it's become a
habit. And habits are verypowerful, with their virtuous
habits, but they they can stick,and if they're not a good habit,
(09:56):
it's hard to break. So it mightbe just being on autopilot. The
second part was, I'm feelingthere an element of fear that if
I go, let's pick customers asthe one of the major
stakeholders. If we go and askour customers what they really
think of us, do we really wantto know the answer, and do we
subconsciously avoid thatconversation?
Henrik Bresman (10:18):
Fear is a big, big big issue in teams today
because of the uncertainty thatis inherent in today's world.
It's fear of getting gettingresponses that you don't want.
It's fear of of being caught notknowing what you think you you
need to know. Fear of dealingwith paradoxes that you can't
(10:41):
resolve. There is a lot of fearout there. It's a huge problem.
It is a huge problem.
Mick Spiers (10:48):
I want to share one of my experiences here as as
well. Henry can help me unpackit a little bit. So in a role
that I took on just a couple ofyears ago, one of the first
things I did was go around tocustomers and give them a good
damn listening to just basicallyyou ask them a bunch of
questions and just let them getthings off the chest. I've got
(11:09):
to tell you at the end of that,the relationship was already
better, and one of the keythings I picked up from that is
one of the frustrations of thosecustomers is they feel like
their key suppliers aren't evenlistening to them, right? They
feel, of course, those teams areso internally focused, and they
worried about their owngovernance and their own
(11:29):
processes and all of thesethings, customers sticking up
their hand, going, Hey, whatabout us? No one's no one's
listening to us. Can I ask? WhatI'm thinking here is just asking
the question and letting themget off their chest. What they
are thinking is half the battle.
Half the battle's already won.
If you give them a chance to getit off their chest. How does
(11:50):
that sit with you?
Henrik Bresman (11:52):
When I coach teams to be externally more
focused, what I often find isthat they come back and say, Oh,
it wasn't that bad. And one ofthe reasons is, exactly what you
said. It turns out that whatthey imagined in their minds
about how, how hostile thiswould be, just being a good
(12:13):
therapist in the sense sittingthere, sitting there, listening,
that goes a very, very long waypeople you don't need to be in
the context of teams running abusiness. This is being human.
We like to be listened toabsolutely. And if you listen
actively, you will also learnthings that can help you respond
(12:36):
in a way that is more alignedwith reaching your goals and the
goals of whoever you're workingwith out there. So it sits very
well with me.
Mick Spiers (12:45):
Yeah, very good.
Okay, so there's going to bepeople listening to this
already, Hendrick that might besitting there going, Whoa. He's
describing my company. We dothis all the time. We're very
internally focused, and weforget if anyone's listening to
this. What does it look like foryou? What does a perfect
external reach out look like?
(13:07):
Whether it's a customer or otherstakeholders? Maybe the customer
is the easiest one for people tounderstand. What does a perfect
engagement look like?
Henrik Bresman (13:17):
It will depend on the context. However, there
is a fundamental, fundamentalcharacteristic of teams that do
this very well, they connect tothree specific structures in the
environment. And you'll tell meif I sound too academic now. But
what we found, we found more andmore teams failing, and as we
(13:39):
looked at the reasons of whythey failed? Well, that was
because they weren't outwardlooking enough. Now, these
teams, very often had beensuccessful at one point in time,
but things had changed theenvironment. Things are moving
faster. But just to say thingsare moving faster, that might
(13:59):
not be very helpful. So I wantto be specific here about these
three dimensions or structuresthat have changed. One is the
knowledge structure. This isabout just how what we know
about our environment out there,and that could be the customer,
it could be a competitor, itcould be new technology. This is
(14:22):
about updating our maps, aboutwhat the territory looks like.
And since the territory ischanging all the time, we need
to do this all the time. That'sone piece. We need to make sure
we have a correct map of theterritory knowledge. Second is
power. Where are the resources?
Where are the stakeholders whowe really need to be connected
(14:42):
to? This has changed, because itused to be quite obvious. You
had you looked at anorganizational chart, and then
you could tell where the powersat. And that is just not what
it looks like anymore. This. Thepower structures are now much
more elusive and not so clearlydefined. So it takes some work
(15:06):
to figure out, Where are theresources, where are the where's
the power. And then the thirddimension would be the work
structures that are now far moreinterdependent than they used to
be. I'll give you an obviousexample. We write in our book
about Microsoft, so we spendquite a bit of time working with
(15:26):
Microsoft. You don't need toknow anything about Microsoft to
know about some of their bestsellers in the Microsoft Office
Suite, which would be Word,PowerPoint, Excel, teams, etc.
Now it is obvious, of course,that if you want to be
successful as the person leadingthe word team, you need to be
(15:47):
intimately connected withwhoever is working over there in
the Excel team or over there inthe power in the teams team,
because if you don't managethose interdependencies, you
will fail. And that is true moreand more for any team, in any
situation, that you have theseinterdependencies in the work
(16:10):
structure. So you have changesin the knowledge structure,
changes in the power structure,changes in the work structure.
So that's the now I'm diagnosingthe challenge. So what do you
need to do? Well, you need toconnect to these three
structures by three fundamentalexternal activities. To connect
with the knowledge structure,you need to engage in what we
(16:33):
call sense making. This is aboutupdating the map. And then to
connect with the powerstructure, you need to engage in
what we call ambassadorship.
This is about representing theteam. This is about figuring
out, where might the lines ofresistance be, where are the
resources? How can we hit thestrategic frequency of the
(16:56):
people who we need to have onboard? How can we use their
language? And then the thirdpiece is then what we refer to
as task coordination. This isabout getting feedback about the
interdependencies and makingsure that we work with the
interdependencies. And there,what very often happens with
(17:17):
teams is they are not aware ofthe interdependencies, and so
they step on someone's toes andthen things go badly, and they
didn't intend to. A moreproactive way of thinking about
that is in the following way,any model of high performing
teams will say you need to bealigned around goals. What we're
saying is that, yep, youabsolutely do. We're not
(17:39):
throwing out the baby with thebathwater here, but the best way
to reach your goal is very oftento figure out what these other
teams goals are that you'reinterdependent with, and ask
yourself, How can we reach helpthem reach their goals? And
that's very often the best wayfor us to reach ours. So sense
(18:00):
making ambassadorship and taskcoordination. Now, what this
looks like will depend on yourcontext, but all these three
things need to be part of yourgame plan. Ambassadorship, if
you're a startup team, well,then it's about connecting
outside of your organization andhaving close connections with
(18:20):
perhaps the VC that is fundingyou, if you're a product
development team at Microsoft,well, then you need to have
Satya Nadella, the CEO and the Csuite on board. That's all
internal ambassadorship. So theanswers are different of how to
do this, depending on where youare, but the questions are the
same. How can you do these threethings consistently?
Mick Spiers (18:42):
Yeah, really good, Henry. There's many things I'm
taking away. I'd love to playsome of them back to you. The
first one that jumped in my mindwhen you're talking is that
yesterday's thinking is whatcreated today's results. And if
you want a different result,you're gonna have to try
something different. And it mayhave worked for you five years
ago, but the world changed a lotin that five years. So you
(19:05):
better not just follow thebouncing ball. You need to do
something different in thatexternal engagement with that
stakeholder, and I'm going tokeep on going with the customer,
because I think that's theeasiest one to understand.
Firstly, asking them somequestions, they're already going
to feel heard, but now I'mhearing some guide rails of
where our curiosity should leadus to understand the knowledge
(19:28):
structure, the power structure,the work structure, so that you
understand, if you want to dobusiness with this other company
or this other entity, you betterknow how they work, otherwise
you're just going to get spatback out the door If you don't
understand their workstructures, where the where the
power lies, how the knowledgestructure works, furthermore, I
feel like you're then startingto understand the problems that
(19:50):
they face because they want todo business with you. It's
because they feel like you'vegot a solution to one of their
problems, and if you canarticulate their problems to
them better than. They can,they'll assume that you've got
the answer, and it's game on. Soit's almost like you're helping
them diagnose their ownknowledge structure, power
structure, work structures.
You're doing it for yourbenefit, but then you're playing
(20:12):
it back to them to build theirtrust.
Henrik Bresman (20:15):
Yeah, absolutely. I will just say
absolutely. That's right, andvery often, because our internal
team dynamics is colored by ourambitions, our personalities,
our past. So if you can be anoutside source that is a little
bit more objective, of course,in reality, you're not, maybe
objective, but you provide adifferent perspective that you
(20:36):
might listen to in a differentway. They might open their ears
in a different way. And I wantto, I mean, one thing that you
said just before this that Iwant to just dive into a little
bit. It goes back to, I guess,what we said before that is not
exactly rocket science. Many ofthese things, I don't think
anyone listens to this and say,Oh, wow. Now that is completely
(20:59):
surprising and counterintuitive. What is surprising,
perhaps, is why teams don't doit, and what you said, Now I'm
going to play back to you whatyou said, which I think is so
important, is that somethingworked so well, and now it
doesn't. And this is for anyonewho worked in coaching, which I
know you have, you will haveheard this idea of what took us
(21:21):
here won't take us there anotherthing that is easy to say and
difficult to do. And of course,we know that we need to change.
But why don't we? Well, it isexactly because we've been so
successful getting here in aworking in a certain way, and
that is another thing that getsin the way. So I'm getting back
(21:41):
to this because I am convincedI've been doing this now for two
decades, working with teams indifferent contexts, that the
starting point to getting itright is to really understand
what blocks you. Becauseotherwise you say, yeah, yeah,
of course, of course, we, we'regoing to do that, and then you
don't do it because you haven'tdiagnosed what would actually
(22:02):
block you from doing what youyou know you need to do, but
there are powerful forces thatblocks you, such as well, I was
competent doing it this way. NowI'm going to do it a different
way. What? What if I'mincompetent doing it.
Mick Spiers (22:17):
Might be a challenge to your own identity,
your ego might have been yoursense of self might have been
the expert in the old way, andnow there's a new way. Am I
still going to be the expert atthe other end of this journey?
Henrik Bresman (22:29):
This is so important. This is so I'm today,
I'm writing an academic paperwhere we talk about this. We
call it primary appraisal andsecondary praise. And you just
tell me to shut up if I get toacademic. The idea is that
primary appraisal is okay.
Here's a challenge. And youknow, what does that mean in
(22:49):
terms of my ability to reach mygoals and do I have the
resources? It's veryinstrumental. Secondary
appraisal is, what does that sayabout me, my sense of self, my
identity, and so playing back toyou what you just said, and I
think that is the part that weforget. And if we forget that
(23:09):
part, we are getting in our ownway for reasons that might not
be entirely conscious to us. Sothe question about who we are,
who we want to be, successful,dependable, loved, all of these
things. I mean, that's powerfulforces, and we're going to do
something differently that wedon't know if we can do that
threatens that.
Mick Spiers (23:30):
Yeah, these drivers of human behavior, whether it's
our own or the others that arearound us, if we ignore them, we
ignore them, at our peril. I'llshare a question that I quite
often ask you, if we know whatwe want to do and why we want to
do it, why it's important, whyhaven't we done it already? And
if we don't ask that, whyhaven't we done it already? We
(23:51):
won't over overcome the fear,the limiting belief, whatever it
is, the story in our head that'sprevented us from taking that
leap. If you don't address that,you will never do all right. Now
I want to now, I want to comeback to something else that you
said before Henrik was reallyinteresting. You said that we
have to go out before we go in.
So let's say that we've gotteams to have this external
focus. And they've gone andthey've done this diagnostic.
(24:14):
They've now understand theknowledge structure, the power
structure, the work structuresof whoever that stakeholder is.
What's next? Do they bring itback in? What? How do you
dynamically adjust to this?
Henrik Bresman (24:28):
So we then need to think about the timing, and
that's really what your questionis getting at. And we, in this
book, we sketch out a model withthree steps, exploration,
experimentation and execution.
It's the second one. Andfinally, exportation. So once
you done your explore, and youcan tell, I'm sure, that we
(24:50):
like, like excess, the theiteration here is not an
accident, and I'm. Lifelong fanof the X Men, so maybe that's so
exploration. Is this out beforein, make sure you understand the
context, and then you go in andyou with that knowledge, and you
(25:12):
experiment, and you executebased on that. You put things
together. That's the secondstep. And then the final step,
then is exportation. That's whenyou go out and and educate
people about what you're whatyou're doing, and why they
should care. Now, it's not aslinear as this. It's in and out
along the way. It's sort of as ahelp, helpful way to think about
(25:33):
this over time. These threesteps, and then there are
circles back, of course.
Mick Spiers (25:41):
Okay, so exploration, experimentation and
then exportation. That's reallygood and non linear. I can see
that I'm also thinking that it'snot one and done. You're going
to have to do this on a regularbasis, or with the world that's
changing as fast as it is. Whatyou did today that worked is not
going to work two years fromnow? Yes,
Henrik Bresman (26:02):
exactly. And how you do this, of course, if you
are a project team, then it maybe, it won't, will never be
perfectly linear, but then itwill be relatively linear. But
if you are an intact, ongoingteam running a department or a
division or a company, yes, thenthe loop is continuous, of
course. Yeah,
Mick Spiers (26:23):
really good. I'm curious to know, in your work
with your research and companiesthat you've helped on this
journey to become more external,what does it look like at the
other end of this journey?
What's different compared to theinternally focused
Henrik Bresman (26:39):
at the other end? So I will say, let's me
take a crack at answering thequestion. What comes to mind?
This is one way of answering is,I'm thinking, of course, of the
success stories. It's justwonderful to work with teams. So
there's a number of differentcontexts here that I have in
mind. One is that I haveexecutive audiences in my
(27:02):
classroom at INSEAD, and veryoften we start these projects
that they don't then finishafter the programs, or I can
work directly with intact teamsand organizations. And then
there are combinations of these.
What it looks like, which is sogratifying, is that when this
actually works, then one of thedynamics we talked about loops
(27:24):
that happens, is that once theyhave had the courage to actually
take the step to thinkdifferently about it, to go out
before in, and really structurethemselves as x teams, and the X
and X teams, I don't think Isaid that's really about X Men,
really, that's a real answer,but, but our cover story is that
(27:45):
is external connection, externaloutreach. That's the x in x
teams. Is that and they succeed,and then success breeds success.
There is such a thing as winningstreaks. And then you see the
teams around them. They go, whatare those guys doing? What
(28:06):
whatever they are having, wewant to have. And then then it
spreads. And for for me, ofcourse, that's incredibly
gratifying, but that's, that'swhat it looks like. It is not
only one team success andrepeated success, it's actually
the starting point to creating aweb of innovation, change and
(28:28):
success across whateverecosystem in which you are
embedded. That's the best casescenario disrupted along the
way. I've also been involvedworking with companies where,
you know, we're well on our way,and then then the CEO is fired
for some reason, and everyonegets scared, and they pull back.
(28:49):
And so there are those storiestoo, of course, where we don't
get fully to where we want togo.
Mick Spiers (28:57):
Yeah, and understand, I'm sure that's
going to happen, and that's partof the volatility that we see in
the world. That's not alwayspredictable. It's not always
rational, but it happens. WhatI'm picturing on the success
stories there is, first of allthat if you have a team within
the organization, let's pick amultinational. If you have a
(29:18):
team that's starting to havethis success and have this way
of working that other peoplewill absolutely they'll notice.
And then one of two things,they'll want to join that team,
because they see it's fun overthere. Or they'll tap their
leader on the shoulder and say,Hey, can we do some of that? And
then the web that you're tryingto say. The other thing I'm
(29:40):
imagining is that team who'sprobably got a bunch of leaders
in there, or leaders, orpotential future leaders,
eventually those people will getpromoted and sent to other
people, and now we're going tohave a multiplier effect as
well.
Henrik Bresman (29:56):
Absolutely, that that is what we see, because it
is not. Always coming from thetop. And often people come to me
and say, yeah, yeah, no, Ibelieve in what you're saying.
But you know, our CEO is thissilverback gorilla who wants to
run everything top down, and sothat won't work. And my my
(30:17):
response to that is typicallysomething like this. Yeah, of
course it will be great if yourCEO was with the program. And
this is why I often like to workwith the C suite, because then
you know the program, it'seasier that way. But even if
it's not, this success lives atthe team level, and if you then
(30:40):
can showcase this success. Inthe end, everyone, including
that silverback gorilla talk,will will notice and say, Well,
what are they doing? And thenyou have this, this thing
spreading, and we're back to oneof the more gratifying
experiences I have in my workwhen I see that good virus
(31:00):
spread through an organization.
Mick Spiers (31:03):
I love the good virus analogy there. I'm also
thinking, listening to you theclear difference between a
victim mindset and a creatormindset. The victim mindset will
say, Oh, this will never work.
The CEO is going to kill this.
This will never work. A creativemindset would do what they can
with what they have from wherethey are, and they'd act very
(31:25):
locally. They'd be successful,and that success would breed
success. Yeah.
Henrik Bresman (31:30):
I liked that when you said what they can with
what they have.
Mick Spiers (31:35):
From where they are.
Henrik Bresman (31:36):
I'll grab that quote if you don't mind.
Mick Spiers (31:38):
Yeah, no problems at all. Okay, all right, very
good. Now I've got anotherchallenging question here. I've
been thinking about this sinceI've been starting to look at
your work. Henrik, I'm fullysold. To be clear, I want to do
this. I want this mindset inmyself and in my teams. What
happens? And I'm going to pick acustomer again. Now if that
(31:59):
external focus that you'relooking at, and you're going in
and you're trying to do thisdiagnosis of the knowledge
structure, the power structure,the work structures. What if
that organization that you'retrying to do business with is
quite dysfunctional themselves?
How do you deal with that?
Henrik Bresman (32:15):
It is important to figure out if it's something
you can deal with or you notdeal with in so this is what
comes to mind, is that in many,in most organizations that I
work with, people are verycompetitive, and they just don't
take no for an answer, and theywill not accept anything from
(32:37):
themselves or others, than thansuccess. You need to know what
you can control and what youcan't. And so the answer to
that, and now I don't want to beDebbie downer here and say,
well, that probably won't work.
That's not what I mean it is.
You got to have a realistic viewon this. And this is another
reason why you need to go outbefore in. So you understand you
(32:58):
have a good stakeholder map.
What does it look like overthere? What can you
realistically do with that map?
Well, then you might be able tofind ways to work around that
dysfunction, but you might alsofind that this is a kind of
dysfunction and resistance thatyou will not be able to
overcome. You will hit a brickwall, and if you're going to hit
(33:23):
a brick wall, it's better toknow it sooner rather than
later, so you can refocus yourenergies. Maybe not the answer
you were looking for, but itcomes from the fact that I find
too often that teams, they don'tcut their losses, they just
continue to hit that wall.
Mick Spiers (33:40):
Yeah. Okay, all right. So what I'm hearing
there, I'm thinking of threethings as you speak there. So
you're doing that diagnosis,you're listening to that
stakeholder. You're mapping theknowledge structures, the power
structures, the work structures,be prepared that that map might
be an absolute spaghetti mapthat's really complicated. And
(34:04):
then from there, at least youknow, it's better to know than
to not know, then you can startlooking at, can I find a path of
least resistance through thatmap where I can be successful,
or is that not going to work?
And coming back a little bitbefore, when I said before, a
bit like, if you can articulatethat organization's problems to
them better than they can, theymight engage you to help you
(34:27):
untangle that dysfunction.
Depending on what kind ofindustry you're in, they might
see you as someone that canactually they probably recognize
it themselves. They might seeyou as someone that can help
them untangle the dysfunction.
Henrik Bresman (34:42):
Yes, I absolutely think so. And so I
did not intend to say give upthat I using the same strategies
absolutely are a better chanceyou have a better chance of
succeeding, but alsounderstanding when the odds of
success are so small thatperhaps you should be. Go to
plan B. Another thing that Ineed to bring up. We talk so
(35:04):
much about the external piecehere that we may even forget the
internal piece. I want to saythat it is really important that
we don't I think I used thisexpression earlier. We don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater here, the internal piece,
absolutely necessary, notsufficient. And there is one
(35:25):
piece here that we found in ourresearch, and this, this builds
on a research of a mentor andcolleague of mine, Amy
Edmondson. She's a professor atHarvard. She's done a lot of
work on psychological safety.
Are you familiar with this?
Mick Spiers (35:40):
Yes, very much.
Henrik Bresman (35:43):
Most organizations I work with will
know about this concept. And sothe idea that you can actually
speak up in a team without beingworried about being punished or
humiliated, that you feel it canbe candid, it is always
important, but it isparticularly important in an
externally active team, becausethere will be so much incoming
(36:05):
that if you can't have an openconversation in a team to talk
about your failures, youranxieties, what you're unsure
of, what you know, but also whatyou don't know, disagreements,
because when you go out, Youwill find conflicting data, and
you need to work that out in theteam. The need for psychological
(36:26):
safety really goes up in thenext team. So that's a critical
piece.
Mick Spiers (36:32):
I think you're you're spot on here. Henrik, so
for me, psychological safety,the perceived benefit of
speaking up, is greater than thefear of doing so, and if you
don't have that, when theseuncomfortable truths come back
to you, you may not be able todeal with them in a way that
unlocks the full diversity ofthought, of everyone's ideas
(36:53):
about what are we going to doabout this? So when we've looked
externally and we've found someuncomfortable truths, we need to
be able to process them. And Ithink you're right.
Psychological safety has got tobe an ingredient of that for
sure.
Henrik Bresman (37:06):
Going back to what we said a moment ago, again
there, it's really important asa team, actually, to agree on
what it looks like out there.
What is the risk of failure,right? We need to have a common
understanding that in thiscontext, given the level of
uncertainty, given the limitedcontrol we have over external
(37:27):
stakeholders, you know everyoneneeds to agree that one outcome
might be to go to plan B. So I'mjust connecting back to that
example. If you don't, if youdon't have agreement on that if
you don't have a commonunderstanding of the stage
you're playing at, well, thenyou cannot build up
psychological safety, becausethen you have different ideas of
(37:48):
what is permissible about whatthe expectations are, etc.
Mick Spiers (37:55):
Yeah, you're going to need that agreement on what
the problem is and what is themagnitude of the problem. If you
have some people that havealready gotten to the
catastrophization stage, andothers are excited about well,
we know now and we can fix it,you might have some alignment to
do there, which I want to comeback to something you said, we
skipped over it. I think it wasreally important. So you've said
(38:17):
to go out before you go in, butyou didn't say not to do the go
in, right? So we're not sayingyou don't do this internal work
on alignment and an expectationsetting and all of these things
that are necessary inside theteam. But what I'm thinking
everything that I'm hearing fromyou, Henry, is, if you've done
the external work, then thatinternal work is going to be in
(38:42):
congruence and an alignment withwhere you need to be to be
successful in externally.
Otherwise you're just going in acircle. So the external work
that you did to understand theknowledge structures, the power
structures, the work structures,you're now coming that back in
and now the work that we dointernal is going to be so much
more powerful.
Henrik Bresman (39:02):
Yes, absolutely, and harder, because it will
inevitably involve learning todo things differently from what
you might have thought initiallythat you would do. And this is,
I see this, this actually, thatbrings me to something, because
I just yesterday, I wasconfronted with this again, and
(39:22):
I'd be confronted with it sooften. This turns out to be
particularly challenging for newteam leaders. They tend to close
off because they feel that to bea good team leader, they need to
know where to go and going outbefore in puts that and we're
back to the identity. I put thatat risk, and so again and again
(39:47):
and again and again, and I'm soit makes me really frustrated.
Is not the word really sad. Andfor these people with so much
potential that they crash andburn because they they. Cannot
take in what they really need totake in, because it threatens
their self, sense of self, andtherefore they they stick to the
(40:07):
plan. Because, at least thatmakes me a leader, because I
have all the answer, and I canpoint with my hand and say, Here
we're going, but they're going acompletely wrong direction. So
So then learning is after that.
To keep learning is critical,and learning is risky, and
learning can hurt because it cantake you in directions you don't
want to go, and that's thecritical part.
Mick Spiers (40:27):
So to come back to a phrase that you that we said
at the start, reimagining how webuild and lead teams, we need to
rethink that model ofleadership, that the leader has
all their answers and knowswhere to go and all of these
things, because it's notanymore. The best leaders are
the learning and adaptingleaders that can really keep an
(40:48):
open mind and open heart andopen will to what. Where is this
company three years from now?
Let's find out. Let's go on ajourney together, as opposed to
thinking, I know everything.
Yeah, this is so powerful.
Henrik Bresman (41:02):
Yeah, and we need to remind ourselves of
this. Here's the paradox we are.
It's human to be particularlyattracted to a leader who says,
I have all the answers. Only Ican fix it. If you make me the
leader, then I will take you tothe promised land. It is
paradoxically particularlypowerful and seductive that
(41:25):
message in a world where that isjust impossible because we are
anxious about where we are inthis world and where we're
going, and we don't know someonestanding up and say, I know, I
know everything, then we followthat leader, and that's a great
strategy, often, to get to aposition of power, to say that I
(41:46):
have yet. I cannot think of oneexample of someone who has that
mindset, who is actuallysuccessful, at least in the long
run, if we, by success, mean toactually lead people in a
direction that is better, youknow, unless it's just for that
(42:08):
person, that might be better forthat person, maybe. But now I
and this is true, of course, notonly in organizations. This is
all over society. We see this.
Mick Spiers (42:20):
Yeah, US politics.
Well, I have to say US politicsis what that's what it looks
like today, but it'sinteresting. You really
challenged my thinking justthere. Henrik about because I
know that that model ofleadership doesn't work, but
when you're said about theseductive nature of it, about
how it's easy to get sucked intothat world, either as the
(42:40):
follower or the leader. I thinkit is seductive, but it's not
going to work. It's not going towork. You've given us so much to
think about today. Henrik, thekey messages I want to give to
people, to take away is to goout before you go in these x
teams, and x being the externalworld, you you don't live in a
(43:03):
bubble. Stop being so internallyfocused about your team. Look
outside and look at thestakeholders that you're trying
to work with, and get out thereand do that diagnostic, give
them a good damn listening toand then think about
understanding, mapping theirtheir knowledge structures,
their power structures, theirwork structures, and then bring
(43:24):
it back into your team. Andyou've you've done the
exploration now do theexperimentation and the
exportation, and it's a cyclethat you're going to have to
keep on doing, because the worldis changing faster than it ever
has before, and what has workedfor you up until now. I only got
you this far. It's not going totake you where you want to go.
This has been so powerful,Henrik, I want to now take us to
(43:48):
our last four questions. Sothese are the same four
questions we ask all of I guess.
So what's the one thing that youknow now, Professor Henrik
bresman, that you wish you knewwhen you were 20?
Henrik Bresman (44:02):
Well, you know, they say that research is me
search. I think one of thereasons why I've been saying
several times building on yourview too, that your own sense of
self and identity can can blockyou, is because I feel like I
was there as well. And I wouldsay that it sounds simple, but
(44:25):
for me, personally, it's beenvery powerful. I would say the
one thing that I've learned isit's okay to not know, and in
fact, in today's world, if youthink you know, you should be
suspicious.
Mick Spiers (44:37):
Very good. All right. What a powerful takeaway.
What's your favorite book?
Henrik Bresman (44:42):
I have to say, I reread recently a book by Albert
Camille, the French author,which in English, I think, is
called the plague. It's just anamazing book about the
resilience of people goingthrough the plague of a city and
the plague. In this case, it's ametaphor for the Nazis and
(45:04):
during the Second World War. AndI think, you know, given the
authoritarian tendencies in theworld today, I found that
powerful, and it's alsobeautifully written.
Mick Spiers (45:15):
Yeah, wonderful. I don't know it. So you've given
me one to go and explore. Forsure, what's your favorite
quote?
Henrik Bresman (45:21):
I am an avid diver, so this will be bit
different from the theme here,but I of leadership, but I would
say this beautiful quote ofeasily Lauren Eastley, he said,
if there is magic on thisplanet, it is in water, and I
(45:42):
can't wait to plan my next dive.
Mick Spiers (45:44):
I love it. Oh, very good. Thank you so much. And
giving us a little insight intoyour life beyond, beyond INSEAD
as well. Thank you. And finally,Professor Henrik bresman, how do
people find you, if people areblown away by what we're talking
about today, and go, Yeah, we'reexactly this. We're internally
focused, and we don't lookexternally. How do people find
(46:05):
you to learn more about yourwork and how you can help them?
Henrik Bresman (46:09):
So I would say there are a few things in terms
specifically about the book. Iwould send people to x lead.co,
which is where I and Deborah wewe link to the book and where
you can buy the book. But alsowe have developed a simulation
and some assessments that peoplecan use if they want to dip
(46:30):
their toes in what we've beentalking about today. And then
LinkedIn, I have a newsletter onLinkedIn called X news, together
with Deborah, and I am the onlyone as far as I know in this
world with my name. So if youGoogle my name, my LinkedIn
profile will come up, and I'd bevery happy to connect there.
Mick Spiers (46:51):
Thank you so much.
Henrik, I've absolutely adoredour conversation today. I feel
like I could talk to you formany, many hours, and we still
wouldn't be done. This has beenamazing. Thank you for sharing
your knowledge and your wisdomand giving us something to stop
and reflect. I think you havedescribed multiple
organizations. I'm going to saythe majority of organizations
are internally focused. You'vegiven us something to really
(47:14):
stop and reflect and dosomething different about, thank
you so much.
Henrik Bresman (47:20):
My pleasure.
Thank you very much.
Mick Spiers (47:23):
What an amazing conversation with Professor
Henrik Bresman. Thank you forsharing your brilliant insights
today. If there's one takeawayfrom today's conversation, it's
this, leading great teams isn'tjust about managing what's
inside the room, it's aboutcourageously reaching outside of
it, the teams that will thriveare those who are constantly
(47:43):
learning, adapting and leadingchange, not waiting for it. In
the next episode, I'll besharing my own reflections on
what I took from Henrik today.
It's been one of my favoriteepisodes ever on the show, and
I'll be adding my own insightsas to where I feel like
organizations that I've led havefell into the very traps that
Henrik is talking about, andwhat I see that our customers
(48:08):
and stakeholders are so achinglywaiting for teams to do in terms
of reaching out and having thatextrinsic view.
Thank you for listening to TheLeadership Project
mickspiers.com a huge call outto Faris Sedek for his video
(48:30):
editing of all of our videocontent and to all of the team
at TLP. Joan Gozon, GeraldCalibo and my amazing wife Sei
Spiers, I could not do this showwithout you. Don't forget to
subscribe to The LeadershipProject YouTube channel where we
bring you interesting videoseach and every week, and you can
follow us on social,particularly on LinkedIn,
(48:52):
Facebook and Instagram. Now, inthe meantime, please do take
care, look out for each otherand join us on this journey as
we learn together and leadtogether.
What makes a team truly successful in today's fast
changing world? Is it enough forteams to simply work well
together, or is there somethingmore? Could it be that the best
teams aren't just greatinternally, but are masters at
reaching outward, leadinginnovation beyond their walls.
(00:22):
Today, I'm joined by ProfessorHenrik Bresman of INSEAD, a
world renowned expert inOrganizational Psychology and
behavior. Henrik will share whytraditional team models no
longer fit the demands oftoday's environment, and how
outward reaching, adaptive teamscan drive real innovation and
(00:43):
success. We're in for a realtreat today. Let's get started.
Hey everyone, and welcome backto The Leadership Project. I'm
greatly honored today to bejoined by Professor Henrik
Bresman. Henrik is a professorof organizational psychology and
behavior at INSEAD. He leadsINSEAD development programs, the
(01:07):
flagship programs of leadershipfor organizations, and he wants
us to reimagine how we build andlead teams, and that's what our
conversation is going to beabout today. This led him to co
author a book with Deborah andKona, who's also leads
leadership development programsat MIT so two amazing professors
(01:29):
coming together to develop abook called X teams, how to
build teams that lead, innovateand succeed, and that's what
we're going to be unpackingtoday. I can't wait to get into
today's conversation so withoutany further ado. Henrik, I would
love it if you say hello to theaudience, and I'd love to know
what inspired the work that youdo and why you say reimagine how
(01:54):
we build and lead teams?
Henrik Bresman (01:57):
First of all.
Mick, thank you very much forhaving me. It's a true privilege
to be here. And then a littlebit of a warning to you as a
professor, I have this habit ofstarting to profess if you let
me, so you should feelabsolutely free to interrupt me
at any time. So the topic, howdid I come to that? Well, I did
have a real job once before Ibecame a professor, I actually
(02:17):
worked in a few different roles.
At first as a manager in a largeelectrical engineering firm. I
then worked in a startupsituation a bit. I worked a bit
as a consultant. Now, in all ofthese roles, I found, of course,
that leadership is absolutelycritical, and I found that the
fundamental unit of leadership,wherever you sit in an
(02:41):
organization is in the team,whether if you're at the top or
at the front line, that's wherethe crucible of leadership
really happens, in these smallmoments in the team. So I got
really interested in in teams,how to make them work, why they
don't work, and so on. So thisgets you a second question, why
(03:02):
do we need to reimagine how wethink about building and leading
teams? And that really gets aninsight that I had very early
on, when I started my doctoralstudies, when I was I was
already in my 30s, when Istarted, was that there was a
model of high performing teamsthat have been proven over over
(03:23):
decades, which is about how andto be a successful team, you
need to create internalalignment in a team around
goals, roles, processes,interpersonal relationships. And
what I found was lacking, andvery much this was the road that
(03:44):
my co author, Deborah kohner,was already on was well, how
about alignment externally? Andwe found in our studies that you
could actually have anabsolutely perfectly aligned
team internally, and you willstill likely fail if you're not
aligned with your stakeholders,externally. So the reimagination
(04:05):
is really about this how to besuccessful in today's world.
Because the world has beenchanging. We like to call it.
Call it an exponentiallychanging world that is volatile,
uncertain, complex, ambiguous,increasingly asynchronous,
diverse, changing at a furiouspace. Something has shifted. The
external world. Has always beenimportant, but now is absolutely
(04:27):
critical, and often explainsmore of the performance in a
team than what's going oninternally. So I'm going to try
to summarize in one sentencewhat it is that you need to do
today that perhaps you didn'thave to do a couple of decades
ago, and that is for a team tobe successful today, you need to
(04:47):
go out before you go in. Youneed to go out before you go and
you need to be you need to careas much about the external world
as the internal world in yourteam you.
Mick Spiers (05:00):
Yeah, really good, Henry. Now, I've have to
confirm, based on my livedexperience working for multiple
multinational companies, thatwhen we talk about high
performance teams, we nearlyalways look inwards. First. We
use a Drexel civic teamperformance model or something
like that, or even Tuckman just,you know, forming, norming,
(05:20):
storming, performing, is it? Noforming, storming, norming,
performing using some kind ofmodel like that, but it's, but
it's very internally. And then,if you're lucky, I'm going to
say, then sometimes we catchourselves and realize, oh, hang
on a second, we haven't thoughtabout our customer for a while,
or other stakeholders, for thatmatter, that we have to interact
with. So I have to say it's,it's very true. One thing I'm
(05:45):
curious to know, with the workthat you and Deborah have done
and the research you said, youknow, there's high performing
teams then there's other teamsthat don't perform as well. I'm
going to put to you that no teamarrives at work going, we're
going to do a bad job today.
Where do we go wrong? Likeeveryone turns out, with the
right intent, where do we gowrong?
Henrik Bresman (06:06):
Absolutely so if we, of course, there are 100
different ways in which you cango wrong, but if I connect
specifically to where westarted, then then we're some
say something about how we gowrong in terms of how to connect
externally, there are many waysin which you can go wrong
internally. You might think thatyou're aligned around a goal,
(06:29):
but you haven't checked yourassumption you're wrong, and
then you go in differentdirections, and there's conflict
before because of that. Sointernally, a lot of things can
happen, but if we focusexternally, I'd say that there
are, there are two mainblockers. One is our our mental
model. If I ask a group ofexecutives, what's a great team
(06:52):
in their experience, they have avery clear model of what a high
performing team is, and it'salmost always goes back to to
what's going on internally. Sothe first reason why teams go
wrong in that they they don'tthink enough about what's going
on externally, is that that'snot part of the mental model we
(07:15):
think about the people who arein our team room or in our Zoom
Room, and that's the team andpeople are not there, out of
sight, out of mind. So thatmental model seems to be burnt
into our brains. But it is evenmore difficult than that,
because it turns out going outand actively working with the
(07:40):
various external stakeholders weneed to work with. It can be
kind of punishing. We can talkmore about exactly how to how to
think about the world out there,but for now, I'm just going to
generalize to say, say it can bekind of punishing to work with
people. If you ask a customerwhat they really think the
(08:02):
response can be punishing. Ifyou talk to someone who's a
particularly powerfulstakeholder, maybe an investor,
maybe a CEO, will be verydifferent things, depending on
what kind of context you're in,the response might be punishing.
And we know this and therefore,and one thing we know about
(08:22):
teams is that we do likeharmony, and so what we do when
we go out is that we bring indisharmony and anxiety, and we
don't like that so often, notnecessarily consciously, but
unconsciously. We closeourselves off, and we do not do
(08:42):
those things that we probablyshould know that we need to do.
I mean, it's not rocket scienceto say that. Well, you probably
need to go out there and talk toyour customer or you probably
need to talk to your investorsand so on. And yet, we just
don't do it. And I think a lotof it has to do with with our
(09:03):
our need for harmony and thisfast changing world out there,
we just don't get it. Now, ofcourse, what I'm saying then is,
yeah, you can get harmony in theshort run by closing yourself
off, but in the long run, yourperformance will will suffer and
there will be no harmonyanymore. But those are two
(09:23):
things. One is our mental model,and two is often the unconscious
decision not to go out therebecause we don't want to deal
with the Incoming, incoming firefrom doing that.
Mick Spiers (09:34):
Yeah, so I am hearing two things there,
Henrik, and one is just gettinginto a pattern that this is the
way we've always done it, a biton autopilot. When we get
together as a team, we do focusinternally, and it's become a
habit. And habits are verypowerful, with their virtuous
habits, but they they can stick,and if they're not a good habit,
(09:56):
it's hard to break. So it mightbe just being on autopilot. The
second part was, I'm feelingthere an element of fear that if
I go, let's pick customers asthe one of the major
stakeholders. If we go and askour customers what they really
think of us, do we really wantto know the answer, and do we
subconsciously avoid thatconversation?
Henrik Bresman (10:18):
Fear is a big, big big issue in teams today
because of the uncertainty thatis inherent in today's world.
It's fear of getting gettingresponses that you don't want.
It's fear of of being caught notknowing what you think you you
need to know. Fear of dealingwith paradoxes that you can't
(10:41):
resolve. There is a lot of fearout there. It's a huge problem.
It is a huge problem.
Mick Spiers (10:48):
I want to share one of my experiences here as as
well. Henry can help me unpackit a little bit. So in a role
that I took on just a couple ofyears ago, one of the first
things I did was go around tocustomers and give them a good
damn listening to just basicallyyou ask them a bunch of
questions and just let them getthings off the chest. I've got
(11:09):
to tell you at the end of that,the relationship was already
better, and one of the keythings I picked up from that is
one of the frustrations of thosecustomers is they feel like
their key suppliers aren't evenlistening to them, right? They
feel, of course, those teams areso internally focused, and they
worried about their owngovernance and their own
(11:29):
processes and all of thesethings, customers sticking up
their hand, going, Hey, whatabout us? No one's no one's
listening to us. Can I ask? WhatI'm thinking here is just asking
the question and letting themget off their chest. What they
are thinking is half the battle.
Half the battle's already won.
If you give them a chance to getit off their chest. How does
(11:50):
that sit with you?
Henrik Bresman (11:52):
When I coach teams to be externally more
focused, what I often find isthat they come back and say, Oh,
it wasn't that bad. And one ofthe reasons is, exactly what you
said. It turns out that whatthey imagined in their minds
about how, how hostile thiswould be, just being a good
(12:13):
therapist in the sense sittingthere, sitting there, listening,
that goes a very, very long waypeople you don't need to be in
the context of teams running abusiness. This is being human.
We like to be listened toabsolutely. And if you listen
actively, you will also learnthings that can help you respond
(12:36):
in a way that is more alignedwith reaching your goals and the
goals of whoever you're workingwith out there. So it sits very
well with me.
Mick Spiers (12:45):
Yeah, very good.
Okay, so there's going to bepeople listening to this
already, Hendrick that might besitting there going, Whoa. He's
describing my company. We dothis all the time. We're very
internally focused, and weforget if anyone's listening to
this. What does it look like foryou? What does a perfect
external reach out look like?
(13:07):
Whether it's a customer or otherstakeholders? Maybe the customer
is the easiest one for people tounderstand. What does a perfect
engagement look like?
Henrik Bresman (13:17):
It will depend on the context. However, there
is a fundamental, fundamentalcharacteristic of teams that do
this very well, they connect tothree specific structures in the
environment. And you'll tell meif I sound too academic now. But
what we found, we found more andmore teams failing, and as we
(13:39):
looked at the reasons of whythey failed? Well, that was
because they weren't outwardlooking enough. Now, these
teams, very often had beensuccessful at one point in time,
but things had changed theenvironment. Things are moving
faster. But just to say thingsare moving faster, that might
(13:59):
not be very helpful. So I wantto be specific here about these
three dimensions or structuresthat have changed. One is the
knowledge structure. This isabout just how what we know
about our environment out there,and that could be the customer,
it could be a competitor, itcould be new technology. This is
(14:22):
about updating our maps, aboutwhat the territory looks like.
And since the territory ischanging all the time, we need
to do this all the time. That'sone piece. We need to make sure
we have a correct map of theterritory knowledge. Second is
power. Where are the resources?
Where are the stakeholders whowe really need to be connected
(14:42):
to? This has changed, because itused to be quite obvious. You
had you looked at anorganizational chart, and then
you could tell where the powersat. And that is just not what
it looks like anymore. This. Thepower structures are now much
more elusive and not so clearlydefined. So it takes some work
(15:06):
to figure out, Where are theresources, where are the where's
the power. And then the thirddimension would be the work
structures that are now far moreinterdependent than they used to
be. I'll give you an obviousexample. We write in our book
about Microsoft, so we spendquite a bit of time working with
(15:26):
Microsoft. You don't need toknow anything about Microsoft to
know about some of their bestsellers in the Microsoft Office
Suite, which would be Word,PowerPoint, Excel, teams, etc.
Now it is obvious, of course,that if you want to be
successful as the person leadingthe word team, you need to be
(15:47):
intimately connected withwhoever is working over there in
the Excel team or over there inthe power in the teams team,
because if you don't managethose interdependencies, you
will fail. And that is true moreand more for any team, in any
situation, that you have theseinterdependencies in the work
(16:10):
structure. So you have changesin the knowledge structure,
changes in the power structure,changes in the work structure.
So that's the now I'm diagnosingthe challenge. So what do you
need to do? Well, you need toconnect to these three
structures by three fundamentalexternal activities. To connect
with the knowledge structure,you need to engage in what we
(16:33):
call sense making. This is aboutupdating the map. And then to
connect with the powerstructure, you need to engage in
what we call ambassadorship.
This is about representing theteam. This is about figuring
out, where might the lines ofresistance be, where are the
resources? How can we hit thestrategic frequency of the
(16:56):
people who we need to have onboard? How can we use their
language? And then the thirdpiece is then what we refer to
as task coordination. This isabout getting feedback about the
interdependencies and makingsure that we work with the
interdependencies. And there,what very often happens with
(17:17):
teams is they are not aware ofthe interdependencies, and so
they step on someone's toes andthen things go badly, and they
didn't intend to. A moreproactive way of thinking about
that is in the following way,any model of high performing
teams will say you need to bealigned around goals. What we're
saying is that, yep, youabsolutely do. We're not
(17:39):
throwing out the baby with thebathwater here, but the best way
to reach your goal is very oftento figure out what these other
teams goals are that you'reinterdependent with, and ask
yourself, How can we reach helpthem reach their goals? And
that's very often the best wayfor us to reach ours. So sense
(18:00):
making ambassadorship and taskcoordination. Now, what this
looks like will depend on yourcontext, but all these three
things need to be part of yourgame plan. Ambassadorship, if
you're a startup team, well,then it's about connecting
outside of your organization andhaving close connections with
(18:20):
perhaps the VC that is fundingyou, if you're a product
development team at Microsoft,well, then you need to have
Satya Nadella, the CEO and the Csuite on board. That's all
internal ambassadorship. So theanswers are different of how to
do this, depending on where youare, but the questions are the
same. How can you do these threethings consistently?
Mick Spiers (18:42):
Yeah, really good, Henry. There's many things I'm
taking away. I'd love to playsome of them back to you. The
first one that jumped in my mindwhen you're talking is that
yesterday's thinking is whatcreated today's results. And if
you want a different result,you're gonna have to try
something different. And it mayhave worked for you five years
ago, but the world changed a lotin that five years. So you
(19:05):
better not just follow thebouncing ball. You need to do
something different in thatexternal engagement with that
stakeholder, and I'm going tokeep on going with the customer,
because I think that's theeasiest one to understand.
Firstly, asking them somequestions, they're already going
to feel heard, but now I'mhearing some guide rails of
where our curiosity should leadus to understand the knowledge
(19:28):
structure, the power structure,the work structure, so that you
understand, if you want to dobusiness with this other company
or this other entity, you betterknow how they work, otherwise
you're just going to get spatback out the door If you don't
understand their workstructures, where the where the
power lies, how the knowledgestructure works, furthermore, I
feel like you're then startingto understand the problems that
(19:50):
they face because they want todo business with you. It's
because they feel like you'vegot a solution to one of their
problems, and if you canarticulate their problems to
them better than. They can,they'll assume that you've got
the answer, and it's game on. Soit's almost like you're helping
them diagnose their ownknowledge structure, power
structure, work structures.
You're doing it for yourbenefit, but then you're playing
(20:12):
it back to them to build theirtrust.
Henrik Bresman (20:15):
Yeah, absolutely. I will just say
absolutely. That's right, andvery often, because our internal
team dynamics is colored by ourambitions, our personalities,
our past. So if you can be anoutside source that is a little
bit more objective, of course,in reality, you're not, maybe
objective, but you provide adifferent perspective that you
(20:36):
might listen to in a differentway. They might open their ears
in a different way. And I wantto, I mean, one thing that you
said just before this that Iwant to just dive into a little
bit. It goes back to, I guess,what we said before that is not
exactly rocket science. Many ofthese things, I don't think
anyone listens to this and say,Oh, wow. Now that is completely
(20:59):
surprising and counterintuitive. What is surprising,
perhaps, is why teams don't doit, and what you said, Now I'm
going to play back to you whatyou said, which I think is so
important, is that somethingworked so well, and now it
doesn't. And this is for anyonewho worked in coaching, which I
know you have, you will haveheard this idea of what took us
(21:21):
here won't take us there anotherthing that is easy to say and
difficult to do. And of course,we know that we need to change.
But why don't we? Well, it isexactly because we've been so
successful getting here in aworking in a certain way, and
that is another thing that getsin the way. So I'm getting back
(21:41):
to this because I am convincedI've been doing this now for two
decades, working with teams indifferent contexts, that the
starting point to getting itright is to really understand
what blocks you. Becauseotherwise you say, yeah, yeah,
of course, of course, we, we'regoing to do that, and then you
don't do it because you haven'tdiagnosed what would actually
(22:02):
block you from doing what youyou know you need to do, but
there are powerful forces thatblocks you, such as well, I was
competent doing it this way. NowI'm going to do it a different
way. What? What if I'mincompetent doing it.
Mick Spiers (22:17):
Might be a challenge to your own identity,
your ego might have been yoursense of self might have been
the expert in the old way, andnow there's a new way. Am I
still going to be the expert atthe other end of this journey?
Henrik Bresman (22:29):
This is so important. This is so I'm today,
I'm writing an academic paperwhere we talk about this. We
call it primary appraisal andsecondary praise. And you just
tell me to shut up if I get toacademic. The idea is that
primary appraisal is okay.
Here's a challenge. And youknow, what does that mean in
(22:49):
terms of my ability to reach mygoals and do I have the
resources? It's veryinstrumental. Secondary
appraisal is, what does that sayabout me, my sense of self, my
identity, and so playing back toyou what you just said, and I
think that is the part that weforget. And if we forget that
(23:09):
part, we are getting in our ownway for reasons that might not
be entirely conscious to us. Sothe question about who we are,
who we want to be, successful,dependable, loved, all of these
things. I mean, that's powerfulforces, and we're going to do
something differently that wedon't know if we can do that
threatens that.
Mick Spiers (23:30):
Yeah, these drivers of human behavior, whether it's
our own or the others that arearound us, if we ignore them, we
ignore them, at our peril. I'llshare a question that I quite
often ask you, if we know whatwe want to do and why we want to
do it, why it's important, whyhaven't we done it already? And
if we don't ask that, whyhaven't we done it already? We
(23:51):
won't over overcome the fear,the limiting belief, whatever it
is, the story in our head that'sprevented us from taking that
leap. If you don't address that,you will never do all right. Now
I want to now, I want to comeback to something else that you
said before Henrik was reallyinteresting. You said that we
have to go out before we go in.
So let's say that we've gotteams to have this external
focus. And they've gone andthey've done this diagnostic.
(24:14):
They've now understand theknowledge structure, the power
structure, the work structuresof whoever that stakeholder is.
What's next? Do they bring itback in? What? How do you
dynamically adjust to this?
Henrik Bresman (24:28):
So we then need to think about the timing, and
that's really what your questionis getting at. And we, in this
book, we sketch out a model withthree steps, exploration,
experimentation and execution.
It's the second one. Andfinally, exportation. So once
you done your explore, and youcan tell, I'm sure, that we
(24:50):
like, like excess, the theiteration here is not an
accident, and I'm. Lifelong fanof the X Men, so maybe that's so
exploration. Is this out beforein, make sure you understand the
context, and then you go in andyou with that knowledge, and you
(25:12):
experiment, and you executebased on that. You put things
together. That's the secondstep. And then the final step,
then is exportation. That's whenyou go out and and educate
people about what you're whatyou're doing, and why they
should care. Now, it's not aslinear as this. It's in and out
along the way. It's sort of as ahelp, helpful way to think about
(25:33):
this over time. These threesteps, and then there are
circles back, of course.
Mick Spiers (25:41):
Okay, so exploration, experimentation and
then exportation. That's reallygood and non linear. I can see
that I'm also thinking that it'snot one and done. You're going
to have to do this on a regularbasis, or with the world that's
changing as fast as it is. Whatyou did today that worked is not
going to work two years fromnow? Yes,
Henrik Bresman (26:02):
exactly. And how you do this, of course, if you
are a project team, then it maybe, it won't, will never be
perfectly linear, but then itwill be relatively linear. But
if you are an intact, ongoingteam running a department or a
division or a company, yes, thenthe loop is continuous, of
course. Yeah,
Mick Spiers (26:23):
really good. I'm curious to know, in your work
with your research and companiesthat you've helped on this
journey to become more external,what does it look like at the
other end of this journey?
What's different compared to theinternally focused
Henrik Bresman (26:39):
at the other end? So I will say, let's me
take a crack at answering thequestion. What comes to mind?
This is one way of answering is,I'm thinking, of course, of the
success stories. It's justwonderful to work with teams. So
there's a number of differentcontexts here that I have in
mind. One is that I haveexecutive audiences in my
(27:02):
classroom at INSEAD, and veryoften we start these projects
that they don't then finishafter the programs, or I can
work directly with intact teamsand organizations. And then
there are combinations of these.
What it looks like, which is sogratifying, is that when this
actually works, then one of thedynamics we talked about loops
(27:24):
that happens, is that once theyhave had the courage to actually
take the step to thinkdifferently about it, to go out
before in, and really structurethemselves as x teams, and the X
and X teams, I don't think Isaid that's really about X Men,
really, that's a real answer,but, but our cover story is that
(27:45):
is external connection, externaloutreach. That's the x in x
teams. Is that and they succeed,and then success breeds success.
There is such a thing as winningstreaks. And then you see the
teams around them. They go, whatare those guys doing? What
(28:06):
whatever they are having, wewant to have. And then then it
spreads. And for for me, ofcourse, that's incredibly
gratifying, but that's, that'swhat it looks like. It is not
only one team success andrepeated success, it's actually
the starting point to creating aweb of innovation, change and
(28:28):
success across whateverecosystem in which you are
embedded. That's the best casescenario disrupted along the
way. I've also been involvedworking with companies where,
you know, we're well on our way,and then then the CEO is fired
for some reason, and everyonegets scared, and they pull back.
(28:49):
And so there are those storiestoo, of course, where we don't
get fully to where we want togo.
Mick Spiers (28:57):
Yeah, and understand, I'm sure that's
going to happen, and that's partof the volatility that we see in
the world. That's not alwayspredictable. It's not always
rational, but it happens. WhatI'm picturing on the success
stories there is, first of allthat if you have a team within
the organization, let's pick amultinational. If you have a
(29:18):
team that's starting to havethis success and have this way
of working that other peoplewill absolutely they'll notice.
And then one of two things,they'll want to join that team,
because they see it's fun overthere. Or they'll tap their
leader on the shoulder and say,Hey, can we do some of that? And
then the web that you're tryingto say. The other thing I'm
(29:40):
imagining is that team who'sprobably got a bunch of leaders
in there, or leaders, orpotential future leaders,
eventually those people will getpromoted and sent to other
people, and now we're going tohave a multiplier effect as
well.
Henrik Bresman (29:56):
Absolutely, that that is what we see, because it
is not. Always coming from thetop. And often people come to me
and say, yeah, yeah, no, Ibelieve in what you're saying.
But you know, our CEO is thissilverback gorilla who wants to
run everything top down, and sothat won't work. And my my
(30:17):
response to that is typicallysomething like this. Yeah, of
course it will be great if yourCEO was with the program. And
this is why I often like to workwith the C suite, because then
you know the program, it'seasier that way. But even if
it's not, this success lives atthe team level, and if you then
(30:40):
can showcase this success. Inthe end, everyone, including
that silverback gorilla talk,will will notice and say, Well,
what are they doing? And thenyou have this, this thing
spreading, and we're back to oneof the more gratifying
experiences I have in my workwhen I see that good virus
(31:00):
spread through an organization.
Mick Spiers (31:03):
I love the good virus analogy there. I'm also
thinking, listening to you theclear difference between a
victim mindset and a creatormindset. The victim mindset will
say, Oh, this will never work.
The CEO is going to kill this.
This will never work. A creativemindset would do what they can
with what they have from wherethey are, and they'd act very
(31:25):
locally. They'd be successful,and that success would breed
success. Yeah.
Henrik Bresman (31:30):
I liked that when you said what they can with
what they have.
Mick Spiers (31:35):
From where they are.
Henrik Bresman (31:36):
I'll grab that quote if you don't mind.
Mick Spiers (31:38):
Yeah, no problems at all. Okay, all right, very
good. Now I've got anotherchallenging question here. I've
been thinking about this sinceI've been starting to look at
your work. Henrik, I'm fullysold. To be clear, I want to do
this. I want this mindset inmyself and in my teams. What
happens? And I'm going to pick acustomer again. Now if that
(31:59):
external focus that you'relooking at, and you're going in
and you're trying to do thisdiagnosis of the knowledge
structure, the power structure,the work structures. What if
that organization that you'retrying to do business with is
quite dysfunctional themselves?
How do you deal with that?
Henrik Bresman (32:15):
It is important to figure out if it's something
you can deal with or you notdeal with in so this is what
comes to mind, is that in many,in most organizations that I
work with, people are verycompetitive, and they just don't
take no for an answer, and theywill not accept anything from
(32:37):
themselves or others, than thansuccess. You need to know what
you can control and what youcan't. And so the answer to
that, and now I don't want to beDebbie downer here and say,
well, that probably won't work.
That's not what I mean it is.
You got to have a realistic viewon this. And this is another
reason why you need to go outbefore in. So you understand you
(32:58):
have a good stakeholder map.
What does it look like overthere? What can you
realistically do with that map?
Well, then you might be able tofind ways to work around that
dysfunction, but you might alsofind that this is a kind of
dysfunction and resistance thatyou will not be able to
overcome. You will hit a brickwall, and if you're going to hit
(33:23):
a brick wall, it's better toknow it sooner rather than
later, so you can refocus yourenergies. Maybe not the answer
you were looking for, but itcomes from the fact that I find
too often that teams, they don'tcut their losses, they just
continue to hit that wall.
Mick Spiers (33:40):
Yeah. Okay, all right. So what I'm hearing
there, I'm thinking of threethings as you speak there. So
you're doing that diagnosis,you're listening to that
stakeholder. You're mapping theknowledge structures, the power
structures, the work structures,be prepared that that map might
be an absolute spaghetti mapthat's really complicated. And
(34:04):
then from there, at least youknow, it's better to know than
to not know, then you can startlooking at, can I find a path of
least resistance through thatmap where I can be successful,
or is that not going to work?
And coming back a little bitbefore, when I said before, a
bit like, if you can articulatethat organization's problems to
them better than they can, theymight engage you to help you
(34:27):
untangle that dysfunction.
Depending on what kind ofindustry you're in, they might
see you as someone that canactually they probably recognize
it themselves. They might seeyou as someone that can help
them untangle the dysfunction.
Henrik Bresman (34:42):
Yes, I absolutely think so. And so I
did not intend to say give upthat I using the same strategies
absolutely are a better chanceyou have a better chance of
succeeding, but alsounderstanding when the odds of
success are so small thatperhaps you should be. Go to
plan B. Another thing that Ineed to bring up. We talk so
(35:04):
much about the external piecehere that we may even forget the
internal piece. I want to saythat it is really important that
we don't I think I used thisexpression earlier. We don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater here, the internal piece,
absolutely necessary, notsufficient. And there is one
(35:25):
piece here that we found in ourresearch, and this, this builds
on a research of a mentor andcolleague of mine, Amy
Edmondson. She's a professor atHarvard. She's done a lot of
work on psychological safety.
Are you familiar with this?
Mick Spiers (35:40):
Yes, very much.
Henrik Bresman (35:43):
Most organizations I work with will
know about this concept. And sothe idea that you can actually
speak up in a team without beingworried about being punished or
humiliated, that you feel it canbe candid, it is always
important, but it isparticularly important in an
externally active team, becausethere will be so much incoming
(36:05):
that if you can't have an openconversation in a team to talk
about your failures, youranxieties, what you're unsure
of, what you know, but also whatyou don't know, disagreements,
because when you go out, Youwill find conflicting data, and
you need to work that out in theteam. The need for psychological
(36:26):
safety really goes up in thenext team. So that's a critical
piece.
Mick Spiers (36:32):
I think you're you're spot on here. Henrik, so
for me, psychological safety,the perceived benefit of
speaking up, is greater than thefear of doing so, and if you
don't have that, when theseuncomfortable truths come back
to you, you may not be able todeal with them in a way that
unlocks the full diversity ofthought, of everyone's ideas
(36:53):
about what are we going to doabout this? So when we've looked
externally and we've found someuncomfortable truths, we need to
be able to process them. And Ithink you're right.
Psychological safety has got tobe an ingredient of that for
sure.
Henrik Bresman (37:06):
Going back to what we said a moment ago, again
there, it's really important asa team, actually, to agree on
what it looks like out there.
What is the risk of failure,right? We need to have a common
understanding that in thiscontext, given the level of
uncertainty, given the limitedcontrol we have over external
(37:27):
stakeholders, you know everyoneneeds to agree that one outcome
might be to go to plan B. So I'mjust connecting back to that
example. If you don't, if youdon't have agreement on that if
you don't have a commonunderstanding of the stage
you're playing at, well, thenyou cannot build up
psychological safety, becausethen you have different ideas of
(37:48):
what is permissible about whatthe expectations are, etc.
Mick Spiers (37:55):
Yeah, you're going to need that agreement on what
the problem is and what is themagnitude of the problem. If you
have some people that havealready gotten to the
catastrophization stage, andothers are excited about well,
we know now and we can fix it,you might have some alignment to
do there, which I want to comeback to something you said, we
skipped over it. I think it wasreally important. So you've said
(38:17):
to go out before you go in, butyou didn't say not to do the go
in, right? So we're not sayingyou don't do this internal work
on alignment and an expectationsetting and all of these things
that are necessary inside theteam. But what I'm thinking
everything that I'm hearing fromyou, Henry, is, if you've done
the external work, then thatinternal work is going to be in
(38:42):
congruence and an alignment withwhere you need to be to be
successful in externally.
Otherwise you're just going in acircle. So the external work
that you did to understand theknowledge structures, the power
structures, the work structures,you're now coming that back in
and now the work that we dointernal is going to be so much
more powerful.
Henrik Bresman (39:02):
Yes, absolutely, and harder, because it will
inevitably involve learning todo things differently from what
you might have thought initiallythat you would do. And this is,
I see this, this actually, thatbrings me to something, because
I just yesterday, I wasconfronted with this again, and
(39:22):
I'd be confronted with it sooften. This turns out to be
particularly challenging for newteam leaders. They tend to close
off because they feel that to bea good team leader, they need to
know where to go and going outbefore in puts that and we're
back to the identity. I put thatat risk, and so again and again
(39:47):
and again and again, and I'm soit makes me really frustrated.
Is not the word really sad. Andfor these people with so much
potential that they crash andburn because they they. Cannot
take in what they really need totake in, because it threatens
their self, sense of self, andtherefore they they stick to the
(40:07):
plan. Because, at least thatmakes me a leader, because I
have all the answer, and I canpoint with my hand and say, Here
we're going, but they're going acompletely wrong direction. So
So then learning is after that.
To keep learning is critical,and learning is risky, and
learning can hurt because it cantake you in directions you don't
want to go, and that's thecritical part.
Mick Spiers (40:27):
So to come back to a phrase that you that we said
at the start, reimagining how webuild and lead teams, we need to
rethink that model ofleadership, that the leader has
all their answers and knowswhere to go and all of these
things, because it's notanymore. The best leaders are
the learning and adaptingleaders that can really keep an
(40:48):
open mind and open heart andopen will to what. Where is this
company three years from now?
Let's find out. Let's go on ajourney together, as opposed to
thinking, I know everything.
Yeah, this is so powerful.
Henrik Bresman (41:02):
Yeah, and we need to remind ourselves of
this. Here's the paradox we are.
It's human to be particularlyattracted to a leader who says,
I have all the answers. Only Ican fix it. If you make me the
leader, then I will take you tothe promised land. It is
paradoxically particularlypowerful and seductive that
(41:25):
message in a world where that isjust impossible because we are
anxious about where we are inthis world and where we're
going, and we don't know someonestanding up and say, I know, I
know everything, then we followthat leader, and that's a great
strategy, often, to get to aposition of power, to say that I
(41:46):
have yet. I cannot think of oneexample of someone who has that
mindset, who is actuallysuccessful, at least in the long
run, if we, by success, mean toactually lead people in a
direction that is better, youknow, unless it's just for that
(42:08):
person, that might be better forthat person, maybe. But now I
and this is true, of course, notonly in organizations. This is
all over society. We see this.
Mick Spiers (42:20):
Yeah, US politics.
Well, I have to say US politicsis what that's what it looks
like today, but it'sinteresting. You really
challenged my thinking justthere. Henrik about because I
know that that model ofleadership doesn't work, but
when you're said about theseductive nature of it, about
how it's easy to get sucked intothat world, either as the
(42:40):
follower or the leader. I thinkit is seductive, but it's not
going to work. It's not going towork. You've given us so much to
think about today. Henrik, thekey messages I want to give to
people, to take away is to goout before you go in these x
teams, and x being the externalworld, you you don't live in a
(43:03):
bubble. Stop being so internallyfocused about your team. Look
outside and look at thestakeholders that you're trying
to work with, and get out thereand do that diagnostic, give
them a good damn listening toand then think about
understanding, mapping theirtheir knowledge structures,
their power structures, theirwork structures, and then bring
(43:24):
it back into your team. Andyou've you've done the
exploration now do theexperimentation and the
exportation, and it's a cyclethat you're going to have to
keep on doing, because the worldis changing faster than it ever
has before, and what has workedfor you up until now. I only got
you this far. It's not going totake you where you want to go.
This has been so powerful,Henrik, I want to now take us to
(43:48):
our last four questions. Sothese are the same four
questions we ask all of I guess.
So what's the one thing that youknow now, Professor Henrik
bresman, that you wish you knewwhen you were 20?
Henrik Bresman (44:02):
Well, you know, they say that research is me
search. I think one of thereasons why I've been saying
several times building on yourview too, that your own sense of
self and identity can can blockyou, is because I feel like I
was there as well. And I wouldsay that it sounds simple, but
(44:25):
for me, personally, it's beenvery powerful. I would say the
one thing that I've learned isit's okay to not know, and in
fact, in today's world, if youthink you know, you should be
suspicious.
Mick Spiers (44:37):
Very good. All right. What a powerful takeaway.
What's your favorite book?
Henrik Bresman (44:42):
I have to say, I reread recently a book by Albert
Camille, the French author,which in English, I think, is
called the plague. It's just anamazing book about the
resilience of people goingthrough the plague of a city and
the plague. In this case, it's ametaphor for the Nazis and
(45:04):
during the Second World War. AndI think, you know, given the
authoritarian tendencies in theworld today, I found that
powerful, and it's alsobeautifully written.
Mick Spiers (45:15):
Yeah, wonderful. I don't know it. So you've given
me one to go and explore. Forsure, what's your favorite
quote?
Henrik Bresman (45:21):
I am an avid diver, so this will be bit
different from the theme here,but I of leadership, but I would
say this beautiful quote ofeasily Lauren Eastley, he said,
if there is magic on thisplanet, it is in water, and I
(45:42):
can't wait to plan my next dive.
Mick Spiers (45:44):
I love it. Oh, very good. Thank you so much. And
giving us a little insight intoyour life beyond, beyond INSEAD
as well. Thank you. And finally,Professor Henrik bresman, how do
people find you, if people areblown away by what we're talking
about today, and go, Yeah, we'reexactly this. We're internally
focused, and we don't lookexternally. How do people find
(46:05):
you to learn more about yourwork and how you can help them?
Henrik Bresman (46:09):
So I would say there are a few things in terms
specifically about the book. Iwould send people to x lead.co,
which is where I and Deborah wewe link to the book and where
you can buy the book. But alsowe have developed a simulation
and some assessments that peoplecan use if they want to dip
(46:30):
their toes in what we've beentalking about today. And then
LinkedIn, I have a newsletter onLinkedIn called X news, together
with Deborah, and I am the onlyone as far as I know in this
world with my name. So if youGoogle my name, my LinkedIn
profile will come up, and I'd bevery happy to connect there.
Mick Spiers (46:51):
Thank you so much.
Henrik, I've absolutely adoredour conversation today. I feel
like I could talk to you formany, many hours, and we still
wouldn't be done. This has beenamazing. Thank you for sharing
your knowledge and your wisdomand giving us something to stop
and reflect. I think you havedescribed multiple
organizations. I'm going to saythe majority of organizations
are internally focused. You'vegiven us something to really
(47:14):
stop and reflect and dosomething different about, thank
you so much.
Henrik Bresman (47:20):
My pleasure.
Thank you very much.
Mick Spiers (47:23):
What an amazing conversation with Professor
Henrik Bresman. Thank you forsharing your brilliant insights
today. If there's one takeawayfrom today's conversation, it's
this, leading great teams isn'tjust about managing what's
inside the room, it's aboutcourageously reaching outside of
it, the teams that will thriveare those who are constantly
(47:43):
learning, adapting and leadingchange, not waiting for it. In
the next episode, I'll besharing my own reflections on
what I took from Henrik today.
It's been one of my favoriteepisodes ever on the show, and
I'll be adding my own insightsas to where I feel like
organizations that I've led havefell into the very traps that
Henrik is talking about, andwhat I see that our customers
(48:08):
and stakeholders are so achinglywaiting for teams to do in terms
of reaching out and having thatextrinsic view.
Thank you for listening to TheLeadership Project
mickspiers.com a huge call outto Faris Sedek for his video
(48:30):
editing of all of our videocontent and to all of the team
at TLP. Joan Gozon, GeraldCalibo and my amazing wife Sei
Spiers, I could not do this showwithout you. Don't forget to
subscribe to The LeadershipProject YouTube channel where we
bring you interesting videoseach and every week, and you can
follow us on social,particularly on LinkedIn,
(48:52):
Facebook and Instagram. Now, inthe meantime, please do take
care, look out for each otherand join us on this journey as
we learn together and leadtogether.
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.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com