<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://knowledge.insead.edu"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
      <channel>
        <title>INSEAD Knowledge</title>
        <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu</link>
        <description>The business school for the world</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 12:31:13 +0800</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en</language>
        <item><title>The Perils of Fighting Local Gods</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/perils-fighting-local-gods</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Hadrian, the Roman emperor, journeyed to Athens in spring of AD 125 for the Great Dionysia, one of the most important festivals in the Hellenic world honouring Dionysus, the patron deity of theatre and wine. As ruler of the Roman empire, Hadrian could attend in imperial regalia, wearing a purple toga embroidered with gold threads, or take part as a local patron, adopting the customs and symbols of the city. He chose the latter, showing up as one of the officials in charge, presiding over the celebrations while dressed in a simple white cloth worn by Athenian citizens. In doing so, he didn’t erase differences between Roman and Greek culture – he created a bridge between them.Modern mergers and acquisitions present a similar challenge. Leaders often approach cultural integration as a problem to be solved through structural alignment and standardisation. Yet decades of research on post-merger integration shows that employees experience mergers through the lens of values, identity and purpose. This is why cultural integration so often becomes the decisive factor in whether a merger deal succeeds.When integration fails, it’s rarely because leaders ignore culture altogether. More often, it’s because they focus on the wrong aspects of it. We outline three common mistakes and our recommendations for avoiding them.Mistake 1: Confusing equal power with fairnessOne of the most common concerns in M&A is that the acquiring company will dominate the acquired company’s culture, leading to conflict. To avoid such “winner vs. loser” dynamics, many mergers are framed as “mergers of equals”. The creation of Citigroup in 1998 through the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group illustrates both the intent and limits of this approach. Citigroup adopted a highly symmetrical structure, with two co-CEOs, equal board representation and shared decision-making authority. The CEOs shared veto power over strategic decisions, meaning that all significant decisions had to be made jointly. Although this arrangement divided power equally between executives, it didn’t address the need to create a workable governance structure and fair corporate environment. In practice, the structure diffused authority, while unclear decision rights made coordination more difficult and amplified strategic tensions. A decade later, the merger was regarded by some as one of the worst of all time. In contrast, when Indosat Ooredoo and Hutchison Tri Indonesia merged in 2022, leadership placed strong emphasis on ensuring that decisions were transparent, consistent and grounded in clear criteria. This was particularly important in the restructuring process. Rather than relying on informal judgments, the organisation adopted data-driven assessments and involved independent third parties to evaluate employees. Even difficult decisions such as redundancies were broadly accepted by employees, thanks to the clarity and consistency of the process.Our recommendation: Be fair and transparent, because this is what employees expect. Research suggests that clear decision rights, objective evaluation processes and perceived fairness are key to building trust and fostering employee engagement post-M&A.Mistake 2: Confusing espoused values with lived onesCultural integration often focuses on aligning values. Leaders invest significant effort in defining shared principles, integrating them into communications and codifying them in formal documents. Yet alignment on paper doesn’t guarantee alignment in practice.Take the 1999 merger of MindSpring and EarthLink, both internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States. MindSpring was known for a strong values-driven culture. The company’s "Core Values and Beliefs" such as respect, integrity and customer focus were distributed to employees and guided everyday decisions. Executives from EarthLink were sufficiently impressed that they incorporated these into the combined corporate handbook. However, while the language of customer focus and respect remained, operational choices at the merged company emphasised efficiency. The issue wasn’t the absence of values but the inconsistency in how they were enacted, a gap that research shows could be read by employees as an integrity problem and erode their trust and commitment.  When integration fails, it’s rarely because leaders ignore culture altogether. More often, it’s because they focus on the wrong aspects of it.  Initially, the combined company became the second-largest ISP in the US, with nearly 3 million subscribers and peaking at 5 million in 2004. But operational friction eventually caused it to miss the transition to broadband. By 2007, it was forced to cut 900 jobs, and by mid-2009, its subscriber base had halved.Our recommendation: Align behaviour, not just values. Leaders must ensure that behaviours are grounded in the principles they champion. Values only shape culture when they are reflected in everyday decisions.Mistake 3: Confusing cultural differences with strategic incompatibilityTwo organisational cultures are rarely fully aligned and friction is inevitable. The challenge for leaders is not to eliminate these differences, but to determine which ones matter.Consider an anonymised example of two software companies that merged. One was known for agility and rapid development cycles; the other emphasised structure and thoroughness. Rather than identifying how to integrate product development in a way that leveraged both speed and reliability, leaders became drawn into debates about processes, reporting structures and norms. Eventually, coordination broke down, and the integration ultimately failed. This pattern is surprisingly common. Organisations tend to choose one set of practices over another, often reflecting the preferences of the acquiring firm but neglecting valuable capabilities.Research on intergroup conflict and post-merger identification suggests a different approach: Groups can orient towards a shared objective without feeling that their distinctive strengths must be eliminated. In this context, a clearly defined purpose plays a critical role.Purpose doesn’t remove differences, but it helps organisations distinguish between what’s consequential and what’s not. It provides a basis for deciding where alignment is essential and where practices can diverge. Because this question was never resolved by the two software companies, attention drifted towards more visible but lower-stakes issues while the deeper integration challenge remained unaddressed.Our recommendation: Be clear on purpose but flexible on execution. Define a small set of non-negotiable principles or objectives and be flexible about how to achieve them. This preserves valuable capabilities while maintaining strategic coherence.What effective cultural integration looks like in practiceWhen Microsoft acquired code-sharing platform GitHub in 2018, the two companies brought very different cultures to the table. Microsoft emphasised enterprise scale and operational efficiency, while GitHub was known for its developer-centric and informal culture.At the same time, both organisations were aligned around a shared principle of empowerment. GitHub’s mission to help developers was fully aligned with Microsoft’s mission “to empower every person and every organisation on the planet to achieve more”.Rather than forcing convergence, Microsoft preserved GitHub’s developer-first ethos and gave the company a significant degree of operational autonomy. For example, GitHub was allowed to release new tools that enabled developers to deploy code directly to Amazon Web Services, Microsoft’s biggest rival in the cloud market. By preserving GitHub’s unique way of working while aligning on a shared purpose, Microsoft was able to maintain what made GitHub distinctive without sacrificing strategic coherence.The strategy paid off. In 2018, before the merger, GitHub had 28 million active users and annual recurring revenue (ARR) of some US$250 million. By 2022, the company had tripled its user base and crossed US$1 billion in ARR.From ancient history to modern M&A, the challenges of cultural integration remain consistent. Successful cultural integration of two entities doesn’t mean eradicating differences. It’s about clarity of purpose, as well as making disciplined choices about what must be aligned, what can remain local and how those choices will be understood by employees. Leaders who approach integration in this way don’t topple “local gods” – they channel them in service of a shared vision.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 04:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48606 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/perils-fighting-local-gods#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-05/shutterstock_2365443309_1.jpg?itok=tNuceVUb" type="image/jpeg" length="113498" /><dc:creator>Piotr Furmanski</dc:creator><dc:creator>Andy J. Yap</dc:creator></item><item><title>AI Is Supercharging Open Innovation</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/ai-supercharging-open-innovation</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Twenty years after the term “open innovation” was coined by American professor Henry Chesbrough, collaborating with other firms to share ideas and innovation has become essential to corporate success. Critical, in fact, against the backdrop of proliferating artificial intelligence, as our latest Open Innovation Report (OIR25) shows. The survey of more than 1,000 innovation and strategy leaders at private and public organisations in Europe shows that the strategic importance of open innovation has dramatically increased since our last report in 2023, particularly when it comes to AI.Specifically, OIR25 – which focuses on corporate-startup collaboration – indicates that 80% of corporates now deem startup collaboration as important or mission-critical to their business strategy, up from 67% in 2023. It’s evident that, to accelerate their AI strategies, organisations are seeking to bypass bottlenecks including the lack of talent by partnering agile, tech-driven startups, which also often brings fresh thinking and specialised expertise. Variations across industriesIndeed, corporate leaders we interviewed cite the importance of turbocharging AI execution and unlocking new value as the primary driver for collaborating with startups. Organisations in aerospace were the most enthusiastic: 92% of the industry players in our study have collaborated with startups. Within the sector, Airbus is seen as the open innovation leader, collaborating with startups in areas such as sustainable aviation fuels, digital flight operations and autonomous systems.Generative AI, not surprisingly, is the focus of corporate attention: Six in 10 organisations said AI integration is highly important to their business, and 72% of corporates with over 5,000 employees have partnered with startups on AI projects.However, not everyone is sold on open innovation. Organisations in the “defence” and “homeland security” sectors in our survey showed the lowest enthusiasm, with only 42% having collaborated with startups. Culture and competition probably underlie the divergence: The more competitive an industry is, the more its players tend to value external expertise to reduce time to market. One would expect the “defence” and “public sector & government” sectors to occupy spaces in the opposite end of the spectrum, where lower risk and stability are valued more than innovation. The need for open innovation departmentsInterestingly, our survey shows that organisations with extensive experience of collaboration with startups don’t find it easier to do so than those with less experience. Counterintuitive, yes, but not illogical. When organisations engage in more open innovation, they tend to experience real-world hurdles as they move from experimentation towards strategic integration. Our research shows that legal and regulatory constraints in areas such as procurement becomes serious barriers when existing corporate structures and processes are not tailored for agile startups.Organisations that have been successful in open innovation tend to understand the need to dedicate resources to working with startups. Those with dedicated open innovation departments reported a 73% success rate – defined in our survey as “reaching set objectives” such as exploring innovative technology – in their projects, compared to just 51% for those without.Prominent examples of open innovation departments include BMW’s Startup Garage, staffed by 25-30 employees, and Transport for London’s team of 20 employees, who work with external partners to co-develop mobility innovations.Open innovation departments are crucial for aligning strategic priorities, engaging the right business functions and industrialising the collaboration process. They also serve as internal ambassadors for external expertise. Their main mission is to enable quick onboarding of new startups and experimentation with cutting-edge technologies, ensuring that open innovation is not just a side experiment but a core strategic capability.Future trends The OIR25 signals a major shift in how large firms leverage open innovation. Traditionally, these firms collaborated with startups to fill expertise gaps. Now, they are turning to AI startups to adopt new solutions and services faster even though they already have AI capabilities. This tells us that collaboration is not just about keeping pace with technological change – it's about staying competitive and resilient in a landscape where speed and innovation are critical.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 03:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48596 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/ai-supercharging-open-innovation#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-05/shutterstock_2502253945_1.jpg?itok=N6kbyogY" type="image/jpeg" length="89082" /><dc:creator>Tobias Studer Andersson</dc:creator><dc:creator>Andrew Shipilov</dc:creator><dc:creator>Nathan Furr</dc:creator></item><item><title>The New Blueprint for Competing in a Fractured World</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/new-blueprint-competing-fractured-world</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[The international order is fracturing. War in the Middle East, the prolonged conflict in Ukraine and seismic shifts in American trade and foreign policy have upended decades of assumed stability. Tariffs, export controls, sanctions and critical chokepoints – from maritime routes to semiconductor supply chains – are exposing just how fragile business networks have become.As we wrote in MIT Sloan Management Review, multinationals need to redesign traditional strategies – exit, relocate or reorganise – in this new world order. Firms that remain globally connected yet decentralised will be better able to compete in a geopolitically fractured world.Why traditional responses look different nowResearch into successive waves of globalisation and de-globalisation since the early 20th century reveals that the strategic options historically available to multinationals – exit, relocate, or reorganise – have not disappeared. But they are manifesting in different ways.Exit: A costly and often inadvisable pathWhen political risk rises sharply, the instinct is often to run. Yet exit is often painful and rarely clean. The departure of oil majors BP, Shell and Equinor from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine shows firms face steep financial write-downs, contractual disputes, legal entanglements and lasting reputational damage. Host governments can wield regulatory and coercive power to make departure far more expensive than entry ever was.Firms that will compete effectively are those that redesign their portfolios, supply chains, data architecture and governance structures for the world that is taking shape, not the one that existed. What’s more, a clean exit can permanently forfeit the firm’s access to markets that may remain strategically significant for decades. A wiser response might be to maintain a calibrated minimal presence – a legal entity and basic operational footprint sufficient to preserve relationships, regulatory standing and market intelligence without deepening financial exposure. Nissan and Volkswagen have pursued exactly this in China, pulling back R&D investment and slowing expansion without fully withdrawing, preserving the option to re-engage if conditions improve.Reorganise: The return of the poly-nationalGeopolitical pressure is calling into question the dominant model of multinational organisation, one built around centralised strategic direction, globally optimised supply chains and the primacy of commercial logic over political considerations. That model prized efficiency. What the current era demands is resilience.Many multinationals are restructuring around poly-national architectures: networks of semi-autonomous units with strong in-country leadership, regional supply chains and deep ties to local stakeholders. This represents a partial return to the multi-domestic model of the pre-globalisation era – though now driven not by the absence of global integration but by the deliberate unwinding of excessive dependence on it.HSBC's 2024 restructuring is instructive. The bank split its global operations into Eastern and Western markets and separated their governance accordingly, producing a firm that remains globally coordinated yet politically adaptable. Nestlé has pursued a comparable path, distributing strategic authority across regional hubs and embedding operations deeply within local economic and regulatory systems to absorb political shocks without systemic damage to the broader enterprise.Local anchoring can also take the form of localised ownership. McDonald’s ceded significant ownership in China to domestic partners; Hindustan Unilever and Heineken listed local subsidiaries on national stock exchanges. In the most extreme cases, as TikTok's fraught negotiations in the United States demonstrated, restructuring ownership entirely may be the only route to continued operation in a hostile regulatory environment.Beyond structure, multinationals are investing in geopolitical capabilities as a distinct corporate function. BlackRock, Allianz and Siemens have each developed proprietary tools to monitor political risk continuously and anticipate supply chain disruption. The most ambitious firms have moved further still, into corporate diplomacy, treating geopolitics not as a constraint to be absorbed but as an arena for proactive engagement. Last year, Apple simultaneously lobbied Washington against tariffs, reassured Chinese officials of its commitment to the market and cultivated ties with Indian authorities. Microsoft, meanwhile, made five significant pledges to European digital stability, expanding data centre operations across 16 countries in the region and committing to defend its legal right to operate on the continent.Relocate: Compliance over optimisationFor decades, regulatory convergence and proliferating free trade agreements allowed multinationals to let cost efficiency dictate location decisions. That calculus is now broken. Regulatory fragmentation and the return of trade barriers are forcing firms to prioritise compliance and risk mitigation over pure cost advantage.Post-Brexit Europe made this plain, compelling multinationals headquartered in London to relocate subsidiaries and restructure reporting lines to preserve European market access. The response to US–China tensions has taken a different form: reshoring, nearshoring and friend-shoring – moving production back home or to allied or neutral nations to reduce exposure to adversarial environments. Apple is shifting the bulk of iPhone production to India; Samsung manufactures most of its Galaxy smartphones in Vietnam; Intel has established a hub in Malaysia, exploiting the country's neutrality and semiconductor expertise. Each decision trades some cost efficiency for reduced dependence on a single geopolitical bloc, while positioning the firm within emerging corridors of middle-power trade.Designing for adaptabilityThe current landscape reflects a fundamental rupture within globalisation itself. Nations are weaponising the very networks they cannot fully dismantle. They are deploying techno-nationalism, sanctions, data sovereignty rules and industrial policy as instruments of competition, even as they remain deeply interdependent.Firms that will compete effectively are those that redesign their portfolios, supply chains, data architecture and governance structures for the world that is taking shape, not the one that existed. Resilience now belongs to those capable of rapid yet considered adaptation to a geopolitical order that shows no sign of stabilising.This article is adapted from “What Global Turmoil Means for Company Structure” published in MIT Sloan Management Review.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 01:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48581 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/new-blueprint-competing-fractured-world#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-05/shutterstock_2414267267_1.jpg?itok=D1Y3BrAr" type="image/jpeg" length="707555" /><dc:creator>Caterina Moschieri</dc:creator><dc:creator>Davide Ravasi</dc:creator><dc:creator>Quy Huy</dc:creator></item><item><title>Leading Organisational Change Without a Roadmap</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leading-organisational-change-without-roadmap</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Many leaderships teams staring down the barrel of organisational transformation face a similar dilemma: How do you take a leap into the unknown when there’s no clear data, no well-trodden path to follow and no assurance of success? What if the change you're considering is uncharted territory, but waiting for certainty means standing still? Over the years, we’ve seen countless organisations struggle with these questions, whether they’re trying to flatten hierarchies, implement new processes or change how decisions are made. Through our five-year study of a company we’ll call Pharma Global* (PG), we uncovered key insights into how executive teams can deftly navigate a high-stakes and uncertain transformation and move forward with conviction.Trap #1: Overthinking the leap Like its competitors, PG had long relied on a few blockbuster drugs. But by the 2010s, as a major acquisition expanded its R&D pipeline, its commercial team was managing an increasingly complex and expansive portfolio. Unfortunately, PG’s long-standing top-down culture and bureaucratic rules were an obstacle to the agility the company now required. So, its executive team hired two top consulting firms to build the case for transformation. Both said the company needed a significant re-organisation to become more agile. Yet, two years later, the executive team was still asking for more data, benchmarking and risk assessments. The executive team overlooked a crucial factor – the nature of the problem they were trying to solve. Traditional organisational changes are technical problems with clear, well-defined solutions. But PG’s transformation was an adaptive problem. Although the direction was clear, specific solutions had to come from within the organisation. Instead of a single structural fix, multiple interconnected decisions had to be made by different teams. Additionally, there weren't direct industry benchmarks or large-scale models to follow. PG would be the first to implement this approach at its scale. Leadership shift: Assume change, justify inactionNo amount of analysis could provide the certainty the executive team was accustomed to. So, Gerrick*, the head of PG, and Giorgio*, who led seven affiliates, reframed the situation by posing this question: Why shouldn’t we change? The resulting shift in thinking was subtle, yet powerful. Rather than seeking comfort in more data, the executive team recognised that the real risk lay in maintaining the status quo. They embraced a new ambition: PG would become the very first large pharmaceutical firm to flatten its organisational design. The risk was worth taking as it would send a strong message to employees that leadership was serious about purpose-driven and empowered ways of working. PG could also scale the learning curve and shape the playbook for a new kind of organisation – one that could become a competitive advantage in itself. If your organisation is overthinking the leap, ask these questions: Are we trying to solve a technical problem or an adaptive challenge?Are we reducing risks or avoiding uncertainty? What are the risks of not changing?What are the benefits and costs of being the first to experiment with the transformation? What are the consequences of competitors successfully developing a proof-of-concept first?Trap #2: Waiting for a full roadmap The next challenge PG had to overcome was its desire for a perfect plan. In traditional organisational change, a detailed step-by-step roadmap is typically seen as essential. However, given the adaptive nature of the problem and inherent ambiguity in the transformation process, only the initial stages could be mapped out. Subsequent stages would have to evolve based on early actions and results.Leadership shift: Visualise the destination To move forward, PG’s executive team made a second important shift: letting go of the need for a perfect plan, which simply didn't exist, and acknowledging that a period of instability was inevitable.Rather than fixating on the structure, they visualised their ideal outcome: an organisation where people are empowered to make decisions with minimal approval, guided by a shared understanding of strategic priorities, decision-making criteria and operational boundaries.Focusing on the envisioned outcome not only made the executive team feel less anxious; it also energised them to move forward. They outlined critical success factors, including clarity when it came to roles and responsibilities, direction and communication. This created a collective confidence that the transformation could succeed even without a pre-defined plan.To build confidence amid uncertainty, consider the following questions:What should the future organisation look like? How should it function?If chaos is inevitable, how can we make it productive by reducing disruptions, staying agile and supporting each other when unexpected challenges arise? What key values, behaviours and commitments will help us navigate uncertainty, maintain momentum and ensure the organisation adapts effectively throughout the change? Trap #3: The control reflex The next challenge: What did it mean to “lead” a transformation aimed at decentralising decision-making? Given the vast scope of the transformation, the executive team couldn’t possibly deal with every challenge at once. Such a top-down approach would also contradict the very purpose of the change, which was to empower PG’s employees to design an organisation that truly worked for them. The answer was clear and unnerving at the same time ­– ownership of the transformation had to belong to employees.Leadership shift: Build the trust muscle The executive team wasn't giving up all control. It was responsible for the objectives, directions and process of the transformation, and remained accountable for its success or failure. However, self-organising teams – called “circles” – would own the analysis, recommendations, decisions and implementation.The executive team understood that their role wasn’t to dictate solutions but to support the process. They created an internal communication platform for employees to form circles, suggest projects and share progress updates. The system also supported the early detection of signs of failure, allowing for timely course corrections and careful interventions when necessary.Within weeks, energy surged throughout the company, and employees began to view the transformation as their own. As the executive team empowered the circles, trust deepened on both sides. With this came a greater willingness from the executive team to shoulder accountability while letting go of control.To prevent the control reflex and build the trust muscle, think through these questions:Can ownership of the tasks be separated from ownership of the process? Who should own each aspect? What would make you comfortable relinquishing control? How can you remain accountable for outcomes without directly executing the transformation? What systems will help you ensure strong information-sharing, monitor progress, detect weak signals of failure and make timely interventions – without taking back control? Trap #4: One foot in, one foot outThe executive team still found themselves in an uncertain position. They were responsible for the transformation’s success, yet lacked the traditional levers of authority. This discomfort could lead to the instinct to hedge – to keep one foot in, one foot out. Anticipating this risk, the executive team saw that for the transformation to succeed, they had to redefine their role. They identified two key responsibilities: safeguarding decision-making processes and ensuring teams had the resources to execute effectively; and facilitating coordination across circles and representing PG within the wider organisation. Leadership shift: Codify the shift The executive team made a public commitment, beginning with a name change: they would now be known as the network empowering team (NET). They established a team charter that outlined their new responsibilities to the organisation and to each other. This sent a message that leadership was no longer about command and control but about enabling the system to function. Soon, the NET faced its first real test. The finance circle decided to replace the traditional months-long budgeting cycle with AI-driven forecasting. Although this approach was innovative, Giorgio, who had to sign off on the numbers for the board, hesitated.Rather than override the circle, the NET collectively reviewed the process, asked clarifying questions and ensured rigour without undermining the team’s ownership. By following their formalised charter, the NET reinforced the transformation’s principles and set a precedent, changing their role from negotiating financial targets to providing resources to support execution. To ensure your leadership team fully embodies a new vision, ponder these questions: Have we clearly defined, formalised and communicated our new role in a way that differentiates it from the past? Are we consistently role-modelling and communicating behaviours that reinforce our new organisational design? How do we show our commitment to enabling vs. directing? How are we holding ourselves accountable to our new leadership approach?Successful change amid uncertaintyPG’s transformation wasn’t driven by a detailed roadmap, perfect plan or guarantee of success. Rather, it was spurred by a series of deliberate leadership shifts that empowered the executive team to move from hesitation to action.Their experience provides a striking lesson for any executive team confronted with a similar challenge: Waiting for certainty is a trap, and moving forward requires leaders who can recognise and overcome the common stumbling blocks that stall transformation. When leaders take the leap, they enable a system where employees aren’t just adapting to change – they are driving it.This is an adaptation of an article published in Harvard Business Review.*Pseudonym.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 01:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48496 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leading-organisational-change-without-roadmap#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_1832128702.jpg?itok=d0j5p9FE" type="image/jpeg" length="1009560" /><dc:creator>Chengyi Lin</dc:creator><dc:creator>Michael Y. Lee</dc:creator></item><item><title>The Leadership Blind Spots That Frustrate Executive Teams</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leadership-blind-spots-frustrate-executive-teams</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Over the years, I’ve observed that being in the upper echelons of leadership is rarely as orderly as it appears from the outside. On paper, everything looks rational and well managed. In reality, executive teams often operate in a state of simmering friction, shaped less by strategy than by how people relate to one another.It usually isn’t catastrophic decisions that derail leadership teams. More often, it is low-grade interpersonal antics that slowly grind things down. The passive-aggressive email or the meeting hijacked by ego. The eye roll that communicates more than a carefully prepared slide ever could. The human psyche is a peculiar machine, and nowhere is this more evident than in the conference room.Seen this way, leadership can feel like a surrealistic play. Everyone is properly dressed and everything looks composed – yet chaos reigns. Here are seven surprisingly common behaviour patterns among executives that can drive team members up the wall. 1. Always wanting to winSome executives treat every meeting like a high-stakes tennis match. Even when the topic is something as mundane as cafeteria menu options, they must win. Unsurprisingly, they can turn strategic retreats and brainstorming sessions into gladiatorial combat.A little competitiveness can be healthy. But when the desire to be right eclipses the desire to be effective, teamwork begins to erode. People quickly learn that offering new ideas is risky, because when they are challenged, it’s less about improving them than about winning.What makes this behaviour particularly draining is that it leaves little room for collective intelligence. When every exchange becomes a contest, people conserve energy rather than contribute. 2. Taking underserved credit Some executives collect credit the way others collect loyalty points. A team success becomes “something I was instrumental in”. A good idea from a colleague somehow reappears with their name attached.Closely related is the failure to recognise others. Credit-hogging and recognition-withholding are two sides of the same coin. Both steadily drain morale and trust. People stop speaking up, stop trying and eventually, they stop caring.The irony is that many leaders do not even realise they are doing it. Success happens and their name simply floats to the top of the slide deck. True leadership means letting others take the bow. The more generously you give credit, the more credibility you gain in return.3. Not taking personal responsibilityMistakes happen. They are part of leadership. But for some executives, they trigger deflection rather than reflection. “It wasn’t me,” they insist, often with remarkable conviction.Blaming others may offer short-term relief, but it mortgages long-term trust. In contrast, leaders who say “This one’s on me” create a sense of safety that strengthens the entire team. Unfortunately, many organisations are led by people with selective memory. Successes are claimed, but failures are redistributed, with a corrosive impact on culture.4. Being a “yes-butter”, not a “why-notter”“Yes, but…” is a velvet-gloved way of saying no. It creates the illusion of openness while subtly extinguishing new ideas. Presenting itself as wisdom, this behaviour is usually driven by fear.The “why-notters” are different. They do not accept ideas blindly, but they engage with them. They explore possibilities and remain curious. Organisations need fewer gatekeepers of gloom and more leaders willing to open the gate, even briefly, to see what might be possible.5. Withholding informationInformation is power, and some executives ration it carefully, deciding who needs to know what and when. In practice, this leaves people guessing and breeds mistrust.Transparency does not mean giving away secrets. It means trusting that colleagues are not plotting sabotage. In healthy teams, information flows freely. And in any case, people usually find out what has been withheld. The only question is whether they hear it from you or from the rumour mill.6. Not listeningYou can usually spot non-listeners in meetings. They are already preparing their response while others are still speaking, or nod thoughtfully while clearly thinking about lunch.Listening is not just about staying quiet. It is about being present and knowing how to ask the right questions. Leaders who truly listen are rare and deeply motivating. When people feel genuinely heard, they feel seen. And in leadership contexts, feeling seen builds commitment.Listening becomes especially difficult at senior levels because leaders are rewarded for having answers. The higher people rise, the less often they are interrupted, corrected or challenged. Over time, speaking can feel more productive than listening. Yet leadership presence is not measured by airtime. It is measured by the quality of attention leaders offer to those around them.7. Being inconsistentSome leaders are wonderfully unpredictable in the worst possible way. One day warm and encouraging, the next irritable and dismissive. As a result, teams spend more time anticipating mood swings than doing their jobs.Inconsistency, however, breeds paranoia. People learn to manage the leader instead of focusing on work. Consistency does not mean rigidity. It means behaving in ways others can rely on, even when conditions change. When leaders are predictable in this sense, they give others room to perform.The difficult art of leading humansIf this list feels uncomfortably familiar, congratulations. You are human. Most leaders recognise themselves in at least a few of these patterns. They rarely stem from bad intentions. More often, they grow out of habit, ego, fear or simply fatigue.The great paradox of leadership is that while executives invest enormous effort in managing markets, budgets and strategies, the hardest task is managing themselves. Even occasional emotional outbursts, when they occur, leave lasting impressions.Leadership is not about being perfect. It is about being willing to laugh at yourself, apologise when necessary and to listen more carefully. The best leaders are not those who never drive others crazy. They are the ones who realise it when they do and choose to do better. That, in the end, is what separates those who merely manage from those who truly lead.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48481 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leadership-blind-spots-frustrate-executive-teams#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/executive_with_box_over_head_0.jpg?itok=Ya5WnCKY" type="image/jpeg" length="831256" /><dc:creator>Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries</dc:creator></item><item><title>What’s Different About Working in Tech?</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/whats-different-about-working-tech</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[The tech sector has long outgrown its status as just another industry vertical. Today, the sector – made up of companies developing software and related products – is a foundational force reshaping economies, societies and even the nature of organisations themselves. This statement was already true before the generative AI (GenAI) revolution – and is even more so now.  The sector appears to operate on a different kind of “business physics”, driven by near-zero marginal costs, rapid experimentation and a shift away from command-and-control hierarchies. For managers looking to lead in this space, the challenge is mastering these unique dynamics, which render the old rules of management less relevant.  Move fastTech start-ups today need little more than a laptop, cloud credits and a brilliant idea to take off. Moreover, new ideas can be prototyped quickly, tested with real users and continuously refined at high speed. The low barriers to entry, combined with the speed of experimentation, translate into higher competition and faster idea cycles. As strategic horizons in tech shrink, leaders must be comfortable operating at high velocity and extreme uncertainty, focusing on first-mover advantage and shorter planning cycles.OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are no strangers to strategic one-upmanship, frequently timing their launches within days or even hours of one another. For instance, OpenAI launched GPT-4o on the Monday of Google’s annual product launch event in May 2024. Then there’s extreme efficiency. In late 2024, DeepSeek surprised the world by disrupting a mostly American-centric GenAI race with their V3 model, which cost a mere US$6 million to train compared to hundreds of millions (or even billions) spent by American tech giants. This 100 times difference in capital efficiency calls into question the need for massive capital and talent hoards to win the race.At the same time, it pays to know your tech. The industry has a tendency for massive hype cycles. New technologies such as GenAI, Web3 and the metaverse tend to attract immense investment and talent, but the narratives around them can sometimes obscure reality and polarise discourse. More importantly, hype can create pressure-cooker conditions in tech companies, where the fear of missing out often dictates strategy. While trying to keep pace with the competition, leaders must discern real innovation from overhyped fads. “Move fast and break things” may not always be the best way forward.Race for talentIn an industry defined by rapid boom-bust cycles, tech companies are continually restructuring to meet investor expectations, resulting in periodic, seemingly coordinated layoff waves. And when global talent flows quickly between companies, roles and industries, managing talent is not just about attracting top performers, but also about maintaining morale and engagement in a world where job security is seen as fluid.Interestingly, although tech professionals are some of the world's highest earners, it’s not only the money that draws them, but also purpose, autonomy and mastery. Many are intrinsically motivated by a passion for solving complex problems and a desire to make an impact. When experimentation is cheap and talent is intrinsically driven, the manager’s role shifts from assigning tasks to architecting autonomy: curating the tools, culture and guardrails that allow autonomous teams to self-organise and innovate. Many tech companies have made autonomy and decentralisation a central theme, like GitLab’s open-handbook culture and asynchronous decision-making, as well as Valve’s self-managing teams. Decentralised autonomous organisations go one step further, using blockchain to govern operations without central leadership.This combination of high skill, high pay and high autonomy has birthed a modern “labour aristocracy” – a class of professionals whose specialised expertise grants them rare leverage over their employers. These professionals view their roles as core to their identity and treat their companies as moral proxies, making their organisations a fertile environment for internal activism. The Netflix employee walkouts in 2021 over the anti-transgender content of Dave Chappelle’s comedy special is just one high-profile example.Putting in place an impact-driven mission, such as Airbnb’s quest to "create a world where anyone can belong anywhere" or Etsy’s ethos to “keep commerce human", can appeal to these professionals and align decentralised teams around shared values.Navigate ethical and regulatory frontiers The same speed and scale that allow tech to reshape the world is pushing society into uncharted territory – beyond technical frontiers to ethical ones. Tech innovation is constantly outpacing our collective understanding, with breakthroughs in AI, big data and social platforms forcing us to confront novel dilemmas. As new technologies shape human behaviour and societal norms, they’re creating a new class of ethical considerations, namely: autonomy, fairness and democracy.  In a world where data fuels the digital economy, what rights do individuals have? The rise of so-called "surveillance capitalism" triggers debates over privacy and manipulation. Algorithmic fairness is another concern when decisions are increasingly made by AI – from loan applications to medical diagnoses. To avoid bias in algorithms, care must be taken to prevent historical biases from being encoded into AI systems. At the larger, societal level, social media platforms such as Meta have been in the spotlight for their role in amplifying polarising content through their algorithms. As they embrace the ideal of open expression, they have the ethical duty to balance the risk of misinformation at scale, which can polarise societies and hinder democratic processes. Regulators certainly have a role in keeping tech companies in line. But while technology evolves at an exponential pace, legislative processes are, by design, deliberative and linear. As a result, tech companies not only need to deal with the uncertainty of regulators catching up with technology, but also the complexity of navigating a patchwork of rules across geographies: from the United States’ "permissionless innovation" to the European Union’s proactive, risk-oriented regulations (like the AI Act). Then there are major players like India and China, which focus on digital sovereignty through assertive policies such as data localisation requirements to ensure national control over their growing digital economy.Tech companies can also expect heightened uncertainty as the technology reaches a public tipping point. Even if they have been operating in environments with long periods of minimal oversight, the landscape can suddenly become unpredictable beyond this tipping point, in what is known as a “regulatory whiplash”.What are the implications? From both a strategic and ethical standpoint, while regulations may take time to catch up, leaders cannot be passive players. They can better manage uncertainty by being proactive: through self-regulation (by embedding ethical guardrails), building trust with users and policymakers, as well as investing in proactive compliance and policy engagement.Be ever readyThe tech industry is characterised by breathtaking speed and scale, thanks to the low barriers, global talent and autonomous organisations. But the landscape is “breathtaking” only if leaders are ready for the realities of the industry. They can be prepared if they: Understand how to embrace decentralisation while ensuring alignment and accountabilityKnow enough about the technology to discern real innovation from overhyped fadsBe able to define and articulate a clear ethical stanceNavigate a complex, fast-evolving regulatory landscapeManage talent in a world where intrinsic motivation and continuous learning are central The dynamics of managing in tech companies are beginning to spill over into other industries as they adopt tools such as digital twins and simulation, and engage in continuous technology integration. AI is now enabling these, even in traditionally capital-expenditure-heavy or service-intensive industries. That means it pays for managers in all sectors to be aware of what makes working in tech different and to recalibrate what it takes to lead in a tech-infused world.     ]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48426 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/whats-different-about-working-tech#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/speed_of_tech.jpg?itok=WJsWF9WO" type="image/jpeg" length="684089" /><dc:creator>Martin Gonzalez</dc:creator><dc:creator>Phanish Puranam</dc:creator></item><item><title>The Courage to Tackle Fear as a Leader</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/courage-tackle-fear-leader</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Fear is inevitable in leadership. The weight of responsibility for an organisation’s performance and the livelihood of its people, especially in times when the next crisis is never too far away, can feel overwhelming. The question is how leaders should respond to fear.Together with Heidi K. Gardner of Harvard Law School, I hosted a discussion on the topic at the recent World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. During a lively exchange with executives from diverse sectors, I made the case that tackling fear requires building two essential foundations: a cohesive organisation and a moral compass.Building cohesion through diversityWhen times get tough, our instincts often betray us. The common response to uncertainty is often to surround ourselves with faces and perspectives that mirror our own. It’s tempting to seek consensus and eliminate friction by working only with people who think like ourselves.But this instinct can lead to our downfall.The world is diverse, complex and multifaceted. If we don't tap into the diversity within our organisations, blind spots may emerge. We may miss trade-offs we should be considering or fail to understand segments of our market, our stakeholders or our own teams. No doubt embracing diversity can be uncomfortable, since it means facing perspectives that challenge our assumptions and slow down our decision-making. But it’s also the organisational equivalent of stress-testing our ideas before we implement them.A cohesive organisation is one where diversity is embraced. It is also where people with different perspectives are united by something deeper: a shared sense of purpose.This brings me to the other glue of organisational cohesion. When people see the meaning of their work, the firm’s performance also improves. Take for example a recent study of a consumer goods multinational where some 3,000 employees were invited to workshops about identifying personal meaning in their work. Over two years, the firm’s internal rate of return improved as low performers either left or improved their performance. When people feel their work has purpose, they're more resilient in the face of uncertainty. They can weather the storms – and stay motivated – because they understand what they do matters.Trust mattersOf course, cohesion requires trust. You cannot have a united organisation, especially one that embraces productive disagreement, without deep trust among and between employees and leadership.Research shows that trust is built on two pillars: performance and integrity. Delivering results is important, yes, but you must also demonstrate consistent ethical behaviour, because it’s the latter that will sustain trust through crises, when results inevitably suffer. A moral compass: principles over performanceEconomics can teach us much about building organisations, but it has less to offer when we ask deeper questions about leadership: What guides us when the path forward is shrouded in fog? What keeps stakeholders by our side when we stumble or are laid low by events beyond our control?Tackling fear requires building two essential foundations: a cohesive organisation and a moral compass. This is where I turn to philosophy. Immanuel Kant wrote, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." To the German philosopher, it’s imperative to identify the principles guiding our actions and apply them consistently.Your stakeholders – employees, investors, customers and communities – need to understand not just what you do, but why you do it. They need to know the principles that guide your decisions. And critically, they need to see you abide by those principles even when circumstances change, when it's inconvenient and when a different path might seem more expedient.This transparency of principles creates predictability. When people understand your framework for decision-making, they can trust you through good times and bad. When unforeseen events lead to disappointing outcomes, they can see that you remained true to your stated values. This consistency is what transforms a competent manager into a memorable leader.Yes, performance maximisation must remain one of your guiding principles. But I believe truly memorable leadership requires going beyond this. It requires articulating a set of values that encompasses how we treat people, how we engage with our communities, how we steward resources, and what we're willing to sacrifice.What will you be remembered for?Every leader should ask themselves: What do you want your legacy to be? What do you want to be remembered for? If one is remembered only for hitting quarterly targets or maximising shareholder value, I’d argue they have fallen short of their potential to be a great leader. Fear in leadership often stems from focusing on outcomes we cannot fully control. Markets will fluctuate, crises will erupt, or our best efforts may fall flat. But we can stay true to our principles. We can control whether we build organisations that embrace diversity and foster purpose. We can control whether we act with integrity. Because as leaders, these matter more than fear itself.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 02:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48416 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/courage-tackle-fear-leader#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_1855925743_1.jpg?itok=mPSr_gHD" type="image/jpeg" length="152420" /><dc:creator>Alexandra Roulet</dc:creator></item><item><title>Four Mindsets That Undermine Workplace Well-Being Initiatives</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/four-mindsets-undermine-workplace-well-being-initiatives</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Well-being – be it physical, mental, emotional or otherwise – is essential for a strong and productive workforce. According to a McKinsey Health Institute report, employers increasingly recognise that employee health and well-being are core to performance. Yet, many organisations struggle to find the right approach when it comes to implementing solutions that sustain both well-being and output.For over a decade, I’ve worked with multinational organisations to design and deploy well-being and mental health programmes. Based on these experiences, I’ve found that despite their best intentions, many leaders get tripped up by a few common mindsets. That’s not to say these perspectives are inherently flawed. It only becomes a problem when they are the sole lens through which things are viewed, causing other important aspects to be overlooked.Below, I elaborate on the ways of thinking leaders should avoid if they want to build sustainable and effective well-being programmes that catalyse real organisational change. I also offer practical suggestions for those ready to take these efforts seriously.Let’s “fix” them: overly individual-focusedIf an employee isn’t feeling well, a manager will likely suggest they take a day off. Some particularly empathetic managers may even grant short-term sick leave if they believe someone could benefit from a longer break, especially if that person is under intense stress or displaying symptoms of a mental health condition. “Perhaps they just need some time away,” their manager may think.This works if it’s part of a more holistic approach to employee well-being. However, if the only solution is sick leave or even providing access to free counselling services, the implicit message to employees is: This is an individual issue, so go and work on yourself and come back ready to work again. This approach focuses on addressing the symptoms, not the root causes. It neglects other factors that might be at play, including workload, resource distribution, time constraints and team culture and dynamics. The stress of transitional periods, such as adjusting to a different boss, organisational restructuring or new business strategies, can also affect well-being in ways beyond an individual’s control.Instead, managers could ask, “What else might be happening in the work environment to cause this employee distress?” before enacting the appropriate solutions, whether that’s extending a project deadline or designing a team intervention. As leaders, this is where you need to step in to examine and address the factors that might be compromising that person’s well-being, because no amount of sick leave or counselling sessions would ameliorate the situation. Let’s “change” them: overly short-term focusedAnother mental trap is thinking that simply changing someone’s working conditions will eradicate the problem. I’ve seen leaders spring into action – be it by moving an individual to a different team or reducing their workload – in the hopes of improving an employee’s well-being, sometimes inadvertently sending that person into a panic because they assumed their manager no longer trusted them.These actions are taken with good intentions and are often cited as best practices for workplace mental health. But they fail to consider one important thing: what the individual actually wants. What’s more, if the root of the problem is an organisational culture issue, such as harassment, bullying or a norm of toxic behaviour, then changing teams might offer some breathing space, but it won’t be long before the same negative patterns creep in again.Asking, “How do I involve and include the employee and others in decision-making?” is one way for leaders to escape this thinking trap and resist the bias towards action. Rather than rushing to implement change, leaders can take the time to speak directly with the employee to understand their concerns and preferences. It’s equally important to consult other managers across the organisation to determine whether this is an isolated incident or a pattern requiring broader behavioural change. Let’s “educate” them: overly surface-levelMost companies run some variation of well-being training and educational campaigns. These are foundational for building awareness, and I think they are a good first step to getting buy-in and destigmatising thorny topics like mental health and suicide. Classic formats include guest speaker series, World Mental Health Day events and sending managers to Mental Health First Aid training.These initiatives aren’t the problem. In fact, they are crucial. The issue arises if they’re all a company offers, or treated as a box-ticking exercise. Employees who attend these events tend to be self-selecting – often those who already know how to prioritise their mental health – which means that the people who need support the most may not be reached. Another challenge is that many of these initiatives primarily focus on building knowledge and delivering content, rather than establishing habits or longer-term follow-ups to support behavioural change.Instead of piecemeal initiatives, focus on your overarching well-being strategy. Think of workplace well-being as you would any long-term business strategy: Design it across one-, three- and five-year time horizons, with building blocks that compound over time instead of repeated topics repackaged under a new name. Give employees a clear view of the learning journey ahead. Borrowing strategies from leadership development, such as coaching, can also help translate newly gained knowledge into day-to-day behaviours. Let’s “do something”: overly siloedMany companies allocate a limited budget to well-being programmes, sometimes folding them into learning and development budgets and tacking them on to other training sessions. They may treat such initiatives as the purview of HR or the people and culture department, or as a theme that the communications or marketing teams can build on to boost camaraderie and staff spirit.Without meaningful human and financial support from cross-departmental leaders, the board of directors and the wider organisation, these programmes are unlikely to have their intended effect. Treating them as one-off projects wears out the teams responsible for delivery and, if no real change follows, employees may grow cynical and view these initiatives as a nuisance rather than helpful.To pave the way for sustainable change, leaders can ask themselves, “How do we embed well-being as a pillar of our business?” Well-being should be integrated into an organisation’s values and performance frameworks, and reflected in the behaviours modelled by leaders. This is where diverse perspectives are essential: Those making decisions about well-being strategies should include people with lived experience of various health conditions, ensuring that organisations don’t inadvertently sideline the very people they intend to support, nor design programmes that fail to speak to their needs.A comprehensive approachIf any of the above resonates, it may be worth pausing to reflect on whether your current approach to workplace well-being is truly the best way forward. Good intentions are a starting point, but they must be translated into something strategic and comprehensive. Here are some suggestions to get you started:Get your board of directors on board. Workplace mental health is a risk-management and sustainability issue for corporate governance. In many countries, directors have an obligation under local work and safety laws to ensure appropriate resources are in place to address such issues. A board that is interested in employee well-being will provide greater support to the organisation’s leaders and ensure accountability. Allocate an adequate, recurring budget to support your organisation’s long-term well-being strategy. People are the cornerstone of any workplace, and mentally fit employees are better equipped to adapt, remain agile and be productive amid inevitable business changes. Investing in your people should be no less a priority than investing in your latest product or service. Seek out your employees’ real experience. Metrics can be misleading, and many leaders place too much confidence in low utilisation rates of counselling hotlines or the absence of formal complaints as indicators of a healthy workplace. In reality, what gets reported and what is actually experienced can differ significantly. To close that gap, leaders need to create the conditions for honest conversations with employees and invest the time to listen without judgement.Treat well-being as a non-negotiable. Every employee should have access to foundational well-being development, which should carry at least the same weight as mandatory compliance, regulatory and data privacy training. These all serve the same ultimate purpose: the long-term sustainability of the organisation.By adopting a more holistic mindset, your well-being initiatives can move beyond surface-level gestures with fleeting impact – creating something that genuinely supports your people, strengthens your culture and delivers lasting and meaningful change.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48411 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/four-mindsets-undermine-workplace-well-being-initiatives#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_2494647419.jpg?itok=NxOAUpcd" type="image/jpeg" length="1034892" /><dc:creator>Enoch Li</dc:creator></item><item><title>How Leaders Can Have Effective Conversations</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/how-leaders-can-have-effective-conversations</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Whether you’re delegating complex tasks or rallying your team around a new initiative, communicating effectively is an essential leadership skill. Clear, intentional and impactful conversations can not only help you secure buy-in from others but also ground professional relationships in high trust and strong rapport.The internet is littered with advice on how to pull this off – some based on collections of anecdotes, others on experiments, and still others on frameworks that provide a list of instructions for communicating well. Each of these approaches has its merits, as well as its drawbacks. Anecdotes are vivid but prone to selection bias. Experiments provide evidence for causality but are often separated from real-world contexts. And step-by-step frameworks are structured and easy to follow but tend to rely on generalised principles that aren't tailored to or verified by data from actual conversations. What’s lacking is a comprehensive dataset of real-world professional conversations that allows us to identify characteristics associated with effective workplace communication. In this article, we draw on data from a professional services firm that specialises in training and matching executive assistants (EAs) with clients to do just that.Insights from professional conversationsTo date, academics and practitioners haven’t had access to an extensive dataset of naturally occurring professional conversations. To our knowledge, the closest thing available is a large dataset of personal conversations, which differ from professional conversations in norms, goals and style. To fill this gap, we present an analysis of over 2,300 recorded conversations containing more than 1.2 million individual statements. The anonymised data comes from exchanges between leaders – from entrepreneurs to high-level executives – and their EAs.The professional services firm that fulfilled the placement of these EAs tracked signs of trust and rapport between the leaders and their EAs on a weekly basis. Trust, for instance, was measured through objective, escalating markers – starting from the leader providing their EA with calendar access (low marker of trust); to allowing their EA to correspond with others on their behalf; to providing their EA with access to their personal bank accounts (high marker of trust).Rapport was defined through escalating markers that tracked the level of closeness implied by the routine communication between leaders and EAs. The lowest marker was the presence of email exchanges – a relatively perfunctory way of communicating. From there, rapport markers escalated to personal messaging apps, phone calls, scheduled one-on-one meetings, unscheduled one-on-one meetings and being a part of the leader’s circle (highest marker of rapport). Studying their interactions, we scored trust and rapport based on whether these behaviours took place between leaders and their EAs. We then conducted a regression analysis to test whether elements in the conversations predicted trust and rapport. We used AI to parse and transcribe the recorded conversations, as well as classify them based on whether the statement was professional or personal in nature; if it was about the past, present or future; and whether it was a question. We also counted the number of turns (passing the baton from one speaker to the other) in the conversation. Building trust and rapportThrough our analysis, we identified specific characteristics that were associated with higher trust and better rapport:Conversations in which leaders and EAs both participated more in the conversation and exhibited greater turn-taking (i.e. participants spoke one at a time in alternating turns) were associated with greater trust. This may be because greater turn-taking signals greater mutual respect, enhances information exchange and reflects better synchrony between individuals.Conversations with a lower proportion of statements about the past, and a higher proportion of statements about the present and future, were associated with leaders having greater trust in their EAs. This could be because future-oriented conversations suggest proactivity – handling upcoming challenges and problems – which can elevate trust. Psychological research also suggests that people who focus on the future are seen as more agentic and forward-looking, and therefore more trustworthy. Conversations with a greater proportion of professional statements (relative to personal ones) were associated with better rapport between leaders and their EAs. This might be because strictly professional conversations that place a clear focus on business are more aligned with role expectations of EAs and signal competence and professionalism.It should be noted that regression analysis, although widely used and accepted, is based on correlations. This means that the findings imply that greater turn-taking, future-orientation and professional focus either cause or reflect greater trust and quality of communication, or both. Regardless, our analysis illustrates what effective professional conversations look like and reveals the behaviours associated with greater trust and better rapport. Putting this into practiceJust as people who aspire to be wealthy try to mirror characteristics of affluent individuals and those who aim to be successful athletes emulate the training habits of decorated Olympians, leaders can assess their own professional conversations against these metrics.Although our dataset covered only conversations between leaders and their EAs, we believe the findings are relevant to a wider range of professional settings. Many workplace situations involve interactions with similar status asymmetries, rapid information exchange and relationship-building, and toggle between administrative details and strategic decisions.Leaders can facilitate more effective professional conversations that promote trust and rapport among co-workers by cultivating organisational norms. Specifically, we recommend the following:Promote greater participation: Fostering a culture of “making sure everyone is heard” can increase participation during conversations, particularly those between individuals at different levels of the corporate hierarchy (e.g. between a junior employee and a director). Simple norms can help, such as ensuring sufficient time for everyone to speak at meetings, encouraging junior employees to share their thoughts, or prioritising smaller meetings or one-on-ones. Shifting virtual meetings to in-person can also help in this regard.Focus on the present and the future: During feedback sessions with team members, a template that is heavily weighted on the present and future (vs. the past) can promote trust. Similarly, meeting agendas can emphasise current goals and upcoming opportunities with the help of forward-looking frameworks, such as scenario-planning, to shift the conversational focus away from the past. Leaders can also use future-oriented framing in their everyday language, such as “let’s build on where we are now” or “what’s our next step?” instead of “we should have done this differently”.Keep the conversation professional: Although people want to connect with their colleagues on a personal level, our findings suggest that “less is more” in this respect. Designating time for casual chats separate from work-related conversations can help achieve the dual goals of professionalism and connection. For example, leaders can dedicate a brief period at the start of meetings to discuss personal matters – thereby allowing employees to connect with each other – while maintaining focus on work-related issues. This can promote positive perceptions of rapport and an appropriate level of professional closeness. Finally, modelling and perhaps even codifying an etiquette that keeps workplace conversations mostly at the professional level could help.Effective professional conversations are essential for building trust and rapport in any workplace. By sharing the mic, not dwelling on the past and keeping things professional, leaders can foster a more positive and productive working environment.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 01:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48401 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/how-leaders-can-have-effective-conversations#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_1676881228.jpg?itok=j9deSulD" type="image/jpeg" length="1018054" /><dc:creator>Nadav Klein</dc:creator><dc:creator>Eliot Gattegno</dc:creator></item><item><title>The Leadership Aspiration Gap</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leadership-aspiration-gap</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Corporations, societies, nations. All require a mix of different qualities to succeed, including quality leadership. Yet, as today’s leaders prepare to pass on the mantle to a new generation, leadership seems to be approaching a moment of crisis. A growing body of evidence suggests that fewer young professionals today aspire to traditional leadership roles.The changing nature of leadershipThe Silent Generation (born between 1925 and 1945) was defined by duty, discipline and conformity. Shaped by the war and economic scarcity, they valued job security and hierarchy. Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1960) were driven by growth and prosperity, following linear careers paths marked by loyalty and long-term organisational commitment. Younger generations, on the other hand, see the world differently and have different aspirations. Generation X (born between 1960 and 1980) entered the workforce during early digitalisation. They hold a more individualistic and flexible career mindset, and favour competence and autonomy over status. The preference for autonomy, mental well-being and meaningful work over a conventional career path became even more pronounced in the following generations. Millennials (Generation Y, born between 1980 and 1995) and Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) were born into a world of abundance and acceleration. Their lives and values have been shaped by global connectivity, systemic uncertainty and constant change – marked by 9/11, financial crises, climate change, Covid-19 and social justice movements. They embrace portfolio careers, question traditional authority and measure success not just by position, but by impact and balance. They are also drawn to alternative models of leadership such as “conscious unbossing”, choosing to lead through influence, collaboration and purpose. Yet, the waning interest in pursuing leadership roles isn’t simply due to the lag in developing leadership models suited to a new generation. Rather, younger generations increasingly see a world in which assuming almost any leadership position has become an unattractive proposition. The new leadership challengesThe youth of today are reaching maturity in a world that is volatile and uncertain. One that seems only to move from one crisis to the next.Activism and civic society form important parts of our political discourse, particularly in a world of difficult trade-offs. Yet when public challenge becomes personal and uncompromising, and when single issues dominate complex debates, the space for balanced leadership can narrow and the cost of taking on highly visible roles is set to increase.No doubt, the personal cost of holding any leadership position in the public eye is increasing. As one C-suite executive of a major corporation revealed to me in a recent conversation: “The overwhelming emotion gripping our board and executive team for the last five years has been fear.”In such a world, it’s unsurprising that many among the younger generation are shunning leadership opportunities. A plush corner office no longer holds much attraction. Neither do ever-larger compensation packages, which have become a source of public criticism themselves. In Deloitte’s 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey covering over 23,000 Gen Z and millennial professionals across 44 countries, only 6 percent identified reaching a leadership position as their primary career goal, despite attaching high value to meaningful work, development and social impact. These pressures are increasingly visible at the very top of organisations. CEO tenures have been steadily declining across major markets, while a growing share of new appointments involve first-time incumbents – an indication that leadership roles that are not only more exposed and volatile, but also increasingly short-term. Bigger compensation packages are, in part, designed to offset the growing personal and reputational costs of leadership. Yet, by enabling early financial independence, they also lower the barriers to exit when those costs become too high. This reinforces, rather than reverses, the fragility of leadership roles.Incentives built on traditional ways of thinking are increasingly insufficient to attract younger would-be leaders – except, perhaps, for those driven by ego or individual advancement. Such motivations may attract certain types of people, but experience suggests they are poorly suited to building the resilient, inclusive leadership systems the world requires. Leadership of hopeAs highlighted in the 2025 INSEAD Global Talent Competitiveness Index report, competitiveness isn’t only about developing and attracting talent, but also about creating environments in which people still believe leadership is viable, desirable and impactful. Those conditions are eroding, with significant negative implications for economic and societal development.Turning this around is possible. It will take true leadership from the current crop of business and political leaders, as well as a shift in approach from those, such as business schools, that have the responsibility for nurturing potential leaders.The first step is to replace the pervasive apocalyptic narratives – be they about climate, economic potential or technological developments – with a narrative of hope. Hope isn’t the same as optimism or believing something will turn up to make everything alright. It’s what drives us to engage and motivates us to channel our energies to work towards what we believe to be a positive outcome. Opportunities for innovation and continued progress, however imperfect, are worth striving for.   In this regard, the leaders of today are responsible for demonstrating that there are viable leadership paths for younger generations, and that leadership is about shaping the future, not just managing the present while being fatalistic about (or, worse, uninterested in) the future. They need to recognise that the values and incentives in a financialised world, while still relevant, are no longer enough to inspire.They also need to demonstrate resilience and the confidence to navigate external pressures with clarity and consistency. When leaders act from a grounded sense of purpose – rather than reacting to the loudest voices or the shifting political climate — they earn the respect of younger generations and become the role models they seek.Institutions and their leaders need to demonstrate greater steadiness and consistency, rather than defaulting to short-term expediency. Above all, we all bear responsibility for the kind of society in which we live. We need a culture that welcomes open discussion without resorting to personal attacks. All of this will determine whether capable individuals step forward or step back from top roles.As political scientist and writer Dominique Moïsi observed, “The problem is that Europe has become, for the younger generation, a place to be and not a place to do – and this has to be changed.” Increasingly, this holds true not only for Europe, but for much of the developed world. We need a new generation of leaders with the courage not just to inhabit, but to shape, protect and advance the world we live in. To do so, leadership must not only be made accessible, but worth aspiring to. Because when the most thoughtful and capable step up – not despite the complexity, but because of it – leadership can become a force for connection, progress and hope.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48391 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leadership-aspiration-gap#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/bridging_young_people_to_move_forward.jpg?itok=3ys_5koU" type="image/jpeg" length="802143" /><dc:creator>Ron Soonieus</dc:creator></item><item><title>Unravelling the Deep Tensions of Human-AI Collaboration</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/unravelling-deep-tensions-human-ai-collaboration</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Whenever new systems alter how information flows, they inevitably alter how people understand their responsibilities, their judgement and their place within the organisation. This is evident in how AI is reshaping the organisational and psychological foundations of work - an insight long emphasised in organisational sociology.We saw this dynamic unfold repeatedly in clinical and diagnostic settings in a study of healthcare professionals across Danish hospitals using AI in clinical imaging. When an AI system becomes part of professional judgement – whether as a second reader, a triage assistant or a risk classifier – clinicians do not simply adopt or reject the technology. Instead, they reorganise their work: pausing at unexpected moments, re-sequencing steps, double-checking outputs or temporarily withholding acceptance until they can reconcile the AI model’s recommendation with what they see. Often misinterpreted as hesitation or resistance, these behaviours are in fact signs of a profound and intelligent process of adaptation. The deeper shifts beneath the surfaceBefore any visible change in workflows appear, the introduction of AI surfaces four deep forces that reshape how expert judgement is exercised. The first force is identity. Clinical professions derive part of their meaning from authorship, from interpreting an image, forming a diagnosis or making a call that matters to a patient. When AI begins to offer its own interpretation, clinicians’ identity becomes unsettled – not because they are territorial, but because expertise has always been anchored in interpretive ownership. AI introduces a new actor into this space. The second force is responsibility, which, in medicine, is not merely a bureaucratic construct; it is ethical and relational. If an AI system contributes to or overrides part of a diagnostic judgement, clinicians must decide who is accountable. The answer cannot be vague or shared in the abstract. Tension arises where accountability is expected to stay with humans when part of the reasoning has shifted to the machine.The third is truth. When AI systems surface patterns or assign confidence scores that diverge from a clinician’s reading, the question is not only “who is correct?” but “how do we integrate two modes of seeing?” Finally, there is trust. This becomes a source of tension not because people are sceptical of AI, but because they must decide when to rely on a system when it cannot fully access its internal reasoning. Trust, in clinical work, is less about comfort with technology and more about understanding its behaviour well enough to make prudent, high-stakes decisions.The tensions felt in practiceTogether, identity, responsibility, truth and trust reshape the psychological terrain of clinical work, giving rise to observable tensions that clinicians experience when AI becomes part of diagnosis and care.Tension between trust and expertise: When an AI system flags a suspicious region a radiologist would normally dismiss or misses something an experienced clinician would have seen immediately, a negotiation begins. It is a negotiation not between a human and a machine, but between two sources of “expertise”. This tension is not about whether clinicians believe in technology; it is about how to honour their professional obligation to judge carefully, especially when two interpretations compete.Tension around responsibility: When a decision is produced jointly, responsibility becomes ambiguous. Clinicians often respond by reordering tasks: they make their own assessment first and consult the AI afterwards, rather than the other way around. They do this not because they distrust the model but because they need to preserve what neuro-cognitive psychologists call the sense of agency: the internal assurance that “I am still the one in the driver’s seat”. In medicine, as in many other fields, this sense of agency is essential to responsibility.Tension around objective prioritisation: AI systems are typically optimised for throughput, speed or statistical accuracy. Clinicians, by contrast, prioritise patient safety, contextual nuance, learning and fairness. These objectives do not naturally align. When AI accelerates work, but clinicians need to slow down, question or widen the diagnostic frame, friction in the system emerges. What may look like inefficiency is often a deliberate safeguard.These three tensions manifest in every clinical environment where AI touches judgement. In response, clinicians have learnt to collaborate with AI in different ways, adopting one of four distinct models.Four models of human-AI collaborationParallel expertise or “dual-track mode” is extremely common in radiology: Clinicians read the scan while AI produces an independent interpretation. The outputs coexist but do not directly interact. This model of parallel expertise allows clinicians to retain authorship while managing identity and truth tensions, making this a safe starting point for integrating AI into practice.The second model is forwarded expertise, or “AI-as-decider mode.” This applies to contexts such as triage tools, automated prioritisation systems or structured decision-support protocols. Here, AI produces the operative decision and the human’s role is to relay or enact it. This is often a rational workflow choice but can generate significant responsibility tension if clinicians are accountable for decisions that they do not fully shape. A third model is augmented expertise or “amplified judgement”. In this mode, clinicians remain in charge of the decision but use AI to widen perspectives or avoid diagnostic blind spots. The machine may highlight areas of interest or provide probability scores that prompt deeper scrutiny. This mode preserves human agency while leveraging AI’s perceptual capacity, thus reducing the three forms of tensions rather than amplifying them.Finally, there is collective expertise, or “co-created judgement.” Here, the clinician and AI contribute different pieces of insight that neither could produce alone. In risk stratification or complex ICU decision support, AI may spot subtle statistical or temporal patterns while clinicians integrate patient history, symptoms and lived context. This shared judgement model is the most demanding but also the most potent form of human-AI collaboration.These four models do not represent stages of maturity. They are the system’s natural adaptations to the deeper forces of identity, responsibility, truth and trust – and the tensions clinicians experience when AI becomes part of the workflow.A more confident way forwardAI may feel disruptive, fast and opaque, especially in clinical settings where the stakes are high. But clinicians already know how to use AI responsibly. They pause when they should pause, question what needs questioning, protect the integrity of their role, and adapt in ways that preserve safety and quality.The real opportunity for leaders – whether in clinical or organisational environments – is not AI adoption but design: redesign workflows, accountability structures and decision rights in ways that allow clinicians to work with AI confidently, safely and professionally.In the clinical settings we observed, the organisations that succeeded did not mandate compliance. They created, more or less formally, space for clinicians to test the system, compare human and machine interpretations, articulate disagreements and raise uncertainties. In one radiology department, AI was introduced as a second reader while clinicians were encouraged to annotate differences and reflect collectively on patterns of disagreement. As trust and understanding grew, so did responsible use – not because of forced adoption, but because clinicians on the ground maintained authorship and preserved a sense of agency while learning how the system behaved.Designing work for the AI era means beginning with “work as done” instead of “work as imagined”. If leaders focus on resolving the deep forces of identity, responsibility, truth and trust, the visible tensions diminish and a new, more capable form of clinical judgement becomes possible. Agency can be protected by defining when and how clinicians may override the model. This calls for the alignment of responsibility with actual decision-making power and performance evaluation to reward the quality of judgement – including prudent overrides – rather than output.When leaders build environments that support these conditions, AI does not erode expertise. It strengthens it.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48371 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/unravelling-deep-tensions-human-ai-collaboration#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/balancing_human_and_ai.jpg?itok=xi8C26Ro" type="image/jpeg" length="725593" /><dc:creator>Astrid Galsgaard</dc:creator><dc:creator>Jens Meyer</dc:creator></item><item><title>INSEAD Insights: Strong Cultures, Supply Chains and Surprise</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/insead-insights-strong-cultures-supply-chains-and-surprise</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[From understanding the role of surprise in organisations to finding ways to improve disease tracking and analysis, this month’s selection of recently published research by INSEAD faculty spans a diverse array of topics. Other papers explore how context shapes the effectiveness of fiscal rules; how market-based incentives can drive the energy transition; and how firms with less hierarchical structures manage to get their employees pulling in the same direction.The role of surprise in organisationsFrom Aristotle to Charles Darwin, surprise has been a topic of fascination and the source of many questions in philosophy, the social sciences and beyond. However, a history of inconsistent definitions and fragmented perspectives has led to conceptual confusion, limiting our understanding of how surprise affects individuals in organisations.In a paper published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Spencer Harrison and his co-authors blend insights from psychology, management and other related fields to provide a comprehensive understanding of surprise in organisational contexts. They explore the cognitive and emotional mechanisms that underlie surprise and identify how key factors – such as organisational memory and emotional capabilities – shape how it is experienced and managed within organisations.Read the full paperImproving disease surveillance in Sub-Saharan AfricaPathogen genomic sequencing is central to disease surveillance, enabling laboratories to track the spread of diseases and inform public health responses. A study by Luk Van Wassenhove and his co-authors evaluates two types of donor interventions aimed at improving underdeveloped pathogen genomic sequencing supply chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: in-kind donations and supply chain management capability-building. The study, published in the International Journal of Operations & Production Management, revealed that although in-kind donations can mitigate acute shortages, frequent use risks creating dependency and suppressing learning. In contrast, supply chain management capability-building brings more sustainable improvements, particularly for laboratories that are unlikely to improve without external support.Read the full paperWell-designed fiscal rules are no silver bulletFiscal rules have been shown to improve government budget balances and restrain debt growth. But while they generally improve a country’s cyclically adjusted primary balance, their impact depends on both the time horizon and the context in which they are adopted, according to research by Antonio Fatás and his co-authors published in the Journal of International Money and Finance.In advanced economies and countries with strong political institutions, the effects strengthen over time. But in emerging markets and developing economies – especially those with weaker institutions – their impact tends to fade as time passes. This suggests that fiscal rules introduced during periods of economic hardship or under highly concentrated political power are often less effective in the medium term.Read the full paperHow firms redeploy assets in response to industry shocksHow should firms respond when a core industry experiences a downturn? Research by Aldona Kapačinskaitė, published in the Strategic Management Journal, examines how energy giants reacted to the 2014 oil price crash. Focusing on oil and gas companies that diversified into wind power, she shows that these firms reduced investment in oil and gas – especially in offshore projects – while increasing investment in wind power.Importantly, firms were more likely to invest in newer, higher-capacity wind technologies when these could be co-located with existing offshore oil and gas assets. This shows how firms facing industry shocks redeploy resources into more promising sectors. However, their willingness to do so may depend on the possibility of leveraging existing assets – meaning that market-based incentives alone may be insufficient to drive the switch to renewable energy sources.Read the full paperThe ties that bind less hierarchical firmsInstead of depending on traditional forms of managerial hierarchy to align the work of employees, can strong cultures – made up of systems of widely shared beliefs and values – do the job? To investigate this, Phanish Puranam and his co-author analysed 1.5 million Glassdoor employee reviews and 42 million professional social media profiles from 23,000 American firms.Their research, published in the Strategic Management Journal, found that organisations with stronger cultures do indeed have a lower proportion of managers to total employees. This suggests that attempts to flatten organisational hierarchies by eliminating layers of managers is more likely to succeed if accompanied by efforts to build strong cultures. This can be facilitated in various ways, including the careful selection and socialisation of employees.Read the full paper]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 01:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48336 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/insead-insights-strong-cultures-supply-chains-and-surprise#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/shutterstock_2100721102.jpg?itok=afP9-t-x" type="image/jpeg" length="1008987" /><dc:creator>Lily Fang</dc:creator></item><item><title>Diversity in the Workplace: An Unexpected Side-Effect</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/diversity-workplace-unexpected-side-effect</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[It’s no secret that enthusiasm for DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programmes has waned in certain corners of the corporate world. Despite this, and although the jury is still out on diversity’s ultimate impact on a company’s financial performance, many still acknowledge that a diverse workforce yields important benefits.Prior research suggests that exposure to counter-stereotypically successful minority employees – those who defy social stereotypes about their group’s ability to thrive in professional settings – weakens prejudice in the workplace. This also applies to members of stereotyped groups: Seeing women in leadership roles, for example, can reduce women’s own beliefs about gender stereotypes, while Black Americans may exhibit less racial self-stereotyping after exposure to successful Black Americans.Counter-stereotypically successful minorities are generally viewed as having a positive impact on workplace perceptions, attitudes and behaviours. But in our research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, my co-authors (Daniela Goya-Tocchetto from University at Buffalo and Shai Davidai) and I point to a potential drawback: The presence of such individuals can lead others to believe that an organisation is more diverse than it actually is, and so reduce their support for future diversity-enhancing policies.Standing out from the crowdAccording to the stereotype content model, women and racial minorities are often perceived as less competent than other social groups, and therefore less likely to achieve professional success. As a result, when individuals from these groups do succeed – for instance, by earning high salaries or holding senior leadership positions – they tend to stand out as particularly salient.This matters because people often rely on salience as a shortcut for judging prevalence, a process known as attribution substitution. A classic example is how the vividness of shark attacks leads people to believe they happen quite frequently. In reality, you’re more likely to be the victim of a lightning strike or fireworks.Because counter-stereotypically successful women and racial minorities tend to be highly visible in corporate settings, we hypothesised that their mere presence would inflate perceptions of organisational diversity. We further predicted that this effect would be weaker for individuals from minority groups stereotyped as highly competent (e.g. Asian Americans, which are considered a model minority in the United States). Finally, we expected inflated diversity perceptions to be associated with lower support for initiatives aimed at improving workplace diversity.Perception vs. realityWe tested these ideas across four studies. The first examined whether firms led by women CEOs were perceived as more gender diverse. We found that participants consistently overestimated the gender diversity of a firm’s board of directors when the CEO was a woman – an effect that didn’t appear when the CEO was a man.In our second study, conducted with US residents, we compared reactions to firms with either counter-stereotypically successful Black American employees or equally successful but non-counter-stereotypical Asian American employees. Although participants overestimated the share of non-White workers in both conditions, exposure to Black American employees led to significantly higher estimates of racial diversity. This suggests that the effect of being exposed to high-performing minorities on diversity perceptions is stronger when that success contradicts prevailing stereotypes.Our third and fourth studies investigated the downstream consequences of inflated diversity perceptions. In the third study, participants reviewed information about the gender composition of each quartile of a company’s pay distribution, then estimated the organisation’s overall gender composition. Participants overestimated the true level of gender diversity when women were more heavily represented in the top salary quartile. What's more, we discovered early evidence that exposure to counter-stereotypically successful women was associated with larger gender pay gaps within the firm.In the fourth study, participants were significantly more likely to overestimate the proportion of women employees in an organisation when the latter were successful (i.e. described as earning high salaries). This, in turn, reduced participants’ willingness to hire a woman for an open role.The impact of inflated diversity perceptionsPerceptions of diversity shape a wide range of outcomes, including support for policies aimed at increasing representation. Our findings suggest that organisations with counter-stereotypically successful women or racial minorities can be perceived as more diverse than they truly are. This can foster an unrealistically rosy view of diversity that may not only discourage organisations from addressing deeper, systemic workforce issues, but could also reduce support for initiatives such as hiring additional members of underrepresented groups.The implication is clear: Without careful attention, firms may inadvertently distort perceptions of diversity and undermine support for the very individuals they aim to advance. Our results also show that “quick fix” diversity strategies, like hiring a few counter-stereotypically high-performing minority employees, can undermine motivation to invest in longer-term solutions.How can organisations that are committed to building a genuinely diverse workforce navigate these risks? Prior research suggests that providing complete, accurate statistics on gender and racial pay gaps and overall representation can help offset the distortions created by counter-stereotypical exemplars and better align perceptions with reality. This is especially important at key decision-making points, such as when firms are considering new diversity policies or hiring practices, given that inflated diversity perceptions can undermine support for such initiatives.At the same time, leaders should be mindful that some well-intentioned efforts may backfire. For instance, excessive or highly performative messaging around diversity – be it via the company’s website or social media accounts – may cause fatigue or scepticism, ultimately reducing engagement rather than building it.Success is the solution, not the problemCrucially, the solution isn’t for outstanding minority professionals to downplay their achievements or feel responsible for the unintended consequences of their success. Rather, part of the problem has to do with scarcity. Despite progress, underrepresentation persists: Black employees hold only 8 percent of top executive roles in the most valuable US public corporations, and women account for just 11 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. As long as women and racial minorities remain underrepresented in the upper ranks of organisations, their success will continue to stand out. But as more of these individuals move into senior roles, their presence is likely to become normalised and feel less exceptional. Stereotypes about their competence should weaken, reducing the risk that a few high-profile success stories distort diversity perceptions.In that sense, while our findings highlight an important bias, they also point to a hopeful possibility: As diversity in leadership gets more common, it may also become less remarkable – laying the groundwork for broader acceptance and more equitable, inclusive organisations.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 02:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48316 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/diversity-workplace-unexpected-side-effect#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/shutterstock_2659422195.jpg?itok=d0RDrYXe" type="image/jpeg" length="993183" /><dc:creator>Asher Lawson</dc:creator></item>
      </channel>
    </rss>