Podcasts about mit sloan

Negotiation isn't a boardroom skill—it's a parenting skill, and every hard conversation with our teens is a training ground. In this episode, I talk with negotiation expert Atiya Qureshi about asking for what we need, managing our own emotional storms, and finding the relational middle ground between passive and aggressive. We dig into understanding interests over positions, the internal negotiation we have with ourselves first, and why being listened to opens our kids up to hearing us. Come learn alongside me. Guest Bio: Attia Qureshi is the founder of Attia Qureshi Consulting and an adjunct at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy. A former instructor at MIT Sloan and the Ross School of Business, she has worked on behalf of the US State Department in conflict zones around the world. She is the co-author, with John Richardson, of Never Settle: Persuasion and Negotiation Skills to Get What You Want (Simon & Schuster). For show notes and more info go to: https://www.besproutable.com/podcasts/eps-657-attia-qureshi-and-negotiating-with-teens/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We are continuing to see MBA programs release their final decisions. This upcoming week, Stanford, Ohio State / Fisher and SMU / Cox are releasing final decisions. A few MBA programs are also continuing to their next admissions rounds, including Rice / Jones. Graham noted that Clear Admit is continuing its MBA application overview events this week with the final two events, on May 26 and 27. Again, the majority of the leading MBA programs participate in these valuable events, including UPenn / Wharton, Columbia, Virginia / Darden, LBS, INSEAD, and Michigan / Ross this week. Signups are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham highlighted a Fridays from the Frontline feature from a student at Duke / Fuqua, and a recently published article on a $50 million gift to John's Hopkins / Carey Business School.  He also commented on some changes to the curriculum at IESE, where AI has been embedded across all disciplines. Graham continued with the Real Humans Alumni series. This week focuses on three alumni: HBS / Microsoft, Wharton / OpenAI and Yale / Twitch. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate is from India, is an engineer with a 725 GMAT score. This week's second MBA applicant is deciding between applying for a full-time MBA program, part-time program, or staying at work. This week's final MBA candidate is deciding between offers from NYU Stern and MIT Sloan. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

In this episode of The Workplace Podcast, William Corless sits down with Nelson P. Repenning  — Distinguished Professor at MIT Sloan, Director of MIT's Leadership Center, and coauthor of There's Got to Be a Better Way: How to Deliver Results and Get Rid of the Stuff That Gets in the Way of Real Work. Together, they explore why so many organizations become trapped in constant firefighting, overload, and reactive working — and what leaders can do instead to create workplaces that are dynamic, adaptive, and capable of continuous learning. Nelson shares practical insights from decades of research and consulting work with organizations including Harley-Davidson, Toyota, and leading innovation teams.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We are continuing to see MBA programs release their final decisions. This upcoming week, UPenn / Wharton, Northwestern / Kellogg, Georgetown / McDonough, Boston College / Caroll, Yale SOM, MIT / Sloan, UCLA / Anderson, Washington / Foster and Washington / Olin are releasing final decisions. A few MBA programs are also continuing to their next admissions rounds, including Toronto / Rotman, Boston College / Carroll and Vanderbilt / Owen. Graham noted that Clear Admit is hosting several Application overview events in May, on May 19 and 20, and May 26 and 27. Signups for these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham continued with the Real Humans Alumni series. This week focuses on four alumni from Mendoza / JP Morgan, LBS / Decisional AI, HEC / CarbonFarm and Kellogg / Amazon. Graham also highlighted new hires in leadership roles at Haas and Tepper. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected one LiveWire entry and two ApplyWire entries. This week's first MBA admissions candidate works in the airline industry and is seeking an MBA to transition into consulting, in the south. This week's second MBA applicant has startup experience in the fintech space and has a 685 GMAT score. This week's final MBA candidate is a machine learning engineer for a bulge bracket bank. They want to use the MBA to transition to investment banking. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Forty Colombian farmers sat looking at her, completely unimpressed, when the cartel boss in the back of the room opened a case and a drone flew up out of it. In this episode, I sit down with Attia Qureshi, the negotiation teacher who learned her craft running State Department conflict-resolution work in cartel-controlled coca regions of Colombia, and who now teaches at the University of Michigan after a stint at MIT Sloan. Her new book Never Settle, with a foreword by Sheila Heen and endorsements from Daniel Pink, Robert Cialdini, and Chris Voss, hits shelves next week. The thing I love about her work is that she does not treat negotiation as a boardroom sport. She treats it as a daily relationship skill, the kind you practice with your barista so it is already in your hands when something hard comes up at home. In This Episode The four-step sequence Attia used to reset a room of 40 unimpressed farmers and a cartel boss with a drone, and how the same four steps work in your kitchen tonight Why "take out the trash" is the position and not the actual ask, and the one-sentence reframe that changes how you fight about household chores The fifth-grade bullying story that produced the hard shell most of us are still wearing into adulthood The seven-word test that tells you whether you are influencing someone or manipulating them Why the freeze you feel when you try to speak up is physiology, not personality, and what to do about it in real time How to know when you are giving too much to a taker, and the experiment Attia recommends before you decide to cut losses The literal glass of lemonade that turned a hostile next-door neighbor into a friendly one, and the Cialdini-backed science underneath it Why This Matters This episode is for anyone who knows what they want and goes quiet when it is time to ask. For anyone stuck in a loop with a difficult coworker or in-law that has been the same loop for three years. For anyone who has tried the assertive thing once and the people-pleasing thing once and is exhausted by both, and who wants a path that does not require a personality transplant. Episode Breakdown 0:30 How to Get What You Want: Without Fighting or Folding 2:52 Bethany and the Exoskeleton: Where the People-Pleaser-or-Hardener Split Begins 7:18 Why You Freeze When You Try to Ask for What You Want 14:19 A Drone, a Drug Cartel, and How to Negotiate Without Being Aggressive 28:39 Self-Negotiation: Emotional Regulation Before the Conversation Starts 33:22 Positions vs Interests: What You Are Really Asking For 36:01 The Lemonade Story: Reciprocity, Reset, and the Long Game 46:21 Givers, Takers, Matchers, and the Difference Between Influence and Manipulation Resources Free Communication Training (workbook plus two-part video) Schedule a free consultation with our team Relationship coaching at Growing Self If something in this conversation landed somewhere specific for you, the most generous thing you can do is share it with the friend who came to mind while you were listening. And if you are ready to stop having this same conversation in your head and start having a different one out loud, my free Communication Training is at growingself.com/communication. It is the workbook and video series I built for exactly the kind of conversation Attia and I were just having. xoxo, Dr. Lisa Marie Bobby Growing Self Special thanks to this month's sponsors of the podcast Upwork — When you need specialized talent fast, Upwork gives you access to vetted professionals across 125+ categories, from marketing to web development to operations support. No long recruiting cycles. No guesswork. Just the right person, when you need them. Check it out at upwork.com — posting a job is free. Shopify — The all-in-one platform for building and growing your online business. Visit shopify.com/lhs to explore their tools and access exclusive listener discounts. OSEA — Amazing, clean, science-backed skincare made with the power of the sea. Use code LHS at oseamalibu.com for 10% off your first order. Quince — Quality products you'll actually use that feel like luxury without the price tag. Get free shipping and 365-day returns at quince.com/lhs. LNutra Prolon — A science-backed, plant-based nutrition program that supports fat loss, metabolism, cellular rejuvenation, and overall longevity. Head to ProlonLife.com/LHS for 15% off your first order + a bonus gift.

today we analyze the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence across the global economy, specifically highlighting the transition from simple chatbots to agentic AI and embodied robotics. Reports from PwC, McKinsey, and MIT Sloan indicate that while most organizations are still in the pilot phase, "high performers" are already achieving significant productivity gains and wage premiums by redesigning workflows. The healthcare and life sciences sectors are identified as major growth areas, with AI projected to drive nearly a trillion dollars in economic value by 2030 through precision medicine and automated care. Beyond software, the embodied AI market is surging as physical machines integrated with advanced intelligence begin to transform logistics, manufacturing, and elderly care. Despite these advancements, the texts warn of critical challenges regarding data privacy, ethical governance, and the shifting landscape of human employment. Ultimately, the collection portrays a future where autonomous systems act as essential partners in both digital and physical environments to enhance human value

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the future of work, and many are asking the same question: Will my career still matter in an AI-driven world?In this episode of Women Road Warriors, Shelley Johnson and Kathy Tuccaro sit down with AI strategist and investor Tallulah Le Merle to explore how women can stay relevant, competitive, and thrive as AI reshapes industries. The good news is women have strong abilities to shine in this new era.Tallulah leads AI investment strategy for firms connected to more than 1,500 startups and over 80 unicorns, including Coinbase and OpenSea giving her a front-row seat to where technology, business, and careers are heading.As an AI advisor and fractional COO, she helps companies scale while preserving culture and well-being. With a background from Oxford and MIT Sloan, and experience speaking at the UK House of Commons, she brings powerful insight into navigating change with confidence. She is known for her keynote “The Case for Hope in the Age of AI.”In this conversation, you'll learn:How AI is changing jobs and career paths The skills women need to stay relevant in the future of work How to adapt, grow, and stand out in an AI-driven economy Why opportunity—not obsolescence—is the real story If you're thinking about your next move, your career growth, or your place in a rapidly changing world—this episode is essential listening.

Are you hearing about AI agents everywhere right now? Whether it's their presence in the software you use daily, special purpose or task “agents”, or customer service “agents”, it's safe to say they are the topic 'du jour'. In this week's episode, we segment this confusing landscape and cut through the hype to help you make more sense of it all.After weeks of interviewing guests across different corners of the agentic AI world, we realised the market has become genuinely bewildering, even for us! Vendors are slapping the word "agent" on almost anything, and it's getting harder to tell what's substantive and what's marketing.Listen in to hear about the simple framework we've developed to bring clarity to the whole ecosystem. It maps out the key choices facing any business considering agents, the questions you should be asking, and where the real risks are quietly hiding.Regardless of whether your organisation is ready to start experimenting with agents or not, this episode will help you take the first steps when you are ready. As they say, when you can see something clearly, your decisions become easier.In this episode you'll learn:The four very different ways to bring agents into your organisation — and why the question isn't "which is best?"Why some of the SaaS tools you already pay for might quietly be putting you in a "hostage situation"What a team of Harvard, MIT and Stanford researchers just uncovered about one of the most hyped agent platforms on the marketThe layer of the agent ecosystem where the real cyber security risks liveFour sharp questions to ask any vendor before letting their agent anywhere near your data and systemsEnjoy this practical and jargon-light guide to a topic that isn't going away anytime soon.Useful LinksMcKinsey / Quantum Black report: Seizing the agentic AI advantageCapgemini report - ‘Rise of Agentic AI' MIT Sloan & BCG Report - Leading in the age of AI Agents (useful for Governance and structuring once you've made agentic decisions) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We are continuing to see MBA programs release their final decisions. This upcoming week, Duke / Fuqua, SMU / Cox and Arizona / Carey are releasing final decisions. MBA programs are also continuing to their next admissions rounds, including MIT / Sloan, Stanford and UCLA / Anderson. Graham highlighted the Spring MBA applicant survey that Clear Admit is conducting. You can access the survey here: https://bit.ly/surveymba26 Graham then noted upcoming Clear Admit events. On May 11, Clear Admit is hosting our in-person admissions event in Atlanta. Most top MBA programs are scheduled to attend. We are also hosting several Application overview events in May, on May 19 and 20, and May 26 and 27. Signups for these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham then highlighted two MBA admissions tips that focus on negotiating scholarships and the reapplication process. Finally, Graham continued with the Real Humans Alumni series. This week focuses on three alumni from Kelley / BCG, Judge / Bain and HBS / Amazon. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three DecisionWire entries: This week's first MBA admissions candidate is planning a pivot into consulting. They have several offers from M7 programs and offers from top 16 programs with scholarship. Looks like it might be Tuck versus Wharton. This week's second MBA applicant is deciding between Kellogg with a generous scholarship and Wharton. They are pursuing brand management. This week's final MBA candidate wants to pursue investment banking in New York. They currently have a generous offer from Johnson and are waiting to hear from Stern. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Growth doesn't stall because leaders lack ideas. It stalls because execution gets messy. Andrea Jones, former Intel process engineer and MIT Sloan MBA, turned a painful early career experience into a mission: help organizations execute growth projects with clarity and confidence. That moment of public criticism—driven by unclear expectations—sparked what she now calls Executagility and shaped her definition of DONE leaders: those who take ownership, stay organized, follow through without excuses, and lead with empathy. You'll hear why teams struggle with scattered priorities, overloaded employees, and unclear ownership, especially in smaller companies. Andrea outlines the four pillars of Executagility: alignment, competence, available time, and structure. She also connects transparency and prioritization to ethical leadership—because when work stays “in the light,” integrity follows. And she shares how Women Plus Workplaces connects experienced women seeking flexible roles with companies that value their talent. Andrea is one of those gifted entrepreneurs who sees an issue and then forms a company to address it. It all started when she was at Intel in her role as a Process Engineer in the factory. After years of running growth projects full-time, Andrea went to MIT Sloan, where she earned an MBA, and then completed a Systems Engineering Master's at MIT.  For more than 20 years she has focused on efficient and effective project execution.Andrea is the founder of AJC Company and The Executagility® Company, helping SMBs internalize their own project execution capability with the same team that runs their daily operations. In 2025, she co-founded Women+Workplaces, an online community whose mission is to normalize part-time work when caregiving makes full-time roles challenging. Andrea is the author of two books: The Executagility Field Guide and Stop Starting. Start Finishing: How Executagility Goes the Last Mile.You'll discover:Why growth projects stall even with strong teamsThe four pillars that determine execution successHow unclear priorities overload your best employeesWhat the DONE acronym reveals about great project managersWhy transparency is a powerful ethical safeguardConnect with Andrea Jones on Social MediaLinkedInFacebookInstagramAndrea's WebsitesThe Executagility® CompanyAJC CompanyWomen+WorkplacesBooksThe Executagility Field GuideStop Starting. Start Finishing. How Executagility Goes the Last Mile.Check out all the episodesLeave a review on Apple PodcastsConnect with Meredith on LinkedIn

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We are continuing to see MBA programs release their final decisions. This upcoming week, UPenn / Wharton, London Business School, Stanford, MIT / Sloan, UVA / Darden and Vanderbilt / Owen are releasing their Round 2 decisions. MBA programs are also continuing to their next admissions rounds, including Cambridge / Judge, Berkeley / Haas, UPenn / Wharton, Northwestern / Kellogg, Georgetown / McDonough, Texas / McCombs, UVA / Darden, Vanderbilt / Owen, Minnesota / Carlson, Arizona / Carey, Chicago / Booth and Rice / Jones. Graham highlighted the Spring MBA applicant survey that Clear Admit is conducting. You can access the survey here: https://bit.ly/surveymba26 Graham then noted upcoming Clear Admit events. On May 11, Clear Admit is hosting our in-person admissions event in Atlanta. We are also hosting several Application overview events on May 19 and 20, and May 26 and 27. Signups for these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham then highlighted an MBA admissions tip that focuses on choosing between several MBA program offers. Finally, Graham continued with the Real Humans Alumni series. This week focuses on two alumni from Kellogg / PepsiCo and London Business School / Meta. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three DecisionWire entries: This week's first MBA admissions candidate wants to work in Consulting and be on the West Coast, post MBA. Their offers include Darden, Mendoza, Goizueta and Merage. This week's second MBA applicant is deciding between Johnson and Scheller. They want to be in the northeast, post MBA. This week's final MBA candidate is deciding between Fuqua and IESE. They are from Latin America and are focused on Health Care. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

This is Episode 1 of our NEW 5-part series: The Leadership Crisis Killing Your Business (And What To Do About It) THE WAKE-UP CALL YOU NEED TO HEAR: 80% of workplaces are toxic. And it's not about pay. It's about leadership. If you're the only one who cares, if your team does the minimum, you don't have a people problem. You have a leadership systems problem. This episode is your mirror moment. WHAT YOU'LL DISCOVER: • Why toxic culture is 10x more predictive of turnover than compensation (MIT Sloan study of 1.4 million reviews) • The real reason you lose it with your team (and what happens the moment you snap) • Why only 23% of employees are actually engaged, meaning 7 out of 10 are just phoning it in • What Gen Z really wants (and why your reputation as a leader is now public and permanent) • The personal cost: sleepless nights, strained relationships, the $7/hour trap of working 80 hours in a million-dollar business • Real stories: How Amanda got her evenings back and David lost 20 pounds while growing revenue THE STATS THAT SHOULD TERRIFY YOU: • 78.7% say poor leadership is what makes workplaces toxic • 75% say their manager is the most stressful part of their day • Disengaged employees cost the U.S. $550 billion annually • Only 35% of Gen Z feel their boss shows empathy THE FIVE-QUESTION MIRROR TEST: 1. Do I redo work I delegated because it wasn't done right? 2. Am I the only one who understands the vision? 3. Do I avoid feedback to dodge drama? 4. Does my team wait for me to decide everything? 5. Do I feel guilty taking time off? Yes to 2 or more? You're the bottleneck. **BEST QUOTES:** "You don't yell because you're mean. You yell because you're maxed out and the system is broken." "Disengagement is often a rational response to dysfunction." "Are you leading a business or are you the bottleneck?" **COMING NEXT:** Episode 2: The Five Leadership Failures That Make Good People Quit (and exactly how to fix them) READY TO STOP BEING THE BOTTLENECK? This is episode 1 of a 5-part series that leads to the Bulletproof COO solution. More about that coming soon! Subscribe now so you don't miss anything...

Episode 420 of The VentureFizz Podcast features Megan Lanham, CEO & Co-Founder of Rithmm. The betting industry has exploded over recent years. Apps like Kalshi now make it possible to bet on pretty much anything, like what companies will go public this year or where the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce wedding will take place… but, let's face it… this industry is driven by sports betting. Last year, per ESPN, the sports betting industry hit a record $16.96B in revenue… yowza. And according to the American Gaming Association, Americans are expected to legally wager over $3B on March Madness alone! Professional sports betters have a team of quants running models all day long which is their competitive advantage. So, what if there was an app that gave you, the every day consumer, the same competitive advantage? Meet Rithmm…the AI-powered sports betting platform that surfaces the top betting opportunities backed by predictive models and explained by data. It's not just what to bet, but why. It's like having your own data science team in your pocket. The company has raised $8.75M in funding. In this episode of our podcast, we cover: * The state of the industry of sports betting and why parlays are your worst enemy. * Megan's background growing up in Illinois and playing basketball in college and then coaching D1 for a decade. * Joining a life sciences staffing company at the ground level, scaling to an acquisition and moving into a CEO role. * The decision to head to MIT Sloan for her MBA and how it inspired her current startup. * All the details on Rithmm and a demo of the app. * Acquisition strategies for attracting users. * Entrepreneurial advice for women founders. * What success looks like for Rithmm. * And so much more!

"Look, it's Nosferatu... no, that's just Adam Silver." Mike tee's up Pablo Torre's upcoming live show at MIT Sloan, which Tony expectedly dismisses as a dorkfest with R.C. Buford and Keith Law. The gang discusses whether Victor Wembanyama can fulfill the prophecy in just his third season in the league, and Jeremy compares the Heat's rebuild to the Spurs because he is Heat MAGA. Trysta says she would go to Phoenix if she were an NBA free agent because of the city's roads. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. Last week, MIT / Sloan and UPenn / Wharton both rolled out their Round 2 interview invites. Graham then highlighted MBA events that are on the horizon that Clear Admit is hosting. We are hosting a series for MiM programs which is scheduled for February 24 and 25. On March 19, we are hosting panel discussions focused on international students who are targeting the top MBA programs in the United States. Finally, Clear Admit's in-person admissions event, scheduled in Atlanta, is on May 11. Signups for all these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events For this special edition of Wire Taps, we focused on the basics of Wharton's Team-Based discussion (Wire Taps episode 454 does a deep-dive exploration of this season's prompt) and a full unpacking of the 2026 Financial Times Global MBA rankings. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

What happens when you walk away from the big logo—and discover that your thought leadership gets sharper, not smaller? In this episode, Peter Winick sits down with David Lancefield, host of Lancefield on the Line podcast, a strategy coach to CEOs, C-suite leaders, and founders who has advised more than 50 CEOs and hundreds of executives over three decades. David writes on strategy, leadership, and culture for outlets like Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan, and he's deeply focused on what strategy looks like in practice, not just on slides.  David breaks down what thought leadership actually does when it's done well: it differentiates you, attracts the right conversations, and creates a platform for real debate. But he's equally blunt about what it becomes when it's done poorly—a "glorified brochure" sitting on top of a product. If you've ever wondered why some "insights" feel alive and others feel like marketing copy, this is the distinction.  You'll hear how David approaches thought leadership now that it's tied to his name, not a firm's brand. He's intent on building a credible voice in a cluttered marketplace by staying rooted in the work he cares most about: strategy as an operating system for day-to-day decisions, leadership behaviors that actually move outcomes, and culture as a lever—not a poster. His writing isn't just content. It's credentialing. It's a signal. And yes, it drives leads—though he's candid about the reality: quality varies, and discernment matters.  The conversation also goes deep on collaboration as a serious thought leadership growth strategy. David argues that one voice is rarely enough anymore—and that co-creating with the right partner can make 1+1=3, if you do it intentionally. He lays out what "good collaboration" looks like: shared premise, distinct lenses, complementary audiences, and—most importantly—operating standards. Deadlines. Quality. Mutual ownership. No babysitting. No chaos. Just professional chemistry that produces better ideas faster.  Finally, David unpacks a subtle but important shift many leaders miss when they move from institution to independence: the definition of "enough." Inside big organizations, "enough" rarely exists—there's always another growth target, another push, another rung. Outside, you can reverse-engineer your needs, design your capacity, and choose work that fits your life without losing intensity or impact. It's not about working less. It's about working with agency. Three Key Takeaways: • Thought leadership is either a differentiator—or a brochure. At its best, it creates a platform for debate, positions you as an originator, and connects directly to real services and outcomes. At its worst, it's "a glorified brochure on top of a product."  • Independence forces clarity on your voice, not your résumé. When you leave the big brand, people care less about who you were and more about who you are now—and what you stand for. Your writing becomes proof of credibility, not just content.  • Collaboration can be a growth strategy—if your operating standards match. The upside is 1+1=3: shared premise, complementary lenses, expanded audiences. The risk is misalignment on deadlines, quality, and effort—so you have to set expectations early like pros. If you liked David Lancefield's take on credibility and differentiation, listen to Episode 9 with Charles H. Green ("The Trusted Advisor").  Charles shows how trust is the real engine that turns thought leadership into better conversations, faster decisions, and stronger client relationships. It's the perfect companion to David's message: don't just sound smart—become the advisor buyers believe and choose. 

You don't have a people problem. You have a system problem. If your team feels chaotic, if you're constantly firefighting, if you keep asking, "Why don't they just do what I told them to do?" — this episode is going to sting a little. In Episode 122, Tammy J. Bond challenges leaders to confront a hard truth: You're not leading people — you're managing the mess you designed. From avoiding underperformance to silence that is mistaken for disengagement, Tammy breaks down how leaders unintentionally reinforce the very behaviors they say they don't want. Drawing on research from Edgar Schein, MIT Sloan, HBR, and real-world case studies, this episode is a wake-up call about culture, accountability, and follow-through. If you don't like what your team is producing, it's time to look at the system — and the leadership behaviors — that shaped it. The good news? If you designed it, you can redesign it.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We continue to see several top MBA programs rolling out their Round 2 interview invites. Next week UPenn / Wharton and INSEAD are scheduled to release their interview invites and we speculate that MIT Sloan will, too. We then briefly discussed our new interview prep tool,  Clear Admit's MBA Interview simulator  Thus far, we have seen broad adoption of this tool, and we expect word to continue to spread! The MBA interview simulator is trained on Clear Admit's extensive catalogue of interview resources including our interview archive and interview guides. Graham noted we are scheduled for our monthly AMA YouTube Livestream later today. Here is Clear Admit's YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/@ClearAdmitMBA Graham also highlighted MBA webinar events that are on the horizon that Clear Admit is hosting. We are hosting a series for MiM programs which is scheduled for February 24 and 25. Clear Admit is also hosting events with London Business School and Vanderbilt / Owen later this week. On March 19, we are hosting a series of online panel discussions focused on international students who are targeting the top MBA programs in the United States. Finally, we are excited to announce our in-person admissions event, the MBA Fair, to be scheduled in Atlanta, on May 11. Signups for all these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham then highlighted a recently published article from Clear Admit's Fridays from the Frontlines series, highlighting a veteran who is at Notre Dame / Mendoza.  Graham then noted three admissions tips which all focus on the interview experience: MBA interview etiquette, questions for the admissions interviewer, and post-interview follow-up. Graham addressed a recently published Real Humans piece that focuses on Class of 2027 HBS students. Then finally, we discussed this week's roll out of the Financial Times ranking. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate is a deferred admissions candidate who appears to have a very strong profile but still needs to take the GMAT. This week's second MBA applicant is from India, works in finance, and has a perfect 340 on the GRE test. This week's final MBA candidate is deciding between Wharton and Sloan with a scholarship. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Guest: Larry Cheng is the Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Volition CapitalWebsite: https://www.volitioncapital.com/. AUM: Volition Capital has $1.8 Billion AUM on their 5th FundLarry's BioLarry Cheng is the Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Volition Capital, a growth equity firm focused on supporting founders building capital-efficient technology businesses. With over 25 years of investing experience, Larry has led investments in dozens of companies across Internet, e-commerce, software, and consumer sectors. Most notably, Larry was the first investor in Chewy, which became the most valuable e-commerce acquisition in history. He currently serves on public company boards such as GameStop and Grove Collaborative as well as several private company boards such as US Mobile, Rounds, Levanta and several others. Earlier in his career, he led investments at Fidelity Ventures and began in venture capital at Bessemer Venture Partners.Larry's entrepreneurial journey began early when he became Apple's youngest certified technician at age 13. While at Harvard, he launched a $400,000 laundry business and later became President of Harvard Student Agencies, a $4 million student-run company serving the greater Harvard community. He graduated with a B.A. in Psychology and played football for the Crimson. Larry is a frequent guest lecturer at institutions including Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan, and USC Marshall School of Business.

Self-understanding is the foundation of great leadership. In this episode, I sit down with Margaret Andrews, leadership educator, former executive director of the MBA program at MIT Sloan, and author, to talk about why leadership begins as an inside job. Margaret shares the 6 self-understanding questions, the best boss exercise that shows what people value in leadership, and why interpersonal skills aren't about being affable. Tune in to rethink what it really means to manage yourself to lead others effectively. Check out our sponsors: Northwest Registered Agent - Protect your privacy, build your brand and get your complete business identity in just 10 clicks and 10 minutes! Visit https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/achieverfree Shopify - Sign up for a $1 per month trial, just go to http://shopify.com/anxiousachiever Cozy Earth - Give your home the luxury it deserves. Head to http://cozyearth.com and use code ACHIEVER for up to 20% off. Express VPN - Secure your online data today. Visit http://expressvpn.com/achiever and find out how you can get up to four extra months. Talkiatry - Head to http://talkiaitry.com/achiever and complete the short assessment to get matched with an in network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. Working Genius - Take the working genius assessment today and get 20% off with code ACHIEVER at working http://genius.com In this Episode, You Will Learn 00:00 What to do when you're triggered before you have to show up. 05:00 What is the best way to lead? 10:00 The “best boss” exercise and what 20 years of data reveal. 14:15 The 3 traits that separate good bosses from great ones. 18:15 What is managing yourself to lead others? 22:30 How moments of “hot shame” shape your leadership patterns. 25:00 Why you can't manage what you don't understand. 29:00 Should you improve weaknesses or maximize strengths? 33:30 The most common reasons leaders derail. 38:00 How to grow without losing credibility. 42:00 Why telling people what you're working on can build trust. 45:00 Ways to practice self-management without losing status. 49:00 How do you get unscared of heart emotions? Resources + Links Learn more about Margaret Andrews HERE Get your copy of Margaret's book, Manage Yourself to Lead Others HERE Get a copy of my book - The Anxious Achiever Watch the podcast on YouTube  Find more resources on our website morraam.com Follow Follow me: on LinkedIn @morraaronsmele + Instagram @morraam Follow Margaret on LinkedIn @margaretcandrews

Show NotesMost organizations treat cybersecurity as a technology problem. They invest in layers of defense, run phishing tests, and deploy identity and access management tools. Yet headlines about breaches keep coming. Dr. Keri Pearlson, Senior Lecturer and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, argues that the real opportunity lies not in more technology but in changing how people across the organization think about and value cybersecurity.In this episode of the Human-Centered Cybersecurity Series, co-hosted by Julie Haney, Computer Scientist and Lead of the Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Dr. Keri Pearlson introduces her framework for cybersecurity culture built around values, attitudes, and beliefs. Rather than simply training employees on what to do, the focus shifts to shaping why they do it. When people genuinely believe cybersecurity matters, they take action without waiting for mandates or programs to tell them how.Dr. Pearlson shares vivid examples from her research: a CISO who hired a marketing professional to run the cybersecurity culture program, a CEO who opens every all-hands meeting with a five-minute cybersecurity story, and organizations that use creative rewards like chocolate chip cookies and digital badges to reinforce positive behaviors. She also outlines a five-stage maturity model for cybersecurity culture, from ad hoc efforts all the way to a dynamic culture that self-regulates as new threats like AI-driven vulnerabilities emerge.The conversation also tackles the relationship between organizational culture and cybersecurity culture, the role of group-level accountability, and why consequences matter just as much as rewards. Dr. Pearlson makes the case that cybersecurity should move from being viewed as an infrastructure play to a strategic advantage, one that can attract customers, reduce costs, and build competitive differentiation.For any leader looking to move the needle on security culture, this episode offers a research-backed roadmap and practical steps that anyone can take starting tomorrow.HostSean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine, Studio C60, and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast & Music Evolves Podcast | Website: https://www.seanmartin.com/Guest(s)Dr. Keri Pearlson, Senior Lecturer and Principal Research Scientist at MIT Sloan School of Management | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kpearlson/Julie Haney (Co-Host), Computer Scientist and Lead, Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-haney-037449119/ResourcesLearn more about Dr. Keri Pearlson's research: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/keri-pearlsonLearn more about the NIST Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/human-centered-cybersecurityCybersecurity at MIT Sloan (CAMS): https://cams.mit.edu/The Future of Cybersecurity Newsletter | https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7108625890296614912/More Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast episodes | https://www.seanmartin.com/redefining-cybersecurity-podcastRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast on YouTube | https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYu0psdcllS9aVGdiakVss9u7xgYDKYqKeywordsdr. keri pearlson, julie haney, mit sloan, nist, sean martin, cybersecurity culture, security culture, values attitudes beliefs, cyber resilience, human-centered cybersecurity, security awareness, phishing, cybersecurity maturity model, security behavior, cybersecurity strategy, redefining cybersecurity, cybersecurity podcast, redefining cybersecurity podcast Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Show NotesMost organizations treat cybersecurity as a technology problem. They invest in layers of defense, run phishing tests, and deploy identity and access management tools. Yet headlines about breaches keep coming. Dr. Keri Pearlson, Senior Lecturer and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, argues that the real opportunity lies not in more technology but in changing how people across the organization think about and value cybersecurity.In this episode of the Human-Centered Cybersecurity Series, co-hosted by Julie Haney, Computer Scientist and Lead of the Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Dr. Keri Pearlson introduces her framework for cybersecurity culture built around values, attitudes, and beliefs. Rather than simply training employees on what to do, the focus shifts to shaping why they do it. When people genuinely believe cybersecurity matters, they take action without waiting for mandates or programs to tell them how.Dr. Pearlson shares vivid examples from her research: a CISO who hired a marketing professional to run the cybersecurity culture program, a CEO who opens every all-hands meeting with a five-minute cybersecurity story, and organizations that use creative rewards like chocolate chip cookies and digital badges to reinforce positive behaviors. She also outlines a five-stage maturity model for cybersecurity culture, from ad hoc efforts all the way to a dynamic culture that self-regulates as new threats like AI-driven vulnerabilities emerge.The conversation also tackles the relationship between organizational culture and cybersecurity culture, the role of group-level accountability, and why consequences matter just as much as rewards. Dr. Pearlson makes the case that cybersecurity should move from being viewed as an infrastructure play to a strategic advantage, one that can attract customers, reduce costs, and build competitive differentiation.For any leader looking to move the needle on security culture, this episode offers a research-backed roadmap and practical steps that anyone can take starting tomorrow.HostSean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine, Studio C60, and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast & Music Evolves Podcast | Website: https://www.seanmartin.com/Guest(s)Dr. Keri Pearlson, Senior Lecturer and Principal Research Scientist at MIT Sloan School of Management | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kpearlson/Julie Haney (Co-Host), Computer Scientist and Lead, Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-haney-037449119/ResourcesLearn more about Dr. Keri Pearlson's research: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/keri-pearlsonLearn more about the NIST Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/human-centered-cybersecurityCybersecurity at MIT Sloan (CAMS): https://cams.mit.edu/The Future of Cybersecurity Newsletter | https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7108625890296614912/More Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast episodes | https://www.seanmartin.com/redefining-cybersecurity-podcastRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast on YouTube | https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYu0psdcllS9aVGdiakVss9u7xgYDKYqKeywordsdr. keri pearlson, julie haney, mit sloan, nist, sean martin, cybersecurity culture, security culture, values attitudes beliefs, cyber resilience, human-centered cybersecurity, security awareness, phishing, cybersecurity maturity model, security behavior, cybersecurity strategy, redefining cybersecurity, cybersecurity podcast, redefining cybersecurity podcast Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 414 of The VentureFizz Podcast features Lou Shipley, CEO, board director, lecturer, investor, and now author. Every company has an entrepreneur behind it. It sounds obvious, but we often fall into the trap of thinking those founders are all 20-somethings building tech startups. The data says otherwise. Research from MIT Sloan found that the average age of a successful, high-growth founder is actually 45 years old. For most, it takes decades of “real-world” reps to build the grit and experience necessary to take that leap of faith. That's why Unlikely Entrepreneurs, the new book that Lou co-authored with Patricia Favreau is such an essential read. It includes local entrepreneurs like Bill Warner of Avid or the founders of Spoiler Alert, alongside truly unexpected success stories, ranging from a sustainable sausage brand and an online casket company to Katie Couric Media. In this episode, we cover: * What led Lou and Patricia down the path of writing Unlikely Entrepreneurs. * Lou's background story and what athletics taught him about being a CEO. * How a cold call to Bill Warner, the founder of Avid, changed his career trajectory. * His journey through various leadership roles at startups like WebLine, Reflectent, and Turbonomic. * How he helped build Black Duck Software into a market leader by repositioning the product and the company's culture. * The importance of teaching sales and his advice around building out your GTM function. * Why relationships are the ultimate form of currency for your success. * And so much more! Purchase Unlikely Entrepreneurs on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Entrepreneurs-Lou-Shipley/dp/1394345895/ref=sr_1_1 Podcast Sponsor: This podcast is brought to you by one of the strongest longtime supporters of the local startup ecosystem, Silicon Valley Bank, a division of First Citizens Bank. With more than 1,500 bankers and relationship advisors and $44B in loans as of Q4 2025 – SVB delivers expert guidance, specialized products and a team that knows the innovation economy inside and out. Learn more at SVB.com.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. While many R2 deadlines were last week, there are still deadlines for NYU / Stern, MIT / Sloan, Texas / McCombs, USC / Marshall and Imperial Business School this week. Graham highlighted MBA webinar events that are on the horizon that Clear Admit is hosting. The first webinar looks at the enduring value of the MBA. The second series of events is for deferred admissions candidates who are currently completing their first degrees. Signups for all Clear Admit are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham noted an MBA admissions tip focused on fine-tuning the MBA admissions essays. Graham then noted two Real Humans pieces spotlighting students from Texas / McCombs and Manchester / Alliance. We then discussed the Class of 2025 employment report from Yale SOM. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate has one admit in Round 1 for an M7 program and is targeting four more M7 programs in Round 2. This week's second MBA applicant is a consultant from Sydney, Australia. We worry that their slightly lower GMAT score of 655 may harm them for the very top MBA programs. This week's final MBA candidate has several offers from leading MBA programs. They want to begin their post MBA journey in investment banking, and we think Cornell / Johnson may be their best current option. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

In this episode of The Brand Called You, MIT researcher Nils Fonstad unpacks digital innovation as a disciplined, impact-focused process. From end-user centricity to improvisation, modularity, and learning at scale, the conversation reveals how organizations can innovate without wasting resources—and turn digital from hype into measurable value.00:35- About Nils FonstadNils was educated at Cornell and MIT Sloan and earned his PhD from MIT.He has held senior research roles at INSEAD/eLab in Paris and MIT, publishing widely, including in Harvard Business Review.He co-founded the European CIO of the Year Awards with CIO Net and is currently based in Madrid.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. Twenty-nine leading MBA programs have an application deadline during this upcoming week!  In fact, the only top schools without deadlines this week are NYU / Stern, MIT / Sloan, Texas / McCombs, USC / Marshall and INSEAD  - and these programs all have deadlines next week or the following week. Graham highlighted MBA webinar events that are on the horizon that Clear Admit is hosting. The first webinar looks at the enduring value of the MBA. The second series of events is for deferred admissions candidates who are currently completing their first degrees. As always, signups are for our events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham noted a news story recently published on Clear Admit which takes stock of the past year and looks ahead to MBA predictions for 2026. These predictions, from the Clear Admit team, include a shift in the admissions process that focuses more on areas of the process that cannot be impacted by AI, the possibility that the GRE becomes the most popular MBA admissions test, and the notion that b-schools will continue to roll out specialized masters to help young professionals get the tools needed in today's workforce. Graham also noted four MBA admissions tips, focusing on scholarship negotiations, the data forms, optional essays, and how to show an MBA program that you've done the research on their offering. Graham then noted a Real Humans piece spotlighting students from the University of St Gallen MBA in Switzerland. We then discussed two recently published Class of 2025 employment reports from Wharton and Columbia. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate appears to have an interesting background, from Colombia. However, we fear that their 309 GRE score will harm their chances at the very top MBA programs. This week's second MBA applicant is an investment banker and has a very strong background. But they have a DUI from their university days. We discussed those implications. This week's final MBA candidate has several offers from leading MBA programs. They are seriously weighing the offers between Booth (with $130K scholarship and a dual degree offer) and Harvard. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. Last week was the final week of decision releases for Round 1, for the top MBA programs. This now corresponds with an uptick in activity of MBA Decision Wire, as many candidates begin to weigh their MBA options. Graham noted two admissions tips recently published on Clear Admit. The first focuses on GMAC's Common Letter of Recommendation, which has been adopted by many of the top MBA programs. The second admissions tip explores the recent phenomenon of some MBA programs offering test waivers. Graham highlighted an Adcom Q&A featuring Yale SOM's Bruce DelMonico. This led to a discussion on the value of the institutional brand for Yale's MBA program. Graham then noted a Real Humans piece spotlighting students from Dartmouth / Tuck. We then discussed the recently published employment reports from Tuck and MIT / Sloan. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate has superb numbers, including a 339 GRE score. They work at Accenture and want to target the Ed Tech space, post MBA. This week's second MBA applicant also has very strong numbers, and works in the video gaming industry. They want to move to product management in the gaming industry, post MBA. This week's final MBA candidate has offers from Tuck, Darden and Goizueta, while applying with a test waiver. They may take the test and develop a Round 2 strategy. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

IN THIS EPISODE: In this episode, Denise Silber HBS MBA welcomes Professor Daniel Elfenbein,  a triple Harvard alumnus and entrepreneurship researcher at Olin Business School. Together, they explore the delicate balance entrepreneurs must strike between confidence and overconfidence, commitment and detachment, and the hard truth of knowing when to pivot—or when to quit. Dan shares insights drawn from his own entrepreneurial journey, research experiments, and global teaching experience. From biotech boardroom standoffs to mathematical models of founder behavior, he unpacks how emotions, attachment, and overconfidence affect decision-making in startups. You'll learn why "quitting" may just be the smartest pivot of all—and how founders can better calibrate their confidence to avoid costly mistakes. GUEST BIO: Daniel Elfenbein is Professor of Strategy at Washington University in St. Louis's Olin Business School. A triple Harvard alumnus, Dan earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in Business Economics from Harvard, and graduated summa cum laude with an A.B. in Chemistry. Dan is a leading scholar at the intersection of strategy, entrepreneurship, and organizational economics. His research delves into how trust, incentives, and behavioral biases shape outcomes in entrepreneurial ventures and strategic alliances. His work has been published in top-tier journals including the Academy of Management Review, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, and The Review of Economic Studies. A central theme of Dan's research is understanding the nuanced role of overconfidence in entrepreneurial decision-making. His work—spanning computational modeling, experiments, and economic theory—has provided deep insights into how different forms of overconfidence (including overestimation and overprecision) influence venture formation, pivot strategies, and exit decisions. He has demonstrated that some forms of overconfidence can impede learning and decision-making, while others may be counterbalanced by well-designed experimentation programs. Dan served as Chair of the Strategy and Entrepreneurship Area at Olin from 2020 to 2024, where he championed a culture of scholarly excellence and cross-disciplinary collaboration. He served as Academic Director and then as Associate Dean for Olin's joint Executive MBA Program with Fudan School of Management in Shanghai. Prior to academia, Dan worked as a consultant at Monitor Company—a firm founded by Harvard Business School professors and graduates, including Michael E. Porter, with whom Dan had the great privilege to work. He also served as a staff economist with the President's Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton Administration. He has held faculty appointments at Berkeley's Haas School of Business and has delivered invited talks at Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan, and London Business School, and more than 30 other universities around the globe.  

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. Last week, admissions decisions rolled out for several top MBA programs including Harvard, Stanford, UPenn / Wharton, MIT / Sloan and Northwestern / Kellogg. This upcoming week, USC / Marshall, Rice / Jones, Texas / McCombs, UNC / Kenan Flagler, Vanderbilt / Owen and Washington / Foster are scheduled to release their Round 1 decisions. The next livestream AMA with Graham and Alex is scheduled for this Tuesday, December 16th; here's the link to Clear Admit's YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/cayoutubelive. Last week Clear Admit livestreamed its first Decision Day Watch Party. We scheduled this for December 10, when several top MBA programs were scheduled to release their Round 1 decisions. Several admissions officers joined us for the event, and it was a huge success. Graham highlighted a recently published Financial Times 2025 ranking of European business schools that ranks institutions across multiple programs (MBA, MiM, EMBA, and Executive Education), rather than individual programs, which we thought was a strange approach. Graham noted several admissions-related pieces of content recently published on Clear Admit. The first focuses on how to choose between MBA programs, once you have your offers. The second focuses on the dreaded wait list, and what steps can be taken. The third article looks at how candidates who didn't get positive results can reflect. The final admissions-related piece focuses on MBA essay construction, which led to a conversation about how best to use Clear Admit's AI Chat Bot. Graham highlighted two Real Humans pieces spotlighting students from Chicago / Booth and Emory / Goizueta. We then discussed the recently published employment reports from Stanford and NYU / Stern. Finally, Graham profiled a podcast that focuses on The Forté Foundation. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three ApplyWire entries. This week's first MBA admissions candidate is from Brazil but now resides in Chicago. They are looking at the Booth part-time MBA program. A potential concern is their 313 GRE score. This week's second MBA applicant is working in research, looking at the impact of tech on young people. They reside in New York City and are only looking at Columbia and Stern. This week's final MBA candidate has a strong professional background, transitioning from investment banking to private equity. They have a 3.8 GPA and a 325 GRE score. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

All tech is witchcraft…until it isn't. Today, we're talking to Sam Ransbotham, AI editor at MIT Sloan Management Review and host of the Me, Myself, and AI podcast. We discuss why 76% of executives now view AI as a coworker rather than a tool, how healthcare privacy laws from 1996 can't handle modern AI capabilities, and why cheaper coding will create more programming jobs instead of eliminating them. All of this right here, right now, on the Modern CTO Podcast!  Thank you to Digital Ocean for sponsoring this episode. For simple cloud and powerful AI that's built to scale, check out Digital Ocean here. To read MIT Sloan's AI study, "The Emerging Agentic Enterprise," check it out here!

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. Last week, admissions decisions rolled out for several top MBA programs including Yale SOM, CMU / Tepper, Chicago / Booth and Michigan / Ross. This upcoming week, MIT / Sloan, Harvard, Stanford, UPenn / Wharton, Northwestern / Kellogg, UVA / Darden, Georgetown / McDonough, Johns Hopkins / Carey, Berkeley / Haas, Dartmouth / Tuck, Duke / Fuqua, UCLA / Anderson, Notre Dame / Mendoza and Arizona / Carey are scheduled to release their Round 1 decisions. Graham highlighted a webinar event focused on MBA career paths, scheduled for Thursday. Signups are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events The next livestream AMA is scheduled for Tuesday, December 16th; here's the link to Clear Admit's YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/cayoutubelive. Graham noted several admissions-related pieces of content recently published on Clear Admit. The first focuses on December admissions events being hosted by top MBA programs. The second looks at how best to manage the congested schedule of Round 2 MBA application deadlines that arrive in January. The third piece looks at some of the issues related to applying to b-school as a younger candidate. The final article dives into whether deferred MBA admissions is a good pathway for undergraduate students. Graham highlighted a Real Humans piece spotlighting students from Berkeley / Haas, and then we discussed the recently published Harvard Business School employment report for the Class of 2025. This led to a discussion on search funds. Finally, Graham profiled a soon-to-be published podcast that focuses on leadership, from a conversation with Texas / McCombs. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three ApplyWire entries: This week's first MBA admissions candidate has a 685 GMAT score. They applied to programs in the first round and subsequently have started a new experience in Africa. We discuss their options for this season versus next season. This week's second MBA applicant is a military candidate with a master's in computer science. They applied in Round 1 with an EA score of 160. They may decide to apply to Sloan in Round 2, depending on results. This week's final MBA candidate has a 333 GRE score and has had several startup experiences. They are targeting Harvard, Stanford and Wharton. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

What happens when coaching meets improv? In this episode, Cathy Sykora speaks with Betsy Salkind and Amy Warshawsky, co-authors of Coaching with a Twist: Improv for Coaches. With backgrounds in health coaching, leadership, somatics, and comedy, Betsy and Amy have created a dynamic and experiential approach to coach training that blends improv exercises with foundational coaching skills. They explain how play and presence deepen learning, increase client connection, and make coaching more effective—and more fun. Whether you're a seasoned coach or just starting out, their fresh take on training and development is both practical and transformative. In this episode, you'll discover: How Betsy and Amy transitioned from mentor coaches to co-creators of an improv-based coaching model The similarities between improv and motivational interviewing Why experiential learning is more "sticky" than traditional training methods How play and improvisation enhance presence, creativity, and emotional regulation Why they created a safe, supportive environment for learning through coaching with a twist A powerful improv exercise called "three-word coaching" you can try today The benefits of supervision and their monthly BNA Coaching Salon Memorable Quotes: "Ultimately, if we are coaching well, we're improvising." "No rules, only happy accidents." "When you're playing and having fun, you are not in fear." Bios:  Betsy Salkind, PCC, NBC-HWC, is a health and mentor coach with expertise in team, group, and leadership coaching. A professional standup comic and TV writer, she trained at the Mayo Clinic and holds an MS in Organization Studies from MIT Sloan. Amy J. Warshawsky, MCC, NBC-HWC, is a leadership and mentor coach known for integrating somatic practices into coaching. She has held roles in nonprofit and higher education, and holds degrees from Northwestern University and Cornell. Together, they co-founded BNA Mentor Coaching and co-authored Coaching with a Twist: Improv for Coaches. Mentioned in This Episode: BNA Mentor Coaching Coaching with a Twist: Improv for Coaches Links to Resources: Health Coach Group Website: thehealthcoachgroup.com (https://www.thehealthcoachgroup.com) Special Offer: Use code HCC50 to save $50 on the Health Coach Group website Leave a Review: If you enjoyed the podcast, please consider leaving a five-star rating or review on Apple Podcasts.

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Don Kieffer has spent more than fifty years redesigning how real work gets done. In this episode, he explains why so many improvement efforts stall—and how Dynamic Work Design offers a clearer, more practical way forward. Episode page with video, transcript, and more Don traces his path from machinist to Vice President of Operational Excellence at Harley-Davidson and senior lecturer at MIT Sloan. He shares what he learned working with Toyota legend Hajime Oba, including the moment he realized that copying Toyota's rituals was the wrong goal. The real power, he argues, lies in understanding the thinking behind great work design. We break down the five principles of Dynamic Work Design—solving the right problem, structuring for discovery, connecting the human chain, regulating flow, and making work visible—and discuss how they apply far beyond the factory floor. Don explains why intellectual work is “almost infinitely compressible,” why executives misdiagnose morale problems, and why most leaders can draw their org chart but not the actual flow of work. Along the way, he shares stories from Harley, MIT, and client organizations that learned to shift from firefighting to flow. His message is consistent: when you redesign the work, you change the culture. Engagement follows the system, not the other way around. This episode pairs well with Episode 538 with Nelson Repenning and is essential listening for leaders trying to improve performance, reduce frustration, and create environments where people can do their best work. Key ideas • Copying Toyota's practices isn't the same as understanding Toyota's thinking • Why Dynamic Work Design starts with a specific problem—not a program • How to create real-time management systems in knowledge-work environments • Why most dysfunction is a work-design issue, not a people issue • How better work design restores flow, learning, and joy in the work Representative Quotes “Five percent of the problem is people. Ninety-five percent is bad work design.” “Most executives can draw the org chart, but not the work.” “Intellectual work is almost infinitely compressible.” “Culture emerges from how the work is designed—not from what leaders say.”

Affordability is the word on everyone's lips. Given that, I can't help but wonder if we are having an honest and complete conversation on the topic. I attempt to do that in this episode and provide stunning data and an excellent study from MIT to reinforce my thoughts. With black Friday and the holiday season upon us the greatest gift you can give me is an honest listen. I truly believe life can get less complicated by listening to people who have lived a complicated life. Please help me grow by following, sharing, rating and commenting on Apple Podcast and Spotify. Happy Thanksgiving!Federal spending was responsible for the 2022 spike in inflation, research shows | MIT Sloan

The interview is also on Youtube: https://youtu.be/oSIFewGWnNE?si=efQOrP5YXeoWuYYAGuest Carlos Moreira Founder & CEO of SealSQ Ticker: (Nasdaq: LAES)Website: https://www.sealsq.com/BioCarlos Creus Moreira is a global technology entrepreneur and cybersecurity authority, serving as Founder, Chairman, and CEO of WISeKey (NASDAQ: WKEY) and SEALSQ (LAES). For decades, he has been a leading voice in securing the internet, developing trusted digital identity ecosystems, and advocating for the ethical use of artificial intelligence.Moreira began his career as a United Nations expert on CyberSecurity and Trust Models, working with agencies such as ILO, UNCTAD, ITC/WTO, World Bank, UNDP, and ESCAP (1983–1999). He is also the Founder of OISTE.org, a global non-profit dedicated to strengthening digital identity standards.From 1995 to 1999, he served as an Adjunct Professor and Head of the Trade Efficiency Lab at RMIT University in Australia, contributing to advances in trade facilitation and cybersecurity. His academic and professional work has consistently focused on enhancing trust in digital systems.Moreira holds influential roles in numerous international organizations. He is a Founding Member of the Geneva Government's E-Voting Steering Committee, a UN Global Compact Member, and has contributed extensively to the World Economic Forum (WEF). His WEF roles include: Founding Member of Global Growth Companies, WEF New Champion (2007–2016), Vice-Chair of the Agenda Council on Illicit Trade (2012–2015), Member of the WEF Selection Committee for Growth Companies, and contributor to the Agenda Council on the Future of IT Software & Services (2014–2016). He has been recognized as one of the WEF's Trailblazers, Shapers, and Innovators.He also serves on the Blockchain Advisory Board of the Government of Mexico, the Blockchain Research Institute, and is Founder of the Geneva Security Forum, the Blockchain Center of Excellence, and TrustValley.Moreira has received numerous honors, including:• One of Switzerland's 300 most influential people (Bilan.CH 2011, 2013)• Top 100 in the Net Economy• Most Exciting EU Company (Microsoft MERID 2005)• Man of the Year (AGEFI 2007)• One of Switzerland's 100 most important digital leaders (Bilanz 2016)• Best EU M&A Award (2017)• Blockchain Davos Award of Excellence (GBBC 2018)• CGI Award HolderHe is co-author of the global best-selling book “The TransHuman Code,” a leading work on managing technology's impact on humanity. As a multilingual keynote speaker (English, Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese), Moreira has spoken at the UN, WEF, CGI, ITU, Bloomberg, Munich Security Conference, World Policy Conference, Zermatt Summit, Microsoft, IMD, INSEAD, MIT Sloan, HEC, UBS, and the CEO Summit.Pioneering Work During the Dawn of the World Wide Web (WWW)During the early 1990s in Geneva, at the same time Tim Berners-Lee was creating the World Wide Web at CERN, Moreira was deeply involved in advancing secure digital identity and trust models. His UN cybersecurity work positioned him as a key advocate for building security into the fabric of the emerging web. This vision led him to found WISeKey in 1999, which has become a global leader in digital identity, authentication, and securing online transactions.He later established the Geneva Security Forum and Geneva Philanthropy Forum, reinforcing Geneva's role as a center for digital trust, innovation, and global cybersecurity dialogue.Married with six children, Carlos Creus Moreira remains committed to building a secure, transparent, and human-centered digital future. More information can be found at carloscreusmoreira.com.

Alex Brown is a former admissions officer from the Wharton school and current Clear Admit community manager and podcaster. He also teaches digital marketing for some top business schools, including Columbia Business School and London Business School. Graham Richmond is the co-founder of Clear Admit and former admissions officer at Wharton, where he received his MBA. He leads marketing, technology, and research initiatives for Clear Admit. In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season, with interview invites continuing to roll out. This upcoming week, Duke / Fuqua is scheduled to release interview invites, and Columbia is scheduled to have released all its Round 1 interview invites. Ohio / Fisher is scheduled to release its Early Action round decisions, Michigan State / Broad is scheduled to release its Round 1 decisions and Oxford / Said is scheduled to release its Stage 2 decisions. Graham highlighted the upcoming deferred enrollment webinar, scheduled for Wednesday, and the upcoming Masters in Management (MiM) webinar series. Signups for all these events are here, https://www.clearadmit.com/events The next livestream AMA is scheduled for Tuesday, November 25; here's the link to Clear Admit's YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/cayoutubelive. Graham noted three admissions tips recently published by Clear Admit. The first focuses on the steps to take after the MBA admissions interview is completed. The next tip focuses on the importance of the business school campus environment, and the final tip addresses the role of volunteer experience in the MBA admissions process. Graham also noted a recently published article that identifies eight key benefits of earning a Masters in Management (MiM). Graham highlighted three Real Humans pieces that spotlight students from London Business School, Indiana / Kelley and CMU / Tepper. We then addressed three recently published Class of 2027 admissions profiles, from Stanford, MIT / Sloan and Chicago / Booth. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three ApplyWire entries: This week's first MBA admissions candidate is from Australia and is seeking a test waiver. We are encouraging them to consider taking the test, to then target the very top MBA programs. This week's second MBA applicant is from India and is targeting several top MBA programs in the U.K. They want to be in London, post MBA. They are currently retaking the GRE. This week's final MBA candidate works in Real Estate, for a family business. They have a 330 GRE. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Discover why Shell, Eni, and MCJ invested in this molten borate carbon capture tech led by an MIT PhD.

The Pentagon is preparing to enforce the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements for small businesses, with compliance becoming mandatory in contracts starting November 10, 2025. Nearly 500 organizations have already achieved Level 2 certification, and the Defense Department is actively surveying small businesses to assess their readiness for these new standards. This initiative is expected to extend beyond Department of Defense contractors, potentially influencing other federal agencies and international partners to adopt similar cybersecurity measures.Recent reports highlight a concerning rise in cybersecurity threats, particularly in mobile attacks and ransomware incidents. According to the Verizon 2025 Mobile Security Index, 85% of organizations have reported increased mobile attacks, with 38% identifying AI-powered ransomware as a growing concern. Despite the widespread use of generative AI tools, only 17% of organizations have implemented specific security measures to counter AI-assisted attacks. Additionally, a report from Sophos indicates that 58% of retailers impacted by ransomware opted to pay the ransom, with the median demand doubling to $2 million.The episode also discusses the withdrawal of a controversial MIT Sloan paper that claimed 80% of ransomware attacks involved artificial intelligence, following criticism from cybersecurity experts. This incident underscores the issue of "AI-washing" in the cybersecurity sector, where unverified claims are made to attract attention. MSPs are advised to scrutinize such claims and focus on proven security practices rather than hype-driven narratives.For Managed Service Providers and IT decision-makers, the key takeaway is the importance of compliance and foundational cybersecurity practices. As the CMMC requirements loom, MSPs should consider developing readiness packages and tightening documentation processes. Additionally, the ongoing rise in lawsuits related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) highlights the need for businesses to prioritize compliance as a critical aspect of risk management, reinforcing that effective cybersecurity and legal compliance are essential for sustainable operations. Four things to know today00:00 The Cyber Threats Are Real — But It's Not AI Geniuses, It's the Same Old Tricks Getting Smarter05:05 MIT's Big AI-Ransomware Claim Falls Apart — Turns Out the Data Didn't Hold Up07:09 The Pentagon's Rolling Out CMMC — and Small Businesses Are Feeling the Pressure on All Fronts10:27 Everyone Wants to Be Your Platform — New MSP Tools from Cisco, Barracuda, and WatchGuard Show WhyThis is the Business of Tech.     Supported by:  https://saasalerts.com/mspradio/ 

Have you ever felt like you're constantly putting out fires at work instead of making progress? Kevin welcomes Don Kieffer and Nelson Repenning to discuss why so many workplace processes feel frustrating and ineffective, and what leaders can do about it. Drawing on decades of experience in operations and organizational design, Don and Nelson reveal why quick-fix workarounds backfire, how firefighting becomes the default mode of operation, and the hidden costs of constantly reacting instead of leading. They introduce the concept of dynamic work design and explain why breaking down silos isn't just nice to have, it's essential. Along the way, they share practical tools leaders can use to move from chaos to sustainable success. Listen For 00:00 Introduction and the problem with roadblocks at work 03:33 How they met and started collaborating 06:07 The Harley-Davidson connection 08:32 The big idea behind the book 09:41 Why organizations assume the world is predictable 11:03 What dynamic work design means 12:21 The hidden cost of firefighting and workarounds 13:01 The firefighting trap explained 15:33 How firefighting becomes self-reinforcing 17:36 Why the dynamic appears in every organization 19:12 Leadership behaviors that unintentionally worsen it 21:12 Moving beyond blame to system thinking 21:56 The problem with silos in organizations 23:43 How work actually flows across silos 25:12 Visualizing knowledge work to expose inefficiency 26:04 Silos and identity in organizations 27:22 Why we must focus on system productivity 28:36 The matrix problem in modern organizations 29:12 Five elements of dynamic work design 29:48 Problem formation as an underrated leadership skill 30:24 Why framing the problem matters 31:23 Using conscious thinking to solve the right problems 32:36 Asking "what problem are we trying to solve" 33:20 What leaders can learn from this habit 33:48 Don and Nelson's hobbies outside of work 34:38 What they are reading now 35:35 Where to find their book and connect 37:19 Wrap up and invitation to subscribe Their Story: Nelson P. Repenning and Donald C. Kieffer are the authors of There's Got to Be a Better Way: How to Deliver Results and Get Rid of the Stuff That Gets in the Way of Real Work. Nelson is the School of Management Distinguished Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is currently the director of MIT's Leadership Center and was recently recognized by Poets & Quants as one of the world's top executive MBA instructors. His scholarly work has appeared in Management Science, Organization Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, the Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, and Research in Organizational Behavior. Donald C. Kieffer is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at MIT Sloan. He is a career operations executive and co-creator of Dynamic Work Design. Kieffer started running equipment in factories at age 17. He was VP of operational excellence at Harley-Davidson, where he worked for 15 years. Since 2007, he has been advising leaders in a variety of industries around the globe. His guidance was instrumental in transforming both the production and technical development areas of the Broad Institute, a Cambridge-based genomic sequencing organization, now an industry leader. He is the founder of ShiftGear Work Design, LLC, and teaches Operations Management at AVT in Copenhagen. This Episode is brought to you by... Flexible Leadership is every leader's guide to greater success in a world of increasing complexity and chaos.  Book Recommendations There's Got to Be a Better Way: How to Deliver Results and Get Rid of the Stuff That Gets in the Way of Real Work by Nelson P. Repenning and Donald C. Kieffer  The Mindful Body: Thinking Our Way to Chronic Health by Ellen J. Langer  Murder Mysteries by Lousie Penny Like this? Competing in the New World of Work with Keith Ferrazzi How to Achieve Breakthrough Execution and Accelerate Growth with Patrick Thean Leave a Review If you liked this conversation, we'd be thrilled if you'd let others know by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts. Here's a quick guide for posting a review. Review on Apple: https://remarkablepodcast.com/itunes    Join Our Community If you want to view our live podcast episodes, hear about new releases, or chat with others who enjoy this podcast join one of our communities below. Join the Facebook Group Join the LinkedIn Group   Podcast Better! Sign up with Libsyn and get up to 2 months free! Use promo code: RLP  

China-Linked hackers target Cisco firewalls. MIT Sloan withdraws controversial “AI-Driven Ransomware” paper. A new study questions the value of cybersecurity training. Hackers exploit OpenAI's API as a malware command channel. Apple patches over 100 Security flaws across devices. A Florida-based operator of mental health and addiction treatment centers exposes sensitive patient information. OPM plans a “mass deferment” for Cybercorps scholars affected by the government shutdown. Lawmakers urge the FTC to investigate Flock Safety's cybersecurity gaps. Cybercriminals team with organized crime for high-tech cargo thefts. Ben Yelin from University of Maryland Center for Cyber Health and Hazard Strategies discussing ICE's controversial facial scanning initiative. A priceless theft meets a worthless password.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest We are joined by Ben Yelin from University of Maryland Center for Cyber Health and Hazard Strategies discussing ICE's controversial facial scanning initiative. You can read more about Ben's topic from 404 Media: You Can't Refuse To Be Scanned by ICE's Facial Recognition App, DHS Document Says. Selected Reading China-Linked Hackers Target Cisco Firewalls in Global Campaign (Hackread) MIT Sloan shelves paper about AI-driven ransomware (The Register) CyberSlop — meet the new threat actor, MIT and Safe Security (DoublePulsar) Study concludes cybersecurity training doesn't work (KPBS Public Media) Microsoft: OpenAI API moonlights as malware HQ (The Register) Apple Patches 19 WebKit Vulnerabilities (SecurityWeek) Data Theft Hits Behavioral Health Network in 3 States (Bank Infosecurity) OPM plans to give CyberCorps members more time to find jobs after shutdown ends (CyberScoop) Lawmakers ask FTC to probe Flock Safety's cybersecurity practices (The Record) Cybercriminals, OCGs team up on lucrative cargo thefts (The Register) Louvre Robbery: Security Flaws: The (Obviously) Password Was "Louvre" (L'Unione Sarda) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show. Want to hear your company in the show? N2K CyberWire helps you reach the industry's most influential leaders and operators, while building visibility, authority, and connectivity across the cybersecurity community. Learn more at sponsor.thecyberwire.com. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season, with interview invites continuing to roll out. This week, Georgetown / McDonough is scheduled to release its Early Action decisions and Cornell / Johnson is scheduled to release its Round 1 interview invites. We also anticipate that MIT / Sloan will release its Round 1 interview invites. We then had a discussion on the H1-B visa situation, concluding that US MBA graduates residing in the USA may now be at an advantage, over those who apply for the visa from their home country. This is an ongoing and impactful situation for top MBA candidates. Graham highlighted next week's events being hosted by Clear Admit, concluding a series focused on MBA programs in different regions of the United States. Signups for all these events are here, https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham also highlighted our next livestream AMA, which is scheduled for today, Monday, October 27; here's the link to Clear Admit's YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/cayoutubelive. Graham noted two recently published admissions tips. The first focuses on Wharton's Team-Based Interview; Wharton released its interview invites for Round 1 last week. The second focuses on developing a target program list, helpful for those applying in Round 2.  He also shared a peek at some comments from a first year MBA student at Duke / Fuqua, as part of our ongoing Real Humans series. We then reviewed the Berkeley / Haas Class of 2026 profile, and the NYU / Stern Class of 2026 profile. Both declared slightly smaller class sizes, and a higher proportion of international students in the class. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three ApplyWire entries: This week's first MBA admissions candidate applied in Round 1 to a few programs and is now considering their Round 2 strategy. They have progressed from an analyst role to a product management role. This week's second MBA applicant is an investment banking analyst in the digital infrastructure domain. They have a 320 GRE, and we really hope they retake the test. The final MBA candidate is from Mexico and has a 685 GMAT score. Their overall profile does look strong, and they want to do investment banking in the short term, post MBA. This episode was recorded in Saratoga Springs, New York and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Send us a textIn this episode, we sit down with Don Kieffer, senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of There's Gotta Be a Better Way, to talk about what actually makes companies run well. Don has spent decades helping organizations, from Harley-Davidson factory floors to biotech labs, design better systems that unlock real performance. We break down the five-principle framework he developed with his co-author, Nelson Repenning, an MIT PhD, MIT Sloan professor, and leading expert in operations and systems thinking, for building operational excellence: solving the right problem, structuring for discovery, connecting the human chain, regulating for flow, and visualizing the work.Through stories that range from front-desk hotel check-ins to a corrugated cardboard plant and even private equity fundraising pipelines, Don shows how tiny operational tweaks can deliver huge impact. We explore why firefighting cultures keep companies stuck in a “capability trap,” why automation without fixing the human system first is a mistake, and why the best private equity playbooks focus on execution, not spreadsheets. For founders, operators, and investors alike, this is a practical, no-fluff conversation about how businesses actually scale.Before diving into operations, we also touch on recent rumblings in credit markets, continuing our discussion on  the failed refinancing of First Brands and the liquidation of TriColor to bank fraud write-offs and how credit default swaps can amplify market stress. It's a lively, two-part arc: first, the operational playbook; next, how top investors at Private Equity firms think about value creation inside portfolio companies.Check out the book HEREFor 20% off Deleteme, use the code TWSS or click the link HERE! Sign up for our LIVE Virtual Bootcamps! 2-Day Financial Modeling Bootcamp Master the technical Excel and accounting skills essential for investment banking, private equity, and fundamental investing. (Learn more HERE) Global Markets & Investing PlaybookA one-day crash course on the financial ecosystem, perfect for anyone seeking a big-picture understanding of how global markets and Wall Street fit together. Our content is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. (Learn more HERE)

What if the secret to organizational success isn't another management fad but a return to the basics of how work actually gets done? Don Kieffer, senior lecturer at MIT Sloan and former Harley-Davidson executive, joins me on Remarkable People to unpack the five principles of Dynamic Work Design. With stories ranging from factory floors to biotech startups, Don reveals why firefighting cultures stall progress and how small, focused experiments can unleash innovation. His new book, There's Got to Be a Better Way, challenges leaders to slow down, connect the human chain, and discover practical ways to build stronger organizations.---Guy Kawasaki is on a mission to make you remarkable. His Remarkable People podcast features interviews with remarkable people such as Jane Goodall, Marc Benioff, Woz, Kristi Yamaguchi, and Bob Cialdini. Every episode will make you more remarkable.With his decades of experience in Silicon Valley as a Venture Capitalist and advisor to the top entrepreneurs in the world, Guy's questions come from a place of curiosity and passion for technology, start-ups, entrepreneurship, and marketing. If you love society and culture, documentaries, and business podcasts, take a second to follow Remarkable People.Listeners of the Remarkable People podcast will learn from some of the most successful people in the world with practical tips and inspiring stories that will help you be more remarkable.Episodes of Remarkable People organized by topic: https://bit.ly/rptopologyListen to Remarkable People here: **https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guy-kawasakis-remarkable-people/id1483081827**Like this show? Please leave us a review -- even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally!Thank you for your support; it helps the show!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. This week, MIT / Sloan, Duke / Fuqua, CMU / Tepper, UVA / Darden, UCLA / Anderson, Emory / Goizueta, Georgetown / McDonough, Washington / Foster, Vanderbilt / Owen, Georgia Tech / Scheller, Maryland / Smith and Minnesota / Carlson have Round 1 application deadlines. Oxford / Said has its Stage 2 application deadline. Graham highlighted several upcoming events being hosted by Clear Admit in the upcoming months, including a Real Humans series, a deferred admissions series and a series focused on MBA programs in different regions of the United States. Graham also highlighted our next livestream AMA, scheduled for Tuesday, October 28; here's the link to Clear Admit's YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/cayoutubelive. Graham noted that two new business-related academic programs were announced last week: Wharton's MS in Quantitative Finance and Georgetown's MS in Business Analytics. Graham then noted two recently published admissions tips, focused on MBA interview etiquette and the role of letters of support. Graham discussed the recently published Real Humans series focused on NYU / Stern. This led to a brief discussion on GMAT preparation. We then discussed the Class of 2027 admissions profile from Wharton, within the context of class profiles from Anderson and Johnson. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected three ApplyWire entries. This week's first MBA admissions candidate has a strong international focus and can speak several languages. They have a super GRE score of 331. This week's second MBA candidate is a West Point graduate with a 2.76 GPA. We discussed potentials for mitigation, which might include retaking the GRE. They currently have a 321 GRE score. The final MBA candidate is from Pakistan and has a terrific GRE score of 335. They are working in energy sector consulting and looking to switch to a more health-care focused career. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Have you ever considered that angel numbers, gut feelings, and “random” synchronicities weren't just coincidences… but clues? In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Tara Swart to talk about the brain science behind intuition, the senses we never talk about, and the forgotten wisdom that could reconnect you with your full potential. Dr. Tara Swart is a neuroscientist with a PhD, a former Oxford-trained medical doctor, a Senior Advisor at MIT Sloan, Chief Science Officer at Dirtea, and the best-selling author of The Source, which has been translated into 38 languages. She's advised high-level leaders across the globe, and this isn't her first time on The Goal Digger Podcast! Check out her interview from 2021 all about the neuroscience of manifestation! Whether you call it your gut, your inner knowing, or something greater, this conversation will give you a new lens on how to make decisions, overcome blocks, and open yourself to what's possible. So if you've ever wondered whether those “signs” you've been noticing are just coincidences or if they're trying to tell you something, you're in the right place! Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/science-meets-spirituality-trust-your-gut  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Start your risk-free Greenlight trial today at http://greenlight.com/goaldigger! Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn Ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one—no strings attached. Just go to https://www.linkedin.com/goal.  Shop SKIMS Fits Everybody collection at http://skims.com/goaldigger! Ready to see what powerful banking can do for your business? Visit http://www.mercury.com/goal to apply in minutes. Mercury is a financial technology company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column, N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust, Members FDIC. The IO Card is issued by Patriot Bank, Member FDIC, pursuant to a license from Mastercard. Working capital loans provided by Mercury Lending, LLC NMLS ID: 2606284.

Can You REALLY Talk to the Dead? MIT Neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart Says Yes—And Brings the Science to Prove It What happens when one of the world's leading MIT neuroscientists, Dr. Tara Swart (Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan and author of The Signs: The Secret Language of the Universe) loses her husband and begins receiving undeniable messages from the beyond? In this groundbreaking episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Tara Swart opens up about her journey from respected neuroscientist and leadership advisor to spiritual explorer after the sudden loss of her husband, Robin. Known globally for her work on neuroplasticity, brain science, and intuition, Dr. Swart reveals how grief led her to a profound awakening: vivid dreams, ancestral connections, angel numbers, and even a visitation she refuses to dismiss as hallucination. She blends her rigorous background in neuroscience with her lived experience, challenging us to rethink the boundaries between science and spirituality. Dr. Tara Swart breaks down: - Neuroscience of Intuition: How to train your brain to tune into instincts and signs - Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and why the brain may be filtering out reality - Grief and trauma in the body: Why talk therapy alone isn't enough - The surprising link between creativity, movement, and trauma healing - Why altered states of consciousness don't require drugs - The health benefits of ancestral healing and spiritual connection - Why beauty acts as a healing frequency for the brain - The thin line between mental illness and genius - Why she believes in angel numbers—and how they've shaped her decisions - Her most radical theory: Consciousness may not live in the brain at all This isn't just another conversation on neuroscience. Dr. Tara Swart pushes us to expand the limits of what it means to be human by merging brain science, spirituality, and the mysteries of consciousness into a powerful roadmap for life after loss, trauma, and fear. Dr. Tara Swart's latest book, THE SIGNS: The New Science of How to Trust Your Instincts: https://www.taraswart.com/the-signs/ Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can You REALLY Talk to the Dead? MIT Neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart Says Yes—And Brings the Science to Prove It What happens when one of the world's leading MIT neuroscientists, Dr. Tara Swart (Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan and author of THE SIGNS: The New Science of How to Trust Your Instincts) loses her husband and begins receiving undeniable messages from the beyond? In this groundbreaking episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Tara Swart opens up about her journey from respected neuroscientist and leadership advisor to spiritual explorer after the sudden loss of her husband, Robin. Known globally for her work on neuroplasticity, brain science, and intuition, Dr. Swart reveals how grief led her to a profound awakening: vivid dreams, ancestral connections, angel numbers, and even a visitation she refuses to dismiss as hallucination. She blends her rigorous background in neuroscience with her lived experience, challenging us to rethink the boundaries between science and spirituality. Dr. Tara Swart breaks down: - Neuroscience of Intuition: How to train your brain to tune into instincts and signs - Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and why the brain may be filtering out reality - Grief and trauma in the body: Why talk therapy alone isn't enough - The surprising link between creativity, movement, and trauma healing - Why altered states of consciousness don't require drugs - The health benefits of ancestral healing and spiritual connection - Why beauty acts as a healing frequency for the brain - The thin line between mental illness and genius - Why she believes in angel numbers—and how they've shaped her decisions - Her most radical theory: Consciousness may not live in the brain at all This isn't just another conversation on neuroscience. Dr. Tara Swart pushes us to expand the limits of what it means to be human by merging brain science, spirituality, and the mysteries of consciousness into a powerful roadmap for life after loss, trauma, and fear. Dr. Tara Swart's latest book, THE SIGNS: The New Science of How to Trust Your Instincts: https://www.taraswart.com/the-signs/ Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr Tara Swart is a neuroscientist, senior lecturer at MIT Sloan, and an author. What is intuition? We've all heard the phrase “trust your gut,” but where does that feeling actually come from? Is it grounded in neuroscience or something more mysterious? And most importantly, can you rely on it, and how do you get better at listening to it? Expect to learn what it means to trust your instincts and what really mean “trust your gut” actually means and comes from, how to tell the difference between anxiety-driven thoughts and genuine intuitive insight, what role inflammation plays when it comes to brain function, why you should be focusing on the importance of connective fascia tissue, if there really is a metaphysical element to intuition and much more… Sponsors: See me on tour in America: ⁠https://chriswilliamson.live⁠ See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://chriswillx.com/deals Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period from Shopify at https://shopify.com/modernwisdom Get up to $50 off the RP Hypertrophy App at https://rpstrength.com/modernwisdom Get a Free Sample Pack of LMNT's most popular Flavours with your first purchase at https://drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom Timestamps: (0:00) Why Do We Ignore Our Instincts? (2:05) Choosing What Feels Right Over What is Right (6:14) Is There a Difference Between Instincts and Intuition? (8:11) What is the Serotonin Hypothesis? (11:53) How Can We Determine What Feels Right? (21:27) When Logic, Intuition and Emotion Clash (23:34) Which Archetypes Struggle with Intuition? (28:35) The Effect of Brain and Gut Health on Intuition (36:21) How Do Relationships Impact Our Intuition? (43:18) The Benefits of Gratitude Practice (51:13) How to Train Yourself to Listen to Your Intuition (59:04) How Much Does Chris Trust His Intuition? (01:01:52) What is the Difference Between Being Psychic and Trusting Your Intuition? (01:04:43) Receiving Signs from ‘Beyond' (01:13:14) Can Signs Be Explained by Psychology? (01:16:44) What Might We Discover? (01:20:43) Find Out More About Tara Extra Stuff: Get my free reading list of 100 books to read before you die: https://chriswillx.com/books Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic: https://neutonic.com/modernwisdom Episodes You Might Enjoy: #577 - David Goggins - This Is How To Master Your Life: https://tinyurl.com/43hv6y59 #712 - Dr Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs: https://tinyurl.com/2rtz7avf #700 - Dr Andrew Huberman - The Secret Tools To Hack Your Brain: https://tinyurl.com/3ccn5vkp - Get In Touch: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tara Swart is a neuroscientist, a former psychiatrist, and senior lecturer at MIT Sloan. She is also a leadership advisor and works with leaders all over the world to help them achieve mental resilience and peak brain performance while also helping them improve their ability to manage stress, regulate emotions and retain information. Tara has become wildly popular for her work in bridging the gap between science and spirituality and teaching others how to use science based tools to leverage the law of attraction and utilize the power of manifestation. Today on the show we discuss: Tara's personal story of communicating after death, how to rewire your brain to heal from trauma and overcome adversity, how to manifest your dreams after experiencing hardship, why we have more than five senses and how to trust your intuition, how to use gratitude and nature to improve your mental health, and how to turn your most painful struggles into resilience and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices