Podcasts about organizational dynamics

Hosts: - Dr. Ashlee Gethner DSW, LCSW: Licensed Clinical Professional, child of a police officer - Jennifer Woosley Saylor LPCC S: Licensed Clinical Professional, child of a police officer In this episode of "When The Call Hits Home," hosts Ashlee and Jennifer, explore the unique challenges faced by first responders seeking therapy. They discuss the importance of finding the right therapist, understanding the cultural nuances of the first responder community, and maintaining confidentiality. With humor and candid honesty, they address the stigmas and barriers to seeking mental health support in this high-stress profession. Key Topics Discussed: The Unique Dynamics of Therapy for First Responders: The hosts delve into the challenges first responders face when seeking therapy, emphasizing the importance of a therapist who understands their culture and the sometimes dark humor in this community. Finding the Right Therapist: The process of finding a good therapist is likened to dating, highlighting the importance of comfort, safety, and sharing a bit of one's own background to build trust. Challenges Faced by Therapists: The hosts share stories of therapists who have been overwhelmed by the intensity of first responder experiences, stressing the need for therapists to be well-prepared and resilient. Confidentiality Concerns: They discuss the crucial aspect of confidentiality in therapy, especially for first responders, and the steps taken to ensure privacy and protection of personal information. Organizational Support and Barriers: Ashlee shares initiatives in Wisconsin to offer privilege to peer support members, aiming to provide better mental health resources and reduce stigma. Cultural Competence and Organizational Dynamics: The hosts touch on issues like infidelity within departments and how therapists must navigate complex interpersonal dynamics. Advice for First Responders Seeking Therapy: Tips for finding a seasoned and flexible therapist, understanding personal needs in therapy, and encouraging family involvement in the therapeutic process. Takeaway Message: The hosts emphasize the significance of competent mental health services for first responders and the positive impact on their well-being and job performance. They advocate for inclusivity, cultural competence in therapy, and reducing stigma to improve access to mental health support. Thank you for tuning in! Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review "When The Call Hits Home" on your favorite podcast platforms! Follow Us: - Facebook: When The Call Hits Home Podcast - Instagram: @whenthecallhitshome - Whenthecallhitshome.com #WhenTheCallHitsHome #Podcast #FirstResponderFamilies #MentalHealth --- This podcast does not contain medical / health advice. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical or mental health advice, diagnosis or treatment and should not be relied on as health or personal advice. The information contained in this podcast is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Training Velocity LLC and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the Podcast or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained in the podcast for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.  WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR LIABLE FOR ANY ADVICE, COURSE OF TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION, SERVICES OR PRODUCTS THAT YOU OBTAIN THROUGH THIS PODCAST.  Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have heard on this podcast.

Gary Hamel on Leading the Revolution Part 1   In this episode, renowned business thinker Gary Hamel discusses his book 'Leading the Revolution' with Aidan McCullen, offering an innovative action plan for companies or individuals aiming to stay ahead of the industry. Drawing on successful examples from companies like Charles Schwab, Virgin, GE Capital, and profiling innovators like Ken Kutaragi of Sony PlayStation, Hamel shares how to grow and innovate amidst market chaos. He explores the origin of revolutionary business concepts, key criteria for building activist-friendly and revolutionary-ready companies, the dangers of becoming ‘one vision wonders,' and harnessing employee imagination. The conversation also reflects on business failures, the cyclical nature of market success, and the essential need for continuous reinvention. Join for invaluable insights on thriving in turbulent times.   00:00 Introduction to Industry Revolutionaries 00:41 Exploring Revolutionary Business Concepts 00:48 Key Criteria for Building Revolutionary Companies 00:55 Avoiding One Vision Wonders 00:59 Harnessing Employee Imagination 01:11 Practical Advice for 21st Century Success 01:23 Welcoming Back a Business Thinker 01:50 Insights from Leading the Revolution 02:37 Honoring Professor Paul Hamel 03:23 Corporate Climate in 2000 03:56 Technological Advancements and Market Shifts 04:43 The Importance of Innovation 05:16 Challenges for Established Companies 06:15 Digital Transformation and Its Pitfalls 06:53 Investment in Technology 09:04 Organizational Orthodoxies 10:42 The Danger of Unchallenged Assumptions 11:19 Examples of Missed Opportunities 15:25 The Future of Retail and Education 17:23 The Importance of Humility in Leadership 18:24 Case Study: Sony's Rise and Challenges 20:44 Leadership and Organizational Dynamics 23:31 Encouraging Innovation from the Periphery 24:32 Case Study: Haier's Entrepreneurial Platform 29:07 Changing the Rules for Success 31:17 Forming Partnerships with Young Companies 32:22 Understanding Innovation Risk 36:31 De-Risking Innovation 37:55 The Importance of Intellectual Commitment 39:17 Challenges of Business Model Innovation 44:37 Strategic Planning vs. Strategy 50:27 The Illusion of Corporate Vitality 59:11 The Need for Innovative Leadership 01:01:13 Conclusion and Next Steps   Find Gary:

Welcome back to the Power of Owning Your Career Podcast! Simone Morris is joined by Dan Castle, a 30-year career veteran with a story you won't want to miss. From astronaut dreams to tech leadership, Dan's journey is a masterclass in embracing change and leveraging your strengths. He'll share his invaluable insights on career strategy, networking, and standing firm on your values. Get ready for a candid conversation on integrity, disruption, and taking control of your professional path. Dan's Bio: Dan has formal training in psychology, philosophy, information systems management, design thinking, and organizational dynamics. Dan has facilitated workshops and spoken at several organizations, worked as a TA in the graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania, facilitated workshops at Penn State University, and is currently an adjunct professor at Drexel University.  In addition, Dan is enrolled in the Doctoral program at Fielding Graduate University in Organizational Change and Development.  Dan is both a published author (2022) and TEDx speaker (2023) and believes wholeheartedly in sharing his life experiences and stories with the world.   Since the recording of this episode, Dan has taken on a new role at Oligo Security. A Time Stamp Of The Episode: 00:00 Customer Success and Organizational Dynamics 05:18 "Interview Preparation Beyond Algorithms" 09:42 Networking: Key to Opportunity 13:33 Respect: Earned, Not Demanded 14:18 "Respect is Earned, Not Given" 20:34 Commitment and Contribution Over Paycheck 23:52 "Breaking Vicious Cycles" 26:45 Finding Personal Empowerment Through Education 28:27 Podcast Guest Dan Castle Resources shared by Dan: AI References: Ethan Mollick's LinkedIn Jeremy Utley's LinkedIn Books: Think Again by Adam Grant Dan Castle's Book Connect with our guest, Dan Castle, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/castledano/. Connect with the show's host, Simone E. Morris, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/simonemorris/. To apply to be a guest on the show, visit bit.ly/pooycshowguest. ✴️ Get More Support for Your Career:

Richa Chadha is an Executive Leadership Coach, mentor, author, speaker & facilitator based in Silicon Valley. She holds an MBA and an MS in Organizational Dynamics from UPenn, specializing in the human aspects of leadership and organizational behavior. As the founder of Coachampion, she helps leaders, teams, and organizations leverage their strengths, navigate transitions, and […]

Richa Chadha is an Executive Leadership Coach, mentor, author, speaker & facilitator based in Silicon Valley. She holds an MBA and an MS in Organizational Dynamics from UPenn, specializing in the human aspects of leadership and organizational behavior. As the founder of Coachampion, she helps leaders, teams, and organizations leverage their strengths, navigate transitions, and […] The post Richa Chadha with Coachampion appeared first on Business RadioX ®.

Highlights from this week's conversation include:The Return of the Cynical Data Guy (0:14)Risks of SQL Complexity (2:16)Technical Debt in Data (4:34)Data Mesh Critique (6:38)Governance vs. Decentralization (9:55)Never Let a Stakeholder Tell You They Need a Dashboard (12:05)Dashboard vs. Table (13:34)Organizational Dynamics in Data Requests (16:35)AI and Prompt Writing (19:43)Search Techniques and User Behavior (21:20)Discussion on Code Optimization Tools (23:19)Final Thoughts and Takeaways (24:47)The Data Stack Show is a weekly podcast powered by RudderStack, the CDP for developers. Each week we'll talk to data engineers, analysts, and data scientists about their experience around building and maintaining data infrastructure, delivering data and data products, and driving better outcomes across their businesses with data.RudderStack helps businesses make the most out of their customer data while ensuring data privacy and security. To learn more about RudderStack visit rudderstack.com.

E-commerce & Channel Strategy Expert Kara Babb from High Tide Commerce joins Scott to dissect the e-commerce landscape. From navigating Amazon's vendor system to building brand strategies and launching her consultancy, Kara shares unique perspectives. Learn how viral events impact sales, how to manage brand media, and the challenges of implementing e-commerce strategies in large corporations. She also shares her framework to unlock growth, emphasizing cross-functional collaboration and the importance of focusing on business outcomes. Discover how Amazon influences broader business strategies and gain actionable insights for navigating the complexities of multi-channel sales in today's digital age.   Episode Notes: 00:30 - Kara Babb Introduction 01:55 - Kara's Journey in E-Commerce 03:00 - The Vendor Experience at Amazon 04:28 - Transition to Brand Side 06:55 - Brand Media Management 07:32 - The Role of Viral Events 10:10 - Working with Agencies 10:37 - Organizational Dynamics in Large Corporations 14:28 - Key Insights for Unlocking Growth 18:05 - Streamlining Brand Strategy 19:04 - Importance of Cross-Functional Collaboration 20:25 - Navigating Multiple Channels 23:20 - The Dual Nature of Amazon 25:50 - Why Amazon is Not the Solution for Everything 27:00 - Biggest Barriers and Impacts to Conversion 28:43 - Strategizing and Prioritizing   Website: www.hightidecommerce.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/karababb   Related Post: Amazon Marketplace Sellers: A Look at Seller Counts and Revenue Performance

Is the journal publishing process and the “game” around journal publishing forcing us to give up on big ideas and instead work on small ideas about trivial matters? We are not so sure. We think that science needs many different types of academics, and they have all sorts of different ideas, big and small, and we need outlets for expressing every single one of them. But outlets, like ideas, are not all equal. Journals are an incremental genre leaning toward rigor and thus risk type-2 errors. Book are an expansive genre learning towards big ideas – and thus risk type-1 errors. So the question is rather what type of scholar you are and whether you can handle the very different processes and mechanisms – those associated with big ideas that take a long time to develop, versus the production of smaller ideas and insights that incrementally push our knowledge forward. References Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Bechky, B. A., & Davis, G. F. (2025). Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(1), 1-22. Kallinikos, J. (2025). Management and Information Systems (in all shapes and colours) missed the wider significance of computerization and informatization. LinkedIn, . Beniger, J. R. (1989). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press. Zuboff, S. (1998). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. Basic Books. Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2004). The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. Penguin Publishing Group. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile. Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/Informate: The Two Faces of Intelligent Technology. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 5-18. boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974-2040. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy - and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton & Company. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Sauer, H. (2024). The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality. Profile Books. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New Venture Creation in the IT Hardware Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47-69. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2025). External Enablement of Entrepreneurial Actions and Outcomes: Extension, Review and Research Agenda. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3-4), 300-470. Safadi, H., Lalor, J. P., & Berente, N. (2024). The Effect of Bots on Human Interaction in Online Communities. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1279-1296. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Management (2nd ed.). Springer. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. 

Dr. Jean Latting, an esteemed figure in the realm of inclusive leadership, joins our latest episode with her profound journey from the segregated South to becoming a beacon of unity and understanding. Her story is a testament to the transformative power of thoughts and words, shaped by her family and the civil rights movements. Dr. Latting's experiences in a racially integrated boarding school informed her vision for successful multiculturalism, and her insights offer a compelling blueprint for nurturing inclusion in any environment. We unpack the elements of conscious leadership as we explore what it means to be attuned to diverse inputs and organizational dynamics. Dr. Latting illustrates the ripple effect of our choices with engaging examples of leaders fostering inclusivity by engaging with all organizational levels. This episode highlights the shared responsibility to project positive energy and drive conscious change, drawing attention to the importance of role modeling and the impact of our interactions on creating inclusive environments. Our conversation closes with practical strategies for addressing resistance to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including the importance of authenticity and constructive communication. Tune in for an episode rich with actionable insights and inspiration for a more inclusive world. What You'll Learn: • The power of conscious leadership and its impact on fostering inclusivity. • How being attuned to diverse inputs can drive organizational success. • Strategies for navigating resistance in DEI efforts. • Explore the importance of role modeling and the ripple effect of positive energy in creating inclusive environments. • Obtain actionable insights focusing on managing our mindset and constructive communication. Podcast Timestamps: (00:00) - What is Conscious Leadership? (13:12) - Inclusive Leadership is Conscious Leadership (21:58) - Building Conscious Change Through Self- and Other-Awareness (28:43) - Understanding Resistance and the Psychology of Change (47:15) - Fostering Constructive Conversations More of Jean: Jean Latting, an expert in inclusive leadership and conscious change, has dedicated over 20 years to consulting and teaching in both private and public sectors. As President of Leading Consciously and Professor Emeritus at the University of Houston, Jean empowers leaders and organizations to create transformative, inclusive environments where diversity thrives and individuals feel valued. Recognized for her contributions, she received an Outstanding Faculty Award from the University of Houston Alumni Association and has an endowment established in her honor by a Houston philanthropist. Jean's book, Conscious Change: How to Navigate Differences and Foster Inclusion in Everyday Relationships, has garnered praise for its timely insights and practical guidance, reflecting her commitment to fostering equity through human connection and conscious action. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanlattingconsultant/ Mentions:  Reframing Change: How to Deal with Workplace Dynamics, Influence Others, and Bring People Together to Initiate Positive Change by Jean Kantambu Latting and V. Jean Ramsey Conscious Change: How to Navigate Differences and Foster Inclusion in Everyday Relationships by Jean Kantambu Latting Key Topics Discussed: Positive Leadership, Conscious Leadership, Inclusive Leadership, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Multiculturalism, Positive Energy, Role Modeling, Organizational Dynamics, Cognitive Dissonance, Managing Bias, Fostering Open Dialogue, Delivering Feedback, Promoting Change, Overcoming Resistance, Personal Growth, Constructive Communication, Authentic Inclusion, CEO Success More of Do Good to Lead Well: Website: https://craigdowden.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdowden/

Fixing Dysfunctional Behaviors in Organizations   In this episode, our guest Steve Kerr shares insights from his book on reward systems. He explains how flawed reward systems can lead to irrational behaviors in employees similar to B.F. Skinner's 'blaming the rat' theory. Kerr discusses the importance of effective measurement and reward systems in organizations and provides practical steps to realign them for better outcomes. He uses analogies from the healthcare system and historical military examples to highlight the pervasive issues and solutions for leadership in various contexts. This discussion is crucial for anyone involved in organizational transformation and leadership.   00:00 Introduction to Reward Systems 00:52 Meet Steve Kerr: Leadership and Legacy 01:28 The Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B 01:49 Three-Step Process to Realign Reward Systems 02:38 Measurement and Performance: Key Insights 04:31 Healthcare System Example: Misaligned Rewards 08:08 Stretch Goals and Innovation Challenges 12:33 Military Analogy: World War II vs. Vietnam 14:28 Organizational Dynamics and Leadership Challenges 16:04 Effective Performance Reviews 20:22 Creating a Candid Culture 22:07 Conclusion and Next Episode   On the Folly of Rewarding A,While Hoping for B   Aidan McCullen, Steve Kerr, reward systems, employee behavior, BF Skinner, dysfunctional behaviors, fixing reward systems, CEO memo, leadership development, GE, Goldman Sachs, ultimate rewards, boundaryless organization, performance measurement, innovative culture, healthcare system, preventive care, stretch goals, Jack Welch, candid culture

In this episode of the Share PLM Podcast, we are joined by Brian Berger, the Vice President and Head of the Thickeners and Clarifiers Product Group at Metso. Based in Denver, Colorado, he has been leading this innovative product line since 2020. Prior to his current role, Brian was in charge of the Grinding Mills Product Line, with a global team spanning several locations: Australia, China, Sweden, Peru, Chile, and Finland.In this episode, we are discussing:⚉ Introduction to Thickeners and Clarifiers⚉ Shifting from ETO (Engineering-to-Order) to CTO (Configure-to-Order)⚉ PLM Benefits and Challenges⚉ Product Managers and Product Management Evolution⚉ Modularization and Digital Transformation⚉ Cultural and Organizational Dynamics in the Company⚉ Customer-Driven Sustainability and Lifecycle Services for Sustainability⚉ Personal Challenges and the Driving Change⚉ Navigating Career Transitions⚉ Embracing Change and Challenging the Status QuoCONNECT WITH BRIAN:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-d-berger-p-e-9b455614/ CONNECT WITH SHARE PLM:Website: https://shareplm.com/ Join us every month to listen to fascinating interviews, where we cover a wide array of topics, from actionable tips, to personal experiences, to strategies that you can implement into your PLM strategy.If you have an interesting story to share and want to join the conversation, contact us and let's chat. We can't wait to hear from you!

In this insightful episode of ScaleUp Radio, your host Kevin Brent is joined by Vanessa Pozzali, the co-founder of Synthosys, a consultancy that specialises in unlocking the hidden aspects of organisations, including culture, leadership, and building high-performance teams. Vanessa shares how Synthosys uses a unique "iceberg" model, focusing on the unseen yet critical elements that drive sustainable organisational success. Synthosys takes a deep dive into what she calls the 4C model, exploring collaboration, communication, clarity, and one crucial element she keeps under wraps! With this approach, Synthosys helps businesses transform their cultures and enhance leadership capabilities, making the invisible visible. Key Discussion Points: Synthosys' Approach to Organisational Culture: Vanessa explains how they view organisations as icebergs, addressing the hidden, often ignored dynamics that affect long-term performance. Synthosys assesses different culture types, using bespoke questionnaires to explore both conscious and unconscious company dynamics. The consultancy implements tailored workshops, leadership programs, and coaching to align a company's culture with its core values. Leadership Challenges and Development: Vanessa highlights the difficulties leaders face when transitioning from founder-led to team-driven cultures. Many leaders are promoted for their technical expertise, not leadership abilities, which can lead to challenges. She also discusses the critical role of emotional intelligence in leadership and how it can be developed through feedback and practice. Leaders need consistent support and supervision, especially to manage the feelings of isolation that can come with leadership roles. Building High-Performance Teams: Synthosys emphasises the importance of trust as the foundation for delegation and effective teamwork. Vanessa touches on the importance of clear communication, including the need to share uncertainties and ambiguities, which fosters trust and cohesion within teams. She discusses the necessity of balancing a results-driven approach with employee well-being to ensure sustainable high performance, particularly in light of changing work preferences, such as the need for flexibility and remote work options. Cultural Differences in Business: Vanessa also explores the influence of cultural differences on business dynamics, comparing the direct communication style in Italian businesses to the more diplomatic “sandwich” feedback approach common in the UK. Understanding these cultural nuances, she explains, is vital for effective leadership and communication, particularly in today's global business landscape. Make sure you don't miss any future episodes by subscribing to ScaleUp Radio wherever you like to listen to your podcasts. For now, continue listening for the full story from Vanessa.   Scaling up your business isn't easy, and can be a little daunting. Let ScaleUp Radio make it a little easier for you. With guests who have been where you are now, and can offer their thoughts and advice on several aspects of business. ScaleUp Radio is the business podcast you've been waiting for. If you would like to be a guest on ScaleUp Radio, please click here: https://bizsmarts.co.uk/scaleupradio/kevin You can get in touch with Kevin here: kevin@biz-smart.co.uk   Kevin's Latest Book Is Available! Drawing on BizSmart's own research and experiences of working with hundreds of owner-managers, Kevin Brent explores the key reasons why most organisations do not scale and how the challenges change as they reach different milestones on the ScaleUp Journey. He then details a practical step by step guide to successfully navigate between the milestones in the form of ESUS - a proven system for entrepreneurs to scale up. More on the Book HERE - https://www.esusgroup.co.uk/   Vanessa can be found here: Vanessa's Linktree: https://linktr.ee/vanessapozzali Synthosys Linktree: https://linktr.ee/synthosys

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan and Will discuss the daunting realities of raising capital for startups. By sharing insights and experiences from both first-time and repeat founders, they delve into the recurring theme of regret found amongst entrepreneurs who've gone through the funding process. Topics include the hidden costs of raising money, the pitfalls of losing focus, and the challenges of working with investors. The hosts offer practical advice on when to raise funds, how to mitigate the risks of distraction, and the importance of being selective and strategic about bringing investors on board. Whether you're gearing up for your first round of fundraising or re-evaluating your approach, this episode provides valuable lessons to help navigate the complex landscape of startup financing.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/st...Websitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn   / startups-co  Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroter  / wilschroter  Ryan Rutan  / ryan-rutan  What to listen for:00:14 The Reality of Raising Funds00:38 Founders' Regrets and Reflections02:15 The Perils of Not Getting Paid04:22 Understanding Founder Compensation11:04 Strategies for Better Compensation13:24 Challenges with Profitable Companies15:02 The Pressure to Grow or Bust15:16 The Dilemma of Raising Too Early15:47 The Vulnerability of Early Stages16:22 The Importance of Timing in Fundraising16:56 The Pitfalls of Early Funding17:28 The Distraction of Fundraising20:34 The Impact of Investor Expectations28:23 The Challenge of Having a New Boss31:50 Key Takeaways and Final Thoughts

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan and Will debunk the myth that each startup venture becomes progressively easier with experience. They explore the truths and fallacies surrounding repeat entrepreneurship, sharing personal anecdotes and insights from their extensive history of building and acquiring startups. Discussing expectation management, the double-edged sword of experience, and the harsh realities of repeating past mistakes, Ryan and Will emphasize that while experience offers certain advantages, it does not guarantee success in new ventures. They also highlight the emotional resilience required to endure the cyclical nature of startup challenges and the ever-present difficulties of achieving product-market fit and successful marketing, regardless of prior victories.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/st...Websitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn   / startups-co  Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroter  / wilschroter  Ryan Rutan  / ryan-rutan  What to listen for:00:15 Debunking the Myth of Easier Startups01:27 The Double-Edged Sword of Experience02:32 Drawing from Multiple Experience Buckets05:15 Expectation Management in Startups09:39 Avoiding Duplicate Mistakes13:01 Raising Capital: Lessons Learned15:16 The Value of Experience in Decision Making17:07 The Reality of Investor Promises17:17 Understanding People: A Founder's Key Skill18:38 Emotional Maturity in Leadership20:00 Challenges That Never Get Easier21:57 The Ever-Changing Landscape of Product Market Fit25:39 Marketing Struggles for Experienced Founders27:40 The Pain of Failure: It Never Gets Easier31:30 The Value of Experience and the Role of Luck32:38 Join the Startups.com Community

How do the very best leaders cultivate team confidence? In this interview, I speak with leadership expert Glain Roberts-McCabe about the role leaders play in building confident and empowered teams.Tune in to explore:- The main factors that contribute to team confidence- Tactics you can use to foster a resilient and cohesive team culture- The difficulties in balancing team output with team moraleThis is an insightful conversation for leaders of all kinds who want to give their teams the best possible chance of success and fulfilment.  Click here to check the full show notes.

Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter explore the intricate and often misunderstood relationship between founders and their startups. They tackle the question of whether the founder works for the startup or vice versa, challenging common perceptions shaped by societal views and political discourse. The hosts discuss the unspoken 'contract' entrepreneurs form with themselves, the inevitable trade-offs of startup leadership, and the sacrifices founders make for their companies. They emphasize the emotional and financial tolls on founders, the discrepancies in founder-employee dynamics, and the need for startups to stay aligned with the founder's original mission. This episode stresses the importance of maintaining control and balancing personal goals with the demands of the startup ecosystem.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/st...Websitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn   / startups-co  Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroter  / wilschroter  Ryan Rutan  / ryan-rutan  What to listen for00:35 The Founder vs. Startup Dilemma00:51 Political and Economic Perspectives01:40 The Reality of Founders' Lives03:00 The Initial Contract of Founders05:11 The Shift in Founders' Roles06:15 The Permanent Struggle of Founders07:43 Revisiting the Founders' Goals10:34 The Reality Check15:30 The Investor's Impact15:44 The New Boss: Investors and Liabilities16:49 The Pain of Payroll: Sacrificing Founder Salaries19:10 Credit Cards and Cash Flow: Desperate Measures21:20 The Founder's Dilemma: Sacrifice and Equity23:42 The Reality of Startup Success: Rare and Elusive28:28 The Emotional Toll: Identity and Relationships31:49 Conclusion: Building a Startup That Works for You

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter explore the vital importance of maintaining a startup's foundational 'why' – the core reason for its existence. They discuss the excitement and clarity that founders experience in the early stages, the operational challenges that can cause them to lose sight of their mission over time, and practical strategies for rekindling that original passion. Through personal anecdotes and examples of companies like Apple and Google, the hosts underscore how minor compromises can erode a company's core mission. They emphasize the need for founders to continuously revisit and reinforce their original motivations to ensure sustained passion and purpose. Listeners will gain insights on recognizing when they've deviated from their vision, the benefits of realigning with the 'why', and actionable steps to recenter their focus, all while maintaining clarity and engagement within their teams.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/st...Websitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn   / startups-co  Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroter  / wilschroter  Ryan Rutan  / ryan-rutan  What to listen for00:29 The Importance of 'Why' in Startups03:17 Losing Sight of the 'Why'05:24 Diagnosing the Loss of 'Why'09:21 The Impact of Compromises15:56 Tiny Compromises Lead to Major Changes18:48 The Slippery Slope of Compromises19:50 Losing Sight of the 'Why'20:50 Rediscovering the Purpose22:12 The Importance of Remembering the 'Why'24:30 Practical Steps to Reconnect with the 'Why'30:55 Identifying and Correcting Misalignments35:36 The Constant Battle to Maintain the 'Why'

Gain valuable insights and strategies to effectively balance flexibility with accountability in a remote work environment. Whether you're a remote worker or managing a remote team, this episode offers essential guidance for maintaining productivity and trust.  In this Episode: LindaAnn Rogers, Tom Bradshaw, Dr. Matthew Lampe, Dr. Martha Grajdek, Emi Barresi, Lee Crowson, Nic Krueger, Peter Plumeau, Rich Cruz, Natasha Desjardins   Visit Us https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an Open-Mic event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References   Eseryel, U. Y., Crowston, K., & Heckman, R. (2021). Functional and visionary leadership in self-managing virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 424-460.   Krehl, E. H., & Büttgen, M. (2022). Uncovering the complexities of remote leadership and the usage of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative diary study. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(3), 325-352.   Newman, S. A., & Ford, R. C. (2021). Five steps to leading your team in the virtual COVID-19 workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), 100802.

In this Episode: Dr. Jeremy Lucabaugh, Tom Bradshaw, Lee Crowson, Dr. Martha Grajdek, Natasha Desjardins, Nic Krueger, Peter Plumeau.   Visit Us: https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an Open-mic Event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References:   Alliger, G. M., Cerasoli, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176-184.   Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2003). Flourishing under fire: Resilience as a prototype of challenged thriving.   Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2016). Resilience capacity and strategic agility: Prerequisites for thriving in a dynamic environment. In Resilience Engineering Perspectives, Volume 2 (pp. 61-92). CRC Press.   Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological resilience and thriving in high achievers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(1), 46.   Seville, E., Van Opstal, D., & Vargo, J. (2015). A primer in resiliency: Seven principles for managing the unexpected. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(3), 6-18.   Stoverink, A. C., Kirkman, B. L., Mistry, S., & Rosen, B. (2020). Bouncing back together: Toward a theoretical model of work team resilience. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 395-422.

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan and Will discuss the complex dynamics of maintaining control in a startup. They explore the misconception that not having investors means maintaining control and highlight the various ways founders inadvertently lose control—from customers, co-founders to their own staff. They delve into the idea that control is a currency spent for growth and emphasize the importance of understanding and strategically managing the areas founders are willing or unwilling to cede control over. They reveal how seemingly routine decisions can lead to significant shifts in control, urging startup founders to be proactive in understanding and negotiating these exchanges.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/st...Websitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn   / startups-co  Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroter  / wilschroter  Ryan Rutan 

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan and Will explore the complexities of encouraging their children to become entrepreneurs. With nearly 300 episodes discussing the founder's journey, they delve into whether they'd want their kids to follow the same path. They recount personal experiences, weigh the pros and cons, and discuss the importance of allowing their children to make their own decisions. The episode emphasizes providing the tools and support to foster independent choices rather than directing them towards entrepreneurship.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:00 Introduction: The Founder's Dilemma00:55 A Proud Yet Conflicted Parent02:27 The Value of Experience05:03 Balancing Passion and Practicality08:10 Nurture vs. Nature in Entrepreneurship09:59 The Role of Education and Constraints16:21 The Reality of Entrepreneurship18:56 Reflecting on Founders' Struggles19:39 Balancing Optimism and Realism in Entrepreneurship19:59 The Timeless Nature of Startup Challenges21:31 Empathy and the Reality of Startup Therapy23:10 The Impact of Parental Influence on Career Choices25:23 Encouraging Authenticity in Children's Career Paths30:12 Empowering Kids to Make Their Own Decisions35:07 Final Thoughts on Raising Future Founders

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, hosts Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter discuss the evolving landscape of entry-level hiring for startups. They dive into why U.S. college graduates have fallen to the fourth pick for entry-level positions, overtaken by AI, global talent, and experienced young professionals who leverage new tools and platforms to gain relevant skills. They explore the benefits of each hiring option, debunk common misconceptions about global talent, and outline how these changes empower startups to make smarter, more economical hiring decisions. The discussion offers valuable insights for startup founders navigating the challenges of building efficient teams under tight budgets.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:00 Introduction: The Changing Landscape of Entry-Level Talent01:26 The Rise of AI in Startups03:48 Global Talent: A New Frontier07:30 Young and Hungry: The New Entry-Level10:19 Challenges and Opportunities for College Grads15:57 Resource Allocation in Startups24:06 Stop Guessing and Get the Answers24:16 The Global Talent Pool Advantage25:15 Quality Concerns and Misconceptions27:21 Parallel Validation in Startups32:51 The Rise of Young and Hungry Talent35:51 Evolving Job Market Expectations39:50 The Changing Landscape of Hiring45:20 Conclusion: Embrace the New Opportunities

Arvind Karunakaran studies the intersections of work, AI, and organizational behavior. He says AI can enhance speed and productivity in the short run, yet degrade skills over time. But it is in organizational power dynamics where AI has had its most marked impact, he says, telling host Russ Altman about situations in law firms where AI has fostered tension between paralegals and junior attorneys. It's AI and the modern workplace on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything Podcast.Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your quest. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Arvind KarunakaranConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads or Twitter/XConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/XChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionHost Russ Altman introduces guest Arvind Karunakaran, a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University.(00:02:47) Productivity vs. Skill DevelopmentThe broader impact of AI on workplace productivity and the potential skill loss among workers.(00:04:39) New Skills for the AI EraWhether new skill sets required by AI tools are emerging or if it's still too early to tell.(00:06:17) AI and Power DynamicsHow AI is influencing authority and power dynamics in the workplace.(00:09:16) Challenges of Role Re-Design with AIThe need for systemic changes in job roles and organizational structures to accommodate AI.(00:11:02) Accountability and AI in Decision-MakingThe complexities of accountability when AI is involved in decision-making processes.(00:15:14) Platforms and Power DynamicsThe role of platforms as intermediaries and their impact on authority and power dynamics.(00:20:28) AI Experimentation in the WorkplaceHow organizations are experimenting with AI and the importance of trust in these processes.(00:23:29) Rethinking Training for AI IntegrationThe necessity of innovative training methods to effectively integrate AI in workplace settings.(00:25:30) Management Strategies for AI AdoptionWays managers can approach AI integration in their organizations to foster productivity and innovation(00:28:12) AI in Gig Work PlatformsChallenges and opportunities AI presents within gig work platforms.(00:32:20) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads or Twitter/XConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan and Will discuss the challenges of managing early-stage startup teams, particularly the high likelihood of turnover and the risks of handing out equity prematurely. They talk about the emotional toll of losing key team members and offer practical advice on creating vesting schedules and setting realistic expectations to safeguard against these common pitfalls. The conversation also touches on the dynamics of initial hires, the importance of flexibility, and the need to balance passion with practical considerations in team building.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:00 Introduction to Startup Challenges00:09 The Reality of Early Startup Teams01:25 Startup Weekend Insights02:38 The First Love Analogy03:44 The Commitment Dilemma04:24 Life Happens: Unplanned Disruptions12:02 The Fragility of Equity-Based Compensation13:45 Long-Term Team Dynamics15:32 Understanding the Nature of Turnover17:44 The Emotional Impact of Employee Departure18:52 The Reality of Passion and Commitment27:20 Equity Distribution and Vesting Schedules31:50 Preparing for Inevitable Change

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, hosts Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter delve into the sacrifices that come with building startup companies. They explore the dangerous ambiguity of not having specific goals and timelines, using personal anecdotes to illustrate the costly trade-offs. Will reflects on his milestone birthday and the realization that 'later' never seems to arrive, sparking a discussion about the true worth of deferred happiness and success. The conversation underscores the importance of quantifying goals and ensuring that sacrifices made today lead to genuinely rewarding outcomes. They emphasize that the journey must be carefully balanced with immediate gratification to avoid a future riddled with regret. Through vivid storytelling, they highlight the crucial lessons for founders on how to navigate the complex landscape of ambition, sacrifice, and personal fulfillment.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:21 The Danger of Vague Goals00:57 Personal Reflections on Sacrifice02:16 Quantifying Sacrifices and Rewards04:03 The Reality of Sacrifice05:27 Anecdotes of Sacrifice15:08 The Moment of Truth18:04 The Grand Experiment in Beverly Hills18:36 The Struggles of Finding a Home in LA19:07 Realizing the Cost of Living in Bel Air20:34 Questioning the Move: A Moment of Clarity23:10 The Decision to Return to Columbus23:21 Reflecting on Sacrifices and Rewards25:42 The Founder's Paradox: Happiness vs. Sacrifice28:31 The Reality of Achieving Success35:27 Balancing Sacrifice and Returns

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan Rutan and Startups.com founder Will Schroter discuss the unrealistic expectations that many startup founders have when it comes to selling their business. They detail the common pitfalls and misconceptions about startup valuation, the differences between raising capital and selling, the realities of private equity, and the dangers of deferred compensation. With insights from their own experiences of buying and selling companies, Ryan and Will provide a candid look at how to navigate the tricky world of startup acquisitions and set more realistic expectations for exit strategies.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:00 Introduction to Startup Acquisitions00:16 Realistic Expectations in Business Sales01:09 Understanding the Acquisition Process01:37 Our Acquisition Experience02:29 Challenges in Closing Deals04:31 The Importance of Direct Communication07:08 The White Knight Fallacy13:07 Investor Expectations vs. Reality20:35 The Figma Acquisition: A Case Study21:12 Understanding Market Leadership and Valuation21:44 The Reality of Acquisition Multiples24:53 The Spectrum of Potential Buyers26:07 Private Equity: The Predatory Buyer28:32 The Harsh Truths of Selling a Startup32:53 Cash vs. Deferred Compensation39:15 Managing Expectations in Startup Exits

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter discuss the often overlooked costs of ambition in the startup world. They explore how ambition, while necessary for building innovative companies, can become a debilitating force, leading to severe health issues, strained relationships, and emotional burnout. Using personal anecdotes and analogies, they emphasize the importance of recognizing the tipping point where ambition becomes more detrimental than beneficial, and advocate for a balanced approach to sustain long-term personal and professional health.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for00:00 Introduction to Ambition in the Startup World00:30 The Double-Edged Sword of Ambition01:27 The Escalating Costs of Ambition02:18 Ambition's Impact on Founders' Lives05:22 Personal Stories of Ambition and Sacrifice12:52 The Cultural Reward of Sacrifice16:16 Understanding Technical Debt and Burnout16:58 The Hidden Costs of Ambition17:06 Financial Struggles and Early Warning Signs18:20 Impact on Relationships20:40 Mental Well-being and Isolation23:55 The Ultimate Price: Physical Health27:12 A Rational Perspective on Work-Life Balance28:46 Final Thoughts and Advice

In this episode we discuss the current state of the startup ecosystem, which they describe as a 'silent recession.' Despite economic indicators suggesting otherwise, many startup founders are struggling with reduced capital flow and stagnating customer acquisition. The episode delves into the effects of the economic downturn on startups, the impact of investor behavior, and the historical context leading up to the current situation. Ryan and Will emphasize the importance of resetting expectations, adopting a survival mindset, and making tough decisions to ensure longevity in this challenging environment. While this period is difficult, there is always light at the end of the tunnel for those who can weather the storm.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:08 The Silent Recession in Startup Land00:38 The Reality of Founders' Struggles02:25 Economic Indicators vs. Founders' Experiences04:39 The COVID-19 Economic Magic Trick06:03 The Shift in Startup Funding Dynamics11:15 The Onset of Economic Challenges12:20 The Impact on Startup Operations16:14 VCs Halt Investments16:50 Impact on Startups17:35 IPO Implosions18:20 VCs' Strategic Pause19:56 The Domino Effect22:56 Navigating the Downturn27:39 Survival Strategies31:37 Looking Ahead33:07 Join the Startups.com Community

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan Rutan and Will Schroeder navigate the complexities founders face regarding success and societal scrutiny. They delve into the common critiques founders encounter about their profits and perceived entitlement while emphasizing that success should be celebrated not vilified. The conversation provides a detailed look at the multiple layers of taxation startups endure and the misconceptions surrounding founder wealth. They also highlight the emotional toll and risk involved in building a startup, offering insights into the importance of supporting founders and normalizing success.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for:00:00 Introduction to the Startup Therapy Podcast00:46 The Stigma of Founders' Success04:47 The Burden of Taxes on Founders13:55 The Lack of Support During Failure16:06 Reflecting on College Days and Financial Struggles16:25 The Reality of Startup Life17:25 Deserving Success and the Guilt Complex18:50 Comparing Founders to Other Professions21:36 The Value of Innovation and Hard Work25:36 Addressing Income Inequality and Fairness28:42 Encouraging Charitable Giving and Community Support30:12 Join the Startups.com Community

In this episode we discuss the myth of the 'bet it all' startup mentality. They highlight the importance of downside risk planning and how successful risk management plays a crucial role in startup successSign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to listen for:00:00 Introduction to Startup Therapy00:28 The Myth of Betting It All01:36 The Reality of Downside Protection06:18 Case Study: The Zirtual Acquisition11:24 The Importance of Backup Plans18:58 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, we discuss the common struggles of making money in the startup world. They explore the 'noble' but flawed narrative that founders shouldn't pay themselves, why aiming too big too soon can prevent profitability, and the cycle of raising funding that often leaves founders broke.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:00 Introduction to Startup Therapy00:23 The Broken Narrative of Not Getting Paid02:35 Self-Sabotage and Going Too Big04:08 The Funding Trap05:41 The Harsh Realities of Raising Money12:07 The Never-Ending Hunger of Startups14:36 Reinvesting in Growth15:06 The Reality of Increased Liabilities15:59 The Fear of Taking Money Off the Table17:00 The Importance of Paying Yourself18:14 Balancing Profit Sharing and Salaries19:07 The Misconception of Startup Growth21:13 The Dangers of Not Taking Money Off the Table26:09 Common Sense in Startup Land27:08 Conclusion: Get Paid Now

In this episode, we discuss the potential obsolescence of venture capital due to advancements in AI technology. We explore how reduced startup costs and increased efficiency might reshape the future of funding in the startup ecosystem.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:00 Image a World Without Investors02:16 The Rise of AI and Its Impact03:01 Cost Reduction in Startups06:05 The Future of Staffing and Marketing08:37 Automation in Back Office Operations13:04 The Changing Role of Investors24:21 The Reality of VC Advice27:57 The Future of Capital Needs31:22 AI's Impact on Investment34:40 Reimagining Investment Models40:20 The Democratization of Startups

Gain valuable insights and strategies to effectively balance flexibility with accountability in a remote work environment. Whether you're a remote worker or managing a remote team, this episode offers essential guidance for maintaining productivity and trust.  In this Episode: LindaAnn Rogers, Tom Bradshaw, Dr. Matthew Lampe, Dr. Martha Grajdek, Emi Barresi, Lee Crowson, Nic Krueger, Peter Plumeau, Rich Cruz, Natasha Desjardins   Visit Us https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an Open-Mic event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References   Eseryel, U. Y., Crowston, K., & Heckman, R. (2021). Functional and visionary leadership in self-managing virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 424-460.   Krehl, E. H., & Büttgen, M. (2022). Uncovering the complexities of remote leadership and the usage of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative diary study. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(3), 325-352.   Newman, S. A., & Ford, R. C. (2021). Five steps to leading your team in the virtual COVID-19 workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), 100802.

A question we routinely ask in this podcast series is “What does it take to be a highly effective leader?” Join me as I deeply explore this question with Kevin Ford, CEO of Calian over a special 4-part series.  In particular, Kevin and I unpack an idea that profoundly resonates with each of us; the Chief Awareness Officer. We both agree that awareness is the most foundational and critical element of leadership excellence, especially when it comes to the Corner Office. In this opening episode, Kevin and I introduce the idea of a Chief Awareness Officer. We also draw on the power of vulnerability and transparency in leadership, as Kevin reflects on his journey through major companies like IBM. Learn how admitting you don't have all the answers can foster a culture of curiosity and collaborative problem-solving, ultimately enhancing collective awareness and informed decision-making. We'll also explore how to harmonize hard metrics with the human elements, like body language and energy, to lead more effectively.  This 4-part series is a must-listen for anyone aiming to cultivate a daily practice of awareness, ensuring your organization remains resilient and successful amidst constant evolution and disruption. What You'll Learn: • Dive into the concept of a Chief Awareness Officer and why it is so important to executive excellence. • Understand the multifaceted nature of awareness. • Explore the importance of vulnerability and transparency in building awareness as a leader. • Learn how collaborative problem-solving enhances collective awareness. • Discover the critical importance of balancing hard metrics with human elements when it comes to maximizing long-term performance. • Understand the necessity of continuous curiosity and learning for personal and organizational success. Podcast Timestamps: (00:00) – Why the Best CEOs Take on the Role of Chief Awareness Officer (09:50) - The Benefit of Not Having All of the Answers for You and Your Organization (16:34) – The Best KPIs Include the Human Element (21:33) – Looking Ahead for What's to Come In this Special 4-Part Series More of Kevin Ford: Kevin is the President and CEO of Calian Group, a solutions company with services in health, IT, systems engineering, and more. Leading the company since 2015, Kevin focuses on teamwork, integrity, and commitment. As you'll hear in this series of episodes, he's aware of how he works with others, affects them, and can improve himself. Kevin is also proud to shine a light on how we can improve our leadership by improving ourselves. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-ford-5426948  Key Topics Discussed: CEO Mindset, Chief Awareness Officer, Self-Awareness, Positive Leadership, Effective Leadership, Organizational Dynamics, Market Insights, Vulnerability, Transparency, Problem-solving, Learning, Adaptation, Resilience, Organizational Success, Authentic Leadership, Adaptability, Confidence, Resilience, Overcome Obstacles More of Do Good to Lead Well: Website: https://craigdowden.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdowden/

The Irreplaceable Founder. Ryan Rutan and Will Schroter discuss the irreplaceable role of founders in startups. They explore why removing a founder often leads to failure, the unique value and vision founders bring, and the difference between operational tasks and the founder's core contributions.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:00 Founder's Role in a Startup01:16 Challenges of Replacing a Founder03:04 Founder's Vision05:43 Founder's Passion07:02 Founder's Decisions09:17 The Unique Value of Founders20:06 Sales Process and Financials22:49 Management by Walking Around25:28 Risk Tolerance in Founders vs. Hired CEOs33:07 Challenges of Replacing a Founder37:54 Join the Startups.com Community

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, Ryan Rutan (CMO at Startups.com) and Wil Schroter (CEO at Startups.com) discuss the importance of saying yes to growth opportunities that startups have not previously tried. They emphasize that startups thrive by committing to new challenges, even if the path isn't immediately clear, and how this willingness to stretch can affect interactions with customers, investors, and staff. Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/

Why sometimes, less is more? Ryan Rutan and Will Schroeder discuss the misconception that reaching revenue milestones in startups will solve all problems. Explore how each milestone brings new challenges, why growing liabilities can be riskier than anticipated and the importance of balancing growth with stability.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:00 The Illusion of Milestones02:46 Scaling Challenges05:33 Weight of Responsibilities13:37 New Nodes of Problems16:21 The Reality of Scaling a Team20:05 The Myth of Effortless Wealth22:59 The Importance of Sustainable Growth26:20 The Pitfalls of Chasing High Valuations28:22 Setting Realistic Business Goals30:24 How to Enjoy Your Business

In this episode of the Startup Therapy Podcast, we discuss the inefficiencies and dangers of making decisions by committee. Why committees often fail and why founders should avoid relying on them for critical decisions. Tune in to learn why decisive, individual leadership is key to startup success.Sign up for the Startups Newsletterhttps://www.startups.com/newsletterResources:Startup Therapy Podcast https://www.startups.com/community/startup-therapyWebsitehttps://www.startups.com/beginLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/startups-co/Join our Network of Top Founders Wil Schroterhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/wilschroter/Ryan Rutanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-rutan/What to Listen For00:00 Intro01:34 The reality of committee decision-making07:06 The problem with collective accountability11:38 The downside of inclusive decision-making15:38 The myth of the best decision17:46 The importance of accountability23:04 The danger of removing consequences28:27 Leadership is about making the tough decisions

Join Rick Cheatham as he explores the intricacies of decision-making with Emma Nyström, Associate Director and Libby MacKenzie, Director. Together, they dissect the four essential elements—authority, evidence, social dynamics, and committed action—and offer practical strategies for improving decision-making processes. From reframing authority structures to fostering psychological safety, this episode provides actionable insights for leaders navigating the complexities of decision-making in today's dynamic.   For a transcript, click here.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Daniel Armanios, BT Professor of Major Programme Management and Chair of Major Programme Management at University of Oxford, Saïd Business School. The pair discuss the importance of research, the type of valuable research and the post evaluation of major programmes."And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously you want it within the program but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places.  I've been really thinking about this a lot because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?" – Daniel ArmaniosDaniel's research and teaching integrates civil engineering and organizational sociology to better understand how organizations coordinate to build, manage, and maintain infrastructure systems. His findings inform efforts to advance sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, while also alleviating systemic and persistent inequities within such systems.Key Takeaways:The distinction of megaprojects and major programmesThe importance of transparent assumptions and data research in major programmesStudying major programmes at a component levelWhere do we want resilience in major programmes?If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.The conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedInFollow Riccardo on LinkedInFollow Daniel Armanios on LinkedInDaniel Armanios' published workRead Riccardo's latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.comTranscript:Riccardo Cosentino 0:53Hello, everyone. Today here with Daniel Armanios. How are you doing Daniel?Daniel Armanios 1:01Hey, how are you, Riccardo? Pleasure to be here.Riccardo 1:03Daniel joins us today from Oxford. Could you introduce yourself a little bit for the listeners that might not be familiar with yourself?Daniel 1:12I'm the BT Professor and Chair of Major Programme Management at the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. I was formerly in a school of engineering, which I'm sure will be a fun discussion later on. I was an assistant and associate professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. I guess the best way very symmetrically, to understand myself and my research, I'm really an organizational theorist that studies how organizations coordinate to roll out to develop to maintain very large-scale initiatives, what some call major programmes, some call major projects, some called mega projects, I'm sure we can get to discussion of the nuances and differences. But essentially, I'm an organizational studies theorist that studies large-scale initiatives in engineering social programs and the like, and kind of published widely as a result.Riccardo  2:14I've come across you, as I was finishing my master's in Major Programme Management at Oxford, you were starting, your chair. And I've been very keen to be talking to you because obviously, we represent is such a big institution with so much gravitas in the major programme space, I was really looking forward to talking to you. So today, I think the overarching topic that I would like to cover today, I think is the importance of research in major programme and the importance of research in creating better outcomes for four major programmes. That's just the general theme, but I'm sure we can get into a more detailed conversation. From your perspective, why is research important to achieve better outcomes in major programme? Why can't the private sector and practitioners just get on with it? And then it's a bit of a leading question.Daniel 3:09There is attention always with major programmes, right? All of us, I mean, all of us who research it or those who put it in practice, especially since we don't often find ourselves in a position, practitioners, to manage large-scale major programmes, the temptation as we've seen from a lot of prior work is that this is such a unique thing and this is so it's so important and of you know, call it an n-of-one. And I think there is some aspects of every major programme that have nuance. But often, you know, when you're trying to start something, it's nice to know, where what we know systematically from prior things, and that just simply requires data analysis, right? How do you how can you empirically as best as you can, with data, collecting it, being transparent about your assumptions, transparent of what you found? Could that at least get us at a starting point, with a major programme we take on in the future? And so I think, empirically, it's quite important. That said, and maybe why there's difficulties is that there's also challenges with trying to do that data. I don't know if that's where we're gonna go next. But essentially, you know, a lot of this requires post evaluation of major programmes. And often, once you've delivered a major programme, you kind of want to be done and move on to the next one, but often that post hoc evaluation really matters. So if we take an empirically driven approach, it also fundamentally changes how we think of the entire major programme lifecycle, we're not just thinking about the planning, delivery, and then kind of the handover to the sponsor, whoever is going to operate the system, but also thinking post evaluation. What did it move? Did the needle move in certain ways? How can we learn from past? So it does require data. And then also the other challenge is as we build consensus for certain models and frameworks, there is a danger that we go flip the pendulum the complete other way, which is certain kinds of tools, techniques become the way to do things. And I think, at the same time, you want to balance between what were the conditions that allow those things to happen. So kind of long story short, we need an empirical basis by which to inform our decisions so that we truly know what is unique about the program we're managing versus what we know about the past, ideally, with comparative groups. But that means that we make sure that in our own major programme lifecycle we build in faculties and facilities and capacity to contribute existing data. And that requires a little different thinking about when the major programme, let's say, quote-unquote "ends". And at the same time, you know, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, you also want to be able to say, really not just the data you gather on the programme itself, but the conditions around it so we can see what kinds of tools, what kind of approaches work for what kind of conditions so that you can be both empirically informed, but also nuances to where those empirical data and insights match with the kind of context you're in. And that's a I think a wider conversation happening.Riccardo  6:44I want to dive into a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, obviously, the uniqueness of program management, of major programmes are, obviously, they're so big that it's difficult to have two running in parallel or being able to test in practice these major programmes. However, what's your view on the fact that yeah, maybe the major programme is unique, and because it's big and complex, and it's very dependent on the region, and other factors, but the sub-elements of the programme are actually repeating across multiple programmes. So you know, you have stakeholders on every single programme, you have a project sponsor on every single programme, you have group of people, subcontractor, supply chain, I mean, those things are not unique. And so I think you talk about the conditions, I think that's part of that. So is there a way of studying major programmes at the component level, which I think is that what we tend to do in the MMPM is really break it down and applying knowledge to the single components. What's your view?Daniel 8:05I think, an emerging trend, which is typically up to this point, my read is when we think of large-scale initiatives or big things, let's say, there's we usually treat major programmes and let's say mega projects or major projects as synonymous terms and I think if you see where major programmes is going, they're increasingly more distributed. So if you look at major initiatives around cryptocurrency, blockchain, it's not like there's a central convener that can move things, right? If you think of modular infrastructure construction, you're literally fabricating skews one place, putting it another place. Right? And so you're dealing with a more distributed, more decentralized system. And I think that's now creating some interesting divergence between mega projects and major programmes because when you think of mega projects, you're thinking of it as a unitary, kind of whole, because at some point, even though there's multiple organizations, you'll convene at some centralized sites. That's at least the assumption. With major programmes, if you think of it, it's more of a portfolio, which precisely gets to your point, then it becomes interesting to think of two things. One is, let's break up the bit of components and see is there something we can learn repeatable within the components? But also, is there some nuance we can understand of how things link together in appropriate ways? Should we modularize as one argument is or should we think of it more holistically as a system? Now how do I land on what we can learn is I think the research to date of that resources available, it's often focused on the intended plan or outcome for the project. And usually it's the Iron Triangle- time, cost, scope or quality, if you will, and did it achieve that or not why or why not? Let's account for these overruns. So it's more about the ends, right? So I've said this was gonna be my end, let's check at the end of the project. Did we achieve it? Now, empirically, that has some really useful facets, which is, you kind of comparing a project to itself, which is really nice. You can do comparisons, you get a sense of maybe how to help with the planning, how to avoid some of what to build in. But the process of learning by which we could have reconciled some of these overruns is a bit more difficult. So I think there's a set of resources focusing on the ends, right, in learning, I think, where you're coming from, to understand what is repeatable, repeatable is a process. So I think where some other research is going and where I've been interested in is just chronically what people are doing over time. Can we find patterns? Is there a way to go about effective stakeholder engagement? Not did we get stakeholders' approval in the audit, and it's more of the outcome? It's more how did we go through it? Was it, you know, were there certain things you did at certain times bring in certain organizations? Was that effective as opposed to not because then at that point, you can give something really useful to the manager that they can actually act as opposed to? Here's outcomes you want to worry about, we know that there's going to be this potential slippage, let's account for it in the planning. But that doesn't get much information in the process. So I think there's a lot of potential empirical research to be done on can we come up with replicable methods, means, while also being mindful of, you know, some of the risks calamities that have happened from the ends. And then that way, you really understanding what's repeatable, and not just, you got something that was effective and here's the practice. But how did that unfold over time and change? So you can still be quite repeatable. But recognizing repeatability is a process, right? And so maybe there's process models we can do, looking at projects at different slices of the timeframe. And then we can think about what it is they're doing over time? And is there some sequences that we can learn that are repeatable, that go well, or when you start hitting a fall, and then that way, as a kind of final point, if we can do that, then perhaps we can even develop early warning signs, you know, always at this step two of the process, there is something where things derail, avoid them, and you can start seeing the early warning signs. And that way, I think you can still come up with something repeatable, but more in the means of something you can action, as opposed to just be aware that these things go there's slippage overall in the project plan for it, which is important. Don't get me wrong. But then we could develop a process by which are early warning signs to develop. And that gray area is a different kind of empirical approach. But in that sense, you could then sort of see what is repeatable? What's even automatable? If we talk about future trends and what are things you need to be like spinning time on the critical path to be careful on? So research on the means, I think would be where things I think should be going and are starting to go as opposed to just the outcomes.Riccardo  13:23I think you mentioned a couple of times is historically we always focus on the postmortem. And typically a postmortem on things that went badly. And so you have this back, back catalogue of project that went bad, but there's very few post mortem on project that went well, because ultimately if you went well, you don't have to, you don't have to worry about it. I think that has been the approach. And as you said, with this, I think the problem with major project or large, large ventures is that they're so time-consuming and so draining that when you're done, you're done. You just want to move on.Daniel 14:03I would say on this point, actually, this is where it gets really interesting in the research, to compare the trends and major programme research, mega project research of again, I see a distinct what's you know, it's in a class versus how entrepreneurship research is. So entrepreneurship research suffers almost from the exact opposite issue, which is, they always focus on the big successful ones. And the failures are kind of not known because they're kind of censored out of the population before you can really study them. Right? And so you have a kind of a success bias there. In major programmes, because the ones that keep going on they keep taking more cost of you get these kinds of epic failures that are doing. And I think it's really important to be mindful is why it could be that there's some very successful projects that did the same exact thing as some of the failures and didn't have that result. The same thing with success with ventures, maybe someone really failed trying everything and didn't work out. So, again, this gets back to the first problem we were talking about, which is, if we can compare success with failure and really address that kind of empirical bias, then we can really see what is common across all projects? And where are they really different? Where is it really unique this one, but we can't do that if we're not grounded on a similar project for which had a different outcome, but had a, you know, set of similar and different processes. That's why I think, again, focusing on the means and methods and conditioning, and hopefully with comparative cases that address, you know, the proclivities of what data we have, can really help us understand what's common across all of these, and what's really different. And then that way, we can be much more circumspect of that. So I absolutely agree.Riccardo  14:51You touched I think you, earlier you touched on you said the word conditions, right, the condition within the range of the major programme and I don't know if it's equivalent, but I refer often to it as a complexity, you know, we're dealing with a complex system. So sometimes we don't even fully understand the relations between, with between the conditions, because it's a complex system, by definition, which is, to me to be fair was a key concept in understanding an industry that had been part of for over 20 years, but couldn't quite understand why it couldn't, wasn't working the way it was supposed to. And yeah, the condition, the complexity, and really diving into those in order to understand and I really like your example where, you know, you might have the same condition but different outcomes. Because of and I think that's inherent with complexity, or complex system is just you don't fully understand the interrelations.Daniel 16:57This is why I think, in our programme and just in major programmes in general, there's an increasing consensus to treat this like a system. Right now, I think one of my colleagues at Oxford, Harvey Mahler, has been focusing on different forms of complexity. And what he basically says is there's complexity within the project as well, literally, what are the tasks and work to be done, the harder systems kind of structure, what is the routine that has to be done to do this thing. But then he says, the project, though, is in a wider environment, right? So you have regulations, politicians turning over at all points, you have socio-political what you would call I think, socio-political complexity. And then by the way, it's not like, if I look at it at times zero, the same form of complex emerges at time one, because when you run the system and loop it, all of sudden things emerge and change. And so there's, he would, argue emergent complexity. Now, what's interesting about what he's saying, If we tie it to the earlier part of our conversation, we're talking about means and outcomes, we still empirically largely focus on those within the project paths, right? So when we typically measure performance outcomes, we measure even means we're thinking, I'm delivering this project, how do I measure it? And how do I benchmark that? I think we're, empirically my research has been doing too, and speaking to the points that Harvey Mahler, complex and others have said, I've been thinking about how do I understand all the stakeholders, not just within the project orbit to get it done but intersected? And that's what's driven a lot of my research on understanding, take bridge infrastructure, how does that affect not just the users or the people that have to deliver the project, like the construction companies, etc? But how does it impact the communities that are intersected, right? A lot of them are displaced. A lot of them, you know, for us to have this road go through, I benefited being in the car, but some community had to be displaced to change the right of way for that path. And that's why I think of infrastructure as one subset of major programmes. We often write in our papers that it's an arena for both intended and unintended connectivity. Me using the infrastructure, me using major programme, that's an intended use. Me delivering on the major programme is an intended use. The community that's not having this system come for them may not be welcome, right? And what that means is we need to start thinking about how do we measure outcomes, not just cost, scheduling, scope, quality of project, how that changes over time, very important, but also thinking about equity concerns, thinking about what did the project do? Does it help me employ; does it help in employment? Does it help in innovation? Things that often you measure after the project is transplanted but there are things you could do in the middle. How many? What percentage of small businesses are you bringing into the project? Is it just the big conglomerates or small businesses, I mean, this you could do even within the project. And so we're and by the way, this is this is not just because the research is intrinsically interesting, which I find, but increasingly what we're finding even in our program, sponsoring agencies are saying we've sent executives to come learn, and train. And this is not just in the Master of Science in Major Programmes, but also Major Project Leadership Academy. The sponsors are increasingly saying, we need to demonstrate the benefits of these programs, the social value, and we don't have a language to do that we really need your help in developing it. And so now, it's not us just because we're excited about the research. But this is becoming increasingly mandated, especially from sponsoring agency, the agencies sponsor the projects, especially government. And so that's opening a really exciting terrain, I think, for research, but a very empirically challenging one, because there's not a really clear set of standards. Right? So how far away from the project do you need to look at it? How many? What kind of outcomes? Is it employment, is it innovation, is it entrepreneurship? What forms of social demography should we be looking at? Let's just take disadvantage as an example. Is it by income? Is it by gender identification? Is it by ethnicity? Is it by a combination? Maybe it's, maybe that's not, maybe it's not about disadvantage. Maybe it's about a critical occupation. Where are the certain craftsmen of a certain kind of background or expertise? Is that what we should be measuring? There's not really a standard. And so until we develop that, it's going to be very hard for us to find a way to our point, what's common across these or what's not if we can't even agree on the outcome. And kind of go back to the beginning part of this question. Essentially, what I'm saying is, when we think of complexity, and if we take Harvey Mahler and other people's work seriously, Andrew Davies, others, we have to think about not just complexity inside the project itself as a system, but in the wider environment, especially the connection point being sociopolitical emergent complexity, some of that comes out of nowhere, and usually, it's outside of the project where you didn't have your lens placed. And so, you know, that kind of, kind of approach, it's early days, it's early days. I've been one of the people trying to advance and pioneers himself, even how to use your existing major programmes to sense where these disadvantage gaps are, we have a paper just came out, I think, in December actually, just starting to think, how do we even try to solve this problem? We know it's a problem, how do we try to come up with early stages to solve it?Riccardo  22:46What you just enunciated and from my learning, if we can see the major programmes, as you said, it's a system of systems. And ultimately, it's a system of systems goes through several phases, right? You got the planning, you got implementation, you got operation. And I think considering major programmes as systems or system of systems allows you to provide resilience to the major programme, right? Because ultimately, that's what, you know, these are very fragile things in the sense that, you know, you got all these external forces, that trying to influence, you know, the system, the political system changes every four years, right? And the major programme is supposed to be set up to survive the political system. So how do you go about creating that resiliency, and then you got, you know, you move from design, sort of a planning phase to design to construction, and, again, that I'm just taking one item, which is the political system, you know, it probably changes three times. And the budget program is supposed to be designed, at least that's what I've learned that it's supposed to be designed to survive that, because the cost is so high, that you can't have those influences and, you know, I might be controversial, but like, you know, it just two in my mind, it's, you know, there was lacking some of that resilience, because it didn't survive the political the various political cycles, and maybe that was not the only reason but certainly was one of the reasons you know, you have a changing government changing priorities and, and you if you haven't laid the groundwork, you know, the major problem might suffer.Daniel 24:37This provides a couple of interesting provocations one, which ties into our discussion of what we can learn empirically. I mean, it'd be really interesting to see so if you have system's systems, they intersect with each other, undoubtedly, what ends up happening is sometimes your cognitive focus is on one layer of the system, and you take for granted others which could come to your both your benefit in terms of focus, but also your detriment. And so there's kind of two questions that come from that. One is, is our cognitive awareness or salience of different parts of the system? Is there a way to do that, which kind of balances, I can't do everything, I can't pay attention to everything. And at the same time, I need to be mindful of interdependencies, and maybe a way to dynamically understand that maybe at a certain phase of the program, I focus on this layer. And another one, I focus on another one. That's one aspect. Another aspect that can be interesting is just treating the natural seeing if we can, instead of using the gates that you have to usually typically pass on a project (inaudible) formal. Is there something we learned about if we look at the systems or interlinkages? Is there a certain way in which the systems ebb and flow that there's some kind of clear phase changes just from the data? Oh, at this phase change, we shifted this way this was effective versus that way. Now, what that means, though, and I'm hoping from this podcast, what comes out of it is major programme managers willing to let researchers from the beginning, just be with them in the project and follow along. Right? And there's some opportunities, I think some are enterprising and doing this. Now, on the other hand, how do you then balance as a researcher delivering insights and findings that are both beneficial, but also say there's some detrimental issues in a way that your point acknowledges the political context? Because the problem is I think major programme managers want to know when things are going wrong and when things are improving. But if it becomes clear publicly something has gone wrong, then they're worried about the pressure they're going to get from constituents, policymakers saying, how did you, how come yet again, you're wasting money on x? But then what that does is it creates on the other side, a chilling effect that no one really wants to know when things are going, right. I mean, privately they do. Publicly, they don't. So even to do that kind of work, we're gonna have to think of a new platform, almost like I've been playing with this idea, kind of taking this model from Kiva, which is, you know, you want to bring people that needs support with people that match. I'm wondering if you could do the same thing with research, say, either policymakers or major programme managers have data. It's anonymized enough where it doesn't go back then. But enough where the research has enough detail and the researchers need data to do projects, they get to track them. And there's some way to anonymously reveal the results. Maybe there's some kind of mechanism or matching that would be for quantitative data. But for process models, you need usually qualitative data. So to answer the question (inaudible) is there some way to cognitively pay attention to different systems layers is there some natural phase changes would need access from the beginning of the project all the way to the end so you can actually match, chronicle these sequences. And also, there's some risks to it, you don't know as you're doing it, whether this project will succeed or not. Maybe you're doing it and it fails and you have a bunch of failures. And then you're learning different forms of failures, that's fine, too. But it requires also some mechanism by which practitioners feel comfortable and psychologically safe enough that they can allow researchers to come through who would still want to publish these general best practice insights, but in a way that separates them from kind of unintended consequences or pressures from that. The second point I'll make, which I think is really interesting, your use of the word resilience because I remember, I'm also you want to build kind of systems or major programmes to be resilient to these ebbs and flows. At the same time, if we take the whole kind of ecosystem or institutional perspective of in which the major programme is situated, you start having to ask yourself, what is the major programme really delivering? Is it entrenching existing interests or not? And why do I say this? I remember I was on a panel or as moderating a panel with Shalanda Baker, who is the, was advancing a lot of the energy justice initiatives at the DOE, really well-regarded developing the policies for the U.S. especially around energy. And I remember asking the president, how do you make, how do we make it more resilient? And she said something I think was so profound, I've been thinking about it daily, almost. She said, “I actually don't want these to be resilient. And I said why? She said because inequity, structural inequity is one of the most resilient things. And I thought that was so interesting because then you start asking yourself, yes, you want the programme itself to be resilient to deliver things. But if you start asking yourself, what is it we're asking these programmes to deliver? Is it really creating the kind of change we want or not? You then start asking, do you want the whole system of even selecting these projects to be resilient? I think that's quite interesting because if you think about it, structural inequities last over time. I mean, to give an example, very common example. We build infrastructure, understandably so to last as much as possible. So take a typical bridge. You know a bridge, the life cycle's what, 50 to 70 years, let's say? Imagine who was in the room in 19- let's say -50s, 1970s making those decisions, right? At best, you're using engineers who are looking at the best state of the practice, urban planners, the most well-intentioned, are looking at the best practice of the time usually thinking about the project itself. So obviously, communities are not in the room, even if it's well attended to because they don't think this is what matters at the time.Daniel 30:21At worst, you're intentionally putting people in the room that are going to do something with an agenda. Now, fast forward seventy years later, that bridge has housing next to it, has gas lines next to it, has electricity next to it, is completely locked in, and you as an engineer, you as a community worker, you as even as an anthropologist know certain people should have been in the room and we should change the practices, etc. It's really hard to revert because you would have to unravel all of those connections. I mean, to give a very simple, less controversial example. There was a bridge in Kentucky that they wanted to unravel the spaghetti junctions that led to it right. And the reason was that we now know from traffic planning that spaghetti junctions are not always the best way to deal with traffic, and they want to unravel it. To do that they would have had to remove all the houses, gasoline, such it would have added $2 billion to the project. You're dealing with a financial crisis; you're dealing with increased pressure from government to reduce costs. That's one of the first things to go. So they just worked within the existing footprint. And with that very rational decision, you've essentially kept an outdated process, outdated project in further perpetuity. Right? And so I think people when they argue these social challenges, I think, if they were so overt, in a program, those are the easier to deal with I think the fact that makes it so pernicious is it's absolutely rationalizable, you know, I'm focusing on one of the most famous studies actually of discrimination racism to get into it is by Thomas Schelling was a Nobel Prize winner in economics. And basically, argued was that most people argue the reason you have these things is that one group hates the other group, very reasonable conclusion. But he shows if I even have a preference, let's say he created like some cells and he said, I have a house and I just want half of the people around me to be like me, and think of yourself at a party right you go you want to build rapport, there's a real attraction for what we call homophily, finding similarity. And he shows if you run a similar simulation, just I want to be near people I like, you will get segregation. So it can, it doesn't have to be over perniciousness, it's you're doing the best things you can at the time. Right? And it perpetuates. Take another product, this is why it gets so fundamental visceral at this point, take a call for proposals, just to make this thing. So you have a call for proposals for contractors, let's say for a project, right, typical practice. And what are you going to typically do, you're going to go to people that have prior experience in doing this work. I mean, you need to trust that you don't want to be the one taking risk. Well, obviously that's going to already predispose the project to people with a lot of background. So anyone trying to get into the door, we've already just from the process, a very rational process, by the way, there's nothing wrong with this, you're already excluding certain groups, right? And then, you know, let's say another one, even innovation, let's say I'm a group that's doing A and I want to bring in B, well, a natural process, even as a reviewer as a project manager, well I know A, I can't say anything about B, so you refuse to review the proposal, anything else because you don't know anything about B. If everyone does that in a profession, then B will never see the light of day not because B has no merits, but no one feels equipped to do anything about it. And so then you can start seeing how innovations can get stifled. So to kind of make a long story short, I mean, we talked about the need for discussing resilience at the project level, different phase changes, maybe linkages across this and what to do, and then what that does, and also potentially, how to work practitioners working with researchers to make access possible in a way that kind of allows the findings to be unfiltered at the same time reconciles these programs in a system and then falling from that point. I think we need to be reflective of what is it we're trying to really deliver. I mean, it's not just the program, it's towards some outcome, and is that outcome, something that needs to be revised and changed? And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously, you want it within the program, but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places. I think this is a really (inaudible) kind of push has been really I've been really thinking about this a lot, because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?Riccardo  35:12As a major programme practitioner, the major programme is at the center, right? That's where I put it. And that's a very centric view of, you know, building resilience, because the major programme for me or for practitioners, and even academic to a certain degree is the core. But you're right, societally, from a societal standpoint, it might not be, you know, the lack of resilience might actually be a positive thing because it afforded the conversation, the changes on something that, you know, is gonna last for 50, 70, 100 years and so you do want those conversations to be fluid and not to be stuck. No, I love it. I think you just gave me a new perspective that I probably gonna be thinking about every day, like you, now.Daniel 36:02It's also thinking that it's a conduit, right? It could be central but it's a conduit to some end. And then you have to ask yourself, is that the end we want to achieve? Right? So a lot of our grand challenges need to be achieved at scale. It's a conduit, and I guess we're thinking we focus so much on making the conduit good and resilient. The question is, is the end where we want to go? It's interesting.Riccardo  36:24It'd be interesting for some of the listeners to understand what the new trends in major programme are research? What does Oxford see as the new trends?Daniel 36:41I don't want to speak necessarily, for Oxford, but what I've seen is as an N of 1 faculty member there is I think, there is a real interest of and I think it's because of sponsors asking for it. I think also the research and we've discussed a lot of it is major programmes in the societal context. So major programmes in society, what is it we're doing? To ensure kind of social mobility? What is it we're doing to ensure outcomes for communities? I think it's a big area, not much research on. And I kind of think of it as, you know, fundamentally, you're doing major programs to uplift communities to better something. So in some sense, by definition, a lot of major programmes are to help the trailing edge. For those that are already at the at the leading edge, they often already have the research and other things, I mean, the means to do some. So often, a lot of big major programmes, infrastructure, social programs, are sometimes at the trailing edge. How do we understand that? How do we do that? I think the other one is now we're going to the leading edge is how are we going to deal with a lot of new technologies? I mean, one of the historical issues in a lot of our industries is that they've been in transient to change or innovation. And I guess the age-old question, it's kind of a timeless question is, is this new technology, whatever it is, AI, you know, and specific forms of AI like ChatGPT, or generative learning, generative models, additive manufacturing, modular infrastructure construction or modern methods of construction in general? Are these just the fact of the week? And they're not really changing how we do things? Or are they fundamentally changing things? And I think we have that kind of existential question all the time. I think another area is, personally, tools that address what I call the collapse time cycle of major programmes. There's an interesting tension in major programming the following: major programmes last, you know, take, five plus, six plus, 10 plus years. So you have to plan and you can't end they're big. So you can't just go off the hip, you have to have a plan. I mean, you can't, like I know we've been talking about process, but that can't have, that can't be rudderless because you're dealing with very big projects. So you have to have some kind of plan some anchor. At the same time, and this is where I think the grand challenges come not just as an end, but also as an input is the climate changing, right? So 5, 10 years from now, the climate is going to be so different. And by the way, the projects I'm building now, if we want to hit even half emissions by 2030, netzero 2050, basically, the projects I'm planning today, when they roll out, have to hit half emissions, at least, right? And they have to do it in a climate that's changing. I mean, that's if you think it's an insane proposition. But that's the task, right? So now I'm thinking, how can we develop tools? How can we use these technologies not just as how they're going to disrupt an industry but can we use them fundamentally, to help kind of build anticipatory heuristics to manage that? And this is where I think things like the trends that are happening on digital twins, augmented reality could be quite interesting. Because if I can help people see a digital twin and see what it could look like if flooding happens, or if I can show how the fluid dynamics in terms of heat of a server changes with temperature change, even if it's not perfect if I can get people in that mindset, my view is that can allow them to anticipate problems that wouldn't have happened before. So I think there's a really nice frontier of what are the tools and techniques, not just to coordinate like, you know, Arup, Acom, Jacobs, Matt McDonnell, Acadia, all of these groups have these like really nice digital twin systems to kind of help coordinate to great scaffolding, I like to call it but also thinking, how do I use that to kind of help people anticipate where things are happening, not that it's going to be perfect, but at least be aware so that when this happens, they're kind of mindful of it? And so I think that's another kind of really interesting trend. And to double click on the program society, one, I think, like we discussed, how are we going to have standards by which to assess for different infrastructure systems, how we're going to incorporate these kinds of community factors, outcomes, processes, how we're going to track them? Because right now, I mean, it's such a pressing issue, at least in the context I look at, I mean, look at leveling up in the UK, they're asking for quantifiable metrics to do it. The Department of Transportation in the U.S. has now made it as part of an executive order actually writ large across the U.S. government, the department (inaudible) are asking, can you come up with equity-based frameworks, etc., because they're asked to do it. And it's coming to a head because district attorneys, county attorneys are putting in Civil Rights Act claims against infrastructure, if they feel it's disadvantaging certain groups, there's literally cases right now going on. And because there's not a standard, what I find usually, I'm not saying it's always the case, but my opinion, when you don't have a standard for something, it usually settles out of court, because no one's sure where the courts gonna land. And so then you never get to, there's no way to build precedents to address the issue. And they always get settled out of court for kind of esoteric means for which we can't understand. And so we need to find ways to build that in. And ideally, I mean, my dream would be that this is directly incorporated in certifications for different groups, like associates or project management certifications, engineering, have, you know, they have chartered engineering in U.K. Professional Engineering licenses in the U.S. that this is actually part of their exams, like you have to have a kind of a social modular equity module where you think through this, but we don't have the research body yet. And then I think the last point, in terms of even just understanding trends, the way I think of me as a researcher, I try to ask myself, what's going to matter three to five years from now, the reason I say that is because when a practitioner comes now with a problem, by the time I can find the empirical base, the database to do it, I could come up with an answer, but I just worry, it's too late. Right? The thing is, the train has already passed, right? But if I could think of what's going to matter five years from now, and take that bet, as a researcher, then I can build the basis by which all of a sudden a lot of people come. And that's how my infrastructure and equity work started. I think equity is going to matter hugely. But it started five years ago, when I started seeing the murmurings of it in certain governments. And people thought it was crazy at the time. I mean, engineers were saying, Why is engineers care about this? And I understand why because it's like, they're focusing on the delivery of the brick-and-mortar project. This is not the not an indictment on the profession. It's their focus, right. And so when I finally built it, all of a sudden, then you had some high profile cases coming in, you have administrations focusing on equity. And all of a sudden, we're one of the few games in town because we spent time doing it. But it's a bet. I mean, there's other bets I've taken where people didn't care, right? So I think with these trends, just take them with, these are best of what's going to matter, five, three to five years from now, so that we're ready to come up with answers. So to kind of summarize major programmes in society, what are the standards we're going to use by which to do that? I think understanding various disruptive technologies, are they really changing things are not in terms of the industry, or even the major programme as a whole? And then we're flipping it? Can we use technologies to help us reassess fundamental, timeless questions about this time collapse timescale? Perhaps even upskilling for the new workforce we're going to need? Could we combine augmented reality with cognitive science understand what's activated in someone's brain when they're doing certain tasks? Could that help us build a whole new workforce, especially those transitioning from one form of energy to another? So these are the kinds of things that excite me, besides often, the age old questions of how do we understand successful projects? How do we understand to deliver things on budget, on time with benefits? I think those are always going to be there. But these are kind of new trends. I see.Riccardo  44:55  Yeah. I, certainly as a practitioner, not the things I think about it regularly so that's very stimulating. So we're coming to an end but before we conclude, we, you know, we can have you on the podcast and now talk about a little bit about the MMMPM programme, the Major Programme Leadership Academy, especially because, especially with a Major Project Leadership Academy, Major Programme Leadership Academy is in no, in Canada, we started to talk more and more about the need for having capable owners and having counterparts to the private sector, they're able to engage, engage in major programmes. And so, you know, anything you can share with the listeners about, you know, the MMPM, also the MMPLA and the benefits that brings to major programmes. Daniel 46:02I think, and I say this in the context of there's some really other fascinating programs coming along, that are really pushing this, I think, in general, there should be more of these in general, because there's such a demand for people that can do this stuff, that I think the pie is only going to get bigger of need. And so I don't, you know, I want to also preface that I don't think you know, our way is the only way, I tend to be very excited about it, but at the same time, there's others, I think most of the programmes, just to put it this in the context, I think of two things that are really important about the masters of major programme management philosophically. One is it's major programmes as a social science, really, from an organizational systems perspective, but other frameworks. Now, why do I say this is because there's quite a few other programmes, very important, very crucial in advancement, but are more from a civil engineering construction side, typically. So they either focus on the construction industry, and they get into the more technical details of how do you schedule in a certain way? How do you deal with contracting in this way, etc. And we cover some of that. But I think where we come into, is looking at it from a social science perspective, and maybe give you a new nuance about not just the hard side of things, but the softer side. And why do I say that is because it then influences the second philosophical point is that the kind of the kind of students, the kind of people we attract, are really what I call reflective practitioners. They're getting practical insights from this program, but it's through taking a step back from their experience, and thinking, oh, wow, this is a new insight, how could I have rethought this point. And that reflection brings a lot of practical value, new tools of oh my gosh, if I did this in this project, it's sometimes even they're doing it at the time. And so what that means is the kind of students we usually attract. To do that, well, you need people with a wide body of experience to leverage from so our students are actually the most experienced in Oxford. The average levels of experience is usually 15 years, that doesn't mean everybody has 15 years. But to give you a sense of experienced, average age is usually 40 plus, and we get a wide set of people, because when you think of major programmes as a social science, you're thinking about the organizations and systems underlying it. The major programme for which that could apply could be everything from infrastructure to social programmes, welfare programmes, even programmes designed in areas of extreme complexity and conflict, right? And so that's what I think the MSc in general, and you know, the kinds of things we discuss and look up and there's things on the website, but we focus on design, how do you design these fundamentally, they're temporary, but they have to fit with a sponsoring organization or set of organization that are permanent? And how do you balance that? How do you find the right people to fit with that? So on? The second one is around risk, like how do you think about risk? from a project perspective? How do you come up with ways to inform how you think of risk, and then even does the values that you place on a project that change how you kind of calculate things for risk? The next one systems, right? If you think of major programmes as entirely components, how do you think through that, etc. The fourth one's around stakeholder management, how do you manage stakeholders deliver things, which leads into the commercial leadership aspect, because usually, when you're kind of linking with stakeholders, once you've kind of reached some sets of agreements, the idea is you want to formalize, have a mechanism some way to do that. Then we have a research methods class, because you do a dissertation part of the reflection process is take something you're really passionate about for three to four months, and really think even more deeply of the literature and how it helps inform practical insights. And we have performance leadership, how do you lead these kinds of complex unwielding projects that steer them towards the outcomes you're interested in? And then we think of them in a globalized context. I think there's going to be some interesting changes coming up in the horizon that are exciting and happy to talk about it at a certain point but I think this is the general architecture to date. The major project leadership academy, similar orientation, but the kind of the kind of leaders we're dealing with is a bit different, right? This is, this is a programme that's been mandated by the infrastructure projects authority in the U.K. and essentially a few years back, there was concern of all the overage in major projects, and he said, can we develop some kind of training that can help us stop that. And so the idea there is, my understanding is virtual because I, Paul Chapman leads that programme, so I don't want to speak fully on this but my sense of the program is that the idea is that you have this major project portfolio from the government that has a certain any project of a certain level is part of that portfolio. And the leaders from that programme have to go through MPLA. And it's very focused on kind of leadership of yourself. What are the things you're strong at? Where do you need help that kind of notion of incomplete leader? How do you think about again, Matt, leading this in a temporary organization? How do you build the fits together? Commercial leadership, right? How do you contract correctly? How do you establish boundaries for which this programme was going to operate? And then technical leadership, what are the kinds of competencies, specialties you need to deliver. And there's different modules for that, at the end, there's an assessment of every leader, they present an oral presentation, and there's an assessment of whether they can meet the challenges of managing a project in that portfolio. So there's a much more there's these are leaders that are either managing these kinds of major projects now looking to the next one. And, and it's very much with the U.K. government's lens in mind, I think there's real ability, if of interest, to expand this to a variety of other country contexts. I think there could be other versions of MPLA, for all sorts of countries. And so I know, there's keen interest on that we've done that in the past. So if there are leaders in Canada, leaders in other places that want to do this, this is very possible, in fact I think we're very excited by this possibility because we know the U.K. is not the only one with these challenges. And at the same time, we know that these kinds of programmes, while it has a very clear core that's very effective. Also, by the way, they do 360s at the beginning and at the end of the project with both their superior subordinates, lateral peers to kind of and we try to see how did they change over time? Do they get a better sense of who they are? What did they learn? And so it's a very individual journey through a major project that you are managing, usually, in the U.K. Government at a certain level band, that's why it's this programme. And I would, I would love to see, where does this transport? I mean, could you do it in the U.S.? Could you do it in Canada? Could you do it in Germany? Could you do it in France, could you do it in New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, right? I mean, this is I think this is a real, it's a really effective model. It seems to have made a dent in these overruns. I mean, surely we still have overruns, this happens. But I think it's really reduced that. And so and in fact, a lot of now government officials that moved up in the organization. I've come out of that program. And I think, in terms of future, what I'm hoping with the program, personally, is I'm trying that the pitch I'm giving to corporations, especially is often when they're looking for sea level promotions, or, you know, chief level promotions, they're often looking for kind of a really amazing functional champion, one of the functions to bring them above. Now, the challenge is you hit this conundrum, right? The stuff that's made them really effective in their function is not what's going to make them strong as an executive, they all of a sudden go from this to like broadening out, and they and so you get this chasm that always happens, where you jump them up to that level and everything they did well, which is deliver really important specialist competencies. Now they have to manage things they don't are not experts in. So the pitch I've been trying to make sure if corporation understands is if you want to find the grooming ground for where you're going to find some really promising C-level appointments, look at those who are managing major programmes. They usally are getting to manage those programmes that are more mid-level earlier stage in career. They have a talent they've come in, that's why they're there. But all of a sudden, they're foisted with I gotta manage this billion-pound billion Canadian dollar billion dollar plus programme or even just really highly complex programme, and I gotta manage all sorts of different parts, all sorts of multiple disciplines. And if they're good at that, why can't they be a CTO, a COO, a CEO, that's what they're doing daily. And so I've been the pitch I've been trying to make for these programmes is you should be looking to bring your major programme leaders that you're thinking you want to groom for C-level, they should come to our programme because we will get we will take what they're already doing, give them a new kind of more generalized perspective with a bit of reflection on their own experience, and they'll come back they're ready to go. And I think this is something because you know, this takes some translation for people to understand what major programme is but that's the way to tell them is you're getting people who are already proficient in having a really deep expertise, and how to manage that expertise with a bunch of other functions, which is very unique. And so why not invest in those kinds of people because they could be your next C-level talents. And that's a pitch I use for this MMPM. I think MMPLA you could say the same thing. I mean, people are going back and forth in and out of private public sector. Yeah, so that's kind of how I see it. The slight, slight differences, but the same kind of orientation and motivation in mind.  Riccardo  55:37Yeah, if I can just had I mean, we, it was a few years back when it kind of dawned on me, this is before I did MMPM, but, you know, somebody, we were talking about $5 billion project, and somebody said, well, you know, it's a billion over five years, that's a billion a year, that's, that's a medium sized business, right? I mean, you're running a medium-sized business with that type of turnover. So yeah, I mean, the skills, the skills are there. If you're a project director or something like that, you probably have the traits or you're getting the experience that a CEO will get.Daniel 56:15There's an interesting problem in entrepreneurship. To your point, you're managing a small business, it's quite fleeting, if you think of it, it's almost like a small venture, right? I mean, not a small venture, but it's, let's say, a venture that's hit, you know, at least in terms of valuation, maybe a later stage Series C, private equity, maybe Series B, depending on whether it's a unicorn or not. And so essentially, that's what you're doing. And if you think of a startup, it's kind of temporary. I mean, most of them don't last beyond five years. And so, you know, there's a big challenge in entrepreneurship to your point, which is you found this amazing product. And now you want to grow a business out of it. And there's a massive chasm, so they even call they have a word for it's called valley of death. Yes. And I was thinking, the way we think about major programmes, we're thinking about how do you professionalize and scale something big quickly? To me, instead of thinking of startup canvas, lean startup, etcetera, those are valid ideas and insights, but they're really predicated on certain sectors. I mean, who else better to kind of solve that gap than major programme thinking? And I feel there's a really interesting gap to not just have major programmes in advancing its own right, but start speaking to other very prominent practical challenges. How do you scale a startup? That's about professionalizing your supply chain, professionalizing the structure of your organization, building coordination fast. I mean, who else would be prepared for that? In major programmes, I mean. That's a huge opportunity because it's a notoriously difficult problem. And what's nice about it, is even if you improve it, 2%, 3% that's all of a sudden, hundreds, maybe even thousands, tens of thousands of businesses that are now scaling, delivering jobs, the impact, even with just a small change in the needle is huge. And I think it's been too much thought about from an entrepreneurial perspective, which is, you know, product development driving this doing hypothesis tests, and they're not problematizing, that scaling approach. And I think that's where major programmes could have some really interesting impact and things we're actually discussing in the classroom as well, like, how do you then take that issue? Really nice translational opportunities as well, if you want.Riccardo  58:27I like it. It's really, really interesting concept. I might be thinking about that everyday too, also. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of Disenyo.co LLC and its employees.

In this episode of the Psych in Business podcast, Dr. Ernest Wayde interviews Dr. Kayla LeLeux-LaBarge, a clinical organizational psychologist and technologist. Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge shares her journey from clinical psychology to organizational consulting and her current work at the intersection of psychology and technology. She discusses her experiences in transforming workplace dynamics, emphasizing professional authenticity, and creating positive, personal-centered environments.Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge highlights the importance of systems thinking in understanding individual and organizational behavior. She explains how recognizing the symbiotic relationship between individuals and their environments can lead to effective interventions and cultural change within workplaces.The conversation delves into the concept of professional authenticity, both at the individual and organizational levels. Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge emphasizes the significance of self-awareness and understanding cultural values in fostering authenticity within workplace environments. Furthermore, the discussion explores the integration of psychology and technology in Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge's work at Hey Kiddo, a startup focused on supporting parents, educators, and children. She explains how her background in psychology informs product development, research, and ethical considerations in technology design.Dr. Wayde and Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge also touch upon the ethical challenges of developing technology, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI). They discuss the balance between ethical principles and innovation, highlighting the need for psychologists to navigate these complexities in the rapidly evolving technological landscape.In closing, Dr. LeLeux-LaBarge offers practical advice for listeners, emphasizing the importance of self-awareness and leveraging strengths in navigating professional challenges. Overall, the episode provides valuable insights into the integration of psychology and technology, emphasizing the role of psychologists in driving positive change within organizations and society.You can visit her business website at: www.equilibrialeadership.com

#updateai #customersuccess #saas #business Jess Cohen, Head of CS and Community at UpdateAI, joins the hosts ⁠⁠Kristi Faltorusso⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Jon Johnson⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠Josh Schachter⁠⁠. The conversation touches on topics ranging from the complexities of working in customer success and the importance of guiding clients without giving them answers, to using emojis in Slack communication, with moments of lighthearted banter and insightful exchanges throughout. Timestamps 0:00 - Preview 1:10 - Kristi's new podcast - She's So Suite 3:46 - Meet Jess Cohen 4:31 - Jess wanted to become an astronaut! 6:10 - Learning the purpose of life 7:09 - Jon learns about stars and space from TikTok 10:28 - Kristi's training for a marathon 11:15 - CSMs influence customer behavior 11:55 -Not all who wander are lost 16:15 - You'll love the CCO Club workshop in Boston 21:35 - Should you voice your opinions? 26:38 - Influencing customer behavior change 31:42 - Breaking into CS 32:10 - Jon can't decode Slack emojis 34:42 - Kristi hates Slack 35:50 - Slack as a productivity tool [Slack + CS = Magic] 40:22 - Front-facing adoptive engineer 42:30 - What does success look like as a CSM for Jess? 44:40 - Josh loves structure 46:15 - Wrapping up ___________________________

Viktor Didenchuk: Leadership Lessons, Managing Agile Team Anxiety Sparked by Rumors Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. In this segment, Viktor shares his experience with a team affected by a rumor about organizational changes. The rumor, lacking official communication, grew and significantly impacted the team's dynamics. Team members felt different and became fearful for their jobs, leading to a decline in Agile values. Over months, the situation worsened, with anxiety amplifying the issue. Viktor emphasizes the importance of addressing rumors promptly, encouraging escalation to leadership for proper handling and making clear the consequences of neglecting such rumors. Featured Book Of the Week: The Swordless Samurai, by Kitami Masao Viktor discusses the impact of "The Swordless Samurai," a book detailing the leadership of a historic Japanese ruler. This true story emphasizes timeless leadership principles, highlighting the ruler's role in fostering effectiveness in others. Viktor connects this with his own leadership beliefs, asserting that failures are his responsibility, not his team's. In this segment, we also discuss two other influential books, "Extreme Ownership" and "Radical Candor."   Do you wish you had decades of experience? Learn from the Best Scrum Masters In The World, Today! The Tips from the Trenches - Scrum Master edition audiobook includes hours of audio interviews with SM's that have decades of experience: from Mike Cohn to Linda Rising, Christopher Avery, and many more. Super-experienced Scrum Masters share their hard-earned lessons with you. Learn those today, make your teams awesome!     About Viktor Didenchuk Viktor began his career as a Software Engineer in the mid 2010's, before discovering a passion for coaching and facilitating value delivery. He currently serves as a Scrum Master at Lloyds Banking Group, the UK's largest retail bank, where he contributes to the Agile transformation of a 60,000+ employee organization, navigating and sharing the challenges encountered. You can link with Viktor Didenchuk on LinkedIn. 

Key leaders in a corporate office are debating the optimal reporting structure for the CISO, weighing the benefits of direct CEO oversight against the integration within the IT department. This narrative explores the delicate balance between innovation and security, highlighting the strategic decision-making process in a dynamic corporate environment.________This fictional story represents the results of an interactive collaboration between Human Cognition and Artificial Intelligence.Enjoy, think, share with others, and subscribe to "The Future of Cybersecurity" newsletter on LinkedIn.Sincerely, Sean Martin and TAPE3________Sean Martin is the host of the Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast, part of the ITSPmagazine Podcast Network—which he co-founded with his good friend Marco Ciappelli—where you may just find some of these topics being discussed. Visit Sean on his personal website.TAPE3 is the Artificial Intelligence for ITSPmagazine, created to function as a guide, writing assistant, researcher, and brainstorming partner to those who adventure at and beyond the Intersection Of Technology, Cybersecurity, And Society. Visit TAPE3 on ITSPmagazine.

This episode of the SeventySix Capital Sports Leadership Show was taped LIVE at The Lab at G2E in Las Vegas, Nevada. Wayne Kimmel interviewed Chris Reynolds, CEO of Epoxy.ai, Scott Sadin, COO of U.S. Integrity and Eric Weiss, President, North America of Odds On Compliance. Chris Reynolds is CEO of Epoxy.ai. Reynolds has been delivering strategic results for organizations and investors for over 20 years as an executive and founder. He is the CEO and co-founder of Epoxy.ai. Epoxy is an AI/ML-based sports personalization technology company providing tools that help sports leagues, betting companies, and media entities develop new forms of customer acquisition, engagement, and retention. Prior to Epoxy, Reynolds was the VP of Product and Technology at Comcast for over 5 yrs, building and scaling the streaming and product portfolio for the company including Flex, Xclass TV, the Xfinity developer portal, Interactivity and sports.  Reynolds joined Comcast through the acquisition of OneTwoSee in 2016. He was the co-founder and CEO of OneTwoSee - award-winning sports technology and data company that built immersive game center applications for MVPD's, CE manufacturers, digital publishers, and broadcasters.  Prior to OneTwoSee, Reynolds managed B2B and B2C web products for Navteq a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia including, navteq.com, traffic.com, and map24.com.  Reynolds graduated summa cum laude with BA in Film and Media Arts from Temple University and MS in Organizational Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania. Scott Sadin is the COO of U.S. Integrity. Sadin has experience in operational management stemming from financial services institutions such as Apollo Global Management, Tourbillon Capital and MSD Partners.  While working in financial services, Sadin helped develop trading surveillance programs aimed at identifying potentially suspicious equity and debt transactions.  Sadin was born and raised in New York City and received his B.A. in Political Science from Lehigh University. Eric Weiss is the President, North America of Odds On Compliance. Weiss was with the New Jersey Division of Gaming (DGE) Enforcement since 1991. He held positions in the Investigative, Technical and Executive Bureaus.  Weiss is a graduate of Richard Stockton University and received his MBA from Rowan University. Segments time stamps/chapter 0:00 Intro by Wayne Kimmel of Chris Reynolds, CEO of Epoxy.ai, Scott Sadin, COO of U.S. Integrity and Eric Weiss, President, North America of Odds On Compliance. 9:21 Who does U.S. Integrity work with? 13:37 Why Eric Weiss joined Eric Frank at Odds On Compliance 16:46 How Epoxy.ai maintains a strong team 21:03 Major tech companies joining the world of sports 29:00 How large tech companies in professional sports have affected Epoxy.ai 31:52 Aristocrat X NFL and NFLPA partnership 36:35 The future between U.S. Integrity and Odds On Compliance 39:29 How U.S. Integrity brought the sports betting industry together 43:02 The Sports Betting wave comes into New Jersey 45:00 What will G2E look like in 5 years? 50:01 Shocking events from the last 5 years  52:20 Outro Social Media Handles - Company U.S. Integrity X: https://twitter.com/usintegrity?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/usintegrity Odds On Compliance X: https://twitter.com/OddsOnData Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oddsoncompliance/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/oddsoncompliance/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1Qv0kLPDWiQKRH_tu7UUg Epoxy.ai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoxy-ai/about/

Guest: Steven J. Spear, Senior Lecturer at MIT [@MIT] and AuthorOn Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevespear/On Twitter | https://twitter.com/StevenJSpear____________________________Host: Marco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining Society PodcastOn ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/marco-ciappelli_____________________________This Episode's SponsorsBlackCloak

Embarking on a successful organizational strategy goes beyond what meets the eye. While strategy, innovation, and change management are vital, they often remain obscured beneath more tangible organizational outcomes. Leaders must dig deep to comprehend the mechanics that drive a staggering 80% of outcomes. Deborah Roethler, an Innovative Change Manager with experience with companies like Amazon, Caterpillar, the City of Peoria and more, advocates a fluid approach to strategy, adapting to the evolving landscape rather than adhering rigidly to predetermined plans. Join us as we unravel the intricacies of organizational strategy and discuss:The detrimental impact of overlooking hidden organizational dynamicsStrategies for effective employee engagement, trust-building, and change managementBuilding an adaptive strategy that fosters transparency, agility, and active participation for sustained organizational growth

Microstresses are small, almost unnoticeable stresses that can build up and keep us from our best selves. So, how can you find your microstressors and remove them? In this episode, Rob Cross answers this question and more. What You'll Learn: 1. Your mind may not register microstress, but your body does. 2. How building a diverse community around you will make you more resilient to stress. 3. How to stop persisting through the system and start shaping it. 4. Creating better (and diverse) relationships by removing microstressors. 5. How to watch for microstresses and what to do about them. 6. How to stop the cycle of passing stress on. Who is Rob? For over 20 years, Rob Cross has studied the underlying networks of effective organizations and the collaborative practices of high performers. Having worked with over 300 organizations he's reached thousands of leaders from the frontline to the C-suite. He's currently a senior Vice President of Research at Institute for Corporate Productivity. He is the Edward A. Madden professor of Global Leadership at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Rob is also the co-founder and research director of the Connected Commons, a consortium of over 150 leading organizations, accelerating network research and practice. He has written over 50 articles for Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, California Management Review Academy, and Management Executive and Organizational Dynamics. His work has also been repeatedly featured in high profile publications like Business Week, Fortune, the Financial Times, Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and Fast Company. And if that wasn't enough, a couple of recent developments, The Microstress Effect has been recognized as an award-winning book by Thinkers 50 and as one of Harvard Business Review's Big Ideas for 2023. Mentions: The Microstress Effect: How Little Things Pile Up and Create Big Problems--and What to Do about It https://www.amazon.ca/Microstress-Effect-Little-Things-Problems-ebook/dp/B0B5YDDR7F  https://www.robcross.org/  Follow Rob: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/crossrob/  More of Do Good to Lead Well: Website: https://craigdowden.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdowden/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/craig-dowden/message

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we will discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.   In today's episode, Chris and Abbie are discussing: Conspiracy theories. They will talk about what makes a Conspiracy Theory and why we believe them. [May 1, 2023]   00:00 - Intro 00:17 - Dr. Abbie Maroño Intro 00:59 - Intro Links -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Managed Voice Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/vishing-service/ -          Managed Email Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/se-phishing-service/ -          Adversarial Simulations - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/social-engineering-penetration-test/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                                                04:45 - The Topic of the Day: The TRUTH Behind Conspiracy Theories 05:54 - What is a Conspiracy Theory? 07:39 - What's the harm? 10:20 - WHY??? 11:17 - Pattern Seekers 13:15 - Cognitive Closure 17:04 - The Role of Critical Thinking 19:18 - An Existential Element 20:41 - Don't Forget the Lizards! 22:35 - What about Bigfoot? 24:30 - Escapism 30:15 - Reading the Emotions 32:29 - Social Motive 33:31 - Emotions vs Critical Thinking 36:42 - Prove Me Wrong! 39:09 - The Takeaway: Empathy 40:57 - Wrap Up & Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org   Find us online: -          Twitter: https://twitter.com/abbiejmarono -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd-35ab2611a -          Twitter: https://twitter.com/humanhacker -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy   References: Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W. G., Craig, T., & Gregory, L. (1999). Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychology, 20, 637–647. Adams, G., O'Brien, L. T., & Nelson, J. C. (2006). Perceptions of racism in Hurricane Katrina: A liberation psychology analysis. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 215–235. Bilewicz, M., Winiewski, M., Kofta, M., & Wójcik, A. (2013). Harmful ideas: The structure and consequences of antiSemitic beliefs in Poland. Political Psychology, 34, 821–839. Bost, P. R., & Prunier, S. G. (2013). Rationality in conspiracy beliefs: The role of perceived motive. Psychological Reports, 113, 118–128 Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Broadnax, S., & Blaine, B. E. (1999). Belief in U.S. government conspiracies against Blacks among Black and White college students: Powerlessness or system blame? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 941–953. Dieguez, S., Wagner-Egger, P., & Gauvrit, N. (2015). Nothing happens by accident, or does it? A low prior for randomness does not explain belief in conspiracy theories. Psychological Science, 26, 1762–1770. Dieguez, S., Wagner-Egger, P., & Gauvrit, N. (2015). Nothing happens by accident, or does it? A low prior for randomness does not explain belief in conspiracy theories. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1762–1770. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956797615598740 DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47–62. https://doi. org/10.1016/0090-2616(94)90087-6 Douglas, K. M., & Leite, A. C. (2017). Suspicion in the workplace: Organizational conspiracy theories and workrelated outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 486–506. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2008). The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual impact of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 210–221. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current directions in psychological science, 26(6), 538-542. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J., & Harvey, A. J. (2016). Someone is pulling the strings: Hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22, 57–77. Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Political psychology, 40, 3-35. Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 109-126. Kim, M., & Cao, X. (2016). The impact of exposure to media messages promoting government conspiracy theories on distrust in the government: Evidence from a two-stage randomized experiment. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 3808–3827. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5127 Klein, C., Clutton, P., & Dunn, A. G. (2018). Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit's conspiracy theory forum. Retrieved frompsyarxiv.com/8vesf Nefes, T. S. (2017). The impacts of the Turkish Government's “interest rate lobby” theory about the Gezi Park Protests. Social Movement Studies, 16(5), 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1319269 Nera, K., Pantazi, M., & Klein, O. (2018). “These are just stories, Mulder”: Exposure to conspiracist fiction does not produce narrative persuasion. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00684 Swift, A. (2013). Majority in U.S. still believe JFK killed in a conspiracy. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/ poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social-functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: The intuitive politician, theologian, and prosecutor. Psychological Review, 109, 451–472. Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C., & Atkinson, M. D. (2016). What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 57–71. van Prooijen, J.-W., & Acker, M. (2015). The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 753–761. van Prooijen, J.-W., & Jostmann, N. B. (2013). Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 109–115. Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115–117.