Leadership

How can businesses go beyond using AI for incremental efficiency gains to create transformative impact? I write from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, where I’ve been speaking with many CEOs about how to use AI for growth. A recurring theme is that running many experimental, bottom-up AI projects — letting a thousand flowers bloom — has failed to lead to significant payoffs. Instead, bigger gains require workflow redesign: taking a broader, perhaps top-down view of the multiple steps in a process and changing how they work together from end to end. Consider a bank issuing loans. The workflow consists of several discrete stages: Marketing -> Application -> Preliminary Approval -> Final Review -> Execution Suppose each step used to be manual. Preliminary Approval used to require an hour-long human review, but a new agentic system can do this automatically in 10 minutes. Swapping human review for AI review — but keeping everything else the same — gives a minor efficiency gain but isn’t transformative. Here’s what would be transformative: Instead of applicants waiting a week for a human to review their application, they can get a decision in 10 minutes. When that happens, the loan becomes a more compelling product, and that better customer experience allows lenders to attract more applications and ultimately issue more loans. However, making this change requires taking a broader business or product perspective, not just a technology perspective. Further, it changes the workflow of loan processing. Switching to offering a “10-minute loan” product would require changing how it is marketed. Applications would need to be digitized and routed more efficiently, and final review and execution would need to be redesigned to handle a larger volume. Even though AI is applied only to one step, Preliminary Approval, we end up implementing not just a point solution but a broader workflow redesign that transforms the product offering. At AI Aspire (an advisory firm I co-lead), here’s what we see: Bottom-up innovation matters because the people closest to problems often see solutions first. But scaling such ideas to create transformative impact often requires seeing how AI can transform entire workflows end to end, not just individual steps, and this is where top-down strategic direction and innovation can help. This year's WEF meeting, as in previous years, has been an energizing event. Among technologists, frequent topics of discussion include Agentic AI (when I coined this term, I was not expecting to see it plastered on billboards and buildings!), Sovereign AI (how nations can control their own access to AI), Talent (the challenging job market for recent graduates, and how to upskill nations), and data-center infrastructure (how to address bottlenecks in energy, talent, GPU chips, and memory). I will address some of these topics in future posts. [Original text: https://lnkd.in/gbiRs2mi ]

Most organizations say they value honesty. But the moment disagreement shows up, many leaders get nervous. Here’s the truth: Healthy conflict isn’t a threat to unity — it’s the birthplace of clarity, innovation, and trust. When people stop disagreeing, ideas stop sharpening. Cultures get quiet. Toxicity grows in the silence. Leaders: if your team feels like there are things they can’t say, something is already broken. Invite honest disagreement. Model it. Celebrate it. That’s where progress and truth are found.

I was shadowing a coaching client in her leadership meeting when I watched this brilliant woman apologize six times in 30 minutes. 1. “Sorry, this might be off-topic, but..." 2. “I'm could be wrong, but what if we..." 3. “Sorry again, I know we're running short on time..." 4. “I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but..." 5. “This is just my opinion, but..." 6. “Sorry if I'm being too pushy..." Her ideas? They were game-changing. Every single one. Here's what I've learned after decades of coaching women leaders: Women are masterful at reading the room and keeping everyone comfortable. It's a superpower. But when we consistently prioritize others' comfort over our own voice, we rob ourselves, and our teams, of our full contribution. The alternative isn't to become aggressive or dismissive. It's to practice “gracious assertion": • Replace "Sorry to interrupt" with "I'd like to add to that" • Replace "This might be stupid, but..." with "Here's another perspective" • Replace "I hope this makes sense" with "Let me know what questions you have" • Replace "I don't want to step on toes" with "I have a different approach" • Replace "This is just my opinion" with "Based on my experience" • Replace "Sorry if I'm being pushy" with "I feel strongly about this because" But how do you know if you're hitting the right note? Ask yourself these three questions: • Am I stating my needs clearly while respecting others' perspectives? (Assertive) • Am I dismissing others' input or bulldozing through objections? (Aggressive) • Am I hinting at what I want instead of directly asking for it? (Passive-aggressive) You can be considerate AND confident. You can make space for others AND take up space yourself. Your comfort matters too. Your voice matters too. Your ideas matter too. And most importantly, YOU matter. @she.shines.inc #Womenleaders #Confidence #selfadvocacy

🥊 “Jingjin, have you ever considered that women are just inferior to men?” That was her opening line. The lady who challenged me was not a traditionalist in pearls. She was one of the top investment bankers of her time, closed billion-dollar deals, led global teams, the kind of woman whose voice dropped ten degrees when money was on the line. And she meant it. “Back in my day, if I had to hire, I’d always go for the man. No pregnancy leave. No PMS. No emotional volatility. Just less… liability.” And she doesn’t believe in what I do. Helping women lead from a place of wholeness. Because to her, wholeness is a luxury. Winning requires neutrality. And neutrality means: be less female and suck it up! I’ve heard versions of this many times, and too often, from high-performing women who "made it" by suppressing. But facts are: 🧠 There are no consistent brain differences between men and women that explain men’s “logic” or women’s “emotions.” 💥 Hormones impact everyone. Men’s testosterone drops when they nurture. Women’s cortisol rises in toxic workplaces, not because they’re weak, but because they’re sane. 📉 What we call “meritocracy” is often a reward system for those who can perform like they have no body, no children, no cycles. None of those are biologically male traits. They’re artifacts of a system built around male lives. So, if you're a woman who's bought into this logic, here are some counter-strategies: 🛠 1. Study Systems Like You Studied Deals Dissect the incentives, norms, and bias loops of your workplace the same way you’d break down a P&L. Don’t internalize what’s structural. 🧭 2. Redefine Strategic Strengths Stop mirroring alpha aggression to prove you belong. Deep listening, self-regulation, and nuance reading, these are leadership assets, not soft skills. Use them ruthlessly. 💬 3. Name It, Don’t Numb It If your hormones impact you one day a month, say so, but also say what it doesn’t mean: It doesn’t cancel out 29 days of clarity, strategy, and execution. 🪩 4. Build Your Own Meritocracy Start investing in spaces, networks, and cultures where your wholeness isn’t penalized. If none exist, build them. 🧱 5. Deconstruct Before You Self-Doubt When you catch yourself thinking “maybe I’m not built for this,” pause. Ask: Whose rules am I trying to win by? Who benefits when I question myself? This post isn’t about defending women. We don’t need defending. It’s about calling out the internalised metrics we still use to measure ourselves. 👊 And choosing to rewrite them. What’s the most 'rational' reason you’ve heard for why women are a liability?

Looking at this data from the World Economic Forum, my own take is that the skills defining leadership in 2030 fall into three macro domains: 🔹 Human-Centric Capabilities: Empathy, creativity, human talent management—skills machines can’t replicate, yet. 🔹 Cognitive & Strategic Intelligence: Analytical thinking, systems mindset, lifelong learning—the foundation for navigating uncertainty. 🔹 Digital & Technical Fluency: AI, cybersecurity, tech literacy—no longer optional for executives in a tech-driven world. As someone deeply embedded in executive search, I see this shift daily: what separates top candidates isn’t just what they know—it’s how they think, adapt, and connect. #Leadership #FutureOfWork #ExecutiveSearch #AI #Skills2030 #TechLeadership #TalentStrategy

In the U.S., you can grab coffee with a CEO in two weeks. In Europe, it might take two years to get that meeting. I ’ve spent years building relationships across both U.S. and European markets, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: networking looks completely different depending on where you are. The way people connect, build trust, and create opportunities is shaped by culture-and if you don’t adapt your approach, you’ll hit walls fast. So, if you're an executive expanding globally, a leader hiring across regions, or a professional trying to break into a new market-this post is for you. The U.S.: Fast, Open, and High-Volume Americans love to network. Connections are made quickly, introductions flow freely, and saying "let's grab coffee" isn’t just polite—it’s expected. - Cold outreach is normal—you can message a top executive on LinkedIn, and they just might say yes. - Speed matters. Business moves fast, so meetings, interviews, and hiring decisions happen quickly. But here’s the catch: Just because you had a great chat doesn’t mean you’ve built a deep relationship. Trust takes follow-ups, consistency, and results. I’ve seen European executives struggle with this—mistaking initial enthusiasm for long-term commitment. In the U.S., networking is about momentum—you have to keep showing up, adding value, and staying top of mind. In Europe, networking is a long game. If you don’t have an introduction, it’s much harder to get in the door. - Warm introductions matter. Cold outreach? Much tougher. Senior leaders prefer to meet through trusted referrals—someone who can vouch for you. - Fewer, deeper relationships. Once trust is built, it’s strong and lasting—but it takes time to get there. - Decisions take longer. Whether it’s hiring, partnerships, or leadership moves, things don’t happen overnight—expect a longer courtship period. I’ve seen U.S. executives enter the European market and get frustrated fast—wondering why it’s taking months (or years!) to break into leadership circles. But that’s how the market works. The key to winning in Europe? Patience, credibility, and long-term thinking. So, What Does This Mean for Global Leaders? If you’re an American executive expanding into Europe… 📌 Be patient. One meeting won’t seal the deal—you have to earn trust over time. 📌 Get introductions. A warm referral is worth more than 100 cold emails. 📌 Don’t push too hard. European business culture favors depth over speed—respect the process. If you’re a European leader entering the U.S. market… 📌 Don’t wait for permission—reach out. People expect direct outreach and initiative. 📌 Follow up fast. If you’re slow to respond, the opportunity moves on without you. 📌 Be ready to show value quickly. Americans won’t wait months to see if you’re a fit. Networking isn’t just about who you know—it’s about how you build relationships. #Networking #Leadership #ExecutiveSearch #CareerGrowth #GlobalBusiness #US #Europe

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

Growing as a leader, I’ve learned that expertise matters, but range is often what sets you apart. Over time, I’ve come to believe that career range is one of the most underrated assets a person can build. It helps integrate experiences across roles, ask better questions, and bring a broader perspective to the challenges you face. Leaders who combine depth with range and work across disciplines are the ones who move organizations forward. The ability to keep building new skills is a real competitive advantage – and curiosity is what makes it possible: staying open and continuing to learn, even when it would be easier to stay where you’re comfortable.

#Diversity in high-tech fields remains critically low. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently reported that #Black and #Latino professionals are underrepresented in high-tech roles, especially in leadership. These numbers highlight ongoing structural barriers in hiring, promotion and retention. This gap is a missed opportunity to tap into a wealth of diverse talent and perspectives essential to the future of tech. However, addressing and thoroughly fixing these challenges will require time, consistent effort and a long-term commitment to systemic change. Companies can support the progression of representation in tech by investing in training, mentorship and internship opportunities that open doors for people who were historically shut out. Programs like internXL, a platform that is committed to increasing diversity and inclusion in the internship hiring process for top companies, are making a significant impact. Similarly, the expansion of STEM education at institutions like Cornell University is helping to connect talented young people from underrepresented communities with opportunities for high-tech careers. When we work together to remove these barriers, we’re fostering a more inclusive workforce and strengthening innovation, problem-solving and leadership in the industry. Let’s build a tech future that reflects the diversity of our society. https://bit.ly/3UNtOCh