Leading Diverse Teams

Achieving AI productivity gains usually means you have to slow down in order to speed up. Across Amazon, teams are using AI to get more done across a variety of functions, including software development. Teams that treat AI as a drop-in replacement or expect immediate gains without restructuring how they work consistently underperform. In recent months, we've been experimenting across hundreds of engineering teams and noticing where AI is delivering the most value. The largest productivity gains across the business have come from what we call frontier teams, and they usually took one of three paths: a pathfinder initiative with experts tackling a challenge, a structured sprint to execute on a well-defined plan, or an in-situ experiment splitting teams between existing approaches and AI-adapted workflows. The paths differ in structure but converge on the same insight. Teams achieved 4.5x, in some case more than 10x, productivity gains. They achieved this by reducing barriers to context for agentic workloads and increasing the surface area of work that can be done independently. Here's what I think are five ways to build an AI-native team: 1. Patience. Frontier teams that get the most productivity gains invest time in building agent context. When teams skip this step, agents keep making the same mistakes. At AWS, the Bedrock infrastructure team placed all code and documentation into a monorepo and kept the inline commentary that AI agents generated — treating it as persistent memory. 2. More patience. Push through learning curves and restructure to capture cross-functional expertise. The teams that quit this early never see the compounding acceleration that's achievable after a couple of weeks.  3. Feed agents instead of babysitting them. We saw one principal engineer ship a complete change with only 'a couple of hours of contiguous time' because the agent worked while the engineer moved between code reviews, operational support, and meetings. 4. Be very clear. Teams need to make intent explicit before code gets written. Teams that have clear context about what "done" looks like report that they handwrite only 1-2% of their code. This opens the door to push more commits per person per week. 5. "Shift testing left." Frontier teams build tooling so agents can run all integration tests locally and self-correct before code ever reaches the pipeline. The first few weeks of this process are going to feel slow. Start with a small, deliberate pilot before broadening this across your business. Take learnings and develop playbooks that your entire organization can use and build from. Frontier teams are possible for any organization, here's more on how we're building them at Amazon https://lnkd.in/gpY5UjCz

𝐒𝐢𝐱 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞. 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐞—𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞. I believed leadership meant setting direction and ensuring alignment. But over time—I’ve come to see that real leadership isn’t just about strategy. It’s about 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. That truth has never been more relevant than it is today. For the first time in modern history, 𝐬𝐢𝐱 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞. It’s a leadership challenge few of us were trained for. 🔹 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (pre-1946): Still serving on boards; shaped by duty and discipline. 🔹 𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐲 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 (1946–1964): ~12% of today’s workforce; value stability, loyalty, and legacy. 🔹 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐗 (1965–1980): ~27%; independent, pragmatic, delivery-focused. 🔹 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 (1981–1996): ~34%; purpose-driven, collaborative, growth-oriented. 🔹 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 (1997–2012): ~27%; inclusive, tech-native, values transparency. 🔹 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐩𝐡𝐚 (post-2012): The emerging workforce—digital-first, fast-learning, entrepreneurial. These differences show up in how we work: → Senior leaders value hierarchy; Gen Z favors flat structures. → Boomers seek recognition; Gen X wants autonomy; Millennials want meaning; Gen Z asks, “𝘞𝘩𝘺?” → Gen Alpha? They're learning, building, and questioning earlier than ever. What feels like friction is often just generational dissonance. In a recent HBR piece, put it well: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” That’s the shift we need as leaders: From uniformity → to personalization From authority → to empathy From legacy leadership → to 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 leadership I now ask myself not just, “Am I leading well?” but “Am I leading 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺?” Because when we adapt our style—not our standards—we help every generation contribute at their best. Great leadership today means adapting with intention and embracing what makes each generation thrive. 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Connecting individual roles to a broader organizational mission fosters engagement across all generations. 𝐂𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Recognize and adapt to the preferred communication styles of each generation to enhance collaboration. 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐀𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: Offering flexibility can address the diverse needs and expectations of a multigenerational team. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬: Promote a culture of lifelong learning to support professional development for all age groups. What shift have you made to better lead across generations? #HarveysLeadershipRhythms #ThoughtsWithHarvey #ExecutiveLeadership #TheLeadershipSignal #GenerationalLeadership #LeadershipReflections #LeadWithIntention #MultigenerationalWorkforce #LeadershipCue #Mentorship

📄 Women’s Leadership — What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Missing I invite you to read this new review co-authored by Ana María Muñoz Boudet, Francesca Bramucci , and Mariana Viollaz that examines policies to promote women’s leadership. Here are the takeaways for practitioners, governments, and development partners: 🔍 Main Findings 1. Women remain underrepresented in leadership across politics, business, and community institutions due to barriers in capabilities, motivation, and opportunity. 2. Quotas do not always yield substantive influence (i.e. real decision-making power). 3. Role models can inspire women and shift norms. Training, mentorship, and capacity-building often boost advancement potential, yet less clearly move women into top leadership positions. Success of organizational reforms and anti-discrimination policies depends on leadership buy-in and norm change. 4. Poorly designed interventions can provoke backlash, tokenism, or reinforce stereotypes. And without complementary supports—networks, legitimacy, access to resources—women leaders may struggle to influence outcomes meaningfully. 💡 Recommendations (and Reflections) • Adopt multidimensional strategies: To promote women’s leadership at scale, we must tackle multiple barriers—capabilities, motivation, and opportunity—simultaneously. • Design quotas in alignment with meritocracy and apply them with accountability and support systems. • Support role models and narrative change to boost women’s aspirations and shift norms. • Reorient training toward leadership outcomes: Align capacity-building with the “last mile” challenges women face stepping into top roles—navigating power dynamics, influencing strategy, leading teams. • Strengthen institutional architecture: Incentivize equal opportunities for women in leadership pipelines, evaluation and promotion systems. • Monitor “substantive representation” beyond counting women in leadership roles to assessing whether those roles yield real influence and improved outcomes. This paper resonates with my experience: • It confirms what I have observed: engaging women as leaders is not just about opening doors, but transforming systems so those roles are meaningful. • It underscores the importance of pairing structural reforms (laws, quotas) with norm change, institutional incentives, mentoring, and support. • It reminds us to evaluate substance and impact, not only representation. How do outcomes change when women participate in decision making? Let’s design leadership ecosystems that empower women not only to lead, but to shape agendas and drive better outcomes - and let’s measure the impact. 🔗 Read the full paper: Promoting Women’s Leadership: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Missing https://lnkd.in/dn-J4P27 #GenderEquality #WomenLeadership #WorldBank

The biggest myth about high-performing teams is that they’re built by “strong personalities.” After more than a decade speaking with CEOs, CCOs, and GMs across FMCG, one thing has become clear: the teams that consistently outperform aren’t the ones with the loudest voices or the smartest individuals. They’re the ones with the healthiest foundations. And those foundations always start with the same five areas: trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and results. Here are a few patterns I see over and over: 1. Trust issues don’t show up as “mistrust.” They show up as silence. Gartner found that teams with high psychological safety are 27% more productive yet most leaders still misread silence as agreement. In reality, silence is often the first sign that people don’t feel safe speaking honestly. 2. Fear of conflict kills innovation more than lack of creativity. In one global beauty company I worked with, the team had 18 straight months of declining innovation ROI. Not because of poor ideas but because nobody was challenging weak ones. Healthy conflict is a growth accelerator, not a threat. 3. Commitment is not “I agree.” It’s “I will.” A Harvard University study showed that 95% of employees say they don’t fully understand their company’s strategy. Without clarity, teams nod along but don’t execute. The best leaders make alignment so obvious there’s no room for misunderstandings. 4. Accountability works only when it’s peer-driven. In FMCG, I consistently see the same thing: when accountability flows only from the GM or CCO, things slow down. But when peers hold each other to standards, performance lifts almost immediately and low performers have nowhere to hide. 5. Results come last for a reason. Teams that focus only on KPIs but ignore the foundations hit ceilings quickly. Teams that build trust and clarity early scale faster — and sustain it. McKinsey & Company research shows that top-quartile teams outperform others by 47% in revenue growth because their culture accelerates execution. Here are two practical examples from recent searches: • A European commercial team moved from conflict avoidance to structured debate and cut decision-making time by 40%. • A US-based beauty brand rebuilt trust after turnover spikes and saw engagement rise 22% within a year. Different companies. Different categories. Same root causes. Same solutions. So here’s the real question for leaders: Are your team’s challenges rooted in capability… or in one of these five foundations? Because in my experience, performance issues almost always start long before the KPI dashboard reveals them. Teams don’t fail suddenly — they erode quietly. High-performing teams are built by leaders who protect trust, welcome tension, clarify direction, expect accountability, and care about the real outcome, not the politics. Those are the teams that win,cnosistently. #highperformingteams #Leadership #teambuilding

When I founded Product School over a decade ago, the idea of companies paying $900K — even $1M+ — for a Product Manager would have sounded absurd. Today, it’s reality. Netflix has posted AI PM roles at $900K. Meta is offering over $1M+ for AI product leaders. And AI-native PM is now one of the fastest-growing job categories. But here’s the key: they’re not paying for coding. They’re paying for strategic product leadership in an AI-first world. The companies writing those checks aren’t looking for PMs who can code. They’re looking for leaders who can:  👉 Rewire the product operating model around AI — embedding it in discovery, roadmaps, and lifecycle decisions  👉 Build adoption loops, not one-off pilots — turning experiments into repeatable, scalable wins  👉 Balance innovation with governance — making compliance, transparency, and safety part of the product itself  👉 Align AI across all “four fits” — product, channel, business model, and market — to unlock growth and ROI That skill set is rare — and it’s exactly why the market is putting such a premium on AI-native product leadership. Here’s the problem:  ❌ Too many product teams are still treating AI like a side project.  ❌ Too many PMs are stuck in “feature factory” mode.  ❌ And 95% of AI pilots never scale past experiments. The winners will be the teams that make AI part of how product work gets done — from strategy through execution. That’s why we rebuilt Product School. After training over a million PMs in the last 12 years, our mission now is clear: close the AI strategy gap. 🔹 For Product Teams: Custom AI training tailored to your stack, maturity, and outcomes — measured by adoption, velocity, time-to-value, and strategic influence. 🔹 For Individuals: 8 live, hands-on AI certifications — from fundamentals to advanced tracks like AI Prototyping, AI Evals, Advanced Agents, Experimentation, GTM, and AI Strategy for Leaders. The $1M Product Manager is real. But more importantly — the skillset behind it is real. And every ambitious PM and product org now has a chance to build it. The future of product leadership isn’t digital-first. It’s AI-native. And it’s happening right now https://lnkd.in/g64dwR6e

Everyone says the future of product management is AI-native. But what the hell does it mean to be an AI-native PM? After watching our instructors teach thousands of students at Maven and observing my own team's transformation, I think it comes down to two layers. 1. The technical layer If you want to build AI-first products, you need to know how they work.   • AI fundamentals. What an LLM actually is, the trade-offs of using something like RAG, when to use agents (one or multiple), and what evals are. You need to speak the language fluently enough to collaborate with engineers without a translator.   • Model intuition and selection. When to fine-tune, how cost and intelligence scales with model size.   • AI product sense. AI products have fundamentally different requirements. A mediocre AI experience is worse than no AI experience at all. You need to understand guardrails, failure modes, and how to design for non-determinism. 2. The productivity layer PMs should use AI as a second nature part of their day-to-day work. For existing PMs, this requires shifting their workflows entirely...   • Prototyping. Instead of PRDs, start by using tools like Cursor or Claude Code to ship and iterate on prototypes and feature demos.   • Research and insights. Use LLMs to synthesize data of all types (not just CSVs) into usable insights. Read the original data to ensure accuracy and deeply understand the context the LLM is presenting.   • Strategy and writing. You still do your own thinking, while leveraging AI to fill in the gaps. AI can produce excellent docs and decompose them into tasks given enough context and prompting, but it shouldn't make the final decisions.   • Personal software. Use tools like Claude to build small apps and tools that only you use, optimized entirely for your specific workflows and use cases. Taste and judgement still matter the same as they did before. PMs are still expected to be the CEO of their products. But they also need to be natively using AI in their work, and deeply understand the opportunities to build AI-driven products. P.S. BTW we’re partnering with Lenny Rachitsky to launch a new series of free lessons called “The AI-Native Product Manager”. Check it out: https://bit.ly/4s0mYYj   • The CTO of MySpace turned ML Product Lead at Google, Dmitry Shapiro, on how to best use Clawdbot as a PM   • The 1st Product Manager, v0 at Vercel, Ary Khandelwal, on how PMs can build and *deploy* code with no handoff   • Ex-Head of UXR, Spotify Business, Caitlin Sullivan, on when and how to construct synthetic data for product discovery   • The former CPO of LinkedIn, Tomer Cohen, on becoming a full stack builder with AI   • Former Director of Growth at Gitlab, Hila Qu 曲卉, on the The AI-powered VP of Growth playbook   • Former FDE Lead at Palantir and Citadel, Vinoo Ganesh, on building products like a forward deployed engineer   • Product Lead at Roblox, Peter Yang, on AI Powered Product Skills for Executive Leaders & GMs

“𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫.” “𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐣𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧.” “𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.” These weren’t opinions. They were accepted workplace beliefs for decades. And the data tells us how deeply this thinking still runs. Even today: • 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 ~32% 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 (McKinsey, Women in the Workplace Report) • At the CEO level, the number drops to ~10% globally (Fortune / McKinsey) • The biggest drop-off for women happens at the first promotion to manager -not at the top (McKinsey) Yet, when women are in leadership, the outcomes change. Research consistently shows that companies with higher women representation in leadership: • are 25–39% more likely to outperform financially (McKinsey, Diversity Wins) • score higher on decision quality, risk management, and people retention (WEF, HBR) 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒇𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆 𝑮𝑪𝑪𝒔 (𝑮𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔). As GCCs scale across India and global markets, they’re no longer just delivery engines. They’re becoming leadership hubs and women leaders are central to this transition. Global organisations like Apple have been intentional here ,building strong women leadership pipelines across operations, retail, and leadership roles, recognising that inclusive leadership is not a CSR goal, but a business strategy. Yet, the internal challenge remains real: Women are still conditioned to doubt authority. Women are still judged for assertiveness. Women are still subtly pitched against other women - consciously or unconsciously. So what actually helps women leaders thrive at scale? A few leadership principles we see working consistently: 1️⃣ Decision clarity over perfection Leadership is not about having all answers — it’s about making timely, informed decisions. 2️⃣ Influence over approval Effective women leaders focus on stakeholder alignment, not universal validation. 3️⃣ Systems over self-sacrifice Sustainable leadership comes from building processes and people, not burnout. This is where leadership development moves from motivation to capability. 👉 𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐆𝐂𝐂 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬 — 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞-𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞 — 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭. Women leadership isn’t about fixing women. It’s about fixing how leadership has been defined. And GCCs are setting that new definition. #GCC #womenleadership

Team diversity alone is not the differentiator. This is my conclusion as a practitioner who has worked with diverse teams for the last 12 years. The real differentiator is whether an environment allows team members to express their cognitive differences without paying a social cost. This became even clearer when I revisited research with 150 senior teams by Reynolds & Lewis (HBR) - the work behind the “Generative Organization” model. The highest-performing teams weren’t simply diverse. And they weren’t just “supportive” or “positive.” They were generative - a specific and surprisingly rare combination of cognitive diversity + psychological safety, expressed through behaviours that were: • curious, but not chaotic, • forceful, but not threatening, • experimental, but anchored in direction, • encouraging, without collapsing into harmony-seeking. And what truly set these teams apart was not only what they practiced but what they refused to normalize. 🙅♂️They did not use hierarchy to settle disagreements. 🙅♀️They did not switch to controlling or directive behaviour when uncertainty increased. 🙅They did not pressure people to conform for speed, comfort, or predictability. These patterns sound small, but their impact is profound. In my work with senior leaders and boards, this is where real transformation begins: I dont add more “inspirational behaviours,” but help them unlearn the ingrained interaction patterns that make difference unsafe, inconvenient or irrelevant. P.S.: Which type of organization do you think is more widespread today: generative, oppositional, uniform, or defensive?

Forget Co-CEOs—how about a whole team of CEOs? I saw Co-CEO trending recently on LinkedIn, sparked by Spotify announcing co-CEOs to replace founder Daniel Ek. It’s a trend catching on in a number of organisations, with arguments both for and against. Several years ago HBR demonstrated superior average returns for the small number of co-CEO-led companies, with fully 60% outperforming. Having played a few co-leadership roles, and seeing two of our competitors thriving with this model, I am sympathetic. But why stop there? Personally, I believe decision-making is sharper when it’s made by those closest to our clients and people day in, day out, and those who really feel “the beat” of the organisation. The ability to combine global perspective with local judgment is fundamental. That’s why, when I’m in London, Lisa Quest is “my boss” (and I regularly make that point) since she leads our UK&I team. Its an example of dynamic subordination - empowering the right leader for the situation, and having the right people in the room to make decisions, not dictated by a hierarchical structure. It’s also why we have a Global Leadership Team Council—created to bring frontline voices from every corner of our business into the room to challenge our leadership team’s thinking and bring fresh perspectives. Leadership has to be so much more than a title. Organisations with a true leadership ethos throughout—where colleagues are empowered to drive forward based on a shared set of values, aligned vision, goals and incentives, shared metrics, ‘shared consciousness’ as proselytized by General Stanley McCrystal (information flowing freely to ensure that teams have the information they need at their fingertips to do the best job possible) and collective responsibility —are, in my opinion, the ones best set up to succeed. (And at some future point I’ll write about the challenges of collective responsibility. Group accountability can often mean no accountability, but there are ways!)

I dunno. I could be wrong. But I have this sneaking suspicion that axe throwing and escape rooms won’t solve your team’s dysfunction. I was chatting to a manager the other day and she was telling me some wild stories about their leadership team dysfunction. They all agreed they need to fix it. But the fix was a series of ‘fun’ team building activities to get the group working together. It still surprises me how we default to quick fixes for this stuff…. My team don’t like each other, so let’s bond over axe throwing and move past all our unspoken issues. The things that actually help a team move from dysfunctional to healthy tend to be way less glamorous (if we can call axe throwing glamorous) and take more effort. Here’s what helps: 1. Define the ‘must have’ behaviours you need on the team. Some of the must haves we see on healthy teams: drive, debate, seeking to understand, active listening, assuming good intent, courage to make the hard calls, empathy for each other. 2. Identify the gaps between what you promise and practice. Trust issues start when we make promises but don’t live them out in practice. Ask the team: What commitments have we made that we aren’t living out and why? What can we do to close the gaps between what we promise and practice? 3. Get the unspoken conflict to the surface. Ask the team: what conversations have we been avoiding? What are people thinking but not saying? 4. Agree to show up as one collaborative team, not representatives of your technical function. Ask yourself: how are my functional preferences getting the way of the organisational priorities? This is HUGE. Like such a common source of tension on teams. 5. Commit to being both courageous and humble. You need the team to be both brave enough to engage in tough conversations and humble enough to listen and own when they didn’t get it right. #leadership #management #HR #peopleandculture