Management gemsFind here some gems from our monitoring of the best publications on leadership and management

Trust is an essential ingredient in the performance of any organization. And yet, it remains something of a mystery: why is it so slow to build, so easily eroded? A detour through neuroscience allows a better understanding of the ways in which it is built.

Paul Zak has studied the mechanics of trust over time. He observes that, unlike other species, our brains make us naturally inclined to collaborate with people from outside our immediate circle—but that certain behaviors can hinder this disposition toward trust.

Trust is underpinned by two of our brains’ characteristics. First, a highly developed cortex that enables abstraction, analysis and planning. It allows us to anticipate the actions of others and decide if we can trust them. Next, a capacity for empathy, which helps us share the emotions of others and decipher their motivations based on subtle clues. It emerges from the study that, in the corporate world, the behaviors most destructive of trust are the constant fear of doing the wrong thing (“No matter what I do, I’ll be upbraided”) and domineering behavior.

Findings that should be explored in greater depth to boost trust within your organization.

Source: How Our Brains Decide When to Trust, Paul J. Zak, Harvard Business Review, July 2019.

Generative AI is able to produce dozens of ideas in response to a problem in the blink of an eye. While the potential capacity to enhance our creativity may appear considerable, the results of early experiments are more tempered.

A study conducted by Stanford University and the consulting firm GeoLab shows that we still have some way to go. The researchers asked several teams to generate solutions to a real-life problem by drawing on a pool of data. The time allotted was 90 minutes; only some part of the teams had access to ChatGPT. The generated ideas were then graded from A (very convincing) to D (of no interest) by the concerned company’s decision-makers.

Surprisingly, the use of generative AI only very marginally increased the number of ideas generated (+8%). Although it did help reduce the number of bad ideas (–7%), it also slightly diminished the number of excellent ideas (–2%). Indeed, generative AI tools are designed to deliver the most statistically probable answers. They therefore tend towards the average, rather than towards truly innovative ideas.

It is therefore best to start with a reflection process that is not influenced by AI-generated ideas. AI then excels at helping to iteratively improve these ideas. Learning to interact with AI to deepen your ideas will thus become a key competency.

Source: Don’t Let Gen AI Limit Your Team’s Creativity, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2024.

The most innovative teams are the ones whose members do not hesitate to bring up problems, suggest ideas that are not likely to meet universal support, and challenge one another. But how can such freedom of expression be encouraged?

Psychological safety is one essential condition. People need to be able to deviate from the prevalent way of thinking without being immediately criticized or ostracized, and be able to share their difficulties transparently.

Another condition is equally crucial: intellectual honesty. If the team members are not totally honest about their analysis of the problem and if they do not emulate each other to raise the relevant level of expectations, innovation can stagnate.

The challenge is thus to combine these high standards with a feeling of psychological safety. Jeff Wilke, the former head of Amazon’s retail division, retold his lengthy debates with CEO Jeff Bezos over the launch of the Kindle e-reader. Wilke feared disappointing his customers, as Amazon lacked any experience in producing consumer electronics. Bezos believed that Amazon needed to seek to expand its skillset. This divergence enabled them to revisit the project and to significantly improve it. The key to this success? Having managed to put egos behind adherence to a common goal.

Source: Why Innovation Depends on Intellectual Honesty, Jeff Dyer, Nathan Furr, Curtis Lefrandt, Taeya Howell, MIT Sloan Management Review, January 2023.

Over half of executives report regularly experiencing intense stress at work. The blame is often put on the environment: the noise of open spaces, the sometimes tense discussions between colleagues, the sometimes arduous commutes… And yet, the rise of remote working has not helped to make things any better.

Canadian neuroscientist Sonia Lupien explains that, far more than the work environment, what stresses us is our way of working. With the advent of new technologies, our attention has become dangerously fragmented: we are constantly receiving notifications, and the new norm is to show near-immediate responsiveness. All neuroscientific research shows that this runs counter to our brain’s optimal functioning. For one thing, every interruption requires an intense effort to restore concentration; for another, the feeling of making progress is necessary for our equilibrium. Indeed, a state of deep concentration has been found to significantly reduce stress hormones.

So, what if we took the lessons of neuroscience into account to organize our work? The researcher recommends sequencing our week in such a way as to alternate surface level work—meetings, replying to e-mails, etc.—with in-depth work, which requires concentration. The former is best suited to the workplace, where we can effectively exchange with our colleagues. The latter is more easily done from home, free of any interruptions.

Source: « L’antidote au stress au travail, ce n’est pas la relaxation, c’est la concentration » (“The antidote to stress at work isn’t relaxation, it’s concentration”), interview of Sonia Lupien by Natacha Czerwinski, Le Point, March 2024.

Crises follow one another and each is different. The ones we are currently undergoing are all the more complex for combining armed conflicts with economic, societal and sanitary disruptions. The time has come to take a closer look at McKinsey’s retrospective analysis of the crisis of 2007.

Approximately 10% of the 1,100 companies studied across 12 business sectors proved to be particularly resilient: they not only withstood the crisis, but also prospered in the process.

What did they do to achieve this feat? Most of them very quickly gave themselves the means to be flexible. At the first signs of the crisis, they strengthened their balance sheets by withdrawing from underperforming activities and reducing their debts. This gave them the means to ride out the crisis while maintaining a sustainable financial situation, then to seize the opportunities offered by the market rebound. They also focused on the reduction of their production costs, while maintaining their expenses relating to sales and administrative support. Operational flexibility played an important role, with the renegotiation of more flexible contracts and the expansion of supply sources.

In a context of crisis, investing in flexibility seems to always be a good first move to facilitate the resilience of one's organization.

Source: Bubbles pop, downturns stop, Martin Hirt, Kevin Laczkowski, Mihir Mysore, McKinsey Quarterly, May 2019.