Scott Newton

THE PARADOX OF COLLECTIVE PROTAGONISM: WHEN INDIVIDUALISM CHALLENGES LEADERSHIP. The phenomenon of multiple protagonism in teams without defined leadership represents one of the most intriguing challenges of contemporary organizational dynamics. In a scenario where each member seeks to stand out individually, the absence of effective leadership can both catalyze innovation and precipitate organizational chaos. Peter Drucker, in his work "The Effective Executive", warned that "there are no 'team people'. There are only people who work in teams." This observation resonates especially when we look at environments where multiple talents compete for visibility and recognition. The question is not simply whether individual protagonism can benefit the team, but how to harmonize personal ambitions with collective goals. Organizational psychology demonstrates that self-organizing teams can achieve exceptional results. The concept of "emergent leadership," studied by Henry Mintzberg, suggests that in highly skilled groups, leadership can flow naturally among members, based on situational expertise. However, this model requires extraordinary emotional and professional maturity. An illustrative example comes from Silicon Valley, where companies like Valve Corporation experimented with horizontal structures without formal hierarchies. While initially promising, this approach revealed significant challenges in coordinating efforts and resolving conflicts. As Jim Collins noted in "Good to Great": "Greatness is never a function of circumstances; It's a matter of conscious choices and discipline." The most significant risk of multiple protagonism without effective leadership is the development of what experts call "individual hero syndrome" – where each member prioritizes their personal brilliance over group cohesion. This phenomenon can result in duplication of efforts, fragmented communication, and divergent goals. The solution may lie in what Edgar Schein calls a "culture of learning", where the focus shifts from individual protagonism to collective excellence. In this model, success is measured not by individual visibility, but by the joint impact of each member's contributions. For multiple protagonism to work positively, it is essential to establish: clarity of shared purpose, efficient communication protocols, constructive feedback mechanisms, and a culture that celebrates both individual contributions and collective achievements. As Margaret Wheatley teased: "Leadership is not in a person, but in a space between people." Perhaps the real challenge is not to eliminate the desire for individual protagonism, but to create an environment where multiple protagonists can coexist productively, turning potential competition into collaboration sinérgica. ___________________ Check out my books on Amazon! The link is in the comments. A HUG FROM PROF. MARCÃO!

1.955

70 commenti

The Gap that swallows Millions - yet no one talks about. This gap doesn’t show up on market reports. It is not mentioned in most Business Development Strategy Decks. And no one puts it in the proposal post-mortem. But it is there. ✅ Between the promising meeting... ❌ …and the silence that follows. ✅ Between your brilliant offer... ❌ …and their quiet decision to walk away. It is the Cultural Trust Gap — and most Western professionals don’t even know they have fallen into it. - They fly in. - They prepare. - They bring credentials, market research, polished decks. But in the Gulf, deals don’t fall through because of what is on the slides. They fall through because of what is not understood. - How trust is built. - When to speak. - Who introduces you. - Why silence means “not yet” — not “no.” - What signals respect — and what quietly signals risk. This is the gap I am closing. ❌ Not by teaching generic “cultural awareness.” ❌ Not by recycling surface-level tips. But by giving Western professionals a repeatable framework that bridges the invisible divide between great ideas — and trusted relationships. It is the difference between being a visitor… and being invited back. This is what is in The Gulf Etiquette Success Playbook. Because one small misstep can cost you a deal — But one small shift in approach can open doors you didn’t know existed. Get it here: https://lnkd.in/e5p3RrRE ps. also how excited am I to talk business and strategy with my good friend Ahmed AbdulAziz Buhajeeh today.

118

51 commenti

Negotiation Excellence: Tactical vs. Strategic Approaches Who’s your go-to expert for negotiation insights? The Conti vs. Jensen comparison highlights two distinct paths to negotiation mastery: Giuseppe Conti (#1 Global Gurus) – A master of tactical persuasion and behavioral economics, leveraging structured methodologies for corporate and procurement negotiations. His expertise lies in influencing, deal-making, and optimizing outcomes in competitive environments. Dr. Keld Jensen (DBA)(#3 Global Gurus) – A former CEO of a publicly traded tech company, Jensen redefines negotiation through collaboration, trust, and transparency. His SMARTnership and NegoEconomics frameworks go beyond traditional tactics—unlocking hidden value and driving exponential results for Fortune 500 companies, governments, and leading universities. What’s the real difference? Negotiation is no longer just about winning—it’s about creating. SMARTnership shifts the focus from competing over a fixed pie to growing the pie together, revealing untapped potential in every deal. The world’s top organizations are using NegoEconomics to transform negotiations into high-value collaborations. Which approach drives better results? Do you rely on tactical persuasion or strategic collaboration? The Conti vs. Jensen PDF explores these approaches—offering a deeper look into how each shapes the future of negotiation. Download and explore the insights. Let’s discuss—how do you approach negotiations in today’s business landscape? The PDF content is created by ChatGPT. #Negotiation #SMARTnership #ValueCreation #Trust #Procurement #Leadership Tine Anneberg Global Gurus Gražvydas Jukna Jason Myrowitz Juan Manuel García P. Darryl Legault Moïse NOUBISSI BMI Executive Institute UCLouvain I BMI Executive Institute World Commerce & Contracting #negotiationtraining

32

9 commenti

With growth, some industries face decline due to new and better technologies replacing them. In such cases, companies need to reduce their production to remain profitable. But most companies don’t want to be the first to cut down. They hope their competitors will reduce capacity instead, so they can grab a bigger part of the remaining market.   To understand how companies compete in shrinking industries, let’s take a simple example. Imagine two firms: Karan (small player) who makes just 1 gulel/quarter, while Arjun (big player) makes 2 gulels/quarter. Now let’s talk about payoff: - If Karan is alone in the market in the first quarter of 1988, he gets ₹3 profit/gulel. - If Arjun is alone, he gets only ₹2 profit/gulel, because selling two units brings the price down. But since he sells two, he still earns ₹4 total, more than Karan. - But if both stay, the market gets flooded. Prices fall, and each gulel gives only ₹0.50 profit. So: - Karan earns ₹0.50 & Arjun earns ₹1.00 (0.50 × 2)   When will each company decide to leave the market? And who will quit first?   Take January 1990 for example. At this point, Arjun always loses money, whether Karan stays in the market or leaves. So, it makes no sense for Arjun to keep running his business. The smart move is to exit.   Now, imagine you are Karan in mid-1989, and Arjun is still around. What would you do? You would think ahead, “If Arjun is likely to quit soon, should I stay a little longer and make some profit?” This way of thinking, looking ahead and planning backwards, is called backward induction in #game #theory. By using this approach, both Karan and Arjun can plan their best exit time. Their goal? To lose the least, or maybe make a final bit of profit, before the entire market disappears.   Once Karan reaches July 1989, he’s committed to staying in the market. At this point, exiting the market no longer makes sense, it would be a dominated strategy for him. From then on, Karan is assured of making monopoly profits, regardless of what Arjun does. On the other hand, Arjun, who can already see that staying in the market will lead to continuous losses from July 1989 onwards, has no reason to keep going if he’s still competing with Karan. Realizing this, Karan knows he can expect some good results: First, combined losses of both will be capped at ₹1.50 before July 1989. Then, Karan can expect ₹2.75 from being the only producer for the second half of 1989, and ₹2.50 in 1990. In total, Karan will make ₹5.25 in profit, enough to cover any earlier losses and still make a net gain.   By sticking it out until the end of 1990, Karan changes the game completely. Since Karan has a clear reason to stay, Arjun must exit earlier than he would like. From July 1988, Arjun starts losing money if he stays in the market as a competitor. By January 1990, he is forced to leave, even though he’s larger. Karan’s persistence forces Arjun out much earlier than expected, even though Arjun was initially stronger.

30

1 commento

How Boards Can Transform Limitations into Growth Constraints can feel like setbacks. They can also be the advantage that drives breakthrough growth. Boards often see limitations as barriers. A constrained budget, a complex merger, or a crisis can appear to narrow options. But with the right governance lens, those very constraints can become a catalyst for innovation, resilience, and market leadership. In my leadership roles, I’ve seen how organizations that embrace their “underdog” position often achieve the most transformative growth. The turning point comes when boards view constraints not as roadblocks, but as levers for change. Three Underdog Lessons CalCPA: Crisis as a Catalyst As COO during the 2008 financial crisis, I watched in-person learning collapse almost overnight. The limitation was stark. Instead of scaling back, we pioneered a virtual learning model that met members where they were. That decision not only sustained the organization through disruption; it positioned CalCPA as an industry leader in digital learning long before it became standard. AICPA & CIMA: Complexity as Opportunity While I was an executive, the evolution of a global joint venture created cultural and operational complexity that could easily have slowed momentum. With strong board support, we reframed the JV evolution not as a liability but as an opportunity to support the profession’s future success. By leaning into complexity, the organization broadened its reach, drove membership growth, and emerged stronger and more relevant on the global stage. ISC2: Turning a global workforce crisis into opportunity When I became CEO, the organization would annually issue research shining a light on the cybersecurity workforce crisis: The overwhelming lack of qualified cybersecurity professionals was creating massive risk for organizations and governments around the globe. Presenting the problem without a solution was limiting. Working with the board, we repositioned ISC2 as the leading organization to drive solutions to the crisis.. That shift of focus, along with a global-mindset, resulted in a transformation that doubled revenue, expanded membership nearly fivefold, and built international influence with governments and regulators. The Board’s Role Across each of these experiences, the pattern was clear. Constraints forced innovation. Limitations sharpened focus. Underdog positions created the conditions for bold moves that propelled organizations forward. Boards play a critical role in this process. The best boards see constraints not only as risks to be managed, but as strategic assets that can accelerate growth. The question for directors is straightforward: When your organization faces limits, are you treating them as obstacles or reframing them into the foundation for your next breakthrough? If your board is preparing for its next phase of growth, let’s connect and talk about how to turn today’s limits into tomorrow’s opportunities.

33

4 commenti

🌏 World Uncertainty Index & Metaruptions Trends are short-lived distractions. Reliance on megatrends can be reckless. That’s why at the Disruptive Futures Institute we talk about metaruptions - multidimensional systemic disruptions that defy prediction, interact and cascade in unexpected ways. Extrapolating trends, megatrends, or metatrends is dangerous: • They compound flawed assumptions; with time, assumptions magnify; wrong assumptions cascade and blow up. • The greater the pace of change, the harder it becomes to understand the long-term trajectory of a metatrend by looking in the rearview mirror. • They are derived from the past, extrapolating history towards the future. • They present unrelated shifts as if they interact predictably with each other. • Seldom account for second- or third-order consequences, implying continuity and a lack of spillovers. • They over-index technology as a driver of change. • They create a false sense of comfort, reliance, and knowability. Meanwhile, the World Uncertainty Index reminds us that today’s turbulence isn’t a temporary blip. It reflects structural, systemic change. Metaruptions matter because we need a new language (and a new operating system) for systemic unpredictability. They also demand humility: We may not yet know what a post-playbook era really looks like. In other people’s words:  💬 “Spitz is particularly compelling on the concept of the “metaruption,” which he describes as “a multidimensional family of systemic disruptions, including shifts in the notion of disruption itself.” These “metaruptions” defy all the rules, and here, as elsewhere, the author itemizes the opportunities that can accompany the “unparalleled messiness” of change.” — Kirkus Reviews, on "Disrupt With Impact: Achieve Business Success in an Unpredictable World"  💬 “The term ‘metaruptions’ describes a multidimensional family of systemic disruptions with widespread and self-perpetuating effects.” — From Prediction to Strategic Foresight, National Preparedness Commission (UK)  💬 “The concept of ‘metaruptions,’ coined by the Disruptive Futures Institute, describes multidimensional systemic disruptions that extend beyond initial impacts. Understanding these disruptions requires a creative approach, because conventional data analysis falls short.” — Sebastian Petric, “Scenario Planning, Foresight, and the Power of Imagination: Navigating an Uncertain Future”, Enterprising Investor, CFA Institute #Metaruptions #Unpredictability #Foresight #Keynotes #Systemicdisruption Disruptive Futures Institute Techistential (Strategic Foresight & Sustainable Futures) Kogan Page Publishing Kogan Page Business Insights

48

11 commenti

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 When the deal closes, most integration teams chase “headline” synergies: SG&A cuts, procurement scale, and IT harmonization. Yet the first true source of EBITDA lift is almost invisible: working capital. It’s where integration becomes cash flow. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 - Bain & Company research shows that top-quartile acquirers generate 30-50% of total deal value from working-capital improvement in the first year. - A 5-day reduction in DSO can free $14 m in cash for every $1 b in revenue. - Firms that sustain working-capital discipline outperform peers by 2-3 points in return on invested capital (ROIC). 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 - 𝐃𝐒𝐎 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭: clean disputes, automate invoicing, and enforce on-time billing within 30 days post-close. - 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: rationalize SKUs, align safety stocks, and kill redundancy across warehouses. - 𝐃𝐏𝐎 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞: harmonize payment terms, negotiate once, pay consistently. - 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: daily visibility dashboards linking working-capital KPIs to P&L. - 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: use early cash gains to offset one-off integration costs. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥-𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Consider RBC Bearings, a U.S. mid-cap precision-engineering manufacturer. After acquiring Dodge Industrial, they executed a 90-day cash release plan, which tightened receivables and aligned supplier terms, thereby freeing up liquidity to fund system integration. The result: improved cash conversion and ~150 bps EBITDA margin expansion within a year. Working capital isn’t back-office housekeeping; it’s the first, fastest, and cleanest synergy you can deliver. Cash funds strategy, so make it your opening move. If you're planning an M&A integration or preparing one, let's get in touch. #MergersAndAcquisitions #WorkingCapital #EBITDA #PostMergerIntegration #Synergies #ValueCreation #PrivateEquity #CashFlow #IntegrationExcellence #MidCap #RBCBearings #GlobalPMIPartners

56

18 commenti

Imagine a $94bn global industry, one that is estimated to grow at 10.2% in 2025 to over $100bn. That feels like a lot. Yet, the thing it 'fixes' remains the #1 problem in most organistations; the quality of leadership. Leaders get the outcomes they deserve. A harsh phrase, but one that is evidenced in your organisation today. Humans adapt to what their leaders care for, it is the primary driver of our motivation and the choices we make. We sensemake like crazy, reading the signals our leader actually send - not what they say. We interpret them, through the ladder of inference, creating beliefs and behaviours which drive our choices. ▷ If our leaders love something, we love it too. ▷ If our leaders hate something, we hate it too. ▷ If our leaders are meh! about something, guess what, we are meh! too. What you are seeing more widely in your organisation is a reflection of how your leaders are leading. But you know that, right? ▷ If you want more COLLABORATION: Look at the how your leaders collaborate with each other. ▷ If you want less SILOS: Look at what is driving the competitiveness between your teams. ▷ If you want more RISK TAKING: Look at why your leaders are fearful of taking risks. ▷ If you want more AGILITY: Look at the capacity of your leaders, and how they create agility in their teams. If you aren't getting the outcomes you desire, and you know you aren't, then maybe it is time to do something differently. Think about your leadership development as an intervention, rather than an activity that leaders take part in. This mindshift is a gamechanger. It makes it real, it brings it home, it can work fast, and can be really cost effective. You can shape it and evolve it, moving faster when you can, creating contagious outcomes. At Irrational Change we use a BeSci informed technique we call 'hide the vegetables', with interventions that feel like real work, highly experiential, highly interactive, yet fix the underlying reasons that you are struggling to be more collaborative, agile, risk takers. By fixing the root causes, it is sustainable. It happens quickly, and it achieves what you have struggled to achieve before. Like you, we get frustrated when we see the knowing - doing gap that most development creates. I know it, but I don't do it. So we fixed it. It is what we do. Leaders get the outcomes they deserve. If you want different outcomes, it is time to do things differently. #irrationalchange #betterleaders #hidethevegetables #dodifferent

25

6 commenti

Great guidebook by author Harvey A. Meier, PhD, CMC. This guide clearly and concisely presents best practices for Board governance. It is an excellent reference, reinforcing its status as “Robert’s Rules of Order for Boards.” Whether Directors are aspiring, new, or experienced, they will find this guide an insightful and practical resource that enhances their contributions in the boardroom. Get a copy here - https://lnkd.in/d6FsF-hz

16

𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱-𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹. This breakdown by Scott D. Clary offers a useful lens: Technical → 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 Adaptive → 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 Generative → 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 In the boardroom, we often reach for technical solutions — policies, frameworks, restructures — to address adaptive or generative challenges like culture, purpose, or future relevance. But, Adaptive challenges require 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘂𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝘀. Generative ones demand 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. 📌 As stewards of long-term value, are we matching the right kind of thinking to the problems we face? #BoardLeadership #Governance #Leadership #Excellence #AdaptiveLeadership #BoardEffectiveness #StrategicForesight #CorporateGovernance #DirectorsDuties #FutureFitBoards GovernEx

24

5 commenti