Professor Michael Roberto's Blog

The Downfall of Allbirds

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Remember when Allbirds became the "cool" shoe that offered comfort and plenty of virtue signaling about sustainability. People such as Larry Page and Barack Obama wore the sneakers. The company went public in 2021, reaching a valuation at one point of more than $4 billion. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that the company sold its intellectual property and other assets and liabilities to American Exchange Group for $39 million. What happened to this once-popular brand, and what can we learn from its downfall?

1. Allbirds expanded too aggressively and did not define their target market clearly as they grew. After its initial success, the company moved into a variety of other product categories. They developed other types of sneakers, as well as leggings, jackets, underwear, and golf shoes. The company seemed to be trying to both offer performance shoes and comfort shoes, without the technological capabilities and advantages required to sell to more serious athletes. Moreover, it invested heavily in retail stores, building out brick-and-mortar locations around the country. Through it all, it became unclear who Allbirds' target market was. Were they selling to athletes, "tech bros", or wealthy people who cared deeply about the planet? Were they selling to millennials, or a much broader audience? Trying to be all things to all people turned out to be a key factor in their downfall.

2. Allbirds' value proposition did not have sufficient breadth and depth. The company positioned its distinctive wool sneakers as highly sustainable footwear. The question becomes: Is sustainability sufficient enough to drive very high willingness to pay on the part of consumers? In most successful cases, companies pair a sustainability dimension of their value proposition with other key features. For example, On running shoes offer high performance for athletes and comfort for walkers, not just eco-friendly materials and the opportunity to recycle used sneakers. Tesla offers speed, luxury, and status, not just the opportunity to drive a car that does not use fossil fuels. Patagonia offers very high quality, durable, and stylish outdoor wear alongside its eco-friendly credentials. Allbirds trumpeted the shoes as comfortable, but many companies were innovating to offer incredible comfort. I bought a pair of Allbirds; while I liked the shoes, they were not durable, and other shoes offered superior comfort. In short, Allbirds failed to optimize other aspects of its value proposition, relying too heavily on sustainability alone to drive willingness to pay. The Wall Street Journal's Suzanne Kapner writes,

The premise that consumers would pay a premium for sustainably made products turned out to be flawed. “Sustainability comes way down the batting order behind factors like style, price and comfort,” said Neil Saunders, a managing director of research firm GlobalData. “Allbirds could have leaned in to any of these things alongside its green credentials but largely chose not to do so.”

3. Quality and durability concerns undermined the company's brand image. The shoes didn't last long enough for many customers, or they became damaged too easily. In the end, people were not willing to sacrifice quality for the sake of sustainability.

4. Finally, competitors offered a more compelling value proposition. Let's take On, for example. They began by offering a distinctive, high performance running shoe. They layered on eco-friendly components to their value proposition. Then, they expanded their target market by attracting customers who found the shoes very comfortable for walking. Elderly individuals loved them too for this reason. They almost didn't need to market to this broader audience. Word-of-mouth spread, and the distinctive look of the shoe attracted attention. Yet, On didn't lose sight of the athlete. They continue to innovate with the serious runner in mind. In many ways, starting with the athlete and then selling to the masses is an easier transition than the one that Allbirds tried to execute (i.e., going from a casual shoe to trying to compete with performance sneakers).

How Do We Avoid Getting Caught by Surprise?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:38:00 +0000

Why do we get caught by surprise at times? A competitor catches us off guard with an innovative new product launch. A new social trend emerges that shifts consumer tastes substantially. A sudden shift in workforce engagement and employee turnover stuns us. How can we avoid getting surprised by such changes?

In a new study, Nir Halevy, Elizabeth Miclau, and Serena Lee argue that the traditional explanations may not suffice. Conventional wisdom suggests that such surprises often occur because managers fail to gather, attend to, and evaluate information effectively. They stick to pre-existing beliefs rather than adjusting their conclusions based on new data, or they dismiss those with dissenting views. In short, people miss the signals because they are not processing information effectively. Halevy and colleagues provide an alternative explanation. In their paper, published American Psychologist, the researchers posit that, "strategic surprises emerge when individuals, organizations, and nations think too abstractly or too concretely during strategic interactions." Stanford Leadership Insights summarizes the scholars' main argument:

"The researchers suggest that people and institutions can be caught off guard when they think too abstractly or too concretely about the information related to a particular situation. The quality of information matters, but so does the framework in which it is interpreted. Overly abstract thinking relies on broad schemas that can lead decision-makers to apply poorly fitting mental models, misjudge possible threats or opportunities, or assume that others will behave in stereotypical ways. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, involves being deeply immersed in the minutiae of a specific situation, which can lead people to ignore broad trends."

Thus, the scholars suggest that we shift between abstract and concrete thinking as we evaluate data about emerging trends, marketplace dynamics, and consumer preferences. In so doing, we are more likely to arrive at robust conclusions. You are less likely to get caught off guard.

What is the Value of an AI-Generated Cover Letter?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 12:52:00 +0000

Source: https://chatmaxima.com/

Cover letters used to provide insight to hiring managers and helped them identify which candidates to select for an interview. A well-written cover letter signaled something about the quality of a candidate. Moreover, a well-tailored letter also could signal that a candidate was serious about the particular job opening. Do cover letters still have signaling value in the age of AI?

Several months ago, Jingyi Cui, Gabriel Dias, and Justin Ye published a working paper titled "Signaling in the Age of AI: Evidence from Cover Letters." They studied over 5 million cover letters submitted to 100,000 jobs on freelancer.com platform. The examined the impact of a new feature on the platform that uses AI to generate cover letters for job candidates. Perhaps not surprisingly, "Access to the tool increased textual alignment between cover letters and job posts and raised callback rates."

However, that is not the end of the story. The key finding pertained to a substantial drop in the correlation between cover-letter tailoring and invitations to interview, as well as a significant drop in the correlation with job offers. On the other hand, workers' review scores (a metric developed by the platform to evaluate past work experiences) became more meaningful. The authors conclude "These patterns suggest that as AI adoption increases, employers substitute away from easily manipulated signals like cover letters toward harder-to-fake indicators of quality."

Finally, the scholars examined whether people spent time revising or editing the AI-generated cover letter. Many people did not. Yet, those people who did edit the letters increased their probability of landing the job!

Interestingly, another study by Galdin and Silbert also studied job candidates on the freelancer.com platform. They found that the length of applications increased after the introduction of AI tools to help candidates. At the same time, "employers had a high willingness to pay for workers with more customized applications in the period before LLMs were introduced, but not after." In short, they discovered a drop in the value of the well-crafted application as a signal of quality. That drop had important implications. They write, "Without costly signaling, employers are less able to identify high-ability workers, causing the market to become significantly less meritocratic: compared to the pre-LLM equilibrium, workers in the top quintile of the ability distribution are hired 19% less often, workers in the bottom quintile are hired 14% more often."

Have We Failed to Prepare Gen Z Properly for the Workforce?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:43:00 +0000

Have We Failed to Prepare Gen Z Properly for the Workforce? NYU Professor Tessa West tackles this question in today's Wall Street Journal. She argues that many recent college graduates do not have the social skills required to communicate clearly, manage conflict, and respond well to constructive feedback. She argues that they lack these skills for three main reasons:

1. West points out that a substantially lower percentage of younger workers have experienced a romantic relationship. Therefore, they have not developed the social competencies that are cultivated through these types of complex relationships. Those competencies (such as how to express emotions and deal with conflict) often are critical for effective workplace interactions.

2. Online education has harmed their ability to collaborate effectively on in-person teams.

3. The heavy reliance on digital communication (texts and instant messages) have made them unprepared to handle high-stakes interactions such as key presentations and in-person meetings, as well as unplanned moments of engagement with their managers.

West has some helpful suggestions for improving the ability of younger workers to navigate the workforce. I particularly liked her thoughts about creating a "culture of asking." Here's an excerpt:

Create a culture of asking. Anxiety leads us to retreat, rather than asking how to approach situations. There will be many times when new employees are unsure of whether the criticism they faced was normal or toxic, if they should approach the team first or their boss over an interpersonal conflict, and what “casual Friday” really means. Leaders should showcase asking. Start with established employees doing it—asking for clarity over jargon in a meeting is a good place to start. People should feel comfortable asking, “Was this feedback negative from the boss? I can’t tell.” They will build social connections while learning the landscape.

Transparency + Clarity: Information Dumps Don't Work

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 12:34:00 +0000

Lately, we hear a great deal about the value of radical transparency. Consultants argue that leaders need to share information broadly with members of their organization. They argue that radical transparency builds buy-in, trust, and commitment. Sounds sensible, right? Is there a downside though? What risks does this approach create?

Martin Gutmann and Antoni Lacinai examine this issue in a new Fast Company article. They contend that transparency only works when coupled with clarity. They write:

Transparency in a company setting typically means more dashboards, more all-hands, and more context. It feels responsible—especially in uncertain moments—because it signals you aren’t hiding anything. But facts don’t organize themselves. People still have to decide what matters, what they need to ignore, and what to do next. When leaders don’t provide that structure, they leave teams confused, and teams will fill in the blanks with rumor and gossip. In the end, this leads to more insecurity and more internal politics.

Gutmann and Lacinai argue that leaders need to explain why information is important, and then they must provide clear direction to their team members. They have be wary of creating cognitive overload and overwhelming their employees with information. People need to know what the priorities are and how to interpret key data.

For me, any attempt to add clarity begins with leaders stepping into their employees' shoes. They need to try to see things from their team members' perspectives. How will they interpret information? What might confuse them? How might they be unsettled by certain data? Stepping into their shoes will help leaders frame their messages, anticipate challenges, and develop strategies for reducing stress and anxiety among workers.

NASA Issues Investigative Report About Starliner Failure

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 13:00:00 +0000

Twenty-three years ago, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board issued its comprehensive report on the 2003 Space Shuttle Accident. My colleagues Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I began an intensive research project about the tragedy, and we published a case study, book chapter, and Harvard Business Review article with our analysis. We argued that the failed mission demonstrated how and why organizations and their leaders actively downplay ambiguous threats at times. We examined how the culture and team dynamics made it difficult for technical experts to express dissenting views and share bad news.

Sadly, it seems that many of these same challenges led to the problems on the 2024 Starliner mission which left astronauts stranded on the space station for approximately nine months. Yesterday, NASA issued its investigative report on the Starliner failure. Here is the excerpt from the report that caught my attention:

A posture of risk acceptance was communicated by CCP (NASA's Commercial Crew Program) and Boeing leadership, creating division within the large working/joint team and eroded trust. During the mission, CCP and Boeing operational leadership consistently conveyed a position of risk acceptance and readiness to undock, which many perceived as premature and dismissive of unresolved technical concerns. This was particularly apparent regarding the Service Module RCS 138thruster anomalies. This posture gave the impression that completing the sortie mission was prioritized over a thorough assessment of crew safety risks.

One interviewee noted, “People said, ‘Why bother? He’s driving in one direction and that’s what he wants.’”

Some interviewees also mentioned the shuttle operational background of the SMMT Chair, NOM, and CCP PM, and the possible preconceived notion that accepting risk to return the vehicle and crew was the only real path forward. This mirrors decisions made for the shuttle when no safe haven in LEO or alternative return capability was available.

This forward leaning approach led to a breakdown in open dialogue. NASA institutional stakeholders, including ISSP, FOD, and Technical Authorities, felt their input was undervalued or ignored, requiring governance intervention to ensure additional data analysis occurred before a final crew return decision. The perception that CCP leadership had formed a position before hearing all viewpoints created organizational silence, resistance to collaboration, and stagnation in decision making.

Strong personalities within CCP and Boeing were seen as overly optimistic in presenting data, which some interviewees interpreted as lobbying rather than objective analysis. This dynamic discouraged dissenting views and contributed to a growing sense of distrust. As one interviewee described, opposing positions felt like “pushing a rock uphill.”

The situation improved later in the mission when key personnel changes were made within the Boeing team and there was collective recognition that senior leadership should have played a more active role in facilitating respectful engagement across differing perspectives. These changes allowed for more productive conversations regarding the technical qualification campaign of the hardware and testing at the WSTF. The lack of early intervention to address team dysfunction allowed conflict to overshadow mission objectives and delayed consensus on critical decisions.

Organizational silence, discouraging of dissenting views, dismissed technical concerns, overly optimistic analysis... the pattern is clear. Once again, we see ample evidence that leadership did not create a culture in which open and candid dialogue could occur about ambiguous risks. I'm glad to see a careful after-action review taking place here, with transparency about the organizational problems that have been identified (rather than only focusing on the technical problems). Having said that, now the challenge is clear: can NASA turn these lessons into action and fundamentally change the way future programs are led?

Overestimating What We Know: The Trap of Effortless Search

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 17:01:00 +0000

You would like to learn about a particular topic. You have two options. You can search online for information, which AI tools and search engines summarize quickly for you. Alternatively, you could dig deeper, read an article or two, listen to a podcast, and... maybe even read a book on the subject! How much do we rely on the easy route to knowledge, and how confident are we that we have become highly knowledgeable through our rapid search for information?

In her amazing book, Uncertain: The Wisdom and Wonder of Being Unsure, author and journalist Maggie Jackson explores this topic. She writes:

After even a brief online search, information seekers tend to think they know more than they actually do, according to a decade of studies. In one set of five experiments, people were asked to study weighty topics, such as autism or inflation, before taking a quiz on the subject. Half the participants were told to find an online article on the topic, while others were simply given the same information without having to search for it. People who searched online were far more overconfident going into the quiz. In one round, they predicted that, on average, they would get two-thirds of the questions right, although they scored less than 50%.

In contrast, people who had been given the information studied longer, absorbed more, and got about 60% of the questions right - about what they had expected. Rarely if ever in life are just handed information. Searching and seeking are the human condition. But how we do so matters. In the virtual realm, we seem to lose the ability to sense that we don't know, the starting point of discernment. This false confidence blossoms even when people learn nothing from an online search, further studies show. By assuming we can know effortlessly, we close our eyes to our failings and so to chances to explore. We run from the work of fully attuning to the here and now, finding in hubris a retreat from the challenges of facing up to reality as potent as that of outcome-oriented fear.

This research suggests that we need to proceed with caution when we jump to conclusions based on a breezy online search or quick prompt on an AI tool such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. Ask yourself: What do I actually know? How deep and accurate is my knowledge? Should I be making critical decisions based on this superficial knowledge?

Careful How You Handle Familiar Faces on Your Team

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:09:00 +0000

When you take on a new role, do you like adding some familiar faces to your team? It seems logical. We want to surround ourselves with a few people we trust and can depend on when we move into a new position. We hope that having some trusted lieutenants on the team will lead to faster, more impactful action. We may encounter some key risks, though, when we build our team in this fashion. Morag Barrett, a leadership development expert, has written a terrific article for Fast Company about how leaders should (and should not) build their teams.

Barrett argues that inner and outer circles may form on the team. In academic terms, we describe this type of situation as a "fault line" between subgroups, and that type of fracture can harm team performance a great deal. Barrett writes, "Leaders who 'go way back' share shorthand, context, and trust earned elsewhere. Others, often equally capable with deep institutional knowledge, find themselves outside that orbit."

She goes on to give an example of one CEO with whom she worked. She writes, "I coached a CEO who’d brought three former colleagues into a 10-person executive team. Within months, critical decisions were being pre-discussed among “The Four” before formal meetings. The other six leaders became increasingly passive, not because they lacked capability, but because challenging pre-baked decisions felt politically risky."

I've seen this type of situation as well. If team members outside the inner circle feel as though decisions are being presented at staff meetings as a fait accompli, then buy-in and commitment will decline precipitously. Motivation and decision implementation will suffer. We can bring trusted colleagues onto our team, but we need to work hard to integrate these members with the others in the group. We can't let people feel as though there is a huge status gap between two subgroups.

What Happens When We Can Quantify Some Aspects of a Decision But Not Others?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:06:00 +0000

Do we make biased decisions because we are obsessed with quantifying our decision analysis? Linda Chang, Erika Kirgios, Sendil Mullainathan, and Katherine Milkman have published an interesting new study titled, "Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision-making." They asked the question: "Do people decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not?"

The scholars conducted a series of experiments. Each decision that the research subjects encountered involved some tradeoffs. Some dimensions of the tradeoffs were described quantitatively and others qualitatively. The results of the experiments demonstrated that people tended to prefer the alternatives about which numerical data was offered, rather than qualitative information. Thea authors explain that, "This 'quantification fixation' is driven by the perception that numbers are easier to use for comparative decision-making."

The scholars argue that we face many decisions in business and in life in which some dimensions of the tradeoffs can be quantified, but others simply cannot. The qualitative information may be rich and useful though. The numbers may tell only a portion of the story. Think about a manager facing a decision about a brand extension. Numbers may be readily available demonstrating the potential for sales growth, market share increases, and profitability enhancement. On the other hand, the risks around brand dilution may be more readily described in qualitative fashion. Do managers pay less attention those very real brand dilution risks simply because they can't easily produce numbers about how dilution may arise and impact the business?

The scholars conclude, "Those who structure decision contexts ignore quantification fixation at their peril. As quantification becomes increasingly prevalent, people may be pulled away from valuable qualitative information toward potentially less diagnostic numeric information."

How Good is the Second Act for a Leader?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:32:00 +0000

Last week, I examined Mike Vrabel's path to the Super Bowl as a head coach in the National Football League. I noted that 33% of Super Bowl winning head coaches had achieved their championship after failing to win a title with their first team. The data suggest that a coach's second act can be more successful than the first, perhaps because leadership is a learned capability. All-time great coaches such as Andy Reid, Bill Belichick, Mike Shanahan, and Don Shula all seemed to have learned from their successes and failures during their first tenure as a head coach.

Today, I decided to examine whether this phenomenon was unique to the NFL. Does the same pattern apply in the other major sports in the United States? The table below shows the data for the past 50 years in each of the four major sports leagues. As it turns out, the NFL is not unique. In fact, the other sports show an even more dramatic positive effect for coaches in their second (or later) act! In Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League, more than 60% of championship coaches in the past 50 years did not win during their first tenure as a head coach. All-time great hockey coaches and baseball managers in this group include Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, Joe Torre, Dusty Baker, Terry Francona, and Tony LaRussa.

By the way, during my original analysis of the NFL, I also noted that the sport's championship coaches demonstrated that the curse of expertise is very real. The curse of expertise means that people with specialized knowledge who have achieved remarkable success often struggle to teach others, because they cannot easily put themselves into the shoes of someone for whom results do not come as easily. In the NFL, only one Super Bowl winning head coach earned entry into the Hall of Fame as a player. Is the curse of expertise also evident in the other sports? Indeed! Few Hall of Famers won championships in the last 50 years as a head coach: NFL (1), MLB (1), NHL (2), and NBA (4).

Interestingly, second act success stories seem quite rare in business. Most CEOs seem to achieve their most prominent success during their first tenure as a leader. A few people stand out as having more successful second acts. These include Reed Hastings, Eric Schmidt, and Stewart Butterfield. The question that I'm not sure I can answer is: Why are there more highly successful second acts in sports than in business? Perhaps companies simply don't give many people that opportunity for a second chance if they have struggled during their first tenure as a chief executive. Others would argue that talent matters more than coaching in sports, and that coaches win championships when they find the right fit between awesome talent and their good leadership skills. Perhaps we simply attribute too much of a company's success or failure to the CEO, and therefore, we do not see through the struggles of a firm to identify the strong leadership capabilities of its top executive.

Training Your Team Members Boosts Your Productivity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:18:00 +0000

How much does your company invest in training and development for your employees? Is the ROI positive? Many executives scrutinize training and development programs closely. They want to know if the payoff justifies the investment. Typically, people measure ROI by examining the impact on the employees undergoing the training. We ask questions such as: Are they more productive? Are they more engaged? Do they stay at the firm longer?

A new study examines another potentially important impact of training and development programs. Miguel Espinosa and Christopher T. Stanton studied 526 frontline workers and 129 managers in Columbia who had undergone a 120-hour, 16-week training program. According to HBS Working Knowledge, the scholars concluded:

"Goal achievement among frontline workers increased by roughly 10% after training. Managers completed 3% more of their goals related to strategic tasks. Supervisors who worked most closely with trained workers benefited the most, boosting productivity by about 8%. An examination of email data explains why: After the training, frontline workers sent fewer emails to their managers—an indication that the training had given them the knowledge and confidence to pursue their work independently. Trained employees enjoyed additional benefits, including career stability and growth. For example, they were more likely than their non-trained counterparts to remain with the organization over the next three years. And they were about twice as likely as their untrained counterparts to receive promotions."

Now this study examined frontline workers. Other research should examine development programs for employees at higher levels of the organization to examine the productivity benefits. Perhaps the benefits will not be as widespread. However, this study certainly provides food for thought. Executives may be looking at ROI all wrong when it comes to leadership development programs at all levels.

Don't Just Observe Customer Pain Points; EXPERIENCE Them!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:10:00 +0000

When I joined Staples as a young MBA graduate, I spent part of my first week working in one of the retail locations. I worked in the checkout lane, unloaded shipments, stocked shelves, and answered customer questions. Tom Stemberg, Staples' founder and CEO, believed that we had to walk in the shoes of our store associates and interact directly with customers to understand the business. He was right. I was reminded of that experience when I read a recent Fast Company story by Christine de Wendel, CEO of sunday, a company that provides a payment platform to restaurants. De Wendel insists that every employee must work a restaurant shift during the onboarding process. She explains why:

Using our industry as an example, the restaurant space can’t be disrupted from a distance. It’s intensely human. A server manages six tables, remembers who wanted dressing on the side, tracks which kitchen orders are running late, and still needs to radiate warmth when checking on the anniversary couple at table twelve. When we ask them to adopt new technology, we’re not just changing their workflow, we’re asking them to trust us with their tips, their table turn times, and their relationship with guests. You can’t design for that kind of stakes without understanding them viscerally.

De Wendel argues that there is a critical distinction between OBSERVING customer pain points and EXPERIENCING them yourself. It is not sufficient to just interview users or watch them in action. You have to live their experience, filled with its obstacles, emotions, and frustrations.

Perhaps the most interesting point that De Wendel makes in her article is a statistic about employee turnover. She explains,

"Here’s what surprised me most: this policy has become one of our best retention and recruiting tools. We’ve had a 94% retention rate among employees who complete the restaurant shift program, compared to 78% at my previous tech companies. Employees consistently rank it as one of their most valuable onboarding experiences."

Lessons from Patriots Coach Mike Vrabel's Leadership Journey

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:02:00 +0000

What can we learn from the leadership journey of New England Patriots coach Mike Vrabel? This week, I sat down with Bryant University writer Bob Curley to share my thoughts, including some interesting data about other coaches in NFL history.

Using AI to Create a "Fantasy Board of Directors" for Yourself?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:53:00 +0000

What would it be like if you could have Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett serving as advisers as you lead your team and make difficult decisions? Matt Blumberg, CEO of Markup AI, decided to use AI tools to create what he calls a "fantasy board of directors." Preston Fore reported on Blumberg's invention in Fortune this week. He writes,

"To build the fantasy board, Blumberg used a mix of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude to create 5,000-word profiles for each person. The profiles were trained on items in the public domain—with the goal of enabling the AI to respond to problems the way real board members might—grounded in how those business leaders viewed leadership, governance, and performance."

Blumberg describes how it only took a few hours to create this AI-generated fantasy board of directors. He uses the chatbot to prepare for board meetings, garner feedback on proposals and plans, and build better presentations to his company and his actual board. Blumberg said, "I’ll say things like: Hey, I’m doing a presentation for our kickoff meeting next week. What do you think are the top three themes I should hit?" He even used the AI tool to provide him with an annual review of his performance as CEO. Blumberg notes that the feedback was right on the mark.

Why Big Projects Run Over Budget and Behind Schedule

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:37:00 +0000

Have you been involved in a major project that ran well over budget and way behind schedule? I'm sure the answer is yes. We all have experienced this misery at times. Why do so many large projects encounter these problems, while failing to deliver the expected benefits as well? University of Oxford Professor Bent Flyvbjerg and journalist Dan Gardner wrote a terrific book about this topic. The book is titled, How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors that Determine the Fate of Every Project, From Home Renovations to Space Exploration, and Everything in Between.

The book is chock full of insights about why projects go off the rails, and how we can approach projects more effectively. They argue that a bias for action gets many project leaders in trouble. They rush to execute before planning adequately. "Just do it" becomes a dangerous mantra. Moreover, they argue that some project leaders engage in strategic misrepresentation. In other words, they know the budget and schedule are not reasonable at all. Yet, they "start digging a hole" knowing that it will be hard for those providing resources to not fund the overruns once the project has begun.

The authors argue that experience is essential in managing large projects. They are big fans of the practical wisdom and learning that emerges from experience. However, they argue that many project funders and leaders marginalize experience. Why? One key reason is what they call the "uniqueness bias." In short, people always seem to believe that their project is unlike any other that has been done. Thus, they think there's little to learn from others. Moreover, many of them strive to produce something that is the first of its kind or the "biggest, tallest, longest, fastest" of its kind. This desire to produce something unique means that they can take huge risks, and they fail to learn from the experience of others. Thus, we should all ask ourselves: Is our project truly unique? Moreover, do we need it be unique? Is it ok if it is NOT the tallest, biggest, or first of its kind?"

Don't Use AI to Brainstorm for You!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Tue, 06 Jan 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Do you often use AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, CoPilot, or Gemini to brainstorm for you? How effective do you find this process? Kellogg Professor Brian Uzzi ran an experiment with his students to examine the efficacy of these models and student attitudes about them. Uzzi administered the Divergent Aptitude Test (DAT) to his students. In four minutes, they had to generate a list of ten words that were as different as possible from one another. He compared the students' creativity to the AI models.

Uzzi found that the humans produced more unexpected responses than the AI models. In other words, creativity flourished among humans, while the AI models produced average answers. Unfortunately, Uzzi discovered that the students tended to prefer the responses generated by the AI chatbots. Why? Simply put, the students are impressed by the efficiency of these models. Uzzi says, "They get sucked in by the efficiency. Someone in class will say, ‘The bot’s score is no better than mine, but I get it in 10 seconds instead of several minutes.’ To them, that feels like a good trade-off.”

Uzzi doesn't believe that this simple experiment argues against all use of AI models. Instead, he argues that we have to think carefully about HOW we use the models. He explains, "To get the most out of a bot, don’t ask it for answers. Ask how to approach a problem. You want advice on how to think, not what to think.” In short, don't ask the AI model to replace your original thinking. Ask it to complement or supplement your way of working.

Let me offer an example from my use of AI to develop teaching plans and materials. I don't simply ask one of the chatbots how to teach a certain topic. Instead, I tend to think creatively about how to teach a subject, drawing on my years of experience as a faculty member. Then, I will ask AI to help me develop certain teaching materials that will achieve my goals. Thus, I'm engaging in the creative act, while asking AI to help with the implementation of my ideas. In this way, I'm combining human creativity and AI efficiency.

Netflix, Warner, and Vertical Integration

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:38:00 +0000

News broke this morning that Paramount, led by David Ellison, has made a hostile takeover bid for Warner. Paramount has made this move after Netflix announced it had agreed to purchase Warner (including HBO) for $72 billion. Investors did not react well initially to the Netflix deal. The stock price dropped upon the acquisition announcement (as often occurs for the acquiring firm when mergers are announced).

In this post, I'm not providing an overall evaluation of the deal. However, I would like to focus on one facet of the potential acquisition that will be challenging for Netflix. For years now, Netflix has been a vertically integrated entertainment company. In other words, they have created content in their studios and distributed that content on their own streaming platform. However, they have not distributed content on other platforms. It has been a closed system. Now, they are acquiring Warner. That studio produces content for many different distribution outlets, not just HBO Max. The question becomes: What will other content buyers think when Netflix becomes the owner of Warner? Might they wonder why Netflix would be willing to put some content up for sale/distribution on other platforms? Might they think: If the content is so good, why not stream it on Netflix? Will they ponder: Are we getting access to lesser quality shows that Netflix does not want to stream on its own platforms?

Herein lies a key challenge with vertical integration. You may find yourself competing with your customers (Netflix competes with other media distribution outlets such as other streaming platforms, cable networks, broadcast networks, etc.). When you compete with your customers, it creates potential conflicts of interest. Making the Warner acquisition a success will require navigating these challenging relationships. Others in the entertainment business do it, but some have found it very difficult at times. Netflix does not have much experience with this type of arrangement to this point.

Of course, you might argue that they could avoid this problem if they simply distribute all Warner content on their own platforms (Netflix and HBO Max). However, you then have to ask: Did they have to spend $72 billion on an acquisition to gain access to that valuable content? Perhaps, but you do have to apply the ownership test. In other words, would some other organizational arrangement have accomplished similar goals without the hefty price tag?

Are Others Pretending to Listen to You?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 12:29:00 +0000

We have been taught that active listening is key to effective communication and collaboration. What, though, constitutes the most effective form of active listening? Suppose that someone is making eye contact, affirming your statements with a few simple nods, and/or uttering "mm-hmm" after a key point or two. Are they listening closely? Or are they pretending to listen?

It turns out that we are not always very good at discerning whether another party is listening closely or feigning attentiveness. UCLA's Anderson Review recently spotlighted the research of Professor Hanne Collins and her colleagues, writing:

A burgeoning area of study, with papers co-authored by UCLA Anderson’s Hanne K. Collins, is establishing that speakers who feel heard often are not; that when the spoken-to feign attentiveness, it’s highly effective at misleading a speaker; and that a more active listening mode — volleying back a bit of what you’ve heard, explicitly stating a desire to engage, especially on topics of a sensitive nature – is the path to a more effective sort of conversing.

Collins suggests that there are two forms of active listening. In the simpler form, it involves non-verbal cues intended to suggest that you are paying close attention. In another form, you are engaging with the other party in a much more conversational form. This latter form of active listening is much more effective, and it signals clearly that you are in no way feigning attentiveness. Collins focuses on three types of interaction:

Paraphrasing: “Let me make sure I have this right. What happened at school today was…”
Conversational callbacks: “As you mentioned in your email last week, your team needs more support to complete this project on time.”
Follow-up questions: “I hear that you’re asking me to do more around the house. What specifically would help?”

For more on how to have an effective dialogue that includes a healthy dose of active listening, I highly recommend Charles Duhigg's book, Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection.

Testing Your Assumptions

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 12:43:00 +0000

You've used AI and/or Excel to build a beautiful model that examines the ROI of a new venture, project, or initiative. The result? A strong case for investment, because the ROI is quite good. You are ready to make your case to senior executives and/or investors. How can you stress test your model? The most important thing you can do is to test your assumptions. After all, garbage in, garbage out. If you build a model based on false assumptions, you are in big trouble. Of course, confirmation bias afflicts many of us as we make decisions. We may be picking and choosing assumptions to deliver a rosy picture, rather than making more realistic presumptions about the future.

How do we decide which assumptions warrant the most attention and should be tested vigorously? Jon Fjeld was a long-time tech industry executive, and he now teaches at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. He has a simple method for determining which assumptions need to be scrutinized first. He argues that three factors are critical:

1. Severity: How big is the impact on the project if the assumption is not true?

2. Probability: How likely is it that the assumption is not true?

3. Cost: How expensive and time consuming is it to test the assumption?

Fjeld uses these three factors to create a simple ratio that can be used to rank your assumptions. His equation is: (Severity x Probability)/Cost. The higher the ratio, the more important it is that your prioritize the testing and validation of that assumption. While we don't actually have a clear way to quantify these three factors, the concept of this ratio makes good sense. By thinking about these three factors, and their relationship to one another, we can do a better job of deciding how we want to test, experiment, and prototype before making a big bet.

Educating Students More Effectively, Preparing Them for the Workforce

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:21:00 +0000

Source: https://theglobalscholars.com/

Did you use a laptop to take notes in class during school? Do your children use laptops during class to take notes? University of Wharton Professor Adam Grant points us to a recent meta-analysis published in the Educational Psychology Review by Abraham Flanigan and his co-authors. The results are crystal clear. Grant summarizes the key findings:

24 experiments: Students learn more and get better grades after taking notes by hand than typing. It's not just because they're less distracted—writing enables deeper processing and more images. The pen is mightier than the keyboard.

Perhaps all those schools requiring students to spend a big chunk of their day on Chromebooks should rethink their pedagogical approach. As more and more companies complain about the skills and capabilities of entry-level employees, we need to rethink how we teach and how students learn. Yes, we need to enable young people to use technology productively. We can't go back to the stone ages. However, we cannot just blame the phones and social media for the challenges that learners face these days (though banning phones in schools is an excellent idea). We have to ask ourselves whether we have contributed to the challenges learners face by shifting so much teaching and learning from paper and pencil to the Chromebook (or other devices).

Reviewing the Performance Reviews

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 12:32:00 +0000

Do you write effective performance reviews for your team members? Have you received a performance review that you considered especially constructive and useful? Stephanie Mehta has an interesting article about performance reviews in Fast Company this week. She focuses on the effort by Ironclad CEO Dan Springer to improve the way his managers evaluate employees. Mehta writes,

The CEO then read one written midyear review from every frontline manager—about 80 in total. He says about 20% were outstanding. Another 60% were solid—clear, metrics-driven, with specific examples. But roughly 20% missed the mark. Some featured long narratives that showed care for the employee but lacked actionable guidance. Others were short and vague. Springer tapped these managers for further training on how to give effective feedback. “We really did try to make it fun and not boring,” he says.

I admire the commitment to providing an in-depth examination of how these reviews are written and then following up with training. Many managers receive very little education in how to write an effective review. They are promoted to lead a team and then asked to take on this important task without a great deal of guidance and support. Providing useful feedback is an art and a science. Educating leaders about the science of providing constructive feedback is essential. For example, research suggests that providing forward-looking advice is more effective than traditional forms of feedback. Giving them chances to practice is key to helping them master the art of reviewing their team members' performance.

How Quickly Should a Leader Respond to Feedback?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:19:00 +0000

Suppose that you a leader receives feedback, perhaps through a 360 degree evaluation. Should leaders respond immediately to this feedback and change their behavior? Perhaps not. A new study suggests that moving too quickly to adapt in light of constructive feedback may be detrimental to a leader's reputation and effectiveness. Stanford Leadership Insights reports on the findings from an interesting new study by Danbee Chon, Ovul Sezer, and Francis Flynn:

While past research — and conventional wisdom — suggests that leaders should respond promptly to employee feedback to avoid seeming dismissive, the researchers demonstrated through a series of studies that people don’t necessarily trust rapid changes in their leaders’ behavior, especially when they consider those changes to be difficult. Instead, they may regard sudden shifts as inauthentic, betraying a lack of fidelity between a person’s actions and their genuine thoughts and feelings.

What's the implication for leaders? Is it simply to move slowly? Not necessarily. The research suggests that leaders should carefully explain to their employees the consideration and effort that they put into a behavioral or policy change. They should explain how they considered the feedback, why they chose to adapt given the critique from employees, and very importantly, how hard it was to alter their behavior. Showing that it was not a kneejerk reaction meant to placate others is critical in these situations.

What's Good for Our Kids is Great for Us Too!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:51:00 +0000

Source: theladders.com

If you have not read Jonathan Haidt's amazing book, The Anxious Generation, I highly recommend it. Haidt makes a great case for banning smartphones in schools. Now, many school systems have adopted his advice. Early results suggest that the policies are having a positive impact on learning. I do not allow phones in my university classroom, and I'm confident that removing this distraction improves our dialogue considerably.

If this smartphone policy is good for our kids, shouldn't it be good for us as well? In today's Wall Street Journal, Chip Cutter writes an article titled "CEOs Are Furious About Employees Texting in Meetings." He writes:

A few weeks ago, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky asked his top lieutenants to identify the problems they saw quietly plaguing the company. Chesky called it the “fester list.” One executive threw out an issue: Too many Airbnb employees weren’t present in meetings because they were checking their phones or laptops. “It’s a huge problem,” Chesky said. Then the chief had a realization. He was guilty of zoning out, too. “Sometimes I’m like, ‘OK, I heard it. I know what you’re about to say. I know the subject matter,’” Chesky said. “I text, but then people see me text, they text. This is a major societal problem.”

Cutter cites leaders from JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon to QXO CEO Brad Jacobs about the challenges of distraction during meetings. Many leaders have become incredibly frustrated by the disconnected conversations, lack of collaboration, and poor listening occurring during meetings. Of course, many of us would say that we turn to our phones because many meetings are long, dull, and boring. However, we have ask ourselves: Isn't that what our kids would say about classes in which they would love to use their phone? Are we just rationalizing our use of phones during meetings in the same way students often do? How about the "what if there is an emergency?" excuse? Ask yourself: Just how many true emergencies do we experience in a week? Moreover, we can easily set our phones such that people won't disturb us unless it is truly an emergency. Yet, we choose not to do so. I'm just as much of a culprit as many others I know.

You can see the self-reinforcing mess we have on our hands. We jump to our phone because a meeting is boring. Then, because we are distracted and not listening actively to others, the meeting discussion drags on endlessly. The collaboration breaks down, and we end up needing yet another meeting to get key matters resolved. We have to break this endless unproductive loop. Team leaders need to establish a new contract with their team members. They will focus the meeting, tighten the agenda, and avoid repeated tangents. In return, they ask that team members stay off their phones. Try it out. See what happens. My guess? The results will be very positive, much as they are in schools.

Leaders Should Always Consider How Their Team Members Might Answer The Question: “What’s in it for me?”

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Roberto) — Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:29:00 +0000

https://transformpartner.com

If you don't communicate effectively with your team members during a time of significant change, you will sow confusion and doubt. Some leaders remain silent until they have more clarity themselves and until all the loose ends are tied up. However, a lengthy period of non-communication can be very detrimental to the organization. As Molly Rosen and Connie Rawson write in Fast Company this week, " We see this pattern again and again: silence creates space for confusion. In the absence of clarity, people default to self-protection and assume the worst. The longer the silence lingers, the further they go down the rabbit hole." In fact, your team members will not only be confused, but they will speculate with their peers. They will presume certain intent on your part if you don't explain your rationale.

Rosen and Rawson offer some advice for leaders. They suggest that leaders should always put themselves in their employees' shoes and ask the simple question: "What's in it for me?" If you want their buy-in, you have to understand what they stand to lose, as well as gain, from this organizational change? Leaders need to analyze why they might be inclined to resist a change, and why they might find it beneficial to embrace a new initiative. Rosen and Rawson suggest that leaders should ask themselves four questions before communicating about a new initiative:

What are they worried about losing?
What might they gain?
What does this mean for them in the next 30, 60, 90 days?
What will we be transparent about even if we don’t have all the answers yet?