FMCGs need to think BIG and SMALL in 2021

In times of major organizational change, structure alone doesn’t guarantee success.

The difference-maker is leadership—leadership that takes into account the uncertainty, the lack of clarity, and the need to engage and support your teams in new ways and propels the organization forward.

Our research and work with organizations undergoing complex transformations has underscored the fact that leadership before, during, and after reorganization requires careful attention to how you react and show up to others. It means doubling down on showing up with clarity when roles are undefined; building trust while systems are still forming; and translating structural blueprints into real-world behavior.

Through each phase, one theme remains constant: thriving in transformation isn’t about having all the answers—it’s about how you lead in the fog, under pressure, and beyond the launch. The leaders who do this well don’t just survive change—they shape and define what comes next.

Today, change isn’t just constant—it’s compounding.

AI is reshaping roles. Supply chains remain volatile. Customer expectations evolve faster than annual planning cycles can keep up. In this context, a strategy that looks great on paper often falls apart in practice. Imagine a team, for instance, who spent months crafting a detailed strategy—every milestone mapped, every risk assessed. But when conditions shifted, their well-laid plan quickly felt more like a burden than a beacon. Sound familiar?

This is a reality many organizations face. The traditional top-down approach to strategy, where a select few create the plan and hand it down, is cracking under the pressure of a faster, more complex world. Organizations need a strategy that’s dynamic, resilient, and, most importantly, actionable by everyone. To make this a reality, today’s leaders must bring strategy to life through a more inclusive, flexible model that empowers teams to contribute and adapt in real time.

In this new approach, strategic planning is about more than a set of priorities and goals—it’s about creating a two-way dialogue with people across the organization, building a culture of ownership, and embedding adaptability at every level. Here’s how to reinvent strategy in a way that turns it from an isolated exercise into a collective movement, creating a fast track to impact and ownership.

Create feedback loops closer to the customer

In conventional strategy sessions, plans are often crafted behind closed doors, only to be revealed once they’re fully formed. This approach may feel efficient, but it leaves out insights from those closest to the work—and to customers. Without input from these critical perspectives, strategies risk being disconnected from the realities on the ground.

This doesn’t mean handing over the strategy process to every employee or crowd-sourcing big decisions. Leaders still set the direction. The key is being intentional about when and where employee input will sharpen the strategy. Rather than starting with a blank slate, offer specific, targeted opportunities for feedback—especially from those on the front lines.

From: Senior leaders make the strategy and inform employees of the plan

To: Employees are engaged at critical moments early in the strategy planning process

An example: A SaaS company set an ambitious goal to double in size within three years—but early alignment was missing. Leaders were energized by big ideas but lacked a shared direction. To clarify the path forward, they created a set of strategic alternatives rooted in a clear purpose. Rather than relying solely on executive input, they brought in next-level leaders to pressure test early ideas and offer real-world feedback. These leaders piloted key parts of the strategy in their markets and then offered insights from their experiences that helped sharpen the long-term strategy. By intentionally involving the right people at the right moments, the organization gained clarity faster—and built stronger alignment early on.

By building feedback loops at the right moments, you can:

• Capture frontline insights that executives may not see, enriching the strategy.
• Generate early buy-in by giving employees a voice in shaping the “how” of the strategy where they are better positioned to know what will work.
• Align daily work with strategic goals by allowing employees to test the strategy and spot where it will work—and where it won’t.
• Create an environment where teams feel empowered to surface new insights and adapt.

A participatory approach at the right times along the strategy process doesn’t just inform the strategy—it makes it stronger and more grounded in real challenges, empowering employees to shape an outcome that feels both ambitious and achievable.

Cultivating ownership at every level

Even the best strategy is only as effective as the people who execute it. Ownership at all levels is essential to driving speed and adaptability, but it doesn’t happen by accident. When employees have clarity on how the strategy aligns to their individual roles and on the decisions they can own, they feel empowered and motivated to contribute to its success. This sense of ownership fosters a nimble, resilient organization.

By building purpose and clarity into every level of the plan, leaders can:

• Empower informed decisions at the right level that support company goals.
• Create momentum by showing employees their impact early on.
• Encourage continuous learning and adaptability anchored in the customer and market.
• Shift from static planning to an iterative, progress-driven mindset.

When employees see how their roles connect to larger goals and feel like they have the authority to make decisions, they are more willing—and prepared—to take ownership. This alignment, combined with a focus on purpose, drives momentum even in a shifting landscape.

From: Strategy execution is top-down, with decisions held at the leadership level.

To: Employees at all levels have clarity on how their roles connect to the strategy and where they can make decisions, fostering ownership and speed.

An example: One global healthcare company, having grown rapidly through acquisition, struggled with a fractured strategy—each business unit pulling in a different direction. Their turning point came not from a better plan, but from a unifying purpose. By helping teams see how they fit into a bigger vision, people could start seeing themselves in the future of the company. This shared purpose became a powerful driver of ownership—especially when disruption hit. When a major supply chain issue emerged just months later, teams didn’t splinter. Instead, they used that shared purpose as a compass, identifying new ways to deliver value and keep momentum going.

Align strategy and culture

All too often, strategy and culture are treated as separate domains. Yet, no matter how robust your strategic plan, it can only succeed if it aligns with the organization’s cultural norms and ways of working. For example, adopting a more agile operating model might mean shifting the culture toward quicker decision-making and cross-functional teamwork.

To create alignment between strategy and culture, leaders should:

• Identify key behaviors and ways of working that support strategic objectives—and those that are getting in the way.
• Focus on how these behaviors show up in everyday actions and decisions, and start making small shifts that reinforce what’s needed to execute the strategy.
• Experiment and iterate, and as you see success, formalize new ways of working.

When strategy and culture move in harmony, they generate powerful momentum. Strategy becomes part of the organization’s DNA, reinforcing behaviors that propel the company toward its goals.

From: Strategy and culture are treated as separate priorities.

To: Strategy and culture are intentionally aligned, with behaviors, ways of working, and decision-making reinforcing strategic goals.

An example: A company formed through a series of acquisitions faced a challenge: culture fragmentation. With each acquired unit operating by its own norms, there was no shared way of working—and no clear basis for making strategic tradeoffs. Before any strategy could take hold, leadership recognized that the organization needed a common foundation. The breakthrough wasn’t a new plan, but a cultural one: reconnecting people to why they were part of the same company and what future they were building together.

By identifying consistent ways of working across teams and aligning on a shared purpose, they built the cultural scaffolding needed to execute strategy effectively. When external conditions changed, teams responded not with confusion, but with cohesion. Cultural alignment became the engine that made adaptive strategy possible.

Build in flexibility and adaptability

Even the best strategies need room to flex. But too often, organizations treat adaptability as an exception—something reactive, triggered only when disruption hits.

In a world where the conditions you plan for rarely match the ones you execute in, flexibility can’t be an afterthought—it must be a built-in feature of how strategy takes shape and stays alive.

The problem? Most strategy processes are built for control, not change. They prioritize precision over learning, timelines over feedback, and reporting over reflection. The result: strategies that look solid on paper but crack under real-world pressure.

Everyone talks about agility. It’s become a fixture in executive keynotes and strategy decks. But what’s often missing is the how—the operating system that actually enables teams to move quickly and stay aligned when conditions shift.

To build that system, leaders need to rethink not just their planning cadences, but the behaviors, structures, and decision-making norms that shape how strategy is executed day to day.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Empower teams to surface real-time insights and propose tactical shifts—so strategy stays grounded in frontline reality.
• Support rapid adjustments without losing strategic direction—aligning short-term moves with long-term outcomes.
• Strengthen leaders’ resilience and decision-making under pressure—so they can lead through ambiguity without stalling progress.
• Establish structured feedback loops and clear decision rights—so teams know when to escalate, when to adjust, and when to act.

These shifts aren’t abstract ideals—they’re already reshaping how leading organizations approach strategy execution. One global logistics company, facing rapid expansion and constant external pressure—from shifting customer expectations to volatile supply chains—recognized that reacting faster wasn’t enough. They needed to design for adaptability from the start.

Instead of relying on rigid quarterly plans, they implemented a 30-, 60-, and 90-day strategy rhythm. These weren’t status updates—they were structured checkpoints designed to challenge assumptions, surface real-time insights, and recalibrate execution before small issues became big ones.

So, when disruption came—as it inevitably does—the teams didn’t freeze or fall behind. They flexed with purpose and kept moving, not because they had all the answers, but because they were built to shift. Adaptability wasn’t a reaction—it was how the organization worked, by design.

A new era of strategic planning

Strategic planning today isn’t about crafting the “perfect” plan—it’s about building the capability to learn, adapt, and align at scale. What’s different now? Disruption is no longer episodic—it’s constant, compounding, and often coming from directions leaders didn’t anticipate. AI is rewriting roles. Markets move overnight. And decision-making is no longer confined to the top—it’s distributed across teams, functions, and geographies.

In this environment, traditional planning cycles collapse under pressure. The organizations that thrive won’t be the ones with the most polished strategy deck—they’ll be the ones with the strongest strategic muscles: the ability to sense, shift, and stay aligned in real time.

By replacing rigid plans with dynamic systems, leaders can activate strategy as a living, participatory process—shaped by insight from every level, reinforced through culture, and tested through execution.

Because in a world that won’t wait, the real advantage isn’t having the right answers upfront—it’s building an organization that knows how to respond when the questions change.

5 make-or-break moments that shape the success (or failure) of Mergers and Acquisitions

Analysts say 2025 will be the year that the multi-trillion-dollar Mergers and Acquisition floodgates will open once again.

For us at BTS, these key moments are an exciting opportunity to witness how strategy, culture and leadership play together. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) represent some of the highest-stakes decisions an organization can make. Analysts scrutinize billion-dollar deals, executives promise ambitious synergy targets, and employees at all levels must adapt to new realities that are often thrust upon them. The success of your integration doesn’t just depend on strategy—it hinges on the ability of thousands of individuals to embrace new teams, tools, structures, and ways of working.

The human side of integration is often underestimated, yet plays a crucial role in the success or failure of mergers and acquisitions.  

Recent research shows that 70% of successful M&A deals involved a proactive approach to managing cultural differences.  

Why? Beneath the surface, overlooked factors such as differing beliefs, cultural tensions, and a lack of real strategic alignment often derail even the best-laid plans. From years of guiding organizations through these transformations, we’ve identified five make-or-break moments that define whether an acquisition thrives—or falls short.

1. The “first impression” moment

When two companies come together, senior leaders often reduce first impressions to oversimplified assumptions: “They’re just like us” or “We share the same customer-first mentality.” While these statements may calm initial concerns, they often ignore deeper operational and cultural differences that can create friction later.  

• ‍An example: A communications company acquiring a company of similar size to expand their portfolio and reach. Both claimed to be “customer-centric,” but their definitions were fundamentally different. The organization being acquired prioritized the customer no matter the cost, while the acquiring company prioritized the customer within clear economic boundaries. This subtle but critical difference nearly derailed key decisions in customer crisis moments, where both organizations’ approaches clashed.

At BTS, we’ve seen success when organizations use a more thorough and objective culture diagnostic early in the M&A process to get ahead of possible differences like these, surfacing how work actually gets done, rather than providing a commentary on employee sentiment. Differences can then be worked through proactively before real customer value is on the line.  

2. The “communicating the deal rationale” moment

Acquisitions are ripe with uncertainty, especially for employees of the acquired company, who often fear layoffs or cultural upheaval. Without clear communication of the reasons behind the merger, mistrust can take root, damaging morale and productivity.  

• ‍An example: An oil and gas company learned this the hard way during its acquisition of a smaller regional competitor. Despite leadership's intent to streamline and grow operations in the region, employees of the acquired company assumed the deal was purely to squeeze out cost and sell it to the highest bidder. Distrust spread quickly, undermining cooperation and progress. ‍
• Another example: In contrast, a technology company that made a large acquisition took a radically transparent approach. Leaders engaged employees from both organizations early, co-creating a narrative that focused on shaping the future together and emphasizing shared innovation goals. By addressing concerns directly and collaboratively, they built buy-in and enthusiasm on both sides, setting the stage for a seamless transition.

3. The “bringing senior teams together” moment

Initial meetings between teams from merging companies are often fraught with tension. Often, the bias many leaders have towards action leads to a singular focus on tactical planning—hammering out integration checklists and deliverables—while overlooking the human dynamics in the room.

• ‍An example: In one case, two food and beverage companies merging to take advantage of their complementary product portfolios approached their first meeting with a different focus. Instead of diving straight into strategy, the leadership teams spent the first day exploring cultural alignment, discussing their values and histories, and building personal connections.
  
  This intentional shift paid dividends. As one CEO later remarked, “If we hadn’t started with the culture and leadership conversation, we never would have made so much progress on our strategy.” By fostering trust and understanding, the two teams created a foundation for productive collaboration and accelerated progress on their shared goals.

4. The “let’s activate new ways of working” moment

Senior leaders can align on a vision, but translating it into daily actions across thousands of employees is where integrations often stumble. Over-reliance on one-way communication—announcements and emails—leaves employees unclear on how to work together.

• ‍An example: A biopharma company that acquired a tech firm to enhance patient outcomes was clear about the rationale for the acquisition, but did not spend enough time working through what this combined organization would look like in execution. Two years later, both organizations were still operating as two separate units, unable to deliver on their shared vision. ‍
• Another example: In contrast, a global manufacturing company took a proactive approach during its acquisition. Leaders hosted cross-functional workshops, guiding employees through real-world collaboration scenarios. These sessions surfaced key operational gaps and helped teams align on practical ways to achieve their vision. As a result, integration accelerated, and the combined teams quickly launched a suite of new, co-developed products.

5. The “turning resistance into momentum” moment

As an integration progresses, some organizations try to quickly get to “business as usual”. Senior leaders, who typically have had more time to get ‘on the bus’ of the integration are often keen to move on from the integration. While this impulse is understandable, the challenge is that ceasing to pay attention to evolving dynamics and culture challenges can cause leaders to ignore small signals that can ultimately foreshadow bigger problems. Indeed, proactively seeking out and engaging with resistance can unlock new potential for growth.

• ‍An example: Consider a software company that acquired a cloud-services provider to expand its portfolio. Early friction arose as teams struggled to reconcile their differing approaches to customer support. Instead of letting the tension fester, the leadership teams paused, brought the issues to the surface, and co-created a new customer engagement model.
  
  By openly addressing challenges and aligning on shared practices, the companies not only resolved their differences but also built a stronger, unified approach. Without this intervention, the integration could have been frustrated by years of lingering inefficiencies and resentment.

Greater than the sum of parts: Achieving success beyond the merger

M&A deals are extraordinary opportunities to accelerate growth, redefine industries, and create lasting value. But the statistics don’t lie: up to 90% fail to meet expectations. The difference often comes down to overlooked intangibles—cultural alignment, trust, and the willingness to navigate tough conversations.  

‍The organizations that succeed understand this. They don’t just manage checklists; they embrace the human elements of integration. They foster trust, build alignment, and co-create a shared future.

The real value of M&A lies in these make-or-break moments. When leaders approach integration with intentionality and openness, they unlock the potential for their organizations to be truly greater than the sum of their parts—and deliver on the promise of the deal.

Leading with Purpose, Part 1

Most CEOs I speak with are not 100% at peace with their company’s purpose. As the market, their people and their business evolve, so will their purpose. As some of the best companies of past and present show us, there is strength, and even magic, in a great company purpose. What is also clear, however, is that this magic does not come from just having a “purpose” or “vision,” but rather from how well a company is executing against their purpose.

When Southwest Airlines (which has been profitable for 45 consecutive years, and on FORTUNE’s list of World’s Most Admired Companies for 24 straight years) was first starting out, their mission was to make flying affordable.¹ They rallied their people on the idea that a grandmother should be able to affordably buy a ticket, at the drop of a hat, to get on a flight to see her new grandchild. This simple mission led to the “Southwest Effect,” which transformed the airline industry, and continued to be a lens with which the Southwest leadership team made key decisions.

Today, Southwest’s vision has evolved: “To become the world’s most loved, most flown, and most profitable airline.” And they are executing on this vision. They continue to drive superior shareholder returns against all industries on the S&P 500 (as they have for the past 44 years), and in 2018 were named the top low-cost airline in JD Powers customer survey reports for the second year in a row.

As the Southwest example highlights, great company purpose combined with a leadership team who will build the work-flows, culture, processes and metrics to live up to it can be an enormous employee motivator. But we have also experienced, both at BTS and with our global clients, that a good company vision and purpose on their own are not sufficient – employees need them to be even more personal to them as an individual. I remember a lunch I had twelve years ago with a 24-year old new hire who was my direct report. After some small talk he looked at me and said, “Why are you here? Why have you spent seven years with the same company?”

I’ll never forget that lunch. It was the first time I had been asked the question, and it was the beginning of a new decade where our employees were much louder and more active about wanting to reflect and spend time on our mission and purpose, linking it to their personal values and the impact they strived to have in the world. Luke, that 24-year old new hire, has made me and our company better as a result of his question.

In the last decade, there has been a growing emphasis in the business world on finding a deeper motivation to unlock greater meaning at work. For some this may sound ‘fluffy,’ or as one executive we spoke to commented, “Is this just the next version of the pursuit of vision and values? It sounds great on paper but too often makes little real difference as it tends to stay on the wall, rather than live in your heart.”

Yet your people spend the majority of their life at work and with colleagues. At its best, a sense of purpose is a way of bringing meaning to their work and understanding the contributions they are making to the company, as well as greater society. It makes sense, then, that employees who are clear on their personal and professional purpose end their work day invigorated and proud of what they’re doing instead of exhausted by mindless work that is bereft of real meaning.

According to a recent PWC study, 79% of business leaders believe that purpose is central to business success – but only 34% use their organization’s purpose as a guidepost for their leadership team’s decision-making. Signs that your workplace may be lacking organizational purpose are distracted employees and a lack of comradery. These are significant factors – so why don’t more organizations devote time to developing clear purpose and values? Well, developing organizational purpose is no easy task, and much of it starts with your own personal purpose. If you’re unsure of what exactly your own personal purpose is, have no fear – in the next two installments of this blog series, we will offer simple steps to help you uncover your personal and organizational purposes and get closer to leading through the lens of purpose.

‍

hroughout her more than 15-year career at BTS, Jessica has pioneered turning strategy into action through the use of customized experiences & simulations for leading Fortune 500 clients and many large and start-up software companies in Silicon Valley. Jessica leads BTS USA with P&L responsibility for offices in San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Phoenix, and Austin.

Although one of the most-discussed topics in business today, meaningful diversity seems to be elusive for most companies. We sat down for a casual and candid conversation with Jessica and uncovered some surprising insights about our clients’ challenges in creating a more diverse and inclusive workplace, and what companies can do about it.

We are lucky to have snagged a few moments of Jessica’s time — squeezed between a flight to New York for a client meeting and her morning school drop-off duties — to hear her perspective.

JENNY JONSSON: We have a lot to cover today, so if it’s ok with you, we’re going to jump right in! First, we would love to hear a little about your journey to becoming a Global Partner (GP) – and of course, it’s hard to conduct research for a paper on diversity and ignore that there’s a gender imbalance at our GP level.

JESSICA SKON: Well first of all, while I may be the only female Global Partner, I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we do have a lot of women leaders at BTS: 35% of our Heads of Office are women. With that said, what I can say about my experience is that it has been fair. I don’t think I would still be here if I didn’t feel the expectations and the performance processes over the last 17 years were fair, and I have never felt like gender has been a factor in performance conversations. When I reflect on that after talking to other female leaders, that’s a pretty big deal.

MJ DOCTORS: Why do you think your experience has been so different from what many other working women encounter?

JS: Before my first Global Partner meeting, where we were looking at candidates for Principal and above, I was told, “This is always the best meeting of the year.” I wondered how it could be so drastically different than any other meeting, but they were right — it is an entirely data-driven, unemotional, and fair process.

It was a simple process and there were no biases. There are three parts to how we evaluate partners up for promotion:

1. The background information on each candidate includes all of the specific promotion criteria and supporting data.
2. The leader recommending the promotion gives a 5-minute summary emphasizing their view of the candidate’s weaknesses and areas for growth in the coming years.
3. A fellow partner who has done due diligence against the facts acts as the “inquisitor” and shares findings.

This approach ensures it isn’t just a pitchfest. And this process is also something that has trickled down to other areas of the business, reducing a lot of the biases in our hiring and promoting.

JJ: Have you been approached by clients asking for guidance on a similar data-driven approach?

JP: Absolutely, clients realize they need to make this shift. I think it’s going to happen really quickly: we already have one client whose CEO has asked us to rebuild their entire performance system so that it’s more data-driven, more accurate, and more fair. In many companies, the way things are now, it’s often gray and you can’t help but rely on relationships and favoritism to guide promotion decisions.

MD: As part of our research, Jenny and I took a look at how BTS USA is performing on diversity metrics. While most publications and companies measure diversity by simply looking at gender and race (such as Fortune’s 50 Most Diverse Companies), we believe diversity is much more than that. Our definition encompasses gender and race, but also age, socioeconomics, gender identity, sexual orientation, education, life experiences, disability status, and personality traits — and the list could go on. However, as we currently only have results across race and gender, that’s what we’ll share here. How do you feel when you look at these charts?

JS: You’re bringing me back to 5 years ago when we had the same color chart for gender as we do now for ethnicity — which was horrifying. I think we all knew it was a problem but we weren’t mature enough in our thinking to solve it. Once we all woke up and clearly defined that we had a gender parity problem across the company, we were persistent and fixed it, and now I am proud of our gender pie chart. That is something I love about BTS: if we can clearly articulate a problem, we tend to be able to solve it. That’s actually the key for leaders across most industries: the art is being able to clearly define the problem.

But I think that we’re at ground zero again for the next phase.  I would love for us to apply the same rigor we used to address gender disparities to other forms of diversity so that in 3 or 4 years we have a better mix, and why wouldn’t we?

JJ: Can you outline specifically how we made progress on our lack of gender diversity?

JS: We took a few major steps:

1. Our Heads of Office decided it was a top priority. Without top leadership’s buy-in, you can’t really make progress.
2. Then we identified the key pain point: for us, it was the entry to the funnel. Then we brainstormed the best ways to attract more female candidates.
3. This led to some “ahas” about the root cause of that pain point. Many people think that consulting is inflexible and it’s difficult for employees with children to succeed. But there’s nothing further from the truth at BTS. Our Global CEO is quite progressive and incredibly flexible and open-minded when it comes to letting employees do what they need for their lives.
4. So then our leaders got on the megaphone: our (now retired) US CEO began flying to each of our offices to talk about it, and I got on the phone with candidates to tell them my story of being a young working mother. A lot changed once we started to focus on it.
5. In reviewing our hiring interview process, we also realized we could be more clear in our criteria, with observable behaviors and a more robust scoring rubric. This change eliminated any unconscious bias and we found that woman were scoring as high as our male candidates. When we looked in the past, they were (on average) scoring lower.

MD: Besides clearly defining the problem, what other factors pushed forward this change?

JS: Clients started noticing and asking for more women consultants, so it became an easy sell to our leadership. Our demographics should match – or even be ahead of – our clients’ demographics. We shouldn’t have to be scrambling every time a client says, “Um… there’s a lot of men here.” Sure, some traditional clients may not have said anything, so for some folks internally it was more difficult to understand the impetus behind the huge investment we were making in changing our recruitment process. But we also had enough examples of women starting at BTS who didn’t have many female role models. And we realized, we have to change this or some of our best people are going to leave.

JJ: So what about our clients? You have spent significant time over the past 20 years with CEOs and senior leaders of some of the world’s top companies. What aspects of diversity are they discussing the most?

JS: In the last couple of months, I have heard many top executives discussing how to change the paradigm of their leaders to promote and move people around who don’t necessarily fit the makeup of the candidates from the past. So for example, one client said that they have been really good at keeping people for life, but realize that they might not be able to maintain that with millennials, unless they can keep having great careers for them.

Also, companies still tend to focus on “the résumé”: did the applicant go to an Ivy League school, did she have a fancy job, how long did he work in this department, etc. All of this has been the formula for success over the last 50 years. But if we don’t crack that mindset, there will be amazing people who don’t get put in the right positions, because unconsciously our leaders are not seeing them or they are not open-minded enough to realize that this candidate might be better suited than that more traditional-looking candidate.

MD: What is some advice you would give clients to change that mindset?

JS: You and all your leaders have to first recognize your beliefs and own them before any mindset change can happen. That may be kind of obvious, but getting yourself and your senior leaders to fully own their beliefs is hard. You have to be both very self-aware and constantly striving to improve. It’s a battle every single day.

So when an executive comes to me and says, “This is weighing on my mind at the company-wide level,” I don’t say, “Well there’s a diversity training that we can do.” I do say, “You’re talking about changing deeply rooted mindsets: this requires getting leaders to articulate, own, and put those issues on the table, and commit to changing their beliefs moving forward.”

This is crucial to making sure you have the right people in the right jobs and you’re retaining the people that you want, which ultimately enables you to make the company successful. That is an immense amount of work, including interventions, working sessions, and sometimes coaching. It’s sometimes getting the most skeptical leaders to become the owners of this and driving these change management efforts. It’s deeper than just a training class.

JJ: If it’s not just a training class, what do you see as the platform?

JS: Any time you’re trying to drive large scale transformation, it’s a good idea to run experiments. And once they get some momentum and prove to be successful, you should shine a really big light on them to get broad adoption and then begin the comprehensive change management process.

So even though it’s out of our core services, I try to give clients ideas on small stuff they can do that is totally different than anything they have done before, to shake up people’s way of thinking about how they recruit, hire, train, promote, and think about people. I think a strong example of an initiative a company has experimented with is a leading software company and their strategic partnerships with nonprofits who help them access more and different talent pools.

So – once those initiatives have gained that momentum, it would be fun for us to do some consulting with their executives first around owning the beliefs, the history (it’s important to honor the history and not just break it), what worked in the past, what beliefs do you now hold as a result, and what are you going to do moving forward. All of this can be built around an experience that shifts people’s mindsets. It’s not so much diversity training… it’s a mindset shift process that starts at top leadership.

MD: Are there any companies that are beginning to successfully make this mindset shift and use more data-driven approaches to evaluation?

JS: Not really… that’s what’s tough about this. It’s bizarrely new. The more BTS is asked to provide broader talent services, the more surprised I am. We’re basically back in the Stone Age. It’s not pretty.

But we’re starting to work on something internally to track an individual’s acquisition of skills in a moment-based approach. At the beginning of a project the individual comes up with specific skills that she wants to work on. Then, during critical milestones and at the completion of the project, the rest of the team gives feedback on those specific areas. That’s real curation of a skillset, where the individual can own her career progress, people can validate it, and the company can say, “oh, she’s telling us she’s ready for a promotion, look, she’s actually done all of these things and demonstrated she can be successful.”

JJ: So really it’s democratizing the job application and promotion process.

JS: Yes! That’s exactly why many of our clients have turned to selection and assessment solutions. Assessments enable our clients to reduce unconscious bias in the hiring and promotion processes and ensure that a candidate has the actual skills necessary for the role, as opposed to a particular degree from a particular university, which is, at best, only a moderate proxy for job fit. Through these solutions, our clients effectively expand their talent pool and improve the likelihood that the candidates they hire have both skill and culture fit, which can lead to increased cognitive diversity – that is, team members who have different backgrounds and thus approach problems in different ways – improved retention, and reduced recruiting costs.

MD: We are seeing some progress from expanded talent pools, but the critical question is, once a female or a non-white employee has joined a company, why aren’t they moving up as fast as white men?

JS: I think maybe it goes back to the issue that I heard from one of our clients: there’s a history of certain roles looking and acting a certain way. It’s hard to overcome the unconscious bias of hiring and promoting people who fit that perception.

It could also be that people aren’t putting their hat in the ring for those promotions. Women and people from certain cultures aren’t oriented toward self-promotion and won’t put their hat in the ring if they are only 10% confident they’ll be successful. So in that case, you really have to focus on the current leaders: it’s so important that they understand this dynamic. Even at BTS, there are so many outstanding individuals who don’t self-promote, and you have to be the megaphone for them.

JJ: When running our leadership development simulation experiences, BTS has always encouraged participants to form the most diverse teams possible (gender, culture, geography, role, tenure, etc.). What’s the origin behind why we ask our clients to create diverse simulation teams?

JS: Initially, this was primarily because our clients value enabling leaders to create networks across the company, more so than because of any inherent desire for cognitive diversity. Clients often come to us when they need a push toward a “one company” mindset, so simulation teams are built to bring people out of their silos and align around a single company goal.

But, nowadays, people recognize that cognitive diversity is a good thing. That being said, at BTS, we are very protective of our culture and team environment, and sometimes we’re guilty of mistaking like-minded people as a proxy for “I think I’ll get along with you”. So you have to have two heads when hiring: we want someone different who will shake us up, but we also want to be at peace and have fun and a strong culture fit.

MD: If you could leave one piece of advice for leaders hoping to create a more diverse and inclusive workplace, what would it be?

JS: In alignment with Liz Wiseman‘s book, “Rookie Smarts,” I’m trying to get leaders to crave being rookies again. If you’re going to learn as fast as the pace of change, and be able to transform yourself, you have to be a bit of an adrenaline junkie with a “rookie mindset”. I want people to realize that it’s not scary to do something different and new – it’s exciting. And, if you put yourself in an uncomfortable role, you get humbled, become curious, and seek advice from the best around you. As a result, you will most likely do the best work of your life.

There is a correlation between the “rookie mindset” and shifting beliefs in support of a more diverse team: we need leaders who crave differences. That has to be the overarching mindset when you’re recruiting and looking to add members to your team. If you crave differences in skills and personal history and combine that with culture-fit, then innovative ideas, high performance, and fun should follow. Others will notice the benefits of the diverse team and follow, assuming the appropriate recruitment and performance systems are in place. That’s how you start to shift mindsets at the top and eventually throughout the company.

About the Authors

Diversity has been a passion area for both MJ Doctors and Jenny Jonsson, both of whom have spent significant time – prior to and while at BTS – working to improve economic opportunities for women, immigrants, and individuals of varying socioeconomic backgrounds.

‍

Leading with Purpose, Part 2

As we discussed in the first post of this blog series, purpose is an essential ingredient for business success and employee engagement today. Yet purpose is a nebulous concept, and often difficult to pinpoint. I know this firsthand. Around twelve years ago, a consultant in his early 20s joined the BTS San Francisco office where I was working, and I took him out to lunch. Within ten minutes of sitting down to lunch, he asked me, “So what’s your purpose? Why have you been at the firm for so long?” I’ll never forget it. I’d been at the company over six years, and that was the first time somebody asked me that. I felt it was a fair question, and yet I didn’t have an eloquent answer at the ready.

Coming up with a response, I started to talk about some of my guiding principles, things like learning and having fun, how I’m proud of the impact our work has on clients, and how I love building a team of leaders (or a business) that grows every year. The question from this new hire, though, who was probably ten years younger than me, put me on the spot and made me feel a bit inadequate as a leader. At first I did not have a crisp, compelling answer.

Since then I’ve been in many dinners with other executives from Fortune 500 companies to tech startups, who more and more frequently are being expected to lead their organizations with a clear purpose… and at the same time understand that each employee’s purpose and what motivates them is going to be slightly different than theirs, the firm’s and their peers’, and that’s okay. Once a leader or a firm has clarity of purpose it can be a beautiful energy and driving force, and should be the first lens with which leaders run their business.

So, how does one find a sense of purpose?

In truth, many people assume that only those who follow a vocation like medicine, teaching or work in the charitable sectors can have a true sense of purpose at work. Our experience, as well as much current research and writing, would suggest otherwise.

One simple way of looking at this is captured elegantly by the Japanese concept of Ikigai, or ‘The reason for being.’ The idea of Ikigai is that one’s sense of purpose lies at the intersection of the answer to four questions:

1. What do I love?
2. What am I good at?
3. What can I get paid for?
4. What does the world need?

Image from Forbes.com

Take these four questions and look at the organization you are already a part of. Use them to see if you are in touching distance of doing more purposeful work, whether it be at the core of what you do or as a part of work that sits slightly outside the current definition of your job. Whilst we may not get the ultimate answer to the purpose question from our current work, once we have identified our own Ikigai we can go in search of the more meaningful elements of our jobs and start shaping the agenda at work in a new way. In the next installment in this blog series, we will discuss how to use your personal purpose to shape your organizational purpose and lead with meaning.

‍