 I'm Eric Helwig, the editorial director of the Harvard Business Review, and we're here today to have an insight and an idea with Sheena Iyengar, a professor at the Columbia Business School. Sheena, thank you so much. Well, thank you. Great to be here with you. Sheena, you're someone who's a professional career studying leadership and management. It's a certainly a topic of prevalence here in Davos. What have you seen this week as it relates to leadership? What are you hearing? What are some things you're seeing emerging? One of the great things about coming to Davos is you hear a lot of things and learn a lot of things and meet a lot of different people and really start to think about lots of different issues. One of the key takeaways that I really got from the time in the last few days is that we really have at the moment a global leadership crisis. Whether you think about the climate, whether you think about the unemployment rates around the globe, 50% of our youth around the globe don't have a job, whether you think about financial and geopolitical instability, we have lots of global problems. Again and again, what you're hearing is that people are very concerned that their leaders who have been assigned the job of solving these global problems aren't doing it fast enough or as efficient. Oftentimes, the reason is given is that it's corruption or that they're caving into special interests and certainly that's a factor. I think actually that the problem is more complex than that, that what is happening is that our leaders that have been assigned the task of solving our global problems are working within a decision-making environment that's not conducive to actually creating and generating the kinds of solutions that we need. Here's some quick facts. The political leadership in the United States changes every two years. The political leadership in Europe changes every year. Now let's go to our business leaders. The average tenure of a CEO is three years and as we all know, our typical CEO's performance is reviewed every three months. So what do all these things do? Well, it incentivizes our leaders to think about things that are local and are in the short-term interest. So looking at this host of challenges, some of the short-termism and some of the macro trends that are at play here, you're really studying and you're really kind of calling for a different kind of leadership. It's something that you're calling global leadership. So I think it'd be really good to really help people understand really kind of definitionally what you mean when you think about global leadership as a different, as a distinct category of leadership. The other day, Mario Monti, the prime minister of Italy, gave an eloquent speech on leadership and he said that leadership is the opposite of short-termism. And I agree with that, but I want to expand on that and add another idea to that. I think that global leadership is about creating a shared narrative. Now every single one of us came from a different household. Our parents gave us stories, stories about how we're supposed to live our lives, what values we're supposed to act upon as we go through our lives, how we're supposed to see our world. We all have different narratives and the differences between our narratives can be at times quite diverse, quite divergent. What a global leader does is understands the differences between the way we tell our stories, the differences between those narratives. And after understanding that, is able to translate these narratives and uncover and identify the shared cause. And after identifying the shared cause creates a shared narrative. So what would be a good example, let's keep it in the public sector, you mentioned Monti. What would be a good example do you think of a public sector of someone demonstrating global leadership? So my favorite example is back in the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi is an example of a great global leader. He's a guy that's known for the ideas of non-violence, freedom movement in India, his ideas spread. Now one of the things that is synonymous with the freedom movement in India was the Salt March. Now Salt March now sounds like a no-brainer, yeah, of course, you know, you need to have a Salt March to get your freedom. It was not a no-brainer when Gandhi came up with that idea. When he first proposed to Nehru the idea of having a Salt March, he was greeted with utter incredulity. They were like, Salt, come on, we should be going for land reform, we should be going more generally for political rights, Salt. And Gandhi said something very interesting. He said, other than air and water, Salt is a basic necessity for all people. So what he was doing there is he was looking for something which all people throughout India could relate to, regardless of their caste, regardless of their wealth status, regardless of their religion. And what he had done there was he identified a shared cause. We all know that the Salt March was actually critical in helping to mobilize Indians who otherwise, you know, focused on how they were different from one another, mobilize them into forming what then became a shared national Indian identity. So that's actually one of my favorite examples of the kind of global leadership I'm talking about. That's great. It's kind of a counterintuitive choice that you said, but saw it as a possibility to create that narrative and to create that cohesion with its constituency. So sticking still in the public sector, where do you see these global leaders coming from? I mean, is it a particular industry or a geographic region? And how do you see them as really being able to tackle some of these problems that we're talking about this week? So I think, you know, for today's global issues, we need two things to happen. We need the leaders that are at the top to get their job done using different things. So they need to do a better job. And there are different techniques that they can be using. And second, we need more leaders. We just need more global leaders. There's no two ways about that. There is, if you think about all the global problems we have right now, it's a lot. If you think about that space, you know, that space in which all the leaders can actually solve our global leadership issues, it's huge. It's a great opportunity for people to get into that space and come up with different innovations, different solutions. So I think it's going to happen in two ways. Should I first take up, say, what a government? Yeah, let's just keep that. All right, so what would I say should people do at the top? And let's start with talking about the government sector. The government sector, we often see impasses, right? Because you have different stakeholders. Each stakeholder has different constituencies that he or she needs to be responsive to. So what can a leader do to help get at those common interests, those shared goals? What we heard the other night from Mario Monti was an example of trying to mobilize new networks. So he was saying, look, I'm tired of this fight between the right and the left. I am going to create a coalition of most more centrist groups. And this group is going to be dedicated to balanced reform. Obama, Obama is coming under a lot of criticism right now with the American press. Obama is somebody that's said to not be able to play very well with folks on Congress. And how are you supposed to get things done or passed in Congress if you can't play with all our Congress people? Well, one of the things that Obama is doing, it's a risky move. It's a new idea. He's saying, well, you know what? I'm going to get out of our traditional modes of doing this. And I'm going to find a new way for us to achieve our common goals. Here I have created a campaign organization. It's uncovered a huge network of Americans. Now let me create a political advocacy group from that same organization. And I'm going to now go back to the very people that voted for me. I'm going to go back to them and tell them about my ideas. If they like those ideas, then they can take those ideas to Congress. If they want to support it, then Congress will support it. So it's, again, it's about mobilizing networks, getting out of the system to try to accomplish goals. That's a great example. Now let's shift a little bit, though, out of focus, perhaps more on your areas of studies and really talk about what now to the private sector. How do you see this idea of global leadership, this construction of narratives, these identification of particular issues that have those cohesive capabilities? How do you see those playing out inside an organization? Is it the same approach, or are there specific ways that that needs to be implemented? So I see the challenge of business leaders as similar. And yet it's different in that a business changes more often, more frequently than, say, at least the system of a business, changes more often than frequently than a government institution. But the challenges are very similar. So let's walk through sort of the progression of a business. First, it starts off as a startup, gains momentum. You have a whole bunch of people that are very creative, very motivated. It's a flat organizational structure, so generally democratic. As it becomes really successful, what happens? Well, it becomes more bureaucratic. Necessarily, it has to have some red tape. It has to have some hierarchy. Otherwise, there's going to be chaos. Well, then what happens? It gets even more successful, becomes a global organization, a big global entity, lots of different businesses, lots of different people all around the globe. Now you have this new challenge confronting the CEO. Now, the CEO is used to mainly relying on his or her network that's peers in the industry, maybe peers within the organization, some set of special people. But clearly, at this point in the organization's progression, the CEO needs that organization to be more innovative. To be more innovative, you need more diverse connections. So as the other day when Martin Sorrell was actually sitting in this very seat, he said, you know, my organization was vertical, but I need to make it horizontal. I need to get people at the top to play with each other, to talk to each other, to collaborate with one another. And that's not new. Lots of CEOs are saying the same thing. And so that's their big challenge, is how do I get my people at the top to collaborate with one another? So that's a good question. How do you get people to collaborate together? How do you, once you've attained that level of success, which so many people here in the audience have, obviously, how do you begin to reintroduce some of those flatter, less hierarchical systems into the organization? Do you have examples there? So clearly the thing that many CEOs try to do, some do it better, some do it worse, is they come up with different heuristics, different intuitions for how to create more collaborations with their organization. You know, I should connect this person with that person. Right, really informally. Yeah, really informally, right? And you know, what's interesting about that is when you think about the human network that makes up an organization, it's really, really complex, particularly a large organization. You know, today we would never say to an organization, use human intuition to make sure all your computer networks are working well together. We would think that that was an absolutely ridiculous idea. Right, we spend a lot of money, a lot of analysis making sure that the networks of an organization are running really efficiently at its most optimal level. Well, the same thing needs to happen when you think about an organization's network. At Columbia Business School, it recently launched a big global leadership initiative, and I'm directing this initiative. And one of the things that we're doing in this initiative is a number of faculty have gotten together and have developed an organizational network analysis tool. And what this does is if we go into an organization, an in-net organization, we literally do a systematic analysis of the organization's network, giving them data, giving them maps, showing them where are the bottlenecks in communication, where are the bottlenecks in decision making, where are the opportunities for collaboration and growth. Is that like a computer tool that you're using? And how does it represent it? Well, we can use online tools to actually survey people on their networks, right? And you can do that at many, many different levels throughout an organization. So you almost get like a 360 of an organization's network. That's fascinating. So who is talking to who, who is collaborating, where are the information gaps, et cetera. And what kinds of things do you hear back from the CEOs when you show them actually how the organization is working? Well, the things that people want to use this kind of a tool for, it's very diverse. I mean, it's like someone to use it for identifying the leadership potential, someone to use it for identifying opportunities for mentoring. Last night I was talking to a bunch of ladies here in Davos and they felt that it was really could be useful for helping women identifying the leadership potential amongst women. So you can use it for lots and lots of different things. Are they typically surprised that showing activity that they didn't anticipate or is it generally kind of played to those heuristic... Most leaders, and this isn't new, but we've known this for a long time in terms of research on analysis on networks. Most leaders don't really know the complexity of the network that exists in an organization. Yes, they know the obvious people, but they don't know as much as they think they know about where are the opportunities and where are the gaps. Here's my prediction. I predict that in the next 10 years it's gonna be a no-brainer. Every Fortune 500 organization, they will be doing network analysis. I think they can't afford not to. Network analysis of their internal networks inside their organization. Of their internal networks as well as the intersection between their internal and external networks. Because like for example, many clients like in the banking industry, it's really important that you know the networks between your clients and your internal members. Well, that certainly addresses one of the components that we've talked about as a tenet of global leadership around networks. Inside the private sector, diverting a little bit here, are you seeing any good indications or can you talk a little bit about that other component that you mentioned, which is that construction of a narrative and construction in identifying the issues that have those cohesive capabilities? You mean in terms of the networks? Well, just in terms of, yeah, inside of an organization, how can a CEO who wants to take on some of these elements of global leadership think about constructing narratives once he or she has access to some of that networked information? So a lot of times, right, global leaders or leaders of big organizations, they don't actually know how the members of their organization speak different languages. And I don't mean just languages here, I mean it also metaphorically. A number of years ago, I did a project with Citibank. This is during John Reed's time it was amazing how the same incentives in an organization get construed very differently in different parts of the globe. So the same thing that a leader is doing in the United States is viewed as great and then is viewed as absolutely someone who has no idea what they're doing, you know, say in Singapore. And this is not uncommon to discover this. So one of the things that you can also use network analysis for is identifying and learning about the differences in the narratives, which then gives leaders the opportunity to discover what that shared narrative might look like. Okay, all right, that's really interesting. Trying to find that common denominator. Yes. Allowing for some nuances, but nothing that's too catastrophically different. I want to go back to an earlier point you were talking about it. When you're talking about, when companies are first starting up, obviously there's that entrepreneurial approach and there's the flat hierarchical element of the company structure. We've talked a little bit about the hierarchy and the structure. When you talk about entrepreneurialism, I think you said that you see that as a key part of fostering this global leadership spirit. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Yeah, I think this is really big. And you know, we've been talking about how leaders at the top can do things to make the kinds of things that they're doing better. And I think that's absolutely, it'll make things better. And I do think mobilizing networks is essential to that. But I think the really big stuff, the stuff that's gonna make the really big difference going forward is fostering new leadership, right? And that is something that we need to do more of. You know, you have people like Bill Gates, you have people like Peter Thiel, you have organizations like Ernst & Young with Entrepreneur of the Year Award, you have Goldman Sachs coming up with the 10,000 women entrepreneurs program, you have some governments in different parts of the globe that are coming up with systems by which you can incentivize more people to become entrepreneurs. Sometimes you have academic institutions that get involved. But really, none of this is enough. It's just scratching the surface. What we need to see are more and more individuals, government institutions, businesses, academic institutions that are dedicated to providing people educational resources, financial resources, other physical resources, networks, things that will essentially help unleash the latent leadership potential out there in the globe. I mean, think about how many other Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, I mean, take whatever is your favorite leader there. Think about how many more of those there really are in the world. Think about the different problems we have, whether it be health, education, sustainability, technology. There's all kinds of different issues that for which we can really use more entrepreneurial thinking. And actually, I haven't actually talked about resilience. I guess we should do that, this theme of the conference. I was just thinking, I haven't talked about resilience. Maybe I'll say one thing about resilience. Please do. You know, one of the things that people ask is how did Silicon Valley become as successful as it did of producing innovation? There were certainly lots of other places that have tried to emulate Silicon Valley with success, but never to the same extent, the Silicon Valley. There's something magical about Silicon Valley. And if you go back in history into the 1950s, right, you had a few important, insightful people, venture capitalists that said, you know what? You know, I'm gonna just give money. Small bits of money to risky ideas. Yes, a bunch of these might fail. Probably 90% of them will fail, in fact. I'm gonna just give them little pots of money and see what they can do with it. Most will fail, but some will bubble up to the top and become real winners, right? And if they fail, there was this culture in place in Silicon Valley that says, you know what? Failure is not only not going to be penalized, but at times it almost feels like it's a badge of honor, right, in Silicon Valley, you know? If someone wants to propose their new business idea, they say, I have a new idea. Let me first tell you all the times in which I failed. Okay, can you imagine going to Japan or, you know, other parts of the globe and saying, you know, give me some money, but let me first tell you all the times I've failed? Right, that by the way is a resilient system. Right, a resilient system is one in which you have, you give people the opportunity to try out different ideas, allow for most ideas to fail, but the good ideas will bubble up. So global leadership really has a high tolerance for failure? I actually think that the model of Silicon Valley should become the global model. So I want to shift a little bit. A couple of years ago, we've talked about, definitionally what we mean when we say global leadership, we've looked at it through the public sector lens, we've talked a lot about the organization, which is fascinating. Let's talk about the individual. A couple of years ago, you wrote a terrific book, The Art of Choosing, and so can we use some of the frames that you introduced in that book to talk about how individuals can use choice to perhaps bring about these changes? Sure, so, you know, some of you might know that I'm blind and when I was three years old, I was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa and I was told that I would go blind before I finished school. And this was, you know, a real shock to my parents. And when I was growing up, I really, nobody knew what to do with me. I didn't know what was gonna become of me. It was often very unclear what would my life turn out to be like, you know. It wasn't clear whether I should go to a normal school or some special school. I ended up going to a normal school. Then in normal school, it wasn't clear whether the teacher should teach me or my mother should teach me. Then as I progressed further in school, well, can she take math? Can she take science? There was always questions about what would I be able to do. When I was in high school, my guidance counselor assumed that he didn't have to show me the college manual because I like most other blind people. In fact, over 90% of the blind in the US live on government handouts. And this was very distressing to me, this whole notion. And what I would say happened to me is each time I felt a sense of despair or hopelessness, I had this tendency to create choices. You know, I'd be mad or frustrated and I would start thinking about what could I do? And you know, I would look outside. And I'll look around me, what do blind people do in the world? Well, in Spain, there were lottery ticket sellers. In Japan, there were masseuses. In the US, there was Ray Charles. I tried the clarinet and work. So I was like looking around. The other thing was that, you know, if you went to college, it was always told me when you should become a lawyer because after all, justice is blind. So I was looking at all these choices. You know, none of them seemed to be quite right for me. And I started to create choices for myself. Most of them were illogical and fantastical. But over time, what I found was that, you know, I started to create choices that I could make possible. Right? And ultimately, I little by little became an academic. And one of the things that I do with my students, and I tell my students at the Columbia Business School, is that whenever you are in that moment of adversity, that's your moment, really, to start generating choices. Thinking about what is still possible. Now, sure, when you do it first, you'll come up with bad choices. Other times, you'll come up with unrealistic choices or the ideal choice, which isn't possible. But little by little, if you keep doing it, you will eventually generate an option that is better than the status quo. And I think that is the key to what it means to empower yourself with choice. Now, when you look at the great leaders, whether they be in the past, whether they be in the present, and you look at their stories, and sure, the details of any one of those stories differ from person to person, context to context. But I think the one thing that is common to all of those stories is their ability to see choice where others see hopelessness and despair. It's their ability to go beyond the available or existing or obvious choices out there. And instead, think of this as an opportunity to create a better choice. It's a choice really is a key there. And choice is implicit in that kind of flat and hierarchical environment because it is implied that people, individuals who have more autonomy to make decisions and make those kinds of choices, whereas in those more hierarchical structures, there's actually a winnowing of choice and people are playing into more roles. Absolutely, you give people, if you want people to be creative, you need to give them autonomy and you need to give them access to a diversity of networks. So you've hosted a dinner last night, we've both been here for a few days, we're both survived. As you've socialized this concept of global leadership with fellow leaders, what have been some reactions? What kind of feedback have you gotten as you've talked about this with folks? So I would say that one of the themes that also came out this week is really, people are very thirsty for mindful leadership. That was another dinner in which I was one of the facilitators. And I was struck by how many people really have this desire to be a more mindful leader. And how they feel that, they live in this increasingly more complex world where they're constantly bombarded with more and more information that's coming at them, more and more choices. They also are, quite frankly, also bombard with lots of networking opportunities which on the one hand is great, but on the other hand it means, oh my God, how do I keep track of all this? And so they're looking for a way to sort of simplify, concentrate almost, to how to focus myself. And one of the things that I've been thinking about as a result of my conversations is I've been thinking about what does it mean to be a mindful leader? And one of the things that I actually have done research on and I didn't call it mindful leadership is I've been doing research on this idea of how do you become a better chooser in your life? And we often don't know. And one of the things that we do research on is by using a choice diary and to using a choice diary to become a better chooser. What's that, talk to me about that. What is a choice diary? So a choice diary is very simple. Any of you guys here in the room can do this. You just start keeping a record of the choice you made. It could be small, it could be big, and I would encourage you to write down a diversity of them. Don't just always do your big ones. Do small choices as well. Did it work for you? How do you feel about it? That's all you wanna record. You don't wanna record that much information. You do that, you keep a log of your choices and then you check it two weeks later. And it's almost like you're doing an analytic approach to yourself, right? And now I'm gonna look back at all those choices. How do I feel about them now? Right, because with time our views about those choices has probably changed, or at least often changes. Now what do you notice about yourself? What were the common attributes associated with the choices that you like that worked out for you? Now what were the common attributes associated with the ones which didn't work out for you? And you end up learning a lot about yourself. You end up learning silly things like I spend way too much time trying to figure out what I'm gonna eat when I go to a restaurant. I spend way too much time at the soda pop machine. I spend too little time figuring out what might be a good thing to do with my kid this weekend or what I wanna do with my partner. You end up learning different things about yourself. Now I always thought about this as saying, well this is how I become a better chooser, but now I'm thinking, well, this might be one of the keys to being a more mindful leader. Well that's absolutely fascinating. Well, she knew this has been a terrific conversation. I wanna thank you for doing this with me. Thank all of you here for attending and listening in. This is Eric Howell again, signing off from Davos, Switzerland. Thank you.