『Play Your Leadership Cards Right』のカバーアート

Play Your Leadership Cards Right

Play Your Leadership Cards Right

著者： Bob Bradley
無料で聴く

Hi, I am Bob Bradley. After leading 6 businesses, sitting on 19 boards, and hosting over 500 workshops, I learned about leadership challenges the hard way. All the conversations and debates have given me insights into how real, practical, operational business leaders think, decide, and act. In this podcast I'll be sharing these insights, giving you all of my thoughts, tips, and tools for operational business leaders.

bobonbusiness.substack.comBob Bradley マネジメント・リーダーシップ リーダーシップ 日次 経済学
エピソード
  • Stop Writing Up Meeting Actions. Make the Commitment in the Room.

    Stop Writing Up Meeting Actions. Make the Commitment in the Room.
    2026/09/17
    The problem with many meetings is not necessarily the meeting itself. It is what happens afterwards.We spend time writing up minutes, writing up notes, and then going away to write up the actions that people have agreed to take. We then distribute those actions and, at some point, expect everyone to remember what they committed to doing.Does that work?Well, sometimes it does. Writing things down is certainly a useful discipline. But I have also seen how easily the process can become inefficient, particularly when the important actions from a meeting are left to be documented and followed up afterwards.About 15 years ago, a speaker called Lindsay McKenna, who I thought was excellent on operations and project management, suggested a different way of approaching this. It was a very simple idea, but it is one that I have found useful ever since.The principle is straightforward. Rather than waiting until after the meeting to write down what people have agreed to do, make the commitment during the meeting itself.In this article we’ll explore:* why traditional meeting actions can become less effective after the meeting has finished* how making commitments during the meeting changes the process* why personal and visible commitments can strengthen accountability* how a simple commitment sheet can be used in practice* how this approach can help make meetings more effectiveWhy This MattersMeetings are one of those unavoidable parts of business life. We need them to discuss issues, make decisions and agree what needs to happen next.The difficulty is that agreeing something in a meeting is not the same as making sure it happens afterwards.There is often a gap between the discussion and the action. The meeting finishes, everyone moves on to something else, and somebody has to write up the minutes or actions. Those notes then need to be distributed, read and understood. Eventually, people are expected to take responsibility for the things they agreed to do.That process can work. But there is another option.What Lindsay McKenna suggested to me was to remove some of that gap. Instead of treating the actions as something to be documented after the meeting, deal with them while everybody is still there.Do it now.Do it when people are present.That simple change is at the heart of the technique.Make the Commitment in the MeetingThe approach is based around what Lindsay called a commitment sheet.At each meeting, you have a sheet in the middle of the table. Whenever somebody says they are going to do something, the person who is going to do it takes the sheet and writes down what they are going to do.That is the important part.The person making the commitment is personally involved in recording it. They are not waiting for somebody else to interpret the discussion, write the minutes and decide what the resulting action should say.Instead, they make the commitment themselves, at the moment when the discussion is happening.By the end of the meeting, you have a list of commitments made by the people who were actually in the room. You know who has agreed to do what following the meeting.You can then photocopy the sheet and give everybody a copy.Of course, that example comes from a world of sheets of paper and photocopiers. You might prefer to use an app today, and there is nothing wrong with that.The technology is not really the point.The principle is that everybody individually commits at the moment of the discussion, to doing something to take the business forward. They commit personally, in writing and visibly.That is quite different from simply having somebody write down the actions after everyone has left the room.The Difference Is Personal CommitmentFor me, the useful part of this technique is the emphasis on personal commitment.When somebody says, during a meeting, that they are going to do something, there can be a temptation for the rest of the group to simply move on to the next subject.The commitment sheet creates a small but important pause.The person who has agreed to do something writes it down themselves.That means the commitment is made by the individual, rather than simply being captured by somebody taking the minutes.It also means that the commitment is visible to everyone else in the meeting.There is a certain clarity that comes from that. Everyone can see what has been agreed and who has agreed to do it.That can help avoid misunderstandings and reduce the risk of something being forgotten once the meeting has finished.More importantly, it creates a sense of accountability and ownership. People know that their commitment has been made in front of others and that it has been recorded.That does not require an elaborate system.It requires the discipline of making the commitment at the right time.Meetings Should Be About Moving Things ForwardOne of the reasons I like this approach is that it keeps the focus on what the meeting is supposed to achieve.A meeting should not simply be a discussion that produces ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    2 分
  • The Two Feedback Questions That Can Transform Your Business

    The Two Feedback Questions That Can Transform Your Business
    2026/06/15
    Most organisations understand the value of feedback.Whether it comes from customers, employees, suppliers, or partners, feedback plays an essential role in helping businesses improve. It highlights what is working, reveals what is not, and provides valuable insight into where changes may be needed.As leaders, we build feedback into many aspects of our organisations. It appears in performance management processes, customer surveys, employee reviews, and service evaluations. Some businesses use sophisticated measurement systems and formal methodologies to gather insights.Yet despite all of this, many organisations still struggle to collect feedback that is genuinely useful.The problem is not always a lack of feedback.Often, it is the way we ask for it.The questions we ask can shape the quality of the responses we receive. Ask the wrong questions and people become defensive, vague, or disengaged. Ask the right questions and you create an environment where people are more willing to share thoughtful, constructive insights.Sometimes, a small change in wording can make a significant difference.One of the most useful approaches I have come across comes from Jeff Grout, a speaker I have listened to on numerous occasions. His framework is remarkably simple, yet it has the potential to improve the quality of feedback across almost any situation.Here’s what we’ll explore* Why many organisations struggle to collect meaningful feedback* How the wording of feedback questions influences responses* The WWW / EBI framework and how it works* Why positive framing often produces better insights* How this approach supports continuous improvement* Ways to assess whether your feedback process is becoming more effectiveThe challenge with traditional feedbackMost organisations recognise the importance of listening.They encourage feedback from customers, seek input from employees, and regularly evaluate performance. However, collecting feedback and collecting useful feedback are not necessarily the same thing.One common problem is that feedback questions often focus too heavily on what went wrong.The intention is understandable. Businesses want to identify weaknesses and solve problems.However, when questions are framed negatively, they can sometimes create unintended consequences.People may become defensive.They may focus disproportionately on minor frustrations.Or they may simply provide answers that are less thoughtful and less balanced.At the other end of the spectrum, some feedback requests are so broad that they generate little practical value. Responses become vague and difficult to act upon.As leaders, we need feedback that is both honest and useful.Achieving that balance requires careful thought about how questions are designed.A simple framework: WWW / EBIJeff Grout’s approach centres around two straightforward questions.The first is WWW:What Worked Well?The second is EBI:Even Better If.At first glance, the framework appears almost too simple.Yet its effectiveness lies in the way it guides people towards constructive reflection rather than criticism.Instead of inviting respondents to focus exclusively on problems, it encourages them to identify both strengths and opportunities for improvement.This creates a more balanced conversation and often produces richer insights.Starting with what worked wellThe first question asks people to consider what is already working.What worked well?What was most valuable?What was most helpful?This question serves an important purpose.Feedback is often associated with fixing problems, but improvement is not only about identifying weaknesses. It is also about understanding strengths.If you do not know what is working, you risk changing or removing practices that are delivering value.By asking people to identify positive aspects of their experience, you gain insight into what should be preserved and reinforced.For customers, this might reveal the aspects of your service they value most.For employees, it may highlight management practices, processes, or behaviours that contribute positively to performance.For teams, it can identify strengths that deserve greater recognition and support.Importantly, beginning with a positive question also helps establish a constructive tone for the conversation that follows.The power of “Even Better If”The second question is where the framework becomes particularly effective.The natural tendency of many feedback forms is to ask what went wrong.What didn’t work?What problems did you experience?What should we stop doing?While these questions may uncover issues, they also frame the conversation negatively.Jeff Grout’s suggestion is to replace this approach with a more constructive alternative.Ask:What would have made our performance even better?Or:What could we have done even better?The wording matters.Rather than assuming something failed, the question assumes there was already value and asks how that value could be enhanced.This subtle shift ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    3 分
  • The Hidden Costs in Your Supply Chain That Could Be Squeezing Your Margins

    The Hidden Costs in Your Supply Chain That Could Be Squeezing Your Margins
    2026/06/12
    Are rising costs starting to put pressure on your business?If so, you’re certainly not alone.Many business leaders find themselves trapped in a difficult position. Customers are pushing back on price increases because they believe prices are already too high. At the same time, suppliers insist they cannot reduce their prices because their margins are already under pressure. And when you look at your own numbers, you discover that your business is not making enough margin either.It can feel like a no-win situation.Everyone in the supply chain is struggling to improve profitability, yet nobody appears to have any room to move.The obvious question is: if customers cannot pay more, suppliers cannot charge less, and your own margins are already under pressure, what can you actually do?One answer may lie in looking at the problem differently.Rather than focusing solely on your own costs, it may be worth stepping back and examining the costs of the entire supply chain.This idea is not new.In fact, it played a significant role in the transformation of the automotive industry during the 1960s and 70s, when Japanese manufacturers fundamentally changed how they approached cost reduction and supplier relationships.Their approach offers a valuable lesson for any business leader facing margin pressure today.Here’s what we’ll explore* Why traditional approaches to cost reduction often fall short* How disconnected supply chains can create unnecessary costs* What the Japanese automotive industry learned about collaboration* Why looking at the whole system can reveal opportunities hidden from view* Practical ways to work more closely with suppliers and customers* How to assess whether a collaborative approach is delivering resultsWhy cost challenges often feel impossible to solveCost pressures can create frustration because they frequently appear to have no obvious solution.Businesses naturally look inward when margins come under pressure.They examine their own operations.They search for efficiencies.They look for waste.They challenge budgets.These are sensible actions.However, they can also create a narrow perspective.One of the biggest barriers to meaningful cost reduction is that many organisations operate largely in isolation from the wider supply chain.Each business focuses on its own targets, its own profitability, and its own efficiency measures.The problem is that what appears to be a saving for one organisation can often create additional costs elsewhere.In some cases, costs are not truly being reduced at all.They are simply being shifted from one part of the supply chain to another.As a result, the overall system remains inefficient, even though individual organisations may believe they are improving performance.This is where a broader perspective becomes valuable.A lesson from the Japanese automotive industryThe Japanese automotive industry faced a remarkably similar challenge during the 1960s and 70s.Manufacturers found themselves under pressure from customers who were unwilling to pay higher prices.Suppliers were unable to reduce their prices because they were already operating with tight margins.And the manufacturers themselves were struggling to achieve the profitability they needed.Rather than continuing to negotiate prices back and forth, they began asking a different question.Instead of focusing on the costs within individual companies, they looked at the costs across the entire supply chain.What they discovered was important.Many costs existed because of the way different organisations interacted with one another.Suppliers were incurring costs because of how manufacturers operated.Manufacturers were incurring costs because of how suppliers operated.Customers were experiencing costs because of how businesses served them.The inefficiencies were not confined to individual companies.They existed in the relationships between them.That insight changed the conversation.Looking at the whole systemThe Japanese manufacturers began bringing together teams that included suppliers, manufacturers, and customers.Rather than working independently, they worked collaboratively.The objective was simple.How could they reduce the cost of the entire supply chain?The thinking behind this approach was straightforward.If the overall cost of the system could be reduced, every organisation involved would benefit.There would be more value available for everyone.Questions about how to divide the benefits could come afterwards.The first priority was to identify opportunities to eliminate unnecessary costs throughout the chain.This represented a very different way of thinking about profitability.Rather than viewing suppliers and customers as separate entities with competing interests, organisations began viewing the supply chain as a connected system.And that change in perspective created opportunities that had previously been invisible.The power of shared informationOne example from the automotive industry illustrates the ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    4 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません