Want to learn more about NSU or are you ready to apply? Becoming a VIP is the first step! Click below and complete the form to create a personalized VIP website. We'll send you updates and provide a checklist with next steps in the admissions process. Already a VIP? Login here.
Whether you’re looking to advance in your field or start a new career a degree from NSU will help you get there. Click below if you would like to receive more information on a specific graduate degree program. If you are ready to start the application process click on Apply Now.
An interesting phenomenon emerged in an executive education class I regularly teach. Participants from around the U.S., and sometimes the world, come to the Harvard campus for a week, form teams that work on a significant group project remotely for six months, and then return to Harvard for a concluding session where they present what they've accomplished. A couple of years back, one of the teams decided to meet in-person about halfway through. They were so enthusiastic about the meeting, and the project they delivered so impressive, that I have related their experience to subsequent cohorts. Now, more and more teams opt for a mid-project, in-person meeting — a day or two of their own time at their own expense. Those projects continue to be among the best.
The technology that supports virtual meetings and dispersed teams is only getting better and less expensive. According to a 2015 report from the Institute of Leadership and Management (pdf), geographically dispersed teams are becoming more common. So why are the executives in my course embracing an optional trip away from their day jobs and families to finish a project? And why is it important for the rest of us?
One of the primary reasons to get teams together has to do with the hardwiring of the human brain, says Valérie Berset-Price, founder and president of Professional Passport, a firm that coaches, trains, and troubleshoots with international and cross-cultural teams.
The brain is always scanning for risk, according to Berset-Price, and among the things it uses to determine if someone is friend or foe are non-verbal cues. Those are absent in teleconferences and flattened in all but the best video conference systems.
"Building trust is a multisensory experience," she says. "Only when people are physically present together can they use all of their senses" to establish that needed trust. Without a bond, conflict or disengagement can more easily arise and is more difficult to resolve. But when a group has the human connection that makes them a true team, "people can move sky and earth together," Berset-Price adds.
She also noted that language, even a common one, can be a barrier to teams functioning smoothly. For example, Northern Europeans tend to be quite direct when speaking English, while Africans are more formal and indirect. Each group's mode of speaking can irritate or even offend the other. The multiplicity of cultural and linguistic challenges are more easily navigated when people work side-by-side to solve problems as well as share a meal, learn a bit about colleagues' backgrounds, and swap stories about kids, sports, and other non-work issues. Team members are reminded of their colleagues' humanity and learn to respect and better understand each other in ways that don't materialize when they only engage remotely. A team becomes more productive and cohesive as a result.
John O'Duinn, another dispersed-teams expert, agrees with Berset-Price. He has led various groups of technical engineers and prefers using distributed teams, as this enables him to tap into the best global talent — so long as they have regular in-person meetings. He likes a cadence of a weeklong in-person session every three to four months.
"In my experience, even when team members like each other in person, a bit of snippiness and impatience starts to develop after about four months," O'Duinn says. "I noticed myself spending more and more time with conflict interventions and other mediations that distracted from the project work and undermined group trust. When we meet in person once per quarter, everyone is immediately reminded of the humanity of the other members of the team. Trust is quickly restored, and the conflicts dissipated."
O'Duinn also notes that attrition dropped significantly once he mandated regular in-person meetings. He cites a quote from one of his engineers: "The idea is not to get work done — although we do lots. The idea is that we meet so that people will continue to work well together after they go back home."
To maximize the benefits of face time together, O'Duinn requires that everyone on the team arrive in time to begin work at 9:00 a.m. on Monday and plans for work to end no earlier than 5:00 p.m. on Friday. "This is a work week and we're together because there is some work best done together," he says, adding that the team has a lot of flexibility outside of the in-person meetings. Even locals stay at the same hotel and eat with the team. "I want any burden of being away from home to be shared equally," he adds. "And early on, people who had the chance to go home each evening told me that they felt they'd really missed out on important team interactions."
Both O'Duinn and Berset-Price say that the perceived cost is one of the first areas of resistance when they propose getting teams together. Each has a preemptive strategy.
O'Duinn says that he goes right to the CFO and asks what it would cost to have the same team sitting at desks in company offices. "They all know that number," he says. "My proposition is simple: ‘If I can manage the team the way I want to, deliver results, and save money, will you support me?' They generally will and the savings are reliably there."
He explains that the costs of each meeting are kept on a shared spreadsheet, with each participant responsible for booking their own flights and entering the cost. O'Duinn adds hotel, meals, and incidental expenses. "There is full transparency on costs. Team members see how much the company is investing in bringing them together." The spreadsheet goes right to his immediate boss and the CFO after the meeting.
Berset-Price relates that companies rarely hesitate to fund travel to unite a team when something goes wrong. Then it's all hands on deck and don't worry about the expense. She, too, goes to the CFO and argues, "If you'll spend the money when a problem arises, why don't you spend some to prevent the problem in the first place?"
It's too easy see travel as a luxury. Human connection, however, is a necessity and work has become global. That is a tension that must be resolved if people are to work well together. Bringing teams together enables them to establish and nurture culture. And, according to Berset-Price, "culture isn't the cherry on the cake. It is the metal mold that holds the cake as it is baked." Just as you wouldn't try baking a cake without a pan, don't expect technology alone to enable people to gel in ways that deliver breakthrough results.
Eric J. McNulty is the director of research at the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative and writes frequently about leadership and resilience.
When connecting with an audience, Hillary Clinton leads with the head while Donald Trump comes from the heart: both hold lessons for today leaders.
Watching Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential debates, it is striking to observe the difference in communication styles between the candidates; indeed they seem to use two diametrically opposing ways of connecting with their audience. The question is which style works best for a would-be world leader? And what can leaders in other walks of life learn from these two very different communicators?
When it comes to analysing the communication style of the two presidential candidates, it is important to remember that both have gone through serious media training that has helped them soften the rougher edges. We also need to take into account that stress and pressure – and running for president of U.S. certainly creates a fair amount of both – have the tendency to lead to more exaggerated negative behaviours unless very deliberately controlled.
We all have our range of individual and personal communication features that influence our preferred style of communication; the way we transmit, deliver, receive and interpret information. There are four main communication preference styles, as outlined in the Communication Preference Styles Survey (CPSS), a diagnostic tool, developed by Ian C. Woodward, INSEAD Senior Affiliate Professor of Organisational Behaviour, to compare individual communication style preferences.
These styles are reflected in the language and words we use, the topics we choose to talk about, the nonverbal signals we give and the voice tone we project, as well as our overall approach to connecting with other people.
These communication styles include:
1. Rational Communicators who come across as logical, factual and direct. They have a preference for analytical thinking and concentrate on key information that allows them to get straight to the point. Logic is their forte, and often empathy gets lost in the process.
2. Structured Communicators who are organised, meticulous and detail-oriented. Their goal is to understand the world by concentrating on details and factual information. Big picture, abstract thinking is often more difficult for these communicators.
3. Expressive Communicators who display a people-oriented and emotive approach to communication. They are interested in humans and relationships and express this by being warm or passionate or emotional. Expression is their forte, while applying logic and structure does not come as naturally.
4. Visual Communicators who express their ideas in an animated, lively way, building on ideas, metaphors and images, preferring to concentrate on the "big picture" than the details. Intuition is their forte while facts and deep analysis is much less emphasised.
As is probably evident, Clinton has a strong preference towards Styles 1 and 2, while Trump's way of communicating leaves little doubt about his preference towards Styles 3 and 4.
The logical straight shooter
When watching Clinton during the second presidential debate, we see her initial reaction to the first question is to respond with a personal question in turn, thus modelling the behaviour of her husband, Bill Clinton, during his town-hall style presidential debate with George H. W. Bush in 1992. Bill Clinton's personal and empathic question immediately created a human connection with the then-questioner and through his whole audience, starkly exposing the difference between his warm approach and Bush's apparent lack of empathy.
However, Hillary is not Bill, and immediate empathic connection is not her forte. Her weapons lie elsewhere. She has a reputation for having a sharp head and a cool heart. After her first, personal remark to the questioner, she immediately starts to deliver a well-prepared, smoothly analytical response. Facts and details pour out of her with ease, and are, characteristically for the Style 1 and 2 "logically comprehensive communicator", structured by order, logic and sequence. Her language is clear, and she connects the facts with the concrete, the "how-to".
The downside of her communication style is that she might remind people of the strict school teacher who knew it all and used to humiliate them in class. This impression is reinforced by her clear, calm, modulated voice, as well as her behaviour during Trump's turn to speak, as she diligently takes notes while he speaks. Her head held high, as if in disdain, and her sometimes pinched mouth further contribute to this perception.
This is a great disadvantage in a race for the White House where many voters cast their ballot based on nothing more rational or factual than "how they feel" about the candidate.
Passion and action
Trump, on the other hand, is the master of strong emotions, delivered with little logical underpinning or structure. His passionate rhetoric, and his imaginative, energetic, highly descriptive and unbridled emotional language create a sense of excitement and dynamism in his listeners, and give him the image of "a man of action", in contrast with Clinton, who is seen as "the woman of words". Trump's expressive facial and body language make him come across as more energised than Clinton's poker face. Trump excels at creating engagement and interpersonal relationships, and elicits strong passions from people to whom facts and figures matter little.
However, the weak side to Trump's communication style is also apparent: He jumps from one topic to another, and rarely if ever answers the original question, even when repeatedly brought back to it by the interviewer. He is undoubtedly able to touch and even rouse people (in a positive or negative way, depending on the point of view you take) but comes across as unprepared, unpredictable and lacking substance and depth.
Lessons in leadership perception
What can we conclude from these observations of the candidates? As far as Clinton is concerned, she is respected for her competence and knowledge, but seen as lacking warmth and empathy. People will vote for her because they are convinced of her qualifications, or because they vote against Trump, or because they are staunchly Democrat. They will not vote for her because they connect with her on a human, emotional level.
As far as Trump is concerned, it seems surprising how he can attract so many passionate and determined followers in spite of his confusing messages lacking logic and substance. What he does masterfully is to sense group emotions and connect with people's frustrations and concerns. He provides hope, not facts which can make people blind to his behaviour as a reckless, modern-day Messiah.
There is a lesson here for leaders of all ranks. Speaking only to people's heads does not create the passionate commitment as touching their hearts does. Leaders are best when they do both. Maybe Hillary Clinton can learn this lesson. Luckily, she doesn't have to look far for help. One of the best coaches to bring all four styles together is available, and what is more, she is married to him.
Katharina Balazs is an Associate Professor at ESCP Europe and an executive coach at the INSEAD Global Leadership Centre.