Only a great leader can train great leaders. In this episode, Barry Conchie, the Founder and President of Conchie Associates, talks about building efficient leaders and coaching leadership teams. Sharing how he moved from research at the Gallup Association Organization to founding Conchie Associates in 2013, he goes through the ups and downs of founding his own company. He also shares his insights on a successful team and the importance of the recruitment cycle. Know more about coaching, leadership, and accountability as Barry takes us to his process of creating team leaders.
Listen to the podcast here:
Coaching Leadership Teams With Barry Conchie
Barry Conchie is with us now. He is the Founder and President of Conchie Associates. They advise boards and C-Suite members to help them solve some of their most difficult problems. We’re hopefully going to hit on a number of those. Barry’s team has the research focus and the behavioral science background behind them to support some how-tos on how to do things and help those leadership teams with some of their key problems. I’m all about teaching how-tos and how to do something and not talk about it. It should be a lot of fun for all of us.
His objective is to help leadership teams optimize the resources and the capabilities that they have at their disposal. Barry and his team bring the insights from Conchie Associates into world-class development programs to help organizations, as well as individuals, learn, grow and get better at what they do in their leadership style. The key thing is it’s research-based. There are also some online programs that they offer to help individuals develop their current and future roles. Barry, welcome aboard. I’d like you to tell us how you moved from your research at the Gallup organization to founding Conchie Associates in 2013.
It’s a pleasure to join you, Bill. We are fellow travelers in trying to help people become more effective in the work that they do. In Gallup, I’ve spent most of my time running the leadership research and development practice and a belt line open to a pretty significant part of that business. I made a discovery probably a little bit too late that the value I was bringing to that work was recognized by the clients in a way that they wanted to contract directly with me than necessarily with Gallup. That discovery I made way too late. As soon as I made it, I decided to branch out and started my own company. We committed to a research-based approach in my new company. We weren’t going to go out there as a think-tank or an ideas group. We were going to go out there with credible research, credible point of view and bring those insights for the benefit of the companies that we work with. As you say, in 2013, it seems like only yesterday but time has flown by with it having a lot of things.
It’s crazy when you get started. All of a sudden, you think when it gets to three years it’s going to be a whole lot easier, but it never seems to slow down.
The funny thing is it’s not necessarily the degree of difficulty. It’s the amount of film that you have. We work with some phenomenal companies, phenomenal partnerships with great leaders, great individuals. There is no better job on earth than the job that we do.
Do you primarily get referrals to move into other companies?
That’s the only way where you grow business. We don’t advertise. We don’t call people. We don’t look for leads. We don’t have a lead generation process. I get contacts from people all the time saying, “We’ll help build your pipeline for you. It’s of no interest to me. Our pipeline drives itself.” If you deliver fantastic work, you show value, people benefit from that value. You can show a return on the investment that they make. That’s a strategy.
My partner wanted to put a control valve on the pipeline so that he could open it when he needed work and squeeze it off when he didn’t need to work. It doesn’t work that way. It comes in chunks with each new referral.
The good thing for us is that we can pick the projects where we feel we can have the biggest impact. That doesn’t mean necessarily the biggest company is sometimes the biggest companies, a pretty tedious, boring entities, a multi-headed basis that are very difficult to get your head around. Whilst we have a few big companies that are successful and effective, we thought we’re very well with it. We look for interesting projects. What are the projects with a significant degree of difficulty, always stretching in ways that we’ve not been stretched in before? We’re fortunate to be able to pick and choose, but we always end up picking based on individuals, relationships, capability, the perception of talent in an individual. We try to work out to not let them down and be as helpful and constructive to them as we can be.
They’re willing participants and you’re going to be able to help them move the needle and not tread water where they are.There is no relationship between how you think about the experience and the performance of the person in the role. Click To Tweet
When the value is reciprocal where we can show an impact on business, people appreciate that impact. They also feel good about it. They feel their experience has been worth the journey. Those two are the very best conversation. One of the indicators I know quickly in that conversation with somebody who might want to work with us is if they raised the question of price very early, it’s probably not a relationship that’s going to go by itself.
What are some of the primary leadership problems that you help teams with? How do you help with those from your side?
I think about it at different levels. If I’m working with a board, similar problems you’ve been working on ARE around, “Is this the leadership team to take this company forward?” It may well be a privately held equity stake for a group of owners who’ve gotten a new style. For example, where they’re saying, “We feel good about where it’s at, but can this team take us to the next level?” That’s the scale question. More generally, you want to see your contracts with those. The question they’re asking is around longer-term succession. Do I have either a successor or successes who could conceivably step into my role? More typically they’re concerned about the talent level that’s already there. They want us to evaluate what we think about the capabilities of their team to see any collective blind spots or areas to optimize.
There we get from a selection to optimization discussion very quickly. The other issue is once we got to grips with a team, you make this point very well in your own work around alignment with regards to the strategy and the direction of the company. We spend quite a lot of time with the leadership teams defining what that might look like and we might put together operating principles, behavioral principles, and think through what that might mean in terms of driving alignment of message across an organization. Those are typically the kinds of problems we’ve gotten to solve.
When we sold our company and we were trying to get the next level of leadership to take over from the founders, one of the things we did with the consultant is we got a whiteboard. We put up words that could be the values of the company. It was 23 words. We boiled it down to six words and it blew my mind that innovation did not make the cut with our 23 people on this leadership team. The other two founders and I said, “We’re going to make an executive decision and we’re going to put innovation up there as one of your values,” because that’s what we’ve had for the first several years in this company and that’s what set us apart. It was interesting to see how you think you have a homogeneous leadership team until you get into some of those tougher questions and you try to get that alignment. All of a sudden, they’re a lot more individualistic than you knew.
We’d have some fun with CEOs early in discussions where I changed that with the proposition that they have as many strategies as they have leaders. They always create the right smile. I said, “Why do we test it?” The way that we test it is we interview each of the executive team members. We went to interview the CEO so we know what the CEO thinks of strategy. The question we ask of these executives is, “Could you tell us what the three strategic priorities of your company is going through this fiscal year and into the future?” I’ve got to tell you, people are all over that map. It’s almost as though we’ll get a good idea. We put it on a page and you have a strategy. When we sit down and talk to the CEO regarding our evidence. It’s a facepalm moment where they say, “I didn’t realize we were all over the map on this.” I said, “It’s a problem enough for you and your leadership team. What do you think it looks like for the 10,000 people working in your organization?”
Everything gets worse and worse in the communication channel as it gets broader and broader through the company. If your top 30 people have 300 different objectives, you’re going to be in big trouble by the time you get down five levels. Since we’re talking about leadership teams and you have something interesting on how to hire and find those people because I’m big on getting the right people into your organization. Generally, when you’re going after a leader, that candidate will come in and do the circuit. They’ll see board members, key leadership team members. They might get fifteen short interviews of five or six candidates. A couple of weeks later, it’s winnowed down through some process to a couple. They’d come in and they do that whole circuit again, getting five or six minutes with a number of different people. You’ve told me that’s not the right way to go after getting this top leadership. What’s a better way that you’ve seen to interview and find these candidates and make sure they’re going to match up so that maybe they will have the same three goals as the CEO going forward?
It’s important that companies start by being clear about what matters for the role and the things that we hear from companies don’t matter that much. Typically, we’ll hear them say, “It’s critical that they’ve got ten years’ experience in a leadership position. That’s an interesting statement. I’ll come back and say, “Nine.” Most say, “It depends on what it is.” I said, “The variable is what the experience is, not how many years you have.” What we know is that there is no relationship between how you think about the experience and the performance of the person in the role. There was a research paper I published that established this and I want to say beyond doubt, but certainly to the point where any reasonable person looking at would say, “Maybe experience isn’t such a big thing.”
The second thing is the process. They care about the criteria and understand its value. The other issue is to be clear about the process that you put people through and make sure it’s designed to get what you want out of the whole equation. The round-robin interviews that you described mitigated that. The reason they’re mitigated disasters is that people don’t prepare well for them. They’re socially interesting, but don’t give any insight from a decision-making perspective. What tends to happen is that people tend to connect people socially. We are social animals after all. You and I might like each other. Think of that and not many influences.
If I like what you say, even though it might have no bearing on a prediction around how effective you operate, that will sway heavily in my decision-making. The fact that it doesn’t work at the individual interview and at the interview level. I always said that if you put garbage in, you’ll get garbage out. I don’t care how many people interviewed in that situation. Every interview is sworn to the same degree. Frank Schmidt and John E. Hunter and it was brought out in 2008. It was published in the annals of selection psychology. They made a sensible recommendation and few companies have implemented this. They said that if you did this, it would improve the accuracy of your decision-making from the performance perspective. You establish critical criteria against which you’re going to evaluate candidates. You’re going to score these candidates against those criteria that you’re going to do in a panel interview, not a series of round-robin interviews.
Because they tested this, the optimal number for that panel is three people. Here’s where it got interesting. Only one person asked the questions, the rest of you shut up. The reason why they made that recommendation is that they know that if you’re sharing the questions across panel members, panel members aren’t listening to answers. They’re getting ready to ask their questions. What they said was that the distraction portion negatively impacted your ability to evaluate a candidate. Their recommendation was to do a single panel interview, get three people of it, develop the criteria you’re going to score, have them score it in the moment and have one person ask the question. At the end of the interview, aggregate your scores. They said if you go with those scores, you’ll get a hire about eight times out of ten. It’s almost as though ten to twelve years of selection psychology has passed this by because how many people do that though? How many people follow? It’s a well-founded selection, research, advice of that caliber. The answer is few people do, but they like the round-robin interview.
The only time I’ve seen a panel interview was when I went for my Eagle Scout interview in the Boy Scouts. They had a panel interview so it’s been a long time.
The other ingredient which is important to mention is that if you sit alongside the validated assessment of talent that’s been researched specific as a role and that’s where our specialism is. We build those instruments. We build those assessments. You’re going to get a massive false multiplier in terms of the outcome of the decision. Here’s the other thing, Bill is if you don’t care about the performance as an outcome, you can do what you want. You can drag ten people off the street. If you’re concerned about the performance that a person is going to show, you could make much more accurate predictions of that through the methodology and use of the assessments that I mentioned.
When you hit on this three-person panel and they’ve finished the interview and the person leaves. They’re immediately scoring individually against that criteria. Did they discuss it together?
It’s only after the scoring.
Each individual does a scoring. They turn that in and they’re allowed to talk about what they thought of that candidate.
The reason for that, Bill, is because sometimes there isn’t to what I would call an equal power relationship on most panels. It’s easy to say how a dominant executive could dominate and we don’t want them browbeating or overly influencing the perspective of the person who might not be as outgoing or assertive. In order to validate each of those perspectives, they do the scoring in silence without any conversation at all. We don’t say, “That was a good candidate who walked out to the door or I like her.” We say nothing. We sit down. We look at the criteria. You score the people against the criteria. You submit your scores into the central part and you’re allowed to talk.
No comments, no nothing. This is a major gold nugget for people. This information has been around for several years, not being implemented. Everybody wants to get that candidate that’s going to perform, but we’re not using the right interview process to get that person. I’ve got another question for you. One of my favorite books, I taught this for a while, it’s called The Oz Principle. There’s a whole program that you can teach. When we got to be around 1,200 people, some of our old-timers came to us and said, “We don’t feel like we’re pulling the wagon like we used to.” By taking this Oz Accountability Program and teaching at the top to bottom in the organization, people ended up knowing how what they did affect the goals of the company. They could say, “I am doing what I’m supposed to be doing.” One of the things you talk about is if there’s good accountability, there need to be consequences when people don’t make the goal. When you’re trying to run a very positive organization, it’s hard to come back and say, “What are those consequences going to be?” How have you coached leadership teams getting accountability, but having the consequences there for lack of performance?
The consequences are always initially positive. Let me play this out. If you do great work and that great work can be objectively established, it’s not just you thinking you did great work, it’s evidence. You can say the numbers, we can see the outcomes. There need to be positive consequences to that. We do a very bad job of doing that. If you look at price and recognition in organizations, the very thing that should drive discretionary effort is people don’t feel appreciated. They feel that praise and recognition are given too sparsely. Accountability in positive terms means that, but in negative terms, we don’t always deliver what we say we’re going to deliver. We might set out with an ambitious goal in full shot. The issue becomes one where there has to be accountability for poor performance.
When I said that all reactions to accountability or all consequences should be positive, here’s what needs to happen when performance is poor. The very first question should be, “How can I help? What’s gotten in the way? What are the barriers that are preventing you from being successful? Help me understand as your manager what it is that I can do to help either remove those barriers, provide you with the right insight and support?” It could be a resourcing issue. It may be you need help with a difficult part of the organization that’s not playing ball with you. Whatever it is, I’m here to help.Successful teams change the players. They don't hang around waiting for a downturn to do it. Click To Tweet
If you do that and a few months later you’re still in the same situation, we need to be asking a different question and that’s where the accountability starts to look like this, “This isn’t a role where I see you being successful, maybe our best efforts. We’re looking for a role where we can help you be successful, but it’s not this one. Here’s the objective evidence that we’re looking at to make that determination.” Not only do I see as not managing the positive messaging around accountability for performance well. We don’t price people well. We don’t manage the negative side either because many managers find themselves ill-equipped for those conversations. It’s far better to stumble and bumble along and not make a decision than to step in and have that difficult conversation. By consequences to accountability, that’s what I need.
One of the things I like is where you can sit with a person and for each quarter say, “Here are the four key things we’re working on with you this quarter to deliver.” You can check in once a month, see how they’re doing, see if they’re getting where they’re supposed to go. You can keep that accountability fresh all the time instead of once a year having a sit-down and discussion.
Bill, objectivity is our friend and a lot of people don’t realize this. They say, “I’m not that bothered with what you think about my performance. What I’m bothered about is what my objective performance looks like. Therefore, what we talk about sitting down with people and going through those four things, I don’t want those four things to be activities. I want them to be measurable outcomes. I want them to be outcomes where you and I could look at them and reach an agreement very quickly. This is a three out of a five if we’re going to put it on a scale. Far too often in my view, accountabilities made more difficult by the fact that we don’t use objective measures of success. We have a subjective view of the world. We’re influenced by things like the amount of effort a person puts in. If a person tries hard, we don’t like you to evaluate that performance as positive and that to me makes no sense at all.
It’s because everything was fuzzy and a glob that you’re trying to grate against and you can’t do it objectively. I like what you’re saying too also this praise and talking good about people and giving them recognition. It’s to celebrate what you want to see more of. If they’re doing good stuff, make sure they know it, make sure that people around them know it. You’re going to see more of that because of what you’re doing. One of my favorite sayings from the Army is that energy and enthusiasm are a force multiplier on the battlefield. We made a lot of bids, get into large international bids and it would always come down where you’ve played all your cards and it will get down to two bidders. We would normally win that tie in the client’s mind by showing that we had high energy, enthusiasm and a team that had worked together for a long time until the client is like, “I’m not going to have to push a rope if I give it to these guys. They’re going to pull this thing, take it and do a good job with it.” You use a similar term in the hiring process in that talent is a force multiplier. Would you explain that to me?
That’s if you’re winning contracts because you’re showing superior energy or determination. Shame on your competitor because as I look at the world, I expect that. When you think about high energy and high vitality in the Army on the battlefield, I expect that there too, but I don’t expect it in the leadership group necessarily. This is the sole determinant if you already reflected this. I know a lot of excitable, determined, motivated leadership teams that are going in the wrong direction. Table stakes for us are you need to show up. You need to be highly motivated. You need to be determined. You need that energy. Those are not selection criteria for those. We expect that. It’s a false multiplier because absent of all those other things, there are limits to what people can do.
I often say examples of golf courses on a Sunday afternoon across America. There’s a reason, Bill, why those people aren’t on the PGA Tour. It’s not because they’re not training hard. I’ve been on a golf course with amateur golfers who have thrown those clubs into the water. They’re so angry with themselves, but it wasn’t because they weren’t trying. We give ourselves permission to let ourselves off the hook with this analogy because we call them hobbies for a reason. These are the things that we want to be good at, but we know we never will be. If you want to get the highest levels of performance and the highest levels of achievement out of people, you cannot do that by ignoring their talent. There’s a limit to where a determination will get you. The best thing is when you have both.
If you’ve got a tremendous amount of talent that’s aligned to the role, you have got boundless motivation, insatiable energy and a real determination to say, “I want that first.” Talent becomes a force multiplier because I don’t want a person who shows up and tries out if they haven’t gotten the residual talent to convert that into high performance. I don’t need people with bright-eye and bushy tail showing up every Monday morning. I need to know they’ve got the innate talent. That to me is the missing ingredient in too many selection decisions.
That’s probably where it takes that panel to help identify that in your interview process.
It’s a start. An assessment is better but a panel is a start.
One of the things that I pushed quite a bit is what I call no fate leadership. We stole that from the Terminator movie where Sarah Connor was carving no fate at the top of that picnic table because she had seen the end of the world when the artificial intelligence took over. She said, “There’s no fate. This doesn’t have to be what happens to us.” What we wanted to do was to not go up and down with the industry cycles. Our no fate leadership was what are all of the rabbits that we can pull out of the hat and the systems we can put in place to sell continuously, be hiring good people continuously in good and bad times. When there was a downturn, we might go level, but we’re not going to go down with the industry. You champion not waiting for a downturn if you need to change out some people on your leadership team. Could you talk about that because it’s tough when there’s a lot going on and you need all hands on deck?
There is a popular misconception that leadership turnover is a bad thing. I disagree. The evidence for that is when you study successful teams. Successful teams change the players and they don’t hang around waiting for a downturn to do it. They changed the price because they’re in a constant recruitment mode. That to me is very healthy. They’re always saying it’s such and such the first and the best we can get. When they find in their networking activities somebody who may well be a better fit or a more optimized individual who’ll make the change, people hang around. The interesting thing about turnover with two leadership teams is that if you have too much turnover at the top, you sometimes predict failure. If you don’t have enough, it can also predict failure.
When we look at failing teams, teams that are struggling, it’s remarkable to us how few changes they’ve made to their leadership team. They seemed to have this blind faith that those individuals will show and eventually bear fruit. It’s a throw of the die that I’m not prepared to countenance. I’m always encouraging teams to keep an external reference set around the challenge and capabilities of individuals. Always be recruiting 100% of the time. You earn your right to be on that team with every performance cycle. You’re only as good as the performance you deliver. The one thing that supports this, which I want to bring up, which is a big part of the work that we do in our development work. They said, “You’re only as good as your weakest player. Don’t hold a view of yourself that somehow you’re way better than the team that you’ve created. You’re only as good as your weakest player. That puts a sharp focus on making sure that standard is as high as it could possibly be. My view is that’s a reflection of you. Your leadership brand is set by the weakest performer you’re prepared to tolerate on a tee. That’s why this recruitment cycle is so important.
That’s a super gold nugget right there with what you’re talking about. Your weakest player, that’s determining where your team is. One of the things we’ve found, especially with technology changing, sometimes we would hire people and find that whole groups of our people were several months behind the power curve on the people we were bringing in. We would go to those people and say, “Look at this talent. Look at what these people can do. You need to go to night school and catch up or you’re going to be replaced.” There were times where we would lose seven and eight-year people because they wouldn’t get up to speed. They felt they were secure because of what they’d been performing and doing. The new people coming in were a notch higher. You have to go to the best talent if you’re going to compete.
Here’s an interesting experiment for every CEO to carry out. Go two or three levels down your organization from the top of the company. That’s not your immediate team. It may not even be their team, but it might be the teams below. Ask yourself the question, would the leaders at that level be excited at the prospect that one of their team members being promoted? I’m not saying one of those team members, they come in your successor, no. I’m saying one of your team members leapfrogging above you. In other words, they’ve got challenging capabilities beyond what we think you have. How would you feel about that? I’ve got to tell you that there’s a bifurcation. Some people get excited about that.
They say things like, “That would make me feel so good because that will be down to me. I’ve put so much effort into that development and they got promoted above me and I was now working for them. That will be a vindication of everything that I spoke before.” There are other people who will be out there, who will turn around and say, “I don’t like it. Why pick them rather than me? I’m more senior than them.” You can see the value of the different response immediately. Every CEO should know what the levels in their organization, several stages away from them, think attitudinally about that issue.
Are those people trying to develop the people around them? If they have the talent to jump them, they should. That’s a toughie there.
Here’s another thing. If you don’t hold that view that people being promoted above you is a good thing, not only are you a blocker that you’ll hire weaker people than you.
It’s like first-level people hire first-level people and second-level people hire third-level people.
People with little talents hire people with even less talent is how I would put it.
One of the phrases that you hear all the time is to lead by example. Everybody has heard that all the time and you coach that if as a leader you’re not inspiring, energizing and motivating to engage your organization. You can’t expect other people to be doing that. I’ve heard this from CEOs, “That’s not the type of person I am. I have this person in HR that’s going to do that.” Could you talk about the advantage of it coming from the top?Don't hold a view of yourself that somehow, you’re way better than the team that you've created. Click To Tweet
We’ve looked at data around the leaders that people most admire and respect. They always say they give me a sense of the future is going to be better than the present. They have this picture of the future and this inspiration around the future that gets me excited. Whenever we say those variables, it always leads to greater discretionary effort. People are prepared to go the extra mile. They’ll run through walls for these leaders. The whole idea of leading by example, I understand what people mean by that. They also mean by way of lead by a good example. We can also set that example. The example matters. What’s much more important is that people feel inspired by the old leadership. I need to know that when you look over your shoulder, people are lined up behind you.
If you’re there on your own and people out behind you, you’re not leading. You cannot be a leader with no followers. The whole idea of presenting a positive view about what the future could look like, that it’s going to be tough, but we’re going to have fun on the way. The goals are worth the effort. Look at the difference we’re making in the world. Leaders cannot be tired of communicating those issues and those principles across an organization. Every time I see a leader with that capability, I’m going to look around and see a ton of people prepared to follow. That’s what I mean by driving that stronger inspirational message across an organization.
It’s having that vision and being able to tell this story and present it to where people can feel it and want to be part of it.
The interesting thing about a vision is you ought to be able to see it. One of the things I often ask a leader is can you describe it in ways that I could see it? If you can describe it in ways that I can see it, you’ve got the capacity to excite and energize people. If I said to you, “What’s your vision?” You paint the most miserable, dour picture on Earth, that’s disjointed, disconnected and look dystopian in its perspective. As I wrote in one of my articles, the very first line into an article said, “Who wants to follow somebody who’s going nowhere.” That’s pretty much what I’m referring to here. People have to feel inspired to travel the journey with you.
A lot of people talk about Millennials and Gen Z coming up. It’s feeling even more important that they see that vision and they want to be part of what that difference is that the company is going to make.
I don’t think it matters regardless of the generation group. It was as true 50 years ago when I was entering the workforce as it is now when our so-called Gen X is in their prime. I came out as no matter what.
You’ve done tons of research and it seems that you’ve read about everything there is out there. Do you have a book or article that our audience could read that might help them on their leadership journey? Something that you felt has a lot of good golden nuggets in it?
It’s hard to bring it down to one book because you would know and I would never put a recommendation of my own books in front of other people. I’m going to recommend everybody buy Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for Economics, but his work on Prospect Theory and his research into heuristics and human bias. I don’t think there’s a leader out there that should be leading groups, leading organizations without a fundamental understanding around human psychology. Thinking, Fast and Slow is the summary of Danny Kahneman’s life’s work. It is brilliantly written. It’s highly compelling. It’s incredibly accessible. It’ll blow your mind. It will cause you to stop and think about your own biases and your own prejudices. It will give you a solid research foundation for how you should lead and work with individuals and teams. It’s my best recommendation.
Thanks a lot, Barry. That sounds good. When we were doing some leadership training for our second and third generation, I was surprised and these are primarily engineers. You have to start with that as a given. They did know Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as they hadn’t had to take any psychology or behavioral science courses to become an engineer, so they didn’t take them. Whereas I went through West Point, we had to do lots of liberal education subjects as well as engineering. It surprises me a book like this could bring a lot of people up in their level of knowledge and interpersonal relations and how to work them.
The good thing about Kahneman’s writing is that it’s so accessible. A frontline manager in Walmart, a coal mining supervisor in Pennsylvania, a financial executive in San Francisco, there are so many insights you could all get from this book.
It’s easy to understand and easy to get the concepts. Barry, this has been a blast talking to you. I love trying to find those leaders based on performance. Not on whether or not you like them in an interview, but find a good way to measure that performance. You’ve had a number of gold nuggets in what you’ve talked to us about now. What I see in what you’re doing as leaders is you’re trying to make the world a better place by getting leaders to step up to the plate and do a better job as it takes people along. I’d like to put you in what we call the Culture Code Champions Hall of Fame. What would you like to be remembered for? You’ve been consulting now for a number of years. You’ve worked with a lot of C-Suite and board members. What would you want to be known for in that Hall of Fame?
It’s pretty simple. The core principle is that we help each individual person identify, develop and apply that talent for the benefit of everybody. That’s our value proposition. Quite often we find talents in people they don’t know they have. We find a way of connecting it to the demands of their role so they could achieve success, fulfillment and love what they do. It’s the singular focus. It’s behind everything that we do. I don’t think there’s a more important job on earth than releasing the talent of individuals for the benefit of everybody.
We’ll definitely enshrine you for that, for taking individuals, pulling that talent out of them and to build great teams. That’s a great reason to put you in the Hall. We’ve worked the Culture Code Champions: 7 Steps for People to Scale & Succeed in Your Business and you’ve given us a lot of how-tos. What I want to remind people of is that you need to have a champion if you’re going to push these how-tos and make them become a habit. If you don’t have somebody pushing it every day, it’s going to fall by the wayside. Barry, it’s been great talking to you, Founder and President of Conchie Associates. I wanted to give them your email address, Barry@nullConchieAssociates.com. In case, they want to reach out to you for looking at the articles that you’ve written and some of the thoughts that you have. Do you have anything else that you wanted to leave people with?
I’m happy to take all the questions, Bill. We all learn and grow by an exchange of ideas. Anything that we can do to help enough process, we will absolutely do. It’s been a pleasure talking to you.
Barry, it’s been a wonderful exchange of ideas. I want you to get out there and make heroes of everybody that you touch and remember to make your culture count.
- Conchie Associates
- The Oz Principle
- Thinking, Fast and Slow
- Culture Code Champions: 7 Steps for People to Scale & Succeed in Your Business
About Barry Conchie
Barry Conchie is Founder and President of Conchie Associates LLC. Previously he headed The Gallup Organization’s Global Leadership Research and Development business and served until 2013 as a Senior Scientist. Born and educated in the UK he has 35 years of experience in the areas of psychometric assessment, executive coaching, top-level succession planning, individual and team optimization, organizational effectiveness and strategic alignment.
Barry has consulted and partnered with leading global organizations and has been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 leadership thinkers in the world. He is a recognized expert in individual and team effectiveness. He has been involved in helping Boards select top-performing CEOs and has consulted with many top companies in the areas of executive selection and succession planning. He facilitates the formulation and alignment of strategy in some of the world’s leading companies.
Barry’s current research is in the science of decision making, heuristics, and cognitive bias.
Barry has appeared as author and contributor to magazines, newspapers, business journals and media programs throughout the world. He is the New York Times and Wall Street Journal best-selling co-author of Strengths-Based Leadership.