BRIAN KENNY: Welcome to Cold Call, the podcast where we dive deep into the ideas behind Harvard Business School’s groundbreaking case studies. What does it take to transform an iconic company without destroying the very qualities that made it iconic? Today’s case begins with a storied engineering institution whose technical brilliance had stopped translating into business performance. Then a new CEO arrived from outside the industry and declared a burning platform. He brought radical candor, granular strategy, relentless performance management, and an extraordinary sense of pace. The results were dramatic. Profits surged, cash generation strengthened, and confidence returned. But success creates its own leadership challenge. How do you preserve urgency without exhausting the organization and financial discipline without suffocating innovation? And how does a CEO know when the organization can carry the transformation without them? Today on Cold Call, I’m joined by Professor Nitin Nohria to discuss his case, “Tufan Erginbilgiç, at Rolls-Royce.” I’m your host, Brian Kenny, and you’re listening to Cold Call on the HBR Podcast Network.
Nitin Nohria’s research centers on human motivation, leadership, corporate transformation and accountability and sustainable economic and human performance. He was the Dean of Harvard Business School for over a decade and he has a new book, The CEO: The Role, The Reality, The Responsibility. Welcome to Cold Call, Nitin.
NITIN NOHRIA: It’s great to be here.
BRIAN KENNY: Great to have you here. You haven’t been here in a while. What have you been up to?
NITIN NOHRIA: In addition to writing my book, I continue to teach this course on the role of the CEO to many groups from Harvard MBAs to newly-appointed CEOs to a gathering of existing CEOs. So all of my work has now got concentrated around the role of the CEO. And then as someone who’s lifetime dream was to become an entrepreneur, I’m now a part of Thrive Capital where I’m chairman and that gives me an opportunity to see leadership from a very different angle when things are just being created from anew.
BRIAN KENNY: We’re going to touch on the big ideas in the book coming up. I know you’ve spent decades at this point researching, speaking to, meeting with CEOs. So a lot of that I think is infused in this case. And I think people recognize Rolls-Royce, obviously. They think about the motor car. We’re not going to talk about motor cars today.
NITIN NOHRIA: We’re going to talk about aircraft engines.
BRIAN KENNY: Aircraft engines. So maybe we can start by having you take us back to the beginning of the case, which is in January 2023. Tufan Erginbilgiç has just become CEO and he comes in and he tells the employees at Rolls-Royce that they are standing on a burning platform, which probably came as a surprise to them. I’m wondering what had gone wrong with the company at that time with such an extraordinary heritage of engineering and talent. What was he pointing out to them?
NITIN NOHRIA: He was pointing out to the company that the company was making no money and even an extraordinary engineering company in an industry where the product you make is essential and Rolls-Royce in its past had flirted with being close to bankruptcy. The government had bailed it out because there’s two major aircraft manufacturers in the world, Rolls-Royce and GE. So it’s not a company that has a real risk of ever going fully belly up. So I think that created a sense of complacency, but he was trying to remind the company that our job is not just to make engines, our job is to actually make money along the way.
BRIAN KENNY: And what was the culture like in the company at that time?
NITIN NOHRIA: The company was obsessed with engineering. Under its previous CEO, it had decided that it was going to make engines that would be carbon-neutral. It was going to make engines that would operate on sustainable aviation fuel, deeply important technical challenges. So these were not small challenges and it really inspired the company to do amazing work. But in the meantime, they were still making the traditional engine. They were not pricing it well. The supply chain was broken. They had the lowest margins of anybody in the industry. Their inventory turns were poor, their cash generation was poor, working capital was being used poorly. So the company had found great energy in a big vision about the future, but it had lost every day.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. I’m also wondering how you even heard about this. I’m always interested in what inspires faculty to write a case about something. What’s the sort of thing that catches their attention? What was it here?
NITIN NOHRIA: So there was an FT article about Tufan declaring this burning platform, and that was an interesting article. The world was surprised that he did that. It caught everyone. It was like a shock in some ways it was delivered. This was an iconic company. We of course first learn about it because we all dream of driving in a Rolls-Royce car. So there’s a little bit of romance that is associated with this company just from that. So I was just very taken by this article. And so I just reached out and got a chance to write this case.
BRIAN KENNY: Amazing. What you were describing before about the sort of culture of the organization, there’s a line in the case where it describes it as a cult of engineering for engineering’s sake. And I’m wondering, at some point, does that culture that’s so strongly defined become a liability in some ways?
NITIN NOHRIA: I think we all have to be careful about that. We all have to be careful about whatever culture we create has its strengths, but everything that has its strength has its dark side as well. And we can get so enamored with what it is that we view as our strength that we sometimes forget that if we’re not attentive, there are other things that you have to pay attention to as well. And in this particular case, the company was run by engineers for engineers with engineering milestones and engineering feats as the things that people took the greatest pride about, and this fact that we also have to make money was sometimes that’s what the suits worry about, that’s what finance worries about. We’re going to show them we’re going to build the next great engine and demand will come flooding in and all these problems would be temporary problems, which I think is what great technologists have to believe.
So in some ways you cannot be a great technologist unless you are passionate about what you’re building and you believe that once I build it, the whole world is going to come looking for it, and that was the culture that existed at Rolls-Royce, and along the way, you have to realize that investing in new technology requires money. It doesn’t come for free. And that money has to be made somewhere because otherwise you’re even going to run out of the investment that you need. And that’s what was happening to this company. Its capital investments were returning one fifth of what other people’s capital investments were returning. So its return on capital employed did not meet the cost of capital. Lots of projects were started that went nowhere. And yet each of those projects was someone’s pet project because it solved a really hard problem that they were determined to solve.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, and we know that people tend to fall in love with their ideas sometimes and you need good leaders to be able to sort those out, I guess.
NITIN NOHRIA: I mean, it’s just important to remind ourselves that you could write a case in which the culture was obsessive about finance and everything was being measured by does it produce an immediate ROI in the next quarter? And I think that that would be as harmful a culture as the culture that Rolls-Royce had. So it’s not that this is a case that causes you to pay attention to the fact that engineering cultures are capable of losing their way because when we teach any case at Harvard Business School, what you’re trying to do is to teach from a specific case a more generalizable lesson. So the lesson from this case is think about what it is that your culture values the most. Ask yourself, do the ways in which you take pride in that culture actually lead to some problems on the other side and what might those be?
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Tell us a little bit about Tufan. He came in as an outsider. We talked about that in the introduction. He was hard at work before he even got there, right? He was studying the organization and he came in with a pretty good sense of what he needed to do to light a fire, so to speak, under folks. What did he understand about the CEO transition that allowed him to move so quickly once he got there?
NITIN NOHRIA: I think this is one of the things about this case that I found the most special aspect of Tufan as a leader, which is just his willingness to get started before he got started. Most people say, “Well, my start date is going to be April. I’m going to join in April. I’m then going to spend the next three months getting to know the organization. Especially as an outsider, I don’t want to get started too quickly. People need to embrace me.” And he just had this deep sense of urgency that this was a company that left to its own devices the clock would run out. So he wanted to start as early as he did. And it’s just extraordinary what he did. I mean, he assembled the entire management team even before he took charge. So he was running the company almost in parallel and getting ready to run the company before he assumed the seat. That gave him many, many great insights.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, but is there also a little risk in that? I mean, he’s not from inside the culture. He’s observing from the outside, which is critically important, but he doesn’t necessarily know what the culture will tolerate. And one of the things the case talks about is that they had kind of a culture of courtesy over candor. So he’s coming in here with candor all the way. Could he risk losing some people? And maybe that’s what he was trying to do. Maybe he was trying to figure out who wasn’t up for that kind of leadership.
NITIN NOHRIA: I think Tufan said something to me when he came to class, which has stuck with me. It’s a deeply insightful thing. It’s easy to think that people in a company don’t know what’s going on, but somewhere deep in their heart, even if they’re denying it, they actually know the reality that’s going on. So the job of the leader is not to show them a reality they don’t understand, but it’s to actually show them what they look like in the mirror that they’ve always suspected, but have never been actually willing to own up to. And he was very data-driven. So he said, “This is a proud company. I can’t come into this company and say, ‘Here are all the ways in which you’re underperforming.’” But a proud company likes to measure itself relative to its competition. So he had done this benchmarking.
So he provided on every measure that he stood up and when he talked about his burning platform, he said, “Okay, this is our return on capital employed. This is what the return on capital employed is of all of our peer companies that are equally good industrial companies. We are one fifth as good. These are our working capital inventories. So we are a great company. This is not a track record that matches what a great company should look like. We are better than this.” So it’s almost like he invoked the pride of the company that existed by confronting them with the reality that they understood, but had never quite stepped up to.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. And engineers like facts and data, and he was appealing to them with that obviously. Talk a little bit about his leadership style, because the case talks about him saying that the transformation takes purpose, focus, and alignment. I’m wondering if you can maybe delve into those a little bit and how he thought about those.
NITIN NOHRIA: So his definition of purpose was that he didn’t want to call this a turnaround. From the very first days he said, “This is a transformation.” And what he says is different about a turnaround from a transformation is that a transformation is that you get from A to B, and at B, you have a lot more strength in your own self-confidence that you can do better yet.
So when you think about a turnaround, it’s like, okay, I dip from point A, I’m going to come back to point A, but then I’ll pause and I’ll ask myself, “Now what do I do?” His view was, no, by the time we recover our performance, we should have such self-confidence in our capability, in our ability to do yet more, and that’s what transformation looks like, which is it’s people who’ve gained. And he really wanted people at Rolls-Royce to believe that the purpose of the company was to build one of the greatest, highest performing engineering companies in the world. So it’s not like he disowned the engineering heritage. He just said, “Why can’t that engineering heritage be combined with the best performing organization? We should be proud enough to be able to do both.” So he starts with that.
Then he says, “People don’t relate to all these big fancy ideas.” So he picked six, seven workstreams. Each one of those was about a very specific thing. He says, “It’s either got to change cash or it’s going to change operating performance or it’s going to build capability for the future.” So every work stream was about a very specific needle that you could move on this transformation journey. And then he assigned teams to each of those things. So there was a real focus. People knew that this big vision that we’re going to become this extraordinary engineering company that fulfills its purpose is going to get done because there’s a pathway of what I need to do. The pathway is these six steps.
And then in the end, of course, he says that there’s real human beings that have to get everything done. And so he starts off by saying, “We’re going to have a senior team that is up to the job,” makes a lot of changes in the senior team. But by and large, he then mobilizes the rest of the organization by creating a demanding performance management culture. And as he says, he says, “I believe that if you show people what they’re capable of, you’ll be surprised by how many people can perform, but you need them to have leaders who are going to hold them accountable, who are going to coach, who are going to teach, who are going to tell them that this is unacceptable and this is.” He led by example himself. His meetings used to be pretty brutal meetings in which he would tell people… But never done with the eye of making you feel smaller. His view was always that of a coach, a tough-minded coach.
BRIAN KENNY: And what you’re describing sounds to me almost like there’s a lot of debate about should we do this top-down? Should we do it bottom-up? This almost sounds like a both and type situation.
NITIN NOHRIA: Yes, very much. I think he was unafraid to lead by example. And I actually think good CEOs, almost all the great CEOs I know do both, which is they show what good looks like through their own example… A case that I teach often before the Tufan case is Larry Culp, who also engineered an equally extraordinary transformation of GE and happens to be a rival in the same business. Larry spends personal time doing Kaizen even now as the CEO. So he’s on the shop floor, so he leads by example. I think that’s a very important thing that good CEOs do, which is they show what good looks like, but then they bring the rest of the organization along because they know that they themselves can accomplish very little and their job is in fact to inspire everybody else in the organization to be the best they can be.
BRIAN KENNY: The case also points out just in terms of timing, we talked about all the work that he did before he was officially on the job there, he also started to move down this path of implementing a strategy before all the information was in. A lot of organizations spend a lot of time doing exhaustive things, lots of meetings and studies and things before they figure out what the strategy’s going to be. He didn’t wait for all that information. He got people moving on things. Again, I’ll ask the same question before, is there a liability in moving too fast? Can you lose your traction with the organization if you move too quickly to implement things?
NITIN NOHRIA: So I think it all depends upon the context. My view of this is that Tufan said that there are some basic blocking and tackling execution that could be done, which is so far from the frontier that we have so much opportunity to just catch up on execution before we have to think about strategy. Even Mike Porter, who created the definition of strategy said, “Look, execution is table stakes. Strategy is what creates differentiation. But if you’ve been so far from table stakes, if you’re so far behind on table stakes, then at least getting to table stakes gives you an opportunity to create the health and the wherewithal and the capacity in the organization and the confidence.”
Tufan also believed that strategy is not some high-level thing. So he talks very purposefully about the importance of granular strategy, which meant you can’t just sit down and do it on a whiteboard. So he also wanted to give the organization the time to develop more granular strategies and that work was progressing in parallel with the execution, but he felt like I have so much runway to just get this organization, not even to the frontier, but to be halfway to the frontier on execution, that that will give me time to do the strategy as well.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. One of the things that he did early on was try to assess who on the leadership team should come along with him on this journey and not everybody made it. How do you sort of determine when you’re in a situation like that? What are the things that you look for? Because he said he wasn’t looking for loyalty, he was looking for somebody with the right mindset, and I assume part of that is that he was looking for people that would challenge him as he was challenging them.
NITIN NOHRIA: Yeah. So I think that there’s many ways in which you can assess who’s up to the task. You can look at their track record, you can interview them, you can see what kind of chemistry they might have with you. So different leaders have different ways of assessing talent. In Tufan’s case, he believes that you see people at their best when they’re doing the work. So in some ways, his preparation gave him the opportunity to get people launched on these six work streams right off the bat. And in a week you can tell, is someone taking ownership of this work? Is someone being imaginative about it? Is someone pushing it? When I challenge them, did they challenge me back? Do they wilt under the pressure? Do they embrace the pressure?
And he then practiced something that across all the CEOs I have met, I wish more would practice, which is it’s cruel to say that you should not give people the benefit of doubt because it’s humane to think that if you give people the benefit of doubt, they might prove you wrong. They may be better than what you think they are at the end of the one, two, three months, and it’s only reasonable to think, oh, if you waited six months, maybe the person would show up. Almost every CEO that I’ve ever met says that the only regrets that they have when they look back two years from when they started was the doubts that they had more often than not proved to be true.
And if you have doubt about a leader on your team, that doubt almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I think you’re better off both for that person’s sake and for yourself to say, “Do I have complete confidence in you? Because if I do, I’ll look you in the eye that way. The whole organization will know that I have confidence in you. I’ll trust you. I won’t hover. I won’t second guess.” That’s good for you, that’s good for the other person. Because if you do have doubts, you act in ways that actually undermine the person that you’re trying to manage in any case, and that then produces the outcome that you’re most afraid of.
BRIAN KENNY: How do you sort through the sort of noise? If you’re an incoming CEO, there’s people talking to you about their impressions of what you need to do. There are people inside the organization telling you what they want you to hear about this person or that person. You have to be able to sort through all of that noise.
NITIN NOHRIA: I think you’ve put your finger on something that is probably in my mind, the hardest task for a new CEO or for any CEO. But the CEO’s job is one in which truth bends around you. Everybody has an agenda. Everybody wants to tell you something that you want to hear either in their own favor or because they want to put someone else down who’s their rival. So information comes to you in very distorted ways. And I think the job of a CEO is to cut through, as you said, that noise, to find the truth and being grounded in data outside in… So one of the things that Tufan did that was really important was he went to the customers of Rolls-Royce to find out what was not going on. He went to analysts. So he went to the front lines.
The truth exists more clearly the farther away you go from the people who are closest to you when you become a CEO, and good CEOs toggle between the two because once they know the truth as it exists on the front lines, they can bring it back and interrogate their people, and once the people around you know that you know the truth, they become more cautious about telling you tales too. So Tufan was… He’s a great leader to pay attention to in terms of how do you make sure that you get in touch with reality and then you produce candor in return.
BRIAN KENNY: Mm-hmm. He also spent a lot of time thinking about how they measured performance. How did he know what were the right metrics to put in place to motivate people and to maybe demonstrate for themselves that they were actually making progress on something?
NITIN NOHRIA: We teach this as one of the first lessons in all of our classes at the school, cash is king they say, and it was very clear to him that the free cash flow generation of this company was deeply broken and everybody understood that by virtue of the data that he presented. So that was the first metric that he had, which is are we just improving the cash conversion of the company? But for the longest time, the company was not making an adequate margin, it was underselling its products just to sell them. He went out and he renegotiated contracts with people.
People thought that was impossible that a client has already agreed to a certain price for the next 50 engines. You’re going to go tell them that we’re going to actually increase the price, and he said, “Yes, because I want to tell them that, do you want a weak Rolls-Royce to be your client as the single most important supplier that you have or do you want a strong Rolls-Royce? And at this price, we will have to cut corners. You don’t want an aircraft engine manufacturer to be cutting corners.” And he showed by a few examples that he could raise price. So margin expansion became the second thing.
And then to his credit, knowing that this was an engineering company, he also set people hard engineering goals, like can we reduce the number of defects on things? Can we increase safety? Can we re-engineer these parts so that there’s fewer parts? Can they be machined better? So he also had as a third metric, the things that he knew engineers would be proud of and he found a way to make sure that that was an important part of the metrics that he focused on as well.
BRIAN KENNY: That’s brilliant. I want to talk more broadly, sort of pull the lens back a little bit and talk about some of the ideas that are in your book. I can remember when I was working for you that you spent a lot of time looking at how leaders manage their time and the ways in which they actually spend their time. And I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit about some of the surprises that you encountered when you stepped into a role where you were all of a sudden leading an enormous enterprise and some of the things that CEOs encounter that they might not be expecting.
NITIN NOHRIA: So the first thing that happens when you become a CEO is that there’s this extraordinary expansion of the constituencies that you need to touch. So I mean, most leaders of almost any senior stage in their career will end up having somewhere between 10 and 15 meetings a day. So it’s not like CEOs work in terms of the sheer number of hours, that many more hours than the head of a business or a head of a function. So probably a little bit more, but at the margin, that’s not what’s noticeable. What’s noticeable is just the variety of the meetings that you have to have in any single day. So you could meet an investor in the morning, you could meet a banker, and the next meeting you can have an irate employee as a third meeting. You can have a business head who you want to celebrate as a third, you have a retirement dinner as a fourth, you have a government official whom you’re going to meet for dinner.
So CEOs have to context switch from minute to minute almost, and throughout this, they have to maintain the through line of what is the agenda that I’m trying to drive on behalf of this company, and how is this meeting going to be in some ways contribute to moving the ball forward? And that’s the art. The art is to have a clear agenda. By the way, you’ll only end up spending about 40%, 50% of your time on the agenda itself because there’s many other things that happen in a CEO’s life, unexpected events. The world is constantly moving. So that I think is what I learned about CEOs managing time, which is navigating this very fractured, fragmented, multi-constituency Rubik’s cube and yet keeping it aligned so that at the end it all feels like you’re still headed and making progress on your agenda.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. And you mentioned before that CEOs come in thinking that now they’re going to be able to sort of make things happen as CEO. And every CEO wants to be transformational, I guess to some extent, right? You come into the job thinking-
NITIN NOHRIA: Who doesn’t want to be running? No CEO says, “Guess what I want to be. I want to do nothing.”
BRIAN KENNY: I want to be incremental. No, they all want to leave a legacy on the institution, but again, reality has a way of sort of bringing you back down to earth. Can you talk a little bit about the sort of misalignment between what a CEO thinks they’re going to be able to do and what the day-to-day work actually is?
NITIN NOHRIA: So I think the reality of the day-to-day of CEOs and organizations is that execution mistakes can be very costly and they can suck time away from you. So you have a huge new product launch, it’s late, it’s not on time, defects occur. Recovering from that can set you back three years. So suddenly you had this transformation agenda and you spent most of your time just digging yourself out of a hole that was an unnecessary footfall. So one thing I’ve learned from CEOs is just how damaging execution failures can be. The other thing that can happen that is sometimes not in the CEO’s control, but are just unexpected external events. You have a Ukraine war and if you’re a tire company and carbon black is made in only three countries in the world and one of them happens to be Russia, you suddenly have no access to one of your most important raw materials, and how do you pivot from a moment like that? And that can then become job one and every transformation agenda that you have is put on hold till you can solve those things.
And then I think that some of the other problems of CEOs are self-inflicted. They get hubris takes over. They want to do the acquisition that will hit the newspapers but it’s poorly thought out or they overpay for it. So there are failures of all three kinds that people can have. And then the final one is just, you don’t manage your time with any focus. So you just end up constantly feeling like you’re firefighting and your time is being sucked in every other direction except in the ways… And by the way, if you allow it to, the CEO’s time is inherently entropic. The forces are centrifugal. They don’t pull it together. So you have to have the will and discipline to keep it together.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. And I guess you’ve also got to be pretty good at figuring out what The capacity of your organization is for absorbing whatever change it is you’re trying to drive. I remember you saying once, you had given I think a six-month deadline for what was a pretty ambitious project and somebody said, “That’s awfully quick. Normally we would take nine or 12 months to do that,” and you said, “Well, if I give you 12 months, you’ll take 12 months. If I give you six months, it’ll get done in six months.” And you were right, but I guess the question is how do you know how hard to push and when to back off?
NITIN NOHRIA: I’ve just written an HBR article on exactly this question, which is one of the really important jobs of a CEO is to set the pace, and I think of pace as the thing that ties strategy to execution. So strategy sets the direction, pace determines the rate at which you get to your destination. And at times you have to urge the organization to move fast, faster than it imagines. It takes sensing to know that there is this pent-up capacity in the organization and it will move fast. But if you overdo it, organizations, like great athletes, a grueling match, need to rest a little bit to absorb what they’ve done and then get ready for the next great match. So I do think that that sense of timing, which is when is the organization ready to be fully stretched, when does it need a pause, what is the nature of the problem? This problem will actually take five years to get done. Maybe I can push it to four years, but I can’t be crazy and demand that it gets done in one. So having some sense of proportion is a really important thing. While every CEO I think has a natural temperament, some are inherently impatient and want to move more quickly, some have more natural patience or are happy to move more slowly. I think you play to your natural strength, which is what every good CEO should always do, which is to play to your natural strength. But over time you have to develop a repertoire and you have to learn to move at different paces, know when to accelerate, know when to slow down.
Coming back to Tufan, after he finished this first phase of the transformation, he knew that the next job was now growth to get the company into small nuclear reactors, to get it into new technologies. Those things operate on five-, 10-year cycles. He knew that he couldn’t push the organization at the same pace that he was pushing it earlier. So he has this great phase that you have to know when to push and when to prod and when to pause.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. I guess you have to know… One of the things he also says is that he’s trying to make himself redundant. I’d love to dig into that a little bit. What does he mean when he says that?
NITIN NOHRIA: Our colleague, Frances Frei, I think has this definition of leadership that I love, which is the real measure of leadership is how people behave when you’re not in the room. If people behave when you’re not in the room in a way that makes you proud, that makes you feel like, “Oh my God, they’re as good, if not even better than they were when I was in the room,” that’s when you know that you’ve become an amazing leader. I think that’s what Tufan was saying. He says, “In the end, this organization needs to be able to perform without me being the person who’s trying to drive the performance. People have to embrace and internalize those performance standards for themselves. They need to be pushing as opposed to me pushing and that’s when I know that my job will be done because that’s what genuine transformation looks like because now I’ve transformed not just how well the organization performs, but the mindset and the capability of the people themselves. And that’s the most enduring legacy you can have as a leader.
BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, I love that. We are just about at the end of our time, so I’ll ask you one more question: If you want our listeners to remember one thing about the “Tufan Erginbilgiç” case, what would it be?
NITIN NOHRIA: The thing I would have people remember is that organizations, even proud organizations deep down know what they’re feeling at, and it is your job to confront them with that reality and then reignite their pride towards performing again.
BRIAN KENNY: Mm-hmm. However much that might hurt.
NITIN NOHRIA: However much that might hurt. And people will thank you for it. The more important thing is that in the end, great organizations like to be great. They don’t want to be complacent, and if you can remind them about their greatness and show them what it takes for them to be great and give them a clear pathway to get there, they will love you for it.
BRIAN KENNY: It’s a great parting though. Nitin Nohria, thank you for joining me on Cold Call.
NITIN NOHRIA: Thank you, Brian. It’s wonderful to have been here.
BRIAN KENNY: If you enjoy Cold Call, you might like our other podcasts: Climate Rising, The Founder Mindset, IdeaCast, Managing the Future of Work, Skydeck, and Think Big, Buy Small. Find them wherever you get your podcasts and check out our video episodes on the Harvard Business School YouTube Channel.
We want to hear from you! Email us at: coldcall@hbs.edu. Thanks again for joining us. I’m your host Brian Kenny, and you’ve been listening to Cold Call, an official podcast of Harvard Business School and part of the HBR Podcast Network.
