 |
|
|
|||||
Making difficult decisions is an inevitable part of being a leader. And at times, those decisions are unpopular. Yet in instances when it requires the efforts and cooperation of their team members, leaders have to find a way to get buy-in from the people that oppose those decisions in the first place. This isn’t easy, and requires a delicate balance. Arrivee Vargas, executive coach and author of Your Time to Rise: Unlearn Limiting Beliefs, Unlock Your Power, and Unleash Your Truest Self, shares some of the considerations that you should think about when you need your team to get on board with your decision. The importance of context Sometimes, a decision is only unpopular due to lack of context. Employees have no idea how their boss came to the decision, and as a result, they might have their own narrative of what transpired. That’s why it’s up to the leader to explain why they have to make the decision in the first place and disclose any organizational constraints that apply. Vargas says, “explain the context, explain whats happening at play so you have a nice container for that decision, and employees know what the parameters are and what they expect.” The importance of seeking feedback with constraints Employees might also be reluctant to support a decision when they feel like their voice doesn’t matter. As a leader, seeking feedback or input before making a decision should be standard practice, yet Vargas believes this is one of the biggest challenges that leaders face. However, Vargas argues that it’s important to put some sort of constraint on the decision-making process. One mistake that leaders often make, says Vargas, is entering the process too open. “From the beginning, you need to be able to put the information in a container. What information do I need? Who do I need information from? And you have to decide in advance how much is enough.” This might look like limiting the number of focus groups or amount of survey responses. Picking the right way of communicating It’s also important to figure out the appropriate forum to communicate, both when it comes to announcing a decision and seeking feedback. If you have a small team of fewer than 10 people, says Vargas, you need to meet with them one-on-one. Many leaders might argue that they don’t have time for it, says Vargas. However, “if you really care about bringing your team along . . . you have to invest the time and energy to show that you care.” If it’s a big team, surveys and focus groups are great options for soliciting feedback. While town halls can be effective for giving announcements, they are not always the most appropriate forum for getting honest feedback. Vargas does note, however, that even with the right method of communication, honest feedback can only come from organizations that have built foundational culture where there is trust, respect, and psychological safety. Without the right foundation, Vargas says, the whole process becomes much more difficult. The difference between being liked and being respected Making unpopular decisions is a crucial part of leadership. Yet Vargas believes that many leaders struggle with it because they want people to like them. “For most people, it’s really difficult for them to have these challenging conversations because they’ve never really had to have them.” But leaders have to be prepared to make tough calls and understand that there is a difference between being linked and respected. “I would say especially for women of color, we’re conditioned to behave that way,” she acknowledges. “You don’t want to cause a fuss, you don’t want to be a bother. They’re very concerned about keeping the peace.” When you think like this, Vargas says, you’re “confusing the decision-making with you as a person.” She goes on to say that she knows plenty of leaders who people might not necessarily want to spend time with. However, they’re “very much respected for their expertise and the way they make decisions.” As a leader, it’s crucial that you don’t conflate your decisions with your character. “That’s where you can get into trouble,” she says. The importance of taking accountability Finally, leaders need to own their decisions and take accountability for them, even when hindsight shows that they’re not necessarily the best ones. Owning when you miscalculate and make the wrong judgment call, says Vargas, is “leadership 101.” This is where a company’s foundational culture plays a huge part. “You have to have an organization where making mistakes is actually okay,” Vargas says. “Because if you’re in an organization where as a leader, you punish people for mistakes for years, you’re not going to get any help when you admit that you’ve made a mistake.” Leaders need to create a culture where mistakes happen and people are allowed to move on when they’ve learned from them. Ultimately, everything comes down to showing respect for the employee. “Employees really just want to feel like they’re valued and appreciated,” says Vargas. When it comes to making hard decisions, “they want to feel like you’ve asked me, and you thought that my opinion meant something.” They want to feel like you’ve considered their perspectives, and that it matters.
Category:
E-Commerce
Agentic AI is the buzzword of 2025. Although technically an “emerging technology,” it feels like companies of all sizes are quickly developing and acquiring AI agents to stay ahead of the curve and competition. Just last week, OpenAI launched a research preview of Codex, the companys cloud-based software engineering agent or its most capable AI coding agent yet. And its fair that people are interested and excited. Transforming industries From customer service to supply chain management and the legal profession, AI agents are set to transform industries across the board and are already showing us that they can be pervasive across both consumer and enterprise environments, bringing AI fully into the mainstream. Unlike chatbots and image generators, which provide answers, but require prompts, AI agents execute multistep tasks on behalf of users. In 2025, these autonomous software programs will dramatically change how people interact with technology and how businesses operate. This aligns with Forresters latest findings, which had agentic AI at the top of its recent Top 10 Emerging Technologies for 2025, highlighting the power and potential of this emerging trend. However, as the report also points out, the rewards come with big risks and challenges. Lets dive into these as well as why companies must prioritize governance before development and implementation in order to stay ahead of, not behind, the curve and their competition. A Governance-First Approach In just three years, at least 15% of day-to-day work decisions will be made autonomously by AI agentsup from virtually 0% in 2024. This prediction by Gartner, while promising, sits alongside another key stat: 25% of enterprise breaches will be linked to AI agent abuse. As mentioned above, the rapid and widespread adoption of AI agents, while exciting, comes with complex challenges, such as shadow AI, which is why companies must prioritize a governance-first approach here. So what is it about AI agents that makes them particularly challenging to control? Short answer: their ability to operate autonomously. Long answer: this technology makes it difficult for organizations to have visibility over four things: Who owns which agent What department oversees them What data they have access to What actions the agent can take How do you effectively govern them A comprehensive approach This is where unified governance can step in. With a comprehensive governance framework, companies can ensure that AI agents operate responsibly and are aligned with organizational standards and policies. The alternative: a lack of governance framework for AI agents can mishandle sensitive data, violate compliance regulations, and make decisions misaligned with business objectives. Lets use a real-world example: you are a CEO for a major organization. Your company builds and introduces an AI-powered assistant to help automate workflows and save you time. Now imagine that the assistant gains access to your confidential files. Without guidance or governance, the assistant summarizes sensitive financial projections and closed-door board discussions and shares them with third-party vendors or unauthorized employees. This is definitely a worst-case scenario, but it highlights the importance for a solid governance framework.Heres a helpful governance checklist: Establish guidelines that clearly define acceptable use and assign accountability. Carry out regular reviews to help identify and mitigate potential risks and threats. Appoint the right stakeholder to foster transparency and build trust in how AI agents are used internally and externally. Blurred lines According to Sunil Soares, Founder of YDC, Agentic AI will drive the need for new governance approaches. As more applications include embedded AI and AI agents, the line between applications and AI use cases will become increasingly blurred. I couldnt agree more. Whether you develop AI agents internally or partner with a third-party vendor, this technology will unlock significant value. But the challenges are not one-size-fits-all and will not go away. And while the human element remains important, manual oversight on its own is not sufficient or realistic when it comes to scale and size. Therefore, when you build out your governance framework, ensure that you have automated monitoring tools in place that detect and correct violations of policies, record decisions for greater transparency, and escalate the complex cases that require additional oversight, such as a human-in-the-loop. A centralized governance framework ensures accountability, risk assessment, and ethical compliance. Like everything else in life, you need to create and establish boundaries. And dont worryimplementing a governance framework first wont slow innovation down. When you find the right balance between innovation and risk management, you stay ahead of the curve and competition, leaving room for more cutting-edge AI agents and fewer headaches. For a perfect pill, deploy a unified governance platform for data and AI, as it will be the key to managing and ensuring AI agents dont become the next shadow IT.
Category:
E-Commerce
Perhaps more than at any time in history, boards are being forced to balance innovation and trust. The pressure for this dual mandate arises from intensifying scrutiny, ranging from consumer scrutiny, regulatory oversight, and social media spotlighting, to investor expectations and rapid technological disruption. Against this backdrop, boards must balance daring leaps forward with the confidence that theyre not exposing their organizations to reputational, financial, or ethical harm. The Innovation Imperative The world wont wait. Whether it’s AI-driven customer experiences, carbon-neutral operations, or new modular product platforms, innovation is no longer optional. It’s existential. Boards are shifting from passive approvers of CEO strategies to active enablers of resilience through: – Strategic Questioning: Directors no longer accept its in the works. They challenge leadership to define proof-of-concept milestones, KPIs, and risk thresholds. – Dedicated Innovation Committees: A growing number of boards are creating specialized committees that bring together technical expertise, market insight, and financial discipline, and are tasked with overseeing R&D road maps, digital transformation, and emerging opportunities. – Scenario Planning and “Wicked Problems”: Instead of quarterly admonitions to think big, boards are engaging in immersive sessionsenvisioning future disruption scenarios, stress-testing business models, and mapping counter-strategies against emerging risks. 2. Earning (and Keeping) Stakeholder Trust Innovation ignites trust only when it’s responsibly driven. Yet trust is a fragile asset, easily undermined by data misuse, ethical lapses, and opacity. Boards that prioritize innovation but neglect this dimension may inadvertently sow distrustor worse yet, crisis. Modern trust-building is multidimensional: – Governance That Works: Beyond checkbox compliance, boards are emphasizing transparencystreamlining financial disclosures, clarifying related-party transactions, and publicizing agenda topics like executive compensation, human capital metrics, and cybersecurity readiness. – Ethics as a Board-Level Imperative: Its not enough to hire a CCO. Directors are overseeing ethics frameworks, personally engaging in ethics training, and commissioning third-party audits that signal rigor and independence. – Technology Accountability: Artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and algorithmic pricing all carry risks of bias, privacy intrusion, and unfair outcomes. Boards are implementing algorithmic impact assessments, empowering ethics officers or advisory councils to review systems and ensure regulatory alignment. – Active Stakeholder Engagement: This means meaningful dialogue with employees, customers, communities, and investors. Boards are increasingly hosting forums, focus groups, and virtual fireside chats, signaling that decision-making is inclusive, and that issues like workplace fairness, product safety, or community impact are heard and acted upon. The Tension and the Balance Can innovation and trust coexist on opposing ends of a seesaw? Yes, when theyre purposefully integrated. Imagine launching a new AI-powered behavioral platform. The board advocates for its commercial potential, while also demanding explainability standards, third-party audits, responsible data sourcing, and consent frameworks before go-live. Thats because: – Trust breeds adoption, which fuels returns. – Innovation without oversight breeds backlash. – Day-one compliance investments mitigate scaling risks. Thus, boards are designing innovation with guardrailsempowering management to move fast, but not recklessly. Trust isnt a constraint; its an accelerant. Board Capabilities: What Must Change To settle into this dual mandate, boards need upgraded musclesand perhaps a redesign. Beyond traditional finance and legal literacy, durable boards now include: – Digital natives who understand AI, cloud infrastructure, and cybersecurity. – Data privacy specialists who grasp GDPR, CCPA, and global compliance regimes. – Human Capital leaders who understand the opportunities and challenges of managing six generations of humans, as well as agentic AI in the workplace. Directors must also evolve from police to partners. That means engaging in boardroom debates, questioning business models (not just balance sheets), and prioritizing curiosity and learning. To accomplish these goals, boards are adopting tools like: – Dashboards that track innovation metrics alongside trust proxies (bug reports, IT incidents, ethics hotline trends). – Decision frameworks that layer speed-to-market against reputational cost. – Dynamic charters that allow committees to pivot between innovation and risk oversight depending on strategic context. Board in Action: Leading by Example Some boardrooms are already charting this new course. – One fintech board mandated a digital ethics panel to review product-development milestones. The program delayed a public launch, but in return, they avoided a privacy scandal and earned plaudits from customers and regulators alike. – A global retailers board insisted ESG goals be tied to executive bonuses. That enabled a logistics innovation, slashing carbon emissions and boosted brand trust and investor approval. – A software providers audit committee now cross-purposes voice-of-customer metrics into its risk dashboard, mandating proactive pilot-support before scaling new features, avoiding early usability blowback. These examples show that boards arent victims of complexity. They can be its architects. The Road Ahead Stewardship of innovation and trust is not a checkbox. It’s a continuous evolution. Boards of the future will be dynamic, data-fluent, and culturally influential. They will: 1. Commission future-focused explorationsnot just financial reviewsbefore annual strategy cycles. 2. Embed ethical and trust metrics into quarterly reportingside-by-side with ROI and growth statistics. 3. Institutionalize stakeholder voice through standing advisory groups, embedding external input into board-level decisions. 4. Practice renewal, rotating board talent to reflect changing strategic needsdigital, human capital, ethicswithout losing institutional memory. Agile, accountable, and anchored For board leaders and CHROs, the opportunity is clear: to design governance that is agile, accountable, and anchored in shared values. The goal: sustain not just profits, but purpose. When boards become guardians of both innovation and trust, they dont just manage riskthey propel long-term value creation and societal impact. In summary, the modern boards mandate isnt either/or. Its both/and: bold innovation, disciplined by trust. To succeed, boards must rethink their charters, diversify their expertise, and adopt hybrid oversight frameworks that catalyze progress while safeuarding stakeholder confidence. This is todays blueprint for accountable, future-ready governance. Hollie Castro is an Independent Board Member, advisor and CHRO who helps organizations integrate culture, innovation, and governance at the executive and board level.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||