Free Daily Podcast Summary
Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders: Daily Summaries Delivered
by Andrew Beveridge
Practical tips for leaders. Hosted by psychologist and founder of Leadership Today - Andrew Beveridge.
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- 2 days ago4 min
Episode 241 - Curiosity is Productive Inefficiency
Summary We often treat efficiency as an unquestioned good, but curiosity works differently. A major new research review describes curiosity as "productive inefficiency", slowing us down in the short term while helping us find better ideas and solutions. This episode looks at where leaders should deliberately make room for curiosity. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 241 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at curiosity and why being less efficient can sometimes help us produce better work. Most organisations are trying to become more efficient. We want shorter meetings, faster decisions, streamlined processes and fewer wasted hours. As leaders, we're often trying to help people get to the answer more quickly. But we're also wanting people to demonstrate greater curiosity, which works in almost the opposite direction. A major new review of research into curiosity at work describes curiosity as a form of "productive inefficiency". When we're curious, we tend to slow things down. We ask another question, we look at an issue from another perspective, and we might even explore an option that ultimately leads nowhere. Instead of accepting the first reasonable answer, we spend a little longer wondering whether there might be a better one. In the short term, that's inefficient. But the researchers argue that this apparent inefficiency can contribute to things like creativity, adaptability and better solutions over time. The catch is we're often trying to encourage curiosity while simultaneously removing the space it requires. Imagine someone brings you a problem. You know what they should do, so you give them the answer. That's efficient. The problem disappears and both of you can move on. Compare that with asking, "What do you think is causing the problem?" or "What options have you considered?" That takes longer. They may suggest ideas that aren't particularly good. You might end up at exactly the same solution you would have given them five minutes earlier. But something different has happened. They've had to think about the problem rather than simply receive your answer. And perhaps they've noticed something you hadn't considered. The same thing happens in meetings. We can become so focused on getting through the agenda that questions start to feel like interruptions. Someone says, "I wonder why we still do it this way?" and the response is, "That's a bigger conversation. Let's take that offline." Now sometimes that's exactly the right response. We can't explore every interesting question that comes up. That's another important part of this research. The authors aren't suggesting that curiosity is always good or that we should maximise it. Curiosity consumes time and attention. Instead, it's more useful to think about where curiosity is worth the cost. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, identify the work where you don't want the quickest answer. If you're dealing with a complex problem, making an important decision or trying to improve something that hasn't been working, deliberately allow more time for questions and alternatives. That's where a little inefficiency may pay off. Second, notice how you respond when people are curious. Leaders can say they want people to challenge the status quo while unintentionally shutting down questions through impatience. If every curious question receives a quick explanation of why things can't change, people eventually stop asking. Third, put some boundaries around curiosity. You might spend the first 15 minutes of a discussion exploring the problem without trying to solve it. Or ask everyone to come up with three different explanations before deciding what is going on. The aim isn't endless exploration. It's making sure efficiency doesn't close down thinking too early. Bringing all of this together, the key question isn't, "How can we make everything more efficient?" A better question might be, "Where would a little inefficiency help us think better?" Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week. Reference Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., & Harrison, S. H. (2026). Curiosity at Work: A Productive Inefficiency Model. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 14. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012825-104832. Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer <p class
- 1 weeks ago4 min
Episode 240 - When Negative Feedback Becomes Too Much
Summary Negative feedback can sometimes improve performance and sometimes leave people distracted, discouraged or withdrawing from their work. New research shows that how surprising, disruptive and consequential the feedback feels helps explain those different reactions. This episode looks at how leaders can make difficult feedback clearer and easier to act on. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 240 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at negative feedback and why the way someone experiences the feedback can matter just as much as what you actually say. Most leaders know that feedback needs to be clear and specific. If something isn't working, we need to talk about it rather than hoping the problem fixes itself. But we've probably also experienced situations where feedback seems to have a much bigger impact than we expected. We raise what feels like a fairly straightforward issue and the person becomes defensive, discouraged or distracted by it for days afterwards. New research published in Human Resource Management helps explain why. Rather than treating every piece of negative feedback as the same, the researchers looked at specific feedback events over a 10-week period. They were particularly interested in how novel, disruptive and critical the feedback felt to the employee. By way of example, imagine telling someone they need to tighten up the formatting in a report. That's negative feedback, but it probably isn't particularly surprising or consequential. Now imagine telling someone who believes they are performing well that there are serious concerns about their overall performance. That's a very different event, even if both conversations could technically be described as negative feedback. The research suggests these characteristics matter because feedback can affect our sense of competence and use up mental resources. If the feedback is significant enough, part of the person's attention shifts away from the work itself and towards trying to understand what has happened, what it means and what they need to do next. For leaders, one implication is to think beyond the message you are delivering and consider how surprising it will be. If someone has been hearing nothing but positive comments for six months and then receives a major performance concern at their annual review, the novelty of that information becomes part of the problem. Regular, proportionate feedback reduces the likelihood that one conversation has to carry everything. It's also worth thinking about how disruptive the feedback is. Are you asking the person to make one specific adjustment, or are you effectively telling them that their whole approach needs to change? When substantial change is required, people may need help breaking that into manageable steps rather than leaving the meeting with a broad sense that everything is wrong. And then there's the issue of competence. Corrective feedback should focus on the approach someone is taking rather than who they are as a person. Something like, "This part isn't yet at the standard we need, so let's work through what needs to change", gives you room to be clear about the problem while still conveying confidence that improvement is possible. This doesn't mean cushioning every difficult message or turning negative feedback into praise. Sometimes the feedback genuinely is serious and needs to sound serious. But it does mean recognising that the same words can land very differently depending on what the employee already believes, how consequential the issue is and how much change you're asking them to make. One question worth asking before your next difficult feedback conversation is: How big an event is this likely to be for the other person? If the answer is "quite a big one", then allow enough time not just to deliver the feedback, but also to help them make sense of it and work out what happens next. Clear feedback matters. But effective feedback conversations also take into account the impact of the message on the person. Reference Corwin, E. S., Rosen, C. C., Lee, H. W., Simon, L. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2026). Negative Feedback as Performance Conversations: An Event Systems Perspective. Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70094. Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to <a href= "http://www.le
- 2 weeks ago3 min
Episode 239 - Does Your Team Think the Relationship is as Good as You Do?
Summary Leaders can easily assume they have stronger relationships with employees than employees themselves experience. New research shows that this mismatch can reduce psychological safety and make people less likely to speak up. This episode looks at how leaders can test their assumptions and make it easier for people to raise concerns. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 239 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at how leaders and their teams rate the quality of their relationships, and the impact on whether people feel confident to speak up. Most leaders think they have a pretty clear view about the relationships they have with people in their team. The problem is that relationships involve two people, and the other person may not see things in quite the same way. A recent study looked at leader-member relationships from both sides. The researchers collected data from 496 employees and 139 leaders and examined how closely leaders and employees agreed about the quality of their relationship. They then looked at psychological safety and whether employees were willing to speak up with ideas, concerns and suggestions. As you might expect, relationships were strongest when both the leader and employee saw them positively. But the more interesting finding was what happened when the leader rated the relationship more positively than the employee did. In those situations, psychological safety was particularly low. Leaders can easily overestimate how safe they are to talk to. We know our own intentions. We know that we want people to raise concerns and challenge our thinking. But employees are making a different judgement. They're trying to work out what is likely to happen if they disagree, raise a problem or tell us something we don't really want to hear. A leader might think, "My door is always open", while an employee is thinking, "Yes, but I'm not sure how they'll respond if I tell them the project isn't working". Those two people are describing the same relationship very differently. The challenge is that leaders who think the relationship is already strong may not do much to improve it. If someone rarely disagrees with us, we can interpret that as evidence that everything is going well, when it may simply mean they're being cautious. One useful thing to do is look for behavioural evidence rather than relying on your own sense of the relationship. Does the person ever disagree with you? Do they bring you bad news early? Do they raise concerns before they become problems? Do they offer a different view when you've already expressed a preference? You can also make it easier for people to tell you how the relationship is working for them. Rather than asking, "Is everything okay?", which will usually produce "yes", try something more specific. You might ask, "What could I do that would make it easier for you to raise concerns with me?" or "Is there anything I do that makes it harder for you to disagree?" Of course, asking the question is only useful if you respond well to the answer. If someone takes a risk and gives you feedback, becoming defensive teaches them something very quickly about how safe the relationship really is. Leaders don't get to decide on their own whether a relationship is strong. What matters is how both people experience it. So this week, think about someone in your team you believe you have a very good relationship with. Then ask yourself a slightly uncomfortable question: what evidence do I have that they would describe it the same way? Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week. Research: Pahng, P. H., Fuller, R., Kwak, J. S., & Kang, S. M. (2026). Same Playbook, Safer Plays: Leader-Member Alignment and Employee Voice. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884261476053 Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own
- 2 weeks ago54 min
Interview - Dr Gleb Tsipursky - Helping Teams Embrace AI
AI adoption isn't just a technology challenge - it's a leadership and psychology challenge. In this episode of Leadership Today, Andrew Beveridge speaks with behavioural scientist, author and CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts, Dr Gleb Tsipursky. Drawing on his new book, The Psychology of AI Adoption at Work: From Resistance to Results, Gleb explains why many AI initiatives fail to deliver a return and what leaders can do differently. They explore the three emotional barriers that often hold employees back: fear of job loss, threats to professional identity, and the social stigma associated with using AI. Gleb shares practical ways to respond, from giving people greater clarity about job security and beginning with tasks they dislike, to role-modelling responsible AI use, providing tailored training, and creating safe spaces for employees to share what is working. The conversation also looks ahead to a workplace where people increasingly manage teams of AI agents. Andrew and Gleb discuss how this shift could reshape roles, career pathways and leadership - and why skills such as critical evaluation, editing, agent management and sound judgement will become even more valuable. In this episode: - Why focusing on technology alone leads many AI initiatives off track - The three psychological barriers to AI adoption - How leaders can reduce fear and resistance while building trust - Why starting with frustrating, repetitive tasks can create momentum - How role-modelling, training and shared learning can reduce "shadow AI" - The role of governance and clear guardrails in enabling faster adoption - Why employees may become managers of AI agents - How AI could reshape organisational structures and future career paths - Practical examples of using AI to improve both efficiency and effectiveness If you're leading AI adoption - or trying to help your team engage with it more confidently - this episode offers an evidence-informed and practical place to start. You can find out more about Dr Gleb Tsipursky's new book here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/aibook/ You can purchase the book via Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-AI-Adoption-Work-Resistance Learn more about Dr Gleb Tsipursky here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/ 00:00 — Introduction 02:34 — Gleb's background and interest in decision-making 04:43 — Why organisational AI initiatives go wrong 08:10 — The three emotional barriers to AI adoption 14:33 — Reducing employees' fear of job loss 18:22 — Responding to professional identity threats 24:25 — Tackling shame and "shadow AI" 27:50 — Training and shared learning 30:36 — Governance and clear guardrails 32:01 — How AI may reshape organisational structures 34:30 — Employees as managers of AI agents 38:23 — AI, robotics, and physical work 42:06 — Building workflows with multiple AI agents 47:39 — Measuring efficiency and effectiveness 51:17 — Further resources and the book 53:17 — Final leadership takeaways
- 3 weeks ago4 min
Episode 238 - Remember What It Was Like to Be a Beginner
Summary The better we become at something, the harder it can be to remember what it was like not to know. New research shows that experts give more useful and actionable advice when they reconnect with their own experience as beginners. This episode explores a simple way leaders can become better coaches and teachers. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 238 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at a challenge that comes with becoming more experienced: the better we become at something, the harder it can be to explain it to someone who's just starting out. Think about something you've done hundreds or perhaps thousands of times. It might be running a meeting, preparing a report, handling a difficult customer, using a particular system or having a performance conversation. After enough practice, many of the steps become almost automatic. You don't consciously think about everything you're doing because you've built up knowledge and patterns that allow you to work quickly. That's usually a good thing, but it creates a challenge when someone less experienced asks us for advice. We can forget what it was like not to know what we now know. A new study published in the Academy of Management Journal explores this problem. The research looked at what happens when experts reconnect with what they call a beginner's mind. Rather than simply remembering an event from the past, people were encouraged to mentally revisit what it actually felt like to be a novice in that particular area. Across studies involving managers and musicians, taking on a beginner's mind made a difference to the advice experts provided. When experienced people reconnected with their former beginner state, their advice became more concrete. And importantly, the novices receiving that advice rated it as more useful and were more willing to act on it. It helps explain something we see constantly at work. An experienced leader might tell a new supervisor, "You just need to have a clear conversation and hold them accountable." That sounds perfectly sensible to someone who has handled dozens of performance conversations. But the new leader may still be wondering: How do I actually start the conversation? What words do I use? What happens if they become defensive? What should I prepare beforehand? Expertise compresses all of those little steps. Once something feels obvious to us, we stop mentioning the things that no longer require conscious thought. That's why telling someone to "communicate more effectively", "delegate properly" or "think strategically" often isn't particularly helpful. The advice describes the destination without helping the person with the journey. There are three practical ways leaders can use this research. First, before giving advice, briefly remember your own first attempt. Think back to when you genuinely didn't know what to do. What were you worried about? What confused you? What did you misunderstand? What would you have wanted someone to tell you at that point? That mental exercise may help you notice assumptions that your expertise now hides from you. Second, make your advice behavioural. Instead of saying, "You need to delegate more", describe what the person could actually do. You might say, "Choose one task this week, explain the outcome you're looking for, ask the person how they would approach it, agree when you'll check in, and resist taking the task back unless there's a genuine risk." Concrete advice is easier to act on. Third, check what the other person already knows. Before launching into an explanation, ask, "What have you tried so far?" or "Talk me through how you'd approach it." That helps you pitch your advice at the right level and also encourages the other person to think rather than simply waiting for your answer. Expertise doesn't automatically make us good teachers or coaches. In fact, expertise can sometimes get in the way because it makes the difficult look obvious. Great leaders benefit from traveling back to their own beginning so they can help someone else move forward. Reference Zhang, T. (2026). Back to the beginning: Rediscovering a beginner's mind enhances advice provision to novices. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0816. Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a grea
- Aug 21, 20264 min
Episode 237 - The Hidden Bias in Performance Reviews
Summary Some employees are especially good at adapting their behaviour and creating positive impressions, but does that mean they actually perform better? A new meta-analysis suggests self-monitoring predicts supervisor performance ratings more than objective performance outcomes. This episode explores how leaders can distinguish genuine contribution from the appearance of performance. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 237 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at a subtle bias that can influence performance reviews: confusing someone's ability to manage impressions with their actual performance. Some people are naturally very good at reading a room. They notice what other people expect, adapt how they present themselves and adjust their behaviour to fit different situations. Psychologists call this self-monitoring. High self-monitors are socially skilled. They recognise when to speak up, when to hold back and how to present their contribution in a way that resonates with different people. Those can all be useful capabilities at work. For years, research has suggested that self-monitoring is also associated with job performance. But a new meta-analysis asks an interesting question: are high self-monitors actually performing better, or are they simply better at being seen as high performers? The researchers analysed 35 samples and found a modest overall relationship between self-monitoring and job performance. But when they examined how performance was measured, they found that the relationship appeared when supervisors rated performance, but not when performance was assessed using more objective outcome measures. This indicates that at least part of the apparent performance advantage comes from influencing the person doing the rating rather than actual performance. Most workplaces don't measure performance perfectly. Leaders form impressions based on conversations, meetings, presentations, emails and the things they happen to observe. Employees who are skilled at recognising what the manager values may naturally become more visible in those settings. Meanwhile, another employee may quietly produce excellent work without drawing much attention to it. The danger is that we start treating visibility as performance. Someone who speaks confidently in meetings can appear more capable than someone whose contribution is less visible. Someone who regularly updates the boss can appear more productive than someone who simply gets the work done. There are three practical ways leaders can reduce this bias. First, define performance before evaluating the person. Be clear about the results, behaviours and standards that matter for the role. It's much easier for impressions to take over when performance expectations are vague. Second, use multiple sources of evidence. Look at outcomes, feedback from others, customer impact and observable contribution rather than relying solely on your overall impression. Ask yourself, "What evidence would I use to explain this rating to someone who has never met this employee?" Third, look for invisible contribution. Who solves problems quietly? Who helps colleagues without drawing attention to it? Who consistently produces reliable work but rarely talks about it? Strong performance isn't always highly visible. This doesn't mean socially skilled employees are intentionally manipulating leaders to receive a more favourable performance evaluation. However, we need to be careful not to allow presentation skills to substitute for evidence when evaluating performance. Performance and the appearance of performance are not the same thing. Great leaders don't ignore impressions, but they make sure those impressions are tested against evidence. Reference Moser, K., Ebner, K., Iliescu, D., & Sîrbu, A.-A. (2026). Self-monitoring and job performance: Substance or style? A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and
- Aug 14, 20265 min
Episode 236 - The Go-To Person Trap
Summary Every team seems to have someone everybody goes to for help. New research shows that leaders may unintentionally create these go-to employees through the people they visibly rely on, increasing burnout without necessarily improving performance ratings. Discover how to spread expertise without exhausting your most dependable people. Transcript Hello and welcome to the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at how the person everyone relies on can gradually become overloaded, and what to do about it. Most teams have a go-to person. They're the colleague people approach when they are unsure what to do, when something needs fixing, or when a deadline is approaching. They know how things work, they are reliable, and they are usually generous with their time. Having someone like that in a team can seem like an enormous advantage, but new research suggests there may be a hidden cost. The researchers began with an interesting question. When someone needs help at work, how do they decide who to approach? We might assume that people carefully consider who has the right expertise for the particular problem. Sometimes they probably do. But that requires knowledge and effort, and often we use shortcuts instead. One shortcut appears to be looking at who the leader relies on. If the manager regularly goes to one particular person for advice, information or assistance, other team members notice. They infer that this person must be knowledgeable, capable and safe to approach. The researchers describe this as an "imitate-the-successful" shortcut. Rather than asking, "Who is best qualified to help me with this particular problem?", people effectively ask, "Who does the boss go to?" Over time, those individual decisions accumulate. The same employee receives more questions, more requests for advice and more interruptions. Eventually, they become the unofficial go-to person for an increasingly broad range of issues. There is obviously an upside. Being trusted and relied upon can be rewarding. It can indicate expertise and provide opportunities to contribute beyond the formal boundaries of a role. But the research also identified an important downside. Go-to employees experienced greater burnout without necessarily receiving higher performance ratings as a result. That creates a real leadership risk. Some of our most capable people may be doing a large amount of invisible work that never appears in their position description or performance measures. Each individual request may only take five or ten minutes, but collectively those interruptions can consume a significant part of the working week. The irony is that leaders may contribute to the pattern because they trust the person. We rely on them because they are capable, and our visible reliance signals to everyone else that they should do the same. The reward for being reliable becomes even more work. There are three practical things leaders can do. First, notice where the requests are going. Ask yourself who people approach when they are stuck. You can also ask your team where they go for different kinds of help. If one name appears repeatedly across unrelated areas, you may have developed a dependency rather than simply recognising expertise. Second, distribute expertise deliberately. Instead of always approaching the same trusted employee, involve other people and make their expertise visible. You might say, "Sarah knows this process really well, so speak with her about that," or ask different team members to lead particular areas. The goal is to create several places people can go rather than one human help desk. Third, recognise helping as real work. If someone is regularly supporting colleagues, factor that into their workload and performance conversations. Do not give them a full individual workload and then treat all of the helping as something they should somehow squeeze in around the edges. There is also a useful question you can ask your go-to person: "How much of your week is spent helping other people get their work done?" The answer may surprise you. The key takeaway is that becoming the person everyone trusts can look like success while quietly becoming a source of overload. Great leaders build capability across the team rather than allowing dependence to accumulate around one highly capable person. So take a look at your team this week. Who has become the person everyone goes to? And perhaps more importantly, what are you doing as the leader that might be reinforcing that pattern? Thanks for listening, and I look
- Aug 7, 20263 min
Episode 235 - How to Help Your Team Feel Heard
Episode 235 - How To Help Your Team Feel Heard Summary Most leaders understand the importance of listening, but far fewer understand what great listening actually looks like. Discover the research behind high-quality listening and why helping people feel genuinely heard can improve trust, engagement, wellbeing, and retention. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 235 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we explore the research behind high-quality listening and why helping people feel genuinely heard can improve trust, engagement, wellbeing, and retention. Most leaders would agree that listening is important. In fact, if you ask people to describe the best leaders they've worked with, listening often appears near the top of the list. And yet, listening is one of those skills that can be easy to talk about and surprisingly difficult to do well. Part of the challenge is that we often think of listening as a communication technique. We focus on maintaining eye contact, nodding, paraphrasing, and asking questions. While those behaviours can be helpful, research suggests that what matters most is whether the other person genuinely feels heard and understood. What we're after instead is high-quality listening. Researchers who reviewed more than two decades of listening research identified three key elements of high-quality listening. First, giving someone your full attention. Second, genuinely seeking to understand what they mean, not just the words they're saying. And third, approaching the conversation with openness and curiosity rather than judgement. When people experience this type of listening they become less defensive, more reflective, and more willing to share information and ideas. In other words, good listening doesn't just help people feel better - it changes the quality of the conversation itself. Other recent research has also found that improving listening skills as a leader can reduce burnout and decrease people's intentions to leave an organisation. That's a useful reminder that listening can have a meaningful impact on wellbeing, engagement, and retention. So what can leaders do? First, focus on understanding before solving. Many leaders hear a problem and immediately jump to advice or solutions. Instead, try asking a question that checks your understanding. Something like, "So if I've understood correctly, the real challenge is…" This not only helps clarify the issue, it also demonstrates that you've genuinely been listening. Second, remove distractions whenever possible. If you're having an important conversation, put your phone away, close unnecessary applications, and give the other person your full attention. People notice very quickly when you're only partially present, and it often changes what they're willing to share. Third, become more comfortable with silence. Most of us feel pressure to respond immediately. Yet some of the most valuable insights emerge after a pause. When someone finishes speaking, resist the urge to jump in straight away. Give them a little space. You may find there's more they want to say. Remember that listening isn't just about gathering information - it's about helping people feel understood. And when people feel understood, they're more likely to trust, engage, contribute, and collaborate. As leaders, one of the most valuable things we can offer isn't a solution or an answer. Sometimes it's simply our full attention. Research references: Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The Power of Listening at Work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 121 to 146. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091013 Itzchakov, G., et al. (2023). Learning to listen: Downstream effects of listening training on employees' relatedness, burnout, and turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 62(5), 731 to 752. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hrm.22103 Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at y
Get Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders summaries in your inbox
Free AI-powered daily recaps. Key takeaways, quotes, and mentions — in a 5-minute read.
Get Free Summaries →Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
You Might Also Like
Listeners also like.
The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk
Conversations with top leaders across industries exploring how continuous learning drives success.
A Bit of Optimism
Conversations with thinkers and doers exploring what drives purpose, growth, and meaning in life.
Craig Groeschel Leadership Podcast
Leadership lessons from Craig Groeschel on growing as a leader, managing time, developing teams, and organizing effectively.
HBR On Leadership
Explores leadership skills through case studies and conversations with global business leaders and management experts.
Working Hard with Grace Beverley
Conversations with diverse achievers reveal raw insights on redefining success, balancing ambition, and learning from failure.
Total Disruption Podcast
Entrepreneurs discuss mindset, business growth, and operational frameworks to move beyond hustle culture and build scalable companies.
Growth Mindset Psychology: The Science of Self-Improvement
Explores the science behind lasting self-improvement through psychology, neuroscience, and timeless wisdom traditions.
3 Takeaways
Features conversations with leading thinkers and experts, distilling each discussion into three actionable insights.
Impact Podcast, Mentorship with Eddie Wilson
A seasoned entrepreneur shares insights on building businesses, leadership, and living with purpose to create meaningful impact.
TED Talks Daily
Daily audio from TED Talks worldwide, featuring leading thinkers and doers on ideas ranging from artificial intelligence to zoology.
Bred To Lead | With Dr. Jake Tayler Jacobs
Explores people-first leadership through real-world stories and expert insights on building trust, empathy, and empowered teams.
Worklife with Molly Graham
Molly Graham talks with professionals about navigating career challenges and personal growth in a changing work world.
About Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders
Practical tips for leaders. Hosted by psychologist and founder of Leadership Today - Andrew Beveridge.
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by Andrew Beveridge.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
What topics does Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders cover?
Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders covers topics including Business, Management, Careers. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.