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.
- 6 days ago4 min
Episode 248 - Why People Lose Their Sense of Purpose at Work
Summary We often try to increase motivation by helping employees connect with the purpose of their work. But new research suggests that destructive workplace conditions can undermine meaningfulness by frustrating people's basic psychological needs. This episode looks at why improving the work environment can be more effective than simply reminding people why their work is important. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 248 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why people sometimes lose their sense of purpose at work, even when the work itself is important. Think about someone who joins an organisation because they genuinely believe in what it does. Perhaps they work in healthcare, education, government or a community organisation. They care about the people they serve and want to make a positive difference. But over time, things change. They become increasingly frustrated, disengaged or disconnected from the work. The organisation's purpose hasn't changed and their work is still just as important. So what's happened? New research published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology examined how destructive organisational environments influence employees' experiences of meaningful and meaningless work. The researchers conducted two studies involving more than 2,300 employees in Poland. They found that destructive workplace conditions were associated with greater frustration of employees' basic psychological needs. This, in turn, was associated with people sing their work as less meaningful. Deci and Ryan identified those basic psychological needs as autonomy, competence and relatedness. We want some control over what we do, opportunities to feel effective and capable, and a sense of connection with others. When the work environment consistently frustrates those needs, people may find it harder to experience their work as meaningful. In our attempts to rebuild motivation, we might remind people of the organisation's purpose. We talk about the difference their work makes, share success stories or encourage people to reconnect with why they joined in the first place. This approach can be useful, but if the everyday experience of work involves limited autonomy, constant obstacles and poor relationships, a reminder about purpose may not be enough. Imagine a nurse who genuinely cares about patients but has little control over their workload, struggles to access the resources they need and feels unsupported by colleagues or management. The importance of the work hasn't disappeared, but the experience of doing that work may be undermining their sense of meaning. Here are three things I'd suggest to tackle this reduced sense of purpose. First, look at the everyday conditions of work, not just the organisation's purpose. When people seem disconnected from their work, explore what's making it difficult for them to experience it as worthwhile. Are they frustrated by unnecessary restrictions, unclear expectations or a lack of support? Improving those conditions may do more than another conversation about purpose. Second, support people's basic psychological needs. Look for opportunities to increase autonomy, help people build confidence and capability, and strengthen working relationships. These don't always require major organisational changes. Sometimes small improvements in how work is organised can make a meaningful difference. Third, avoid relying on purpose to compensate for poor working conditions. It's reasonable to remind people why their work matters, but don't use that message to dismiss legitimate frustrations. If someone says they're struggling, take the practical difficulties seriously rather than simply encouraging them to focus on the bigger picture. Bringing all of this together, meaningful work isn't just about having an important purpose, it's also about the experience of doing the work. So the key question is: "Are we creating conditions that help people experience their work as meaningful, or are we relying on the importance of the work to carry them through?" Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week. Reference Turek, D., & Okay-Somerville, B. (2026). Meaningful and meaningless work under destructive organisational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2026-0270 <
- 1 weeks ago4 min
Episode 247 - Why Teams Stop Talking About What Matters
Summary When nobody raises concerns, leaders can easily assume everything is going well. But new research explores how silence can become part of a team's culture, with people gradually learning which issues are better left unspoken. This episode looks at how leaders can recognise and challenge patterns of silence before important problems are overlooked. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 247 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why teams sometimes stop talking about important issues, even when nobody has explicitly told them to remain quiet. Imagine you're leading a team meeting and ask whether anyone has concerns about a proposed change. Nobody says anything. You take that as a sign that people are comfortable with the direction and move on to the next agenda item. But afterwards, you discover that several people had serious reservations. They'd discussed them with each other, but nobody wanted to raise them in the meeting. Why does that happen? We might assume people lack confidence, don't want to appear negative or simply aren't interested enough to contribute. But new research published in Organizational Psychology Review suggests we need to think about silence as more than an individual decision. The researchers brought together existing research to develop a framework for understanding organisational silence cultures. These are environments where certain issues aren't openly discussed, and that silence becomes an established part of how the organisation operates. Silence can prevent problems from being identified, limit innovation and allow ineffective practices to continue. One of the implications is that people don't necessarily need to be explicitly told to remain quiet. They can learn from observing what happens around them. Imagine someone raises a concern in a meeting and the manager responds defensively. Or perhaps the concern is politely acknowledged but nothing happens. Over time, employees may conclude that raising these issues isn't particularly useful. They might still contribute enthusiastically to other discussions. They might be happy to suggest improvements to minor processes or volunteer for new projects. But when it comes to questioning an important decision or challenging an established practice, they remain quiet. This silence can be difficult for leaders to recognise. We tend to notice what people say, but it's much harder to notice what they have decided not to say. And when nobody raises concerns, we can mistakenly interpret that silence as agreement. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, pay attention to what isn't being discussed. Think about the issues that regularly come up in private conversations but rarely make it into team meetings. Are there recurring frustrations, questionable processes or difficult relationships that everyone seems to know about but nobody openly addresses? Sometimes the most important leadership information is found in the gaps between what people discuss privately and what they're prepared to discuss together. Second, consider how you respond when someone raises a concern. People are watching what happens when colleagues speak up. If you become defensive, dismiss the issue or immediately explain why nothing can change, you may unintentionally discourage future contributions. You don't have to agree with every concern, but you can acknowledge it, explore it and explain what will happen next. Third, make previously avoided issues discussable. Rather than simply asking people to speak up more, identify one issue the team has been reluctant to address and create an opportunity to discuss it constructively. You might say, "I get the sense we've been avoiding a conversation about how this process is working. I'd like us to explore what's getting in the way." The aim is to demonstrate that difficult topics can be discussed without people being punished or dismissed. Bringing all of this together, silence isn't always a sign that people have nothing to say. Sometimes it's a sign of what they've learned about speaking up. So the key question is: "What might people in my team have learned is better left unsaid?" Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week. Reference Knoll, M., & Bogilovic, S. (2026). Organizational silence cultures: A conceptual framework and integrative review on how they develop, manifest, and persist. Organizational Psychology Review. <p class=
- 2 weeks ago4 min
Episode 246 - When Being Too Forgiving Damages Psychological Safety
Summary Being forgiving and understanding helps people feel psychologically safe, but can there be too much of a good thing? New research suggests that excessive leniency, particularly when someone has done something seriously wrong, can actually undermine psychological safety. This episode looks at how leaders can balance understanding with accountability. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 246 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why being too forgiving as a leader can make your team feel less safe. Most leaders want to be understanding when people make mistakes. We recognise that people aren't perfect, that circumstances can be difficult, and that responding harshly to every problem isn't going to create a healthy working environment. But imagine someone on your team repeatedly behaves in a way that affects their colleagues. Perhaps they regularly miss important commitments, treat others disrespectfully or ignore agreed ways of working. You speak with them, but you're reluctant to impose consequences because you want to maintain a supportive environment. You might believe you're demonstrating understanding. But what are the other people in the team experiencing? New research published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology examined the relationship between leader leniency, psychological safety and employee performance. The researchers found what psychologists call an inverted U-shaped relationship. Moderate levels of leniency were associated with greater psychological safety, but excessive leniency was associated with a reduction in those benefits. Interestingly, the seriousness of the wrongdoing made a difference. When the behaviour was relatively minor, greater leniency tended to be associated with greater psychological safety. But when the wrongdoing was more serious, too much leniency appeared to undermine psychological safety. That's an important distinction because psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as simply making people feel comfortable or protecting them from consequences. Psychological safety is about being able to speak up, ask questions, acknowledge mistakes and raise concerns without fear of interpersonal punishment or humiliation - that doesn't mean anything goes. When leaders fail to address serious problems, other employees may feel less safe. They might wonder whether their concerns will be taken seriously or whether the same standards apply to everyone. Consider the difference between someone making an honest mistake while learning a new task and someone repeatedly behaving disrespectfully towards colleagues. In the first situation, a forgiving response can encourage learning. In the second, repeatedly overlooking the behaviour may send the message that the impact on others doesn't really matter. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, distinguish between mistakes and misconduct. When someone makes an honest mistake, particularly while learning or trying something new, respond with curiosity and support. Focus on what happened and what can be learned. But when behaviour involves repeated disregard for expectations or causes harm to others, a more direct accountability response may be needed. Second, consider the impact of your response on the whole team. When you're deciding how to respond to someone's behaviour, it's natural to focus on that individual. But others are also affected by what happened and how you handle it. Ask yourself what your response communicates about the standards and expectations that apply across the team. Third, combine understanding with clear expectations. Holding someone accountable doesn't require being harsh or humiliating them. You can listen to their perspective, recognise difficult circumstances and still be clear about what needs to change. Being compassionate and being consistent aren't mutually exclusive. Bringing all of this together, psychological safety doesn't come from overlooking every mistake or avoiding every difficult conversation. It comes from people knowing they can learn from mistakes while also trusting that serious problems will be addressed. Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week. Reference Xu, J., & Cao, J. (2026). Is leniency always divine? Nonlinear consequences of leader leniency for follower psychological safety and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology. https://doi.org/1
- 3 weeks ago5 min
Episode 245 – Why Team Conflict Doesn't Just Go Away
Summary We often assume that once a disagreement has been resolved, a team can simply move on. But new research suggests conflict is one of the most persistent aspects of team dynamics, continuing to influence how people work together over time. This episode looks at why conflict can be so difficult to shift and what leaders can do to help teams move forward. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 245 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why conflict in teams can be so difficult to shift, even after the original disagreement has been resolved. Think about a team where two people have had a significant disagreement. Perhaps they disagreed about how a project should be delivered, how responsibilities should be divided, or how a decision was made. Eventually, the issue is resolved. Everyone agrees on a way forward, and the leader assumes things will return to normal. But a few weeks later, something still isn't quite right. The two people aren't communicating as openly as they used to. They're more likely to question each other's intentions, and small disagreements seem to escalate more quickly. The original issue might have been resolved, but the conflict has left something behind. New research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology helps explain why this happens. The researchers conducted a large meta-analysis of longitudinal studies examining how different aspects of team dynamics change over time. The analysis brought together studies involving thousands of teams. The researchers were particularly interested in what they called the dynamism of team processes and emergent states. In everyday language, that's about how things like team emotions, trust, conflict and ways of working develop and change over time. One of the interesting findings was that different aspects of team dynamics vary considerably in how persistent they are. Team emotions were relatively changeable, while team conflict was among the most persistent. We typically treat conflict as a particular event or disagreement that needs to be resolved. But conflict can also become part of the way people relate to each other. Once we've experienced conflict with someone, we might start interpreting their behaviour differently. A question that previously seemed reasonable might now feel like criticism. A delay in responding to an email might be interpreted as deliberate. We may become more cautious about sharing information or less willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Over time, these reactions can reinforce the conflict, even when the original issue is no longer relevant. Importantly, this doesn't mean that all disagreement is harmful. Differences of opinion about tasks, priorities and ideas can help teams make better decisions, particularly when people feel safe to challenge each other. The problem is when disagreement becomes a persistent pattern that undermines working relationships. The research suggests leaders need to think beyond simply resolving the immediate issue. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, address conflict early. Because conflict can be persistent, it's worth paying attention to the early signs that a disagreement is becoming something more. Look for changes in how people communicate, whether they're avoiding each other, or whether disagreements are becoming personal. A conversation early on is often easier than trying to repair a relationship after months of frustration. Second, focus on rebuilding the working relationship, not just resolving the disagreement. It's possible for two people to agree on a decision while still having little confidence in each other. Once the immediate issue has been addressed, ask what they need from each other to work effectively going forward. This might include agreeing on how they'll communicate, how they'll raise concerns, or how they'll handle future disagreements. The aim isn't necessarily for everyone to become friends. It's to rebuild a productive working relationship. Third, follow up after the conflict appears to be resolved. We often have one difficult conversation, reach an agreement and move on. But if conflict is particularly persistent, it's worth checking back in. A week or two later, ask how things are going and whether the agreed changes are actually happening. Look for evidence that people are interacting differently, rather than simply assuming the absence of another argument means everything is fine. Bringing all of this together, resolving a disagreement and resolving
- Oct 9, 20263 min
Episode 244 - Experience Doesn't Automatically Make You a Better Leader
Summary We tend to assume leadership experience naturally makes us better leaders, but experience by itself isn't enough. New research suggests how we process and remember leadership experiences helps to shape our confidence and identity as leaders. This episode looks at how to get more development from the experiences we're already having. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 244 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why having more leadership experience doesn't automatically make you a better leader. We often think about experience as if it automatically produces development. Someone has been leading for ten years, so we assume they have ten years of leadership development behind them. But that's not necessarily true. It's possible to have ten years of experience, or essentially the same year of experience repeated ten times. New research published in the Journal of Business and Psychology looked at how people process leadership experiences and how that relates to the way they see themselves as leaders. The researchers were particularly interested in something called event binding capacity. That's our ability to take the different parts of an experience and connect them into a coherent memory that we can draw on later. Imagine you've just led a difficult meeting. Several people disagreed, you tried a different approach, the conversation shifted and eventually the group reached a decision. You could simply move on to the next meeting, or you could think about what happened. What changed the discussion? What did you do that helped? What made things worse? What would you do differently next time? This additional reflection time is what leads to growth, not just the experience. In one of the studies, people with more leadership experience and greater capacity to process events in this way reported a stronger identity as a leader. The experimental findings also suggested that experiences that were personally relevant and involved other people were particularly important in shaping leadership identity and confidence. The research highlights an important principle: experience gives us a foundation for development, but we still need to do something with it. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, pause after important leadership moments. You don't need to reflect on every meeting or interaction. Focus on events that surprised you, challenged you or mattered to you. Those are often the experiences with the most potential for learning. Second, make the reflection specific. Instead of asking, "How did that go?", ask, "What did I do that influenced what happened?" and "What would I repeat or change next time?" That helps turn an experience into something you can actually use. Third, talk important experiences through with someone else. The research highlights the relational nature of leadership development. A coach, colleague or trusted peer can often help you notice something about an experience that you missed while you were in it. Bringing all of this together, experience doesn't automatically produce development. The more useful question is: "What am I learning from the leadership experiences I'm already having?" Reference Fu, Y., Lord, R. G., & Braun, S. (2026). Predicting leadership self-concepts: The role of memory in processing self-relevant and relational events. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-026-10149-5 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. <p class="p1" data-rte-p
- Oct 2, 20264 min
Episode 243 - Stop Unfinished Work Following You Home
Summary Sometimes it's difficult to enjoy our time away from work even when we've finished for the day. New research shows that unfinished tasks and anticipating a busy day tomorrow can keep work active in our thinking while also reducing our motivation to engage with our leisure time. This episode looks at some practical ways to finish the working day well. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 243 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why unfinished work can follow us home and what we can do about it. Most of us know what it's like to finish work without really finishing work. We've physically finished up for the day, but part of our attention is still back there. Perhaps there's something we didn't quite get done, a problem we haven't solved, or we're already thinking about everything waiting for us tomorrow. A new study followed 179 employees over 14 working days to explore how unfinished tasks and anticipated workload affect our leisure time. The researchers found two different processes at work. The first process is probably quite familiar. When we have unfinished tasks or expect a heavy workload the following day, we're more likely to continue thinking negatively about work. The working day might have finished, but mentally we're still there. The second process is called "motivation erosion". This is when unfinished tasks and anticipated workload are also associated with people feeling less capable of fully engaging with and enjoying their leisure time. So work doesn't just follow us home through our thoughts. It can also reduce our motivation to make good use of the time we have away from work. Imagine finishing at 5.30pm with three things you didn't get done. You head home intending to go for a run, cook dinner or spend time with family. But you keep thinking about what you didn't finish and what's waiting for you tomorrow. By the time you get home, sitting on the couch and scrolling through your phone feels like the easiest option. You haven't necessarily run out of time for leisure; you've lost some of your motivation to use that time well. Here are three ways to avoid work following you home. First, create a clearer ending to unfinished work. Before you finish for the day, write down exactly what still needs to be done and the next action you will take. Writing something like "finish report" leaves the task open in your mind. "Review the final two sections at 9am tomorrow" gives your brain a clearer plan for what happens next. Second, be realistic about tomorrow. For participants in the research, anticipating a heavy workload was also associated with poorer leisure experiences. If tomorrow looks overwhelming, take a few minutes to identify what genuinely needs to happen and what can wait. Schedule the required time for each element into your calendar. Sometimes it's the undefined sense of having too much to do that overwhelms us and follows us home. Third, make some deliberate plans for your leisure time. If work can reduce our motivation to engage with life outside work, don't rely entirely on how you feel at the end of the day. Arrange the walk, book the exercise class, plan dinner with someone or decide what you're going to do before you finish work. Bringing all of this together, finishing work well is partly about creating a clear psychological ending to the working day and also about planning our leisure well. So before you finish today, ask yourself: "What do I need to write down or decide now so I don't have to keep carrying this tonight?" Then take some time to plan your downtime. Reference Rutten, R. L. J., & Wehrt, W. (2026). Leisure under lock: cognitive activation and motivation erosion as mechanisms undermining experiential quality of leisure time. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2026.2722069 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 through our Apple iOS and
- Sep 25, 20264 min
Episode 242 - How to Give People Autonomy When There Isn't Much Freedom
Summary Autonomy matters for motivation, but what happens when people work in a highly structured environment with lots of rules? New research involving nearly 3,900 NSW Police Force personnel shows that autonomy can still be supported within clear boundaries. This episode looks at how leaders can provide more ownership without removing necessary structure. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 242 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we're looking at autonomy and a question that often comes up in highly structured workplaces: what do you do when there really isn't much choice? Self-Determination Theory identifies autonomy as one of three basic psychological needs, alongside competence and relatedness. When we experience some ownership and choice over our actions, our motivation and wellbeing tend to be stronger. But what happens when you work somewhere with lots of rules? Think about healthcare, emergency services, government, aviation or policing. There are policies, procedures, legal requirements and standards that simply have to be followed. A leader can't just say, "Do whatever feels right to you." So does autonomy still matter in those environments? A new study involving nearly 3,900 people in the NSW Police Force suggests it does. The researchers found that organisational support was associated with greater satisfaction of people's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, along with better outcomes such as commitment and wellbeing. Workplace conflict, on the other hand, was associated with greater frustration of those needs and poorer outcomes. But perhaps the most useful finding for leaders was that people could still experience autonomy in a highly structured command-and-control environment. The catch is that autonomy doesn't mean independence or complete freedom. It's more about having some sense of ownership over what you're doing. You might have no choice about whether a safety procedure needs to be followed. But there may still be flexibility in how work is organised around that requirement. People might be able to contribute ideas about implementation. They may have discretion within clear boundaries. Here are three ideas to try. First, explain the rationale. Sometimes leaders say, "That's just the policy", and technically that might be correct. But where you can, explain why the requirement exists. It's easier to accept a constraint when you understand the reason behind it. Second, be clear about where choice exists and where it doesn't. You might say, "We have to achieve this outcome and these two requirements aren't negotiable, but you have quite a bit of flexibility around the rest." That's much more helpful than either pretending people have complete freedom or controlling everything unnecessarily. Third, involve people in the things they can genuinely influence. A team may not be able to remove a mandatory process, but they might be able to improve how it's scheduled, how information is shared or how work is handed over. Those smaller areas of influence still matter. There's one other useful aspect of the research. The researchers distinguished between a need not being fully satisfied and a need being actively frustrated. Those aren't quite the same thing. You might have a job where there isn't much autonomy, but you don't necessarily feel controlled. That's different from an environment where you're constantly being pressured, micromanaged or prevented from exercising reasonable judgement. In leadership, sometimes you can't increase choice very much. But you can still avoid making things more controlling than they need to be. Bringing all of this together, the key question isn't, "Can I let people do whatever they want?" It's, "Where can I provide ownership, rationale and discretion within the boundaries we genuinely need?" Reference Marsh, H. W., Ryan, R. M., Craven, R. G., Dicke, T., Guo, J., & Parker, P. D. (2026). Workplace demands/resources, basic psychological needs, and police well-being: an extended integration of self-determination theory and job demands–resources models. Current Psychology, 45, Article 1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-026-10005-y. 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.le
- Sep 18, 20264 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
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.
Bred To Lead
Leadership is developed through real-world turnarounds, early warning signs, and people-first habits that prevent organizational decline.
Leading Outward
Leaders tackle culture, accountability, and conflict with real-time coaching and insights from global executives.
Amplify Speakers Podcast
Discusses mindset, leadership, and resilience with top speakers, athletes, and change-makers about their personal journeys and impact.
Leading By Example: Executives Making An Impact
Executives share pivotal moments and personal experiences that shaped their leadership and decision-making in real-world business environments.
The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk
Conversations with top leaders across industries exploring how continuous learning drives success.
The Carey Nieuwhof Leadership Podcast: Lead Like Never Before
A podcast about leadership, change, and personal growth to help you thrive in life and leadership.
Growth Mindset Psychology: The Science of Self-Improvement
Explores the science behind lasting self-improvement through psychology, neuroscience, and timeless wisdom traditions.
A Bit of Optimism
Conversations with thinkers and doers exploring what drives purpose, growth, and meaning in life.
Servant Leadership Institute Podcast
Servant Leadership Institute
Maxwell Leadership Podcast
Explores principles and practices of transformational leadership to help individuals positively influence others.
Working Hard with Grace Beverley
Real people share hard-won lessons on success, resilience, and life balance across diverse fields, from activism to business and beyond.
Things You Can't Un-Hear
Maritza Barone
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, any in the catalog. Basic raises that to 15, Pro to 40 and Max to 100. 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 Education, Business, Management, Careers, Self-Improvement. 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.