Andrew White: Hello everybody. It's great to be back. I'm again here with my co-host, Adam Canwell from EY. And we're going to be interviewing Richard Howell from ANZ Bank. It's great to have you with us, Richard. Could you just kick off with a bit of an introduction to yourself, your role, and in a few words, what does transformation mean to you? Richard Howell: Thank you Andrew, and great to see Adam. I have a grand title at ANZ Bank, which is Tribe Lead of Transformation of T&C. Look, in a nutshell, I've been accountable for the last four or five years, for driving transformation of our HR function that we call talent and culture. Adapting the ways that we operate in the bank to deliver people services across the whole of ANZ. And they're most latterly thinking about then the technology that we run in HR to support those processes. That's the role I play. ANZ is one of the big Australian big four banks in Australia. We operate in 32 markets, 50,000 people, so it's a large task to support a workforce of that scale across such a dispersal geographic footprint. Transformation to me, look, it's about making sure, in the HR context and probably broader, but, making sure that we are thinking really, in a future proofed way about the services that we're providing to our people, to make sure that they're a best place to deliver solutions to our customers and support them winning in the markets that we support them in. Our purpose as a bank is to support the people in the communities to support them thriving in the businesses that you run. And I think the work that we do to support our people in doing that is a really cool part of the role that I play and what transformation means to me. Andrew White: I can kick off with the first big question. In your experience, what makes this stuff go well? And also we're interested in, when it goes wrong midway through a project, what do you have to do to make it go well? Obviously, there's been a lot of experiences when you've got a portfolio like yours. Give us a bit of a taste of the top two or three things that come to mind for you. Richard Howell: There's some basic conditions of success, I think, and this won't be news to lots of people, but I think getting it right is really important. Senior level sponsorship for big change is ticket to play. You need the right people behind ideas to help drive the change that will need. And I was very lucky in our situation to have the CEO and the very senior people across the bank supporting what we're doing. That's absolutely critical. I think the capabilities of the people working on programmes of this nature and others to be the same, having the right mix of skills both internally within the bank and then the partnerships that we'd forged with external companies to deliver the change also are absolutely critical. And then I think part of that is then having the basic disciplines of, good project management laid out so that the foundations of the way that programmes are run are there and strong. I think there's a number of things that are almost tickets to play. I think that the real though success though is through that journey is, you can have all the great tracking and plans and scope and all of that stuff like, technology's working, all those things, but if you lose sight of trying to ensure that the businesses are seeing the value and engage in that journey with you at all times along that journey, that I think from what we've experienced in the example that I gave, is probably the most important thing to continue to focus on right through. It's always about, the human impact that we're having on the businesses that we're supporting. I think if there was one thing to not lose sight of, it would be that. Adam Canwell: As we have been looking at this research one of the really interesting things in our data set that comes across is that, nearly all transformation programmes will hit significant challenges, turning points, like in the data set we've got, but 96% of programmes experience significant turning points. And that's quite interesting in that they appear to be almost ubiquitous but people don't really set off planning for them, which is really interesting. And Andrew and I were talking about this, if you really think about the process of transformation itself, we're deliberately leaving the world that we know and how we've set ourselves up today, to create something new that requires a step change in the organisational capability. And what that really means is that we put the organisation into a degree of misalignment. The technology we've got is going to be very different, the incentives are going to be very different, the way that we structure our teams is going to be very different. But the day that we go into transformation, we haven't got to the future state, so the bit in between we're running in this misalignment. And I guess as you look at that, it's an interesting thought to say actually therefore, because you're running in misalignment, you're bound to hit challenges. But does that resonate? Because it is interesting, is it? We don't plan for challenges but they're almost guaranteed to hit you. Richard Howell: No. And then you wish you'd planned for it better than you did. Look, there's a number of points where I think we experienced very similar things to the way you described it. In those moments, I think there's two responses. One is, freeze and not really have a plan and just try and keep going and hope that the problem goes away. Or, which is, I think what we did is actually respond in the moment and be courageous enough to change course, to try some different things to continue to engage people if that's the challenge. Or, if there are technical issues, try different things to solution and innovate, to provide, continue the momentum. I think there are points where, you absolutely have choices. But, you're right. I mean, those points of challenge and tension, we should always plan for those. And I think we've spoken before, we got into a couple of those and in hindsight with a little bit more 2020 vision on some of those moments in the programme, I think we would've probably responded a bit quicker or earlier. And I think that as you learn on these things, I think we'll do a better job of spotting those things next time round. But I think that choice that you always have, it's not an easy thing to move away from the plan, the academics of the programme, to actually be courageous enough to say, "No, actually, well, that's not going to work. We need to try something different." And it might not work and we might try again, but that courage you need in those moments is critical. Both as leaders but also to work with the teams that are working on these things. Difficult for everybody, right? But you're spot on. Andrew White: And Richard, given that we know things are going to get difficult, given that we know things are going to reach what we call turning points at some point, what's the early warning system? Because presumably, the sooner you realise these things are going on, the quicker you can deal with them, the longer you leave them, the more problematic they're going to become. And the more they're going to hit your ability to deliver the project and the other metrics you've got. Were there things that you found that enabled you to pick up on where these tensions, these problems, the roadblocks quicker? Richard Howell: Yeah, and I've thought a lot about this. I think the real answer is it's a number of different things and they all play out in slightly different ways. And I think when I look back, I think we were quite lucky, we are tracking quite a lot of different components of the programme. We're very focused on, delivery risks, very focused on, the impact of what we're doing on even things like renegotiating contracts with vendors. If you think about moving technology, there's a lot of commercial wrangling that goes with that. There's regulation risks, so we've made certain commitments that are really important. And then there are the people aspects of the change, where, maybe that's slightly more difficult to diagnose, although we were surveying teams about how they're feeling about the change, the things that you would do on a programme. There are lots of things that we were tracking that would give us little signals, but then there's the less formal pieces where, there's a throwaway comment or someone said something in a meeting that you go, "Oh, I'm just going to just go and check that I've understood that comment and is there something there I need to be focused on with that individual or team? I think it's just being acutely aware of, yes, there's structural things that on a programme you're always tracking and you're looking at the dials of cost and risk and all the things I've just described. But I think it's often those things that are not written in a steering committee pack or the more intuitive things that you pick up as a leader on a floor listening to conversation and sensing mood and levels of commitment. And/or, maybe a sense that crikey, I thought we were going to get A, and it looks like we're going to get a B. And just making sure that you're picking up on those signals is so important. Those are things that are not in a steering committee pack and they're just as important. Andrew White: There's a number of things. I mean, I would put it under a headline of presence. You've got to be physically present, to pick that stuff up. Richard Howell: Yes. Andrew White: You've got to be emotionally present and reading the room. So these things could easily get missed. It's almost something that somebody doesn't say or it's some throwaway comment. You've got to be present to them. And then you also said, you've got to be proactive in going in and inquiring. It's like- Richard Howell: Absolutely. Andrew White: ... a call afterwards or a tap on the shoulder, a coffee. Richard Howell: Totally. Andrew White: Can I just listen a little bit more what was going on? Because maybe people are hesitant about coming forward or maybe it's a doubt they've got so they're not confident putting a major point forward. There's something about that. Do you want to just say a bit more about that? Richard Howell: Yeah. I mean, you said a lot there. At ANZ, I'm going to throw some terms up, we're very focused on being curious. It's actually one of the things we talk about a lot, being curious, asking questions, think about, properly listening and understanding someone's perspective on something. But also I think really important, we talk a lot about speak up culture and creating an environment where... And a programme like this is exactly where you need it the most. You have to have people raising risks and concerns. You need to create the right environment for people to feel safe doing that. And it's not being critical, it's being constructive and it's creating that sense that it's okay to raise the flag and go, "Actually I think there's a problem here." I think as a leader also just making sure that, yes, spotting those is one thing and being proactive and following up, but you also need to create the right environment for, speak up to be the way that people naturally operate and there shouldn't be any hesitation of people putting issues on the table. Now, I don't think we got that perfectly right all the time, but it was definitely something that we were always thinking about, how do we make sure that we're hearing from everybody in the team, whether they're issues, risks, whatever it might be, and focusing on those as quickly as we could? Including, the wellbeing of the teams and making sure that... We literally started the programme within a month of going into lockdown, so we have people battling with technology challenges. Obviously the huge impact on everyone individually dealing with family situations and all sorts of other things. Again, just another factor to be really aware of the state that people are in. And in that early stage of the programme, and that was super important, we maintain that focus all the way through. I think it's a range of things, Andrew, but yeah, I think, curiosity, following up, not leaving a stone unturned, having that intuition and presence, as you call it, as important as anything else in terms of the more mechanical part of running a programme this size. Adam Canwell: Because one of the things that has struck us, if you think about, classic programme reporting and governance, in so many ways we're running programmes by looking in the rear-view mirror. Because, by the time you're missing a milestone or you've got financial issues or there's challenges in what we classically report through governance, that's a lag indicator that I've got an issue. Running a programme through the front window is actually, by the looks of it is much more paying attention to your people, their feelings, their emotions, their behaviours, their sentiment, which is so much more difficult to capture. And it's like, as you think back Richard, because one of the things that I think we're seeing is that, there's almost this idea of shifts in the emotional energy in critical teams or people. As you think back to what was on your radar where you knew you might have issues, what were you picking up? What was it for you? And does that make sense that, rear-view versus front window? Richard Howell: It definitely does. I mean, I think there's probably a combination of things there. I think, there are a couple of points on the programme where we're clearly behind, in terms of delivery velocity and getting through the work that we needed to do. On all the fronts that I described. Getting the materials ready for regulators to approve what we were doing, building the technology, getting the testing, all of those things. I think what you start to see is, when people start to get concerned that we're going to miss certain things, whatever we were doing to respond to that, as you say, it creates a bit of an emotional reaction. It's not always in proportion, so you get quite acute reactions. People have invested a lot of time and energy and hugely passionate about the outcome. You get all of those sorts of emotions of everything you can imagine on the spectrum when things are going maybe not as smoothly as people are expecting. I think two things about that. One is, we actually did use data to then try and get people back onto a curve where, we weren't trying to say there's not a problem here, but, using data that is a bit more forecast space to say, "Okay. Well, based on the capacity we've got and the team we've got and the days we've got left and the number of X's we need to complete, what do we need to be doing to get to a point where we are going to deliver this thing?" We did actually start using some volume-based measures to make sure that we are really clear on our rate of completion of certain things. That absolutely created much better transparency but also importantly got a bit of confidence back. So we actually have got some levers we can pull here, to wrestle this thing back onto a track that people are now more confident about. Now that's not the only thing you do. Obviously there's the human part of that as well. And we ran a number of sessions with some senior leaders to actually have those conversations about how people were feeling, what are the things we should be doing to not just deal with the metrics piece and get the thing looking like it was back on track, but really are we on track? Are there other things that aren't being said, that we need to talk about that will change, not just the technical delivery path but also, the emotional and the change delivery path? All of these points of turning I think have got a number of different responses that are a combination of what I described, the more wiring technical responses that might need data and views, but also, never forget that that won't always be the only thing that needs to be addressed. It's making sure, back to the speak up, and making sure you're really thinking about, the emotional responses and how to get through those, they're equally important. In all of those, it's always a balance we found anyway. Andrew White: And Richard, if you were going to write a job description for somebody to lead a project, like a big project, and yes they've got to have experience, yes, they've got to have technical capabilities, et cetera. In a sense the premium, the things that perhaps we don't necessarily think about normally, is that certain people skills? Because essentially it's embedded in individuals, I think is what we're saying, and therefore can we start to think about, what the person profile is or the competency set that we're looking at here, it might be? Richard Howell: Yeah, I've actually thought about that a bit myself because, look, we were pretty successful doing what we were doing. And I've seen that some of that, because of how I turned up. I think it's almost some of the things that are actually hard to describe. I think it sounds a little bit trite, but you go back to communication style, empathy with the people that you're working with, deep understanding of challenges, issues, being able to problem solve in a way that others maybe can't. Generating a sense of collaboration and cohesion across teams that wouldn't necessarily always be working together in the way that we've asked them to work. I think there's lots of those harder to describe, I think the intuition. I think being able to, as you said earlier, read a room, spot when things don't feel right. It's not, "I'm not looking at a steering committee but that didn't feel right. I've spotted something in that conversation that I think needs addressing or I need people that have got a different views on things coming together and knock things out." I think it's much more, all those other things Andrew about, having programme director experience and having led technology change process, whatever those things, being able to plan, they're almost a bit of a given. It's the source on top that is the magic if you like, I think of where, the people skills that those leaders bring, is not being able to do a Microsoft Gantt Chart, it's all of the other stuff. And I've used some words in there that I think describe that in some way, but, yeah, if people are hiring for people to do that type of work, you're looking for that differential which is not, can they plan? They've got process experience so they understand the technology, it's way more complicated than that. It's the EQ quadrant or quotient or whatever the phrases are, the adaptive leadership quotient. It's that stuff that you want to be looking out for, I think. Adam Canwell: It is interesting to think that the way we plan programmes is quite linear and doesn't make assumptions or challenges or this idea that you're going to hit. And when we look at it, I think you can see some classic dynamics that drive challenges that programmes are going to face into. For example, early on, have we really created ownership across the organisation because any transformation programme is going to be conceived by a few, but we've got to get the large part of the organisation to really own it? There seems to be an emerging issue as the programme goes forward of, confidence in the solution and then that quickly seems to evolve into fears about, have we really got the capability to do this? That might be we changed our tech stack and we've got cloud. You can see with those that they would naturally create tensions that will cause issues to arise that we're going to have to face into as a programme and that we're going to have to be constantly working on. Does that make sense? As you look back now, do you see some... Actually as you look back 2020, there were just going to be issues that arose that were going to hit us and actually to your point now, could we re-pivot forward and go, what will we face as we go forward from here? Richard Howell: Yeah, I think part of one of those points of decision, and there were many but, you've only got several lead. We had to go live with what we've put live for all sorts of reasons, regulation, vendors. It was all about containment of risk to make sure that the solution worked, and there were things we had to compromise on to just get to the point. I think, lots of programmes do get to the point where, you almost just can't get the thing live, because there's always a good reason not to turn technology on or change a process. I don't think you ever get to a perfect point where that actually happens. It's about balance of risk and have we done enough to flick the switch and start using whatever you've built and it works well enough for it to be that starting point? Because in a sense, the actual journey of use and change and progress and innovation comes at the point where you make that decision. Now, with the size of the change and the shift from on-premise to cloud technology, which does require a different mindset, different capability mix, of course on that point where you say, let's do this, there are always going to be some gaps in the way that you've constructed the whole thing. But like I said, I think if you wait for that perfect moment, it doesn't ever make commercial sense to continue to go to that point. Now what we're doing is we're saying, "Okay. Well, now we've got the thing and it's working." Yes, we've got a raft of things that we're now working through to make sure that the platform we've built, continues to evolve. And that's not just the technology and the experience and the process, but it's also, the people we have that are becoming ever skilled in the platforms we're building. And that takes time. You go through these almost mini curves of change. We've had the big ones that go live but now we're in smaller little cycles of, little experience didn't quite go the way that people expected it. So you're listening, continuing to listen to employee feedback. I think you shift into a, it's almost like, compressing the big thing, into lots of small things that we're always now thinking about, "Okay. We've got another release now, how do we manage the change of this particular thing?" I think it's right, but I don't think, if I had my time again, would there be things that I would trade and do it differently given what we needed to do to get the platform live to start working on the platform as we currently are and learning and innovating? I can't think of many things I would've re-traded. I think we could have maybe positioned them differently and set that expectation to a point around, really what are the challenges going to be when we make these decisions? I think that in hindsight maybe we could have done a slightly different job of that, but I don't think, to wait and wait and wait, the diminishing returns and the increase in quality of outcome I think is never going to be perfect. I think, on that basis, yeah, lots to learn, and I think they're all the same learnings in miniature, I think, as we move forward. All the big releases are now done, so now it's about continuing to build that continuous improvement muscle Andrew White: And Richard, one of the things we are thinking about is, this concept of emotional energy. We hear people say, "The project's stalled or the project has momentum." There's this sense that there's progress and a lot of that is about, as a group of people, are we really motoring together? Are we really got a common goal and we're motivated or are we stuck? Are we wandering around lost? And so, we're interested in your view on that generally. But, what we're really interested in, is not so much the specific transformation project, but if you get this right, what's the spillover effect into the culture? In terms of belief, in terms of, we could do this again, in terms of confidence, in terms of a way of working, that feeds in energy, if that makes sense. Now that I think starts within the difficult points that we navigate through, in a sense we grow our confidence. But then the spillover. And conversely, it goes wrong, we struggle to get through the project and then someone like you comes along and says, "Well, we're going to do it all again." And people just go, "Oh." It's like a trauma in an organisation, conversely. So just really interested in your thoughts on this. Richard Howell: That's a very complex and tricky question and I actually probably got hundreds of different ways to answer it. If I said to the team, "We're going to go again next week," I think there might be a reaction to that. These things are hard. I mean they're emotionally draining. People are putting lives on hold a little bit. I mean, that's part of the challenge of managing these things. I don't mean hours, intensity, working to tight deadlines. We are a large commercial organisation, there is a reality about the cost of doing these things that takes an emotional toil on leaders, all of that. That almost goes without saying. I don't think we got to the point where, yeah, next week we're going to go again and start another one, I think you need some breathing space. But, look, I think a couple of things come to mind. I gave you an analogy, well, there might be others and you might have some sporting ones. I used to row in an eight, in a four, I hope people listening might have some idea of what that means. But when you've got eight oarsmen, all pulling at different times and not lined up with their balance right, the boat looks a bit like a spider with the things going all over the place. It's actually not very comfortable thing to experience. When you've got eight oarsmen all hitting the water and pulling exactly the same time, it feels like you are flying, literally. You get bubbles under the hull, you get a sense of unity, unison, power, all of those things. And I do think there is something about, and maybe that won't work for everybody, but that's how I think of an analogy where, something is so in tune, maybe a musical instrument, that it's far more than the sum of eight oarsmen. You are on another plane of performance, where everybody's lined up the same way, pulling exactly the same direction and the sum of the eight is 108. And I'm not saying that we got that feeling all the time, but there were absolutely moments where, probably after some of the really critical decisions to switch up a structure or change a certain cadence of something. Where I think we got to a point where, you had that feeling that, "Wow, we've cracked it." We didn't crack it for everybody all the time, but we absolutely did crack. There's a few things about that. I do think there is something about, trying lots of different things to search for the combination that works at a certain time and that might be, people in lead seats, constructs of meetings, frequencies of meetings, data that's being used. And I do think we found our straps at points on the programme where actually those things were all working incredibly well. Like, the teamwork across the project team, the business teams, the consulting partners we were working with. You wouldn't have spotted who is who, it just felt like we got to that point where everyone was pulling with a very clear line, the finish line. I do think there's something that I'd love to be at a bottle to go, "What were those secret ingredients that led to us having that feeling?" And I think people did notice it. I mean, the organisations recognise the efforts of the team in a way that is I think phenomenal in terms of recognising the quality of what we did. And I think it's testimony to those moments that really mattered, where we were courageous enough to make changes to how we were operating. That I think absolutely gave us that row, in my analogy, that rowing thing where everyone's pulling exactly the same time, direction, even the steering was great. It felt great. But it's hard to get to that and I think we probably went through a few iterations of that where the boat started to wobble again and we go, "Okay. Something's gone off here, we need to get our shape back. What do we need to do? Do we need to swap someone in and swap someone out? Does someone need a break? Do we need to cut it to a four? Let's stop rowing the eight, let's split the boat in two." Lots of different combinations we tried, but I'm certain that trial error, try again approach, rather than just sitting there and hoping that the boat will somehow right itself, that proactive management was absolutely a key to what we were able to deliver, I think. Andrew White: It's called psychological flow, and it's seen in sports people. That's where a lot of the research has been and I think what we're starting to see is, it has a relevance in an organisation with a much bigger group of people. And you are right, we can't yet bottle it, we've seen it, and I suppose it's our job to try and codify it and then develop people who can deliver it. Because, as you say, when you get that equivalent of bubbles under the boat, everybody pulling together, we're flying, that's the essence of high performance. Adam Canwell: I was thinking the same thing that, you're in a high pressured situation when you go back to a rowing four or rowing eight, but the point where you come together in a point of coherence is flow. The other interesting thing, which certainly looks true in our research as well, Richard, is what you were saying that, coming together as a team to navigate the challenges in and of itself, builds the effectiveness of a team. Because the team that really comes together and together overcomes problems and challenges, builds deeper bonds, builds deeper coherence and actually accelerates the performance of the transformation programme. And I think that's what we're seeing as we see teams that really come through these turning points well, actually have a really significant impact on the trajectory of the transformation programme. And even beyond the transformation, because you built a new capability as an organisation. Does that feel right to you? Richard Howell: Yeah, I think so. I was going to make one other comment. I think back to the flow point, I think people on the team intuitively know when they're in that, it feels different, decisions get made differently. You don't feel like you're pushing against something much at all. There's little resistance to things because, people can see quickly that, when you hit a problem, because the team's operating at a really high level, it very quickly sets itself on, "Okay. We've had a few ideas but, yeah, absolutely." And obviously someone's got to make the call. But I think when you're in that mode you just feel like, there's no friction. It's just like a really well-oiled machine, where people understand each other's perspectives and respect each other's perspectives on things. And obviously there's someone at some point needs to make a call but, I think creating that, it goes a bit back to speak up, I think creating an environment where people feel that they've had their say and is been listened to. And look, as I said, we don't always get these things right and we've learned a huge amount through this programme. I have personally as well, on exactly this. But I think when you get it right, I almost feel now you're thinking about, it's to pause and go, "Wow, that felt really different. Let's just spend a couple of minutes just writing that down that maybe we can codify it." I don't know but, there is something to that. I think it does feel different. I think it does set a very different cultural feeling if we can export that, that is hugely impactful. I think sadly a bit easy to forget though. I think you, to Andrew's points about whether you go again, now I think it's, because it's quite hard to describe, I think people go, "Well, that was great," and then you go onto the next one. You don't actually think about, "Well, what was it about that? Was it the construct of the team? Was it the fact that we did, I don't know, spent time understanding each other socially and what drives us and our psychological profiles and working on that more?" And maybe there's a lot more about that that we can use a bit of science to crack and make sure that we're constructing teams with the right balance and a whole bunch of ideas going through my mind as we're talking. Andrew White: It's like a recipe book's needed, isn't it? Richard Howell: Yeah. What's the recipe? Andrew White: And are there things that we can do that increase the likelihood of that state and build the conditions for that state? Richard Howell: Yes. Andrew White: And I think this is what you were saying at the beginning, we know how to do the technical stuff. We know how to do the Gantt charts and put the board packs together and all that stuff, and that's absolutely necessary. But this is the edge, I think. And if we can crack in organisations, if we can crack this, this is in a sense the next frontier of, I would call it collective performance. We know what this looks like in sports teams, we know what it looks like in musicians, but when you're dealing 400 people trying to change a major piece of technology and a function, I'm not sure we've cracked it in the same way. Richard Howell: And sorry, just on that, I think that some of those examples I'm giving, they're fairly localised, but then when you think about the programme team with the functional teams that are going to operate the platform, but then there's 50,000 people on the other side of this thing that are then going to use the platform. I don't think we got to the point probably where, I don't think we needed to for a lot of what we've built, but, there are points absolutely where I think we're still learning how to make sure engaging with that group more effectively. It's almost like adding layers to an onion or something where, you can generate that feeling in a much more concentrated way. I think the real juice is where you are able to create that even bigger scale with different, more dispersed groups that are all connected, but maybe have slightly different vested interest or they're not operating the team, but they're receiving it. How do you create that feeling with that broader group? I think if we were able to crack that true enterprise change, then that's the secret ingredient because that's hard. Adam Canwell: The point where we did manage to do it of course was, in the first couple of weeks of COVID where we all decided that we were going to go virtual. It's the one point in recent history, where you look back and every organisation out there made a fundamental shift to their operating models overnight and got complete coherence. And I think there is some learning in that that we all agreed in the mission, that it wasn't up for grabs. We all agreed that there was an issue out there that faces all, that was life-threatening. There was almost complete coherence in mission. And I think there's something about that and we don't want a pandemic to be our reason to drive mass change at a point, but there is an interesting, I think, learning to extrapolate, you can create significant shift in a very short period of time, but I think it's coherence and mission and all being on its together and in flow together. And it's how can you create something like that? Richard Howell: Yeah. That's right. Adam Canwell: And Richard, just a personal question for you. A lot of what we've said has acknowledged the stress and the strain and the emotional toil of running these major transformations. And it's not like you can be permanently working at maximum capacity where you're under massive pressure and you're in flow the whole time. You do need to be able to give yourself space, give yourself time for recovery, look out for self as well, which, I don't mean that in a selfish way, but, you are a critical enabler of the transformation and therefore recovery for yourself is really important. Were you cognizant and deliberate in that Richard or, as you think back on it, how did you manage that for yourself? Richard Howell: Probably in pockets. I like my exercise. Look, I've got a few outlets where I try and always make sure I've got a run or something. I was conscious at that level. I think probably more important though was, and it is a bit back to perhaps the unwritten juice or whatever we call it in the job description is, there is a bit of vulnerability that you need to show in these things. There were moments where I probably didn't feel at my best, but I didn't want to hide that from the team. And I used that to perhaps create a bit of an environment where it was okay to say, "Look, I'm finding this quite difficult or I need to step away or whatever." And I think there's something about that. I personally wear my heart on my sleeve a bit, so I do feel maybe there's something about that, that helps to create an environment of approachability. I don't have all the answers, I can help facilitate getting to an answer. And if I have to make a decision, obviously I will. But I do think there's something about, for me anyway, being able to share your emotional feelings and how you're coping in certain situations, particularly when it got high pressure. Having a group of people that you can share that with, that definitely was a help to me. And I've got a few people on the team and if I had to more broadly to share that, to make it visible to people and actually is okay sometimes to not feel like you're quite there or being as productive as you might be and just need to take a break. I think it's a combination. I think maybe the runs and the bike rides is a bit more tactical, but I do think there's a sense of emotional vulnerability that I think if you're able to open up and share how you're feeling with colleagues and whoever it might be, that creates a bit of respect. I think that people are doing that and I think it does tend to create a bit of an environment atmosphere where others feel that they can equally share when they're maybe not coping. And look, there are sessions that we run to make sure that people have an outlet to do that as well. It's an important thing to get right, you don't want to be flipping with that either. Andrew White: Richard, this has been a fantastic conversation. I'm conscious we're coming towards the end of our time. One of the questions that Adam and I like to ask is, is there anything we should have asked but haven't? Given what you've experienced and what we need to be bringing out here. Richard Howell: I don't know. I wonder if there's something about how... I mean, it's a bit back to you, it's probably not a new point, but how your description of how we actually codify the stuff that's unwritten. I do think there's something to perhaps ask other leaders how they're thinking about, how they're reflecting on situations. I've had a few experiences recently. We're really lucky to attend the session that you guys facilitated, an Oxford on Humans at the Centre of Transformation, but, I don't want those experiences to fade. Perhaps there's a question about, to transformation leaders who've been through these things is what are we doing as leaders in our industries in the world, to make sure that we all learn? I think I can do more to perhaps share some of that in a way that's helpful to others that are coming after me, in a way that starts to maybe just try and codify a few of those elements of a role or how we've operated that help others. I'd be keen to perhaps maybe ask that question of others so they come and see what they say. Adam Canwell: Really, really interesting to spend time with you on this, Richard. Thank you for your time. Andrew White: Thank you, Richard. It's fantastic and the insights have taken us another step forward and so we look forward to keeping in touch about the research. Richard Howell: Amazing. Thank you. Andrew White: Adam, that was great. Richard just gave us so many good insights. I was already seeing quotes going up on slides that we might use with some of the things he said. I just thought that all the stuff about bottling that state of flow, the example he gave of what it was like to row and when everything came together and bubbles under the boat, there's something very powerful in this I think that we need to really work on decoding. Adam Canwell: I think that bit captured something that we can see quite clearly in the data that, if we lean into challenges that we face and use them as opportunities to bring the team together to make sense and problem solve and move forward together, they actually become really important accelerators of the whole transformation process. And so they both increase the trajectory of the transformation programme that we're on now, and also appear to have quite a substantive impact on the actual organisation. Because you've proven to yourselves that you can work in a very adaptive, agile way, and that in and of itself has an impact on the organisation. And his articulation of that state of flow and the coming together and the team really working on these challenges together just so beautifully brought to life the potential of the threat, not just the threat of the threat. Andrew White: Exactly. And everything we've been saying about planning in a different way, having a broader mind to take into account the fact that things will go wrong. How do we set up an organisation beforehand to be able to deal with that? The whole concept of presence seemed to really resonate with him as well. Physical presence, listening, that whole concept of leaning in and when people might say something that just gives a slight indication that something's going wrong, they perhaps aren't fully confident to speak up or they're only just noticing it. The earlier you can jump on this stuff, the quicker you can actually stop it becoming a problem that escalates out of control and become something much bigger than it needs to be. Adam Canwell: No. I think we both heard that in an interesting way because, in many ways what Richard was saying was that, the bit that gives you the earliest indication that you might have a challenge or something you have to deal with is, an unexpected reaction of somebody. Like you said, it's the word that's out of place, it's the thing you weren't expecting. It's the mood music that has suddenly shifted, that is your early indication. So your people really are your early detection and as a leader, actually being there is key. There's the physical presence and then there's the actual presence so that you are listening to the stuff that is slightly out of tune. It's not just the physical presence, it's the emotional presence that you are starting to read the mood music. And that's your bet, early indicator that you've got something you're going to have to pay attention to. Andrew White: Interesting stuff. More work to do my friend. Adam Canwell: Yes. Andrew White: And more people to interview. But we are getting somewhere. I really think we're getting somewhere. I think you can see the psychologists identified this thing flow, and it was individuals, it was sports teams, really understanding how you get an organisation into that state. And not by accident, not by just occasional occurrence, but over and over again in a repeatable manner, seems to be something really, really important here. Adam Canwell: Totally agree. I think we're onto quite a novel angle in the exploration of how do you really drive transformation, which is, quite important for this world. Andrew White: Absolutely. You've been listening to a special transformation edition of Leadership2050, with me, Andrew White and Adam Canwell from EY. You can catch up with all our episodes from the Leadership2050 series, wherever you get your podcasts. And if you'd like to hear more podcasts from Saïd Business School, exploring leadership, and how the business world is reimagining the future, please visit oxfordanswers.org Leadership2050 is a podcast from Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. The producer is Eve Streeter. Original music is by Cyberg. And our Executive Producer is David Maguire, for Stable Productions. Many thanks for listening.