In 2015, Amit Bendov was struck by a realization about a new technology that might be able to transcribe musical notation in real-time, which eventually became known as Gong. Gong's business proposition was simple: provide software that automatically captures, understands, and analyzes written and spoken sales conversations (not music) to help sales teams sell more effectively. It was a compelling idea with the potential to create significant value for its users. There were, however, many questions. Could the technology live up to its promises? What could salespeople learn from their own conversations and from the best - and worst - salespeople among them? Could leveraging conversational insights make a measurable impact on a company's bottom line? And how could Gong defend against competitors, both now and in the future?

Humor is widely considered essential in personal relationships, but in leaders, it's seen as an ancillary behavior. Though some leaders use humor instinctively, many more could wield it purposefully. Humor helps build interpersonal trust and high-quality work relationships and influences behaviors and attitudes that matter to leadership effectiveness, including employee performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity. These benefits don't come without potential costs. The guidelines in this article suggest ways to capture the benefits of humor while avoiding the downside risks.

Asking questions is a uniquely powerful tool for unlocking value in organizations: It spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, it fuels innovation and performance improvement, it builds rapport and trust among team members. And it can mitigate business risk by uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards. But few executives think of questioning as a skill that can be honed-or consider how their own answers to questions could make conversations more productive. That's a missed opportunity. The good news is that by asking questions, we naturally improve our emotional intelligence, which in turn makes us better questioners-a virtuous cycle. The authors draw on insights from behavioral science research to explore how the way we frame questions and choose to answer our counterparts can influence the outcome of conversations. They offer guidance for choosing the best type, tone, sequence, and framing of questions and for deciding what and how much information to share to reap the most benefit from our interactions, not just for ourselves but for our organizations.

This case follows the Program Director of La Ceiba, a Honduras-based microfinance institution, as he navigates four challenging negotiation scenarios involving the organization's loan clients. Students are asked to adopt the perspective of the Program Director and to consider how they would act in these negotiation scenarios that are characterized by unclear objectives and severely asymmetric power dynamics. How should they approach negotiation situations in which the power balance is heavily in their own favor? Should they exert this power and engage in a "hard" negotiation approach? Or, are there circumstances where a "soft" negotiation approach is warranted? In addition to helping students to develop a framework about when to use soft versus hard negotiation approaches, two of the notable lessons that arise are (i) the role of apologies after misusing power, and (ii) how even "using one's power for good" can translate into paternalistic outcomes.

This case follows the Program Director of La Ceiba, a Honduras-based microfinance institution, as he navigates four challenging negotiation scenarios involving the organization's loan clients. Students are asked to adopt the perspective of the Program Director and to consider how they would act in these negotiation scenarios that are characterized by unclear objectives and severely asymmetric power dynamics. How should they approach negotiation situations in which the power balance is heavily in their own favor? Should they exert this power and engage in a "hard" negotiation approach? Or, are there circumstances where a "soft" negotiation approach is warranted? In addition to helping students to develop a framework about when to use soft versus hard negotiation approaches, two of the notable lessons that arise are (i) the role of apologies after misusing power, and (ii) how even "using one's power for good" can translate into paternalistic outcomes.

In the fall of 2016, the Crimson, Harvard's undergraduate newspaper, broke a story revealing that the 2012 Harvard Men's Soccer team had produced a sexually explicit "scouting report" about the Women's Soccer team. The story generated national headlines and thrust gender issues, and the University, into the media spotlight. In the following months, the breadth of this type of practice was revealed; the "scouting reports" had been an annual tradition of the Men's Soccer team, and the Cross Country team admitted to similar practices. This case follows the decision-making of Harvard administrators as they deal with the discovery of the scouting report. In addition to exploring leadership through crisis, the case challenges readers to explore the boundaries of appropriateness in how we think and talk about interpersonal attraction.

Negotiations can be fraught with emotion, but it's only recently that researchers have examined how particular feelings influence what happens during deal making. Here the author shares some key findings and advice. (1) Anxiety leads to poor outcomes. You will be less nervous about negotiating, however, if you repeatedly practice and rehearse. You can also avoid anxiety by asking an outside expert to represent you at the bargaining table. (2) Anger is a double-edged sword. In some cases it intimidates the other parties and helps you strike a better deal, but in other situations, particularly those involving long-term relationships, it damages trust and goodwill and makes an impasse more likely. To avoid or defuse anger, take a break to cool off, or try expressing sadness and a desire to compromise. (3) Disappointment can be channeled to reach a more satisfactory outcome. Before disappointment becomes regret, ask plenty of questions to assure yourself that you've explored all options. And don't close the deal too early; you might find ways to sweeten it if you keep talking. (4) Excitement isn't always a good thing. Getting excited too early can lead you to act rashly, and gloating about the final terms can alienate your counterparts. But if feelings of excitement, like other emotions, are well managed, everyone can feel like a winner.

At some point, every company makes a mistake that requires an apology--to an individual; a group of customers, employees, or business partners; or the public at large. And more often than not, companies and their leaders fail to apologize effectively, if at all, which can severely damage their reputations and their relationships with stakeholders. Companies need clearer guidelines for determining whether a mistake merits an apology and, when it does, for crafting and delivering an effective message. In this article, the authors present their framework--the apology formula--to help companies navigate the tricky terrain. Leaders should ask themselves four questions: (1) Was there a violation? (2) Was it core to our promise or mission? (3) How will the public react? (4) Are we committed to change? As a general rule, the more central to the mission of the company the violation is and the more people it affects, the more important it is that the apology be pitch-perfect. Once a company decides that an apology is necessary, it needs to carefully consider the who, what, where, when, and how of executing it. For core violations, the "who" has to be senior leaders, the "what" has to show a tremendous commitment to change, the "where" has to be high profile, the "when" has to be fast, and the "how" must be deeply sincere and demonstrate empathy.