The accelerated pace of technological change and, most recently, the advent of AI are reshaping jobs and organizations in ways that call for constant career reinvention. So we all need to learn how to get better at making the most of the frequent transitions that will constitute a long working life. But no matter how often people change careers, they will probably experience the transition as an emotionally fraught process-one that involves confusion, loss, insecurity, and struggle. Big changes can be exhilarating, but they're also terrifying. For more than two decades, Ibarra, of London Business School, has been studying the process of career reinvention: what prompts people to do it, how they go about it, and how it affects them. In this article, drawing on new research, she explains why such transitions are still so hard for so many people, despite their growing frequency and prevalence. She also offers some ideas for managing them more intentionally and successfully.

A paradox of business is that while leaders often employ a hands-on, directive style to rise to the top, once they arrive, they're supposed to empower and enable their teams. Suddenly, they're expected to demonstrate "people skills." And many find it challenging to adapt to that reality. To understand how leaders can successfully make this shift, the authors studied 75 CEO successions, involving 235 candidates. They discovered that the transformation is not a single event but unfolds over time and takes many twists and turns. It's a long journey with three stages: the departure, during which leaders recognize the need to change and leave behind their old ways of working; the voyage, during which they encounter obstacles and trials that teach them important lessons; and the return, when they arrive at a new understanding of what kind of leader they need to be. Completing this odyssey requires humility, self-awareness, and resilience. Several key practices will help executives along the way: understanding the extent of the change required, creating new contexts for learning, enlisting the help of advisers, learning from setbacks, and tapping the power of small wins.

Mentoring programs operate under the promise that matching seasoned executives with up-and-coming professionals will produce all sorts of benefits. Unfortunately, relationships often remain superficial and transactional. These problems have only gotten worse with remote and hybrid work, which makes meaningful personal interaction difficult. To reap the full benefits of developmental relationships and create "authentic sponsorship," companies must focus on two vital qualities: public advocacy and relational authenticity. Public advocacy is a one-way process by which "seniors" use their power to help "juniors" get career opportunities. It produces visible and measurable outcomes, such as promotions and stretch assignments. Relational authenticity is a two-way process in which both parties share their perspectives and make themselves open to hearing and learning from each other. Juniors get the support and validation they need to take on new challenges, and seniors understand where their juniors' capabilities and talents lie and care enough about them to put their own reputations on the line. This article lays out the various stages of the journey to authentic sponsorship: mentor, strategizer, connector, opportunity giver, and sponsor.

The case describes the start-up and evolution of UK-based digital bank Starling. Founded in 2014, Starling offered personal and business accounts, and lending products, promising a better customer-service experience, faster approvals and a more digital-friendly approach than traditional banks. By 2022, a European expansion was underway, along with plans to provide the bank's proprietary technology as software-as-a-service outside Europe and prepare for an IPO. The case analyses the leadership style of Starling's founder and highly atypical leader, Anne Boden, and the corporate culture established under her leadership.

Pre-pandemic, leaders were having lots of conversations about innovation, disruption and digital transformation. But existential challenges over the past two years have forced that conversation to become much broader. In a wide ranging interview, renowned leadership and professional development expert Herminia Ibarra argues that responding to a global pandemic, an environmental crisis and the quest for racial equity demands that leaders shift from being 'know-it-alls' to being 'learn-it-alls'. She describes the five skills requires to thrive in the post-pandemic environment: cross-cutting, collaboration, coaching, culture-shaping and connecting. She also describes how critical it is to foster psychological safety on a team and warns that authenticity-for leaders and their employees-should never be used as an excuse to remain the same over time.

By early 2019, Magic Circle law firm Allen & Overy (A&O) had replaced its longstanding, traditional annual review system with Compass, a state-of-the-art performance management process based on real-time feedback and planful career development discussions. As Managing Partner Andrew Ballheimer put it, Compass was part of a firm-wide cultural shift "to focus on future development and enable people to perform and progress through more regular open and effective conversations." The case describes the impetus for the change, how the change process unfolded, key features of new the system, and the points of debate and controversy around the implementation.

In the face of rapid, disruptive change, companies are realizing that managers can't be expected to have all the answers and that command-and-control leadership is no longer viable. As a result, many firms are moving toward a coaching model in which managers facilitate problem-solving and encourage employees' development by asking questions and offering support and guidance rather than giving orders and making judgments. The authors explain the merits of different types of coaching-directive, nondirective, and situational-and note that sometimes no coaching at all is appropriate. They describe how managers can use the four-step GROW model to become more skilled at listening, questioning, and drawing insights out of the people they supervise. The article concludes with recommendations for making coaching an organizational capacity-effecting a cultural transformation by articulating why coaching is valuable for the firm as well as individuals, ensuring that leaders embrace and model it, building coaching capabilities throughout the ranks, and removing barriers to change.

When Jean-Philippe Courtois took control of Microsoft's global sales, marketing and operations in 2016, reporting directly to CEO Satya Nadella, he realised that he needed to lead the organisation away from an "inspection culture" towards a culture of learning and coaching. After a first phase of transformation focused on giving Microsoft's sales teams the right skills to accompany customers as they moved to the cloud, a second phase aimed to fundamentally transform their behaviours and mindsets. The case study describes how Courtois and his leadership team envisioned and executed a culture change effort consisting of harnessing technology to generate insights into employee and partner work patterns and enabling coaching conversations that would help staff more effectively leverage their time to serve customers and attain key results.

When Satya Nadella took over as CEO of Microsoft in 2014, he inherited a firm fading toward irrelevance, plagued by internal fights and inertia. Earlier that year his wife, Anu, had given him a best-selling book by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck entitled Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, suspecting it might give Nadella some ideas for Microsoft. He adapted the idea to encourage employees to shift from Microsoft's historical "know-it-all" culture to embrace a "learn-it-all" curiosity. The case study provides background on Nadella's challenges and context, as well as how he and his leadership team executed their culture change effort.

Two of the world's leading management thinkers and two global CEOs discuss the changing nature of leadership in this excerpt from the 6th annual Global Peter Drucker Forum. Despite their varied experience and backgrounds, they agree that idea of 'architectural thinking' for leaders is becoming very powerful: of leaders designing environments and cultures to enable innovation. They show how the leadership landscape is shifting, and that the young leaders coming along are converging around a new type of leadership. In order to 'act like a leader' today, you have to devote much of your time to four activities: bridging across diverse people and groups; envisioning new possibilities; engaging people in the change process; and embodying that change.

Authenticity has become the gold standard for leadership. But as INSEAD professor Herminia Ibarra argues, a simplistic understanding of what authenticity means can limit leaders' growth and impact. All too often, we tend to latch on to authenticity as an excuse for sticking with what's comfortable. But few jobs allow us to do that for long. In this article, Ibarra explains how leaders can develop an "adaptively authentic" style by experimenting with many different leadership approaches. It's OK to change tactics from one day to the next, she says. That's not being fake; it's how we figure out what's right for the challenges and circumstances we face. Three strategies can help you break free from a self-concept that's too rigid: Learn from diverse role models. Growth necessarily involves some form of imitation, but don't copy just one person's leadership style. Borrow selectively from various people to create your own collage. Work on getting better. Set learning goals-not just performance targets-to focus on the value of experimentation. Stretch the limits of who you are by doing new things that make you uncomfortable but help you discover by direct experience whom you want to become. Don't stick to "your story." Jettison outdated self-concepts and draw on personal narratives that fit your circumstances as you're taking on new challenges.

Even when CEOs make gender diversity a priority--by setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs--they are often frustrated by a lack of results. That's because they haven't addressed the fundamental identity shift involved in coming to see oneself, and to be seen by others, as a leader. Research shows, the authors write, that the subtle, "second-generation" gender bias still present in organizations and in society disrupts the learning cycle at the heart of becoming a leader. Women must establish credibility in a culture that is deeply conflicted about whether, when, and how they should exercise authority. Practices that equate leadership with behaviors considered more common in men suggest that women are simply not cut out to be leaders. Furthermore, the human tendency to gravitate to people who are like oneself leads powerful men to sponsor and advocate for other men when leadership opportunities arise. The authors suggest three actions to support and advance gender diversity: educate women and men about second-generation gender bias; create safe "identity workspaces" to support transitions to bigger roles; and anchor women's development efforts in their sense of leadership purpose rather than in how they are perceived.

For years, people have bemoaned executives' zealous focus on short-term results, which often leads CEOs to make moves that undermine their firms' long-term prospects and, some say, act irresponsibly. But all the talk won't change anything if the business world doesn't adopt a new way of measuring performance. Three professors from France's Insead believe they have the answer: an innovative scorecard that evaluates CEOs on the basis of the results they delivered over their entire tenures in office. It incorporates three metrics: industry-adjusted shareholder returns, country-adjusted shareholder returns, and increase in market capitalization over that time frame. Using this scorecard, the authors have studied and objectively ranked the performance of thousands of CEOs of major corporations around the world. In this issue, we reveal who made it into the top 100. This is the second installment of the ranking, which we published for the first time three years ago. Since then, the authors have expanded the group of CEOs studied, making it even more global. And, recognizing the growing sentiment that great financial performance is no longer enough, they also looked at social and environmental ratings to see which of the top CEOs also did well on those metrics. Accompanying this year's list is an interview with Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, whose well-known focus on the long term has served his company extremely well--earning him the #2 spot in the ranking.

Social media and technologies have put connectivity on steroids and made collaboration more integral to business than ever. But without the right leadership, collaboration can go astray. Employees who try to collaborate on everything may wind up stuck in endless meetings, struggling to reach agreement. On the other side of the coin, executives who came of age during the heyday of "command and control" management can have trouble adjusting their style to fit the new realities. In their research on top-performing CEOs, Insead professors Ibarra and Hansen have examined what it takes to be a collaborative leader. They've found that it requires connecting people and ideas outside an organization to those inside it, leveraging diverse talent, modeling collaborative behavior at the top, and showing a strong hand to keep teams from getting mired in debate. In this article, they describe tactics that executives from Akamai, GE, Reckitt Benckiser, and other firms use in those four areas and how they foster high-performance collaborative cultures in their organizations.

HBR asked top management thinkers to share what they were resolved to accomplish in 2011. Here are their answers: Joseph E. Stiglitz will be crafting a new postcrisis paradigm for macroeconomics whereby rational individuals interact with imperfect and asymmetric information. Herminia Ibarra will be looking for hard evidence of how "soft" leadership creates value. Eric Schmidt will be planning to scale mobile technology by developing fast networks and providing low-cost smartphones in the poorest parts of the world. Michael Porter will be using modern cost accounting to uncover-and lower-the real costs of health care. Vijay Govindarajan will be trying to prototype a $300 house to replace the world's poorest slums, provide healthy living, and foster education. Dan Ariely will be investigating consumers' distaste for genetically modified salmon, synthetic pharmaceuticals, and other products that aren't "natural." Laura D. Tyson will be promoting the establishment of a national infrastructure investment bank. Esther Duflo will be striving to increase full immunization in poor areas of India. Clay Shirky will be studying how to design internet platforms that foster civility. Klaus Schwab will be undertaking to create a Risk Response Network through which decision makers around the world can pool knowledge about the risks they face. Jack Ma will be working to instill a strong set of values in his 19,000 young employees and to help clean up China's environment. Thomas H. Davenport will be researching big judgment calls that turned out well and how organizations arrived at them. A.G. Lafley will be proselytizing to make company boards take leadership succession seriously. Eleven additional contributors to the Agenda, along with special audio and video features, can be found at hbr.org/2011-agenda.

Though companies now invest heavily in mentoring and developing their best female talent, all that attention doesn't translate into promotions. A Catalyst survey of over 4,000 high potentials shows that more women than men have mentors-yet women are paid $4,600 less in their first post-MBA jobs, hold lower-level positions, and feel less career satisfaction. To better understand why, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with 40 participants in a mentoring program at a large multinational. All mentoring is not created equal, they discovered. Only sponsorship involves advocacy for advancement. The interviews and survey alike indicate that, compared with their male peers, high potential women are overmentored, undersponsored, and not advancing in their organizations. Without sponsorship, women not only are less likely than men to be appointed to top roles but may also be more reluctant to go for them. Organizations such as Deutsche Bank, Unilever, Sodexo, and IBM Europe have established sponsorship programs to facilitate the promotion of high-potential women. Programs that get results clarify and communicate their goals, match sponsors and mentees on the basis of those goals, coordinate corporate and regional efforts, train sponsors, and hold those sponsors accountable.

A lot of people have blamed short-term thinking for causing our current economic troubles, which has set off a debate about what time window we should use to assess a CEO's performance. Today boards of directors, senior managers, and investors intensely want to know how CEOs handle the ups and downs of running businesses over an extended period. Many executive compensation plans define the "long term" as a three-year horizon, but the real test of a CEO's leadership has to be how the company does over his or her full tenure. This article contains a list of the 50 CEOs of large public companies who performed best over their entire time in office-or, for those still in the job, up until September 30, 2009. To compile the results, the authors collected data on close to 2,000 CEOs worldwide. They asked, Who had led firms that, on the basis of stock returns, outperformed other firms in the same country and industry? The ranking combines three measures: country-adjusted return, industry-adjusted return, and change in market capitalization during tenure. While it may come as no shock that Steve Jobs of Apple tops the list, the ranking does contains a few surprises. You'll see some relatively unknown faces at the top. The inverse is also true: Some obvious candidates based on reputation don't make the top 50. The authors' analysis of the factors that increased the likelihood that an executive would place high in the ranking turned up a few more surprises. Although one might expect context to have a big effect, they found a wide diversity of countries and industries represented in the top performers. The CEO's background did matter, however, as did the situation left behind by his or her predecessor.

Are women rated lower than men in evaluations of their leadership capabilities because of lingering gender bias? No, according to an analysis of thousands of 360-degree assessments collected by Insead's executive education program. That analysis showed that women tend to outshine men in all areas but one: vision. Unfortunately, that exception is a big one. At the top tiers of management, the ability to see opportunities, craft strategy based on a broad view of the business, and inspire others is a must-have. To explore the nature of the deficit, and whether it is a perception or reality, Insead professor Ibarra and doctoral candidate Obodaru interviewed female executives and studied the evaluation data. They developed three possible explanations. First, women may do just as much as men to shape the future but go about it in a different way; a leader who is less directive, includes more people, and shares credit might not fit people's mental model of a visionary. Second, women may believe they have less license to go out on a limb. Those who have built careers on detail-focused, shoulder-to-the-wheel execution may hesitate to stray from facts into unprovable assertions about the future. Third, women may choose not to cultivate reputations as big visionaries. Having seen bluster passed off as vision, they may dismiss the importance of selling visions. The top two candidates for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president in 2008 offer an instructive parallel. The runner-up, Hillary Clinton, was viewed as a get-it-done type with an impressive, if uninspiring, grasp of policy detail. The winner, Barack Obama, was seen as a charismatic visionary offering a hopeful, if undetailed, future. The good news is that every dimension of leadership is learned, not inborn. As more women become skilled at, and known for, envisioning the future, nothing will hold them back.

A team led by Vivienne Cox, Executive Vice President for Gas, Power, and Renewables, identifies and launches a new business, BP Alternative Energy. Investing on this scale in a "green" power business was a radical departure for BP.It illustrates how Cox guided the emergence of a vision for AE, got key stakeholders on board and set in place conditions for a highly motivated team.

Most people acknowledge that networking is an essential activity for an ambitious manager. Indeed, it's a requirement even for those focused simply on doing their current jobs well. For some, this is a distasteful reality. Working through networks, they believe, means relying on "who you know" rather than "what you know"--a hypocritical, possibly unethical, way to get things done. But even people who understand that networking is a legitimate and necessary part of their jobs can be discouraged by the payoff--because they are doing it in too limited a fashion. On the basis of a close study of 30 emerging leaders, the authors outline three distinct forms of networking. Operational networking is geared toward doing one's assigned tasks more effectively. It involves cultivating stronger relationships with colleagues whose membership in the network is clear; their roles define them as stakeholders. Personal networking engages kindred spirits from outside an organization in an individual's efforts to learn and find opportunities for personal advancement. Strategic networking puts the tools of networking in the service of business goals. At this level, a manager creates the kind of network that will help uncover and capitalize on new opportunities for the company. The ability to move to this level of networking turns out to be a key test of leadership. Companies often recognize that networks are valuable, and they create explicit programs to support them. But typically these programs facilitate only operational networking. Likewise, industry associations provide formal contexts for personal networking. The unfortunate effect is to give managers the impression that they know how to network and are doing so sufficiently. A sidebar notes the implication for companies' leadership development initiatives: that teaching strategic networking skills will serve their aspiring leaders and their business goals well.