The ability to navigate workplace relationships can make or break your career. Though it's easy to view them as simply negative or positive, virtually all are a mix of both and require careful thought to manage. The trick is to step back and dispassionately analyze what type of relationship you're in--conflict, competition, independence, cooperation, or collaboration. Where on that spectrum you and your colleague fall will be determined by the degree to which your interests align--or clash. The more in sync interests are, the more positive a relationship is. Each type calls for a different set of tactics, but even the negative relationships, if handled appropriately, can still yield rewards.

This case study follows the career of world-renowned orchestra conductor Marin Alsop. As a gay woman in a blatantly male-dominated (and often sexist) field, Alsop faced significant challenges in her rise to the top of the profession. At virtually every turning point on her unconventional path, Alsop received the message that she should not or could not advance - and yet she did, relying on a nuanced mix of perseverance, self-awareness, and willingness to upend the status quo.

This case study follows the career of world-renowned orchestra conductor Marin Alsop. As a gay woman in a blatantly male-dominated (and often sexist) field, Alsop faced significant challenges in her rise to the top of the profession. At virtually every turning point on her unconventional path, Alsop received the message that she should not or could not advance - and yet she did, relying on a nuanced mix of perseverance, self-awareness, and willingness to upend the status quo.

This case study follows the career of world-renowned orchestra conductor Marin Alsop. As a gay woman in a blatantly male-dominated (and often sexist) field, Alsop faced significant challenges in her rise to the top of the profession. At virtually every turning point on her unconventional path, Alsop received the message that she should not or could not advance - and yet she did, relying on a nuanced mix of perseverance, self-awareness, and willingness to upend the status quo.

In 2016, four years into her role as Director for Behavioural Analysis and Strategy at Nigeria's Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Fatima Akilu was summarily dismissed from her position, amid accusations of corruption at the organisation, and subsequently charged with fraud. Nigeria's fraud agency repeatedly investigated Fatima repeatedly at the insistence of the NSA, but could find nothing to substantiate the claims of malpractice, eventually concluding the allegations were tantamount to harassment on the part of the NSA. In the middle of being investigated, Fatima sat at her kitchen table at home in Nigeria with her sister and considered her options. One particularly attractive option was a job offer at the United Nations - but that would have meant an end to the counter-radicalisation educational and counselling work she had poured herself into, and that was core to her personal values.

In 2015, Fatima Akilu found herself sitting at the kitchen table with her sister, shocked and saddened by what has just happened to her, wondering what to do next. Should she fight to defend her reputation? Or return to a quiet life away from the big government role she has just been fired from?

Fatima Akilu never intended to be a leader. But in 2012, she was appointed Director for Behavioural Analysis and Strategy at Nigeria's Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), charged with leading the country's efforts to combat the effects of the violent extremism of Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.

This case study follows the career of world-renowned orchestra conductor Marin Alsop. As a gay woman in a blatantly male-dominated (and often sexist) field, Alsop faced significant challenges in her rise to the top of the profession. At virtually every turning point on her unconventional path, Alsop received the message that she should not or could not advance - and yet she did, relying on a nuanced mix of perseverance, self-awareness, and willingness to upend the status quo.

The agendas of company boards are so packed that it's hard to get to every question and concern during regular meetings. So between meetings, directors do what members of a team always do in this situation: They start having conversations on the side. Conducted properly, side discussions allow directors to work together efficiently--to trade opinions, share information, and exert influence. But conducted improperly, they encourage political maneuvering, marginalize members with key expertise, foster inappropriate alliances, and lead to poor decisions. They shut out diverse input, and they make boards dysfunctional. The authors started examining side conversations three years ago as part of a larger study of board dynamics. In this article they share what they've learned about how directors should approach them. High-functioning boards, for instance, set clear rules of engagement and regularly review whether they're following them. They create onboarding processes, help directors form personal relationships, and take measures to maintain trust--such as ensuring that every member is briefed on all relevant information before formal discussions restart.

In March 2015 London-based management consultancy Clarasys found itself in crisis. Established in 2011, the company had experienced consistent growth since foundation and had expanded staffing levels to service new business accordingly. But it was still in start-up phase and a perfect storm of events had suddenly hit the firm: two potential growth projects were unexpectedly shelved, meaning almost 50% of consultants were no longer on billable client projects, and the company accountants admitted to having made a serious mistake in VAT payments, which meant Clarasys had to make a double payment, for two years' VAT returns, at the same time.

This case series charts the evolution of the hostile battle for Allergan and its ultimate sale to a white knight, Actavis. David Pyott had been the CEO of Allergan since January 1998; only the third CEO in the company's 60-year-plus history. Allergan was primarily known for Botox, the aesthetic anti-wrinkle product, but the company, which had started out in eye care, had developed Botox into a US$2 billion multipurpose drug. By 2014 the company, which enjoyed double-digit growth, had over 11,000 employees, sold its products in 100 countries and had 40 direct-selling subsidiaries. The business mix included eye care, neurosciences, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics and urologics. R&D was the backbone of the company and it had strong cash reserves. In April 2014 it came as a shock to Pyott and the Allergan board to learn that that pharma company Valeant, in partnership with Pershing Square Capital Management, had announced its intention to make a hostile takeover of Allergan. The ensuing battle was hostile, attracting media interest, hostile and supportive stories in the papers, and 'games' to force Allergan into negotiating a sale. Tricks included hacking emails in an attempt to find out information on the fight team's strategy and moves. Pyott and the board had managed to drive up the share price over several months in their attempt to keep Allergan independent. In November 2014, a Californian judge accepted Valeant/Pershing Square's demand that shareholders should be allowed to vote on its bid. Case A follows the battle from the initial announcement to the court judgement. Case B then illustrates what happened next. Pyott and the 'fight' team realised that they were not able to keep Allergan independent and looked for a white knight to make a higher bid for the company. They successfully identified and negotiated with Actavis, a fellow pharma company. The sale was announced later in November. While Allergan no longer remained an independent

This case series charts the evolution of the hostile battle for Allergan and its ultimate sale to a white knight, Actavis. David Pyott had been the CEO of Allergan since January 1998; only the third CEO in the company's 60-year-plus history. Allergan was primarily known for Botox, the aesthetic anti-wrinkle product, but the company, which had started out in eye care, had developed Botox into a US$2 billion multipurpose drug. By 2014 the company, which enjoyed double-digit growth, had over 11,000 employees, sold its products in 100 countries and had 40 direct-selling subsidiaries. The business mix included eye care, neurosciences, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics and urologics. R&D was the backbone of the company and it had strong cash reserves. In April 2014 it came as a shock to Pyott and the Allergan board to learn that that pharma company Valeant, in partnership with Pershing Square Capital Management, had announced its intention to make a hostile takeover of Allergan. The ensuing battle was hostile, attracting media interest, hostile and supportive stories in the papers, and 'games' to force Allergan into negotiating a sale. Tricks included hacking emails in an attempt to find out information on the fight team's strategy and moves. Pyott and the board had managed to drive up the share price over several months in their attempt to keep Allergan independent. In November 2014, a Californian judge accepted Valeant/Pershing Square's demand that shareholders should be allowed to vote on its bid. Case A follows the battle from the initial announcement to the court judgement. Case B then illustrates what happened next. Pyott and the 'fight' team realised that they were not able to keep Allergan independent and looked for a white knight to make a higher bid for the company. They successfully identified and negotiated with Actavis, a fellow pharma company. The sale was announced later in November. While Allergan no longer remained an independent

At the age of 42, in the midst of a successful and lucrative career as the owner of an international retail consultancy, Andrew Thornton realised he had nothing more to give to his business. He quit the agency in 2006 and used his buy-out money as a down-payment for two Budgens supermarkets in north London. When profits at one store fell in 2010, he reached crisis point. With a deep conviction that companies should have a broader focus than profit alone, he founded Heart in Business, a consultancy focused on unlocking the potential of employees, and used his Belsize Park store as a testing ground. By 2016, like-for-like sales were growing at 5% - while neighbouring stores' figures were in decline - and the average length of service at Thornton's Budgens was 54% longer than that of the control store. Andrew's conviction that freeing people's potential and creativity delivers tangible business results now had strong evidence to support it: his sales figures provided that. But even better evidence was on the way, from the global assessment and training organisation BEING at Full Potential , whose Human Potential Assessment tool measured how much human potential the store was utilising and compared it to a 'control' store in a neighbouring postcode. Thornton's Budgens rated higher on every single measure. Through investing in his people with specialised coaching, Andrew had won not just their dedication, engagement and commitment, but their whole hearts and minds. By purposely trying to weave authenticity, cohesion, empathy, self-leadership, enquiry and creativity into every fibre of the business, Andrew not only raised levels of engagement - and profit as a result - but ignited the spirits of all who worked for him. In fact, it was precisely the harnessing and utilisation of his people's passions that led to their increased productivity.

In 2011, Cairo became the cradle of the Egyptian revolution. Transport workers, ambulance drivers and bank employees called for the end of President Hosni Mubarak's regime. With a backdrop of volatility, Commercial International Bank (CIB), Egypt's leading private bank, embarked on a major transformation. Hisham Ezz-El Arab, Chairman of CIB, placed customers, employees and shareholders at the heart of everything: his decision to invest in turbulent times went against conventional wisdom. In 2015, he hired Islam Zekry as chief data officer (CDO) to lead a new decision-making support unit. Trust was central. In the Arab region, leaders have power but they must also consult. Data transformation became the main pillar of the bank's strategy, but Zekry's team faced obstacles. The data geek squad proposed changes ranging from product offerings to advances in blockchain. In July 2017, CIB was named the 'World's Best Bank in the Emerging Markets' by Euromoney. Still, its challenges were unmatched. More Egyptians were unbanked than banked and the country was dealing with an ailing tourism sector and soaring inflation. The bank's future success would rely on the combination of data analytics, human capital, leadership and a culture of openness.

In January 2013, Irish Tour Professional Golfer, Paul McGinley was named as Captain of Team Europe for the 2014 Ryder Cup in Gleneagles, Scotland. Across his career, McGinley had both played himself in the Ryder Cup as well as acted as Vice Captain in two successful tournaments for the Team Europe. Being the Captain, however, was a different game. This case traces McGinley's team strategy and demonstrates his leadership as he moulded 12 players from different European countries together into an effective team, in only a few days. He faced numerous challenges including diverse European nationalities, golf being an individual rather than a team sport, that he would only know who was on his team a few weeks before the Ryder Cup, and then that the players would only be 'together' to train four days before the actual tournament began. As well as these, Team Europe were the favourites and would be playing in Europe. McGinley knew that wasn't an easy position to play from, particularly when the US were fielding a very strong team that year. Expectations were running high. Even during the competition, there were upheavals that McGinley had to deal with.

Top management teams whose members don't trust one another perform worse when they're handed unilateral decisions than when they slug it out to reach a consensus.