Managers sometimes neglect the talent development part of their job because coaching can be awkward and challenging. But in an era of teamwork and collaboration, it's vital to success.
Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
Time was, and not so long ago, that organizational leaders began to recognize that a significant part of their role involved coaching. The exemplars were often taken from collegiate and professional sports, and several revered practitioners from the fields of play were truly frightening: My way or the highway. There are three ways to do this: my way, my way, or my way. Winning is the only thing!
Gradually, a recognition grew that one coaching style might not be enough, that changing circumstances demanded changing—and different—leadership and coaching styles. More on this later. For the moment, those who aspire to be supply chain achievers need to face front and concentrate on the road ahead, instead of driving blind while yearning for the receding image of life in the rear-view mirror.
Over the past half century, working relationships among peers and with colleagues have transformed mightily. The old order of Jump/How High command leadership has sunk beneath the waves of change. And techniques of public discipline, criticism (even of the so-called "constructive" type), humiliation, and solitary confinement to menial tasks have disappeared, except in outposts of limited vision.
For a brief time, notably in the Great Recession but also in periods in which talent was plentiful, managers could get away with consciously not developing the talent, with avoiding the awkward, challenging, and vital task of coaching associates for elevated performance. Those days are gone, and in any event, they were only a temporary respite from the responsibilities of contemporary leadership.
Yet many supply chain organizations fell victim to such short-sighted thinking. Our world is, perhaps, over-focused on commoditized pricing whether buying or selling supply chain and logistics services. We live and metaphorically die based on the pennies differential that wins or loses a deal. Costs must be cut, prices must be slashed, staff can't be paid much, and we can't afford the time and cost to develop employees' skills and abilities.
THE NEW WORK WORLD ORDER
We have resided in another universe, one built on collaboration, trust, team performance, and investment in talent and its tools and techniques, for the better part of a half century. The changes demanded by enlightened leadership and management cannot be brushed aside to permit a return to work models that prevailed in the age of sweatshops, mills, and indentured servitude.
We, irrespective of formal organizational structures, work in teams these days, an effective technique likely to last a long, long time—and get continuously better. Team dynamics through their various stages (from facing initial challenges to delivering solutions) are now well accepted.
What we may not be as comfortable and fluent in are the leadership responsibilities that go along with creating effective teams that ultimately produce the goods. And a big part of those involve unboss-like behaviors: recognizing, praising, helping, explaining, and, yes, coaching.
For those who think that all this us soft-headed nonsense, that people should show up, figure things out, do the job, keep their heads down, and silently soldier on, here's a tip. Get out of the way! Move over to the slow lane, because the new leaders, their teams, and their organizations are taking over the fast lane to supply chain success.
LEADERSHIP: TOO MANY BOOKS AND NOT ENOUGH LESSONS
The never-ending stream of leadership books ghost-written for notable personages are often interesting, and sometimes touch on the coaching aspect of the role. From them, we summarize what we think to be essential characteristics of leaders that we should emulate. Cool! But those notions are dangerously fixed, like images encased in amber—not part of an adaptable toolkit of behaviors appropriate to evolving circumstances and the developmental stages of working teams.
This situational leadership thing is not the slippery slope of situational ethics; it is about being antenna-up at all times to sense when to use which leadership style to accomplish a specific goal or objective.
In summary, new-century leaders can choose and use one of four behaviors:
Directing (Telling): "If you want a friend, get a dog!"
Coaching (Selling): "I'm in charge, and I'm gonna do whatever it takes to help you win!" (There's that pesky coaching thing again.)
Supporting (Participating): "What else do you need; what else can I do to give you what you need to do what you know you can do?"
Delegating (Sharing): "What do you think? Could it work if we went at it another way?"
At the risk of repeating an annoying theme, this is not newly hatched New Age touchy-feely fad-of-the-month stuff. The U.S. military, notably the Army, is teaching and using situational leadership. Other entities are integrating it into their leadership development programs.
The absolute master of the core techniques involved was the late Herb Brooks, who coached (that word again) the U.S. Olympic hockey team to its first win over the USSR in 20 years. In case you've been napping, that was 35 years ago at Lake Placid.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MILLENNIALS
For a testy Old Guard, who have a hard time with changes in roles, relationships, styles, and structures, it's tempting to point fingers at the latest indignity, the arrival of the now-notorious millennial generation in the workplace. A vocal contingent does not hesitate to criticize this age group with a broad brush loaded with anecdotal misperceptions. Not least is its need for, expectation of, and appreciation for developmental coaching.
Those who resent the worst of the new wave often protest that they are not there to act in loco parentis or to hold hands. But no one actually expects that. What we all, in 2015, expect is active coaching, recognition, respect, understanding and compassion, inclusion, and work that means something.
It's not a generational thing; it's a human thing—and has been for much longer than martinets, straw bosses, sadists, and bullies would like to believe.
The supply chain risk management firm Overhaul has landed $55 million in backing, saying the financing will fuel its advancements in artificial intelligence and support its strategic acquisition roadmap.
The equity funding round comes from the private equity firm Springcoast Partners, with follow-on participation from existing investors Edison Partners and Americo. As part of the investment, Springcoast’s Chris Dederick and Holger Staude will join Overhaul’s board of directors.
According to Austin, Texas-based Overhaul, the money comes as macroeconomic and global trade dynamics are driving consequential transformations in supply chains. That makes cargo visibility and proactive risk management essential tools as shippers manage new routes and suppliers.
“The supply chain technology space will see significant consolidation over the next 12 to 24 months,” Barry Conlon, CEO of Overhaul, said in a release. “Overhaul is well-positioned to establish itself as the ultimate integrated solution, delivering a comprehensive suite of tools for supply chain risk management, efficiency, and visibility under a single trusted platform.”
Artificial intelligence (AI) and data science were hot business topics in 2024 and will remain on the front burner in 2025, according to recent research published in AI in Action, a series of technology-focused columns in the MIT Sloan Management Review.
In Five Trends in AI and Data Science for 2025, researchers Tom Davenport and Randy Bean outline ways in which AI and our data-driven culture will continue to shape the business landscape in the coming year. The information comes from a range of recent AI-focused research projects, including the 2025 AI & Data Leadership Executive Benchmark Survey, an annual survey of data, analytics, and AI executives conducted by Bean’s educational firm, Data & AI Leadership Exchange.
The five trends range from the promise of agentic AI to the struggle over which C-suite role should oversee data and AI responsibilities. At a glance, they reveal that:
Leaders will grapple with both the promise and hype around agentic AI. Agentic AI—which handles tasks independently—is on the rise, in the form of generative AI bots that can perform some content-creation tasks. But the authors say it will be a while before such tools can handle major tasks—like make a travel reservation or conduct a banking transaction.
The time has come to measure results from generative AI experiments. The authors say very few companies are carefully measuring productivity gains from AI projects—particularly when it comes to figuring out what their knowledge-based workers are doing with the freed-up time those projects provide. Doing so is vital to profiting from AI investments.
The reality about data-driven culture sets in. The authors found that 92% of survey respondents feel that cultural and change management challenges are the primary barriers to becoming data- and AI-driven—indicating that the shift to AI is about much more than just the technology.
Unstructured data is important again. The ability to apply Generative AI tools to manage unstructured data—such as text, images, and video—is putting a renewed focus on getting all that data into shape, which takes a whole lot of human effort. As the authors explain “organizations need to pick the best examples of each document type, tag or graph the content, and get it loaded into the system.” And many companies simply aren’t there yet.
Who should run data and AI? Expect continued struggle. Should these roles be concentrated on the business or tech side of the organization? Opinions differ, and as the roles themselves continue to evolve, the authors say companies should expect to continue to wrestle with responsibilities and reporting structures.
Shippers today are praising an 11th-hour contract agreement that has averted the threat of a strike by dockworkers at East and Gulf coast ports that could have frozen container imports and exports as soon as January 16.
The agreement came late last night between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) representing some 45,000 workers and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) that includes the operators of port facilities up and down the coast.
Details of the new agreement on those issues have not yet been made public, but in the meantime, retailers and manufacturers are heaving sighs of relief that trade flows will continue.
“Providing certainty with a new contract and avoiding further disruptions is paramount to ensure retail goods arrive in a timely manner for consumers. The agreement will also pave the way for much-needed modernization efforts, which are essential for future growth at these ports and the overall resiliency of our nation’s supply chain,” Gold said.
The next step in the process is for both sides to ratify the tentative agreement, so negotiators have agreed to keep those details private in the meantime, according to identical statements released by the ILA and the USMX. In their joint statement, the groups called the six-year deal a “win-win,” saying: “This agreement protects current ILA jobs and establishes a framework for implementing technologies that will create more jobs while modernizing East and Gulf coasts ports – making them safer and more efficient, and creating the capacity they need to keep our supply chains strong. This is a win-win agreement that creates ILA jobs, supports American consumers and businesses, and keeps the American economy the key hub of the global marketplace.”
The breakthrough hints at broader supply chain trends, which will focus on the tension between operational efficiency and workforce job protection, not just at ports but across other sectors as well, according to a statement from Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, a freight booking and payment platform. Port automation was the major sticking point leading up to this agreement, as the USMX pushed for technologies to make ports more efficient, while the ILA opposed automation or semi-automation that could threaten jobs.
"This is a six-year détente in the tech-versus-labor tug-of-war at U.S. ports," Levine said. “Automation remains a lightning rod—and likely one we’ll see in other industries—but this deal suggests a cautious path forward."
Editor's note: This story was revised on January 9 to include additional input from the ILA, USMX, and Freightos.
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.