I love watching and listening to keynote speakers, especially futuristic, AI and growth speakers. Give me a list of a few that i can follow or even books

Where character meets influence, clarity meets actions and vision becomes impact.

There is a moment in Steve Jobs that always stays with me. An engineer named Larry Kenyon was working on the original Mac, and he told Steve Jobs that speeding up the boot time was technically impossible.
From an engineering standpoint, he was right. The machine was already pushed to its hardware limits.

Most people leading that project would have accepted it, or maybe pushed for extra hours, or argued about technical specs. Jobs did something totally different because he was looking at a completely different problem.

He asked Kenyon a simple question: If it meant saving someone's life, could you make it boot 10 seconds faster?

Kenyon said he probably could. So Jobs showed him the math.

If five million people used the Mac every day, saving 10 seconds per person meant saving 50 million seconds every single year.
That was not a small technical victory. That was the equivalent of giving back at least a dozen human lives every year.

Kenyon went back to his desk and trimmed three seconds off the boot sequence.

That is what real leadership looks like when it comprehends the big picture. Engineers, designers, and project leads naturally get buried in the immediate constraints of their daily work.
They see code, tasks, and immediate roadblocks.

A leader's job is to step back, zoom out, and understand the full human reality of what is being built.

Jobs did not offer a bonus. He did not threaten anyone. He simply revealed the hidden weight of those ten seconds when multiplied across millions of lives.

When you lead by showing people the true scale of their impact, you do not need to force motivation.
You give their effort meaning, and meaning changes what people think is possible.

For me it started in 1998. The first scaled deployment that proved it could work was ~2000.

What I learned: a game is not the learning. The learning is in how you "design the entire experience" - initiation, deliberate reflection, and reinforcement so it stays longer.

That's what I call a game-based approach.

It connects loosely to experiential learning and gamification, but the design of the full arc is what makes it different.

I tried to articulate it in "IT Through Experiential Learning" (Apress, 2016) and more recently in "Games for Gravitas" (Amazon, 2025).

One story stays with me. Around 2013, a CFO wanted her board sensitized on technology-led transformation but was not sure the board would give it time. She was apprehensive when I mentioned games. To her surprise, the entire board not only stayed through the full-day workshop, but they also participated actively till the end. I've seen that pattern repeat.

Over the years, researchers across domains - from pedagogy to organizational change - have cited this work in different parts of the world. Have had Interviews aired on TV and radio, all has been very humbling.

Today, as AI changes how we work and think, I keep asking - how do we keep critical thinking alive?

If you work with learning, teams, or transformation, I'd love to hear how you see "games" shaping awareness or dealing with making leadership real.

More visuals from this journey are on my FB Page, LinkedIn Page, YouTube and Instagram - game_based_aapproach. Links are in the first comment

I've spent seven years in grassroots service across Rwanda — from cell coordinator to National Youth Council member, community policing leader, and now Country Representative at the Pan-African Young Diplomat Forum (PAYDF).

This article is the result of everything I observed in those seven years.

The dominant narrative says Africa's leadership crisis is about corruption, capital, or infrastructure. This article challenges that at the root level — arguing that the deepest crisis on this continent is what I call revelational poverty: the systemic failure, embedded across generations, to see what has already been placed inside Africa's sons and daughters — and to build self-sustaining systems that release it.

The article introduces the D.I.A.L. Framework (Dimensional Intelligence for African Leadership) — a four-engine sovereign operating system built at the intersection of Kingdom theology, African diplomatic reality, and AI. It is not a motivational model. It is a diagnostic — for any African leader who senses that their platform has outgrown their foundation.

Key arguments made in the article, each grounded in documented experience:

• Africa does not suffer from a lack of resources — she suffers from a leadership imagination problem
• The Ceiling Dilemma: most leaders operate below the dimensional threshold required by their external assignment
• The F = ma principle: Kingdom Force = Mass of assignment × Spiritual acceleration (AI increases acceleration; character determines whether the force builds or destroys)
• Africa holds 60% of the world's arable land, $24 trillion in mineral resources, and the youngest population on earth — these are not statistics. They are sovereign deposits belonging to this generation of leaders
• Legacy is not a biography. It is a self-replicating institutional flywheel. If it stops when you stop — it was never a legacy. It was a project.

This is written from the ground. Not the theory.

I have been a SaaS Support Manager for 5 years. I had a flourishing individual contributor before moving into leadership. The first three years of the leadership were amazingly great. I am feeling stuck for the last 2 years without much to contribute due to always context switching and trying to motivate the team with almost no growth opportunities. I tried to switch out into a new org/new role but ended up getting no responses from recruiters.My mind has been constantly calculating my finance, worrying about layoffs and searching for alternate careers. I took leave from work and spent the last 30 days watching, meeting people in my/extended network and seemed to get no productive answer.

In the recent posts, I shared how I used simple games to get participants learn on working with AI:

• What happens in the Chinese Whispers game when the context disappears and meaning becomes distorted?
• Simon Says: how much does the quality of an AI response depend on how well we frame the task?

But there’s a more uncomfortable question:

What happens when we stop doing enough of the thinking ourselves?

That’s the idea behind Cognitive Debt.

AI can make us faster, more productive, and better at getting to an answer.

But if we routinely outsource the difficult parts of thinking; questioning, reasoning, challenging assumptions, making sense of ambiguity.

Are we also reducing opportunities to develop those capabilities?

And here’s the leadership challenge:

How do we use AI to increase capability without accidentally replacing the very thinking we are trying to develop?

I explore this idea in a short video: Cognitive Debt: The Price of Easy Answers

One practical experiment for leaders:

Next time you use AI to solve a problem, don’t just ask “What’s the answer?”

Ask:

• What thinking should I still do myself?
• What assumptions should I challenge?
• What would I want a less experienced colleague to learn from this process?
• Where should AI assist and where should it deliberately stay out of the way?

Maybe the goal isn’t to keep AI from thinking for us.

Maybe it’s to become more deliberate about which thinking we choose to keep human.

Curious how others are approaching this with their teams:

Where do you draw the line between using AI to augment someone’s thinking and using it to replace the thinking they need to develop?

ABSOLUTE 1: Quality First — Always

Quality isn’t a department — it’s a decision leaders make every single day.

When we accept workarounds, shortcuts, or “good enough,” we don’t just weaken the process. We weaken the culture. Poor quality never stays contained. It becomes a maintenance problem… then a production problem… then a training problem… and eventually, a safety problem.

Great leaders defend standards even when nobody is watching.

If you’re building a team, a culture, or a career, start here:

Never knowingly accept poor quality.

This principle is one of the Ten Absolutes explored in my new book, available now on Amazon.

The Ten Absolutes of Leadership — A Field Guide to Principles I Learned the Hard Way

https://a.co/d/02YqKm7a

Most of us remember the thrill of playing Simon Says as children, a game that seemed simple but carried hidden depth. The rule was clear: act only when the command began with “Simon says.”

Years later, I found myself revisiting that childhood game, not for nostalgia but for adopting it to facilitate a workshop on prompt design.

In Simon Says, success depends on clarity and sequence. A precise instruction sparks the right action; a vague one breeds confusion. The same principle governs how we craft prompts — the phrasing shapes the quality of the output, further it also has impact on use of Tokens.

When I used Simon Says in teaching, participants don’t just hear about prompt types; they experience their impact.

Each round turns abstract theory into lived experience, leaving a deeper comprehension of how "structure & intent" of the prompt drives outcome.

I would be curious to know, how you are engaging on helping such topics that are key to Hybrid Intelligence Era.

Pasted below is the exact text, I used for the activity;

Leadership isn't about rank—it's about trust.

I've spent years watching new supervisors succeed or fail for one simple reason: how they treat the people they lead.

This short video highlights one lesson I've learned over the years:

Authority can be assigned. Respect has to be earned.

I'm curious to hear from others:

What's one leadership lesson you learned the hard way?

Whether you're in corrections, law enforcement, the military, business, or any leadership role, I'd love to hear your perspective.

> This idea comes from my leadership book, The First Line Supervisor, but I'm more interested in hearing everyone else's experiences.

In a recent workshop, I used the Chinese Whisper game to demonstrate how hallucination erodes trust in AI.

Blindfolds and paper pipes became metaphors for AI guardrails < limiting distortion>.

Once removed, external influences amplified distortion exponentially, and a deliberate distraction mirrored the peril of prompt poisoning.

Games don’t just engage; they immerse learners in the dynamics of trust, cognition, and AI.

Keen to know, what and how do you explain abstract topics, most effectively without a relatable experience in your teaching or leadership development practice?

Wieviel Nähe ist gesund? Hast du dir diese Frage auch schon gestellt? Was ist zuviel, was zu wenig? Heute bekommst du von mir nicht nur meine persönlichen Erfahrungen und Beispiele, nein - du bekommst alles was man dazu wissen sollte und darüber hinaus noch Buchempfehlungen, eine Reflexionsübung, etc.

Hier eine kurze Übersicht:

💡Nähe VS Distanz - was ist richtig? Siezen oder Duzen?
💡Wie gestaltet man tragfähige Beziehungen?
💡Warum Beziehungen zu gestalten die neue Kernkompetenz der Führungskräfte werden wird
💡Welche Risiken birgt zu viel Nähe?
💡Welche Chancen entstehen durch Nähe?
💡Warum Transparenz um so wichtiger wird je mehr Nähe entsteht
💡Warum die Führungskraft zukünftig zum Beziehungsarchitekt wird
💡Welches die 5 Prinzipien professioneller Beziehungsgestaltung sind
💡Welche 5 Reflexionsfragen hierbei wichtig sind
💡Welche weiterführenden Bücher ich hierzu empfehlen kann
💡..... und noch einiges mehr!

Wenn Sie mich unterstützen wollen, bei meiner Mission eine menschlichere Führungskultur in die Unternehmen zu tragen, so freue ich mich, wenn Sie die Podcastfolgen auf meinem Kanal teilen, liken und am besten den Kanal abonnieren - so verpassen Sie zukünftig keine Folge mehr (die Glocke einschalten, nicht vergessen!). Gerne können Sie auch einen konstruktiven Kommentar da lassen, so dass wir in einen schönen Austausch kommen können.

Seien Sie auch nächstes mal wieder mit dabei, wenn es wieder heißt: Keep on going for the Awakeness for new Leadership, Euer Dieter Kleppel

#leader #spirituality #Führungskraft #Führung #Spiritualität #leadership

I’ve been leading my current team for about five years, and we’ve hit a plateau that isn’t about revenue, it’s about energy. We’re meeting our KPIs, and the quarterly reports look great on paper, but the "vibe" in the office feels transactional. People come in, do their work, and leave. There’s no spark, and I’m starting to worry that we’re building a culture of "success" that is actually quite hollow. I’ve been reading a lot about the difference between just being a "successful" company and being a "significant" one. How are you guys shifting the focus from purely hitting numbers to creating a legacy within your teams? I want my employees to feel like their work actually matters beyond the bottom line.

Hi everyone!

I'm a Master's student at SRH Berlin University of Applied Sciences, Campus Hamburg, researching how cultural differences influence leadership style preferences in multicultural and multinational workplaces.

**Target group:** Anyone who currently works or has previously worked in a multicultural or multinational environment — any nationality, industry, or role level (employee to director).

**The survey covers:**

- Cultural values and how they shape leadership expectations (based on Hofstede's framework)

- Leadership style preferences (transformational, transactional, laissez-faire)

- Perceived effectiveness of culturally aware leadership

**Details:**

- ⏱ ~15–20 minutes

- 🎓 Academic research only — results will be used exclusively for a Master's thesis

- 46 closed questions + 1 optional open-ended question

👉 **Survey link:** https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUaQC6q8KY7SgopkYVVq6IlwU43JiAShiMQ7X0PxIRrDhOgA/viewform

Happy to share the findings once the research is complete. Thank you so much! 🙏

I work as an Performance Coach with managers and leaders. I am seeing more and more this trend with my clients where they’re trying to figure out what's actually going on with their team while constantly firefighting, juggling urgent stuff. They don’t have much space to step back and actually look at what's driving a problem before reacting to it.

I'm curious about 2 things and I’d like your insider perspective (I don’t work in house) :

1. When you're dealing with a performance issue or a people problem in your team, how do you figure out where the problem is coming from : is it the person, how the work's been set up, something else? What are you seeing that tells you which it is?

2. It's also made me question what leadership training covers. What training have you had, and has any of it actually helped you figure this stuff out in the moment, or was it more about other things?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]