Boardrooms in Transition Ep. 4/5 | Barry Salzberg | Leadership Under Pressure

This is episode 4 of 5 in Boardrooms in Transition, a special series from Inside CVC by U-Path. We recommend starting with Episode 1 and listening in order. This episode opens with a short recap. If you are listening to the full series in one sitting, use the chapter marker to jump straight to the conversation. 

In Part Four of Boardrooms in Transition, former Deloitte Global CEO and longtime board leader Barry Salzberg explores what leadership looks like when organizations are operating under prolonged pressure, uncertainty, and scrutiny.

Drawing on decades of experience leading through crises and transformation, Barry argues that a board's greatest responsibility isn't simply managing risk—it's signaling confidence. From his memorable "flight attendant" analogy to the lessons behind building Deloitte University during one of the worst economic environments in decades, he explains why calmness, trust, and resilience are strategic assets.

Barry also challenges leaders to rethink short-term decision making. Cutting recruiting, R&D, or innovation investments to protect quarterly results may provide temporary relief, but it can create leadership and capability vacuums years later. His message is clear: long-term stewardship requires protecting the seeds during the winter.

We also discuss:

• Why leadership is fundamentally about signaling confidence under pressure

• The balance between quarterly performance and long-term investment

• Why boards should resist turning off the "innovation spigot"

• How involving skeptics early can turn critics into champions

• Lessons from creating Deloitte University and building board alignment

• Why trust, transparency, and resilience matter more than ever

If previous episodes focused on sensing disruption and allocating capital, this chapter examines what happens after the bet has been made—and why the most resilient organizations are the ones that keep investing when others retreat.

Boardrooms in Transition: www.boardroomsintransition.u-path.com
Inside CVC: www.u-path.com/podcast
U-Path Venture Advisors: www.u-path.com

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Grammy Award-winning saxophonist and composer Wayne Escoffery for lending his music to the soundtrack of Boardrooms in Transition. A member of the Yale School of Music faculty and one of the leading voices in contemporary jazz, Wayne's work helps bring this series to life. Learn more about Wayne and his music at www.wayneescoffery.com.

Transcript

Steve Schmith 0:00

Previously on boardrooms in transition, a special series from Inside CVC. Karen, it's so interesting to hear you talk specifically around capital, given the industries in which you've held board positions. Automotive mobility. Massive investments, trillions upon trillions of dollars, and the future is still sort of uncertain as to when the tipping point is, when we're going to see all of that ROI.

Karen Francis 0:30

Well, uh, you know, it's uh not for the faint of heart. It's just too fast. So let's just say in the last eight years, my oh my, what a roller coaster. Right?

Philipp Willigmann 0:42

Uncertainty is a big topic, and we don't have all the information um uh available anymore.

Karen Francis 0:48

No tran no transformation is a straight line from here to there.

Steve Schmith 0:52

Welcome to Boardrooms in Transition, a special series from Inside CVC, where we are bringing you an inside look at the conversations and the decisions being made inside of boardrooms around the world.

Philipp Willigmann 1:04

We are doing this series because you have asked us to share some insights, what really happens in the boardroom. So Steve and I reached out to our network to find the most influential board members who are willing to share their insights, how they are transforming organizations, how they're thinking about the future of ecosystems, and how we can together move to a more positive world.

Steve Schmith 1:25

And that's exactly what you're gonna hear in the five episodes: personal stories around managing AI, leading with courage, managing through geopolitical pressures. We cover it all from voices from inside the boardroom. I'm Philipp Willigmann , and I'm Steve Schmith. Welcome to Boardrooms in Transition. In this episode, we're speaking with Barry Salzberg, former global CEO of Deloitte and longtime board leader. In this discussion, we explore what leadership looks like when organizations are operating under prolonged pressure, scrutiny, and uncertainty, and why trust, resilience, and long-term stewardship matter more than ever in the boardroom. Here's our conversation with Barry Salzberg. Barry, welcome to Inside CVC. Very excited to have you on the show today. How are you?

Barry Salzberg 2:14

Great. Thank you for the uh invite.

Steve Schmith 2:16

Hey, why don't we hop in? Um, you have had a wonderful uh career in on the topics in board leadership, et cetera, different phases of your career. As you think about that, what are some of the things that are fundamentally changing as leaders operate under prolonged pressure and scrutiny?

Barry Salzberg 2:38

Well, um, first off, prolonged uh pressure and scrutiny to one person is not to another, right? It depends on the circumstances, the issues that are being dealt with, the nature of the challenges that that cause this prolonged period of pressure and scrutiny. But but by and large, what I have seen over the years of leadership is that people get used, leaders get used to it. They understand that this is sort of a routine part of their stewardship of the companies that they lead. There will be periods of prolonged stress, periods of pressure, periods of scrutiny, whether it's regulatory or otherwise, always in someone's tenure as a leader. The really good leaders tend to learn how to deal with it calmly, with resilience, with a level of maturity and confidence to get not only themselves through it, but to get the entire organization as an organization and all of the people that work in that organization, the shareholders, the relevant constituencies, all through it. It's about calmness, it's about resilience, it's about focus, it's about the ability to cope and the ability to see the end in sight and know that your stewardship matters to so many people. And the way in which you manage through that sustained period of pressure and stress is visibly and audibly seen by everyone around you. A little, a little story. Really? I've overcome that over time. But but in my heyday of travel, I was always fearful of flying. And I learned how to best deal with it. And what I did was I looked at the flight attendant. And if we're up in the air and the plane is shaking, I look at the flight attendant. If the flight attendant is doing a crossword puzzle, I'm a happy camper. If the flight attendant is flipping through the pages of the emergency manual, that's when I get nervous. Now, the analogy is that flight attendant is the leader in our in your questioned um uh scenario. And I look at that that flight attendant. Her calmness, his calmness, the way they deal with the situation matters how I then perceive the situation and what my level of comfort is, or in the case of an employee, their level of continued productivity, et cetera, and their their comfort and their stress environment. So it's it's really, I tell the it's a flight attendant story. Look at the leader. The flight attendant's the leader at that moment. Look at the leader. And if the leader is calm and confident and able to just conduct business normally, however the pressure externally might be, then you're calm. And that is really important for leaders that operate under prolonged pressure and scrutiny to make sure that the organization is calm and working towards a solution or whatever the issue is, working to resolve it.

Philipp Willigmann 6:14

Let's hit the pause button. As somebody who spends a lot of time on flights, the flight attendant model really stuck with me. Barry's point is that leadership is about signaling. If the board panics and cuts the risky projects, corporate venture, innovation, venture building, RD, the entire organization stops being productive. Calmness is a fiduciary duty.

Steve Schmith 6:40

You know, it's it's interesting. Philip and I, we've been doing this, we've got 30-something episodes, and I think a pattern has emerged when we do these things. And that pattern is on days where we record episodes, by complete accident, themes line up. And it's happening again here. You are our second conversation for the day. And the individual we just spoke with talked about pillars of leadership and how important courage and authenticity and trust and all of these things. And what she also touched upon is how important those things are in terms of aligning to your values. It seems in what you described, there's a there's a lot of synergy there. Would you, would you agree with that?

Barry Salzberg 7:21

Yeah, totally. In fact, uh, those attributes that you just identified, which I'll repeat is my own, but transparency, authenticity, the ability to be trusted, all of that is critical leadership attributes for sure, but not just at the top. It's it's everywhere in the organization. And and the what I what I kind of suggest to people is you just can't be trusted immediately. Don't expect to be trusted immediately. You've got to earn that trust. And how do you earn that trust? And my response to that is built around those attributes that you just talked about. And I define that as being trustworthy. So if you are trustworthy and you demonstrate it through your actions and through your words, through your, through your vulnerabilities, through your authenticities, through your transparencies, through your communication and your style, people will begin over time to trust you. You're human. And they want to see those qualities in the leaders that they are to follow. These are values that you personally possess or and or that the company wants to exude in the way in which people behave and the culture is developed. And it matters to successful leaders. A leader can operate under prolonged pressure and scrutiny without having that trust factor to let the organization get through it, let not just the organization, vendors, shareholders, external folks that rely on the company for whatever for whatever reason. They need that trust. And you have to demonstrate that trust through that prolonged pressure and scrutiny.

Philipp Willigmann 9:04

As you know, we we have a lot of listeners from the big Fortune 1000s, big family businesses, you know, in investors into startups, and specifically in times of uncertainty, right? They always ask the question how how can you as a leader make sure that things like innovation or investing into big capabilities you have to build don't stop? Can you maybe share a little bit with our audience, like specifically in periods of uncertainty, financial constraints, what helps leaders like you and your peers to really be anchored on the long-term priorities? And what lessons can you share with also leaders today who are making short-term decisions quarter to quarter when it comes to really transformation?

Barry Salzberg 9:52

Well, you know, the balance between short-term performance and and and responding to short-term operational challenges versus the need to invest for the long-term and the sustainability and success of the uh of the enterprise for a much longer period than the quote unquote quarter. So this is this is not a new issue, Philip, but the the simplicity of it is the word balance. I mean, you can't ignore the short term because all you want to do is invest for the long term. Your company won't be here. You just can't. It's a balance. The leaders that find that balance, that know how to make those cuts, to pull those operational levers in times of current economic challenges, but at the same time, don't shut off the spigot for the future, are really the strong, successful leaders. Let me give you an example. I remember at Deloitte. Now remember, we're talking about Deloitte, so it's a unique structure and a unique uh business model. But back in the day, you know, there were many a time where the economic environment was miserable. The natural tendency would be, for example, in this area, stop recruiting. No recruiting this year because we're not, we cannot afford to hire new people. Um, utilization is way down, a lot of people are on the bench, business is slow, stop recruiting, right? Natural, people would do that. You could understand that. But if you turn the spigot off in recruiting in year one, in year five, you have no managers in the Deloitte world. Right. And so you you you're you're you're really impacting the future by the decisions you make in the current. But if what you do is completely compromise your future by forgetting about the long-term needs of innovation, acquisitions, investment, my example, small example is it was recruiting, you're missing the real key. Further, Philip, as you well know, if you're known for innovation, if you have a commitment to innovation, or you're known for learning and development and have a commitment to learning and development, if you shut that off in times of trouble, it sends a very loud message to the people that you are leading that you're not serious about it. Don't worry. Okay, you don't, if you don't, if I shut off training this year, then next year, if you don't want to go to training, that should be okay too. And then what it becomes is a spiral down, and you wind up not being able to fulfill your obligations to your organization and to your people because you were not consistent. You were not committed to balancing the short term with the long term. So innovation is a perfect example, Philip. You use that in your question, but it's a beyond innovation. It's it's it's anything that has impact into the future of the organization, actual and culturally. The cultural implications of some short-term challenges, the actions that you take to deal with short-term challenges, those cultural implications could be so damning for the future.

Philipp Willigmann 13:14

Uh you have to be very careful. Barry, maybe um one question there. You you have been working very, very heavily on setting up Deloitte University in your Tendra as USCO, uh, and then also Global. I'm sure this was not an easy project, right? A lot of uh a lot of investment, a lot of capital which was needed to actually, you know, focus on development and leadership for the employees and then also later for the customers and clients of Deloitte. Maybe a couple of examples, like how did you navigate this? How did you manage that?

Barry Salzberg 13:50

You know, uh Philip, uh Deloitte University is sort of my little baby, right? Um, and and not me alone. There are lots of lots of people that really worked hard and had the idea and helped nurture the idea and help helped us drive implementation of it. But because I was the leader at the time, I'm sort of um I identified most closely uh with it and with its success. So I'll I'll give you my lowdown on it. First off, for anything like that to have the ability to go from idea to operationalizing it is a long journey. It's a journey filled with fact-finding, identifying challenges and issues, socializing, getting input from lots of sources so you have the real good knowledge of what you're doing and the uh consequences of it. And in my case, it required a very long socialization with our board, because the board had questions. The board has a fiduciary obligation to all of the the partners of a Deloitte, using my example, to make sure that we're thinking about everything and we're considering the all you know the exit. What if it didn't work? What would you do with it if we bought it and built it? Um so it's a very, very long process. That's first off. Second off, um, if you don't involve the people that you need to involve, they will be naysayers at the end, very likely, because they weren't on the journey. Uh just human nature is if I'm on the journey, I'm better, I most likely understand the why. And I could become a very passionate supporter. But if you exclude my input, you exclude my involvement, you don't consider my opinion, it is very likely that there'll be disruptors. And when you make a big investment through, particularly through difficult times, it's so easy to challenge you. Why did you do that? It was in the middle of the financial crisis, no? Middle of the financial crisis. The act the decision to do it wasn't, but the implementation of it was. And it's so easy for people to throw spears and say, Why are you doing that? There are better alternatives. We can use the money for this. How do you know this is gonna there's so many, but the more people you involve and ask for their opinion, get them to be heard, the more likely it is you'll have the followers and the champions and the people willing to support the execution. Because you know, in a Deloitte university, Philip, if we built it and no one came, that would have been a disaster. And so we had to aim for maximizing support by those who would agree to send others, by the others who needed to be there in order to occupy and get the benefits of the Leadership Development Center. And so we went on a massive journey to socialize, to involve, to get inputs, to get opinions, to we we even did a live debate, Philip, on the stage in front of all the owners of the firm. We had one person say why we should do it, and we said one, and we had one person saying why we shouldn't do it. We were completely transparent with it so that people can understand. That that to me was like a best practice. It wasn't my idea, to be honest, but when I heard the idea, I thought it was brilliant.

Steve Schmith 17:50

I seem to recall that Deloitte actually leaned into that. There was an entire external facing program. I think it was point, counterpoint, something like that. That that that really was was exactly what you described.

Barry Salzberg 18:03

Yeah, let me tell you something. The the one of the best ways of getting championship of an idea is make sure that the naysayers are part of the journey, not sitting in the background waiting to challenge you once you're done. That's like a that's horrible. It's so hard to get through it. Involve them in the first place. That counterpoint that you used in your expression. Get those on the table. You can explain it, you can give an opinion. They may not agree with you, but they will so feel heard that they will understand better and get on the journey. So I think that's very important, Philip. I have another lesson that I learned from this is don't assume that you know everything. And don't assume that the decision that you're making and the direction that you're going in is 100% right, and be willing to make a mid-course correction. Right? There's so many people smarter than, in my case, me. And so listen to what they have to say. And as you're going through this journey, if you see that somebody else has got a better approach, don't feel obligated to continue down the course just because it was your idea. Change. Admit that you've got a better idea now, and it's uh it it works so much better. So I I learned that in the course of Deloitte University. There was a very specific example where my board said to me, Barry, this is not gonna work. And here's the why. And I sat back and I said, hmm, okay, let's let's change the direction of this project. It delayed the execution of the end build by some period of time, but at the end, I had full support. Now, when I say full support, full board support uh for it. Still at the time that we built it, Philip, 70% of the partners, no more, were supportive. So there were there were plenty of people who didn't think it was a good idea. That was then. Today, I'll bet you that number is 100%. Nothing's ever a hundred, so that's an exaggeration, just to make a point. But I wouldn't doubt that the percentage of support at all levels for the because it was executed brilliantly by all the people that followed me. They, the my successors, they all did a marvelous job of running Deloitte University and driving it to the point where I think today it's fully supportive. I have a couple of scars on my back to remind me how hard it was. But um it was an investment made ultimately. The agreement to put that shovel in the ground was made in an economically horrible period of time. And while um you could question whether that was a smart thing to do, and people have and said, Why didn't you do this, or why didn't you do that, or why didn't you do this? Many, many years later, people are looking at it and saying it was the best investment Deloitte has ever made.

Steve Schmith 21:30

Relative to the naysayer strategy, Barry doesn't hide innovation from the skeptics. His approach, make them co-authors. If you want your CVC, your deal, or your innovation investment to survive a downturn, make the most critical person on the board part of the investment committee. You mentioned earlier, right? Obviously Deloitte's different structure, etc. But still, there are certainly lessons in what you describe that offer today. Public company CEOs lessons as well. So what do those experiences what would you say to board CEOs today that might be facing these sorts of pressures? Transformation is coming faster and faster and faster. More and more pressure on quarterly results. As they balance these large investments, right? Something the scale of a Deloitte university. What does that experience offer CEOs today?

Barry Salzberg 22:27

I think it puts a high premium on communication, on routine interactions between the CEO and the board to create alignment, to prove responsible actions after hearing whatever you hear, to identify um differing points of view. The concept of diversity of opinion is critical. And therefore, being able to get that in a routine kind of way through through consistent, regular, cadenced communication. It's extremely important to socialize with the board, to bring the board along on the journey and not just assume that the board is either supportive or not supportive at all, and you're going to do it anyway. I would never ever do that. You need to be aligned and you need to get involvement and you need to get input. And I remember my board asking me to provide an ROI on the investment. And I remember telling the board, it's really difficult for this. How do I, what metrics? How do I calculate an ROI in this investment? It's not like we're selling it. It's not like we're getting direct revenue from it. As I sit on a board today and some boards in the past, when you make investments, you need to have that ROI. You need to understand why we are doing this? What's in it for us? What's the value for the organization? How long will it take? I'm simplifying very complex analysis just for the point. But I think I would remind CEOs that while they think something is going to be successful and they think that this is a good investment, you know, dot your I's and cross your T's. Um factually bring your board along the journey and make sure that you have a complete open, transparent dialogue about the expected value benefits in return.

Steve Schmith 24:46

I'm curious, you talked earlier about bringing the naysayers to the table as well. As I sort of reflect and listen to what you described, a the term common ground, compromise popped into my head. And I'm curious if in today's environment that notion of compromise, of common ground, of bringing humans together, uh particularly as we think about AI and digital, do you think that's gonna elevate? Do you think that's that's that's gonna grow in importance and priority?

Barry Salzberg 25:26

Look, I I think that it should. I'm not entirely sure that it will, because it depends upon the style and the culture of the leader in the company that we're talking about. Um for me, your use of the words common ground implies a level of socialization, a level of collaboration, a level of teamwork, a level of diverse opinions being considered. And I think that that's the best way to make decisions. If you take um the fact base and supplement it by all of that, that's the best way to make decisions. And therefore, in my opinion, it should, in complex times of socioeconomic issues, geopolitical issues, advancements in technologies to cover many of the things that are probably on your mind when you ask that question, you you need to do that. Um, the flip of that is it's obviously far more immediately efficient not to. Yeah. And so you have to balance the exigency of the circumstance, the emergency decision-making requirement with all of these factors that lead to most likely lead to much better decisions. But sometimes you don't have that luxury, Steve. You know, sometimes you have to act very, very quickly and you have to use good judgment, and you have to use your experience to do something. But um my my default is make sure you involve your board. My default is make sure that the the governance is proper and it's not being overstepped um by um by by the leadership. Uh if if if you can. And almost always there's enough time and ability to do that.

Philipp Willigmann 27:33

So, Barry, your tender, like you have been you know, being a CEO for I think 15 years, 20 years, um, working with boards, um, but also before that advising C-suite executives um for decades. So you have seen so many different periods uh of time and and you know, uncertainty, crashes, crazy craziness around AI where we don't really know what's happening. When you take a step back and you look back at your the last 30, 40 years, when future stakeholders you know look look back at this area of leadership we are in right now, what do you think they may say we underestimated? You know, we talk about AI, we talk about all these different trends and challenges which are concluding right now. Um, so what do you think we have under we're underestimating right now? Um, or we should have protected um when it comes to all the shifts we're seeing in the in the world?

Barry Salzberg 28:39

That it's really a tough question. Um you you you you kind of need to be prescient to be able to do that, or even have a crystal ball, Philip. But um, as I look at what we're dealing with today, the plate has elements of commonality of what we were dealing with in the past. And therefore, my best answer to your question is in the future, we'll look back at those topics and say, did we do enough? Were the boards more forward-looking and not just checking the boxes on the things that are sort of uh in front of them? So, for example, you said AI. Both of you talked about AI at one point, or call it technology advancement, the speed of technology advancement and AI and all the iterations of that. You know, I think everybody understands at the board level that it's the responsibility of the board to oversee that. The question is, what do you do about it? What are the things that you do to oversee that properly without impeding, properly impeding the progress that's needed for the company to be properly competitive? So ask more inconvenient questions, ask for more tabletop exercises, look for uh weaknesses and risks, and create a level of regular commitment to discussing those risks at the board level uh and the like. One is near and dear to my heart as I was deeply people-oriented. And uh, Philip, think about the impact of working from home. I'm I'm a fan for flexibility. I am a fan for um what has occurred essentially since COVID to have a lot more people have that flexibility to work from home because you can and you've proven that you can. But what's the 20 years from now, look back potentially going to say to leadership development, social skills, the ability to be sensitive to how people um mature and and and become technical, the apprenticeship model? How are all those things affected by the increase, even though now more companies are requiring people to come into the office? But those that don't, in the volumes that stay home and work from home? I I can see that being uh a future look back and saying, did we handle that right? Did we put enough pressure? Did we uh uh ask those tough questions? Um so I I I think I I don't know what it's gonna be, but I do know that there's some areas where there is an opportunity for us probably to look back and say, boy, we wish we'd done it differently.

Philipp Willigmann 31:44

Barry, as you think about legacy and you know, and you um handed over um, you know, the the CEO um many, many years ago at Deloitte. But if as you think about you know what leaders should take today beyond their own tenure, what what what does meaningful stewardship look like in practice?

Barry Salzberg 32:07

Look, it's it's it's about balance, it's about resilience, it's about people sensitivity, it's about measured risk taking. Um it's it's it's about um appreciating the diversity of perspective on a particular topic requiring a decision. Uh it's about a willingness to change. You just can't be um rigid uh in your thinking if you're gonna be an effective steward of the company. You have to be adaptable to changing issues. Um and I, you know, I'm I'm I was always viewed as more conservative than not, even though I have taken appropriate measured risks, if you could even consider Deloitte University a measured risk. But uh but I do think that you have to do things that seem like at the moment um I don't know, a waste of time. They're not. Like, for example, contingency planning. Do you know how many people don't want to do contingency planning because they don't care or think that the contingency is going to occur? And they don't want to waste the time and the money to plan for it. I I can't say that that's pervasive. I I don't know, I don't have that knowledge, but what I can say is I could appreciate why people don't want to do it, but they have to do it. And a good steward of a company, Philip, constantly is thinking about um what-ifs, scenario planning, contingency planning, and making sure that they are protecting the company from all kinds of challenges as best as possible and prepared for it for the future. You know, this is a phrase I use, I know I didn't create it, but I used it often, and that's the five P's, which is proper planning prevents poor performance. And and the ability for uh stewards, effective stewards, to think about the future, to think about how to be prepared for difficult times. And take responsibility. Accountability. That's the the board has to hold the CEOs accountable for that. They have to take the account the responsibility, but the board has to hold them accountable.

Philipp Willigmann 34:28

Barry, thank you so much for uh joining us on the show as a true pleasure. Um, and uh hope you enjoyed the discussion.

Barry Salzberg 34:36

Uh totally my pleasure for sure, and appreciate your reaching out. It's uh it's a blast from the past. So thank you. Thank you, Barry.

Steve Schmith 34:45

Philip, what really stood out to me in this conversation with Barry is the notion of long-term resilience and the fact that it's built by protecting the seeds during the winter. Short-termism is the enemy of stewardship. So, with that in mind, what are some questions our listeners ought to be asking themselves?

Philipp Willigmann 35:05

Thank you, Steve. Fascinating conversation and so much to dive into. I think if I would be standing in front of the board or my next executive meeting, I would again focus on these three areas. The spigot protocol was something which very well resonated with me. If the market turns tomorrow, is our innovation spigot protected by the multi-year mandate? Or is it the first item on the chopping block to save the border? Second, the future signal. What message are we sending to our future leadership and the markets if we cut our recruiting and RD budgets to hit a short-term EPS target? And again, last but not least, the naysayer alignment. Have we made our loudest internal critics co-authors of our innovation strategy to ensure it survives the downturn? Or are they waiting in the weeds to kill it?

Steve Schmith 36:03

Barry gave us the blueprint for staying calm, but calmness requires trust. In part five of Boardrooms in Transition, we close the series with Penny Hersher on the fear gap, its accession, and why trust is the only currency that matters in a crisis. That's next time on Boardrooms in Transition, a special series from Inside CBC.