Season Four

The Hybrid Future of Events

Season_Four_Image_stack_MK.jpg

Coming together is an essential human drive, one that not even a global viral pandemic can fully put a damper on. Many of us have been meeting *more* than ever before as workshops and conferences have gone online all over the world. With vaccines starting to be released in some countries, the question on everyone’s lips is “when can we get back together?” There are lots of guesses but no one knows for sure. If you’re planning events for mid-year 2021, I hope you have a crystal ball *and* that you listen to the rest of this episode.

Meredith Kaganovskiy shares her wisdom and experience with us. She’s a certified meeting professional, a certified digital events strategist and the Senior Project Manager of the DIA Global Annual Meeting. We talk about her herculean efforts in taking a 7000 person-strong flagship event into a virtual one with weeks to spare and dive deep into Meredith's philosophy of experience-driven events planning, as well as her “two experiences, one meeting” motto for the hybrid future on the horizon.

I feel lucky to have been able to work with Meredith and Robyn Weinick, the Global Program Officer on this project as their coach over a few very intense weeks and provide them a space and place to think and build a vision for the experience they were trying to create, working to think past the challenges and restrictions that technology placed on them.

The Hybrid Bridge

Meredith suggests that the old-school way of doing hybrid - a bridge to take questions and insights from the virtual space into the “real” space - is no longer enough. This once “wowed” audiences and helped in-person event planners expand their audiences and reach.

The Virtual-First Platform

Meredith believes that it’s now table-stakes to have a lively, interactive and self-contained virtual platform for remote attendees. The bridge between the in-person and virtual experiences used to be mostly one-way, with in-person taking the lead. Meredith predicts that the hybrid future of events means that the bridge between virtual and in-person needs to be more broad and two-way - a real conversation between equals. And that just like an in-person meeting, a virtual meeting has to provide a range of conversational spaces: from intimate opportunities to connect, to larger arenas for learning and listening, balancing curated conversations and more open-doors dialogs.

Meredith also shares her broader philosophy of event planning, how she visualizes the personality of a meeting and much more. Enjoy the conversation as much as I did recording it.

Links, Key Quotes, Notes and Resources

Connect with Meredith

More about DIA

Meredith’s *first* podcast about turning around the “ocean liner” that was the DIA global meeting:

Minute 9

We talk about how meetings have a personality
“I was always in tune with the personality of the meeting that I was doing”

Minute 11

How events start way before people walk into the doors, physically or virtually.

Minute 17

Making a decision to be virtual or to cancel a flagship meeting in June during the first shutdown in March.

Minute 20

“I'll never forget April 8th, because that's my email went out to the program committee, that this change is happening. We can no longer hold our meeting. The DC Convention Center became a field hospital. We have to go 100% virtual, don't panic.”

Minute 23

“It was important for me that when you clicked in, I started referring to this at the virtual convention center. And when you logged into my lobby, you felt like you were at DIA, even though you were sitting in your dining room, or your home office, or in the kitchen, that you felt like, "Oh, this is different. I'm not watching a recording of something, I'm actually interacting with people. There's a way to connect with people. I'm still viewing content and speakers from around the world,"

Min 31

The “old way” to Hybrid: On “the bridge” between virtual and IRL meetings

“before COVID, really, when you heard things like a hybrid meeting, it meant that there were sessions that were live streamed out to maybe the website of the company or association, and that you could log in and be a part of the virtual audience that's watching a live session happening and groups that did it, well would have that moderator, that would be typing in the chat back to the virtual audience, and during a Q&A would address the speaker and say, "I have a few questions from the virtual audience." And that would be the bridge. And that was like really fancy. That was wow, they're live streaming sessions, which is great, because they get that reach. They brought in another audience that couldn't travel, and that was it.”

Min 35

Flipping IRL and Virtual: Two experiences and one meeting

“the way I see it is that the virtual platform still has a place. It still needs to be embraced, and we need to create environments for two audiences, ... two experiences but one meeting.

And so you're going to have, when we're allowed to convene large groups. You're going to have a smaller group in person than you would have had probably a regional audience, it's going to have to be socially distanced for us.

“So I look at it like this, I have an audience in the physical space, I have an audience in the virtual space, and both audiences need access to each other, and the content that's happening in each place.”

“I want this to be, if you are on site, you are still going to have access to the virtual platform, so you can tune in to see what's happening there, what kind of networking is happening there, what sessions are being offered there, potentially watch parties, if I have, speakers that could not be physically in person, it may be the reverse. I may have a gathering of folks in an area tuned into the platform. So the reverse is happening, where the speakers are living in the virtual space, there's a virtual audience that's in the platform with them, but now I have a moderator connecting folks from a physical location and checking in with their iPads and phones, and so it's both ways, it's happening now.”

More About Meredith

Meredith Kaganovskiy is a certified meeting professional, digital events strategist and Senior Project Manager of the DIA Global Annual Meeting. Meredith is passionate about creating experiences and environments that give individuals opportunities to learn and connect with each other and has designed conferences for domestic and international nonprofit associations since 2004.

DIA is the Drug Information Association and has provided the world’s largest global, neutral stage for life science professionals to come together and address healthcare challenges. The Global Annual Meeting brings together patients, industry, regulators, and academia from all angles of the product lifecycle, from more than 50 countries.

Full Transcript

Daniel:

So Meredith, I am going to... rather I'm going to officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Thank you for making the time to have this conversation with me.


Meredith:

Thank you for having me.


Daniel:

It's your second podcast interview. I'm excited. So, okay, let's go back to the beginning. Can you tell me your origin story? Like how did you become a Certified Meeting Professional? Ladies and gentlemen, if you've never met a Certified Meeting Professional you're about to. So I mean, how did you find yourself on that path?


Meredith:

I fell into it. I did not know this was a path when... so you start out in college, and you decide your majors, and at that time in my life, I was majoring in marketing, and I was minoring in...


Daniel:

You can do it.


Meredith:

I can't even speak. I'm so excited. I had a minor in fine arts-


Daniel:

It is Friday, by the way, in your defense, we just talked about how yesterday felt like. What was it? Little Thursday? No little Friday?


Meredith:

Oh, Friday Jr.


Daniel:

Friday Jr., that's what it was.


Meredith:

Yes.


Daniel:

It's like dinosaur Jr. [crosstalk 00:01:36]-


Meredith:

Every day feels like a week, especially if you're working from home with your family and you have school aged children like I do.


Daniel:

Yeah. So, you're all good. As you are saying.


Meredith:

I'm all good. Look at this back on track. So I decided I'm going to major in marketing, I was going to do a minor in fine arts, Rutgers was like, "Oh, that's interesting, we haven't had that before. Not sure about that." And I said, "Well, I am. I know this is what I want to do." I was very interested in graphic design and new product development, and while I'm on campus, I'm starting to get involved in different student organizations. And when I say involved, for some reason, I can't just be a member, I end up on the board, because I'm like, "Let's do this, I have this idea," and before I knew it, I was bringing students together. I was organizing activities on site. I was drawing up budgets and defending them to student activities. I was founding organizations, we were having fundraisers for those organizations, and I did not know this was a career.


Meredith:

And then, it's that time where now you have to find a job, I am now competing with 9/11, with folks who have masters, and who are now seeking jobs, and I'm just out of college, and I started seeing event planning and meeting planning, pop up, and I did an internship for meeting planning, and it was awful. I was just booking dinners for doctors in all different restaurants, and I was like, "If this is meeting planning, I'm out." I'm looking to create an experience of some kind, and, learn about what goes into an event, and I'm just making reservations at this point.


Meredith:

So I just had to go back to my marketing roots, and I applied for a job, at an association management company, which I had no idea what that was. I just knew that I worked with a lot of student groups, and they're like associations. So I applied for their marketing position. They saw that I had a meeting internship, and said, "Hey, we have an opening for an assistant meeting manager, what do you think?"


Meredith:

And I said, "Oh, well, I really would like to have a job". So, I went in for the interview, and I had to answer a lot of questions about marketing, because I had so much marketing on my resume, and I said, "It was a great event, marketing". If you have a great experience, and you met other people, aren't you going to talk about that? So that's where my marketing side comes into the play. And nonetheless, I showed them all these floor plans that I designed and how I took over the Campus Center where I set the buffets up, how I got Q102 radio station to come on campus and be part of the entertainment and they were like, "This is great, you're hired". And I've never looked back.


Meredith:

So I've been in meeting planning for over 16 years now, I've always worked with associations and non-profit groups and I love it, I love their mission, I love that I can be a part of their mission, I found myself on medical meetings, the medical side a lot, which is really funny because if you know me, I can't get through any medical show whatsoever. I have so much respect, I could never be a doctor.


Daniel:

You can't even watch the medical shows.


Meredith:

I can't even watch it. And here I am working for transplant groups. And some of those slides are extremely graphic with those, the organs and all that, so-


Daniel:

I can only imagine.


Meredith:

-it was just ... it's really funny that this is who I'm working with. But I get to bring people together. And they're helping each other to save lives. So, I just fell in love with my place in this. And I've learned a lot since then, and I now continue my work in non-profits, where I am now, we have the full spectrum of life sciences. So I've gone from the working with medical, the medical practitioners, to now working with the regulators and the pharmacy companies and the academics, I feel like I've had the full circle now, and it's just wonderful, and I love it. This is who I get to bring together.


Daniel:

So interesting. So I mean, I want to just double stitch on that, because you mentioned it twice. It's clear that a core value for you is bringing people together. You just sort of did it reflexively in college, and now you do it professionally, which is really cool.


Meredith:

I love that. I've always felt that in a situation where there's a lot of people gathering, like in an event, for example, I always felt like I was never in the moment, I was always watching, observing, seeing the interactions that were happening, and I always felt like, "Why am I so weird?" But, in meeting planning, that's my role. There's a place for me, I get to reflect on the environment that these folks are coming to now, and design against it, and for them. And so I get to bring people together and I just love it.


Daniel:

You do this for fun top, do you like, I mean, I don't know if you remember parties, back in the day, and the before times. Did you throw parties? Are you a party thrower?


Meredith:

I do like to host. Yeah. I do like to host, I'm the person in the neighborhood who is inviting everyone over, family dinners, and for the big holidays, we do a big, we did, we used to. We would do a big Rosh Hashanah dinner, and most of my friends don't celebrate Rosh Hashanah, but they all look forward to coming to my house. We would have 20 folks at extended tables. And so yeah, I do, I love bringing people together and celebrating.


Daniel:

What is the most important Rosh Hashanah food in your perspective?


Meredith:

Oh, I might go with the kugel.


Daniel:

If you don't know, I mean, you offer, is this sweet kugel or is this?


Meredith:

Yes. The sweet noodle kugel.


Daniel:

Noodle kugel. You're making me like you're ... like there's memory tears well, they are in my eyes. If you don't like raisins, it's a hard road to hoe, but they kind of just they plump up in the kugel and they're delicious.


Meredith:

Yeah. I love a good... like the sweet cheese, and the raisin kugel with... and it has to be the extra wide noodles, don't tell my mother-in-law, because her version of it, bad. And my mom actually likes apricots in hers.


Daniel:

That's outlandish. Dried apricot?


Meredith:

The dried apricot.


Daniel:

That's a type of Jew I've never met. That's fascinating. This is like where they talk about... and this is a total side bar, not necessarily relevant to what we're talking about. But food is our central to experiences. It's a focal point. We talk about it, we talk while we're doing it, with our mouths open. I love this vision of the conversation around the kugel, and whether it's the right type of kugel too, to convene around.


Meredith:

We can have a kugel debate.


Daniel:

We can. We can have this whole, like I just turned this whole thing into a conversation about Jewish food, but I don't know about that would be really interesting, only a very small section of people. So, one thing that I heard, which I did not know about you is that you had a background in fine arts. And I heard you say something about how events are like marketing, and so this overlapped. But I'm also wondering how you feel like events are like art, what is the art of bringing people together? What is the art of creating a powerful experience?


Meredith:

And there's so many facets to that. I will tell you, I am not one to rinse and repeat for... so when I worked with an association management company, for example, I worked with a variety of different associations at the same time. So they're at an association management company so that they can share stuff. So usually they're very niche groups. They're not stand alones, like DIA where I am now. But even in DIA, we have so many niche portions of our membership, because we're the full spectrum of life scientists, even then when I worked in the specialty meetings for DIA, I was always in tune with the personality of the meeting that I was doing. And I didn't try to the [crosstalk 00:10:20]-


Daniel:

The meeting's personality, the meeting has a personality to you.


Meredith:

Yeah. It does. The people who come to the meeting, right? It's for them. So I want to gear it towards them and not make it just, oh, another meeting. There are some practical things that all meetings are going to have, right? You're going to have a place where you view the presentations, for example, but how you view them, that's where the difference is. And so I would play with things like that. I would play with... when we just talked about food and how important food is, to some groups, it's really a key thing, and for other groups, it's not. So I was always designing in mind of who was coming to these meetings and these experiences, and so, when I worked with the heart failure nurses, I would design all their food and beverage around them. So, they could practice what they preach, so we would have, instead of the traditional coffee cake at coffee time, I would have some crazy flaxseed muffins, happening with recipe cards available, to take back with them.


Daniel:

So it's the little touches that-


Meredith:

It's a little, yeah, it's the little things. I knew they were coffee addicts, which I could totally appreciate. And so, I would have funny [crosstalk 00:11:41]-


Daniel:

That's your breakfast every morning, as we established before we ...


Meredith:

It's my go to breakfast. So I'd have fun signage about coffee, like not before my coffee and caffeine and... that they would appreciate, that made sense to them that made it fun for them to be on site. If I knew there was this meeting was like a reunion to a DIA global annual meeting, it's very much like a reunion. And so we plan different elements so that you can spend time with your colleagues outside of session, in addition to being in session. And I think that's the key differences is, is knowing, you've heard the saying, know your audience.


Meredith:

But if you want to keep people looking forward to your event, before content is even released, you have to be thinking about their experience from the moment they, if you're talking about the physical event, the moment they walk in, and what their journey is going to be. If you're talking in, you really want to go a level up, then you're talking about from the moment they know about your meeting is going to happen, and what that whole cycle looks like leading... now what's the lead up? What's the build up to your event, and they get to the event, they experience the event, and then what happens after the event? Like what's this relationship look like?


Daniel:

Yeah. The whole cycle.


Meredith:

The whole cycle. And that's something I take a lot of joy in stepping back from and looking at, and thinking about what experience do I want these folks to have? Even before, they walk in through my doors.


Daniel:

I feel like this may be the artistry part is, is there's a real balance between all of these elements. If you just focus on the big picture, I feel like you miss the care that goes into crafting these individual moments. But if you just obsess about crafting the individual moments, you can lose the whole work.


Meredith:

Yeah. Sometimes you have to focus on the big rocks before you fill in with all the details, right? I had a mentor tell me that once. One of the things I love though, is when you come on site, you feel like you are in... so if we're talking about the DIA global annual meeting, you feel like you're in DIA. You walk in it-


Daniel:

Maybe we should talk a little bit about that, for people who don't know what DIA is, and what kind of work it does, maybe you can share a little background about that.


Meredith:

Sure. So DIA stands for the Drug Information Association. We are well over 50 years old. And we bring together the full spectrum of the life sciences community. That is everyone who, works in pharmaceuticals, regulatory, the academics and the researchers, the patients, all different aspects of the life scientists community. And we say we're the crossroads of science and passion and when we come together at the global annual meeting, it's just amazing to see folks who touched so many aspects of life sciences working together. So I will see the folks who are in regulatory spending time with the folks who are our statisticians, who are in the research realm or our patients, are visiting the patient track or they're going to the safety and pharmacovigilance track. They're gaining perspective outside of their own interest areas, at this meeting. So it's just-


Daniel:

Now, and can you give people a sense of the size and scope of this annual meeting?


Meredith:

We are about 7000 people, and we are out five days, that's about a five day meeting. If you count the pre meeting, short courses, that happen.


Daniel:

Which we do obviously.


Meredith:

So, there's the pre-day, but we have a big Sunday for us, we do a big opening plenary to kick off the meeting on Monday, and then we run straight through until Thursday afternoon.


Daniel:

When did you realize that that meeting was endangered by the pandemic?


Meredith:

So this meeting means a lot to our society, to the portfolio work. We have meetings that happen year round, our specialty meetings, we also have annual meetings and specialty meetings happening in other countries, we have offices in other countries, but the global annual meeting is the biggest meeting.


Daniel:

It's like the culmination of all the other, all everything sort of comes together.


Meredith:

That's what I say. I call it the culmination of all the work that is being discussed in our specialty, whether you're on this in the States or across the pond, we have had all those conversations are converging at the global annual meeting. So, end of February, going into March, it started to become a concern. Now because we have offices that are in Europe, and are in Asia, and so we're hearing firsthand from folks who are experiencing COVID, before we are. So come March, we were having some pretty major discussions on the impact this could have. And on that time, if you remember, everyone was talking about, "Oh, a 14 day shut down, and then everything's gonna be okay." It's almost laughable now. And so, June, could be a whole different picture, this is the June meeting.


Daniel:

Right. So there was some optimism of like, well, maybe...


Meredith:

Well, exactly. And, going into making decision, also like what's the convention center doing? So, our office that plans the global annual meeting is in the Philadelphia area, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, were being quite aggressive with their plans for protecting folks with COVID-19, which I love, you too, right? Because I'm in New Jersey, you're in New York?


Daniel:

Yeah.


Meredith:

So I was happy to see that, but DC, where the meeting is being held, they're a little bit more relaxed and getting there, DC, Maryland, we were watching very closely those states to see when are they going to start shutting down more things? Is this going to affect the convention center? Can we cancel the convention center? These are all conversations that are happening, and, we're trying to literally keep things as is in that moment, because we didn't want folks to get too wrapped up in talking about it.


Meredith:

So, we almost came to a standstill on the planning side, where we slow down the communications with the program committee, and the speakers because we didn't have answers. We were just trying to assess what is actually happening here. How bad is this? I mean, I remember being told don't wear masks, stop buying masks, the meds need it. So, we didn't have a full grasp of how serious this was. And by the top of April, it was okay, we're making the decision to go 100% virtual, which is eight weeks out from the go live date for this meeting. And at that time, we are now, what does that mean to go virtual? Did we even have a solution? You cannot do a 7000 person meeting in Zoom.


Daniel:

No.


Meredith:

I mean, we're talking about, I have over 300 sessions that take place, there's a full exhibit hall, there are networking sessions that are happening, there's all kinds of events and activities associated with this meeting. How do you translate that to a virtual experience now, at the time virtual meetings were webinars. The large streaming-


Daniel:

Which your company did?


Meredith:

We did, yeah. And we did webinars, but, webinar, I would say 200 folks maybe, to attend a webinar. But, how do you recreate what folks know and come to love at DIA in the physical sense to the virtual. We were lucky enough to have an existing vendor, who is our general service contractor, who said, "Hey, we started working on a virtual platform". And what is a virtual platform? So we, start looking at the demo, what this site does, it's basically a website that has the ability to do presentations through sessions, for example, and create session rooms and create virtual exhibit halls and kind of like a virtual concourse.


Meredith:

So we started, moving that way, and I'll never forget April 8th, because that's my email went out to the program committee, that this change is happening. We can no longer hold our meeting. The DC Convention Center became a field hospital. We have to go 100% virtual, don't panic. We are going to get through this. And, soon after that, we realized that we needed to touch base with the speakers and chairs to see can we still participate in all this? What's happening in real life right now, everyone's life's being turned upside down, there was no expectations that everybody would be able to participate, when I say everybody, we're talking upwards, 6 to 700, speakers, chairs, and so we began the process of surveying, who can still participate, from that we started to rebuild the entire program, because not everything could be translated and go to the virtual platform.


Meredith:

My committee did that within a three week time period, and we had about six weeks to build, and then execute this meeting. So there was a lot of learning and doing at the same time, and then my favorite doing then learning at the same time, because this is how I'm imagining this working, and hoping that I am guiding a lot of people in the dark right now. And asking them to trust me that we're going to recreate something in a virtual realm, that's going to be similar to what you know and love about DIA.


Daniel:

It's heavy stuff. I know,-


Meredith:

It is.


Daniel:

-it was a really intense moment.


Meredith:

That's when we met.


Daniel:

That's when we met. I mean, what was that experience like for you? I mean, I feel like the conversations that you and I had with Robin, working through some of these questions of how to design the experience, they were hard questions, there were a lot of unknowns.


Meredith:

Yes, there are lots of unknowns, the uncertainty was palpable. And if you can imagine meeting planners or type A plus personalities. We like to have everything in its place, it's verified, it's nice and ready, there's no question. And now I am adjusting to being okay with the amount of uncertainty that exists and showing my okayness so that I could reassure the folks that were following me, that we were going to be okay. And so when you and I met, I felt it helped center me, because I am flying an airplane in a hurricane that needs to be rebuilt, while in flight. And, when we would meet, you would say, "Okay, put that aside". All the technology and the translating, and you would say, "Let's talk about moments of truth," for example. What makes DIA, DIA? And from there, what can we bring into the virtual meeting? That was one of my favorite conversations, was looking at that arc, and looking at what can I not lose by doing this, and I'm glad we did that because it made the difference in this just being some kind of virtual experience to transporting people to I feel like I'm at DIA.


Meredith:

It was important for me that when you clicked in, I started referring to this at the virtual convention center. And when you logged into my lobby, you felt like you were at DIA, even though you were sitting in your dining room, or your home office, or in the kitchen, that you felt like, "Oh, this is different. I'm not watching a recording of something, I'm actually interacting with people. There's a way to connect with people. I'm still viewing content and speakers from around the world," our philanthropy project, we kept that we tied it into our exhibit hall gamification, and so that was important, because there were so much going on at once. Everything felt like it was on fire or a priority. And so this would be, I think you referred to it as, like a respite, from that.


Daniel:

Yeah. Honestly, I'm really glad I was able to, the time was a bit of a buffer, in the insanity, like you said, to slow down, and to just focus on the experience of the people. I feel like one of the biggest aha is, you kind of tipped to it much, much earlier in our conversation. I remember when we were sketching out the experience arc, and there was this idea of they have arrived and they feel like they're in the right place, this amazing moment of coming in and being like, "I'm here, and I feel like, this is where I want to be." And that's such a huge and important thing, especially with virtual meetings, because there's so many distractions, I remember, what was the thing that you all did with the tell your dog, you're on vacation?


Meredith:

Oh, that genius, that letter came from Kurt who works in our marketing team. And he wrote an open letter to his dog. And when I saw that, I wanted to give a snarky response from my cat. And I just thought it just spoke to acknowledging the world that we're now living in. We're not working at home, we're working with home. And so I loved that acknowledgement of the time that this is happening. And folks, we did accomplish, I mean, folks felt like they arrived. It's like they reached DIA, and they were cheering us on. We knew this hadn't been done like this before. We're very upfront about the newness of it and what we were trying to accomplish, and for the most part, it was achieved. It was just amazing, once we got underway, I was like this is happening. This is really happening, and then, behind the scenes, kind of felt a little normal. I mean, with the exception of the fact that I'm on three different computers and my cell phone, talking with teams, talking with staff who are monitoring sessions.


Meredith:

To me, that was almost like a sense of normalcy, because when we're on site, there's AV issues. We can't find a speaker, it was just doing it in a different way, and it felt like we were sitting in the same room somehow, even though we weren't all different places, all different states. And it was just very surreal. This was all happening, and you could see people interacting with the platform and what you created and finding their way. And for a meeting planner, when you see attendees finding their way, finding their tribes, of people that they connect with, it's like the most amazing moments, it's the super bowl for a meeting planner.


Daniel:

Yeah. Well, I mean, this is going back to the beginning, like the joy of convening, the joy of bringing people together. One of the things that I remember coming out of some of your work, I remember you brought the range of conversational spaces that you were creating this PDF that sort of showed people you brought that to one of the coaching calls, to try and communicate to people that there would be these large experiences and these intimate experiences and I feel like one of the things you did really, really well was to create so many different types of opportunities for people to connect.


Meredith:

That is my favorite infographic. I'm very visual. There's the other art side, no surprise, I like to see things. And so the infographic that we designed, it showcased all 9, 10 different learning formats that we have, but it organized it in a way that was from, we call it passive, so that it was like a large audience. So it's passive/large audience and that's your opening plenary session where you would see a keynote, for example, and you're sitting in the same room as thousands of other people. All the way down the line, to the more interactive sessions that are small, and so that would be like your round table discussions, for example, or viewing a poster presentation. Poster presentations at the very end, because a lot of times, that's a one-on-one connection that's happening. And it just shed all the range in the middle. So if you went to a content hub, it's a 30 minute rapid insight session with 30 to 50 other attendees in a casual environment.


Meredith:

So we highlighted the environment, audience size, the type of learning, whether you're going to be passive in listening or active in you're actually speaking and have a voice in that session. So that folks can mix and match and design, what met their needs. The way I learn is different than how my neighbor learns. And so we want to give you that opportunity to experience learning your way. But also, I have to say that when you have thousands of people in a convention center, it can feel lonely. Sometimes you don't know how to connect with other people or find people who have the same interest as you do. And so I became this campaign for the inroads. How do we protect inroads? How do we help people cut through the thousands of people. And that meant creating activities like the round table discussions or an engagement exchange where no more than 50 people can participate, and you're sitting at a table with nine other colleagues working on a problem together. So that's the fun part. That is, designing all these different ways for folks to engage with one another, and the content and their learning, because our meeting very much is about learning. Yeah. That's what we do.


Daniel:

I want to talk about how all of this translates into this next uncertain world that we're stepping into, the potentially hybrid world. And I feel like there's fewer patterns of what success looks like. I feel personally, when everyone is digital, it puts everyone on the same footing. And we all remember, I remember, trying to run workshops where we're all in person, and there was like one or two people who were like, "Can I call in?" And I'm like, "No, you're going to have a terrible, terrible experience. Unless we dedicate somebody to carrying you around on a laptop, and being your hands and moving the sticky notes around."


Daniel:

And that was a really degraded experience, for those people. The only way they could participate is if they got help to get access. What's so interesting about the all virtual world is that it allows everyone to participate across the world, it allows people to participate if they have mobility issues of any type, it really feels like we've made everything more accessible. And what I noticed in hybrid is that it feels like an accessibility issue. The people who are... if there are fewer people remote, and there's more people in person, the people who are remote, feel excluded, because they can't participate in the same ways. There's an imbalance in the capacity to participate. And I can feel this is, I don't mean to trigger any emotions for you. This is like, what are you thinking is going to help bridge some of these experience gaps?


Meredith:

You are right on. I too turned away folks that wanted to dial in to my workshops, because I knew it just wasn't designed for that and you would not be happy with the experience. So right there with you. And before COVID, really, when you heard things like a hybrid meeting, it meant that there were sessions that were live streamed out to maybe the website of the company or association, and that you could log in and be a part of the virtual audience that's watching a live session happening and groups that did it, well would have that moderator, that would be typing in the chat back to the virtual audience, and during a Q&A would address the speaker and say, "I have a few questions from the virtual audience." And that would be the bridge. And that was like really fancy. That was wow, they're live streaming sessions, which is great, because they get that reach. They brought in another audience that couldn't travel, and that was it.


Daniel:

And the moderator would help bring their voices into the room.


Meredith:

Right. And that was the bridge, and that was hybrid meeting and it was like, okay, they have it or they don't. Well, now-


Daniel:

Because it was sort of a nice to have.


Meredith:

It was nice to have, yeah exactly.


Daniel:

In the old world. Yeah. It was a plus.


Meredith:

It was a plus, and so with COVID-19 happening, meetings and everything just being shut down, it really pushed the agenda of this virtual realm, expanding into meetings, small and large. It was always unknown that, this was a possibility, some folks were actually doing it, limitedly it wasn't the preferred way. And the technology wasn't quite there yet. And so, I like to say, we survived the first wave of virtual meetings, we did a really quick turn, we made it through, now we have a lot of experience to bring in with us into our 2021 planning. And that's right now, we're really designing a meeting that didn't exist before. We can't, I mean, could you do the hybrid as it was? Groups are going to do that. But the way I see it is that the virtual platform still has a place. It still needs to be embraced, and we need to create environments for two audiences, but one experience or two experiences but one meeting.


Meredith:

And so you're going to have, when we're allowed to convene large groups. You're going to have a smaller group in person than you would have had probably a regional audience, it's going to have to be socially distanced for us and our research, we're working heavily with the convention center to figure out how many rooms can I run, how many people can I have on site, and I know I'm going to either offset that with the virtual platform, so that I can A, offer close to the amount of content that I traditionally offer, and B, bring in the audience size that we traditionally have, or maybe more because that reach, like you just mentioned, with the virtual.


Meredith:

So I look at it like this, I have an audience in the physical space, I have an audience in the virtual space, and both audiences need access to each other, and the content that's happening in each place. And for folks, because you can't see me on you're listening to this, I have my hands crossed, because I'm also, I'm so visual, I'm showing my hands are crossed in two different directions.


Daniel:

So you want there to be some, cross pollination between those two audiences?


Meredith:

Yes, 100%, I want this to be, if you are on site, you are still going to have access to the virtual platform, so you can tune in to see what's happening there, what kind of networking is happening there, what sessions are being offered there, potentially watch parties, if I have, speakers that could not be physically in person, it may be the reverse. I may have a gathering of folks in an area tuned into the platform. So the reverse is happening, where the speakers are living in the virtual space, there's a virtual audience that's in the platform with them, but now I have a moderator connecting folks from a physical location and checking in with their iPads and phones, and so it's both ways, it's happening now.


Meredith:

And so those are the kinds of discussions that we're having, because I need folks, I want folks to have access to everything in both places, and to feel that they can tune in to something that's happening live in the convention center, but also tune in to what's happening live on the platform, and also playbacks and different chat room opportunities and different lounge opportunities, also with social distancing, as well, we may have folks that are more comfortable sitting in a lobby or their hotel room tuning into a session if they feel there's too many people. So that's what we're exploring right now, and I'm used-


Daniel:

I'm sorry for interrupting you, because you said, one idea in two different ways. And I just want to clarify, which one do you think it is? Is it two audiences in one experience? Or is it two audiences and two experiences?


Meredith:

So, to me it's two experiences, but one meeting.


Daniel:

That, okay. Thank you. I get it now. Two experiences, but one meeting.


Meredith:

Yeah. So I need to pay homage to what is capable in the virtual platform to make it the best virtual experience for that audience, but also, for the folks that are physically in the building, we need to make their experience, great too, and make adjustments and maybe different offerings to safely convene.


Daniel:

So why bring physical back in? If it adds complexity, why not just double down on virtual and take what you've learned, and make it better? Make it bigger, because I know that the platform originally, limited the number of speakers you could have, there's no reason to have that limitation going forward. You could just make a better virtual meeting.


Meredith:

That's true. And, that's not off the table, because we are investigating all different scenarios right now for 2021. I think it comes down to, there are a couple of considerations that are at play here. One of them is, replicating the hallway track. That experience-


Daniel:

Yeah, we have a lot of conversation about that in our coaching calls...


Meredith:

yes we did! Because that is the most difficult to replicate, that feeling of I just went to a session and leaves a room and I'm going to talk to people. I'm going to see people and I'm going to share my excitement. I'm going to physically convene with someone, meet them, I'm going to go to the exhibit hall and connect with exhibitors and solution providers. Replicating that in the virtual spaces is very challenging. There's also the engagement level. You're not as immersed in what's happening at the meeting, because you didn't actually go somewhere. As much as I want to transport you, you're staring at your screen, you're interacting because your colleagues are all eye on you, your dog or cat has come into the room, a child, so you're more likely to get up, go do something else. And when you're physically in a meeting, that's less likely to happen.


Meredith:

So folks, I think, miss that, they miss taking that time away, from their everyday to day, to be somewhere else to learn, and to reconnect with colleagues. On the exhibitor side, the exhibitor experience has been very challenging. Exhibitors feel, when they are in person, and they're more connected with our audience, and this is in general, because I'm hearing from all different organizations, and what they're experiencing. And so, in general exhibitors, they miss that face to face connection.


Meredith:

They miss being able to showcase their personality, right? And how their booths are built, how they're designed, what attracts people. When they're in the virtual environment, you may have a page listing of all of your exhibitors and you see their logos, but it's not the same. They've now almost been equalized, in a sense. So that's definitely, when we are looking into making this decision, we're talking to all our stakeholders. So we're talking to exhibitors, we're talking to attendees, we're talking to speakers and planning members and leadership, because it's such a big decision, on whether we are able to go, even consider hybrid. And the other part is there's financial implications too.


Meredith:

Many organizations are contracted years out. A meeting our size, is contracted years in advance. And so, there's that as well. I would say at the top of our list is safety though. That will be its priority one, regardless. I do think that if groups aren't able to go hybrid in 2021, you will see that in '22, because I think the virtual component is still going to be with us. I think being with large groups of people it's going to take a while to re-adjust back to that.


Daniel:

It's such an interesting roadmap. One thing we haven't talked about, and we're running short on time is, the planning conversations. Talking to all these stakeholders and facilitating this dialogue, to get to agreement. Who gets to make the ultimate call? With the consideration that you need to have all these stakeholders on board. You're facilitating some pretty big conversations with these people.


Meredith:

We are. We're doing focus groups, we're doing surveys. Ultimately, we are doing, we are on the ground, talking with stakeholders. We are documenting all of their feedback, we're preparing reports, summarizing their feedback, we're doing risk mitigation plans and risk assessments, and all of this is prepared and handed over to leadership where they will continue the conversation with our board of directors, and that's where the decision will be made. I'm privy to the front line and having all these conversations and being able to factor in their thoughts and feelings into my plans.


Meredith:

And right now I'm planning for two scenarios, right now, at the same time with my Planning Committee, I'm very transparent with everything and why we need to plan this way, and, when we're looking at making decisions, and here's what we need to do in the meantime, because our timeline for content is now. This is a big moment. For our program, we are selecting sessions, that will be in the 2021 program. I meet next week with my program committee, that's 60 volunteers, servicing 13 different educational tracks, and we're guiding them into making the best possible decisions for their tracks, we've implemented caps and how many sessions they can have, which is new, but they understand that we need to have some guardrails up so that we can manage more what we have to plan with, so that I can safely do a hybrid meeting, and or go all virtual, and we're trying to plan once and not have to redo the program again. So...


Daniel:

Wow. For other people who are listening to this, any sort of parting thoughts? What haven't we talked about that is important for people to remember if they're thinking about, as I'm sure many people are, this hybrid future, that's coming up, what some sage advice from someone in the trenches, such as yourself?


Meredith:

I would say plan virtual first, even though you are considering a hybrid, you know you can guarantee the platform is going to happen. You can't guarantee that the physical meeting component is going to happen. So the way I look at it is what are my capacity for sessions in the platforms? And how can I organize my tracks, my educational tracks, and I know if it will work in the platform, I can make this work in the physical space, too. I'm actually earmarking what sessions would go to the physical space if we can make that happen, so that I'm not making adjustments to the program itself, but I would plan on what you can count on versus so make sure will work in the virtual world, with the hope that you can put some of this into your physical space and then live stream it back to the platform.


Daniel:

Plan on what you can count on. I love that. And, I'm really leaving with this two experiences, one meeting. I'm sort of what's bubbling in my mind is it sounds like you're talking about Virtual PLUS. Right?


Meredith:

Yeah. Yeah, especially I guess Virtual PLUS, I love that, because, whether you are physically in the building, or virtually attending, there's going to be the plus of connecting with one another, and the activities that are happening in another place, so, I think that adds some excitement, to what we're trying to do.


Daniel:

Meredith, I really, really appreciate you sitting down and talking about your wisdom, your experience and your journey. I'm grateful for the time.


Meredith:

I am too, thank you. Thank you for asking me to share my story and the work that we're doing that the association is doing, and I hope it does help other planners out there in their journeys to figuring out what's next for meetings.


Daniel:

I think it will.


Making Conversation with Fred Dust

Season_Four_Image_stack_FD.jpg

I’m so thrilled to share this conversation with you. Meeting Fred Dust came, as all the best things in life do, through a series of random conversations.

Fred is a former global managing partner at the acclaimed design firm IDEO. He currently consults with the Rockefeller Foundation on the future of global dialogue, and with other foundations, like The Einhorn Family Fund to host constructive dialogue. His work is dedicated to rebuilding human connection in a climate of widespread polarization and cynicism.

I will tread lightly on this introduction. Fred’s book, Making Conversation, is both a straightforward and delightfully lyrical book about how to see conversations as an act of creativity. We are never just participants in a conversation...we’re co-creators. And we can step up and re-design our conversations if we look with new eyes.

I’ll share one surprisingly simple tool from Fred’s book that I’ve started to use in my own coaching work. A director I am working with sketched out a whole script about how they wanted to address some concerns her direct reports had. After reading over the approach, I asked them:

“If you could choose 3 adjectives to describe how you want your reports to feel after this conversation, what would they be?”

They thought for a moment, and provided some words. These adjectives are the goal and the way.

“Looking over this conversation script, do you think you’ll get those three words out of this conversation map?”

On reflection, it was clear that there were some simple changes to make.

Brainstorming adjectives also allowed us to have a deeper conversation about what their goals were - what were they really hoping to get out of the conversation? Searching for those adjectives was clarifying.

This is the power of reflecting on your design principles. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of an agenda or a meeting...but if you know your design principles, why you’re committing to the conversation and how you want someone to feel after the conversation is over, it can provide powerful clarity when you’re sailing through the fog.

Finding someone else in the world who’s taking a design lens on conversations and communication is so delightful for me. Fred’s work feels like the other side of the coin of my own. Enjoy the conversation and enjoy his book, Making Conversation, which is out now.

You can also find Fred on twitter as @FREDDUST.


Links, Quotes, Notes and Resources

Find Fred on Twitter @FREDDUST

A video trailer for the book

His book on Amazon.

The origins of brainstorming

Min 7

I don't consider myself a facilitator. Certainly, I can facilitate conversations and that's what I like to do and I like doing that, but I really consider myself a designer of conversations. What that means is it allows us to kind of step back and say, “I don't have to be the one, I don't have to be in the conversation. The conversation can be successful.” Often what I'll do is I'll design structures for conversations where somebody else entirely can run them.

Min 8

when you start to think of conversation as an act of creativity or if you don't self-identify as somebody who's creative as an act of making, so just like something that you can make, everybody's a maker of some form or another. It allows you to say, “Wait a second, I don't have to just be a victim to this conversation. I can make the construct of the conversation. I can make the rules.”

Min 11

Dining rooms became vestigial in America... Often dining rooms became offices and other things. Then not only that, gradually we put TVs everywhere and so in a world where the last thing… Not to get too intimate, but how does having a television in your bedroom affect your… If you have with your partner? The last thing or first thing you're seeing is something.

Min 20:

Have as few rules as possible

Right now I would say, what I'm finding is four rules are often even too much because I think I had a limit of four. I would say given our brain's capacity during COVID and during the political strife and just this, the social moment we're in and our fear and anxiety, I'm pretty good with two.

Min 32

Against Active Listening

The point is we've adopted active listening and put it into places it was never really intended to be. It was not meant to be the primary language of human resources, HR. It was not meant to be a boss's way of not listening to the complaints of a person who reports them and that's how we use it now. We use it as a way of signaling a subtle form of agreement but not really.

Min 49

On encouraging the world to start designing conversations...and taking time for self care!

“You can do this. Don't think you can't.” But by the way, if you can't, it's okay to just take a break and go lie down on the floor .

Min 53

On keeping a conversations notebook:

write down the conversations you thought really worked and you start to say, “What worked about those conversations?”... you start to discover in your own world, what those things are (that work)

Min 56

On Commitment:

commit to the conversation and the people in the conversation first, not your values and ideas first

Min 60

Re: Ending Principles:

“Anyone who ends five minutes early, an angel gets their wings.”

More About Fred

Fred works with leaders and change agents to unlock the creative potential of business, government, education, and philanthropic organizations.

Using the methodology in his forthcoming book Making Conversation, Fred works with the Rockefeller Foundation to look at the future of global dialogue, and with The Einhorn Family Fund and other foundations to host constructive dialogue with leaders including David Brooks, Reverend Jenn Bailey, and Vivek Murthy to rebuild human connection in a climate of widespread polarization, cynicism, and disruption.

As a former global managing partner at the acclaimed international design firm IDEO, Fred works with leaders and change agents to unlock the creative potential of business, government, education, and philanthropic organizations including the TODAY show, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Social Security Administration. He has collaborated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and Bloomberg Philanthropies to create new frameworks for engaging with stakeholders to improve the impact and reach of their programs.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Fred, I want to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Thank you for making the time for this. I really appreciate it.

Fred Dust:

I'm delighted. You and I have been talking about this for, I don't know what, like a year and a half, two years so-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and thinking about it for a longer. Well, before we get really into it, the first thing I wanted to do is actually, in your book, you talk about keeping a notebook of conversations, tracking examples of conversations that triggered ideal outcomes for us. I wanted to generate some principles for designing this conversation using some inspirations. One of your inspirations is one of my favorite meetings which is the breakfast meeting.

Fred Dust:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

Can we talk for a minute about why you like breakfast meetings?

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and I'm trying to think Daniel. I know we met, we've met over tea I think. But usually the way that I, my preferred way to meet and sorry to be, to wax a little nostalgic would be to go to Balthazar. Because Balthazar was sort of the, Balthazar in New York, in SoHo was sort of like the perfectly timed breakfast. I don't know if you used to go there for breakfast at all, but it's a… I'll back up [inaudible 00:01:38]-

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:01:39] black nostalgia, go for it.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, of course. Balthazar is amazing. It's like red little booth. It's like if you've been there like a regular as I had for like pretty much 10 years, that meant that you always got the same booth that you wanted.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

I always could face the clock so I could always make sure that we were running on time. There’s a giant clock on [inaudible 00:02:03]. The wait staff there is phenomenal. They were just like there, there was never a moment where they missed a meeting and so you knew your conversation would never go more than an hour. The reason I like it is that the first 15 minutes, breakfast happens typically, people have probably done their first round of emails, haven't gotten to the real hell of their day yet-

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

That will replace like physiologically, it's a great time, our minds are quite active. That place specifically had a very lively atmosphere, but you could still hear people so you, it boosted your energy levels. Then it's like the first 15 minutes is just chit-chat like what you and I had before we got onto this recording and then there's about 30 minutes of like, “Okay, what are we doing? How can we help each other? What's the work?” Then the bill comes and you have a very easy excuse to kind of wrap everything up and you're out. I say that by all conversations, if you're lucky, you're out five minutes before it's supposed to end.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

Breakfast is just like, I think kind of the ideal circumstances. Like we actually had to remove this specific reference to that because breakfast can happen anywhere. It's like it’s-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

It doesn't have to be Balthazar. That it just happens to be the place where I've seen the magic really, really work. Maybe I can stop though. The finding of the conversation notebook is, at first it was like a conversation journal or a conversation diary and I was just like, “Yeah, not so much.” Because it's like some people are journal, there's, some people are not. It's like… I really was like, “What's the most common denominator?” It's like just a good notebook of inspiration is a really good place to start so.

Daniel Stillman:

What I loved about this idea is this idea of generating principles and taking inspiration from multiple places. The other one I think you mentioned was the symposia.

Fred Dust:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

Which I really loved when I was a teenager. This is weird and perhaps unnecessary amount of detail, but I actually arranged a series of, we call them conviviums because that was another sort of format of the-

Fred Dust:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

The coming together, the sharing of… The reading of poetry and the deepening of discussions and the job of the person to spread around the wine in an intelligent way. To not over-serve or under-serve people.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. No, it's like… In essence, the book is my conversations notebook, right? Because it's basically all the things that I've drawn inspiration for but yeah. I have the good fortune of being… In fact, I was on the phone with him on Friday and will be on the phone again with him Wednesday. He's helping me with a dialogue typology or conversation typology that I'm building on crisis conflict and bridge building and between communities. But what's interesting is I used to go to his symposia which we’re in Greece and they were typically on an Island.

Fred Dust:

Like last year it was going to be in, on Samos which is a Greek Island and then you could swim across the Turkey and we would host another one in Turkey, the Turkish town there. But I always felt like the formal parts of those, because it was famous economists and politicians and whatever, the formal parts were fine. The informal parts then happened in the evening over wine and relaxing on couches and whatever, those were phenomenal and those are the pieces that he really crafted based on the ancient symposia. I think what he did that was different is he let women in, right? Because-

Daniel Stillman:

Sure.

Fred Dust:

Ancient symposium, we’re not allowed to have women. They were obviously, they were men of all class, interesting, in the ancient Greek Polis and artists to politicians, to the highly wealthy, and it was just like gender was not allowed. But another thing that George also does is he has children. Children and family are allowed to run around and what that does as you know is having children around does two things, it both boosts the oxytocin levels. If you've got children laughing, you have the love hormone triggered in your brain which is amazing.

Fred Dust:

Which is why children and dogs are great to have, but also he sort of believed that children were a good reminder of our future, right? If we were talking about the future of, in his case, he's a Democrat which in his context is social democracy. It's like very, very, very progressive politics. But having a child in mind as you're thinking about climate change shifts, the way you have the dialogue in [[inaudible 00:06:45] so.

Daniel Stillman:

This is how deep the rabbit hole goes in terms of being intentional about the kind of environment you're creating because of the kind of conversation that you want to have. You kind of paint this tension of many of us are maybe look at conversations as we are participants of them and instead we can be makers of them. Why is it important to you that we all see ourselves as makers or potential makers of our conversational spaces?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. I think it's really interesting and Daniel I think you and I would agree which is that, I know we've had this conversation like I don't consider myself a facilitator. Certainly, I can facilitate conversations and that's what I like to do and I like doing that, but I really consider myself a designer of conversations. What that means is it allows us to kind of step back and say, “I don't have to be the one, I don't have to be in the conversation. The conversation can be successful.” Often what I'll do is I'll design structures for conversations where somebody else entirely can run them. In fact, I've been doing that for the last couple of years by establishing the rule sets so that it actually feels fair and just and safe for everyone.

Fred Dust:

The reason I think that's important is that when you start to think of conversation as an act of creativity or if you don't self-identify as somebody who's creative as an act of making, so just like something that you can make, everybody's a maker of some form or another. It allows you to say, “Wait a second, I don't have to just be a victim to this conversation. I can make the construct of the conversation. I can make the rules.” That's true even in situations where you feel like you can't. Two things, Daniel, one is, as you know from the book, in many cases, the conversation is already scripted, right? Like by the spaces that we have in conversation-

Daniel Stillman:

By the default patterns and rules that we’re working and living with.

Fred Dust:

That's right. If I say board meeting to you, what do you think of?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, exactly. Those terrible long tables with TV at one end and that space says something.

Fred Dust:

Right. Exactly, and so that's not even, I didn't say boardroom, I said board meeting. It's like, so I wasn't asking you to describe the room but that's what you go to. That's the default. If I said AA meeting, you would probably say church basement with-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

you, know, folding chairs. I said because I've done that with audiences of 1000s of people and they were like the invariably, unless they're super, super, super like on it. That they will describe the space, not describe the rules [inaudible 00:09:24]. We often in, we go, we set ourselves into spaces where the script has already been established for the conversation based on [inaudible 00:09:34] space plays out. There’s so much we can do by just shifting a space which is what, that's why you and I talked about breakfast this morning [crosstalk 00:09:44] [inaudible 00:09:45].

Fred Dust:

Breakfast shifts the space and creates a different kind of dynamic and establishes a different agenda. The agenda is different because it's bracketed by certain things. Basically, the fundamental argument is that conversation is the most important human tool that we've had probably for the long, one of the longest. Historically, we've gotten less and less good at it and really we have gotten less good at it. There are plenty of historical examples where we’ve, we were better.

Daniel Stillman:

How do you measure or how do you… What's the yardstick for less good at it in this case?

Fred Dust:

Well, as you know in the book, I basically make an argument that at least in the United States or actually really primarily globally, many cases that's I would say Western, that the addition of television, family construct in the 40s really handed dialogue and conversation over to, from the family to the television. In the early 50s remarkable point of innovation for television, we had the TV tray which gave dinner time to the television. We got the… Within a couple of years of that which basically meant that we could skip, we can skip all the things we didn't care about. We had the introduction of-

Daniel Stillman:

You broke up there for just a second, I think it was, you're talking about the clicker, right? [crosstalk 00:11:15] yeah. The TV also changed, instead of having a conversation in the round, we're having a conversation to a wall. We’re not even looking at each other so we're breaking the circle.

Fred Dust:

Exactly, right. Not only that, it's like so we… It's why I think dining rooms became vestigial in America. It's like no longer like that. Often dining rooms became offices and other things. Then not only that, gradually we put TVs everywhere and so in a world where the last thing… Not to get too intimate, but how does having a television in your bedroom affect your… If you have with your partner? The last thing or first thing you're seeing is something.

Fred Dust:

You really have to think seriously. I get the phone thing and I get… I believe Sherry Turkle . Sherry Turkle's was a mega hero of mine, Reclaiming Conversation is like I read the whole thing, yeah. Read over the New York Times piece but it's like… But that's the end of a cycle that we started, [crosstalk 00:12:21] he was the lead, I would say, 80 years ago. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

No. Also, there's a quote I have in front of me from your book which is that the rules are the software of the conversation that can be written, tried, and rewritten and one of the biggest risks to a creative conversation is treating the rules as fixed as opposed to a set of constraints to be experimented with. I feel like what you're sort of summarizing there is the designer's mindset. That being a maker is I can make it and I can remake it and somebody has already made it, but I can still remake it even though it's already been made for me.

Fred Dust:

That's right. I'll give you an example from my more historical example of me at IDEO. I think that one of the things that was always interesting at IDEO is that first of all, people believe that IDEO had invented the rules of brainstorming. [inaudible 00:13:13] in the 30s or 40s, I can't remember but it's… In fact, the original rules of brainstorming, the non-ideal rules are way more sophisticated than the one that we know now. I don't know, have you read-

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:13:29]. Yeah. They're good.

Fred Dust:

They're genius and he's quite specific. He’s like, “By the way…” That was really one set of rules he had. In his original rules of brainstorming, he'll say, he said, “Hey, and by the way, don't critique, don't judge ideas.” But there'll be judging. That's just going to happen later and there'll be different rules for judging-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Which is like a common critique of brainstorming, is like, “You don't come up with ideas that are well founded.” He's like, “Well, no, you critique it.” By the way, I'm going to suggest we both turn off video. I'm getting a couple of laggy moments and so just-

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:14:07]. Okay. Let me do that. I'm also going to close my window.

Daniel Stillman:

Amazing. There you go. That's-

Fred Dust:

Is that better?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, we'll see. Or you can just focus on each other's voices.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. What's weird about this is that we're running my internet off my phone right now so hold on a second.

Daniel Stillman:

It's that's we've all been there. I've had to run entire workshops off of my phone.

Fred Dust:

I know. It's very strange. Okay. Now, it's getting warm in here. Okay. Where were we?

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so I want to ask about rules because you have some rules for rules in your book and I think that it's really great and I think it's worth unpacking the rules for rules. You talk about them being specific, positive, surprising, and brief.

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Can we just unfold that a little bit because forming them as positive, formulating a rule as positive may be surprising for people which would satisfy the third constraint but-

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's really funny because… Hold on, I'm actually looking for the part of my other book where that is. But yeah, it's like the… Part of the point of the inspiration for rules came from rule setting that's happening right now across America in, [inaudible 00:15:22] across the world in kindergartens. Unfortunately, I don't have it right in front of the camera, what the name of the processes. But basically, what they try to do is establish one or two rules for grade schools and kindergartens and the children come up with the rules themselves.

Daniel Stillman:

Is this [Dowe 00:15:44]-

Fred Dust:

A great example-

Daniel Stillman:

Is this the Dowe Academy?

Fred Dust:

No, it's not. Here it's called the Responsive Classroom-

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

It's like a thing that's taught and basically what the teachers will work on is how do we make rules for achievement? How do we get something that's going to be our year? It’s going to make us have a better year. Then how is it that it's not negative? An example might be like don't run. It's like so don't know running is like what it's really saying is be safe.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

Be safe is the positive of don't run because… By the way that I think don't run could be, you can have a 1,000 rules that make you feel like them to be safe which could be like, don't run with scissors, it's like don't run with an axe, that whatever.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

[inaudible 00:16:39]. But be safe is the positive way of doing that. I really believe that we need to kind of be really quite clear around that. I think what's interesting about the be specific and I think Charles Osborne with the original brainstorming rules did a really good job. Is that one of the things that I'm sure you see Daniel in your work, and I've certainly seen in my work is when we're following a rule but we don't know why that rules in place. That comes up a lot for instance in brainstorming, right? Someone's basically like, “Be wild, be un-judgemental, whatever.” There's a specific reason why Charles Gibbs for Why That's The Case.

Fred Dust:

He’ll just be like, he's like, “If you constrain yourself, you will get to less than good.” It's for instance, when people talk to me about empathy, I'm like, “Yeah, sorry.” Not so much empathy, let's go for love because I feel when you go for love, you're… Like the less good version of love is empathy. Or love or the less good version of empathy is understanding or the less good version of understanding is being willing to have a conversation.

Fred Dust:

I'm like, “Let's go out there.” But the reason why is because I know that we're going to get not so great even if we go for love. These [inaudible 00:18:00] be surprising. But I don't know Daniel, but from the book you should recognize, I think surprise is like what makes things work. Like I ran a five and a half hour Zoom thing off the back of UN Global Assembly week. It was spectacular and people were riveted for five and a half hours. I will say the reason that worked is because we had suspense. You just never knew what was going to come next.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

Literally, we'd be like, “Okay, we're going to stop now and we're going to put you in democratized bathrooms. Somebody that was like a Nigerian entrepreneur, a prime minister and me and we're like, “Okay, we got five minutes, [inaudible 00:18:44] talk about?” I just think not underestimate the element of surprise both in terms of its memorability which I talk about a lot in the book, which is what makes a story memorable is it’s surprisingness.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

Then brevity is like the opposite of what I've just done which is it's like, “We just don't need a spiel. We need like 45 second clarity on why this rule feels right.” The book has this thing where it's like, I don't know if you noticed that’s where it's like, “Do all this and then or don't-”

Daniel Stillman:

I did notice that.

Fred Dust:

Depending on the context because at the same time if things are going fine, then let's not overthink it. But it's when things are not going well that you have to stop and really rethinking.

Daniel Stillman:

I feel like it's worth bringing up, what this is, are tickling in my brain is brain stuff. Because we were talking about the neuroscience aspect of some of these things. When you're talking about brevity and only having four plus or minus one rules that goes to just a fundamental constraint of the conversation which is the human mind and human memory. We can only keep a couple of things on hand at once.

Fred Dust:

I think that's entirely right. I think the notion of pneumonics and by the way that actually ties to things like space, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

One of the reason I talk about, well, the spaces you have is that pneumonic associations happen because of the spaces that we're in or related to the spaces we're in. It's why, if I say, “Where were you at 911, on 911?” You'll be able to tell me because part of your memory making was built on space, the space you're in. Pneumonics are a significant component of this. Right now I would say, what I'm finding is four rules are often even too much because I think I had a limit of four. I would say given our brain's capacity during COVID and during the political strife and just this, the social moment we're in and our fear and anxiety, I'm pretty good with two.

Fred Dust:

It's like [inaudible 00:20:53], if we have two, that then we will pretty much, I know people remember one and that's… The first one is always be brief, which is like try to stay under 45 seconds in to a single idea. I'm like, “If people can get that, then yeah, we're good.” Then we get much beyond that then… Usually, we can, I can get one more beyond that. Then and over time people will start to adopt it but-

Daniel Stillman:

We're getting towards… Sorry. Based on you breathing in slightly, I was wondering if there was something more you wanted to say about that.

Fred Dust:

No. I was just breathing in slightly.

Daniel Stillman:

I made that to mean… Yeah.

Fred Dust:

Which by the way… Yeah. Which is a good thing to do in a conversation so-

Daniel Stillman:

Right. Okay. Well, so there's the… My, and there's so many ways I can go with this because you talked about silence as a peaceful interruption. Often, if you are in a conversation and somebody is not being brief, right? They're being verbose and they're holding the space too much, there are ways to interrupt them. You talk about a couple in the book, sort of with a question, but also building those silences in. I'm wondering like how you use silence as a tool in conversation.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Well, so just to… I'll give you a little, I'm going to backtrack a little bit and we'll go back to silence and then we’ll… But interestingly, one of the most simple ways to build, that build silence in is using it in the agenda of your meeting. An agenda just so you know, agenda comes from the ancient Latin. Agenda, this is the stuff that was cut from the book. They were like, “No one cared a lot-”

Daniel Stillman:

I care about this stuff. Conversation-

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:22:28]. Yeah, exactly. But so it comes from the ancient Latin, it actually described a mass so that's why masses, not like religious mass, were actually, the original masses were called agendas. That's how they were put together. If you think about a mass or if you think about any religious service, there's purposeful silenced, whether it be prayer or something else, there is purposeful… There's singing which is, which actually triggers certain kinds of neurochemicals that are positive for us. The way a mass is put together is to build the perfect experience that you can and that's true for many, many, many religious services. It's not just Catholicism.

Fred Dust:

What’s interesting about that is that there is a good example where silence, like you might start with silence in a mass and you might have silence midway through and that's prayer, right? The Quaker services start with silence and that silence is maintained all the way through. Silence, psychologically speaking, there's a lot that studied about the kind of creative potential of silence. The psychology of… Like creativity suggests that being silent for anywhere between 45 seconds to a day will allow your mind to trigger unlikely associations, break down the barriers you have around ideas that come up in dialogue.

Fred Dust:

Which is definitely why you, we'll ask people to sleep on something. Is that it’s like often you'll kind of, it'll, they'll be triggered the next day or it's often why your great ideas come to you while you're on a hike. Like I was just down or in the shower. What you can do and we'll talk about interruption in a second, but one of the things that you can do is you can build a moment of silence into a meeting and so we often think the best time to do that is the beginning, but it can be triggered in 45 minutes in.

Fred Dust:

If you know it’s going to, it's an hour meeting and you know the critical decision making has to happen in the last 15 minutes, when might you put in two minutes of silence? Like 44 seconds, 44 minutes in. What I've found is that I do that a lot sometimes the silence is like, “Just write down some things-”

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

But it just really shifts the dynamics. By the way, everything I'm talking about is as applicable in a virtual context as it is in a-

Daniel Stillman:

Tremendously yeah. Absolutely.

Fred Dust:

But one last thing is that, then there's the people who just run on and on. Like me and so-

Daniel Stillman:

Well, this is an interview, is a little different. This not-

Fred Dust:

But I once asked a really skilled interviewer how she stopped somebody from going on and on. She was like, “I've never really learned.” I'm not afraid to interrupt, I do it all the time, so that's one thing but there are a bunch of other ways to do it. Like you can simply ask something like, “What are we talking about here?” Which is like a moment to kind of self and analyze. You can ask the person to be like, “Can you just tell me a version of this story but in 20 seconds?”

Fred Dust:

You can give them some constraints around how to do that. There's a lot of different ways to do it. I think the point there is not to be afraid to do it. We'll talk about this in a moment, but I’ll let you ask more questions but that relates a lot to even recognizing the things that are triggers for you as an individual and that make you furious with people and why silence can help you with that for a moment too so.

Daniel Stillman:

I saw in the book how you talked about building it in the two thirds mark and I think it is such a powerful thing to give people a chance to have a conversation with themselves.

Fred Dust:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

That’s [inaudible 00:26:31].

Daniel Stillman:

To make that room for, “Well, what do I think on this? But heard a lot of stuff, 45 minutes is a lot of time. Now, let me collect myself before we just go headlong in for the last...” It is slowing down the pace of the conversation which you talked about. Like having that variability, having some surprise and this fast paced society slowing down is definitely a surprise.

Fred Dust:

Well, and that's also really interesting. Yes, and it's like I'm a big fan of… What I often say is like… Right now I'm working with an institution and we're dealing with two things which is the financial sustainability of the institution and then the question of diversity inclusion which actually shifts as far as restorative justice in the institution. When I was sort of saying is like we'll have two kinds of conversations and the conversations that are about the sustainability of the institution and how we're going to survive, those are going to be fast and non-inclusive.

Fred Dust:

Sorry, 200 people, you're not going to be able to hear everything that we're doing about that because that's about making sure this institution continues to survive. Everything that's about culture, diversity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, restorative justice, any of those things, those are going to be slow, public and deliberative and that's because we do not want to get those wrong. Really, we have, we vary paces. It's like… But I'm a big fan of slowing down in crisis. I think crisis triggers as you know that the fight or flight syndrome and we don't actually make great decisions in that context. We just run and run. It's funny because it was Halloween recently, I just was watching some horror movies and it's like all people do is run.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Never a good idea, wait and get an axe. That's-

Fred Dust:

Yeah. [inaudible 00:28:25] just drive the car to them over and over again, whatever. It's just like so… Anyway, there's [inaudible 00:28:31] but I do think [inaudible 00:28:33], I cannot tell you if there's one simple tool just to use [inaudible 00:28:38] silence, that's it’s powerful.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I feel like the flip side of this… There was something else that was surprising in your book to me, it was a term I hadn't heard before. I think of, I think about working against that fight or flight response in myself in difficult conversations. Active listening is one of my safety valves. Like I have the active listening script and I activate it and I, it helps me slow down the conversation. But you talked about how… I love that you mentioned Eliza which was like… I'd only read about it. I love the fact that you actually had a conversation such as this with this digital fake therapist who just basically active listens to you but has nothing to say and has no opinion.

Daniel Stillman:

That you contrast active listening with creative listening which is about stepping into people's stories. I'm just wondering if you can just paint a little bit, especially since we're talking about designing our conversations and being a creative maker of them, what does creative listening mean to you? Why is it important do you think for people to be aware of this as a different option?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It means the world to me. To be honest that the chapter on listening was the first, it was the chapter I wrote to sell the book and to be really honest, everyone was like, “You should just write a book on listening.” I was like, “Yeah. I got more to say.” But it's like… But it isn't in essence one of the most substantive elements of the book. Let me be clear, I'm not against active listening everywhere. I'm against active listening in the workplace. I'm against active listening… Well actually, I might be against it most everywhere.

Daniel Stillman:

Let me rephrase, no active listening.

Fred Dust:

However, I will say the origins of active listening have really, are really smart. Where they were originally intended, they were, they're kind of genius. As you know from the book, Carl Rogers who invented Rogerian Therapy, invented active listening, I would say like in the 40s and 50s, it was one of many of the tools that Rogers used. He was a therapeutical genius. But his premise for it was, in the dominant context where psychology really was either dominated by Freud or Young so it really was psychoanalytic. Carl Rogers didn't believe that a universal theory could solve the secrets of our cognition. He just didn't believe that it had to be Freud or Young.

Fred Dust:

What he did is he basically, he built Rogerian Therapy which is really a form of active listening, which was like you saying something to me. Like, “I'm not feeling good today,” and me saying, “Why are not feeling good?” You saying, “I'm not feeling good because I feel like I'm not achieving my goals.” I'm like, “Well, why aren't you achieving your goals?” I'm never really answering the question. I'm never really responding to you and the reason I'm doing that is I'm trying to unlock you. I'm trying to unlock your ability to understand your solution.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

Because he basically saying like, “I'm not sure I can do it.” By the way, this was not his sole form of therapy. He had other forms of-

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

Of [inaudible 00:31:52]. He didn't believe it… He set and reset the rules based on where a patient was. That’s actually, that we suspect that most modern therapists are like that. They’re kind of like talking through. I think it gets a little bit weirder when you get into the coaching therapist space and then to be [inaudible 00:32:14] honest, I have a therapist that is like, she's Rogerian, but she's also just like, “Yeah, but you got to just call your mom.” [inaudible 00:32:22].

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

It's like… The point is we've adopted active listening and put it into places it was never really intended to be. It was not meant to be the primary language of human resources, HR. It was not meant to be a boss's way of not listening to the complaints of their… Sorry. A person who reports them and that's how we use it now. We use it as a way of like signaling a subtle form of agreement but not really.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

You're like, “Well, this person has been mean to me.” They're like, “Uh-huh”. It's just like, but you're not really listening. That became really problematic for me when my teams had stopped listening and these people were design ethnographers, anthropologists, psychologists and suddenly we'd be in meetings with people that were actually their users and you would hear this. Sorry, you got little bumping, but you could hear the typing, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

Which was note-taking. By the way, written note taking, phenomenal. It's like…. Or doodling, phenomenal. Great ways to listen. Or knitting, great.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, yeah.

Fred Dust:

But taking notes on a computer is not listening. I made the mistake of being like, “Well, who's a great listener in my life?” I thought of my mother and I was like, “I want you all to listen like my mother.” That didn't really work because not all mothers listen very well. We basically had to build a new psychology in script around why we should think about creative listening. The book however is like a hybrid between that work at IDEO, my own research into Quaker listening, gossip, secret telling, my great-grandmother's ability to tell incredibly short, powerful 20 second stories which I call illuminations and my mother's ability to listen and the fact that my mother had, it was work.

Fred Dust:

My mother was raised in a family home where her uncle was deaf so she basically was raised in silence for most of her life and so she was a phenomenal listener, like really highly in tune. There's really that chapter. When I finished the book, my publisher was like, “It's 200 pages but it's kind of sprawling.” I'm like, “It's kind of this sprawling because it covers everything.” Again, just covers all kinds of things. But that chapter is really a combination of that. The fundamental premise, sorry, is listening should be joyful. Well, while we're listening to somebody, to your point, we should also be listening to ourselves.

Fred Dust:

The Quaker concept is, if God is talking, God has always been talking and it's actually why women were allowed to preach in the 1600s, like the first women because why not? God could be talking through anybody. It's like the visual cues of listening really matter, like really seeing people understanding, it's why I think, “Well, I'm having a great communications with my dog right now. It's like brilliant.” We’ve never had better interstitial communications and it's also why we love listening to gossip or we love a secret. A secret is like a non… It’s like a, it's the [inaudible 00:35:55] version of a tweet. It's like a secret is just like this little 10 word story that's just like no scintillating. It captures our attention.

Daniel Stillman:

What I'm hearing you saying, not to actively listen to you but what I am hearing is the mechanistic approaches to listening of like that listening is taking notes. Whereas what they're really doing is filtering through their own mental model and tagging, right? They're not slowing down and connecting which is a different… I suppose I'm just pretty willing here. It seems like in the same way that we should design our conversations in general, we should be specific about the types of listening that we need to do and maybe it's good to have one researcher who's in the room doing all the tagging.

Fred Dust:

That's totally right and there could be a moment where it's like it's good to have somebody who's just active listening or it could be good to have somebody who's just witnessing. One of the last hardest symposium I was at, I was a witness and it fell apart and then they were like, “Okay, you and Kemal, you guys were the witnesses, tell us what happened.” We had to be like, “You guys are, you need to go drink.” It's just like [inaudible 00:37:10] I think Daniel, the… Well, first of all, let me just stop. How do you feel about what I just told you? Does it make you feel conflicted? Does it feel-

Daniel Stillman:

No. It's actually, what I'm remembering a story.

Fred Dust:

[inaudible 00:37:25] to me.

Daniel Stillman:

As you probably have, you have to teach these principles to people and I remember a facilitator who I worked with who would do three rounds of, you put a group of three together and they would do some empathic interviews with each other. In one of the rounds, he asked, he made it so that people could only ask one question and then listen for the whole rest of the, it was five or 10 minutes and people were flabbergasted. They were just, there's a shock. We talk about surprise in the rules. It's like, “Well, you can only ask one question.” They're like, “Well, how can I possibly get good information about this if I only ask one question.”

Daniel Stillman:

Then the experience of it is, “Wow. I just could just relax.” I knew that I didn't have to formulate my next inquiry. All I could do was sit there and nod and how liberating that can be because you used the word witness and I was like, “Witness. I don't think we think of as a necessary component.” Like, “I'm just going to sit here and I'm just going to absorb everything you're going to have to say I'm, it's my job to uh-huh and to keep pestering you with additional questions.”

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and there's so many unique forms like that. It’s like there's the Quaker Clearance Committee which is one where it's like somebody just talks and really all you're allowed to do is take notes and then ask questions that are clarifying. Then if you're a good note taker, then those notes are a gift to the person who you listened to. As you know in the book, I talk a lot about a surprising question, so a great example that I've used recently is, I just met somebody who was dying of prostate cancer on this Island and he, his last night on the Island or to, last of second night on the Island, second last night and we were having a conversation and he kind of opened up about it.

Fred Dust:

He hadn't really talked to anybody about it. Instead of me talking about like a latte, “How does it feel to be almost dead?” or like, “You must feel terrible,” or, “I'm so sorry.” I basically was like, “Well, what's one funny story you have that you can tell in 30 seconds about what you've experienced as you've been diagnosed with cancer?” Then he loved it and he told a really funny story and it opened it up and it allowed us to have a much more broader conversation. Finally, in the end allowed me to make an introduction for his last night on the Island to a psychoanalyst who has been struggling with cancer for four years whereas he's just been diagnosed and I was like, “Let's go have dinner with her.” We did and that was really amazing so.

Daniel Stillman:

We're getting towards… Is a timeless way of building.

Fred Dust:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

I want to just draw a circle between the way I think about there's this idea of like we are designing conversations, generating principles and then there are these really specific, we could call them designs for conversations, specific patterns that are just can be eliminations to use… Was it your mother or your grandmothers? Your grandmothers-

Fred Dust:

It was my great-grandmother yeah-

Daniel Stillman:

Your great-grandmothers approach. These inversions of common rules that become patterns that we can create living spaces then ask a surprising and positively oriented question.

Fred Dust:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. Building silence. Not surprisingly, you described your book as sprawling. I think it's a delightful romp. There's another way of classifying it, but-

Fred Dust:

[inaudible 00:41:19] adventure.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, exactly. It's like there's the [inaudible 0000:41:23] and there's a whole thing. Anyway, that and I don't suppose many people mention a timeless way of building in their books in general. My editor was like, “Why are you bringing this in towards the end?” I'm like, “Because it's important for people to understand that a pattern language matters.” But I don't have a background in architecture, I have a background in industrial design. I'm hoping maybe you can just talk about why or how your design background comes into the way that you're looking at and thinking about the world-

Fred Dust:

Yeah-

Daniel Stillman:

As designable.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:42:00]. It's really interesting because as you know like Christopher Alexander's book of pattern language, breaks down, just for those of you who are listeners who might not have read it or heard it or seen it, it's a quite a tome that I often give to people when they first started thinking about design. Because what he does is he looks back at the historical precedent for 1000s of years of history for why things get built in certain ways. It's everything for, what's the role of an Inglenook? Which is like a four person little table by a fireplace that's kind of embedded and why have an Inglenook and then all the way to what's the role of the beer hall to what's the role of a town square?

Fred Dust:

It just kind of gets bigger and bigger and bigger. What's interesting about that is that it both relies on history, but it suggests that there are cultural patterns. I would argue cultural patterns that cut across cultures which by the way matters. The power of sitting in a circle with no table in front of you, on the floor is as powerful in Western culture for different reasons as it is in indigenous Western culture, as it is in African culture, as it is in South American. There’s different reasons why that circle holds power. For us, it might be because we learn that as a child because we, our favorite conversations were in kindergarten cross-legged on the floor with a beloved teacher.

Fred Dust:

For indigenous people, it might be that their most spiritual experiences happen in a circle or it might be that the most political experiences happen sitting in a circle. Really, it varies wildly and yet we can see that the pattern persists and that's a good thing. We need those patterns. It's weird that you said it because I have another notion, I have two other notions for books but one is to basically do a pattern language. Like that's quite literally a more broken down version of this. That's like… Because as you know I really liked my chapter, like my little subsections to be no longer than two to three pages.

Fred Dust:

Often, [inaudible 00:44:15] rules and I'm like, “I don't know why we couldn't break it down to paragraphs, everything from like one-on-one or to you alone or frankly you and your dog.” Because it's like I really do believe in interstitial communications especially with… You alone, you and your dog, you and your friend, partner, person you hate person, person you love whatever, all the way up to countries and the world so I feel like I'd be really interested in doing that. That's one book on my plate and the other is the community kit which is just basically how fast can you jumpstart community? Because I believe you can do in minutes if you need to.

Daniel Stillman:

If you're sourcing timeless waves of building.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:44:59]. Exactly. It's like… We moved to an Island, this Island two months ago and we had built a community within days of… Like that never happens on this Island. Like it takes years to do that.

Daniel Stillman:

What was your approach? How did you design your-

Fred Dust:

Our approach was very simple. It was like go to the town store, there was only one town store and, but it was owned by an artist because I went to go buy cups and instead I bought a piece of his artwork which was a great compliment to him. He wanted us to meet other people and so it's like literally, he kind of became the host. Then we also, I was like, “We're going to hire a caretaker,” and we were like, “We're going to hire a woman lesbian caretaker,” the first on the Island ever. It turns out everybody was like, “That was the best hire ever.”

Fred Dust:

Like, “She's our most beloved community member.” Like, “We've known her since she was four and watched her struggle through all these things.” It's like… That was me hiring the way I've hired in real life. It's like that's like, I always just focused on like, “Let's get the black gay person.” It's like, “Because we need the different voices.” Ironically, what we did here is no different than what I do when I built my team for making conversation that the business, it's what I did when I used to make teams at IDEO. Is just you just plan it in the same way so.

Daniel Stillman:

Also, Fred, our time for this particular conversation is growing towards the end very rapidly and I want to kind, there's one more sticky note that I have here for my notes. There’s lots more in the book that I didn't take out and put on this piece of paper to be my guide, but there's this quote where you talked about, I want this book to give you the hope I found. I thought that was a really beautiful sentiment. I know that a lot of people look at the current conversation in America and we're recording this on the eve of our election, can you, what is the hope that you found for the future of conversations for us?

Fred Dust:

Well, I'll tell you a little surprising funny story which is that I was, that I had talked about a school for severely addicted children in the opening of the book. Then I was doing an interview, it wasn't really, I didn't need to do it because I was done with the book, but one of young women who went to the school asked if I would interview her so I did. I interviewed her and it was fascinating and so revealing and stuff I would never put in the book because it's just like it was so personal. Yet at the end she was like, “Can I ask you a question” I said, “Yes, of course you may.” I’d interviewed both her and her mother, and she was like, “The question is, are you cured?"

Fred Dust:

I was like, “Well, I wasn't sick.” It's like was my first response and then I was like, “Wait a second. I was absolutely sick.” It's like… Because I was, when I started the research I was like… Originally, the book was to be why we lost conversation in the world and halfway through I'd pivot it to be like, “No, it's about people who actually do have the hardest conversation of their lives and they do make it through using creativity.” I realized that I was cured and so what I thought wasn't going to go in the book that is in fact as you know it's like the final paragraph of the book is that story.

Fred Dust:

But what's interesting is that I did that by being like relentlessly seeking out people who were normal every day, people who somehow had a conversation they never thought they could have and they did it through creativity even if they didn't realize they were being creative. When you spend three years, because that's really what it was doing that, you're like, “We can do this.” I will say to you and your listeners, our job right now in the wake of an election that we don't know what the outcome is but in the wake of a year that we know is going to be continuously to be tumultuous and hard if not worse than that is for us to be unrelentingly good about retelling the stories of when conversations have happened that were good and had good outcomes and where everyday people did it.

Fred Dust:

That's my job. That's my sole purpose right now is like, “You can do this. Don't think you can't.” But by the way, if you can't, it's okay to just take a break and go lie down on the floor like and [inaudible 00:49:49]. But it's like it's our job as humans. It's why we're here, is to discovering the people. Daniel, as you know it's like, I think you can do that with your Trump or Biden voting neighbor. I think you can do that with your… Your job is to do that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's our human job to do it.

Fred Dust:

It's our human job.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

There is really nothing more important I believe.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I'm wondering if there's anything left unsaid. Is there anything else that-

Fred Dust:

Yeah, I will say this because depending on when you're going to drop this, people are going to be heading out home to Thanksgiving and whether that's virtual home or not or they're going to be headed home to high holidays and some sort. It doesn't, that doesn't really matter what it's going to be. I would say that my one piece advice to you is if you can't talk, and there are many reasons you can't talk, it could be things we have fraught conversations while we're cooking because of weight issues in my family. Or it could be I have a Trump voting or a Biden voting relative who I know, voted that way.

Fred Dust:

It really can range wildly. If you can't talk, then just do together. Just be together and do something together. I have a young woman who just reached out to me to say that, after hearing me lecture, she went to her father-in-law and she was like, “I don't want to have a conversation and I don't really want to learn how to play golf but why don't you teach me how to play golf?” Their bond has just been profound through that. She was like, “It's been good enough,” and that's all we need right now. I would keep that in mind.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is almost like the equivalent of the person who knitted in their meetings to help them, to help her stay present, just to help her stay connected. It’s-

Fred Dust:

That’s right.

Daniel Stillman:

It's the third object in the conversation.

Fred Dust:

[inaudible 00:51:55]. The whole book is like that, which is like it's like, “Do it or don’t.” It's like force the conversation unless you feel like you can't and then just make together. It's like this is an alternative to if you can have a conversation. It's exactly right. It's just like figure out what's working and then lean into that and then get better and better at figuring out how to make that work more.

Daniel Stillman:

It's such a gentle approach to design, right? It's not didactic, it's not imperialistic, right. It's you're saying like there are some principles but you will find your own principles and practice.

Fred Dust:

That's right. It's also that recognizing that forget the methodology of design and forget the methodology of… This book is anti-methodology. As you know it's like it's why it's like a little hard to pin down because I'm like, “Yes, but not until you say no” But it's just like, “Just make. Just create, make, figure it out, steal from other things you've seen. That's all. Okay.” That's all creativity.

Daniel Stillman:

This is maybe a question for myself is that I feel like the current status of maybe just the world in general is that people do want answers. People call me as I'm sure they call you and they want tips. They want tips and tricks and their tips and tricks are plenty, but this question of experimenting and being present and connecting, there's no formula in that case. I feel like that disappoints people a little bit or that is the formula and that's not enough for them.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's like… The book is like jam packed with tips and tricks. It's like, “Borrow what you can borrow and then, but if it doesn't work, steal from something else.” It's why I love [inaudible 00:53:43] started with a conversation notebook because what happens when you start to kind of write down the conversations you thought really worked and you start to say, “What worked about those conversations?” Is you start to discover in your own world, what those things are. It's like and then… I will just go really quickly to this, a black woman finance person in HR in a really big… She asked me, she called me up.

Fred Dust:

I know she was in a lecture and she asked me the question which is like, “I find myself getting triggered. What do I do?” I was like, “Just pause.” Because it's like because I was thinking about all the moments where I get triggered and I had a very specific story about being triggered. I remember being triggered and having a situation where I was like, “Wait a second. I can jump down this person's throat and just tear them a new one or I can pause.” I paused and then I just stopped and I was like, “Is this the conversation you want to be having in that person?”

Fred Dust:

That person was like, “No, it's not. I was like, “Okay.” Then we became like, it was great after that. There’s all kinds of places where, just be quiet for a moment, works in a triggering moment. You can basically say, “Wait, how do I do that? Is this the right way to approach this or do I need a moment?” That they apply everywhere but you have to kind of find the ones that work for you in the right situations.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Asking the question, is this the conversation you want to be having? Then if they say no, being able to walk away takes a tremendous amount of personal self-control, like to be able to walk away from that intense moment. It’s non-trivial.

Fred Dust:

It's not trivial and yet it's like… But I think that's great because as you know the opening chapter of the book commit and basically like commit to the conversation, but that means commit to the conversation and the people in the conversation first, not your values and ideas first so that's counter for many people. What I say is like, “If you can't commit, then don't and the conversation will be better for not having you in it.” But if it's like, “Let’s get… Like a work context and then boss we can stop whenever.”

Fred Dust:

But there's like a, in a board meeting, when you're… I'm on a lot of boards and there's always somebody who's always the naysayer and is always like, “Well, I don't really believe in the organization, but it's important that I'm there because I'm like the one who's keeping the truth on.” You're like, “Yeah, no, not really.” If you're not committed to this organization, then just get off the board. It's just like, “We don't need you. We're fine.” I guess I would just say like there's a lot of ways we can kick this stuff around.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, have you had that conversation with that person to ask them to make their choice? Like, “Do you want to be here?”

Fred Dust:

Invariably. What's weird is like, I had this recently with a friend of mine. This is a very specific kind of solution but I mean all the time. First of all, with all my teams, I've been like, “You guys don't want to show up, no problem. Or you want to show up and just cry in the corner, no problem.” That's actually fine. During this moment, I'm like, “You have a red flag day, don't even worry about it. Don't show up.” But in more serious circumstances, yes. It's like the person who told me that, about the board that she was on, but I was sitting with my friend and I, and we were both immediately… My friend is like the opposite of me.

Fred Dust:

She's like very wealthy 65 year old woman, very wise in the way of dialogue and conversations and we're both like, “Yeah, you should just get off that board.” She was like, “But I love that board and I gave all my money to it because I like…” Whatever, and we're like, “Yeah, but you should still probably get off that board.” What she did is she didn't get off the board, but she actually recommitted. She was like, “Okay, well, in my role as such and such, I can finally, I could, I can fire the CEO because I can get the board to get behind me on that.”

Fred Dust:

She did that, got a new CEO, built a new strategy with [inaudible 00:57:57] new CEO built strategy and suddenly was an organization that she believed in, but she had committed. She had committed by getting rid of the thing that was the biggest obstacle to her commitment. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

It's just interesting that accepting that you can leave can make commitment easier.

Fred Dust:

Right. Isn't that fascinating?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Fred Dust:

It's like just knowing that she wasn't showing up well because of her lack of commitment and then realizing that commitment looked like something different, had this huge impact on her ability to think about the way she was going to be instrumental to the organization.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. We have choice. I think often we think we don't have a choice, which goes back to where we started here which is we can design the kind of conversation we want to have if only by leaving.

Fred Dust:

No, exactly. That's it's like for instance I had somebody hunting on my property the other day and I went down and his truck was covered with Trump stickers so I was kind of nervous about it. But I was like, “If I can tell a prime minister that they can either get on a call or not…” It's like… Or I mean literally, I had to be like, “Yeah, you're going to get on Zoom.” “Then I shouldn't be afraid to go and talk to my hunter who's a Trump voter [inaudible 00:59:14],” and we had a great conversation. I had a great conversation with him and his son.

Fred Dust:

It's like, and I was like, “You can keep hunting until six, but you just have to like in the future let us know if you're on the property so that we know, ” and he was super polite about it and we had a really lovely conversation. Then I know his name and now he knows my name. I just thought that was a little bit about like, “Yeah, why not?” Again, granted, I'm in a place where hunting, no one's got AK47s when they're hunting-

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

It’s like they’re hunting with rifles or bows. I might feel a little different if I were in a place where we're AK47s were the common way to hunt.

Daniel Stillman:

I just presume you went down and said you started with hi, not what the hell are you doing here?

Fred Dust:

I said, “Hi,” and “What's your name?” Like, “My name is Fred. I own the property and just wanted to talk to you because…” I said hi to his son and I was just like, “You can see, I've got like four adolescents just running around. These kind of four dirty kids. I'm not just like please watch them,” and he was like, “We're really good and we've hunted this property for decades.” I'm like, “I totally trust you.” Then we just kind of chatted. By the way, I have no construct of how he really will vote. I don't really care, but at the same time it's like, there's no, just because he's got Trump stickers doesn't mean that that's where he's voting but I, it doesn't matter anyway.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so I feel like we've highlighted good ways to connect as humans during a conversation. We're just talking about how to connect as humans is a great way of starting a conversation. Since we're here at the end, what's the best way to end this conversation in the most human way possible? What are some ending principles?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. My ending principles are-

Daniel Stillman:

Because there's nobody to give us a check Fred.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. I know. My ending principles are kind of awesome. They're there which is like, “Just stop,” which is [inaudible 01:01:17]. Basically, I also have like it's like anyone who ends like two minutes early which I think we didn't do it, but that's fine because we knew it would kind of happen, is like a genius. Anyone who ends five minutes early, like an angel gets their wings. But I would just say for you and I, we can just sort of say, you know the conversation is not over and you know what? You and I have been in some form of spiritual conversation in some way or another all through so this will continue even if we're not talking so.

Daniel Stillman:

I really appreciate you saying that. It is such an important idea that we are talking about because as you say, conversation is so precious and so human and to do it on purpose as opposed to by accident is a gift and so I'm really grateful for the work that you're doing Fred,

Fred Dust:

Likewise, your work and thank you so much for… Thanks, by the way for reading the book, that's kind of you.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, thanks for writing it. I appreciate it and I like… We can talk about what that, the pattern language of conversations Bible should look like. I think that's amazing.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and I need your book actually. I'm going to send you my address if I haven't already-

Daniel Stillman:

Well, Fred, thank you for your time. We'll call scene.

Fred Dust:

Scene.

Facilitating Breakthrough with Adam Kahane

Adam Kahane Cover.jpeg

Today I talk with Adam Kahane, a Director at Reos Partners. Reos is an international social enterprise that helps people move forward together on their most important and intractable issues. Adam has over 30 years of experience facilitating breakthroughs at the highest levels in government and society. His own breakthrough facilitation moment came with an invitation to host the Mont Fleur Scenario Planning Exercises he facilitated in 1990s South Africa at the dawn of that country’s transition towards democracy and the twilight of apartheid. 

He’s gone on to facilitate conversations about ending civil wars, transforming the food system, and pretty much everything else in between.

He’s also amazingly open and honest about his growth and transformation as a facilitator, and his own failings along the way. It’s encouraging to hear him talk about feeling a little like a cobbler without shoes. Shouldn’t a breakthrough facilitator be able to facilitate the conflicts in their own lives with the same ease? It turns out, it’s not that simple.

Adam is also honest and open about how he looks back at his past books and sees them as not just incomplete, but sometimes dangerously incomplete. So, read Power and Love, Collaborating with the Enemy,Transformative Scenario Planning and Solving Tough problems (all amazing books) with a grain of salt while you wait for Adam’s 2021 book, Facilitating Breakthrough, to come out. It’s all about 5 key pairs of polarities in transformational, collaborative work and it’s an eye-opener.

I’ve had the opportunity to read a draft copy of the book and I’m really excited for you all to read it and learn about how to, as Adam says, “Fluidly” navigate these polarities in your own transformational work.

Just a side note: The opening quote for this episode is actually two quotes that I’m juxtaposing. I loved this simple summary of the book as a fluid navigation of polarities alongside the sentiment that the only action you can take is your next one. You make a choice, and see what happens. Designing conversations can become as static and dangerously waterfall as any old-school product design team’s backlog. Being agile and responsive in the moment requires clarity on your core values and principles...and Adam’s book and ideas can help us develop our own core north stars as we navigate complex and collaborative change.

Learn more about Adam’s work at www.reospartners.com , www.reospartners.com/adamkahane and find him on twitter at @adamkahane.

Links, Quotes, Notes and Resources

Learn more about Adam’s work at www.reospartners.com  and www.reospartners.com/adamkahane 

Find him on twitter at @adamkahane.

Talks by Adam: 

Adam Kahane at Ci2012 - "Transformative Scenario Planning"

Power and Love: Adam Kahane at TEDxNavigli

How To Change the Future - Adam Kahane

Polarity Management by Barry Johnson

Adam’s Father’s Favorite Book: Science and Sanity

Barry Johnson’s work, which provided a foundation form Adam’s new book: Polarity Management


+Adam’s Gifts as a facilitator: Listening, Articulation and Calmness and the origin stories of them.

+The four types of speaking and listening and how to transition between them. Suspension is a key shift to enable debate, and redirection allows for dialoging. Below is my sticky note from the interview...

1.jpg

And here, another diagram for this model

2.png


Diagram from Adam’s article in System’s Thinker.

The Math of Collaboration: What options are there?

3.jpg

From Power and Love: The Generative and Degenerative (Shadows) aspects of each.

4.jpg

A preview of Facilitating Breakthrough: A summary of the five key questions and the 5 key inner gestures

5.jpg
6.jpg

Key Quotes

Min 2: On his formative experience facilitating the Mont Fleur Scenario Exercises in South Africa in 1991

I experienced, like a thunderbolt, this possibility that people who look at things very differently and have been pretty well at war for a long time could talk to each other and be creative and figure stuff out and change the world as a result of that

Min 15: On learning from mistakes and through reflection via writing

Most of the important things I've learned, I've learned from making mistakes or at least those are the ones that stick with me. It's always the same sort of thing. It's that I think I know what's happening and I act on what I think. I bash my head into a brick wall and I fall down. Then whether it's a few minutes or a few months or a few years later, I pick myself up and I go, "What happened there? What was I not seeing that was there?" That's my thought process....Part of what I'm trying to do in my writing, it's not very complicated but I think it's important, is to show that process of learning by failing. I mean, there may be other ways to learn, but it's been a big thing for me. I want to demonstrate that it works and that you can survive and that you can learn...So, I've just had a disaster. Let me at least try to get a book out of it or if not that a book chapter.

Min 17: On being in the present (ie, your next step is the most important)

as a facilitator and everybody else, we really can't do much more than the next step. I think you talked about design in conversations. I like making process plans for the next three years or the next three months or the next three days, and that's fine and it's useful. I think it was Eisenhower who said plans are useless but planning is essential.

I think the real skill in facilitating and in writing and in living is that you do something and you see what happens. Then you decide what you're going to do next. It doesn't really matter what you're going to do after that. You'll see when you get there.

Min 19: On understanding the choice in Collaboration:

a crucial thing to understand about collaboration is it's not the only option. If I said in the following way, it's not possible to collaborate with everybody on everything. So, I think that's pretty obvious. So, the question is, on what do you need to collaborate with other people and with whom and for how long? For me, it's no use getting into how to collaborate, which is the basic subject of all of my work and all of my writing, how to collaborate, until you understand that collaborating is just one of the options.

More About Adam

Adam organizes, designs, and facilitates processes that help move people forward together on their most important and intractable issues.

Adam Kahane is a Director of Reos Partners, an international social enterprise that helps people move forward together on their most important and intractable issues.

Adam is a leading organizer, designer, and facilitator of processes through which business, government, and civil society leaders can work together to address challenges. He has worked in more than fifty countries and in every part of the world, with executives, politicians, generals, guerrillas, civil servants, trade unionists, community activists, United Nations officials, clergy and artists.

Adam is the author of Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities, about which Nelson Mandela said, “This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.” He is also the author of Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change, Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future, and Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust.

During the early 1990s, Adam was the head of Social, Political, Economic, and Technological Scenarios for Royal Dutch Shell in London. He has held strategy and research positions with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (San Francisco), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Vienna), the Institute for Energy Economics (Tokyo), and the Universities of Oxford, Toronto, British Columbia, California, and the Western Cape.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

All right. Well, so welcome to the Conversation Factory, Adam Kahane. I really appreciate you making the time to unpack some important topics about changing systems and leading conversations with me.

Adam Kahane:

My pleasure.

Daniel Stillman:

So, you've had a really unique path. I mean, I suppose everyone has a unique path, but coming from science and living in this world of the expert to coming into the world of the facilitator and valuing collaboration more. I was looking at the litany of blockbuster books you've written from Solving Tough Problems to Transformative Scenario Planning to Power and Love to Collaborating with the Enemy and now your upcoming book. What's the through line, what's the story that you connect your evolution through these books?

Adam Kahane:

Well, for me, I guess I don't know if that's the right term, but the origin history or the hinge story was my experience when I went to South Africa in 1991. It's the hinge because all of my academic and professional training up to then had been to be an expert. To be somebody who figures out the answer quickly and argues for it vociferously. I had a role like that at Shell in London in a scenario group and was starting to facilitate, but facilitate within that very, I guess I'd say, intellectual corporate culture. At least that part of the corporation. I was invited to go to South Africa to facilitate a scenario process where the participants were not Shell people, but were people from across the society and political spectrum, black and white opposition and establishment left and right, just in the middle of the transition away from apartheid.

Adam Kahane:

That's when I experienced, like a thunderbolt, this possibility that people who look at things very differently and have been pretty well at war for a long time could talk to each other and be creative and figure stuff out and change the world as a result of that. Yeah. I was pretty young then, 30 years old and everything changed. I've spent the last 30 years almost to the day actually, no 29 years to the day, thinking about what does that mean and what's the significance beyond South Africa and beyond scenarios. So, the through line is, how is it possible for people who need to work together but think they can't to do so and to make a difference?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. It's interesting you used the term origin story because I wanted to go a step further back because you've talked before about your gifts as a facilitator. What you bring into the room of listening, articulation and calmness. I'm wondering where do you feel like you learned those skills? And for those of us who want to bring more of those approaches into our work, how do we embody those gifts?

Adam Kahane:

Well, for me the big aha was this idea of gifts. I worked in the late '90s in Guatemala and one of my friends or one of the members of the team who became my friend went to work at the Jesuit university. I don't think he had a Jesuit education, but he went to work as a dean or something at the Jesuit university. So, he got a crash course in Jesuit philosophy, which is pretty rich. One of the things they told him, which he told me, is the whole thing about a gift is that it was given to you. So, it's not something you should be proud of or conceded about. On the contrary, the thing about a gift is that you're lucky to have gotten it or you're blessed to have gotten it or whatever and the mistake is not to use it.

Adam Kahane:

I found this a very liberating notion, not that I'm especially modest person but I think I had this idea that I mustn't show off too much because it could be boastful. This was the opposite idea, which he said if you have gifts, you really have an obligation to use them. In that respect, I mean I guess everybody has different gifts, but I know what mine are and liberated from the need to conceal them, I can use them. For example, well you might agree or disagree, but I've been told that I speak very clearly. To me, I know where I got that. It's imitating my father. I speak like my father. Anybody who met my father would recognize the resemblance. That's an example. It's very useful in facilitating to be, it's not the only possible gift, but it's a useful gift to be able to articulate, to be able to understand, to be able to put things together. These are all gifts. They're not things I developed or created.

Adam Kahane:

Similarly, sometimes a wound can be a gift. For example, I think I'm, in some ways or in some circumstances, maybe rational or over-rational. But in South Africa, coming in the midst of the turmoil to be able to say, I mean I didn't say exactly these words, but to be able to say to people, "Thank you very much for sharing the story of your incarceration and torture. Who would like to speak next?" I mean, I didn't exact say those words, but I thought the fact that I was so dispassionate, which in some circumstances could be a real limitation, in that context was a gift. That I could be calm and reason and not anxious amidst anxious and worried and agitated others. So, it's not that my gifts are the key ones. For me, the crucial I guess we've all got gifts and we better use them because this is difficult work to do. We need whatever we got.

Daniel Stillman:

Have you ever been in a situation where you feel like you've needed to grow, not from your gifts, but maybe in terms of transforming that wound or expanding your capability and your potential as a facilitator, as a designer of holder of space of conversations? In what ways have you tried to grow and sort of buy yourself some new gifts?

Adam Kahane:

So, it's a good question. Some of the things that come to mind is I think I have managed to grow my capacity for empathy and intuition. Or I guess now that I say that, I think I do have a gift for empathy and intuition, but I didn't know I had it and I didn't think it was very important. So, it's more about uncovering something. I think well like many people, but there's lots of circumstances when I get reactive, certain kind of person who always sets me off or a certain context. Often a competition with a man my age, for example and to recognize, "Oh, here I go again. This really is not useful. Why don't you tone that down?" Saying that to myself. So yeah, and also how to work with people who have complementary gifts. So, I have colleagues who are more friendly particularly or more creative or more outgoing or whatever and how can we, as a team, have the range of capacity that's required.

Daniel Stillman:

You're highlighting something that's so powerful, which is one, the role of self talk and growth. And another which is just knowing yourself and maybe knowing your limits and spotting some of your blind spots. None of these things are trivial by the instruction and imagination.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. Blind spots, yeah absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the things, and this conversation can fold over itself in so many ways, but I have two sticky notes here. One is about shadow. So, there's two quotes I want to read you. They're yours. I kind of want to hold them in maybe paradox. I'm not sure. Both are places where you were sort of openly admitting your limitations, which I really appreciated. It was very humanizing to me looking at you and your body of work. In Power and Love, you talk about your pieces in Solving Tough Problems being the key to creating new social realities is to open ourselves up to our current context and what it demands of us. I was like yeah, that's totally yeah. That's a thing that we have to get people to do, and you describe it as half right and dangerous so. I was like, wow, that's an amazing place to start with your new book which is in a way just looking at some of your previous work as dangerously half right which was an amazing concept.

Daniel Stillman:

There was another quote where you were talking in Collaborating with the Enemy about your own concern about your ability to deal with ordinary conflicts in the way that you deal with extraordinary conflicts as a close-in participant in these conversations in your own life. As opposed to a convener and the holder of those spaces. I don't even know what the question is here. I looked at those two quotes and I said, "Here's somebody who is looking at themselves very strongly." That just seems to be a part of your process.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. It is, and I'm writing a new book called Facilitating Breakthrough. It's going to do the same again of saying Power and Love is good but it's not the whole story and dangerously so. I think I'm trying to do two... There's two things going on. Partly, I love writing as the chance to reflect and to derive theory from practice. I like that as a creative act and as an intellectual act of trying to... In particular, the thing I love is what's the simplest way of explaining something that I think is important? That's part of what's going on.

Adam Kahane:

The other thing that's going on is, I don't know if other people are like this, but most of the important things I've learned, I've learned from making mistakes or at least those are the ones that stick with me. It's always the same sort of thing. It's that I think I know what's happening and I act on what I think. I bash my head into a brick wall and I fall down. Then whether it's a few minutes or a few months or a few years later, I pick myself up and I go, "What happened there? What was I not seeing that was there?" That's my thought process.

Adam Kahane:

Part of what I'm trying to do in my writing, it's not very complicated but I think it's important, is to show that process of learning by failing. I mean, there may be other ways to learn, but it's been a big thing for me. I want to demonstrate that it works and that you can survive and that you can learn. Yeah. That's at least one dimension of growing.

Daniel Stillman:

I feel like it may come from... My first degree is in physics as well and I think there's this mindset of well let's experiment. We learn through trial. But when I was a younger man, I think I had the idea of well we only learn what doesn't work through failure. We only learn what works through the magic of success, but I don't know if that's necessary... I don't know if I believe that anymore because life is a series of experiments. I think in another interview you said that the only move that matters is your next one. We're constantly failing or moving forward through life as a world. That's not a question. That's a statement. You can respond as we go to that.

Adam Kahane:

I think I hadn't thought of this, but I was brought up... my father was an engineer and was very interested in science and Korzybski's book Science and Sanity was his favorite book. So, I think I brought up with this idea of being scientific, but it's more at least the way I experience it is that's just what's happening. That I'm failing all the time and for me, I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So, I've just had a disaster. Let me at least try to get a book out of it or if not that a book chapter. So, I feel better. Yes, yes, I did mess up there and that didn't work, but it really helped me figure out another part of this puzzle. It's a pretty big puzzle, so you can go on finding additional pieces for a long time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. I feel like... Oh sorry, go ahead.

Adam Kahane:

Sorry. But the other part of that is I do think, both as a facilitator and everybody else, we really can't do much more than the next step. I think you talked about design in conversations. I like making process plans for the next three years or the next three months or the next three days, and that's fine and it's useful. I think it was Eisenhower who said plans are useless but planning is essential.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Adam Kahane:

So, that's fine, but I think the real skill in facilitating and in writing and in living is that you do something and you see what happens. Then you decide what you're going to do next. It doesn't really matter what you're going to do after that. You'll see when you get there.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting because I feel like you've broken, maybe it's the physicist in you breaking things down into very clear narratives if you will. I have a drawing of your decision tree and what I would call the math of collaboration. You talk about the math in Power and Love in another talk. We were like okay, well can you change it on your own? Yes, no. Can you live with things the way you are? Yes, no. It's like a very straightforward logical approach to what are your choices and can you live with your choices which is a very irrational approach to the question of will I collaborate or will I not collaborate.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. Well, partly what I was trying to say in that part of that book, which is Collaborating with the Enemy, is I wanted to... For me, a crucial thing to understand about collaboration is it's not the only option. If I said in the following way, it's not possible to collaborate with everybody on everything. So, I think that's pretty obvious. So, the question is, on what do you need to collaborate with other people and with whom and for how long? For me, it's no use getting into how to collaborate, which is the basic subject of all of my work and all of my writing, how to collaborate, until you understand that collaborating is just one of the options.

Adam Kahane:

That was the purpose of that decision tree. I don't really use it to figure out what to do except maybe intuitively, but I wanted to make that point particularly both for people who think that collaboration is the only way, which to me is a nonsensical statement. Or on the other hand for people who think it's very fuzzy and doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to show no, it makes sense logically, but in a very particular set of circumstances. I argue that that set of circumstances is becoming more and more common but most of the time we do other things. We do things on our own or with our friends and colleagues, not with strangers and opponents.

Daniel Stillman:

Right, but if we want and I presume that if we want true breakthroughs in really complex systems as you say, that option of not collaborating becomes less available to us.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. Well probably but I'm not trying to argue that the only way to do it is the way I do it. I'm practicing and writing about a particular approach, but I'm not saying you can never do things unilaterally or by force or by getting your coalition to make it the way you want it to be. Or that it's never sensible to just adapt to things as they are. Like probably 90% of the day, we adapt to things as they are. You can't do anything about it. Sometimes the third option is sometimes you just have to exit. You can't make it the way you want it to be. You can't live with it as it is, so you leave. You quit your job or you emigrate or you get a divorce or whatever. Check out in some way. I don't really care whether the number of circumstances you need to collaborate on is 1% or 10% or 50%. I'm just arguing it's more than zero and if you want to collaborate, here are some principles and here is what doesn't work in collaboration.

Daniel Stillman:

When I look at those four options or the fifth if you bring in stretch collaboration to conventional collaboration, you point out really aptly that in our daily lives, we're constantly presented with these options. I think we take certain options by habit. It's sort of baked into our operating system. Some people will just say their best alternative to negotiate agreement, they just think I'm just going to exit. I'm never going to "collaborate with the enemy", of which there are some people who will always want to go and force their way. I think this is maybe where we can talk a little bit about the paradoxes and the dilemmas of transformative collaboration because I think Power and Love is one of these polarities that you've explored and there are several others that you're exploring in this new book. It's really interesting to look at these inner tensions that we as facilitators and collaborators need to contend with to create real change.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

That was less of a question because I'm looking at... I don't know to what sort of depth you want to talk about what's in the new book because I'm looking at this chart of these inner moves and outer gestures and these sort of poles of vertical and horizontal tensions. I guess that you would say that each of us is contending with in how we approach these complex situations. For me, it was really interesting to look at you lay it out there so cleanly and plainly that these are the choices.

Adam Kahane:

Well, thank you. I mean, I'm happy to talk about it. That's work in process, so it's already changed since the version you saw-

Daniel Stillman:

Oh wow.

Adam Kahane:

... and what it was last Friday. It's changed a little bit, but yes, I am. That chart is the summary of the new book. So yes, I am trying to make a general theory of facilitation and I'm arguing that there's five polarities that facilitators have to deal with over and over and over throughout any process, whether it's a day or a week or a decade. Where I've gotten to is that the crucial thing is they're not choices, they're polarities.

Adam Kahane:

Here I'm building on the lifetime of great work by Barry Johnson who has written several books on polarities and has a way of thinking about them that really works for me. His main point is that oftentimes people think they have a choice between two things but that's a misunderstanding. The simplest analogy is that that would be like saying you have a choice between breathing in and breathing out. So you have to do both and you have to do them cyclically or alternately. So, I'm positing in this new book that facilitation involves working with five polarities. Let me see if I can remember my own five polarities, but anyway, you can read them off the chart.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, I can.

Adam Kahane:

You have it in front of me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah. Telling and asking, concluding and advancing, mapping and discovering, directing and accompanying, man I can't pronounce that word today. I'm going to skip it. Being apart and being a part.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. So yes. I'm arguing that underneath the technique, underneath the agenda design is working with these five polarities and each of them are not choices. We need to do both of them. I'm suggesting that if you can do both of them, if you can do these five pairs of things fluidly when they're required, then that's the gist of facilitating breakthrough. So, now I've saved you having to wait until August 2021 and spending 18.95. That's the summary.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I don't know. I think the denouement is still very lively. I've been contending with this, and as I said reading the advanced book it's overwhelming because there's a lot in there but also the comments were pretty intense. This process of working out loud, I'm curious just as a writer, how you're finding this process of sending out this Google Document and having some people pour over it. I went through my own experience with it. It's fascinating. What's it like for you watching people sort of walk through this nascent work of yours?

Adam Kahane:

I think it's just great. I have no hesitation about it at all. For me, it's the same thing about experimenting. If there's a problem with the book or if there's a flaw or if there's something unclear or if there's something that doesn't make sense, I'd really much prefer to know it before it's published. To me it's that straightforward.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Adam Kahane:

So the fact that several hundred people are willing to read it and give me their comments, I think it's very generous on their part. I really appreciate it. So yeah. I guess it's a little bit embarrassing when I realize this thing I thought was right is not right. But as I say, I'd much prefer to find it out now than when the book is in print. You can't do much about it then. So, it's a great experience for me. What I find interesting, it is a little overwhelming to look at this Google Doc with hundreds of comments, but what I find most interesting is the commenters are talking to each other. Well the substance of what they're discussing or arguing about or agreeing on is interest to me as the author. But the fact that they find that interesting and worthwhile, to me, is also a revelation that people seem to enjoy being involved in this process.

Adam Kahane:

I don't want to exaggerate, but I realized it is a kind of facilitation that I'm doing or in particular, it's the mapping and discovering, the telling and asking. That I put something out there and we come to a substitutive point about facilitation. I don't think it's ever just about being a blank slate and saying, "Tell me what you think we ought to do." So to me, it's important that as a facilitator or a stakeholder, you almost always have to put something out there and say, "Here's my thinking about this subject or here's my thinking about this agenda or here's my thinking about what we ought to do next. What do you think?" That's the basic polarity, in this case in telling and asking, and that's what I'm doing with the book. I'm saying, I've been working on this for a year. This is my best thought. It's not as though I'm sending you all blank sheets of paper and saying, "Will [inaudible 00:30:36]." But I am saying, "This is as far as I've gotten. What do you think?"

Adam Kahane:

I don't want to exaggerate. This isn't a co-creation. It's not a co-authored book. I'm writing it, but I am genuinely suspending my thinking. This image that Bill Isaacs, at least I learned it from Bill Isaacs that the crucial step in dialogue or technically speaking, the crucial step in moving from what Otto Scharmer calls downloading to debating, the crucial step is suspending. This image that Isaacs uses that you take your idea and you hang it as if from a string in front of you so that you can see it. I can see it. You can attack it without attacking me. You can question it without questioning me. Maybe at the end, I'll still think what I thought before or maybe I'll see it differently.

Adam Kahane:

That's what I'm doing with this manuscript. I'm suspending my thinking. Half the time I'll say to people, "Thanks for your feedback, but I'm going to stick with the way it was." But the other half of the time I'm going to say, "No, it's great. You've really seen something I was missing and this is going to help me improve it." So, I'm going on because this goes back to the experiment I did. If I wasn't willing to experiment, then I'd have a book that's only half as good.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. So, it's interesting because when you talk about the inner gestures associated with working through some of these paradoxes and these tensions, teaching people to suspend is nontrivial. When you're talking about some of the very challenging conversations that you've facilitated, getting people to suspend doesn't come for free. You have to, I presume, lead them towards that space of suspension to get them to be willing to move from debating to dialoguing.

Adam Kahane:

Well actually, no. I don't think it's very difficult if you set it up well. Suspending in the Scharmer model is the move from downloading, which is when I say the truth of the matter is to debating where I say in my opinion. That's the first shift. That's what he calls suspending. I had a colleague in South Africa, Louis [inaudible 00:33:11], who used to say to people, "When you're really sure about the way things are and when you find yourself pounding the table saying the truth is, just put in my opinion at the beginning of the sentence. If that doesn't work, try in my humble opinion." Actually, I find that people get that pretty easily. Then there's very simple technical things that go along with that. For example, to take a really simple example, writing things on Post-its. So, I use a lot of Post-its in my facilitation. Somebody once accused me of having shares in the 3M company, which I don't have.

Daniel Stillman:

I know. They say that to us all the time and we should, but we don't.

Adam Kahane:

It's why Post-it is interesting because you write something on it. You don't know exactly who wrote it. You can move it around. You can put it next to something else. You can crumble it up and you can do that over and over. So, this is this process of iteration, creativity through iteration. It's one of the most important things and it's not difficult to learn and it works really well. It really works well. So, no, I don't actually think that's one of the harder things to do.

Daniel Stillman:

That's so interesting I mean because I feel like it is easy for people to slip back into debate. That there does need to be a reminder to hold space to suspend.

Adam Kahane:

Well and that's where the shift from debating to dialoguing in the Scharmer model is called redirecting. So, it's where I see things from the perspective of the other. Again, there is a simple way to learn that or not sort of easy but simple which is, do I see this other being as a person like me so that I'm not prepared to just defeat them, but I have a genuine curiosity about gosh, they keep saying this thing. Why is it that this is so important to them? Why do they see this thing that I'm not seeing, et cetera?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. I'm curious. You mentioned facilitation is this adaptive challenge. There's this human aspect too. There is this technical component to it and there's two things that came up in a few of the stories I was reading about your facilitation that I wanted to just get you to sort of explicate a little bit. One which was the discussions in Colombia being over 10 days over the phone. I think a lot of people who are listening to this like me love sticky notes and certainly in this moment of the global pandemic, we're not doing that in-person where it is very easy and fluid to do. But a lot of people have been facilitating, as you have, complex transformative scenario planning conversations over the phone over multiple days with a broad variety of stakeholders. I mean, this is down the weeds question like, what does it take to make a multi-day phone conversation with this broad of a spectrum of stakeholders work?

Adam Kahane:

Well, it's a great example because I had forgotten until recently that I'd been doing this virtual facilitation for whatever days, 25 years. That particular example, it wasn't everybody on the phone. It was a group in-person but in that process which involved-

Daniel Stillman:

It was hybrid. That's even worse. Most people would, you know.

Adam Kahane:

Let me tell you that story. This was a process in Colombia in 1996 during the middle of the war. It was a process thinking about the future of the country and it involved business people and politicians and NGO people and peasants in trading, et cetera. At the time, there were two armed left wing gorilla armies, known by their Spanish initials the FARC and the ELN. So, these are illegal armed movements, rebel movements. The organizers of the project had got permission from the government of Colombia to give these people safe passage to come to the nine days of workshops, but they had refused because they thought it would be too dangerous. So yes, those four people participated by telephone; the FARC from some secret location in Costa Rica and the ELN from a prison cell.

Adam Kahane:

So yes, they participated in this very complicated process by speaker phone. It was very dramatic because the people who were in the room at the hotel were frightened of these people on the phone because they were the scary gorillas. When we started the process and when we would take lunch or coffee breaks, the participants in the meeting room would physically walk to the coffee break but staying far away from the speaker phone as if they could get hurt. Then after a few hours or a few days, people would bring their coffee to the speaker phone and have coffee with the people on the phone. So, it was very dramatic because it was literally a life and death situation.

Adam Kahane:

Sorry for the long information, but the answer to your question, why did it work, for me the answer is very simple, and this is the most important thing to keep in mind. It worked because those people wanted to be in the conversation. That's the only reason. That's the answer to most questions about facilitation and process is it'll work if it's important to people. In this case, those rebels really wanted to be in this conversation with the legal actors about what was happening in Colombia and what could happen and they were remarkable.

Adam Kahane:

We would have these presentations in the room where people would present the results of small group work. They'd be 20 flip charts on the wall which the people on the phone couldn't see. This wasn't video conference. This was a speaker phone, and the guy in the prison would say, "Well, I'd like to comment on the fourth bullet on flip chart number seven." Well the only way he could know what the fourth bullet on flip chart number seven was is because they must have been writing it all down as it was being presented verbally. So, the amount of concentration and seriousness to be able to participate under those circumstances is extraordinary. Why did they do it? The reason is obvious. They did it because it mattered.

Adam Kahane:

So, I think there's a lot of things that are difficult in facilitation or impossible in facilitation if people don't really want to be there and think it doesn't really matter. It's all a big joke and they prefer to be doing something else. For me, this is not an interesting challenge. What I'm interested in is what do you do with people who really want to work together and how can you help them do so in spite all the difficulty.

Adam Kahane:

So, thanks for reminding me of that. I think in a way it's an example of the most basic principle of all which is again about these choices. If you don't want to collaborate, if you want to do it by force, which is of course what armed gorillas are trying to do. They're trying to gain power by force of arms. But if you've decided that or if you think that maybe you can't get what you want on your own by forcing, adapting or exiting, then you might need to work with these other people, even people you don't agree with or like or trust. Then roll up your sleeves and let's try.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I agree that if there's will to keep going, then something can happen. I feel like many people struggle with the question of the person on the phone isn't writing down every bullet point. They're doing their laundry and walking around their house and checked out-ish. That's a much harder situation, ironically harder situation to change when it isn't life and death, when it isn't about the future of your country to get people to actually wake up and start to pay attention.

Adam Kahane:

Absolutely. One of the most basic ground rule we encourage in our workshops is be present. That is, it's easy to not be present when you're on Zoom or whatever. So, it is a basic issue. But my solution to that is very simple which is to try to only work with people who are really trying to do something they care.

Daniel Stillman:

It's good advice. I have one more incredibly logistical question to ask you because you talk about contribution, connection and equity and justice is sort of part of that. I think a lot of people struggle with creating a quality of contribution partly because people over talk. I feel like I was reading one story where you were a bell to really time to limit people's check-ins. I feel like very often people are nervous or hesitate to do something like this especially with high level people, especially when we're talking about really real stories and intense situations. This is way on the ground level, but managing the amount of time that people are speaking when they're speaking really, really truly important things. Doing something as intrusive as a bell or a visible timer, I think some people block out, but it sounds like you've done that in the past.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. So, let me say a couple of things about that. Firstly, there is a way in which one of the core variables or the core aspects of the facilitator plays with his time. So, time is a big deal.

Daniel Stillman:

Because it's limited.

Adam Kahane:

And knowing when to slow down and when to speed up and when to stop and when to just keep going, I think this is an important aspect of the skill. We use the bell in a very particular, and it's not useful all the time. I have stories about when it disastrously didn't work or was disastrously inappropriate. But we have used the bell often in the very first session of introductions and the principle is democracy of time. The principle is that the CEO isn't more important than their subordinate. And because the pattern is set at the beginning in everything, then the pattern you set in the first half and hour really matters. So, we found that setting this pattern which says everybody who is here is equally important and we're going to ring a bell after a minute for the CEO and the subordinate equally, dispassionately is a very dramatic signal especially in cultures, organizational cultures or national cultures, where that's not the norm. So yeah, but I think to underline principle is democracy of time.

Daniel Stillman:

I agree with you so hardly.

Adam Kahane:

And respect.

Daniel Stillman:

And I love the way you're stating it. It's such a clear way of you establish the principle, but it sounds like you don't hammer on it the whole time necessarily. That you release it when the context calls for it further into the conversation.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah, but that's not easy. It's not an accident that most arguing between facilitators and groups are about time. But I guess the question you have to ask is are people saying they don't have enough time because they want to listen to themselves more? So yeah. So, I think it's related to respect and not forcing.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Adam, speaking of time, we're coming up against our time. Is there anything that has been unsaid that we should say? What haven't I asked you that I should ask you?

Adam Kahane:

Well, you alluded to it and I'll just mention it as a teaser more than anything else, but I wrote a book called Power and Love. What I'm trying in this book, one of the things I'm trying to do is to explain why those buy themselves won't get you anywhere. And that this question of purpose and direction and justice is the missing ingredient. That's one of the things I'm trying to articulate in this new book. I think it's true and I also think it's topical.

Daniel Stillman:

Very much so. I'm really excited to make my way through the rest of it. I feel like in a way, the diagram of Power and Love is the torch versus the bonfire. In a way, I've been trying to understand the vertical and the horizontal. It seems like that's the analogy that I'm tacking onto that it seems like these other paradoxes I'm looking at them through the lens of that bonfire and the torch.

Adam Kahane:

Yes, that's true although mathematically if you will, it's the opposite of what you might think and that's why it's a little hard to explain because the vertical, the hierarchical is the one where love dominates, where the whole dominates the parts. That's opposite to what people would guess.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it's very interesting. I'm contending with those two terms and I'm enjoying the process. I'm grateful that you're writing the book. It's a really great book so far. I'm excited to see the final version of it.

Adam Kahane:

I'm enjoying it and please make your way through. We're waiting for your comments. Deadline is next [inaudible 00:49:49] days.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll get on it. I was so nervous to try and get... I was like I couldn't get through all of it before this. So, I'm grateful for this conversation, Adam. Thank you for the work you're doing and for sharing your ideas so generously with the world and your time here.

Adam Kahane:

My pleasure. Thanks.

Daniel Stillman:

So just with our last seconds, you tell me if anything felt out of place or believable.

Adam Kahane:

Oh no, wonderful. I appreciate it. I enjoyed it.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. Thank you so much, Adam. I'm glad we could talk about some of the big and these tiny, tiny little details that say so much about what facilitation is.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. Well, I've also made notes, things that I want to make sure to get into the books. So, thanks for reminding me also of this story about the phone.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Do people act as their hands as well I would imagine?

Adam Kahane:

No, no. Well I guess. I don't remember. I guess so. I guess when they presented, somebody else would write on a flip chart. But it was really something. I mean, these were scary people and were scary for the participants and yet they participated very thoughtfully and sincerely. It was a really big deal.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and we really didn't get to talk about this, but I've heard you speak in some other talks about the 16 year arc of seeing it bear fruit and of the whole country going through these scenarios in process, in sequence.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah. That's the kind of weird thing about it. That is, I don't quite have the explanation for that because scenarios are not predictions and four scenarios put in a report are never intended to be enacted sequentially, but by some weird synchronicity they were. At least that's one interpretation of those 16 years of Colombian history. So, the whole thing took on a bit of a mystical. President Santos said, it was an act of prophecy. That's a pretty interesting word.

Daniel Stillman:

It is. I mean, I also think that you laid out really the four fundamental possibilities and they tried them all. They tried all the easy ones until they got to the hard one.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah, I guess so.

Designing Design Leadership

Season_Four_Image_stack_DR_2.jpg

Today I talk with Demetrius Romanos, SVP of Design & Development at Ergobaby. Demetrius has been my boss, my client and is also my friend!

Demetrius has worked on leading design on products of all shapes and sizes, from chocolate bars to medical devices and from laptop bags to baby carriers...and everything in between.

I’m excited to share a deep conversation about design leadership.

We discuss how to invite more of the behaviors you want in your team, how to lead with humility and how working across the whole organization to build a design system can get the whole team to think more deeply about what they deliver...and more importantly, why they deliver it. So many people come to me asking me to help their team develop a shared vision and a shared language of problem solving...Demetrius shares his insights on how to do just that, gently and relentlessly, over time.

When I teach teams about problem solving, I often break down the most famous of Design Thinking tools, the “How might we” statement, into 3 key parts.

Might indicates possibility...it’s not about how *must* we or how *will* we solve this challenge...Might, in this way, helps make problems “huggable” (as an old business partner of mine liked to say).

We indicates that we are in this challenge, together. It’s not about how Must You or how Should They solve this challenge.

Demetrius embodies these two aspects in his design leadership: Possibility and Togetherness. But it’s the first word of the phrase that (surprisingly) does the most of all:

How implies that a solution can exist if we put effort into it. The core truth of the design mindset is that a solution is possible, that design can get us out of this challenge. It’s optimism

Everything around us has been designed, usually by someone else, in the past: our offices and digital tools, our calendar and clocks. Our financial structures and org structures. Choosing to look at the current state of affairs and *not* throwing your hands up in despair, not blaming whoever came first, but rolling up your sleeves and getting started, believing that design, that intentionality can make a difference, is the essence of design and the essence of leadership. I’ve learned a lot from Demetrius over the years, but in this conversation, I am reminded of the power of warmth and optimism to lead change.

Enjoy the conversation as much as I did!

Links, Quotes, Notes and Resources

Min 1: Design to me is about facilitating change in a meaningful way. It's not just about aesthetically making something better or focusing on this one aspect of a user experience, but really taking into account a big picture and a small picture, and doing it in a way that makes sense.

Min 9, on the value of doing the work to create a design system:

the end benefit was that we got so deep into who we are and recognizing the values that our brand makes for our products and for our end users. It just changes now how people talk about what we do internally.

Min 13, on how to build alignment through design:

Small wins, I think is the best way to put it. My career, especially the last, probably 15 years has been very much about driving organizational change with through design, but I don't do it in a silo. It's all about collaboration, but you have to bring people along on the ride...People can say, "Hey, I see the value in this." It's simple as that. It's not about me, it's about the process. If they believe in what the output was and what they got out of it, if they felt better afterwards than they did going in, then I've done a big part of my job. By the time I got them to this design language workshop, there was still uncertainty, but they were comfortable with me being their guide along the ride.

Min 35 on Design Leadership:

You lead with what's the big vision. What are we trying to achieve? You lead by giving them a safe place to explore, you lead by assigning sub leaders, making people feel empowered to do what they do, and to come back and surprise you with something you might not have asked for. I think it's a bigger role, frankly. Bigger in the sense that you're not just the facilitator that's going to ask the questions and create the worksheets and all that stuff for like a finite period of time. You're really teaching skills and you're encouraging things that are different. It's forcing the folks that you assign as sub-leaders to really be that. I think it's helping people grow faster.

Min 44 on Humility and Respect in Leadership:

I was always taught to respect ... you've heard this kind of stuff before, respect the janitor just like you respect the CEO. We're just all people. At the end of the day, we're just all little creatures on this earth trying to do our thing to move the ball down the field a little bit. So, if we just all have a little bit of humility, work well together, no one has to be best friends at work, but we sure work better when we like each other, and then we see a bigger reason for doing what we do. Getting people to sort of rally around that. Be honest and open. Say, "Hey, this is not my thing, but that's your thing. Or maybe if this isn't for you, try something else." I don't know. It's just a comfort in my own skin and trying to live through that. I think people respond to that, especially your younger designers when they see the boss say, "I don't know that, but I know this guy that knows that so we're just going to go ask him," and it's okay.

More About Demetrius

Demetrius Romanos is a business-minded, brand experience evangelist. A consummate design diplomat, he’s been preaching the gospel that “everything matters,” from his time working in renowned consultancies to his present role SVP of Design & Development at Ergobaby.

For over 20 years, Romanos has applied his creative leadership, strategic thinking and deep empathy to help companies use design strategically to change corporate culture and drive top and bottom line growth.

A graduate of the University of Cincinnati’s industrial design program, Romanos has been published in numerous magazines and newspapers, as well as being included in the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum’s first Design Triennial.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Amazing. Wow. Okay. Demetrius Romanos, welcome to The Conversation Factory.

Demetrius Romanos:

Thank you so much. It's awesome to finally be here, honestly.

Daniel Stillman:

We've known each other-

Demetrius Romanos:

I watch these, I listen, and it's really cool to finally be on.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, that's really nice of you to say, man. We've known each other a long time.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, it's been a bit.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I really would love to start with what design means to you.

Demetrius Romanos:

Oh man. You want to like dive in with the most loaded question first.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, I do. I do.

Demetrius Romanos:

No, I like that. Design to me is about facilitating change in a meaningful way. It's not just about aesthetically making something better or focusing on this one aspect of a user experience, but really taking into account a big picture and a small picture, and doing it in a way that makes sense.

Daniel Stillman:

You've worked on, when you talk about the big picture and the details, you've worked on the design of such a broad variety of things, and also the things around things.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

The ways we work and things like that.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes. To me, it's about full ecosystems. It's not just the object. It's the object in context, the object within a system of things, how people interface with all of those and what it means from a brand perspective and what are you trying to drive ultimately.

Daniel Stillman:

Who does design belong to?

Demetrius Romanos:

Ooh. Who does design belong to? Design belongs to the masses. Maybe that's a bit too much of like a proletariat view with flags and Trotsky and all that good stuff.

Daniel Stillman:

No, it's great.

Demetrius Romanos:

No, I think ultimately, it's for the masses. We do for them. We do for others. It's more philanthropy than it is anything.

Daniel Stillman:

Wait, let's unpack that. What does that mean to you? Philanthropy, it's a gift?

Demetrius Romanos:

It is. It's a gift. If you do your job right, it's not about a shiny, beautiful object. It's about appropriateness, it's about guidance, it's about giving people the things that they need and doing it in a way that is beneficial to the environment while still helping your companies flourish enough that they can provide the next thing.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Is it different when you're doing chocolate versus baby care? Is it different? What's the same, what's different.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes, there's still an emotional hook.

Daniel Stillman:

Just picking two random things that you've worked on.

Demetrius Romanos:

No, it's true. It's a totally similar emotional hook. With chocolate, it's a craving, it's a flavor. There's a different kind of emotion that you're trying to tie into. With the baby product, you're talking about the most precious thing in a person's life, which is the growth of this new little human. The output and the level of complexity might certainly be different, but in terms of what you're trying to touch in someone's heart, I think is very similar.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. When's your talk? Is it next week?

Demetrius Romanos:

No, it's the 17th, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay, so you've got some time.

Demetrius Romanos:

I should probably know that, yes.

Daniel Stillman:

You don't have to know the date. You just know your time.

Demetrius Romanos:

[crosstalk 00:03:23].

Daniel Stillman:

I just want to jam with you a little bit, because I know that you're still sketching it out. This is about design systems, but really, it's about leading and building how the design organization interacts with the rest of the organization.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes, absolutely. I've got the good fortune of many gray hairs and years under my belt to figure this out, screwed up along the way, and finally gotten to something where I believe that, a design language system, however you want to look at it, is much, much bigger than just making a series of things all look similar. It has such a greater impact on an organization and how it's created and what the output is long-term, that I just can't wait to really talk about that.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting because like, when I was in design school, I remember this idea that was first introduced to me that the logo and the letter head, that everything involved in the company should feel like it comes from that company, like it all has the same flavor. Why is that important, do you think, for a company to have that kind of consistency maybe?

Demetrius Romanos:

Yep. Well, there's a handful of reasons. First is recognizability, so that when some random person interfaces with your product or service, they have seen it before and it stands out. There's differentiation, which is different, so that's differentiation both within your category against competitors, but also within your own product portfolio if you want different things to have different reasons for being. Those are sort of the key drivers, but the overall creates a consistent brand impression. It ups your brand value. When you've got things that look like they go together, it appears and is purposeful, which means that there's a deeper thought that goes into what you do.

Daniel Stillman:

What is that?

Demetrius Romanos:

It's like when you match your belt and your shoes. It shows that you cared

Daniel Stillman:

I love how you bring it back to fashion. What you don't know about Demetrius is that he is always dressed impeccably.

Demetrius Romanos:

Well, that means a lot coming from you, Daniel. I'll never forget the purple pants.

Daniel Stillman:

I knew we would get to the purple pants.

Demetrius Romanos:

I hope you still have them.

Daniel Stillman:

They faded with the years, man. Do you know like when you have a favorite pair of pants that you stop wearing as much? Because you can see that they won't last forever if you love it as hard as you would love them. This is a whole separate question about where are the cool pants for guys, but that's not what this podcast is about.

Demetrius Romanos:

No, that'll be a different one.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's a different one. In our pre-conversation, you talked about how you had to bring all of these different stakeholders together to really collaborate on not just what the look and the feel of your product line was, but what ... you used the word soul.

Demetrius Romanos:

I did.

Daniel Stillman:

Let's unpack that. A, the process of building that collaboration, and B like, what does it mean for this thing, this system to have an easiness, a soul?

Demetrius Romanos:

Yup. Great, great, great questions. I will say that Daniel did not ask me to plug him, but I've been with this company a little over 18 months, and there was a period about what? Late last year? Where Daniel came in and helped me introduce innovation practices. Now, this was not just done for my design team, but we brought in sales and we brought in marketing. It was really about establishing a new way of thinking and a new way of working together and seeing a bigger picture of what we're trying to do. That I thought set a fantastic foundation for what I sought to do the next with design language systems. Again, like I said before, a design language system is not only an externally about recognizability, but creating a look and feel that vibes for your brand. But the soul that comes from who your brand is and why it exists and who you're working to serve.

Demetrius Romanos:

What we did, I brought in a guy that I worked with before, Brandon from Play And Co, a fantastic partner in this. We looked at getting to the root of the brand, which starts with the brand pyramid. Again, typically these things are just to call out your points of difference and sort of the essence of what the vibe is. But people think about those things very verbally. It just sounds pretty. When it sounds pretty, it sounds like it reflects us. That's great, but sound and physical are two totally different things, which brings in then this question of like metaphors. How do you get these verbal and visual metaphors to come together and align on those? Let me tell you, when we started this activity, I think the designers kind of got it, the marketing folks did not get it at all.

Demetrius Romanos:

Like, why am I in this three-day workshop? I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But when you really unpack what our brand is versus our sister brand, find these commonalities and differences verbally and then start associating attributes, like what does that feel like? What does that sound like? What do you think of when you hear the word "quality"? What do you think of when you hear the word function? And start taking these verbal cues into visuals and creating then this foundation that everyone goes, "Oh my God, I never really thought about it that way." It just changes what you're trying to do. We went in with the intent of, we want our products to have a consistent look and feel across our portfolio, but also, when someone's walking down the street, they know that's ours and not our competitor X, Y, Z.

Demetrius Romanos:

As simple as that, but the out or the end benefit was that we got so deep into who we are and recognizing the values that our brand makes for our products and for our end users. It just changes now how people talk about what we do internally.

Daniel Stillman:

For people who aren't familiar, how do you build a brand pyramid? What are the components of the pyramid that you're trying to get people to go through? It sounds like there's a framework you're working through.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, there is a framework, and we typically, the brand pyramid starts at the bottom with your points of parity and your points of difference, and who is your target? Why do you exist and who are you there to serve? Then it ladders up to more kind of fluffy feelings of what are the feelings you're trying to communicate? What are the things that they interface with and actually feel? What are the things that you're trying to say from a verbal standpoint? Then, depending on if it's product related or brand related, it might have different kind of outputs. Then there's always this essence that guides the whole thing. This lofty sort of, almost like a mini mission statement for the brand, that's what everything is grounded at. But again, it's all quite verbal. You can envision lots of nice photography and copy and things like that, but nothing that then takes that and translates it to the physical world, which is what industrial designers are often tasked with.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Just to be clear, we're talking about baby care products, which are about as physical as ... They interface directly with your skin, with your baby's skin. There's a tactility. It's a very primal kind of a product.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, absolutely. It is. There're certainly practical aspects to it. But again, like I said before, you're dealing with the most precious thing in most people's lives, especially for our target, which is first time moms. Making sure that she feels safe, that she feels comfortable, that she understands how to use this thing, and that it does everything it says it's supposed to do, both for the physical of the baby, but the physiological. There's so many benefits to baby wearing and baby carrying that are not really thought of typically from an end consumer perspective. How do you drive that into what it is that we make?

Daniel Stillman:

Let's look at that three-day experience. You said, at the outset, some people were confused about why they were there or what was expected of them. In terms of like designing the whole arc of the conversation, resume out from where you started to where you want to get to, how did you get them to commit that kind of time to that dialogue?

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah. When we go to our company mission statement of making sure that we can help families bond, grow and thrive, there's so much to that if you unpack it. It was a fantastic place for us to start. What does that mean? What does bond, grow and thrive mean? What is the bigger picture of that? You get into these environmental discussions and political discussions about what's going on currently, what's happened before, where are we going next, post-COVID world. It's so much there, but if we just truly focus on who we're trying to serve and why, there was a lot of content, a lot that we can really dig into. Like, why do we exist? Our founder isn't part of the company anymore. There are people that have worked here for a long time that still have that route, but really just zoom way the hell out and say, why do we do what we do? Then focus back in.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. As a design leader, how do you facilitate that dialogue to get those people who are maybe on the edge of that conversation to fully engage with where you want to take them to?

Demetrius Romanos:

Small wins, I think is the best way to put it. My career, especially the last, probably 15 years has been very much about driving organizational change with through design, but I don't do it in a silo. It's all about collaboration, but you have to bring people along on the ride. Again, even back to your workshop, that was a simple commitment for my team and for a couple of other teams to come together, it's a day and a half, but you're going to see the benefit out of that. I was setting up the foundation even before that. Little wins. People can say, "Hey, I see the value in this." It's simple as that. It's not about me, it's about the process. If they believe in what the output was and what they got out of it, if they felt better afterwards than they did going in, then I've done a big part of my job. By the time I got them to this design language workshop, there was still uncertainty, but they were comfortable with me being their guide along the ride.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. You had really built a lot of trust, and I'm thinking back now to some of our ... This is back when there was traffic in LA, everybody. Demetrius and I had some long ...

Demetrius Romanos:

I don't miss that.

Daniel Stillman:

We had some long conversations going into the city about building this collaborative language because I know when you came into the company, there can be this big mission of where we want to get to. Everyone just, I call it like a bucket of puppies, just everybody just frolicking and gambling. There's a long road to get there. Being a new design leader, trying to build that coherent soul of a company and to have design be really the glue for all of it, where did you start? When you think back to the beginning, what was the sort of like, okay cracking my knuckles, wiggling my fingers, sitting down to the keyboard, where do you think somebody should start if one should find themselves in that similar situation?

Demetrius Romanos:

I always say the best place to start is ask a lot of questions and never be afraid to raise your hand. For me, it was really tough. I say it still, this was the hardest industry I've had to work in because I came in pretty blind and naive. I worked on soft goods before and office products, and carrying a laptop is not the same as carrying a baby, even though the products might have a similarity in terms of construction, they couldn't be more different. For me, it was really about making sure that I am open and honest with what I know and what I don't know. I feel like I've got the benefit of not having kids so that way I can look through a true, open empathetic eye as opposed to designing for myself, and relying on those around me that know more than I do and complimenting their skillset.

Demetrius Romanos:

And also showing them a way. Saying that it's okay to play, it's okay to experiment and try things. Use me as the naive guy. I might suggest some things that are crazy. Maybe they'll work, maybe they won't, but that's okay. I think asking the right questions and creating a safe space for people to play and try things.

Daniel Stillman:

It seems like there's a tension, I would imagine a tension between, and I've heard this from other leaders, of the humility to ask a lot of questions, to the sense that you should know what you're doing and you should know everything. How do you tap into that playfulness?

Demetrius Romanos:

It's a great question. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. It just has always driven me, because I don't have to be the smartest guy in the room. I have to know the smartest people to compliment me and go seek the answers that I need, but it's impossible to be a wide T and a deep T. I think was Idea that invented the T system anyway. I'm pretty wide and shallow in a lot of things and deep in design leadership from an organizational level. But I don't have to know everything. I think it actually makes you a better leader when your team feels like, oh, I actually know more about my boss in this specific thing and he's okay with that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. For people who aren't familiar with the T model, do you think about the T when you're hiring or building teams? Is that-

Demetrius Romanos:

I do. Yeah. The T model is just about like ... Are you wide in your breadth and shallow or deep in your knowledge of a specific space? If you are a highly competent individual contributor, that's like a principal designer, your team might be quite narrow and quite long. If you are a Jack of all trades, you might have a very wide T that's a little short, but maybe deep in a very specific area. If you're a general contractor versus a master plumber, for example.

Daniel Stillman:

Right, and the idea is we need people with deep experience in something so that they can contribute something that the rest of the team doesn't necessarily have.

Demetrius Romanos:

I worked in the agency world for a long time, which is where you and I met originally. You do form a wide T in that, because you get to work with so many different kinds of clients and industries, you learn a little bit about a lot. Having then parlayed that into a corporate role, my last job, and then continuing in this one, I finally I've started to deepen the T and the category, but it doesn't change necessarily what I choose to know and choose not to know about what I'm contributing to that business and to that category.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Do you feel like design leadership has changed in this fully remote and also deeply stressed time?

Demetrius Romanos:

To a certain extent. I find myself not being able to just be the head over the shoulder and swing by a designer's desk and say, "Hey, what are you working on? Let's check out some things that you're doing," and just provide some of this impromptu guidance. I find that I'm becoming a weekly cheerleader. Just to keep everyone engaged and to know that they're cared for, and that they're not just working on their little silo, that we still are a team. I think reinforcing sense of team becomes really challenging.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. How are you doing that cheerleading and that teaming in this way?

Demetrius Romanos:

I send out a lot of emails. I do like a Monday and a Friday email just to check in with everyone to talk about weekends, to talk about what you're doing. So, kind of more light-hearted, not as business related. We do Zoom cocktail hours. We do our design reviews, where each person can come in and share what they're working on, so it's a little bit more like loose a way of sharing and getting feedback. We use rose thorn buds. Bringing in these little techniques and just sending random things is all we can do.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, so you're pumping the system with energy and with specific conversations at a specific cadence.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes. I'm finding that, it's not just me. A few of my teammates will be doing the same thing, and it's cool when that becomes just part of the culture.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. What have you been doing to take care of yourself? I think facilitating and leading, it's an energy in sort of ...

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah. Taking care of myself has been harder. We tend to travel, my wife and I tend to travel a lot. We're not able to do that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Oh my God. You're right. That is totally your happy place.

Demetrius Romanos:

It's totally my happy place.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh man.

Demetrius Romanos:

Not being able to get on a plane, it sucks, but we take day trips most, every weekend. That's expanded to further a radii in terms of mileage, but we get out.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, you went all the way to Napa a couple of weeks ago.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, we've done Palm Springs, you name it, throw in a good audio book and just go see something. Aside from that, I do a lot of Zoom conversations with friends. I'm just trying to stay connected with people. I've found that I've been connecting more with old contacts and old friends now than I had before. I don't like phone calls. I'll be the first to admit it. Forcing that dialogue is not easy, but now that I'm doing it, it's just been another way to connect. I think at this point I've sort of settled into the new routine. I'm not forcing myself to question every day, when is this going to be over? It just is. We're just okay with that. But it's hard to really feel creatively energized, I'm finding.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I really appreciate the way that you are curating, nourishing conversations for yourself. This is a huge thing that people really do need to do for themselves. I feel like, often when I work with people, they cultivate their network as the last resort. They're changing jobs, and so they start to reach out to people that they haven't talked to for umpteen years, but there's so much value to cultivating your community in a continuous way, which is what you're doing.

Demetrius Romanos:

Absolutely. Yeah, trying my hardest. I did a presentation recently about macro trends, and one of the key things is really taking time to feel in this moment. It's too easy to get caught up in the race and not really feel what's going on around you. It is a good time to stop, take stock of the things that matter without trying to over chase happiness, and be okay with that. It's empowering, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

It is. Well, because it's taking some ownership over ... Instead of saying that something has to be different than it is, it's empowering by taking control of saying, this is where we are, this is where things are happening right now. I love this idea that you are not questioning, when will it change versus this is the way it is.

Demetrius Romanos:

It will end. It's bound to end. It's going to be different, then some things will carry on as they were, other things will return to what a normal was. Human nature is to like consistency, and it's to like whatever normal is. We will find a way to get back to that. Every big thing that's ever happened, we go back generally to what we did before with some slight changes. I'm optimistic that that will be the case. It's just unprecedented in how long it's lasting.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it is extraordinary. One of the things that like, I feel like when we were talking way in the beginning of this, one of my concerns, and one of your concerns was, as a physical product company, physicality is such a big part of what you do, the fittings and also like talking to customers around interacting with the product, doing home visits and doing research. How have you adapted some of your workflows to some of that?

Demetrius Romanos:

Well, it's summertime, but just generally, I think we are fortunate in Southern California to have four months ... sorry, four seasons of great quality weather. We can do things outside, which is where I was going with that. So, just last week, in fact, we had to do fittings of one of our new products, and we set up an easy popup tent on someone's driveway, and we had 10 different moms come with their kids, and we kept our distance, we wore masks. We did the fittings in the best way possible, which was a little bit different, but we made do, and it worked. I think a couple months ago, it would have been a bit more challenging, but I think as people have gotten more comfortable with how to handle hygiene and how to live within this situation, I think we're just a bit more comfortable doing it.

Demetrius Romanos:

Now, it certainly raises issues when, in terms of not being able to travel to the factories, for example, and work on things there, but fittings internally, it's actually ... that was one of the last hurdles that was difficult. Now, we seem to have figured out a solve for that.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh my God. I'm so glad. It's so important. That's feedback you really need.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes. I think for me, the bigger thing is not being able to do innovation workshops in-person, because I've run now a handful of them remotely, and you can do, I think, high level, and again, more strategic, more verbal things in quite successful way. We've done a couple, even two-day and three-day ones. When it gets into rough prototyping, like let's do a co-creation session where we're like duct taping things together, it just doesn't work. It's like I'm almost thinking, could I set up somehow an outdoor innovation space? So, you actually could bring people together. I haven't given up on that.

Daniel Stillman:

You shouldn't give up on it. I'm also really curious, what advice would you give to other people who are trying to do innovation workshops remotely? What have you learned? Because I know this is not how you work. You would bring ... you'd throw the team together for three days in a room, and we can't do that anymore. What's changed? What do you feel like is best practice?

Demetrius Romanos:

What's changed is that you're forced to try to figure out different things that might replace or replicate what you've used before. I think it requires a little bit of patience with ourselves to say, you know what? It's okay to try different tools. I've used MURAL, and no knock on MURAL. It's fine if you are comfortable with it and for certain applications. I personally, just don't love it. I've done a lot more PowerPoint templates and assigning a head of each breakout team and say, "You will be filling out this template," and try to make it, not necessarily prescriptive, but as self-guided so that when I get the output back, that there's some value to it.

Demetrius Romanos:

The benefit that I've seen is I don't have to fly people in from different parts of the world. I can have now workshops that aren't just my North America team, but we can include people from Asia, we can include people from Europe, and so it becomes more diverse, more participatory, more representative. We wouldn't have thought to do it that way if we didn't have to.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and when you talk about the collaborative language and building into a framework, it seems like that's the thing that really is effective. We have a framework, and there's a linguistic process and you're guiding us to think together through that process.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes. I will say that one of the things I've seen is that teams naturally just work within their own silos. When you are working remotely, I believe that everyone has had to step back and say that we're in this for something bigger. It's no longer, what is the marketing team doing? What is the design team doing? It's what is Ergobaby doing to move X, Y, Z. I feel like this greater sense of team just really blossomed.

Daniel Stillman:

Also, I want to highlight, when you were talking about bringing everyone together for this brand voice and soul workshop, you were appealing to the core values of the brand as your starting point.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes, at our mission, our values, all about loving the brand, loving who you're working for, who are you making things for, and what are you trying to get made for them? What are you facilitating through your products? What are you enabling through your products? Digging into that. We had the luxury, frankly, of doing that workshop in person. This was before the crap hit the fan. Would it have been as successful? I don't know. There's some value to ripping and tearing magazines and putting together these boards that give you a vibe that feels more organic than if I would curate, here's 15 images that you guys can pull five from to create your little PowerPoint slide. It could be done. It just would lack, I think, a little bit more of the organic nature that's required to create a soul.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think tearing magazines to pieces is definitely a fun experience, but I will say I'm going to be bringing somebody back from the facilitation master class, who we do these little spotlight facilitation sessions, each person in the masterclass gets to run like a little facilitation experiment. I say a little like it's not important, but it's a short facilitation experiment, and this one particular woman did an image based facilitation where she had people go, and on MURAL, you could ... there's actually an image search tool in it. You can also copy and paste an image from the internet, where she asked people to go find an image that represented, I think it was like commitment that they were talking about, what commitment looked and felt like to them. I don't know, man. Maybe my pushback is like, I get The New Yorker, which doesn't have a lot of pictures in it.

Daniel Stillman:

I know this happens when I'm like, I need to get some magazines with pictures, and I always have this ... I don't have like a buildup of cosmopolitans. I get Martha Stewart Magazine, for some reason, Janet's mother somehow. I don't know why we keep getting it. Nobody's paying for it as far as I know.

Demetrius Romanos:

Who knows.

Daniel Stillman:

But I love looking through Martha's calendar every month. It always tickles me. But yeah, getting ... I'm just saying there's an infinite number of pictures online, but I agree with you 100%, I've done those workshops where there's something ... you're tapping almost into people's subconscious when they're sort of like they rip one and then in like an eyeball from one thing goes on top of the mouth of another, and they're really doing something like something clicks. That's a very special moment.

Demetrius Romanos:

It is. I mean, you're riffing off of each other in a physical way that's almost subconscious, and it's really hard to replicate that through a Zoom meeting.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Challenge accepted though. I think the way that we're tapping into people's subconscious and collaboration, I'd be curious to see what can be done because I think it's an important part of the process where people kind of get into that. I think before Clay and Legos, I don't know what people were doing to replace that, because there's people who that's ...

Demetrius Romanos:

No idea. That's their whole thing.

Daniel Stillman:

That's their whole thing.

Demetrius Romanos:

We've had people bring in images in advance, like here's kind of a prompt, here's a little bit of a homework assignment, there's some somewhere it's on the fly. In other instances, it's been okay, we're going to capture kind of the verbal vibe, and then the design team is then going to go back and fill this out with imagery and then represent that for feedback and just to triangulate. And it's still working, it's just different. I think it's going to make us all better though once we do have the opportunity to go back to physical environments, because we'll have just new ways of doing things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. In a way, the default was we'll come together and do three days. Now the default is everybody can come if we can make it in a time zone that people can come. Now, we just have one more modality to work with. What I love, what you were talking about is like intentionally, in a way, breaking up the arc of the conversation. I was saying like, okay, well, here's the verbal part that we know everyone can participate in, and now let's take the visual part and do that offline, slow down, let the design people marinate on that, then bring it back, and then have another cycle of feedback and iteration. It's like, it doesn't all have to be done in one go.

Demetrius Romanos:

Correct. I think there's a side benefit that we wouldn't have considered, is that doing a two or three day workshop with everybody involved is a big time commitment.

Daniel Stillman:

Huge.

Demetrius Romanos:

But if you say, hey, marketing team, we need you for three hours to do this, and then we're going to go away for a week and then get you in for another hour, it's amazing. You get really committed contribution and valuable feedback.

Daniel Stillman:

Maybe this is, as our time winds down, it's really thinking in terms of inputs and outputs.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes, and knowing that you can break things up as you need to. You've even done your own masterclasses. One was around specifically just warmups. You're going to join this, you're going to learn about warmups and practice some. I loved it. I found it valuable, and it didn't have to be more than that, which was great. How can you get the most out of someone's time knowing full well what you're trying to achieve as an output?

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting, because I feel like that's one half of the spectrum is like inputs and outputs specific contribution, and then the other is, everyone altogether and stretching. The marketing people are stretching themselves to participate more into the design, and the design is really stretching itself to really understand the brand voice. There's some value to both of those poles, if you will, of how you're going to design the conversation. It sounds like you definitely ... where we've always been, like the strength is of design is let's get all together, and you, as the lead of design, will lead this conversation where everyone is coming together. What does design leadership look like now that we are starting to break up these conversations into smaller chunks?

Demetrius Romanos:

Good question. You lead with what's the big vision. What are we trying to achieve? You lead by giving them a safe place to explore, you lead by assigning sub leaders, making people feel empowered to do what they do, and to come back and surprise you with something you might not have asked for. I think it's a bigger role, frankly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Say more about that. Bigger in what way?

Demetrius Romanos:

Bigger in the sense that you're not just the facilitator that's going to ask the questions and create the worksheets and all that stuff for like a finite period of time. You're really teaching skills and you're encouraging things that are different. It's forcing the folks that you assign as sub-leaders to really be that. I think it's helping people grow faster.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, because you can't possibly do it.

Demetrius Romanos:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

You use one of my favorite words, which is surprise. I used the word surprise in one of the opening sentences of my book, this idea that a transformative conversation will surprise us, that we have to walk into, even the most difficult conversations, with the willingness to be surprised. Otherwise, there's no ... what change can possibly happen? Can you talk to me a little bit about what surprise means to you in your work? Because it's such an interesting idea.

Demetrius Romanos:

We talk a lot about surprise and delight for our end users, and it's been just ingrained in me forever. I don't even know where it came up. It must've been a P&G thing, but we don't really think about surprise for ourselves. We're always thinking about who it's for, this aha moment. But I do find that there's been surprise. I do find that we've gone into an unknown world where we're seemingly just discombobulated overnight and having to find new ways to do things. When there's an output that you go, holy shit, I didn't know it could be that awesome. Pardon me if you have to beat that out. But wow, I've seen a lot of fantastic output in my workshops that honestly, I don't think I would have gotten the same if it was done physically.

Demetrius Romanos:

So, there is a level of surprise, almost no question like, well, geez, we do go back. What are this? Should I really keep? Just because it's better versus how I did things before. Who's stepped up, who's really shown a level of engagement? Because they're feeling more alone, otherwise they might have agoraphobia. In a big setting of a hundred people in a workshop, they might just freak out. There's these fantastic little side benefits that I think are cool surprises.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I love that, and I think the willingness to be surprised and enjoying people, bringing something to you, that is different than what you would have scoped or expected, is a really powerful mindset to have as a leader, and non-trivial at all.

Demetrius Romanos:

No, I mean, I'm a kid at heart, and when I manage my teams, I always use analogies like, listen, I want you ... When you teach children how to bowl and they put those inflatable things in the gutter so that way the ball won't go in there, I'm that. I want you guys to just whale on the ball and just try stuff, and I'll be the one that takes the hit, and I'm totally okay with that. That's the only way we're going to move the needle, and it's the only way people are going to have fun and surprise themselves.

Daniel Stillman:

So, you're the gutter guy.

Demetrius Romanos:

I'm the gutter guy. It's okay. I'm responsible and I'm the gutter guy.

Daniel Stillman:

That's amazing. I think having a playful attitude towards that is so interesting, and a really much more delightful way to lead, because I think sometimes it can be, what if they screw up? It's on me.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yes. Trust obviously comes into play, but if I build my team against our values, if I build them against T system, if we work together a lot of times and get to know each other, these little motley crews start to really surprise you, and why wouldn't we do it that way?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and well, we haven't even talked about is how you design a design team so that you can trust it. Obviously you've done a lot of work to build up the team over the time that you've been with them.

Demetrius Romanos:

I like scrappy teams, and I've always tried to build my teams like these protagonists, like Oceans 11, where there are these crazy masterminds. There's the guy that orchestrates the whole thing. There's these little specialists, there's a weird guy.

Daniel Stillman:

You're George Clooney.

Demetrius Romanos:

I'm like the less attractive George Clooney that tries to build these teams that still solve-

Daniel Stillman:

You got the salt and pepper thing. I'd say it's working.

Demetrius Romanos:

I try. I used to tell my wife I'm like the Greek George Clooney. She had no idea what that meant, but apparently now you do. I actually did a presentation at IDSA in New York a few years ago. It was all about this kind of protagonist path, and about having people come together to do their parts, but do it for a greater picture. So, if you can set a vision, if you can give people the tools, if you can trust each person's expertise and make them feel safe to try things without fear of reprimand, then I think you'll be successful. It's certainly worked for me. I don't have all the answers, but I'm just going with what works for me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Is that presentation anywhere on the interwebs?

Demetrius Romanos:

It might be. I certainly have the written copy I can send you. I don't know if it was videoed, it's got to live somewhere.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting because thinking about the team and the project as a narrative, as a story that you are constructing together, it's so powerful, especially when you think about, what will the story that the whole organization tell about the experience? You are all building that story together.

Demetrius Romanos:

That was sort of the intent. I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell and The Hero's Journey, but I sort of took a twist on it and called it the protagonist path. It's really about how I build organizations that work well together for wins.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh man. We're almost out of time. My general question of like, what else haven't we talked about that we should talk about? Can you just tell us a little bit about the protagonist's path? How do we facilitate a protagonist path as leaders if we want to step up?

Demetrius Romanos:

The protagonist path, it's when you think about the guy that might not ... it's a little bit of an unsung hero, for example, Han Solo. He's not the guy that you would ride in on the white horse, but he's definitely an awesome guy that's got a little bit of a rough side to him. But little wins, it always starts with like, how do I build trust? How do I show that what I'm talking about actually works? Then building on that. It's all about bringing people then in together to see a bigger picture, or to action on it together, to set this goal and to divide and conquer.

Daniel Stillman:

Sounds exciting.

Demetrius Romanos:

It is exciting.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, and people need to feel like they are part of this inciting action in a story. There's a moment when Han and Leia get thrown together and something happens, like there's forward movement, and it feels like that's what you're trying to always facilitate and lead.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, and I try to tap into who people are. What's your purpose? Yeah, you got up in the morning so you can get to work, but why do you do what you do? What is your purpose in life? What's the bigger picture, and how can we harness that so we can do some great things together.

Daniel Stillman:

That's amazing. All right, closing thought. What is your purpose, Demetrius? Why do you get up in the morning?

Demetrius Romanos:

This is not to sound lofty, but it's to bring people together to do great things, to make change for other people.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I would love to know how to be more like you. I'm not even ...

Demetrius Romanos:

I want to be more like you. We all want to be more like Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:

Not true. Demetrius, how do you bring the lightness? You bring a light touch to things. You don't do it heavy, you don't do it hard. You do it light.

Demetrius Romanos:

I don't know. I was always taught to respect ... you've heard this kind of stuff before, respect the janitor just like you respect the CEO. We're just all people. At the end of the day, we're just all little creatures on this earth trying to do our thing to move the ball down the field a little bit. So, if we just all have a little bit of humility, work well together, no one has to be best friends at work, but we sure work better when we like each other, and then we see a bigger reason for doing what we do. Getting people to sort of rally around that. Be honest and open. Say, "Hey, this is not my thing, but that's your thing. Or maybe if this isn't for you, try something else." I don't know. It's just a comfort in my own skin and trying to live through that. I think people respond to that, especially your younger designers when they see the boss say, "I don't know that, but I know this guy that knows that so we're just going to go ask him," and it's okay.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, modeling. Modeling that behavior that you want to see in other people. So powerful.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah, I suppose so.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. How would you describe it? What word would you use for it?

Demetrius Romanos:

Well, I guess it's a level of humility in what I don't know. It's a level of confidence in what I do. I've done this, I've got the battle scars to prove it, I'm still going to learn along the way. I don't have all the answers, but I love going to people that do. Getting to work with you, getting to work with lots of other smart experts in their fields makes me better, and exposing my teams to those people makes them better. So, if you could ground them in those kinds of specialties and then come back together and say, okay, now what can we do? What's our superpowers? This little fantastic eight or 10 or 12, or however big your team is, that's what you do, and this is why, it's your purpose. It's fun

Daniel Stillman:

I want to be respectful of your time. Is there anything else that we have not talked about, you want to make sure that we go on record as saying?

Demetrius Romanos:

Anything in particular? Geez. I mean, I certainly had questions for you, but I want to be mindful of your time too.

Daniel Stillman:

Questions for me. This is not how this works.

Demetrius Romanos:

It's not conversational.

Daniel Stillman:

Touche.

Demetrius Romanos:

Yeah. No, I'm just trying to do my piece to make things better. I think, again, there's a lot of stuff that we watch in the news right now that is so focused on a specific subject, whether it's positive or negative, that we sort of lose sight of the bigger picture. It really is just let's try to do what's right for the world. I did a workshop earlier this year that was specifically around corporate social responsibility and how can we channel that and be better for our end user? It boiled back down to something as simple as like, we got to focus on the environment, because if we don't have a happy planet, how can we have happy families? Everything comes back to something bigger and simpler. To remember that, I think we'd be better for what it is that we do.

Daniel Stillman:

That is an amazing place to end this conversation.

Demetrius Romanos:

Awesome.

Daniel Stillman:

Demetrius ...

Demetrius Romanos:

Fantastic.

Daniel Stillman:

I am thrilled that we're able to get this on tape.

Demetrius Romanos:

Me too.

Daniel Stillman:

It's not tape, but you know what I mean. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Demetrius Romanos:

It's absolutely my pleasure to be here, Daniel. Thanks so much for having me.

Daniel Stillman:

End scene. That was awesome, man.

Draw to Win with Dan Roam

Season_Four_Image_stack_DR.jpg

“Stop thinking about drawing as an artistic process. Drawing is a thinking process. If you want to think more clearly about an idea, draw it.”

This is the simple essence of Dan Roam’s message. Dan has written five best-selling books about visual thinking and storytelling. Back of the Napkin was one of my seminal texts, Show and Tell is a blockbuster if you want to learn how to tell better stories...and who doesn’t? And you have to love the title of Dan’s book “Draw to Win”...maybe the most direct distillation of Dan’s perspective. Drawing is thinking...and thinking helps you do better work. 

Who should be drawing when many brains are involved in a complex project?

What Dan helped me wrestle with in this conversation is how drawing helps groups think, together and how he, as a model-making expert, can help push the thinking of a group. 

We talk through the yin-and-yang of a top-down approach of model making (with someone like Dan pushing the edge of excellence *for* a group he’s working with, vs a group hammering out a new model, bottom-up, doing visual synthesis together.

Both are powerful ways to lead a conversation. 

Making a framework for a group can shape their conversation profoundly - the right visual tool can frame a conversation and ease the progress of a team’s thinking: Drawing a classic 2 X 2 creates a frame, a container for a conversation. I’ve always found that, even if someone finds a case that falls outside of the framework offered, they speak about their ideas in relation to the framework - the conversation has been anchored - which is one way to think about what I am calling Conversational Leadership.

There is power and danger in shaping conversations. Leading the conversation can mean that we’ve prevented something else from emerging - something organic, co-created and co-owned by the whole group. This is the IKEA effect...even if something that Dan makes might be technically better than what a group can make on it’s own, they may value what they’ve put their hands on more.

As with all polarities, the middle path, approaching both ends flexibly, is the most powerful. I know from experience how transformative it can be when your client picks up the pen and adds their ideas alongside yours. Who picks up the pen first can shift the direction of the conversation profoundly. Stepping back and offering the pen to the group is a choice we can all take to shift a conversation.

Drawing is how to win in the broadest sense. If you’re the only person drawing in the conversation, you will anchor the conversation and lead the conversation. If you get everyone to draw, the conversation will be a win-win and led by anyone willing to take up the pen.


Links, Notes and Resources

Dan on the Web (learn about his award-winning books and his work and more…)

Dan’s Online Learning space: Napkin Academy

Dan’s favorite, most fundamental drawing:

status quo.jpg

Some of my favorite visuals from Dan that you can find on the web...

The Power of Visual Sensemaking as an organic process:

The Power of Visual Sensemaking as an organic process-.png

How to think systematically about being visual:

How to think systematically about being visual-.png

The simple shapes of Stories:

The simple shapes of Stories- .png

Other books to learn more about visual thinking:

Gamestorming

The Doodle Revolution

One of my favorite quotes from this interview:

Data doesn’t tell a story

As I always like to say, data doesn't tell a story, people do. And Dan breaks down how to do that, in detail. As he says: 

"A good report brings data to life. When we do a report right, we deliver more than just facts, we deliver them in a way that gives insight. It makes data memorable and makes our audience care." 

More About Dan

Dan Roam is the author of five international bestselling books on business-visualization which have been translated into 31 languages. The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems with Pictures was named by Fast Company, The London Times, and BusinessWeek as 'Creativity Book of the Year.' Dan's newest book, Draw to Win, was recently published by Penguin Portfolio, and debuted as the #1 new book on amazon.com in the categories of Business Communications and Sales and Marketing. 

Dan has helped leaders at Google, Microsoft, Boeing, Gap, IBM, the US Navy, the United States Senate, and the White House solve complex problems with simple pictures. Dan and his whiteboard have appeared on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NPR.  

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

I'll officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Dan Roam, have you always been a Dan? I know this is a strange place to start the conversation but as a Daniel, I'm always curious about Dans.

Dan Roam:

It's funny, you should ask that, Daniel. By the way, a pleasure to talk with you this morning. I'm officially Dan. As far as I remember, I always really have been but when I was very young, when I was in trouble, when something was serious, my parents would refer to me as Daniel. It wasn't a sign that oh, you've done something terrible and you're going to be disciplined. It was just, this is a more serious thing.

Dan Roam:

In my mind, I've always associated the name Daniel with that which is a little more serious than just Dan. I have always been Dan.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is exactly what I was hoping we get to because when people call me, Dan, and I'm not a Dan, I take it as a compliment because I think Dan is a fundamentally nicer person. Easygoing guy. Dan, Dan's a great guy. Daniel is a little more serious. I've never been a Danny. I'm assuming you've never?

Dan Roam:

Danny is a no fly zone. We're not going to Danny. When Danny comes out that means someone needs to be spoken to.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, there's major misalignment. In that case ...

Dan Roam:

Yes, no Dannys, no.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. I'm glad we're ...

Dan Roam:

This is a no Danny zone.

Daniel Stillman:

This is a no Danny zone. Danny's like he's a good guy, but there's not a lot up top. If there's any Danny's listening, I apologize, but prove me wrong. Come at me.

Dan Roam:

Yeah, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Dan, for those of the world who somehow are unaware of who you are and what you're about, what's your origin story? You've written a lot of books. They are all amazing. People should read them but if they haven't, if they're unaware your existence. If we were to just have a quick napkin sketch, if you will, of Dan Roam, what's your origin story? Was there nuclear waste involved? Radioactive spider?

Dan Roam:

There were several nuclear meltdowns involved.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

Yeah, Daniel, thank you. That's, that's lovely. I am the guy who you all know, many of whom you are, who loved to draw back in school, especially in the early years of school, kindergarten, first grade, second grade. I drew all the time. That's what gave me a lot of pleasure.

Dan Roam:

Then, by about second grade, the teacher said, "Okay, it's enough with the picture books. It's enough with the drawing now that you know how to read let's take the pictures away and get serious, let's really educate ourselves." I was just heartbroken. Because to me, it was the drawing that was the mechanism by which I learned things and understood things and made sense of the world around me.

Dan Roam:

Then, they kind of took it away, but I said no, and I just kept drawing all the way through. My first job out of high school and then out of college was in graphic design. Drawing or sketching is really the core language of graphic design, you just map something out on a piece of paper to try to figure out what it might look like. The fact that I was drawing made sense, but then I moved into management consulting, and I was the only person in the room who still drew because management consultants, by and large, have to had the drawing trained out of them, not only at second grade level, but certainly all the way up through university.

Dan Roam:

It's not something typically that you do. That would be really the essence is I was the business person in management consulting, who did not understand what most of the people were talking about. In order to understand it, I would go to the whiteboard, if there was a whiteboard in the room, or pull out a sheet of paper if there wasn't, and just draw some very simple little stick figures and boxes and arrows. As I was listening to what people were describing and play it back, show it to them and say, if I understand properly what I think you just said, it might be something like this little model that would be on the whiteboard, how does that fit with where you are?

Dan Roam:

Every time I would do that, Daniel, the conversation would totally change. People would say, technically, "Oh, my gosh, I have never seen what we've talked about described that way." The conversation would shift towards ... politics would drop away, the sort of the unspoken who's leading in the meeting would drop away, who's right who's wrong with drop away.

Dan Roam:

What would happen is you'd have a really genuine thoughtful conversation around the picture, the drawing, that was emerging on the board. That's the story. Just never stopped doing that.

Daniel Stillman:

Do you feel like a doodle revolution has happened? I know you had, and we're going to dance all around. You have this amazing platform, The Napkin Academy. I've just started exploring all your draw together videos of two of my heroes, Dave Gray and Sunni Brown and amazing seminal texts as back of the napkin was, for me ... is more drawing happening in the corridors of business? Is it your fault?

Dan Roam:

Yeah. Great question, Daniel. We won. We won. It's been a decade. It's been a decade since my own book back, The Napkin came out, which was probably one of the first business books that was really intentionally and totally about the act of drawing as a way of thinking in a business setting. Many others were right around the same time. Whether it was Dave gray or Sunni Brown, Alexander Osterwalder with Business Model canvas doesn't explicitly talk about drawing but he uses drawing.

Daniel Stillman:

He uses a visual framework to organize thinking.

Dan Roam:

Absolutely. One of the greatest, frankly, over the last decade.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

There was this moment starting 10 years ago and I think the fact that it paralleled really the rise of social media and our ability technologically to send images to each other, we could always do that through email and things. Now that you think about Instagram or Pinterest or even Facebook, the incredible amount of attention that is given to simple images. There's good and bad on that. This notion of using a picture, whether it's a photograph or a drawing or a sketch to help amplify or clarify an idea has never been new. It's been with us for a long, long time.

Dan Roam:

Many of us just helped push that forward. I think, in a way, we succeeded.

Daniel Stillman:

How does that feel?

Dan Roam:

I don't go into a meeting now where people don't draw and that's not true of 10 years ago.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

I mean, every time I go into a meeting now, someone's drawing something, which is great. Yeah, I think, it's been successful. Now, knowing that, it's time to push forward on what might be the next evolution of using the visual mind and what have we learned from social media in particular, that maybe isn't quite so beneficial, related to the power of the visual. Because it can be used for good or for not good.

Dan Roam:

I think it's time for us to reflect on a bit what have we learned about the power of the image? How can we use that as we move ahead?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I want to loop back because the question I wanted to ask you around top down versus bottom up visual thinking, I think, Alex's diagram was clearly hard one. I think he followed the dictums of ... well here, I'm going to I'm going to pause there, I'm going to loop back around. Do you have a favorite drawing of yours like an iconic like this is Dan's most favorite sketch ...

Dan Roam:

I have two. I have two. Yeah, Daniel, I probably have two. It's a great question, it makes me think how do you pick your favorite after having drawn 50,000 drawings? How do you pick your favorite?

Daniel Stillman:

At least.

Dan Roam:

At least. Whichever one I'm working on right now? No, but there's an answer. The simple one would be the simplest possible smiley face, has become the emoticon. In a way, if you think about it, there are versions of the simple stick figure smiley face all the way back onto the walls of the caves of Lascaux and some of the most ancient written communications by humans that have ever been found are Essentially stick figures.

Dan Roam:

The stick figure smiley face would be my favorite because you can go anywhere with that. There's one more, which is a little more elaborate drawing. It'd be interesting for people listening, if you can, not if you're driving. If you could just close your eyes, just try to visualize with me for a moment, we're going to draw a picture together. What I'd like you to do is just take a sheet of paper and there's going to be three simple shapes on this sheet of paper. Pace yourself accordingly.

Dan Roam:

You're going to draw from left to right. Over on the left, I'd like you to draw or imagine just a square, maybe a couple of inches on the side, just a square, square. Imagine that. Draw it in your mind. Then, to the right of that square, about the same size, draw a triangle, a pyramid, with a point at the top. Then, moving one more space to the right, draw a circle of about the same size.

Dan Roam:

Now, you're going to have three shapes in a line. You're going to have a square, a triangle with the point pointing upwards and then you're going to have a circle. A square, a triangle and a circle, and they're all of about the same height. What I'd like you to do is in between that square in and that triangle, put a little plus sign. It's almost as if we're making a mathematical formula here. Then between the triangle and the circle, put a little equal sign.

Dan Roam:

What we have is a little visual formula that says square plus triangle equals circle. I'd like you to just see that and now let me explain or share with you why I think it's important and what it means. This is probably my favorite go-to drawing of all time to explain and represent the power of a simple, simple picture. The square can be used to represent the world as we know it today. It's square and there's a lot we can go into, Daniel, about really, Carl Jung and the understanding of these sorts of shapes psychologically, what do they seem to mean to the collective mind?

Dan Roam:

A square seems to be a shape that represents something that is known and pretty well understood and stable. That square that we drew represents the world as we know it today. A triangle. Daniel, when a triangle appears in a formula, you just like physics. What does a delta mean? What does a triangle mean? What does it represent?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, delta is the Greek symbol for change. Usually, if you put one side a little thicker, that's like, yeah.

Dan Roam:

That's very fancy.

Daniel Stillman:

That's what makes it a delta.

Dan Roam:

We'll talk more about that. The triangle represents change. Now what you've done is you've drawn a picture that says there's the world as I know it, and I'm going to add change to it. When I do that, when I take my square and I add change, do I end up with another square on the other side?

Daniel Stillman:

No.

Dan Roam:

I do. I end up with something else. What might I end up with? Probably something quite different than where I began, a circle. This little drawing, the square, which is known, the triangle representing change, and the circle, which represents what's going to happen on the other side of that change, is a really lovely way to introduce almost any concept of change in a management consulting meeting.

Dan Roam:

Anytime someone's got a problem and you want to try to work with them to help them clarify it, you can start with this picture and say, what do we know about the world as it is? How well defined is your square? Great. You can write a whole bunch of things or draw other pictures and say, my business is perfect. It's highly optimized. Or, I know I'm losing revenue or I'm gaining market share, whatever it is, these are things that are known.

Dan Roam:

Okay, now let's talk for a moment what do we know about change? What's entering into your mind space or into your market space that might be causing you to think about things differently? There's a whole lot you can write there. There's no change in my industry or there's massive change or now that we've got COVID-19, everything's upside down, what have you.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Dan Roam:

Then, on the other side of that, the circle. Say, okay, so now, let's brainstorm a bit. On the other side of that change, what might our world look like? What does that circle represent? You can write or draw. I've gone on for a little longer than I meant there, Daniel. It's simple picture. My favorite. Incredibly rich, no words required, just those three images. What do you think of that?

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, it's interesting because I drew that with you when I was sitting in your workshop at the CIS conference, which was like, again, super fun to draw with you. I'll be honest, at the time, I was like, okay. Now that I'm drawing it with you, I'm like, whoa, because, as I was drawing the circle, and maybe it's because I was just listening to your interview with Dave Gray. I think I learned from him, maybe I learned from you is that the idea of a circle being what's in and what's out, right, that's probably a little washed out.

Daniel Stillman:

The circle is really a fundamental idea of like, what is the whole that we're creating? What's not in that whole? It's just drawing a boundary, just drawing a circle is just ... it's strange how profound it is to say, this is what we're doing. Then, everything else we're not doing. This is and everything else is not.

Dan Roam:

Might we, Daniel, push that a little bit further?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

This could be a little philosophical but it's interesting, isn't it that planets are the shape of a circle? They're a sphere with three dimensional circle. Cells in the body tend to be generally circular if left ... anything in zero gravity, that is a liquid or a shape that has the ability to form itself is going to form a circle or a sphere, a three dimensional circle.

Dan Roam:

The circle really is the element of life. It really is. It represents a thing, an organism. By definition, that means there's something inside it and then there's everything that's outside it. It's really this most binary model of all. That's why I intentionally put the circle as where we're going because it's so open. It could be anything, anything.

Daniel Stillman:

The reason I wanted to ask you that is like I have two drawings of yours that I have doodled on here that were very seminal for me. Then, I'll loop back around to the Alex Osterwalder question because the look, see, imagine show diagram that you did in The Back of the Napkin. I don't know if that sparks in your brain, if you can see what I'm seeing of, here's just the world which is all these little shapes and many, many little ... there's disarray.

Daniel Stillman:

Then, seeing is finding order in that, imagining what could be where the white spaces are. Then, making an effort to show somebody what you're seeing. On the flipside of that drawing is the collect, layout, establish fundamental coordinates and visual triage diagram, like those two diagrams I've kept written on my heart for 10 years. The thing is that bottom up sense-making is really hard. It takes groups of people a lot of mental work to establish those fundamental coordinates and to practice visual triage and to make sense.

Daniel Stillman:

Top down is when somebody like you or Alex says, here are these four buckets, let's fill those four buckets. You help somebody's thinking. I think there's this fundamental tension I have as a consultant with people of getting them to create their own thing that they own and they really believe in. Because when they establish their own fundamental coordinates, they are bought in and they get it and it is theirs. Versus here's these four elements, let's get started.

Daniel Stillman:

I hold them in tension because Alex's Business Model canvas does not say, let's have a conversation of what you think the fundamental components of a business model are and let's really think about it and let's come up with your own framework for that. Then, let's change them. He's like hear the nine everyone, strap in, we're going for a ride. In Draw to Win, you're like, here are the four buckets, here's a PUMA, let's get going.

Dan Roam:

What a fabulous, fabulous insight. I would add a couple of thoughts to it. It has been my understanding learned that as the author of a book, the expectation is you provide the top down framework. That's what a book is. A book is not a conversation. A book is a lecture or a magic show or a presentation or a vaudeville routine, whatever it is. The book is you as the expert or you as the authors having a point of view and prescriptively telling the rest of us, here is a way to think about the world, that's what it is.

Dan Roam:

If you choose to take the path of writing a book, number one, you're going to need to have a point of view. Number two, you're going to need to have that framework, that top down. I hadn't thought about it in this way. I think your example, Alexander Osterwalder could have written a completely different book about how to build a business model canvas but he did not write. He said, "Myself and my friend, Yves, Yves Pigneur, have spent the last decade researching how businesses operate, business models, and we have come up with the co-authorship of many, many people around the world, this framework, it works, trust us, use it." He's turned out to be geniusly right.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Dan Roam:

I want to talk just for a moment about frameworks, because that ... you were mentioning coordinate systems, coordinate systems frameworks to me. What I did not share with you when you were asking about my origin story is I have always built models and frameworks. As a kid, I built model airplanes. That was a way to interact with the world and make sense of it. That all I do to this day is really the same thing, building models of what we hear people talk about our systems within a business or an organization.

Dan Roam:

We're building a framework or a model. Often, I make them and I have some skill in doing that. You're right, because a truly interesting conversation workshop or problem solving session is where we do say let's create the framework together.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, I think, there's something magical in giving somebody those fundamental coordinates. Because when you draw, the four story arcs in Draw to Win, really, you're not telling somebody about how to do every piece of their presentation, but you're saying here are these four fundamental ways that you can draw the arc of a conversation, right? That's helpful for people.

Dan Roam:

It is. I had feedback. I'm constantly, as you are, constantly revising the tools and doing presentations and collecting feedback. It's always an evolving process. I've recently, Daniel, started working with another client, a giant technology company here in the Bay Area, and introduced this idea of visual thinking as a problem solving tool with a 30-minute Zoom session that was very, very well attended and very, very well received and feedback was great.

Dan Roam:

Then a week later, additional feedback as people have reflected even more saying, "Hey, Dan, could you please have been more prescriptive?" "Could you have please just told us what picture to draw when?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Dan Roam:

It's interesting because as all of us are so busy and so engaged in whatever it is that we need to do, our life, the problem we need to solve, the thing we need to move forward, it seems often what we're looking for is not necessarily someone to tell us what to do. Certainly, someone to give us another possible way to think about what to do, so we can put it in our toolkit and imagine, of all the things that I've been shown that ways to solve this, what would be a good one right now?

Dan Roam:

A tool, a hammer, doesn't normally present itself to you and say, how would you use me? A hammer says, this is how you use me. There is a specific act in your building of a house that's going to require a hammer. There's another act that's going to require a screwdriver and another act that's going to require a saw. Now, this is getting super philosophical, but that is what ... What I often hear from people who have a task to get done is, Dan, the best thing you could do is tell me which hammer to use and show me how to use it.

Dan Roam:

Again, it goes back to what is your role as an author? I think, Daniel, let me turn the question back around to you.

Daniel Stillman:

Sure.

Dan Roam:

You are a conversation starter and facilitator and guider. When you think about the difference between a top down solutioning mindset or a bottom up solutioning mindset, what is the essence of the question that you're after, do you think? Tell me a little bit about your thinking on the difference between those two? Because there's a framework right there.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah. Exactly. I mean, I think, I came to design from physics and in industrial design, I discovered that I was much better at the research and the talking to people part. When I was working as a consultant, we had to make meaning, we had to tell a narrative we had to explain to our customers, here's what we're seeing in the market. Here's what we think people are doing.

Daniel Stillman:

To me, it feels more honest to look at the data and to enliven it. I actually have a quote here from your book that I think is, "A good report brings data to life. When we do a report right, we deliver more than just facts, we deliver them in a way that gives insight. It makes data memorable and makes our audience care." That takes work to do to hammer out data into information and insight. It's not data anymore. I think the IKEA effect is that people care about the ... we put the energy in and so we care more about it.

Daniel Stillman:

I've always found getting my clients to pick up the pen is profoundly impactful. I guess the question I have for us is, as consultants and educators because you do some of both, some of it is teaching and evoking and other times it's like it's getting them to pick up the pen. It's like, well, why are they paying you if they're doing the drawing? There is that sense of like it's all coming from them, the best stuff does come from them. That's what I love about the bottom up and to ask as much as possible to be an active listener.

Daniel Stillman:

At the same time, I think their intention, I don't think it's an either or. It's like at some point, it is helpful to be like, yes, and let's ... maybe if we push it in this way, it will help the conversation. I don't know if that's answering you but ...

Dan Roam:

Daniel, this is triggering something in my mind, I want to talk if you don't mind about another framework, because it does create that tension of we work from frameworks ... What I'm loving about where we're going with this and this is new thinking for me right now, is there is one act which is the act of distilling and creating a framework. Then, there's a second distinct act which is filling the framework in. Both are very valid and both have a different role to play.

Dan Roam:

Thinking about that, listening to you, what occurs to me is if you think about what Joseph Campbell did in his life, the uncovering and sort of the clarification of the monomyth, frequently referred to we all know as the hero's journey. It is in many ways, at this point, everybody's familiar with the hero's journey. It's become quite a trope. It's a really good one. It is the framework that appears to be very parallel in many, many of the great myths from all of human history. Not all of the myths, but many of those that have stood the test of time and continue to inform the stories we do now, we tell now.

Dan Roam:

It is a very, very simple framework and it is kind of an immutable framework. There are a series of steps that take place in a hero's journey. The beauty of that is we could either rework the journey, which is an interesting exercise that many people do. Or we could accept the journey, basically as articulated by Campbell and many others, and use it as the framework by which we create our story, which is of course, what everyone from George Lucas to JK Rowling to J.R.R. Tolkien knowing it or not knowing it, did.

Dan Roam:

They all follow exactly, their greatest works all follow exactly the same storyline to the letter, to the character, to the tee. Here's the thought. When you are telling a story, how often or when you are telling the story, Danielle, how often do you fall back upon a known framework of telling a story and just use that as a way to tell a great story versus how often do you fall back on rewriting the structure of the story? That's a question for you.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Right. That's a great question. It seems like what's the business of the moment, right? When it's about creating fresh insight and building something truly new, which some teams do, it's really important to, I think, start from the bottom and build up. Then, maybe the second phase is where you really want to have that fundamental physics of good storytelling. You don't want to necessarily reinvent storytelling unless you're a storytelling consultant.

Daniel Stillman:

Or you maybe want to iterate within the storytelling framework. Yeah, you just want to get down to the business of let's write a story, not, let's not think about the essence of a story.

Dan Roam:

It's funny because you're triggering me, you had quoted a little bit from the book Show and Tell which I wrote six or seven years ago now. What was really fun about that, the core framework of that book, you mentioned this thing called the PUMA, the presentations underlying messaging architecture, that's the acronym, the PUMA, the underlying architecture of the story you choose to tell. I worked and worked and chipped away. Again, in the creating of a framework, and it's kind of a framework of frameworks said, there are effectively four stories that you can tell.

Dan Roam:

Yeah. Anytime you make a blanket statement like that or you come up with a framework of frameworks, it's only going to come ... it's quite a rule, it's only going to cover 80% of the stuff. There are infinite number of other storylines you could tell but they do tend to be a little bit on the fringe. For the purposes of people who are going to buy and read a business book, they're looking for prescription, generally, they're looking for the hammer.

Dan Roam:

Here they are. You mentioned, we have a report, that's fine. Reports tend to not drive a lot of change in your audience. A report might as well just be a written document that's a pre read or something. There's really no point in presenting a report not much interesting is going to happen. Then, you have an explanation, which is really the telling of a story for the intention of specifically teaching someone how to do something. How to sail a boat? How to tie a knot? How to cook an omelet?

Dan Roam:

The steps are pretty well known. There is a series of steps that you can go through. It's not necessarily emotionally exciting, but most stuff that we just need to learn in order to know it isn't always very emotionally exciting like math, there's a series of steps. Then, the third one would be the pitch. The pitch is kind of interesting because what the pitch is it says, hey, we have a problem. I think I have a solution to it. Let me toss you this ball and see if you can catch it and if that means something to you. Do we agree that that was a great way to do it? The pitch is obviously the sales pitch type thing.

Dan Roam:

Then, the fourth framework is back to this monomyth. I just called it the drama. The drama is the ultimate presentation storyline to evoke someone's emotional response. It is exactly, it is Joseph Campbell's monomyth. If you want to evoke an emotional response, an essentially guaranteed way to do that is to tell a story that says, this is us and everything's pretty good today. Boom, some really terrible thing has just happened and because of that, we have stumbled and fallen.

Dan Roam:

As we are falling, as inevitably happens, we accelerate downward and things get worse and worse and worse. Until finally, we're at this point where everything is so bad, we might as well just die. It's all over. It's finished. At that moment, in that pit of despair, some voice comes back into our mind out of a mentor, perhaps a spiritual guide, perhaps it's an ancient memory, something comes back that says, not today. Today, I'm not going to let this thing kill me.

Dan Roam:

It is that moment, that reflection, that spark from inside or from out that allows us to get a foot underneath ourselves and start to stand up again. As we begin to stand up, we begin to accelerate back in the opposite direction, back towards the surface, back upwards. As we do that, one good thing falls into alignment after the next after the next. Before we know it, we push, zoom, come right back across out of the surface and fly higher than we ever were at the beginning.

Dan Roam:

Even Daniel, I'm done. Even telling that, just like that as generic as it was, I'm giving myself goosebumps.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I'm re-watching half a dozen Pixar movies because there's always that moment ...

Dan Roam:

All of them. Always. All of them, all of the greats, yes, yes ...

Daniel Stillman:

When all hope is lost one tiny glimmer explodes into ...

Dan Roam:

It's that little spark. That is that ...

Daniel Stillman:

Is that teachable? Do you think? I know this is what you profess as some of what you do is to teach people that, the ability to create drama is obviously an important skill for a leader, a facilitator, anybody who's trying to create change. It is not a trivial skill. Do you think that even if you give somebody the framework, the fundamental coordinates of drama, can they follow the instructions and create drama?

Dan Roam:

Absolutely. I can say that with 100% confidence, Daniel, because that is one of the things in my workshops that I do is working with typically fairly senior people in large organizations, sometimes small organizations. The funnest thing that I've ever done in facilitating or training or working with teams is showing people that drama framework, which I didn't make up, nor did Joseph Campbell.

Daniel Stillman:

It's physics.

Dan Roam:

You're right, it's underlying physics. The physics of narrative when audiences ... it's like revealing the ultimate magic trick. It always works. It always works. It always evokes an emotional response. Yes, to your question, is it teachable? Absolutely. You can break the hero's journey down into a discrete number of steps. You can identify the archetype characters that you probably want to introduce at each one of those steps, the typical turns of the story, and you can reveal them relatively easily. We're all familiar with some of the same really great tales and movies.

Dan Roam:

I have seen business audiences for whom, yeah, this is another facilitation session, I'll check the box, I've done my learning and development, my professional education for the quarter. When you have shown people this drama map and ask them to take a business problem that they have, a business problem, I can't figure out the code to finish my game or we're running out of money or we need to reallocate resources or we need to create a new organizational structure.

Dan Roam:

Tell it to me in the form of a drama. Oh my gosh, people do not want to leave the room. That's all they want to do is tell that story and then allow them to share it. There were tears, people are crying over the story of the installation of a new ERP system. Actually, that makes sense because installing a new ERP system always makes people cry.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a fundamental human drama retold.

Dan Roam:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a timeless tale.

Dan Roam:

I really appreciate your question because I just feel the passion coming up in me. Yes, the hero's journey, the monomyth, the drama is absolutely a teachable skill. It is once taught something people never forget and extraordinarily powerful.

Daniel Stillman:

This is really interesting because I want to reframe this because you as a facilitator and a trainer, I'm looking through these four types, the report, just A to B, the explanation, the pitch and the drama. It seems like at least three of those four might need to be alternated and pulled from your toolbox over the course of one session with a group that you sometimes do need to explain and maybe sometimes even pitch an idea to them and to lay out the drama for them as well. I don't know if that's a question. I just realized that.

Daniel Stillman:

I've been thinking about the components, the elements, the fundamental jobs of a facilitator. I had never thought about explaining this dramatic role is really critical. You can deliver that drama. It's a skill you have. You can explain things clearly and succinctly. I quoted a part of a book that you wrote seven years ago and it came out if you like nothing. It's clear to me. What other fundamental coordinates are there, do you think that you think you're drawing from as Dan Roam the facilitator and an educator and consultant, what are your fundamental coordinates in terms of how you're showing up in the room?

Dan Roam:

Yeah, what a fabulous question. It is an evolution from me. I'm trying really hard to improve this. I see it in your work. I was looking through some of your Medium posts and looking through your website and some of the tools you offer. I see this reflected in there as well. The trick for an author is that as we were talking about what is the purpose of a book, a box of knowledge is you must have a point of view. You must be opinionated. You must provide a framework. That's what the book does.

Dan Roam:

By virtue of doing that, it does become about you. There is not an author on the planet for whom the book is not about them. The fundamental question is as a facilitator, are you positioning yourself as a teacher or as an instigator or as an enabler, they're all legitimate. There's a time for every one of them. What I'm trying to do is really think through perhaps better than I have in the past, it really isn't about me. I'm in the room because I wrote a book or have a reputation for something that someone might find meaningful. That's the reason you're invited.

Dan Roam:

You have to keep that in mind. I have seen facilitators who come in and say, okay, what do you want to do today? Tell me what your problem is. That's fine. That works. To me, that falls a little flat. Wait, we already know why you're here. You're here to elucidate us. That's why we've asked you to come. The needle that needs to be threaded by the thoughtful facilitator is the balance between when is it about me and the message I want to share with you? When does that shift to it really being about you and the value you are going to get from this for yourself?

Dan Roam:

It's not easy and there's no great answer. That is the space that I'm really trying to work now. To balance being a good speaker and an even better listener and to have that be true, is really hard. That's the work for me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I feel that. I struggle with this too because expertise is what gets you in the room. Pulling things out of them is what widens it up for me. Tell us exactly how to do it.

Dan Roam:

Then, add into that. I hear you Daniel. I think you're right. I think there's a third stage there. You're invited in because you've got expertise so share it with us. Now pull out of us, says the audience, our work but leave us with us feeling that it's truly ours and something has changed in our life. To shift it from being about the presenter to truly being about, we'll call it the participant, but the attendee.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Dan Roam:

Who's then going to leave that meeting or that workshop and hopefully go do something different that's valuable for them and pass that along. That third step is the trickiest one and yet when you do it right, as the facilitator, I will share one story with you. I do a lot of full day workshops at substantial organizations. I would think they're paying me and sometimes as the facilitator, you think it's kind of like you're being paid by the pound. How much knowledge did you leave on the table today? You're right for that.

Dan Roam:

I'll tell you the thing that was interesting that was the big breakthrough, probably five or six years ago, was the more time you spend silent in the latter half of a workshop, the better the workshop is. In the opening quarter or the opening half, you must provide the content. That's why you're there. Once you've provided it, provide less than you think you need to and intentionally design the second half of the day to be one in which you say almost nothing.

Dan Roam:

If you do that, your ranking as a facilitator is going to go up. It's the weirdest thing. You think, but I didn't even say anything in the last half of the day and now I'm getting fives across the board. Yes. I'm talking a lot, but it's the same idea that the best interview is the one in which you get the interviewer to talk about themselves. It's so funny because we all think that we were listened to really well and that's very valuable.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

That's what we want. We want to be listened to really well.

Daniel Stillman:

Dan, we're getting close to the end of our time. There's two questions. I don't know if we'll have time for both of them. One is what haven't I asked you that I should have asked you. Also like, how can people find more things Dan Roam, your live sketching, your next book, I want to hang out for that. Did I say that correctly? People can hang out and draw with you while you write your next book?

Dan Roam:

I am. I'm writing a new book. It's called the Pop Up Pitch. In two hours, create the 10 pages that will transform your audience. It's a cookbook. It's another framework. It's a very specific framework. I'm writing it together at this point with about 180 other people that have joined me online and we get together once a month. It's called Draw with Dan season two on thenapkinacademy.com.

Dan Roam:

If anybody's interested in pursuing that, napkinacademy.com, Draw with Dan season two. We're not co-writing the book. I'm writing the book, but along the way, everybody else is writing their book too.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Dan Roam:

It's quite fascinating. I really appreciate that, Daniel. I'm going to have to roll off here too.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it's time.

Dan Roam:

I so appreciate your time and letting me share some of my thinking. If we wanted to have one, should we do one closing thought? What have you not asked that would have been great to talk about?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. For our next conversation.

Dan Roam:

We'll leave it for our next conversation is hey, Dan, what is the 10 page pitch? Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay.

Dan Roam:

We'll leave that for next time because it is the ultimate framework combining to your earlier point, all four of the different storylines. Combine them into one storyline to rule them all. It is the infallible. If you don't know how to tell your story, tell it like this and it will work.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Dan, thank you so much. People should definitely check out The Napkin Academy. It's shocking how much great stuff there's there without even having to pay you anything. There's also some great courses. I'm taking your online meeting magic and I'm enjoying it.

Dan Roam:

Good. I'm glad. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you.

Dan Roam:

As we've all locked ourselves at home during this COVID time, it's been a great opportunity for those of us that are ... all of us content creators to take more time to create more really, really, really good stuff because what else have we got to do? It's been, in its own way, a good time. It's a lot challenging but it's given us some good opportunity.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. No, I agree with you. Dan, honestly, it's a real privilege. It's a joy. Thank you so much for your time and sharing so much of your hard won visual triage wisdom.

Dan Roam:

Thank you for listening, Daniel. I really appreciate it.


The Future of Work

Season_Four_Image_stack_DM.jpg

Diane Mulcahy is an advisor to both Fortune 500 companies and startups, is a regular contributor to Forbes and is the author of the bestselling book “The Gig Economy: The Complete Guide to Getting Better Work, Taking More Time Off, and Financing the Life You Want”

Diane was early to the party: When she started teaching MBA students a course on these ideas, some people thought she was talking about Computer Memory. But what made me really want to talk to her was how she decided to go deeper into the topic via teaching - one of the most powerful ways to learn anything! And then to learn more about how she helps organizations work with these trends, rather than against them - I wanted to learn about her approach as a coach and advisor. And you can see, her secret is slowing down conversations.

The future of work is more than gigs on Lyft and Uber or Taskrabbit. 

Barbara Soalheiro, of the consultancy Mesa, in our conversation on the podcast back in season three posited that the best and the brightest wouldn’t want a full time job in the future...which is why she’s designed her innovation sprints to be one week - to help brands bring the best brains in for short sprints.

This is why Diane finds tremendous opportunities to coach and advise organizations to adapt to and survive this transition in what people want from work.

Traditional orgs need to put significant effort into shifting their cultures on:

Trust in Management- Facetime isn’t the same as work (ie, Clock and Chair Management doesn’t work in this new world - for more on this, check out Diane’s Forbes article on Trust)

Projects over Jobs - Define clear outcomes and break up jobs into clear projects and deliverables.

Processes and Systems - Internal systems have to adjust to be more nimble and customer-grade.

We talk about the importance of slowing conversations down when there’s internal resistance:

Diane relates her sense that Orgs seem to be saying.

“We know these things are happening. We know we have to respond," 

...but then it turns out, they want to respond without really changing anything. Diane points out that that's not possible.

The way through is patient conversation, and Diane gives me some deep pointers on shifting challenging conversations with silence.

We also reminisce about travel and I try to get her to tell me what her next forward thinking, trend-setting MBA course will be on...spoiler alert: It’s about the future of food, a critical industry, ripe with challenges that were laid bare at the start of the pandemic.

Learn more about Diane at dianemulcahy.com where you can find links to her other books (she also writes about venture investing) and to many of her online articles.

Links, Quotes, Notes and Resources

More about Diane on her site

Diane’s excellent book on the gig economy

Diane’s Interview with Nayla Bahari on Career Resilience

Nancy McGaw from the Aspen Institute on Powerful Questions and Powerful Silence

On the tension between knowledge and action in orgs...and the need from internal champions:

14:47

“We know these things are happening. We know we have to respond," but then it turns out, they want to respond without really changing anything. That's not possible.

15:52

There's really an opportunity within most companies to step up and be the person who becomes the intrapreneur, the person who says, "Look, these are the trends that are going on in the world. Here's all of the data that suggests that moving in this direction, hiring independent workers, opening ourselves up to the idea of remote and distributed workers, can bring enormous benefits.

19:50

On silence and getting the best details from people if you let them finish their arc

I have always been like that. I think it really comes from, one, being an introvert, somebody who is quiet perhaps to begin with and, two, I was a psychology major in college and I've always just been really interested in other people and hearing what they have to say. I love hearing people talk about issues that are important to them. I like to let them … People do talk in an arc, and if they aren't interrupted, often the best information comes at the end. If you're willing to just, again, sit in silence and let the answer play out, it's a much better answer often.

27:35

On the importance of taking time away from work

I did one year in college. I did one year in my early 30s, just dropped everything and went off to travel around the world in both years. I've also taken shorter periods of time off to do other things that were interesting to me, but I feel like those are the times when you put yourself in a position to absorb a lot of new information, gather a lot of new input, connect new dots, understand new frameworks. When you come back, you're much richer for it. Your thinking has expanded. It's more creative. It's refreshed. It's rejuvenated. It has new input in its current input. I think you're the better for it. I feel the better for it.


Full Transcription


Daniel Stillman:

Well, then, I'll kick things off. I will officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Diane Mulcahy, he thank you for making the time. I really appreciate it.


Diane Mulcahy:

Thank you for having me.


Daniel Stillman:

I want to start at the beginning like way, way back, because I feel like when people ask you about your book, The Gig Economy, it starts with the MBA course, but I want to know, how did you decide to do a course about that? What was emerging for you at that moment because that was a long time ago?


Diane Mulcahy:

It was. In the life of The Gig Economy, it was back at the birth. If you want to go all the way back to the beginning, I think the idea of The Gig Economy had been floating around in my mind without a label, really since I started working. Like a lot of college graduates, my first job was in consulting. I remember thinking, compared to college, I really did not enjoy many things about traditional office-based work and I always had in mind that, "Wouldn't it be great if there was a way of working that looked a lot more like college in the sense that you could have variety, you could be working on different projects, you could be challenging yourself in different ways? Wouldn't that be more interesting than having one steady job that you went to everyday?"


Diane Mulcahy:

That idea took hold very early on and just got parked on the back burner until much later when I was reading an article and I came across this term, the gig economy. I have one of those moments where I had little goose bumps on my arms and I just felt like that is the thing that I have been thinking about since I started working. Really within a week, I had a draft syllabus. The reason that I went in the direction of a syllabus is that it was a completely new and nascent trend. There was nothing out there on it, right? There was nothing to read. There was no source to go to.


Diane Mulcahy:

I had been teaching at the time and I thought, "Wouldn't that be a great way to iterate on this idea, like be in a classroom, be interacting with students, be in a university setting? What a great way to evolve my thinking about this topic?" That's how it all started was just creating this class as a way to further explore the idea that was very, very new.


Daniel Stillman:

That's so interesting that that was your … I think that's my response sometimes as well. It's like, "Okay, let's learn about it together, learning by teaching." I was looking at your LinkedIn profile and I saw that you are a first-generation college student. You belong to a, I guess, an organization at Harvard that was about that. How does a first-generation college student wind up teaching at a business school? That's an amazing leap.


Diane Mulcahy:

Yeah. I'm not even sure how to answer that question really.


Daniel Stillman:

Maybe it's not a question. Maybe, I'm just high fiving you.


Diane Mulcahy:

Thank you. I appreciate that. That's really nice.


Daniel Stillman:

It says something to me and what I'm just absorbing is your pattern-finding brain because you don't just teach you, you write a lot. I think what I'm trying to tease out is this process that you're going through of finding patterns and naming patterns as well and to tighten and elucidate them. I just think it's a very interesting component of what I'm observing as your psychology. Again, not a question. Just a comment.


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, I think what's so interesting about that is the timing is everything. One of my observations about my foray into the gig economy was that I was a little bit on the early side. When I first started teaching the course, people used to think it was a computer science class. They would say, "Oh, are you teaching something about gigabytes? What is this thing that you're talking about?" That's how you would do a Google search and there would be like one entry and that was it. By the time I had taught for a few years and then wrote the book, my timing was really spot on in terms of releasing the book, and then, it really did become a thing that everybody is talking about. Of course, now in the midst of this pandemic with remote work and people getting furloughed and laid off and working differently, it's incredibly relevant.


Daniel Stillman:

Now, I know you advise companies in this stuff. What are you finding that companies need to know that they don't know about this?


Diane Mulcahy:

I would characterize the advisory work I do in three main areas. One area is around remote work. It's really companies trying to come to, and this could be startup companies or large companies, but really trying to come to grips with the processes and the structures that they need to have in place in order to effectively recruit and manage a distributed workforce. That's one area. Another area is really around talent, and for companies that have relied entirely on a workforce of full-time employees, but are now thinking, "I'd like to incorporate some independent workers. I can see where having the ability to access the exact talent that I need when I need it would be beneficial to the company," but they really don't have any idea about how to work with independent workers.


Diane Mulcahy:

Again, it's just thinking through, "What are the processes? What are the tools? What are the structures? How do we do this best in a way that doesn't require reinventing the wheel?" I work with them on that. Then most interestingly to me anyways or most unexpectedly is that I've done a number of projects with companies that are really what I would call products strategy, where they're saying, "We see independent workers as a customer and we know that they need different kinds of products, whether it's insurance products or financial services products than traditional workers. We just want to try to figure out what exactly they need, what are their pain points and how can we help them solve the problems that they have in their life."


Daniel Stillman:

Like serving that audience.


Diane Mulcahy:

Yes.


Daniel Stillman:

Then reimagining how they structure their internal processes to be able to think about work in a different way. I love in your, in your book, you talk about this spectrum of work where on one hand, there's unemployed, and on the other side, there's this corporate ladder-climbing person and one side of that spectrum still exists and the other side of that spectrum exists less and less and everything else is kind In the middle, where you're working part time, you're working flex time, you're doing a side job. It seems like more and more companies do need to be investing in this reality. How should organizations be investing in this future of work? Because this is what we're talking about. This is where things are. It sounds like where things are going to continue to go. How should organizations be investing in their infrastructure and their way of thinking about the nature of work to continue to be able to tap, as you say, actual talent?


Diane Mulcahy:

There are a couple of steps that organizations can take if they're early on in adapting to the future of work which is really the now of work. One is spending some time changing their mindset. That's really the biggest issue. If I talk to CHROS or something or the C-suite at a company, it's trying to understand what their mindset is, "Are they willing to let go and incorporate independent or distributed workers into their workforce? Do they have the trust? Do they have the clarity into the work that they need to get done and the results that they want to generate to be able to work with distributed and independent workers? Do they have the management talent?" That's often where it falls apart. Even if the C-suite is completely convinced about the benefits of a different kind of workforce, oftentimes managers find it really difficult to change their management style to manage those kind of workers and then it becomes really difficult to implement.


Diane Mulcahy:

I think mindset is the first step and the biggest step. Then after that, it's easier it's execution. It's thinking about, "What are the processes we need to put in place? What are the tools? How do we make sure we preserve culture? How do we make sure that we have some centralized control in terms of standardized onboarding, standardized contracts, rapid payment, debriefing, making sure that we keep a network of independent workers that have worked well for us?" It's really just getting into the operational aspects of it.


Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting because there are these two real important sides. One is this digital transformation side of, "Do we even know how to …" I'm sure you've been on the other side of this like, "We need to get you into our internal system," and it's an absurd headache. I've been paid months after I've done work with clients just because literally getting in the system takes months and it blows my mind that the infrastructure of a company is so antiquated. Digital transformation is nontrivial, but this other side of trust and redesigning work into tasks, projects, needs and to rethink management, those are not trivial problem-solving skills.


Daniel Stillman:

Also, if you're listening at home, I just want to point out that Diane is an online meeting pro. She just muted herself while she coughed. If you didn't know that, that was a thing. It's a thing. Manage yourselves, people. Sorry, it's just everyone always asked me about remote work and I feel like I just need to point out the basics from time to time. Mute yourself if you know you're going to cough.


Diane Mulcahy:

That's good.


Daniel Stillman:

Should I? I'll loop back around, how do you help with these stickier pieces because it is hard to change those things, it's hard to shift the needle on trust?


Diane Mulcahy:

It's incredibly hard. I think the most effective way to change the mindset is to put it explicitly on the table. It's really just sitting down with teams and saying, "Look, if this is an issue, if you have somebody who is a micromanager, if you have somebody who is unwilling to let people work from home a day or two a week, you have some issues with either management style and/or trust. How do you work through that?" One is naming it. Naming it and putting it on the table for discussion. Then, the second, really what I have found effective, is to just engage in almost like a Socratic dialogue where you're really trying to understand, "Where is this person's thought process and mindset coming from? What is it that they're worried about?"


Diane Mulcahy:

Because generally, when people exhibit a lack of trust when they are micromanagers, that stems from some kind of fear, "What are they afraid of? What do they think their employees are going to do when they are working at home? What do they think is going to happen if they're not controlling everything?" and just trying to get underneath that. Some companies are better at dealing with that than others. They have executive coaches. They have other resources to help managers shift how they think about work, but it is a real change. It's a behavioral change. It does take time and effort at the end of the day,


Daniel Stillman:

Is that a part of what you do that you enjoy? Do you enjoy helping companies with that mindset shift? Of all the things you do, is that something that's like, "Yeah, that's"-


Diane Mulcahy:

I do enjoy it. I enjoy pushing the thinking. To me, watching somebody's thinking evolve and get past their current, their baseline comfort zone and getting them to a place that feels larger and more expansive is really satisfying. Equally, it's frustrating if I'm engaged with an individual or a company that is very set in their ways and not interested in evolving. That can be frustrating.


Daniel Stillman:

Especially since they called you. They're like-


Diane Mulcahy:

Or they're like, "We know these things are happening. We know we have to respond," but then it turns out, they want to respond without really changing anything. That's not possible.


Daniel Stillman:

No, it's not. Can you give us the illusion of addressing this challenge? I imagine that you give keynote speeches. That's one way that companies, we all participate in this, it's innovation or change management theater of like, "Hey, so we've got Diane in. She's going to give a talk and we're doing something about this thing," but that's obviously not enough, although it's a good start. People should definitely hire you to give a keynote speech, not arguing against that, whatsoever. I looked at your website. They all sound like really amazing topics and I'm sure you enjoy giving those talks. What's the next step that HR leaders and managers should be taking after they bring you in? What's the next step in the conversation?


Diane Mulcahy:

That's such a great question. What does Monday morning look like? I think for HR, well, really, whether it's an HR executive or whether it's somebody else from the C-suite, the next step is to really decide … There's really an opportunity within most companies to step up and be the person who becomes the intrapreneur, the person who says, "Look, these are the trends that are going on in the world. Here's all of the data that suggests that moving in this direction, hiring independent workers, opening ourselves up to the idea of remote and distributed workers, can bring enormous benefits. It can help us win the war for talent. It can help make us more efficient. It can help give us the skills and the expertise we need when we need it. It makes it much more cost effective for us to be able to step up and step out lots of data and reasons why this can be beneficial."


Diane Mulcahy:

Then, being the person that says, "I want to really run with this and here's the plan of what we need to do." Again, that plan is both thinking about what the mindset is and the culture and shifting that to accommodate this new way of working as well as attending to the operational aspects of changing your workforce.


Daniel Stillman:

You really need that internal champion of the thing to be taking it up.


Diane Mulcahy:

I think that's true.


Daniel Stillman:

I want to roll back to the moment, you're talking about the joy of pushing somebody's thinking and expanding their mindset. I'm wondering, my ax to grind is that we're designing our conversations all the time. How do you plan as a coach? There's plenty of people who listen to this who are trying to do more coaching in their role. I'm curious, what's your conversational superpower? How do you feel like you help people rotate their thinking and to coach people out of one way of thinking and into another?


Diane Mulcahy:

I'm not sure I've thought of it as a superpower, but I think in general, what works is asking good questions and listening. I am not afraid of silence. I think that that is really powerful in a conversation with somebody who is in the process of assimilating information that can shift the way they think. It doesn't happen rapid fire. This isn't a game of verbal volleyball. A lot of time these, these conversations are slower moving. They're reflective and people have to pull their thoughts together. You have to give space for people not to be reactive but rather to be thoughtful. Listening and being okay with that silence and that slow moving I think is really powerful because it's unusual.


Diane Mulcahy:

When you ask somebody a question and then it becomes clear that you're not going to say anything else until they answer it, you get a different answer than if you just realize, "Wow, that question is maybe a little bit uncomfortable. I'm going to paper over that. I'm going to rephrase it and make it easier or I'm going to just talk over it," which I think is a tendency.


Daniel Stillman:

Yes, it is. It's interesting. I've had some people on who talked about how my friend Nancy McGaw from the Aspen Institute talks about how powerful questions need powerful silence. How did you develop that skill? I'll be honest, I'm noticing that about you. There's some people, us Jews, for example, we do what's called collaborative overlap where we don't really let the other person finish their sentence because we're so helpful. How did you develop your … You have a more centered and silent style. Where do you think that came from? That's really interesting. I have noticed that about you just in the short time we spent together.


Diane Mulcahy:

I have always been like that. I think it really comes from, one, being an introvert, somebody who is quiet perhaps to begin with and, two, I was a psychology major in college and I've always just been really interested in other people and hearing what they have to say. I love hearing people talk about issues that are important to them. I like to let them … People do talk in an arc, and if they aren't interrupted, often the best information comes at the end. If you're willing to just, again, sit in silence and let the answer play out, it's a much better answer often.


Daniel Stillman:

I'm just practicing more silence, Diane.


Diane Mulcahy:

How is that going for you? It looks uncomfortable on the video.


Daniel Stillman:

It's tough. Well, it's interesting because this morning, I was interviewing Liz Stokoe. I think I might be mispronouncing her last name. She's also a former psychologist, conversation analyst, and interviewing her, she's rapid fire. It's a very different experience. I think I had a revelation while you were talking, I think of myself as an introverted extrovert. I don't necessarily understand the mind of the true introvert. I guess I feel like if there's a spectrum of work, I think everything's a spectrum usually. True extroverts are terrible people and true introverts are also terrible people, people who are just only interested in outward and people who are only interested in maybe themselves. I've never really thought of an introvert, and this is embarrassing, I'm saying this out loud, introverts as other-directed, right? The idea that an introvert can also be fundamentally curious about the inner lives of others is fasting fascinating to me.


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, introverts are a broad range of people. I don't mean to generalize, but that's definitely true for me. I'm absolutely curious. I think that's why I interview people and write about them. I think it really stems from, "I know my own thoughts on this, but I'm always curious what would somebody else say?" and I love to try to understand that.


Daniel Stillman:

Actually, I'm glad you brought up your writing because I was hoping to transition to, because you're fairly prolific, can you talk a little bit about your approach to writing, how you go from that interview to creating a perspective on the thing?


Diane Mulcahy:

I would say I do two kinds of writing. One is writing that is ideas, just so articles about things that I think and they almost feel like things that I have to get out because as any writer will tell you, writing is not pleasant. If I could avoid it, I probably would, but these are things I feel really compelled to write about. Interviews in many ways are easier because I generally am able to identify a topic that I think is really interesting, but then my role in writing up an interview is to represent what somebody else says for the most part. Usually, I've interviewed them because I think they have an interesting perspective. That's generally easier and the process of writing those kinds of articles is fun because you do get to have the conversation and then reflect on the topic. Generally speaking, if you're interested in something and you talk to somebody else about it, somebody else who is informed or who has an interesting way of thinking or a different perspective, it advances your own thinking. It's really a win-win as those kinds of articles.


Daniel Stillman:

That's one of the reasons why I do this podcast. It literally forces me to learn and I think this verbal process of engaging with somebody consolidates my thoughts. It makes me read your book without the pressure and shame of facing you. It'd be hard to get around to doing it. I feel like I would be remiss because I'm looking at my notes from your interview with Nayla where you interviewed her about the skills that are required to succeed in this gig economy. I feel like since we are all actually living in it, you and me included, I looked at these and I just thought they were just good human skills. What have you learned, not just from Nayla, but from other people, what does it take for all of us to thrive in this large spectrum, this uncertain future of work?


Diane Mulcahy:

I think what was so interesting about my conversation with Nayla, who I interviewed and wrote about in Forbes, is that her research indicated that the way that we should respond to changes in the way that we work, whether it's getting laid off or transitioning to working independently, is counterintuitive. What her research found is that things like having a reflective practice and spending time doing things that are joyful, that are nourishing, that are creative are important to the process of getting to a place where you will thrive. It was really powerful when she said that 100% of the people that had been laid off and ended up in a better situation, 100%, had some sort of reflective practice. I think that's so counterintuitive. It's like the conversational style.


Diane Mulcahy:

So many of us feel like, "I have to be doing. I have to be busy. I have to be productive. I have to have my nose to the keyboard if I'm really going to be serious about doing something." I think her research is so illuminating by saying, "No, that's not the right way. There is room to create time and space for reflection, for doing things that feel really nurturing to you personally, that fill you up, that give you the energy to be able to then put your nose to the keyboard and there really is a balance. Going 100% all day is not the answer, even though intuitively many of us have absorbed that message and feel like that is the way.


Daniel Stillman:

How is that true for you in your own practice?


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, in my own life and career, I've always needed a lot of time and space to do things that are different, right? This need for variety and change is something that you're hearing coming through. I have taken two separate years off ditching my life and saying, " I'm taking a break."


Daniel Stillman:

Wow.


Diane Mulcahy:

I did one year in college. I did one year in my early 30s, just dropped everything and went off to travel around the world in both years. I've also taken shorter periods of time off to do other things that were interesting to me, but I feel like those are the times when you put yourself in a position to absorb a lot of new information, gather a lot of new input, connect new dots, understand new frameworks. When you come back, you're much richer for it. Your thinking has expanded. It's more creative. It's refreshed. It's rejuvenated. It has new input in its current input. I think you're the better for it. I feel the better for it.


Daniel Stillman:

Where did you travel on that second trip? I just miss traveling. I want to hear-


Diane Mulcahy:

I know.


Daniel Stillman:

Let's talk about traveling for one second.


Diane Mulcahy:

It's so hard. I traveled with my husband and we decided to go to places that were hard to do in a normal life. We went to Asia to start and traveled all around Asia. We based out of Bangkok but traveled everywhere. Then, we went to Africa for two months, and then, we went to Australia for two months.


Daniel Stillman:

Favorite Place in Asia? I know these are impossible questions, but I'm going to ask these anyway. Totally relevant because I miss-


Diane Mulcahy:

I love Bangkok. I've been back several times. My husband spent some time there when he was a kid. I love Bangkok. It's a great city. An amazing culture. So incredibly exotic. Friendly. So different.


Daniel Stillman:

And delicious.


Diane Mulcahy:

And delicious.


Daniel Stillman:

I lived in Bangkok for, I don't know, almost a month while I waiting for a friend to show up and go to another country with me. I was eating noodles in the back corner, and then, there's like an Indian temple around the corner that was having festivals like every other week. It's truly extraordinary …


Diane Mulcahy:

It is.


Daniel Stillman:

… and diverse place.


Diane Mulcahy:

It's marvelous. It's a marvelous place.


Daniel Stillman:

What do you feel were some of the insights that you took into your next phase from that time?


Diane Mulcahy:

I think I really came back with just a much more global perspective that was informed by, one, the lived experience and, two, by the real world. I've never been much of a history buff, but when I went to China, I couldn't stop reading about Mao and that whole cultural revolution, I was fascinated. I would say, for every country that I went to, we went to Vietnam and I was like, "Wait, I need to revisit the Vietnam War because I feel like that was lost over in my AP US history class." It sparks interests that I think school might not have sparked because you're there. You're looking around. You're seeing what the environment was, where these events took place and it becomes much more of an interesting lively situation to look into.


Diane Mulcahy:

I felt so much better informed in a way of things that I had missed from formal study. I just feel like that brings a different perspective. After visiting China, I never looked at leadership the same way. These all become dots that you start connecting differently and integrating into what you already know.


Daniel Stillman:

Something that's just bubbling up for me is as we zoom back and think about the global perspective, the gig economy can look different from wherever you are in the world. There's definitely, I use Upwork and tap into a global network of freelancers to help me do my work. When I look at the pricing structures, there's people in parts of Europe that charge very differently than other parts of Europe. Then, there's people in Asia and India and all over, and then there's the gig economy in the United States. It seems like in one level, the gig economy is about privilege, but on the other hand, it's also about access because there seems to be this interesting tension and what it is depending on where you're looking at it from.


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, I definitely think it's about access. I think even within the US, what you're seeing is labor markets becoming much more distributed and what technology like Upwork is doing is removing the friction, around transacting with labor that previously would have been fairly inaccessible. If you're looking for somebody in the US to edit an article, you can pay somebody in New York, with their experience in their prices or somebody in Idaho that may look very different. I don't know if that's not a guarantee but on average. It allows for a wider selection.


Diane Mulcahy:

You can more specifically find the tradeoff between skills or quality and price that you're looking for because you do have this broad access and that's what companies are finding. They can access the precise skills at the price that they're willing to pay because now, they're not just looking in their local labor market where some skills might be in short supply or prices might be high. They're able to expand beyond that and decide for themselves what is the tradeoff they're willing to make. Are they willing to hire somebody with maybe less experience or less expertise or less formal training, but at a lower price or do they really want to look nationally to find the expert, the person Who's at the top of the field and then pay them whatever it is they charge? The choice is now available to everybody in a way that it never used to be.


Daniel Stillman:

We can really in a way design our workflow. I know I've worked with teams at some large global consulting firms that will remain nameless where they actually really enjoy, and it baffles my mind, but the 24-hour cycle of work. Because if you're in the United States of America, you can send something off to India, and then, India works and they send it back to you. Asia and the US can have the sort of seesaw continuous work versus wanting somebody that is if you are in Asia, that is in Asia, where you want to have on-demand access to them during waking hours.


Daniel Stillman:

I had somebody who was in Singapore who came to one of my facilitation master classes and I was like, "Oh, my god. This is from midnight to 3:00 AM for you," but he was like, "No, I really want to do this." I was like, "Okay, that's great." That's crazy. It's really interesting that there's this opportunity for companies to design how they collaborate and cocreate.


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, and it's no secret that companies value the arbitrage in time zones too, right?


Daniel Stillman:

Right.


Diane Mulcahy:

Those same consulting firms all have research staff and document production staff in Asia because when the US and Europe can send it when they're leaving and an Asia is just starting. It is a 24 hour work cycle for these companies. They now have access to that in a way that they didn't before.


Daniel Stillman:

Do you leverage that side of the gig economy? Obviously, we're all in it, but are you a consumer of gig folk and I'm curious how you make your team-


Diane Mulcahy:

Absolutely. I walk the talk. I walk the talk. I absolutely am. When I wrote my book, it was with all independent and largely remote workers, some of whom, I found them through different channels, but everybody was independent. I didn't have an employee. I worked with gig economy workers for everything from editing, to research, to graphic design, to helping me with social media, to my website design, to PR. Every part of that process from writing the book, to launching it, to post-launch, I used … The team changed and I think I'm also a case study of, "Access the exact talent when you need it." I didn't need a PR person until after the launch, but I need a research assistant before the launch. I'm able to go out and find the skills and the experience that I needed when I needed it.


Daniel Stillman:

That's amazing. I want to leave as much time as possible for this conversation about women in the gig economy. You have a series on Forbes where you write about this. Does the gig economy affect women differently? If so, why and how? In the interest of diversity and equity, I'm curious to unpack that a little bit.


Diane Mulcahy:

People ask me this question in some form or another frequently and it usually is around, "Does this make it easier for women to stay home and raise a family?" is what underlies it.


Daniel Stillman:

That's not what I am asking, but-


Diane Mulcahy:

Well, in the sense of, "Does it help women in a way that's different from men?" is usually that question is generally tied to family responsibilities. At the highest level, my response is, "The gig economy provides the same types of opportunities to everybody. Everybody who wants to work independently, who wants to put together a portfolio of work, who wants to work for themselves, has the same opportunity to have flexibility, to have autonomy, to have control over their schedule and their work, to create whatever balance is important in their life or to have no balance and work like crazy and maximize their income, right?" That's a choice everybody gets to make.


Diane Mulcahy:

What I do think is for women or for men, for parents, who have decided that they are staying at home to raise children, it does make it easier to also work if that's something that someone wants to do. Again, you can access all of those characteristics, the autonomy, the flexibility, the control over your schedule, so you can decide, "Look, I'm a night owl, I only want to do work that I can do between 10:00 PM and 1:00 AM," and you can do that. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. Maybe you're a guy who wants to maximize your income and you're doing that as a side gig. Maybe you're a woman with an infant and that's when you're up, right?


Diane Mulcahy:

It doesn't matter. The opportunities are there for whoever wants to access them. My students are active participants in the gig economy. I've had my MBA students say, "You know what? I'm driving Uber while I'm in graduate school and I'm only driving enough to cover my car payment and I just want that payment coming out of my normal budget." That's what they're doing it for. I feel like the opportunity is there for everybody. I don't know if that fully answers your questions, so feel free to refine it.


Daniel Stillman:

No, I think that is a perfectly legitimate answer. I didn't have the family planning aspect. I was just mainly curious because I know you have the series, and so in a way, I was curious about what was behind that if there was a direction that that was going.


Diane Mulcahy:

The reason I started that is I think for me, what I found interesting about the series that I write on Forbes on Women in The Gig Economy is giving women that I think are doing interesting, provocative things or thinking interesting and provocative thoughts, a platform to express those and to put those out into the world. I think there are many more platforms for men to do that still than for women. That was really my interest. Amplifying voices that I found interesting.


Daniel Stillman:

I think that's the other part that I … Maybe what I was thinking about is, and I'm blanking out on the names of the actual programs where micro loans are distributed to women in developing economies, where it really can be amazingly transformative to be able to start a business and the incredibly beneficial effects that has on larger society. In a way, it seems like maybe the gig economy opens up more of those opportunities.


Diane Mulcahy:

The gig economy absolutely opens more opportunities for people that have traditionally been on the margins of the labor force. If you think about people who are disabled or who have chronic illnesses, if you think about people who are retired, maybe they're not in the best of health or maybe they have basically enough money, but would love to just do something supplementary, either for income or to stay engaged, the gig economy offers opportunities for people like that in ways that the traditional workforce never did. The traditional workforce, one of the reasons I think the gig economy is catching on is that the traditional workforce just doesn't meet the needs of everybody. It's very black and white, either you're in it as a full-time employee, or you're out of it and you're unemployed.


Diane Mulcahy:

There's so many shades of gray in the gig economy. People who normally might have been out of the workforce, it allows them to step in at whatever level they want. Step a toe in, step a foot in, step a whole leg. I think that's one of the one of the things that's really powerful about this new way of working is that it does provide opportunities for workers who have traditionally been marginalized.


Daniel Stillman:

I've heard so many stories of how, as you said, people who are differently abled or mobility impaired that now that everybody's on video, it's like you can do everything and anything. These people really can participate 100% in what is now as of this recording the whole economy. With the small amount of time we have left, is there anything we have not addressed that we should address? What have I not asked you about all things, Diane Mulcahy, that we should unpack?


Diane Mulcahy:

That's a huge question and there's a lot of ways we can go with this and a lot of topics that I write about that we haven't covered. I think it would be remiss, just given where we are in the pandemic and in our economy, not to say something about remote work and whether that looks like, what's the future of that, especially given the resistance that so many companies have had to moving in this direction. My view really is that employees want flexibility. For some people, they enjoy going to the office, maybe not every day, but they enjoy being able to go to an office and that's a great choice for them, but for a lot of employees, they really prefer working from home or from a third space and having the flexibility to do that is worth something to them.


Diane Mulcahy:

I think what we're going to see as the economy reopens is that it's going to be very hard for companies to make the case to bring everybody back to the way it used to be if this has been working. If they've been able to deliver, if they've been able to meet the results with everybody working from home, the case for office-based work five days a week, eight hours a day, is going to be impossible to make.


Daniel Stillman:

I've heard this argument that we can't go back, that do finally flip the switch on the future of work.


Diane Mulcahy:

I think so. They say it takes three months to build a habit. We're well past that point and no signs of going back until probably the fall at the earliest. People have really gotten into a new behavior pattern. Again, there's inertia around that and it's going to be very hard to shift people back to the way things used to be. That will have been six months ago.


Daniel Stillman:

It is also potentially illegal. I was talking to one company where they were talking about maybe doing 10% every month starting after Labor Day, but they can't necessarily force people to come in. People may not feel comfortable to come in. We're looking at a situation where, "What is the office for?"


Diane Mulcahy:

That's it. If you're a company that is interested in attracting the best talent, how do you compete with all of these firms that have said, "We are going to go remote. People can be where they want. They can work from home if they want. We will get them WeWork Space or some other equivalent if they want. If you're somebody who's looking at an offer from a company like that versus a company that says, "Get your car. Commute every day. Be here by 9:00 AM." What's more attractive? Where are you going to go?


Daniel Stillman:

I think maybe it was in the article you wrote with Krystal Hicks where you talked about clock and chair management which I thought was just this wonderfully powerful visual. That's how we have been managing. It's like you're in your chair at a particular time. That's how I know you're doing your job and she's shaking her head, everyone.


Diane Mulcahy:

This is one of the conversations that I have with senior executives, "What do you really know about what your employees are doing at the office during the day? Tell me about what they're doing. Tell me how much time they spend in meetings. Tell me how much time they spend doing email. How much time do they spend on the phone? What are people doing during the day?" I have never heard a good answer. The real answer is we have no idea, but we can see them, so we feel better.


Daniel Stillman:

I have one more question maybe which is, what's your next course about? If Diane Mulcahy knows how to write it an MBA course that predicts the next decade of what's up, what's the next MBA course that you'd like to design that we should all go and take?


Diane Mulcahy:

Wow. I don't have an MBA course in mind that I'm designing, but one area that I have thought about doing a course is around entrepreneurship and food. Thinking about-


Daniel Stillman:

Really?


Diane Mulcahy:

Yeah, thinking about the food supply, the food system. I think those are issues that have really come up during this pandemic that just points to … Really just look at it as traditional work with an industry ripe for disruption and the gig economy came along. I look at the food system, the production food system and the food supply and it looks like another area, another industry that is ripe for disruption, lots of pain points, lots of inefficiencies. It's all about entrepreneurship, right? Where are the best opportunities? They're in the stayed, the most traditional status quo industries. I find myself attracted to those.


Daniel Stillman:

That's so interesting. Let's check in in a couple of years because I read a lot of those articles about, "We make five gallon buckets of pasteurized, blended eggs, uncooked, that we sell to institutions and institutions are all closed. I wouldn't know what to do with a five gallon bucket of eggs. Middle school does. All of those got poured down the drain." That's what I think of when I think about some of the opportunities for innovation in right food supply and food systems. I'm sure there's others that are tickling in your brain.


Diane Mulcahy:

Meat processing plants that are shutting down. They're just a different office that people go to produce work. Is there a way to think about that production in a more decentralized, distributed way? What are the benefits of that?


Daniel Stillman:

That's so cool. Well, that's for our next conversation.


Diane Mulcahy:

That sounds great.


Daniel Stillman:

I really appreciate you making the time, Diane. This has been a real pleasure. It's super eye opening. I learned a lot. If people want to learn more about all things, Diane Mulcahy, where should they go on the innerwebs?


Diane Mulcahy:

On the innerwebs, the best place is to go to my website which is dianemulcahy.com and I have my articles and interviews and other writings on the gig economy.


Daniel Stillman:

All right. Check it out. I really enjoyed your book. Thank you so much for making the time. We'll-


Diane Mulcahy:

This is a great conversation. Thank you so much for having me.


Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. We'll call Scene...


The Conversation (as) Project

Season_Four_Image_stack_ES_2.jpg

Conversation Analysis is a powerful tool that looks at large numbers of conversations to help build insights about what works and what doesn’t. 

Elizabeth Stokoe is a Professor of Social Interaction at Loughborough University, and shares some key insights from her excellent book, Talk, the science of conversation and her well-received TedX talk.

As she suggests in the opening quote, any conversation that you participate in has a landscape to it.

What Conversation Analysis can do - and we are all conversation analysts, just not professional ones - is show us the texture of that landscape, and how to navigate the bumps in the road effectively.

One surprising idea I absorbed from Professor Stokoe is in this quote, when she says that:

“In a way, the best conversations might have some clumsy, awkward moments and through that way, you might move past it and into something more mutual”

We know what is natural and easy because we know what feels clumsy. Seeing, accepting and moving past the clumsy can help us find a smoother path.

We are the Turns We Take

Elizabeth’s idea that we are the turns we take, that speech acts are real acts, is a powerful one. And so is her idea that non-responsiveness or silence in reply to an awkward turn can get things “back on track”. If someone comes in “hot” to a conversation an easy way to cool things down is to wait and let the person fix it themselves, as she says:

“People will figure out that they just did something that was a bit off and fix it.”

What I really loved about talking with Professor Stokoe is that she busts conversation myths with ease - and Science!

There are many popular ideas about conversations, from how they differ across cultures to how much communication consists of body language to how men and women speak differently - both in amounts and type. 

Professor Stokoe suggests that there are many more similarities than differences across cultures and genders. She is in fact, more interested in how we construct gender through speech, than how our biological gender influences speech.

And she also reasonably suggests that if body language is 90% of communication, why can we communicate just fine over the phone? There is, as it turns out, very little science to support many such figures.

Working with real conversations instead of simulations

Elizabeth also casts very reasonable doubts on some of industry’s favorite models to explore interactions, like secret shoppers - it turns out that people who are acting like customers don’t act like customers. 

She also suggests that using role-play in training is not as effective as it could be.

Conversational Analysis can offer better insights by studying real conversations en masse, in fine-grained detail.

Be sure to listen all the way to minute 45 when we dive into group conversation dynamics and how people learn what behaviors are acceptable in a session in the opening seconds of an interaction. It is shocking how quickly the landscape of a conversation is built and surveyed by the participants. 

Links, Notes and Resources

Elizabeth Stokoe’s TEDx talk

A deep dive on her work on the TED blog

More on CARM training

Elizabeth’s excellent book, Talk

On Body language: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian “Mehrabian's findings on inconsistent messages of feelings and attitudes (the "7%-38%-55% Rule") are well-known, the percentages relating to relative impact of words, tone of voice, and body language when speaking. Arguably these findings have been misquoted and misinterpreted throughout human communication seminars worldwide”

Lenny the anti-cold-calling chatbot

More about conversation and gender from Professor Stokoe here.

Full Transcription

Daniel Stillman:

I'll officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Liz. Thank you for making the time.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Nice to be here.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you for saying so. Let's start at the beginning. What features of talk are universal?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's a great question and it's a question that people ask regularly of someone like me, a conversation analyst. A couple of ways of answering this question. I think the first way is to think about what we're doing when we're interacting, when we're talking. What we're doing is we are building and responding to actions, so as soon as you start to think about social interaction, talk, conversation as actions being built, progressed, halted, suspended, moving forwards and so on, then you start to realize that in fact, there are lots of universals across cultures and across languages. For example, questions and answers, they are massively constitutive of a lot of our daily life and all languages provide for us to ask questions and answers. I think when you start to think about what people are doing when they're talking, they are asking questions, requesting, assessing, evaluating, greeting when languages provided for those things.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

That's not to say that languages provide for different ways of building actions, but nevertheless, the core underpinning universal of human sociality is that we are doing actions when we interrupt each other. Then there are some empirical studies over the last 10 years or so, where people are explicitly comparing different languages and how they are building different courses of action. For example, turn-taking, which is one of the most fundamental things, again, a universal thing of a conversation. There's some research by Tanya Stivers and colleagues, where they compared lots of different languages from around the world. They looked at the timing of turn-taking and surprisingly, universally, at least in terms of the large study that they did, they found that each turn lasts for about two seconds and the typical gap between them is about 200 milliseconds, regardless of grammar, language, and so on.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We tend to assume that cultures are all different and they very well might be. That's the question for other types of analysts, but in terms of social interaction and conversation, we can start to see that there are more similarities than differences when we think about action. I think one final way of thinking about this question is, this isn't technical at all, but it's something that I think about quite regularly, which is something like the interactional imperative. I can remember my grandmother when she became really old and hard of hearing, she nevertheless knew that turn-taking must still happen, so she got really good at doing mm-hmms and nods, and little things that sustained the interaction at the right place, mostly. Occasionally, she might get it wrong, but that sense of an interactional imperative, that one must keep taking turns and keep on producing social life through the machinery of interaction, I think is universal.

Daniel Stillman:

This idea of conversation or talking as a project and not replying to the offer … There's this fundamental judgment of, the person is uncollaborative. It's just interesting that there's this imperative to not look like an unhelpful person, to not be that sort of person.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's through the fact that we know that that turn-taking just keeps on tricking, but we can see we have a basis for describing somebody as uncooperative or not collaborative.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

When we make assessments of people, we're not generally making psychological assessments as a psychologist. We're basing or our ordinary diagnoses of what people are like, how rude or lovely-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

What people are doing. A lot of what people are doing is what they're saying.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean obviously, we're going to spend the rest of our conversation unpacking all of that because in your book, which is really, really lovely, you have this phrase, “You are the turns you take.” I think this is a really wonderful idea and you've talked a little bit about it just now. Can you say more about what this means to you, that we are the turns that we take?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I just think it's really interesting. I'm a psychologist by background. Psychology owns the domain of understanding human beings, but most of us aren't psychologists, and most of us, as we proceed along and encounter, suddenly halt it, step outside it, do a psychological assessment of it.

Daniel Stillman:

There's no survey that we're checking off. There's a diagnostic. Here's the four-part diagnostic we're completing.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We're not doing that. We are experiencing interaction in real-time and then, later on, maybe talking about that interaction to somebody else, and basing a lot of our assessments of people on the basis of what they have said. I don't want to make a distinction between what they've said and what they've done because I want to say that saying things is doing things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

On that basis, we are the turns we take. This becomes really important in places of application of my work. It might feel a bit of an extreme instance of this, but we know it to be true, which is that when you look at crisis negotiators talking to people in the most extreme, maybe awful extreme moments of their lives, then this crisis negotiator, no matter what we might think, is structuring that in that encounter and what might be motivating the person who maybe stood on a roof or threatening themselves or somebody else. We tend to reach to understanding that situation in terms of the individual psychology of the person who is in crisis, but we don't have all of that information when we encounter them.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

When a negotiator encounters that situation, they can't get a psychological assessment of that person. All their evidence of how to develop a strategy, if you like, is based on what the person says. That is what we're doing all the time.

Daniel Stillman:

What they're not saying potentially.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

What they're not saying, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

This really comes back to this. I've got my notes here. I mean we need to unpack what a conversation analyst is, but there's also this idea in your book, that we are all conversation analysts. We're just not doing it with the scientific rigor that you do. I would love for people to understand. I mean your book is like zooming in minority report style, really just exploding moments of conversations and doing a very, very fine reading of them to say what is happening at each one of those moments. We're also all doing that. You give this example in your book, I think it's hilarious how much pop culture is in your book, of Olaf in Frozen noticing somebody's response being a little slow, saying, “You hesitated.” What does that mean? We're always reading people's intentions.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

That's right. Basically, we are all analyzing all the time. Otherwise, we would never be able to take a turn because mostly, when we are in an encounter, we are listening for the actions being done by the person we're talking to or people we're talking to and finding a moment to respond, which can be difficult. We all know what it's like to crash and talk at the same time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We are analyzing for the action, so if you're assessing something, then I'm going to either agree with you or disagree with you, and I'm going to have to manage that or move with it. If you say something and I don't understand. Then I'm going to have to display that and we can go really maximum on, “I don't understand you,” by articulating that. Or we can just say, “Huh” or just a little delay, and sometimes that little delay is enough for you to realize she didn't get that and do it again. We're monitoring ourselves all the time as we build courses of action in conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

It's funny. It seems exhausting when we explain it that way and yet, it's the thing that, I wouldn't say we're built to do, but we've built ourselves to do it in a way.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Absolutely. I mean I use that idea actually to think about this book, which was designed for a non-academic audience-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

At least to-

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you so much, by the way.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

To show conversation analysis to lots of different industries and so on because standing on a stage and doing a popular science of conversation can be a bit of a challenge. Everyone talks, so everyone thinks they know about talking already. There is so much pop-psych out there, about communication. That everyone has a view, a very strong view sometimes, about what they think the world of communication is like.

Daniel Stillman:

We must because we get through our days and we get through our lives, hopefully with a reasonable amount of success, yet-

Elizabeth Stokoe:

As soon we go meta on communication, then people's myths and stereotypes start to pop out and they may or may not have any basis in what a conversation analyst at least would take to be evidence of a robust kind.

Daniel Stillman:

What are some of those myths that you think are important for people to step back from?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

My favorite one is the body language myth.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh yes. The 93% that people wrote about.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Some very high percentage of communication is body language versus some other much lower percentage, which is the words uttered. What I like about that is it's so, so massively perpetuated. I've sat in loads of events where again, it's not necessarily an academic event. It's a training event. It's some professional event and a speaker might get on and do something before me, and that slide will pop up. It's actually an interactional challenge. Do I challenge it or just let it go? I mostly just let it go.

Daniel Stillman:

Why? Because you're just so tired of fighting that fight?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yeah, but the interesting thing about that one is that it's very easy to knock it over. There's a conversation analyst called Max Atkinson who's one of the few people who has actually taken the conversation analysis outside of the academy and into other domains. He basically interviewed the author, Albert Mehrabian, I think he's called, of the original article that found that back in the 60s and found something that got used and turned into that stat. I think not only did Max Atkinson argue that Mehrabian himself had joined the campaign to stop people perpetuating that particular myth and get communication trainers to stop using it. He said something like, “If this was true, then none of us would need any other language than body language, 90% of the time.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We wouldn't need any other languages. We'd all be able to operate in the world. Of course, that doesn't make sense. Then we wouldn't be able to talk in the dark or on the phone. As soon as you start to think about it, you think that can't really be right, but yet, it persists a bit like almost everything we also do know about language. The simpler the message, the more soundbite it is, the more compelling it is, but then the more difficult it is to challenge it when it's just passed out of the realm of any article back in the 60s. It's just what people think they know about talk.

Daniel Stillman:

That's very true. I feel like narrative is an element of talking, of conversing with each other. What we're sending is messages and stories, back and forth with each other and we're building a story together. I think this goes towards the racetrack concept in your work. That we know the general shape of the project that we're working on. There's summons. There's an exchange of greetings. There's question and response. We know the vacuum that's formed when somebody asks a question and there's no answer. In a way, how does that …? What's my question here. The racetrack is imprinted on us. How can that concept of the racetrack help us in shaping our conversations for the better? I guess that's maybe the best I can do with that thought.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think the reason that I started to use the analogy of a racetrack, or I might even say a golf course or anything with an architecture landscape to it, with hurdles and possibilities for falling over, mostly what I wanted to communicate is this idea that any encounter is built of projects, be they small or large things. Any conversation that you have on the phone with a salesperson or the council or the doctor, it has a landscape to it. You move through a series of things that need to get done before you can move on to the next one successfully, at least. If you phone up the doctors to make an appointment, then there'll be a bit of identity. There'll be the opening bit where you realize you're both talking to the right person that can make the request. Then there might be some complication around progressing the request.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Hopefully, the request will be met and then you confirm what's going to happen, and then you close the call. The fact that these things, when you look at lots and lots of them, they do tend to have a macro organization like this kind of landscape. It allows us to see things out of place really quickly. When you are on a call where you feel like you're being pushed to make a decision, for example, you're probably feeling that because it's been moved up the racetrack. That they've got some point which should really fit further down the encounter. We might have a sense of that and a conversation analyst would probably be able to show that when you look a batch of conversations. The racetrack, first of all, gets us to think about, everything that you do creates the possibility for the next thing, every single time.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It can be probably quite worrying. You really start to think about it. Everything I say is making it possible or easier or less easy for you to do something next, every single time. I'm constraining or restricting what can happen. That's something. The other thing is to get people to understand that social interaction is much more organized and not messy. People tend to feel talk is messy. It's why we do all sorts of other things to understand communication than bother to study actual conversation because there's, again, this other myth around, talks are really messy. We have to produce idealized versions of interaction to understand that. I guess 50, 60 years of conversation analysis shows that that's just not true, that the interaction is highly organized and yet, people can still be idiosyncratic within that organization.

Daniel Stillman:

I think at least one thing I want to pull out is this idea of when things are off track, we have the sense that things are off track and many people will have to deal with uncollaborative situations or uncollaborative conversation partners. What can you tell us about how, if things are off the track, to bring them back on the track? I know there's examples like Gordon restarting the conversation. He just tries to bring it back on to track, but those ways, to me, feel clumsy and a little awkward.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I mean clumsy and awkward is part of everyday life. We need clumsy and awkward just so that we understand what isn't clumsy and awkward as well. In a way, the best conversations might have some clumsy, awkward moments and through that way, you might move past it and into something more mutual. I think it's interesting that you raised that. The Gordon example you referred is the start of a telephone conversation between Gordon and his girlfriend on the phone. She breaks the start of the racetrack straight away by asking … Rather than saying, “How are you?” “Fine.” “How are you?” She says, “Where have you been all morning?” It's noticeably out of position, if you like, in the normal, unfolding racetrack and we all see it because we all tacitly without ever thinking about it before right now, know that what belongs there is, “Oh, hi.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

“How are you doing?” “Fine. How are you?” Then you move on to the next thing and she replaces that with something else. What Gordon does in response, rather than answering her question about where he's been all morning, the first thing he says is, “Hello,” which belongs there. It might sound a bit disingenuous, especially the way I reproduce it now, but I think there are some things to be learned from that, which is that if you just understand that you can always resist the thing that is being set up for you in the previous term, it might make it clumsy and awkward. Sometimes what you're also doing is a little bit of socializing of people. If you can, then … It can be hard to do this, but I guess I would try to do that socializing sometimes if you're in a position to do it.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

If you walk into a meeting room and someone doesn't say hello or they don't know who you are and they just say something that is a bit off, then you cannot respond to that in the terms set up by that person. You can just say, “Oh, hello” and just do the thing that belongs at that point in the encounter. A lot of the time people will get the message. What you can do is just stay silent, actually, give a slightly blank expectant look. Very often, people will repair things themselves. They'll get a second, a tiny fraction of a pause really. People will figure out that they just did something that was a bit off and fix it.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a reset and literally putting things back on track, and saying, “Oh, good morning.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think this is one of the things that, again, you might think that if you are going to call someone out in any kind of way, that you need to explicitly call someone out, whereas what we see interaction is a bit of silence. If you are face-to-face with a slightly blank, expectant look like, “Oh, I'm tricking you. We're not done yet. Let's see if you fixed it yourself,” that will often work.

Daniel Stillman:

This is escalation versus de-escalation, I think. Responding directly like, “Well, that's rude,” is taking the turn and then one-upping it versus taking the turn and one-undering it.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think saying, “That was rude,” at least again, it's this talking theory, which is I had to talk in theory. Then when you look at real interaction, you see how absolutely difficult it is to say, “That is rude” to someone, directly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I mean your heart will be beating if you did that. Yet, we're full of advice to people. Just tell them this, but it's actually really difficult when you're in an interaction. I think a really nice example of this is looking at … I've done some research with colleagues on cold calling, not people calling people's domestic spaces, but just business to business. Can we make an appointment to show you whatever it is that we're selling? In that collection, there's a very, very small number of hang-ups, despite the fact that most people will say things like, “Oh, I just hang up on cold callers.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Of course, whether they do or not, right now when they're saying that to whoever it is they're talking to, they're doing something with that now anyway. Whether they actually hang up on cold calls isn't really the point. They're just showing like “This is the kind of person I am. I am telling you this to assert what I would do in this situation,” but we actually see very few hang-ups. People are desperately trying to get out of the call.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's pretty unusual. People have to be pushed quite far by a salesperson to hang up in empirical reality, at least.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I mean, I think this is worth unpacking as well. I'm really curious about the application of conversation analysis to training and behavior change because as you report, we don't often know what it is that we're doing. We don't. Actually, we're not noticing the placement and order of words that you are noticing when you look at the actual transcripts and when you're looking at hundreds of transcripts across multiple conversations. You're looking at a histogram. You're looking at patterns. I may not even know what it is that I'm doing, that is effective and so it's very hard sometimes for me, if I'm a great salesperson, to teach someone else how to be great like me at sales.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Absolutely. At least the first hurdle there is that people do have a view about themselves or others. Also, I think they know, just by inspecting their memory, what may or may not work in an encounter. I think I'm going to assert this strongly and say people really don't know what they're doing.

Daniel Stillman:

No. Because we're doing it, it's very hard to notice what you're doing and do it at the same time.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yes, even though they are tacitly, maybe doing a fantastic job as well. We know that people have great skills at interacting with other humans. At least some of them do. Some of them don't but again, because communication is just a thing that everyone thinks they know about. The first hurdle is getting people to pause and think, okay, if we are going to develop training or guidance maybe or especially assessment of other people's communications skills, then how best to do that. I think I love the example of that, some research conducted with my colleague, Rein Sikveland. We're looking at … Back to crisis negotiation. I think this is just such a gorgeous example whereby the negotiators who are arriving on the scene and have to talk to someone who may or may not be in a suicidal crisis, they have to keep taking turns with whoever it is. They can't go home.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

They can't go give up. They have to keep going. One of the things they have to do is get the person to actually talk to them in the first place because we know that if you can get someone to take turns, then every single time the person actually takes a turn in the encounter, then they're choosing life every single time they take a turn. Even if it's a bit like, “Oh, I'm not doing what you're saying,” it's still not jumping or something. It's a really, really important environment to understand the importance of conversation analysis, I think. We know that quite often the negotiator will basically say, “Can we talk about how you are?” Or they'll ask to talk to the person. I think the NYPD crisis negotiation team's motto is something like talk to me. The reason why I think this is really important is that if you're going to build a motto and build training, then probably you're going to train your negotiators to ask the person in crisis to talk to you.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

When we look at the actual empirical examples though, the reality of these negotiations, we find that being asked to talk is very easy to resist, so people will say things like, “What's the point in talking? Talking doesn't do anything. I don't want to talk.” They almost respond to it ironically Like, “What are you asking me this for?” Whereas the negotiators … This is where the value of my work comes in, I think, which is I'm able to show you, and then back to negotiators, what it is that they are doing to nevertheless, have another crack at that because they have to. they can't just give up at this point. We see that negotiators will either … Some of them just don't ask to talk at all. They say, “Can we speak? I want to speak to you about X.” Those moments don't get resistance.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

People can't say, “Actions speak louder than speak” or, “I don't want to speak.” They just don't say that. They don't resist the verb speak and the broader action that that comprises, in the same way that there is this talk. The opposite of all of this is that if this was obvious, then no one would ask, “Can we talk?” They know already by remembering that speak better. It's more effective, but they and so what we do I can do is nevertheless, reveal the expertise of the negotiators who are managing something really effective and turn that into the training. Now we know what to train novice negotiators to say in terms of how they initiate dialogue with the person in crisis. I think the other thing to say at this point is that there's a tendency, I think, to not believe that language is that important.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

At the same time, it's fascinating, really. People think communication is really important and everyone will express that right up until the moment they want to scrutinize it properly and then develop guidance, training, and so on, from the ground, up, if you like. We tend to think that a person in crisis is going to either jump or not, on the basis of their psychology, not on the basis of what the negotiators say. Whilst their individual psychology is probably very interesting and relevant, we don't know what it is. It's back to where we started. If we don't know it, then negotiators just have to take turns anyway.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Then we can actually find, when we bother to look, that the language is making a difference and now we know it.

Daniel Stillman:

It feels like, given the complexity of the situation, just giving people a Word document, a PDF, a set of pointers like, “Keep the person talking. Ask lots of questions.” The kind of advice that people crave and that we think is actually helping them may not actually help them become better negotiators. That's where I guess role-play comes into your training as well. I'm guessing.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yes. I have a view of role-play, which is when I started to do research-based training on the basis of some of these things that I was finding in the different environments that I was working, I became quite interested in, what was the alternative too? My way of taking this research back to practitioners is to show them real examples, real interaction in the wild, anonymized, and have them live through it, turn by turn. Then think about what they might do in any given moment, so see what a person in crisis or a patient or a potential client says at this moment in the encounter and then think about what they might do next in a real situation because I'm showing them real situations. Then we see what the practitioner did next and evaluate it. This is very different, I think, to role-play where you get an actor to play the part of the interlocutor. I became really interested in role-play as a thing and started to research on role-play.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I was quite surprised at how widespread role-play is used as a completely uncriticized proxy for real interaction, first off. Or that where research is conducted as to the authenticity of role-play, it's basically a post-op, "Did it feel authentic?" kind of research question, which for me, is meaningless. People can say what they like, but it doesn't tell me anything as a conversation analyst. I basically conducted some research and started to compare in the wild. I started with police interviews with suspects and then looked at police interviews with actors playing the part of suspects, to see whether or not they look similar.

Daniel Stillman:

Surprisingly, they're different. I enjoy that.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Surprisingly, they're different. Of course, role-play is one thing for maybe practicing strategies or something like that, but the issue is that sometimes it's the actor playing the part of the interlocutor, where they've been given bad information about the kinds of authentic things that a real patient, suspect, client, et cetera, might do. They've got a bad script, but the other thing, of course, and the police is a really nice example, the actor playing the part of a suspect isn't going to go to prison at the end of this encounter.

Daniel Stillman:

No.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

They can do anything, actually. They don't have the same stake in it. That stake is there, maybe to do a really good performance for the scenario, but they don't have that same interest that a real suspect has. We found differences and I think this is particularly consequential. If somebody's performance is being assessed and their job promotion, passing a course, depends on their performance in a simulation, that's where it becomes problematic, especially problematic, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

Sorry for interrupting, but in your book, I really enjoyed the fine slicing of secret shoppers calling veterinarians. Just to give people a sense of what you're noticing, that most of us don't miss, is where the ums are in a secret shopper. They don't actually know the breed of their dog. They pause at it. Whereas a normal person says, “Oh, I'm calling for this and I need to make an appointment about this.” They pause at a much later point. Just the placement of a pause or a word in the response of the person who is on the other side of the call can shift the conversation but the simulated call isn't a real call. The secret shopper is not acting the way a real person would. We're noticing those pauses maybe in subtle ways and reacting to them in uncomfortable ways.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think the other study that I've done, which you mentioned, is really nice because in the police study, obviously both parties in the simulation knew that they were in a simulation. Whereas in the secret shopper study, the person taking the call, which in this particular case was a vet practice, doesn't know that this is a secret shopper phoning to test out the experience that they have in the call. The mystery shopper is also going back, if you like, and reporting on the experience that they have in this call. My question is, do they have a basis for making any assessment? I guess the most extreme polemical version of my answer to that would be no, they have no basis for saying anything about the experience because for a start, they don't ask for the same things.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

They don't phone up and you can hear them sobbing already. I think this is one of the nicest examples, actually, where the mystery shopper is phoning. The remit is something like, “Show that you're upset about your animal and you're going to be asking about putting your animal to sleep.” Looking at how they do that, compared to how somebody who is genuinely phoning about a sick or dying animal, how they do that. The whole thing unfolds completely differently. Now, of course, for the person taking the call, they may or may not think something is off in the way this person that they're talking to is interacting on the phone.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

In a way, the mystery shopper whole thing, it relies on the fact, at least in terms of these phone calls, that you can't see anything about the person that you're talking to either. Mystery shopping works because when you are at the vet reception or in any organization, you don't generally think at any moment, I could be dealing with someone who is not a genuine customer or genuine client. It works in that way. I don't think the vet receptionist necessarily thinks that was a mystery shopper, but they might think they sounded strange because we are always saying things like, “They sounded strange.”

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think this is especially nice and gets us into conversational agents and Artificial Intelligence, and so on. Again, with a colleague, Saul Albert, and another colleague, William Housley, we've been looking at … You might remember that there was this small release of Google Duplex calls, this technology that could phone up and book a restaurant.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Or make a hair appointment. Of course, we've been doing some work on that and looking at things like the placement of the ums and looking at, in very fine grain detail, how Google Duplex passes for humans.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Of course, a massive part of that is that they're on the phone and that the human call taker is massively accommodating for the person that they think they're talking to. If you're on the phone with someone and someone sounds like they don't understand or they sound a bit off, then we don't think it's an AI. We just think they sounded really strange.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We make up for it.

Daniel Stillman:

We try to repair it.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yeah. I don't know if you know, again, some conversation analysts conducted a study of all of these recordings of Lenny the chatbot that is online. I think if I understand this correctly, Lenny is something that you could download and plug into your telephone at home to deal with cold callers.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh yes. It befuddles them. Yes. I remember this.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I think it's not AI. It's basically 16 possible things that Lenny could say in rotation. The challenge was how long could this elderly-voice sounding guy keep a cold caller on the phone? What you see is that the cold call just keeps accommodating who they assume they're talking to. They assume that an older guy, maybe he's confused or maybe just wants to chat. You can see that that when one party has no idea they're in any kind of simulation or AI or mystery shopper, they make it all happen.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Just to roll it back and to tie a bow on that, I just appreciate that your perspective is not uncritical when it comes to simulation and that we should question like any scientist would. Our observation of the experiment changes things. Our observation of the phenomenon changes things. I appreciate that as a scientist myself too. Our time flows away.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

There's two big topics we haven't addressed. I don't know if we can do justice to both of them. I hope this isn't our last conversation. One of them is group conversations because as a facilitator, that's my main wheelhouse. A lot of people who are listening to this show are also leading meetings and changing organizations. These are much bigger, squishier, more complex conversations and it's harder to get data about them. I have a friend who actually tried to use subvocalization recordings to do mass measurements inside of corporations, but not surprisingly, people were resistant to the harnessing of that kind of data. We could say something about an organization by summing up and doing analysis on all of their conversations.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Absolutely, especially-

Daniel Stillman:

Especially? Yes. I'm sorry.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Meetings maybe will be a starting point.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, exactly. That's the molecule of the conversations inside of an organization. What can you tell us about the application of your work to these types of group dialogues?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I haven't really done research on big groups interacting. I think one of the difficulties is quite simply data capture, in the first place. If you just take a meeting as an example, if you imagine that you're in a room with 10 people, as a conversation analyst and you have all the resources of embodied conduct, gays, the material environment, and all of those things that are crucial to how we interact, then it's hard to capture enough that you can see what everyone is using to interact, all of the data that you can see that people are using to take turns and so on.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's not impossible, of course, but there is some research on meetings and so on. I'm mostly looking at stuff like turn allocation and how to get the floor, and who dominates the floor, those kinds of things, but I think it is a challenge for the analyst to get, if you like, all of … One of the reasons phone calls are so nice is because you are in the same position pretty much as those speakers you can't see.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. It's stripped down.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

At least you've got the complete picture. I actually think it would be quite nice to look at these teams in Zoom meetings where you actually have a better sense of everyone's access because you can see the whole screen.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

You can see probably what most of the people can see. Actually, there's definitely an ideal time right now, while we're locked down, to look at how meetings are working online. I think there is also an issue around … The closest I've got to thinking about something like groups is to look at mediation. I've done a little bit of work on mediation, where there might be five people in the room. I'm particularly looking at, of course, how the mediators are facilitating that interaction. Of course, their job very much here is to ensure a balance of participation and so on. That's really interesting because as a model for facilitating any conversation, if your starting point is, we must get both perspectives out into the room equally, that's very different from many of the meetings where it could be like, “We want as few people as possible to talk.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Think about, what are you trying to do in a group? Are you trying to maximize participation or minimize participation? Because people might quite legitimately have different goals. Then at least one of the most interesting things in the mediation stuff is then looking at how the impartial perspective of the mediator and the process, which is meant to be impartial, can fall away within the first 30 seconds as the mediator opens up the encounter. For example, I've got a nice case where there are two or three parties who are in dispute and two mediators...One mediator is setting up. “This is what's going to happen.”

Elizabeth Stokoe:

“We're going to …” They're laying the ground rules and they say to the three parties who were all at war with each other, “Is it okay if we go by first names?” One person straight away, “Yeah. I'm fine with that.” Then the other mediator at this point jumps in and then checks in very explicitly in that socializing way that we were talking about earlier. Then checks in with both people who didn't immediately say yes. This one guy tends to jump in all the time. We all know this person is-

Daniel Stillman:

First movers.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

You ask the question and one person is right straight away. The challenge then for the person and doing any kind of facilitation is to decide, do I want that person to always jump in and be unchecked? Or am I going to very explicitly get an endorsement or an opinion from every other person in this room to stop that happening? Basically, what happens in this mediation is that they do that a little bit, but then you get the sense that it's becoming a bit awkward for them and so every time they say, “This happens,” then one participant will jump in and say, “Yeah. I get that.” They stop checking in with the other two in that rather awkward, passing the baton, type of way. “Do you understand? Do you understand?” They stop doing that. Before the mediation has even started, the participants have learned ... The guy who jumps in all the time, he's learned, I can say what I like and no one's going to check me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

The other few people have learned he's always going to jump in and no one's going to check in with me.

Daniel Stillman:

There's a new racetrack being built. That's just-

Elizabeth Stokoe:

The racetrack is already completely skewed. You can see the effects of that all the way through. Really, I think setting up expectations of the kind of interaction that you're in, these opening moments are really crucial to understanding how else the whole interaction is going to unfold.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting because the facts that you shared way, way earlier, just when we think about the material of conversation, that we speak for two seconds and there's this 200-millisecond gap, and that longer gaps are viewed as awkward or rude. It's not surprising that group conversations can collapse into agreement very quickly and this maybe can transition us to touching on the last, maybe most important topic that we should do a whole other thing on, Ned who just seems like a terrible person. There's this conversation in your book where gender does play a role in group conversations. This group is having a very quick conversation about who's going to be the note taker and somebody was like, “Oh, well, my handwriting is terrible.”

Daniel Stillman:

The first one was like, “Oh, we need someone to be a secretary.” “Oh, my handwriting is terrible.” Ned is like, “She wants to do it. Secretary and female.” He collapses and this woman just takes the role on. She's like, “I'll just do that emotional labor.” She didn't say, “Well, who else has good handwriting?” Or, “Let's all write down everything.” These group conversations do have this way of collapsing very quickly, with movers and followers, with no opposers, but gender also really does shape conversations, it seems, but it's really hard.

Daniel Stillman:

I feel bad bringing this up where we are in the conversation right now because I think everyone wants to have the answer. What's the difference between men and women in conversations? You, as a scientist, will say, “Well, how do people come to have beliefs about sex differences in speech style?” How our beliefs encoded and enacted in self-presentation. It's not just like, “Oh, men are from Mars and women are from Venus.” We're like, “Well, how do we decide to act as a man?” What does it mean? How do we even build that racetrack? Then maybe how do we deconstruct that racetrack?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

My take on this goes back to things like men are from Mars, women are from Venus because that was the context in which I was doing my PhD. My initial project was going to be gender differences in things like turn allocation and who talks most, and who interrupts whom, and that stuff that was very prevalent in the early 90s, in social linguistics, actually. Showing that men dominate mixed-sex interaction and those kinds of things. Also, I wasn't ready to write a thesis that said, “No, no, no. Everything is equal now” because I live in the world. How many years later is it? Of course, we know that maybe things have even gone a bit backwards since the 90s, but in terms of what I wanted to do was that I wanted to try and move away from … Starting with the idea that there would be sex differences because things like men are from Mars, women are from Venus are actually which develop, which promote stereotypes as much as they do anything else and are really problematic, I think, in that way.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Also, because there is, of course, since before then and since then, just such a massive, massive literature on gender performance, construction, and so on. Taking the lead from conversation analysis, I decided to look for moments where gender is demonstrably relevant to the people in the conversation and, of course, nominating somebody doing an action. How do you solve the problem of who's going to write down the notes? Well, one way to not do it, be the person asking, “Who's going to do it?”

Daniel Stillman:

That is a good piece of advice, by the way.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

“Who's going to take the notes?” “Well, secretary and a female.” My whole thesis, if you feel like, was built on observing this one moment in an interaction where you could see that it didn't matter whether there was a male style or a female style. In terms of asking the question, who's going to take the notes, or is someone writing? There's nothing gendered about saying, “Is someone writing?” Men don't do that more than women, any of the gender stuff to think about. When you start to take those actions again like we talked about right from the start, then a lot of these apparent differences just really fall away empirically, even if we believe them, a bit like the body language stuff, but that doesn't mean that you can't nevertheless show that gender or any other characteristic or category is creeping into the interaction, creeping back from the interaction, being pulled into, being pushed out of, and having an impact on the unfolding organization of the racetrack.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

That particular case was my case in point and what I like about that is that it doesn't rely on me saying anything at all about gendered styles, which I really wanted to get away from because what I was able to show was here are moments of consequence, where gender is being recruited into the conversation to do something. Then basically, the challenge was to try and go from one case and think, how on earth am I ever going to find that again? To over then the next decade or more, building up data sets where I could show systematic things happening with categories. A really simple example, the most recent example of that that I thought I would just point out because I think it's a nice one is I started to find things like when people are denying certain sorts of things that they might have been accused of, they might invoke a category in response and that might be gendered.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

I then started to look at how when people are phoning up to buy things, in a particular case, it was buying windows, how the salesperson does a really straightforward thing, and becomes gendered. The straightforward thing is, ask for the customer's name and they tend to do it in one of three ways. They'd either say, “Can I take your surname?” Or, “What's your name?” Basic questions. Or they might say, “So you're Mr.?” You'd say, “Stillman.” That latter method, “So you're Mr,” waiting for you to finish off, was only used with men.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Women were not invited to complete the turn in that way, so people were not asked, “So you're Mrs.?” Instead, they were asked, “So is it Miss, Mrs., or Ms.?” Which sometimes led to problems. Then the other thing, basically, what this shows overall, of course, is that even in the late part of the 20, teens or something, that we still have this kind of standards address term for men. All men can respond-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

To the all-men, gender, sexual orientation, all of those things. It doesn't matter, men. Whereas women's titles are still a hugely tricky thing in interaction.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

We have a couple of moments where if a woman referred to herself as Ms, there was a little laugh from a salesperson. You can feel this language after all. Of course, all of that is also wrapped around the idea that the person you're talking to is straightforwardly categorizable as a man or a woman.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Probably straight, all sorts of assumptions that are built into just the most simplest of actions, which is asking somebody their name so that you can sell them some windows. There's a lot of work still to be done, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I mean, there's a lot more to talk about, but we're out of our time.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

Liz, I really appreciate you talking about this. Obviously, talk, I think our lives are built of it and it's super important for us to understand it and so I really appreciate your contribution to our understanding of it.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's been a pleasure to talk to you.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. People should go buy your book. Is there anything else? People should find you on the Internet where?

Elizabeth Stokoe:

If you Google my name, you'll find all sorts of books online and so on. I hope that people will just open their minds a little bit to what you can find out if you study in this very fine-grained way that we do conversations.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you so much, Liz. I really appreciate it.

Elizabeth Stokoe:

It's been good to talk.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you so much

 


Deep Listening

Season_Four_Image_stack_OT_deep.jpg

I’m so excited to share this conversation with Oscar Trimboli, author of Deep Listening, a lovely book/card deck.

We talk about the costs of not listening, the opportunities that are created when we listen and why hearing what's unsaid can transform your work and life.

In our western conception, we have speaking and listening, a basic duality. 

Oscar describes our normal conception of listening as monochrome, two dimensional listening rather than multi-color, multi-sensory listening. 

Oscar has worked to absorb traditional approaches to listening from Inuit cultures in North America, to Australian Aboriginal cultures, as well Polynesian and Maori cultures. 

Oscar breaks down a 6-dimensional listening model that leverages a deeper understanding of the Chinese word for listening, Ting as well as an Aborginal concept for listening, Dadirri, which approaches listening from 3 dimensions - Self, Peoples and Lands.

125/900 and The Cost of Not Listening

Oscar introduces us to the 125/900 rule - the simple fact that we can speak at 125 words a minute yet we can think at 900 words a minute. 

The basic math of conversation is that there will always be something unsaid.

The Impact of this fact is impossible to calculate. In our daily work this can mean a misunderstanding, an argument, lost work or a delay. 

But Ocar points to two shocking examples: 

+we lost three critical weeks in the fight against the Coronavirus because the Chinese authorities weren't willing to listen to a doctor. On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li, an ophthalmologist in a Wuhan hospital, alerted six of his friends on WeChat saying, "There's a SARS-like virus that has a huge impact on the mortality of aged patients.”  Li was later asked to recant his statements and also later passed away from the disease.

+August 27th, 2005, Dr. Raghuram Rajan, then head of the International Monetary Fund, spoke at the Federal Reserve annual Jackson Hole conference in 2005. Rajan warned about the growing risks in the financial system and proposed policies that would reduce such risks. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers called the warnings "misguided" and Rajan himself a "luddite".

How to Listen to people you disagree with

One final idea I want to highlight is how Oscar suggests to go about  listening to those people we fiercely disagree with. 

He suggests, rather than work to convince them, simply ask”

"when was the first time you formed that opinion?" 

The immediate impact is that it gets us out of talking points and into the starting point. It’s a more human story. It’s the beginning of empathy and of understanding the data that they are working with.

Links and Resources

Start here with Oscar’s Listening Quiz

Oscar on the web: www.listeningmyths.com

More About Oscar

Oscar Trimboli is on a quest to create 100 million Deep Listeners in the world. He is an author, Host of the Apple Award winning podcast—Deep Listening and a sought-after keynote speaker. He is passionate about using the gift of listening to bring positive change in homes, workplaces and the world.

 

Through his work with chairs, boards of directors and executive teams in local, regional and global organisations, Oscar has experienced firsthand the transformational impact leaders and organisations can have when they listen beyond the words.

He consults to organisations including Cisco, Google, HSBC, News Corp, PayPal, Qantas, TripAdvisor helping executives and their teams listen to what’s unsaid by the customers and employees.

Oscar lives in Sydney with his wife Jennie, where he helps first-time runners and ocean swimmers conquer their fears and contributes to the cure for cancer as part of Can Too, a cancer research charity.

Full Transcription

Daniel Stillman:

Oscar Trimboli, I'm going to officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Thanks for making the time.

Oscar Trimboli:

Thanks for giving me the greatest gift of all, the gift of listening.

Daniel Stillman:

I thought I would try something now. How long have you been thinking about listening? How long have you been thinking about this issue? How far back does it go for you?

Oscar Trimboli:

I think for me, I've always thought about it. How long have I been conscious about trying to transmit the idea of listening is probably a different place in my world. I think as a youngster, I had this huge, protruding jaw. And if you grew up in the '80s, there was this movie called The American Werewolf in London and I spent, it felt like, every part of my teenage years with braces on. Most people have braces on their teeth for two to three years. The way I remember it, my entire teenage years were spent with braces on because I had this massive jaw.

Oscar Trimboli:

Now, the way to not get noticed, Dan, when you've got this big jaw is just to listen. And the easiest way to deflect attention from people is just to ask them questions. So I think that was the first time I was using it as my ninja move to deflect attention away from my teenage perspective on myself. That's the first time I really became conscious of it.

Daniel Stillman:

It sounds like listening is almost like a place of safety for you.

Oscar Trimboli:

And it's a place of judgment. That's where my villains and my superheros hang out. In that particular case it was creating safety, but also in that space it was creating judgment while I was listening to these conversations between aunties and uncles at post-dinner conversation or a post-dinner card game. Yeah, I got a bit judgy on people, too.

Daniel Stillman:

How so?

Oscar Trimboli:

"I can't believe you said that. She didn't actually mean that. What she meant was... Weren't you listening? You're not being fair to them. You always jump to that conclusion." And although it was the first time I was consciously dissecting other people's listening, it wasn't the first time I kind of coded listening.

Oscar Trimboli:

For me, I only notice that judgment in retrospect. I didn't notice in the moment. I think there's a unique satisfaction that comes to people when they're being judgmental because it's kind of like eating the first cherries of summer or something like that. Mmm, yes. You're wrong, I'm right and judgment wins.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, it sounds like you felt like you were hearing things. You were listening to things that other people weren't listening to.

Oscar Trimboli:

And I was listening to body language when adults were playing card games, for example. And although they were playing an Italian card game and they were speaking Italian and I couldn't understand Italian because I was only raised to understand English, I could see in people's faces their face, their finger position, their spinal position, the way they were tilting their shoulders, the way they were looking at their card playing partner was all giving signals away, even though they felt that they weren't while they were playing these card games.

Oscar Trimboli:

And that translated into school, too. Those card games were played at school. We were a school of 23 nationalities from war torn parts of South America, from Eastern Europe, from Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam war and at the beginning of the Cambodian war. So teams of two playing this card game would play in their home tongue, in their native language, which lulled them into a false sense of security because their body language gave away much more than their actual verbal language gave away.

Oscar Trimboli:

And again, Dan, I wasn't conscious of it at the time. And I wasn't good at counting cards. In fact, I have this thing called discalculous, which means I write numbers around the wrong way. So my superhero power in the card playing games was that if they were short of a player they'd always ask me to play, and I always thought because I was the only lonely person around, but I had probably had a higher winning percentage because I wasn't necessarily paying attention to what was being said because the Portuguese were speaking Portuguese to each other, and the Polish people were speaking Polish to each other, and occasionally if they wanted to trick people, they'd talk Russian to each other because they could speak both languages, so it was an interesting time to pay attention to what wasn't being said.

Daniel Stillman:

This is great. I have this diagram in front of me of all the things that I'm hoping we'll get to, and I feel like we're already starting to lay out not just the costs of not listening, but the opportunities that are created when we listen and the benefits of hearing what's unsaid. I want to see if we can peal back some layers on all of those things. Can you speak a little bit about the costs and the opportunities in deep listening or in not deep listening, more specifically?

Daniel Stillman:

And maybe, since many of us who are listening are... What you do and what I do, it's kind of this hilarious... I now have some empathy for people when they're like, "I'm talking to the conversation expert," and I'm like, "I'm not an expert, I'm just a fan of conversations." I imagine people feel that way when they're speaking, too. They're listening, "I better make sure that people are on their best behavior around you." I feel that. I feel how deeply you listen, so this is a very meta conversation. Listening exists at home, it exists at work, but I want to make sure that we take this into the context that people are going to be using this in for a lot of their waking hours, which is at work.

Oscar Trimboli:

What's quite funny to me is when I finish a conversation with a host that interviews me, whether that's on TV or on radio or on a podcast, they all say, "I started really hard to try and pay attention and listen deeply to you, Oscar, but my old habits just jumped across the table all through the middle of the interview. How do you be this deep listening expert?" And I always say, "I'm not the expert. What I am is someone who's managed to notice distraction quicker, and it's distraction that gets in our way."

Oscar Trimboli:

A lot of people say, "So what's this deep listening caper, Oscar? Why is that different from active listening?" And I always say active listening, crucial movement popularized in the '80s and the '90s and it focuses on listening to what's being said. Deep listening is focusing you on what's not being said.

Oscar Trimboli:

If you know the 125,900 rule, you speak at 125 words a minute yet you can think at 900 words a minute. It means the first thing that you say, there's a one in nine chance, or 11%, that what you say is what you mean. So the cost of not listening is just having a conversation with 11% of what both parties, or in a team, all parties, are thinking about.

Oscar Trimboli:

Now, I don't know about you, Dan. I don't gamble but I've been told you get better odds on a roulette wheel in Las Vegas than you do if you're having conversations about the 11%. And that's one of the first costs that people aren't even conscious of in making sure, "Great, I'm listening to what they're saying." So deep listening is listening to what's not said. And deep listening is a very different orientation. The active listening movement teaches you to listen to make sense and what that means for you as the listener, whereas deep listening is about helping the speaker make sense of what they're thinking rather than what you're making sense of what they're saying.

Oscar Trimboli:

And we can jump ahead to the costs of not listening, whether that's December 30, 2019 where Dr. Li, an ophthalmologist in a Wuhan hospital, alerts six of his friends on WeChat and says, "There's a SARS-like virus that has a huge impact on the mortality of aged patients. Please be careful, please keep your grandparents and parents safe right now." And within a week, the Chinese authorities come in and see Dr. Li and say to him, "You're wrong, you're speculating, you're making rumors up, and you need to recount what you said because what's happened is this has gone right across the WeChat network and it jumped over to WeBo," which is the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.

Oscar Trimboli:

And he thought deeply about it for a week, and he recanted. He said he was wrong and all of that. And then he was looking after patients and he contracted the virus, and then in late February he passed away. But we lost three weeks in the fight against Coronavirus because the Chinese authorities weren't willing to listen to a doctor. And what's the cost of that?

Oscar Trimboli:

We will never be able to calculate that cost, yet for all of us in the workplace, we shouldn't be so smug to go, "Well, the Chinese authorities didn't listen to Dr. Li." In our workplaces, we don't listen to people who have a different dogma to us. They might come from a different profession, they might come from a different country, they might come from a different educational background, they might have a different set of experiences.

Oscar Trimboli:

In 2005, Daniel, there was Dr. Rajan who spoke at the World Central Banker Congress in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in August the 27th. It was a Saturday morning session just after morning tea, and he basically said, The global financial system is like a sewage pipe about to explode, and here's why." He said out all the reasons why and it was great. He published the paper. You can still read it today. And every central banker in that room laughed at him, they castigated him during question time. They said he was completely wrong, and the global financial crisis came about three years later. If people were listening to Dr. Rajan, maybe they could've taken some mediating actions.

Oscar Trimboli:

And whether that's that or the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in 2012 where 11 people lost their lives, $50 billion dollars of legal costs incurred by BP because of the pollution they created because the managers weren't listening to the engineers saying it was unsafe to drill at this speed.

Oscar Trimboli:

So in our workplaces, those costs aren't that big for us, Daniel. Those costs are typically projects that run over schedule, confusion, conflict, chaos in the workplace. These are all the costs of not listening, but also at home. But the body of work that I focus on is really what's the cost in not listening in the workplace? There's a few examples that immediately come to mind for me right now.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's interesting because there seems to be, underneath it all... In your book you talk about the different levels of listening, and I think when we talk about self listening, a lot of people... I feel like it's generally introduced in a negative sense. Like, "You're just focused on yourself and you should be focused on the other person."

Daniel Stillman:

And one of the things I like about your writing is that there's a necessity to listen to ourself. The doctor knew what he knew and he recanted. He chose to listen to power instead of to himself. It's a shame that he passed away. I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but I wish he had listened to himself more than to the power, even though that's a very hard choice to make.

Oscar Trimboli:

I think when it comes to listening to ourselves, we often get into these dualities or binaries, these conflicts of A versus B or one versus two or red versus blue. When I talk about listening to yourself, I want people to go a step even before that. Many of us have all these browser tabs opened in our mind. It's another thought, it's another thought, it's another thought. And every thought takes a part of your working memory up, and it's finite. So the likelihood we can listen to somebody else without closing down those browser tabs before we get into any kind of conversation is really low.

Oscar Trimboli:

Other people say to me, "Oscar, it's like I've got my own music playing in my head or my own TV show going on before I even get to the conversation. How do I quiet myself down? How do I still myself down?" And it's hard.

Oscar Trimboli:

86% of people in our 1,410 research database say that the language they use about their listening barriers is all before they come to the conversation. Think about that; 86% of us are distracted before we turn to a conversation. And if we continue in that state, we are distracted by the conversation, not just before the conversation. That's why there's an illusion that communication is actually taking place, which you're coding so well in your new book.

Oscar Trimboli:

For me, in the five levels of listening, the most commented on by scholars and academics and people who've spent a bit of time in the space of conversations or listening all say starting at level one, listening to yourself, is the step most literature skips over. If we're not ready for the conversation, how likely is it for it to be a productive dialogue?

Daniel Stillman:

Am I interested in what the other person is even saying? Can I-

Oscar Trimboli:

Or am I capable of being interested? It's not even am I interested? I am so distracted with what's going on for me right now I don't even know to process the thought about am I actually interested in the next dialogue? Because consciously I might say that to myself but subconsciously while I think about the fact that my mother-in-law passed away three weeks ago at 93, I have a friend in Vancouver who's week eight in ICU with C-19. All these things are showing up for me right now, too.

Oscar Trimboli:

For me, that's why the practice of drinking water and the practice of breathing is so critical and so basic. A lot of people want their fancy-pants intergalactic really sexy ninja move the triple back flip kick. And I say to people, "Drink water, breathe deeply." And they go, "No, no. What's the real tip?" And it's like, no it's the practice of those things around hydration and presencing yourself through breathing, which sends a signal to your nervous system to go it's okay. There's no threat from this conversation with Daniel right now. There's no threat from the judgment the audience is making right now, which you're doing. I know you are, and that's okay.

Daniel Stillman:

Can we highlight this? Because this is interesting. I don't think many people realize that breath is the one part of our, and maybe the only part of our biology that we can consciously control, but also don't have to consciously control. And that regulating your breathing affects so many other parts of your nervous system. You're nodding. Nobody's watching the video. I am, so say more about that. What's unsaid? What haven't you said about that?

Oscar Trimboli:

We have our mind and we have our physiology and we have our neurology as well. The nervous system, the parasynthetic, sympathetic nerve system. There is as many nerve endings in our gut... In fact, there are more nerve ending in our gut than there are in our brain. And the very act of breathing is both a conscious choice and it's subconscious. You can't survive without breathing.

Oscar Trimboli:

Most of us aren't conscious that the way we breathe is like the way we sit in a chair. Some of us sit in a chair in an erect position with our shoulders back and relaxed, and some of us hunch. And most of us who are hunched won't be breathing from the diaphragm where the most natural parts of breathing take place. But in that act of breath, it's a reset for the nervous system to go, "It's okay. We've got you. Continue on with those high level activities of thinking creatively or thinking collaboratively or being in a conversation on a complex topic."

Oscar Trimboli:

But most of us, when we're in a situation of fear or we want to flee a situation, our breath actually shortens. And for a lot of us, when we feel challenged in a dialogue, there's no difference in our mental systems if we're challenged physically or we're challenged mentally. The brain still releases cortisol, the nervous system still reacts the same way as if we're under physical threat. And yet the conscious act of three deep breaths, in through your nose, down the back of your throat, all the way down to the bottom of your lungs, back up through your diaphragm and out through your mouth three times.

Oscar Trimboli:

In the good old days, Dan, when I used to go into elevators in buildings, I had this practice, and the practice was really simple. Cross the lobby floor, switch my cellphone off, put it in my bag, and as I went into the elevator, or the lift, I would close my eyes if nobody was there, I'd put my back up against the wall of the elevator and just take three deep breaths. And the question I just posed to myself was what will be productive for them in this meeting that I'm about to have?

Oscar Trimboli:

And then when I go to reception, I'll always ask for a glass of water for me and for however many people were there. I know it's really different now, and again, Dan will say, "You can't see this right now but Oscar's got a bottle of water that he's just brought up," so Dan can see that. And you should be drinking water every thirty minutes. Most people in the west actually go through the day dehydrated.

Daniel Stillman:

It's terrible.

Oscar Trimboli:

And they say their brain hurts, but their brain doesn't hurt, they're just dehydrated.

Oscar Trimboli:

Those simple things that we want to be conscious of the fact that we can regulate our breathing, and yet the act of regulating our breathing sends many other physical signals to the body to take you to a state that reduces your distraction. And in a reduced state of distraction, you can listen not only to what's being said and what's not being said, but you're also emptying a space in your mind for the conversation to actually land.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. There's one ritual I was taught by my friend Salmon Masala. He teaches teams to take a team breath, and we just breathe together, we self-regulate together. It's an amazingly profound ritual and team practice. I know there's no magic bullet, and breathing and drinking, it's like table stakes, but are there other rituals that you teach to teams to be able to be more conscious with their listening and to set the scene so that it's more possible?

Oscar Trimboli:

In 2014, Google instituted this practice. It was an experiment, as they tend to do. Inside their organization, if there were more than six people in a meeting, they had a specific piece of music that they played for a guided mediation and it was the choice of the host whether they played that music for one minute or three minutes. It was the most commented thing on Google Geist. Google Geist is their annual employee engagement survey. And the reason it was the most commented on thing is they said the most productive meetings happened when we went through this set process of at the beginning of every meeting, we would play this music where everybody just either closed their eyes or lowered their eyes and focused on their breathing for a minute or up to three minutes.

Oscar Trimboli:

Now, in your desperate quest, Daniel, to get more things, I'm just going to keep coming back to the basics until we do those-

Daniel Stillman:

Or is this mine or the universal quest?

Oscar Trimboli:

Yeah. I guess it was posed in your question about what other techniques do you use with your team? And for me as a leader, one of the things that, if I run a workshop, it's my role modeling that sets the tone for the meeting when it comes to listening.

Oscar Trimboli:

Back in 2012, visiting Microsoft vice president where I used to work; he flew from Seattle to San Francisco and then to Sydney, effectively 24 hour door-to-door flight, and he jumped straight into a meeting on a Tuesday morning in Sydney where I was hosting in a boardroom in a CBD hotel, 20 executives from basically competing technology organizations in this part of the world. And I introduced him and I gave everyone a bit of background and I said, "Peter, over to you for some opening remarks." And he was sitting at the end of the boardroom table in that power position and he just got up and walked over to the corner. And I was like, what's going on here? He put his cellphone in his bag and he turned to the room and he said, "I'm really sorry. I just realized I've traveled 24 hours to be with you for the next 90 minutes. The most important thing I can give you right now is my complete and undivided attention."

Oscar Trimboli:

What happened next definitely stays with me for the rest of my life. What do you think happens next, Daniel, with the other 20 senior executives in the room from competing organizations?

Daniel Stillman:

I can't imagine.

Oscar Trimboli:

17 of them switched their cellphones off, put them in their bags. I'm speculating that the three who left them on left them on in silent mode because you could hear the pockets vibrating during the meeting for these people that were not switching their cellphones off.

Oscar Trimboli:

He left the meeting at about the 70 minute mark. I was debriefing the group, and what was fascinating; they said, "We get these visiting vice presidents coming out and preaching to us all the time and rarely is there a dialogue. It's just a broadcast monologue. And what we were surprised about today is how much we learned from each other." Peter just stimulated a conversation around a few themes, and the room learned more from each other than they did from him, but he created this environment.

Oscar Trimboli:

And I would say anybody who leads a meeting, whether that's a virtual meeting or a face-to-face meeting, they are setting the environment that is either fertile where a conversation can grow, or it's concrete and the [inaudible 00:26:41] for the conversation just bounce off into the drain because there's no fertile ground for the conversation to land. And in Peter's beautiful role modeling in that story, I often ask people, "Notice if you're giving attention or paying attention," because paying attention feels like taxation, whereas giving attention feels like an act of human generosity.

Oscar Trimboli:

And your orientation is very different when you give attention versus pay attention. So just that simple thing to go when I'm paying attention it feels like there's a friction created in this dialogue because I have to pay something, whereas giving feels free-flowing. It feels natural, it feels elegant, it feels organic.

Oscar Trimboli:

The question I would pose to anybody is how were you role modeling listening before the meeting, during the meeting and after the meeting? And a lot of people say to me, "How can you role model listening before the meeting?" or, "How can you role model listening after the meeting?" And in a lot of those cases, people don't realize that if a meeting has an agenda, where's the rule that says the agenda can't merely be a question? And pose the question before the meeting. Because people are going to come into that meeting with a very different orientation to budget setting meeting for fiscal year 2021 as opposed to what should be different in our budgeting process this year compared to last?

Daniel Stillman:

Or what are our priorities and how will we pay for them all?

Oscar Trimboli:

And I often say to people, "Listening is the willingness to have your mind changed." I didn't say, "Listening is changing your mind," I said it's the willingness or the openness to having your mind changed. And that's set before the meeting.

Oscar Trimboli:

And then the difference between hearing and listening is the willingness to take action. After the meeting, are you willing to take the action that you committed to to show everybody that you were listening? Or are you just going to go and do your own thing? So this is how listening before and after a conversation shows up as well.

Oscar Trimboli:

But never underestimate the role you play as a parent when it comes to listening or even as a adult child to a parent. You can set the listening tone. It reminds me of a very funny situation. In September last year, I was asked by a person who was interviewing me in Chicago. His name was James. He said, "Oscar, we all have an uncle or an aunt at Thanksgiving, and they're always ranting about something. It might be the angry grandmother." I said, "Okay. I get the scene." "How do we listen to those people we fiercely disagree with?" The question took me back, and I just simply said, "Ask that person when was the first time that they formed that opinion?" And in doing so, you actually reset this automatic story that they tell and they have to go back to that point in time.

Oscar Trimboli:

Most people don't know this story; James rings me up in December, after Thanksgiving. He's about to publish the interview and he says, "Before I do, I have to tell you about my uncle because I asked him that question. And we had a completely different conversation." And I went, "How so?" He said, "Well, he didn't get drunk, for a start." I say, "Well, that sounds like a good starting point."

Oscar Trimboli:

It was a question around politics because they both disagreed on politics, but he asked his uncle when did he first form this perspective on this political issue? And his uncle took him back to the 1960s and explained a really specific situation where that happened. And James said to me, "Wow, I was willing to have my mind changed. And in that moment, I cared enough about my uncle to listen to him and realize that that was his story, and he just carried that forward with him. And the world has changed but his story hasn't changed. But knowing that story, we now discuss that story and where it started rather than where he's at now and it's a much richer conversation for both of us. Our relationship has transformed."

Oscar Trimboli:

I said, "James, I'm completely delighted for you, but do you realize you did that? You, as a listening role model, changed the whole conversation." And in that moment, he kind of went, "Oh. I can help somebody change their own perspective on a topic just by listening to them." And I said, "Yeah. As a listener, we help the speaker make sense of what they're saying." And he said, "Can we record that again? Can we go and record this?" And I said, "Yeah, sure. We can record this." And he kind of added that onto the end of the interview.

Oscar Trimboli:

But equally, I was doing another interview with someone who was interviewing me and their recording ended up in a faith-based group. And they sent me an email and said, "Oscar, I don't know if you're religious or a Christian or anything like that, but this listener had asked me to share this situation with you." And she was a mom in a multi-faith congregation. They basically have a mother's group once a month. She said, "If you listen to this podcast interview before, it's going to be like a book club. We're going to discuss the podcast episode, not the books we normally discuss. And because this is a bit different, I'll buy you a Starbucks coffee voucher."

Oscar Trimboli:

What shocked me in the email that was forwarded on to me is there were 12 people, 12 women, and they're all at that chaotic stage in life where they have young kids and they're all under five and they're in family formation. And they showed up to the discussion, and what shocked the host was she said, "Three people pulled her aside before they sat down and said, "I need to tell you something, and I'm not sure I want to talk about it in our group today."" And all three women, wives, basically said exactly the same thing: "I haven't been listening to my husband since we've had kids. I've ignored him, our marriage is on the rocks, and for the listening to this interview for the first time, I had the courage to go and have a real conversation with my husband since the kids have been born." And I was touched. For me, I spend a lot of time in corporates talking about the cost of not listening, but the cost of not listening at home is pretty huge too, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Tremendous. The family is where it all starts and where we learn how to talk and where we learn how to listen. It's delightful.

Daniel Stillman:

I want to roll back on a whole host of things you've said, and I want to analyze the story of the man who traveled 24 hours and took a moment and-

Oscar Trimboli:

Peter. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Peter. And also of your friend who sat with his uncle at Thanksgiving. What I think is really interesting about your work is, from my own perspective, I am always looking for better ways to design our conversation because when we have simple framework, a simple structure, a design helps us know what to do. And I've been looking at the process of Ting and some of the ancient wisdom that you pull from. We have been trying to solve these problems for a really long time. Obviously as human beings, we've been 40,000 years as modern humans and we still stumble. And so I've been looking at these steps of presence, respect, focus, feeling, hearing, and seeing, and I see the myriad very, very strongly in what Peter did and what your friend did at Thanksgiving.

Daniel Stillman:

And I'm curious, one, how you stumbled upon this piece of wisdom and insight. And two, can you walk it through from your perspective? Because I'm new to it. It sounds like an old friend for you.

Oscar Trimboli:

Most of the problems we're trying to solve our ancient ones. You're right. I went back and researched through the book, Inuit cultures in North America, South American, jungle cultures, Australian Aboriginal cultures, Polynesian and Maori cultures through the islands of the pacific. Ting, which you talk about, here, which is six dimensional listening which is taught in the 12th century by the king's consigliere, for want of a better word, the person who's responsibility for bringing through the next generation of princes and princesses in the court.

Oscar Trimboli:

And to ensure that the dynasties continued, one of the key things the leaders always talked about is the importance of listening to their constituents, in modern language. All the people that were under their rulership. And Ting is six dimensional, and whether we listen for dadirri, which is-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, I was hoping we'd get to that, too.

Oscar Trimboli:

... an Aboriginal word, which talks about listening as three dimensional listening but at a much meta level. Listening to yourself, your peoples and your lands.

Oscar Trimboli:

The greatest listening cultures through history are also the greatest storytelling cultures. And there is something rather unique in humans gathering around a common place and space to hear a story because stories, particularly in Aboriginal but also in the Chinese cultures, were directional tools. They were tools to help you understand how to get to a special, sacred ritual site, but there were many steps to get there. You may travel hundreds of miles to get there through rivers and over ravines and through gulleys. And stories were done. But in these ways of telling stories, you were training the youth and the pre-initiation males on how to listen because it would literally save their lives because if you turn left or right, you could have crocodiles eating you going the wrong way on a river versus turning right and then everything will be okay.

Oscar Trimboli:

Back to Ting, Daniel; most of us think about listening. I call it monochrome, two dimensional listening rather than multi-color, multi-sensory listening. Ting teaches us about six colors. Most of us are taught to listen by our hearing and our sight. Listen to the body language and all of a sudden we think we're going well on our listening. And we are. What we do is we double that 100% every time if we start to look at other layers of listening.

Oscar Trimboli:

What I love about Ting is it says that you're listening with your heart. Now, one of the things we have to pay respect to the Mandarin language is only a Westerner would deconstruct Ting into its elemental characters. No Chinese person would do to Ting what I've done. It's about seeing, it's about hearing, it's about your presence, it's about how you're staying focused in the conversation all the way through the six dimensions.

Oscar Trimboli:

There's an integrity in the way that the ancients listen that we've forgotten in modern times. And again, back to dadirri where we talk about listen to yourself first, listen to your peoples next and then listen for your lands because your lands are connecting you with your past but it's also sustaining you in our present. Again, there's a integrity, there's a connectedness in all three of those things and you can't do one well without the other being more productive.

Oscar Trimboli:

Again, when we come back to why is breathing so elemental? And why it's so part, an ingredient in this beautiful [inaudible 00:40:50] broth of listening, it is because it connects everything inside us and everything outside us. Without oxygen in the earth, trees don't grow. Trees don't grown, animals, fish, whatever; they don't happen. And then there's the element of water.

Oscar Trimboli:

Too many of us are looking for the latest fancy-pants move, just being patient and going back to our elders have wisdom. If we could learn from them in just the most simple, basic things, we'll really have a transformational impact.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. And taking the time to set the stage for good listening is time well spent.

Oscar Trimboli:

Many people in the workplace have these things called work in progress meetings, and they happen regularly. They might happen daily. They might be called stand-ups or sprints or those kinds of meetings, or they might be weekly. And I'd ask you listening right now, if you're ever been part of those meetings have you ever been frustrated with yourself or somebody else who comes to the work in progress meeting the following week and says, "My task is complete," and then people as you to explain what you've completed and you've completed something that nobody asked you for because you weren't listening. And you wasted a huge amount of time yourself and for the group because you weren't listening in that moment. So the cost of not listening, for most of us in the workplace, is wasted effort. We can't do our best work, or our work isn't valued because it's not connecting to the bigger picture or it's not delivering on something we get really excited about.

Oscar Trimboli:

Getting ready for the conversation to listen reduces the likelihood you're going to hear the wrong thing. If you wanted the modern move, Daniel, that basic modern move beyond water, beyond breathing, it's this. And some people are going to go absolutely crazy like I'm taking away drugs from a drug addict. Remove your digital devices before you start a conversation. If it's a cellphone, I'm not saying go cold turkey and switch it off immediately, but at least try and gray-scale with no notification, and then from no notification to silent mode, and from silent mode to airplane or to flight mode, and from flight mode to off mode. And if you've got a laptop or an iPad or some kind of tablet, just switch off the notifications if you're taking notes on a digital device.

Oscar Trimboli:

And you will have that very different relationship with yourself and your presence, remembering that the difference between a distracted listener and a deep listener is just noticing how often they're distracted. If you switch off the notifications on your computer or your laptop or your cell or your tablet. And now it's just one button. In the good old days, it took a long time to take off those notifications. But right now, it's a button that we can all push to put all the notifications off on those devices.

Oscar Trimboli:

Those 1,410 people I talked about earlier in our database that we've been tracking for three years, Daniel, they say they've doubled their listening productivity by just switching their devices off or switching their notifications off. I say to them, "Quantify double. What does that mean?" And they all say that they get more time in their schedule back. And on average we're finding these people get four hours a week back in their schedules because they're not going into meetings where they're repeating themselves or they delivered the wrong task or they're asking the right kind of questions. And meetings actually become shorter, not longer. When people say, "This listening stuff takes time. I haven't got time. I'm too busy being busy." And I say to-

Daniel Stillman:

It's a pretty good American imitation, though. That was good.

Oscar Trimboli:

I don't even know which State that accent was supposed to be from. And for me, those initial steps of first time going into the listening gym, you're going to get sore muscles, for sure, where you're lifting your weights. But what people notice consistently is... And they all come back to, "Yeah, there is time freeing up in my schedule." Or the opposite is the time I have available now, I'm using those things on stuff I really enjoy, or it's really creative, or it's really long-term, or I can go and move some really big rocks rather than just transactional issues in our business.

Oscar Trimboli:

So for us, the act of listening is going to get you back four hours a week, and the fastest way to do that is just switch the devices to non-notification modes. And if you really want to double, again, just switch them off because we relate to our devices very differently if they're off to whether they're on. If they're on and the notification thing is off... Tell me if this ever happened to you, Daniel: "I'm waiting for that email. Wonder if that email's coming in. I wish I could push that button. If I just push the button now but keep my eyes in front of the room, nobody will notice and the email will come in. I'm sure I'll be okay." And that moment, you're giving your attention to a device.

Oscar Trimboli:

Don't let the device use you, make sure you use the device. That's all I'm asking for. Give conscious attention to everybody around you, but don't let the device use you because the kinds of psychologists that are designing notifications are the same people who design slot machines in Las Vegas to make you continuously scroll on that slot machine and keep putting money in. And that's what happens with a lot of people while they're thumbing their cellphone, too.

Daniel Stillman:

And the truth is, our working attention is, by one measure, 120 bits per second, and one person talking is 60. That's half of our attention. And looking at the phone, looking at anything else, trying to split our attention; there's not a lot of it to go around. We think that we have infinite attention but it's really not the case.

Daniel Stillman:

Oscar, we're really coming up on our time and it's a shame. What haven't you said that ought to be said? Is there anything else that remains unsaid to make our time together complete?

Oscar Trimboli:

There's lots. We haven't spoken about the four villains of listening, we haven't talked about listening individually, collectively and at organizational and ecosystem level, so I'll just conclude by simply saying there are many things left unsaid. Remember, I think at 900 words a minute, I can speak at 125 so there's a big gap. Stick with the basics; that's the thing I keep reminding myself. Devices off, water, breathing; those three things working in harmony together are really powerful. Just practice that.

Oscar Trimboli:

If you want to learn about your listening barriers and what gets in your way, you can take the seven minute listening quiz if you visit listeningquiz.com. You can quickly assess yourself and we'll give you a tailored, 90 day program specifically designed around your specific listening barriers. And at listeningquiz.com, we can connect you with really the next set of tips beyond this. Once you get the breathing right, once you get the devices sorted, once you get your hydration going, we'll help you to explore and notice the difference between bias questions and neutral questions, which are covered so delightfully on the previous episodes.

Oscar Trimboli:

And understand that sometimes the best question that you can answer sounds like this. And if you were going to write down one thing out of today's interview, it will be what I say next. This question is the most powerful question you can ever ask somebody, so here it comes. Silence.

Daniel Stillman:

Boom. Good punchline.

Oscar Trimboli:

The word silent and the word listen have identical letters. I've just done Daniel's head in. He's trying to rearrange the letters-

Daniel Stillman:

I know, I'm not so good with-

Oscar Trimboli:

... in his head. Better you write it down than try to do it as-

Daniel Stillman:

No thank you.

Oscar Trimboli:

... a visual exercise. In the West, we have this awkward relationship with silence. We could do a whole episode on this. We call it the pregnant pause, the awkward silence, the deafening silence. Yet in the East, in Japan, in China, in Korea, in high-context cultures, silence is a sign of wisdom, it's a sign of authority, it's a sign of respect.

Oscar Trimboli:

In fact, a lot of Westerners get very confused when they go to meetings in the East and notice that the senior person in the room, it almost looks like they're asleep but they're not. And the room's waiting for they and there may be up to five minutes of silence. And in that time, the room is coming together, and this is where consensus is evolving and adapting.

Oscar Trimboli:

In jungle cultures, in the Aboriginal and ancient cultures, in the Inuit cultures it is not uncommon for the gathering of tribes to sit in silence for hours, days, weeks, and yet communication is still taking place.

Oscar Trimboli:

Though, Daniel, if there's one thing we could spend a whole other conversation talking, it's about listening to the silence.

Daniel Stillman:

I often talk about the difference between being and doing. Western cultures, we value doing. And in my book I talk about this; speaking versus listening. Speaking is doing and listening seems like non-being and non-doing, and what's that for? But the bowl is useful because of the space in it, and we need that space.

Daniel Stillman:

I really appreciate you making some space in your day, in your time with us and having a spacious conversation with me about this really, really important thing; deep listening. And obviously, yeah, if people want to get into the next step stuff, you... I was going to ask you these questions but there's places to find you on the internet. People can read your book. A whole piece of your brain, preserved posterity people can leisurely, at their own pace and time, leaf through. Are there other places on the internet that people should find you in their leisure hours?

Oscar Trimboli:

Just listeningquiz.com is the-

Daniel Stillman:

Once we turn our devices back on.

Oscar Trimboli:

Look, listeningquiz.com is the starting place, and that'll give you access to the books, to the deep listening playing cards, it will give you access to the deep listening jigsaw puzzles, it'll give you access to the Deep Listening podcast series, the online masterclass for managers and how to listen across the nine meetings that matter, it can give all the socials and things like that.

Oscar Trimboli:

And we also have a community of practice where we get together twice a month across three different timezones to listen to each other and come to a common space where between six and eight people discuss the barriers that are getting in the way of their listening every week. As you mentioned, Daniel, listening is both a skill, it's a strategy and it's a practice. Those three things are all the kinds of muscles you need to build there. So listeningquiz.com; starting point for everything.

Daniel Stillman:

Oscar, thank you so much.

Facilitating complexity

YKUsQMdD.jpeg

I’m thrilled to *finally* share my conversation with the amazing and electrifying Nikki Silvestri.

We connected back in early March and recorded our conversation in late May, at the height of the quarantine. It’s been a process to find the time to sit with this deep conversation and pull together some insights for you.

A friend shared Nikki’s work with me and I was hooked - Nikki was setting up a program to teach facilitation to Rural Women, and I was so curious to dive into her facilitation and leadership approach and her critical work.

Nikki’s core metaphor is soil - the complex place that gives life to us all - the source of our nourishment.

Monoculture vs Food Forests

Soil can be thought of as a series of inputs - minerals, water, carbon, etc. A mathematical equation for creating a space for life. But rich soil is not simple. It’s a complex, living thing that responds unpredictably to attempts to control it.

In agriculture we can have a food forest - a near-wild combination of plants and animals feeding each other and ourselves. Or, we can have a monoculture - sprawling spaces where we use as much science and technology as possible to sustain maximum outputs at all times and at all costs.

Nikki suggests, rightly, that monocultures can also exist in our own organizations...and that when we have such a monoculture, when we are not doing what she calls “basic diversity and inclusion work” innovation and creativity will be lost. 

Esther Derby, a noted Agile consultant, touched on this forest metaphor in our podcast interview - she said that she would rewrite her whole book about leading change using food forests and forest succession as her central metaphor.

Mechanistic thinking vs Complexity Thinking in Group Work and Leadership

We push this metaphor of soil and complexity deeper into growing personal leadership and holding space for deep group work. Nikki describes the central tension:

“I was trapped in mechanistic thinking because nonlinear complex thinking, it had too many unknowns and it made me too uncomfortable....With the amount of responsibility that I felt like I had, I needed to know. And frankly, I needed to know that I could manipulate my way into the linear outcome that I was looking for because there was "too much at stake" to not have that happen.”

After all, control is rewarded. As Nikki suggests: “The people who are able to manipulate, and dominate, and control the outcome the most are the ones who are rewarded.”

Links, Notes and Resources

Nikki Silvestri on the web https://www.nikkisilvestri.com/

Nikki’s TEDx Talk

Nikki on Soil and Shadow

Gestalt Organizational Development

Carter's Cube (free login required)

Full Transcription

Daniel Stillman:

We're live. I will officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. All right, Nikki, I am so excited you're here. Man, I think the opening question I want to ask you is, what is the soil you came from?



Nikki Silvestri:

Oh, that's such a beautiful question. Are you just asking me that because I'm Soil and Shadow, or is that the way you usually phrase that?



Daniel Stillman:

I never ask that question, and I know that that's your question. I think it's a great question.



Nikki Silvestri:

It's such a great question. I love it so much. Okay. Okay. The soil nerd in me just was delighted that that was your first question. My soil that I come from is the soil of Los Angeles. And what I love about that, about being a fourth generation Los Angeleno, is that one of the oldest graveyards in the city is on a border town of Koreatown and toward downtown LA. And my great grandparents are there, and there's not a lot of people whose great grandparents are buried in a city like LA.



Daniel Stillman:

No.



Nikki Silvestri:

So I love the fact that I have such deep roots there, and that then before that my people came from the South, like so many Black folks. I'm from the soil of that land in that place, and I feel grateful for that. I'm from the soil of artists and entertainers. My great grandfather was a Black man and black-faced in a Minstrel show. And my grandfather was in a really famous blues quartet back in the day. Just the entertainment industry and how Black folk in particular intersected with the entertainment industry for activism, for care, for telling our story in a time when it's not really safe to tell our story in a complex way, I come from that too.



Nikki Silvestri:

I think the last piece of the soil that I come from is mothers, which has become a more relevant topic for me now. I'm almost 20 weeks pregnant. I'm 18 weeks pregnant with my second child right now. And just raising my toddler while being pregnant has given me such insight into the legacy of just all of the mothers before me and how hard it is to raise humans. I'm just like, "How do any of us get here?" I'm astonished that any of us are sane, honestly. That's the soil I come from.



Daniel Stillman:

It's rich and loamy. I heard your voice catch when you talked about mothers. That feels really real, and that's something that you're really connected to right now.



Nikki Silvestri:

It is.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I have my stickies here, snippets of your work that I've snipped, that I think would be worthwhile to circle back around. You've written about the complexity mindset and facilitation and work. And I feel like you have a really interesting perspective on complexity because of soil and because of the complexity of soil. You were talking about the magic that people wind up growing up and becoming people from little people. Can you talk about why complexity mindset and facilitation and then work is important to you? Take us through how you got there, how it became helpful and clear to you.



Nikki Silvestri:

Those are two separate and deep questions.



Daniel Stillman:

Cool. Take them as you will.



Nikki Silvestri:

Okay. The second one, how did I get here? One of the reasons I like soil metaphor so much is because I feel like they're so clear. When I was in the earlier part of my career as a nonprofit executive director, I was in an organic monoculture, is what I like to call it. So, because I had really good values, that was the organic part, the pesticide would have been just straight, get as much money as you can, or not anything even unscrupulous, just the social justice, social equity, progressive, that was my "organic mindset". But the monoculture part is that you can have that mindset. This is what I discovered. I'll use "I" statements like I do in facilitation.



Daniel Stillman:

Thank you.



Nikki Silvestri:

I had that mindset and was still working in a way that was depleting myself. I was pushing my team in a way that was depleting. I was sacrificing our long-term health and sustainability for short-term goals, and then wrapping them in all these pretty progressive words, and thus it's okay, which I see so many-



Daniel Stillman:

And this is the joke, when sustainable isn't sustainable, right? Ha ha ha-



Nikki Silvestri:

That's exactly... Well, inorganic-



Daniel Stillman:

Certainly not for the people.



Nikki Silvestri:

... monocultures are not sustainable.



Daniel Stillman:

No.



Nikki Silvestri:

You could be certified organic and still stripping the hell out of your soil. Taking that metaphor and bringing it into social contexts was really fascinating for me because then it led to break down for me. I was just experiencing a personal journey and I was trying to put language around it. What led to my breakdown? Why did I have an existential crisis at the peak of my career about the fact that I didn't think any of my work was going to work? Why did I hate people, like just straight up? I never wanted to work on a team again. It was so bad. It got so bad.



Daniel Stillman:

Oh boy.



Nikki Silvestri:

And so, then soil, I just started going to workshops on soil carbon sequestration, because I wanted to find some avenue to hope when it comes to the climate. And getting carbon out of the air and into the soil was very inspiring to me. And it was in that journey that I started learning about healthy soil and how to build healthy soil. It was fascinating to me, just what fertility actually means, that you could have on the one hand, you put a bunch of minerals into soil... Not a bunch, just like three main minerals into soil. And then those three main minerals, you can have an equation.



Nikki Silvestri:

You put in this many minerals, you get out that much yield, and the equation will work for a period of time. And I found that in social systems, you can do the same thing. You can put in a salary, a work plan, a mission statement into an equation and pop out a certain level of productivity or a project management software, whatever the widgets are that people identify as being what keeps people motivated and productive, and a high performance team. People get attached to these widgets? I mean, it's one of the things I coach on all the time.



Nikki Silvestri:

The meaningful part of facilitation and the meaningful part of gathering people is social fertility. If you give them the healthy ingredients that they need to convene amongst themselves... The way that I define fertility is increasing the complexity of relationships. If you do that in the soil, when it comes to water, and carbon, and all the different minerals and bacteria that live in the soil, give them the freedom to increase their complexity of relationships. And not only will you grow what you intended to grow, you're going to have a bunch of co-benefits.



Nikki Silvestri:

You're going to build nutrient density in the food. You're going to stop soil erosion, etc. If you do the same thing, whether you're facilitating or just building a team, you have these basic ingredient building blocks of how you create a healthy socially fertile environment. And then that team of people create stuff you never would've dreamed of creating. It's the foundation of all my work. And in facilitation, it's an art form because it's not just about the outcomes of whatever the gathering was that you were going to do. It's about creating the environment for magic.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, and so that's interesting. I don't think you would propose that because it's an art, we don't have any control or agency in the process, right?



Nikki Silvestri:

Not at all. It's a co-creative process.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It seems like underneath it, you still have core theory you're working with. There is soil science. There's there's group dynamics, right?



Nikki Silvestri:

Absolutely.



Daniel Stillman:

Which I'm guessing you are as deep of a student of group dynamics as any facilitator who's serious about their craft.



Nikki Silvestri:

Absolutely. I like to translate the part that we can control. It's the difference between the owner's manual of how to run a 10,000-acre chemical-laden monoculture, and the manual of how to build healthy soil on a regenerative ranch or farm. The regenerative ranch or farm, there's the five principles of soil health, and diversity of the plants and the animals, well, having animals on the land, having a diversity of plants, making sure your soil is covered. And then two more that are escaping me. But I translate those all the time into what that looks like in the social context.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Diversity.



Nikki Silvestri:

Diversity and inclusion is something I work with all the time. Yeah. You have the same group of people. You have a monoculture in terms of the culture of the people who are in the room, there's a certain amount of innovation that will be lost. It's basic in diversity and inclusion work. But how to do that without having so much conflict that you break the container completely, that is an art form. And that has very specific things you can do.



Nikki Silvestri:

When it comes to keeping the soil covered, that one is very interesting to me because it's about when you have a vulnerable resource. How do you protect an idea when it's brand new and learn how to improve it in a way that doesn't destroy it completely, but that gives it enough cover so that it can grow? One of the best descriptions of this I've ever seen is the brain trust concept that was in Creativity, Inc. the book Creativity, Inc by the dude who started Pixar.



Daniel Stillman:

John Lasseter.



Nikki Silvestri:

His last name is Arthur.



Daniel Stillman:

Is it John Lasseter or is it the other... Ed Catmull's. Ed Catmull is the one you're talking about.



Nikki Silvestri:

Yep. It was Ed Catmull's book. That's right. Pregnancy brain is real. So you're going to have to prompt me several times in this conversation.



Daniel Stillman:

I don't have an excuse for it. Not that I know.



Nikki Silvestri:

But just that description of how creative companies are able to protect a new movie idea and then make it better, but without destroying it, knowing that something needs to change almost completely from one form to another when it's new. Groups of people when they get together are really quick to criticize. And so, a part of creating fertility is the ability to improve without damaging the sanctity of newness, which is also specific in an art form. So those are just a couple of examples. You're not taking your hands off the reins at all. You're actually doing things that are very sophisticated, that are guiding, but are not controlling.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. If anybody's listening and happened to hear... I don't know if you've checked this episode out, but Esther Derby came on the show a couple of months back and she's a wonderful, wonderful speaker. She wrote a book about seven rules for positive, productive change. And she's, "I've got this last one that's not in the book," and really it was about forest succession. The power of the metaphor you use, the metaphor you use is the question you ask, and the questions you ask are the answers you'll get. It's what you see. It's what you can even ask about.



Daniel Stillman:

Sometimes people talk about innovation management, which is this mechanistic perspective that creativity and innovation and change can be done in a one plus one equals two kind of a way. What we're talking about here is not even gardening, which is this... I've got this sandbox and I've got rows and beds and there's inputs and outputs. But this is the idea of the food forest. How can I have something that is truly self sustaining, that is truly natural, and truly regenerative? And there's just great stuff that just pops out of it more than I could have ever imagined.



Daniel Stillman:

How do you get from what my friend, Robert, calls not just going from A to B, but going from A to B prime, more than we could have ever expected. You don't get that from mechanistic thinking.



Nikki Silvestri:

No, you don't. The question is, how do you do that?



Daniel Stillman:

I mean, that was more of a comment than a question, but if you want to yes and that.



Nikki Silvestri:

I am so in the yes and camp. I mean, what's interesting to me is that if I go back to my breakdown, I was trapped in mechanistic thinking because nonlinear complex thinking, it had too many unknowns and it made me too uncomfortable. It was actually intolerable. With the amount of responsibility that I felt like I had, I needed to know. And frankly, I needed to know that I could manipulate my way into the linear outcome that I was looking for because there was "too much at stake" to not have that happen.



Daniel Stillman:

Right. Yes, and that's putting your hands on the wheel because we're panicked.



Nikki Silvestri:

Yes. And it's the way the world works. The people who are able to manipulate, and dominate, and control the outcome the most are the ones who are rewarded. There are different schools of thought when it comes to, is it a spectrum? Is it an either or? I honestly don't have an answer for that. I feel like I've just gotten to the place where I know where I'm orienting and the people who feel most aligned with my work are orienting, and it starting from a different place. It's starting from the perspective that you can never actually understand in totality an ecosystem, full stop.



Daniel Stillman:

Right. Which is a really humble place to come from. And yet-



Nikki Silvestri:

Exactly.



Daniel Stillman:

And yet I'm willing to bet that, as we must, you are in my perspective, a designer of conversations and you put guardrails on a thing. And so, I'm wondering-



Nikki Silvestri:

Oh, absolutely.



Daniel Stillman:

... what is the wisdom you try to impart to people when it comes to intelligently guiding dialogue in a way that is safe and productive?



Nikki Silvestri:

Well, and that's the step by step, is if the origin point is you can never completely understand or have your arms completely around an ecosystem, then that goes for the land, and that goes for social dynamics. That goes for any system where there's more than one piece interacting with one another. In conversation, part of that starting point is you need a ton of practice with things going off the rails in order to trust yourself and your ability to get intuitive at some point. Because, honestly, at some point, all the learning goes out the window and you just have to know and trust yourself and your ability to manage things that you could not have at all planned for and were completely unexpected.



Nikki Silvestri:

That's one of the first things I introduced. Are you comfortable going there? And if you are, then we can go through the other steps. But then there's just some basics when it comes to... A lot of this is organizing principle, which I also think is interesting around the art of one-on-ones. Before you walk into a room full of people, you should know as much as you possibly can about the system from a humble place. Knowing you're not going to know the whole thing, try to know as much as you can.



Nikki Silvestri:

It's extraordinary to me the number of people that don't do that kind of basic thing. Then also group process agreements. But the complex group process agreements, it's a lot deeper than just, "If you're used to talking a lot, don't talk so much. And if you're not talking so much, go ahead and step in."



Daniel Stillman:

Right, as if I knew how to self-manage as a participant.



Nikki Silvestri:

Right.



Daniel Stillman:

Which I don't.



Nikki Silvestri:

Right. But there's one of my favorite group process agreements is expect and accept non closure. Like walking into a meeting and saying, "This is one of my basic operating principles." In a meeting where the outcome is to have closure on something, usually messes with people's heads. [inaudible 00:17:30] kidding. You set the expectation of, "This is how nonlinear complex systems work. Here's what we can manage for. We can manage for having next steps for everything that comes up. We can manage for having a spirit of generosity when things come up. We can manage for not looking at conflict as a bad thing."



Nikki Silvestri:

In fact, looking at conflict from the perspective of Gestalt Organizational Development, and Carter's Cube as a part of what leads toward cohesion, when you have an orientation phase of a group, there's a whole series of tools that I pull out just to give people context for, "This is the natural progress and process of how a system moves from one place to another." We can't control the outcome of where we will get to in the end 100%. But what we can do is manage for each step in the process and keep it safe enough so that there's enough conflict when we get to the next phase, but there's not so much conflict that we break trust.



Nikki Silvestri:

The last thing I'll say about that is then another piece of facilitation in the art is knowing when to intervene, when there's too much conflict, and knowing when to just let it ride and let people work out their own stuff. That's why I feel like so much of this, you can teach as just, "These are the practice agreements of engagement." But then at least 50% of it, if not more, is the practice of being able to feel into a group. It does feel like parenting to me.



Nikki Silvestri:

It's one of the reasons my voice cut in the beginning when you were talking about motherhood, like when do you push a toddler and when do you be gentle? There's all these guidebooks on it. And at the end of the day, you just need to practice and figure out how children work. And it's the same in groups.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I went through a whole phase in my life where I was rejecting all of the tough love that had been given to me. I was like, "Tough love is not the same thing as love." And I think there's very often this idea of, "Well, they need to each toughen up. We need to straighten this out. We need to have some hard talk." I often just have a sticky note on my wall, just to love my participants as much as I can because everyone's just going through a rough time, now but also always.



Daniel Stillman:

Was it Emerson who said... Or is it Whitman, it's like, "Be gentle. Everyone is fighting a mighty battle, and we know nothing of." I actually don't know anything about the Carter's Cube. I'm trying to find it out on the internet, but it looks like Gestalt theory, there's not a lot of it on the internet.



Nikki Silvestri:

No. John Carter is the person I'm talking about, and he published a few books a long time ago. But it's very, very, very, very niche. Unless you're in the Gestalt Organizational Development community, you probably don't know what I'm talking about.



Daniel Stillman:

I mean, I'm looking at it now on the internet. Yeah. This is a corner of the internet.



Nikki Silvestri:

It's a corner, but it's brilliant work. It's brilliant. It's brilliant work.



Daniel Stillman:

What's important for us to know about it. Because I definitely understand this idea of the push and pull and the two hands of the Potter's wheel forming and opening the clay pot. And if you've got one and not the other, you've got nothing. And so, it's about balance for me. But I have a feeling you're seeing some other forces at work when you're thinking about group dynamics. So maybe I'm not even seeing.



Nikki Silvestri:

Well. An example I'll give that's more common is the Gestalt Cycle of Experience. And that one just describes how groups and individuals process information. You go from sensing something to then being aware of it, to then experiencing anxiety or excitement about it, to then taking action on it. And then that action leads to some kind of contact with your original role, which allows your shoulders to drop. And then there's withdrawal from the entire process, and then it starts again.



Nikki Silvestri:

That's an example that I can give people around... There's a step by step of how groups move through dynamics. Where are we right now? That's just one of a number of things. But one of the things that is similar in soil is that people have a bunch of different models that they use for how they do regenerative agriculture. Different frameworks. Frameworks are an opportunity for us to at least locate ourselves in a process when we're uncomfortable, and naming the discomfort, and knowing what came before it to potentially cause it and what could come after it if we integrate it. It's just that by itself is a really great tool to use no matter what the framework is that you're throwing in there.



Daniel Stillman:

This connects to a question I wanted to ask you because you mentioned safety. And I feel like everyone has their own... Well, no. I feel like many people don't have their own. Everyone should have their own perspective on what it means to and how we should or can even facilitate safety. When I think about physical safety in the way that I've been teaching it, it's like, we know, if you show somebody a picture of a blind, dark alley, you feel unsafe because you can't see the exits and you don't know what's down there, and you don't know what's safe.



Daniel Stillman:

This idea of having a framework and saying, "Where are we now?", where does everyone think we are? I'm looking at this now. Are we observing change? Are we scanning or making change? Are we developing practices or making choices or are we leading and managing?



Nikki Silvestri:

Exactly. Exactly.



Daniel Stillman:

If everyone says, "I think we're here, but I want to be here," then we have the beginnings of a really interesting conversation.



Nikki Silvestri:

Exactly, exactly. This idea of safety is... That is a topic for me because I get irritated. Let me tell you what-



Daniel Stillman:

Don't hold back from [inaudible 00:23:50]-



Nikki Silvestri:

Irritated when people feel like comfort is equivalent to safety. I can't stand it. It's one of the reasons why my firm is called Soil and Shadow, because I just wanted to be clear. You talk to me, we're about to box with some shadows. That's just what's going to happen because I don't do a resistance to discomfort. Discomfort is how you grow. And I also feel that it's one of the deep, deep ways that I approach diversity and being a Black woman. It's just so much of my life has been not seeking comfort as a state of being that will let me know when I've "made it" or will let me know when I'm able to "live fully".



Nikki Silvestri:

It's such a deep, personal thing for me, the equivalence of privilege and comfort. And so, when I'm managing groups and when I'm facilitating groups, the way that I describe safety is if you have enough risk to grow, but not so much risk that you break trust and damage relationship. And it's a very fine line. It requires a few basic tenets, which is another thing what I facilitate. One of my facilitation tools is the scale of emotional intensity from one to 10.



Nikki Silvestri:

I tell people in the beginning, "I am prepared to hold a container up to about a level six today, because we're going to be getting into some difficult, deep conversation." Unless I'm doing just straight up spirit ritual and we've got libations-



Daniel Stillman:

11.



Nikki Silvestri:

... and we're sitting naked on the earth or something. That's a 10. I don't get paid to facilitate a 10. You feel me?



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I see what you mean.



Nikki Silvestri:

I will go up to an eight.



Daniel Stillman:

This is like when you go to the nurse and there's the smiley face to the frowny face, like what amount of pain are we having here?



Nikki Silvestri:

That's exactly right.



Daniel Stillman:

I love this idea of asking people what they're willing to contain because what you're willing to hold space for is what you can accomplish.



Nikki Silvestri:

That's exactly right. And it's a tool for me because I say in the beginning, "The container is a six. If you feel yourself at a six moving to a seven, I need you to remove yourself from the group. We have a space over there." If I know it's going to be an emotionally intense so and so, the conversation we're having, then I have a place to go. There's either a separate room or a separate place in the room that has blankets and candles, and whatever people need to just go take a time out like a child. You're experiencing an inner tantrum, but my job is to hold the group. And your job is to hold yourself in the group.



Nikki Silvestri:

So if you feel yourself in an inability to meet where I'm prepared to hold the group, I need you to take responsibility for bringing yourself back down to a six. And if you go to an eight in the group dynamic, I will take you out of the space myself. Unless I'm co-facilitating, and most of the time, if I know I'm going to be in a deep conversation like that, I do try to co-facilitate. So one of the facilitators can remove themselves and go and be with the person, because it's not a punitive thing at all. It's just that we will break trust if the container is set at a six and you go to an eight, and then we in the moment try to develop agreements for what it takes to hold an eight without breaking trust. So that's an example.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. What's tough for me about that is that I think I try to create a safe space where everybody's voice is heard and matters, but I can screw up. I can say something that can set somebody off and not know it. There's still that moment where it's like, "How much of this do I need to take responsibility for?" Especially, and maybe this is when we make the transition to talking about distributed facilitation, it's much harder to take somebody into a side room and have a side conversation with the same level of smoothness on the internet, because I can't just put my hand on somebody's shoulder and say like, "Hey, where are we with this?"



Nikki Silvestri:

Totally. Well, and that's a good distinction to make in terms of what I'm saying, because the only thing I'm talking about is emotional intensity on that scale. If you can be with what just occurred and stay at a five, knowing that you could go to an eight, but you're a mature person who can manage your own emotional expression in a group space, then 100%, we need to talk about it. But we're talking about it at a five, you know?



Daniel Stillman:

I do know.



Nikki Silvestri:

I've done this before in real time. If it's something that needs to be addressed, but you need to actually cry because it was so triggering for you, then maybe the whole group needs to take a 20-minute break so that you don't feel isolated and we're continuing to have a conversation. But all I'm saying is that I'm changing the group process agreements to hold the container for a higher level of emotional intensity for everyone. I don't, at this point, do that unless it's a serious emergency situation because it's an incredible drain on the facilitator-



Daniel Stillman:

Well, yeah, let's talk about that.



Nikki Silvestri:

... to do that. I would rather take a break.



Daniel Stillman:

Because I've got that written down here. I know that facilitation can be draining, and that we have to take care of ourselves. And on the flip side, what we are capable of holding space for, if we can't hold space for this kind of uncertainty, emotional intensity, ambiguity, we're not going to find anything wonderful on the other side. My friend, Bob, who came on this podcast ages ago, who teaches negotiation at Harvard, he talked about how you can design a negotiation so that nothing actually happens. It just becomes sterile. It's so contained that nothing interesting happens and there's no resolution because nothing was actually truly put out on the table.



Daniel Stillman:

And so, in one hand, we have to create a space where real stuff can come up, But that's draining to hold space for it. So, I mean, what do you do to take care of yourself as a facilitator?



Nikki Silvestri:

Yeah. It's one of the reasons I have a spectrum of emotional intensity. Because the first part of that is, I look at the outcomes of what's meant to be discussed and held. And then I usually have a pretty good read on what level of emotional intensity is likely to come up holding that level of space. So if I know that we need to have the space to go to an eight, if it comes up, for example, then I'm taking a day off before the facilitation. I'm taking a day off after the facilitation.



Daniel Stillman:

Oh man.



Nikki Silvestri:

I am calling in my ancestors straight up like, "Grandmamma, I need you up in this room to make sure I've got my shit together." And other people's ancestors. I need the grandparents in the room who can look at you crazy if I can't look at you crazy. If you're starting to break the container and just, there's a whole level of prayer and self care. And just me trying to make sure I'm in alignment. I mean, facilitation is a very spiritual thing for me. The oldest version of it was like holding counsel space, and counsel space is deep.



Nikki Silvestri:

Lives were decided in counsel spaces. War was decided in counsel spaces, whether excise a person from a community and send them off into exile was decided in counsels. It's profound when people give you the trust to hold them. And so even the way that a building breaks during a highly intense space, how much food do I have in the room? If it's a level eight, there is constant nourishment, constant. And I will even do some juju like having flavored water. What particular vegetables and fruits am I flavoring the water with?



Nikki Silvestri:

Sliced cucumber evokes a particular kind of nutrient in the water that people might need to have this particular conversation. Or do we need pineapple water? I'll go really deep into the details of how I'm setting up a space. And that's a part of creating fertility. It's like a basic tenet of fertility, is what are the pieces that you're putting in place? What's the level of detail and care you're taking in curating the environment within which then the pieces of the ecosystem are coming to play?



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is a perfect transition because work time, time moves a pace, and I want to make sure we talk about Gathering Fire and what's become of that project. Because when my friend, Jen Hayzlett sent me your newsletter, this idea of teaching rural women, the art of convening and facilitating, because community building and counseling is so critical to community building, I was like, "This is such a..." I never thought about how important it was and how critical it was to teach these mindsets and skillsets to that group.



Daniel Stillman:

But I'm wondering, A, what's being done with that initiative now, and how can we have that level of detail and care when we can't send people cucumber water through Zoom?



Nikki Silvestri:

Indeed. One thing that's been interesting in this era of social distancing is that I've been converting a lot of my in-person care that I would do to pre-gathering instructions for people to do for themselves. And it's really testing this question of, how well do you care for yourself? It's the same when I'm talking about going to a level of emotional intensity. If someone's coming in and they don't care for themselves well at all outside of the group, and they come into a really well-held container that I'm holding and they find that it actually works, then it turns me into some kind of magical unicorn that's just-



Daniel Stillman:

Which you are, but that's-



Nikki Silvestri:

... super skilled. Of course, I'm a magical unicorn. Of course, I am. Anyone can do it. It's just how much level of detail and care are you willing to take and how much practice are you willing to have with extraordinary discomfort? So I have had instructions-



Daniel Stillman:

Simple. There you go, but you make it seem so simple.



Nikki Silvestri:

... before. I'm just like, "Yeah, it's just discomfort that makes you feel like you're going to crawl out of your skin and sit with it. That's all." But so the instructions before a gathering. Prepare cucumber water. I'm sending you a package with the workbook and a candle. I would like you to have a floor chair that's comfortable. Here are several links. If you're paying to come, then this is something I will send you as a part of the package, a floor chair, because when that computer opens, I want to see you sitting in front of that floor chair, with a candle in front of you, with that workbook, wearing the t-shirt that you got in the mail, wearing the essential oil that's the main theme.



Nikki Silvestri:

There's a way to bring in sensory stuff. It means that there's a lot more mail flying back and forth, just as a logistical thing. And if someone really takes the time to prep for the gathering, the way that I would prep for them and I send them the materials to do so, it really does evoke a sense of care and it creates its own container. The Gathering Fire Initiative is still happening in some form or fashion. The idea behind women leaders in rural America needing facilitation support is that just so much of what is controlling and dictating what happens in this country is happening in rural spaces right now.



Nikki Silvestri:

It's things like the majority of California is technically rural, and people don't think about that. But this power, intense power, is concentrated in rural America, and women are stepping up to just be the eye in the churches and to be the eye in the county meetings. They're trying and they need help. If what happened in 2016 in terms of this intense political divide in our country, so much of that was split between rural and urban as well. We just felt like it was time to really care for the folks who were living at the intersections, who care about all of us who happened to be in rural communities, considering that the face of rural communities is incredibly diverse.



Nikki Silvestri:

But the folks that we think of living in rural America may not be the faces we initially think of in terms of that diversity. So there were a lot of complexities there and we wanted to just make sure we were properly serving that community. In this era of social distancing, I don't know, being on land and being in person together was a huge component of how that training was going to happen. One interesting thing is that in the next two to four years, as we're figuring out, before there's a vaccine, just what the safest way is to gather in person.



Nikki Silvestri:

Land is coming up in a lot of my conversations because it's just safer to be outside. And considering that that was something that was always a part of my in-person gatherings, it's coming up to me as fascinating. There is a now a meme in popular culture that being indoors in circulated air is not healthy. And it's like, "D'oh, yeah, it never was sedentary-



Daniel Stillman:

We call it fresh air.



Nikki Silvestri:

...lifestyle. Never was healthy. How about that? And now there's a virus that's like, "Oh no, I'm just kicking you out," kicking me out of the nest. "Go do all your convening six feet apart in a field." And it's like, "Great, convening six feet apart in a field, done."



Daniel Stillman:

Right. It's just a constraint and we can work with it. This is only slightly relevant. An NPR did a bit about, in Germany, they basically opened up a restaurant outside and they gave everyone hats that had Pool Noodles attached to those.



Nikki Silvestri:

Pool Noodles. I saw that.



Daniel Stillman:

You saw the Pool Noodles?



Nikki Silvestri:

Yeah.



Daniel Stillman:

I just loved it's like we're just all going to have Pool Noodle hats on and doing paired conversation six feet apart. Grab a partner but don't actually grab them.



Nikki Silvestri:

Yeah. I mean, it's adjusting the idea of personal space. And it's also been interesting to me thinking about the idea of circulation, because that's a big thing too. When you're inside, you're in a very controlled environment in terms of temperature, in terms of air flow, in terms of the floor and the ceiling and the walls. It's a controlled environment.



Daniel Stillman:

Well, it's a container.



Nikki Silvestri:

It is a container. It's a total container. And when you're outside, the ability for things to circulate, where you're standing is on the actual earth. So whatever you're talking about is held by a living substance underneath your feet. Then there's air flow that's just a straight wind. I have found that when I facilitate conversations outside, the harder the conversation, the further outside I go. I bring more plants into the space if it's an indoor conversation, but if I'm going to an eight, as much of that conversation as possible is happening outside.



Daniel Stillman:

Why so?



Nikki Silvestri:

I might even take us to the ocean. Well, just because I feel like nature is a great container for really intense emotion. Then we're not limited to directing it at each other. I've had people turn to the ocean. I'm like, "Whatever you're about to say right now, it looks like you might start screaming. Just turn to the ocean and tell it to the ocean, and we will witness you tell it to the ocean. But let the ocean hold it so that we're not the ones holding it."



Nikki Silvestri:

Then they turn back around and we can process it together. But asking non-human ecological entities to hold the intensity of some of the stuff we come up with, it's a tool that I use. It's been very, very, very helpful to distinguish. I mean the more facilitation "version" of it is just the witness stance in listening versus the responder stance in listening.



Daniel Stillman:

Right? This is the third point. This is why even just writing it down on a piece of paper and putting it on the wall means that we can look at it together instead of me giving it straight to you saying, "This is what I think about your project," versus saying, "Here's what I think about the project." It's on the wall now. And we're both looking at it. The space says something.



Nikki Silvestri:

Even if it's about the other person, taking the witness stance about something that's about you is very hard, and it's totally possible. If you set a container that's basically about things need to be surfaced, and this is way too hot to try to integrate or decide right now. But having it be in the shadows and in the background is completely eroding the trust. So the first step is going to be expressing it. And your job is to witness in a pure, in a pure way. There's no responding. Maybe there's no eye contact.



Nikki Silvestri:

I've done that as well. Like look at a spot in the wall or look at a spot on the floor and share, but don't look at the person. Then there's just an acknowledgement, "I've heard you." Then there's a break or lunch or something. Then there's some processing afterward. I've even taken entire days of space. A lot of what you're hearing, because I have Soil and Shadow, Shadow in my name, a lot of folks come to me for level eight conversations, which is a lot of what you're hearing now.



Nikki Silvestri:

I can do a four. I have. It's super fun. And just part of the work that I love and part of the work that I feel really well suited for is going to a level eight when it's not direct conflict resolution. But there's just intensity in a system and we need to move forward in some way. And we need to get through things that are hard to talk about. So come and help us work that out.



Daniel Stillman:

We're coming up against our time. It really flies. I've really enjoyed this conversation. Is there anything that we have not talked about that you think... What have I not asked you about that we should talk about with regards to convening, facilitating, and holding space?



Nikki Silvestri:

Yeah, the only other thing I would say is it's just specific to this era, knowing that many people are not going to be feeling safe to get together in person at all. It is possible to curate, as I was talking about earlier, a virtual space that is so much more intentional than you ever might have thought of going or doing. It's in that level of detail orientation and care that you can curate a level of intentional virtual space that feels so luscious and so nurturing that you can get into hard conversations. There's tons of tools out there for when you get into the part of the hard conversation. But what I would really want to emphasize is just the care, the before and after and attending to the senses type care.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think what I'm really taking away is the intentionality of building capacity in the soil, and really nourishing that, the space in the ground, and being detail-oriented about that is caring for it.



Nikki Silvestri:

That's right.



Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, Nikki, honestly, it's such a pleasure. I think there are a lot of people who look at facilitation as a mechanistic process. And if I have more recipes and better ingredients, I can make more delicious food. We started our conversation talking about making a Dutch baby for your son for breakfast. And it's like, when you see a recipe, you can reproduce it ish, but there's still something that the chef brings to the recipe.



Nikki Silvestri:

Totally. Totally.



Daniel Stillman:

The recipe does not make the chef. And so, I really appreciate you talking about all the inner stuff about what the chef brings to the recipe, the inner stance.



Nikki Silvestri:



Thank you.

Innovation Theater

Season_Four_Image_stack_TV.jpg

Innovation Theater. 


Have you ever been guilty of performing innovation theater?


My guest today, Tendayi Viki, is a partner at Strategyzer (the company behind the business model canvas and other innovation tools) and defines Innovation Theater simply as:


Activities that look like innovation but that create no value for companies


So:

A workshop that creates enthusiasm with no follow up.

A Hackathon that doesn’t solve real challenges.

Training everyone in Design Thinking but changing no internal policies to encourage experimentation and prototyping.


I’ve been guilty of it. 


How can we all do better?

This is a delicate topic, because it’s not wrong to want more people in your organization to “get” innovation and the practices that drive innovation. Then we’ll have buy-in to do more, right?


Useful=valuable

Without delivering sustainable economic value for a company, we’re just cultivating creativity for creativity’s sake. Tendayi tries to make the distinction clear, as he says:

“Creativity is generating novel things that are interesting. Innovation is novel things that are interesting that are also useful…[and that] usefulness, especially for corporations, is usually customer value, improved efficiency in the organization, but even better, a new business model, new revenue, or entry into new markets.”


Moving the needle

We have to be able to measure the impact at some point. Otherwise, your innovation lab will get shut down….and as Tendayi says, your boss was likely right in doing so.

But how do you get the right to start making waves in an organization, to make a real impact?

Tendayi uses the delightful metaphor of a Pirate in the Navy. It’s a goofy premise, but winds up being a very helpful way to think about how to build transformational innovation in an organization. The navy is the organization. You are the pirate. You want to get to experiment, go on adventures...but bring back value for the mothership.


Getting a Charter

Tendayi’s book is a secret guide to building organizational change. He guides us through the process of getting started, finding early adopters in the organization to trust us and let us get moving - by delivering value and being able to tell stories of early success.

Getting People on Board (not a checkbox)

Tendayi points out that in order to make anything worthwhile or significant, you need to collaborate with many folks across the organization and bring them into the innovation conversation as soon as possible.


As he says:

Nothing can ever succeed without being touched by other people who are not in the innovation lab. You can't (create innovation) without the marketing people touching your thing. You can't without the brand people touching your thing. You can't launch without legal and compliance turning up and (buying in).

So you can't really do any work, you can't go to scale without including these enabling functions. And we treat them like a checkbox. We work on our innovation and then when we're done, we go, "All right. Here it is. Can you get it out, please?" 

And then they go, "No. We're not getting that out." 

And so the fundamental question is, you really need to know, if your goal is to build an authentically repeatable process, all you need to do is know what are the things that they need you to do before they allow your thing to leave the building”


Innovation is a Conversation

This is why conversations and collaborating are the antidote to innovation theater - designing your process for impact and stakeholder engagement from the beginning.

How can you clarify and define impact for your organization?

How can you bring stakeholders together to clarify the guiding principles for innovation sooner in the process instead of at the end?


Enjoy the show. And good luck on your pirate voyage!


Links and Resources

Tendayi on the web https://tendayiviki.com/

Tendayi at the Innov8ers Conference: https://innov8rs.co/beyond-the-sticky-notes-aligning-innovation-with-corporate-strategy-tendayi-viki/

Tendayi’s latest book: Pirates in the Navy

https://www.strategyzer.com/


More About Tendayi

Tendayi Viki is an author and innovation consultant. He holds a PhD in Psychology and an MBA. As Associate Partner at Strategyzer, he helps large organizations innovate for the future while managing their core business. He has given keynotes, run workshops and worked as a consultant for several large organizations including Rabobank, American Express, Standard Bank, Unilever, Airbus, Pearson, Lufthansa-Airplus, The British Museum, Copenhagen Fintech and The Royal Academy of Engineers.

Tendayi co-designed Pearson’s Product Lifecycle which is an innovation framework that won the Best Innovation Program 2015 at the Corporate Entrepreneur Awards in New York. He has been shortlisted for the Thinkers50 Innovation Award and was named on the Thinkers50 2018 Radar List for emerging management thinkers to watch.

Tendayi has written three books based on his research and consulting experience, Pirates In The Navy, The Corporate Startup and The Lean Product Lifecycle. The Corporate Startup was awarded the 2018 CMI Management Book Of The Year In Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He is currently working on another book, Right Question, Right Time. He is also a regular contributing writer for Forbes.

Tendayi spent over 12 years in academia during which time he taught at the University of Kent where he is now Honorary Senior Lecturer. He has also been a Research Fellow at Stanford University and Research Assistant at Harvard University.


Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:
All right. Tendayi Viki, welcome to the Conversation Factory, officially. We're live.

Tendayi Viki:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:
Thanks for making the time to do this. This has been a long time coming.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. Back and forth, right? Trying to get slots in the calendar.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. It's a tough challenge. And so you've got a new book coming out and I really want to unpack it because you're trying to start a conversation, I feel like. There's a conversation you want to start about what a real pirate is and how to be an authentic innovator. What's important to you about starting this conversation?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. So I mean, the reason why this is so important is because I think that a lot of entrepreneurs, especially when you're working inside large companies, at least for the last kind of maybe five, six years as innovation has become kind of a buzz, right? People are talking about it a lot. I think a lot entrepreneurs or innovators are doing a disservice to the mission, if you want to call it that, right? They're kind of doing stuff that's got nothing to do with anything that's really useful because it's cool. So let's have a hackathon or let's have a sticky note thing or let's have an idea competition. And that kind of lack of substance ... If it was just harmless stuff, that would be okay. I wouldn't worry about that. But actually, it's quite harmful because it makes people jaded about what innovation can accomplish inside large companies, and so when you go into that large company, leaders are just like, "Yeah, we've already done the innovation thing. It doesn't work," right? So that's a real problem for me, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
So you talked about innovation theater. And it's funny, I don't know where or when I first started using the term innovation theater. I thought I invented it. I was so excited to hear someone else use the term innovation theater. So the flip side of authenticity, it seems like you're saying is innovation theater. What would you classify as this inauthentic theatrical innovation theater. And I love that you were on the stage at the Innovators Conference basically just blazing every ... You were just spitting fire at everyone. You were like, "Y'all are fakers."

Tendayi Viki:
That's not what I said. Don't be putting words in my mouth! No, no. Yeah. So, Steve [inaudible 00:02:37] at AV and he'd probably claim that he coined the term. He speaks a lot about innovation theater. Steve Blank would probably also claim that he coined the term innovation theater. Innovation theater is basically a bunch of activities that looks like innovation but creates no value for companies. The only reason we want to invest in innovation is so that we create, eventually, at some point, new growth and revenue. New products, new business models, the company expands, gets new divisions, gets more efficient, gets more digitized. The company has to get some value from all this innovation and so it's hard to see innovation theater.

Tendayi Viki:
Innovation theater is like a camouflaged movement, right? Because on the surface it looks like innovation until you dig deep. It takes all these practices of using sticky notes, design thinking, all these, they have a value, right? They didn't just come out of nowhere. They came out of an understanding that you have to work in this dynamic, flexible way to create something meaningful. But a lot of people don't understand the philosophy that drives the practice. They can only see the practice on the surface. So what they end up doing is engaging in the practice on the surface and then producing nothing of value in the end. Basically, I think they say in Texas, big hat, no cows. That's basically what it is, right? He's got a big hat but he doesn't have any cows. So that's, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
I think it's a really interesting idea of the surface versus what's really going on. And how does somebody make sure that they are ... How do you define authentic innovation? Just to be really, really clear. It's creating real value for the company.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. Exactly. There's two parts to that, right? There is the only way we measure that an innovation has been successful ... Remember that innovation is slightly distinct from creativity. Right? Creativity is generating novel things that are interesting. Innovation is novel things that are interesting that are also useful. So the ultimate metric of whether something has succeeded as an innovation is how useful it's become. So usefulness, especially for corporations, is usually customer value, improved efficiency in the organization, but even better, a new business model, new revenue, or the [inaudible 00:04:53] into new markets. So an innovation succeeds only when it hits that high mark. Imagine if you're engaged in activities that don't even have that intention behind them. Right? Now that's a problem. You don't even intend ... That's not your play. Your play is to have an idea jam and then people will be inspired. And then that's what you've done and that's it. Right? And so that's a problem. That's where you need to see the innovation.

Daniel Stillman:
Right. Because I feel like you talk about this a lot. We often, in the innovation game, are like, "Well, we want to change the culture and we want to have a thousand flower bloom, we want everybody doing every day innovation all the time. And that I really hard to measure the output of that. It's very hard to measure the ROI of those kinds of efforts. They're facilitating design thinking workshops and leading start up workshops inside the organization and you talk about this, everyone feels totally energized in the workshop and they're high fiving you, they're high fiving me, and they're like, "Daniel, Tendayi, that was awesome." And then they go back to their regular jobs and then nothing happens.

Tendayi Viki:
Yep. They go back and sit right back at their desk and they can't apply what they learned. Right?

Daniel Stillman:
So I mean, I know for myself, it's interesting, you talk about the innovators who will fail and get fired in a couple of years are the ones that are angry, which I thought was really wonderful and I feel like, and I probably shouldn't be saying this out loud because this is being recorded, but I sometimes get angry and I'm wondering if the reason you wrote this book is because you also see frustrated with this arch of, "They're just going back to their desks and nothing is happening." How do you manage that experience for yourself because I imagine that has happened to you many a time?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. So that's the second piece of dealing with innovation theater. One piece is you have to be authentically interested in creating new growth. Now, one way to do this is to nurse one off innovation projects, hide them, protect them, make sure they're successful. There's people that are really good at doing that. But another way to do it is to go, "No, we actually need to have a bigger impact on our company and change it a little bit so that people can do these projects out in the open and do them in a really repeatable way so the company can do innovation in a repeatable fashion." And that's where leading Lean Startup training is just not enough. It's not enough to train people practices of business model design, experimentation, hypothesis testing, iteration, and all that. That's what they need to know in order to do innovation but what actually really matters is that they can then do it after the training.

Tendayi Viki:
And so we took focus on the training and we spent no time, zero time, on whether or not they can do it after the training. I mean, just an example, I'll just give you one example and everyone who listens to this will know because they've done this in their own organization. Accelerator programs inside large companies where we take people from their work, we bring them into the program for three months, they work on a business idea and then after three years of this you ask the guys who are running the program, "What happened to the teams after the three months?" And they have no idea. Right? So you just took people from their jobs for three months for what? It's like a holiday? Are they slumming it in the innovation ghetto? What are we doing? That's just insane.

Daniel Stillman:
But why do you think they're not tracking it? Is it lack of focus? Is it ... I won't prompt you with any other options. Why do you think that's happening?

Tendayi Viki:
I don't know. It's probably a mixture of a lack of knowledge, fear maybe, and also people probably don't feel that they have the power to change their organizations. So they feel quite blessed to have a little corner where they can do stuff for three months and then cross their fingers to see what happens after.

Daniel Stillman:
Again, you also talked about these multiple competing internal innovation ... Everyone is trying to carve out their circle of budget in a short win and yeah, maybe it's only for a year or two years and then they either flame out or they move on.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. There are companies where, there's one company that I'm working with at the moment where people get promoted for starting innovation projects but not making it successful. So you can always be the guy that's like, "Yeah, two years ago I did this appy thing. It's online now." They're like, "Oh, yeah. Great innovator. Here, you're now regional manager." And then that's it. The appy thing dies. You've leveraged it for your promotion. But it hasn't really created a value for the organization.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. So this is interesting and I wanted to make sure ... I'm knocking off our sticky notes as we go because we talked about before we started that the punchline of your book comes late, which is fine, I think. Defining-

Tendayi Viki:
I think it should come earlier, but yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
I don't disagree. Why are these three types of pirates ... Let's talk about the three types of pirates. Because I actually think this is a really interesting ... I love, as a conversation person, I love linguistic definitions. Why is it interesting and important to have people be aware of what type of a pirate are you? And are you really a pirate? And in fact, actually when I look at your definition, it sounds like you don't want people to actually be pirates because those are just lawless people just gallivanting about.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. Exactly. That's what's interesting. Right? Steve Jobs is the guy that said better to be a pirate than to join the Navy. But people don't really know that there's different kinds of pirates. Not all pirates are the same. And so just a regular pirate is just a criminal. They're probably in a gang. Okay. Maybe that's another-

Daniel Stillman:
They are a gang. They're a gang. They're a roving gang.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. A roving gang. They kind of own the east corner of the Atlantic Ocean.

Daniel Stillman:
They're red team.

Tendayi Viki:
But they're completely unattached to any legal institution, if you want to call it that.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes.

Tendayi Viki:
They don't have an affiliation. So everything that they're doing can never be of value to any larger institution. They're just sort of living their own ... And that's a way to live, if that's what you want to do. That's a choice. But if you're working in a larger organization, to define yourself as that is totally counterproductive. That's never going to work because the moment you start becoming a pirate in that sense, you've basically defined yourself in opposition to the company you work for. You've basically positioned yourself to fight the company that you're working for. And I've never met a single innovator that successfully fought a company.

Daniel Stillman:
And won.

Tendayi Viki:
That they're working for.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. The company is bigger and stronger. The house wins.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. The only innovators who can fight the company are the people that founded the company. The rest of us, we can't really fight our own organization in that sense. So then you sort of start to dive deeper and I was having dinner with [inaudible 00:12:06], he's an Israeli innovator and I'd just gone to work with them in Tel Aviv and he just kept ranting of, "You don't want to be a pirate. You want to be an explorer." That's what he kept saying. "You want to be an explorer because at least explorers people care what they're doing." I was like, "That's a really interesting concept. Let me go look that up." The moment I went to look that up I was like, "Oh, man. There's actually a class of pirates called Privateers and Privateers are pirates that also roam the high sea but they do it on behalf of an institution. They're representing a government and their role is not just to raid any ship that's roaming the seas. Their role is to raid a specific ship from enemy countries. Right?

Daniel Stillman:
Right.

Tendayi Viki:
So when they come back with their loot, there's actually an institution ready to celebrate them. I mean, the most famous Privateers were knighted, Sir Francis Drake.

Daniel Stillman:
Sir Francis Drake, yeah.

Tendayi Viki:
Right? Sir Walter Riley. You know? These guys were pirates.

Daniel Stillman:
They were legitimate to England and they were illegitimate to everyone else.

Tendayi Viki:
To Spain, right?

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah.

Tendayi Viki:
And so that works in the sense that you want to be off somewhere doing something interesting that's not part of the main business but you want the main business to care about the outcome of what you're working on. Right? If people don't care about the outcome of what you're working on, you will find it very hard to scale innovation.

Daniel Stillman:
And there's this real ... This is what I think is interesting about this idea is that there's this fine line that people are walking between being lawless and being lawful and I have two sticky notes that I want to talk ... I want to talk about facilitating these enablers, second. But the first question is, it's interesting. There's this idea of how you obtain a commission and then there's this idea of how to facilitate innovation with resistors. You talk about, a lot of people ask you, and I I know people ask me, like, "Oh, how do I facilitate difficult people? These people who are haters about innovation, the resistors, the late majority, the lagers, they just don't get it." And it seems like your answer is, have some wins first. Don't actually try to facilitate them. So how do you win that commission to do your first win? How do you win to get the win?

Tendayi Viki:
How do you win to get the win? So, there's two parts to that, right? So there's the part where you're really lucky and your CEO gets it. Peter Mare in [inaudible 00:14:39] who was just like, "I'm going to appoint Co-CEO and the job of the Co-CEO is to drive innovation." So then you're lucky. You've got your commission, you've got your letter on the marquee, you're fine. You can start doing the pirate thing. It's legit. It's so legit, it's high ranking in the organization. Then you get the rest of us that are working in companies where we kind of have to slowly transform the company. We kind of have to be quiet revolutionaries, if you want to call it that. And so the only way to start a movement, is to have legitimacy. Right? If you really think about it, Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, they had a strategy with that, which is they deliberately went to places where they would get beat up as a way ... They didn't go to friendly policemen.

Tendayi Viki:
Right? They deliberately went to places where they would get beat up because that visual of them getting beat up created the momentum for their movement. Inside large organizations, what creates the momentum for your movement is the legitimacy that you show that you can actually succeed with innovation inside that company. So what you want is the early win. The only way to get an early win is to work with early adopters. Now, it can happen but I've never been inside a company where there isn't one or two leaders that get it. One or two leaders that have been trying to build innovation practices, have been trying to find authentic innovators to work with.

Tendayi Viki:
Those are the people you want to find and help them succeed and help them tell their story throughout the organization. Because what you really want to do is, it's not a push thing. It's a gravity thing. You want people to actually be drawn to the movement rather than for you to try to push that out and so that is what we really recommend is find early adopters and in the book I really define what an early adopter is. It's based of Steve Blank's definition of an early adopter. They know the company needs to innovate, they understand the problem, they know we don't have it, they've been trying to hack innovation together. You'll always find people like that inside large companies. Those are the people you should try to work with.

Daniel Stillman:
They exist. And it's funny, I waned to ask you about early on in your book, I've actually never seen the four-way Vin diagram that you draw. I'm embarrassed to say because I feel like I should know it. It seems too good to not be famous. I mean, I've used viable, feasible. The second I came out of design school somebody drew the triple Vin diagram and they were like, "Oh, will people love it? Can we make it? Can we make money with it?" But there's this fourth circle which is adaptable. And when I first looked at it I was like, "Okay, that's interesting, Tendayi." But then it hit me that every company obviously has the current core that's working and then they should be working on a certain percentage of stuff that is adaptable to fundamental changes in the business environment, like the one we're having today. And so it seems like that's a great conversation to have with even people who are maybe not early adopters of what portion of what we're doing is adaptable.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. Absolutely. And so, and all this work emerges through the collaboration that I do with Alex [inaudible 00:18:15] and [inaudible 00:18:16] because I work as Strategizer and that's where this adaptability thing sort of comes together. And the concept there, and it's sort of featured in Alex's new book as well, The Invincible Company, and the concept there is that innovation works in two ways. There's invent innovation, which is you're inventing new things. And then there's also what we call shift, which is business model shift where you're improving, invent improve, where you're improving current business models. And the improvement of current business models is entirely focused on is this business model adaptive to this environment? Are there shifts that are happening around it that will cause it to become less adaptive? And so then you have to do the work to reinvent that business model and make it more adaptive. And that's where, actually, if you want to do early adaptive legitimacy work, that's the place to start. If you can show companies that you can reinvent stale brands and all that, it really builds up a nice momentum for the rest of the movement that you want to then take to the invent half of the portfolio.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. I think it's really cool. In one of your talks, you talk about facilitating the enablers. And I feel like this is something I really want to unpack because I'm a facilitator, you're a facilitator, everyone facilitates something and you broke down this process of, "Okay, get to know them, and then map their needs to the product of innovation process." And I was like, oh my god. So can you unpack this workshop you do with us? Because it seems like a blockbuster design for a very, very useful conversation.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. That's really interesting. Here's the thing that-

Daniel Stillman:
And who are these enablers when you ... Take us through, who are these people we have to get on our side?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. So remember the goal, right? Remember what we said at the beginning, which is, innovation is when something useful happens. So the product isn't revenue, right? Which means that innovation is the combination of really great ideas and a successful business model, a sustainably profitable business model with desirability, feasibility, viability, and adaptability in it. What that means then is there's nothing that can ever succeed without being touched by other people who are not in the innovation lab.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes.

Tendayi Viki:
You can't without the marketing people touching your thing. You can't without the brand people touching your thing. You can't launch without legal and compliance turning up and going, "Sorry, but the data privacy, this, this does not fit." So you can't really do any work, you can't go to scale without including these enabling functions. And we treat them like a checkbox. We work on our innovation and then when we're done, we go, "All right. Here it is. Can you get it out, please?" And then they go, "No. We're not getting that out." And so the fundamental question is, you really need to know, if your goal is to build an authentically repeatable process, all you need to do is know what are the things that they need you to do before they allow your thing to leave the building? And so that's what the workshop does.

Tendayi Viki:
The workshop just says, if something is getting launched to scale in this organization, for you in legal and compliance, what are the things it needs to meet first? Then they'll list it for you. It needs to have this and this and this. It needs to meet this criteria and this law and stuff and they'll list those for you. And you go, "Okay, great. Well, here's our innovation framework. We start with discovery where we're just talking to customers, there's no product yet. Okay. Do any of this criteria apply?" "No, only this one." "Okay, so then we move that. Okay. Then we build the minimum viable product. We're not really selling it. It's just a prototype. Does this criteria apply? No? Okay. Which ones? These two. Okay." So after a while after having a conversation with them, they then start to see, "Oh, this is how these guys work. Now I don't have to be worried about them.

Tendayi Viki:
I know they're doing discovery, they'll follow these rules. I know that when they're doing their validation work, they follow these rules. And I know that when they start to accelerate their businesses and launch them to market, they'll follow these rules." And then we agree and that becomes the official playbook for legal and compliance. And now, innovators don't have to negotiate with legal and compliance every time they want to do something. They can just follow the agreed playbook and that makes it a repeatable process.

Daniel Stillman:
Is it hard to get those enablers into the room for that conversation, do you think?

Tendayi Viki:
Here's what's interesting. When they're invited, they're surprised. Because everybody is trying to avoid them. I remember in one workshop, the chief council of this large financial company says to me, "This is the first time that anybody working on anything in this company has brought us in early. Understand how we can make a contribution. They'd been treating us as a tick box before. And the conversations that happened in the background where people give each other advice about how to get things past us." Right?

Daniel Stillman:
Yes, no. There's an interesting parallel because design has craved a seat at the table my entire design career and designers hate being handed, "Here, design this, make it look pretty." And I feel like there's also a lack of empathy with engineers where they're like, "Well, we've designed something great and the engineers just, 'Blah, blah, blah.", they tell us no." It's like, "How early did you have your conversation with them?"

Tendayi Viki:
Exactly. Right? It's all part of the same thing and in those conversations, again, I'll just tell you, listen, this is a bank. There's no chance that you're ever going to run an experiment where you do X, Y, zed. And it's up to us as innovators to say, "Okay, that's a constraint and we use that constraint to design experiments that we can do." Right? And in that collaboration, you really start to see that you can really scale innovation and it's about building trust. We call it a bridge between innovation. That bridge is really important.

Daniel Stillman:
Let's talk about building more bridges because I feel like you also talk about ... And I've seen this so many times. Who owns the customer and who's allowed to talk to them? There's so many clients, big companies I've worked with, where they're like, "Well, we're just not allowed. We're literally not allowed to talk to customers. We're just not allowed. There's legal issues if we talk to them." And they're like, "Oh, well, there's ways around it." And this is especially at banks. There's laws that protect what you're allowed to tell people and what you're allowed to say to them and when.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. And pharmaceutical companies, they're not allowed to talk to patients directly because again, selling medicines. Right? So yeah. There are rules around that and you have to figure out a way to ... For every single one of these situations, by the way, every innovation team I've worked with has eventually figured out a hack.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes.

Tendayi Viki:
We can't talk to customers but we're allowed to use a proxy to talk to customers and that proxy can give us data. So that's a hack. Right? We can't talk to customers except if we go on a sales call with someone and maybe the sales guy, sales director, can plug in these two questions for us. And then you go out with the sales guy. So most people I've worked with have figured out a hack. It's just about figuring out those sort of ways to get into those situations. And I think it's reasonable. Can you imagine ... So this is a story, I need to tell you this story. I was working at this company once. A large company. A Fortune 100 company and one of the guys was launching a product and then he built a landing page to test where the customers would want the page. And then he launched the landing page with the company brand and everything. and then one client, one customer saw this and really loved it but rather than do the experiment, which was respond to the landing page, he called sales.

Daniel Stillman:
He was like, "This is great. I heard you're blanking this blank."

Tendayi Viki:
Exactly. I heard you guys are launching this thing. And sales is like, "I don't know anything about that. Where'd you see that?" And then the salesman goes, oh, and there was hell in the company. This guy was raked across the coals. That's why a bridge to call is really important because when you're doing that, other people need to know you're doing that.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes. You can't just ask for forgiveness, which is instead of permission.

Tendayi Viki:
You can ask for forgiveness once but-

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. Not after.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
It's a pickle because navigating this bridge to the core and building that bridge to the core is not ... I'm sitting here wondering, we haven't really talked too much about you as a person, you and your origin story. Because it seems like you're bringing a very human and empathic side. Not for nothing. You have a background in studying humans.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. I have a PhD in psychology so I used to be, in the US they call them professors but here they just call them lecturers. I was a psychology professor for [inaudible 00:27:25] College. And then I got a fellowship at Stanford University and then I was living in Palo Alto and that's what got me into the innovation start up. It was in like 2009, 2010. Right at the peak, right at the beginning of [inaudible 00:27:40], Steve Blank. And so that was an interesting thing and that's how I ended up working in the movement and then just by chance getting asked to try and help large companies apply the principal. It was totally by chance. And then kind of just pattern recognition. Seeing things I kept seeing over and over and over and over. And that's what the book, Pirates or the Navy, is based off of that. A lived frustration.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. It's a real frustration and how did you sort of wind up in the Strategizer family? Everyone who's listening to this can't see behind you. There is a value proposition canvas on the wall below a business model canvas and underneath the value prop canvas, is that a lean experiment canvas? I can't tell from here.

Tendayi Viki:
That's a culture map.

Daniel Stillman:
That's a culture map curtesy of Alex and Dave Gray, one of my heroes.

Tendayi Viki:
You can see what I'm drawing on the wall there, those are the circles on the value prop.

Daniel Stillman:
There's a lot of value proposition canvases.

Tendayi Viki:
The customer profiles.

Daniel Stillman:
You're living the gospel over there, 100%.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. I'm emersed in it. I dream about it when I go to bed. Yeah. It's just through meeting at conferences and just talking and reading each other's books and just kind of collaborating. Then we just started talking about would we ever want to work together and then it morphed to would you join Strategizer? And then it morphed to, why not? And then it morphed to, this is great, I love it. And so that's how I ended up. I'm in my second year now. It's pretty cool.

Daniel Stillman:
Oh, wow. So it's kind of new. So I think this is actually a really interesting bridge to the innovation process as product because I found, it's really interesting, this idea of having a narrative and having a story. And I felt for a long time that the design thinking process is a story and companies tell the stories that we're using this process and we're making these wins and some companies want to build their own and some companies want to hack and munch what's out there and other people want to buy a name pair brand of designer jeans. They want to put on some nice Strategizer jeans and be like, have you checked out my new hot ... And not for nothing. There's trends and there's things that become hot and then not. Can you talk about these? If innovation process is a product, what does it mean to navigate the trends and the ebb and flow of one versus another?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. So that's interesting, right? Again, what I care about the most is the truth behind everything. What I care about is what works and what doesn't work. So that's the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy is that we understand from research and years of experience that you need to have developed deep empathy for customers before you design the product. If you understand that, regardless of where you start, you could start with a great technology, eventually just align with the customer needs. You could start with customer needs and eventually you have to ... We know that. So for me, as we design innovation frameworks, as long as there are really true expressions of the underlying principles, it doesn't really matter what you call them, right? And people are making their own things and renaming them and re-hacking them and giving them names but they all pretty much sometimes do the same things.

Tendayi Viki:
Some of them work, some of them don't work, so it's really just about choosing the things that are truly authentic. When you're leading a transformation movement inside the organization, the only reason why you need to name the innovation process is for storytelling. So some people can say, right now we're implementing X Process and the value of X Process is that it allows us to take these 10 ideas, test them, remain with five, test those, remain with three and scale those. And then you go, okay, that's a growth funnel or that's an accelerator. So you name it and then people can say, "What stage of the accelerator is thing thing in?" And so that becomes a way to shift hearts and minds. Right? And so because what people don't recognize is that even a religion of artifacts and practices. Right? If we don't ... Even Judaism, we will not build an alter.

Tendayi Viki:
You cannot build a statue of God and represent God, right? Even in that there are rituals and practices. There's the Torah, there's the Synagogue. So the way we feel that we're part of something is manifesting the way we embody that in our day to day work. And so all the stuff you see, the value proposition canvas, the business model canvas, the design thinking framework, all of these are just a way for people to embody abstract concepts and make them concrete. So we designed it in a way that allows them to do it physically. And then it allows them the thinking that underlies those two.

Daniel Stillman:
Let's dig into this. It's so interesting because I feel like we've definitely had an explosion of canvases. I'm sure you've seen the canvas canvas, which is amazing.

Tendayi Viki:
I have not. I'm going to Google it.

Daniel Stillman:
You can Google it. The Canvas Canvas. And I mean, I remember when the business model canvas book came out. It was a blockbuster and my fiance who just finished business school, today actually, she's in the other room finishing her business degree because everything is remote. I was like, she had no business background. She was coming in from sustainability and agriculture. I was like, just read ... Here's The Business Model Canvas book. This is the most simple, visual, straightforward way of understanding something. And that white on gray, Alex designed that canvas and what is the power of a canvas? To focus conversation. Let's unpack that. It's an artifact, it's this moment. It creates a space.

Tendayi Viki:
It creates a space. One of the principles of Strategizer artifact design is a space, right? A space to work. But not only a space to work but the space represents something specific. So you then get a shared language. So if I take a sticky, if I put it in one box, it represents a customer segment. If I move it and put it in another box, it represents value proposition. And so just that shared language is really important for focusing people and having them absorbed into the same design space and see the boundaries of their design space and then work within those things. Now, the hard thing about defining design spaces like that is that ... You know what they say about that. The map is not the territory-

Daniel Stillman:
My mom always says that. It's really true.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. But you need it to be representative enough that it allows you to navigate the territory in a sensible way. And so just understanding that the map is not the territory but still, you do need the map to navigate the territory and then you need to design your maps in such a way that once you put the boundaries on, you haven't excluded something that's really important that will them and sort of kill people if they don't figure it out.

Daniel Stillman:
What I'm absorbing and what I think one of the reasons why people should read your book is that stakeholder, people talk about stakeholder management but this is more about stakeholder empathy and stakeholder engagement because you really talk about crossing the chasm as an innovation ... I mean, you basically use it as a canvas. Right? The crossing the chasm of who's your early adopters? Who's your early, late, and laggard majority? What is your strategy for each one of those people? How do you facilitate innovation with those people effectively?

Tendayi Viki:
Exactly. I featured it in the book but it started off as an article on Forbes. My least clicked on article on Forbes.

Daniel Stillman:
I know. It's amazing.

Tendayi Viki:
In defense of middle managers who stifle innovation. That's my least popular article.

Daniel Stillman:
I haven't read that one yet and it sounds like it's about empathizing with the fact that they are stuck and pulled.

Tendayi Viki:
In the middle, right? They're stuck in this place where the CEO is asking them to deliver numbers. That's how they're measured and promoted. that's their career trajectory. And then the CEO is going over their heads and talking to the organization saying, "We need more innovation." And then the innovation teams are coming to the middle manager and going, "Hey, look at my crazy new idea." And the middle manager is never going to work on that because that shows up on my P&L as cost and I can't invest in anything that shows on my P&L as cost.

Daniel Stillman:
That's my bonus, yo. That's not okay.

Tendayi Viki:
Right. So this is all misaligned incentives. And then everyone is like, "The middle managers don't get it. The CEO wants innovation." It's like, that's not fair. The moment you start to empathize and really understand the context in which you're working, you're far more likely to be able to build great bridges and collaborate better with people.

Daniel Stillman:
I mean, we're talking about making space with canvases and you also talk about making space for innovation in the org chart, in the budget. Not just having a lab space. Can you talk a little bit about how we can make that space if we don't have the wins yet? How do we win that space to do all that stuff?

Tendayi Viki:
You can't. You can't make the space without the wins. The wins are the thing. Without an early win, you can't make the space. When you're doing the early win thing, it's a gorilla movement. You're not picking the fight with the organization yet. The early win is what gives you the legitimacy to start asking for space. And what we tend to do as innovators is we ask for space before we have legitimacy which make it easy for us to be dismissed. Right? Where if you're succeeding inside the company, it's very hard for you to be dismissed. I mean, innovators get dismissed by simple questions like, where have you seen this work? And they go, at Amazon. Right? It's like, well this is not Amazon. This is a pharmaceutical company. If you haven't done it, no. Have you ever done it here? No. Do you know anyone who has done it here? No. Okay, so what makes you different from the last consultant that was here two years ago that made us do this thing and it didn't work? And that's a legitimate question. They're not being unreasonable. There's money on the line, careers on the line, risks on the line. That's a legitimate question so we need to be authentic and humble enough to answer that question with data. Just like we ask startup teams to do.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. This idea that there should be space in the org chart, a career path for innovation, is a really great call to action but it does seem like a long way off.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. It is a long way off but it's also a long way off for a couple of other things. Right? For a couple of other reasons. And every reason in the startup way touches on something that's really fantastic that I kind of thought about and he calls it the missing function. Which is that most organizations don't have an entrepreneurship function just like a marketing function or an HR function or a finance function and so the reason why innovation struggles at the moment is because it's not yet professionalized in the same way that finance is. And in the same way that marketing is. Right? So you can imagine in the beginning, back in the day and 250 years ago or whatever when marketing wasn't a function, and it took people working in that discipline to develop it into a disciple, into a profession and give it legitimacy and that's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to do the same thing. We're trying to build tools and we're at the basement of all this. Some stuff is going to filter out and die and some stuff is going to survive because it's good. And then in the end we'll level out to this place where innovation is actually a function inside organizations, an entrepreneurship function, whose job is to create new growth.

Daniel Stillman:
Well, it seems like, I love that we're just getting to all my favorite topics because there's making it a legitimate part of the organization where there's people who are professionalized and then there's this idea of people who coach others on how to use it. And I'm wondering where, if you can talk to us a little bit about how we can develop our coaching mindset. How you've developed your coaching mindset because there's doing innovation on behalf of the company and then there's coaching people to come along and to start doing it all together.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. So that's interesting and that's kind of a terrible business model to have, right? Sort of design yourself our of consulting gigs. Help companies build their own coaching capabilities. But I think it's really important to be able to do that.

Daniel Stillman:
I find it very satisfying. It's much more satisfying than doing it all for them. Just me, personally.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes. Exactly. I think it's much more satisfying. It's also much more value for them, right? Because they can actually end up using it. And the thing I like this kind of idea of avoiding the advice trap if you're coaching. And so I've seen leaders do this to innovation teams, where innovation teams are pitching something and then they start giving advice. Have you thought about mobile? Now, the thing they forget is that when you're a leader, just saying that is not advice. It's an instruction. People experience that as an instruction. So now they go away and they think about, they start thinking about, what's our mobile strategy? Whereas for you, it was a throwaway comment. And so coaching is really about helping people, extracting the best out of people themselves and helping them find their own kind of rhythm and passion and knowledge and the things that interest them. Right?

Daniel Stillman:
How have you developed your own coaching capacity? Because that's not a natural approach to some people because we're generally paid to be smart and to be experts and to give advice. Right? And so how have you expanded your own coaching capacity in yourself for your clients.

Tendayi Viki:
I'm not very good by the way. I'll tell you right now. I always end up ... One girl was like, why do you always end up in a rabbit hole? Because I always end up getting dragged down some debate. It could be because I'm so passionate. So I'm not really that great but there's one thing that I do have, which is I do have an empathy with the notion that it's not unreasonable for reasonable people to disagree with me. Right? It's not that they're idiots and they don't get it. It's just that, there's nothing that I've done in the world that makes what I say make sense more than another person's thing. So being disagreed with is not a problem in the sense that that's how you start to build conversations. So some people are really nervous about it but I actively seek dissent.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes. And creating that space for that is really powerful.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. Really, really powerful because sometimes people just want to get heard. They just want to rant. They just want to say I'm tired of all this innovation stuff. The last guy who came here made us do a design thinking workshop. We debated ideas and then nothing happened. So why it's going to be different about you? And that's all they want to say and then after that, they're an ally. Great. So just make space for that to happen. You know?

Daniel Stillman:
It's so funny because now we're getting into another one of my favorite topics, which is self management. Right? I think a lot of people say, how do I deal with these people who are pushing back against it? And it sounds like you're saying you just need to hear them.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. You just need to hear them. And that's fine. Some of them will never be early adopters. That's okay. And some of them will be early adopters. Here's what's interesting. Let me tell you this story, right? Just one last story for you. There was only one workshop in my life where after the workshop, I literally sat down, crouched over like this, really crouched over, just looking to the floor, and I was so tired and I felt like I had completely failed. In that workshop, pretty much everybody in the room had pushed back on one concept or another that I was trying to share with them. I was convinced that I had failed.

Tendayi Viki:
And while I looking down like this, people are crowding around me going, "Yo, man. That was the best workshop ever. I really enjoyed that. That was wonderful. I've never been to a better workshop than that." And what happened from that was that there was a lot of flow of work in the room, 50% were detractors, I never saw them again. They gave me the hardest time. The other 50% were like, I want to work with you. I want to bring you to my team. I want you to coach my team. I want to bring you to this. I want to ... And then a lot of work flowed from that hard situation. And so I learned that it's not personal. They don't live at my house. We're at work. People are trying to figure out how to make things work for them in their careers.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. And accepting that dissent is okay.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
If we create a safe space for it.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
Well, Tendayi, we're at the end of our time. I have one sticky note left that I want to ... What haven't we talked about that we should talk about? That's my favorite ending question. And then I have one more sticky note about facilitating iterative strategy that I feel like we have to talk about. Because it's a mystery but is there something that's on your to talk about list that we have not addressed yet?

Tendayi Viki:
No. Actually, I think we went through quite a bit. I think, yeah. We spoke about a lot of stuff so we're pretty cool, I think.

Daniel Stillman:
So what can you tell us about facilitating iterative strategy? Because I think this is one of the blocks in innovation is that we need the 35 page business plan, and we need to have a five year horizon, and sometimes we have to get that pretty early on. So what would it look like if we knew how to facilitate iterative strategy with our stakeholders?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. One of the conversations I have with stakeholders is, do you want somebody to make something up right now with no evidence? Or do you want to give them space to get you the evidence and it's almost like a trap question because the answer is always, I'd rather they had evidence. That's always the answer. That's a leading question. And then I go, okay, so rather than give them two million dollars right now, how much would you be willing to pay for to get the earliest evidence?

Daniel Stillman:
That's a great question.

Tendayi Viki:
Okay, I'll give you 25 grand to see what you come back with. That's it. You're already building an innovation framework. Right? And so there's 25 grand, what kind of evidence do you want for it? What are the answers you want to get from this? Well, I want to know what customers are willing to pay. I want to know the real problem is, is there a real market out there? Here's the 25 grand, you bring me that evidence, then we can talk. It's like verbal jujitsu, right? They've kind of told you what they want for their 25 grand and then you go get that for them and then they decide whether they're going to give you the next 500 grand. Whatever. Right? But that's really how you do iterative strategy. It's really just about deciding how much you're willing to invest to get the first steps of learning and then how you want to use those learnings to make the next set of decisions and make the next set of decisions and make the next set of decisions.

Daniel Stillman:
Those are great jujitsu questions. Would you like me to give you a made up answer now or would you like some real numbers?

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
That's great.

Tendayi Viki:
If that's the question, no give me the made up ... I don't have time for evidence. Give me the made up numbers. They're never going to tell you that, right? So that's really how you have these conversations and build these bridges.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes. And slowly pirate your way through the Navy.

Tendayi Viki:
Yes.

Daniel Stillman:
Tendayi, thank you so much for the time. I'm glad we made this happen. It's really great stuff and I think, I hope that people read your book and become less innovation theater and more authentic innovation. That would be great.

Tendayi Viki:
Yeah. Thank you, Daniel. Really, really enjoyed the conversation.

Daniel Stillman:
Thank you, man.

The Power of Ritual

Season_Four_Image_stack_CTK.jpg

I’m so excited to share my conversation with Casper ter Kuile. He has a book coming out this month, The Power of Ritual. He breaks down the architecture of ritual and how to bring more intentional ritual into your work and life.

I love the four “categories” of ritual Casper lays out in his book- those for connecting with yourself, rituals that connect you to others, nature, and to something transcendent.

I first encountered Casper’s work through his company, The Sacred Design Lab, and their free PDF, which you should totally download, How we Gather. It showed how the breakdown of organized religion has opened up an ecological niche, if you will, for brands like Crossfit and Tough Mudder to become one of many places that we get meaning and belonging from - instead of just one place of workship.

Casper’s work is like Biomimicry (studying nature for design inspiration) ..but for religion. Whether you are religious or not, studying religion to understand how it plays a role in people’s lives delivers some powerful insights.

Casper’s work shows us just how powerful those insights are.

As he says in the opening quote, we need to be intentional about which rituals we lift up and celebrate because they each tell a story...every myth is communicated from generation to generation through the rituals that we maintain.

What rituals make up your work life and home life? How do you measure and mark time?

I hope you enjoy the conversation, and start harnessing the power of ritual!


Links and Resources

Casper on the web: https://www.caspertk.com/

The Power of Ritual:

The Sacred Design Lab: https://sacred.design/who-we-are

Their amazing free resources are here

More about Casper

Casper ter Kuile is helping to build a world of joyful belonging. In the midst of enormous changes in how we experience community and spirituality, Casper connects people and co-creates projects that help us live lives of greater connection, meaning, and depth. Nothing makes him happier than learning from religious tradition and reimagining it for our context. Casper holds Masters of Divinity and Public Policy degrees from Harvard University, and remains a Ministry Innovation Fellow at Harvard Divinity School.

He co-hosts the award-winning podcast Harry Potter and the Sacred Text, and is the co-founder of activist-training program Campaign Bootcamp. His book, The Power of Ritual (HarperOne) will be published in the summer of 2020. He lives with his husband Sean Lair in Brooklyn, NY.

Full Transcription

Daniel Stillman:
Casper, I'm going to officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. I'm actually nervous about this conversation. I've been studying up for this conversation. Because your book is delightful. And it's about the power of ritual. And I actually juiced myself up for this conversation by listening to The Power of Love, which, is by Huey Lewis and the News. Do you have a favorite movie of all time?

Casper ter Kuile:
Absolutely. You've Got Mail.

Daniel Stillman:
Oh, that's right, of course. It's in the book.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah, that's how the book opens. Yeah, I just love that rom-com. I don't know, it just takes me right back to you being an awkward teenager and pining for romance and connection. And it's full of great one-liners.

Daniel Stillman:
It is. It's such a simpler time.

Casper ter Kuile:
I know, right?

Daniel Stillman:
When I look at what you do at the Sacred Design Lab, I feel like when I introduce myself at parties, I say I design conversations for a living and people swiveling their heads. How do you explain what it is the two worlds that you straddle? Because it seems like you're straddling two very different worlds.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah, absolutely. It depends what reaction I'm looking for. Sometimes I'll say, I think about the future of religion, which is always a good way to talk about it. But the questions that I am really passionate about are the intersection between two trends. One trend which is the disaffiliation from religion, so the process of more and more people in America becoming less and less religious, certainly across the western world.

Casper ter Kuile:
And the second trend being the growing rates of social isolation and loneliness. The sense that we're being disconnected from one another but also disconnected from place and from story and from ourselves in a way. And so, I'm really interested in how can we create communities of commitment and joy of places of belonging, in which we feel fully human. To some extent, you can say, "Well, yeah, that looks like a religious congregation."

Casper ter Kuile:
There's plenty of congregations that don't feel like that, trust me. So, my view is really interested in, "Well, how is that happening in crossfit boxes? How is that happening in maker spaces, in creative groups? How is that happening more and more at the workplace? How is structures of friendship changing?" So, I'm always really interested to think about what's the future structure of relationship that will help us experience life to its fullest?

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah, which is no small thing. And that rustling you hear in the background is me going through my copious notes. I learned something really amazing. I mean, and I actually used it in an interview that I did, because it's a crazy fact that the number of people that Americans say they can talk to about something important went down from just about three in 1984 to just over two in 2004. And my fiancée was like, "Oh my God, it's like all of America lost a friend."

Daniel Stillman:
And I was like, "Oh my God, can you imagine just losing one really important person that you can talk to things about?" And that's basically we're at.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah, absolutely. And what's really striking is that there's even 25% of the population who say they have nobody that they can talk to about meaningful things, including their family. And so, when we think about the decrease of community organizations, whether they're religious or secular, what it's meant is that we just don't have the same rich relational fabric, and which has all sorts of major impacts on our health, our mental health, of course, but also our physical health.

Casper ter Kuile:
There's data that suggests that it usually takes you about four people to tell you to go to the doctor before you go to the doctor. And-

Daniel Stillman:
This is why I tell people that married people live long. Though there's statistics in America people live longer. And that's because someone's like, "Honey, you got to get that thing on your back looked at," right?

Casper ter Kuile:
Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:
You have people looking out for you.

Casper ter Kuile:
Exactly. And if you don't have that, and there's data that suggests this, your cancer diagnosis will come later. And so, your chance of survival is lower. So, there's all sorts of impacts on our health but also in our society. I think the political polarization that we're in is no doubt at least enabled more by this lack of relationship. So, all in all, this isn't just a question of like, "Oh, how can we be nicer to each other?" There's real bigger themes of health and political well-being embedded in it as well.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. And so, this is interesting because underneath, there's actually two layers of notes here. There's sticky notes on top of a drawing. And one of the things that blew me away was that you quoted or referenced Clayton Christensen in talking about the unbundling of the need versus the solution, which is maybe one of my favorite ideas and design thinking and innovation. And so, I feel like a lot of people might be listening to this and thinking like, "Okay, well, Casper solving this big societal problem, what does this have to do with me?"

Daniel Stillman:
But obviously, many brands try to create community. And we can also look at the successes of religion as an institution. And also some of its, I don't know, failures, where they think like, "Oh, we got a church, this is an asset." And people will always want to come to a church. And then, COVID.

Casper ter Kuile:
100%. Yeah. And this is one of the key tools that just blew my mind was to think about, "Okay, we have these contextual historic expressions of a need, right? We have the system of congregations, we have churches, et cetera." But what sits underneath that is multivariate, right? And just like the newspaper of the 1950s has been unbundled into all sorts of different apps to do those individual jobs much better and you can create your own personal collection of the apps that you actually want, the same thing is happening with our meaning spiritual relational lives.

Casper ter Kuile:
So, in 1920, or 1880, or however far you want to go, you would have been, let's say, a member of a Catholic Church and you would have not only received your moral guidance and social connection but also a place for your kids to be educated. You would have had a shared ethnic group because you were part of the Italian Catholic Church. You would have had access to health care and education and mutual aid societies.

Casper ter Kuile:
All sorts of things that were being provided by the church that now people are finding, "Actually, I get my spiritual moment when I go hiking with my partner. And I feel calm when I use Headspace. And I love watching TED Talks. That's my place where I get new ideas. And it's my weekly brunches where I feel most connected to my friends," right? All of those things that replaced the initial purposes that were bundled together in a congregation. And on the one hand, fabulous, right? As a gay man, I'm pretty grateful [crosstalk 00:07:48].

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. That was first place my brain went. It's like, "Oh, great, less repression." You can just go to Weber's congregation and be totally welcomed.

Casper ter Kuile:
Exactly. Exactly. And I didn't even grow up with any religious background. So, for me, I'm like, "Okay, great, fine. All of these other places are welcomed." But I think here is the design challenge for today, which is that, as all of us have built our own individual profile of these unbundled offerings, it's also meant that we share less and less. And that's why you're seeing that number of average friends decrease, right? Because we no longer have the thing in which to rebundle.

Casper ter Kuile:
And so, I think that's one of the big design challenges is, what is going to be the infrastructure for relationships so the infrastructure of meaning making, through which we can still feel connected to something bigger than our own individual choices that are expressed in each of those value propositions. And who knows what it will look like. Honestly, I think the workplace is becoming more and more important as a place not only of meaning and purpose in terms of the work that we do, but the relationships that we have, the way in which we received nearly a moral education.

Casper ter Kuile:
If you think where does the average American learn about race and racism, it's in trainings from HR. So, there's interesting ways in which work is taking that role, which has its own dangers, and brands talking about offering community and using that language without really doing it. But nonetheless, I think we're looking for that something centralizing or something structural to help with all those little bits and pieces.

Daniel Stillman:
Also, let's flip that around because there was a really lovely quote, and I grew up with Thomas Merton's translations of Chinese philosophy. And so, this quote you had about the difference between ritual and routine. Well, this is for Merton, tradition teaches us how to live and shows us how to take full responsibility for our lives. And so, your conclusion was surprising to me that tradition actually asks us to be creative. Because I think anybody here will be like, "Oh, ritual, ritualistic.

Daniel Stillman:
Just a bunch of monks in a Monty Python skit, chanting and hitting themselves with wood." That's what I think of.

Casper ter Kuile:
He's been a very naughty boy. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
So, how do you enliven ritual? What is ritual's purpose? Dare I ask, Casper, what is the power of ritual? Have you been asked that before? And I also want to ground this because obviously your book is directed at people because it's for all people because people need this. But how do we make this practical in the workplace is something I'm specifically interested in because rituals show up as culture.

Casper ter Kuile:
That's right. That's right. And rituals will show up whether we're intentional about them or not. And I think one of the things that we often lose focus on with rituals is that they are often external expressions of something that's invisible. So, it's visible expression of something that's invisible, like gratitude or camaraderie or awe, right, a sense of connection to something bigger than myself. That's what rituals are there to communicate.

Casper ter Kuile:
And in the workplace, there's all sorts of little rituals, of course, around birthdays or anniversaries or hitting milestones or shipping a product that there's bells that ring in the Pinterest office when a product is shipped that people have worked on, all sorts of lovely examples. But you want to be intentional about which rituals you want to lift up and celebrate because they each tell a story. Joseph Campbell talks about that every myth is communicated from generation to generation through the rituals that we maintain.

Casper ter Kuile:
And so, we're shaped by rituals. They're not values neutral, they shape us, they form us in some way. And I think this is why I love that Merton quote so much, because, as you say, when we use the word ritual, we often think of something that's complex and distant and old and ancient and maybe not very relevant. But the thing that's always relevant is the invisible thing that that one ritual is trying to express.

Casper ter Kuile:
And so, the reason why we should be creative, why we should feel like we are inheritors of these traditions, is because we want to make that invisible thing visible to us today. And so, if a previous expression of it is no longer resonating, it's up to us to translate it and find a new way to express it. So, if you're having a group that is not feeling connected, right, if you have maybe an organization that's grown very quickly, the rituals that held the group together when you were a group of 20 and you had lunch together every day, well, now you have 200 people, you can't have lunch together every day.

Casper ter Kuile:
You still want to find a ritual that helps you feel connected to each other. It's time to redesign it. And that's why it's such an invitation to creativity because history is always happening. Culture is always changing. And so, rituals need to need to change to embody the things that we care about most.

Daniel Stillman:
There's so many things I want to unpack. It's interesting because in the Sacred Design Lab, and I think everyone should download, you have some amazing PDFs that are shockingly free. How we gather is a really great conglomeration of case studies on how people are supplanting these fundamental human needs with other things. And I think the architecture of your book is really interesting. And this is not to talk about my book. But one of-

Casper ter Kuile:
Please do.

Daniel Stillman:
One of my brother's fundamental criticisms of my book was that I talked about David Whyte's Three Marriages.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah, it's a wonderful book. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:
And this idea of the self and then the other and the world. And I break it down and say like, well, there's this range of conversations that we can have. There's the conversation with oneself, which I was not expecting to pop out of the process when I started thinking about conversations and designing them. So, when I saw self and others, I saw that mirror. And my brother was like, "But where the conversations with nature? And where and where are the conversations with God where it's a one way conversation like Immanuel teach us? How do you have this one way dialogue?"

Daniel Stillman:
And so, it's really interesting that you have these three scales that we should be thinking about self, other, nature, and transcendence. And I guess I can see where some of these might fit into the workplace. But transcendence, why do you think it's important to have that beyond like that third principle you have in your first few. So, why is that important to have intention and attention towards transcend and beyond stuff?

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah. Yeah. So, in our work, Sacred Design Lab, we talk about this experience of connecting to something beyond yourself as the experience of being fully big and fully small at the same time. So sometimes, you look up at the night sky and you think, "Oh my God, I'm just a little speck of dust," right? "I'm just a little grain of sand on this enormous-

Daniel Stillman:
No, it's just you, Casper. No one else thinks. What are you talking about? It's just you.

Casper ter Kuile:
Well, and of course it's true, right? It's actually scientifically true. And on the other hand, there are moments when we are just flooded with a sense of presence where we feel like, "Wait, I'm connected to every other single thing," right? And it often happens in the most weird ways. Thomas Merton, who we talked about, the corner of Walmart and another street somewhere, but he basically just on a street corner was like, "Oh my God, I am the world. The world is me, we're all connected," right?

Casper ter Kuile:
And when you tell the story afterwards, maybe you're coming home from Burning Man, or whatever it is, you're telling the story, it sounds trite, right? It sounds silly. But in the moment, you just know it's true. And so, what I'm interested in in that theme, in comparison with the sense of connection to self, which is really a beautiful fulfilling of your own being, this is really decentering the self.

Casper ter Kuile:
And this is pointing the picture to something much bigger, both in terms of physical space, but also across time, which helps honestly just contextualize both our shame and our and our failures, but also our victories, and our sense of self-egoic entitlements and everything else, at least for me. And so, cultivating a connection with that is actually a way of being, I think, a healthy human being because it just places us in context.

Daniel Stillman:
So, it's funny. Before we started recording, I talked about being on everything. I was thinking of man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. And it's a complex conversation because religion is sticky and weird for many people and tied up about stuff. But I think it's hard to argue that there's no value in stepping back from life and looking at the big picture.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I always think of religion as fire. It has and it does burn your house down, right? It does so much damage when it's weaponized. And it is weaponized, right, against women, against gay people, against all sorts of people. And it's the flame by which we read wisdom. It's the hearth around which we gather. It's the bonfire around which we celebrate. Without it, life is cold. And to some extent, we are inherently social and meaning-making creatures.

Casper ter Kuile:
And religion is just the name that we give, I think, the system of connection to what's really most important. One of my classmates in Divinity School said something which always stuck with me. She said, "We all worship something. It's just some of us don't know what we're worshiping." And for me, that's why this work matters so much, because it's not just the personal pursuit, right, which is maybe my critique of that self-care narrative that we're in right now. We are always choosing to play something at the center of our lives.

Casper ter Kuile:
And for many of us, and this is true for me, too, it's about what can I buy, right? How do I look? What do people think of me? Where am I in the game of status? And I think what the best of religious wisdom gives us, it's an alternative ground on which we can stand and say I'm not just what I produce and consume, I am a beloved child of God, right? I'm fully good enough as I am. And also, I have gifts to give, right? And which are not just about how we can measure it with money.

Casper ter Kuile:
So, it's a tricky thing and for someone who the word God means something else so different to me than it did when I was younger, right? A man in the sky with thunderbolts or something, right? What I mean with that word-

Daniel Stillman:
I'm sorry for cutting off. I'm sure you've answered this question elsewhere, but how does a gay young man, no particular religion, it sounded like. I mean, it sounds like your parents, there was some faith but like Divinity School, I mean-

Casper ter Kuile:
Right. Yeah, that took some explaining.

Daniel Stillman:
Who were you trying to hurt with these choices?

Casper ter Kuile:
Take that, mom. Yeah, no, I grew up in a totally secular household. My parents are both Dutch. And I think apart from Denmark, Holland is the most secular country in the world. My grandparents didn't go to church. I didn't know anyone growing up who was religious in any way. And growing up in the UK, religion is seen as this weird thing that if you are religious, you better be quiet about it because it's irrational and weird. So, I didn't grow up with any formal structure of religion.

Casper ter Kuile:
And yet, I was always interested in building and community. I was always interested in making things beautiful and connecting people. And I was a climate activist for a number of years. I was really involved in mobilizing young people around the UN climate negotiations. And you might remember the 2009 talks in Copenhagen where this real apex moment where the world was going to make big decisions. And the talks really failed. They failed way, way short of what needed to happen.

Casper ter Kuile:
And together with many other young people, I felt completely crushed by that experience. And I have friends who've been on hunger strike for 42 days. This was serious stuff. And what I've realized was that climate and so many other issues are not just a question of policy arguments. They're not even questions of political outmaneuvering one another. It's really a question about a paradigm. How do we understand what the world is and who we are in it?

Casper ter Kuile:
Because if we look at the world around us as a resource to use up and then spew out into the atmosphere, we're never going to-

Daniel Stillman:
You get one world. We get our worlds.

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah, you got one of the worlds. And the average American needs five to the share that we're actually allowed to have. So for me, it became a question of, "Okay, if this is a question of paradigm, how do we shift the story in which we live together?" And very quickly, I ended up thinking about religion because I was like, "Well, I've been thinking about that a long time." And so honestly, I came in to Divinity School, having started a program at the Public Policy School at Harvard, which I did finish, but really coming in as an outside observer.

Casper ter Kuile:
And what happened for me during that Divinity School was realizing, "Oh wait, my whole understanding of what religion is so limited." I've always seen it as like, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, right?" It's just about belief. It's just about these very easy yes-no questions. And instead, it expanded for me to be really about how do we make meaning of life, right? How do you want to live? What are the things that you do that give life structure?

Casper ter Kuile:
And I looked back at my own upbringing, and I was like, "Oh wait, we have all of these rituals, all these family traditions, all of these ways in which my life started to make sense by the things that we did as a community." Actually, that is religious, even if there was never any church going. And so, for me, it was this wonderful liberation to actually reframe my own life and be like, "Well, by this standard, I'm super religious."

Daniel Stillman:
Well, in the sense of religio, of relinking into what.

Casper ter Kuile:
Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:
The thing that's really interesting is that my parents are very odd people but wonderful people who will listen to this interview.

Casper ter Kuile:
I was going to say, "Be careful, Daniel."

Daniel Stillman:
But here's the thing. My dad was into weird economics stuff like Henry George and whatnot. And the idea of at the center of every economic model is the idea of what a person is. And I think what's missing, I have so many questions like one is like how you got into the narrative of how you found yourself or located yourself in the narrative of design.

Daniel Stillman:
But in design as many people who listen to this are in the design world or related to it, it's like design is based on an image or a hypothesis about what people are and the design for the human soul principles. I just love that you're doing biomimicry for religion. I don't know if anybody has described what you do as that but it's like you're like-

Casper ter Kuile:
I love that.

Daniel Stillman:
But it's like, "Okay, so people need belonging, becoming and the beyond and let's look at all the ways that the religion has gathered people and let's reverse engineer it for good."

Casper ter Kuile:
Exactly. Exactly. And honestly, the way we ended up in the design world is design is kept coming to us. And so, in conversation with people who work to IDO was to have the human centered design approach, we just started talking about what we were doing. And at some point, realized, "Well, rather than putting immediate human needs or once at the center of what we're designing, let's put these eternal longings at the center, right? Let's put these deeper questions of what it means to be human at the center of the design challenge."

Casper ter Kuile:
And that's where we ended up with those three principles of belonging, becoming, and the connection to something beyond, which of course, also linguistically allows you to transcend both religious spaces and secular spaces. But it's been so helpful because it actually gives you a sense of creative agency when using that design language, which if you get stuck within a room religious tradition, very quickly, you get caught up in the questions about who has permission to suggest these new ways of thinking about it.

Casper ter Kuile:
There's so much history which is beautiful, and so much a convention which is which has grown over time that often people feel like they're illegitimate to create. And one of the biggest things that I hope people who read the book yet is this sense of spiritual confidence, right? The sense that you have permission to claim things in your life as a ritual, that you get to be a co-creator of a meaningful life. And it's absolutely there in religious traditions, but it often gets lost because of the mechanisms of power that centralized and push other people away from having that creative authorship.

Daniel Stillman:
So, you described, and it's a beautiful or actually, maybe it's Herschel who describes the Sabbath and the Cathedral in Time. And I want to read you a piece of a poem. I actually haven't read any poetry on the podcast, but it's two stanzas of a David Whyte poem, which is depending on how you read it, is either about how to break a promise, or to make a promise. And it says, "Make a place of prayer, no fuss. Just lean into the white brilliance and say what you needed to say all along, nothing too much, words as simple and as yours, and as heard as the bird song above your head, or the river running gently beside you."

Daniel Stillman:
"Let your words join one to another, the way stone nestles on stone, the way water just leaves and goes to the sea, the way where your promise breathes and belongs with every other promise the world has ever made, "Oh, shit, I should read the last. No, I mean, now let them go.

Casper ter Kuile:
Tangles.

Daniel Stillman:
I mean it's great. How can we nestle stone onto stone? Can we just do a close reading of how do we design a ritual? What are the bricks? What's the mortar?

Daniel Stillman:
Because it's because creating this place of prayer, whatever it is that we're praying to, if it's praying to ourselves on the Sabbath, if it's praying with others over food in grace, if it's praying to nature on a pilgrimage, or the seasons, how do we make a place of prayer and join stone on stone? Go

Casper ter Kuile:
First of all, David Whyte, yes. I mean, I love those opening lines because one of the definitions of prayer that I find so helpful, which again, is in the book is the idea that prayer is primary speech. It's the sense of when we say what is true. That when we really excavate the things that we just say every day and really dig into like, "Well, what is it that I really know? What is it that I really feel?" That those words inevitably words of prayer. So, I love those opening lines of David Whyte that he makes the same point. Now, okay, how do we create ritual?

Daniel Stillman:
How do you create a ritual? Because you facilitate rituals, right?

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, the first thing I want to say is that I like to start with what people are already doing. So, very often, we come in as designers and say like, "Let's create the most beautiful ritual for A, B, C. We're going to redesign death, we're going to redesign whatever." And like, "Okay, that's great." And you see, this in religious view, right?

Daniel Stillman:
So ideal. Let's have an innovation sprint on death, right?

Casper ter Kuile:
No, I mean, they literally did that.

Daniel Stillman:
I know.

Casper ter Kuile:
Which is great, which is great. But the way I like to think about it is start with what people already doing, right? Let's build on that asset-based approach. And so, for me, at some point, I read Herschel in Divinity School, and I was like, "Okay, I want to do some Sabbath practice because I'm totally addicted to my work and I need a way to make a boundary between the two. So, I'm going to try and shut away my tech. I'm going to do digital detoxes on a Friday night."

Casper ter Kuile:
And the first couple of weeks, I just turned off my laptop and I was like, "Okay, it's getting dark outside, it's time to shut this down." And that was fine. But I was like, "I need some ritual to make this feel real, right? How do I how do I use a ritual to cross from one way of being into another way of being to make that invisible change visible?" And so, I drew on the Jewish tradition of Shabbat and I was like, "Okay, well, people like candles, that's a big tradition." Now, I'm not Jewish so I don't want to appropriate something completely, but I can be inspired by it.

Daniel Stillman:
Christians, everyone lights candles. You don't have to-

Casper ter Kuile:
I mean, honestly, I was like, I have candles at home, I'm ready to roll. And so, on Friday night, what I do is I light a candle. And once everything is off and I'd hidden all of the phone and the laptop because if I see it, it's too tempting. So, I hide them and light the candle. And then, suddenly, I was just like, "Oh, I'll sing a song." And I sang this little song that I learned in Dutch summer camp. And it's basically a goodnight son song.

Casper ter Kuile:
I'll spare a listening years. But essentially, what it started to do was really helped me arrive in that Cathedral in Time, in that Palace in Time. And feel like, "Oh, this is different from how it was before," right? Honestly, for me, it feels like it's a little vacation. And so, that illustration really embodies those two principles of affirm the thing that you're already doing. Whether it's snuggling your kids before bedtime, whether it's making coffee in the morning and looking outside the window while the water is boiling.

Casper ter Kuile:
And then, you look to the tradition to say, "How can I deepen this? How can I make this more meaningful?" And draw on some of those practices from the past to elevate what we're doing in the present? And so, you can do that on your own with those elements. But you can also do it at gatherings, right? What's the way in which a gathering can open, might that be a blessing of the land, right? Might that be a way in which people can leave the world behind and enter into this gathering here.

Casper ter Kuile:
There's so many creative ways in which all sorts of people gather, right? Whether it's like we're going to establish a certain set of rules about what conversations are allowed here and which ones aren't. Maybe you make up a new name as you're here. I went on a research trip recently to a LARPing experience, a live action role-play. And honestly, those people are the best at creating another world that you enter when you get together. So, there's so many traditions that we can draw on.

Casper ter Kuile:
And honestly, I just think the wisdom of those ancestors that are better than whatever I'm going to come up with.

Daniel Stillman:
There's so much that I'm hearing in like, I had Dave Gray on the show, he wrote a book called Liminal Thinking. He coauthored another book called Gamestorming, which really, when you talk about game theory and improv theory, there's this idea of the magic circle that we step into. And so, there is a lot of this drawing of a boundary and inscribing of the circle and entering into that circle, where you make a rule of life, right? You say like, "This is what's in the circle. And this is what's outside of the circle. Within the circle is me and what's out of the circle is my phone."

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The magic circle languages is so helpful because it illustrates just the way in which we can create the conditions of a different reality. And the thing is, I think this is what religious traditions teach us as well is like, you can step into that for a moment and be that. But to live your life in a countercultural way and say, "I'm not going to live my life by the principles of dominant culture. I'm going to do it differently," it's freaking hard. It's freaking hard and you need to practice all the time. And so, that's what all of these practices are about.

Daniel Stillman:
Intentionality, right? Purpose.

Casper ter Kuile:
Absolutely. But also, you have to start again all the time because we keep failing. And so, that the idea of the rule of life is basically a way of codifying. Saying like, "Okay, these are the principles that are important to me. These are the words that will remind me." Write down basically words for different principles that are important to you." These are the words that will open my heart and remind me of how it can be, of how I can be, of how the world can be, how I want to live.

Casper ter Kuile:
And then, there's practices that are associated with each one. So, to help you practice because it's a skill. And hopefully, over a lifetime, right, you get to live more and more into that magic circle of how the world can be. And my theory of change, honestly, for culture is that when more and more of us do it, and we talk about it, we live it publicly that it is just so deliciously wonderful, that other people look at it and say, "Well, I want that. I want to live my life like that."

Casper ter Kuile:
And I think that's why when we look at the Dalai Lama, when we look at someone like Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, right, these great heroes of history, it wasn't just a one day awakening situation, it's a lifetime of practice. And that's what these practices had to help us with, it's to remember that those truths are really true even when the rest of the world tells us no.

Daniel Stillman:
Yeah. So, okay, I'm going to loop back around because we're drawing towards the close. We've talked about the three design principles for the human soul, belonging, becoming and beyond. And we haven't really touched much about it. But these elements of ritual, they're in the book, intention, attention and repetition. And what you've tipped your hat to is that like, if you have these elements together, people are hungry for this stuff, and they will be attracted to it. And then, you have the gathering of the community and the shifting of one center and cultivating that fire, throwing the right amount of fuel onto that conflagration in a healthy way.

Daniel Stillman:
That's where I think maybe we can transition into the seven jobs to be done in the Care of Souls. Because I think it's such an amazing and interesting idea. It's so mind blowing to me to just think about where these components need to exist in any healthy culture, perhaps, self-sustaining culture. How did you come to the seven jobs to be done? How on earth did you decide to use the language jobs to be done? This is a ridiculous three part question, which I'm sure you love getting. Which of these roles do we need more of now?

Casper ter Kuile:
Yeah. So, this is a paper that we wrote called Care of Souls, where we really tried to think about what are the religious jobs of the future? If you think about the way we look at the religious congregation now, right, maybe there's a priest, there's a rabbi, that's an imam. And those are the current embodiments of the roles that need to be fulfilled for a community to thrive. Now, Judaism is a great example to draw on again, because Judaism within its living memory or within its written memory, at least, has had different expressions of Judaism.

Casper ter Kuile:
So, we first thing about temple Judaism, right? There were sacrifices in the temple, there were high priests. There were all sorts of rituals around this physical place of the temple. Now, in the first century, before the Common Era, the temple is destroyed. And so, we enter into a different reality. Oh my God, now, I'm suddenly having total historical anxiety. Temple destruction is 79, right? Oh my God, hang on.

Daniel Stillman:
I mean, I'm a bad Jew for not knowing this, but it's fine.

Casper ter Kuile:
It's 586, no, exactly. It was either 586 or 79 because there's multiple destructions of the temple. Let me just change my answer. Okay, hang on.

Daniel Stillman:
We're leaving this all in this. This is so good.

Casper ter Kuile:
Oh God, no. I'm always like, "Oh God, I have to be a good steward of tradition.

Daniel Stillman:
I know you're in your sweatshirt and everything.

Casper ter Kuile:
All right, let me stop that.

Daniel Stillman:
You can bring it up on your phone. I totally won't even tell anybody. Wink, wink.

Casper ter Kuile:
Okay. And we'll go to Judaism. And I'll go from there. So, in Judaism, you have the first era of Judaism, which was built around the temple, the central location in which sacrifices were made, you have high priests, that the physical location of the temple became really, really important. And once the temple was destroyed, the Jews had to think about, "Well, how do we keep our traditional life? How do we still find a center even when we no longer have a physical place?"

Casper ter Kuile:
And so, you see the prominence of practices like circumcision, of Kosher dietary laws and the Sabbath, which are things that none of them are plain space, they can move wherever you are. And you have the growth of Rabbinic Judaism. So, this is where the rabbi start studying texts and writing their own text and interpreting the tradition into a new era. And so, my colleagues and I, and many others who think about this thinking and looking at Judaism now and saying, "Wow, we've had this rabbinic era, what is the next era of Judaism going to look like?" Right?

Casper ter Kuile:
Maybe the jobs that one Rabbi does in the community now are going to be unbundled and you'll have some people who teach text, you're going to have some people who build connection and community, you can have some people who mock big celebrations. Those things might all will be deprofessionalized even and split. And so, what we're looking at with these seven different roles in the Care of Souls are just seven suggestions of roles that we think are particularly important now in this moment of religious history.

Casper ter Kuile:
And the one that I at least really know I always need and hope I can become is the role of the elder. Because religious congregations are one of the few places now where we have real intergenerational relationships, that we have genuine friendships across generations. And so, when we don't have that, sure we have the workplace and maybe some neighbors, but really good friends who are from a different generation who can teach you and that you then can teach, that's a rare thing.

Casper ter Kuile:
And so, one of the things that we ended up doing based on that thinking was to create an elder matchmaking program in which we connected young community leaders with retired, mostly, religious leaders who had so much wisdom that they could pass on. And the thing that's beautiful is that very quickly, once we get beyond the stereotype of like, you're an old person and you're a young person, right, millennial with your avocado toast, we discover actually that the commitments that are important to us are often very, very similar.

Casper ter Kuile:
And you build these sustaining friendships which do not same thing as what we talked about with that theme of beyond, right? It reminds you that you're not the first person to have to struggle with this question. And it helps you remember that other people have found ways to solve these problems, or at least survive them. And that was one of the roles that really stuck out to us to think about, especially in white culture and dominant culture in America, elders are not really given a place of value in our society, right?

Casper ter Kuile:
Once you're retired, you're done. I mean, listening the way in which we're talking about during COVID, "Oh, she was 88. That was too bad," right? As if the person no longer has inherent value when they're older. And so, yeah, that was one of the things that was really important to us to think about, the role of the elder in contemporary culture.

Daniel Stillman:
It's funny because that was the thing that was tickling in my chest is that that's such a huge gap in the modern workplace, where we value venturers and gatherers and seers and makers and energy, youthful energy.

Casper ter Kuile:
Well, and there's practical ways in which you can do it. I mean, at every gathering that we host, we always have elders in the room. And we introduce them as such so they're not participants, they're not there to just be one of the gang, right, but they're just an older person that they are set apart, they fulfill the role of being an elder. And what that means is often just sitting at the edges of the conversation, mostly being a listening presence, which already changes the way in which people talk to each other when they're being witnessed by an elder.

Casper ter Kuile:
And then, now and then, when there's something which is really crystal clear for them, they'll speak, right? And it'll just totally reframe the conversation. And over the days, usually, will host gatherings of three or four days, people start to be attracted to them at the breaks and older like mealtimes. And the time of people just sitting next to this 86 year old man peppering them with questions or this old Rabbi. And it's wonderful once we give people are role to fulfill in a gathering like that, when we design for it, it just makes the work better.

Casper ter Kuile:
And more enjoyable. So, that's one way in which you can really activate that principle.

Daniel Stillman:
Wow. Is there anything else, any other wisdom you can give us from the ages about how to design our group conversations with more connection to these fundamental principles?

Casper ter Kuile:
A thing I really like to lean into more and more and I'm getting braver about it is to build in, exactly as you said, some of these practices. So, if you can build in singing into a team that's trying to do a creative challenge. If you can build in, I mean, whether it's dance, or meditation, or yoga, or getting people to practice things together, which are often embodied, does so much work more quickly than just talking about it over and over again. Right?

Casper ter Kuile:
Even the process of the dreaded first hour of a conference where we have to set ground rules, which everyone said yes. Listen to one another, yes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that there are effective ways of doing that, just to stepping for half an hour as a group, and then starting the conversation, because there's an alignment that happens in our physicality which then allows our intellectual connection to flourish. So, leaning in to some of these embodied practices, I think, is something that's super valuable.

Daniel Stillman:
Yes. I mean, so Casper, obviously, this is your favorite topic, and I could talk too. And we're just starting to bleed into some of my favorite topics. So, I'm terribly sorry to say that we're at the end of our time. Is there anything else we have not talked about that we should talk about? What else should people know about you? Where can people find you on the internet? And the book is available now? Soon?

Casper ter Kuile:
Yes. The book is published on June 23rd. So, you can pre order it now, of course, throughout Amazon, Barnes and Noble. But check out your local bookstore. They definitely will appreciate your support right now. And many of them are delivering. So, it's called The Power of Ritual. And it's available now. You can find out more on powerofritual.org. And the final thing I might mention is, if you're interested in looking at one concrete example of translating an ancient practice, I have a podcast called Harry Potter and the Sacred Text where we apply sacred reading practices that you might do with the Bible or the Torah, but we do it with Harry Potter.

Casper ter Kuile:
So, it's a wonderful way to see a new way of doing something very old. So, that might be another fun thing to check out.

Daniel Stillman:
We haven't talked about that at all. And we talked about how you're grieving. Because it's this thing you did for a long period of time, which was a ritual of itself and now, how are you going to put it in the ground? Because you're the end. We've been with Harry from the beginning.

Casper ter Kuile:
Well, you know what they say with the Sacred Text, you just start at the beginning again, so.

Daniel Stillman:
And so, writing in the margins.

Casper ter Kuile:
Thank you so much, Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:
Thank you so much. I really, really appreciate the conversation.

Casper ter Kuile:
Well, I really appreciate everything that you do and write and everyone who's listening, I know that folks are doing great work. So, thanks so much.

Daniel Stillman:
Thank you. And we'll call that scene and with our last minute, it sounds like there was a couple of little nubbins that you want to cut out and I'll tell my editor to do so.

Casper ter Kuile:
If he would, I'd be grateful. Where have you gone? Oh, yeah, I made you a whole screen. Here we go. Okay. And yeah, if you would, I'd be enormously grateful.

Daniel Stillman:
I can do so. It's not a problem. It's only a little extra work. And I'm here to make you look good.

Casper ter Kuile:
Well, I appreciate that. I need the help. But I so look forward to reading your book and I'll then just want to have another conversation. I mean, not on anything recorded but just to learn from you and because honestly, facilitation for me is something that you have to do, but it's not something that inherently brings great joy so I will want to learn.

Daniel Stillman:
That's interesting.

Casper ter Kuile:
Because I'm a massive three on the enneagram I don't know if you're an enneagram guy.

Daniel Stillman:
My mother is.

Casper ter Kuile:
There you go. You know what you need to know.

Daniel Stillman:
I don't like typing people, that's what I know. But I also know that I am a five.

Casper ter Kuile:
Ah, that makes sense. That makes a lot of sense.

Daniel Stillman:
If you send me your address, I'll be very happy to send you a physical copy of the book.

Casper ter Kuile:
I've already ordered it, it's coming.

Daniel Stillman:
Oh, eventually.

Casper ter Kuile:
June 3rd, that's what I've been told.

Daniel Stillman:
Depending on the ocean currents. Casper, good luck with everything. And you want this to coincide with June, week before or week after or week of? June 23rd.

Casper ter Kuile:
Week of is great. Week of is great. But honestly, if you need something before then, that's totally fine. I don't want to be-

Daniel Stillman:
I've got a backlog. It's all good.

Casper ter Kuile:
Awesome.

Daniel Stillman:
You know what it's like.

Casper ter Kuile:
All right, man. Yeah, exactly.

Daniel Stillman:
Casper, it's such a pleasure. It's so delightful to connect with you. It's great work you're doing.

Casper ter Kuile:
Thanks. Well, likewise.

Daniel Stillman:
Stay safe. Wash your hands.

Casper ter Kuile:
You too, man. All the best.

Daniel Stillman:
Okay. Bye.

Casper ter Kuile:
Bye.

The Conversational Business

Season_Four_Image_stack_RJW.jpg

Today I share my conversation with Ron J Williams. Fast Company rated him in the top 100 most creative people in business...back in 2012! He’s started some serious ventures - SnapGoods was an early vanguard in the sharing economy - and he’s also helped companies large and small get proof (rather than stay in conjecture) on their business ideas with his consultancy ProofLabs. 

He’s currently working as SVP & Head of Program Strategy at Citi Ventures. We also went to High School together, which is why he still takes my calls!

I brought Ron onto the show because of a conversation we had months back about how businesses ARE conversations - that they can’t just extract value from people without listening, adapting and relating to the people they serve. 

Ron offered the idea that each moment, each pixel, is an opportunity for a company to listen and to respond thoughtfully to their customers...this level of granularity and specificity in the opportunities for conversations between business and customers really lit me up.


Ron also happens to be a black man. This episode is coming months after we recorded it - I’m working through a backlog - and you’ll hear, at the end, my gratitude to Ron for bringing up the topic of racial inequality in corporate innovation...and the costs it has for our society as a whole.

I did not want to commit the sin of making a person of color speak for “their people”...it’s a burden that “non-minorities” don’t have to endure. I am rarely, if ever, asked to speak for all white men, as if I could.


Diversity is so important. 


Innovation isn’t just a conversation between a company and its customers...it’s also an internal company conversation. And who is in that innovation conversation determines what problems get noticed, which ideas get funded and for how long. With a large majority of white male voices in corporate innovation and silicon valley, the problems that get addressed and resolved are the problems of a very small, very privileged group of people.


Ron says towards the end of our conversation, and I’m condensing a bit:


“it's amazing to see many more people popping on the scene, both as people of color, women, LGBT...we’re capitalizing networks...and empower(ing) more folks...when there are more voices in the virtual conversation of innovation, more lived experiences means more problem sets that maybe you and I wouldn't think to tackle, come up with... if they were networked properly, resourced properly, supported properly, would build something huge”

I hope more diverse voices get included into the innovation conversation. What can you do at your organization to help make that happen?

Enjoy the episode. Ron is fun to talk to and really fun to listen to!

Links and Resources

https://www.prooflabsgroup.com/

Jason Cyr on Designing the Organizational Conversation:

https://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/11/15/designing-the-organizational-conversation


More About Ron

Proven innovation leader and entrepreneur building mission-driven teams focused on solving hard problems.

Bringing together 15+ years of entrepreneurship, corporate strategy, startup advisory and product leadership, I have a unique perspective and an awesome network filled with doers.

I center my teams on the principle of customer obsession. I believe that sustainable growth comes from better understanding of and partnership with the customer.

Quick background:

I've founded, built, invested in and advised on peer-to-peer, sharing economy, marketplace, machine learning and social commerce companies. In varied roles as a founder, intrapreneur, consultant, Entrepreneur in Residence and Program Lead, I've helped Fortune 500 companies re-engineer core business strategies and innovation programs across industries.

Passion:

Working with smart people to solve problems that matter (one reason I sit on the Board of organizations like BUILD.org)

General approach to creating impact:

- Long-term shareholder value follows customer obsession (not the other way around)

- Values and value creation go hand-in-hand

- Diverse perspective is an organizational super power. It is not a box to check

- Cultivating a culture of trust and willingness to take risks is a competitive advantage

- The “why” is almost always more important than the “what”

- Mission and culture beat innovation theater every time



Full Transcript

Daniel:
Well, all right then. I am going to officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Ron J. Williams. This is actually ... I'm so excited to have you here. I have not yet published the interview that I did with E. Rodsky. I want to do a whole peg leg series-

Ron J Williams:
I love it.

Daniel:
... people who know us from back in the day. Thank you for being here. Let's just start in the middle because you and I were talking a couple of weeks ago about how every pixel a company makes is an opportunity for them to listen to their customers and not just be pushing their product out into the world. Let's start there and then we'll work our way back.

Ron J Williams:
Yeah. First up, thanks for having me. It is always nice to see folks you've known for a long time and have gotten to call friends just become great people that you admire and so I've, as you know, enthusiastically supported and enjoyed your work and as you continue to develop your craft, become now an acolyte. I'm going to walk around quoting many things from your world view.

Daniel:
You're too kind. Ditto. I've been dropping that quote on so many people and they're like, "Oh, my God. That's true." How long have you been suspecting that? Had you said it that way before?

Ron J Williams:
So, I'll start just before the middle-middle, which I hope is ... well, it's going to be the early middle in life. So, I think in my day job for a number of years, regardless of where I am and what company I'm helping, I tend to be a person who is there questioning some of the assumptions that underlie the thing that has been built or is planned to be built, and I say it that way to signify that oftentimes a lot of capital, a lot of really good time is spent thinking, and a lot of really smart people all together worked to get to a place where they are convinced they understand what the customer wants. And, either it is being built, has been built, and in some cases, it's been built, it's been deployed to not the outcome as desired.

Ron J Williams:
And so, I'm doing that now, in some way shape or form at City Ventures, but really the license that I felt to do that came from massive, what I considered to be massive failure on my part. You get really smart people with good ideas who build what they believe the customer wants, and then they expect that that's going to be it. For the folks who are old enough to remember Ron Popeil from when we were kids, that wonderful rotisserie machine-

Daniel:
Popeil automatic.

Ron J Williams:
You set it and forget it. That's it. You put the chicken in, you set the thing and you forget about it. And, I think the idea that digital itself is just a digital analog, to the analog world. You build a thing, you put it out and if it's good enough it sells itself and then you just count your money. It misses this point which I learned in my earlier, last incarnation, which was we built the startup that got lots and lots of clicks, lots and lots of attention.

Ron J Williams:
We were in lots of press. I was in every single magazine and paper that my mom read which meant she could finally take pictures of her baby to church and be like, "This is what he does. I don't know what he does, but he's in the New York Times and he's here and he's here."

Ron J Williams:
And yet and still, that didn't translate into enough value for our consumers that we were creating that we could capture some of that value ourselves and build the same old business. And, it came to us very late in the process of building that company that we needed to be better instrumented, that every single time a consumer hit a page that we put in front of them, if we could, we needed the equivalent of a person on that page being like, "Hey, what's working? What's not working? Why are you even here? What's up? How's your day going?"

Ron J Williams:
How do we actually turn ever single interaction into a conversation, into an opportunity to understand better that state of mind, that intention and then turn that into, even if you miss it this time, a reassurance to that person that we're listening and we're changing.

Ron J Williams:
And so, that occurred to me, frankly, as my business was blowing up and ultimately failing. And, it was with that mindset that frankly, longer conversations for another time, as I was like, as founders often get and haven't really talked about until recently. I was depressed about what was going on with my startup.

Ron J Williams:
I had a buddy who was like, "I need your help with my startup." And, I was like, "That's ridiculous. How can I help you?" He was like, "Well, you've been peer mentoring me whether you realize or not for the past year that we've been sharing space, and you've been talking about this customer segmentation thing and that all customers that come to my page aren't all the same customers, don't all have the same intention on that page," and like, "we're stuck in our revenue growth, could you help me think through this?"

Ron J Williams:
That was the most wonderful thing that he ever could've done for me, whether he realized it or not, because I was literally in the midst of signing over my company ... It was a crazy time and it was nice to dive into somebody else's business and look at that landing page as an opportunity to learn about the people coming to it and to have that conversation.

Ron J Williams:
That was probably the first real seminal moment where in taking that, customer segmentation isn't just something that mature businesses do, new businesses can do it too. How do we learn who's coming, what journey they're on, which ones we can make successful and how you should then rearchitect the pixels on the page and possibly on the product to better serve them. So, that was it. That was probably 2014, end of 2014 and it was a really interesting transition of my kind of mindset. Lot of words.

Daniel:
So, my brain's lighting up, because this idea of who is this person and what is their journey? What journey are they on? It's rare to even get that in an one on one conversation with somebody where you sit down at a bar and you just talk to a stranger like, "Tell me about who you are and where are you headed in your life. Spin me a yarn about your journeys," but that's how you get to really know somebody and in a way, you're asking your company to do the same thing for each person who's showing up, which is like, who is this person that I want to actually serve and be in communication with?

Daniel:
I Love the idea of set it and forget it versus I want to continuously create value to you. I want to be in dialog with you. I want to make sure you do not leave. And, we talked about this with banks. They're all, to the consumer, they all feel a lot alike, and there's no stickiness. So, how do we decide to stay in one place versus just pulling up our money and going to some other place? Stickiness is really important.

Ron J Williams:
It's huge Daniel, and I think the other thing that people, I think neglect is to, remember, you've got my brain lighting up now is, if you're in a business that is inherently, is increasingly commoditized, not just your traditional competition, but emerging challengers are showing up and saying, "I can do a small piece of that better." In fact, so much better, that it becomes a hook and sells itself, to a segment of the population that feels like they're not being seen by mature businesses.

Ron J Williams:
There's a huge inherent disadvantage there for large businesses, if they don't recognize that the window is closed on just using digital and technology as an enabling mechanism for distribution, for transactions, the idea that the predominant form of engaging prospects and customers is transactional. I find you at a moment and then I close you and get you to transact. That window's largely closed for most things, especially if they're commoditized things with long lead times and they're commoditized. Have I said that enough?

Ron J Williams:
You have to move from transaction to all the days and months leading up to that moment. We've been in some kind of ongoing conversation. You felt supported. I've got nuggets of knowledge, whatever on you, that you've gotten value in and that were infinitely scalable and almost free to me.

Ron J Williams:
It has to be an ongoing conversation. You've got to move from episodic, I hope I catch you at the right time when you need a mortgage, let's say, or I hope I catch you at the right time, right as you're thinking about switching from one platform for communications to another. I've got to be that source of information perspective and possibly even access to community where you can talk to peers who also are having conversations about that thing before you get to the point where you're ready to make that purchase decision or that switch.

Ron J Williams:
And, that is a really huge, I think that that's a huge switch for organizations to go from, we shouldn't just build a thing and figure out how to sell it. The long tail of engagement is, how do you create value before that moment of purchase. That is a conversation. That is that ongoing conversation.

Daniel:
And, that's being relational instead of transactional.

Ron J Williams:
And that's being relational. That's right. That's exactly right. And, it's even after that purchase, or that initial modernization moment, how do we stay in touch in a way that, again, it's not just about selling the next thing, but I am sussing out what you need. I am detecting changes in your life.

Ron J Williams:
I might have been the target market for a thing two years ago. My needs have dramatically shifted. My spending pattern is very different now than it was six years ago with [inaudible 00:09:29], right? That's different.

Daniel:
Yeah. So, there's two conversations I want to unpack, because one is, this roomful of people who are convinced and the process that you, how you design that conversation to make ... because it is the hardest conversation, I think, to have a group of people who are, it's the Ikea effect. People are in love with what they've built.

Daniel:
They're convinced of what they've built, because they built it and they've invested time in it, and then you're coming in as an outsider and you're going to try and get them to back away from it. That can seem threatening I presume.

Ron J Williams:
Yeah. Yeah. It definitely is. And I think, in some ways the hardest part of the job, a person who's coming in talking about long term growth opportunities, which I think in many ways, innovation is a super overused word.

Ron J Williams:
At the end of the day, what we're really here to talk about, when you talk about what innovative is, we've got a business that is working. We understand that parts of it are becoming commoditized and it's [inaudible 00:10:41].

Ron J Williams:
Long term, we're a certain degree of saturated, and we're going towards 99%. And somewhere before that thing gets really saturated and the business declines, we've got to figure out how to replace pieces of our business that are commoditized. That's long term grown that we hope will be organic. It might have to be inorganic through acquisition, but we have to be honest and sober and saying we recognize that we'll have to replace some of our business. That's fine. That's it.

Daniel:
Is that a conversation that people are willing-

Ron J Williams:
Conversation out the window.

Daniel:
... to have, of like-

Ron J Williams:
So, first-

Daniel:
The arc? This is this question, and this is, I'm not plugging my book, but there's this thing called the Berkana loop where you ask where are we on this arc, just presuming everything that's born, grows old and dies.

Ron J Williams:
That's right.

Daniel:
Are we on the upswing or are we on the downswing? That seems like a really hard question to invite.

Ron J Williams:
So, one of the biggest aha moments I had, I've had over past several years, of running proofLabs, of a producting strategy practice and then coming in house to help at City Ventures after being an entrepreneur in residence here, is exactly this simple frame, which is if you talk about innovation versus core, you're inherently setting up an adversarial frame.

Daniel:
Yes.

Ron J Williams:
If I say, we work on future, you just keep the lights on. Keeping the lights on is super critical, and has loads of growth that's left in most businesses that are big enough and have the budgets to figure out how to do more adjacent growth investment.

Ron J Williams:
How do you then say, how do we take what you do, the way that you serve customers, look at the gaps in the market, and then figure out together where future growth will be, versus the SM. That is very much, I think ... you and I talked for years about talking about this stuff. That is very much a conversation. That is not a ... let me stop you right there.

Ron J Williams:
I'll come back and tell you what the future's going to be, which is how I think the innovation, the cottage industry of it is like the core of innovation field, is going, I think through a lot of growing pains itself. What was maybe once sufficient to pass as meaningful innovation investment, you get on the stage and say, "Imagine your business on the internet."

Ron J Williams:
That window has closed. Now, we're at the place where I think, and I have loads of friends, loads of venture studios and other folks in this type of function in other places. People want to understand, [inaudible 00:13:14] wants to understand if put a dollar in the innovation machine, what comes out the other side? What so I actually get that's tangible?

Ron J Williams:
And in order to even get there, you've got to do this from the first question to ask, which is how do you broach that topic? The way that I need to broach that is by saying it's not other. We're always together. We're here to help. If we've got a good set of tools around take good research, take good perspective, and I like to say that ... I threaten to put this on t-shirts. Once we get past the point of productive debate, I want less debate and more experimentation.

Ron J Williams:
So, you frame less as other and more as, it's another tool to provide proof about what's worth investing further in. So, a little bit of money to find out where we should invest a lot of money is the thing. And, the idea of, you said it and I put a note here, of like, Daniel's right, the idea of, how do you take bar conversation, really good, bump into a new adult friend, that level of good conversation, and you're like, I just made a new buddy.

Ron J Williams:
I'm 43, I just made a new buddy. For that to happen on a page is impossible if you're targeting everyone. The idea of conversation also has to be as I've seen you do in a room, a person has to feel like there is room and space for just them in that moment to be themselves, and you're not asking them a bunch of questions about all the different people they might be. You're talking to them. When you're going to have a one on one conversation, I'm not like, "Hey Dan, or Jim or Bill."

Daniel:
[crosstalk 00:14:41] your first name.

Ron J Williams:
Your first name.

Daniel:
Your first name, please fill out the survey.

Ron J Williams:
I'm doing what companies have a really hard time with, I believe, which is this notion of be bold enough to understand who you're not talking to in a moment. Don't believe that every pixel has to be for everyone. In fact, I would articulate that the biggest issue facing most senior management teams is that they believe that they're a large business, that every new offering has to come out of the box for the mass market. That is what I call the myth of the mass market.

Ron J Williams:
It is this core construct that breaks all the efforts, because if your measure of value is, that I successfully have a conversation with every conceivable person that comes to the page, they're going to all be crappy conversations. We know what it's like to go to a party and talk for 30 seconds to everybody.

Daniel:
I've never been at that party, but that sounds pretty intense. But that's ... how do you get them to step back from that though, because the mentality of large corporations is they are in that mode of mass market. And, this is where "innovation" and making small bets so that we can make big bets, the small bets always look small in comparison to the big bets.

Ron J Williams:
That's right. So, to answer that question, let's talk about-

Daniel:
It sounds stupid once I say it out loud, but of course the small bets are small.

Ron J Williams:
No, no, no, but I think what you're getting at, you're not saying anything that ... I'll tell you, it's a smart ... we've all said it, and it's as smart as any CEO or CXO at a Fortune 500 company has said probably in a board meeting [inaudible 00:16:24] it's got to be a big bet. I think what's lost in translation at that moment is, in this day and age, and I'm going to get a little abstract, because I think you'll appreciate it and I want you to kick this around. I want you to really knock this out if it doesn't make sense.

Ron J Williams:
I would say that if we look at the old industrial age, if a person had a bunch of steel and they had the land rights, they built railroads. And, that capital investment, that infrastructure, man, that thing was going to be good for 50 or 60 years, 150, 200 years because we're going to always run trains and it doesn't matter how they change or got faster, combustion, electric, until they floated, they're going to run on those train tracks.

Ron J Williams:
That thing is a money maker. That infrastructure doesn't need to change much. We grew up in New York City and actually went to high school together. The New York City subway is running on a frighteningly old operating system, just a scary old operating system, very rickety. Those turns ain't getting any safer.

Ron J Williams:
Today, the new infrastructure is technical and it's digital, and what's funny about it is, it helps you learn where to go. Part of digital infrastructure today is not just distribution, not just pop ups that things you can click on, you can buy in your pocket, it is the fact that it can have these micro conversations, these points of engagement and learning with the consumer, which should tell you where to go next.

Ron J Williams:
Why do I draw that out? Because, if you start with the presumption that you've got to build for everybody first and don't recognize it, what digital is literally good at is helping you identify adjacent opportunities down the road, just worry about over serving the hell out of a niche audience, a smaller audience today that's well-defined. You're going to be good. You're good.

Ron J Williams:
If you can deliver and over deliver for a well-defined audience around a well-defined set of problems that they have, building out from there is easy. That's something that folks don't realize.

Ron J Williams:
If you're in a commoditized business, you've already said it. Switching cost is low. What's the number on thing I can do for Dan to make Dan stick around. It's by being valuable enough to them and building beautiful experiences that help them for habits.

Ron J Williams:
Habit formation isn't an afterthought. It's got to be top of stack in your thinking. It's not where do we go and then what do we build and can't we form habit, it's where can we go to form habits that are relevant to our business in a way that benefits our customer. And, if you can nail that, that next piece, monetization and adjacency, that becomes easy.

Ron J Williams:
So, we see Credit Karma help millions and millions of people do a thing that wasn't done well before which is take this opaque and Byzantine system of how your credit score moves and you might get your hands on once a year, and game-ify it, which is a word that I hate to use. I don't use it lightly, but turn it into these moments of micro progress, where you're atomizing your effort in for discernible progress out so you feel successful.

Ron J Williams:
Wait a minute. My score dropped by two points because this card I don't use, it's [inaudible 00:19:32]. Banana Republic, I don't use the card. I got it once, whatever, they drop my limit which in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter much, except it changed my credit capacity, my credit utilization.

Ron J Williams:
I was like, that's just annoying. So, I got on the phone with them and then they fixed it. I wouldn't have done that before. So, when they hit me with an offer to do a high yield savings account, I was like, "Oh yeah, hell yeah. I'll throw some money in there. They've got the highest-"

Daniel:
Because they've built some trust and value in that moment.

Ron J Williams:
Some trust, some value. They've been helping me. I'm in a conversation with them. I check my score every single week. I respond and react to every single thing almost that they put in front of me. That is why a mass market is a fallacy. Start with a thing, with a well-defined customer. Help them form habits. You build out, rinse, repeat. We're seeing this all over the place. So, that was super long, so I'm sorry about this.

Daniel:
No, it's not, because this question of how to do this well, I'm trying to look for patterns out there of what it looks like as a company to be better at listening at scale and responding at scale because it's clearly critical for companies to survive in some sense.

Ron J Williams:
You look at Intercom. I think Intercom did a good job with this as well. Had, again, a generic, not generic, a really good product, but this is for everyone. It can do these four things, and then ultimately broke it into these four distinct journeys. And they're like, this is for acquisition. This is for retention. This is for upsell, and did a good job of recognizing that, selling everything to everyone. That's not the place you start until you're Microsoft.

Daniel:
Well, and they still, well it's interesting, do they sell everything to everyone. That's a rabbit hole. I love this idea of creating value first, but that's a really ... it seems like that's a challenging mindset when the old way has worked so well for so long.

Ron J Williams:
It is challenging. I'd be curious. What is in your, and not to flip this on you, but what is the product that you are, whether you realize it or not, that you use the most. I'm not thinking about what you love the most and like the best, what do you use the most? What's in your pocket and on your screen the most?

Daniel:
Oh, beside just actual device?

Ron J Williams:
Yeah. On that screen, what's on that screen the most?

Daniel:
That's so interesting. I guess it's Google Calendar. I used to actually love Samsung Calendar, but it did a poor job of syncing, and Google Calendar is where I live.

Ron J Williams:
And why is that?

Daniel:
Well, I literally had a 15 minute call before this call.

Ron J Williams:
So, you're scheduled out the wazoo.

Daniel:
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. And, tied into those things are ... actually this is a great example. I'm going to give a shout out to my friends at Calendly. They have a product, so Calendly allows me to send people four or five times because it's called ad hoc scheduling, and it's a fringe product.

Daniel:
It was actually designed by a whole other team. I know this because I actually got on a call with one of their integration product managers and I use the Chrome plug-in to do these ad hoc messages and there's literally two completely different flows and if I send somebody a Calendly link that says, okay, here's all these times that are available based on some sort of rule, they can book it and Zoom immediately connects automatically, and then there's an invitation on my calendar and their calendar and there's a Zoom link in it, boom. So, I pay for Calendly and I pay for Zoom. That works.

Daniel:
When I do the plug-in on Chrome, and I do send them five times because I'm like, I really want to talk to this person, and I don't want to just give them this link that might actually show no availability, because that's what I give to people who I don't really need to talk to. I'll talk to them whenever.

Daniel:
I really want to talk to this person. Here's five times in the next two days. And when they book that, it goes into my calendar and their calendar, but it doesn't have any Zoom information in it. The loop is broken completely, and I got on a call with this guy and I showed him the two different flows, and he was like, "These tools were all built by different people." And I'm like, "Yeah, but it's one product for me." And he's like, "I know."

Daniel:
They're treating it like two products. This is the classic thing where it's two products for them and it's one product for me, and I just want it to work. And, I'm saying to them, and I'm literally on an email thread of everybody else who's complained about ad hoc Zoom integration, and they're all like, "When are they going to work on this," and I'm like, "Don't hold your breath. They've got a lot of other things that they care about." I'm literally on a conversation thread where we're all talking and Calendly is not listening. And, that's my rant about that.

Ron J Williams:
No, no. But I think what's interesting about that is the institutional inertia is almost always rooted in, you said it actually, you're being very generous but, I think probably on point, which is, they probably have lots of things going on. So, there's always institutional inertia that's invisible to their customer, to the consumer.

Daniel:
Yeah, they want to integrate with Trello. They got to integrate with Zappy. There's all these other integrations and they've got this whole con-bon board of stuff. I'm not the only person out there, because I know that. I get that.

Ron J Williams:
But, what's interesting, and I'm not accusing them, I'm not thinking this way so, if anybody from the company's listening, I'm sure you're doing great. Clearly, you're doing great. But what's funny is, when I alluded to that kind of initial, I didn't realize that I was going to build a consultancy after my startup, but a person asked for help, I helped him. And then, it was a person in my life, somebody forced me to take a check because it turned out in that story was we, I think I might have doubled his MRR over two months. That was really an amazing, good product, amazing team, and just a little bit of me restating some of their stuff for them.

Ron J Williams:
But what was so interesting was, one of the ones I gave them, was, well I get why each of these four customers is important to you because you do have paying customers from each of these categories. But, my question to you is, what is the level of success for each of these paying customer types?

Ron J Williams:
I get that these guys pay the most and these guys pay the least, but forget that for a second. If I were to build, I think of two by twos as power grids when you think of those dimensions, because it's where you draw the source of your power. What is my power quadrant? What kind of power area on the graph?

Ron J Williams:
If the dimensions for that client of mine were short, what it's worth the company and how successful they are using your products as a proxy for what they keep paying, possibly upgrade and tell all their friends. What was interesting was, two of the four groups on average, were under performing in terms of their rate of success. So, they were not achieving success in the product, and I'm talking about a multiple.

Ron J Williams:
So, for the top performing group, meaning, they got through it, they did all the things, whatever signified success, I'm not giving them up, three and a half times as likely to succeed as the bottom performing groups of paying customers. And I was like, "No disrespect, but unless you intend to completely rearchitect your product and point it at these people's problems down here, they don't deserve, back to the original start of this conversation. They don't necessarily belong on the front page of your website, because you're not making this group of people successful."

Ron J Williams:
So, I would argue that in this three way conversation that you're involved in, I hope that at least part of the analysis is, Daniel's amazing, and we love users like him, but that's not our power link. Not enough people are utilizing that in a way that actually is successful because it's not, and there's a missed opportunity, because my guess is what you're describing sounds super smart to me. I don't know enough about your product road map and customer base-

Daniel:
Well exactly. So, how do you communicate what you're not going to do? That's a conversation that companies need to be having as well. You're like, "Hey, listen, thank you so much for your input, fuck off." Because, you can't say that, you can't say like, "I had a really good conversation with this very nice man," and I was like, "I feel you and I feel for you because I have a UX background. I get you," but you're not going to get this same level of empathy with the average customer who's like, "Wait. Why would I click this one? Does it copy the link automatically into my clipboard, and when I click this link, it doesn't."

Daniel:
He was like, "Oh God. I'm really sorry." I'm like, "Well, I get that you get it, because I'm walking you through it," because I'm like, "Here's the work flow, and it's different." And he's like, "I know," but it's not in his power to fix it.

Daniel:
So, he's got this very uncomfortable moment where he has to communicate, but the company's not communicating. It's just one guy. And so, your friend who has four user groups and only one is in the high worth, high success lane, I'm guessing, how does he communicate to those ... It sounds like you were just saying to him, "Don't put them on your front page so you don't get more of those people." Don't focus on [crosstalk 00:29:12]

Ron J Williams:
It was like, because this was the time when it was early stage startup that it needed to just go out and raise more money. It needed to demonstrate growth. And I was like, "Listen, unless you ..." when I talked about the myth of mass market, I think part of boldness, part of bravery for a company and for humans, is focusing, is being willing to know what you're not willing to do.

Ron J Williams:
If you're not willing to change your product for these people over here, then stop selling to them. They're literally only dragging down your numbers. Moreover, focus on these people and make them even more successful because this seems to be, I know you want to serve everyone, but these are the people that it seems like you can serve currently, so serve them even better.

Ron J Williams:
Go spend, and you know what this came out of, interviews. It wasn't just looking at pages. It was let me actually do some primary research and do some rapid work ups on how these people are using your product, how they're succeeding, how they're succeeding without you guys, how they're failing with you guys, without you guys. Let's do that work.

Ron J Williams:
And so, the ability to come back and say, "So, this is what these folks are trying to get done, and they're mostly getting it done, overwhelmingly." These people are trying to get something else done. They've got a whole host of other problems and you're easy to kill in their budget, because they don't succeed on your platform. Focus on these folks.

Ron J Williams:
That was a reframe. So my guess is, there's a whole bunch of stuff as you said going on behind the scenes. That poor guy, he doesn't have a playbook. One thing that I would like to see more of though, is, and this is a dare to any company, financial services-

Daniel:
Open dare everyone. Challenge accepted.

Ron J Williams:
Open dare. What I want to see more of in the world are brands and companies who historically have benefited from obfuscation as a key part of strategy just because it's industry norm, just because it's, oh stuff's too hard to understand. The average consumer probably can't, so we'll tease out the major bullet points on what an effective APR is or what our policy is if you get out of our SaaS product early.

Ron J Williams:
Where the brands that in digital are saying, "Our job is to be radically transparent and to radically make transparent the industry in which we make money." In other words, if I can't make your thing, I'm going to point you to two other products that do that. I'm going to send you away, but you always know that the minute that you make it, and you know that. All I ask is if you want to know when we make it, because we love you, we want to have you back. Stay tuned. Stay involved. Here's the community, whatever.

Ron J Williams:
I want to see that in banking. I want to see that in insurance. I want to see that all over industry. Radical transparency as a virtue and as a differentiator. Anybody who wants to build that, I got people to throw at that.

Daniel:
Well. Not for nothing, it seems I was just doing another interview with somebody about leadership development and we were talking about how important it is for leaders to be transparent, because they're going to be seen, and everything that they do is going to be interpreted and misinterpreted, and how important it is for people to be transparent in their work and say, "Hey, so this is what I'm doing, and this is why I'm doing it. And, these are the results you're going to see and this is how we know it's going to work."

Daniel:
And, that seems to go down, that kind of radical transparency and communication of intent is down to the product experiment level. We talked about that. This is what we're doing. This is why we're doing it, and this is how we know it's going to work, and it's not because I said so. It's because we believe for these reasons and that kind of honesty and transparency is clearly effective on the human level as well.

Ron J Williams:
That's right. What does it look like for a business to say to you, let's say, for these companies to say, "So, the reason why we can't do that is because of this. We've got teams working on this other stuff," or "here's the way that we make, we make the most money when," won't be specific to that example, but we make the most money when you click this stuff here and again, not to harp on it, Credit Karma did a good job with that.

Ron J Williams:
It was all objective of use, at some point they started making massive dollars as a point of origination and acquisition for traditional players, traditional issuers in the space. And, they disclosed that and they're like, "Look, if the users [inaudible 00:33:40] but these pixels over here, these are the ones we make money." So, you should know that.

Ron J Williams:
And, that's a slippery slope, but at it's core, the idea of as a part of our value creation and conveyance to you, honesty and demystifying and making accessible information that is otherwise hard to parse or understand, I want to see more brands that have that at the center of their engine built.

Daniel:
That's a big challenge because I think it's hard to be honest about, businesses are in business for a reason and it can be uncomfortable to acknowledge, especially if you're trying to communicate brand value as a trust and loyalty and the behind the scenes of this. I'm sorry, we're not going to support that anymore because of this, this reason. It's too expensive.

Ron J Williams:
I think that what's also different, there are lots of things that are different today versus yesterday, but I think the other knock on effect of everybody being on the grid, everybody having access to the bullhorn, or the microphone, being able to pitch into the conversation and sway opinion, so we haven't talked much about some of the stuff that I was building before, but one of my central assertions on what we were building was influencer marketing, something going to have shelf life because Kanye can only influence so many things.

Ron J Williams:
That does not scale at all. Influence, the graph of influence, I may only have 10 followers, but they all really care what I think about puppy dogs or whatever my thing is. That is infinitely scalable and also is a wonderful, renewable source of, I don't have to know about everything, if I can tell my one or two folks that care about a thing that they really care about that I authentically believe in, that's interesting.

Ron J Williams:
And what I think is relevant here is, if the consumer is a more informed consumer, think about when you go to the doctor's office. Nobody shows up at the doctor's office without some version of an opinion conferred upon them by their doctor-googled medical school degree and everybody shows up with an opinion.

Ron J Williams:
Someone said I think there's an interesting opportunity to help reduce some of that friction in that patient doctor dynamic, but that's a wonderful, I think, example of the rise of the informed consumer. So, if everybody's got a mic, and consumers are more informed, why not just step into that truth and just be like, "I know you've all got questions. Here's what this thing means by the numbers." There are great startups that work on using machine learning and not as much language processing, to take legalese and translate it into plain language.

Ron J Williams:
I want to see that approach at the business operating level in major industries, that I think struggle to build trust with consumers. That is the opportunity. I think there's a huge opportunity in that truth, in that transparency as an actual brand and value proposition differentiator.

Daniel:
So, we're coming up against our time, because you've got a wife and two beautiful young daughters to get to and I don't want to keep you from that because that's actually why we do all this stuff. But, I was just struck in this moment. You have such an amazingly fertile mind. You threw off, there's two businesses that you were just like, this should be a business, that should be a business. I want to see this happen.

Daniel:
I feel like you have this amazing yes and brain, and personally I just want to honor that. I feel like we should just fund all ... what are the businesses that should exist in the world and just give them away for free and see who creates success with them.

Ron J Williams:
I like that.

Daniel:
This is my favorite question. What have not we talked about that we should talk about? We actually haven't talked too much about your story, which is important. We haven't hit on that at all, but also stuff that's about innovation and product assignment. What's important to say about this topic that has not been said?

Ron J Williams:
So, I think, well, my story is a little findable in small doses if you dig, and I'm also enamored of your brands. I think I would maybe ask us to close on the opportunities for future proofing this world that we live in, I think actually ties very closely to, I think, one of the big pillars of this podcast and your work, which is, who's in the conversation?

Ron J Williams:
And so, when I think of how we traditionally thought of innovation over the past 30 to 40 years especially, in a post digital world, and I'm going to speak candidly right here, because I think you always want me to keep it real. If amazing products come from problems, and our problems come from lived experiences, when we're solving for our umpteenth pizza delivery app, we're solving for, generally speaking, relatively privileged, Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley white guys for much most recent history until very recently.

Ron J Williams:
And now, it's amazing to see many more people popping on the scene, both as people of color, women, LGBT, all those things together, were both being capitalized networks, and also now, lending their privilege that they've been able to accrue to empower more folks. I want to continue to have that conversation around when there are more voices in the virtual conversation of innovation, more lived experiences means more problem sets that maybe you and I wouldn't think to tackle, come up with.

Ron J Williams:
There's a non gender binary individual that's living somewhere right now thinking about a set of things that annoy them, annoy [inaudible 00:39:44], that if they were networked properly, resourced properly, supported properly, would build something huge. It doesn't need to be a billion dollar business.

Ron J Williams:
We know it's all about niche and it's agencies. I don't care if it's a billion dollar business to start. That is actually an engine for, I believe societal and economic transformation that is worth continuing to dig on, which is when we have more folks with diverse perspective, that we are networking, resourcing, and supporting to solve problems that they see, the progress, the innovation, the pace, will be so much better, so much faster and inherently more diverse.

Ron J Williams:
And so, I think a lot about that. What does it look like to do social justice through the lens of the economic justice lens, where resourcing people to innovative is a core tenet. So it's more of a, that's what I'd love to talk more about and spend more time on.

Daniel:
So, two things, one, do you have a couple more minutes so we can just give that one more breath and then-

Ron J Williams:
Yeah, please.

Daniel:
... and now is an acceptable answer. I didn't want to ask you about that, because I didn't want to give ... I'm aware of the burden of asking people of color to speak for all people of color and so, I'm really grateful that you brought it up, because I think it's important.

Daniel:
My friend, Jason Cyr who was on the podcast a couple of months back, talked about how this idea of who's in the room organizationally will determine the conversation. Who is in the room in terms of is it a customer or is experts, it's a different conversation. And, this idea of putting the means of production in the hands of all people to solve their own problems and to enable them to freely ideate and to serve many, many, many populations directly without the intermediation of, oh, I don't think people really want that. Well, which people don't really want that?

Ron J Williams:
That's right.

Daniel:
So, what else ought to be said about that? Because I was thinking, the whole time you were talking about being the guy in the room who's talking to this group of convinced people, I'm also aware of that fact that you are a man of color and being, maybe feeling like an outsider in some of those dialogs.

Ron J Williams:
Well, I definitely do, man. You and I were fortunate enough to go to one of the best high schools in the nation, even though it's a public school, and that means that whether we recognized it then or not, we were surrounded by people that unquestionably will be folks who contribute meaningfully to humanity and in really interesting and in some ways, unbelievable ways.

Ron J Williams:
So, whether it be Bram Cohen who invented the BitTorrent protocol. It's nuts. Or, actors, directors, I saw Gabe Helper's name on the 30th show that I love on HBO, and I was like, "Look at that kid's name." We have these people.

Ron J Williams:
There is immense luck in that. We hit a lottery of sorts, and so I'm aware that there's privilege, but also still, yeah, I show up in these rooms as a six foot one, black dude with a beard who doesn't look like most of the people in these rooms I'm in, except for this one dude who's got a better beard who's on my floor, and him, I got ... not as [inaudible 00:43:26], this guy's got [inaudible 00:43:27] man, I got to find him. He's the only one.

Ron J Williams:
I think there is this open question of so two things, what is my responsibility? So, I've gotten in the door, and I think old world, it was hard to even conceive of there'll never be a black president, there'll never be, he'd have won the president asap, so unfortunately not this cycle, but the idea that you got to get in yourself and just take care of yourself, is easy and insufficient, because now enough of us, or all of us-

Daniel:
Well, I think it's very generous for you to talk about donating your privilege. Your privilege is very recently earned. For all the white folk who are listening to this, how should we be better in our ally-ship in that sense?

Ron J Williams:
So, it's guise, most of us and some are more, but most of us have some kind of privilege and I think just the presumption that if you have even a little bit, somebody can benefit from some act of generosity. It's an investment. And, this is the thing, if you wanted to just be hard nosed about it, you and I, I think, share an immense amount of value. Our overlap in value is probably pretty epic, but in some ways, I would accuse all of us who are progressive, almost moralistic in our arguments with folks who are, they see themselves as conservatives.

Ron J Williams:
Hard example, should everybody have healthcare? Of, fucking, course, I don't know if you have to bleep that out, but of course, morally. But you know what? Also, of course, financially. It is a bug of the system that you're going to pay for it some kind of way, conservative guy. It's going to show up in your tax base, conservative guy, so why not just ... let's just-

Daniel:
Let's plan for it.

Ron J Williams:
Like any bill, pay it off and early. Don't wait for the late fees. Don't wait till their account gets canceled. It costs more to get the lights turned back on. And so, I think in that way, when people think about diversity, my wife is a leader in the inclusion community around autism specifically, but really generally, it turns out, design principle.

Ron J Williams:
If you design to folks that have the most challenges in a system, even the folks who don't have those challenges, the outcomes are better for everyone. So, when you think about diversity as a thing that I'll do when I've got enough and I'm good, instead of, there's an immense amount of opportunity, whether it be old white guys who are VCs or young, not white guys who were VCs, in looking in places and at people and saying, "You know what, I don't even know your life story, but I know you're human, so you must have a whole set of perspectives and challenges that I can't even conceive of. I don't know, tell me about them, and let's cannibalize them. And, if I don't understand them, let me get somebody that does, and tell me if it feels legit and screw it."

Ron J Williams:
That's not just soft and squishy. That's not just ... it's actually good business. There's a diverse pool of needs and they're ironically, because they're often going to be somewhat local, somewhat tied to well-defined communities in either placed base kind of models or virtually, and again, because they're experienced based, they're the hardest ones for companies like Amazon to replicate, so actually more defensible, even if they're sub scale.

Ron J Williams:
What does that look like? That's a huge opportunity. And so, this is where I get to this place of we should do it because it's good, but for all the folks who are listening, who are like, "I don't know." I can show you the numbers. It's also good business.

Ron J Williams:
So, that's how I think we have to think about it is, where can you show up and be generous, because kindness is not a limited resource. Where can you show up and just shut the hell up and listen because listening is free? And then, where can our bias be towards less of the old school, old world, Rudyard Kipling philanthropy of my time and not be like white man's burden, and more of like, there's a huge about to be learning here and there are probably massive opportunities. How do I help? I think if we do more of that, we'd be good.

Daniel:
I love that. That's the we be good. We're good right?

Ron J Williams:
We be good.

Daniel:
I'm just going to leave the mike on the ground where you dropped it. I really appreciate, thank you very much for making this time. Because if we loop it all the way back around, this idea of the company listening and responding to a diversity of needs, what the company is willing to see is valuable and what they're willing to bet on will be determined by who's doing the listening on the other side, the mindset of that person and whether or not it's a diverse group or a person with a diversity mindset, whatever that is.

Ron J Williams:
That's right.

Daniel:
It's an honor. It's a privilege. I'm grateful. I'm going to call Scene.

Ron J Williams:
Awesome. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me on and for creating a space man. You are doing amazing working and having had a chance to watch how you are transforming people's perspectives in a room, I am more than grateful to be a friend, but I'm also grateful to have had a chance to keep learning from you man, so keep it up.

Daniel:
Thanks man.

Conversational Leadership

gayle-whyte.jpg

Today I talk to Gayle Karen Young Whyte, former Chief People Officer for the Wikimedia Foundation and currently part of the faculty for the Leadership programs at the Full Circle Group.

Together, we unpack the ideas of Conversational Leadership. In a conversation, there are usually at least two points of view, and movement forward comes through a give and take. The world asks things of us, and we ask things of the world...what we get is the conversation that is our lives. We can demand all we like of the world, we will get what we get. And just the same, the world will never get all it asks of us - we get to choose.

Leadership in organizations is absolutely accomplished through dialogue - leading through dictatorial fiat is not a sustainable model. That old mode of command and control is losing its hold on the world.

Gayle presents us with this idea of leadership as sensing and steering - of getting data and feedback from the world and “turning up the volume on what works”. Feedback loops are the essence of conversation and leadership.

The image brought to mind my episode with Aaron Dignan, founder of the Ready who asks leaders if they would like to ride a bicycle where they get to steer or one with a fixed steering wheel - you can only point the bike in one direction and keep going.

Everyone always chooses the steering bike, the ability to make little corrections to your course, rather than stay in a line….and yet most organizations are led like a fixed bike, with an annual budgeting and strategy process that isn’t conversational or adaptable mid-course.

In terms of the Conversation Operating System at the core of my book, this is about Cadence - having a lively pace of feedback, rather than a slow or non-existent one.

Gayle and I also dive into the importance of Narrative in leadership. Data is critical, but data, in the end, doesn’t tell us anything. We tell stories with data.

There are at least two ways to shift a story - one is with new data and the other is with a new story. And for this, Poetry is a surprising tool. Poetry can give us new words, the seeds for a new story.

My interview with Nancy McGaw from the Aspen Institute is another conversation to juxtapose here - she talks about poetry as a profoundly simple way to start a group conversation with depth.

Gayle offers that:

Poetry helps me tap into a deeper well, helps me get grounded so that when I go on with my day, I'm much more able to be responsive and not reactive.


Gayle reads us one of her husband’s poems, Mameen, which I’ll place in the notes for you to read along with. (It might help to mention that Gayle’s husband is the rather famous poet David Whyte!)

Gayle also helps us understand how to unpack poems with groups and help the words go deeper - starting with a story about why it’s significant to you or allowing people to choose a line that resonated most with them and to share it with another person.

Leaders need to be intentional in how they communicate with the world...and that’s work, to design all of those conversations. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did and you use it to deepen your leadership.

Mameen

Be infinitesimal under that sky, a creature

even the sailing hawk misses, a wraith

among the rocks where the mist parts slowly.

Recall the way mere mortals are overwhelmed

by circumstance, how great reputations

dissolve with infirmity and how you,

in particular, stand a hairsbreadth from losing

everyone you hold dear.

Then, look back down the path to the north,

the way you came, as if seeing

your entire past and then south

over the hazy blue coast as if present

to a broad future.

Recall the way you are all possibilities

you can see and how you live best

as an appreciator of horizons

whether you reach them or not.

Admit that once you have got up

from your chair and opened the door,

once you have walked out into the clean air

toward that edge and taken the path up high

beyond the ordinary you have become

the privileged and the pilgrim,

the one who will tell the story

and the one, coming back

from the mountain

who helped to make it

Links and Resources


More about Gayle on the Web


The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram


Unlocking Leadership Mindtraps: How to Thrive in Complexity by Jennifer Garvey Berger  


Nancy McGaw on the Conversation Factory on Leading Through Asking


Naomi Shihab Nye on Kindness: https://poets.org/poem/kindness


Before you know what kindness really is

you must lose things,

feel the future dissolve in a moment

like salt in a weakened broth.

What you held in your hand,

what you counted and carefully saved,

all this must go so you know

how desolate the landscape can be

between the regions of kindness.

How you ride and ride

thinking the bus will never stop,

the passengers eating maize and chicken

will stare out the window forever.


Before you learn the tender gravity of kindness

you must travel where the Indian in a white poncho

lies dead by the side of the road.

You must see how this could be you,

how he too was someone

who journeyed through the night with plans

and the simple breath that kept him alive.


Before you know kindness as the deepest thing inside,

you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing.

You must wake up with sorrow.

You must speak to it till your voice

catches the thread of all sorrows

and you see the size of the cloth.

Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore,

only kindness that ties your shoes

and sends you out into the day to gaze at bread,

only kindness that raises its head

from the crowd of the world to say

It is I you have been looking for,

and then goes with you everywhere


like a shadow or a friend.


More About Gayle

Gayle believes the world needs more leaders who are “able for” what lies ahead, who have developed the capacity to meet the complexity of global challenges. Working in the field of leadership for the past two decades, it has become abundantly clear to her that there are the visible, tangible, practical, and pragmatic aspects of leadership that need to be executed on a day-by-day basis, and then there is the work of caring for the the spaces between people, of seeing complexity and interdependencies, of understanding relationships and power and all the ephemeral things that still excise tremendous influence on the day-to-day behaviors of people. Thus it is the invisible work of leadership, the work of showing up, setting culture, and creating spaces for others to thrive that is the focus of her work. She believes in meeting people and systems wherever they are, and then developing people to work with the full range of who they are to meet the full complexity of the organizational system and operating ecosystem, working with the intangible but critically necessary human substructures to move a strategy forward.

Gayle Karen Young is a cultural architect and a catalyst for human and organizational development. She comes from a rich organizational consulting background with both corporate and nonprofit clients. She was in process of becoming a Zen monk when she became an executive instead, taking on the role of Chief Culture and Talent Officer at the Wikimedia Foundation (CHRO for Wikipedia and its sister free-knowledge projects) until early 2015 when she joined Cultivating Leadership. From high-level strategic thinking to practical implementation, her skills include leadership development, change management, facilitation, training, strategic communications, speaking, team building, and personal and organizational transformation.

Gayle holds a Masters degree in Organizational Psychology.

Gayle is passionate about global women’s issues and supporting women in leadership. She is also very much a geek that loves attending Comic-Con and reading science fiction, which inspires a passion for technology and its leverage for societal change. She is keenly interested in the intersection of technology and human rights and supports futurist humanitarian causes. She lives in both San Francisco, California, and Whidbey Island, Washington.


Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

I will officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Gayle. You are a rockstar for making time for this.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Great. Oh, I'm just delighted to be in conversation with you again anyway. I just enjoy meeting you, so yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you so much. There's an amazing quote on your LinkedIn profile where you describe yourself as the interface between individuals and the systems in which they work. Like your work as a change agent, is that interface. I just love that idea of being the interface in that conversation. Can you expand on that a little bit for us?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

One of my learnings, so I was Wikipedia's Chief Talent and Cultural Officer, was my official title. Chief People Officer, what have you, for the Wikimedia Foundation. And people don't often realize that Wikimedia Foundation runs Wikipedia and all its sister projects. While I was there we ran Wikipedias in 290 different languages, each with their own governance structures. You could imagine some of the complexity of that. In addition to the different language Wikipedias, then you also had chapters, each with their own governance structures that were geographically based. So Portuguese Wikipedia would be contributed to for instance, by both people in Portugal, but also people in Brazil.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So, working with incredibly complex, interesting structures where people felt deeply invested because that's what happens with mission-driven, volunteer-led organizations, is that people feel very, very attached to practice of processes, outcomes. And take things very, very personally because they are not just seeing it as a job, but a place that they put their heart and soul. There was the level of work sitting on the executive team that I was accountable for on a monthly, weekly, quarterly basis, with my project plans, and my goals, and my OKRs and all that stuff.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And then there's the work that I called minding the invisible. And it was essentially the relational, personal work of scanning and surfacing, and making sense of the organization and reflecting back to the organization. Which of course is comprised of people, were finding that sense-making and integrating that in terms of strategy, in terms of tactics, in terms of the very tangible. So I also, I would say that we always used to have to work with the mythic and the mundane at the same time.

Daniel Stillman:

The mythic and the mundane?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Yeah, you had to work on the story-telling. You had to work on the vision. You had to understand what the impact of the origin story was, the archetypes at play. But if you didn't have alignment between that and your rewards and recognition structure, and your values to your pay scale, and your benefits, and all the other more traditional organizational levers formal, and informal, that shift behavior within organizational systems, then you're missing something if you're not attending to the mythic and the mundane at the same time.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And so this work of interfacing, I'd say is having and holding my particular attention on that substructure as the organization is going through its work cycles that were agile technology project based, to keep Wikipedia not only running and having server uptime and all that stuff, but also keep it as a thriving force for free knowledge in the world. The belief system I had there as access to knowledge is a deep prerequisite for social change of scale.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So it's a little encapsulation. I hope it got at your question.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it did, and you bring up something that's really interesting because I think there's a tension...making the invisible visible and sensing what's happening, and surfacing what's happening. I always like to say that there's this phrase like the data shows "blank". And I always refute that data shows anything, that it's people who interpret data. And so there is this moment where you are an interface, but you're a lens also. You're focusing certain things and not focusing on other things.

Daniel Stillman:

And I feel like in my own current very weak understanding of what the essence of conversational leadership is, is that story-telling is part of making meaning, right? And not just saying what is. Even saying what is, is in fact story-telling. And then saying what should be, is also story-telling. And I think there's a style between yourself and what you're seeing, and a dialog between what you think the organization can or needs to hear. I don't know if that's a question. That's an ellipses.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Well, in dialog, there's an implication there about just what I would sometimes call fundamental reciprocity. And I really love the work of David Abrams years ago. He wrote a book called The Spell of the Sensuous. He was attempting to give a ecologists a language for which to talk about.

Daniel Stillman:

What was the title of that book? I'm sorry, I missed that.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

The Spell of the Sensuous, David Abrams, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

That's a great title.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And he, just talk about the nature of reciprocity and that if you are in touch with something, if you are impacting it, if you are letting yourself feel it, part of the interface piece is realizing that it, whatever it is, is feeling you back. That there is a mutuality there. And it actually reminded me, and there has been born out by leadership literature, that there has to be mutual influence available for people to be happy in their role. So if you're working for someone with whom there is no influence, I mean it could be asymmetrical influence, but there has to be some influence available, that people are generally unhappier and less more dissatisfied with their jobs if they don't feel like there's a mutual influence available.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So, there's a lot of ways they talk about this, about being permeable, about being an interface. But when you're talking about this dialog sense-making, story-telling moment, that's the human being as a threshold concept. Like when you say data is blank, which I love, that this is the sense-making being. Which is why I also encourage leaders I work with to also be in touch with their own bodies and their own trauma so they understand lenses through which they are sense-making beings. Otherwise, it's all projection.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I was part of a Zen community a long time ago, and my old Zen teacher used to say that people who are unconscious, it's like they're running through a household filled with hoarder furniture and trash and things everywhere, with two flaming torches, wondering why things are on fire. And I've always liked that mental image. It's like, "Why is everything on fire? I don't understand it even." They're the ones holding the two burning torches. So I think that's often what unconsciousness and unembodiment leads to in leaders.

Daniel Stillman:

We don't know the fires that we're starting, literally we are starting fires.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

You mentioned, I mean this is also in your LinkedIn bio, about you studying to become a monk. Let's talk a little bit about the pull of the spiritual and the pull of the world. Because you're here in the world now, you were fully in the world with your job at Wikimedia, and now you consult. How do you manage those two pulls? Because I'm willing to bet the pull of the retreat is still in you too.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Very much so. The best definition I think I've heard is that, an old monk had told me. That is about being one with your own life. And like many of them sayings, it's a bit of a koan and you can spend a while spinning your wheels on that particular one. Can you hear me?

Daniel Stillman:

I can. Yeah, yeah, perfectly.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Great, okay. When I got the call about Wikimedia from the recruiter, it was just funny, because it was turning more towards the Zen practice. And there was an interesting moment where I had a conversation with my teacher. And in the Zen tradition, everything is practiced, every moment, every meal, every role. And so, that really appealed to me as, can I take on the role of this Chief People Officer at Wikipedia with the sense that it was practiced? And that was actually incredibly grounding.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And it's not something I ever spent a lot of time verbalizing much within the organization, but it's a difference between also, within yourself you have a foreground conversation and a background conversation. There's the place that when I'm with a client, and I'm talking with them about their business issue, or their team issue, or what's going on in their world, I'm not talking to them necessarily about the background philosophy, of the layers by which I'm making sense of it. But it's something I'm aware of. And so, in many ways, I treated my role at the Wikimedia Foundation as sangha, as creating community and creating a place of belonging. And creating a space where different kinds of diversity, including your diversity was really welcomed.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And that we're an organization that struggled like many organizations to figure out how to deal with mental illness in the workplace. To be welcoming of people who have radically different styles. We had engineers who were completely brilliant when they were there, but then would disappear into depressive black holes. And you know what, that's fine. How do we create environments that are wide enough or big enough so that the full talent of these really, really brilliant, brilliant people have a home and have a place? And so this sense of creating communities of belonging, there's a lot of alignment there.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And then this like deity, day-to-day life as practice was a very key thought. And I find it still really relevant. I have a thyroid issue and sometimes when my thyroid flares, I'm aware that I have a different train of thought to what I normally would have, and thank God for all that Zen training years ago. Pun, sort of intended because the witnessing mind has that capacity to be like, those thoughts aren't really yours, you don't have to believe the things you think. And there's a certain level of liberation that comes from that.

Daniel Stillman:

I do know. You don't have to believe everything you think.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So it's been really helpful.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a deep truth. Let's talk about this idea of leadership as a practice. It's so interesting because I feel like with leadership development, some of it can be, I use the word "Woo-woo," because there's some people who look at some of the things we talk about and they're like, oh self lens, and sangha. And that's not they, they want tools. They want a framework. And tools and frameworks do help. And I'm sure you have tools and frameworks.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I love tools and frameworks.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. I feel like there's a dialog to use the term, between these two being and doing. And I'd just love to explore what you see as the practice of how can people improve their practice of leadership? How can people practice leadership?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

You know, I am in that sense, a deep pragmatist. It's, when you work in complex organizations, part of the way you navigate, and you sense, and you steer, is to see what works. And turn up the volume on what works, and turn down the volume at what doesn't. But part of that, believing what you think or not believing what you think, is getting actual data. And so many leaders and people in general, get lost in their own assumptions or their projections. "This is how I think the situation is." And so they'll bring that lens in, and miss reality, giving them feedback. Reality is actually different than they want it to be because they're not actually getting data.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So I'm a big believer in ... There's a woman named Jennifer Garvey Berger who's actually very brilliant at this. She talks about in her book about these habits of mind. But it has to do with how do you test on an ongoing basis? So if I'm going to try design an initiative, or to see how I'm showing up in a room, anything from the deeply personal to the systemic, how do I test it? Get some data, tweak it, expand it. And so I'm a very big fan of seeing if it works for you, and then letting it go if it doesn't. And tweaking it if it does.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And then we were working with super complex systems like the Wikimedia Foundation, coming in and pronouncing on high that you know the way, and this is what has to get done because you saw it work somewhere else. Organizations are different. They have their own unique DNA. They have their own values, and embedded practices, and organizational culture, which acts as an iceberg. And so, navigating that, has to be an act of dynamic steering, of paying attention to the weather that's around you. And doing a sounding, see if it lands, see if the language lands, see if the concepts land. And if it doesn't work, don't go there.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I mean, it's interesting because there's this boundary between you have to ... An experiment still, you put something out, and then the sounding is what is coming back. That is the process of practicing an experiment.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

What is currently coming my way from that? Which means you have to be able to sense externally, but also sense internally as well.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Well I think, the sensing internally has to do partly with being in integrity. If you're trying to drive change in an organization, people are really good sniffers, in general, for bullshit.

Daniel Stillman:

That's a good technical term, I love that.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

If you're trying to implement something and you're doing it, and you don't believe in it, people have a real sense of that. So I think that being in integrity with yourself, and carrying that through into your day-to-day actions, is going back to leadership as a practice, is really important. If you say you're welcoming and never have an open door, that shows.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And the thing that people don't realize is that leadership is a choice to become really visible. And I work with a lot of new leaders coming to that space, and they are often just surprised at the level of eyeballs and noise about them. If they walk into the elevator, and they're preoccupied with their phone, and they don't say "Hi," the level of noise around that. There's a difference between if they were individual contributors versus being an organizational leader, is a huge job. And so every action is put in an amplification chamber. It has every opportunity to be usually misinterpreted. There's a clarity necessary around alignment, is important in part so that your organization around you spends less time on organizational churn about you, than on having the tools and the ability and the grounds to get their work done.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. How can leaders practice more visibility and transparency? They seem like really important components of leadership. Because you are going to be seen in intentional ways.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

One is learning how to strategically cue people around you as to what they're seeing. So, the difference, I'm just going to make up this example, [inaudible 00:17:32]. If you deliberately come in at 10:00 every morning, versus 8:00 AM every morning, because you want to have two hours of very quiet work from home time, because you get inundated. And you don't signal to the organization that, that's what you're doing, it sets up a very, very different organizational reverberation than if you do signal to what you're doing.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

If you start a weekly meeting, and you start off asking personal questions without signaling what it is you're doing, then people are like, what is this? And in their uncertainty, people don't like to be surprised, so in their uncertainty, they're more likely to be defensive. If you start by signaling that you are wanting to build more teamwork, wanting to create an atmosphere where people know one another personally, so that when times are rough that there's some buffer zone, and you start with yourself, that sets an entirely different frame than if you just start a meeting asking random people personal questions.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So, as you design, there's a design, and then there's the signaling around the design, that helps people hang it into familiar frames. Then they don't spend that excess energy making things up. Because the capacity of people to make things up about what they think they're seeing in a leader, creates so much organizational noise.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and it seems like, and I love your use of the word design, the idea that we can design that frame, design that communication so that we show people the whole arc of what's happening. And they are oriented in this safe space, it smooths and ...

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And it's so easy to forget to do when you're busy. That's something that I remember in my, just being bewildered sometimes when I get misinterpreted. And it's like, oh I forgot to do that because it was so caught in the trap of busy this week, that I forgot that. And that's part of the danger of really, really, overly segmented lives where you don't have time to touch base.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And you asked a little bit about the role of poetry. Poetry helps me tap into a deeper well, helps me get grounded so that when I go with my days, I'm much more able to be responsive and not reactive. When I'm in a reactive, frenetic mode, when I've read Twitter, and the news that morning, then go straight into meetings, and come at it with this ungrounded place, it's a very different environment that I set as a leader. And leaders cast weather.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

A friend of mine, Jim [Geiger 00:20:10] said that. And I think it's so true. People cast weather in offices. And people are aware of the weather that people cast in the office. You don't have to be a leader to cast weather, everybody can do it. Some people cast more weather than other people. But as a leader, I think you have a particular responsibility to be aware of it and manage your weather.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. It's so interesting. I grew up watching cartoons and that literal cloud that people carry above their heads is there. And it can expand to other people. I want to talk a little more about poetry for many reasons, but bringing poetry into our work is, I had Nancy McGaw on from the Aspen Institute a couple of months ago. And she's very firm and clear about her bringing poetry into her work. And I was just talking to a mutual friend of ours about this. The idea that as a facilitator, as a leader, running an experiment that you don't feel safe in, people can sense your own lack of certainty. And whereas with Nancy, she's like, we're going to start by reading this poem, and we're going to talk about it. And it's going to ground us in something.

Daniel Stillman:

And so I guess, if somebody wants to get started in that form of grounding and sounding, how do we start bringing more poetry into our work? Because it seems like a useful thing to do.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I go back to where we started with our earlier conversation around practice is, start it at a restaurant with your partner. Start it at a dinner party, and see what the response is. Because if you have a few cycles of positive affirmation, or good responses, I think it's really, it can be really affirming. And you even just have to get the words in your mouth, the way that you might want to rehearse a difficult conversation first. It's much easier to do it if you've got the sense of the words in your mouth, before you speak it out loud.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Because also, I think poetry, most people haven't read poetry. I had a teacher who I loved, Mrs. May, who was our high school honors' teacher. I'm still in touch with her. It was only in her class that I remember, being subject to a lot of different people having to do Hamlet's "To be, or not to be." And it's so easy to read it badly. And so, getting even a sense of the kinks down and the practice of it, even if you're not certain of how it'll land, you have some small ground for which to move from, is really, really useful.

Daniel Stillman:

Some small ground for which to move from. That's a great phrase.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Yep, little ground. And start with poems that you know, that resonates, that are relevant to a particular moment. Whether it has to do with change, or whether it has to do with grief. And having a few of those that you have a sense of yourself. I think that you have to love it yourself before you want to actually introduce it. I think if you opened up a random book and read a random poem, you're a goner from the start, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Would you feel comfortable reading a poem for us that maybe we can ... Is there a leadership poem? I mean, we can talk about the one that you read before we started. But I'm just wondering where to start? Where to begin the conversation?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I have a lot of poems that I really love. I'm trying to just recall to mind a specific leadership poem. No surprise, there's an easy one of my husband's that pops into my head because it's a great opening into a couple different thoughts. And why don't I just start with it, and practice it. And I'll do it imperfectly, just to model doing it perfectly, because we all get to do that, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And this one is called, "Mameen." He starts it with, "Be infinitesimal now. A creature even the sailing hawk misses, a wraith among the rocks where the mist parts slowly. Recall the way mere mortals are overwhelmed by circumstance, how great reputations dissolve with infirmity. And how you, in particular, stand a hairsbreadth from losing everyone you hold dear. Then, look back down the path to the north the way you came, as if seeing your entire past, and then south over the hazy blue coast as if present to a broad future. Recall the way you are all possibilities you can see. And how you live best as an appreciator of horizons, whether you reach them or not. Admit that once you got up from your chair and opened the door, once you have walked out into the clean air toward that edge and taken the path up high beyond the ordinary, you have become the privileged and the pilgrim, the one who will tell the story and the one, coming back from the mountain, who helped to make it."

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I chose this one because as a leadership role, it holds the deep paradoxes of who we are. The fact that we are here to make an impact, that we're here to make a difference, and that yet we're ephemeral at the same time. That this life has a lot of the mundane. We have bills to pay. I just got jury duty summoned. And yet, we've got to also navigate deep challenges. A good friend of mine is having a really difficult pregnancy, and so her reality is very different than mine at the moment. And so these weights that we put on, we're all collectively dealing with coronavirus right now, so we're always navigating these different tensions and polarities.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And I do like this invitation in the midst of this poem, it's a reminder, "Recall the way you are all possibilities you can see, and how you live best as an appreciator of horizons, whether you reach them or not." This invitation to remember that we're ephemeral but we're also, we're bigger than some of this. We're bigger and broader. And I think that in really dark times, we close down on possibilities. I started my career as a psychologist and so I studied post-partum depression research. I was doing post-partum depression research in mainly Latino families, emigrant families in the Bay Area. And what I know deeply about depression is that it really is anxiety, it closes down your sense of possibility when you most need it. It's when you most need access to it.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And so this remembering that your possibilities whether you reach them or not, I think is a super, it's a beautiful reminder. And that's what poems do, is they remind us of things, they ground us of things. Mary Oliver has so many great beautiful questions in her poems. "What will you do with your one wild and precious life?" Or, the way that she asks, I think it's actually David [Igmatel 00:28:13] that asks this, he's talking about the beauty of leaves as they fall, and he says, "Who are you beautiful as you go?" Because they ask it using different words and different framings, I think it penetrates. And again, we're going back to that permeability conversations that we began with, that I think it penetrates more deeply than if I just said, "Hey, who are you beautiful to as you go?"

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

It has a chance to sink a level deeper, because your mind has to work at it. You can't speed read poetry, it doesn't work that way. So, I've really appreciated then as a consequence, creates grounding, creates spaciousness, because we need spaciousness for creativity and possibility. And I think leadership is fundamentally an act of, at its best, is an act of creativity. A bunch of acts of creativity, it's not really an act, it's a lot of full acts of creativity.

Daniel Stillman:

It's continuous. It's like a three-act play of creativity. A multi-city tour of creativity. So first of all, thank you for reading that. And it's really beautiful. There's so many lines that just go straight in. And I guess what I'm left with is, as a facilitator, I say when I teach facilitation, doing an activity, it is only as good as the unpacking of it. And how do you get a group to, not just listen to the poem but to continue to unpack it and to encounter it? How do you facilitate that conversation?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Sometimes I'll have them choose out a line that speaks the most to them, that's often a great one, just to get them engaged. And they'll read it more deeply. And then the discernment process of yes, this one, but this one more. And it's great with so many poems, because then it personalizes it, what about the thought or the idea?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Sometimes it's a matter of choosing the right poem for that moment. So, the upside of having a repertoire of some poems is, in facilitating a group, and say they've gone through a day to check in, it's on a day-one check in, where they're just telling each other who they are. But a day-two check in or day three where you're starting to get into some real meat about what they're experiencing, that's often a good time to listen for a few things, and just try to pull out a poem that touches those things that you already know has got a resonance in the group.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

If there's a lot of conversation about grief, I might use Naomi Shihab Nye's poem on Kindness. It's such a beautiful poem. She's got a line in it, "Before you know kindness as the deepest thing you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing." And so, it's this really beautiful riff on the deep relationship between kindness and grace and sorrow, and it's got such a beautiful container for grief in it. So finding the resonance, was it already there, is another way into it.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

I also like to create a bit of silence around the poetry because it's hard to just dive in and then dive straight out of a poem. So, if I have bells, I'll it hang. And then ring the bells afterwards. Or ask people to take a deep breath. And sometimes I'll just use a snippet, and that creates a bit more of a pulse. If I just talked about being the one who will tell the story, and the one who helped to make it, being both of those, what does that mean for you as a leader? That might create a little bit of pulse into the rest of the poem, and the rest of the context.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Or if you, yourself have a story around the poem, that's another really wonderful one. Like I was on the Inca trail for my 37th birthday, to Machu Picchu, and I remember memorizing Rainer Maria Rilke's, one of his poems that goes something like, it's been a long time since I've recalled these lines. "Here among the disappearing in the land of the transient, be the bell that shatters as it rings." And that poem had a totally different set of lines and different context in this really ancient place, amidst this loss civilization. And the call to presence in the midst of this very, very, very ancient land rang differently there. And so bringing your own story to it, I think is another thing that helps people access it.

Daniel Stillman:

And to connect to it in a human way. We're getting close to the end of our time together, and the thing we have not talked about for me enough is, I would like to explore conversational leadership a little bit more. And whether that's something that you define internally, or if it's, we talk about frameworks and having frameworks, is it something that you work with people on, where they know it? Or it's internal to you, where you're trying to bring people's deeper awareness to these concepts more subtly? I don't know if that's a sensible question or not. But I have my own ideas about what it is ... [crosstalk 00:33:52]

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

It's a beautiful question.

Daniel Stillman:

And I want to know what you believe it is.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

There's such a both ends to that, right? Because if you realize that, I use a framework [inaudible 00:34:06]. I think it's a 360, it's called Leadership Circle 360, and it has based on a model of leadership that recognizes two wings of a bird, the leadership is both about getting things done, and deeply relational. And both of those, in order to scale as a leader, in order to, particular if you rise within an organization, your ability to get things done with and through other people, has to grow.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And so, fundamentally, conversational leadership is about so many facets of that. It's about bringing people along with you because people are much more motivated if people are much more able to support it if they know what it is they're doing and why, at a very, very simple level. And that happens in the conversational space that happens in the story-telling space, in the rhetoric space. And the conversations are verbal as well as non-verbal. So it's the things you say, and the things that you do, the way that you lead, the way that you are in your leadership role. So the conversation can be something, one of the things I used say about being at Wikimedia is, that I thought that leaders had a particular requirement because it's so influenced based, because its a distributed relatively flat organization.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

But you had to be willing to be a face that people turn towards. And I worked for a leader once who said, "Don't bring me problems. Only bring me solutions." And I appreciated where she was going with that. I got what she was trying to do. But I don't think what she realized, and the thing that made me just cringe a bit was that she, by putting that in the organization, it had a chilling effect. And she was diminishing her ability to even if people brought her just problems to make patterns amongst those problems. And so being a face that people turn towards rather than away from, increases what I call a, because I'm part of a free knowledge movement, increases data flows in the system.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And because every human organization over sine the beginning of time, has been fundamentally a conversational endeavor. I even think about there's these gorgeous, this standing stone circle in the north England called Castlerigg. And it's absolutely beautiful, and it's been there since the Neolithic Bronze era. And it's set within this gorgeous valley, and I look around at it, and I'm like, "Who is the guy that just decided to convince a bunch of Neanderthals with no real tools that they should take a lot of multi-ton rocks and set them here?" That had to be an interesting series of conversations to even get that going.

Daniel Stillman:

And the powerful invitation, right? The invitation that the leader had of, "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions," I don't know if it's a she or a he, I might have missed that.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

She, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

If they had said that, when you bring me problems, bring me three solutions.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Yes, yep,

Daniel Stillman:

Which has always been my dream for interns. Tell me the problem, and then tell me three things you think that might help. That's a very different invitation to a very different conversation. She was being a conversational leader in that moment, she was just inviting people to a very limited conversation in some sense.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And, it came from, so a little bit of the background context on that, was someone relatively new in a role, first time in it, inundated a bit by all of the demands on it. And a few months in was attempting to control that by saying, only bring me this. And so even though I understood where she was coming from in it, like unintended consequence, we all leak of human things. I think we're very leaky in the first place. So trying to control your message too tightly I think is a really useless proposition.

Daniel Stillman:

How are we leaky? What is that? What does that mean that we're leaky?

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

We're leaky, we're leaky. Yeah, you think you were telling the world one thing, but people really do view as a, know you much more than you probably even like some [inaudible 00:38:27]

Daniel Stillman:

That's terrifying.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

So we leak. So integrity helps because it means you're at least leaky in the right direction. I even lost my train of thought, oh well.

Daniel Stillman:

You were giving the backstory, and I think it makes sense. She over-indexed.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

When we talk about sensing and responding, she sensed and she reacted or responded very strongly. And then she sensed and responded again, right? And it's this process.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And you can imagine that in that moment, that what she was trying to sense or respond to, the out of integrity piece was not [inaudible 00:39:10]. The subtext that was real, that people probably really heard was, don't bring me things anymore because I've got enough. So, you've got the conversation that her body and her being was trying not to have with the organization, and the words that came out, lived on top of the message that was actually there. And it's a little bit of what I mean by leaky.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

And so being strategic about your messaging actually does help in getting feedback. Or having a place to express, to people, for whom it's safe. And I do think leaders really need a safe container whether it's other leaders or friends, with whom they can be leaky and out of integrity and to get to express that because it needs to get refined. We want authentic, but sometimes authentic and overly raw isn't actually authentic. If people have a limited opportunity to read you because you're a leader in an organization and they don't have much access to you, part of your being authentic includes an obligation that they get the more refined bandwidth than the overly leaky messy ones that your friends might get. Because your friends have the time to refine it with you, as opposed to necessarily broadcasting it to 500 people when you've only got 20 minutes in an all-hands once a month.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, clarity.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

You have an obligation there to get both authentic and refined.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. That's really beautiful. Well, Gayle, I am so thrilled that you made time for this conversation. I'd love to have another one just about conversational leadership, another time I hope. But I'm really grateful for the time. It's been a real delight being in conversation with you.

Gayle Karen Young Whyte:

This is so fun. I'm like, are we done yet, really? Can't we go on? So thank you for creating this opportunity. And it's just really fun having a conversational partner with whom to riff and explore some of these ideas that are mutually so interesting. So, delightful to know you and your work in the world.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. And likewise.

 

How to Design the Life You Love

Ayse-Birsel.jpg

Finding an opening quote from my conversation with Ayse Birsel – One of Fast Company magazine’s ‘World’s Top 15 Designers’ and author of Design the Life You Love was a challenge, mostly because I delighted in re-listening to each moment of it.

In this opening quote, Ayse is talking about the joys of having a process that guides her in her design journey. 

Her wonderful book, Design the Life you Love is not self-help BS...it’s a visual thinking masterpiece and a guide to one of the most powerful and simply stated design processes I’ve ever seen….and I’ve seen and made a lot of them.

The double diamond of design thinking was my first design process, the first map to creativity that I followed, and it helped me design entire work engagements, hour-long meetings and multi-day workshops.

But underneath that framework is a deeper one: Ayse’s De:Re map. De:Re stands for deconstruction and reconstruction, and this idea is essential if you’re going to design anything well.

In the context of designing conversations, meetings and workshops, the key question is: What are the parts that you can see? If you can’t see the parts, you can’t shape them.

That’s why we love frameworks...they help us know what to look for!

The idea of deconstruction is controversial in some spaces. It made me think of one of my favorite quotes from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:


When analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process. That is fairly well understood, at least in the arts... Something is always killed. But what is less noticed in the arts—something is always created too.

-Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance

What is created through deconstruction is the opportunity to reconstruct something new.

Ayse asks us to apply this framework, methodically, to our lives, so that we can build our biggest design project, our lives, according to principles we can (literally) live with

What’s truly delightful about Ayse’s perspective is that many people still assume that design is for the few - designers. And that designers are akin to artists, disheveled and mysterious and creative. And that creativity is more magic than method. Watch Ayse’s TEDx talk, read her book, and you’ll see...design is for everyone.

The question is...when you look at a problem, what do you see? A messy mass? Or do you start to deconstruct the challenge into its parts?

This is true of a workshop or meeting or a conversation...what are the parts? Who are the players? What are the goals and constraints? Once you start deconstructing...you can start reconstructing a new configuration and a process to get there.

I could go on, but I don’t want to keep you from enjoying this conversation any longer!

Links and More

Ayse on the web

Design the life you love: The book

Ayse’s Inc Column

Ayse’s TEDx Talk

Her Athena Medal!

athena.png

About Ayse

Ayse (pronounced Eye-Shay) Birsel is one of Fast Company’s Most Creative People 2017. She is the author of Design the Life You Love, A Step-By-Step Guide to Building A Meaningful Future. On the Thinkers50 shortlist for talent, she gives lectures on Design the Organization You Love to corporations. Ayse writes a weekly post on innovation for Inc.com.

Ayse designs award-winning products and systems with Fortune 100 and 500 companies, including Amazon, Colgate-Palmolive, Herman Miller, GE, IKEA, The Scan Foundation, Staples and Toyota.

She is the recipient of numerous awards including Interior Design Best of Year Award in 2018 for Overlay, a new Herman Miller system, multiple IDEA (Industrial Design Excellence Awards) and Best of NeoCon Gold Awards, Young Designers Award from the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Athena Award for Excellence in Furniture Design from Rhode Island School of Design. Ayse is one of only 100 people worldwide to be named as one of the Marshall Goldsmith 100 Coaches—a program Goldsmith conceived during Ayse’s Design the Life You Love program—along with the President of the World Bank, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation and the President of Singularity University. She is a TEDx speaker. Her work can be found in the permanent collections of the MoMA, Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum and Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Born in Izmir, Turkey, Ayse came to the US on a Fulbright Scholarship and got her masters degree at Pratt Institute, New York.


Full Transcript

Daniel:

Thanks for making the time for this. Welcome officially to The Conversation Factory. I'm really excited to talk about, there's this quote in your book towards the end where you say, I used to be a designer of things, but now I am a designer of life. And I just thought it was such a beautiful... it's a beautiful idea, it's obviously core to your book. And I'm hoping we can start with what it means to you to be a designer.

Ayse Birsel:


First of all, Daniel, it's so good to be here, to be your guest. We've been talking about this for a long time so finally we're making it happen. So for me what it means to be a designer is to be a problem-solver and to solve problems at the human scale and humanistically. And then being a designer of life, how I define myself now. Because I think that our life is our biggest project, life is a design project.

Ayse Birsel:

And what's great about it is we all have a life so we share this great design project and it's probably the most complex of projects. But it has taught me so much in terms of being a designer once I made that switch. It really made me... I was already quite human-centered, but now it really... it's life-centered. So it's changed how I think about design, it's also changed how we do design with my team, how we think about people so it... and how we look at users as our co-designers as well.

Daniel:

Yes, one thing that comes up for me is, I don't want to call this pushback, but some people might say that life is not a project or a problem. And so is it correct, is it right to treat life as a design challenge? If I say I don't want... my life is not a series of problems I want to solve, it's a canvas I want to paint on or something else, is there... yeah.

Ayse Birsel:

Totally, you're just using a different metaphor. I use the design metaphor, being a designer, somebody could say it's a canvas, somebody could say it's an open book. I think what's common to all these metaphors is that we can think about our life creatively and choose to look at it differently and think differently. And my point of view, because I'm coming from a design background, is to look at it and think about our life like a designer and use design process and tools to approach things.

Daniel:

So I'm so glad we got to metaphor so quickly because there's the quote you have from Jonathan Haidt about metaphor in your book and I think it's so profound. You can hear me flipping through the book, gentle listener. Because this idea of talking about something as a circus or a beehive, metaphors frame problems but they also show opportunities. And so it's a very, very... I don't feel like I get enough opportunity to unpack the power of metaphor in the design process, how does it show up for you?

Ayse Birsel:

From one metaphor lover to another. So maybe a little bit of background on why metaphors, I mean, everything that I know that I'm an expert at is product design, designing systems, and services and experiences. And so I've designed everything from a small pen to a concept car and everything in between, including a toilet seat. So my connection to metaphor is not literary, it's from design research practice and it comes from... I've worked as one of the studios to Herman Miller, the manufacturers and the designers of the Aeron office chair among others. And when I first started working with Herman Miller, the design director there, Jim Long, who's become a great friend was doing research using metaphors and he was asking large organizations to describe themselves in a metaphor, just one metaphor.

Ayse Birsel:

And this refers back to Jonathan Haidt's definition of metaphor is metaphors are really useful for us to understand complex and new things in relation to things we know, so that you can take something as complex as a multinational organization, for example, like Coca-Cola, or GE or GM and describe that whole organization through metaphor and say, we are a beehive, or we are a circus or we are theater. And even though we might not know those organizations and maybe we haven't worked in those organizations, as soon as somebody says my organization is a circus, you have an idea.

Daniel:

Yes, a visual, an image comes to your brain immediately.

Ayse Birsel:

Immediately, so then the second step to that is well, how do you describe that metaphor? Because we're also loaded with biases and preconceptions so you could say, "Oh my God that place is a circus." And really think of this crazy three-ring circus where everybody's running around, all kinds of things are going and perhaps happening out of control. But a circus could also be a beautiful place where very talented people are honing their talents and perfecting them and so much so that they're not afraid of performing these really difficult tasks in front of other people. So the metaphor is important but then how you describe the metaphor is also important.

Daniel:

Yeah, unpacking it and seeing the other side of it is so powerful. The backstage of the circus is not something we often think about. Running away with the circus is such an amazing opportunity. If anybody has ever wondered, "Should I run away with the circus?" The answer is yes, you should do that at one point in your life.

Ayse Birsel:

Exactly, right? And we often... I talk about Design the Life You Love, which is our work at an individual level, but we also do design the work you love, design the teams you love, design the organizations you love with organizations and their teams. And we use this metaphor tool quite frequently because it's a great way for people who work there to bind and come together around an idea, but without it becoming confrontational. Because after all, you talking... if talking about each other, you're talking about the metaphor.

Ayse Birsel:

And sometimes we find that we'll ask team, so we're like, "How do you see yourselves? Describe to us your team in terms of a metaphor." And then there'll be one group and they'll say, "We're climbing Everest." And another group will be like, "We're in a walk-a-thon" and you're like, "Hold on one second, this is the same team." And the work is how can we bring them together and maybe around a yet different metaphor. But then you use the hooks of that to describe what are we doing to get there? What are our shared goals, what are our shared risks et cetera, so.

Daniel:

When you say the word hook, that's so interesting because I think I know what you mean. But I think for those listening you might want to describe like when you say the hooks of the metaphor, what are the contact points of a metaphor?

Ayse Birsel:

That's actually a terminology that I made up. So in trying to get people to understand how to use metaphor is both visually and in a literary form. The hooks are when you say, for example, "My work is climbing Everest." You need to unpack that and say, "Well, what do you mean, what's Everest?" Climbing Everest is something that few people can do. It's a physically and mentally really difficult task. You need a guide to help you go up Everest. You need to be ready for... it's very risky so you need to be ready for different risks.

Ayse Birsel:

And so what they just did is I'm making a list of the hooks in the metaphor. So then those hooks help you think about, "What does that mean for me? Is that for me?" So I often talk about the Everest metaphor as the CEO metaphor because not everybody is capable of climbing Everest. A lot of people can go on hikes but climbing Everest is something else, but then it also forces you to think about who's my guide, so who's my mentor, who's helping me prep for this who has experience doing it? And then how am I getting ready for the risks? What's my avalanche? So those are the hooks.

Daniel:

Yeah, so it seems like even in this small moment when somebody says, "My life is climbing Mount Everest, or my work is climbing Mount Everest." You're applying deconstruction and reconstruction in a very small window of saying, "If this is Everest, what are all the pieces of climbing Everest?" And so I want to talk about deconstruction and reconstruction because obviously, I'm a junkie of frameworks because I think frameworks are ways of designing conversations and helping us think better and plan, work better and be more successful in our interactions with people. If we're sharing the same framework, then we're having the same conversation. And deconstruction reconstruction was wonderful to me because it just... it's so different from so many of the other design-thinky models out there, it's so straightforward, it's so simple and it seems so linguistic and human. And so I'm wondering-

Ayse Birsel:

Thank you.

Daniel:

Yeah, can you just talk a little bit about a DeRe, as you call it?

Ayse Birsel:

I mean, as soon as you saw the deconstruction reconstruction element and metaphors, I knew that you were a framework junkie because this is the first time that somebody has caught onto that. And I was almost going to say something but I don't want to create complexity where it wasn't needed. But you're right, so my process of design is deconstruction reconstruction. And the reason it's deconstruction, reconstruction and not anything else is because it literally is 20 years of experience and expertise in designing award-winning products and then stopping, and I can explain why I stopped, but stopping and kind of looking at how do I think, many people have told me that my value is in thinking differently, but I did it with my gut, I didn't have really a process. And so deconstruction reconstruction was really going... kind of like a journey into my own brain and trying to figure out what's the pattern of my thinking, how do I do this and how do I repeat it?

Ayse Birsel:

And it has four steps in a nutshell. You can apply it to anything, so we've deconstructed everything from life, to laundry machines, to luxury, to management with individuals and with world class organizations. So deconstruction, the first step is taking the whole apart and seeing what something is made up of. The second step is then looking at those parts and pieces and intentionally shifting your point of view so you can see them differently. And you can see them differently so then you can decide which ones you really need, which ones you need to connect differently, which ones you need to get rid of. Which then leads us to the third step, which is reconstruction, putting it back together in a new way and importantly, knowing you can't have everything, so recognizing your constraints. And then the fourth step is giving it expression.

Ayse Birsel:

So for example, your expression of it is designing conversations, my expression of it could be designing a product, somebody else's expression could be designing a strategy for a new platform or your life. So the expression could be many different things and all come in many different forms, it could be written, it could be drawn, it could be a mathematical equation, it also depends on your favorite intelligence.

Daniel:

You mean like emotional versus physical intelligence or what do you mean when you say everyone's favorite-

Ayse Birsel:

Or visual or literally... yeah.

Daniel:

So do you use deconstruction reconstruction as an explicit model with clients? Because my understanding is that it's upfront, it's not necessarily implicit, it's explicit.

Ayse Birsel:

It is explicit and that's very intentional because that allows us... it has two advantages; one is we can deconstruct and reconstruct with our clients and they're quite amazing. Like you said, the tool-set is simple. So anyone can do it, you don't need to be a designer to do it. And so we can do it in a very multidisciplinary way. And the other piece of it is, you see where the ideas are coming from. So if you are a CEO or a chief design officer or a marketing officer, one, you can partake in the process, two, you know how people are thinking.

Daniel:

So I want to deconstruct this a little further because I feel like there's a really subtle point here, which is making it explicit is a choice. Making it an explicit process versus guiding them through it where they don't know that this is what you're doing. What is the value of having... sharing an explicit process with your clients as they are going through the process?

Ayse Birsel:

I think the value again is demystifying design where so many people think that design is a mystery. And I suffer from this because I often joke about you would know when you need to call a plumber, you would know when you need to call a lawyer, but nobody knows when they need a designer. And so in a way... and a lot of our clients are business people. So they are really process driven and so having a process allows us to be on the same page in terms of this is not all kind of fluff and inspiration, there's so much logic that goes into this. It's just a different kind of process, it's a visual process. But nevertheless, it's a process.

Ayse Birsel:

Does that mean there's no magic to it? Yes. I mean, whenever you generate ideas and solve problems, there is some magic. And I think creative people and innovators and designers live for that magic because suddenly you're in this messy complex situation and the process somehow guides you and suddenly you have a clearing and you see the solution and that's what the process is really useful for, it's a roadmap.

Daniel:

Yes, and so I just... it's wonderful to me because when I look at other models for thinking in the design world like the double diamond of discover, define, develop and deliver, I have used discover, define, develop and deliver to divide time across an hour, or a day, or a week or months. And it seems like, I'm guessing you can use deconstruction reconstruction to design a conversation over an hour, or a day or a week with your clients, you're using this metaphor, this narration, this narrative of your process to divide time. It is a way to design your conversations, if I may be so bold.

Ayse Birsel:

Absolutely, and it's funny because as we were starting this conversation, I was thinking to myself, it would be a lot of fun, Daniel, for us to deconstruct and reconstruct some of the conversations that you're designing and so we could do a little project and experiment.

Daniel:

Well, so it's actually funny, I have a sticky note here because one of the parts I love about the book is how you say, "Okay, soup, let's deconstruct soup." And then you have a point of view on soup, the kind of soup you want to make, and then you make the soup that you want to make. And I'm wondering how else you see yourself as designing your conversations. If conversations were soup, what do you see as the parts of conversations that you shape when you're shaping conversations? What do you feel like you can design when you're designing dialogues with your clients?

Ayse Birsel:

I love that question and I think that requires a longer time, but I'll... and maybe that could be a conversation that we do live and we deconstruct and reconstruct a conversation together with your audience. Having said that-

Daniel:

When it's legal to be... to meet in front of a piece of paper together because you're a drawer and I'm a drawer, I would love to do that.

Ayse Birsel:

So to that I'm trying to learn some of the new tools that are online tools, like online white-boarding, maybe that's something we can also experiment with. But coming back to the conversation question, I mean, one of the simplest models for deconstruction, a framework for deconstruction that's also in the book is the four quadrants. So what's the emotion of something? What's the intellect of it? Yay, there you go.

Daniel:

We got here.

Ayse Birsel:

So Daniel is showing me the four quadrants, exactly.

Daniel:

Because I love it.

Ayse Birsel:

So it's the emotion, the physical, the intellect and the spirit. And so those four things, and you can apply this to conversations, you can apply it to ideas, you can apply it to your life, anything you're thinking about. But it helps you think through something in a holistic manner. So what's the emotion of a conversation? For example, right now our conversation is excited and happy and there is a little bit of an unknown, it's organic and we acknowledge that at the beginning. We didn't practice, we're doing this live.

Ayse Birsel:

Then the intellect of it could be... or let me go to the physical. For example, the physical of this conversation is that it's online, we're using Zoom, we're seeing each other on video, we're using headphones, you're recording it. That's in a nutshell, the recording of it. If one of my daughters burst into the room, your audience will hear it.

Ayse Birsel:

So then the intellect about it... the intellect of it is, it's a conversation we build on each other's ideas, it's open-minded, it's also quite intellectual, but it's also visual because we're both interested in similar things, metaphors which are visual tools and frameworks. So that's kind of the intellect of it.

Ayse Birsel:

And there is the spirit of it, the spirit of it is, I think everybody can sense there's mutual respect and admiration and openness to collaboration and trust, that's the spirit part of it. But thank you, Daniel, because I had not thought of conversations across the four quadrants and now that we've done that, I love it, I'm going to use this.

Daniel:

Well, it's interesting because they are very primal quadrants. And yet when I look at it because the elements that I've identified in conversations that are designable... people often say when I asked them what conversations are made out of, emotions come up. But then I ask myself, how do we actually design emotions? And I don't think they're directly designable. And so then the question is how do you design for emotion or design around emotion?

Daniel:

Because I don't think if you're sad, you can't say, "Okay, smush your sadness." And we all know what happens if you try to smush your sadness, it doesn't go away. It's hard to make yourself happy if you're sad or, or be relaxed, relax. And when does that ever work to say, "Hey relax." Because I'm trying to get you to relax but if I say relax, that doesn't make you relax. So if you're trying to design a luxury car, you can't put luxury into it. You have to ask does luxury... what are the signs of luxury, what are the signals of luxury?

Ayse Birsel:

Exactly, that's exactly it. So naming it is not enough, you have to create the conditions for it.

Daniel:

Yes, oh that's so... Right, so that is so interesting. So let's address this, the designing the life you love because this is interesting, designing the conditions. And that's deconstruction, it's so beautiful, this is metacognition at its best. I think one of the things that we talked about before we talked about is this idea of reinvention because this is like when somebody, and I'm asking you 12 questions at once so I'm going to stop.

Daniel:

So one of the questions I'm curious about is how the design your life... Design the Life You Love conversation has evolved over time because you didn't... this book did not just come out of your head, it evolved. And since it's been out in the world, it's taken its own life, it's become a conversation of its own. There's at least several books now that talk about this idea. I think yours was the first that I'm aware of.

Ayse Birsel:

I think in the design world it was. And also it's different in the sense that Design the Life You Love is a process and tool book. It doesn't tell you what a good life is, it just walks you through how you too can design your life. So you were saying something about the book didn't come out fully formed and that made me think of Athena, it didn't come out of Zeus's head fully formed.

Daniel:

Yes, wisdom arrived fully formed out of Zeus's head that's because he swallowed it as a baby. But-

Ayse Birsel:

There you go. So-

Daniel:

Is Athena an important goddess for you? Just as a total side note.

Ayse Birsel:

Athena is a very important goddess for me, for her wisdom but also because Rhode Island School of Design gave me the Athena Award in 2008 even though that... even though I'm not their... I'm not a graduate of RISD they recognize my work in furniture design and so that was pretty cool. The coolest thing is it's a beautiful medal that has the profile of a beautiful Athena on it, so.

Daniel:

Can you put it up again? I want to take up a screenshot of that. She's almost like she's on top of a... she almost has tentacles. It's beautiful and there she's got her-

Ayse Birsel:

Can you see that?

Daniel:

I can, she's got her owl on her shoulder, the traditional sign of Athena.

Ayse Birsel:

Yes, and those tentacles are snakes. And then at the bottom there's, I think that's Zeus. I can't say-

Daniel:

Oh, he's coming out of her head, yeah... his head... and he's got a nose and mustache, that's so cool.

Ayse Birsel:

That's funny, yeah. So coming back to your question, the book didn't come out fully formed and the Design the Life You Love conversation actually started 20 years ago; not that I think about it in terms of years. And it was kind of one of those funny things in life. I was part of Women Presidents' Organization, YPO, not YPO, sorry. I also work with YPO, WPO, world... Women Presidents' Organization. Okay, I totally messed that up but anyways. And the idea was these women CEOs getting together once a month and talking and learning from each other.

Ayse Birsel:

And we did a workshop one day and one of the exercises in the workshop was, describe your goal in one sentence. And I thought, "What's my goal in and how can I do that?" And I was the only designer in that group of women and I thought to myself... I remember not taking it very seriously and thinking, " Who cares?" I was young and so anyways, I wrote the sentence, my life is my biggest design project. And the reason I said that was quietly that because I just wanted to differentiate myself as this is my strength, I'm a designer. And I said that in the moment.

Ayse Birsel:

So imagine that sentence came to kind of follow me through my life after that. And so then fast forward to 2008 when the economy crashed, I found myself with no work. All our clients took their work in house. And it was a very difficult moment because I was a new mom, my partner Bibi and I had become partners in life and work and we really doing very well. And so enjoying our life and enjoying our work and enjoying our family. And then suddenly the work stopped and I felt really at a loss.

Ayse Birsel:

And I think I don't have to explain it too much because today we're in another crisis and I think a lot of us can you viscerally relate to this feeling of what do I do now. And so and I didn't quite know what to do because I love being a designer and I love being needed. And a friend of mine, Leah Kaplan saw... she and I have been working together many, many years and she knows me very well. She saw how frustrated I was and she said, "Look, Ayse you need to think about how you think because you think differently."

Ayse Birsel:

And that, just that... in these moments I think you really need your friends because they see your strengths better than you do yourself. And it was so kind of important for me, that was like a lifeline for me to think that, "Oh, someone still thinks that I bring value." And so that's when I was saying earlier that's... I sat down and develop the deconstruction reconstruction as of at that time, trying to figure out how I think.

Ayse Birsel:

And then once I had that two things happened. One, I showed the process to GE and GE being very process-driven, loved the process and they gave us a project and that was kind of the turning points in our work. We started using deconstruction reconstruction with our clients. And I love... I just want to make a side note for... I love GE because every time we had a new process, new idea, they'd be like, "Oh, we'll try that, we'll try that." That's the best kind of client.

Ayse Birsel:

And then the other piece of it was a friend of mine who was a part of that original group of Women Presidents', Shirley Moulton. She and I were talking and we talked about Design the Life You Love and I talked about, Oh, yes my life being my biggest project and now I have a design process. And then she said, well, she had just started her company, Academy of Life about learning lessons you don't learn at school. And she said, "Ayse you want to do a workshop on that?" And that was the beginning of Design the Life You Love.

Ayse Birsel:

That workshop idea forced me to think about, "Okay, how would you literally apply my design process not to a product but to our life?" And so I had to kind of develop the content for that, do the exercises myself, see if they worked. And then and what I found is, so we did the first workshop and from that it grew word of mouth because there's something really about designing your life that people are really drawn to. Nobody needs any explanation about that. They might not know what product design is, but everybody knows that they can be designers of their life and they're drawn to that idea.

Daniel:

Yes, the idea of being aimless and wandering in your life. We all have to wander in our lives at some point. And then I think at some point everyone knows that it is nice to have a direction; to feel like one is taking up a direction in life. And so for sure, it's a core part of adulting and individuating.

Ayse Birsel:

Very much so. Very much so. And I think especially in moments where change happens and there are transitions in life we feel that need kind of at the core of our being. And that's usually when people come to Design the Life You Love.

Daniel:

Yeah, I mean we haven't talked about, and we're getting close to time is how that process of reinvention, how people can find the resources internally in these stressful times. Because deconstruction reconstruction takes focus and energy and there is a great need for reinvention right now. And I think there's some people who are willing to, or have the resources internally or externally to introspect, to deconstruct and then to reconstruct. But others, it's hard to adapt in this time.

Ayse Birsel:

Absolutely, you're right. This time could be the best time to focus on the longterm because the day to day is really worrisome. But we're forced into a situation our life is designing itself and turning that around and saying, "Hold on one second, I'm the user of my own life. I'm going to design my life and I'm going to do it with optimism and hope and creativity. And I'm going to develop my own roadmap for my own life for the long term." This time is perfect for that. And so a lot of people are reaching out to us and saying, "Yes, actually I've..." like people who have the book had told me, they pulled out the book and thinking about like, how do I design my life now?

Ayse Birsel:

And I agree with you that we have to listen to ourselves. So you might not be ready for it in this moment, but it's good to know that when you are ready, you can design your life and really think about your life like a designer. And so here the principles of design, having the optimism that things will eventually turn out well and that we have the resource to think creatively, having empathy for ourselves, recognizing that this is a difficult time it's painful and having empathy for each other that we're all in this together. But with that we can collaborate, we can help each other. And we can ask what-if questions have an open mind.

Ayse Birsel:

Think holistically, see the big picture, not just only what's going to happen tomorrow, but that we know for sure... We don't know many things, but I think we all know that life is going to change. And how can we make that change a positive change for ourselves, for our family, for our community, and then for our city. And then you grow like for our country and for the world. I think a lot of us are hoping that we'll come out of this crisis wiser and having learned some lessons and to have... maybe go in a better direction. So I'm excited about that.

Ayse Birsel:

And from what I found is that when you're thinking creatively, there's a lot of life force to thinking creatively. And if there's one thing that I learned through Design the Life You Love is that we're all creative, we're all designers of our life but we do need a process and we do need a set of tool. So you can't just tell somebody "Go ahead, design your life, think creatively."

Daniel:

So this is perfect because I'm looking at one card that I wanted to talk about that I think is a tool from your book that's worth using. Is there one of it, I mean there's a lot of wonderful tools in the book. What do you think is, I want to share mine because it's yours, but I also, I'm wondering before I share mine, what do you think is a tool from the book that somebody could use to optimistically start designing their life?

Ayse Birsel:

Daniel, are you asking me to kind of have favorite kids among all my kids?

Daniel:

No, no, just not a favorite. Just the first pencil you take out. You're going to use the pencils, just the first pencil.

Ayse Birsel:

Use all the pencils. So, it's a hard question to answer. I'll tell you the first one that came to my mind is the heroes.

Daniel:

Ding, ding, ding. That was mine.

Ayse Birsel:

You have to post your post it as part of this conversation, they're too funny. Yeah, heroes and I love your drawing.

Daniel:

Thank you.

Ayse Birsel:

Is that the shark?

Daniel:

No, that's actually metacognition on its side.

Ayse Birsel:

Metacognition, okay. So the hero's exercise, it's about inspiration because when we're designing and thinking creatively, inspiration is a key part of that process and helps us to get out of our own head and look for kind of like a bee going from flower to flower looking for pollen to make honey. As a designer, you have to go from book to idea to inspiration and collect different things before you can make your honey, in metaphor.

Daniel:

By the way, do you know that the beehive and the bee is a very ancient symbol of wisdom, much like Athena is? Because exactly of this, the bee pulls and distills and creates a permanent, I mean, honey doesn't go bad. It's an extraordinary substance that bees make. And this is what pulling wisdom from heroes do does so it's so profound. Please continue because I think-

Ayse Birsel:

I love that, I love that. So the hero's exercises about where can we draw inspiration? When it comes to life, our inspiration is other people. So when I'm asking people to think about their heroes it's really not superheroes, but it's about who are the people in your life, people you know, maybe a family member, or a teacher, or a friend or people you know of. And this could be the leader of a political movement or a movement like Mandela, or it could be an author, somebody that influences you. And so, and enlisting, why are they so inspirational to you? What are their qualities that make them different, a hero in your mind?

Ayse Birsel:

And it's really a beautiful exercise because what people don't realize, and I'm going to give away a little bit of the magic here, but when we think about our heroes and what's inspirational about them is we're really connecting with our values. So it's a different way of asking someone what are your values? What matters to you in life? How do you make your choices? But that being a really tough question, it makes it so much easier to do it through this lens of who are your heroes.

Daniel:

Yes, and in conversation design, I often talk about invitation, that invitations, truly invitational invitations opened a door that somebody's happy to walk through. Great questions are amazing invitations. What are your values? Seems like a great question, but it can be very hard for people to answer. Who are your heroes is such a different invitation. Anybody will just pour through. And then you go, and my last question, my second to last question was, what are some of your favorite facilitation tools? And it seems deconstruction... invitation and then deconstruction is still... because when I look at the book, it's inspiration and then deconstruction. And so if we say, who are your heroes? That's inspiration. And then if we deconstruct why, then we get to the values, then we get to the components very beautifully.

Ayse Birsel:

Exactly, exactly and a lot of the book and the design process tools are about getting people out of their heads, moving them into another plane and then having learned different lessons, having been inspired, bringing them back to their own topic, in this case, their life. So the metaphor is the hero's deconstruction, the four quadrants, you name it. And we have many more tools that we use with our clients. It's really to get people to think and to think by doing, without telling them, "You're thinking, you're thinking, think hard." It's just... there's a playful aspect to it.

Ayse Birsel:

Because it's... a lot of these things are very serious problems. So you want to get people kind of out of their heads, out of their worries so that they can think and ask those what-if questions more freely and then come back having seen examples that give them optimism that energize them and then that's when problem-solving happens.

Daniel:

Yes, not when there's stress and fear.

Ayse Birsel:

Yes, and for me, for example, a little anecdote. I mean I realized that these days being where we're at with the virus too much media was like poison for my brain and it really made me panic in a way and worry. And I decided that, I think I was telling you at the beginning of our conversation to have some, not only be socially distant, but also practice some media distance. Because it's, yes, we're in the real situation here, but my strength is problem-solving and thinking differently and looking to the future. And so you need hope to be able to do that.

Daniel:

Yes, and there's a... I'll put a link to this, I can't remember the name of the person who wrote it, but he wrote an article about how we're experiencing what he calls narrative collapse. Literally, we can't see the big picture right now because we're looking at the day to day where our noses are right up against how many... what's happening today? What's happened? Have they passed the budget? How many cases are there? Are planes open? Just details not are we winning or are we losing, what's next?

Ayse Birsel:

And if we have two more minutes, I just want to come back to that because something that really inspired me and this is again, I mentioned Leah's name Leah Kaplan, who's one of my closest collaborators. She sent me an article, and her husband works in the food industry and what's happening with, food and restaurants across the globe, but also New York, kind of the capital of food

Daniel:

I think we might've lost you for a second, Ashe, I'm not sure why. Test one.

Ayse Birsel:

Hello, hello?

Daniel:

Oh, I got you back. There you are, technology.

Ayse Birsel:

It says internet connection was unstable.

Daniel:

Yeah, it's all good. You were saying New York is the food capital of the world and it's serious what's happening.

Ayse Birsel:

And the restaurants are closed. Exactly, so basically with a lot of restaurants are doing in the moment is they are reinventing themselves as retail stores for their neighborhood where people can not only pick up food but also pick up food ingredients. And so this morning I did the deconstruction map of restaurants and then a reconstruction map of them as corner stores inspired by this article that I read. And it made me realize that only when you deconstruct the restaurants, there are one or two things about the restaurant, the dining experience, and the food preparation that if you took those things out and kept everything else in terms of you have ingredients for food, you are experts at dealing with food in a sanitary manner. You are part of a neighborhood. You are a trusted part of this fabric. You are very good at services and creating that human touch, right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Ayse Birsel:

When you start looking at that and then think, oh, the constraint is you can't have people in the same space so take that out, out of the equation. But more or less everything else is enough for you to create the beginnings of a new model and hopefully a temporary model. But so it's really about, I think it... I'm planning on doing this with some of our clients, but looking at, let's deconstruct you, let's understand what's essential, what are things you can transform and what are things that you're right now constrained and cannot have. And then with that, what could be a new solution service, business model that you can develop. And this is, I also want to do this with myself in terms of what are the things that I can keep and build on, what are my strengths and what are the things that I need to... I can't do workshops in person so that I need to put the side, but I can do it virtually. So it's, I think a good exercise.

Daniel:

Yes, very much so. And so I mean I think everyone should definitely read this book because intentionality in everything we do is worth doing. If you're going to do it, you might as well do it on purpose, I would say. That to me is the essence of design is doing things mindfully and intentionally if harnessing a beautiful accident is still intention. I'm wondering, I'm just-

Ayse Birsel:

I would agree.

Daniel:

Before we go there's all these beautiful books behind you. If there's another book that you think everyone should read besides your book because there's actually a nice pile of your books there too. I think everyone should read your book.

Ayse Birsel:

Thank you.

Daniel:

Is there another book that you think everyone should read?

Ayse Birsel:

Yes, you're seeing first of all, two piles.

Daniel:

I'm seeing five piles actually, but-

Ayse Birsel:

One is my pile of... Yeah, many, many piles. So, but I... Let me just tell you some of these books are favorite books and they're very close to me because I want to be... They're friends and some of them actually have become my friends because I've got to meet the authors. And then there's another huge pile of books that... I love books and I have a lot of friends who authors, so they send me their books, but I don't have the time to read. And actually one of my goals during this period is to read every day at least for 15 minutes, which is not a lot of time, but it does accumulate. But I'll tell you one of my favorite, favorite books I'll give you, how about if I give you three books.

Daniel:

These are your good... these are your best friends. I want to meet your friends.

Ayse Birsel:

They're my best friends. Okay, you mentioned... So a call out, a shout out to Jonathan Haidt since you mentioned his name. His book is The Happiness Hypothesis, one of my favorite books, but the ones that I pulled out for you, one is What Got you Here Won't Get You There, Marshall Goldsmith, I love that book. Another book is Dorie Clark, how to stand out, it's called Stand Out. You know Dorie?

Daniel:

Dorie's been on the show, yeah.

Ayse Birsel:

Yay, and then Give and Take.

Daniel:

Oh, Adam Grant?

Ayse Birsel:

Adam Grant, yeah.

Daniel:

Wow, they're getting on my... they'll go on my list, the ever-growing list. It's hard to focus and think right now, 15 minutes a day is a good goal. So is there anything that we haven't talked about that we should talk about? Anything that's missing before we can be complete?

Ayse Birsel:

I think we've talked about so many great things. Thank you so much, you are an amazing conversationalist, surprise, surprise.

Daniel:

Thank you.

Ayse Birsel:

I heard you wrote the book about that, that's coming out, so.

Daniel:

This is not about me plugging, but thank you. There's always time for that.

Ayse Birsel:

So maybe there's still time where I could do two plugging for myself. One is, this week we started Design the Life You Love virtual tea. So a virtual tea is anybody can come on and for an hour we talk about how is everyone feeling, but also do one exercise. We had a guest this week who talked about how to have... how to present yourselves during video conferencing. I did an exercise on there are many constraints so how can we turn constraints into opportunities? And we did that collaboratively. So if anybody is interested in that maybe, I'm sure you'll share our emails but they can email us and we could put them on our email list so that's I think one good thing.

Ayse Birsel:

And then I've also asked the Design the Life You Love community and my friends if they'd be interested in doing Design the Life You Love now since we can't do it in person as a webinar and people were interested. So if anyone in your audience is interested again, they can reach out and we'll send them the information and they could check it up.

Daniel:

Yeah, if there are some links that I can put in the post I'll definitely, please, I'll follow up with you and we can do that as well.

Ayse Birsel:

Great, yeah, that would be a lot of fun.

Daniel:

This has been such a pleasure. Thank you so much for making the time. It's a delight to design a conversation with you, to co-design it.

Ayse Birsel:

Thank you so much. I had a great time. This was the... We're Friday and this was the highlight of my week. So thank you, Daniel, thank you for inviting me.

Daniel:

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it.

 


Scaling Leadership Development

S3_E19_Cameron_Yarbrough.jpg

On today’s episode, I talk with Cameron Yarbrough, the Co-founder of Torch, a leadership development platform integrating coaching, behavioral science, and agile feedback. Cameron is also a licensed therapist and prior to starting the company, applied his knowledge and learnings to executive leadership coaching, working with high profile founders like Reddit Co-Founders Alexis O'Hanian and Steve Huffman, Founder of Twitch, Justin Kan, Partner at Y Combinator Gary Tan, and a bunch of other well known startup founders. 

Cameron offers some deep insight on how to step up as a leader and as a coach of leaders. We also dive into the challenges of designing a product for multiple customers and needs - his platform, Torch.io is designed for Learning and Development leaders to set up programs, and also for coaches and coachees to have a streamlined experience...all while working to deliver insight on the ROI of coaching - both top line and bottom line impacts on the business - spoiler alert - it’s a hard thing to do, but worth it. Why?

We close the interview with a Carl Jung Quote:

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

Cameron offers:

“To me, this is a perfect reflection on what it means to really look at your blind spots. If you do not look at your blind spots, if you do not do the painful hard work of bringing in, bringing attention to your blind spots, those blind spots are going to run your life and you're going to call it fate.”

That is what having a coach can do for a leader, and what a facilitator can do for a team, to be sure.

Cameron also shares his insights from his experiences in Zen philosophy and Psychology and puts much of modern facilitation practice in a larger context and history from T-Groups at MIT in the 1960s to Stanford’s Graduate School of Business’ Interpersonal Dynamics course today.

Enjoy the conversation.


Links and Resources

Torch on the internet: torch.io

Twitter at @torchlabs

Cameron on twitter @yarbroughcam

The johari window

The Peter Principle

On users, customers and power: Chelsea Mauldin, Executive Director, Public Policy Lab IXDA 2017 Keynote: Design and Power: https://vimeo.com/204547107 (ff to 7:00min for the “good part”

T-Groups

The Ladder of Inference

Stanford GSB Interpersonal Dynamics Course

More About Cameron

Cameron Yarbrough is the Co-founder of Torch, a leadership development platform integrating coaching, behavioral science, and agile feedback. Cameron is also a licensed therapist and prior to starting the company, applied his knowledge and learnings to executive leadership coaching, working with high profile founders like Reddit Founder Alexis O'Hanian and Reddit Steve Huffman, Founder of Twitch Justin Kan, Partner at Y Combinator Gary Tan, and a bunch of other well known startup founders. This is how Torch was created- Cameron wanted to create a streamlined process integrating a tech platform and real leadership coaching for executive level employees and founders.  Check out this article to learn more about Cameron: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/breaking-into-startups-torch-ceo-and-well-clinic-founder-cameron-yarbrough-on-mental-health-coaching/

Full Transcription

Daniel:

I will just officially welcome you to the conversation, Cameron. Thanks for making the time.

Cameron:

Thanks, Daniel. I'm really excited to be here with you and I'm looking forward to this conversation.

Daniel:

Thank you. So you know, I press myself to start these conversations differently every time by not planning out what my first question is going to be. Recently, I was in a conversation with some other facilitators and we had a conversation about what our most powerful question was. Do you have a favorite question that you ask people? A deep question?

Cameron:

I like to ask people what are your blind spots or what do you not see about yourself that you need to be seeing?

Daniel:

Can people answer that?

Cameron:

It's a koan, right?

Daniel:

Yeah. Can you say more about that? Not everybody is a as steeped in Zen. Perhaps ...

Cameron:

If you knew the answer, then it wouldn't be a blind spot, right? So what it inspires is a deep inquiry as opposed to any answer. I think that that's the spirit Buddhism and Zen in particular. It's not ... as soon as you believe that you have the answer, you don't. So the idea is to keep the mind in this state of looking and curiosity and openness.

Daniel:

I think that's really beautiful. It's funny because I recently said to somebody, the one thing you can't do is make a list of all the things that you would never think of because obviously, if you made a list of them, then you would have thought of them. Well, so this seems to lead into the importance of coaching and being seen, right? Like the importance of another person seeing you and seeing what you can't see or what you're not seeing. Talk a little bit about why coaching is important to you and then we'll hopefully lead into connecting that to what you're doing today.

Cameron:

I think that inquiry and personal growth has been an important driver for me in life since I was a child. I first went into therapy when I was six years old and I continued it into adolescence and adulthood and then I discovered mindfulness meditation and then I became a business person. I also pursued a clinical degree and a clinical practice myself. The thing that kind of holds all of these themes together for me is a path of inquiry and that is what is really, really behind a great coaching experience. That is the core of the formula.

Daniel:

It's funny because my mind is firing in a lot of different directions because I was ... I was raised by a family of meditators and was initiated into meditation when I was probably slightly too young for it potentially. I'm just amazed to see how mindfulness has become more and more mainstream. There's parts of that that seem really great to me that I've heard some vintage facilitators who are facilitating groups in the '90s saying it was just hard to even get a group to sit in a circle. Like you couldn't get a group to just like, well wait, why are we doing that? And now I can do a somatic check-in at a large corporation and people don't really bat too many eyes, which is extraordinary. What do you attribute that to, and have you noticed that yourself?

Cameron:

I certainly have noticed it. I think that there were a lot of early adopters around say say group discussions and inquiry and vulnerability, but a lot of those, that culture really kind of sprang out of psychotherapy circles and it sprang out of like the hippie movement and there was a lot of overlap there, but it was very much siloed from the business community. Okay> I think in the last 20 years though, you've started to, we've started to see those boundaries dissolve. I think there are big movements that have made that happen. I think, for example, Burning Man is one of them. If you just look at the way that spirituality and plant medicines and a great have entered the Silicon Valley, Burning Man as a kind of a melting pot and a place where business people and Bohemian people kind of come together and now the blind has blurred, right?

Daniel:

Yeah. It's so interesting. So let's loop back then because I want to connect self inquiry to leadership. Before we got started, we were talking about some of the really, really serious challenges that are ahead of us as, you know, a human race. Why is it important for leaders to be developing themselves? Why is it important for leaders to be inquiring into themselves and doing that work? Why is that work important now?

Cameron:

I think it's the primary way that humanity is really evolving today. If you at look at ... biologically, we're really, we haven't really evolved much in like the last hundred thousand years, right?

Daniel:

No.

Cameron:

But I think in terms of the way that humanity is really evolving now, it's in terms of awareness, of consciousness. I think that in order for us to solve these tremendous problems that we're facing in terms of artificial intelligence and automation, in terms of climate change and in terms of social inequality, these are massive problems that are vexing humanity. I think in order to solve those big problems, we actually have to be involved. I just think that that consciousness is the way that we are evolving to face those challenges as opposed to say biologically.

Daniel:

Yeah, and this just goes back to that fundamental, I mean was it Einstein who said it, like you cannot solve a problem with the same approach that got you into it, and it's really core.

Daniel:

I was vaguely aware of Torch before we got introduced. It sort of floated in and out of my consciousness. When I was looking at your website to prepare for our conversation, there's a quote, there's a statistic that's way up at the top about how leaders fail 18 months into their promotions, like on a fairly high average. I think that was from a McKinsey report. I'm wondering like, is lack of inquiry part of that? What are the factors, what is your experience about why that is happening? Like why leaders when they get bumped up, are they falling flat?

Cameron:

There's a really interesting concept that comes from the field of psychology called Peter Principle. It basically says that every person rises to the limits of their own incompetence. I would say that, that ceiling is created by your blind spots, right? So in order to really scale as a leader, you have to be taking very direct action to bring light into what you don't see about yourself. The problem is, is that's a very painful process. To actually take a look at your blind spots requires a lot of discomfort, right? Most people don't do it so they rise to the point of their own, the ceiling of their own incompetence and they fail. So what it really means to scale as a leader is to be bringing consciousness into your blind spots and stretch.

Daniel:

Yeah. My mother, who listens to this podcast, used to say the ceiling becomes the floor. As you evolve as a person, like whatever you tapped out at, when you sort of pop up to the next level, that becomes the foundation. More is required of you, more is asked of you, which is crazy and tired. Like literally as you were talking about the blind spot, I can feel the discomfort in my body because I feel like, at least for myself, I'm constantly trying to evolve, and boy, is it a pain in the butt. It's, be much easier just to take a nap, all things being equal.

Cameron:

One example of that is, you know, we have a product called Our Leadership Assessment. It's really a 360-degree view of your leadership behaviors. You take a survey and then there's a series of emails that go out to people who know you within your organization and then they also deliver feedback on what it's like to work with you. Okay? Sometimes the feedback is really positive and sometimes the feedback is negative. It's a painful experience because you're not going to like the negative feedback that you hear from your colleagues, right? But the reason is because usually what they're pointing to is your blind spots. You don't see your blind spots, but other people do see your blind spots. So unless you take direct action to do something like a 360-review or to participate in a T-group like we were discussing earlier, like Stanford GSP, the T-group experience is really important for helping business people learn communication skills. Unless you're participating in coaching, getting 360 reviews regularly, getting therapy, participating into your ... you're not going to see your blind spots, right? And you're going to avoid seeing your blind spots because it hurts, and that's the truth.

Daniel:

It does. So can we ... let's talk about operationalizing it because ... and there's a lot of pieces to peel apart because we're taking this very organic process of here's all of the stuff that's come out of the 360, here are all of your blind spots, and we're trying to help large organizations provide as many people as possible with these kinds of resources, which means we can't just have a haphazard approach. We have to have a design approach to it, and that's what I think is so fascinating about Torch. You've designed a process by which you can scale coaching, which is a hard thing to do.

Daniel:

Let's talk through the layers of user experience in the product, because there's the individual coachees, there's the coaches' experience, and then there's the person who's managing it, their experience. There's layers of dialogue that are happening throughout the whole product.

Cameron:

I'll start with the person who is the champion of the engagement within the organization and that is usually a head of learning and development. Typically, the needs or the pain points of a head of learning and development is they're working with limited resources and they're charged with distributing, learning and coaching and mentoring resources across a broad population. Okay?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

They've got ... and every single person is unique, so they've got to configure a learning path maybe for a VP that might look very different from say a new manager. A lot of these learning experiences happen in groups, so it becomes a very complex to administer. One very important thing that we're building at Torch is a platform that allows heads of learning and development to organize and configure to a high degree of accuracy learning paths for all of their employees. Okay?

Cameron:

As a part of that learning path, they will typically access our pool of coaches or our pool of mentors to help support people and their unique learning experience. All of this starts from the view of the head of learning and development, right? Now, from the user experience, typically what that person is needing is something that's customized from a product standpoint so curriculum and programming that is actually, that meets me where I am and then an interpersonal experience or a matching with a live coach or mentor who's really, really going to get me. Those are the two things that the user really wants and needs. At torch, what we're building is something that pulls all of that together.

Daniel:

I assume the coach's side is ... sorry, in UX we have a slightly and like getting light hives when we talk about users because only drug dealers and user experience designers talk about their customers as users. So like I'm just going to, I apologize for pushing back on this because I think it muddies the situation because the head of learning and development is also a user of the system. They are configuring the learning paths and then the coachee enters into that system and along their path, they get connected to a coach. That's some of your magic is that you've got a pool of ... I mean I was looking at them, they look like super bad-ass people, to help those coachees along that learning path presumably. So you're designing, you have to design their experience as well, obviously. Speaking as a coach, doing it myself as a pain in the ass so it sounds like doing it through you is seamless and wonderful.

Cameron:

Yeah. To use your language, every single employee, whether you're a brand new manager or whether you're a senior VP, everybody needs that bad-ass person to work with them, right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

I have my bad-ass person and she's amazing. Then our brand new manager at Torch also has their bad-ass person. On top of that, you need curriculum that meets you where you are in your own learning path. So that's that's the whole system. And I appreciate the pushback on the term user. That's interesting. I'm making a note of that [inaudible 00:15:24].

Daniel:

Yeah. Sorry. Sorry not sorry. It was a couple of years ago in the UX. It was like this, this clarion call to UX at the IXDA conference in 2017 somebody gave a talk, and I'll have to look it up, where they said that there's the owners of the system are actually the people who, like the bus driver actually owns the system. The riders actually own the system because they're the ones who actually enliven it and occupy it. Then there's the controller or the designer of the system. What I think is really interesting is how thoughtfully you're designing the experience of the head of learning and development because they have a lot of ducks to try and get into a row and your product is a way of them just to design that conversation in a way that is easy for them and that it just flows.

Cameron:

The interesting thing about heads of L and D is there's a lot of unique pressures on them. Sadly, they tend to lack influence within the organization and this is something that greatly needs to change. So you've got a person who will lack influence but then has a lot of pressure to develop the employee base, right? Then they've got to fight for the resources to get it done. There's a few ways that we're trying to empower them. One is through better reporting. So if you empower a head of L and D, what do they need in order to get influence and to fight for more budget, a really important part of that is very clear and definable ROI or return on investment, right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

We put a lot of resourcing and design, a lot of design resources into reporting so that our heads of L and D can then go and win the budget that they need in order to continue their initiative.

Daniel:

What are the metrics that are, that matter to report? Because I know that when I'm talking about learning and development initiatives that I'm involved in, there's like completion, but showing impact is often really hard.

Cameron:

It is challenging to measure but this is something that we think a lot about at Torch. One is completion, right? But you know, completion isn't enough. Interesting thing about completion rates, e-learning completion rates are typically very low. They're in like the four percentile, four, 5%, right? But learning experiences that come with a live human being are in like the 90 percentiles, right? So completion rates are really a lot higher when engaging with a live person. So ... but that wasn't your question. Your question was what are the things that heads of L and D are wanting to measure, right? So completion rates, are people actually changing? So behavior change is another one. And is the business seeing the kind of outcomes that it wants out of that behavior change? This is where it gets more complicated, right? Because it's complex, it's challenging to attach business outcomes to behavior change.

Daniel:

Right, because there's so many factors. It's just the butterflies flying everywhere and you can't give them a 360 every week to get that, the cadence of that dialogue, to use my language, it's like you can't ... I mean, what is it? Is it three months? Is it six months? Like what's the periodicity that you can retest on some of that stuff that's coming out of the 360?

Cameron:

You can retest people through 360s and pulse surveys, but really, that's primarily measuring behavior change. Okay? What becomes more complex and one of the problems that we're trying to solve at Torch is how do you tie that behavior change to real business outcomes, right? Things like retention or employee retention.

Daniel:

Sure.

Cameron:

Top line and bottom line. Those are the kind of big metrics that CEOs really care about. How do you tie behavior change at the employee, individual employee level to two big outcomes like that.

Daniel:

See, this is so interesting because where my mind is going is like how, in what ways do you work with the leaders to change their perspectives on what leadership means so that they begin to value these other human parts of things? Because just focusing on ROI is one of the challenges with late stage capitalism today.

Cameron:

Yeah. It certainly is. I think that what ... companies need to think about measuring our cultural health.

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

Right? You can do that through engagement surveys. You can do that through DNI surveys. You can do that through through just individual interviews and self-reports. So one thing that we spend a lot of time on is just measuring cultural health. So that's one way to determine ROI for coaching initiative. That's one way. Another way is to look at retention rates. Another way is to look at productivity in the terms of top line and bottom line.

Daniel:

Yeah. It's interesting because you mentioned, I want to go back to T-groups because I only have a passing knowledge of them. Is there a group aspect to Torch? Because when I was absorbing it, it seemed like it was really primarily what we're talking about is a way of pairing individuals inside the organization with individuals outside of the organization from your community and then a way to surface information about that to the heads of L and D. Is there a group component or a group element to the way you try to transform or evolve people's leadership?

Cameron:

In the past, in terms of how we launched, how we started out, we gave a lot of attention just to building the software to operationalize the individual coaching experience, that one-on-one experience. Matched with the coach, that's right for you, take a 360, set goals, make progress and measure progress. Right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

So those were, that was really [inaudible 00:22:26] want at Torch. What we're now, what's on the roadmap now is what I'm talking about in terms of learning pathing and the learning pathing is what allows us to configure group coaching experiences. So you're going to see more product development and resources coming out of Torch that are devoted towards group learning.

Daniel:

That's very interesting. My own personal opinion is that a group dynamics are ... you know, I teach and train on facilitation and collaboration and so understanding how we show up in groups is a very different thing than a one-on-one dialogue. I'm in a men's group and so I'm kind of curious, I want to like, can we unpack what a T-group is? Because I've heard little snippets from friends who've been involved in them. I feel like it'll be a mystery to most people listening. We are allowed to talk about this, right? Nobody's, this is not top secret stuff?

Cameron:

T-groups came out of MIT. I think they were invented in around like the early 60s. The T stands for training and it was developed for business people to learn communication skills, but then made this jump from MIT to Stanford GSB where it has evolved over the last 40 years. In fact, the the class at Stanford known as interpersonal dynamics, which is affectionately known as touchy feely, really grew legs at Stanford GSB and it's been the most impacted class at the GSB for the last several decades. That's how much people get the value that people get out of it. Right? So really, it really started from business schools but then it made its way into therapy curriculum, which is where I first experienced it because I trained, got a masters degree in counseling psychology. I actually met my cofounder in a T-group. We were in a year long T-group together in graduate school and that's how we got to know each other and trust me, you really get to know each other in T-group.

Cameron:

So it's a structured form of communication that gives the individuals a scaffolding that they would need to face really hard conversations that people tend to avoid. For example, conversations around race and gender and some ... in nonacademic settings, T-groups can touch on issues around sexuality and attraction, right? These very complex kind of taboo subjects that people tend to be afraid of, T-group provides a structure for people to broach these conversations and have a working through.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, so that's what I was curious about because I think the phrase that I heard was, I made that to mean where we reflect on our projections on other people in the process. I'm just curious about what the rituals and patterns in like how we, what the scaffolding is that allows these difficult conversations to be contained safely.

Cameron:

I'll give you a few examples. You've heard of I-Messages, right? Or this concept of staying on your side of the net. If I want to give you negative feedback about something you said in the group, I would be very, I would be playing within the quote unquote, rules if I say, "Hey Daniel, when you made that statement about X, I felt really angry." Okay, so that's like an example of a very, of a well-packaged, I-Message. T-group holds you accountable for taking ownership of my feelings on my side of that ... I can name a behavior or a thing that you said without projecting any intent or assumptions onto you. Right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Cameron:

Then you've got a facilitator who's going to kind of play referee and to make sure that people are staying within the guardrails of the communication structure.

Daniel:

Yeah. Having this very clear set of linguistic guardrails is so fascinating and it's so helpful too to just say that I can only talk from my side. I can't, my ladder of inference can't safely go over to the other side and say what you meant and what you intended. I can only say what I experienced and what I felt.

Cameron:

And it's so important for broaching really hard taboo subjects. Let's just say that someone says something that was racially charged, right? Typically, what people do is they'll just avoid the topic or they'll explode into rage or anger, right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Cameron:

What T-group provides is a format to have that conversation. There might be feelings, it might be charged, but there's at least a structure that lets both parties feel safe so they can dive into that conversation with a hopefulness that there's going to be a positive outcome.

Daniel:

Yeah. There's something amazing in facilitation that I've been exploring around this idea of having a shared story about what's going to happen creates safety, right? Because we know at the beginning and the end point is, and the end point is the group's going to end and we're going to leave it on the field, right? So we know that whatever happens in the container is okay to some sense, to some level. I think in a way everyone should be, should have some of these experiences of having that safe space to have an emotional gym, if you will, to work out those parts of yourself. What are the leadership skills that get worked out in that? Why is that such an important component, do you think, of developing ourselves as powerful leaders in the world?

Cameron:

You know, a lot of people take the class at Stanford because they want to learn how to be more influential, right? What T-group teaches you is that a lot of what makes people more influential is the ability to be more comfortable in the full emotional spectrum. So for example, learning how to be skillful with anger, right? Learning how to be skillful with vulnerability and empathy. Learning how to stretch within those emotional domains helps you become a more influential person. Think of the opposite. Someone who cuts off their anger, doesn't know how to be vulnerable, is emotionally guarded. Those people tend to be, tend to have a harder time influencing others in a group. Interpersonal dynamics teaches you how to do that.

Daniel:

It's interesting because that was the quote on this ... this was the sticky note that I pulled out from the interpersonal dynamics scores where it's like, how do you authentically engage? Engage and communicate. It felt like, okay, I can understand how slowing down and connecting can help me be a better engager and communicator. But this idea of authentically influencing, I think influence has a negative connotation and influence and leadership do seem to be intimately related. What does it mean to authentically influence? It's a pickle.

Cameron:

So authenticity is very, turns out, is very influential, right? It doesn't mean that you need to like the person or agree with that person, but there's something about authenticity that tends to influence people towards your will or it calls people into you. Right? You'll see leaders, like the president of our country is, part of the reasons why I believe he's influential with his base is because he's very authentic with who he is.

Daniel:

That's true. He does not hold back.

Cameron:

He's very authentic with who he is. He does not hold back and he rallies his base because people agree with him and they flock to that authenticity.

Daniel:

Hmm. Yeah. That's crazy. So where do you feel like people can find a safe space to practice authenticity and leadership skills in organizations? Because you know, the T-groups, they're outside, they're inside of Stanford, inside of an organization. One of the things I've noticed is when you need these skills, the pressure's on and it feels like well, let's just give it to Tom or Sally because they're good at this thing, and I'll just take a step back.

Cameron:

T-groups are called training groups for a reason. Right? It is a training group where you go to the extreme levels of practicing these skills, right? You wouldn't host a T-group within your own company for a very, very, very ... it would be contraindicated to host a T-group within your own organization. That doesn't mean you don't practice those skills. I practice the skills that I learned in T-group every single day. Right? I just, before this podcast, I was hosting an all hands meeting and I needed to show up and tell people the truth about some subjects and I had to really be open and honest and authentic about it. Otherwise, they're not going to believe me. They're not going to want to follow me. Right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

I learned in T-group. How to do that in T-group.

Daniel:

The flip side to that is many people would say that leaders can't be a hundred percent honest with everyone. I don't know if that's true or not, but I, but when ... how do you authentically decide what information to share and what not to share?

Cameron:

I think that's 100% true. Leaders cannot be totally honest with everyone. You have to be skillfully honest. Right? I'm not 100% honest with my children. It would be inappropriate for me to go home and tell my five-year-old daughter how stressed out I am at work. She's not in a place where her psyche is ready to hear that. It's not good parenting. So you wouldn't say good parenting means that you should be a hundred percent honest with their children. That's not right.

Daniel:

Yes.

Cameron:

What's true for me is how to be skillfully honest, right?

Daniel:

Yeah. I think that's an amazing leadership skill to focus on, being skillfully honest and deciding what feels safe to share.

Cameron:

Right. And for me, what does that mean for me? Well, it means not lying.

Daniel:

Yes.

Cameron:

Right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

It means sharing an appropriate level of context, which requires a lot of reflection. It requires acknowledging the group that I'm talking to. The level of honesty with my executive team is one level of honesty. Then there's the level of honesty that's appropriate for the entire, all 70 of my employees when I'm in an all hands. Right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

So you have to be really thoughtful about the audience and those are the determining factors for how you show up as skillfully honest.

Daniel:

Yeah. What I really, what I'm taking away from this conversation is a beautiful idea that the leadership I think we think of often as an external thing we do, we influence others. We lead the charge. But this idea that leadership is primarily about inner work, and I wouldn't say erasing your blind spots, maybe just exploring one's blind spots and stretching your range is a really great fresh definition of what it means to develop yourself as a leader.

Daniel:

Is there anything we haven't talked about with regards to leadership development that we should talk about? Because we're getting close on time.

Cameron:

One of my investors, Gary Tan was, in his podcast, was talking about this Carl Jung quote that I really love. It says, and I might not get it exactly right, but it says, the Carl Jung quote is until you make your unconscious conscious, it will run your life and you will call it fate. Until you make your unconscious conscious, it will run your life and you will call it fate. To me, this is a perfect reflection on what it means to really look at your blind spots. If you do not look at your blind spots, if you do not do the painful hard work of bringing in, bringing attention to your blind spots, those blind spots are going to run your life and you're going to call it fate.

Daniel:

Yeah.

Cameron:

That's your Peter Principle. You will hit that ceiling and you will fail at that level. If you want to stretch as a leader, then you have got to look at those blind spots. You've got to do that hard work. And yes, sometimes it's painful, but that's really how you scale as a leader.

Daniel:

Yeah. That's a really beautiful place to close out this conversation, I think, to not stop digging. So places where, if a leader of a head of leadership development is listening to this show, they can head over to where on the internet to find out about all things Torch?

Cameron:

We can be found torch.io, or on Twitter at @torchlabs, or follow me, @yarbroughcam.

Daniel:

That's cam, C-A-M, right?

Cameron:

yes!

Daniel:

Yeah. Okay, cool. All right, so those are the places to go find out about the things. Cameron, I really appreciate your time. This is important stuff to talk about and I'm glad we had time for a deep conversation about these deep issues.

Cameron:

Thanks, Daniel. I enjoyed it.

 

A Game Changing Solution to Gender Inequality

S3_E18_Eve_Rodsky.jpg

The issue of gender balance at home is a critical conversation to have. As Eve says, women are often the “she-fault” parent...the assumption by many men is that “she’s got it”...and “she’ll let me know what she needs.”

This will no longer do. 

(also as a note…Eve and I spend a lot of time talking about gender balance…but these principles hold true for same sex couples as well…however, it’s hetero-normative couples that have the biggest challenges! In either case, the insights about applying these work tools in our home lives still stands…)

Eve’s New York Times Bestselling book “Fair Play” shows the magnitude of the issue, and what’s at stake - if there’s no gender equality conversations at home, how can we expect them to happen at work? And what are we teaching the next generation?

But the real reason I wanted to have Eve on the show is HOW she approaches the problem….with a simple deck of cards.

Listing out ALL the tasks that happen in a household and then playing the game “who will hold which card...and why?” is a very very different conversation from “You aren’t doing enough”. 

When I talk about the Men’s work that I do, people often ask - what is it? What is it for? And yes, men need to start doing their own emotional work, and Eve and I touch on this, too. 

This is also men’s work - Men should ALL go buy and read this book and have this conversation with their partners: What does it take to keep our home life running? Who is doing what? And how can we make the split fair?

Aside from the critical social message Eve is sharing with us, as a facilitator of innovation and collaboration, I love hearing Eve talk about how these techniques of physicalization, visualization and play have worked in her own job as a consultant to shift challenging dialogs. As a person who’s been unpacking the components of a conversation in my Conversation OS Canvas, it’s comforting to see how powerful a physical anchor and a playful invitation can be in transforming a conversation.

Establishing the DRI - the directly responsible individual - is a key idea in corporate team dynamics...and it’s clear that establishing a DRI at home is an idea whose time has come. It’s amazing to see Eve leverage her Harvard Law School training and years of organizational management experience to create a gamified life-management system

to help couples rebalance all of the work it takes to run a home and allow them to reimagine their relationship, time and purpose.

I’m so excited that Eve made time to be on the program and hope you enjoy the conversation...and find a way to create more Fair Play in your home and at work.

Learn more about Eve here

And get her book, Fair Play here.

More about Eve Rodsky

Eve Rodsky is working to change society one marriage at a time with a new 21st century solution to an age-old problem: women shouldering the brunt of childrearing and domestic life responsibilities regardless of whether they work outside the home.

In her New York Times bestselling book Fair Play: A Game-Changing Solution for When You Have Too Much to Do (and More Life to Live), she uses her Harvard Law School training and years of organizational management experience to create a gamified life-management system

to help couples rebalance all of the work it takes to run a home and allow them to reimagine their relationship, time and purpose.

Eve Rodsky received her B.A. in economics and anthropology from the University of Michigan, and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. After working in foundation management at J.P. Morgan, she founded the Philanthropy Advisory Group to advise high-net worth families and charitable foundations on best practices for harmonious operations, governance and disposition of funds.

In her work with hundreds of families over a decade, she realized that her expertise in family mediation, strategy, and organizational management could be applied to a problem closer to home – a system for couples seeking balance, efficiency, and peace in their home. Rodsky was born and raised by a single mom in New York City and now lives in Los Angeles with her husband Seth and their three children.

Full Transcription

Daniel:

It means that I'm going to keep proper record on all of the things that I can just record on.

Eve Rodsky:

Okay. Good.

Daniel:

Which means that I can officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory.

Eve Rodsky:

So happy to be here.

Daniel:

Thrilled that you're here. This is the first time I'm interviewing somebody who knew me from when I was a kid. Do you think you're the same as when you were in high school, or are you different?

Eve Rodsky:

I think everybody has the same fundamental core, and we draw on some of that. But ultimately, I feel like a way much more evolved version of that 14 year old. I definitely don't wear a grill anymore, I don't have any gold teeth. But I think we're still ourselves at our core, what do you think?

Daniel:

Well, I feel like your voice feels familiar, generally. Even though it's obviously different, there's a core to your patterns, that are you.

Eve Rodsky:

Same thing.

Daniel:

I think that's really interesting, right?

Eve Rodsky:

I remember you being provocateur, that's what I would call you. I don't know why. I don't have any distinct memories of why I think that about you, but I do remember feeling like you were a little bit counterculture, in a good way.

Daniel:

Thank you. Well, it's interesting because Ron, who maybe we were all doing physics together, possibly. I can't remember now.

Eve Rodsky:

I think I failed that class.

Daniel:

I don't remember a lot of physics, Ron was a really smart guy and I remember he was also a smart ass. He was at a facilitation event I was doing last night and he was like, "You were just like this in high school. You were open and honest, and real." I was like, "I really hope I've evolved since then." So that's-

Eve Rodsky:

No. But I liked that about you, that's what I said I remember that about you. Just feeling like you were a reverend in a good way.

Daniel:

Thanks. It's funny, we just had our 25th high school reunion, June?

Eve Rodsky:

Yeah.

Daniel:

You came back and a lot of other Peglegs came back into my awareness. At that moment, I was like, "Whoa, it was a big deal, she's blowing up. What is up with this book?"

Eve Rodsky:

Thank you.

Daniel:

I looked at it and it's such a fascinating topic, and I really wanted to bring you on because we facilitate all these conversations about facilitation and meetings, and org change. I also care about how all of those conversation dynamics matter in everyday day-to-day conversations. Your book is all about how to transform maybe the most important conversation that we have, which is the one we have with our significant other, our day-to-day, the person we spend the most time with. I know you tell the story a lot, but can you tell me a little bit about the origin story of how you decided to undertake this project? Because it's quite a project that you're undertaking. It's a big conversation you're trying to change.

Eve Rodsky:

Yes, I'm on a quest to change a cultural conversation. But ironically, Daniel, things I like to say the biggest problems come from the smallest details and that's how they manifest. We can talk about what the real underlying issues are. But for me, I write about this in the book, but it really is a seminal day for me. It was a day that my husband texted me, "I'm surprised you didn't get blueberries." Maybe at another day, that would have felt fine. It's about a combination of where I was at the time, but you can picture that scene or at least picture with me.

Eve Rodsky:

But I was a mom of a second son, I just had my second son, Ben. I had gifts to return at the backseat of my car, I had a breast pump, diaper bag on the passenger seat of my car. I was rushing to get my three-year-old at his toddler transition program, my older son. In America because we value working families, those programs lasts like about 10 minutes. I'm getting this text in the midst of this crazy day I'm having and it just broke me, it broke me to my core. [crosstalk 00:04:19]. It was, I was like, "What the fuck is this? You get your own blueberries."

Eve Rodsky:

But really what I was thinking was, "Wow, if my marriage is going to end because I feel like I'm out of here, it should be over something way more dramatic. Like my affair with an NFL player or somehow a big dramatic fight in the Caribbean. Not over off season blueberries." But I think for me-

Daniel:

It's a bigger question, we should not be buying off season fruit because-

Eve Rodsky:

Correct. We should not be, no, it's disgusting.

Daniel:

The cost of [inaudible 00:04:51] is too high.

Eve Rodsky:

I agree. It's too high and look the fuck, why was I his [inaudible 00:04:55] his smoothie needs? There was just too many things that were happening to me. But at my core, I was thinking to myself, "How did I used to be able to manage employee teams, and now I can't even manage a grocery list apparently? But more importantly, how did I become the she-faults?" Yeah, that's what I call it in Fair Play, right? The she-fault for every single household and domestic task. It wasn't supposed to happen to me.

Eve Rodsky:

I grew up in a single mom, education was my tool out. I met you at Stuyvesant. That was our public high school, that was for smart kids who couldn't afford private schools. But my mother was alone and from seven, eight years old, I was helping her with her bills, noticing the difference between regular bills and final shutoff notices, eviction notices. I said, "I want to have an equal partner in life." Also on top of that, I'm a Harvard trained mediator, we're both trained to facilitate and to bring forth conversation. For me, the fact that if I was trained to use my voice and I'm a product of a single mom, and this is still happening to me, and I figured it must be happening to other people.

Daniel:

Right. People who don't have these resources.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct.

Daniel:

I want to just double stitch on this idea that the gender gap in both physical labor, organizational labor and emotional labor exists and that the cost is very high. I don't think people necessarily understand that there's a real cost to this. Maybe we can just talk about identity costs, the relationship costs, the wellness cost.

Eve Rodsky:

Well, I think I appreciate that. I think the first part that's really relevant, especially to your listeners, right, is the cost of your relationship. When you go with an unbridled resentment for a long period of time because you're surprised in how your life is turning out. Because then what that turns into from that unbridled resentment is also how you start feeling about yourself worth as a woman, especially in a cisgender hetero relationship. But still this affects same sex relationships. I have a really good data set to share with you, but we'll talk hetero cisgender right now, right?

Eve Rodsky:

Because this is a man woman problem, this is a gender division of labor issue. I'm very clear that I'm talking to men and women. What happens is you get this unbridled resentment and then it starts changing who you are as a human being. Then what starts happening is that you may want to opt out of the workforce because the domestic workload, especially after kids is too high. Then all of a sudden, you're in a place where you're surprised. There's a lot of data about how people end up surprised that things don't look the same in midlife as they thought they were going to.

Eve Rodsky:

I think, Daniel, too many people are talking about the life-changing magic of organizing your junk drawer, that's fine. But really I believe there's life-changing magic in long term thinking, and setting up systems and habits to allow for that planning. Data shows that when you plan, your life may not turn out exactly the way you wanted it to, but it looks a lot better than if you don't.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, so the thing that I really enjoyed, there was a story you tell about how, and maybe this is just what women are taught I don't know when these things happen, by the way. I studied conversation dynamics and men talk more than women. There's some data that shows that in groups, men talk more than women. When they talk, they hold the floor longer, and that they interrupt women more than they interrupt men. I don't know where this comes from. I do know that women say to me, "I feel like I can't speak up or that it's not okay to break in to the conversation." There was this quote you had of like, "You're already communicating. It's not a story to share."

Eve Rodsky:

Yes.

Daniel:

The wet laundry on the pillow story.

Eve Rodsky:

Okay, let's talk about that talk. Let's talk about how women communicate. Let's talk about women and men, but let's talk especially about women.

Daniel:

Get effective communication, right?

Eve Rodsky:

Correct. Well, I think, yes, men may talk longer, holds the floor in work situations. But actually what I find is, a lot of men retreat in the home, right? Why are they retreating? Well, I think one of the funny things is that, I have men and women saying to me, "We don't communicate about domestic life, right? We've never had these types of conversations." One of my favorite provocative questions to ask is, "Recite your wedding vows, and tell me how you're living them on a daily basis," right? People look at me like I'm insane, right.

Eve Rodsky:

Basically, what's happening is we start getting to these patterns because we're not conversing, we're not investing in our home conversations. What happened or we were supposed to just think we're going to figure it out, or that it's not sexy, or it's not fun to talk about systems or domestic life. But when you do, "Don't do that." I had a lot of women especially say to me, "I can't communicate with my partner, I just can't. It's too triggering. To ask him to hold cards or to tell him to do more," or whatever they thought their play was about, because it's not about that.

Eve Rodsky:

But that's what they were saying to me, and I said, "Well, you don't communicate about domestic life really?" They'd say, "No. We just don't." Okay, so one woman says that to me, right? Ironically as you were saying, 20 minutes later, she's telling me about the time that she's dumping wet clothes in her husband's pillow and he forgot to put the wet clothes from the washer into the dryer.

Daniel:

Then they get sticky, do you wash again?

Eve Rodsky:

Right. Why are they on this pillow, what about the woman who said to me she doesn't communicate about domestic life, but then I find out she has an Instagram account called the shit my husband doesn't pick up. She's publicly shaming him on Instagram every time he leaves something on the floor. Don't tell me you're not communicating about domestic life. In your previous relationship and you're in one now, I could go onto your next camera and I'll see five ways you've communicated about domestic life today, and you know that, right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Eve Rodsky:

We can see that communication happening, but people think they're not communicating. What I'd like to say is you are already communicating. I'm asking for a conversation shift, not a start.

Daniel:

There's another way that I think women are communicating, which is, I have this quote here, which you mentioned in one of your interviews but I've heard it said by my mother. By the way, my mother and my fiancé will listen to this interview.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh, good.

Daniel:

I will be held to task no matter what. But this idea of and the time it takes me to explain it, blah, blah, blah, I might as well just do it myself. That's another thing that is communicated. I think so in UX and there will be design flow goes into this. In the design world, we talk of this idea of de-skilling users. If we do something-

Eve Rodsky:

Ah, I love that.

Daniel:

This is a dangerous topic, I was thinking of this on my way over. I do not want to accuse women of de-skilling men.

Eve Rodsky:

No. But they are.

Daniel:

For their capability, but that they are communicating always, "I've got this." Certainly, my dad will be like, "I'll just wait until she tells me exactly what to do and then I won't get into trouble."

Eve Rodsky:

Correct. That is the number one thing why Fair Play became a love letter to men, is because we are 100% de-skilling men. I think that happening is a culture. This is why I want to get to the crux of my findings before we get into the meat of the solution. Which is, after interviewing 500 men and women that mirrored the US census, which took a long fricking time. But I did it because I wanted to understand why these small details were causing the biggest problems, right?

Eve Rodsky:

That I'm crying obviously over the blueberries, that I have a man in White Plains, New York, telling me he's locked out of his house over a glue stick, and he doesn't know whether he can go back home because he forgot. He got a random text in the middle of his day to bring home a glue stick and he forgot, and then his wife lost it. On her side, right, she'd been working three weeks on a homework project. She just needed that glue stick to put the damn higher Albert Einstein pictures on the poster board.

Daniel:

But the stakes are high, though-

Eve Rodsky:

Exactly. They're the manifesting small. But like you said, the stakes are high, but a very provocative core crux of what I found was that men and women in society don't value women's time, the same that we value men. Men's time as diamonds in our society and women's time is sand. What happens is that women, and this is back to the de-skilling of men, women became the worst purveyors of these societal messages that their time is invaluable. We know from a male perspective and societal perspective, right, when men are making decisions and corporations-

Daniel:

I heard her speaking over there, by the way.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh my God, amazing. She has All Time is Critical Equal, I love it. Can we take a picture of you holding that up? Hold on.

Daniel:

Absolutely. Sure.

Eve Rodsky:

I'm going to reverse.

Daniel:

-seeing it.

Eve Rodsky:

I love it, and this is so cool. Okay, I'm going to have to post that, okay.

Daniel:

But why would it be the case, do you have a sense of ... We know that that is the perception.

Eve Rodsky:

Well, especially from pay of equity, right? We know that in the workplace, that a woman's hour as a doctor is not paid the same. We know that society doesn't value our time the same because they don't pay us the same for it. But what happens when women start saying that to themselves. Well, I had women all over saying things to me, "I'm wired differently. I'm a better multitasker, that's why I'm doing it." Well, there's no difference, Daniel, in our brain's ability to multitask. It's actually very shaming to men to say that somehow you guys don't have executive function to pick up groceries, it's just bullshit.

Eve Rodsky:

One crotchety neuroscientists, my favorite old dude, white dude, looked at me when I said, "Are women wired differently, because a lot of women are saying to me that they're doing extra work in the home because their brains are different, and they have better executive function than men." This guy just looks at me and he goes, "Eve, imagine we could convince half the population that they're better at wiping asses and doing dishes? How great for the other half of the population?" Then other women were saying exactly what you said to me, Daniel, which is in the time it takes me to tell him what to do, I might as well do it myself.

Eve Rodsky:

I went to the top behavioral economists, the professors in the world, and they said that's a terrible argument to de-skill men like that. Because if we're not inviting them into the home and you keep saying all the time, "It takes you to tell you what to do, I'll do it myself." Women are going to keep doing it over and over, whatever it is; wiping asses, doing dishes. Then we're going to be freaking resentful of you guys. Then we're going to divorce over it, 30% of divorces are about these issues.

Daniel:

I would call them roommate issues.

Eve Rodsky:

Roommate issues.

Daniel:

My first wife and I, think just young and stupid and you don't know how to communicate, but it is just the roommate issues. I like it one way, you like it another, how are we arguing over whether or not this sponge should be this way?

Eve Rodsky:

A sponge in this thing has caused two divorces in my data set. That's a lot.

Daniel:

Yeah. It's just wonderful. One thing I want to point out is this idea of that the communication is happening and that conversations, this is my own ax to grind, is that conversations have a place. The conversation shouldn't be happening on the wet pillow, right?

Eve Rodsky:

Yes. I love that. Conversations have a place, that's a great quote.

Daniel:

Well, they exist somewhere. What I love about the cards, and I don't know if we're ready to get there, but-

Eve Rodsky:

Yes. Let's go there.

Daniel:

What immediately sparked me about the cards was, women's time is less valued because it's invisible; all the million little things where you're thinking forward in five steps. We have to get this so that we can do this. Then I have to have that thing so we can have this. When you make all of the work visible, you can then have a conversation about the visibility of who's holding the cards.

Eve Rodsky:

I love that because that's right. It's not about you, right? We're in a relationship, right, Daniel, it's not about you. The fact that you grew up with your mom putting the sponge on the side of the sink and not inside, and there's bacteria on that sponge. It becomes not about you, it doesn't become about me, it becomes about the work. I think the most productive conversation end up being about the work, whatever you're trying to do. If things are getting in the way, whether they're implicit bias, that's what you're working on.

Eve Rodsky:

You're getting people to stop interrupting others or whatever you're doing to make ultimately the conversation about the work. For me cards, as a mediator, as a facilitator for high net worth families, my day job is I work with families that look like HBO show, Succession. One of the issues, right, when they hire me, usually it's when they have at least 150 million in their foundation. They're hiring me to work on a succession plan for their giving their family business. But what happens, right, if you go into a patriarch who's hired you or their family office has hired you.

Eve Rodsky:

When you say, "Well, tell me about your succession," and they say, "Well, I'm not going to die." Well, then there's no conversation, right, that's what happens. Where is the place that you say conversations have a place? Well, there's no place if you're willing to just dead the conversation. What I found was that, once I used cards to gamify like, "What does your legacy look like, does it look like a clock, does it look like a coin?" I had even the most difficult patriarchs who had made billions of dollars in their lives, millions and millions of dollars in their lives open up to me.

Eve Rodsky:

To say, "Well, actually my legacy looks like a coin because my father gave me my first five cents to start my paper routes." It's a tool, so Fair Play ultimately is a card game. You hold a hundred cards that represent every single domestic task. You would have to do 60, if you don't have kids. You're added 40 additional, if you have children. So make people out there rethink about whether they want those kids or not. Then what you do is you hold each card with full ownership. It's not rocket science, it's a very easy card game you play.

Daniel:

I want to talk about ownership because I have a sticky note.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh, good. I want to take another picture of your sticky note.

Daniel:

Well, because there's so many things here in it. What I love about your work is, I have a sticky note from a previous interview I did.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh cool. Can I see it?

Daniel:

Yeah. Sure.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh, cool.

Daniel:

Esther Derby writes about organizational change and she talks about how we're very bad at temporal reasoning, but we're really good at spatial reasoning.

Eve Rodsky:

Cool. That sounds interesting.

Daniel:

Oh, and I love how you are physicalizing the conversation about gender, but also in your mediation and family planning stuff, using metaphor and visualization. I know in my facilitation work is the way you do it, it makes better.

Eve Rodsky:

You have to, it does. Tools make things better, exactly. Again, back to what you and I do similarly, right? It's like getting people to focus on their work, to work focused on the work. What I found over and over again, and now I've been testing these concepts for seven years. I'm three years with the full game, with thousands of couples that look very different from each other. Is that there is something really beautiful about, when emotion is high, cognition is low, right?

Eve Rodsky:

That's what I say as a mediator. The problem is that in a home, the roommate problems, once you are in it with that partner, emotion's high all the time. When you can take and say, "We're going to play this card game over margaritas and tacos." I had this one dude who sent me this awesome Instagram post of him holding the Fair Play cards in Vegas, and he said, "These are not the cards I thought I'd be playing here." But it was so fun. I was going to say, just gamification makes things fun, but that's those tools to get to do the work is really their key.

Daniel:

The first thing just as a sidebar is, I love how you attack this problem; a Styverson kid doing a Westinghouse paper.

Eve Rodsky:

This is Westinghouse all the way.

Daniel:

You go like, "I've got my boards and here's my research, and-

Eve Rodsky:

Binders and binders of women, I like the Rodney quote, right, binders of women. I have to tell you, the secret about the gender division of labor, Daniel, is that it's fucking dry as hell. This is the most boring topic ever and so you have to attack it like a Westinghouse paper. How are you going to bring this to people's attention and make them pay attention in a way that doesn't put them to sleep? We've been talking about these poems for a hundred years and I feel bad for men, because it's boring and it's shaming them.

Daniel:

Do you think it is?

Eve Rodsky:

I do.

Daniel:

This thing is juicy because this is-

Eve Rodsky:

Oh, it is juicy. It's juicy now and I think it is life because again, I think the gamification makes it fun. But I will say that if yo go down these roads of capitalism and work, and all that, your mind can be blown and you could say there's no solution. But this is the beauty. The beauty of it is that, the science is starting to prove what Fair Play found. I think it's also because I have a big sociological sample. A great Atlantic article just came out saying that basically, paid leave, talking about pay equity, it doesn't work unless you have empathy from white men or from men who are in decision making ability.

Eve Rodsky:

That's been the cool thing about my love letter to men, is that, 65% of the info Eve Rodsky emails I've gotten since the book was published, just in October, people had to find me, have been men, over 65%. What I realized from that is that what men were saying to me ... One man said to me, "I do more than you write about." I said thank you for that. The most men were reaching out to say, "This conversation, the way domestic life is working, it doesn't serve men. It just doesn't serve men."

Daniel:

Oh, it does de-skill men. I think the idea that we can't do it and that we can't do our own emotional work, which we haven't talked about that.

Eve Rodsky:

Right. We can talk about that, yes.

Daniel:

But it's a shame and I'm looking at another one of my sticky notes, which is this idea that it doesn't have to be, and maybe people are scared that it does. It's impossible to make it 50/50. We want equalness, we want equality in our relationships, but it's a play and it's a dance, which is why the title of your book is so apropos, right? It is a play.

Eve Rodsky:

It's a play, it's a dance. I love that you got that because I think the most important thing to tell men especially is that, 50/50 is the wrong equation. It hasn't served partnerships for a hundred years. I believe in equity as opposed to equality, and what equity looks like. This is how I will explain now more about the Fair Play system. What do I mean by ownership? Well, in organizational science, right, or in project management, we have these concepts that I bring into organizational work for families and it's all based on this idea of ownership, right?

Eve Rodsky:

When you know your role, when there's fairness and transparency, when there's specifically defined expectations, things work better for an organization. You get there really by this idea of context, not control. Whereas right now, the home is all control, not context, so get me that glue stick, pick up the milk. Like your mom said to your dad or your dad said, "I'm going to get in trouble unless I do it exactly right." But the best workplaces are working on this DRI model, the directly responsible individual coined by Apple, or the rare responsible person coined by Netflix.

Eve Rodsky:

Where you don't wait to be told what to do. Imagine walking into your boss's office or even to me, say you're a podcast host and you say, "Hey, what should I be talking about today? I'll just wait here till you tell me what to do." Well, you wouldn't be a very good host of your own show, right? We're used to taking responsibility everywhere. Even my aunt Maryanne, she has a Mahjong group, Daniel, and she told me that ... I said, "Do you have clearly defined expectations in your Mahjong group?"

Eve Rodsky:

She said, "Actually, we do. If you don't bring snack on your snack day twice, you're out." Why is it that aunt Maryann's Mahjong group has more clearly defined expectation than our home? It doesn't feel 21st century to me. This idea of keeping conception planning and execution together, the DRI model is very powerful. I'll just give you one metaphor and it's the metaphor I talk about in the book about mustard. This idea that somebody, right, in your household has to know your second son, Johnny likes French's yellow mustard with his hot dog, or his protein, or otherwise he chokes.

Eve Rodsky:

That's the conception, right? Seeing that and having that knowledge. Then someone has to monitor that French's yellow mustard when it's running low and put it on a grocery list with everything else you need for the week. That's the planning stage. Then someone has to get their butts in the store to get this French's yellow mustard. That's the execution stage in project management. Now, in my 500 plus interviews, I found that men, especially in hetero cisgender relationships, are stepping in at the execution phase, right?

Eve Rodsky:

That's a huge problem because when you guys bring home spicy Dijon every damn time, then you're getting in trouble. Like you said, you know that word, you got in trouble like the way your dad said it. Then men all over this country were saying to me, "Regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of ethnicity, why would I do more in the home? I can't get anything right," and that was making me sad.

Daniel:

This is the feedback loop.

Eve Rodsky:

Feedback loop. I love that you call the feedback loop because then when women, and we're going to get back to something you asked, I've heard you say before too when I was researching you. But about communication and it has one word, right, it has to do with trust. Because then what women say to me were things like, "Well, my husband take the estate planning card, I'm not going to trust him with my living will, the dude can't even bring home the right type of mustard." Like you said, this is communications about trust.

Eve Rodsky:

When you've been a feedback loop of just shit, when you're in the shit feedback loop, you're not recognizing what actually talking about is trust. When you lose trust in your partner, then everything goes really poorly in the relationship.

Daniel:

Yeah. It colors everything and starts to color everything, and that's when the glue stick is not a glue stick anymore.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct.

Daniel:

Because it's a symbol of not taking responsibility.

Eve Rodsky:

It becomes a symbol of everything that women ... Number one thing women hate about home life according to my 500 plus interviews, is that they can't sleep because they have too much on their brain. The number one thing men told me they hated about home life besides feeling like they were failing all the time, was nagging. They hate it, they really hate it. I get it because I would want to be nagged either, and so the only way to eliminate that is this model of ownership.

Daniel:

Well, because I've had these conversations before, and I feel like Jane and I can have the conversation. She can say what she wants to say without it feeling like nagging because I'm welcoming the ... It goes both ways, and I'm like, "Hey, I have something I want to talk to you about. This is just high level, here's the arc. No playing here, but this is what I want." How do you feel like the best way to frame the invitation to this conversation? Because the cards definitely seem like it lowers the bar of risk.

Eve Rodsky:

Yes. Right.

Daniel:

Like, "I want to talk, tah-tah-tah."

Eve Rodsky:

No. Never say we need to talk, ever, ever, ever. Like you said, the invitation is so important and I actually give some tools to women, especially. My mom is of left wing feminist and she said to me, "Why is it that you're asking women to initiate these conversations, why can't men?" I said they can, but we've been waiting a hundred years for men to initiate this conversation. [inaudible 00:29:34] anti-capitalists messaging, I put my favorite feminist, who's Nora Ephron, and she said, "You can be the victim of your own life or heroin." I am talking to women to initiate these conversations, but also men can too.

Eve Rodsky:

Actually that was the beauty of the 65% being men saying, "I want the card game, where can I find the card? I'm ready to play." It was really beautiful to watch men want to initiate these conversations. But I think back to people being so triggered and scared of having had huge blow-ups. Doug Stone, my professor at Harvard, he wrote a book called Difficult Conversations, and I love that book so much. Because I take a quote out of it in Fair Play and I talk about how he says, "Why is it so hard to have difficult conversation? Because if you don't, you're going to be freaking resentful and sitting in the same damn patterns. But if you do, you risk it becoming worse."

Daniel:

Right. You might lose the love of your life.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct, and you're really worried.

Daniel:

Which feels like life or death.

Eve Rodsky:

It does feel life or death. That's why it's back to the idea of, when you gamify something and you can focus on the work, and not the person. The invitation, so what I've seen work and not work. But I've seen not work is; we need to talk, I'm throwing shit on your plates, I'm fucking done, all those situations where you can get to what I call your [inaudible 00:30:52], like add number eight or 10. But what does work and you can tell me what would work for you as a man, I think that'd be very helpful for your listeners. But what I have seen work is when someone is just willing to come to the table when emotion is low, cognition is high, whether it's on a Valentine's day or a trip to Vegas.

Eve Rodsky:

But I do find those very, what I thought would be triggering moments, are actually moments where men are very receptive to saying. When women say, "I want to invest in our relationship," through a gamified tool that takes emotion out, I find men willing to listen.

Daniel:

Yeah. It's so interesting because the nature of a game and I've talked about this on this show a lot. It's important to me because I think in facilitation, inviting people into a game works, "Hey, I know this is silly, but draw your succession plan for me. Humor me," right?

Eve Rodsky:

Right. Exactly. Humor me, exactly. Yeah.

Daniel:

It'll only take a few minutes and then you get something at the end of it. There's this idea that a game has rules and a boundary, and an invitation.

Eve Rodsky:

I love what you just said. It's a boundary, so that's it. You're so good because as I said, I want to take you on the road with me. I think we should write an article together about communication. I really do, I'm just thinking about where to pitch it actually now.

Daniel:

By the way, these ideas, if you've ever read Finite and Infinite Games by a philosophy professor named James Carse, a lot of these ideas come from him.

Eve Rodsky:

I did read James Carse.

Daniel:

Yeah, and Daniel Mesic, who I've had on talks about it, in terms of agility, agile, software development as a game-

Eve Rodsky:

That's the boundary. I think what you just said is so key because ... Yes, I've read James Carse and I'm obsessed with, I love all [Elly Design 00:32:35] thinking stuff out there, I read all that. I read a lot. Like you said, this is my Westinghouse project. This is seven years of just diving into something that I didn't know was a problem and then trying to understand the solutions. But what I love about what you just said is the idea of boundaries. I think, again, back to difficult conversations, if you don't have a boundary around them, they do do no harm.

Eve Rodsky:

That's why I'll tell you just a quick story about what didn't work for me, right? When I first started this idea, I came across this article from 1986, it was a sociologist named Arlene Kaplan Daniel. She articulated these ideas of the mental load, emotional labor, second shift, all these things were basically the two thirds of what it takes to run a home and family fall on women. She articulated as invisible work. That was so transformative for me because there was a modicum of solution in there, right?

Eve Rodsky:

It's what you said before, Daniel, that if you don't value what you don't see, right, how can you ... Even the Bible, right? We have to put words to God, because we have to see it to value it. I was very obsessed with this idea of writing down, and I thought that was going to be my solution. I really did write down every single thing I did that was invisible to my partner, and then ask other women what's invisible to them. I went on a nine-month quest to create something called the shit I do spreadsheets.

Daniel:

Of course, it's a spreadsheet too. That's where it goes.

Eve Rodsky:

That's where it goes. I love Excel, so it was a 98 tab spreadsheet about probably like 17 million megabytes, ended up being over a thousand items of invisible work. Things like; girl scout cookies, ordering in sales, all the way to application of sunscreen, all the way to making school lunches. It became the origin of the game. But when it was this 98 tab spreadsheet, I had this great idea, right, back to our communicating is with boundaries and mediation, and trust. I had this inspired idea just to send off the 17 million megabytes spreadsheet to staff, with just a subject line that said, "Can't wait to discuss."

Daniel:

That's a pretty dangerous invitation.

Eve Rodsky:

Oh my God, talk about no boundaries. For someone who facilitated for a living-

Daniel:

What was his response, was it the face covering OMG?

Eve Rodsky:

Yes. I owned the response, was just that right, the see-no-evil monkey. What happened in my household was a see-no-evil, which again, write lists all fucking work, right, conversations, communications, boundaries do. Then it was even worse than other households because I had women, you can't make this shit up. But I had a woman from, she called me, she leaves me a message on my cell phone. I don't know how she got it, saying, "I received your spreadsheet from my mom's group, from the Jewish Federation of Arizona. I'm just calling to tell you, Eve, that at this rate, I decided to not think in my marriage."

Eve Rodsky:

I felt like should I do spreadsheets and release the shitstorm? I got very scared that it was going to stay there, and then that's where the game started. The game started because I wanted to start putting boundaries around these conversations and rules. That I'll work for my values-based mediation training over a decade, then things started to look up. But when you do things like a giant 19 million megabytes spreadsheet and you send it off with no context of somebody, that's a conversation without boundaries.

Daniel:

Yes. Well, so I want to go back again because not many people will know what values-based mediation is. What's interesting is that when we talk about organizations as being purpose-driven, and in a way we're trying to govern a house the same way based on human-centered design, like what's the ultimate goal so that the children can survive and we need mustard?

Eve Rodsky:

And thrive.

Daniel:

And thrive, and so that we can connect and communicate. Those are the OKRs objective, like don't kill the children, pure souls, there's mustard on the table. Can you talk a little bit about how your skills in mediation do you feel like found its way into this, and what values-based mediation is because I don't think many people know what it is?

Eve Rodsky:

Right. Yes. Well for me, what it is, is this idea of combining organizational development and management with a really deep understanding of how to have what is your why conversations, like you said, right? This idea, OKRs or what is your ultimate goals in the business world. But it comes up a little differently in the home, and I'll explain what I mean. The organizational management side of bringing business concepts like the DRI to the home made tons of sense to me.

Eve Rodsky:

When you hold the conception planning execution, then you know what type of mustard to get. That made a lot of sense to me and it made sense to my husband. We started to try to play this organizational management game about three years ago. I gave him, one of his cars was garbage and he understood that the full ownership meant getting the garbage liner back in, right?

Daniel:

Conception.

Eve Rodsky:

Conception to planning, to execution, to execute-

Daniel:

And resetting.

Eve Rodsky:

And resetting. But the planning means that we live in a house now, we used to live in apartment. Maybe garbage was easier or not, I'll explain. But for us, you have to get the damn bins out on time before the garbage man comes, right?

Daniel:

That's the garbage issue, that's great about men. We were talking about breaking up with New York, but here's what's great about New York, garbage chutes.

Eve Rodsky:

Ah, garbage chutes are so good, I miss garbage chutes so much. They are the best. Incinerators, that's what we called them. I don't think there was even fire there, but that was my mother called it, incinerators, [inaudible 00:38:42]. But yeah, so basically he took garbage, he understood what that ownership meant. But what was happening to me, Daniel, was that I couldn't stop stalking him over garbage, right? He called me, I was his garbage shadow. In the kitchen every time he'd walk in, I'd be just staring at him. My husband himself is tall.

Eve Rodsky:

I'd open the door under the sink, so he would hopefully trip over it and see there was a garbage lying down there, just back to the passive aggressive bullshit that we were talking about. That's when you asked me how my values-based mediation came into this. What I realized was, you can do as much organizational management you want until you're blue in the face. But if you're not going to take one step back and start exploring what is your why for why you are actually doing things, and nothing's going to work. It just doesn't work because it just becomes nagging again, or like a list, or then you forget and I'm pissed.

Eve Rodsky:

What happened was, I timed out the game. I said, "Let's just take a break on this so I can mull on this a little more." I mulled on it, and then I came back to the table when emotion was low and cognition was high. I was able to say to Seth, "Look, here's why I'm stalking over garbage and I want to practice having these types of conversations. I'm stalking you over garbage because I grew up in Stuyvesant town. You know my mom, she's sort of a mess. She's awesome, but she's leaving her keys everywhere, she don't want to drive her kids. So you know my mother, but what you don't know about me, Seth, is that we didn't even have a garbage can in my house."

Eve Rodsky:

We had a small apartment, we didn't have a garbage can. So what we would each do is just grab a takeout bag and start throwing our own garbage into these bags in the kitchen. Then it would just inevitably spill over onto the floor, and there were hundreds of cockroaches or water bugs. God forbid, you open the light at night in the '80s in the lower East side, and especially of garbage is out. I was a very dehydrated child, I was never able to go into the kitchen for water. But what I said to Seth was, "When I see even a banana peel that's out of the garbage piling up, I start to having a panic attack, like I'm seven.

Eve Rodsky:

I feel like I'm a latchkey kid again, with a single mom who's never home. I feel like I'm stuck back at seven, I don't want to be brought back there. I need to not feel like I'm seven years old again in a house where there's cockroaches and water bugs." Then Seth was able to respond and say to me, "Look, I grew up in a privileged house. I had a housekeeper who dealt with our garbage and I slept on Domino's pizza boxes in my fraternity. I don't really give a shit about garbage."

Eve Rodsky:

Then I started thinking, "What happens if you're so divergent in your values over something that have to happen every single day?" Well, what happens is that we ended up divorcing over stupid shit, like garbage and sponges, right? What we were able to do was borrow from the law and medicine, and different disciplines that use this idea of a minimum standard of care, the reasonable person's standard. We started to say, "Because we were able to talk from our why to say where can we meet in the middle that feels okay to both of us?"

Eve Rodsky:

Where we came out on the garbage was, Seth said to me, "Okay, I will promise you garbage will go out every day. I will get it out every day when I get home from work, I'll put it in my work calendar, like in a fucking work appointment, as long as you never freaking mentioned the word garbage ever again." That was a miracle for me.

Daniel:

Was that hard for you though? I would think that's still a challenge because you have to do your work.

Eve Rodsky:

Well, trust. Back to trust. I had to do my work and trust. Back to what you said, this is all about trust. I stepped back and I said, "The good news is, this is Fair Play's predicated on a weekly check in." It was not like I had to hold my tongue for the rest of our lives. But if there's something I want to bring up, we do it in our check in, which is, we do it with short term rewards substitutions. We always do it with some sort of cupcakes or sweets because we both love, we have lots of ice cream or alcohol and then we deal our cards.

Eve Rodsky:

I don't get feedback in the moment, I wait till then. That's transformative. But what was really transformative was that garbage started going out. It was like a miracle. It was like Moses parting the Red Sea for me. It changed my life and it changed, I think, the way my husband and I communicated forever. That one garbage example, and then it grew from there. Because we realized, "Oh shit, this is working for garbage. Could we do this for everything else?"

Daniel:

This is what's so critical, is that we can design. Using these elements of design, you're doing it on purpose. We can do it better than we are doing it, versus the habitual way. Which is, your habitual way and his habitual way, rubbing up against each other in not nice ways.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct.

Daniel:

I am looking at our clock, we're getting close to the end of our time. I want to be respectful of your time. Is there anything we have not talked about that we haven't touched on? We've had a far ranging conversation about the gender gap and making it more visible. Is there anything we haven't talked about that you think we should touch on?

Eve Rodsky:

I'd like to just touch quickly on unicorn space, which is another important part of designing your life. What happens in midlife?

Daniel:

Oh, yes. This is the result. This is the payoff.

Eve Rodsky:

Yes. I want to talk about payoff. I think it's really important to talk about the payoff because what's happening in midlife? Well, the real midlife crisis to me isn't breast implants, not a fricking green Ferrari, right? It's that, we sort of lose sight of who we were younger, when we had dreams, when we thought we knew what we wanted to do in our lives and we lose our milestone. Culture tells us, even for men too, "Get married, get that car, get the green Ferrari. I'm supposed to have my diamond ring." But what happens when culture, we see happily ever after for the man and woman, and little mermaid, right?

Eve Rodsky:

But he's 19, she's 16, what happens with the rest of our lives? Are we just supposed to be parents and partners, and workers? This idea of the active pursuit of what makes you you and how you share with the world, I'm fascinated by it. I call it unicorn space because I don't think it fucking exists, like the mythical equine, unless you reclaim it. To me it's like creativity, it's what you're doing, Daniel, with sharing with the world your unique perspective and skills. That is what I want everybody to be able to do, whether it's paid or not.

Eve Rodsky:

Because it's linked to our longevity, is linked to our partnership health, and it's linked to our mental health, and this idea of the active pursuit. Self-care could be reading a book, but it's the writing of a book. Self-care for me is eating pies, but it's the baking of the pies. The act of pursuit of what makes us us, is really, to me the payoff. It's what too many of us will forget or call the stupid hobby, or dismiss it as a vanity project. No, this is integral to our world.

Daniel:

You can't have it if you're constantly either doing everything or arguing about who should be doing the stuff.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct. In men, they do take more leisure time. But a lot of men were saying that they don't feel good about their leisure time because they know they have a pissed spouse when they came home.

Daniel:

They're slinking away, like, "I'm going to get it."

Eve Rodsky:

They're slinking away, but why?

Daniel:

I don't know.

Eve Rodsky:

Why can't you be allowed and be proud of saying, "I'm investing my Saturdays into my tennis game," right? Or whatever active pursuit that makes you you, or reading about design thinking, or the gender division of labor, whatever your passion is. As long as it feels fair, right, hypothetically.

Daniel:

This is so relevant but I got to know, tell me about pies really quickly because I love baking and eating pies too. Just like-

Eve Rodsky:

I want to talk to you about pies for one second. Can I tell you something really cool about pies?

Daniel:

Yes. Please. Absolutely.

Eve Rodsky:

All right. Well, this is one of the coolest things ever. I had this. What are the provocative questions I ask men was, "Are you proud of your partner?" A very provocative question because it was a very big red flag if they couldn't say anything other than, especially in midlife, "She's a great mother and she helps me keep my life moving forward." I'm like, "That's great. That's a personal assistant and a mother in a row. Those are two roles. What about the person you married, why are you proud of them?"

Eve Rodsky:

Men couldn't answer that, unfortunately led to other bad outcomes in my interviews with them about how they were fairing with the relationship. The opposite of that is, when men pick up on their spouses' and partners' passion, women do too but especially men, and it doesn't have to be paid. That was one of my cool findings. That being proud of your partner didn't have to do with correlate to wealth, or to monetary fulfillment. It was this picking up in your passion. I had a man who was married to a dental hygienist.

Eve Rodsky:

I got him through Facebook, I was interviewing him for Fair Play about the division of labor in their home. Then I asked him, "Are you proud of your partner?" Again, she's a dental hygienist, he didn't say she's amazing at teeth cleaning. He starts going off about her church pie competition and she was in the finals for a strawberry rhubarb pie. I don't bake pies, but I guess what he was explaining to me that strawberry rhubarb is not an easy combination, because strawberries tend to go wet, or something.

Eve Rodsky:

Rhubarb was actually a poison and it's not so easy to work with. He's right, so you can tell your listeners more. But anyway, I ended up having to mute him and continue to work because he just kept going on and on in this gorgeous, beautiful way about the design on his wife's strawberry rhubarb pie that was going to win her church competition. That's what I want to end people on, right? Let's be proud of each other for being able to pursue what makes us uniquely us.

Daniel:

Yeah. And not just the garbage.

Eve Rodsky:

Not just the garbage.

Daniel:

Wow, that's amazing. Right now, what's going on for me is I am super proud of my fiancé. I love her a ton and I'm glad that I can say that. Thank you for calling our attention to, it seems like that's, ooh, there's someone at the door.

Eve Rodsky:

That's my dog, so another part of the house.

Daniel:

One takeaway, I think for everyone that I can think of right now is check with yourself, are you proud of your partner? Is there a parting thought of one thing men should do about the gender gap and one thing women should do about the gender gap?

Eve Rodsky:

Yeah. I think it's very important to both think about whether you're proud of your partner. Then even more importantly, are you proud of yourself? If they're in their midlife, if you're not proud of yourself, then that's not going to be great for being partner to you. I want to have permission to be interested in my own life and I want to be married to someone who's not boring, right? That's good for many things, including sex. But the one takeaway I will say for men especially in midlife, and this is for men with children. Because the craziest thing that happens is that men do less after kids.

Eve Rodsky:

My only takeaway is that, if anybody out there listening is planning to have kids or is a father, just remember that because of this, maybe the de-skilling or these weird patterns around trust, you're doing less and that's not going to help us in gender equality. The one thing, my big takeaway, my small action item that can make a big difference is calling your child's school, and making yourself the number one contact on the school list if your child is sick. That's one thing I'll ask everybody to take away, and to go home and do today.

Eve Rodsky:

Being number one on your school list because that modeling, that change when you're in the office and you get the call from the school, or the school seeing that a man is first is very significant.

Daniel:

The cost of not doing that is we can't have equality between genders until men step up in that way.

Eve Rodsky:

Correct. It really is. I want to invite men into the home so that we can invite women to step out of the home, and into their full power. I promise it will benefit you because you are a partner to those people. They will be less resentful, they will be happier. Also the role of what you get from being proud of your partner and supporting them is priceless. Like you said, I saw your face when you said you're proud of your fiancé. I want you always to feel that way and to support her in that, because it'll make you stay together forever.

Daniel:

Yeah. That's the idea, is the dream.

Eve Rodsky:

That's the dream.

Daniel:

As Ada Calhoun, another famous pegleg author said that the key to staying married is not getting divorced.

Eve Rodsky:

Or can I put it differently?

Daniel:

Yes.

Eve Rodsky:

What I'm going to say is that, I think the key to marriage is divorce for married people. Because a lot of the people that I saw happiest in midlife were divorced, because they were free and they had more time. Then their partners did take over emotional labor and domestic work. What I say is, let's create divorce in marriage.

Daniel:

That's a great trick. Well, so thanks for your time. Thanks for talking about how to design this conversation better, because it needs to be redesigned desperately, clearly. I think we're all really lucky that you're out there having this conversation with the world too.

Eve Rodsky:

Well, thank you. I'm so excited. I'm already thinking about what our design, the conversation out there can be, so I'll be back to you.

Daniel:

Okay. Well, then we'll call scene!

 

How to Interview (like) a Rockstar

S3_E17_Grant_Random.jpg

Today I’m sharing an interview with self-described On-Air Personality on SiriusXM and Idiot Grant Random. 

Grant has had  a long-time career in radio: In college he was hired to board op Christmas music for WLS-FM in Chicago when it was transitioning from Talk to Country music. He was at the controls the day the station flipped to "Kicks Country," which was really cool in a geeky radio kind of way.

He now hosts on SirusXM’s Octane channel. 

Grant has interviewed some big names: from Billy Corgan to Marilyn Manson and many, many in between. So as I transition the show into its fourth season, I thought it would be awesome to sit down with someone who interviews people for a living!

We all need to get amazing information from people at work and in life...and doing it in a way that makes people feel comfortable and excited to share that information is a tremendous skill. So even if you don’t work for a radio company, I suspect you’ll find some gems in here...or at the very least enjoy Grant’s sparkling personality.

Grant was kind enough to host me at Sirus XM’s amazing studios in Midtown Manhattan and share some insights on how to interview people like a rockstar. 

Spoiler alert: Ask interesting questions, prepare...and do it, a lot!

Enjoy the conversation...

Show Links

Grant Random on the Web:

https://twitter.com/grantrandom

https://www.instagram.com/grantrandom/

Grant and Marilyn Manson text Justin Beiber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbAwXgPphw

Daniel’s Conversation OS Canvas: https://theconversationfactory.com/downloads

Full Transcript

Daniel:

So, I'm going to officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. What I wanted to do is unedited as possible. What is your favorite way to kick off an interview?

Grant:

It's a good question. It's a great question, Daniel. It's funny, because I kind of struggle with it, because so often, you'll be in a studio, like the studio that we're sitting in now at SiriusXM. And it will often be a studio that I'm not often in, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Grant:

And so, then you sit down with a guest. In many cases for me, it would be bands, because I interview bands. We'll be chatting and having a really natural fun conversation before the interview starts. But then you got to stop it, because you're like, "Hey, we actually have to start this. We can't just jump in."

Grant:

Then I have to say whatever my spiel to get the interview started. It's kind of a buzzkill, because it's like we were having so much fun talking about all kinds of weird stuff, and now I got to actually do a real thing, but you just try to keep it as loose as it was while saying a bunch of stuff that's not natural like my name, and the name of the thing that we're doing. And then you go into it.

Grant:

I don't know. Sometimes it's hard. I struggle with it. I do. Once the interviews go, the interview part is, I think, the easy part honestly. It's starting interviews off that actually can be very challenging.

Daniel:

That's so interesting. So, this is why I wanted to do this with you. You're one of the only people I know who ... I mean, we all talk to people for a living. That's pretty much, I mean, just go way meta. Everybody talks to people for a living, but you're one of the only people I know who interviews people as part of a main function of your job. And the fact that you do it with famous people makes it even more interesting.

Grant:

Yeah, that's true. It gives an added dimension to it that can provide complications but also can make it a lot of fun, for sure.

Daniel:

This moment of stopping the ... Like in a way, the interview starts way before.

Grant:

Yeah, absolutely. It totally starts way before.

Daniel:

And this is sparking a memory in me. We were talking, I don't know, a couple of weeks ago about ... I don't want to name names and you don't have to name names, but there was a guy who's like, "We can't ask about this thing that everybody wants to know about. Like this band that you used to be in." And they were like, "This is off limits." And you're like, "Well, this is just going to be boring."

Grant:

I mean, I can talk about this.

Daniel:

Yeah?

Grant:

The Oasis thing?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Grant:

Oh, yeah, I can totally talk. So, I had the opportunity to interview Noel Gallagher of Oasis recently. One of the things that the manager said leading up to it ... And this is I think before it was even confirmed. I think it was a she that was telling this to one of our talent people here. So, we have a department here at SiriusXM that is just responsible for getting artists in.

Speaker 3:

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that.

Daniel:

That was Grant's phone trying to participate in the interview.

Grant:

I put it on Do Not Disturb and I don't know ...

Daniel:

Yeah, but you specifically asked her a question. So, she's like, "I'm going to obviously say something to you."

Grant:

I don't know. Yeah. Oh, I said SiriusXM. And so this happens. I'll have my phone in the studio and I'll be on the air talking and I'll say SiriusXM, and then Siri gets triggered.

Daniel:

She doesn't know her name isn't Sirius.

Grant:

No, she just hears the Siri part.

Daniel:

Yeah, I know.

Grant:

This is why as advanced as Siri is, she's still pretty stupid. So yeah, we have talent people who book a lot of these interviews, and so the person, who our talent person, already kind of knew. I was talking to this woman about bringing Noel in and she said, "Listen, I'm not here to be heavy handed, but I'll just tell you that if any of your interviewers ask Noel about his brother, he'll walk out."

Daniel:

Interesting. So it wasn't like we're not doing this if, if you agree to not to. She's saying, "It will go badly for you. Don't go there."

Grant:

She was being totally cool about it. She was giving a heads up.

Daniel:

Oh, interesting.

Grant:

Because also, the challenges here is typically when anybody comes in to our studios to be interviewed, they're not doing just one show. They're doing several shows. And so, yeah, if I'm the guy who's the first person to talk to Noel Gallagher and out of the gate, I said, "So Dude, I want to talk about your brother, Liam." Not only am I ...

Daniel:

You're just messing it up for everybody.

Grant:

I'm screwing it up for everybody. So, it's a huge ... Can I say dick move on this podcast?

Daniel:

Sure. Yeah.

Grant:

It's a huge dick move. And so, then she was being cool about it. And I wasn't actually going to ever really point blank ask him about his brother, because that's not how I would have approached it. I did have some questions that would dance around it.

Grant:

And sure enough, he brought up his brother anyway, so I didn't have to ask him about it. I got him to ... Like for instance, a great part that I'll quote of the interview is that he was talking about the first two Oasis albums were really magical, because at that time, those guys weren't making any money.

Grant:

They were similar to the audience in that they were in the same kind of state of life. Not making a lot of money, sort of very similar, except they were on the other side of the stage, but essentially, going through the same stuff. And then he said after the first two albums, that's when they started making millions of dollars and are buying furs and have chimps, and etc.

Grant:

And, of course, I said, "Wait, Noel, you're telling me you bought a chimp?" And he's like, "No, that was just the guy in my band." Clearly referencing his brother. So, he would go there when he wanted to. I just couldn't go there and make it a thing that I was going to ask him about.

Daniel:

Right. So, tell us about the rift.

Grant:

Right. So, for people who don't know the context is Noel and his brother, Liam, absolutely hate each other, and they have for years. And so if you're holding on hope for an Oasis reunion ...

Daniel:

It's not going to happen.

Grant:

It's probably not going to happen.

Daniel:

But did you want him to talk about that split? I guess the question I'm getting to is like getting stuff you want versus finding what you find in an interview.

Grant:

Say that again.

Daniel:

Getting something you want to get like the golden nugget of like, "I want to get him to say blank or talk about blank." Versus ambling. Just finding whatever is interesting that emerges?

Grant:

Yeah. So, the thing that was annoying about being told that he wouldn't talk about Liam, his brother, is that in every interview, I saw that he'd been doing leading up to my interview with him. He was talking about his brother, so that was annoying.

Grant:

But at the same time, it was instructive, because everybody is talking to him. Somehow, that's coming up in all of the interviews. So, by the time I get to him, which was after all these other interviews, is it really that novel to be asking about his brother? Because there's nothing new, the news was that they hate each other.

Speaker 4:

Garbage?

Grant:

No garbage. Thanks. Okay. The breaking news is, there is no breaking news. They hate each other. They've hated each other for a long time and nothing has really changed. So, then that actually, for me, it leads me to want to get something else out of him and something different. So, it's not so Liam-focused, because he's already been talking about it a lot.

Grant:

Yeah, I could try to get him to talk about it, but yeah, as we said, if I asked him point blank about it, he'd walk out. He ended up referencing his brother anyway. And for me, that was good enough, because I couldn't not talk about it, but he referenced his brother, so that was great. And in the process, I focused on other stuff.

Grant:

I asked him about his rivalry with Damon Albarn from Blur, and got to find out about the first time that he and Damon actually did a song together, because they were fierce rivals in the 90s. Those bands hated each other and they said horrible things about one another.

Grant:

And then got older and realized that was just a bunch of posturing and stupid stuff and being competitive. And eventually, at some point, they became friendly and Noel joined Damon on stage at one point and then Damon asked Noel to sing on a song with him for Gorillaz, and then went on to explain to me.

Grant:

I asked him, I said, "What was it like to be in a studio with his former rival making a song together?" And he's like, "Well, Damon had this picture up on, like propped up on something, and he said, 'We're going to make a song. We're going to write a song about that picture.'"

Grant:

And so, of course, I naturally asked, "Noel." I said, "Have you ever written a song that way?" He's like, "Of course not. It's crazy, but I did it, because I'm like, 'All right, sure. We're going to do this,' and we made a song together."

Grant:

So, I thought that was really interesting, and that's something I didn't hear him talk about anywhere else. I also asked him, I said, "What was your favorite song that one of your contemporaries in the UK wrote?" Because he didn't care about any of the American music. He was all into like ...

Grant:

That's a funny thing is, while he was very competitive, he actually really liked all the stuff, the Britpop stuff. And he said his favorite songs were Sonnet from The Verve. That's a song that he wished he would have written. And Beetle-Bomb.

Daniel:

That was one of the questions you asked him, right? Like, "What's a song you wish you had written?" Was that the ...

Grant:

Right. What's one of the songs that you wish that you would have written from one of your peers did? And so Sonnet from The Verve.

Daniel:

That's just a wonderfully evocative question. Is that a question you've asked before?

Grant:

I may have, but I don't ask it often. It depends if it's a really talented songwriter, a prolific songwriter. And, to be fair, a lot of the people that I interview are not prolific songwriters.

Grant:

To be fair, because to be clear, I do a lot of newer bands, so they just haven't had the benefit of time. Oasis is a band that made their name 20 years ago. And so yeah, Noel has had the time and the opportunity to become a prolific songwriter.

Daniel:

So, let's take a step back. You today, as a DJ, and an interviewer of talent, versus when you got started, what's the difference? How have you grown? How have you developed? Have you developed? Are you better at this than you used to be?

Grant:

That's a great question. I was terrible at interviewing people. Terrible. Terrible. I used to do it not enough. Because where I was, I was at, what was then XM Radio and that was before XM and Sirius merged.

Grant:

And so, we were trying a lot of different things. And so, we weren't doing a lot of standard radio interviews. And so, the result was, I wasn't getting an opportunity regularly to sit down and do a regular interview. A lot of times I would sit down with an artist and I would be trying to pull sound bites out of that person. So, I used to use ...

Daniel:

Trying to pull sound bites out of a person that sounds hard to do.

Grant:

Well, it wasn't that hard, because a lot of times it was pretty straightforward stuff. Let's say, an artist had a new album coming out, I would go through the track listing of the new album, and have them speak about that individual track. And that would be a piece of audio we would isolate and have indefinitely, to use as something as like a setup for the song.

Grant:

So, it was actually kind of more productive because we were getting audio we could use for longer versus doing interviews. Yeah, you can use them again, but they happen in a moment and they're most valuable in that moment. And shortly after that, we'll encore interviews here, but they don't last that long. Whereas, sound bites last longer.

Grant:

So anyway, I wasn't doing a lot of regular interviews. And I was super nervous about it. I was self-conscious about it because I wasn't good at it. And, I wasn't doing it regularly enough. So, every time I would do it, I would get very anxious. And I had multiple instances where I also didn't know how to prepare for interviews.

Daniel:

So, let's talk about those two pieces like preparing for the interview, and then, I guess, managing yourself when you're inside the box.

Grant:

I'll say this. I wouldn't be prepared enough and therefore, I would panic in the interview. So, I just wasn't coming up with enough questions, typically. And this would happen to me often, for some reason. And I don't know why I kept repeating the same mistake. Again, probably because I wasn't doing it regularly enough.

Grant:

And so then I get into the interview, and instead of listening to what the person was saying after I asked the question, I would be sweating it out, trying to figure out, "Okay, what's the next question? What am I going to ask next? What do I say next?"

Grant:

Which would take me out of the moment and then I wouldn't be listening. And then I wouldn't be able to follow up that person's answer if they said something that sparks interest. And so, they weren't good interviews, because again, not prepared enough. And again, I was just literally not coming up with enough questions.

Daniel:

And so, in conversation theory, there's this idea of the thread of a conversation. And this is something that people use right? It's common language of, "Oh, I lost the thread," and that's literally what you're doing there is, not picking up on the thread of whatever they're putting down. Because you're asking your next question. You're sort of just ping-ponging around.

Grant:

Yeah.

Daniel:

Instead of like, "Oh, here's something that I'm just interested in and I'm just going to do ..."

Grant:

That you just said that I want to go deeper on.

Daniel:

Yeah.

Grant:

And you'll hear it. You'll hear it in people who aren't experienced interviewers, or, I don't know, not skilled at it. I don't know how you want to say it, where you'll hear them ask a question and the person says something super interesting that really deserves a follow up and they'll go right to the next question. Like they weren't even listening.

Daniel:

What's the skill there that's lacking?

Grant:

They don't trust their ability to be spontaneous. They're not comfortable with being spontaneous in the interview. Because the reality is, you have to listen because one, the interviewee appreciates it and they can tell. They can tell when you're listening to what they're saying and actually asking something based on what they said.

Grant:

So, the interviewee appreciates it, plus, it just makes for a better conversation because that's how conversation works. You want your interviews to be natural. But if you're not listening to what they're saying, and not following up on things that they're saying, then it's not. Then, you're just plowing through a list of questions that you prepared.

Grant:

Because you get inspired by something that the person says, and a lot of times the follow-up questions based on the things that they say, are actually often the better questions than what you had walked in with.

Grant:

And that's the whole thing is, you have to listen. You have to listen. And sometimes the listening will dictate dramatically where the interview is going to go. And I'll give a good example. A great example, and again, this is because I have a unique set of people that I have the privilege of interviewing. I got to interview Marilyn Manson. I think it was two years ago now.

Daniel:

I remember this. Yeah.

Grant:

And Marilyn Manson came into Sirius XM, and his first stop of the day was The Howard Stern Show. He was Howard's guests for that particular day. And, I actually was able to hear some of the interview because I was kind of curious as to what Howard was going to ask, because I was going to be interviewing Marilyn right after Howard's interview. And I didn't want to repeat the same stuff.

Grant:

What became apparent is, that Marilyn became increasingly loose as the Stern interview progressed. The reason that he became increasingly loose, and I'm not really speaking out of turn here, it's because he had been drinking. He parties. He has a good time.

Daniel:

Was he drinking during the interview?

Grant:

He was absolutely drinking during the interview.

Daniel:

Just like we are. They make for good interview.

Grant:

Like we are.

Daniel:

They make for good interviews.

Grant:

Cheers. Cheers.

Daniel:

Clink. Clink.

Grant:

Yes, indeed. So, by the time I got Marilyn, he was lubed up as they say. And so, I had, and as I typically do with any interview, I'll have my laptop in front of me, and I will have ... That's perfect.

Daniel:

Yeah, I was trying to get that audio.

Grant:

Yeah, it's good. I had my laptop in front of me and I will have my interviews mapped out in Evernote. I will have sort of a ...

Daniel:

And so, you have it mapped out in Evernote?

Grant:

I do.

Daniel:

And then, do you have that on your phone?

Grant:

No, I have it on my laptop.

Daniel:

You have your laptop, all right, because you don't want to ...

Grant:

I have it open. The benefit of that is this. And I know that there's some people, peers ...

Daniel:

Can you show me? You don't have your laptop? I'd love to look at your staff.

Grant:

I'll show it to you. There are peers of mine who frown upon having notes during interviews. And I think that, that is bullshit because, I think that you want to eliminate obstacles during the interview.

Grant:

And I don't want to be racking my memory during an interview to try to remember what my questions are, because then I'm not listening to the person. So yeah, it's not a good idea to have a piece of paper that you have your questions on, because for one, papers can be noisy. So, that's not good for the interview, number one.

Grant:

Number two, they rest flat on like the table or console, wherever you're sitting. We have a little console kind of a countertop in front of us. So then, your eye contact is down.

Daniel:

Because you're often dealing with people who are in the studio with you, eye to eye.

Grant:

Yes, most of the time. Most of the time. Occasionally, we'll do remote stuff with our studios in Los Angeles, for instance. I did one recently.

Daniel:

So, you don't want to break the line of sight as much?

Grant:

Well, yeah. By having my laptop open, then my eyes aren't drifting down as far because I'm looking at a screen that is elevated, that's up. And so ...

Daniel:

I mean, this is designing, you are designing this whole conversation that you're having. You have the laptop. If you were interviewing me, the laptop would be here. And that would just be ... Now, you don't feel like that piece of technology between us breaks the vibe?

Grant:

Definitely not. Absolutely not. Because reality is, oftentimes I'm not really looking at it much. Because I already kind of really know what I'm going to be doing. The only times that I look at it are in the instances where I have an artist or somebody who, like recently, I had somebody show up really late.

Grant:

And so then, the interview that I had planned has to be condensed, and I have to condense it on the fly. So, I don't have time to map it out. "Hey, wait, let me reorganize my thoughts." No I have to jump on the moment.

Grant:

And so then, I have to, in addition to asking questions and listening to answers, also think about, "Okay, what am I cutting? I going from four segments," Because often we do these in segments that air between music.

Grant:

"I have to go to three. So, what am I going to cut? What do I keep? How do I condense?" And so, that's when looking, having notes in front of you, is very helpful.

Grant:

And so, to go back to the Marilyn Manson thing, as we established, he'd been drinking and so he was feeling really good by the time I got to him and I started trying to go through what my notes were. But he was, again very loose. And he was going off in all of these tangents, which honestly were a lot of fun.

Grant:

About five minutes in, I realized that all this stuff that I had my Evernote was useless and I shut my laptop. I push it aside, and I said, "We're just going to go for a little ride together." And it ended up being a really awesome conversation. It was really funny.

Grant:

I was asking him about what music he listened to. He actually handed me his phone, so I could go through his Spotify. He, at the time, was promoting a new album and was seemingly having this feud with Justin Bieber.

Grant:

And so, as I was going through his phone, I was able to very subtly address that and say, "I'm looking through your music, and I'm not seeing anything from Justin Bieber." And so, that of course open the doors for him to discuss the feud, at which time he then pulled up the text message exchange that he had with Justin Bieber. Gave me the phone to look at it.

Grant:

So, at the top of the screen in his message app on iPhone, it said Justin Bieber. So then, we went through, and I actually read the exchange between them, which became something that got blasted all over the internet. It was sort of became viral.

Daniel:

That's awesome.

Grant:

Which was really fun. And it was great because, again, that was going out of my comfort zone. I'm comfortable in going off script, but it was going away from what I had planned, because I realized, "Okay, this isn't going to work because he's drunk, and he's having fun, and he's kind of ... We're doing the Marilyn Manson show now, and I'm just going to enjoy it and be a part of it." And it turned out to be great. It was a really fun, awesome conversation.

Daniel:

Do you think younger Grant, early Grant interviewing ... And I'll tell you the origin of this question because I feel like there's this tension between having good questions to ask and following on whatever they say, and then leaving your questions completely.

Daniel:

And you're telling me interesting stories of all three of those things happening. And I'm wondering, what's changed from early Grant to now, in terms of being able to ask better questions follow on and leave your script?

Grant:

It's experience, it's being ...

Daniel:

That's unhelpful.

Grant:

I know. I'm going to get there. Going to get there. It's doing these interviews and like to reference what I was talking about earlier is, I wasn't doing them frequently enough. And so, every time I did them, they were not fun because they were terrifying and I wasn't getting my reps as they say like in sports. You need to get your reps in, before you can be comfortable.

Grant:

And so, it evolved over time that specifically when I moved from Washington DC to New York City to where the SiriusXM headquarters are. A very brief synopsis of my life is, I was very much a broadcaster. And I had a track back into school to potentially reinvent myself and decided I didn't really want to do that.

Grant:

And so, I ended up re-embracing the media world. That involved me moving to New York City and then working out of our headquarters where a lot of people didn't actually know who I was for SiriusXM. Even though I'd been on SiriusXM for a few years at that point.

Grant:

But because I wasn't in the offices, people didn't know who I was. So, I got here and the first thing I did is, I started volunteering for interviews. "Give me interviews. I want to do as many interviews as I possibly can." And I would do them and I would immediately get the tape and I would listen to the tape, or the recording. Tape doesn't exist.

Daniel:

Yeah, we were talking about this.

Grant:

We were talking about this earlier.

Daniel:

We're dating ourselves.

Grant:

Absolutely, there is no tape, but I would listen back to the recordings and I would hear what I liked and hear what I didn't like. And I have the ability to listen to myself now after hearing myself for many years. And I'm not self-conscious about the way my voice sounds because I've heard it a million times and it is what it is.

Daniel:

Is your voice for radio different than your normal voice?

Grant:

It's only more projected. So, like I don't have a radio voice. Some people, "Hey, everybody!" That kind of thing? I don't do that. Because, you have to be more authentic unless you're doing like a character. Which, in that case, it's fine.

Daniel:

But Grant Random is not that different from Grant Bleeped who we know and love.

Grant:

Yeah, yeah.

Daniel:

Because then I'll just say this, you ask good questions in life. You are a good conversationalist in life. Janet has had the experience of when you're a new person in our group, not everyone always asks thoughtful, deep follow-up questions. That's something that, this habit has infected the rest of your life. This is just how you are now.

Grant:

Yeah. I mean, it's a good question like in terms of, if I was a good conversationalist before or if I was good at asking questions before. But, the benefit of having multiple reps, as I was saying, I just started doing a ton of interviews when I got here.

Grant:

And, I realized that there will be interviews I wouldn't be happy with when I was done and I would dig into that and then find out why didn't I like that? Or, what did I do wrong there? I would just do a deep-dive into the interview and be honest with myself, where didn't go well?

Grant:

I would constantly be doing that after every single one. Also in the process, I also got better at mapping out the interviews ahead of time. So that's the big thing like I was saying before, I would panic early on because I didn't have enough questions.

Grant:

I also didn't really know how to improvise very well. Because again, you have to be comfortable in the situation to improvise. To be able to think on the fly, "Okay, I've lost 10 minutes from this interview and I have to condense what I'm doing. Now what?" And be able to do it because I'm comfortable I'm not going to panic.

Grant:

Early me wouldn't have been able to do that. I'd freak out and I would have a hard time, it would throw me. [crosstalk 00:27:42] I know I'm kind of going off in [crosstalk 00:27:44].

Daniel:

No, no, no. This is perfect. I want to talk about mapping because this is that [crosstalk 00:27:50].

Grant:

I would love some more of this ...

Daniel:

He just slid his empty cup towards me.

Grant:

I know. It's what happens. So, yeah.

Daniel:

Today's show has been brought to you by Little Wolf.

Grant:

It's very tasty.

Daniel:

And the letters B and C and the number four.

Grant:

I've not had this before and I'm enjoying it.

Daniel:

Somebody left this at my house. Easily, Rob could've brought this to our house.

Grant:

Okay.

Daniel:

I am curious about mapping and I'll tell you my motivation for this question, which is that there's two aspects of threading and conversations. Like word to word makes a sentence that makes sense. And we've talked about also threading, where your next question picks up the thread from what somebody said.

Grant:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

One of the things, one of the insights I've started to have about conversations is that threading is also like the arc. The narrative arc. Not just sentence to sentence, to sentence making sense, but then you as a designer of that big arc of open, explore and close, where you want it to go.

Grant:

Yes.

Daniel:

Because that list of questions isn't just a list of questions. It's trying to build to something.

Grant:

So, to speak to that, yeah, there's definitely, for me, I've improved in figuring out how to arc stuff. For instance, in a lot of instances, typically, there'll be an artist in here that has something to promote. Often, that's the least interesting thing that there is to talk about. Often, not always.

Grant:

But a lot of times it's the obligatory thing, that the reason that they're in the building is, this big person from some other thing is doing some solo project that probably maybe not a lot of people are going to care about. So, that's always the first thing we talk about. That's the first thing. You get it out of the way.

Daniel:

You get it out of the way.

Grant:

You get it out of the way ...

Daniel:

In order to what? Reduce their anxiety that they're going to get to talk about it or?

Grant:

Well, you kind of lead with the thing that you got to do. And then you tease ahead. Like for me, I often will do my stuff, as I mentioned is broken up in segments. So then, I'll tease the thing that we're going to ask about. Like their main thing that you might be really interested in. Or that people are going to be mainly interested in.

Grant:

So then, that will be the next thing. Riskier questions will always go at the end for instance, because if you're going to be asking something that potentially could piss somebody off, you want to save that for the last part of it.

Daniel:

Just in case Noel storms off.

Grant:

In case Noel storms off. Although, I didn't piss him off. The follow-up to that, let me just say, the follow-up to the Noel interview is that, it worked out really well to the point that, his manager wanted a copy of the interview because she said that she hadn't heard Noel open up that way in an interview before. Especially in talking about a lot of the stuff that she talked about, that we talked about.

Grant:

It was really interesting. I didn't know because I'm not really listening to a lot of his interviews but he opened up in ways that he hadn't with me, that made her want to get a copy of that. To have that for ... I mean, I don't know what she's going to do with it.

Daniel:

That's really cool.

Grant:

It was very cool. Yeah, that went well. But yeah, so typically, you kind of get the business out of the way at the beginning. And, I know, to reference an interview form that people are very familiar with. Late night TV will do it very differently.

Grant:

They'll try to do fun stuff first, and then they'll wedge in the, "Okay, you're in such and such movie, let's take a look at the clip now." This is why late night TVs, I don't know. I'm not necessarily a big fan of late night TV interviewing. It's just a lot of fluff. I don't know, like I don't ... I'm not saying that people don't do fun stuff. I gravitate toward trying to do fun interviews.

Daniel:

Do you think it's maybe because they're live? I mean, they're not. I mean, they're not live, they're taped. But they are in front of a live studio audience. You are doing that also, because there's all that preamble that's not even getting taped.

Grant:

Yeah. Well, the other thing I didn't know until I went to a Stephen Colbert taping is that they edit the hell out of those interviews.

Daniel:

Yeah, they do.

Grant:

And I didn't know that. I mean, I should have known that. I should have assumed that. But I also know they do pre-interviews. And so the conversations, the interviews, in late night TV are often, they're not scripted, but they kind of are. Because, you know kind of the things to ask the guests about.

Daniel:

Yeah, I mean, usually when I do a podcast, and this is a separate question, which I'll ask you, which is like, how much of yourself do you bring into the interview? Because you're not the famous person in this case, we're just ... I know you because we drink on Sundays.

Grant:

Yes.

Daniel:

Except for last night because you weren't there.

Grant:

I wasn't there last night. Shame on me.

Daniel:

I often do that sort of five or 10 minutes of, "Here's the arc. What would you like to talk about? Here's what I'm interested in asking you about." And say, "I'm going to sort of ask you this last question, is there anything we haven't talked about?" And then cut the tape and say, "Was that cool? Is there anything we need to cut out?"

Grant:

Yeah. I mean, a great recent example for me is that, I got the opportunity to interview Mike McCready from Pearl Jam. Very brief back story, I'm a huge Pearl Jam fan.

Daniel:

Wait, because we were talking a month or two ago about your ideal lifetime get, that was it.

Grant:

Yeah, because I hadn't interviewed anybody from Pearl Jam.

Daniel:

This just really ...

Grant:

This just happened.

Daniel:

Congratulations.

Grant:

Thank you.

Daniel:

How did it feel? That's so awesome.

Grant:

So, the thing is, as things often happen, they don't happen in the way that you ideally would imagine them. So for instance, if I were going to know that I was going to interview somebody from Pearl Jam, I'd like at least a week in advance to prepare. For this one, I only found out the day before.

Daniel:

What would you do with a week? Like, is that how long you normally take to ...?

Grant:

I would prefer to have at least a week.

Daniel:

Because you listen to some interviews, see what else they're talking about?

Grant:

You dig into what's relevant at the time. You just want to have time to think about it. You want to have time to think about your questions, because you have limited amount of time. And so, there's a lot of stuff. I could have spent hours with the lead guitarist of Pearl Jam, but I didn't have that. So, you have to edit yourself.

Grant:

So, to kind of go to your question before the interview, I was told I was going to be interviewing Mike McCready from Pearl Jam, because he's got this super interesting side project that is like music slash art kind of a thing. It's really interesting. I actually saw it performed live and it was really cool.

Grant:

He does it this woman who's an artist, like an actual painter, but they trade roles in the execution of it. It's just super interesting and really fun, and free, and it's really cool. But I didn't know, in advance of interviewing him, that she was going to be a part of the interview. His partner in the project. So, that's a major curveball to be ...

Daniel:

Right, because normally, if it was just him, you would have asked him questions about a million other things that are his history. But with two of them ...

Grant:

Well, it was two of them. I mean, I was already going to ask him about this project. But then, before the interview started, I had to ask him. I said, "Listen, we're going to talk about your project and I'm excited to ask you about it. But, I would also like to ask you some Pearl Jam questions. Is that okay?"

Grant:

Because the bulk of my interview that I had planned for was Pearl Jam questions. Because there's also an expectation from the audience. Specifically for this particular channel. They were going to want to hear more about the Pearl Jam stuff than the project. Even though, and to be fair, this project is super cool and interesting.

Daniel:

But her history as an artist, her backstory is maybe less interesting to the audience.

Grant:

And we didn't get into her backstory. But, the discussion about the project was super interesting. But yeah, I had to ask him because the bulk of what I had planned to talk to him about was Pearl Jam. And so I asked him beforehand. I said, "Listen, is it okay, if we talk about Pearl Jam?"

Grant:

And if he would have said no, I would have been in trouble. And fortunately, he said, "Yeah, we'll see." Because, I don't know. I think, depends on what I was going to ask him. What I asked him turned out to be fine. I didn't say anything that was out of turn or I wasn't asking him questions that he couldn't answer or anything. But I had to preface that with him beforehand.

Grant:

To go back to what you were saying before, younger version of me, being thrown into that situation where instead of having the one person, I have the two. And plus, we had less time than what we thought. There's all kinds of things happening that would have been too distracting for a younger version of me to have really been able to get past.

Grant:

Fortunately, I'm able to sort of juggle multiple things in my head during these interviews, because I'm comfortable. Even in that scenario, he was the lead guitarist of essentially my favorite band. But I wasn't thinking about that. I'm like, "No, I need to make a good interview happen here. And what are we going to do? We've got the curveball with this woman being a part of it."

Grant:

Which turned out to be fine. She was a lovely woman who I had a chance to talk to in the hallway beforehand, and kind of bonded over small talk. It worked out but it was having the comfort level of having done this a lot and having to improvise in the moment a lot.

Grant:

That allowed me to not freak out in a situation that, yeah, is not ideal. Where you have an extra person that wasn't supposed to be in the interview. And that potentially could completely screw up what you had planned.

Daniel:

This is great and that's really a fascinating story. My brain is going towards this thing. There's the outer conversation that you designed. You design these ... Honestly, I'm thinking about my interviews. I've got sticky notes all around and I've never made like a list of like, "Here's the order." You're definitely making me think like, "Oh, what would it look like to really ..."

Grant:

If you're doing it in order?

Daniel:

To think about an order, yeah. One of the things that's sort of come up over the last couple of years of me doing the podcast is, this idea of the outer conversations. You're designing this conversation between you and another person. And the conversations I design are like, I design group conversations.

Grant:

Sure.

Daniel:

But there's also the inner conversation. You with you, like Grant with the parts of Grant. I'm wondering if meditation, and your practice of meditation has had anything to do with your development as an interviewer. With your development, especially with regards to being able to manage yourself.

Grant:

I think without a doubt. I mean, my practice with meditation and I think we've talked about this, but for the purpose of being on the record here is that, it was about six months after I had started meditating regularly, on a daily basis that I noticed that I had this surge in creativity that I'd never experienced before.

Grant:

It wasn't something that I was looking for. I always am quick to point that out, because a lot of times when you make these claims, people will say, "Oh, you were looking." No, I didn't know. I just was meditation because I knew it was a good practice. It was something I needed in my life.

Grant:

I was coming out of a turbulent time emotionally. Coming out of a relationship that didn't work out. I was dealing with some anxiety and things, and I was just trying to get to a more chill, relaxed place.

Grant:

I won't say out of nowhere, but six months later, I realized suddenly, I kicked into this gear creatively that I had never experienced professionally. The only thing that had changed, the only that was different was meditation.

Grant:

I think, more directed toward interviewing, it allowed me to think about interviews in a deeper way for sure. It allowed me to think about my planning. Again, plotting out the arc of the interview in a better way. Because my interviews definitely got better after that too.

Grant:

It gave me more of, I guess, a relaxed nature in these situations that can often be a little anxious. Because yeah, you're interviewing somebody, maybe in the instance of this guy from Pearl Jam who I greatly respect, and so you're trying not to let nerves interfere with the interview.

Grant:

You're trying to make sure that you execute on what you wanted. You're trying to do a good interview. So yeah, it absolutely caused me to be able to be more relaxed in those situations and not panic. Truthfully, I have panicked in interviews before and it's not fun. Again, going back to the early Grant interviews. I would panic.

Daniel:

I mean, that's amazing. What do you attribute that to? What do you think it is about meditating that makes it possible to do those things that you talked about?

Grant:

I think that based on what I know of it, and I still feel like I'm just scratching the surface of my knowledge of meditation, but our brains need rest. They don't get to rest. Because a lot of people, a lot of us, are always thinking. You can't not think. You're always mentally active. And perhaps, overactive mentally and that's exhausting.

Grant:

Our brains don't get rest when we sleep because they're still moving. We're dreaming. Still, the engine is still spinning. And so, meditation gives us a chance to let our brain get a little respite. I think that makes all the difference in the world, that you got to give your brain a break. I think it's as important as physical exercise and fitness, or really anything else. Nutrition or anything, it's just as important if not more.

Daniel:

I agree 100%. I'm glad you said it. One of the things that I've learned is that, the spaces in a conversation are as important as the words. Right? Because otherwise, it's a non-stop ... It's just bagels ... Sorry, that's an inside joke guys. It's too long to explain that.

Grant:

We don't have enough time to get into it, but [crosstalk 00:43:28].

Daniel:

You don't want to know.

Grant:

It was fun at the time.

Daniel:

Inner silence, comfort within our silence is also comfort with outer silence.

Grant:

Absolutely. I agree with that. I mean, I just let that sink in, but absolutely. If you don't have comfort with your inner silence, you're not going to have comfort with outer silence. That's very indicative of going back to younger Grant doing interviews, not being prepared properly, panicking about what was happening next, "What am I going to ask next? Oh shit, what do I ask next?"

Grant:

It was also because I was not a very settled person at those times too. Yeah, I don't think there's any coincidence that me as a person, I am way more relaxed and calm. I don't really deal with anxiety at this point like I did earlier in my life.

Grant:

So, yeah. Having all of that settled internally, makes me able to deal with these situations that now are just ... Again, I used to be terrified. Let me just tell you, I used to be terrified of doing interviews. Terrified.

Daniel:

And yet you wanted to do them more? Why did you want to get better at them?

Grant:

Because, I knew I had to do more of them. I wasn't going to get better not doing them and being afraid. I had to just throw myself at them.

Daniel:

But why get better at them at all? Why don't just avoid it and run away?

Grant:

Because, I wanted to not have that weak link in my broadcasting repertoire. It was just the thing that ... It's become easier for me to craft what I do in terms of broadcasting. What I say when I'm talking on a particular channel or whatever, like here on SiriusXM.

Grant:

That part has gotten easier over the years. It took a lot of work too, but the interview part was something that meant a lot to me because it pissed me off that I was bad at it. I just figured, I have to get better at this. I have to get better at this and so therefore, I'm going to just do as many of these things as possible. And so, I did. I got to New York and I started doing interviews every week. Interviewing anybody and everybody.

Grant:

Having a whole experience of them, interviewing major artists, but also on the flip side, interviewing people who've never been interviewed before. Or bands who are really new in it, and then I'd have to coach them on how to talk in the interview.

Daniel:

Really? Okay, tell me about that. That's fascinating.

Grant:

Some of these bands, you could tell like they needed some help. It's fine, because I can relate. I needed help as an interviewer. So, I would explain to them, "All right, here's what we're going to talk about in this next segment." Again, because often my interviews are broken up into segments.

Grant:

So, I'd say, "Here's what we're going to talk about in this next segment. I'd like you to talk about this particular thing, or that particular thing." And I would guide them. Oftentimes, based on conversations we would have before the interview started. Or, sometimes ...

Daniel:

You paint the arc for them in a way?

Grant:

Yes.

Daniel:

I mean, what's crazy about this is, this is exactly what people who listen to my podcast who are facilitating meetings and leading organizations and teams. This is a leadership skill. Painting a picture for somebody and showing them the way forward in a way that is acceptable to them. That's leadership.

Grant:

I mean, I didn't think of it that way at the time. I was just thinking, I need to make this interview work and this person is so green that if I don't intervene here, this interview is going to suck.

Daniel:

Right, but I could imagine you saying that stuff to somebody in a way that they would reject.

Grant:

I suppose, but again in these scenarios, and this would be different from, I guess, more of a workplace scenario that maybe your listeners would be relating to is that, I think you would have newer bands coming into what is a major media organization.

Grant:

SiriusXM, I'm assuming most of the people listening to this podcast know. But it's a major satellite radio and digital audio outlet that serves North America. That can be really intimidating if you're a new band. You just got signed to a record label and you're 20-something, early 20s. You're kind of freaked out.

Grant:

Typically what I found is that, often those people who I had to coach in those situations were receptive. Because they didn't know any better and they hadn't had a chance to have an ego spin out of control yet. And that does happen, especially with younger bands who had gotten enough of a taste and enough comfort level, that typically the egos are with the younger bands and not the more established bands. Which is interesting.

Grant:

Yeah, typically they were receptive to it, because I'm trying to make their job easier because they're freaked out. Oftentimes, bands are freaked out. I talk to bands all the time and sometimes they'll actually admit to me, "Oh yeah, I was super nervous about this."

Grant:

Or, I interviewed a band recently who I'd interviewed three or four times previously. And the singer said, "I'm normally really nervous before these things, but because I know you, and I've talked to you before, I was able to be relaxed going into this."

Grant:

And this is a band that's not a new band and actually is a band, this particular band that I'm referencing has been nominated for Grammy's a few times. So, they're not one of these green super new bands. They're somebody that's been around for a little bit.

Daniel:

Do you have any advice for people to break the ice and make people feel at ease? Maybe that pre-interview stuff.

Grant:

Pre-interview stuff is so important.

Daniel:

Because you said, "Oh, I was doing small talk with her out there." Not everybody knows how to do small talk. What's your approach to that sort of comfort [crosstalk 00:49:52] phase?

Grant:

Yeah. It's super simple. People often don't like to talk about themselves. Again, for me, it's a little different because I'm talking to people that have to talk about themselves all the time.

Grant:

But, if we can talk about something else before the interview, I score huge points with that because it puts them at ease, because I'm not being a fanboy and say, "Oh my gosh, I really love that one album."

Grant:

No. I'm like, maybe if I know that they're a fan of a certain team, a sports team. We'll talk about, "Hey, how are your Redskins doing or whatever?" And like, kind of just make it super casual and super not about them, I guess, is very helpful. It's super helpful.

Grant:

Talking about books. I've had great conversations with artists about books, like somehow book comes up, and I'll recommend a book to them or something. Talk about anything other than themselves beforehand, is hugely important ...

Daniel:

Misdirection. So, just like going the opposite direction.

Grant:

Yeah, it puts them at ease. It puts them at ease that, "Yeah, I'm just a regular dude. And I'm asking them about regular stuff." Yeah, we'll talk about them once the thing starts, but if we could talk about something else, and just be kind of casual and chill about it, and beforehand, that makes all the difference in the world. As opposed to like, just going in cold. Oh my gosh, no.

Daniel:

Yeah. So, you got to warm them up. So, we're getting close on time. And I want to ask you for like ...

Grant:

You're going to kick me out of here? Out of my own studio, you're going to kick me out?

Daniel:

Well, this is not the Joe Rogan. I almost said the Seth Rogen show. It's definitely not the same person.

Grant:

Definitely on Seth Rogen.

Daniel:

I would listen to the Seth Rogen show. Joe Rogan, I mean, I don't want to interview for two hours. I mean, we could talk for two hours, which is fine.

Grant:

He goes long.

Daniel:

He goes long.

Grant:

I mean, it's only when he breaks out joints for Elon Musk for instance, you're going to go long.

Daniel:

Yeah, I know. That's terrible. Yeah, we get plenty more whiskey, so what advice for people in terms of asking good questions? Do you have a framework or a perspective on the types of questions you ask and what makes one good and maybe not so good, or better, best?

Grant:

Well, something that I have, a philosophy that I prescribed to, and I can't always stay true to it, but I say it to a lot of people is, especially again, the context is, I interview bands often, mostly.

Grant:

I'm trying to ask them questions that I can't ask anybody else. Which means, I'm being specific. And I'll give you an example of questions that aren't specific. Often, you'll hear DJs, hosts, radio hosts, whatever, podcast hosts even, who will talk to a band and they're not prepped enough. They haven't done the research. They're not familiar with the person they don't know.

Grant:

So, let's say, "Hey, so tell me about the new album," for instance, I could literally ask that of any band that I talk to. Right? That's a terrible question. Or, "Hey, so tell me about the tour." Even worse of a question because touring kind of sucks guys.

Daniel:

Right.

Grant:

You're sleeping in a really claustrophobic bunk on a tour bus, and you're not able to defecate on. You can't defecate on tour buses.

Daniel:

Don't shit on the bus.

Grant:

There's no shitting in the bus. So, that's a terrible question too. When possible, and it's not always possible, I try to ask people that I'm talking to, questions that I can only ask them, because it means it's specific. It means that I actually know about them, which again, helps to establish some trust with them so they know I'm not asking some generic thing, because I don't know who the hell I'm talking to.

Grant:

It doesn't mean that I necessarily always know a lot about who I'm talking to. But that's where the research comes in so I'd get to the point that I know enough. That I can sound like I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking to them. So, asking questions that are specific to your subject. Again, it's a rule that I will break myself. I'm not saying that I don't ...

Daniel:

When do you break it? Why do you break it?

Grant:

When do I break it? You can't always do that. Sometimes there's just circumstances where, for instance, I interviewed a band today, earlier today, and it's a time-shifted interview. Meaning that the band has a new album that's going to be out on Friday, but the interview is going to air after Friday. So, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the album.

Daniel:

They don't even let you listen to it? That seems ridiculous.

Grant:

I mean, to be fair, I probably should have been given a copy of the album beforehand. So, I wasn't, but in the context of the interview, the interview is going to air after the album is out.

Grant:

So, I phrase it in kind of a fun way, because the band is super goofy. And I said, "Listen, I didn't get a chance to listen to the new album yet because I have a shitty work ethic and a drinking problem. So, please, if you would explain to the audience what they can expect on the new album."

Grant:

That's not a great question because it's not specific, because I could ask that of anybody. But in this circumstance, I hadn't had a chance to listen to the album, so I can't talk to it.

Daniel:

But that's a fun way of asking like, "What can we expect of the new album? Let's not just tell me about the album," which for you is a hack question.

Grant:

I think it's ideally not. I was going to say it's ideally not ideal. It's not ideal, but there are certain circumstances where you can't always ask questions that you couldn't ask someone else.

Grant:

I'm just saying that, that's a very good rule of thumb. If you can ask something that's super specific that only applies to that person. And, to call back to what we were talking about before, when you're following up something that they said, you're listening to an answer they give and then you're asking a question based on something they said. That fulfills that requirement beautifully.

Daniel:

Well, 100%.

Grant:

100%. That is, I think, a quality conversation because again you're asking stuff you can only ask of that person.

Daniel:

I'm kind of surprised in a way because I feel like in a lot of lines of work, certainly in my line of work, there's some really, really solid general questions. I'll give you an example. I'm doing this program where we're making them read or asking them to read this book called The Coaching Habit. Which has like seven questions. The whole book is like, "Here are seven questions you should ask and you'll be good at being a coach in your regular every day life."

Daniel:

We're just like, "So, what's on your mind? And what else? If saying yes to that means saying no to what else?" They're little ingots. They've been polished and honed questions where it's like, in one sense I would think that like, "So, tell me about the new album," would be just an evergreen perfect question and then you ask whatever you ask after that.

Grant:

Well, no, because ideally, I would have listened to the album. So, again ...

Daniel:

So, you would say something like, [crosstalk 00:57:37] I saw this about the album, tell me about that.

Grant:

Right. I've interviewed artists who have books out and the worst thing I could say is, "So, tell me about the book." Instead, it's best to read about the book and start going into questions about the book.

Grant:

And again, you were referencing something. I know that there are people ... My thing as a general rule, and so I'm not saying that you have to obey it all the time. Tim Ferriss, who does a podcast. Since we're in the podcast realm, he does his rapid-fire questions that are always the same. "What's the book you've most gifted," that kind of thing. I think those are great questions.

Daniel:

The billboard question is a great question.

Grant:

To be clear, I think those are great questions and I'm not saying that those are bad questions because those are purposefully and very obviously, questions he asks of everybody. But before he gets to those, he's asking meaty questions that are specific to that person.

Grant:

So, again, I'm not saying it's this rule you can't violate. I violate it. I'm just saying that, typically, if the majority of the questions that you're asking your subject are questions you can only ask them, I think you're going to be in a very good place.

Daniel:

Yeah, because it shows that you've done your homework.

Grant:

It shows that you know what you're talking about.

Daniel:

You know what you're talking about.

Grant:

And that establishes credibility with the person you're talking to. Which is going to establish a comfort level with them, and they're going to be more open. And they're probably going to share more than they would if they could tell the person that they're talking to, doesn't know what they're talking about. I know this happens.

Grant:

I know this happens. Artists will tell me that they will talk to people who have no idea about them. And so then, some of the artists will mess with them and give them garbage bullshit answers, and totally fuck with them.

Daniel:

Well, it also feels like you're just sort of going through the motions, which can't feel good to ... These poor people are rich. Not literally poor, but ...

Grant:

Definitely not.

Daniel:

Not literally poor, unless they're Oasis starting out right?

Grant:

Right.

Daniel:

There's this feeling of just going through the motions. They're doing a day of these interviews.

Grant:

That's the thing.

Daniel:

But it sounds like you're thinking about their context, which is, I want to ask them a question where they will respond to it with a certain amount of energy.

Grant:

Yes.

Daniel:

I think this is my definition of a good question. A good question is like, "Phew." It's a potential energy. You're putting potential energy into the question in hopes that it will create a more than equal and opposite reaction.

Grant:

Absolutely. Listen, to go back to what you were saying, yes oftentimes when I get an artist, they're doing a lot of interviews in a particular day. And I know also, especially when it comes to the radio medium, I'll dare say that most interviewers suck. They're not good.

Grant:

And so, these particular artists have to go around and do shitty interview after shitty interview, after shitty interview. And it's frustrating. And so, I know that when they get to somebody who knows what they're talking about and actually is listening to them and is prepared, it means a lot to them.

Grant:

So for me, the greatest thing that I can get from an artist after an interview, is to hear them say, "That was really great. I really enjoyed that." So, at that point, I don't even care. I'm not even thinking about what the listener, what their experience is going to be.

Grant:

I want to make sure that my guests who I'm interviewing has a good experience and enjoys themselves and feels comfortable because they know that I know what I'm talking about. If they feel good about it, once it's over, the listener totally is going to have a good time.

Daniel:

100%. So, you've built this arc, you've done your prep.

Grant:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

You've crafted questions that are unique to them that only they would be able to give you [crosstalk 01:01:49].

Grant:

Mostly, and again, I want to make sure that people understand. I don't say that, that's an iron-clad rule, because I do break it. I do break it.

Daniel:

Okay, so I was going to ask you. There's a million questions but what are the questions that you find yourself? Is there a sort of come back to question where you're like, "Okay, when I break the rule, it is ... So tell me about the new album." Is that the question?

Grant:

I'll never ask that unless I have to, like I did with this band whose album wasn't out yet and I didn't have an opportunity to listen to it. I'll never ask that otherwise. I didn't say, "So, tell me about the new album." I tried to figure out the ...

Daniel:

I think you crafted the question very thoughtfully.

Grant:

Right. Yeah, exactly because I knew going into it, I wanted to get them to talk about the album, but without me having listened to it. Yeah, I said, "What can fans expect from the new album?" So, at least come up with a creative way to ask a question that maybe is a little bit more cliché.

Grant:

So, there's that. And in terms of other questions I go back to, yeah. I think I've asked the question, what song do you wish you would've written before? And that's a question I'm okay with asking. Because I asked that of Noel Gallagher, which was really super interesting.

Grant:

I'm pretty sure I asked that of Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins. Because he's a really strong songwriter who not only has obviously written for Smashing Pumpkins for many years, but also he's written for other artists like Courtney Love with Hole and countless others.

Grant:

He's a prolific songwriter, and so to hear him say what song that he wished he would've written. That's a powerful answer.

Daniel:

Yeah, that's like the Tim Ferriss' billboard because like ...

Grant:

That's along those lines.

Daniel:

But you can't ask that of everybody. You can only ask that of somebody who really cares about the craft of songwriting, potentially.

Grant:

Well, somebody who's actually a prolific songwriter. There's a lot of people who care about it but maybe aren't great at it.

Daniel:

So, when you're trying to close the conversation down, you're building your arc, how do you tie the conversation off with a bow at the end?

Grant:

Like I said, well ...

Daniel:

Do you like how meta that ... My meta questions?

Grant:

Yeah, it is very meta, because we are wrapping up. I like that. So yeah, if I do have a risky question, as I said, I'll put that at the end. If I don't have a risky question because I tend to like interviews to be fun, or at least end on a fun note, then I'll put my more ridiculous questions at the end.

Daniel:

Can you give me some example of some ridiculous questions?

Grant:

I don't know if this is appropriate.

Daniel:

I'll mark this explicit. It's fine.

Grant:

So, for instance, I ...

Daniel:

I'm sure Demos and his girlfriend, when they finally listen to this interview, will not be offended right?

Grant:

Okay, so ...

Daniel:

I don't think many children are listening to the Conversation Factory. I'll just put that out there.

Grant:

And if they are, "You know what? Wow. You're really ahead of the game."

Daniel:

Yeah, we'll do the NPR thing like, "If your children are listening, now is a good time to ask them to get out of the room."

Grant:

Do the earmuffs.

Daniel:

Earmuffs. Just tell them earmuffs.

Grant:

So, I interview this really fun band called Steel Panther today. And they ...

Daniel:

Amazing band name.

Grant:

Right, it's a great band name. So, the whole gist of them is that they are essentially, in 2019, they sound like a hair band from the 80s. But they're a comedic band. Their lyrics are super funny referencing their debaucherous lifestyle. I don't know if debaucherous is a word, but I like it.

Daniel:

Debaucherous is a word. Would you put them in the ... In my mind, I'm thinking of like, they might be trying some kick like ...

Grant:

[crosstalk 01:05:38] Yeah, so there's not a joke band, to be clear, but there are layers to them that make them fun. So, their biggest song is a song called Glory Hole. Which I think for people who are listening, we don't need to go into details. Right?

Daniel:

We don't need to go into details.

Grant:

Right. So, my final ...

Daniel:

It's not about glass-blowing. Because I have friends who are listening.

Grant:

Right, definitely not. My question for them, because the whole interview ... And to give context, was super fun and loose, and it was not a very serious interview. This was definitely not me interviewing Noel Gallagher and getting his favorite songs that other people have written.

Grant:

This is a fun, loose, kind of absurd interview. And so, my question for them before, because this was actually in advance to them performing their song Glory Hole. Again, their huge hit.

Grant:

I said, "Before we hear it, it would be great if you guys could share some tips for proper glory hole etiquette for either side of the glory hole." And for them, that was a great question because they like to offer these really goofy answers about, again, you're calling back to these 80s hair band stars who partied way too much. Fornicated way too much. Partied into rehab and into STD clinics and all that.

Grant:

So, they're just kind of a celebration of that, and they're making fun of that. And so, that was a great question for them because they can have a lot of fun with it as they did. And it was a very loose and fun way to wrap things up.

Daniel:

Yeah, that's interesting. I don't have a question with that.

Grant:

I was assuming you weren't going to ask me about glory hole etiquette but ...

Daniel:

Well, no, no, I mean, I don't have a fun way to wrap things up. Usually I say, "Is there anything I haven't asked you that I should ask you?" Because, as we said, the reason I'm talking to you is like, "I always want to be a better interviewer." And this is like, "How do we ..."

Daniel:

And not just me, obviously. This podcast is entirely for me, but everyone has to interview somebody in their life. And not just for jobs, but just getting information out of people.

Grant:

Yeah.

Daniel:

And so, that's what you do for a living, is get good information out of people on a fun and interesting way.

Grant:

Well, I try. I certainly try. I think also, the biggest thing is, if I had bullet points to neatly wrap this up in a bow. It's, yeah, to be as thoughtful as possible, and asking questions unique of the person when possible. Not always possible.

Grant:

Listening, listening, listening, listening, listening, which is something I couldn't do when I was early in my career, because I was so freaked out about, "What am I going to ask next?" That was the script in my head, "What am I going to ask next? Oh, shit, what do I ask next?" Listening to what they're saying so you can follow up on that. And, yeah, there was one other thing and I forgot it, because I was too busy thinking about. Yeah.

Daniel:

And you think part of it was managing yourself? That the [crosstalk 01:08:54] piece.

Grant:

Managing myself, yeah. But it's also practice. It's certainly practice. If I hadn't done a good amount of interviews, yeah, a lot of them would have been disastrous. Because I've had a lot of curveballs thrown at me. And some that I'm not even comfortable talking about. But I've had a lot of curveballs thrown at me that are very deeply, deeply, deeply unsettling where you have to react.

Daniel:

Now, I feel like I have to ask for a curveball that you can talk about.

Grant:

Well, as I mentioned, the ...

Daniel:

But the most famous person you feel comfortable telling us about?

Grant:

I can say that, I interviewed Scott Weiland, with Stone Temple Pilots probably less than a year before he died. And, he was not in a good place by the time I got to him. Because this is a person who was very well-known of having lots of drug issues throughout his life.

Grant:

And yeah, he was not in a good place when he showed up at our studios here at SiriusXM. And, my thought was that, he probably should not have been talking to me. And so, while I was having the conversation with him, I remember looking over at some people that were there. I'm not going to be more specific than that. And I kind of thought, "Shame on them for allowing this guy to be out talking to people." So, that's a good example.

Daniel:

Yeah. And you just had to keep going with the interview regardless?

Grant:

I had to surge forward with it. And again, to be fair and to be very clear, I'm not criticizing Scott. This is a person who had struggled for a long time with substance issues. And, I'm sensitive to the fact that, that's a very difficult place to be, and that I was not judging him in that moment, because I know where he'd been.

Grant:

But I think there were people around him that were perhaps not the best actors in that situation. And, were maybe not guiding him in the right way. But I had to do an interview with him at that point.

Daniel:

Yeah, you're in the room.

Grant:

I got to do it. Yeah.

Daniel:

That's tough.

Grant:

But, thankfully, I had enough comforting experience doing a lot of interviews and getting thrown curveballs that, "Okay, here we are, and this is what I have. And I'm just going to do this as best as I can." And, that's all you can do.

Daniel:

Yeah. You also have the benefit of you have an audio guy. They do cut and clip these things.

Grant:

Yeah, that's true. That's true. Yeah, and we also have the option, because most of my interviews are pre-recorded, that we have cut interviews entirely. Where something did not go well, and we'll say, "Yeah, we should not do that. We should not air that."

Daniel:

So, I guess my final question for you is, why don't you have a podcast? When are you going to have a show that I can come on?

Grant:

I didn't see this coming. Yeah, so that's the thing is ...

Daniel:

If you're going to walk away from the interview, this is my last question.

Grant:

I like that. No, that's good. See, that's the risky. You save the risky question for last. Yeah, I am a huge believer in podcasts. And by the way, as I've told you previously, not on the podcast, because this is my first time. I am thrilled that you're doing this, and I think it's a cool niche that you are filling with this topic, with the idea of discussing conversations. Because I think ...

Daniel:

You were like an early consultant before you even did the show.

Grant:

I did, I guess, gave you some thoughts back in the day.

Daniel:

Yeah, we talked about microphones and formats. We talked about formats and stuff like that.

Grant:

Absolutely. I'm thrilled that you're doing it. Because I think that it's a really cool topic, and it's an important topic. I think everybody can benefit from it. The other thing that, I guess I, I was thinking about when I was giving my bullet points I'm just remembering, is that yeah, you want to have goals. Like you do want to have goals going into broadcasts or broadcast interview, conversation, whatever it is.

Grant:

You want to have a handful of goals and you try to meet a few things. Like, if it's just keeping it loose, that's one thing. If it's getting deep into a particular topic, that's one thing. But those are like the overarching goals, however it is that you structure the arch of the conversation. Arc, arch, arc?

Daniel:

If you're in Europe, it's an arch.

Grant:

It's an arch. Here in North America, it's an arc. When you're planning out the arc of the conversation, it's good to have these kind of goals of some things. That was the thing I couldn't think about.

Daniel:

Yeah. Because that's like, why ... I've thought about the title for my third book. I feel like it should be, Why The Fuck Are We Here? I don't know, what the fuck are we talking about? That's the title.

Grant:

I like that. I like that.

Daniel:

It's like, "What the fuck are we talking about?"

Grant:

What the fuck are we talking about?

Daniel:

Because like, "Why are you here in this room? What are we talking about?" It's like, "Well, we're here because you interview people for a living." And I'm like, "I don't know many people like that." You have a star here, and you're like, "What the fuck are we talking about? The new album?" "No, I want to find out about you as a musician, you as a songwriter like you as a monkey owner, or not monkey owner."

Grant:

Right. Absolutely. So, that's a great book title. So, it'll go back to what I was saying. I'm thrilled that you're doing this podcast. I think it's a cool idea. And I've enjoyed listening to it. And so keep it up.

Grant:

In terms of my podcast, the biggest hurdle I keep running into is that, I'm busy with my day job. Being a broadcaster and interviewing people, and talking into a microphone, it's challenging to have the bandwidth to devote to it after hours.

Grant:

But I'm a huge fan of the podcast format. I think, being a lifelong radio fan, I think it's a cool evolution of that. I support it and I absolutely am committed to delving into that area as soon as I can when I'm not too busy doing my day job.

Daniel:

Your fans want it.

Grant:

My fan? Well, I guess I do have fans.

Daniel:

You do.

Grant:

There are people who are interested in hearing it, and I will deliver it to them soon.

Daniel:

If I may, I think one of the things that I've learned about you in this interview, if not before is like, originality matters to you.

Grant:

Absolutely.

Daniel:

So, asking questions that anybody else could ask isn't interesting. And when we've talked about formats for your show, I think that's the thing that is a challenge for you is, you don't want to do another person's format.

Grant:

Yeah.

Daniel:

You want to do something that's original. And it's hard to be original when time is going in a certain direction and things happen. Like there aren't that many iterations of, "Hey, so we went goofy. And then we went serious," versus like, "We went serious and then we went goofy." Right? That's just like ...

Grant:

Right. Right, yeah.

Daniel:

There's just a couple of different ways to do it.

Grant:

I mean, that's a good point. I guess, I didn't think of it, but yeah, I absolutely ... In everything I do, I try to be as original as possible because, especially being in the radio industry, it's an industry that isn't what it was because it's much smaller, and it's shriveled a lot.

Grant:

But, there has been a lot of copycat behavior, especially because things used to be so regional. So like, something that some guy would do on the radio in Chicago would be copied by some guy in Indianapolis and Des Moines, and Toledo, etc.

Grant:

And they didn't have any shame about it, because they'll just say, "I'm just trying to do a show, and I'll steal stuff, and I don't care." And I don't have that luxury because, I'm heard across North America. So, if I rip somebody off, people are going to know. But I don't have the desire to do that, I want to be as original as possible.

Grant:

So yeah, that informs everything I do, whether it's interviews, or just my daily broadcasting. And that's something that I want to apply to a podcast. And so, I won't launch a podcast until I have something that I'm extremely confident is original and different, and something that I can fully sign off on.

Daniel:

I look forward to it. So, parting thought. The Grant Random gem of wisdom around being an amazing interviewer, parting thought on that.

Grant:

A parting thought? Man, that's a lot of pressure.

Daniel:

I know it's a shit ... It's not a great question, as it turns out.

Grant:

Well, because I guess I would just reiterate what I said before. In that, in being a good interviewer, you need practice. I don't think that somebody who's super naturally gifted at conversation in ... I guess those people exists, probably, maybe?

Grant:

I wasn't one of those people. I needed to practice. The more practice I had at it, the more natural and comfortable, and I think for the listener, more enjoyable it was to listen too.

Grant:

And again, for me, a big part of that is actually listening deeply to what my guests are saying, and being able to ideally follow up what they're saying with questions based on that. That leads to just a richer, actual conversation. An actual conversation where it's actually back and forth, versus an interview where I'm just reading questions off a little piece of paper.

Daniel:

Yeah, deep listening. That's a really good place to end. I don't think there's a formula for that honestly.

Grant:

I think that it just requires being comfortable in the situation so that you're not distracted mentally that you can actually pay attention to what the person is saying. And again, for me, that took a lot of practice, because I was not that guy early in my career. I hope that most of your podcast listeners did not hear any of my earlier interviews, because they would be cringing and thinking, "Wow, this guy sucks."

Daniel:

They're all in the archive that we found in the back corner.

Grant:

Son of a bitch, no.

Daniel:

Well, Mr. Grant Random, I have to say it is really, really fun to interview you.

Grant:

Yeah, this is fun. I appreciate it.

Daniel:

I really appreciate you coming on. It's fun to be in the actual Cathedral of radio, that is SiriusXM.

Grant:

We're at the SiriusXM headquarters in New York City, by the way, for people who don't know. Midtown-ish. Times Square North, right a block down from 30 Rock.

Daniel:

So, we can just come visit you any time we want?

Grant:

Any time, just come on down.

Daniel:

Thanks again, man. I really, really appreciate it. This is awesome.

Grant:

My pleasure.