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.

 


Leading Change

S3_E16_Esther_Derby.jpg

Today I share my deeply lovely conversation with the amazing Esther Derby, Author, Coach and author of, most recently, “7 Rules for Positive, Productive Change.”

Esther started her career as a programmer, and has worn many hats, including business owner, internal consultant and manager. From all these perspectives, one thing became clear: our level of individual, team and company success was deeply impacted by our work environment and organizational dynamics. As a result, she has spent the last twenty-five years helping companies design their environment, culture, and human dynamics for optimum success.

She's a founder of the AYE Conference, and is serving her second term as a member of the Board of Directors for the Agile Alliance. She also was one of the three original founders of the Scrum Alliance.

Esther has an MA in Organizational Leadership and a certificate in Human System Dynamics.

We discuss Systems thinking in problem solving, the cobra effect, Clock time vs Human time, the power of invitation, Ritual vs Ritualistic thinking and how forests are a better metaphor for change than installing a new OS.

Enjoy the conversation!


Show Links

Esther Derby on the web

https://www.estherderby.com/


7 Rules for Positive Productive Change: https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Positive-Productive-Change-Results/dp/1523085797


Back when it was 6 rules! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDyoUdVHwbg


Kairos vs Chronos: Clock time vs living time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos


Forest Succession as a metaphor for change: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/community-structure-and-diversity/a/ecological-succession


“People are easy to see. People are easy to blame. Systems are hard to see and you can't blame systems.”

structures and patterns.jpg




The Laws of Open Space: 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology


Ritual vs Ritualized: The Power of Ritual to create a safe container


Esther on Retrospectives: 

https://www.estherderby.com/seven-ways-to-revitalize-your-sprint-retrospectives/

https://www.amazon.com/Agile-Retrospectives-Making-Teams-Great/dp/0977616649


 How to facilitate Safety:


“I have people fill-in-the-blank in two different index cards. And the first index card says, "When I don't feel safe, I fill-in-the-blank," and then I collect all those, and I have them do another index card that says, "When I feel safe, I..." They fill-in-the-blank and I collect those, and I shuffle them all up, and then I read all the ones about, "When I don't feel safe, I..." Sometimes I hand them out to people in the room, just at random  and they read them.


Then I have people read the ones about, "When I feel safe..."


Then I say, "What do we need to do at this time, in this meeting, so we can live into this?"


The Use of Self in Change: “The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor” – Bill O’Brien, former CEO of Hanover Insurance


Radical Participatory Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy


Virginia Satir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Satir


Full Transcription

Daniel:

I will now officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Esther, I appreciate you making the time. I try to have a different opening question regularly, and I was thinking to myself, your book that's come out about rules for change, is there anything you're trying to change about yourself?

Esther Derby:

Yes. I have been trying, and actually been rather successful, in changing my weight over the last several weeks, months. I am changing how I schedule my time, so that I can have more time to put aside for art and work with fabric. I am making changes in my life to accommodate the fact that my husband is now retired, and he's just around in a different way, and showing up in a different way.

Daniel:

Those are all really good. Those are positive, productive changes.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, well, hope so.

Daniel:

That's really cool. So, it'd be nice to take a step back for those who have not met you and talk a little bit about what you see as your work, what you bring into the world.

Esther Derby:

Well, I would say at the very most fundamental level, what I care deeply about is making the workplace more humane. That is really what is fundamental for me.

Daniel:

Yeah, and it sounds like, from what I followed of your work, is that that comes from your own experiences in the underbelly of organizations? I'm guessing, not experiencing that all the time?

Esther Derby:

Well, I have had the experience of being treated in inhumane ways, but I have also done a lot of reading and research about the origins of management, which many people peg to the railroads, but management as a profession with multiple levels of hierarchy, and productivity counting, and so forth, and so on, specialization of labor. Assignment of labor based on specialized tasks actually dates back to plantations working with enslaved people.

Daniel:

And this is the system under which, not just programmers, which is your heritage, but most people are working under.

Esther Derby:

Sure, and I don't think managers consciously hold that in their minds. I don't think that they are consciously thinking about extracting maximum labor, but it is in our heritage. It's in our family tree of management practices and management thinking.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, you used that term in one of your talks, this idea of the hangover of mechanistic thinking that we're suffering under. Can you talk a little bit about this legacy change versus this different approach to change that you're advocating now?

Esther Derby:

Well, I do think we have a hangover of mechanistic thinking, and we have this hangover of the origin of management practices, neither of which are particularly attuned to humans. In the earliest factories people came in from either rural situations, or craft situations, or small shop situations, where they had a lot of autonomy in many cases, not all but many, and they went into work situations that were far more regimented. Where they were expected to work by clock time, not necessarily by the time of the cycle of the day, and the cycle of the seasons, and they were in service to the machines.

Daniel:

Yes. Well, because the machines are cost they've paid for and they need to be paid for. They should be operating all the time to be maximally utilized.

Esther Derby:

And they need to be tended, right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

They need to be tended, and taken care of, and watched, and so that legacy... Which I'm not against industrialization, but huge benefits, in terms of the material wellbeing in the world, and I'm not advocating we go back, I'm just saying we need to be aware of the family tree. So, that sort of factory thinking was then applied to many other sorts of labor. I mean, if you looked at insurance companies in the 60s when people were essentially... Their jobs were reduced to very fine level, "You do this task. You stamp this and then you hand it to the next person," so I mean, they were in some ways, very mechanized humans, and we still have the obsession with specialization, and breaking things down into discrete tasks at the atomic level, and very prescriptive job descriptions, and so forth and so on, all come from that legacy.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, so then what's the new metaphor that we need? Because we talk about driving change, and installing, or implementing, right? I know it's triggering. I'll make sure there's an appropriate trigger warning at the beginning of the podcast, but this is something that we've all had, and then there's resistance to change and coercion.

Daniel:

So, what is the metaphor then? What's the new metaphor that we need?

Esther Derby:

I didn't put this in the book, because it didn't occur to me until after I had turned in the manuscript, but I've been talking about forest succession as a metaphor for changing organizations. So, not gardening because gardening you till the soil, and you plant particular things, and as long as you water them and weed them, everything will be fine. So, I think that is too simplistic, but a forest is something that does not just spring into being.

Daniel:

No.

Esther Derby:

It takes a process of... Well, if you start with rocky ground, let's just start with rocky ground. If one plant can take hold, that might hold a tiny bit of moisture in the soil that will allow another plant to take hold, and that plant might grow a little taller and put off some shade, which will let more moisture be held in the soil, which will make it possible for another plant to take root. And with all the roots, it'll start changing the soil and then different animals will come in, different insects, different animals, and then another plant community will be able to emerge. And so, it's not so much that we plant things and water them, it's that we create the conditions for something different to emerge.

Daniel:

Yes. So, what's coming up for me is, I mean, people want results. There's a hot problem, and we've got to do it in the next two quarters, and this approach sounds slow.

Esther Derby:

Well, I sometimes tell a story about a company where I once worked, where they were concerned about the projects coming in late and over budget. So, in the first year they said it's because people have never been held accountable. We will have consequences.

Daniel:

There will be consequences.

Esther Derby:

There will be consequences, and it had to do with people's bonuses. So, unless your project, and we're talking about year, or year and a half, two year long projects, unless it's within 5% of original schedule and budget, no bonus for you. Well, that didn't really make a difference, because large software projects were still large software projects, and they were dealing with tons of unknowns, and things turned out about the same way.

Esther Derby:

So, the next year they said, "Well, it's because we don't have professional project managers," and they brought in professional project managers, and things looked better for a while until the end of the year when, once again, things were late and over budget. So, they decided they needed a methodology and another year went by.

Daniel:

Oh, a methodology.

Esther Derby:

[crosstalk 00:09:16].

Daniel:

What methodology did they install in the...

Esther Derby:

Yeah, it shall remain nameless.

Daniel:

Right. Fair enough. I'm sure they didn't install Waterfall. Nobody has said like, "Let's install waterfall in our..."

Esther Derby:

Well, actually they did, because Waterfall was not the way we did projects when I started.

Daniel:

Yeah. Oh, wow.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, but anyways, so this went on for three years and at the end of the fourth year they declared victory. Various things had new names, so we no longer had documents, we had work products, we had job aides, we had compliance checklists, and so forth, and so on, but the results for the project were still the same. So, they took decisive action but it was a slow rolling non change. It went on for four years and essentially the same results, because they did not address the underlying influences and factors that held the pattern in place.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

Right, so I get that people want fast action and fast results, and sometimes you actually need them, right? If your company is about to go out of business, you take fast decisive action. You close it down, or find a way to infuse new cash and keep it running. So, sometimes you absolutely have to do that, but when you're looking for a long lasting change that is actually going to change what the system is capable of doing, I find that you have to really address these underlying factors. If you just slap something on top of it, the old pattern is going to reassert itself, so we have to really understand what holds this pattern in place. What are the things that we need to loosen up to create conditions for something else to emerge.

Daniel:

So, I'm looking at a diagram from a talk you gave, actually a couple of years ago, about people in patterns, where that the top of the pyramid is the event that you see now, and then there beneath the line is the pattern, and then beneath that are the structures. And if we react and respond to events, we have what you are talking about which is, it might work, or we might actually be not observing and depicting the true challenge, and therefore we can't create real change.

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yep, we have to look at those, I call them structures, often, or influencing factors, that are driving that pattern, that are creating that pattern.

Daniel:

So, you use the word container, right?

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

Containers are what hold people's attention, and then patterns form around it.

Esther Derby:

Yep, they hold focus.

Daniel:

They hold focus and you talked really beautifully about how we're very bad at temporal awareness and good at spatial awareness, and I'd never really heard somebody talk about this idea that we are humans. In order to stay alive we need to have good spatial reasoning. And so, we...

Esther Derby:

It also staves off Alzheimer's.

Daniel:

Does it?

Esther Derby:

There's recent studies.

Daniel:

Which does? Developing more spatial...

Esther Derby:

Use of the parts of your brain that had to do with spatial reasoning and abstract reasoning. It's protective against Alzheimer's.

Daniel:

Yes. Wow. I'll have to do more design thinking workshops with my parents now.

Esther Derby:

There you go. Good son.

Daniel:

This is an amazing...

Esther Derby:

Okay, so I went on a little loop-de-loop there, so...

Daniel:

No, this is a long question. I think what I'm trying to get at is you've written about retrospectives, and I'm wondering how you create the time and space for people to really see the patterns and the structures that are... Because it seems like safety and reflectiveness you can't just react to the, "Oh, projects are late, let's get people's bonuses." That seems like low hanging fruit [inaudible 00:13:33] it's great. There's time.

Esther Derby:

Well, it comes from a particular way of viewing people, and performance, and organizations that says that if things aren't working it's because of skill and will. People are easy to see. People are easy to blame. Systems are hard to see and you can't blame systems.

Daniel:

I mean, I feel like people sometimes do blame the system, but...

Esther Derby:

Well, yeah, sometimes they do, but...

Daniel:

When the system has been co-created, it's been there for... No one person made the system, usually, we all make the system together.

Esther Derby:

Right, so I think that there is less learning with less reflection. It's possible to learn, and maybe not consciously and maybe not with a great deal of awareness, but reflection I think is a necessary component to learning. It goes against our bias towards action.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

So, in Western business culture, and particularly in the US, there's a huge bias towards action.

Daniel:

So, how do you invite people into a reflective space, so that they may go deeper into the challenge space?

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Well, I create invitation. I create spaces for it. Not everyone chooses to come.

Daniel:

Yes, but whoever comes are the right people.

Esther Derby:

Well, I think there's a law about that.

Daniel:

Yes. Well, yeah, and this is for listeners who are new to this, I was sharing the laws of Open Space with someone and I describe it as Buddhism for facilitators, it's sort of like...

Esther Derby:

That's a nice way to say it.

Daniel:

Whoever comes are the right people, whenever it starts is the right time.

Esther Derby:

Whatever happens is the only thing that could happen.

Daniel:

Yeah, so prepare to be surprised.

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

Can you help us? Can you help me structure invitation for that space better? What are the components of that good invitation to reflection?

Esther Derby:

Well, you already know one of them, Open Space, which always starts with an invitation, right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Esther Derby:

It always starts, "Come help work on this problem if you have something to contribute to it." I sometimes find it helps to make things a bit of a ritual and that's what retrospectives are. They're a ritual, right? So, they're just carving out time and providing a structure, a format, that is likely to be conducive to a flow of conversation and full participation.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

The trick is not to let it become ritualized, so that it's the same every single time, because then you get habitual thinking.

Daniel:

Okay, now I'm going to take a very fine razor to the difference in ritual and ritualized.

Esther Derby:

Okay. It's possible I'm using the terms incorrectly.

Daniel:

I don't know if there... No, no, it seems like what I'm hearing you say is that, and this is maybe my own projecting, but a ritual creates a safe space...

Esther Derby:

It can.

Daniel:

And a pattern where we can sort of expect to know what is happening, but when something becomes ritualized, maybe that's when we fall asleep to it?

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Yeah. It just becomes rote behavior at that point, and when retrospectives become rote behavior, then the reflection is lost, right? So, people who are doing the same three questions for two years it's like, "Oh, our retrospectives are boring." Well, this is not a surprise if you've been asking the same three questions, or two questions, or doing the same meeting in the same way. It's not a wonder to me that things have gotten stale, and flat, and boring, and uncreative.

Daniel:

Yes. "Weary, stale, flat and unprofitable," that was how Hamlet described all the uses of the world, so how ought people to keep those... I mean, I'd never thought about how core retrospective is, because it seems like if it is regular, it's not about blame, it's just about looking back and noticing and seeing what is.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, I am fond of Shakespeare's, it's Hamlet quoted in Shakespeare, "Nothing is either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

Right? It just is, and then you can respond to it.

Daniel:

Yes. How do we create that space for blameless retrospective though? It seems so challenging, potentially.

Esther Derby:

Well, it depends a lot on the culture of the organization and how people have been treated, right? So, if blame is pervasive in an organization, then I might not recommend that they do retrospectives, right? They may need to deal with that blame issue before they can hope to have an effective retrospective.

Esther Derby:

So, some of the things I do are I work with working agreements, for the particular retrospective if I think blame is going to be an issue. So, I have a number of working agreements I may work through with people, or I may let them bubble up themselves. I may talk about safety, psychological safety, and what that means. I have exercises that help people think about that. So, there's a lot of things you can do that can create at least a momentary place where people can bring things up. And in a culture that has been subject to blame, where people are blamed for things beyond their control, people are blamed for being coerced into commitments and then not making them, I don't expect deep learning at the outset. I expect people to just dip a toe in, right? Try something small, gain some belief that you won't be punished for bringing something up or suggesting an idea, but in organizations where there's a pervasive blame, it takes awhile for people to believe that something else is possible.

Daniel:

Yeah, they're waiting for evidence.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Well, and who can blame them? It's reasonable.

Daniel:

Yes. What is an activity you use? Not to get you to reveal all your tricks live on the internet, but psychological safety seems to be a very ephemeral quality that people talk about. I've never heard somebody say, "I have activities that help people gain a sense of safety." How do we do that as facilitators?

Esther Derby:

I think the situation that felt most dramatic to me, or feels most dramatic to me, is when I have people fill-in-the-blank in two different index cards. And the first index card says, "When I don't feel safe, I fill-in-the-blank," and then I collect all those, and I have them do another index card that says, "When I feel safe, I..." They fill-in-the-blank and I collect those, and I shuffle them all up, and then I read all the ones that, "When I don't feel safe, I..." Sometimes I hand them out to people in the room, just at random, so I'm just distributing them at random and they read them. So, you just have this kind of pouring over you, and it's like ugh.

Daniel:

So, you read the first ones, the, "When I don't feel safe I," blank.

Esther Derby:

Right, and then you have people read the ones about, "When I feel safe..."

Daniel:

But not their own, right?

Esther Derby:

Not their own.

Daniel:

You anonymize it.

Esther Derby:

No, I've shuffled them. I anonymize them if I'm really... Sometimes I read them myself and it is astonishing. You can see a physical shift in people. You can hear it in their voices, right, and then I say, "What do we need to do at this time, in this meeting, so we can live into this?"

Daniel:

Yeah, because you've drawn the gap for people very clearly, yes?

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

I can't imagine anybody would hear all of that and say, "Well, who cares," right? It's up to everybody. I could see you create that tension and people want to resolve it in the positive direction.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. I wouldn't do that with every group I go into, but it is just palpable the difference. And people really, really yearn, and long, to act out of a sense of safety because that's when they can be creative, that's when they can take risks, that's when they can talk about the tough stuff, that's when they can be at their best, that's when they can take a chance on somebody, that's when they can take a chance on themselves, that's when they can connect and people yearn for that.

Daniel:

Because I'm just imagining when people say, "When I feel safe I contribute."

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

And this is what we really want.

Esther Derby:

It's what most people want to give, not everybody, but I mean, some people are just at a job to support their family and their life, and I think that's admirable, but many, many people want to contribute in a significant way. They want to have a purpose. They don't want to just be clocking the time, they want to be contributing in a meaningful way, and that sense of safety is connected to that.

Daniel:

I think that's a really beautiful exercise.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, feel free to use it.

Daniel:

I mean, so that's a safe container, right?

Esther Derby:

Yep.

Daniel:

Because of the anonymization... For sure.

Esther Derby:

And like I said, I wouldn't do it with every group, but I've done it with a number of groups and it's been very, very powerful. Sometimes I do a survey about how safe people say, and I give them a little scale, and say "I'll talk about anything without fear of retribution," and that's five and zero is, "I'm not bringing up anything. I'm not taking any risks." Again, I collect the responses, and I create a histogram, and people say, "What does this say about our ability to deal with the problems that are facing us?" And then they get to make choices about what they're going to do.

Daniel:

How many people would you survey to produce that data?

Esther Derby:

However many people are in the room.

Daniel:

Yeah. Oh, gotcha, like a survey in the room. Yeah.

Esther Derby:

And usually, I collect the little index cards, or slips of paper, or whatever and assuming I'm in person in a case like this, and then I put them in my back pocket, so everybody knows that they're not just laying around.

Daniel:

Yes, that's showing respect. What's interesting is that there's a very strong arc and there's a very strong close to that, that you're respecting the pieces of paper that they've created and spoken up. And what's interesting, it's funny, this definitely speaks to your OG programmer cred, but you're using index cards for this activity, right?

Esther Derby:

Index cards.

Daniel:

Index cards. Us new kids on the block, where it's all about the stickies, but I can see how putting those on the wall might actually be a little confronting.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, well I like stickies, too.

Daniel:

So, I can see how your ethos of respect for other people go into your rules for change, honoring what's currently existing, observing the system and respecting what's currently alive in the system, caring about the networks that are inside of the system. I'm curious how you sort of iterated into the seven rules in the book, because I know you were giving a talk just a year ago were there was six.

Esther Derby:

I know, but I wouldn't be a very good role model for change if I couldn't add a new rule. So, there was a time in my life when entering a new system, I did not stand in non-judgment. There was a time in my life where I...

Daniel:

I'm not going to stand in judgment of you of that. I understand that.

Esther Derby:

Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate it. I mean, it's like, "What the hell are people doing?" It's hard to influence people once you've flipped the bozo bit, right? It's very hard to influence people.

Daniel:

Wait, I'm sorry, for you it's hard to influence people when you've...

Esther Derby:

Once you flip the bozo bit on them. Do you know that expression?

Daniel:

I don't.

Esther Derby:

Oh, well in old programming, when you were actually dealing with bits, you could actually change a bit from a zero to a one. It was called flipping a bit, turning something on or off. And the bozo bit is saying, "I view this person as a bozo."

Daniel:

Gotcha. It's hard to un-say that.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to get your mind out of that and it's hard to influence someone once you put them in that category. So, I had to learn how to approach things differently, right? And in some ways, I was coming from that mechanistic legacy of standing in judgment, and things should be working fine, so I try not to be too hard on myself, but I had to find different ways if I actually wanted things to change and so, that's in some ways, the origin of when I started approaching these things differently. But I also I had the experience early in my career of seeing how one of my programs was a negative change for somebody, and I had the experience early in my career of making small changes, so that people could work more effectively.

Esther Derby:

So, the six rules was in some ways a little contest with myself to see if I could encapsulate my beliefs, and my experience, and my research about change in a very succinct way.

Daniel:

Yeah, to know what you're about?

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

I think this comes...

Esther Derby:

So, when...

Daniel:

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Esther Derby:

Well, the first time I gave this talk, the talk Six Roles for Change, was in 2015 and I didn't really know at the time it would turn out to be a book.

Daniel:

What made you decide to make it a book? What was the pull towards that, because you've written other books, not every idea you have becomes a book?

Esther Derby:

No, I went for about 10 years without writing a book. I see so many instances of companies, and people in companies, who really want something to be different and the methods that they have inherited are insufficient to actually bring about the sorts of change they want, sometimes they long for, they yearn for, because they don't address the underlying pattern.

Esther Derby:

And many of the traditional change methods are premised on top down control, pushing change onto people and incorporating plans to overcome resistance, not recognizing that the way they're going about it has actually engendered this thing they call resistance, right?

Daniel:

Literally, creates the thing that they are planning for.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, yeah. Exactly. So, I was tweeting with a friend of mine, who was in a change management class recently, and they were being told that they had to have a plan to overcome resistance in their change plan. So, it's still out there, right? So, it just seemed to me that people needed a different way to approach change that was more humane, more humanistic and more informed by complexity science and working with complex adaptive systems.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, and it seems like observing the system means, in some sense, respecting what is working in it?

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

Having some like, "Whoa. Wow. Somehow it works." So, you don't go in and say like... You respect the fact that somehow there is something alive in the system before you start messing with it.

Esther Derby:

I like the fact that you're saying there's something alive in the system. I like that a lot.

Daniel:

Yeah, that comes from appreciative inquiry for me.

Esther Derby:

I like that languaging.

Daniel:

There's something. It's living something, in some way.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. There's always something worth saving, right. And there's always stuff that's working, otherwise the company would be out of business, or the organization would have folded, so it's worth looking for that and building on it, which again, is sort of the genius behind appreciative inquiry.

Daniel:

So, I want to go back to the sticky note I wrote before we started talking about the use of self, because I feel like the ultimate container for this is the change agent. There's a person who wants change, and who is absorbing the challenges, and who says to themselves, "I want to do something," and then there's this feeling of having to absorb the other person's perspective and having to think about, an empathize. There's a lot of work, internal work, that has to be done in the person who wants to do the change. I don't know if that's what you meant by use of self, but that's what it sparked off on me.

Esther Derby:

Well, I think all of those statements are true. I come at that statement from conversations I've had with friends of mine who are licensed clinical social workers, and in study after study, it has been shown that if you have two people with roughly equal professional skills, they went to the same school, they learn the same skills for dealing with their clients, which may be individuals or it may be organizations, what makes the difference is the ability to show up, be present, connect, and be empathetic. That's what makes the difference, and that has to do with who you are as a person, and how you bring yourself, and your experiences, and your personality to your work.

Esther Derby:

So, for people hoping to bring change, yeah, they are absorbing a lot, which means they have to call on their inner resources, and they need to be empathetic to others. So, they need to call on their empathy. They need to call on their patience. They need to call on their ability to observe and to withhold judgment, because that's not a natural tendency for most of us who are brought up in the West. So, we have to work at it, and you're right, it is hard work and I think it's super, super helpful for people to have a support network.

Daniel:

Yeah. I'm looking at pay attention to networks is something we're supposed to do to change a system, but obviously all of these rules ought to apply to change on oneself or change with oneself.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. It's fractal. I suppose [inaudible 00:35:25]. One human, or 10 humans, or 10,000 humans.

Daniel:

I would hope so. How do you take care of yourself as a change agent, because I mean, that is what you do.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, it is what I do.

Daniel:

You come in and you help organizations, architect, and facilitate change.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. I help individuals do that and I help companies do that. Well, I try to get enough sleep. I try to eat well. I have a support network. I have a number of dear friends who act as sounding boards, or sometimes they let me sing my complaints choir to them, so I have that. I have the support network. I walk in the woods. I walk in the city. I ski. I do stuff that takes me out of this. I quilt. So, I have other things that bring me a bit of sanctuary and a place to refresh and look at things from a different perspective, so I'm not always immersed in it.

Daniel:

Taking time.

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

I find it very challenging to do that. There's a lot of demands that I put on myself, so it's encouraging to hear you talk about those pieces.

Daniel:

I feel like we're really getting close to the end of our time together. I want to respect your time. What haven't we talked about that we should talk about? What have we missed off?

Esther Derby:

Well, we've covered a lot of really, really deep and interesting topics, so I'm not sure I'm feeling that anything has been neglected.

Daniel:

Oh, that's wonderful.

Esther Derby:

I'm sure there are other things we could talk about, but I think we talked about some really significant things.

Daniel:

So, I guess one question I have is, aside from your book, which people should read, what have you fed yourself with? What are some of the most significant places you've gone to feed your head around these things, these issues we've talked about?

Esther Derby:

So, in terms of studying, or reading, or absorbing?

Daniel:

When it comes to your philosophy of lack of coercion and change, that's something that's really deep in you and I'm wondering where you've fed your professional mindset from? What wells you're drinking from?

Esther Derby:

Well, in some ways, it goes back to early in my life. In some ways, it goes back to when I was doing my master's program and was exposed to radical participatory democracy and the power dynamics that exist in many corporations. So, I think that helped me articulate a lot of those things. I'm also been studying Satir work for, I don't know, almost 30 years.

Daniel:

I'm not familiar with Satir work, and I know you mentioned it in some of your talks.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, Virginia Satir. She was a social worker and she really pioneered the idea of a family as a system. So, you can't just say, "Well, Suzie's the problem," you have to look at the whole family and how Susie is responding and what the dynamics and the relationships are there. So, while I'm not a therapist and I'm not a social worker, I have studied this model, because I find there are many parts of it that can be used in a business context, in organizational context, that help people be more fully human, be more fully themselves, be more congruent, be more aware of their own resources, and to step into the world in a way that is more healthy for them. So, I think that's a really deep well for me.

Daniel:

That's cool. I'll check that. It's funny, I look at some of the stuff that we do like drawing stakeholder maps and drawing problems as art therapy. When I ask people to draw their jobs, and I see where all the people in their jobs, and where aren't the people. Systems are complex and people are complex. I think there's a lot to unpack in that. I really appreciate it. I'll look her workup.

Daniel:

Well, all right then. I think we're going to close it out there and I'll ask you to stay on for one more moment.

Esther Derby:

Sure. I really appreciated this conversation. It was really lovely having this time to talk with you.

Daniel:

Thank you. Me too. It's nourishing. I'll call scene.

Daniel:

Just wanted to make sure everything felt includable, I don't think we got into any rough territory?

Esther Derby:

Uh-uh (negative), and my dog was quiet the whole time. This is a miracle.

Daniel:

I'm glad.

Esther Derby:

I can hear her snoring in the other room, but snoring is not that bad.

Daniel:

I actually did a podcast episode where the guy had to hold his dog and then the dog finally fell... That was the only way to have a silent workshop podcast call.

Esther Derby:

I get that. Yeah, I'm going to have another cough drop, excuse me.

Daniel:

Thank you really for doing this. It's really interesting. It's like we all come from our own heritage, and our own perspectives, and it's just I really love the way the things that you present, and that you share, because I think it's important stuff.

Esther Derby:

Thank you. I've really appreciated this conversation. I didn't just say that to say it. You are good at conversation.

Daniel:

It's funny, the idea of coercion at the base of it is respect for others, and just understanding that conversations, I've come to respect them more and they make me a little bit more careful with them.

Esther Derby:

Well, you use them to connect and to understand.

Daniel:

I do.

Esther Derby:

So, that's lovely.

Daniel:

Well, I hope this isn't our last conversation.

Esther Derby:

I hope not. I hope that this is the start of many conversations.

Daniel:

Thank you!

 


Reinvention is Building a Conversation

dorie clark wep post image.jpg

Today’s conversation with Dorie Clark taught me some essential lessons about how to build a following around one’s ideas - which is no surprise - Dorie has given several excellent TEDx talks on just this topic, and I’ll summarize my insights from our conversation in a moment. 

I learned something more surprising during my conversation with Dorie - that she is living her principles, constantly. I also learned that she’s into musicals, big time. I wasn’t expecting to learn this about Dorie, but I followed the conversation, as you’ll see. 

Dorie is the author of a trilogy of books all about reinvention.

Starting in 2013, Dorie wrote “Reinventing You: Define Your Brand, Imagine Your Future” which she followed up in 2015 with “Stand Out: How to Find your Breakthrough Idea and build a following around it” which was named Inc Magazine’s #1 Leadership book of that year. Most recently, in 2017, she penned “Entrepreneurial You: Monetize Your Expertise, Create Multiple Income Streams, and Thrive.”

Maybe I’m just a cynic, but I often expect people who have this much time to write about their ideas to have less time to apply them. Dorie walks her talk, however. The opening quote is about Dorie’s dream to learn to write and produce musical theater...and how she’s going about it - slowly building skills, insights and networks, long before she plans to tap them. If you take nothing else away from this episode, that alone is a solid gold lesson.

This approach makes logical sense - you have to plant before you can reap - and networks are no different. What I loved learning about Dorie is that she’s not sitting still - she still has dreams of constant reinvention and she’s working to make those dreams possible, steadily.

In the last several years in hosting this podcast, I’ve come to see conversations in a new light - sometimes they can seem like a wave, building, cresting and receding. Dorie certainly treats her own musical reinvention in this way - like a conversational wave she needs to build. But I’ve also learned that conversations also have key sizes that act differently - small, medium and large conversations are all essential to master, as a leader or facilitator, and with reinvention, this is still true. Dorie takes me through three key conversational size “phase transitions” in building a following around a breakthrough idea. You don’t get to massive impact overnight.

Zero to one: Start talking about your idea. It may seem obvious, but many people just keep their ideas and their dreams in their heads. Getting it out of your head is like Peter Thiel’s Zero-to-One innovation and gets the ball rolling.

One to Many: Finding ways to get to talk to many people about your ideas at once, like writing for a publication or speaking to a group.

Many-to-Many: The goal, at the end of the day, is to develop a many-to-many conversation. You don’t want to be the only person talking about your idea. For me, the more people who see conversations as something worth designing, the better it is for me and for the world (at least, that’s how I see it) - which is why I keep making this show!

This episode is full of other insights, like how to write a great headline or choose a collaborator for a project. For the show notes and links to Dorie’s books and videos, click over to the Conversation Factory.com

Show Links

Dorie Clark on the Web

https://dorieclark.com/

Dorie’s Trilogy:

Entrepreneurial You: https://amzn.to/2oYVQ0g

Reinventing You: https://amzn.to/VzNRkZ

Stand Out: https://amzn.to/1FVYNP9

How to Build a Following Around your Ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fQ92UVoXqc

Zero to One innovation: https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296

Full Transcription

Daniel: I will officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Dorie, thank you so much for making the time to talk about the things that we're going to talk about.

Dorie: Hey, I'm so glad to have the chance, Daniel. Thanks.

Daniel: Thank you. I was watching one of your many TEDx talks. This is the TEDxWPI Talk where you talked about how to build a following around your ideas. One of the things that really lit me up was this idea of the evolution from one to one conversations to one to many conversations, and from there to many-to-many conversations with. Really building momentum around a breakthrough idea. I want to just dive into each one of those individual conversations, because I think it's important that we all have an idea that's we're passionate about. The question is how do we get other people to take it up and become passionate about it as well?

Dorie: That is totally the question. You're right. Because there are so many good ideas that just languish and die because there's really only one person that cares about them. We have to change that equation.

Daniel: Right. You talked about this in Stand Out right there, and this is not surprising. There's so much noise in the world right now. I guess the first question is how do you in fact get your idea to stand out?

Dorie: Well, the very first criteria in for that, which it actually sounds self evident, but in practice, it is not self evident at all, is coming to understand that if you do not share your ideas publicly, no one will know what they are. That is step one. I think so often, people get frustrated and they start shaking their fists at the sky. Well, why aren't people paying attention? Why isn't this catching on? But the truth is they are only communicating to the small network of people immediately surrounding them.

Dorie: Unless those people happen to be literally exactly the right people or unless they happen themselves to be a coterie of powerful influencers, most likely there is not enough kindling there to get a spark going. You have to start sharing it, not just with the people around you who are within immediate earshot, you need to start sharing your ideas broadly, and that is because you need people to be able to discover them. You need to make yourself findable to the people that actually do care.

Daniel: Now, you are a great writer, and not everybody is. One thing I was looking through your giant list of Harvard Business Review articles, and I got to say, you know how to write a headline. I have a sticky note here that says, "Get Dorie to tell you how to write a good headline," because this seems like we've got a big idea and it's really important, and people will only learn about it if they can get past ... if they click on it, presumably, which means you've got to write a headline that makes people want to read at least the first paragraph of the article.

Dorie: Yeah, absolutely. Not to puncture your enthusiasm, but actually the HBR editors write the headlines-

Daniel: Oh, man.

Dorie: ... for the pieces. I know. I do still have some thoughts I'm happy to share, but the truth is the final responsibility ... Of course, you as the author give your piece a provisional headline just so the editor knows what it's about. But they're typically rewritten with impunity by the editors in a way that ... It's funny. It's like how for some reason your teeth are not considered part of your body when it comes to health insurance. It's like, "Oh yeah. Your health insurance, well, clearly that doesn't involve your dentist. That's separate."

Dorie: Similarly, you would think that your headline is a part of your article, but actually it is treated sometimes as though it were not, and so an editor would never dramatically rewrite your first few sentences without somehow telling you or getting your permission, but they do that with headlines a lot. All that being said, some thoughts about headlines, I mean, the biggest question that I think I try to ask myself is, would I read this article? Is the headline something that is compelling enough to me personally that I would say, "Oh wow, I need to stop and look at that?"

Dorie: If it's not, I want to keep trying to tweak it until somehow I'm hitting on something that is a perceived pain point for people such that they would actually stop to look at it. Because we're all barraged so much. I think that sometimes we can weirdly lower our standards and assume other ways to be a better leader. Clearly, people aren't going to read that, and some people will. But for most people who are familiar with whatever our genre is, we're way past that. We need something more compelling to get us to stop, and I want to keep pushing [inaudible 00:05:26] to that.

Daniel: It's so interesting that the conversation between you and the editor is not bidirectional, in a way. Just to go back to that point, that blows my mind that you write the article, and they're like, "Okay, and here's what it's called."

Dorie: Right, right. Exactly. The truth is, sometimes they may not quite pick up on the nuance that you want, but most of the time they do make it better. I mean, it is their job to focus in on that, and so oftentimes, they can tweak it in such a way that you're like, "Oh yeah, that is really interesting." For Harvard Business Review in particular ... and I have studied this really extensively having written for them for nine years now.

Dorie: I've done about 200 articles for them, and I even actually developed an online course specifically called Writing for High Profile Publications, because I did so much reverse engineering of this. But something that is somewhat unique to Harvard Business Review is that they are very interested in what I will call situational pieces, and so the frame that they like to set up is often what to do when X happens? A common formulation. Partly I think this is because of SEO, because of search engine optimization.

Dorie: But also it's interesting because if you truly capture this correctly, it is going to be a very, very specific tactical article, which is what they want. But, for instance, a colleague of mine wrote a piece about what to do when your employee tells you they have cancer. That's a perfect example, right? It's not something that happens every day, but whoa, when that happens, you really want guidance and it is a very useful tactical in the moment piece.

Daniel: Yeah. This goes to this idea of, you talked about the spark and the kindling, a real pain point. You're-

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: ... helping somebody with a real pain point.

Dorie: Absolutely.

Daniel: I want to develop this idea a little bit because I imagine ... I'm wondering what that feeling was like for you when you wrote some of your articles that became the book. What does that pull feel like? That momentum from, "Oh, this is a thing, let's turn this into a larger thing? What does that feel like, in you, to notice that spark catch and begin to develop?

Dorie: Well, specifically, if we're talking about Reinventing You, which was my first book, and it did arise in this perfect progression in some ways, where it started out as a blog post, probably a seven or 800 word blog post, called How to Reinvent Your Personal Brand, and then got expanded into a magazine piece for Harvard Business Review, which is about 2,500 words, and then I had the opportunity to turn it into a book. Honestly, what I've come to appreciate in my professional life, it's not so much that I have amazing taste in terms of knowing what will be a great book. It more that I just try not to be dumb when opportunities present themselves.

Daniel: Wow.

Dorie: For me, starting in 2009, that was when I really got serious and I really, really wanted to publish a book. So I wrote two different book proposals and tried to pitch them, and we just met with utter lack of success. I had some people that may be maybe were interested, but the universal position was that I did not have enough of a platform, so to speak, that I was not famous enough, and so I was told that I needed to basically, "Come back when you're famous, kid."

Dorie: So I was like, "Ooh." It's not what I wanted to hear. So I went and started writing for the Harvard Business Review. I fought my way in there, and ultimately, this piece, this early blog posts that I wrote for them about reinventing your personal brand struck a chord, and they asked me would I expanded into a magazine piece, and I did. That's already one vote of confidence in the concept. Then when the magazine piece came out, I did not realize there's a lot of interesting behind the scenes things that until you're part of the club, you just don't know.

Dorie: For me, what I discovered was that, "Oh, interesting." Lots of literary agents, business focus literary agents, use the Harvard Business Review as a way of soliciting clients. So when my first piece came out in HBR, I had three different literary agents reach out to me and say, "Oh, Hey, have you thought about turning this into a book?"

Daniel: Sure.

Dorie: I had not. That was not the topic that I was interested in writing about, but I was like, "Look, I'm no dummy. Sure. I'll turn it into a book."

Daniel: Right.

Dorie: That was how that happened.

Daniel: Well, I mean, it's interesting. You make it seem like it was obvious, but I'm sure that they're still ... that people going through their own moments like this ... I'll just speak for myself. Writing a book is an agonizing experience, for me, especially towards the end. There's this question of, why do I have the right to say what I want to say? I'm wondering if you have any advice for people who are struggling with, I guess, what would be normally termed imposter syndrome?

Dorie: Yeah. I mean, the best advice...

Daniel: Not that you ever have this experience on ... Of course, I presume.

Dorie: Well, it's interesting. I feel bad talking about it sometimes because from everything that I understand, it sounds like imposter syndrome is literally the world's most common thing. The truth is, I don't actually have it because I have, for whatever reason, always had possible overabundance of confidence. That maybe has its own challenges, but this is not my particular cross to bear. However, that being said, I feel like something that is helpful to me and I hope is helpful to other people when it comes to feeling imposter syndrome is, "Okay, what's the advice?"

Dorie: Literally the advice is look around, because pretty much anyone, including someone in the throws of imposter syndrome, can look around and say, "Wow! Who are all these jackasses, and why were they allowed to write a book? Oh, okay. You know what? I can do better than that." I mean, it is true that simultaneously, when you're looking around, there are some people that are brilliant, and they're more brilliant than we are. There's plenty of people that are more brilliant than I am in certain areas.

Dorie: But also, it is equally true that there are people that it's like, "Oh my God. How did they ever get that book contract? That is bonkers." If you look at that and focus on that and just say, "You know what? I'm at least as qualified as that person. Let's give it a go." I feel like that is actually, in the end, a very empowering belief.

Daniel: Yeah. It's funny what's coming to mind is, this is almost the large scale equivalent of grounding yourself in your body. It's one of the basics of mindfulness. Just feeling your feet on the floor. This is a ... and doing that instead of just with your body. It's looking around your environment and saying, "Well, look, this is what's really happening. It's okay."

Dorie: Yeah, it's a really good analogy. I love that.

Daniel: I'm curious about community building, because I get the sense I've heard tell that you run networking dinners that you actively cultivate community for yourself, and that seems to be a really important component. But outside of building an online community and building a community around your ideas, there's also building an actual community. I'm wondering if we can just unpack that, how you take care of those aspects of yourself.

Dorie: Yeah, it's a great point. For me, I got really serious about it about five and a half years ago when I first moved to New York, because I came here and I just had this sudden realization, "Oh wow! I don't have any plans tonight. I also don't have any plans tomorrow night. Oh wait. I also don't have any plans ever," because no one was inviting me to anything. I realized that this was not a good state of affairs, that I would need to do something different and make some effort if I was going to actually have any kind of a social life.

Dorie: So I thought back to what my mom used to say. She used to say, "If you want to get an invitation, you have to give an invitation," and I appreciated her approach on controlling what you can control. So instead of just sitting back and bemoaning my fate, I decided that I would start trying to organize things and bring people together. That was where I started, and so I began organizing usually, typically monthly dinners. At first, for the first couple of years, it was really primarily focused around business authors or authors of different stripes.

Dorie: I have subsequently expanded it out, and now I'll have a lot of entrepreneurs or I'll have ... theater is something that I've gotten into a lot more recently, writing theater and investing in theater. So I'll mix that in as well. So I have a lot of creative collisions in there, but I would say on average for the past five years, I've had about one dinner a month, where I bring people together. It's really been wonderful in terms of building business connections, but also just friendships.

Daniel: Yeah. Well, so let's roll back for a second. Tell me about your interest in investing in theater. That's fascinating.

Dorie: Yeah. Thank you. I got interested in investing in theater. Actually, that was the second piece of it. The piece that came first was about three and a half years ago. I decided that I was going to learn to write musical theater, specifically book and lyrics for musical theater. I did not know how to do it. I had no experience in it. I grew up in a little tiny town. We didn't have a theater program, none of it. I did not have any background whatsoever, but I decided I wanted to learn.

Dorie: So I committed myself onto a program of self improvement and figuring out how to do that. I subsequently found out about, and then got accepted into the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop, which is a rather prestigious musical theater training program, which I'm really proud to be part of. As part of that, I realized that if I was going to be successful in writing musical theater, in the act of getting it produced, essentially, I wanted to understand the business of Broadway, which is really its own animal.

Dorie: I think that, like a lot of creative endeavors, many people who are involved in the musical theater space on the creative side don't necessarily fully or properly understand the business mechanics to their detriment. I thought that that could be essentially a competitive advantage that I knew that I could. So I started to invest so that I could learn more about how shows are capitalized and what that process looks like.

Daniel: That's fascinating. I presume you like actual musicals. You sound like somebody who has a good singing voice. Is this true or not true?

Dorie: Oh, thank you. When I was a teenager, I would write angsty folk songs, and I would sing in with my guitar and I would get a lot of-

Daniel: This was the Indigo Girls era, I presume?

Dorie: Oh, for sure. For sure.

Daniel: Oh man. Closer to Fine all the way.

Dorie: Yeah. [crosstalk 00:18:39] Yeah. The local college coffee house, all that kind of stuff. But interestingly, I don't really know how to read music. I learned whatever the play Indigo Girls around a campfire kind of guitar rather than-

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: ... actually legitimately learning how to read music. In our BMI class presentations, I'm actually a little paranoid to do the singing because it's all very precise. The main vocal line comes in. Here! When you're strumming along, you can fudge it a little bit, and for things like this, it's so precise that I actually like to yield it to my colleagues who have BFAs in musical theater.

Daniel: Yeah.

Dorie: [crosstalk 00:19:31] really know it. But I do like to sing when the stakes are lower.

Daniel: I understand. The shower, the kitchen, those places.

Dorie: That's right. Serenading my cats.

Daniel: Totally unrelated then. I mean, what's your favorite musical? I suppose that's an impossible question, but ...

Dorie: Yes. There's so many good ones. In fact, this year I've embarked upon a campaign, a self improvement campaign, of watching as many musicals as I can, especially particularly canonical musicals, just to-

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: ... make sure that I am fully briefed in all the history of the genre. But I would say in terms of just overall, I mean probably rent. A lot of musical theater purists don't love it in the sense that there's things that could be tightened or improved. I mean, poor Jonathan Larson of course died before-

Daniel: Spoiler alert.

Dorie: Yeah, right before it opened. He was getting ready for its off-Broadway opening. So it was just this tragic thing, and it would have been refined certainly further had he lived. But it's just such an energetic and powerful piece, so I really love it. In terms of classical musical theater, there's a lot of things that I ... It's so interesting to look back on things, especially from the '50s, the '60s, and see what has aged well and what hasn't, and it's just really fascinating how that breaks down. But I have to confess a soft spot for Mame. I think that was a great musical.

Daniel: Yeah. My mother listens to all of my podcasts, and I gained a love of musicals from her. We listened to Annie Get Your Gun and The Pajama Game-

Dorie: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Daniel: ... when I was a kid, and so I still have ... In fact, I was shopping with her the other day and we were singing Seven And A Half Cents, which is one of these, we talk about, canonical musicals. I feel like there's some ... we can pull this back. What lessons, what do you feel like you've transferred or transported some of your lessons from this learning process into the other parts of your business?

Dorie: For sure, for sure. I mean, ultimately, so I wrote this book, Reinventing You, but in some ways in writing it, it was a post facto creation, right? Because in my 20s, I had done a million things. I had been a journalist, I had been a political campaign spokesperson, I had been a nonprofit executive director, and then I finally landed on my current career, being self employed and writing and speaking and teaching and consulting and executive coaching, et cetera, and so it was a book that ... I interviewed many professionals, many successful professionals about their reinventions, but the perspective of the book was coming from someone who had done it, essentially.

Daniel: Sure.

Dorie: Now, it's very interesting because it's like you're reliving it, but you're doing it in real time, and saying, "All right, well, how can I do this as effectively as possible? How can I essentially use this knowledge to hack the process?" It's TBD, but there are certain things that I am doing really deliberately. I mean, number one, chief among them as we talked about, if I want to get a show on Broadway, which I do because I am not the kind of person that has hobbies just for the sake of having hobbies. I want to actually make this count.

Dorie: One of the best things, I think, that one can do is build relationships with producers, especially building relationships with producers before you need relationships with producers, and therefore starting to become an investor so that A, you're knowledgeable about the process overall, but B, you have an excuse to network with producers for years prior to when a show would be ready for them to even look at, I think is valuable. Over the past year and a half, my business partner and I ... I mean, we went from knowing zero producers basically, maybe aside from our friend, Michael Roderick, who is doing less of it now of course, but has done a little tiny bit.

Dorie: But that was really it, to now knowing, I mean, probably 30, and those numbers will increase. That has been I think certainly something that is powerful. Another of course is understanding that people are skeptical sometimes about transitions, and so what you need to do is over-index on social proof in order to convince them that you are serious and credible and should be taken seriously. That is why it was really important to me, as a goal, to get into the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop.

Daniel: Interesting.

Dorie: Because there's a lot of people that write musical theater, la, la, la, la, but people who are in the industry are familiar with the BMI workshop. It has bred many successful people. Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez from Frozen fame, Bobby Lopez with Jeff Marx did Avenue Q, Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty who did Ragtime, and Once on This Island. We have Tom Kitt who did Next To Normal, who's the orchestrator now for Jagged Little Pill, which is opening imminently. All of these folks have been through the program, and so it really is a premier training ground. So people who are in the know understand that if someone is in that program, they have been vetted, at least to a certain extent, and they are not dilettante.

Daniel: Yeah. You're serious. You're putting your money and time where your mouth is.

Dorie: Yes. Although thankfully not money, because one really amazing thing about it is it is free.

Daniel: What?

Dorie: It is offered for free by BMI, which is really amazing.

Daniel: Wow, that is amazing. It's extraordinary in fact. So it's really interesting. There's a couple of fascinating things to unpack here, because what we started with is this idea of going ... Peter Thiel calls us the zero to one innovation. If you're not talking about your idea, you should start talking about your idea, and well, you talked about your mother's idea of controlling what you can control, or maybe that was your idea. Your mother talked about sending more invitations, because that is in fact what you can control.

Dorie: Exactly. Yes.

Daniel: I think if this idea of the minimum viable permission, a different MVP, that you don't need anybody else's permission to throw a dinner, you don't need anybody else's permission. You can write a musical. In fact, you could rent a tiny theater and start ... try to sell tickets to it. But what's interesting is that you're building your wave, your credibility, your social proof slowly, and building that network way before you intend to utilize it more intensely, let's just say.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: Those are two really different strategies of just starting versus the three dimensional chess approach.

Dorie: Yeah, yeah, definitely.

Daniel: I suppose that's not a question. That was a comment. [crosstalk 00:27:24]

Dorie: But it's a good one, Daniel. I liked it.

Daniel: Well, thanks. It seems like you do both, but I'm wondering how you decide between the two. They're not mutually incompatible, but it seems like in some situations you choose one or another [inaudible 00:27:41] situations, you rely on the other.

Dorie: Can we rewind for a second to what the two or-

Daniel: Yeah, it's-

Dorie: ... three dimensional chess? In our metaphor, that refers to which piece? I'm sorry.

Daniel: Well, it sounds like the process of you getting a play on Broadway involves a lot of different moves that you're making.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: Over time. You're not taking the zero to one approach to it, where you're just writing an article on LinkedIn about it, or just writing a play and selling 10 tickets to a small theater. That would be the just getting started approach, which I think you sometimes advocate in the entrepreneurial you approach, which is start.

Dorie: Right. Right. Well, I do think, to your point, it is both end, in the sense that, for instance, if the advantage of the lean startup be, what's the minimum viable product, that becomes really important when it comes to the actual content of it, right? For instance, it is an entirely separate question, what musical should I write? What would audiences be interested in? Where do I have something that I can contribute to uniquely? That's a really different question than just setting up the infrastructure that would enable me if I did have the right musical to be able to get it heard.

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: I think they are two simultaneous things. I mean, right now, building a network and building social proof. So I created an online course as a compliment to my book, Stand Out, and the course is called Recognized Expert, about how to become a recognized expert. As part of that, I talk the three pillars of how to do that. What does it really take to get recognized in your field? The three pillars, which I really am consciously trying to live in the musical theater space because I believe very strongly that this framework works, is that you need to have strong network, you need to have social proof, and you need to have content.

Dorie: All three are really important. In this case, you need a network because ... Okay, I could have written the greatest musical in the world, but obviously, if no one knows who I am, if no one cares about who I am, then it's not going to get heard. So developing the network of people who are actually interested is primary. I already have friends with producers that have said to me on multiple occasions, they're like, "Show me what you're working on. We want to see, we want to see," and I just pushed back and I say, "You know what? I'll tell you when we're ready. Thank you. Thank you very much. For sure, I will tell you."

Dorie: But right now, it's about building the relationship. It's not about any kind of quick sale or anything like that. That's not what I'm interested in. But I do have people who are interested when I am ready, and when I think it's quality enough. So you've got to have that. Number two is the social proof, which we talked about, which is getting into the BMI program so that people understand, "Oh, she's worth listening to. This is not somebody who doesn't know what they're doing. This is somebody who is trained and who has been validated by a certain set of gatekeepers."

Dorie: But then number three is the content. So you can have the other pieces, but if what you're producing is not interesting, it's not relevant, it's not good, then obviously that's not going to work either, especially with regards to the content. This is the place where the minimum viable product testing is important. It is doing a workshop, reading, it's presenting a song, whatever, and just seeing how it's received and seeing what the feedback is, so you can understand is this the thing that is going to capture people's imagination? If it is, then it becomes really powerful. You're able to get exponential growth with it, if you also have the social proof and the network to layer on top of it.

Daniel: Yeah, and one without the other is not going to deliver impact.

Dorie: Yes, that's right.

Daniel: I'm assuming you have written the great American musical already. I'm just assuming that that's possible for you. Why not?

Dorie: What I am doing right now actually ... So year two of the BMI program, which I am in right now, is the year that you are writing an original musical. So I am working with a partner right now on our musical, which we will be finishing by the end of the academic year, if not before then. I'm pretty excited about it, but that part is in process and we are taking our time to create a really high quality product.

Daniel: That's awesome. It'd be really interesting to unpack a little bit about ... I'm building this map of different conversations that you managed, and we've talked about going from zero to one and talking to people about your ideas, and building community around those ideas. It'd be really interesting to talk about collaboration and how you bring people into your circle to collaborate with them. Because obviously working with someone else on a play is very different than writing on your own, and writing a book on your own is very different than doing a project with someone else. How does collaboration show up in your work?

Dorie: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think collaboration is often easiest. The low hanging fruit is where you have completely different skill sets, and so it's very obvious. I think that the trouble with collaboration, there's multiple places where it can go awry. One is where it's not really clearly defined who's doing what or who has the final vote or whatever on certain things. For musical theater, it's pretty straight up. I mean, obviously collaborations can go sideways in plenty of ways, but archetypally, you have a lyricist and you have a composer.

Dorie: So of course, each person can weigh in. I mean, if I was thinking about something as a Somber Dirge, and my composer comes back to me with like, "Oh, it's like Mariachi," then I can say, "this is not really what I was thinking." But most often it's not going to be that crazy of a disagreement. You have someone who is the recognized expert in that domain. He might tell me, "I'm not sure about this lyric," or whatever but, by and large, I am responsible for the lyrics. So I think that simplifies things.

Dorie: I would say in general, while I support the idea of collaboration, I am almost always hesitant to take on collaborators or collaborations because I think obviously when done well, it's great, but I think that a common problem that occurs in practical terms in business life, is that there are a lot of people who are ... What's the way to put it? Less successful aspirants [inaudible 00:35:08] will say, "Let's collaborate." Essentially what they're saying is, "Oh, you have access to shit I don't, let's do something together so I can get that access," and they have not properly thought through how to bring value to the equation, and so it just becomes this colossal hassle. So a real collaboration, both partners need to be very clear about what they are adding to the mix so that one plus one is more than two.

Daniel: Yeah, and I love the thing you said right before that about the idea of being a recognized expert within the conversation, and it seems like in order for a collaboration to really work, you have to recognize someone else, the other person in the collaboration, is having something really valuable to bring to the dialogue, in some way [crosstalk 00:36:06]

Dorie: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. It is especially helpful if you recognize that the other person has a unique talent. I mean, for instance, my musical collaborator, Derek, is a fantastic musician. I mean, he went to an art school literally from elementary school on. He is a beautiful [inaudible 00:36:27], he is a music director at a church. It just comes out his pores. Especially if you take him versus me, who can't even really properly read music, it's like, "Okay." I may have opinions about things, but ultimately nine times out of 10, I'm going to defer to Derek because I know that he knows what he's talking about.

Daniel: That kind of respect is really ... It's great for that respect to be both ways. I'm sure there's stuff that he looks at you and says, "I'm so glad that Dorie is bringing blank to this process."

Dorie: Let's hope man.

Daniel: Well, we're almost out of time. Is there anything we haven't talked about that we should touch on?

Dorie: Well, I want to hear more about your thoughts about collaboration, Daniel. What do you see as the big challenges? Or how do you-

Daniel: Oh, man.

Dorie: ... get past that?

Daniel: It is very hard. I'm glad we talked about it because I was looking at an article you wrote about this, and it is very, very much the case that when somebody says, "Hey, let's do a blank together," it can feel like one person is carrying most of the load. I will say this year, I've been very lucky to collaborate with three other consultants who are at my level or higher, and it's really exciting to be able to collaborate with someone and get to learn from them, and to feel respected that I'm bringing content that's valuable, and to understand that they're bringing something else like operational excellence or amazing client contacts or more years of experience for me. So that respect is really, really important. If the respect isn't there, it's like any marriage.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: [crosstalk 00:38:24] The respect has to be there, otherwise, it starts to fall apart, and I've certainly been in that experience with at least one of my businesses, where I think the biggest challenge is everyone having the same talent profile and everyone thinking that they're bringing everything to [inaudible 00:38:43] to the table.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: If one feels like they're bringing more, than that's bad, especially in ... If both people feel like they're bringing more, that's really bad, and if everyone has the same talent profile, then there can be a lot of a struggle for power and that's not great.

Dorie: Absolutely, yeah.

Daniel: I don't know. That's my hot take on that, for reverse interviewing and I guess we are.

Dorie: I'm with you. That makes perfect sense. I love it.

Daniel: I want to respect your time. I want to thank you for your time. This has all been really awesome, eyeopening stuff to meditate on< for me. So thank you, Dorie.

Dorie: Yeah, Daniel. Thank you so much. It's great speaking with you, and I'll just mention if folks want to go any deeper, on my website, I have more than 500 free articles that I've written for places like Harvard Business Review and Forbes about a lot of these issues in business. Especially for folks who are interested in questions, like you were asking around how to stand out in business, I actually do have a free 42-page self-assessment that folks can get for free at dorieclark.com/join. J-O-I-N.

Daniel: You're stealing my thunder. I was going to pitch your website, and that 42 page. The questions are voluminous, and they're all amazing sparks for contemplation. I highly recommend people download that and work through it in their own time.

Dorie: I appreciate it. Thank you.

Daniel: I haven't gotten through it all the way. What do you think the approximate amount of time it takes someone to get through all of those questions [inaudible 00:40:31] Dorie?

Dorie: Possibly a lifetime.

Daniel: Well, we'll leave it right there. That's the perfect end point.

Leadership is Consistency

S3_E14_Stacey_Hanke_v2.jpg

Influence and Leadership aren’t things you turn on and off...it’s a muscle you have to practice all the time. And while being “on” all the time might sound exhausting, Stacey Hanke, my guest today, suggests that the key to leadership is being consistent. Leadership and influence is something you practice “monday to monday” and every day in between.

Stacey is the author of Influence Redefined and Yes You Can! … Everything You Need From A to Z to Influence Others to Take Action. Her company exists to equip leaders within organizations to communicate with confidence, presence and authenticity, day in and day out.

One thing I really heard from Stacey is that in order to grow it’s critical to see ourselves from the outside. That can mean recording yourself speaking or presenting or it can mean having a coach or trusted adviser who can give you honest feedback  - and that you have to prepare for that feedback. If you want to dive into how to develop a culture of critique and feedback about your work, check out my interview with Aaron Irizarry and Adam Connor, authors of “Discussing Design”.

One of my favorite questions in this episode came from Jordan Hirsch, who was in the most recent cohort of my 12-week Innovation Leadership Accelerator: 

How do you lead from the middle, without formal authority? Stacey had some solid, down-to-earth advice:

  1. Don’t waste anyone’s time - be brief and clear in your communication

  2. Have your message clear and crystallized so you can speak to it without notes

  3. Be clear on how you want to be perceived and how you are currently perceived

  4. Deliver value, consistently

  5. Show up for others - listening deeply means you can respond deeply

If you want to connect with a community of innovation leaders keen on growing in their authentic presence, you should apply to the upcoming cohort at ILAprogram.com

One other fine point I want to pull out from this interview is how influence shifts depending on the size of the conversation you’re holding space in.

1-to-1 : It’s easy to adapt and influence one to one: Stacey suggests that we listen deeply and get our conversation partners to do most of the talking. Also, mirroring their body language can create connection as well.

Groups - if it’s more than five people Stacey’s rule is to get on your feet. You’ll have more energy and the group will feed off of that.

Large Groups - be “bigger” - use more of your voice, and use the whole stage. Connect to the whole room, purposefully, with your eyes

One side note: I misquote one of Newton’s Laws. The Third law is about how every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, not the second law! How embarrassing!

Check out the show notes for how to find Stacey and her work on the web as well as links we mentioned in our conversation.


Show LInks

https://staceyhankeinc.com/

The trusted advisor

Ed Sheeran on giving up his phone: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ed-sheeran-doesnt-have-cell-phone

Deep Listening on Ian Altman’s Podcast: https://www.ianaltman.com/salespodcast/deep-listening-impact-beyond-words-oscar-trimboli/

Developing a culture of critique: Designing a Culture of Critique http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/9/2/culture-of-critique

Full Transcription

Daniel: Well, all right. Stacey Hanke, this is a perfect time to welcome you to the Conversation Factory. I'm really glad you made this time to talk with us, because influence is really important. And we're going to dig into it.

Stacey: Honored. Yes. Thank you, thanks for trusting me with your listeners.

Daniel: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, influence is different than people think it is. I think that's something ... like what's the misconception people have around influence that you'd like to help revise their mental model on?

Stacey: A majority of us believe that we turn it on when we need it the most. And I bet all of your listeners can relate to the concept of you have a big presentation coming up or maybe it's a big presentation to the board, you're going to a meeting. And how many times do we really prep for that? Perhaps the night before, the morning of. And then when we're there, we're really focusing on how [inaudible 00:09:20], our word choice.

Stacey: To me, that's not influence. Influence is more consistent than that. We define it as a company that body language and the messaging, they need to be consistent Monday to Monday. Which means every conversation. When that happens, people are less likely to guess who's going to show up for a podcast versus who's going to show up for a phone conversation or whatever it might be.

Daniel: Yeah. So, it's being yourself? All the time.

Stacey: But the best of you. And that's where the other element to influence comes into play, is we really believe that if we feel good, if the message is easy, the conversation is easy, however your listeners define that, we then translate that to, "I must be influential." Another common misperception I hear leaders say, "Why, I've earned this role. I've worked hard to be the partner." Or whatever the case may be. "Therefore I'm influence."

Stacey: I truly believe it's not a badge of honor. I don't think it's something suddenly you accomplish. It's more as you had said, the authentic side of every time you're in an interaction, people really see you, perceive you as someone who's influential, someone that they can trust, and someone that they really want to follow.

Daniel: Yeah. And this seems like a really important thing, because power is not ... command and control power is not really appropriate so much anymore. Especially in organizations that are trying to be more self-managed. It seems like leading through influence is so much more important than leading through, "I'm the boss."

Stacey: It is. Because the other part of the definition of who we define influence is that you've got this ability to move people or take action long after the actual interaction occurs. For example, I want to have influence on your listeners during this podcast. But to me, I don't know, that's not good enough. I'd rather have influence on them three days from now, from when they listened to the podcast, three months from now, three years from now.

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: To me, that's a true test of influence. When people come back to you and say, "You know, we had this conversation," or, "I used to work with you at so and so, I just want to circle back around, because you really had some impact on me 10 years ago." Or whatever it might be. But that won't happen if you're not consistent Monday to Monday with how you show up and how you stay showed up for every interaction.

Daniel: Yeah. So, what's really interesting ... So, I come from the world of design. And one of the main ways that we designers think about designing things is as experiences. And when we talk about experiences, we talk about them as journeys or arcs of experience. And it's really clear you have an influence experience arc that you're sketching out. It's not just, "Hey, I have a presentation and I show up." It's the email I sent before and it's the follow up card I send after. And then it's the looping back around. So, I feel like there's a mental model you have. There's a picture in your head of how you sort of sketch out your influence arc. And I kind of want to unpack that from your brain to my ears.

Stacey: Yeah. And you're hitting it right on the head. I really go back to my father used to always tell my sisters and I, "All you have to do in life to be successful is follow through and show up on time." He also would always follow up with, "Always be kind to anyone you ever interact with. Because you never know when you're going to need their help." I translated that into, "My name is on everything I do." Whether it's the email, the social media posts. To me, it's not always ...

Stacey: I'll give you an example. And you probably can relate to this. Client reaches out to you and they want you to speak at an event or whatever the case may be. By the time they meet me in person, that relationship better be created. I know that every touch point they have with me or with my team is constantly creating the perception, the reputation that we have through their eyes. And it is a pull through.

Stacey: I'll give you an example of ... this was a while ago. I'd been reached out by a meeting planner. We hadn't talked. It was all via email. And every time I received her email, I really started to second guess, "Is this someone I want to partner with?" It just didn't feel like the right fit. For whatever reason, the instinct said go with it. When I met her at the event site, she was adorable. Just super outgoing and kind and genuine. On the way back to the airport, I had forgotten my laptop at the event site. So, I text her to let her know. Her response to my text was everything that I experienced when she had emailed me prior to me ever meeting her.

Stacey: That's what I mean by inconsistency. When people are guessing, "Well, Stacey shows up this way if you meet her over the weekend, but when she [inaudible 00:14:34] presentation, she's this person." When we can be consistent in how we deliver a message, how people experience us, what our message says, meaning how people comprehend the words, we start eliminating doubt in our listener's mind. They start doubting us, I think they really start doubting our trust. And trust is really the backbone to whether you have influence or you don't.

Daniel: It seems like consistency has come up in a couple of your interviews as something that's really key. And this is something you're identifying with this one particular person is that she ... her written communication and her in person communication were really different. Is that right?

Stacey: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Exactly. I could go on and on. I have so many stories about clients that I admired and just was impressed by them, and then we would take a step outside of that corporate environment and they were totally different people. I'm sure your listeners can relate to this. Where maybe it's your significant other, you don't know who's going to walk through that door every night.

Daniel: Yeah, that's fair.

Stacey: We can compare that. To me, consistency applies to everything. Influence, to me, is hard work. It takes discipline and it takes a lot of hard work to have influence Monday to Monday. A big piece of that hard work that most people don't comprehend is you need to be consistent. Be consistent with how you communicate and how you treat people and every message that you give to them. Because they don't have to listen to you. They might show up for your meeting, but they don't have to mentally be there.

Daniel: No, they do not.

Stacey: You need [inaudible 00:16:08] them that it's worth their time.

Daniel: So, you mentioned your dad as an early influence in how you thought about how to show up. I actually had this ... a little card here about just curious ... you mentioned that you video tape some of your coachees to help them see what they're doing and how they show up. And so watch ... We learn by watching. I'm wondering like who else did you learn from? Who are your influence heroes? Where you look at them, you go like, "Oh yeah, I want to do that."

Stacey: Yeah. I was really fortunate in a lot of the corporate jobs that I had, I had incredible mentors. I had one really early on, right out of college. And he just ... he constantly pushed me to be uncomfortable and I never liked it at the moment, so that was a lot of it. The constant grooming from him. Then my next job I had another amazing mentor. And that's where the video taping started. Where to be their emcee, I would introduce our speakers at our events. He videotaped me. And that was a little harsh to see it for the first time. And that's when it really clicked to the fact of reality is, you feel a certain way, does not mean that's how everyone else sees you. You have to experience yourself through the eyes and ears of your listeners to truly determine the level of influence you have.

Stacey: And now I have a presentations coach, I've got a business coach. They're huge for me to continue to be uncomfortable.

Daniel: For yourself?

Stacey: The other side, oh yeah.

Daniel: I mean, I think that's really awesome.

Stacey: Because I feel like I can't ... right? And I can't preach to my clients that I mentor, "It's so important that you have a mentor, that you have a coach," if I'm not doing it. To me, that's the other part of consistency.

Daniel: What are you working on right now? What are you trying to develop for yourself? What's your edge?

Stacey: Always working on my keynote. I'm in the midst of that right now. Just creating new material, new stories, new analogies. But that's a little brutal. So, a lot of video taping around that. My business coach, I meet with him monthly. He's a big part of our team. That's all about growing a business and the mistakes we're making. The opportunities that we're missing that he sees that I don't see. And so, it's just hopping on a call and really talking about what's our strategy for the next month, for the next six months.

Daniel: So, in your own coaching, like as you're coaching other people, what are some of the things you're thinking of to help you be a better coach to others?

Stacey: Yes.

Daniel: Because I think that's really important.

Stacey: Here's what I think is not a good coach, when we're constantly telling people how great they are. I'm not saying you're not great. But you can't do anything with that feedback. How many times have you asked someone, "How did I do?" And you hear, "Good, nice job. That was great."

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: And you walk around life with blindfolds on, believing how great we are. I always tell my mentees, your company did not pay me to come in here and tell you how good you are. One of the first things I do with coaching is I'm always very clear on, "You tell me what reputations you want to create. Monday to Monday, how do you want people to perceive you?" Once I know what they are aiming for, then I'm very specific on every element to their body language, how they communicate, what they say, where does that enhance that perception, and where does it negate it? We're always working on that piece. I also am very clear if I say to you, "Here's what's working, here's how you can continue to grow that." Not working, meaning here's where you're creating distractions, you're making it really tough for people to understand what you're saying. Here's what you can do with it.

Stacey: I think for your listeners, any time that they want feedback, the most impactful way to get it, to receive it, is always prepare for the feedback. So, for example, let's say, Daniel, before we got on this call today I said to you, "Here's what I want feedback on during the podcast. Would you watch for that? And then afterwards, when we're done recording, give me feedback." If you are in a situation where you can interactively coach, say we were not recording this conversation. In that case, I'd say to you, "I want you to point out to me every time I do this." And fill in the blank on what you want to be developed on.

Daniel: It's interesting. It feels like a definition of leadership that I've been working on. We had an executive coach come in for the Innovation Leadership Accelerator that I'm hosting right now, this gentleman named Helge Hellberg came in. And he talked about how leadership is about the ability to be specific in the qualities that you recognize of others. And it was a very strange definition of leadership.

Stacey: Nice.

Daniel: And what I'm seeing, what you're talking about here with coaching, you don't want somebody just to say, "Hey, good job." I mean, obviously sometimes we do want somebody to hold us and tell us that we're okay. But the truth is, we want to be seen for ... Stacey, when you did that specific thing, when you moved your hands this way, that worked. Right? Your opening worked in these ways. That is a specific acknowledgement of your excellence that helps you be seen, to feel seen. Nobody ... it's not helpful to say like, "Yeah, good job. All right. On to the next thing." It's like ... that's not ... that is definitely not helpful at all.

Stacey: And I had a call right before you and I hopped on this call. A new client inquiring to mentor one of their leaders. I was asking, "Well, has this person received this feedback? Have you told this to her?" And they said, "Well, the team member told her leader, who then told her." I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. [inaudible 00:21:54] filtered." Already, she's getting the feedback that may not even pertain to her. And it also isn't clear. A lot of times mentees come to us, because they know we're going to tell them the truth.

Daniel: Yeah. So, one thing that came up, and I just want to make sure that I say this. Because I heard it in one of your other interviews. Is this idea of brevity and clarity. Because this came up in another interview I did recently where this idea of communicating for what happens afterwards. Right? The idea of what is my intent? What do I think you're going to do with this information? And to think that we can give somebody a paragraph and then get that paragraph communicated onwards with fidelity is absurd. And so, it seems to me, and of course this is a long ... this is not even a question. This is a diatribe.

Stacey: It's okay.

Daniel: But it seems to me that I'm imagining that some of the work you do with people is just around clarity of messaging.

Stacey: That's a big part. And it doesn't matter how long they've been in the company, the industry, how old they are, how young they are. That is probably one of the number one elements of influence that people lack, is brevity. Getting to the point. We have this internal dialogue with ourselves that the more we speak, the smarter we sound. The [inaudible 00:23:15] is completely true. I am constantly advising individuals, start thinking and speaking in bullet point sentences. Use that time to really pause to think about, "What is my listener saying verbally and non verbally to me that I can adapt my message to what they need? Not what I think they need. What they need." There's no way we can adapt our message on the fly. There's no way we can really listen to a question, an objection, a challenge without giving ourselves permission, "Stop talking." Knowing that silence sometimes is the right answer.

Daniel: Yeah. Being comfortable with silence is no trivial matter, though.

Stacey: Agree. It's the subconscious that lies to us and tells us when we're silent, everyone thinks you don't know what to say. The-

Daniel: Hold on one second. I think I just detached something important. Hold on one moment. I just destroyed the ... sorry Stacey. That was me. Sorry, that was me losing a portion of your interview. Sorry about that.

Stacey: It's okay.

Daniel: Could we just roll back the comfort with the silence piece. And the noise in our heads.

Stacey: Right. The subconscious that lies to us and says to us if we pause, if we're silent, we don't know what to say, we all know the opposite is true. That there is no way you can multi-task. Meaning, thinking of what to say, thinking about how to adapt it [inaudible 00:24:45], and then talking all at the same time?

Daniel: Yes.

Stacey: Trusting our competence, knowing that silence sometimes is the right answer. Giving our listeners time to really follow us every step of the way with our message.

Daniel: Yeah. It seems like a really, really important component of influence is confidence, internal confidence. Trusting in yourself, which is not trivial. How can one actually build that internal confidence?

Stacey: Goes back to the beginning of our conversation. This idea of Monday to Monday is if you're going to practice brevity, you can't [inaudible 00:25:20] brevity in one meeting on a Monday and then forget about it all week. It will never happen. So I want your listeners to think in terms of an athlete or a musician, an actor, an actress. However they perform, that is hours and hours of preparation before they get there.

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: The good news for us, because we're talking ... I mean, we're communicating some form 24/7, you have an opportunity to practice brevity all day long. [inaudible 00:25:46] is that suddenly brevity, you cannot speak without it. That way, when you go to a high stakes conversation, you're not thinking, "Well, maybe I should pause today. I really haven't done that lately." It's [inaudible 00:26:00] work. It's going to be an absolute cluster. That's what I mean, again, by Monday to Monday. It's however you're experiencing me now, Daniel, is how you would experience me if we were hanging out for lunch or hanging out in the hallway. It's the same me. Goes back to your comment earlier about being authentic To me, that's authenticity. It's not something you turn on, you turn off.

Daniel: Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess one of the questions I have. Jordan, who is in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, I asked them at our kick off workshop last weekend if they had any questions around influence. And this one came up, which is how do you lead without authority? If you are not an authorized leader, if you are in the middle of your organization, if you don't have that mandated influence, how can somebody start to earn that ability to influence others?

Stacey: I think it comes down to every time you show up, you make people want to listen to you because you never waste their time. So, brevity's tied to that, Daniel. Right? If you're invited to a meeting, you prove that you earned the right to be there and you've earned the right to stay. To me, it's have that message so clear, not memorized, have it so clear that you know exactly what trigger points and what takeaways are right for your listener, to the point, don't waste their time, and then walk into that conversation like you own it. Your listeners do not need to know what's going on inside in your stomach or in your head. Unfortunately, we reveal that when we start um-ing and ah-ing and we start fidgeting. Or our eyes are constantly disconnected with who we're trying to create some purpose with. All of that communicates we're uncomfortable.

Daniel: Yeah, this is a really interesting idea about everything is communicating in some way, shape, or form. And so, it's about choosing what you focus on to get your ...

Stacey: And you get ... The great news about all of this, say I think a lot of what we also teach with influence is reputation management. You get to determine to some degree the reputation others have of you. You get to determine that by how you show up every day. And then what you really do leave behind. Meaning, do you make it worth their time? That message is worth their time. Do you give them some action steps to actually apply and go back to later on? All of that, to me, is within your control to some degree. Versus someone sees your name on their Outlook in the morning and they kind of think, "I don't want to talk to that person that day." Suddenly, your name has created this reputation that you're the one that's created it. Just by how you treat others.

Daniel: So, let's say I'm in that hole, right? And I might not even know that, right? It's hard. It's maybe impossible to know what somebody's thinking and feeling when they look at my name on their agenda. How can you understand that what people are feeling about you now? Because I know you talk about this. I'm probably not as influential as I think I am. I'm probably not seen the way I want to be seen. So, how do we start shifting from where we are? How do we know where we are? And how do we start to move it in that new direction?

Stacey: Two elements. Get constructive feedback from someone you know is going to tell you the truth and is not going to sugar coat it. And be very clear what works for me? What do I do and say where I have the greatest value? What am I doing that's really causing distractions and disrupting my reputation? Ask that person the type of reputation that you create. Two goes hand in hand with this, and you've heard me talk about this before, Daniel. Is audio and video, as much as possible. Because eyes and ears of your listeners.

Daniel: Boy oh boy, everybody should have a podcast, because I get to look at a chart of whether or not I was a good listener. It's pretty uncomfortable sometimes.

Stacey: Exactly. Without that, though, I really do believe we walk around life guessing the level of influence we have. And usually the guess will be based on the feeling that we have during an interaction. Now, it could go the other way, too. I've worked with many individuals who I'll record them and before we watch the play back, they'll share with me how awful it was. Yet we watch the playback and it's that moment of, "Wow, that wasn't as bad as I thought. That's not how I felt. I felt worse than what I'm actually observing."

Daniel: Definitely.

Stacey: Now, it can go both ways, right?

Daniel: Well, I mean ... And so, one of the keys of in order to get good feedback, you have to have people in your life that you trust.

Stacey: You do. And they're there. Usually you don't have to pay someone to do this. Usually it will be a friend, a significant other, your child. My nieces are great with feedback. My sisters, my sisters are part of the company. And they are always brutally honest. People are out there. You just have to ask for it. And that goes back to our comment earlier, make sure you prepare for the feedback. Be really specific on what you want feedback on.

Daniel: Yeah. I can't stress this enough. I think if you don't frame the type of feedback you want, you'll just get sort of a general ... people will default to they're like, "It was fine. You know, you're great." Or like, "Well, you know," or they'll just give you a shit sandwich. Which is also unhelpful.

Stacey: That's right. Exactly. "Good, nice job. That was great." Well, that's not going to get you anywhere in life.

Daniel: No. So getting feedback and then sort of behind that is having a trusted advisor. We talked about clarity. Right? One way to lead when you don't have authority is to be really, really much more clear and direct in your communication. And there also seems to be a flip side to that, which is knowing the motivations and the needs of the people that you're communicating with.

Stacey: Yes.

Daniel: Do you teach any tools to leaders on that part of the ... the empathy part of the influence challenge?

Stacey: A lot of it is listening and asking the right questions. Not closed-ended questions. Asking very open-ended questions. And then not being caught up in your own agenda when they're answering the question.

Daniel: Well, that just sounds easy. But we know that, that's not-

Stacey: That just sounds so easy. And maybe this is a challenge for your listeners. This week, pay attention to how many closed-ended questions you ask.

Daniel: Yes.

Stacey: I think closed is our world. When you can ask more open-ended questions, it gives you more insight on what do they really want? I always think of a good interviewer. And maybe someone comes to mind for all your listeners. The really good interviewers, as you watch them on TV or YouTube, they'll ask a question to the interviewee. The interviewee answers, the interviewer still doesn't say anything. Because the good stuff usually comes after that first response. Are you practicing, Daniel?

Daniel: Maybe.

Stacey: You know, and it's ... Something that's common is we don't even listen anymore. We teach a lot of executives and leaders how to have influence when you're in a meeting and you're not speaking.

Daniel: Interesting. Tell me more about that. That's really-

Stacey: And this kind of, yeah, this evolved over the years, Daniel. Because we'd be doing our workshops and we do tons of videotaping and people have to get in front of room, they get videotaped and coached by us. While there would be other partners or leaders in the room that would be busy on their phone, because they thought, "Oh, well, they're being recorded, I can check out." And one day we happened, by accident, to catch all the background noise on the video, of someone else's video. It just so happened. And we played it back in the room, and that's when it hit me that day where I realized, "Oh, wait. Influence is not just when you're speaking. It is so much more impact when you're just supposed to be physically listening." I always tell leaders, if you're on your phones in meetings, other peoples' meetings, then expect the exact same behavior to happen to the meetings you lead.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. It's how you ... It's Newton's second law, right? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Stacey: So true. And how can you ... You cannot adapt a message if you're not listening. And let ...

Daniel: No.

Stacey: If you ever watch a really good leader, and I get to observe a lot of them in meetings at their corporate sites. I'll watch them. And for the majority of the meeting, they [inaudible 00:34:46] a lot. Every time they do speak, though, it's just this amazing idea or concept. I'm thinking and dissecting what they're doing, they're just listening to what's going on in that meeting.

Daniel: That's so interesting. And so, how can we ... what's something actionable for us to be more ... being influential as a listener is not a concept ... is not a mental model I really have. This is fascinating to me.

Stacey: I think we could start something as simple as when you go out to dinner with friends or family, don't open your phone. Actually listen to what's happening around you. You're waiting, so you're at a coffee shop or wherever you're at. And you're waiting for whomever to arrive. Don't check your phone. Just sit there and listen to what's going on around you. I read an interview, and I wish I knew who it was. It was some musician that had decided to give up his phone for three months. He said the hardest part initially was exactly that. Where you go to a restaurant, your friend or family member's not there. He said, "I realized I couldn't go on my phone. I realized how far connected I was from just sitting and listening to my own thoughts."

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: And then from there, when you go to a meeting, do you really need to take your phone in that meeting? Or could you just take your own physical being and get more out of that meeting through the listening?

Daniel: Yeah. I think that's a really, really important thing that we need today. More than ever.

Stacey: Oh, we're losing it. I think we're really losing the art of face to face communication. And a lot of it's the technical gadget, we're on this fast speed, sprint, sprint, send message after message. So much of this spoke to, Daniel, about being aware. That when you're in a meeting, it's being aware that you're suddenly drifting and thinking about what traffic's going to be like on the way home. To be able to recognize that and pull yourself back into the moment.

Daniel: Yeah, very much so. It's funny, I'm ... for some reason, what's going into my head is one of the first interviews I listened to of Ian's on his podcast was a gentleman who talked about deep listening. And one of the things he pointed out was that we can think at more than twice the speed that we can talk. So, we ourselves are thinking a lot while we're talking. And the people who are listening to us are doing the exact same thing. And so, it just seems like one important way to influence is to, I find, and maybe you know this as well, because you're a trainer. Right? Is presenting people with as much multi-sensory information as possible when you're working with them. So, it's not just talking, it's not just visuals. It's getting people out of their chairs. It's getting them to move around. It's really giving a 360 degree experience for people, so that there's not even a chance for them to bring out their phones.

Stacey: That's when your open-ended questions come into play, too. Make it part of their conversation, not you delivering this message and lecturing to them hoping that it sticks. Make them take ownership, that if they're there, they're just as much as a part of conversation as you are.

Daniel: Yeah. So, I have a ... I want to transition to maybe my last sticky note. Because there's something you talked about with consistency of showing up Monday to Monday. But we also ... You also mentioned in one of your other interviews, that there is an energetic difference between showing up in a one to one and in a group facilitation, which I know you've done a lot of as well and a keynote. And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about ... because this spectrum of size and conversations is something I'm really obsessed with. And it's a big part of the book that I just finished writing. So, I'm wondering if you could talk about like being influential in those different sizes of conversation, from the small to the medium to the large?

Stacey: If you're one on one, I think it's really easy to adapt the message on the fly. Because just get them to do most of the talking. And suddenly it's all about just that one person. It's easier to adapt the body language if they have a lot of energy and they use gestures or they're leaning forward often, then I will do that as well.

Daniel: Sure.

Stacey: If not, I'll kind of back off. I'll respect their space. So that's where I see that piece is really different. When you get to a medium sized group, now you've got to pay attention to 10 people, 15 people, whatever the case may be. In that case, my rule of thumb, anything above five people, I get up on my feet. I know I'm going to have more energy, I know that gives them more energy than just sitting down there. And you can change this up, right? Sometimes you're standing, sometimes you're seated. [inaudible 00:39:28], though, you still get them to do a lot of the work. Get them interacting with you. Get them engaged with you by asking those open-ended questions.

Stacey: When we go to a large group, I always ... you know, anyone that I'm mentoring, they'll want me to mentor them for all these different situations. When it's a large presentation, you just have to make yourself bigger. [inaudible 00:39:48] suddenly, the person way in the back corner of the room, they can't really see you like the person in the front of the room. So, how I teach what to do with your eyes is different one on one, to a small group, to a large group. And how to really make that eye, I call it eye connection, eye connection purposeful. Although, if you're on a stage, make sure that you walk to all far ends of that stage to make sure you're connecting and really bearing where you stop. Your voice needs to change. You need to make sure that, that volume level is suitable for whatever the microphone you're wearing, for the size of the group.

Daniel: Sure.

Stacey: I want you to think of it ... I teach core skills like a golf lesson. I'll teach everyone core skills that I truly believe apply to every conversation. Where it gets difficult is based on your competitor in golf and based on the obstacles and how far away you are from the green. That, to me, is [inaudible 00:40:43] our communication is there's core skills we teach, we'll then teach you how to adapt them to not just the room size, but the personalities in front of you.

Daniel: I think that's a really important point. Which is that the skill of connecting is the skill of connecting. Body language is body language. But the intentionality with body language in a keynote versus a mid-size meeting, there is an energetic difference than with the one on one. It's like a ship. You know, a small ship is easier to turn around.

Stacey: Yeah.

Daniel: So, that's really helpful.

Stacey: I always ... Yes, it is a different level of energy. But we still want to make sure that you're authentic. I've seen individuals get on stage and suddenly it's this acting show. [inaudible 00:41:33] through that. And you're really going to lose that trust with them.

Daniel: Yeah. Because people can sense the inconsistency.

Stacey: Right.

Daniel: Right. So, you know, I guess one other question to ask is, when I teach people collaborative intelligence stuff, and I talk about the fact that I use some of the feedback frameworks that I use at work. I use them with at home, with my fiance. People roll their eyes. They're like, "Oh, she must really be tired of that." And I'm like, "Well, actually, no. She is generally really happy to have clarity about whether or not she wants empathy or sympathy or problem solving." I'm intentional about that. I'm not going to tell her the solution to her problem, because A, I probably don't know it. And B, that's probably not why she's telling me. It does seem potentially exhausting to feel like one has to be always on Monday to Monday. So, what does Stacey do for Stacey to relax? To unpack, to just be? Because it seems like that's an important part of influence is not being influential sometimes.

Stacey: Right. Right. Well, let me give you an example of this idea of what is really being on and not being on. If I were to um and ah throughout the weekend with my friends and family, and then on Monday I have a sales call and suddenly I don't do it, it's not going to work. So, that's what I mean by Monday to Monday. If I don't look people directly in the eyes on the weekends and I'm constantly talking to my phone as I'm having a conversation or I'm talking someplace else, I can't suddenly go in a meeting on Monday and now lock eyes with people. Does that make sense?

Daniel: It does, actually.

Stacey: So, these are these core skills that I compare to golf or tennis, whatever the sport may be, that we teach. Now, is it okay to maybe on the weekend you said more than you needed to say? Of course. The more that you practice, the more you're going to be aware that when you're in that meeting on Monday morning, you know when you're starting to go on this long winded road that you can stop it in the moment without skipping a beat, and get back on track. But that only happens, that moment of time of your level of awareness, will only happen when you put in the work of that practice as much as possible.

Daniel: Yeah, and building that muscle memory. That's really clear.

Stacey: You know, we talk about having a very open stance. Well, on the weekend you're at a cocktail party, can you have a cocktail and you might have a closed-stance, of course. But it's about being aware of that when you're in that conversation at work or where else you need to be influential, you're aware when your body is closed that you can easily open up without it throwing you off your message.

Daniel: Yeah. It's really clear that it's not a switch you turn on. It's a muscle that you develop.

Stacey: It's all muscle memory. It's all muscle memory. And let's face it, you learned to fill spaces with your words somewhere. You can unlearn it, too.

Daniel: That's true. Well, and I think mostly people aren't aware of their choices.

Stacey: It just takes work.

Daniel: Right? That's what's clear, except not everybody's aware of what their choices even are.

Stacey: Yeah. My nieces, I have a seven year old niece, my youngest niece is seven. She would be in first, is it first grade? I don't even know. They're already teaching her not to say um.

Daniel: That's amazing.

Stacey: [inaudible 00:45:00], because if I slip or my sister slips when we're all together, she'll catch it right away. I'm like, see, no teacher ever tells you, "When you don't know what to say, just keep talking." We've never been told. Yet somehow, we pick up that mentality.

Daniel: I had a teacher, my fourth grade teacher, hammered on us for saying like. Oh, man. We got that beaten out of us. And it's a pretty bad one. So, Stacey, we're getting close to the end of our time together. Is there anything I have not asked you about the world of Stacey and influence that I should have asked you? Is there anything that we've missed off that's important to talk about?

Stacey: I think the most important piece you hit on is what can your listeners do after this podcast? If they're really curious on the level of influence that they have through their communication, the feedback is key. And take that step of audio and recording yourself as much as you possibly can. You've got the technical gadgets to do it. I do it on my iPhone all the time. And that is going to be the trigger to constantly get you to grow. Because this is also not a one stop shop. You don't practice one skill and then you're good forever. The success, when I see successful, to me someone that really has influence consistently, is someone that is constantly working at it.

Daniel: Yes. Yeah. That's really, really good take home. And so finally, off on the internet places. Where can people go and learn more about all things Stacey?

Stacey: Got it. I'm happy to be your listeners' accountability partner from afar. We are all over social media. We never sell on it. We truly are there to just pump material to help people. Or on our website is where you can find all those sites to social media. And that is Stacey, with an E-Y, H-A-N-K-E, I-N-C, dot com.

Daniel: There you go. You heard it here first. Stacey, thank you so much for your time. I really, really appreciate you digging into all these things with us. This stuff is really important. And I hope everyone can start working on their influence muscle memory starting immediately.

Stacey: Thank you, Daniel.

Leading Through Asking

S3_E13_Nancy__McGaw_v.jpg

Questions need silence. Great questions are provocative. Great questions defy easy answers. Answering them takes time - they can be the work of a lifetime or a workshop. A great question can guide an organization, a Design Sprint or an educational program. Great Facilitators ask great questions - on purpose.

In this episode I sit down with the effortlessly scintillating Nancy McGaw, Deputy Director of the Aspen Institute Business & Society Program (Aspen BSP). Nancy also leads corporate programs designed to cultivate leaders and achieve Aspen BSP’s mission of aligning business with the long-term health of society.

In 2009 she founded (and still directs) the First Movers Fellowship Program, an innovation lab for exceptional business professionals who have demonstrated an ability and passion for imagining new products, services, and management practices that achieve profitable business growth and lasting, positive social impacts.

I would suggest you listen to this episode at 1X speed if for no other reason than it’s good to slow down sometimes - it’s a point that Nancy makes early on in our conversation.

Nancy and I meditate on the power of questions: Asking instead of telling lights people up and will surprise you, the asker, if you design your questions with care. 

Nancy shares three of her favorite questions.

  1. Tell me about a time when you were working at your best…?

  2. What would have to be true…?

  3. Why do you do the work you do?

Starting with Stories

The first question shows the power of Starting with stories. Any user experience researchers or Design Thinkers listening will know this to be true - if you’re talking to a customer or a client, the best way to get rich and detailed information is to ask a “tell me about a time when…” question. Stories light up our brains in ways facts cannot, and starting our gatherings with a story is a luxurious and powerful way to generate energy and connectedness.

Appreciative Inquiry

This first question also connects to one of the most important ideas in this episode - even though it’s mentioned only briefly: Asking with focus on the positive and the functional over the negative and dysfunctional. Appreciative Inquiry is a rich body of work and a unique approach to change.

The Art of Possibility

Nancy’s second question is an excellent act of conversational Judo. Asking “What would have to be true…” can transform conflict into collaboration...or at least, honest inquiry. Asking this question can allow skeptics to dream a little and open the door into possibility.

That question came out of another question, from Michael Robertson, who attended the recent cohort of my 12 week Innovation Leadership Accelerator. He wanted to know if an “us vs them” mentality is ever appropriate when trying to lead deeply important change. Nancy’s answer is profoundly empathetic. As a side note, the next cohort of the ILA is in February - we’re accepting applications through January. If you want to dive more deeply into your own personal leadership, head over to ILAprogram.com to learn more and apply.

Why over what

I love the idea of asking people “Why do you do what you do?” without even knowing what they do. This question also points to understanding people’s history, which is one of the key components to change - how did we get to now? What was the arc of the story?

Nancy has added some amazing books to my reading list - check out the show notes for links to them all and enjoy the episode!

Nancy at the Aspen Institute

Business and Society Program

First Movers Fellowship Program

Edgar Schein’s Humble Inquiry

The Four Quadrants of Conversational Leadership

Appreciative Inquiry

John McPhee’s Draft No. 4 

The Four Truths of Storytelling

 Carmine Gallo’s Storytelling Secrets

Rosamund and Ben Zander’s Art of Possibility

Leading change with and without a Burning Platform

Hal Gregersen’s Questions are the Answer

Elise Foster’s The Multiplier Effect

Full Transcription

Daniel:            I'll officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Nancy, I'm really so grateful that you made this time in your schedule, and even moved it back or forward in your calendar depending on how you look at time.

Nancy:             Great.

Daniel:            So, I wish we could have recorded our first conversation in some ways. Because those are the improvisational unexpected conversations. But I was really, really grateful to get connected to you because you're the dialogue person and the conversation guy as our mutual friend described. So I'm wondering, why is dialogue important to you?

Nancy:             You know, when I came to the Aspen Institute 20 years ago, I realized that dialogue was much more than just a way to bring people together and get them to talk. That it was really an opportunity to imagine future, and sort out differences, and explore possibilities. And that actually learning to structure a dialogue, it was a revelation to me that you could think about it in very different ways, and that it mattered to the outcome. So, I just became fascinated by this notion. I think it went back to my days, my early days as a teacher, when you're thinking about how the classroom is going to go. It was just so much fun to begin to imagine what we could do in this space. And of course, I was leaning into when I joined roughly 50 years of practice in dialogue that has been true with the Aspen Institute since its founding in 1950.

Daniel:            So can you talk a little bit about the dialogues that you structure at Aspen, the two programs that you have your hands in structuring for us?

Nancy:             Well, sure. Dialogue can mean a lot of things. And so I may deviate from what you're thinking about in terms of dialogue. But when we're bringing people together, we really try to think about who's in the room, and to create a space that will make it possible for the expertise of all of the participants in the room to emerge. If we do that, I feel like we've succeeded. And to let that expertise emerge in a way where everyone can feel engaged. This isn't about sharing insights. It's really about sharing knowledge so that others can learn and in a way that allows them to share something that makes you better at what you do or think more broadly about who you are in the world. And that's putting a lot of emphasis on dialogue. But I think that's what's possible in the dialogue space.

Daniel:            Yes. Very much so. And this actually goes to the quote you talked about right before we hit the record button, but from Edgar Schein's, Humble Inquiry, perspective. Ask people questions to which you do not know the answer.

Nancy:             Right. I think that dialogue is about talking, of course, it's also very much about listening. And one of the things that I've been focused on since I came to the Aspen Institute, and it's become even more important to me as I've learned more and more about how to facilitate conversations is the importance of question. What questions you ask and how you frame those questions is enormously important to the outcome. And if you ask a question, you really are not interested in hearing the answer, then you might as well not bother.

Daniel:            Right. So I'm curious... Oh, sorry, please go ahead.

Nancy:             No, I was just going to say Edgar Schlein, in this tiny book that I recommend to everyone, Humble Inquiry, he says we have a tendency to ask, but to tell rather than ask and we need to shift the balance there. And really to ask, with intent to learn.

Daniel:            So this is fascinating because this is one of the primary structures I've been using to get people to think differently about how they communicate. And it's actually even helped my dad in his relationship with my mother, who will be listening to this podcast and will be very gratified that I drew them a two by two matrix which was asking versus telling, and problem focus versus solution focus. And pointed out that my father was in a different quadrant than my mother was, and this was a revolution for him.

Daniel:            And I find that structure can really help people take this amorphous thing, which is dialogue and asking, and narrow things down. What are some of the ways that you structure these dialogues when we're looking at the Leaders Forum and the First Movers Forum, what are some of the structures you apply to help you make sure that the right types of conversations are happening?

Nancy:             Well, first of all, I have to say I love that story about your family because I think asking questions isn't just about doing this in a professional setting. It's engaging with the people that you love the most, and who may frustrate you the most.

Daniel:            Oh, yeah.

Nancy:             And I would love to have been a fly on the wall when you had that conversation with your parents. Because sometimes we don't even realize we are telling more than asking. Because no one's asked us to slow down enough to really think about that. And so when you talk about the structure of dialogue, I think that's one of the first things is just slow down.

Daniel:            Yes.

Nancy:             And realize something about the way that you interact with others. And when you can do that and really be genuinely interested in the other people who are in the conversation with you, something happens. So, we try to do that in a way that provides space for everyone to contribute, but doesn't put any pressure on anyone to be the person who has the right answer.

Nancy:             I think there are so many things I think about when we're putting a seminar together. And if you're doing a seminar that goes over several days, you have to have a variety of experiences for people. So there's no one formula that works. But there are a couple things that we keep in mind. One, of course, the questions that we hope will be interesting enough to people and prompt enough reflection on their part so that they feel that they want to participate in trying to find answers to those questions.

Nancy:             We believe in the power of silence. This was really difficult for me when I first started facilitating. If you start out a particular conversation and you're asking a question of the group, you need to give people an opportunity to process the question. And my tendency was to cover up the silence. So if I didn't get an immediate response to a question, I would explain it further, or ask the question in a different way. And I have learned, sometimes you just sit with a silence. And that's particularly true when we do something that perhaps seems quite unusual to those who work in a business setting.

Nancy:             One of the things we do, on occasion, is to introduce a poem into the group to prompt a different way of thinking about things. And some people feel quite uncomfortable with that, with memories of being in an English class in high school and having to do the heated discussion about some poem. But it works, surprisingly. In fact, it's so popular a part of the First Movers Program, that the First Movers themselves, who are fellows in this program of innovators within business, they've created their own poetry circle. But the point I was going to make was, if you introduce a poem, and you read the poem, and you ask someone else to read the poem, and then you say, "And what thoughts emerge for you as a result of reading this?" And there's silence in the room, you can assume that people just don't have anything to say. Rather, you need to assume that they needed a few minutes.

Daniel:            I think that's so beautiful. Is there a specific poem you find is one that you enjoy sharing with people often?

Nancy:             We have a lot of them. Mary Oliver, of course, is beautiful. She's lyrical and she's not esoteric. So, she's great. We try to use selections from different traditions. There are translations of some of Rumi's work that works well in a group. There are many. One of the-

Daniel:            I'm going to try to get you to read a poem for us by the time this call is over if we can manage it.

Nancy:             Well, I don't have any handy but I would be glad to do that at some point.

Daniel:            Okay. So, I'm curious about the First Movers Program because it is like a longer arc. When you were talking about seminars, and that's multiple days of people coming together to talk or reflect on a specific topic, but the First Movers Program is once a year long arc. How do you hold that conversational space? The word sometimes people use is container. How do you keep that container together over such a long period of time?

Nancy:             Well, let me, if I may just say a word about what the First Movers Program is.

Daniel:            Yeah, that'd be wonderful.

Nancy:             Which has been in existence for over a decade now. So, way back in 2007, we started asking ourselves at the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program, what if we were able to find people in business, from all different places in the business, not solely in the sustainability or corporate responsibility. People in business who were doing innovative things to create new products, services, or management practices that achieved a great result for the business, and a great result for the world?

Nancy:             And when we started as a pilot, we started this program as a pilot, we didn't know if we could find good people, if the companies would support our participation, but we set out on this class. And we are now with our 11th class of fellows. And we have found these people in companies that the competitive process we select a class each year. And these First Movers, who we also refer to as corporate social entrepreneurs, become a part of a community that we're building and our objective is to build a community of business leaders who really change the way that business operates and also the way that success is measured. So that's just a little bit about this First Movers Program.

Nancy:             Our intent was to learn from the First Movers from the innovators in business, but also to help them be more effective and more courageous in the work that they're doing in company. And to do that, we decided to offer a fellowship program where they continue to work in their companies, but they participate in three seminars for the first year of the program. And I could talk at great length, Daniel, about the structure of this. So, I don't want to get carried away, I'll just say, just start and then stop and see if I'm moving in a direction that's useful for you.

Nancy:             When we decided that we wanted to create these seminars, we believe that there was four themes that we really wanted to integrate into the programming. And those things were innovation, of course, that was the core of the program. What does innovative practice in this space look like? Leadership, because each of these people we knew would have to be leading change within their companies. Even if they were people who didn't have a team, they were still trying to create space for new ideas to be considered.

Nancy:             So, innovation and leadership, reflection, this is consistent with the tradition of the Aspen Institute to offer people an opportunity to think about their decisions and their life in a broader context. And that is actually probably much more important a part of the program that I might have envisioned at the beginning. And the fourth theme was community, so we build this network of people who support each other. And so the content in the seminars that we designed relate to one or more of these themes. I'm just going to stop there and see if I'm moving in the right direction.

Daniel:            Oh, absolutely. I mean, because I look at those four; innovation, leadership, reflection and community and from my own perspective, I look at each one of those as a type of conversation, right? Reflection being a conversation with myself, community being this multi node nonlinear conversation. We've had some episodes where we've talked about people who try to shape community and what it means to shape a community and innovation is definitely, from my perspective, a conversation between somebody who wants to make something and the person that they're trying to make it for. At least in the product design world of innovation, we always try to focus and personify "recipient of the innovation." So, those are all... We will be lovely to dig into all of these individually if we have time, but in any case, it'll be interesting to look at the arc that's tying all those things together. Because there are three seminars and these four topics, do they show up in each one or is it like a sort of a rising and falling arc where we address one, and then another in series?

Nancy:             They show up in all four, but we emphasize maybe one or the other. Obviously, community cuts across all of that. Well, all four of the things are visible in each of the seminars. But in order to build community, you have to, as you know so well, you have to build trust. So certainly in the first time we come together, that's a big part of what we do is just sharing and getting people to be comfortable sharing with others whom they've never met. And it's amazing how that can happen. And people value that opportunity to learn from others and to share what they know. And that emerges very vigorously in the first seminar.

Nancy:             I just want to go back to your point though, about conversation being a part of each of these themes. I think it's so true and you can have conversations in so many ways. And especially in the innovation piece, we all talk about it. Everybody loves innovation. And one of the things that becomes so apparent when you're talking about innovation in any space, but certainly in this social innovation space that is our focus. It really does not work to have a great idea that you try to convince others to embrace. The only way that this kind of innovation can happen is when you invite others in to co-create possibilities. And that is very much rooted in conversation.

Daniel:            Yeah. I mean, you've used my... I don't know if you can hear the rain that's happening above me. There's no way to remove that from the recording. Everyone will know it's raining hard today.

Daniel:            You've used one of my favorite trigger words, which is invitation. And this idea that you can't force real interaction, you can only invite it. And I'm wondering, this is such an interesting question of how these first movers are guided to invite people into the challenge that they want to create. Because I know when you're creating big change, there's often this idea of immunity to change, or resistance to change, or people who don't see the need for the change in the same way that these people might.

Nancy:             Right. And we talk about that in a variety of ways. It might be useful just to talk a little bit about how we start the first seminar. Because I think it speaks to this notion of invitation and getting people into a conversation. And you and I have talked before about the power of something called appreciative inquiry, which is a foundational approach that we built into the First Movers Fellowship Program designed.

Nancy:             And so the first thing we do in the seminar is to invite each fellow to tell a story. And the prompt for that story is to reflect on their own personal experiences and tell the group in five minutes or less a story about a time when they were working at their best in order to create some kind of change that was good for the business and good for the world. And sometimes they go back to an experience they may have had in college, which isn't really a corporate experience, but it's something that has stayed with them. At the moment the important piece of this is to tell about a time when they were working at their best.

Nancy:             And what happens in that room when everyone shares their stories is quite remarkable. No one's bragging. They are just reflecting on a time when they were able to achieve a result that made a difference for them, and for others. And we ask them too, as they tell their story, just to tell us three things about themselves that made it possible for them to achieve that particular result.

Nancy:             And I'm grateful to the scholars, particularly at Case Western, David Cooperrider and Ronald Fry, who ran a seminar that I had a number of years ago on appreciative inquiry, for giving me this powerful framework for thinking about organizational change. And one of the ways of doing organizational change, you know, is to figure out what's wrong and try to fix it. Another way of thinking about organizational or personal change, for that matter, is to really reflect on what work and build from that foundation.

Daniel:            And so I presume, what do you do with all of those stories after all the First Movers share the stories? What do you harvest from that?

Nancy:             I'm losing you, Daniel.

Daniel:            Oh, can you-

Nancy:             There's connection. There, that's better.

Daniel:            Okay. Hold on-

Nancy:             And there seems to be a lot of background noise.

Daniel:            Yes, that's the rain. There's not much I still can do about that. But I'll try to talk louder.

Nancy:             That's fine. Sorry, ask me the question again. I lost track.

Daniel:            Yeah. I mean, my curiosity was around, once you've heard all of these stories, what do you harvest from them? What's the aha that comes from all of those stories?

Nancy:             I would say the aha is that each of the individuals in the room has worked in a way that already reflects success and possibilities. And because we ask each to share some, just short insights about what made it possible, begin to build a sense of the qualities that the group brings to the challenge of corporate social entrepreneurship. And there's quite a lot of consistency we found over the years in the qualities. And there are things like institutional savvy, real vision for possibilities, some passion for doing work that matters to them, persistence. And so then these qualities can become something that gets discussed as well. How do you build on those strengths? How do you amplify those capabilities in the next challenge that you face?

Daniel:            Yeah. And how do we learn from and adapt other's excellence for our own?

Nancy:             Yes, absolutely. You know, when you hear other tell these stories, you think, well, that either sounds like me, or maybe that could be me, or maybe I need to think about my own personal narrative in a different way. So, yes, there's a lot of learning that happens.

Daniel:            I love starting with stories, because you could start with a framework, you could start with, here's a diagram of the strengths and capabilities. And I think that would put everyone to sleep.

Nancy:             It is amazingly powerful. And I will tell you, in the first seminar that we did with the first class, and we set out this question and ask people to start, the design team, the facilitation team, we weren't sure where this was going to head. I mean, sometimes you just have to experiment, right?

Daniel:            Yes.

Nancy:             And you have to trust that the process is going to take you where you want to go. But we didn't know. It happened to the person who stood up to tell the first story. We don't stand up necessarily, but she did, in my recollection. And she was a wonderful storyteller. And that set a tone. But also it allowed us to relax, even if she hadn't been such an accomplished storyteller, because she was telling something that mattered to her. Then there's just a level of engagement that is so palpable in the world, and encourages others to really lean into these stories and to reflect on their own experiences.

Nancy:             And you would think... we are usually a group of somewhere between 20 and 22 people. You would think that 25 minutes stories would make people want to climb the wall, and it's true, we do take a break in the middle, but stories are powerful. I would love to be more of an expert in storytelling because I think stories are conversations too. I guess we could say everything is conversation, but.

Daniel:            I mean, I would, but I feel like stories are an interesting element of a conversation. I feel like that's one of the things that we communicate in dialogue is the creation of a story together is an ideal. I'm wondering, I'd like to link this back to the other book we mentioned in our conversation about the fourth draft and this idea that a story should be compelling and short, and cutting stories and teaching people about storytelling intentionally seems like an important aspect of talking to anybody about innovation, is learning how to tell stories. What are you learning about stories right now?

Nancy:             Right. And you're referring to something I put on my email. This is a another way to have a conversation, I think, is to-

Daniel:            It's a conversation starter.

Nancy:             ... dare to put on your email what you're reading. And I started doing that several months ago, and it's given me an opportunity to have a number of conversations I wouldn't have had otherwise. The book you're referring to is John McPhee's, Draft No. 4. It is a series of essays written by someone who is an extraordinary writer who wrote for The New Yorker and for Time magazine for many years, and who taught writing at Princeton for a number of years as well. And I was trained, my undergraduate work was in English. So I did a lot of reading, did a lot of writing when I was in College, and have continued to do that since. But it's always fascinating to me to read about the art of writing and to realize how one has to continue to cultivate the ability to do that. And John McPhee is a master.

Nancy:             And it's sort of odd, I suppose, to say that John McPhee talks so much about cutting content, because articles for The New Yorker can be 40,000 words and you think, "Gosh, that doesn't seem like they've done much cutting." But he is so focused in these essays on how you structure the written word, and the choices that you make, and what you say versus what you don't say. And I found it... and is surprisingly witty. Very charming.

Daniel:            Yes. Well, he seems to find moments. He captures witty moments as well.

Nancy:             Yeah, he does. He does.

Daniel:            So what are you learning from Draft No. 4? How are you applying that in your own work? How is narrative enhancing your dialogues?

Nancy:             Well, narrative, another powerful word. We think a lot about narrative, and storytelling, and how we communicate the work that we do, and how we help others in the seminars that we put together communicate what it is that they're trying to do, but also how they think about who they are and how they show up in the world. And I think just focusing on how that appears on a page in the written word is one way to think about how important it is to be a craftsman and not to be intentional about choosing the way that a narrative comes together. And so that's one of the big things I'm learning from him.

Nancy:             And also, it's encouraging to know that someone as accomplished a writer as John McPhee was, that he struggled. And it's important to realize that the struggle is part of the process, no matter what it is you're trying to do. And sometimes you shouldn't fight that, rather you should embrace it.

Daniel:            Yeah.

Nancy:             And trust, trust that if you put your mind to it you'll get there.

Daniel:            I mean, my brain is lighting up so many things. One of the things I loved about the small section of Draft No. 4 that I read was his diagrams of how he was thinking about his essays. Where he put the person a little circle, the person, the profile was about, and then all these X's around them, all the other people he was going to talk to triangulate the truth or the narrative that he was talking about. And then it's like, "What if I did two circles?" And then he had this third version where he was like, "It's so elaborate that I decided not to do it." And this is where structure gets in the way of content and our mental model doesn't help, it hurts. And I guess I'm wondering like, do you have a narrative, a mental model for storytelling that you use to help you tell and share compelling narratives?

Nancy:             I don't think I have a mental model for that. But I think I have an appreciation for the discipline. And there are people whom I've learned from other than many other people. I read a lot. So every time I read, I try to think about the choices that the author made. When I hear people tell stories, I think about the choices that they made. And there's some great... In the seminars we do with First Movers, we use background readings.

Nancy:             And one of the old pieces we use is a Peter Guber article from the Harvard Business Review that talks about the four truths of storytelling. That you have to be true to yourself and true to the listener. That it's just helpful to have someone who does a lot of storytelling, give you a framework that can prompt you to think about what your approach is. It doesn't have to be the same as that. But something that gets you thinking. Carmine Gallo work, The Storyteller's Secret has been so informative to me about, again, the choices you make, and how you need to think about how it is that you're framing the material that you want to communicate.

Daniel:            I mean, yeah, I love that it's an inquiry instead of an end point for you. And it almost seems like you're using appreciative inquiry as a lens for any story that you encounter is looking at and saying, "Well, what's working here? What's lighting me up?" And that's really, really powerful.

Nancy:             You know, I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think that's true. And I think it's also, another thing that I try to keep in mind is to be in this space of possibility. I love Ben Zander, Rosamund Zander's book from a number of years ago, The Art of Possibility. Which is very much linked to appreciative inquiry too. They talk about people living in a universe of possibility, as opposed to a universe of metrics and measurement. And in this universe of possibility, you can see abundance rather than scarcity. And when you do that, what door is opened for you.

Daniel:            It's really beautiful. I'm wondering if... One of the things that's interesting to me about your work is, it's a little more personal for me now because my fiance is getting her master's degree in... she's getting an MBA in sustainability. And sometimes we talk about whether or not these regenerative businesses are possible. And if it is possible to change how things are being done. And it seems like one of the ways that you're, I mean, these First Movers are living in the world of the possible, they're doing it and you're trying to spread the narrative that it is possible. I'm wondering what you say to people who feel like it's not possible. That we can't change the way things are done.

Nancy:             Wow. I probably I'm selective in the people I hang out with because I like to be amongst people who say, "This is really hard. This may take generations. Or it may take decades. But it is possible and we can change." And I have the pleasure of working with a network of people who are in sustainability or corporate responsibility, our Leaders Forum Network where these are people who are devoting their professional career to a belief that it is possible to change. And it's remarkable to see what's happening. So, I don't have a good answer to the question about, what do you do when you are working with skeptics?

Nancy:             Well, I do have a response to that, actually. So one of the things we... It's not the answer, but it's a response. One of the things that we suggest with First Movers and others when they have an idea, they want to innovate in a particular direction, to find the skeptics in their organization, and really listen to where they're coming from. And there are questions that can be asked that will shift the conversation. And one of them that I love is, "Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I'd really be interested in understanding from you, what would have to be true in order for our organization to..." whatever. And that allow people to... even if they're totally [inaudible 00:37:39].

Daniel:            I see what you're doing.

Nancy:             If they don't initially believe it, they will go into that space. Well, what would have to be true? Well, that's a pretty provocative question. And if you ask it genuinely wanting to hear what they have to say, then they may provide an insight that you wouldn't get from somebody who's more on board with an idea. I mean, you come from the world of design. I think in design, the how might we question is a driving factor, right?

Daniel:            Yes. Well, and so I'll put a really fine point on this because I have a question here. I'm running Innovation Leadership Accelerator right now. And I promised my participants that if they had questions for you, I would pass them along. And Michael, had this provocative question of, is there ever a time for an us versus them mentality? And the example he gave was Greta Thunberg, you adults are ruining the world for us kids. And she has a very strong narrative. And what I just heard you say is, take your thems, when there's an us and a them, and go to the thems and say, "Tell me more." But sometimes we want to say to the thems, "Screw you, get out of the way?"

Nancy:             Yes. All of that is true. And we can't just turn off our dismay, or our disappointment, or our anger, but I think, if you really want to drive change, you have to at least get into the space where you begin to think, "I can't just react, I have to be strategic." And it's hard. We talk a lot about listening just as an example. And you can learn to be a great listener, but you're not always going to be with people who return the favor. And that's hard.

Daniel:            Yeah. So that, I mean, that goes to the... Oh, sorry. Please proceed.

Nancy:             No, I was done.

Daniel:            Well, because what's lighting me up there is this question of reflection and self care, because maybe we talk about anger and processing that anger. Sometimes anger can be effective, but asking the question, "Will this help me get what my goal is? What I want." It's a tough question to sit with sometimes because the anger feels pretty righteous.

Nancy:             Yeah. Self righteous probably doesn't get you anywhere. Although in, I think in classic change management theory, the John Kotter approach. This notion of creating a sense of urgency, what he calls the burning platform, can be very powerful. And Greta of course, was boring. She was creating a sense of a burning platform. People may not have liked the way she was delivering the message. But sometimes maybe that is necessary to get people to think differently. I think a little of it probably goes a long way.

Daniel:            Right. Yeah.

Nancy:             And some people are better than others. And I think you do have to be true to yourself. I've never been one who operates in that way but I have been moved and changed by people who do.

Daniel:            I mean, I think I'm going to look into those four truths because I think being true to yourself and saying what is true, those are really powerful places to start from. But then this question of, will you incite action or resistance is a really important one.

Nancy:             And you have to be prepared, I guess, for whatever comes your way. That's part of being open to the dialogue.

Daniel:            Yeah. So we're getting close to our time. It's swept through rapidly. Is there anything that we haven't touched on that you think is important to touch on when it comes to facilitating deep and powerful dialogue?

Nancy:             I touched on it, but I think I would just emphasize again, the importance of studying questions. And there are a couple of wonderful books out there. Hal Gregersen talks about this. As does Warren Burger. And the notion of studying questions and becoming a better question crafter is so important to learn. And it's one of those things perhaps we don't think we have to think about, or master. But in fact, that's a skill too. And I have been... my work has been enriched by that idea of, what does it mean to craft a question? And how do I do it better? And what possibilities does that open up?

Daniel:            Do you have a favorite question that you ask people?

Nancy:             Well, I think the question about when did you work at your best? Or what would have to be true in order for something to happen? We also ask people, why is it that you do the work you do? And that's important because, again, we get so busy with our daily lives that we don't necessarily think about why we're doing it. And I think it's very important for all of us to ask ourselves that question and answer honestly.

Daniel:            I had a conversation with Elise Foster, who I'm hoping to have on the show soon. She co-wrote a book called The Multiplier Effect. And she use this lovely phrase around, how much space does the question create? And we talked about open versus closed questions. But I never heard somebody talk about, well, is it this idea of an expansive question, one that really cracks open a new horizon? And it's okay to ask somebody a more narrow question, I think. It's about being intentional. And that's a really powerful thing to take care with.

Nancy:             Yeah. I love that idea of opening up space. And of course, we ask narrow questions all the time, and we need to, but I certainly didn't think very much about the possibility of asking questions that opens space. And I think it's a powerful notion.

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, I want to officially close out our conversation. And thank you for your time and creating the space for dialogue with me. Nancy, it's a real pleasure.

Nancy:             Well, it's been a great pleasure. Thanks so much, Daniel, for making this conversation possible.

 

What is your Sales Metaphor?

S3_E12_ian_Altman.jpg

I am so thrilled to share this conversation with author and speaker Ian Altman about a conversation we all have to contend with one way or another - sales! Everyone sells something at some point, whether it’s in a job interview or a client presentation...and at some point, everyone is going to be sold to.

Ian’s book, Same Side Selling, asks “Are you tired of playing the sales game?”

The most widely used metaphors in sales are those related to sports, battle, or games. The challenge with this mindset is that it means one person wins, and the other loses. Instead of falling victim to a win-lose approach, what if you shared a common goal with your potential client? How might things change if the client felt that you were more committed to their success than making the sale?


As Ian says in the opening quote - it’s not about a series of tactics, it’s about selling something you care about that helps people solve real challenges that you also care about!

I wanted to share my own takeaways from Ian’s approach that have helped me facilitate deeper conversations with my clients and potential clients.

  1. Stay in the problem space slightly longer than feels comfortable. My listeners with Design Thinking experience will not be too surprised to hear that jumping from problem to solution quickly is not any more effective in sales conversations than it is in innovation conversations. Staying in the problem space means listening longer and more deeply to people before you share your amazing solution to all their worries. Ian’s “same side quadrant” notebook has actually been a helpful reminder to do just that.


  2. Ask “what’s the cost of not solving this challenge?” Make sure you understand not just the problem today, but the cost of not solving the problem in the near future. This conversation can help you both understand how to measure the impact of any effort you make to solve the problem.


  3. The Cost of your solution is often irrelevant in the face of the cost of the problem. Once you really know the cost of the problem, talking about your fees can feel less challenging.

What is particularly interesting me to are the wider implications of Ian’s metaphor driven-approach. What metaphors are driving the key relationships in your life? Those metaphors are narrative threads that link (and color) each and every moment of the relationship. The simple shift from a game to be won to a puzzle to be solved is a profound one. If you think of your marriage as a battle or your job as a circus, the way you name the game will affect how you play it. 

I’m really grateful to Ian for this new metaphor - and I think you’ll enjoy it too!

Show Links

Website www.IanAltman.com 

LinkedIn: /in/IanAltman

Facebook @GrowMyRevenue


Ian’s Same Side Sales Podcat: https://www.ianaltman.com/same-side-selling-podcast/

Your Chocolate is in my peanut butter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0

Same Side Sales Journal: https://www.ianaltman.com/store/Journal/

Full Transcription

Daniel:            So I'll officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Ian Altman. I really, really appreciate you making the time to do this. I felt really lucky that Dan Levy just linked to you on a little LinkedIn conversation about the best sales books that people have read and you were nice enough to agree to come on. I've read your book. It's a blockbuster. So, I really appreciate your time.

Ian:                  Hey, thanks. Thanks for having me. It's cool.

Daniel:            So the thing that is amazing about your book is that the idea behind it is so simple and I can explain it to somebody in literally 30 seconds and I feel like it changes their mental model.

Ian:                  I would love for you to do that because your conclusion may be totally different than what Jack and I intended.

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, I mean, so here's the thing, the metaphor of an adversarial sales relationship, it means that we're fighting each other and it's a game of one-upsmanship, right? That sales develops a new tactic and buyers develop a new tactic and it's a war. And instead of trying to win the game or beat the other side, what does it look like if we get this on the same side in solving the problem as a puzzle rather than as a game to be won.

Ian:                  Yeah, that's it. Wow. Mission accomplished because you never know. You never know how people are going to get it when they read it. But thankfully that's that the gist!

Daniel:            So here's the thing that I'm really curious about. The metaphor is really, really powerful. When did that metaphor start to cook in your brain? Because I know it didn't just pop into your head fully formed.

Ian:                  Well, I'm a lifelong integrity-based seller. So, I had started businesses from zero grew them to a pretty good size where the last company I ran before starting to write books and help people on growing their businesses, we grew to a value of over a billion dollars. And it was always based on thinking in my client's shoes saying what's important to them? What do they really need? What are they trying to accomplish? And if I can align with that, then it makes it easy for everybody. But if instead, if I'm just trying to push stuff on somebody, let's face it, none of us likes to feel that way. And then I was actually... I was giving a sales training class before it was called Same Side Selling in the Washington D.C. area and Jack Quarles, who's my co-author in Same Side Selling, he and I didn't really know each other that well.

Ian:                  And Jack, who had a consulting business on purchasing and procurement and cost savings signed up for the class. And I thought, wow, this is cool. Jack's actually signing up so that he can help his business. And the reality is that what Jack told me after the fact was, "Look, I had clients who were buying from people you had trained and they would defend why it was okay to pay more for them than other people, and I wanted to learn what would these devious tactics you were teaching people, is and I came there and that it was all integrity based." And then he realized, well wait, Ian's teaching people the same thing. I'm teaching my people just from a different angle and to us as far as we know this is the only book on sales that was ever written by somebody on the buying side and the selling side, which really should be the same side.

Daniel:            Yeah. What I find so really delightful about this, so I'm curious about how that conversation, that was your first moment. That was your meet cute, right? In the story of this romance of the two of you writing this book together. That's the meet cute where it's like... and you mentioned the book, The Chocolate and The Peanut Butter, Peanut Butter and The Chocolate metaphor, which only people of a certain age will remember that advertisement, and it's a great advertisement. I'll link to it in the show notes because if you haven't watched it you should definitely, it's a classic. How did the conversation progress from, oh this is a conversation that should be happening, to, okay, let's actually tell the world this story together?

Ian:                  Well the interesting thing is, so Jack and I became first friends, and we would talk... and Jack would say, "So, why do you suggest this process?" And I said, "Well, because I think it helps give the truth and here's what's going on in the buyer's mind." And Jack said, "Well, you know what? It happens to work really well, but that's not what's going on in the buyer's mind, here's what's actually going in the buyer's mind because I work with buyers," and we looked at each other and said, "That perspective would be really valuable for people, because most people have no idea what's going on in the buyer's mind." In fact, in the keynotes I do in the workshops, I do with businesses, I spend a lot of time on, here's the research I've done with over 10,000 CEOs and executives on how they make an approved decision.

Ian:                  And what I find amazing is that people are shocked and they, really that's what's going on? Yeah. Oh, I had no idea. And it's funny because as I started doing this research, now the first hundred people, you'd get an answer and say, "Wow, look at that." The first a hundred people all pretty much were asking the same questions when they were making a buying decision, trying to approve something. That's interesting. And then a few hundred later you're like, "Wow, I'm really surprised that it's still the same answer over and over," and then into thousands, you're like, "Okay, wow. It's still the same thing." And then as I started speaking overseas and different parts of the world, it's like, "Well, I'm sure it's going to be different here," now it's the same thing. Wow, that's really fascinating. And so it's just taken this journey where now oftentimes it's just helping people become aware. It's even in regular communication with one another, we often don't think so much about why does the other person feel this way and why are they saying that? We just said, "Okay, are they done? So now I can give my bet."

Daniel:            Yeah. It's interesting how the friendship with Jack just gave you that deeper level of empathy, which we say we're supposed to have, but it's hard to get.

Ian:                  Yeah. I don't know if it was so much empathy, it's just I was ignorant. And then, through that, I mean, I guess empathy came out of it, but I would love to give myself credit and say, "Well, I was trying to demonstrate more empathy." It was just all of a sudden I realized, wow, here's something that I thought I knew that I didn't. That's embarrassing.

Daniel:            So, you two develop this friendship, you start to learn a lot about his side of the table as it were.

Ian:                  Yeah.

Daniel:            And when does this idea of, let's be on the same side, start to evolve?

Ian:                  I think the concept of Same Side Selling-

Daniel:            Because presumably, this is back in 20, you wrote the book in 2014 or published it in 2014. So, this is going back a-ways.

Ian:                  Yeah. The first version of the book, the first edition was 2014. We wrote it in 2012 or start writing... Anytime someone says, "Oh, I'm going to write a book," you're like, "Okay, well you're in for the long haul." I've never met an author who said, "Wow, that wasn't so much faster than I thought it would." It's always the inverse. And so for us, it was... All of our discussions were always about how do we get buyers to understand this, and how do we get sellers to understand this so they work together. And it's fascinating because Jack is equally passionate about getting salespeople to understand the buyer's perspective, as he is about getting the buyers to understand the sales person's perspective. And it's not like, well, just these sellers need to understand stuff, we both equally are passionate about when the buyer is doing things like reverse auctions.

Ian:                  Like, look, you might think you're getting the best deal, but you're really not, and here's why. It's not always... I mean because of movies and personas, it's always, "Oh, the hyper-aggressive salesperson is doing X, Y, and Z." But it happens on all sides of the issue. And so if you get people together and try and find common ground, then usually end up with a better outcome.

Daniel:            Yeah. Why does sales have such a bad reputation do you think?

Ian:                  Mostly because it's been earned. With a bad reputation has been earned over time, you think about it, you have the hyper-aggressive, pushy salesperson, no one's born with this notion of, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to impose what I want on other people and I'm going to try and manipulate them into doing what I want. That's not the way we're born. And so someone is taught that unfortunately, somewhere along the line things work. So years and years ago, if you delivered something that didn't work, if you delivered something that wasn't effective, your customer might tell the few people they were close to who they have face to face conversations with. And today when that happens, that extends to the free world. So you used to be able to sell snake oil and get away with it. You used to be able to, if you were selling automobiles, you used to be able to sell somebody a lemon and no one would know. And now of course, if someone doesn't get great service, they post on social media and the car dealerships like, "Well how about we just give you a new car," because it's not worth it for them to do it the wrong way. So similarly in... I spend most of my time with businesses who are selling to other businesses. So the B to B space.

Ian:                  And in that context, you can't afford to deliver something that doesn't work for somebody, because your reputation is toast. You're not going to get repeat and referral business. But if you deliver amazing value, people will tell everybody they know the good news. And so if you focus instead on how do I get to that good place, it works really well. And whatever "Idea" you're selling, think about it. If someone's selling you an idea for their reasons, you're much less likely to be interested than if they are helping show you how their idea can help you.

Daniel:            Yeah. So I guess one of the questions I've been... While I was reading this book, I was looking at it through my lens where I'm a business selling to other businesses and I was also looking at it through... My fiance Janet works for a beer company, it's a sustainably produced beer. And I was thinking about it from her side where it's beer. And in thinking about integrity-based selling and are these techniques more appropriate for complex products and services or do they work for anything in your mind?

Ian:                  They for anything that has differentiation. And what I mean is if you were just selling ball-bearings, and if the way you delivered ball bearings was the same as anybody else, it wouldn't matter. So in..., it was Janet, right?

Daniel:            Yes.

Ian:                  Okay. So in Janet's case, if she's selling beer but it's sustainably produced and it uses organic products instead of toxic products and things like that, her conversation with either a distributor or if she's dealing with the end purchaser, not the end customer, but her discussion is, look, if people didn't like the taste of our beer, anything I'm about to tell you it doesn't matter. So the first thing is you need to make sure that it's appealing to people. And my guess is you have patrons who come in, who would find sustainable and organic to be important to them. If you don't, none of this matters. But do you? And if they say, "Yeah, I do," how do you think they would respond if there was a beer that you could show was produced sustainably and responsibly. And what the ingredients were organic versus who knows what. Do you think that might attract additional guests to your establishment if you have that? Yeah. Okay. Then what's the best way for us to test this out to make sure that you're not buying this long term and that way we'll know whether or not this effective. Because if it is, this could be a game-changer. If it's not well then it's not worth changing. Right?

Ian:                  And now what they say is, but why wouldn't they like it? And now they're convincing you. But it's about realizing well, who would care about that sustainably produced organic ingredient beer? Now, I don't know if it's an organic ingredient. I added that in because that is my wife's [dent 00:12:37].

Daniel:            It is, and I love that I'm getting free sales consulting for Janet out of this but one of the things that I'm noticing in the arc that you're painting, is that a, there's an arc that you're getting towards. I have a sticky note here from the Same Side quadrants section of the book where you say this on page 80. I want to be sure that we don't miss anything important. Can you share what sparked you to pursue this project? And then you have like, hey, we're just doing research. We're losing X money per quarter, or why do you care? Can you just give us a price? And what I'm hearing in your speech here and in these questions in the book is just a tremendous sensitivity to the way you express an idea in a way that's inviting to people and a lot of sensitivity to what you're getting back from the other person. Is it hot? Is it cold or is it a dead fish?

Ian:                  Yeah. And the thing is that, so one of the things I talk about often on stage is that effective selling is not about persuasion or coercion. It's about getting to the truth as quickly as possible. So, you're not trying to convince somebody else, you're just trying to find out what the reality is. So for example, if someone says, "You know what, our bar, here's our demographic," and I'll go stereotypical "Our bar is truck drivers who cuss and don't care at all about the environment, don't care about sustainability," so I'm painting a broad brush that probably isn't accurate, but that's it. So we don't care about if it's sustainable, we don't care if it's organic. In fact, they just want to brand that happens to be on their shirt or hat right now.

Daniel:            Right. She gets to walk out immediately.

Ian:                  Yeah. That's not Janet's audience. And says, you know what, then we're probably not a fit. Now, some people love our beer and their primary reason isn't that it's sustainable or that it's ingredients are organic, and I'm happy to provide a keg for you to try out. If people love it, we'll do more of it. And if not, then you shouldn't buy it. And then that might tip the scale. But the idea is that she shouldn't want to sell somebody a beer that goes bad in the keg because people aren't drinking it. Because that's not good for their business. It's not good for her brand. Because what happens is people say, "Oh, well you had this last week you don't have it now, why not?" Well, because no one cared about it. Well, that's, that's bad for the brand overall.

Ian:                  And so the idea is that if we think instead about how can I understand what that person wants and what's important to them, and see if I can find common ground with them, then that works. And at the same thing happens in conversations. I mean you can pick the most hyperbolic political situation or social topic and I can say to you, "Hey Daniel, you pick either side of this issue, it doesn't have to be what you believe, it could be the opposite of what you believe and take the stereotypical approach for that." And I'll show you how we get on the same side. That's the key to this stuff, is making it so that it's not hyperbolic, it's not yelling at each other. It's just trying to find common ground.

Daniel:            Yeah. And, I think one of the keys is, you have to believe that what you're selling matters.

Ian:                  Absolutely.

Daniel:            And if you go back to the ball bearing thing, even the guy selling ball-bearings can believe that the way he delivers them is unique. And his understanding of your problem and what you're trying to achieve with those ball-bearings is unique.

Ian:                  You can never effectively sell something that you don't believe in. So I often, when I'm working with businesses, I say, "Look, here's why it's important for your employees to believe in whatever it is that your mission is and what you're selling," because if they don't, then as soon as the client pushes back and says, "Well, it doesn't seem like that's great." It's like, you're right, it's not that great. I don't believe it either. Our stuff sucks.

Daniel:            Well, can I push back on that because I listened to Jordan Belfort's audiobook the Way of the Wolf, I don't know if you've checked it out. Maybe you saw the movie.

Ian:                  I've not it.

Daniel:            Have you seen it? Though-

Ian:                  I've seen the movie. I've seen the movie, yeah.

Daniel:            Yeah. So you know some of his techniques just by watching that movie, I mean, there's a guy who sold really inferior products to people who probably shouldn't have bought them and he was really good at it.

Ian:                  But notice that was snake oil and we know it was called out to be Snake oil and people went to jail over it.

Daniel:            That's true. That's a good point and match.

Ian:                  So when I talk about effective, the idea is that I should say you can't effectively and with integrity sell something you don't believe in. And so for example, when I'm talking to an organization and they say, "Look, so we've got this event, we've got 1,000 people, we've got 500 people, whatever it happens to be, we've got 5,000 people, we want you to come speak." The first question I ask is, "What are you trying to accomplish?" And people will say to me, "Oh well, is this a tactic?" Is this... It's like, no, I want to find out what they're trying to accomplish because if I don't believe I can accomplish that for them, I'll recommend somebody else.

Daniel:            Yeah. The tactic thing is fascinating because there's a... I want to talk about this a really absolutely amazing notebook because there... I think about this like dating, there's questions you want to ask but you can't ask them. But you still want to get to the answer of, what's your budget? And you say in the book, and I get this, is that the buyer mentality they freeze up and they're like, he's just going to use that information to charge us 98.2% of what our budget is. Right? Versus this question with the issue and the results of the premises, until we know what success looks like, we don't know what it would cost to deliver. And that's a very interesting way of phrasing. I can't tell you the price because I don't know what you want yet.

Ian:                  Well and here's the thing that I want listeners to understand, and tell me what you can about what you know about your audience. Because I want to make it as relevant to them as possible.

Daniel:            Doing this on-air is hilarious.

Ian:                  I understand. But you know what, keep in mind, I know on the same side of telling podcasts, we, fortunately, had done some additional research that goes beyond the podcast. So I know at a point in time based on who responded to a survey what my audience is on my show. But I don't know other than that much about my audience other than when people send in questions and comments and things like that. And I say, huh, I hope that's representative, but it may not be. So I'm putting you on the spot with it, but I want to make sure it's relevant to people. So any insight you have can help me try and make it most relevant to them.

Daniel:            The truth is the podcast is primarily for me. Anybody who's-

Ian:                  That's awesome.

Daniel:            .... listening, I apologize. This is my podcast and it's for me. What I like to know and what I like to understand is how to communicate with people. And I like to understand how to create impactful change. And my background is in product design and product innovation. And so there are definitely people who listen to this podcast who are from product design and product innovation. And what product design and product innovation come up against, is organizational alignment challenges and organizational change. And facilitation of group dialogue is one way that we create spaces so that good decisions can get made. And so people who listen to this podcast are interested in I think all of those things, you let me know if that's true or untrue guys.

Ian:                  It's so let me put it in that context because that's really helpful. In that context, if someone's asking you what does this cost, and you don't know what success looks like, it's the same thing as asking somebody in product development, "Hey, how much is it going to cost and how much is it going to create... How much is it going to take to create this new product?" And the people on the product team say, "Well, what does the product need to do?" "And what does the successful product look like?" And the person says, "Well, I'm not going to tell you that, I just need to know what it's going to cost and how long it's going to take." And you're saying, "Well, but if I don't know what the end goal is, if I don't know who our target audience is, if I don't know what the form and function has to be, if I don't know what makes it successful or not, then I can't tell you."

Ian:                  It's like, "What's it going to take? How much does it cost? And how long is it going to take to build a home?" "Well, do you want a log cabin or you want something like the Taj Mahal?" "Doesn't matter, how long is it going to take and how much it's going to cost." "Well, those are two very different facilities." "Well, it doesn't matter, just tell me what it cost." So the reality is that when we guide people to how to ask these questions, it happens to be with sincerity. It's if I don't know what success looks like, I can't tell you what you need. For example, in my business, there's a difference between, so what do you want to be the impact your organization? If it's I want them to learn some new concepts and we're going to build this on our own firm and mentor people internally, that's great. That's a keynote. I come do an event, I'm done.

Ian:                  If it's well, I want to make sure it has a lasting impact and here's where we're going to measure it. Okay, in order to achieve that result you just specified, it's more like, here's a 90 day program I do where I do this workshop with people and then here's what we do for 60 days afterwards. And we're going to survey people in advance and here's what we do to make sure you have a lasting impact, and that's a bigger investment that's likely to generate a much higher return investment per invested dollar. Or if it's well, we want to change this whole culture that we have around business growth. Okay, well that's something that's probably going to be an engagement we do over the next year, but here's how we're going to measure that along the way to make sure the investment makes sense.

Ian:                  So if you think about an any context, it would be like if you went to the doctor and you said, "Well geez, so I have one condition," the doctor can either put a bandaid on it or they can treat the underlying condition so that it goes away. And two very different things. If you say, what does it cost? What if you just need the bandaid, we'll give you that. But if you actually want to go through this treatment, it takes more analysis, more time and more effort on everybody's part.

Daniel:            That's really helpful. And I'm wondering, because I love the sort of the small, medium and large impact arc. I think there's a question around how do you, if you're looking in front of... if you've got a customer in front of you and they're thinking in terms of small impact. And you want them to be thinking in terms of larger impact. Now obviously you have your own reasons for wanting to do that. I'm sure doing a 90 day program's more satisfying for you and is more profitable for you, but it's also more valuable to them. Do you have a way that you... Is that a clear question?

Ian:                  It's a great question. And since this podcast is for you, what do I you to do is share with me, so when your clients engage you, my guess is there's stuff you do on a small level and on a larger level. What's the difference? What does those sound like?

Daniel:            Oh, I mean it's very similar shape. Doing a one off training is, it scratches the itch for people. They say, "Oh, well we need to have better collaborative intelligence skills, we have facilitators, we want to level them up." But the sort of, well, how do we actually support them in implementing these skills day to day? That's much harder. It's a bigger left.

Ian:                  So it might sound like this. Someone comes to you and says, "Well, so yeah, all we want to just for you to come to do this one workshop." Now does that ever happen where you think to yourself, I don't think that's what they really need.

Daniel:            Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Ian:                  Right? So I'm sure there's times where you think to yourself, well that isn't what they need with it. What it sounds like they really need is this other stuff.

Daniel:            Right. And that comes from understanding the impact that they're trying to create.

Ian:                  Sure. So, if they came in and said, "Oh, when is this workshop?" Okay, that's great. "How did you come to the conclusion that you need this workshop?" Well, because here's [inaudible 00:24:54] and so-and-so said they did a workshop with you and it was fantastic. Okay, well, so sometimes when people come to me it's like, "Hey, can you just do this workshop? Our people are already familiar with these concepts and we're going to roll with it and we're going to implement it." For other organizations, what they tell me is, "Look, we know that people are going to retain so much in the workshop, and is there a way to coach people and mentor them along the way so that we get better results down the road, which level are you looking for?"

Ian:                  And so I'm not pushing them in one direction or another, I'm just helping them become aware that there are multiple ways to work with me and they can pick the one that's most helpful for them.

Daniel:            Yeah. But-

Ian:                  And sometimes you're going to get people who say, "Yeah, you know what, all we can afford right now is the workshop, and all we can do right now is the training." Okay. Do you think there's a point in time where you might be in a position to do it the other way? Because my feeling is, my experience is people get a much greater result from the other. And if you tell me, hey, next quarter we could do it this other way to generate better results as opposed to right now I would be more comfortable if you waited so that we gave you a better result because it's going to be better for you and [inaudible 00:26:10] that you're going to tell your friends and it becomes better for me.

Ian:                  I'm okay waiting if those results are important to you. And now what comes to their mind is, wow, Daniel is actually more concerned about our results than maybe we were 30 seconds ago, and maybe we should be more interested in our results. Maybe we're better off waiting and then what goes to their mind is, but if we're going to get those results, why should we wait? We should just get those results now. And there's this whole process it just evolves through.

Daniel:            Right? And then they sell themselves on, well, maybe we really should do the larger thing because it makes more sense.

Ian:                  Now keep in mind the larger thing isn't always the right answer. So there's times where someone will say, "Well, here's what we need." And I'll say, "I don't think you need that, I think all you need is this and then let's see where the results are." There's a business I'm working with right now where they've got a sales force that's around the world of about a thousand different people. And they said, "Well, so we want to do this whole program to get everyone up to speed." And I said, "Well, how would you feel about if we took a group of let's say 20 people and we implement this, and we measure it, and let's see what kind of results we get over the next 120 days?" "And if we get great results there, then we rinse and repeat, we replicate it everywhere.But my guess is we're going to make some adjustments along the way and it's going to be easier to make adjustments with 20 people than a thousand people. And once it's working well then we can expand it."

Ian:                  Now the funny thing is the response was, "Well that sounds great man, we feel like we're in really good hands. Can't we just skip that and go to the thousand people?" I was like, "Well no, because I actually think this is going to be better for you." But the idea is that as soon as you make it clear to your client that you are as committed to the results as they are, then all of a sudden they think to themselves, wow, so this person isn't just trying to sell me something for the sake of selling something. There is a reason it's in my best interest for each step along the way. So now I can put my trust in them to guide me to get me there.

Daniel:            And this is the essence of, I don't know if you're a fan of the Trusted Advisor book, but this dea of honestly seeming like this is integrity based selling. I care about your results as much as my own because of the longterm truth that there is no other real way to do it.

Ian:                  Yeah. And it's... You know what I'm not familiar with the book per se, but the whole concept, I always say anybody who teaches integrity based selling, I'm a fan, because there's been so many people who have taught the antithesis of integrity based selling that anytime somebody is doing something that is good and positive, it's great. The trick is that when people will often say is, so I have to do this so that it appears that I'm more interested in their outcome. And it's like, no, no, no. You actually have to genuinely be interested in their outcome. I ran into a guy who was playing in a charity golf tournament yesterday, ran into a guy I know who had wanted me to come in and work with his team, and they just weren't in a position of business, they were struggling and I was, "No people, look, once you're in trouble, it's tough for me to help because you tend to make short term bad decisions or longterm bad decisions because of you're short term cashflow needs."

Ian:                  So you'll take the client who isn't necessarily a good client for you, because you feel you need the revenue. Because you can't see that six months from now, that client is going to become the bane of your existence. And so you start making decisions like that. And so I saw him at this event and I said, "I've got this event coming up on October 15th, which is this... " I do these group immersion programs very rarely like once or twice a year. I said, "And it's the kind of thing you can send your team and it would cost a third of what it normally costs, So I just want to make you aware of it." He said, "Oh, thanks so much." And the person next to us said, "Oh, so he was trying to sell you on his program?" And he says to them, "No, he's actually trying... we really wanted to do this, but we couldn't afford it, and this might be a way we can."

Ian:                  So it's like, there's a hundred people playing this tournament. There's one guy who I mentioned this to because I know for his company it's like, "Oh, here's a way I can actually afford to get what I wanted."

Daniel:            Yeah. I feel like the flip side of integrity based selling is obviously having your own integrity, but also a certain confidence in not just what you're selling but in yourself. And I don't know if you have any perspectives on how you sort of selling can be a... there can be internal panic. There can be, oh God, they need to know this. I don't have the answer. How do you manage your own internal responses that maybe you don't want to say everything that's coming up in your mind?

Ian:                  Well, I think in some cases the insecurity people have is all expectation management. Meaning people have expectation that anyone I meet with who has an interest in what I do, I should be able to close that deal. And this person should become a client. Instead of, if you start with the premise of anytime I run into somebody, there's a greater than 50% chance that they're not a good fit for what I do. And so my job, getting back to kind the one of the core themes of the book, is to determine whether or not there's a good fit. Do they have an issue that has enough impact on their business? That's important enough to solve to make it worth my time to help them find a solution. And once I figured out what's important to them to solve, can I really help them get there?

Ian:                  So do you think that doctors, like a good physician, do you think they have this problem where they're like, "Wow, this person has this terrible disease that I can totally cure, but man, I don't want to come off like I'm selling it." No, they're thinking, look, if I don't help this person, they're going to be way worse off. They're lucky to be here.

Daniel:            And the answer with a doctor of like, "Oh actually you're fine and just leave," is a great answer. It's not like, "Oh, I didn't get to give them any medicine."

Ian:                  Exactly. Or you come to the doctor and they say, "Wow, you have a condition that I'm pretty sure this is your condition, and I don't treat that, but I can refer you to an expert who does," is not seen like, "Oh, you lost the sale." It's, "Wow, that doctor I can totally trust because they pointed me to the right treatment." In fact, what I often say to people is that the biggest challenge for many individuals is that you're selling your features and benefits instead of what you should be doing is seeking out the symptoms. So if we stayed with this medical metaphor, the idea is, what are the symptoms that your client is experiencing that are an indicator of a condition that you're good at treating. So for example, in your business, the idea of, well, so I'm going to facilitate these types of meetings to help people collaborate better.

Ian:                  Well that's one way you could pitch it or you could say, "So if you have organizations where their creativity gets stifled, if in your team you have people with different viewpoints and it results in products not getting formalized because people have disagreement and they can't draw consensus. If they feel like their creativity well has dried up, that's where I help." And if people say, "Oh, I have one of those problems," then they're interested in talking to you.

Daniel:            Sure.

Ian:                  So if I say to people, "Oh gee, I can help improve your sales organization," a lot of people might know what that means or may not. But if I say, "Look, if you have people who are constantly focused on price instead of value, if you have clients who, you know you can help but you can't earn their attention, if you have trouble standing out compared to the competition, those are areas people come to me to solve. Then if you're having more of those issues, there's probably a discussion worth having. And if you're not having more of those issues, then I'm probably not the right person to help you right now."

Daniel:            Yeah. And that's really focusing on the why, instead of the what, which is so much more impactful.

Ian:                  Yeah. We hope so.

Daniel:            We hope so. So I'm going to change gears. I have a sticky note here that I want to talk about, which is, I checked out your podcast night, I was really blown away at how much value you provide in your podcast literally every single episode, whether you're interviewing somebody-

Ian:                  Oh wait, that's accidental.

Daniel:            Yeah. You're just trying to educate yourself. I know this is like... I'm curious if you have some favorite episodes that you can, I really liked the one where I'm blinking out on his name. It was about deep listening and it was so beautiful and really, really amazing conversation.

Ian:                  Yeah. Oscar Trimboli.

Daniel:            Yeah. Are there some other like key lessons you've learned in some of your podcasts recently.

Ian:                  You know what I mean? I learn constantly. So the Same Side Selling podcast, it's become something that I love doing. And about once a month, I do a solo episode but I have guests on, and it's generally other bestselling authors and people talking about concepts that are fascinating to me. I've had Seth Godin on a couple of times, and every time Seth is on, there's at least one part of the interview where Seth says something and I'm thinking, wow. And then I remember, oh yeah, I'm the podcast host so I can't just, wow. I can't just take the note and take it in. I actually have to interact and go on. And we've become friends over the years. It's funny, Seth was at an event, he was on the podcast and we had talked, I'd figured it was on the podcast or after the podcast about a trip he had made this family to Peru. And last year I take my family to Peru.

Ian:                  We were talking about Machu Picchu and Lima and Cusco and the going to Peru, if you've never been, definitely put it on your list. It's absolutely amazing. And one of the things we talked about was we both discovered this great Peruvian chocolate. And the chocolate in Peru is just incredible. And of course, much like every other topic, Seth Godin knew everything about the origin and why their chocolate was so great. And so a couple of days later I stumbled across this chocolate at Trader Joe's and I said, "Wow, I don't know if you've tried this, but Trader Joe's has this amazing chocolate, not quite as good as Peru, but man, it was really amazing just at Trader Joe's, this inexpensive chocolate bar is phenomenal." And Seth says, "Oh dude, I've been on the Trader Joe's chocolate bar train for forever."

Ian:                  And so he's speaking in an event where I'm involved with the organizers, and I'm sitting in the front row and Seth's doing the keynote and he comes up on stage and before he says anything, he walks over the front, reaches into his pocket and hands me a Trader Joe's chocolate bar. And he goes back without saying a word to anybody. And I mean for two minutes, I'm just crying laughing because when I left my house that morning, I said to my wife, I said to Deborah, I said, "Wouldn't it be funny if I brought one of these chocolate bars and handed it to him?" And Deborah says, "When you get them up here and handed to him, when he's on stage?" I said, "Even if I saw him beforehand," I was like, "What's he going to do with it." I'm not going to do it.

Ian:                  So the funny part was not only that he did this, but that I had thought about doing the same thing. I'm like, no, I can't pull it off. So his is great. Another favorite of mine is Alison Whitmire is an executive coach. I think that she was on season one, and then I think I had her back in season three or something like that. And she talks about coaching and giving and receiving feedback. And it still is one of the most popular episodes. And it was just this whole notion of how do you ask for and how do you receive feedback. And it was really fast. And I mean, I've done hundreds of episodes, so I've got many favorites and just depends on the given topic. There's a friend of mine, Marcus Sheridan, who speaks about content marketing and my team, I don't really look at the analytics, and my team says you and Marcus could just chat about random names you found the phone book and somehow people find it fascinating.

Ian:                  And so that's always a fun conversation. But there's a lot of them. I mean it's very rare. In fact, there are times where I'll interview somebody and if I don't think that the interview resonates like you might not with this one, then we won't publish it. And so it's just a matter of, if I don't think it's going to serve my audience or the guests, then we won't publish it. And it's nothing against them. It's just, look, maybe I didn't guide you properly in the interview, but if it's not going to resonate, I don't want to take up people's time.

Daniel:            Yeah. I actually remember you mentioning Marcus in your book and you talked about assignment selling, which I'd never I'd never really heard that term before. It seems like a really interesting way of determining that getting a signal back of measuring the motivation of a person that you're working with.

Ian:                  Yeah. And for the benefit of your audience, I'll briefly describe it. And Marcus talks about assignment selling In his They Ask You Answer, which just has a second edition that just came out as well. And it's really fascinating stuff. But in the idea of assignment selling is that, you create content that is designed to educate your customer. And what he found in his research is that, look, he found that the customers who took the time to read at least 30 pieces of content on his website where the people who 85%, excuse me, 85% of the time, those people said we're going to make a decision to work with you. And the people who didn't, didn't. And so he started a model that said, look, here's this e-book we have, happens to be about 30 pages long, and here's all the key questions and it because I'm sure you want to make sure that you're fully informed when you make a decision.

Ian:                  So I'm going to send this to you in advance, and if you do not have time to review this before our meeting, let me know and we'll just reschedule. And what he found is that the people who didn't take the time to read it, weren't serious anyhow. And people who were or would and Marcus's keynotes, he's also a great speaker, I know Marcus is his material inside and out, backwards and forwards, and I like being the audience to hear his talk. I mean that to the extent that I know his material, he and I were speaking to event together. He was flying in from someplace overseas. The organizer said, "What if you miss your flight?" And Marcus said, without joking, "If need be, Ian can give my talk." And the organizer said, "Well, I mean it's putting a lot on him." I said, "No, it's true. I could give his talk, it won't be the same, but it'll be pretty similar-

Daniel:            You'll hit the marks.

Ian:                  ... and he could probably do the same for me." The idea is that with assignment selling, you're saying, "Here's the homework that makes sure that you're properly prepared and so that you're well-informed, and if you can do this in advance, great, and if you can't, we're going to reschedule." And people say, "Oh, you must've lost a lot of business." No, he did fewer appointments and doubled his business.

Daniel:            Sure. So I'm curious about Alison's, I'm going to listen to that episode with Alison as well because coaching is so important. Asking good questions to get people to give you good information. Seems like that's a really important component of what you do. Where do you see the relationship between coaching and sales? What were some of the lines that you connected between those two area?

Ian:                  You know what? I mean, and I can't remember and I couldn't do justice to Alison's brilliant insight. And Alison, just to give you context, Alison used to be the producer of the TEDxPugetSound conference. And she was the one who first brought Simon Sinek to the stage. And so she's absolutely brilliant. She's been executive coach, leadership coach and she's got a whole business that talks now about identifying how people by default communicate under crisis. So they have this whole system where they put people through a video series and then say, "Okay, so now you're this person, here's this video of this interaction. How would you answer these questions?" And it gets to the root of how people would actually react. Because most systems that do any sort of assessment, anybody smart can gain the system. And this is a system you can't gain. So it's brilliant.

Ian:                  But the idea behind coaching is that I believe that in the world of sales for example, and really sales is really a matter of just getting people to... helping people do a decision. And so to a certain degree, that's what coaching is. Coaching is just asking the right questions and listening intently enough so you can ask the next intelligent question, to help people reach a conclusion. And so there's great synergy if done properly. Now, in some cases the differences that I often say that I'm not as effective as a coach, because I eventually run out of patience. So someone's like, "Well you keep asking questions," so they reach a conclusion themselves. And I'm like, "Look, I give people two bites of the Apple by the third one, it's like, 'Look, here's what you may want to do.'" And so that's where I fail as a coach.

Daniel:            Because you have insight that you want to share.

Ian:                  Yeah. But a great coach is insight too. They just have more patience than I have.

Daniel:            Well, let's attach this then to the everyday conversations. Because we talked before we started this recording about your keynote around the Same Side Conversations and talking about really difficult issues.

Ian:                  Yeah.

Daniel:            I'm wondering where some of these skills of asking and probing come into your daily life and then also like how we can use them for some of these more high intensity conversations around divisions.

Ian:                  Well, and so the thing is you can take any polarizing topic, right? And if you want to pick one, we can run with that. But literally it can be gun control, it can be abortion, it can be politics, like any of these things that aren't typically hyperbolic. And I can show you a model and like, here are six steps in how you end up getting on the Same Side. And so if there's a specific... If there's a topic that you say, "Oh, this is one that's always controversial," we can go there. The idea for me is, look, "I always want to find the ones that everyone says, 'Oh, you couldn't possibly do that one,'" and show that it's actually pretty easy. So if I picked something as hyperbolic as, I don't know, pick one. You tell me which... What happens-

Daniel:            Oh, you want to break down a difficult, a very-

Ian:                  Topic, yeah. And I'll show you how this would work.

Daniel:            Let's talk about global warming.

Ian:                  Okay. So we talk about global warming. You can pick either side, you can pick a side that you believe or you can pick the opposite side and just take a position from the stereotypical position of that. And the reason why I always tell people, "Look, you can pick either side." Is because it's not about what side they picked, it's just about understanding and appreciating all sides of it.

Daniel:            Yeah. So, is this about gaining empathy with people who think that nothing's wrong?

Ian:                  Well, so the idea is, pick a side of the issue. Give me the wrote position of one side of it. So, what's the position of one side of that issue?

Daniel:            Right. Yeah I mean, if we were going to ask... get Greta Thunberg on here, she would say that, we've already spent most of her carbon budget and time is running out.

Ian:                  Yeah. So, the argument would be that people who say there's nothing more important than global warming, would say, there's nothing more important to global warming because the planet is about to implode and if we don't do anything, we're not going to have a planet. And gee, most people haven't understood that if we don't have a planet, that we're not going to be able to live on a planet that doesn't exist and can't sustain life. Okay. So, that's one position. What is the viewpoint or position from people who oppose that viewpoint? What do people say who don't agree with that viewpoint? What's their position?

Daniel:            Yeah, I mean, I think some people just say that the science is inconclusive, right. They'll say that we don't really know and why should we spend so much money changing everything about our lifestyle.

Ian:                  Yeah. If you're somebody who believes in global warming, and if you're somebody who now is evaluating people who don't, then what we do is we say, "Well, those people are climate deniers." Because now we do is we're projecting we're labeling other people. But instead, what we need to say is, "Okay, so what do other people believe?" So, you started making the case for, here's why global warming makes sense. And then what we can say is, so the first step is, let me understand the other person's perspective. First let me assert what I have to say and the other person should listen to it without judging it and say, "Okay, I understand that. So, that's a valid concern. If you believe that that's the issue then first I shouldn't judge you or label you, it's just, okay, this is what they believe and here's why they believe it. Great.

Ian:                  So, then, it's for us to understand the other side. The other side's position, and I'm just arbitrarily, when you pick one side, I'm going to take the other side just for the purpose of this. So, other people say, "Well gee, we've already made great progress in terms of this. We don't know what the impact would be in an environment without us doing these things. We're doing the right things or other places in the world that are... There are other places in the world where they're doing this horribly and they don't care about this at all. But what we really need to do is step back..."

Ian:                  And they would say that the... they would characterize people who believe in global warming as they would label them as, tree huggers and it's not science-based, whatever. But that's not helpful for either of us. So instead, what we have to look at is, okay, where's the common ground? Is there a group of people who if they believed that the earth was in peril, wouldn't care about that? Unlikely. Okay. It's unlikely there are people that say, "Oh yeah, we're in trouble, but I don't care about it." All right, let's start with that. So, there is some common ground. Both sides of this issue, believe that the environment is important and that we need to preserve the earth. It's just one group feels like, oh my God, this is about to collapse and the other group doesn't.

Ian:                  But if both groups feel that these things were important, so the people who are opposed to some of these concepts might say, "Well, gee, if we're opposed to it, it's because we feel it's going to hurt commerce or hurt business or this and that." Okay. But it's not the sort of, they're putting profits ahead of something else. Where do we find the common ground? Well, both sides want to make sure that we have clean drinking water, that the air is safe to breathe and that we're not doing more harm than good. Now the idea is, okay, so if someone's on the opposing side, being sensitive to things that you want to protect also, what are some of the things we could do together to get there?

Ian:                  And now all of a sudden we found some common ground that says, well, both parties agree with this and the idea is that, I think that in many cases we've gotten to a point in society where everyone takes an all or nothing approach. We'd have do everything or nothing and it's like, look, most things that have done well over time, have been incrementally improved. And I look at the United States says, we have a system of government that's predicated on people drawing compromise. I mean there's two party systems they're different...

Daniel:            That was part of the original plan. Yes.

Ian:                  The idea is for people to disagree and sacrifice a portion of their idealistic view to find something that has common ground that everyone can agree with. If you think about this, and we translate this now to a business context and in the business context, you might have a product development team, where one side says we have to do it this way, the other side says we have to do it this other way. They're diametrically opposed. And if you say to them, "Well, so you feel this way, why do you feel that way? What are some of the core principles of that? Well, these are the three core principles. Great. Types of people who have the opposing view of it. What are your core principles? These are core principles."

Ian:                  Okay, well, we both have this one in common. So what is it we can do that achieve that one thing first and foremost. And now we found common ground around it instead of, well you don't agree with all three of my points. I don't agree with all three of your points. So, the assumption is we don't agree with anything. And then, we go to the 2019 go-to approach, which is, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to call you names and scream at the top of my lungs and somehow I believe that that's going to get you to come around to my point. And it just doesn't happen. The idea is that, we first have to be open to people's ideas without judging them and then if we actually seek common ground, we're better off.

Ian:                  I'll give you an interesting example, which is, let's say if in my house I'm making dinner and it's actually a bad example because my wife is a world-class cook, so she's in most cases doing it. When we first met, we did an equal amount of cooking. In fact, she might have argued at the time I was better, now she teaches cooking classes. So, let's say she made something and once about every four years, she makes something that doesn't turn out the way she hoped it would. As her husband, I could say, "Well, this thing's sucks. What were you doing?" Or I could laugh about it and say, "Wow, look at that. You're human." One out of a thousand meals didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. What should we do now? So we always have a choice in how we react and respond.

Ian:                  We can either do it in an empathetic, supportive way or we can criticize and attack the other person. I just think that unfortunately, we've gotten to a point where people think it's okay to just attack and vilify someone they disagree with instead of, okay, you have a different viewpoint help me understand it.

Daniel:            Yeah, that's assuming positive intent. Right. Which is really, really key.

Ian:                  Yeah, well, it's assuming positive intent and it's also not assuming the worst case. There's a good friend of mine who we often, from a political standpoint, have very differing views and we get along amazingly well because we'll say to each other. "So, I know this is your viewpoint on this and I don't understand that, let's have a discussion and help me understand your perspective." And neither one of us is trying to convince the other one of something. We're just trying to actually learn more and understand it because we know we're both good people. And I think that, I mean, I don't want to go down the rat hole of politics, but I think the problem right now in politics is that no one wants to listen to each other. No one's willing to compromise anything because their fear is it might give their opponents a quote win.

Ian:                  And they're sacrificing citizens in the fray instead of, okay, so what's the common ground where we can solve this? Pick a position. So, it's, gee gun legislation, we should ban all guns. Everyone should have one because we have a second amendment. The answer is somewhere in between there.

Daniel:            Probably the truth. I think it's really interesting and I feel like this is the Iron Man versus the Straw Man approach to dialogue, which is instead of setting up the worst case of your opponents position and then knocking it down, you try to understand their position and make it as clear and as solid as possible so that you can say, "Oh, actually, there's evidence that disputes yours," or "Oh, I can understand what you really want and your real goal underneath that."

Ian:                  And keep in mind, you don't even have to say there's evidence that disputes your position or that shows that your position is wrong because that would imply that your goal is to convince them of something else. The idea is just to understand each other's position. And you can take... Literally, it doesn't matter how polarizing the topic is. I often say to people, "Look, if you take the abortion debate, is there common ground?" People will say, "No, it's impossible." Because it's either a woman's right to choose, or it's people who say we shouldn't have any abortions. And it's like, okay, do you think there's a segment of the population that is advocating for, I think we should have more abortions? No, I don't think so. Okay. So, if we accept that everybody says, well, gee, it'd be nice if we had fewer, then you could probably get people together that says, what are some of the things that would help them?

Ian:                  And now it's like, it's not an idealistic outcome. It's just... what's, what's the common footing that you can find and then you start having a dialogue about, so how would you solve that? Well, I would just ban everything. Okay. But that might be offensive to someone like me. What, would be a good middle ground? And it's funny because I believe that, sadly, most of these highly polarizing issues that our politicians really don't want to solve them because it motivates their base to come out to the polls and they could get together pretty quickly and solve some of these issues if they weren't motivated by other things. But that's, I get it at that...

Ian:                  And I'm somebody who over my life has voted for an equal number of people in either party. It's funny because to conservatives, I'm a liberal, to the liberals, I'm a conservative. It's like, whatever.

Daniel:            What do you think the best way to get somebody to step back from a scorched earth approach to decision making is?

Ian:                  You know what? I think the biggest thing is that normally when somebody is being hyperbolic about an issue, we tend to escalate with it or we try to show them where they're wrong. Instead of saying, "You know what? I can see that you're passionate about this, help me understand a little bit more." And not say, "And here's the evidence of why you're wrong." Just go, "Huh I got it. Let me share with you what I think about this. And hopefully you can not judge me the same way I have not judged you. And then maybe we can find a common area together." And then all of a sudden someone says... Oh, now keep in mind. There are people who are just looking for a fight and you just need to recognize that and let them fight with themselves.

Daniel:            Yeah. It's the opportunity to de-escalate, to step back and say, "It sounds like you're really passionate."

Ian:                  Yeah, exactly. It's just recognizing the obvious. There's a guy I know Jim Goldstein has a PhD in psychology. He wrote a book called, Powerful Partnerships and he's done a ton of counseling of couples and partners and the like. And one of the things Jim says is, "Look, the reason why most things escalate is because people attribute an emotion or motivation to something rather than speaking truth." And what he says is truth is, for example, if you said something I found offensive, and I said, "Well, you offended me." Guess what? That's something that you could argue, well, I didn't mean to offend you and now you're labeling me. His whole thing is, look, when you said this, it made me feel this way. And I don't like feeling that way. I'm hopeful that you didn't intend for me to feel that way and I just want to share that with you because this is the way I felt. Well, no one can argue with how you felt about something.

Daniel:            Right. So this is all really, really amazing stuff, but I just want to be respectful of your time. I just realized we're way over. I really appreciate your time and I'm wondering if you just have any one last parting thought on how we can be designing all of our conversations better today.

Ian:                  I just think that if we're always thinking about what's in the other person's interest, what's their motivation behind things, what are they trying to achieve, then we can seek out the common ground. If we start with an adversarial position, which says, "If you don't agree with me you're wrong and I need to convince you that I am right." You're going to lead a miserable existence and you're going to get sucked into the vortex of evil. This is one way to just make it so that, you're spending more time trying to figure out where the common ground is and how you can work together and how you're going to get on the same side.

Ian:                  For my clients who do this in the world of business growth, it has tremendous success for them, for the audiences that I speak to, it often helps them break through some stuff that was getting them stuck before. When you do these things right, you actually achieve your goal and you feel better about it.

Daniel:            That's beautiful. And not getting sucked into the vortex of evil is really, really clear, actionable advice I can follow that. So, we're going to leave it there, we'll say, "End scene."




Designing the Organizational Conversation

cover_image_Jason_Cyr.jpg

Today we are talking to my friend and client Jason Cyr, Director of Design Transformation at Cisco. We have a wild and rambling conversation about designing conversations on at least three scales: as a facilitator of workshop experiences, a designer of design processes and as a leader of a transformation effort in a larger organization.

Like anything else, conversations can be designed with a goal in mind: speed, effectiveness, clarity, joy. How do you intend to proceed towards your goal?

The very first story that Jason tells us shows how knowing your conversational goal is key: Jason tells us about his Uncle Rowley and how Jason’s mother pointed out the ways in which Uncle Rowley was as talented conversation designer. It seemed like he designed his conversations with an overarching purpose, regardless of the objective of any individual conversation. His purpose, his higher goal was to make people feel good. Did he do it in order to be successful, or was that an outcome of his purpose? Sadly, we can’t ask him...but there was clearly an aspect of his way of being that enraptured Jason as a boy - he wanted to be like him. 

As an aside: One of my favorite topics in conversation dynamics is about how power shows up...the type of power Uncle Rowley exerted over young Jason is called Referent Power - the power of charisma.

Jason is now responsible for designing a much bigger conversation at Cisco - how teams work together and how teams of teams communicate and collaborate. One key way he’s doing that is through enabling his organization to apply the tools of Design Thinking to their internal and external challenges.

What my conversation with Jason highlights, is that this conversation takes a long time....the cadence of transformation is not the quick rat-a-tat-tat of a stand-up meeting. It’s a steady drumbeat of regular workshops and consistent follow-through. It’s a healthy reminder that change takes consistency, clarity...and time.

Jason has a simple three step transformation process that he shares:

  1. Start with the Coalition of the Willing

  2. Make more evangelists

  3. Craft stories that share themselves

How does Jason pull people into that conversation? It seems like he uses the same skills he learned from his Uncle - making them feel good, like they are part of a bigger narrative arc - a growing capability and practice inside the organization, one that can and does deliver value to the organization...even if it takes 6-9 months into the effort. This is charismatic power on an organizational scale. People want to be part of a positive story.

How does Cisco design the design thinking conversation? Jason shares four principles of Design Thinking at Cisco and they are so delightfully on point that I wanted to repeat them here:

  1. Empathy. We are always designing for someone else’s benefit. Somebody else is going to consume the thing or the thinking or the product that you're making. Do your best to understand that person so that you can build something desirable for them. 

  2. Go wide before going narrow, whether you're trying to choose a problem to solve or whether you're trying to find a solution to that problem, explore a little bit before making a decision. Try and reframe that problem and dig into that problem before tackling it. Try to generate multiple solutions before picking one. And it doesn't have to be a lot of work.

  3. Experimentation. As soon as you think you have a good idea, how quickly can you figure out what's wrong with that idea? We do that by experimenting, putting it in front of people, having them react to it.

  4. Diversity. Be thoughtful about who you bring into the conversation around the problems that you're solving. Make sure you have the appropriate definition of diversity and make people of all genders and colors feel welcome. Jason also asks: are we including the right people from across the organization, ie, engineering and product or design? Maybe we should be including sales. Maybe we should be including other parts of the business.

I’m so grateful Jason took some time to sit down with me and share some insights on how to lead a design transformation in an organization and keep the conversation on track, moving towards it’s ongoing goal...I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did! Also, be sure to check out the episode Jason referenced, where I interviewed Jocelyn Ling from Unicef’s Innovation team on Disciplined Imagination.

Show Notes and Links

Referent Power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent_power

(one of my favorite types of power!)

The six types of power: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-types-power-leaders-john-prescott

Jocelyn Ling’s episode on Disciplined Imagination https://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/8/27/disciplined-imagination-with-jocelyn-ling

10 types of innovation: https://doblin.com/ten-types 

The book: https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Types-Innovation-Discipline-Breakthroughs/dp/1118504240

All process is the same

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process

https://www.ibm.com/design/thinking/page/framework/loop

POST method: Purpose, Objective, Structure, Timing. Adjust your ST based on your evolving understanding of PO.

Facilitation Means design experiences and conversations: https://medium.com/@dastillman/facilitation-means-designing-conversations-24bac966076e

Creating Change in three steps:

  1. Start with the Coalition of the Willing. 

  2. Make more evangelists

  3. Craft stories that share themselves

Full Transcription

Daniel:            All right, Jason, I'm going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Thank you so much for making the time to have this conversation with me.

Jason:              Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here.

Daniel:            Awesome. So, what would you say your conversation superpower would be?

Jason:              I think that one of the things I'm good at is making people feel good about themselves in a conversation. Like I really do try and draw out, the positive in people. And I'm genuinely, I think one of the reasons why I've, had a successful career in design is because I have a lot of empathy for people. I am truly very interested in them and interested in learning about them.

Jason:              And so I tend to really, try and have positive conversations with people and really try and understand what their superpowers are, which in turn makes them, I think feel pretty good. And interestingly enough, it's something I learned from one of my uncles who's very successful in business. And it was something my mother pointed out to me when I was very young.

Jason:              I remember it clear as day. We were in a grocery store and we happened to be with my uncle who met a former colleague or something, and he had this wonderful animated conversation that clearly left this person feeling really good. And my mother pointed out, watch how Uncle Rowley interacts with people. That's one of the reasons why he's so successful is because people come away from his conversations feeling really good. And interestingly enough that stuck with me and I don't know if that has an influence on why I do what I do, but I think that I do try and always draw out the good in people.

Daniel:            That's so interesting. And you anticipated my second question, which is like, what's the origin story of that superpower? And it seems like that little moment where it was like, this is how you get ahead, which is by connecting with people, which is really beautiful.

Jason:              In fact, I've realized that I've never, acknowledged my uncle for that moment. And so hopefully he can hear this later.

Daniel:            Thanks uncle. And this goes to this idea of like we learn patterns, like both good and bad in our histories. And like you said, I assume that this ability to empathize, to take the perspective of other people and to connect, how could that not help you in your work?

Jason:              I think it helps in anything and it's something I'm trying to pass on to my children as well, and helping them understand when they're, whatever, dealing with tough personalities or tough issues, at school or with friends or whatever, trying to help them see that there's another person in this equation. And what is it that you can learn about how they're experiencing it and feeling that'll help you navigate the situation.

Daniel:            So I'm wondering if we can then take like another step back and talk about like the work you do and your origin story. Like how did you get into the work you do and what is it you do now?

Jason:              So my origin story I think is kind of, crazy because I didn't take a typical path of, I'm going to be a designer or an engineer or whatever and go to school and strictly pursue that. I've always been creative in the work that I do. I had the advantage of the fact that my father was a firefighter, a career firefighter growing up, and he had these side jobs, like most firefighters have these side jobs.

Jason:              And, he sold art supplies for a long time, and we had a basement full of samples, art supplies samples. And so growing up I had this unlimited resource of like, paints and pens and crayons and markers and airbrushes and oil paints. And I took advantage of it. And so I was always very creative. Through high school I started doing a lot of graphic design work and started to commercialize it and sell it.

Jason:              And it just happened that it was, in the sort of mid '80s, early '90s when the migration of design was really moving onto the computer. And I was doing a lot of commercial sign, like hand painted signs and kind of old school stuff. And I had to start laying out these signs on the computer because of the digital transformation and because signs were going to vinyl, cut vinyl. And that's when I got introduced to things like Photoshop and CorelDRAW and-

Daniel:            CorelDRAW.

Jason:              ... these tools.

Daniel:            That's taking us back!

Jason:              Right.

Daniel:            Yeah. That was the shit.

Jason:              And so that sort of led into this transformation towards web design. And, I started, my first sort of real corporate job as a web master, which is why I was in Connecticut. I was working for Thomson Newspapers, designing and building an intranet application for them. And that sort of morphed into a career as a front end developer, in the early '90s in the security industry for RSA Security.

Jason:              And that's when I got my first glimpse at like user experience and that there was this whole sort of practice around, being thoughtful about how we create these UIs and these experiences for people. And I just really, really geeked out on that idea of building this deep sense of empathy for who it is that we're trying to solve problems for and really understanding what they're trying to do and be thoughtful about creating an experience that helps them.

Jason:              And so I spent a lot of time in this security world. I realized that I needed different experiences, went into like entertainment brands and had my own agency for a while with a partner. We worked for everything from, work for Disney and Ronald McDonald House and the Canadian military and like all sorts of projects. And then ultimately went back to working for a more established startup that got bought eventually into, Cisco. And that sort of leads me to where I am now.

Jason:              And I'm currently a part of the security business group at Cisco, which is, a small part of Cisco, but on its own, a massive business. It's about 5,000 employees, upwards of $3 billion in revenue. So it's a huge business on its own. And I came in with this startup where I was leading the design organization for the startup. I led a design organization for a little while within Cisco.

Jason:              And then I realized that the skill that we use as designers, design thinking, this ability that we have of trying to understand people and design for them, can be applied much more broadly within the business. And so I set out to really change the way that the rest of the security business was working by trying to teach them these tools and encourage them to start thinking the way that, that many designers think in the work that we do.

Daniel:            And so we're going to, I want to get into the capability and capacity building conversation in a minute, but I kind of want to go back because you just have this really unique perspective on, when did in your timeline as a designer, did user experience design and like design thinking become part of the conversation for you? When did you feel like you were in that dialogue with that larger idea?

Jason:              I think it was the early 2000s, when I started working within an established design team, for RSA Security, which is a pretty big security organization. That's the first time that it became part of my language. And I recognize that user experience was a thing. User centered design was a thing. Human computer interaction was like a degree that you could go and take that was specific to this stuff.

Jason:              We had the benefit of a usability lab where we could go in and watch people use news products. And so I think as soon as I recognize that this thing that I was deeply interested in, it's like that moment where, I don't know, you find your tribe or you find your people and it's like, whoa, there's other people who are like really excited about this stuff. This is great.

Jason:              And, I had the benefit of working with some great leaders in this space who really nurtured my learning and brought me along, and matured my thinking around all this stuff. And I suppose that's what led to me starting an agency with a friend of mine and a colleague of mine, because it was just something we were so passionate about bringing to the world and talking about.

Daniel:            That's so cool. Because I mean, in my own evolution in design, I feel like design thinking wasn't taught in design school, neither was, I went to industrial design school and it was only when I came out that I became aware of all of these other types of design and all this larger, more expansive language. And it really was the UX community that was speaking about understanding the customer or designing for the customer and being really structured like watching Jon Kolko and Dan Saffer talk about like really being intentional about your process. It was inspirational for me. What were some of your, I don't know, influences who's part of your internal dialogue, when you think about design thinking and designing for the customer? Like, what are the voices that are echoing around in your brain?

Jason:              That's an interesting question. I don't know if I could put my finger on anybody in particular. Like, I mean, there's so many industry personalities that, I was always reading or looking up to, and a lot of companies that I was really interested in and following, whether it's, Cooper or IDEO or, so many great, design organizations. I don't know. I can't really put my finger on anyone in particular. I can't really put my finger on anyone.

Daniel:            In a way, that's what sort of being in the conversation means. It's like there's this meilleux there's a marketplace of ideas and it sounds like you've just really absorbed a lot of it.

Jason:              Yeah. I love learning. I love new information. I really enjoy a great example. So, I was telling you about the story of listening to your podcast last week, of like really trying to be mindful about taking breaks when I can to get away from work, especially when I'm trying to solve hard problems. And I was deep in trying to plan a for a workshop that I'm helping some people with at Cisco, and I took this break for an hour, listen to your most recent podcasts and in it, your guests was talking about the 10 types of innovation and referred to this book.

Jason:              Well, that's the sort of stuff that really triggers me. So the minute I got home, I look up this book, I ordered it, I have devoured it since over the weekend and realized that, Oh my God, there's all this great material in here that I can apply to this problem that I was wrestling with and try to design this workshop.

Jason:              So I think as it relates to design thinking, I'm really quick to identify something and trying to experiment with whatever it is that I've identified, whether it's a good idea or a new resource. And I get excited about it and I like run with it and it'll be the thing that I talk about. Like I've already recommended the book to everybody on my team. I've like, it's been the thing that I've been talking about in most of my conversations this week, and that'll run its course and then I'll do the next shiny thing that inspires me and interests me and I'll go down that path and see what I can use or learn or leverage from it.

Daniel:            Learning from other people. It's interesting. I had really, that conversation is with, just for everyone who's listening, that was with Jocelyn Ling who's, an old friend of mine who works in innovation at UNICEF. And my fiance listened to that and she was like, "I've never thought about having the conversation with somebody about how they work and what their working styles is." And she's getting her MBA in sustainability while working full time. And she's like, "I'm going to have the working styles conversation with my next round of teammates." And it's like, and I just love that Jocelyn learned that from someone else and it just sort of spreads... it just spreads like a wave out into the world, which is a great way to learn through conversation.

Jason:              It is. It is indeed.

Daniel:            So let's talk a little bit about like, I want to talk about day one when you were acquired, because I love that you talked about that, your awareness of your emotional state. I'm really curious how you managed it, and a little bit about what you're doing now at Cisco.

Jason:              Sure. So, to back up to that story that we were talking about a little earlier. I was working for a startup called OpenDNS, which was a pretty big, three to 400 person, startup in the network security space. As a startup, your sort of end goal is you're going to either IPO or get acquired. That's what everybody's working towards. And in our case, we got acquired. We got acquired by Cisco.

Daniel:            Congratulations.

Jason:              I clearly remember-

Daniel:            That's not many people get the-

Jason:              Thank you. And that was a while ago now. That was like four, almost five years ago already, incredibly. But I remember waking up that morning and like, I'm sure many of us do. We get out of bed. We ended up looking at her phone right away, and there was this message from my CEO saying, "You're going to see this in the news today that we'd been acquired." And it was like, wow.

Jason:              Driving to work, it was all excitement. Like, this is it, we've got acquired. This is what we're all working so hard for. And then day two, waking up going, but we got acquired by Cisco and I'm a designer and I don't really see a lot of great design work externally from this big company. And I was really bummed about it. Like I was really torn about, should I be staying here? What does this mean for my career?

Jason:              I was wrestling with the idea of would I apply for a job at Cisco if I saw a design job posted? Like all these things we're going through my mind and having these discussions with my team and my colleagues. And fortunately for me, I had this amazing, amazing boss at the time, who talked me off the ledge by really going, "Hey, if you're not seeing the things that you want to see at Cisco, this is your opportunity to go in and change it, and try and be part of that change and be that catalyst."

Jason:              And I've really tried to embody that as I come in to this, what was pretty a nerving uncomfortable situation. And suddenly you open yourself up to these possibilities of actually... and it seems silly at the time. I'm going to have any influence on, a 75,000 person company. But you get in, I ended up finding my tribe internally within Cisco.

Jason:              There's group of like-minded design leaders who were really passionate about design thinking and really passionate about elevating the practice within this big company. And, next thing we're writing a book internally on design thinking and how it can be applied. We're developing this program that has training aspects to it and all sorts of materials that people can leverage.

Jason:              And now that's what I'm fortunate to do as my full time job. I'm responsible for what we call design transformation within the security business group. And this is a group of 5,000 people, that I am trying to equipped with these tools of, great conversation, great design and great facilitation. And it's all centered around, creativity and experimentation and really trying to help people understand that when you hear this thing design thinking, it really has nothing to do with design as most people think of it.

Jason:              It has nothing to do with how things look. It's not about pushing pixels around on a screen. And it's really at its core just about how do we find the most important problems to solve for the people that we're trying to serve? And once we find those problems, how do we generate solutions that are hopefully creative and novel, but also actually solves the problem? And how do we figure out whether our ideas or our solutions are any good as quickly as possible by running these experiments, using prototypes and the like? And so I'm like, I wake up every day feeling fortunate that I'm right now I'm doing my dream job. And I get to-

Daniel:            Hashtag Blessed!

Jason:              I get to focus on really cool work. Like I get brought into facilitating some really cool projects and workshops within this security business. And I also get this great pleasure from teaching these capabilities to others. So we've got an in house training program that we deliver. We travel all over the world, training people within our security business group on how to apply design thinking and how to think this way.

Jason:              And it's really interesting to approach it from the perspective of, not wanting to build an internal service agency. Like I'm not trying to build this empire of design thinkers who are working for me within the business. I'm truly trying to develop these capabilities in other people to the point where if I work myself out of a job in three, four years because everybody's proficient at it, that's great. I'll go find something else really cool to work on at Cisco or wherever else. And so that's where I am today and I'm really, really enjoying it.

Daniel:            That's really lovely. And it's interesting because with design thinking, there's so much criticism of it. On one hand there's people who feel like it's the sun, moon and the stars and there's other people who push back and say, design is for designers. And design thinking is... there's at least one talk that says design thinking is bullshit. And I imagine that you see that entire conversation. What is your feelings about that particular conversation?

Jason:              I believe that it's unfortunate that design thinking has picked up the brand and the title that it has because I think that, that brings a lot of baggage with it. So, yes, I get a lot of, pushback or friction from designers in some cases where they are nervous that I'm trying to teach other people how to think like a designer.

Jason:              But I think they get nervous about it because they make an assumption that these people are going to take these skills that I'm teaching them and go off and try and design their own products, or try and design their own user interface. And that's not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to teach people that these skills that designers have and that they apply to designing products in UIs can be applicable to designing your PowerPoint deck that you're building for your boss, or this sales program that we're trying to roll out or, an offer structure that we're trying to build.

Jason:              And so as soon as I frame it to the design community and that way they get it. They're like, "Okay, you're not trying to get everybody to start talking to customers and start building their own, features into the product. You're trying to get people to just simply start thinking this way as it applies to their own jobs. And that helps diffuse it.

Jason:              And, I think the other sort of friction point, or negative reaction that people have to design thinking is that they say that it's like, well, it's obvious. Of course, you should talk to the people that you're trying to build for and understand they need, and prioritize those pain points and solve them really effectively and creatively. But if it's obvious, why isn't everybody doing it? Right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Jason:              Like it truly is obvious and it's really easy when you start working this way, but not everybody's doing it. So we're just trying to nudge people in the right direction.

Daniel:            There's two things that, that brings up in me. One is that at the end of the day, design thinking can just look like mindfulness, right?

Jason:              Yes.

Daniel:            It can just look like intentionality and being, explicit about what you intend to do and what you're doing. And one of my realizations is that, that begins to create, safety for people to know that there is a container and a process for what we're doing. It's not just random chaos.

Jason:              It's not just random chaos, and it's being mindful about, oftentimes recognizing what we don't know or recognizing an assumption that we've made or recognizing a problem that we found, and being mindful about how we can take action on this. In my mind, it's about being mindful on how we can take action on it as quickly as possible to learn something. It's all about learning for me.

Jason:              So recognizing, okay, we have a big gap in our understanding on something, how can we fill that gap? How can we learn what we need to learn? Or, wow, we're making a big assumption about whether a user even wants the same or we'll use this thing. Okay, how can we as quickly as possible figure out whether it is valuable to a customer?

Jason:              And it starts, certainly the story that I've started to tell within Cisco is that it starts bleeding into all these other areas that people are familiar with, like, lean. Sort of lean startup approach to building products and agile development. And they're all sort of related. They're all very much related in many ways.

Jason:              And, so what I've realized even just very recently in my journey at Cisco is, there's a benefit to not talking about what I'm doing as design thinking. And sometimes it's just going in and having a conversation with an engineering team and saying, "Hey, I can show you how to kick off a project more effectively by doing these things." And not even mentioning design thinking. Or, "Hey, I have a framework that'll allow you to retro your team projects or your team activities more effectively by doing these things." And-

Daniel:            Talking about the benefit-

Jason:              ... once they-

Daniel:            ... instead of the... right?

Jason:              Exactly. Once they do it and they, hey, this was really great, then I can go, guess what, you were just doing design thinking there, and this whole thing around what you've done, and you can learn more about it. So the benefit before this abstract sort of notion of design thinking is a good tool that we use.

Daniel:            Well, so can contrast that with me or for me. Like I've seen the Cisco design thinking book, and I've worked with organizations where they'll say like, we want to have our own internal branded process versus we want to be agnostic about process or, to you use a weird word, ecumenical, or to browse many processes. What do you think the advantage for Cisco was of creating, putting that stake in the ground and saying, here, this is our book. This is our design thinking book?

Jason:              I think that we wanted to, first and foremost show people within Cisco that this is a thing, like that it's being funded. There's a lot of people thinking about it and trying to do the right thing. And so rather than just pointing at, hey, we're going to use the ideal process, or hey, we're going to use the, Stanford d.school process. Like, I mean, they're all virtually the same. They're just packaged differently.

Jason:              Or the IBM infinity loop and there's all these different versions of it. We chose to try and package it up so that employees would perhaps embrace it a little more. And now that, I have about two and a half years experience in trying to bring design thinking capabilities to Cisco. And in looking back on that, was it the right thing to do? Maybe in some ways that helped us be successful, in some ways that also hurt us.

Jason:              Like having a very rigid representation of a process can also be overwhelming for people. They see this process of discover, define and explore and these activities that occur within each of the phases, and they think, oh my God, if I'm going to apply design thinking, I've got to completely change the way that we're working, and that can scare people.

Jason:              And for that reason, we actually just over the past, even six or eight months have started changing the conversation towards the principles of design thinking that we're trying to get people to adopt. So rather than worrying about going through this sort of seemingly linear process of design thinking, we're like, hey, there's four principles we really care about, empathy.

Jason:              No matter what you're doing in your job, you're doing it for somebody else. Somebody else who's going to consume the thing or the thinking or the product that you're making. Do your best to understand that person so that you can build something desirable for them.

Jason:              Number two, going wide before going narrow, whether you're trying to choose a problem to solve or whether you're trying to find a solution to that problem, explore a little bit before making a decision. Try and reframe that problem and dig into that problem before tackling it. Try to generate multiple solutions before picking one. And it doesn't have to be a lot of work. You can get a lot of benefit from brainstorming solutions for 15 minutes before picking one and going in a direction.

Jason:              Number three is experimentation. As soon as you think you have a good idea, how quickly can you figure out what's wrong with that idea? And you do that by experimenting, putting it in front of people, having them react to it. And then the last one is this notion of diversity. Being really clear about and being really thoughtful about who you bring into this conversation around the problems that you're solving.

Jason:              Is it making sure that we have the appropriate sort of standard definition of diversity, that we've got enough men and women solving this problem or different ethnic backgrounds. But also, hey, are we including engineering and product and design? Maybe we should be including sales. Maybe we should be including other parts of the business.

Jason:              And by focusing on these principles, we're finding that people are like, I can make some pretty small changes to the way that I work. And it's showing some impact by just applying empathy or just applying experimentation or just applying brainstorming or going wide.

Daniel:            So I love having a compass instead of a map, and that's an interesting reframe. So there's a lot of things to unpack there. One is impact. Like, so if we're doing this process, you're training a lot of people. How do you measure the impact? Do you measure the impact of the process?

Jason:              Yeah. We're trying very hard to measure it in a number of ways. And so, in the sort of simplest form, we're using tools like MPS style surveys. So every time, we engage with a group to run a workshop with them. We're trying to measure whether they perceived it to have a positive impact on that project and a positive impact on the outcome of the project.

Daniel:            Got you.

Jason:              Same with when we do training. Do they feel as though it had a positive impact? Over time we're trying to measure things like the number of people who are engaging with aspects of our program. So how many people are we training? How many people are, moving through what I see as sort of a funnel associated with our training? So how many people, come in to an intro course and how many of those people convert to signing up for a two day, immersive hands on, training?

Jason:              How of those people convert to become catalysts that are out there kind of evangelizing for us? And how many of those people convert to becoming facilitators and developing a bigger practice? So we're trying to measure that sort of in the form of a conversion funnel. We're also trying to measure sustained sort of changes in behavior.

Jason:              So when we're working with, for example, when we put a group of people through a two day practitioner training, for 30, 60, 90 days after that training we're very hard to measure who's changing their behavior and applying these principles in the work that they do. So, like anything design-related it's always really hard to measure the impact of it. But we're trying to do as many of the things as we can to measure it.

Daniel:            Because sometimes there's a sense of like design thinking and good process can improve the quality of the experience of doing the work. And that's a completely different metric from velocity of ideas turned into opportunities and opportunities that improve our bottom line. And both have value to a company or can have value to a company.

Jason:              I think, in the earlier days of my program, the only thing we could measure was sort of the NPS style stuff. Because it was just, we're running workshops or we're doing training. And right now the only thing I can measure is how much these people are liking it. But now we've got six, nine months under our belt of running this program within the security business.

Jason:              And like this morning for example, I was in a meeting where a team was showing this new dashboard that shows, sort of health of our customers within one segment of the business. And this dashboard came out of a design thinking workshop that was done six months ago where they realized the way they were approaching a problem was completely off. And they actually took time to understand the needs of our customer success and renewals teams and understood that there was this big gap in what they knew about customers.

Jason:              And we went off and built this really simple version of a dashboard that's now showing them the information they need. And that feels really good because now I can see that, because of this program, because of this training, because of those workshop, these people found a problem that they didn't know existed or they understood the problem well enough to design something that they could deliver to a customer, which is an internal customer. And now that internal customer is actually doing their job much better than they were before.

Jason:              And so we're starting to see more of those examples pop up. And I'm starting, probably the most exciting thing to me is I'm starting to see workshops happen that are not driven by my team, or that my team is not contributing to in any way. You're just all of a sudden hearing about, this group they did a workshop or they're applying design thinking or you're seeing empathy maps pop up as artifacts. And so I'm seeing it take on a life of its own, which is really exciting.

Daniel:            So I want to go back to the funnel because, and I want to connect it to another question, because we talked about this offline, this idea of taking people who are keen on the process to people who have capacity to become catalysts or drivers of the process to go from being, I don't know, consumers of design thinking to being cooks or preparers of design thinking for other people.

Daniel:            And I guess one of the questions I have is like, for some organizations, the answer to this process is to have a standardized process. Like doing sprints, versus it's modular and we need chefs because we're running workshops of all shapes and size and we need people who are really, really masterful to shape those and design those experiences. Where are you on that spectrum of like, we have standardized workshop engagements to it's gotta be uniquely designed for this particular context challenge, et cetera?

Jason:              We're all over the map I think. We've definitely identified a number of opportunities to create what we're calling playbooks, or specific plays where it's like, hey, we know that we bought this sort of tried and true one day workshop format that is great for a team kicking off a new project. Or, we've got this two day format that's really great for a team to, review their strategy and understand what they need to be focused on for the next six months. And we've got a bunch of examples with that.

Jason:              And so we're trying to use those playbooks as much as we can. But they don't apply to everything. So we get like a great example is I had, two VPs come to me recently going, "Hey, there's this really exciting new opportunity we're exploring between sort of two new business units or two business units within Cisco. We think they would benefit from, a facilitated session on design thinking."

Jason:              And at first glance I looked at it and maybe I get a little bit too complacent sometimes and going, "Grab the play X and we're going to play this one." And I sort of tried a couple of my standard playbooks with them and it didn't quite fit and it wasn't right. And there was a lot of back and forth. And one of the things I realized that was really cool was that, in trying to plan a session, we were actually playing out the design thinking process.

Jason:              I was developing what I thought was the right agenda. I would give it to them as a prototype. They would react to it, it would help me learn, just a little bit more about what they're trying to do. And because when I asked them the first time, they didn't tell me everything. And it was only once I gave them this agenda to react to that they were like, "No, but we're really trying to discover this value proposition or something." And I said, "Okay. Do back to the drawing board, create something new."

Jason:              And so, probably the majority of the things that we can do would benefit from a playbook or a standard recipe that someone can execute. But there's like this probably 10 or 15% right now of engagements that really do result in, needing a chef to figure out how to deliver this experience that's going to satisfy, the needs of this customer.

Daniel:            And it seems like the only way you can really do it is in conversation with people who are, you can't just say like, I'm going to run this playbook no matter what. You need to know that dialogue of what's the need, what's the goal, where are you now, what are your capabilities, expanding that circle of understanding the context.

Jason:              And I think that's one of the ways that I've grown the most as a facilitator over the past couple of years because, there's no question. The past two years for me has been the most intensive, facilitation learning that I've had a chance of experiencing, because that's been primarily what I've been doing. Like I probably facilitate a session every one or two weeks.

Jason:              And so it's just a lot of practice and a lot of repetition. And the biggest learning for me has been to be able to have that conversation, to not come in taking that you need to be the guy with all the answers, or girl with all the answers, that you're trying to understand this customer that your stakeholder, you're trying to understand what their objectives are and you're trying to bring them a plan for how to achieve that.

Jason:              But whether it's in preparation for the workshop, you need to be able to have that conversation and adjusting, or even more importantly when you actually get in the room with these people, and two hours in you've realized, my whole plan for these two days has gone out the window because things have taken a turn. But it's an important turn to be able to call an audible, to be able to like pull your stakeholders aside and have that really quick conversation going, okay, here's what I'm seeing.

Jason:              Our plan is out the window. I'm seeing that, Bob needs to talk to Joe about whatever. Do I have your permission to let this play out because I think it's really important? Yes or no. You plan things really quickly. You go back in for the next two hours, and fight for your life and see how things go.

Daniel:            But you also invited the, you don't just make that choice. It seems like you create that opportunity to open up the conversation. And what I love about all of that is, I don't think either of us got into this even knowing what facilitation was, and it seems like there's this, I love that there's this growing wellspring of facilitation is an important mindset and skillset.

Daniel:            For me, I really just started with, I'm designing an experience and I use the exact same tools I was using of experience design to say, okay, well, this workshop is an experience and I'm going to design that arc. The way I would design any other arc of any other experience, and doing it iteratively with your customers. It makes perfect sense to me.

Jason:              Like I think that honestly, it wasn't until you and I have started talking over the past few months that this idea of, we're designing conversations in these sessions, because I was wrestling with this idea that a lot of the workshops that I was going into to do were not necessarily designed thinking workshops. Like, the people would come to me asking for a design thinking workshop, but at the end of the day, in many cases they were just, well, hopefully well facilitated workshops and conversations that led to the outcome that they were hoping to achieve.

Jason:              And so now, unless I'm truly focused on design thinking activities, I've started to use language that I picked up from you, which is, hey, I've spent my career designing products and now I help design conversations. And I've tried to be really thoughtful about how do I bring you this group of people in this workshop, through this conversation that's going to lead us to the outcome? And that conversation may change. It's going to evolve as we go through it. But that's really helped me wrap my head around really what I'm doing now, which is just having conversations.

Daniel:            That's awesome to hear. So unfortunately, like this time has gone by really fast, and is there anything else that we should talk about when it comes to building capacity for this stuff inside of the organization? Anything that any tips or tricks that you can share with the audience about how to really design that conversation on the organizational level, which is, you know-

Jason:              Yeah. I think that, and this is something that I picked up from, Matt Cutler. Matt Cutler was the guy who essentially started the current version of design thinking within Cisco. And I was fortunate to meet Matt when he was just starting out on his journey and bringing all this stuff together. And I sort of jumped on as one of his first followers and first advocates.

Jason:              And right from the beginning, he would drive it home. Two things. One was, we need to approach the coalition of the willing, or we need to build a coalition of the willing. So let's not waste any energy on trying to convince people they should be doing this. Let's find, even if it's just one or two people who want to do this, let's shower them with our love. And so that's one thing that we've really done.

Jason:              The other thing that really stuck with me from him was, a big part of my job as being an evangelist for what we do and design thinking and facilitation. And he used to tell me, "The first job of an evangelist is to make more evangelists." And so I try and give people the words that they can use to have their own conversations around this.

Jason:              So again, I think something that I picked up on from your most recent podcast was, crafting stories that are recalibrate. Crafting stories that people can pick up as their own and tell in their own way has been something that, I don't think we did it on purpose necessarily, but in hindsight, I think that we've done a decent job of it, and so people have been able to do that.

Daniel:            That's such an important thing because that's spreading the story of success. Like who doesn't want to be involved in that journey, once they hear that story.

Jason:              Right.

Daniel:            That's a really cool. So Jason, I want to respect your time and I really appreciate you coming out and sharing these insights. I mean, it's actually a really lovely conversation.

Jason:              Thank you very much. I've really enjoyed it as well.

Daniel:            Thanks man.

Jason:              It's just been a pleasure to be here.

Daniel:            Thanks man. Any parting? There's one of my favorite Tim Ferriss questions is, if there was a billboard on the side of the biggest highway nearby where you live, what would you want to put on that billboard?

Jason:              Oh man. The one thing that has stuck with me a lot, and this is kind of one of the things that I've been geeking out on a lot recently, is this Einstein quote that talks about, if he has to solve a problem, he would rather spend 55... If he has an hour to solve a problem, he would spend 55 minutes exploring the problem and five minutes on the solution. And I think that that's one of the things that I'm really, really, really trying to influence people to think about these days. So I would end with that.

Daniel:            That's awesome. That's a great place to stop. We'll call it scene. Thank you very much.



From Innovation to Transformation

cover_Image_GS.jpg

Hey there Conversation Designers! Today I’m talking with Author, speaker and advisor Greg Satell about going beyond innovation to driving transformation. His recent book, Cascades, is about how to create a movement that drives real change and he’s teaching a workshop in Austin November 21st with my friend and podcast guest Douglas Furgueson.

Greg is also the author of Mapping Innovation, which was all about stepping back from a monolithic idea of innovation and turning it into a conversation - what do we mean when we say innovation? And by we, I mean whoever is coming together to make a change. A team, an organization, has to define for itself what change and impact means to them.

And this is the essence of the conversation Greg and I had - the importance of empathy across the board - not just with customers but with your internal stakeholders. It’s only through this kind of “mass empathy” that we, as change agents, can begin to find the shared values that will power change.

While we didn’t use these terms in the interview, the act of empathy and seeking shared values means you can shift your transformation from a ”push” effort to a “pull” effort - in other words, leveraging Invitation rather than Imposition. The core of any productive conversation, of any communication is invitation: the choice of all the participants to actually choose to participate.

There is one other idea I want to explore and that is making problems okay to talk about inside of a culture. In many of the transformation cascades Greg talked about in this episode, broad silence about a challenge was followed by everyone pulling in the same direction. What changed?

Some suggest that change only happens when we all feel like we’re on a burning platform, a phrase coined by John Kotter in the late 90s. But Greg is talking about change being driven by shared values, not just fear and panic. What seems to be happening in each of these instances is that stakeholder groups who initially thought that they had different goals and values suddenly saw a shared goal and shared set of values.The burning platform just makes the act of finding shared values easy - the need to focus on survival is a powerful motivator.  But understanding that the fear is just one type of motivation is clarifying. This makes the job of a leader of change simple - or rather, one of simplification. Change is about making the choice simple - simple to see (through storytelling) and simple to make (through clear shared values).

You can learn more about Greg’s work (including seeing the entire eight-step cascades process) and the upcoming workshop in Austin @ GregSatell.com Enjoy the conversation!

Show Links

Greg Satell on the Web:

https://www.gregsatell.com 

And

https://www.Digitaltonto.com

November 21st Cascades Workshop in Austin:

https://landing.voltagecontrol.co/cascades-workshop/

The Cascades Process:

https://www.gregsatell.com/workshops/

Cascades (the book):

https://www.amazon.com/Cascades-Create-Movement-Drives-Transformational/dp/126045401


Mapping Innovation:

https://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook-Navigating-Disruptive/dp/1259862259/

Gene Sharp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp

The IBM Turnaround 

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/lou-gerstners-turnaround-tales-at-ibm

Network Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

Instantaneous Phase Transitions in Physics and Culture:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18277218/safi-bahcall-loonshoots-science-business-innovation-history-interview

Otpor And the Buldozer rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

Stakeholder Mapping:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_analysis

Women’s March Controversy:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/12/21/18145176/feminism-womens-march-2018-2019-farrakhan-intersectionality

Amritsar Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Salt march

https://www.history.com/topics/india/salt-march


Values and Choices: Even/Over Statements:

https://academy.nobl.io/how-to-write-a-strategy-your-team-will-remember/


Transcription:

Daniel:            I'll officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Greg Satell, I'm so glad you're here. You're a titan. Your two books, Mapping Innovation and Cascades are lovely books that people should have not on their shelves, but on their desks, so thanks for spending time with me today.

Greg:               Thanks so much. That's great to hear. Really happy to be here.

Daniel:            Thank you. Let's go straight to it. What is your origin story? How did you come to care about these things that you write about? How did you get involved in these two topics?

Greg:               Well, Mapping Innovation was just really frustration, right? I spent most of my career running businesses, and I always felt an incredible pressure to innovate, but not so sure how to go about it. And whenever I looked for guidance, everybody had a different idea about how to innovate, and you would look at something like design thinking and you'd say, "Jeez, Steve Jobs swears by this stuff, and look at all the great things IDEO has done and Stanford, for God's sakes, has built an entire school around design thinking. This must be how you do it." Then you look into design thinking and it's like you focus on the needs of the end user and then you rapidly make a prototype and rapidly iterate towards a solution. You say, "That makes a ton of sense."

Daniel:            It seems logical to me, right.

Greg:               That's fantastic. That's how you do it. Then you read Clayton Christensen and The Innovator's Dilemma and Disruptive Innovation, and he says, "That's how companies go out of business. They're too focused on their customers and when there's a change in the basis of competition, that all goes out the window and they go out of business." So which is it? Both those things can't be right.

Greg:               Then there's open innovation, and then there's basic research people figuring how to split the atom, curing cancer. It all just becomes a confused mess. So that's the problem I was trying to solve, and what I found was that innovation's really about solving problems, and there's as many ways to innovate as there are different problems to solve. So what I created was a method of classifying problems so that you can choose the best fit strategy to solve them. And one of the things I noticed is that so many organizations, they say, "This is how we innovate. This is our innovation DNA," or something, and it works well for a really long time until they find a problem that doesn't quite fit, and then they just kind of spin their wheels. So that was really the problem I was trying to solve with Mapping Innovation.

Greg:               Cascades is I think a more interesting story and has really become my number one passion. The origin story of that was I was running a major news organization during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, so that was a really big experience and had a really big impact on me. It was an amazing thing to be a part of. One of the things I noticed was how thousands upon thousands of people who would ordinarily be doing very different things would stop whatever it was they were doing and start doing the same thing all at once in almost perfect unison.

Greg:               I thought to myself, "Gee, I'd really like to be able to do that." Here I am running this big company and with thousands of potential customers. Wouldn't it be great if I could get them to stop whatever it was they were buying and all buy the stuff that I was trying to sell them? I had hundreds of employees, all really smart and capable, all with their own ideas. Wouldn't it be great though if I could get them all to unify on the initiatives I thought were important? Same thing with advertisers and investorsGreg:               So I set out to figure out how that all worked, and it took be 15 years to figure out, and I found out that networks and network science has a lot to do with it, but I also found that there has been for decades an entire doctrine of how you create a movement, a lot of the ideas founded by a guy named Gene Sharp back in the '50s and '60s. I also found that we tend to have these three buckets when it comes to general change. We have political revolution, social movements, and then corporate or industrial transformation. And we treat them as completely separate, but what I found in my research is that they're incredibly similar, and the principles by which they succeed tend to be very similar.

Greg:               So that was a real eye-opener and that's one of the things that made the book so much fun to research and write.

Daniel:            That's awesome. I can understand why seeing structure underneath all this disparate phenomenon would be exciting to you, because you're clearly a structural thinker.

Greg:               Right. Well, also once you make that connection between social and political revolutions and corporate and industrial transformations, it opens up the whole subject to a lot more rigor, because we tend to find out about corporate industrial transformations usually very much after the fact, and usually only when they succeed. Then some business school professor or consultant interviews a half dozen people and writes a case study, where in social and political movements, we have often thousands upon thousands of contemporary accounts.

Greg:               And that really allowed me after doing the research on social and political movements and taking those principles and going into organizations and asking about those transformations, and as they were telling me their story I would ask them, "Did this happen?" They said, "You know what, it did. Is that a common thing?" Often they themselves didn't realize how much the Gerstner turnaround at IBM in the '90s mirrored Gandhi in the 1920s and '30s.

Daniel:            It's so interesting because in science running experiments is important, and the same thing in innovation, but it can be hard to define what a good experiment is and what the boundaries of that experiment are, and having other context to draw on, I can see how that would really be helpful, to say, "Here's all these simulations that have been run for us already and we can have some intelligence that we can glean from all that."

Greg:               Yeah, that was something I really tried hard to do in the book. I didn't want to, because I've read lots of books about movements, and I really, really tried hard to make the book more than a sample size of one. I have experienced a real movement. The Orange Revolution was very similar to the Arab Spring or the other movements within the Color Revolution, and it's so easy to treasure and admire that experience, that you don't acknowledge that that is your unique experience and it might not be others' experiences. So I really tried to expand that sample size and see how others experienced.

Greg:               For instance, the Orange Revolution was really an outgrowth of the similar revolution in Serbia. I called Otpor! The organization was called Otpor! and it was called the Bulldozer Revolution, overthrew Milosevic. So I spent a lot of time talking to one of the leaders of that revolution to understand how it was different or the same as the Orange Revolution, and then I went and talked to a gentleman named Irving Wladawsky-Berger, who was one of Gerstner's chief lieutenants in the '90s in the IBM turnaround, and what was fascinating was to the extent they seemed to be almost finishing each other's sentences. To me that was just so amazing.

Greg:               When you think about turning around a company, an enormous company, this historical turnaround at IBM in the '90s, and then you think about these kids, which they really were just kids, overthrowing a dictator like Milosevic in Serbia, and they're talking about the same things. They're finishing each other's sentences. It was almost like a mystical experience, like you're seeing some kind of unity in the universe or something. It was really amazing.

Daniel:            Yeah. So this is really interesting, because I think there's a story in Cascades early on where you talk about I think it was the woman you were with at the time where nobody was talking about the problem, she was not talking about the problem. Then one day she was just going out to demonstrate with everyone else. I think there's this idea of somehow nobody sees the problem or nobody's talking about the problem and then everybody is talking about the problem.

Greg:               Right. So that's really interesting. First of all, that was my fiancee at the time and now my wife.

Daniel:            Yeah. Congratulations. I'm glad that worked out.

Greg:               That worked out, that worked out. She's still working on her transformation, which is me.

Daniel:            That's a good project.

Greg:               That's her big project. What was so interesting is that two years after the Orange Revolution, I was in Silicon Valley and everybody was talking about social networks, and we had an enormous digital business, at the time about 40% of the digital advertising market in the Ukraine. So I said, "This is something I really need to know about." So I started studying network theory and I came across this amazing... This is what sort of flicked the switch for me and turned the light on. It was called an instantaneous phase transition, exactly what I experienced with my fiancee, where all of a sudden the world seemed to have changed, where all these links start accumulating and the system flips.

Greg:               That was a big revelation for me, that students and activists can protest. It's when the marketing managers and the accountants, when they start hitting the streets, that's when the true revolution begins.

Daniel:            Yeah, so just to make a sidebar, I think Loonshots from Safi Bahcall, he's...

Greg:               Yeah, he also talks about phase transitions.

Daniel:            Well, it's interesting because I love that physics and human systems also can mirror each other, that there's this idea of suddenly everything crystallizes. Something precipitates out of the solution.

Greg:               Right. I don't think we should take the physics too literally. He was talking from a physical point of view. There is actually, there was something called the Erdos-Renyi model, which just mathematically figured this out, that at a certain point you get enough links that an unconnected system becomes connected.

Daniel:            Yes.

Greg:               There's also a similar theory in mathematics about when disordered points become order, randomly become order, and there's a lot of interesting math that goes around predicting when that point will hit. And I think that's interesting, but from a transformation point of view, it's a really deep and important concept, because you think about how that happens. Like in the Orange Revolution, this organization called Pora. It was a students' movement, but it became powerful, not through the students' movement but through second and third degree connections. Aunts, uncles, older cousins. And that's how it became powerful.

Greg:               I think there's another concept in the book about local majorities and how majorities don't just rule, they also influence, and I think that's a key part of driving a transformation, that you're always building local majorities, but it's always dynamic. It's never static. Because if you just sit in your local majority then you're just preaching to the choir. You have to get out of the church and start preaching to some of the heathens.

Daniel:            Yeah, so this is where I want to start drawing these points together, because in Mapping Innovation, you talk about innovation as a novel solution to an important problem, and what was interesting to me about that story of your fiancee in the Orange Revolution is that there's a problem and nobody's talking about it, or nobody's... At least this was my memory of the story, is that the students are talking about it but the middle managers and the silent majority is sort of going on with their lives. And suddenly everyone is talking about the problem.

Daniel:            In your process, which I'm looking at, your Cascades process, the vision of tomorrow is this first step, and it seems like getting everyone to have a shared vision is a powerful moment in accelerating that change.

Greg:               That is a very important part of it, a shared vision, but also shared values. Shared values in many ways are more important than shared vision, because generally speaking, in a situation like the Orange Revolution, where you have this oppressive regime, they spoke to shared values. They spoke to stability. People really just didn't want to even think about it. I mean, when I first came to Ukraine, I would ask, "What do you think about Kuchma?", who was the ruler at the time, and they would say, "It doesn't really have anything to do with us." Everybody knew it was a problem but they didn't-

Daniel:            Sort of like, it's fine.

Greg:               Right, so part of it is the social proof, but part of it is in the Orange Revolution they changed how they saw the country, that they had the right to be a normal country, that it wasn't right that they have this election that was a sham. It wasn't right. And people got angry about it and they saw the possibility that it could change. Because when you see things that you don't like and you don't see the possibility of change you figure the optimal strategy is just to figure out how to accept that.

Daniel:            Yeah, which is a really hard position to be in as a human being, like that internal conflict between what you see and what you're experiencing and what you feel like you can say.

Greg:               Absolutely, yeah.

Daniel:            I mean, I guess this is what I'm driving towards, is inside of an organization, what makes it suddenly possible to start talking about a problem that people are seeing and feeling but not talking about? Because it seems like in order to accelerate transformation, at some point you have to make an unspeakable problem speakable.

Greg:               Right. The key is really to think about... What I see in the work we've been doing is that often people construe institutions far too narrowly and stakeholders far too narrowly. There is the sort of thing, like they say, "Okay, well, the middle managers, they'll never buy into this," or, "This particular department will never accept it," or whatever it is. But then once you start thinking more broadly about stakeholders... I'll give you an example from political revolutions, and then we'll go back to the corporate, give a corporate example.

Greg:               During anti-Apartheid, how do you convince these white supremacists in South Africa to give up power? One of the tactics that they did was a bunch of anti-Apartheid activists started a campaign against Barclays Bank in British university towns. Now, you can imagine what the white supremacists in South Africa thought of that. I mean, what do they care what a bunch of hippies in college towns in the UK are doing? But over two years, the Barclay share of the student market fell from 27% to 15%, and you can believe they cared about that. And they ended up pulling out all of their investments out of South Africa, and that kind of had a domino effect, because other companies who had investments in South Africa, they started pulling out too, because nobody wanted that to happen to them and South Africa just wasn't that much money.

Greg:               Once you start having-

Daniel:            Yeah, it wasn't worth the trouble.

Greg:               Absolutely. Once you start having businesses pull out, countries, the whole rationale for not sanctioning Apartheid sort of fell my the wayside. That's why Apartheid fell, not because somebody all of a sudden, white supremacists all of a sudden had this big change of mind. It just had become economically untenable, and the rest of South Africans were no longer willing to support it.

Greg:               So now if you think about your opposition, not the hardened die hard active opposition, but people who are neutral or passive opposition or apathetic, what influences them? You have all these institutional stakeholders. For instance, if you look at tech companies like Google or Microsoft or IBM, they invest significant amounts of money into their university programs. Why? Because universities are a key pillar of influence in technology. That's where graduate students, that's where research is done.

Greg:               If you think about education, look at Common Core. They got all their ducks in a row. They came up with the plan. They got all the internal stakeholders to agree to it, but then Koch brothers start sending thousands of people. They missed the media as a key pillar of support and influence in education. Just to sort of sum up, that's how you actually make change happen. You mobilize people to influence institution.

Daniel:            Yeah. I want to dig into this idea of a spectrum of allies, because I think when people are thinking or planning about change, they may not be thinking about all of the stakeholders in the space and how to make who's reachable and who's unreachable. Do you have tools that you use to think about mapping stakeholders? Is that part of the spectrum?

Greg:               Yeah, that's the spectrum of allies, and it's really just about getting down on paper. Much as a general maps out the terrain on which the battle is going to be fought, the spectrum of allies allows you to map out the battle upon which the change will be fought, the terrain upon which the battle for change will be fought.

Daniel:            What does that look like for you? Because what I find interesting about this is Mapping Innovation provides this space to talk about innovation in a really, really specific way and say of this whole universe, this whole field of innovation, I think we should go here. And someone else can say, "Yes, but I think we should go here." And we can have the conversation about what innovation means to us. Similarly, it seems like with a good stakeholder mapping process, a group can say, "I think we should be talking to these people," and someone else can say, "Yes, and I think we should be talking to these people." They can really have that big picture view of the space in which the challenge is happening.

Greg:               Right. Well, the first thing is being specific about it, instead of, "People like us, people don't like us." And the spectrum of allies, and this is a really important point, it's always about people. They're not stakeholders. They're just people. So you want to identify who are your most active allies, who are your passive allies, who's neutral, who's passive opposition, and who's most active opposition.

Greg:               Your active opposition you probably don't want to engage directly because-

Daniel:            Is there another axis that you... So I'm going to put a really find point on this by the way, because I see people stakeholder mapping and they do write departments and they write entire industries, and I often say you want to put a face and a voice and a name to those stakeholders, because you want to know what they care about. It's a person.

Greg:               Well, you also want to make a distinction between people and institutions. You mobilize people. Spectrum of allies, those are people you're trying to mobilize. You mobilize people to influence institutions. If you think about Common Core, the Koch brothers were masterful at mobilizing those people to go to school boards and influence those institutions. So you want to keep those two things separate. The spectrum of allies is about people who are mobilized.

Greg:               The other tool, pillars of support, is about institutions that you're trying to influence. So if you think about Martin Luther King, what was the subject of those marches? What was the purpose? To influence specific institutions, media, legislative pillar, judicial pillar. So it's really, really important, and one of the reasons that Occupied failed, by the way. You always need to ask, "Who are we mobilizing to influence what?"

Greg:               You think about that Apartheid example. Mobilizing British university students to influence foreign corporations, because that was a key pillar of support. Once you identify international investors as a key pillar of support to the Apartheid regime in South Africa, well, that's a much softer target, right? That's a much, much softer target.

Greg:               So identifying those key institutions is important, but then also you have to ask why did those British university students, why were they willing to protest against Barclays Bank? The reason was because they felt they shared values with the anti-Apartheid. That's why it's so important to be explicit about your values and really clear. We can see the problems that the modern women's movement has run into, because they weren't explicit about their values. So when one of their leaders had this appearance with Louis Farrakhan, many people were absolutely repulsed, where others said, "What's the problem? That has nothing to do with the values of the women's movement." And that created quite a schism because they didn't ask themselves the hard question, "What are our values." If you don't define your values to yourself, how can you build a sense of shared values and bring people in?

Daniel:            Yeah, and it seems like, I'm looking at the eight step process, and it's clear that this hinge point in the middle of values, allies, and the pillars is a fulcrum that takes you from where we are now to where we want to be. That's a really important moment in-

Greg:               Well, also values signal constraints, right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               Great example of this is the IBM turnaround in the '90s, where they said the value shifted from technology to customers. We're going to shift our values from our proprietary stack of technologies to the customer stack of business processes. Because that said we are not going to force every piece of technology down your throat. We're going to constrain ourselves and do what's best for your business. That completely changed. That required an enormous cultural change within IBM, but that's the only reason IBM's still in business today, because they were able to make that change.

Daniel:            Yeah. So let's talk for a second, because time marches on. You're doing a workshop in Austin towards the end of November.

Greg:               The 21st.

Daniel:            The 21st of November. Where people are going to go through this whole process and leave with a game plan on how to, I don't want to use the word incite. For some reason the word incite is coming to mind. In order to incite the revolution that they would like to incite, is there a limit to the challenge of the problems-

Greg:               Absolutely, to drive-

Daniel:            ... the scope of problems that somebody could bring into that workshop?

Greg:               Sure. So digital transformation is a big one. I know that we've talked to other people who wanted to create a movement around user centricity within their organization. Another one, we were just talking recently about a state government that wanted to drive a change around making government agile, adopting agile tactics, throughout state government. You start thinking about, by the way, the possibility of that in some of those things. Think about making a department of revenue agile and user-centric. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine calling up your department of revenue and saying, "Wow, that was a fantastic experience."

Daniel:            Yeah, that requisition I filled out was great.

Greg:               Right. So I guess the process all starts with asking yourself, "What really bothers me? What really I don't like?" And then flipping that and saying, "Well, if I could make any change I wanted, if I was king for a day or if I had a magic wand, what would that change be? What would it look like?" Then we through the cascades process, we show you how to get there.

Daniel:            That sounds magical. Because I mean, once you know what the change you want to create is, then you can start working.

Greg:               Yeah, one of the things that I think makes the process so powerful is there's nothing magical about it. It's very deliberate and step by step, and a lot of it is thinking about and anticipating what happens next. I think we were talking before about what if Black Lives Matter had anticipated that they would be portrayed as anti-police? How might things have gone very, very differently?

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, let's back up and talk about that, because in our pre-conversation we talked a little bit about how political movements learn from their mistakes, and I'm wondering, learning from mistakes is, as Hamlet would say, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Is there an example that you can share of how a movement learned form its mistakes and adapted?

Greg:               One of my favorite examples is... And I should point out I found the same thing in corporate and industrial transformations, that they made mistakes as well, but they learned from them. But I think probably the most powerful example was Gandhi in 1919, where he started this campaign of civil disobedience, and things just spun out of control and it led to a disaster, a horrible, horrible massacre at Amritsar, and he would later call it his Himalayan Miscalculation. And it haunted him for years, and then in 1929, when the Indian National Congress declared independence from Great Britain in a document very similar to our Declaration of Independence, meaning it didn't mean anything, they just declared it. And they asked him to design a campaign of civil disobedience to bring independence about. He went back and thought long and hard about it because he certainly wanted to avoid making that same Himalayan Miscalculation again, and the result was the Salt March, which is today considered his greatest triumph and was really what broke the spell of British dominance and led to Indian independence.

Daniel:            People don't often understand the significance of this moment, because it was this absurd sort of prohibition and tax and it was such a simple act, and somehow it pushed against something, an absurdity, and that shook a surprising amount loose.

Greg:               Right, it was also about shared values. I mean, salt was something that everybody needed. It didn't matter whether you were Hindu or Muslim or Sikh or upper caste or lower caste. You needed salt to live, and the burden fell on the poorest people the most. It was instead of something like liberty or justice or something abstract, it was at the same time very visceral, but it was also an appeal to shared values. Even in Great Britain, the salt laws were considered by many to be fundamentally unjust, and I think that's such a powerful point when you're trying to drive change. Instead of saying, "This is the change I want," you think in terms of how can I make this an appeal to shared values.

Greg:               I think the LGBT movement is a great example of this, where for decades it was all about accentuating difference. We're here, we're queer, we're different. But when they made that shift from that to "We want the same things you do. We want to live in committed relationships. We want to raise happy and healthy families," things shifted enormously quickly.

Daniel:            It's hard to imagine how quickly marriage equality swept through the legal system, and I think they chose a really wise target.

Greg:               Just to give you a corporate parallel to that, I think a great one is Paul O'Neill when he took over Alcoa. It was in dire straits. This was back in the late '80s I believe. They said, "What are you going to do to bring Alcoa back to profitability?" He said, "I'm going to make Alcoa the safest company in America. We're going to go for zero workplace injuries." People thought he was crazy. They said, "No, we're talking about finances." He said, "You didn't understand me." But by talking about safety, that was an appeal to shared values, and in following up on that and letting people know, making sure people understood that safety was going to be how they were going to be judged, that created an enormous amount of shared values and shared purpose with the employees. And of course safety, workplace safety, and operational excellence go hand in hand. And many of those same processes that started off with workplace safety were then used to create operational excellence, and I think within a year Alcoa was back at record profits. Some other things went right as well, but that was an enormous turnaround of that business.

Daniel:            It seems like, if I can reframe this, when you're talking about digital transformation or when you're brought in, you're like, "We want to become more innovative and we want to move faster and be more agile." These are really, really ephemeral or intangible value. Grounding ourselves in something really, really clear, like we're going to be safe seems like a much, much more powerful way to incite or to weave that network behind you. How can we ground these big ideas of innovation and transformation in the daily lived human experience of people inside of organizations?

Greg:               Well, one of the things we ask in the workshop, we ask people to define their values. Then we ask what they expect those values to cost them. What costs are they willing to incur? If you say, "Oh, well, we value the customer." Okay, what costs are you willing to incur? When Lou Gerstner said, "We're going to focus on the customer as our core value," he made clear we are not going to make people buy stuff anymore that they don't need. So he was willing as the CEO to incur those costs. And that's because if you're not willing to incur costs then it's not really a value, is it?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               That's where you start getting really into the nitty gritty. If you say you want to be innovative, what costs are you willing to incur to be more innovative? Because there's always a tension between optimization and innovation. If you're honing processes, you're not going to be doing things differently. So once you start thinking about what costs you're going to incur and realize that there is no such thing as a free value or a free choice, that's where the rubber starts hitting the road.

Daniel:            Yeah, this is, like the even over statements that I've heard some people use. Customer centricity even over, I don't know what people are willing to give up, though. How do you get people willing to step away from what's comfortable? Because the idea that I'm going to focus on something to the detriment or the cost of something that we currently care about, that's a challenge.

Greg:               It is, and people need to be forced to make those choices if something's going to change. I mean, in our workshops people come saying that they're committed to change, right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               So if you are not committed to making some sort of choice, then you are committed to the status quo and things won't change.

Daniel:            Well, can I dig into that, because I'm slightly allergic to the word force. Because I'm wondering when you talk about weaving the network, I can't imagine that you really force people to make that change, that there's more of a rotational. How do you invite them to really-

Greg:               In designing the movement, you need to make choices. This is the difference between... And this is really important, because when the Arab Spring was going on, people started talking about these leaderless revolutions and leaderless movements, and this whole idea that hierarchies and leadership had become somehow passe. Those were not leaderless movements. People were leading those movements, and those people made choices. So your point is very much to your point. There's fantastic research behind this when it comes to political uprisings around participation and the fact that you can't overpower. You need to attract, and that's how you build a movement. Another mistake that the Occupy movement made, right? Once you start getting into this idea that only the most pure of heart belong. You always want to be connecting out.

Daniel:            Purity politics. I mean, on the left and the right in the United States, it's pretty challenging. I imagine it's very hard to weave a network and to build a coalition if there's a sharp boundary drawn onto what kosher is or isn't/

Greg:               Right, right. It's not easy, but the way you do it is with an appeal to shared values, and I think it's not so long ago that Barack Obama came on the scene out of nowhere. In 2004, when our politics were incredibly acrimonious, here was this, as he calls himself, this black guy with a funny name at the Democratic convention having this amazing call to shared values. We are not blue America or red America, we're United States of America. That was powerful enough to put that obscure state senator from Illinois into the presidency four years later.

Daniel:            Yeah. It's so interesting, because one of the things we talked about before we started recording was this idea that resistance happens in change dynamics. Some people are still trying to legislate the Civil War, and some could look at our current political state as a pendulum swing wildly in the other direction from what former President Obama was calling towards. In Cascades, in transformations, does that sometimes, is that something that we should be looking at?

Greg:               Yeah, I call it the tennis match.

Daniel:            The sort of not just resistant but the tennis match.

Greg:               Right. So again, the LGBT movement, if you think about how that went, you could sort of date it to the I think it was the 2004 State of the Union address, I think, where George Bush got up at the State of the Union address and I think called for the...

Daniel:            We're going to get the actual, I love it.

Greg:               He called for a marriage amendment, and then Gavin Newsom, who was the mayor of San Francisco at the time, he was in the audience. He was so incensed he went back to San Francisco and started performing same sex marriages at City Hall, and it was called the winter of something or other. Of course, that got people so incensed that there was a huge campaign for Proposition 8 in California and that Proposition 8 was so cruel and got people so incensed that it created the new LGBT movement and the gay, the same sex marriage movement, which even at that time was quite controversial in the LGBT community. Then it was that appeal to shared values.

Greg:               You often get the pendulum swinging, or I say this, the tennis match of transformation, until you eventually hit on those shared values. We saw the same thing in Ukraine, by the way, where 2004 we took to the streets to keep Yanukovych out of office. Five years later, he's in office. That's what the concept we talk about in the workshops and in the book of surviving victory. When you think about your... One of the most interesting things I found in my research is that the victory phase is often the most dangerous phase, because those who oppose change, they don't just go away. Those who are working to undermine change, they don't just go away.

Greg:               And think about how many times we've seen in the organizations that we work with that we work so hard to make a change and get executive approval, and the program passes. Everything's agreed to, and then what happens? Everything falls apart and goes back to the status quo. Why? Because the people who opposed it in the first place, they never went away. They say, "Okay, you can say whatever you want, we're just not going to go along," because you never created, they didn't see it as a shared value, and that's what eventually breaks the logjam.

Daniel:            Yeah. This seems just like two people having a conversation where we can dig in into a bitter argument, and at some point somebody's going to have to pull the ripcord and say, "What are we doing here? What are we trying to accomplish? What's our shared goal? Let's go to couples counseling." I'm seeing this conversation, like the national conversation about gay marriage rights, it's just happening in the same way, just back and forth, and at some point somebody has to say, "What's the big idea? What's the big goal?" Similarly, we've got to do that inside of our organizations, is have those real conversations with people about why we're doing this and why it matters.

Greg:               Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Daniel:            I think you have. We're running out of time. Is there anything we haven't talked about that we should talk about?

Greg:               Well, I think there are so many things that we could talk about that I feel like we could keep going for another hour, but I think that when it comes down to brass tacks, I think that we need to take responsibility for making change possible. And once you take responsibility for that, it almost necessitates thinking concretely about how you're going to bring that change about, and that's what we try and do in our workshop.

Daniel:            I think it sounds, I mean, to me I think about being intentional in designing the conversations we want to have in the world, and if there's a change you want to create, thinking through that entire arc and having a real game plan seems like an absolute must.

Greg:               Absolutely, absolute must.

Daniel:            I wish I could be at the workshop if for no other reason that it's fun to hang out with Douglas and it's been fun hanging out with you too, Greg. I'll ask you to stay on the line for a second after we close things out, but on the internet, if somebody wants to learn more things about all things Greg Satell, where should they go on the internet?

Greg:               You can go to my website, gregsatell.com, and to my blog, digitaltonto.com

Daniel:            And if you want to know the origin story for that, we can tell you the story another time. Cool. I'll put those links in the show notes, obviously. Greg, thank you for the time. It's really a delight to talk to you. You're a deep thinker about this stuff, and the rabbit hole goes pretty far down, and anybody who's listening to this, I would definitely encourage you if you can make it out to Austin to spend some time with these fine gentlemen, because this is an important topic for sure.

Greg: Thanks so much for having me, Daniel. It was fun.

Trust, Communication and Psychological Safety

Web image emily levada.jpg

Have you ever found a framework, a diagram, that perfectly summarized an important and subtle idea? That somehow made that important idea concrete and easy to talk about?

That’s why I’m really excited to share today’s conversation with Emily Levada, Director of Product Management at Wayfair. We’ll dive into a Trust/Communication Map that, as a manager of a huge team, helps her navigate an essential question - is our team talking too much or not enough?

On the conversation design, meta side, I want to point out this important idea: The power of a visual to focus and shift a conversation. All conversations have an interface - either the air, a chat window or a whiteboard - a *place* the conversation actually happens. 

A diagram creates a narrative space for a much more clear and focused conversation to take place - the diagram triangulates all of our individual inputs and ideas.

I stumbled across Emily’s medium article where she breaks down this trust/communication trade off using this simple visual map. She points out that the map we talk about is commonly attributed to technology entrepreneur and venture capitalist Ben Horowitz. In his book The Hard Thing About Hard Things he writes, 

“If I trust you completely, then I require no explanation or communication of your actions whatsoever, because I know that whatever you are doing is in my best interests.”

With Communication on the Y axis and Trust on the X, you clearly don’t want your team in the lower-left quadrant - low trust and low communication. Things will get pretty rocky there, fast. Increasing communication can help, but wow, will your team get burnt out, fast. The upper right quadrant, from a manager’s perspective, is waste - in this region, we’re having too many meetings. We can likely decrease communication, slowly, until we find a perfect balance - low friction, high trust teams. 

Emily, at the end of the episode outlines how she uses this diagram to have this crucial conversation with the teams she manages: Where does each member of the team feel we are on this chart? Are we spending too much time talking or not enough? If you use this diagram with your team, please let me know! Email me at Daniel@theconversationfactory.com.

As Emily points out, when there’s total trust, there’s a sense of safety - When my collaborators trust me to make things work, I feel empowered to find my own way, even if I take the long path, down some blind alleys.

Psychological safety is at the absolute core of teams that can make great things happen. We need trust and safety to make good decisions. Amy Edmonson, who coined the term Psychological safety, opens her book “The Fearless organization” with this amazing quote from Edmund Burke, an English philosopher from the mid-1700s

“No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”

With the right balance of trust and communication, teams can feel safe to act, learn and iterate. 

For all of this and a lot more, listen to the rest of the episode!


Show Links and Notes

The Trust/Communication Curve

https://medium.com/@elevada/the-trust-communication-trade-off-4238993e2da4

trust communication curve.png
the trust equation.png
psychological safety and accountability.png

High CUA Organizations, from High Output Management by Andy Grove

https://www.amazon.com/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove/dp/0679762884/

Helpful summary is here:

https://charles.io/high-output-management/


Transcription:

Daniel:                Emily, we're going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Thank you for making the time to do this and for waiting for me while I fixed all of my technical difficulties.

Emily:                  Thank you for having me.

Daniel:                Awesome. So can you tell the listeners a little bit about who you are and what your role is?

Emily:                  Sure, sure. I'm a director of product management at Wayfair. I own a set of technologies that sit at what we call the bottom of our purchase funnel. So, when you're shopping on Wayfair, that's the product detail page (the page that tells you about the things we sell), the cart and checkout experiences, and then some other things like customer reviews or financing--how you apply for financing, understand financing on our site--our loyalty program. Uand, I run a team of product managers doing that.

Daniel:                Yeah. And so we talked a little bit about: how do you get a hundred designers to all talk the same language? Like, cause you've got a big team. How do you get them all pointed in the same direction, as a were? Like tell us about managing that conversation cause like you literally can't have a conversation unless you're speaking the same language. And so like there's that step back that you're working with.

Emily:                  Yeah. So I just shared an article that my design partner had written about our written design process or design toolkit as you might say. I think, you know, in any organization that is scaling how you build the mechanisms for people to build shared vocabulary, to be using the same tools. It's one that we invest time in. I don't know that there's any magic to it besides you know, making the time to have the conversation of what's the language that we want to use.

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  ...And being really intentional about it, right? What's language we do want to use, what's the language we don't want to use? How do we want to talk to new employees about these things in ways that are simple and digestible for them? And then they can build on over time. And then creating the mechanisms to make sure that coordination keeps happening. And you know, I think as we get more into this, you'll see that for me, how, how people communicate across the organization is a big part of what I spend my time thinking about.

Daniel:                Yeah. I really enjoyed Jesse's article. We'll definitely link to it. One of the things that kind of blew me away was this idea that--because, I've worked with organizations where they're having a sense that, oh, we should have our own proprietary design thinking process. We should have our own flavor of agile. And he's like, we wanted something that anybody coming in would generally recognize. And so it's like, yeah, it's nothing. Here it is, it's kind of the double diamond. It's, it's the basics of design thinking, but doing it is the hard part.

Emily:                  Yeah. And I think one thing that's interesting is that we're actually not that dogmatic about how those things get applied. So really there's a lot of license to do what works best for your team. Designers are part of a cross functional team with engineers, and analysts, QA, product managers and the designer should bring the tools to bear that are gonna help us understand customer problems and talk to our customers and uprototype and test things. But we, but we're creating a toolkit that designers can pull from in order to do their work effectively.

Daniel:                Yeah. It seems like a lot of work went into, into building that, that toolkit that they can pull from, but also like, I mean, this is the, this is the essence of agile, right? It's, it's, it's people and interactions over processes and tools or am I misquoting it? That's embarrassing. It's something like that. So like, let's talk about your origin story. Like how did you get into this work? How did you get your start and you know, where are you hoping to sort of ...what's next on your journey with, with the work that you're doing? Sure.

Emily:                  Sure, so, um I, rewinding to, let's say collegeUh I have two degrees. I have a degree in psychology and a degree in theatre production. I'm a theatre kid.

Daniel:                That's amazing. I could see how that could prepare you for many, many, because everything's a circus and you know how to put on a show. Let's put on a show, like you know how to do that.

Emily:                  Keep the drama on the stage, as we say. Uh,yes. I actually, there are a tremendous number of parallels that I think are really interesting. But psychology and theatre, they're both studies of how individuals behave. One's scientific and one's artistic, but,uthat's a common theme. And as I transitioned in technology and got an MBA, I fell in love with the idea of customer insights--that we could understand it and influence people's behavior with the technology that you build. And so that's kind of one thread that pulls through here. And then that, that also fuels a passion for organizational behavior. How do I understand the behavior of the people around me and how we interact with each other in the conversations that we have in our organization? Uand then I think the other interesting thing about theatre, well there's a, there's a product management tie. Building theater is cross functional. You have designers, you have technicians. UI've learned over the years that the conversation that happens between a set designer, a stage carpenter and a scenic painter is no different than the conversation that happens between a UX designer, a backend engineer and a front end engineer.

Daniel:                Okay. Can we, can you break that down? Cause like I don't think many people know those roles in maybe, maybe those roles in either context. Yeah. Lay those out. Cause like this is the difference between like the, like the skin and the concept and how it works, Maybe....

Emily:                  Right...Well, so, so in both cases you have someone like a designer who's coming up with a concept or understanding maybe it's user behavior or the story that we're trying to tell. The content that we want to have in what we're publishing. And then but having the concept or having the vision is different than having the executed product. And so then you have a technician, right? You have engineers you have carpenters and painters and, and then really that's really just specialization, right? Those people are delivering on the thing that's been designed. And and they might have different types of specialization. And then I think where the thing that's the same in my role about that is that what you deliver is never going to be exactly the thing that you designed. And there's a constant process of learning and discovering the unknown and prototyping or having to cut to meet a budget or a timeline, um, changing scope.

Emily:                  And that's the same, right? It's actually the same conversation. So I found a lot of skills in software development product management that were skills that I had developed earlier and loved that, that managing that conversation between those people and that translation between the functions. Uand then the other thing that I think is super relevant to the trust part of the work that I do is that the theatre is a space, it's a workspace where coming to work emotionally available every day is part of what allows you to deliver the work. Like my, my early career, my conception of a business meeting was a bunch of people get in a room, and we'd watch a play. And if at the end of the business meeting everybody wasn't crying or laughing or right, whatever it was, then like your product was not delivering the emotional experience that you needed.

Emily:                  And so your ability to then work through you know, how do I build something that resonates more emotionally, it was a, it was a critical part of that experience. And so I think that in the business world that translates into being, you know, high EQ, whatever that means. But there are some notion that, that idea that you sort of come to work present and authentic and kind of with your emotional switch "on". That is something that I'm just really interested in and passionate about. That's kind of the way that I'm built. And and so how that translates into a different, you know, or into the world that I'm in today has been an interesting on, an interesting question.

Daniel:                Yeah, I mean, so like, let's, let's dig into that a little bit, because I think the idea that our product should turn the customer "on" like that it should hit them in the gut the way like a great production should is a provocative one. And then like, so there's, there's these, there's that level of the, it should have that effect on our, our end user, but we should also be excited about doing it. And then I also need to sort of manage myself through that whole process of, you know bringing my best self to that dialogue, that interaction with all the people who are supposed to be making this thing. But there's a lot of, there can be a lot of conflict and tension in that black box of making something that people are gonna love.

Emily:                  Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I definitely, I think sometimes it's surprising to people that even just this concept of, hey, I want to build something that people love, that hey have emotional reaction to that, that I might talk about ecommerce that way. Right? But you're selling stuff, right?

Daniel:                Yeah. But we all love to buy stuff.

Emily:                  Right. Right. You still want an experience that people really love. And also, you know, your home is intensely personal. And so for us, the experience of finding the right things for your home and crafting a space, crafting an environment that is a backdrop for really important parts of your life and your family and your friends your kids that's very emotional. It's a very emotional process. And so you want the tools that you're giving people to go through that journey to be emotionally resonant for them.

Emily:                  You know, I think this is, there's lots of conversations about this in the product world. This this sort of, you know, you're aiming for a minimum viable product versus a minimum lovable product, right?

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  It's that that difference. But I think for me the organizational side of it is equally as important. You know, we, we know that we, we all want to have teams that are creative, that are risk tolerant, that move fast. Um, and then we have these really complex organizations and at the end of the day, like how do you build teams that can do those things? Um, my point of view is that you really need to have the emotional, um, component in order to build teams that can, can embody those qualities.

Daniel:                Yeah. So I want to go back, I want to, I want, I want to go deeper into the trust and safety piece because that's, that's important. But I was trying to find this diagram that I just sent to you. In the chat window, I need to find who originated it. This was like one of my favorite diagrams when I was getting started in UX, just to like talk about the difference between like vision and concept and details. This is another version of it. Product is functionality. Product is information. There's so many versions of this just the idea that like, there's all these different layers in the process of making something real and my own sense that like everybody wants a seat at the table, right? Cause like even those people are highly specialized where they're like, oh, I'm just gonna make an "x". If they don't understand the vision, and if they're not bought into the vision, people feel excluded.

Emily:                  Yeah.

Daniel:                People feel like, oh, I'm just a doer. Like, so I guess my question is like, you as a leader, how do you make sure that the people who are part of creating that vision feel like they're all included? Like how do you create inclusion?

Emily:                  Yeah. I mean it's interesting because yes, they want to feel included, but I would actually go so far as to say that they need to be included if you want to get the right product. Because if you tell people what to build, they'll build you what you tell them. If you tell them why you want to build it, they're going to build something better than what you asked them to build... Right?

Daniel:                Yeah. I'm just...that's a solid gold quote right there.

Emily:                  Uh and so I think that the question then very tactically becomes when is the right moment in the process to involve which person? What pieces of information are you giving them? But I think really it is about orienting around why. Why are we here? What outcome are we trying to drive? Not what are we trying to build. And you know, ultimately the conversation shifts to what are you trying to build. But I think partly there's a, there's also a listening aspect here, right? You listen to the conversations that people are having and if people are getting stuck, and you start listening, and they are having conversation about the "what" you try to back them up to the "why", right?

Daniel:                Yeah. No I agree. Yeah. I mean there's so many avenues to go down because in a way like there's another piece which is like how are you seeing the patterns and all of that and all of those conversations that you're, you're, you're pulling together cause you're, you're looking at this at an organizational level as well, right? Like you're in a lot of different places and listening to a lot of different things. Like how do you make the time to start to weave it back together for yourself into a clear narrative like "this is What's happening?"

Emily:                  Some of it is I think about pattern recognition, right? This is true of all feedback. So one thing that I say about feedback a lot is that you know, any feedback, whether you're giving, receiving feedback, it's a data point. And if you, if every piece of feedback you get, you took immediate action on and treated as equal to every other piece of feedback, like you'd go mad. And so when you get feedback or when you hear a thing, it becomes a piece of data and then up to you to look at all of the pieces of data you have gotten and, see the patterns, prioritize which things you want to act on and then go act on them. And so I think, you know, as an organizational leader, as I'm doing one on ones or doing skip level meetings or listening to questions, people are asking in various forums, um, or listening to the water cooler talk. It's sort of data that goes into the pattern recognition machine, right?

Daniel:                Which is your brain?

Emily:                  My brain. That's right.

New Speaker:    Are you using a whiteboard or a like a dashboard or anything to track that? Or is it just really like just filtering, bubbling up in your brain?

Emily:                  Yeah. I have some, I have a notebook that I you know, clutch very tightly and carry with me everywhere I go. That I think is my primary, you know, hey, I'm just gonna write down things that I see or observe. I have a window of time. I get to work very early in the morning. I get to work at seven. And so from seven in the morning until nine when the kind of meetings start is my time to really kind of step back, reflect on what I need to do or what I've heard, what's new, where things are and get some focused work time. And so I think being able to just carve out the time to sort of step back and say, okay, is there anything here that I, that I need to be paying more attention to or taking more action on?

Daniel:                I have to say like in so many of the interviews I've done, one of the insights for me is that, of all the conversations that we have to manage and maybe design, the one with ourselves is maybe the most important one. And so having just, just having a notebook is like, like that's, that's huge. Right?

Emily:                  Yeah.

Daniel:                That's really amazing.

Emily:                  Yeah. You know, I'm also very lucky, I have a wonderful set of people around me who are great sounding board for all the times that I'm like, Hey, I think maybe there's a thing here, but I'm not really sure. And let me just say it out loud to you and play it back for me and you know, help me see if there's really a pattern or not.

Daniel:                Yeah, yeah. Analysis through dialogue. Super important. So I think it would be useful for us to talk about like, so I found this medium article that you wrote using this, you know, don't I just love visual frameworks of trust versus communication curve. And how did you, like where did that how does that framework filter into your life? Where did it come from for you and how do you, how do you actually apply that in your own work? Can you just talk to us a little bit about that little knowledge chunk and then we'll see?

Emily:                  Sure, sure. So, we, we first introduced the concept of psychological safety, which is related but not the same in 2017. I actually, so psychological safety I think was popularized based on Google work, Google's Project Aristotle. There's a New York Times magazine article about it that profiles a woman who's on Google's People Analytics team. And she was a classmate of mine in my MBA program. And so I had been following the work and thought it was really interesting. And we actually introduced a concept that is one level higher than the psychological safety concept, which is the Learning Zone. So the, the researcher who, who came up with the concept of psychological safety actually has a framework that's two axes and psychological safety is one axis. And the other axis is accountability, or, accountability to results. And, and when you have both of those things, you get this magic thing called Learning. Um, and I think that what was really important about that framework..

Daniel:                Can you actually explain that? Cause like I'm looking at that as a two by two, and like very accountable and very safe means I learn something? Put that together for me.

Emily:                  Yeah. So, very accountable means, like, there's pressure, there's pressure to do, right? Like you, you're gonna run fast because there's pressure. But if you have high pressure and low psychological safety, you get anxiety, you get fear of failure, right? That, that and that is a killer, right? Especially in an agile process where there's a requirement to, like, take risks and try things. And you know that every single thing you do is not going to be a win. What you want is for every single thing you do to teach you something. Right? And to be another step on the journey to understanding where you're going.

Emily:                  This is incredibly important in spaces where I remember it's it's Andy Grove. It's from High Output Management. He has this concept of high "CUA" organizations or tasks--that is complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Right? So you don't have a roadmap. You don't know where you're going. You have some idea where you're going, but you might be wrong. You don't really know how you're going to get there along the way. And there's a high degree of complexity? Um, hhat you need to be able to fail and you need to be able to challenge people's ideas. You know, we know that the creative process, it's not that people just have brilliant ideas, they actually have not great ideas that then other people add slightly less, not great things to. And then, you know, you build, you like you, you build on top of each other and you make connections and then all of a sudden there's an "Aha" moment that you, you've landed on something that has value.

Daniel:                Right! So I would say that these CUA things can only be done through conversation. It's only through like one person can't do it by themselves. Through that, you have to...

Emily:                  Right, right. And so you have to have a group. And that group has to be willing to say stupid things and to say that they disagree, to challenge the status quo. And you can't do those things if you don't have psychological safety. If you're afraid that you will be judged for what you say or for challenging, then you don't get any of that behavior. And so, so when you have psychological safety, that's when you get... And performance pressure. That's when you get, "Okay, we're going to try something and then we're going to learn from it." And so learning becomes the kind of cornerstone to continuous improvement with that flavor of, hey, we're willing to take risks. We want to move fast. We're listening to each other. We understand that the solution we get to together is going to be better than the solution any of us could come to individually. And so that, that, it was a few years ago that that really became an important piece of how my department was thinking about the culture that we wanted to build. And, and in that I was thinking about, okay, what does this mean for my teams and how do I figure out when my teams are feeling that anxiety and how can I help them have the right conversations to get them back into that Learning Zone? And one of the observations that I had is that we spend a lot of time talking about how we talk to each other, right?

Daniel:                Amazing!

Emily:                  I say to the conversation designerUm but, but that in the organization that often takes the format of, you know, do we really need to have this meeting? We should add this meeting. We should remove this meeting. I think we should write a new update email. We're getting too many emails. I, everybody needs to go into this spreadsheet and fill out this information. And there's just this, there's a cycle of "add a bunch of communication and process and then think there there's too much and take it away. And then I think there's too little and add more."

Emily:                  And there's a justification that that's sort of a natural cycle. And the observation that I had, uh, and I talk a little bit about where those pieces came from, but the kind of connection that I made in my brain at some point in doing this is that the amount of communication that you need is the dependent variable. The independent variable is how much trust you have. It's not an objective, hey, in order to do this thing, I need this amount of communication period.

Emily:                  The amount of communication that you need to be successful is dependent on how much trust already exists between the individuals doing the work. And so for me the interesting moment was, hey, let's reframe all of these, all of these conversations that we're having about communication into conversations about trust and what does that look like? What would that mean? And that actually you, you these, the costs of all of this communication, we call it coordination cost,uoften. That it's, that it's not a given. Like as your organization gets complex, you will need more communication. That is true.

Daniel:                So I'm gonna, I'm, like, gonna sketch this diagram just for the listeners. So they don't have to go any place else. Like, it's the, the Y-axis is "Amount of Communication Required". The X-axis, is "Trust Between Team Members. And in a way what you're implying is that there's a, a curve, a line that goes from the upper left to the lower right where, basically the more trust you have, the less communication is required.

Emily:                  Right. That's exactly it. To accomplish any goal, the amount of trust that you have and the amount of communication that you need are inversely related. So if you have very little trust, you need a tremendous amount of communication. If you have a lot of trust, you need way less communication.

Daniel:                Can I push back on this concept? Just like, cause I feel like in a way like when there's a lot of trust, communication flows really freely to. Like I can see on the graph anything that's above the line is inefficient use of resources and anything below it creates like friction or confusion or like, and I've seen this in projects where you're like waiting for someone else to like tell you it's okay to do what you think needs to be done. But at the same time I feel like my fiance and I talk a lot, you know, we, we have a lot of communication. There's also a lot of trust. Like I'm checking in with her and telling her my evening plans, not because I think she's worried that she doesn't, you know, who are you off with? She just wants to know and I want to tell her. So like maybe that's, maybe that's different cause it's, it's a personal context. I don't know.

Emily:                  Yeah. Maybe trust and communication are actually self-reinforcing. And so when I say you have high trust and low communication then that implies that you actually have a higher degree of communication. I think, you know, maybe you could think about this as sort of additional communication or required communication, formal communication, right? And there are lots of different ways you could cut that. Although I do think that you actually just see less communication partly because one of the primary pieces of that is--if I trust you, then I trust that you will understand when I need to be involved and you will proactively communicate to me and therefore I don't need to be doing the inbound communication to you. And so you know, I do think that there's an opportunity. I think the, and the really important piece of that is that we think we spend a lot of time talking about how we can add or subtract communication. And my thesis is that if you actually invest in building trust in teams, you can run more efficient organizations because you reduce the amount of communication that everybody needs to do.

Daniel:                Wow. So that upfront investment pays off. And your, I mean this is the classic go slow to go fast. Like you're like definitely has proved for you.

Emily:                  Well yeah, I mean you, you, you invest in trust that allows you to pull out this communication. It certainly makes people happier and it gives you more of these other things like a willingness to take risks. You know speed to delivery risk tolerance. Yeah. Some of those other components that I think are really important.

Daniel:                So can we talk a little bit about the mechanisms, cause you, we talked about this in the pre-talk, like what are the mechanisms of creating value for the company through that, but then there's also the question of how do you actually, what is the process by which you create this kind of trust and psychological safety in your teams? So this is like the two-sided, like how do you do it and then how do you show that it's, how do you prove that thing that we were just talking about that it's, that the investment is worth it.

Emily:                  Yeah.

New Speaker:    Cause people ask me all the time and I have a mixed answers for that.

Emily:                  Yeah. I think, you know, I do think it's hard, right? It's hard. This is why, the, some of these concepts like psychological safety and trust and vulnerability and EQ, they feel squishy cause it's hard to understand the value. But I do think that one of the things that's been interesting about this framework is that it is pretty easy when you start to look around and you start to diagnose, okay, where are my teams? And you start to actually selectively pull levers like, okay, I'm going to add communication here or I'm going to just remove communication here. That as a manager, having a framework like this just helps you be more active in how you manage those things, right? So if, if a manager can, if having this framework and diagnosing where their teams are effectively allows them to pull, you know, just a handful of pieces of communication out of the system without impacting the result that's being delivered. You're delivering value, right? Now, if you pull that communication out in a place where you don't actually have their trust, then you, you risk poor execution on the work. Right? And so the ability to make good decisions about,uwhere you can do that and where you can't I think is what I'm trying to help managers do. I think in terms of actually building trust,uI have one go-to tool that I share. Ualthough there's really many, many different ways to think about this. I'm a big fan of the Trust Equation, which is from the book "The Trusted Advisor".

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  "The Trusted Advisor" is really about building trust in client relationships. But there's this concept in it called the Trust Equation, which is just, uh, one way of breaking down what does trust really mean? And that Trust Equation says that trust is made up of four components. There are three things that create trust. Credibility, which is "I trust your words". You know what you're talking about. You say, "I don't know" when you don't know what you're talking about. Uhhat's one. Reliability is you do what you say you're going to do. Umhat's I trust your actions. And then the third is they use the word intimacy. That can be a loaded word in business contexts. Um tend to think of that as discretion is, is probably the closest thing. Like I, I trust you with a secret. Umr I trust your judgment. It can mean I, it can mean you sort of know me personally. Umnd then there's one thing that is sort of the great destroyer of trust, which is self-orientation. Umo if I believe that you will act in your own self interest instead of in my best interest then I don't trust you, mf I believe that you will take into account my best interest and think about my point of view, then we build trust.

Emily:                  And the really important thing or the reason that that's my sort of critical tool is because it allows us to give feedback about trust that's much more specific. So it allows us to give feedback, allows me to give feedback about communication that's happening in the workplace. That is feedback about trust, but using those underlying concepts. So, "Hey, when you bullshit your way through the answer to, that answer in that meeting and then had to go back and admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, you damaged your credibility with that stakeholder."

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  Right? Or "when you didn't respond to that email, you damaged your reliability" Or, right, then and then the positive version of that, too. "Hey, The fact that you thought to include that person in that meeting showed low self-orientation and helps you build that relationship. And so more than anything that's just given people the vocabulary to have a conversation about trust without using the squishy word of "trust".

Daniel:                Yeah. Breaking it down into components. Use the word "levers", which I, like, I talk about that a lot in my conversation design work, which is like, wow, how do we actually grab hold of this squishy thing and say like, oh, how do we manipulate it? How we actually move it? And you're like, at least you and you can focus on reliability, credibility, intimacy--and intimacy is important. Like, I, I've begun to realize like the importance of actually spending time getting to know people. Like you forget this, otherwise people think it's just transactional. And that's, that's really, really critical.

Emily:                  Right. And, and uI think that also,sorry, I just lost my train of thought for a moment.

Daniel:                I mean it's amazing by the way, like, I don't know like that you had the Trusted Advisor equation in your, in your brain. Like, so you get, you get a total pass, it may come back to you.

Emily:                  It may. That's okay. We can keep going.

Daniel:                What's that?

Emily:                  I said we could keep going...

Daniel:                Oh, so we, yeah, we are actually getting close to our time. So like I usually ask the, what haven't we talked about that we should talk about, which may or may not jog your memory...

Emily:                  Oh, I remember what I was thinking.

New Speaker:    Yeah. There's the key - distraction!

Emily:                  So the other thing about the Trust Equation is that it's actually true that different people value different parts of that equation. So, the other thing that it allows you to do is have the conversation of saying, you know, sometimes like I've had situations where I'm kind of not connecting with someone or we just seem to be missing each other and not building the kind of relationship that I want. And then the ability to have a conversation that's like, "Hey, I, what I'm looking for really is, you know, intimacy". And the other person says, "Well, I really want reliability and I don't really care about intimacy in this relationship". That that allows you to,ufigure out what matters for trust in that relationship more effectively.

Daniel:                It does. And so when you, you talked about how you spend a lot of time in your team talking about conversations like this is, this is the conversation about what matters to you in your conversations with, the conversation about how often you want to be talking, the conversation about all of these different pieces of it. And I just did an interview with my dear friend Jocelyn Ling which we'll publish soon as well. She was the first person who ever I sat down in a meeting with who said, let's talk about how you like to work. Are you a calendar person? I mean this was almost 10 years ago, so there was no Skype, there was Skype, there was no Slack, there was, there were fewer tools, but it was still an important conversation to have.

Emily:                  Right, incredibly.

Daniel:                Like I have a calendar/ spreadsheet orientation and that's like if somebody is making something in a word document that could be a spreadsheet. It, it, it, you know, cause me hives.

Emily:                  Right, Totally. And you know, it's important to know if you're working with someone who really needs time to digest before they get into a room, then writing that preread is going to be that much more important. Right? Or if you know, obviously understanding the intimacy part, understanding what parts of the day are more difficult for people. You know, for me, I get in super early, but then I leave, I need to get home to my kids. And so, you know, if you catch me while I'm walking out the door, I'm not going to be... I'm less likely to take the time to stop and have that conversation right.

Daniel:                And don't have an extra five minutes!

Emily:                  I really don't.

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  Uh so I think that that's, those things are super important and, and actually just giving people the ability to have those conversations really openly, really directly or giving them tools to do that.

Daniel:                That's awesome. So is there anything we haven't talked about that we should talk about around trust, psychological safety, organizational conversations?

Emily:                  Yeah, there's, there's no one big thing. I think, you know, my, the thing that I hope is just that people feel like this is a tool that they can use and, and to really think about that the next time they hear somebody having a conversation about communication, to think about, hey, are we really having a conversation about, about trust? Right? So somebody is asking you for communication, is it really because they don't, they don't trust some piece of this, they don't trust you're going to deliver something or we've missed an opportunity to keep them informed and vice versa. If people are complaining about having too much communication. Is that really because there's more trust than you're giving credit for and how do we, how do we change the conversation a little?

Daniel:                Yeah. Well that's awesome. We, I guess, I mean I'm, I'm going to try and squeeze in one more question cause like I said, I'm looking at that framework and I'm thinking to myself is that a framework for Emily to think more clearly and to talk with another manager about stuff or is it a conversation that a team can have? Like it's not like a two by two matrix. I'm not looking at it as like a importance difficulty matrix where somebody is doing an exercise with it.

Emily:                  It is. It is both. So there's definitely a piece of it that is as a manager, I want to have a sense of where my team is or where different project teams that I work with are and be able to actively manage. But there's definitely a team component here and I think it's a really interesting exercise to do--it requires a really good facilitator--which is get your team in a room, draw the framework on the board, two axes and a line, right? Make sure people understand it and then say, everybody grab a marker. Where do you think we are? Or, or if you don't think your team has enough trust to do that, everybody grab a sticky note and draw the framework on your sticky note and fold it up and hand it to me, right? We'll do this sort of anonymously and then you plot on the graph like where does the team think we are? And the interesting conversation is not about coming to objective alignment that "we are here today", but actually that some of your team members think your team has a high degree of trust and some of your team members don't.

Daniel:                Right.

Emily:                  And how do we, you know, some, some team members think that we've got too much communication and some think we have too little because they actually have different communication styles. And, and communication isn't connecting the same for everybody. And then how do we use that as a lead in to this conversation of, "Hey, how do we work more effectively as a team?"

Daniel:                I'm so glad I asked that question because I think that's a really, that, that's a, it's a classic visual facilitation move of where are we, where do you think we are? And then the, the benefit is not, oh, we need to get into the same place. It's like, Oh wow, you think we're here and I think we're there. Let me hear more about what you think, why you think that. And you talked to the other person about why they think they think that's what they think. That's awesome. Okay, then we're definitely out of time now. Emily, I really appreciate you making the time for this. This is really delightful conversation. I think this is super duper important stuff for everyone to get a grasp on.

Emily:                  Thank you for having me!

Daniel:                Awesome. And we'll call it "and scene!"

 

Disciplined Imagination

Webpost_image.jpg

Today’s conversation is with my dear friend Jocelyn Ling, a tremendously talented Business Model Specialist in the Office of Innovation at UNICEF. She’s  currently on sabbatical from the Organizational Innovation consultancy Incandescent. She’s been an interim biotech CEO, an investment consultant at the International Finance Corporation, the private investment arm of the World Bank Group, and even an instructor at Stanford’s DSchool.

The Show Notes section of this episode are pretty epic, since Jocelyn dropped a lot of knowledge and wisdom on me and you - frameworks aplenty for you to get a handle on designing the innovation conversation and leading the process, with, as she says, healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

I wanted to give that Hubble quote it’s full space to breathe, because it’s so lovely...I’m going to read it in full here:

The scientist explores the world of phenomena by successive approximations. He knows that his data are not precise and that his theories must always be tested. It is quite natural that he tends to develop healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

— Edwin Powell Hubble

There are a few subtle points that I want to tease out and draw your attention to as this all relates to conversation design and shaping them for the better.

Invitation

Jocelyn highlights one of my favorite ideas in conversation design - invitation. A leader invites participation through their own openness, not through force. Anyone can lead that openness to new ideas, even if they’re not an “authorized” leader, through their own example. Invitations can look like asking the right questions or hosting teams or creating physical or mental space for the conversation.

Cadence

Jocelyn talks about the tempo of a team or an organization, and these larger conversions do have a tempo, just like a 1-on-1 conversation does. Leading the innovation conversation often means slowing down or speeding up that tempo to create clarity and safety or progress and speed.

Goals

Conversations start when people have a goal in mind. Each participant in the conversation will have their own idea of what that goal is and the innovation conversation is no different. Jocelyn points out, rightly, that it’s critical for a team or an organization to develop their own clear, shared definition of innovation. I did a webinar recently with Mural and my partner in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, Jay Melone, on just this topic, and you can find a link to the templates we used in the show notes...I think you’ll find those helpful, too.

Narrative

Storytelling and coherent narratives are core components of everyday conversations and the innovation conversation is no different. What Jocelyn asks us to focus on is the idea of stories as memes - what happens to your story after you tell it? Does it communicate or convince? Great. Does that person retell that story and evangelize it for you? That’s even better. Leading change means being able to tell the second type of story - viral anecdotes.

That’s all for now. The full transcript and show notes are right there in your podcasting app and on the website.


Show Links and Notes

Jocelyn Ling on the Internet

http://jocelynling.com/

Making a Team Charter if you want a template (or just have the conversation!)

https://blog.mural.co/team-charter

https://www.unicef.org/innovation/

http://www.incandescent.com/

Michelle Gelfand’s Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire our World

https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Makers-Breakers-Tight-Cultures/dp/1501152939

All in the Mind Podcast:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-power-of-social-norms/11178124

Clayton Christensen, Disruptive Innovation

http://claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

Steven Johnson: Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Good-Ideas-Come-Innovation/dp/1594485380

A blinkist version

https://medium.com/key-lessons-from-books/the-key-lessons-from-where-good-ideas-come-from-by-steven-johnson-1798e11becdb

Square Pegs and Round Holes in Apollo 13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry55--J4_VQ

Google vs Apple in One Image, their patents map

https://www.fastcompany.com/3068474/the-real-difference-between-google-and-apple

Edwin Hubble Quote:

The scientist explores the world of phenomena by successive approximations. He knows that his data are not precise and that his theories must always be tested. It is quite natural that he tends to develop healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

— Edwin Powell Hubble

In Commencement Address, California Institute of Technology

10 Jun 1938

More on Hubble: 

https://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/the_man_behind_the_name/

The Innovation/Ambition Matrix

Core, Adjacent, Transformational

Innovation Ambition Matrix.png

How to have the Innovation Conversation:

https://blog.mural.co/innovation-leadership

The 21st Century Ger Project:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/07/05/redesigning-the-mongolian-ger-to-help-solve-a-health-crisis/

Doblin’s Ten Types of Innovation:

https://doblin.com/dist/images/uploads/Doblin_TenTypesBrochure_Web.pdf

Six Sigma and the Eight Types of Waste

https://goleansixsigma.com/8-wastes/

The Forgetting Curve (Distributed Practice!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting_curve

Behavioral Design with Matt Mayberry from Boundless Mind

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/6/6/behavioral-design-in-the-real-world-with-matt-mayberry


Transcription:

Daniel: 

I'm going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. So we're going to start the real, quote unquote real conversation now. Um, because I feel like every conversation we have is like, is interesting and insightful for me and it's never on the record.

Jocelyn: 

Lets make this on the record!

Daniel:  

We're going to make this on the record! And if you ever want me to, if you want me to take any pieces off the record, you just let me know. I think the reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you about innovation leadership is, I'm going to go way back. One of my earliest memories of you is back when we were co-designing early, like an early iteration of what the design gym was going to be. we were sitting down with, you Me... Maybe it was Andy, it was probably Andy and you were like, let's have a conversation about our working styles.

Jocelyn:  

Oh Wow. I don't ever remember that. Yeah, that does sound like something that I do and I did. I still do it till today, with any new team

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, so like that was my first time somebody had invited me into that conversation and it blew me away because I'd never really, I mean this is going back. I mean this is 2012 I guess this is a long time ago. I had never really thought about how I work. Nobody had asked me that question. I'd never had that conversation about how and where do I like the, what I would now call the interfaces of my work conversations to happen. And I'm just wondering like, who introduced you into that conversation and where did you learn some of these soft skills? I mean, this is a quote unquote soft skill. Where did you learn some of the soft skills that you do in your work that you use in your work?

Jocelyn:  

That's a great question. I think that probably learned a lot of my soft skills through day to day interaction. I think I've had the privilege, like in my job, given that I was an investor before, as well as in consulting to have exposure to a very broad range of working styles and leaders. And particularly so in the consulting world, you are especially attuned to how clients work. And so I always try and make sure that I am not only understanding how teams come together, but also how individuals work because as a consultant it's up to me to match and really tap into what is an invitation into their world. So I think that's how I survived, absorbed it over time. I think specifically maybe at that point in time and I continued to refine how I work with teams over the years, but maybe back in 2012 likely from, um, a really wonderful mentor in Boston, mine who I worked at International finance corporation at the World Bank. Um, my boss at that time, BG Mohandas is and continues to be an amazing person in my life. Uh, probably taught me that specific question and style.

Daniel: 

That's amazing. And like, do you ever feel like, um, that that's an unwelcome conversation or is it ever hard to bring that topic up for you?

Jocelyn:  

I often find it's as easy and very welcomed conversation and that is an investment of even 20 minutes with a new team member goes a very long way to setting the tone for their relationship and for the partnership.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting this idea of, of a pattern matching like perceiving patterns in somebody else's behavior and then making that effort to sort of like alter your own.

Jocelyn: 

Oh, absolutely. I think that, um, and this is something I learned in my incandescent work. It's like the concept tempo. And I think you and I might have even spoken about it before, that not only understanding the tempo of an organization and by tempo I mean like the speed of how a team comes together and moves and how an individual does work. So you can imagine and overly generalize and say a startup has a really fast tempo comparatively to a larger fortune 500 company, which runs a little bit slower. And it's in the more that you're able to understand what Beat and Tempo you're stepping into, I think the more than you can learn to be effective in the kind of work that you want to achieve.

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well so perceiving that tempo and then the ability to do something about it. I was literally, I'm bringing it up right now, so I'm just listening to a podcast, um, called all in the mind and they're interviewing. Who are they interviewing? Why is it so hard to find the show notes on these things? This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm doing this on the phone. Um, Michelle Gelfand, she, she wrote a book, um, about um, making and breaking cultural rules and she has this idea of tight and loose cultures like cultures where social norms are tight and people follow all the norms and loose cultures where people don't. So I love the idea that you're also noticing, you know, there's, there's probably tight and loose work cultures but fast and slow ones. Right

Jocelyn:  

Absolutely.

Daniel:

I'm wondering, this seems like a good time. I feel like I have a tendency to like plop people in the middle of a conversation. Um, if you want to backtrack and tell the folks in radio land a little bit about your career journey, like what you're doing now and what brought you into what you're, what you're doing now.

Jocelyn: 

Yeah, sure. So my background, it's sort of like a combination of different things. Um, I like to think that, um, any exploration that I take always leads me to another interesting opening. Um, I started out my career in finance, um, with the Royal Bank of Canada and then followed a slightly untraditional path in that I then moved, um, from where I was living at a time from Vancouver and I moved to New York to then, uh, be in full exploration and ambiguity mode. And that's when you and I met Daniel to start this, start the Design Gym, which was something completely new, entrepreneurial in a new field. And that's also where I got introduced to the world design and absolutely fell in love with it. We started an accidental company together.

Daniel:  

Yup.

Jocelyn: 

And then along the way ran into visa issues. And got kicked out of the United States, if you remember that, too!

Daniel: 

I do!

Jocelyn:  

And then found myself in Kenya where I then work in impact investing with an amazing nonprofit and then later on the World Bank and then found my way back to New York. The US couldn't get rid of me that quickly! Came back to the US legally with a visa in hand and, uh, worked for a strategy consulting organization, design firm called incandescent. And I've been there for the past, uh, five plus years now and, and right now I'm on sabbatical with the firm and have taken up residency at a UNICEF innovation team. So it's been a meandering path, but all for wonderful teams and causes.

Daniel: 

So not everyone will know this, but like, I feel like, um, you are amazingly one of the many people try to get in touch with you through me on Linkedin. Um, when they're, when they're interested in organizational design and organizational innovation...incandescent, like is, uh, is a decent player in that space. Um, I don't know how they, how they managed to build their name. Maybe it's...I'm assuming they do good wor

Jocelyn: 

Oh, I hope so!

Daniel: 

I don't know none of it from firsthand, but like five years. Can you tell me a little bit about what, what organizational innovation and uh, and some of the tempo work that you're doing with that you did that incandescent? I'm asking you to sum up five years of work!

Jocelyn: 

I'm going to reframe your question slightly because I think that what might be more interesting instead of me naming off projects for folks is to share some first principles of how we work, which could be interesting cause we bring that into every single client engagement that we do. So Indandecent was founded by a man called Niko Canner, a wonderfully brilliant individual, also a mentor in my life. Um, and I've learned so much from him and joined the firm when it was just him and another individual. So I was his second hire. Um, and it was found with the focus of how do we understand, how do, how do we build beautiful businesses? Um, and how might we build this in an intentional way that you're really looking and thinking about the whole system from the start? So that's one of the principles of how we look at things.

Jocelyn: 

It's like how do, how does a organization as a system work together? I think oftentimes when consultants like step into a project, their worldview is a very specific task or project that has been carved out for them. When Incandescent steps into a project. We always ask the question, how does this touch our other things and how do we ensure that all of the nodes that it touches works together? So they were designing something that sustains and lasts and not just some designing something for in the moment.So that's one, one of the mindsets and principles are how we bring, um, things in l

Daniel:  

Long term thinking!

Jocelyn:  

yeah, absolutely. Long term thinking. The second one would be, um, we literally do our work in principles. We will spend a lot of time upfront, um, whether we're designing, uh, how a team comes together, whether we're designing a strategy. A lot of it, a lot of our time that's invested upfront is in what are the principles of how a team would work together, what are the principles of strategy? Um, and once you clarify that, it just unlocks so many things. It has a waterfall effect, um, in terms of just like designing everything else from that. So I think that's another way of how we work. And I think the third is probably a high amount of, um, intentionality and co-creation. So we always designed something with the client. Um, and I think that part of that then hopefully leads to really great work because we're not designing in a vacuum.

Daniel:  

Yeah. So a lot of it goes to like, this is, uh, I've, I've just recently been reintroduced to the term prejecting. There's the project and then there's the preject. But it seems like the prejecting phase where you really think about the whole system and the team principles and Co creation, a lot of that just sort of falls, falls into place from that, right?

Jocelyn: 

Yep, absolutely. And let me give an example of that, just to bring it to life. So about two and a half years ago, we were approached by three major foundations like the gates foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and Ciaran investment foundation and they came to us were referral and they said, we're interested in designing, we're interested in putting together a conference in the world of adolescent sexual and reproductive health and to bring together designers and global health folks and put them a conference together and on the call with them we set food. That's really interesting, but we're not really just conference folks and event planners. There are many people who do that, but if you're interested in what the representation of what this conference is, which is if you see this as a watershed moment for how design can be brought into the world of adolescent sexual reproductive health, let's talk about that

Jocelyn:  

Let's talk about like what this conference is enabling a strategy which hopefully the three foundations would might have or is interested in doing and the three program officers were really interested in having a conversation. They had an Aha moment on the call and said, we want that. You want to think about a larger strategy and how us as funders can come together. And um, that kick started two years worth of work where we did end up designing a convening and a conference. But we also ended up really bringing to life a strategy that, um, was unique to the field. And that was very much co-created with these three program officers through lots of working sessions remotely and we were all in different locations over time. So hopefully that example brings to life some of the things I think I've spoken on before.

Daniel: 

It does. And it also like is a wonderful case study of reframing and engaging stakeholders in conversation. Like not starting from a no, but starting from a, Oh, isn't that interesting? Or Oh well why is that important to you?

Jocelyn: 

Yeah, it's like my favorite Albert Einstein quote, it's like if I had 60 minutes to save the world, I'll spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes coming up with a solution. So like if you're solving for the wrong problem or if you don't even realize what you actually really want. I think there's a lot of room to think through that together.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Well, so I mean this goes to this, this question of like what innovation even means, what problem solving means and it seems like it's really attached to systems thinking for you and at least in your working in Indandecent like defining what the boundary of the problem is is really, really essential. In that sense it almost makes a like a linear or simple definition of innovation really hard I would think.

Jocelyn:  

I mean innovation is such a complex topic of which there are many, many definitions. Like you can range anything from Clay Christensen's disruptive innovation definition to um, I don't know, Steven Johnson's book, which I really like... Where good ideas come from. He defines innovation in a different way. And all that really matters is that the organization that you work for and the team that you are on has one single definition of which all of you agree on. And that's clear.

Daniel:  

We'll wait, hold a second.

Jocelyn:  

There are so many!

Daniel: 

Well, let's, let's roll. Let's roll it back. Cause like I'm, my, my brain is remembering Steven Johnson's book... It's like, yeah, I think of it as like, um, that moment in a, I think it's Apollo 13 when they like dump out all these, the bucket of parts that they're like, this is what the astronauts have on board and we need to literally make a square peg connect to a round hole. Like let's figure it out. And it always felt to me like Steven Johnson's definition was the more parts you have, the more pieces you can put together. Um, it's like, it's, it's having a wide ranging mind and absorbing lots of influences.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah. I mean, Steven Johnson, I think he talks about, I don't know whether he likes specifically names a concise one sentence definition, but I think he talks about the fact that innovation happens within the bounds of the adjacent possible. In other words, like the realm of possibilities available at any given moment.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Right. And that we build on those adjacent possibles. So I guess maybe where I would, I'm backing myself into agreeing with you cause like I was like, Oh, do we all have to have the same definition of innovation? Um, we, we do, in order to try something we have to say like, Oh, here's all these things we could try. I think this would be more, uh, impactful. Right. And that that's a conversation that, that somebody needs to be able to dare I say, facilitate in order for the innovation conversation to proceed.

Jocelyn:  

Yup. Agree.

Daniel:  

Okay. Glad you agree with me! Well, so then like what, um, what, how, how can I be more provocative and get you to disagree with me? What, like what, what do you, what have you seen in terms of like a leader's ability to, uh, foster, uh, or, or, or what's the opposite of foster disable innovation inside of a team, inside of an organization, in your own experience?

Jocelyn: 

Um, I mean, I think the role of a leader, I have a feeling you're going to agree with me, but I think the role of a leader is very simply to create the conditions that, that foster and support innovation. What I mean by that is openness. Um, and to extend invitations out to their teams, whether that's actually literally or even in a physical space or to, uh, lead by example. I think once you create the leading by example and the creation of conditions, there could be many other elements to that. But those two are to me, feels core to what a role of a leader should do.

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, so then this goes to the, the idea that a leader doesn't necessarily have to be authorized.

Jocelyn: 

No, not necessarily. Yeah. On that note, I actually think that it really depends on the organization and, and how far the authorization can take you. So for example, if I compare contrast and apple versus Google, um, and does a really wonderful graphic of the number of patents that each organization has filed over the years. And in Google's, it looks like it's all over. You can see sort of like patterns that emerge like literally visually from all over the organization and from our authorization standpoint. Like folks are welcomed and encouraged to explore ideas and invent new things. And you see that through patents that had been filed across the organization versus apples, it's a lot more concentrated because it's a lot more centralized and they have much more of a stage gated process. I would imagine. I'm not to say that one is correct or wrong, it just, again, it depends on the kind of organization and how clear you are. Um, overall on how innovation is being fostered..

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, I mean, how, how, how does a leader maintain that clarity I guess? Is, is, uh, it's an interesting question.

Jocelyn:  

That's a great question. Um, maybe they can think about in clarity in terms of creating a discipline and a ritual where, I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I think a lot of, when a lot of times people think about innovation, people think about it as serendipitous moments that come to you. I actually think that innovation comes to you in a much more disciplined way when you actually continuously put sustained effort, um, into exploring x, whatever that x might be. Um, again, very close. I'm gonna bring up Steven Johnson again. But like I think that his ideas around the exploration of the adjacent possible, unless there's sustained probing, you're not going to suddenly one day come up with a huge Aha if you've never thought about that topic. You know, for example, like I have never thought about a topic of um, the reinvention of, of uh, space rocket,

Daniel: 

I love that you're struggling to think of something you've never thought of!

Jocelyn:

Right! Like...How to I reinvent a space rocker, I don't know! I've spent hardly any time thinking about that. And so it's highly unlikely that I am sitting here with suddenly come up with something breakthrough right in that area.

Daniel: 

Whereas there's people who are literally pounding their heads on that boundary constantly. And of course those are the people who are going to be like, what if we...?

Jocelyn:  

Yeah, absolutely. And so as a leader, if you create the space of, Hey, every week we'll have a ritual and this is just a very specific tactical example of I'm going to solicit ideas from the team around the boundaries of building a new space rocket. Then maybe it will have interesting ideas. They eventually come up over time.

Daniel:  

So there's like my, there's a couple of things I want to probe on. Like one is we were talking about cadence and tempo of organizations and then you use the term ritual. Uh, and I feel like those two are really intimately related to, I'm literally working, the podcast interview I'm working on right now is all about ritual, uh, and designing rituals for people in it. And it's sort of an interesting thing to think about what the cadence of these, um, innovation rituals, uh, could be like. And, and what are you find are some, I don't know, do are, are there some that you're like, oh, here are the basics. Here are the essentials of innovation rituals. We talked about one, which was like the team.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah.

Daniel: 

Team alignment conversation. It's like a really powerful ritual for at least making sure that we're all working in this in, in ways that are harmonious, which is really, really valuable.

Jocelyn:  

...great question. Well, one ritual that I really like is something that I know, uh, the design gym that we do. And also folks that I you does as well is that they have inspiration trips. Um, that teams would go and say, hey, we're starting something new and here's a new topic that none of us have really thought about before. How, how might we go and get inspired? And if you have that as a ritual when you start, whether it's a new project or even midway when you're stuck, I think that could be a really powerful thing to get unstuck. Um, instead of churning internally. And I really liked that concept. Um, overall to just look externally, whether it's true, take a moment and actually physically be in another location or to learn by having conversations with others that are different.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Yeah. I think the, and behind that is this idea of being able to identify what the real need is. I think about it in two ways. One is like, let me go see where else this problem is being solved. Like specifically like, and then there's like, let me see in a broader sense like what other types of problems are similar to this? And, and this could be like, oh, let me, like if, if any other countries willing to share with me how they're doing rocket flight, then maybe I can learn the totality of the problem. But you can also do the thing where like, hey, let's look at what bees do and let's look at what seagulls do and let's look at other types of propulsion. Um, and so I feel like that's like that that definitely goes to the like the breadth of, of inspiration...

Jocelyn:  

absolutely.

Daniel: 

Well I think, and I guess that's where like, you know, cause what I was excited to talk with you about is like good leadership and bad leadership skills. And it seems like a really, really powerful leadership skill is the willingness and the interest, the curiosity, but also the willingness to sort of like look at the boundary of the possible and say what else is possible.

Jocelyn: 

Yep. Absolutely. I also think that a great leadership skill in when leading an innovation team is, um, knowing what bets to place at any given period of time. So one of my favorite quotes is by Edwin Hubble. Um, and he says, and he said this in like a 1930s in his cal tech commencement speech being says that a scientist has a healthy skepticism, suspended judgment and disciplined imagination. I'm going to say those three things again because I love the combination of the three assigned. His has a healthy skepticism, suspended judgment and discipline imagination. And he talks about it specifically in the world science, but I think it's actually really applicable in the world of innovation because he describes a way of being, which is kind of strange. You're supposed to be skeptical, but you're also suppose to suspend your judgment. You're supposed to have the imagination, but this upland because you don't want me to go too wild. And I think that, um, the balance between the three of how do you actually observe ideas that come in, gathering facts, understanding it, testing your expectations against them, um, is I think a quality that I would hope anyone who's leading innovation would have.

Daniel:  

Hm. That's really beautiful. I, and when did you absorb that quote that's like, it's seems really close to your heart, which is beautiful.

Jocelyn:  

Um, great question. I learned here when I was interim CEO of a biotech company in incandescence portfolio, I'd taken over and I was new to the world of science, also new to being an CEO of a startup. And one of the biggest lessons I took away was that quote is I think that there is such a beautiful orientation in terms of how scientists discover things. Um, it's really their way of being. Um, and my brother actually is a scientist and I see how he thinks about problems and how he approaches them. It just, that combination of when is it the right moment to imagine something really amazing. Because a lot of scientists, they don't know what they're discovering. They're just out there. Yeah. Um, oh, when is it? The moment when you were gathering back a set of data and you're saying, hmm, does data's actually telling me that it's not that great and that is not the direction that I should go in? And just being, and really refining the balance between the three modes whenever you're faced with facts or contradictory pieces of evidence, I think is, um, something that I will always be very grateful for for my time. And as a biotech CEO,

Daniel:  

something I can't say at all, I've never done that,

Jocelyn:  

hey, one of my other lives, you know.

Daniel: 

Well, so this actually goes back to, um, like an organization has got to have multiple bets, right? And they need to have, uh, uh, a roadmap of, you know, crazy bets and less crazy bets. And in a sense like I would, I would integrate that as an innovation leadership skill. 100% is the ability to like, uh, you know, what would you call it? Handicap, um, various items on the roadmap, but then also like to, to, to, to make sure that those bets are spread out.

Jocelyn: 

Yup. Have you heard of the ambition matrix before or seen the framework of it? The ambition matrix?

Daniel:  

No. Illuminate me!

Jocelyn:  

so it's a pretty simple framework. Um, where I think on one of the axes is solutions. The other axis is challenge, but in any case it's basically concentric circles like moving out of core, adjacent and transformational... and where it talks about how do you actually categorize your bets in terms of innovations or core innovation is something that's very different but also very needed comparatively to something transformational. Um, and I think visualizing it that way could be really helpful when facilitating a conversation.

Daniel: 

Have, have you utilized that in your, in your own work?

Jocelyn: 

Uh, we are actually looking at the application of it at UNICEF right now where we're looking at how we're, how different projects could be core, adjacent and transformational.

Daniel:  

Uh, can you, can you say a little bit more about that and maybe tell us a little bit about, uh, the, the role you're, you're doing right now? because I don't know too much about it yet.

Jocelyn:  

Sure. I mean, and now we're getting sort of like a little bit into the new ones of like how has variation different in the world of international development versus in the world of the private sector? Um, there, there are different lenses that one might me take. Um, at UNICEF and my role is as a business model specialist on the scale team, the current innovation team is divided into three pillars. We have a futures arm where we look at what are new landscapes and markets are sort of shaping out there. We have a ventures arm which looks at um, deploying capital in frontier technologies. So think block chain, drones, all fall under the ventures arm. And then we have a scale team and that's where I sit. Um, and the way that we think about innovation is like how might we accelerate projects or programs that are demonstrating a lot of practice but need to go to scale and actually spread a lot faster than your current rate of expansion. So those are three different lenses. The very definition obviously of innovation varies depending on the lens that you take. Because like a venture's lens for example, is they're using capital...an now we're getting a little bit more into the strategy side, but were they using capital as an accelerant versus ... we are using actual internal capabilities on the scale team to uh, accelerate innovation.

Daniel: 

Huh. That, that's interesting. Well, so like can capital accelerate the innovation itself or can capital accelerate the spread of the putative innovation or learning about whether or not it is in fact effective at scale?

Jocelyn:  

Probably both. I think that UNICEF takes the fans that we are a catalyst in an ecosystem and if somebody else is doing something that's really wonderful, like what is the best role that we might be able to play? And in that case it could be the provision of capital. Um, in some other areas like in scale, it might be the deployment of internal capabilities and in the futures team it could be putting out a thought leadership piece on how urban innovation works or, um, one of our other projects is, you know, just to give you an example is, um, what we're calling a 21st century Ger project where we have brought together different partners in the private sector and academia. Um, Arc'Teryx, North Face, University of Pennsylvania to help us redesign a Mongolian Ger, uh, which is those Yurts that, uh, folks live in. It's a materials design project in order to increase an improved installation of these structures that folks live in, which would help with air pollution. Because right now these yurts are not insulated very well and families end up burning a lot of coal internally, which causes a lot of health issues. Um, but if we're able to actually improve the installation, then we're able to, uh, help from a health perspective for all of these different families. But that's a futures project... no one else is doing that in the market, it's pretty niche but much needed in terms of urban innovation. And we have a really fantastic set of partners that are working with us on it.

Daniel: 

That's so cool. And, and what that really illustrates for me is like how many levers there are for a change. Like, cause obviously you could also be working on the combustion side, right? Or on the electrical generation side.

Jocelyn:  

Absolutely.

Daniel:  

And, and doing and it sounds like there's been a decision and it makes a lot of sense actually. Cause this I've known about this problem, it's like I never once thought about it from the installation side, which is really subtle.

Jocelyn:  

yeah. Um, there's a really wonderful framework. I feel like I'm throwing a lot of frameworks,

Daniel:  

I love frameworks!

Jocelyn:  

I figured it's you, so I'll just throw out all the frameworks in the world because they know you love them. Um, if you haven't seen Doblin 10 types of innovation, sure. I would highly recommend that you take a look at that because he talks about, uh, it breaks it down into basically three large categories, configuration which is made out of your profit model and network structure process you're offering. So product performance, product system and you experience, so like your service, your cattle, your brand, your customer engagement, you can innovate along any of these things, um, and have it be a really wonderful type of innovation. Or you could even combine different categories together to actually have something more transformational. So for example, a core... Just use the ambition matrix against this new types of innovation.

Jocelyn:  

A core innovation for um, a, let's see, a channel or brand could be a new campaign that they have never thought about before. And it's fundamentally, you know, people, or a brand might choose to use Instagram, which is a channel they may not have ever used before in terms of reaching a completely new segment of audience. Or they could combine different things together, like a profit model combined with product performance combined with customer engagement, which are three different things, which is the example of the Mongolian Ger project that I just gave you, which is how do we actually improve not only on the product or on the distribution on it and involve the Mongolian government to help with the profit model side and then also engage users as part of the understanding from a health care standpoint that burning so much coal, um, would affect your health x ways.

Daniel:  

So this really goes back to the, the idea that this can be a discipline and Yup. And, and, and my mind is going back to, like, six sigma. Like here are the types of wastes and yeah, you could also think like, okay, well how can we improve this system? And what you're doing is you're reducing the loss of heat, right. As opposed to focusing on the efficiency of the generation of the heat. That's just really cool. Um, but at the same time, I feel like sometimes these, the, the discipline is not a replacement for somebody seeing potential. Like, so this goes back to like your skill as a business designer, which is like how did you do this? How does one decide if something's got a putative legs? You know, you're like, oh, this has got, this is there's some juice here that's worth the squeeze.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think that, um, on that particular project, I, I really have to credit the team behind that where it was not only the partnerships team that, so a lot of potential, but it was the futures team and also the head of the scale team that said, oh, there is something really interesting here. I think that this reframing of how we relate to heat could result in something really breakthrough. And we have a really fantastic partner arc'teryx who said, great, let's try it out. What's the worst thing, you know, in the spirit of design thinking, let's try out a prototype and see what happens.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Well, so then, yeah, this, this is, we're like building out a, a lovely model of innovation leadership here. Why don't we just like a fearlessness, a willingness to prototype, but I think there's also another piece which, which we're like getting towards which is like storytelling, which is like the ability to communicate to somebody an opportunity that you perceive that maybe they don't perceive.

Jocelyn:

Yep. How do you think that, given that you work so much in the conversation side of things, how do you think that storytelling or facilitation changes with this innovation leadership lens? Does it change or does it not change from a skillset standpoint?

Daniel:  

I mean, I think storytelling...you just reverse interviewed me, Jocelyn! I mean I believe that a storytelling is like really fundamental. Like I, my, my love for storytelling and narrative is like one of the reasons why I made a narrative phase in the design gym model. There isn't a narrative phase in ideas model, which I think is actually a major failing. It sort of stands outside of the design thinking process. Whereas I think that it is, it is design thinking is a way of telling stories. Um, I have to think in when we talk, each phrase that we respond to each other with is forming a story and like, what's like, if I say a non-sequitur, it's like we define a non-sequitur as something that's not linked to the rest of the conversation, it doesn't, it doesn't connect or it doesn't relate. So I think, um, great story telling makes things seem obvious, right? Like it, which is sort of like, hey, here's this amazing opportunity and here's this huge problem and we should do something about it right now. Like that's just the fundamental innovation storytelling model, right? That I know, like, I dunno what, what, what's your, what your core story telling you know, framework is like, when you want to make sure that you're communicating that value to someone else. Like what, what you, how do you make sure that rises up from all of the, the, the charts and figures.

Jocelyn: 

Yeah. I don't know if I have a storytelling of framework per se, but what I do think storytelling needs to be, are powerful anecdotes that somebody else can tell the story on behalf of you. So you maybe it needs to be memorable enough. Yes. And one of the stories that comes to mind, um, and this is not a client that I've worked with and is more of an anecdote that a colleague of mine has told me is that, um, when he was visiting the headquarters of Alcoa, which is a mining company, um, and he was running late for a meeting and he was in their London offices and arrived like just on time. They made him sit through a 10 minute training video on safety, even though they were in the middle of London. There were no mines around anywhere.

Jocelyn:  

They were in professional building. But you have to sit through 10 minutes of training because that was one of their core values, um, that it, that they really wanted to talk about in Alcoa. And the reason for that is when the new, and this is, um, this is definitely a couple years ago when a new CEO of Alcoa came in to take over the company. At the point in time, he decided that the way that he was going to turn around the company was through a message of safety. And so every single call that he did with his earnings, with his leadership team, um, with employees that he would meet, he would ask them, how are you actually talking or implementing safety in your teams? Um, and it's one of the safest places to work right now. Um, which is kind of insane. Well, for a mining company and even more so than than, um, other mining companies that are out there. But then he just really drove that message home by building it into one of the core values of the organization. And that culture is spread through asking that simple question and that people could retell and say, here's how a CEO and a thinks about it. Yeah. It's not really sort of like on the innovation lines, but I think it goes to your storytelling point around how the things get told, um, and emphasized upon.

Daniel:  

Yeah, it's that drumbeat. Uh, and whatever you are talking about is what will be on top of people's mind and it's what will happen. It's really cool. What a great story. I'll retell that. I don't think people often think about storytelling, uh, in terms of what will happen after I tell the story. Um, yeah, and designing for retelling is definitely a really important heuristic for, for, you know, if you're going to architect the narrative for sure. simplify. Um, so Jocelyn, we're coming up against our, our, um, our time together this time together. Is there anything else that, um, that we haven't talked about that you think is worth bringing, bringing up, uh, on these topics? Any thread that we've left loose that, that's, that's, uh, sticking out of your mind?

Jocelyn: 

Um, the only other thing that comes to mind is the topic on learning, which I feel like could take a whole other session on its own. Um, but I wonder whether there's anything that you would like to unpack around there because I think so much of creating a discipline in ritual for yourself is also paired from a complimentary standpoint of how does one learn and how does one practice? Because that's it goes hand in hand. You can't really create a discipline without actually practicing something. Yeah. Um,

Daniel: 

well you talked a little bit about this in terms of like, uh, uh, the organizational capability is part of the innovation, but then inside of that capability are people and people, uh, change at the rate of, uh, people, human conversation developmentally happens. Yeah. I don't know, at a certain pace, um, in which case like, how can you, you know, increase that for an organization? How can you increase that for, for a person. But I think it seems like you're, you're positing and I agree with you that like, um, having some, some discipline around it, having some frameworks about can, can really help people.

Jocelyn: 

Yup.

Daniel:  

Couldn't agree more. We just tied a bow around that. Yep. How do you feel like you've grown in your own capabilities? Like I feel like you've, you've gone from strength to strength, your increase in your career. How do you stay focused on, on your own growth?

Jocelyn:  

great question. I think, um, from a practice standpoint, I think something that I do, and I don't know how intentionally I truly do this, but definitely it's woven into, uh, my day to day is that I practice, I do a lot of distributed practice. I don't know if that's an that's an actual term. I don't know, maybe I just coined that.

Daniel:  

Well, it is now!

Jocelyn: 

And what I mean by that is, um, I try and make sure, like whenever I learn a new concept or a new skill set that I, I, uh, practice it sporadically and in a very spread out way. So for example, I'm not in the world of design thinking right now and neither am I a designer. There was a period of my life where I was very immersed in it and that was all I was reading and thinking and speaking about on a day to day basis. Now I have a different lens and focus, but I still upkeep my design thinking side, um, to whether that's like sporadic engagements or, um, and I teach stuff like at the d school and that's pretty nice, like longer term cadence to force me to actually think about like new concepts in design or I go to design events or read books and there isn't....it's no way near the intensity's uh, we read it, my intensity a hundred back then.

Jocelyn:

It's like now it's probably about 15 to 20% of my time and attention, but I kind of keep that on the back burner so that I don't actually lose touch of that. Um, and to also make sure that I remember a lot of the things that I've learned because I think it's easy to pick up something and just let it go and never touch it.. And what's learning something if you don't actually retain things that you're interested in?

Daniel:

Yeah. This is like, you are using the forgetting curve to your advantage. This is the forgetting curve. I'll, I'll send you a link. I'll put the link in the show notes. I, well, I interviewed somebody, a behavioral, a guy who works for a behavioral Science Company called Boundless Mind and behavioral change works with the, like if I tell you a number today like your, it has no emotional impact but you may remember it in two or two or three or five or 10 minutes, um, the odds of you remembering it next week and very slim. But if I call you up tomorrow and say, Hey Jocelyn, I'm going to call you tomorrow and I'm going to ask you what the number is, you might remember it. And then if like I call you up in, in like another week and I'm like, Hey, you remember what that number is? You're like, oh yeah, I remember the number. Or at least like what the range is like. So it's about like, just like, like, like the radioactive decay curve.

Jocelyn:

Um, oh, got it. Okay....that's the name of the concept. Not really distributed practice,Daniel:

but I like distributed, I think distributed practice is much better. But yeah, that's like, that's the idea is like you're making sure that you are being intentional about keeping it... As my father would say, a used key is always bright.

Jocelyn:

There you go. Yes. I love that.

Daniel:

Um, the, the fact that I got into a quote from my father means that it's time for us to stop.

Jocelyn:

Um, thank you so much for having me. Really Fun as always.

Daniel:

Yeah, it is. We enjoy our conversations. Likewise. I really appreciate you making the time.

Innovation is a Conversation

S3_E7_BA_inside_outside_innovation_conversation.jpg

Innovation. We love to talk about it, everyone wants it. Innovation is critical for people and organizations to grow. But we all mean different things when we say it.

Today I have a conversation about how innovation is a conversation with Brian Ardinger. He’s the director of Innovation at Nenet (which owns my student debt! Hi Nelnet!) and the host of InsideOutside.io, a community for innovators and entrepreneurs that produces a great podcast and a conference that brings together startup and enterprise organizations to talk innovation.

There are three key conversations worth designing that we discuss and I want you to have your ears perked up for each as you listen to this episode. Each conversation can help you navigate the innovation process inside or outside your organization. 

These three are the pre-conversation, the conversation about where to look for innovation and the conversation about patience. Brian specializes in a unique perspective on where to look for innovation. More on that in a moment.

The Pre-Innovation Conversation

Before you even start to talk about ideas or technology, it’s essential to start with the end in mind. What kind of innovation is the company really looking for? Skip the pre-conversation and you have no idea of where you’re heading. As Brian points out “without having that definition, then it's sometimes hard to know if you're playing the right game to begin with...the process itself of level setting... I don't think it takes a long time.”

Brian and I didn’t dive into tools to help with that conversation, so I put a few into the show notes. Mapping the innovation conversation can be done in lots of ways. One is thinking about evolutionary vs revolutionary change, another is about tangible vs intangible change, like rethinking policies or business models vs remaking product or space design. 

I *just* did a webinar on this topic with my partner in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, Jay Melone, hosted by the amazing people at Mural. Templates of the two innovation leadership frameworks we outlined are there in Mural for you to download and use, along with the webinar video to help you along.

Also check out Mapping Innovation, by Greg Satell. You can download his playbook free here. 

Where to look for innovation

Brian’s Inside/outside perspective is that innovation can be a conversation between the inside of a company and the outside world. Some innovation will happen internally, and some innovation can be brought from the outside in: the exchange and acquisition of ideas and technology from outside your organization is an important conversation for enterprise organizations to be having.

When you’re trying to innovate, it can be tempting to look in familiar places. If you’re a financial technology firm, it can be tempting to look to fintech startups for what’s next and to try to innovate through acquisition. But you’ll also be looking were your competitors will be looking. Try an innovation approach based on Horizontal Evolution - look to the sides and edges of the landscape. Brian describes this approach as “playing a different ball game”. 

The conversation about patience

Innovation does not happen overnight. Real change takes time and that takes real patience. Brian also points out that organizations need to be having a bigger conversation, about what else needs to change to make real innovation flourish inside the organization. Hint: it's generally more than you bargained for. 

As he says “Corporations are doing exactly what they should be doing...They figured out a business model that works and they're executing and optimizing that particular business model...And to radically change that, the people, the resources, the compensation, all of that stuff has to kind of morph or change to play in a different environment. And so I think that's where the challenge really begins.”

Often people think innovation is about the idea, but it’s a much, much longer conversation. That is, in fact, the first “Myth of Innovation” from Scott Berkun’s excellent book: The Myth that innovation is about an epiphany, not hard work.

It was a real treat to have a conversation with Brian about some of these key issues...I hope you enjoy the episode and happy innovating!

Brian on the Web:

https://insideoutside.io/

https://twitter.com/ardinger

https://www.nxxt.co/

Innovation Leadership Models from the Mural Webinar

https://blog.mural.co/innovation-leadership

Mapping Innovation by Greg Satell

https://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook-Navigating-Disruptive/dp/1259862259

Download the Playbook for Free: https://www.gregsatell.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook.pdf

Horizontal Evolution

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/08/horizontal_gene/

An amazing summary from Scott Berkun about his solid book, Myths of Innovation:

https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/

A few more gems from Greg Satell on the Rules and questions central to innovation:

https://medium.com/@digitaltonto/on-december-9th-1968-a-research-project-funded-by-the-us-department-of-defense-launched-a-ee063b7585f0

https://hbr.org/2013/02/before-you-innovate-ask-the-ri

Transcription:

Daniel: Welcome to the conversation factory. Brian, I'm glad we made the time to make this happen. Um, the reason I'm excited to talk to you is, is that not everybody is, is open or interested in the, the analogy that a company has to have a conversation with the outside world that they can't just, you know, put up some walls and just figure everything out inside those four walls that they have to go outside and have a dialogue with the world in lots of different ways. And the way you do that is, is through helping companies think about inside innovation versus outside innovation, which is my way of like teeing up the how you, how do you talk about what you do with people when you, when you meet people, like how do you contextualize what it is that you do?

Brian: Well, I think a lot of things, uh, Daniel around this particular topic, it's this whole inside/ outside innovation. It's kind of come to us over the years of working first on the outside with startups and trying to understand how do they develop new ideas and, and build things. And then, uh, you know, as I was having conversations with startups and helping them navigate that, I kept having conversations with corporations and bigger companies saying, you know, how are you doing this? How are you taking these early stage companies and through an accelerator program and that, and, and kind of getting them traction in that faster than we can do in our own walls. And so that started to have conversations with the corporations and the people inside organizations and saying, hey, how can we interact with the outside world and, and think and move and act more like a startup or, uh, become a little bit more adaptive in how we do that. So I think it was an evolution of just having conversations and figuring out what's working, what's not working in this world of change and disruption that we're living in.

Daniel: Yeah. So like there's two layers here, which I think are interesting to unpack. I've learned this new term, the idea of an accelerated work environment and this idea of like, let's speed up the conversation about innovation and let's not just put our feet up and look into space and hope a great idea comes to us. Like, let's structure it and let's do it faster. And so can you talk a little bit about like how you structure an accelerator? Like what does it mean to accelerate people through the innovation process from your approach?

Brian: Yeah, so I think a lot of it, like when I go in and talk to bigger companies, first thing I like to do is kind of do a level set of what does innovation even mean to the people in the room. Uh, because innovation has become such a word that's, you know, so limp, so to speak. It can mean anything to anybody. Uh, and so kind of understanding that level set of what does innovation mean to the company? How do they define it? Um, is it transformational innovation where it's, you know, we've got to become the next Uber and disrupt our industry? Or is it a innovation from the standpoint of value creation where we're looking at ways to optimize and incrementally improve what we're building? And so from that perspective, you know, it's, once you have that level set, then you can start thinking about, well, how, what are the particular tactics that you can work through depending on what kind of objectives you want to have and, and what you're trying to accomplish.

Brian: So I think that's the first place we start. And then how we do that. Um, again, I think a lot of is trying to help them understand that you've got to place a lot of bets on innovation and innovation is not, um, you know, it's by default working in the new, it's working in this area of gray and this area of uncertainty,

Daniel: which means there's got to be failure, right? Like there's going to have to be failure.

Brian: Yeah. So, yeah, this uncertainty by default, requires you to figure out and make assumptions and, work through this... Areas of the unknown. And that's very difficult for, a lot of folks to work through. You know, especially at companies and people who are used to having a plan or having an execution model that, that they just execute on. Corporations are doing exactly what they should be doing...They figured out a business model that works and they're executing and optimizing that particular business model…

Brian: And to radically change that, the people, the resources, the compensation, all of that stuff has to kind of morph or change to play in a different environment. And so I think that's where the challenge really begins.

Daniel: So...I'm comfortable with taking this seemingly simple question of like, we want to innovate more and turning it into this, really stretching it out into a much more complicated conversation. Like I'm wondering if people you deal with ever get frustrated with, (you): "well, Brian, you're just making this complicated. Like, we just want to innovate. Just teach us how to innovate. Let's get started." Versus like, let's talk about your strategic goals. Like I can see how some people might get a little impatient with the, with the bigger picture, with the strategic thinking approach.

Brian: Sure. Yeah. And I think, and I think it doesn't have to take a long time on to go through that particular process, but I think if you don't start off on that common definition, then you run the risk later on. And you know, why are we doing this? Why is it not working? You know, we said that, uh, you know, we need to have x, Y, z outcome and these brand new bets that you're putting on the table are not getting us an outcome that we want. Um, but you know, without having that definition, then it's sometimes hard to know if you're playing the right game to begin with. So I think, so the, the process itself of level setting I don't think takes a long time to, to make that happen. And I think, but I do think in general, to change a culture or to move the company towards having that innovation mindset set or innovation as a competency to so to speak, does take a long time. Um, but you can do that through a variety of tactics and in ways that doesn't, um, change, change it all overnight. You know, it doesn't have to be something where, um, you know, you're basically creating something brand new and, and throwing out everything that you've done in the past and, and hoping that the new thing works. Uh, it's really a series of iterative bets that you kind of de-risked these new ideas as you're, as you're approaching them into the world and seeing what happens.

Daniel: Yeah. Now, now here's the, the piece that I think that, that we were talking about that's interesting is that companies can innovate through outside acquisitions or through outside collaborations, like through working with startups. And maybe that makes it seem "like, wow, that's neat, there is an easier way to do this". we don't have to do it all ourselves. We can, we can turn outwards and see, uh, not just learn from other people, but actually like bring that outside innovation inside. Like, and that seems to me like, uh, a complicated process to navigate. Like how do you facilitate, how do you facilitate that conversation and make it smooth for people?

Brian: Yeah. So I think, at least for a lot of folks, you know, the idea of looking outside is not become, it's not a novel concept anymore. You know, maybe five or six years ago it was like, oh, what's one of these things called startups out there? And you know, we're, we're seeing more and more hearing more and more about it. So it's, it's not a novel concept that, hey, the ability for two women in the garage or in a dorm room to spin up something and get some traction and create something of huge value in the world...that's, that's there and that's not going away. And that's speeding up. And so I think, uh, that, uh, first part of the conversation happening, having people understand that, people have the power and tools and capabilities and access to markets and cheap technology, et Cetera, to really disrupt things is there.

Brian: So if we understand that, then what can we do to kind of help navigate that? And, and I think the first thing is just, you know, raise your hand and say, Hey, there are things going on outside. Let's, uh, let's take an inventory or a map on discover what's going on...and one of the, pitfalls I see a lot of companies jump into is let's look in our industry. You know, what's happening in our industry. And that's great, and that you should do that of course. But, um, that's also probably where 99% of your competitors are also playing in that same field. And so I find a lot of times it helps to look at adjacent industries or industries far and away, uh, different from your own to see what's going on, and look for clues or models or technologies or, or talent that may give you a different advantage, if you put those pieces together differently than playing, in the same ball game as your competitors are playing. So, you know, I, I see a lot of people going to these conferences and looking for startups in the fintech space and all you have are corporations in the Fintech area looking at Fintech startups where a lot of times I think, it's better to maybe go to a more of a horizontal conference and looking at AI or uh, you know, different types of data conferences and that would give you a different perspective on how those technologies could be used in your industry or in somebody else's, industry, for example.

Daniel: Do you have a story like, cause it's funny as you're telling me the story, like I'm realizing this is, this is the classic innovators trick, right? Which is, yeah, it's, and it's a classic trick from nature, right? Which is, people don't realize that evolution isn't just, um, vertical where you adapt and survive. But there's horizontal transfer of, of genes in nature. Like literally the reason we have mitochondria is because we ate them, you know, a billion years ago. And all of the energy in our bodies is made by an alien organism that has its own DNA, which I find a very, it's always just like an extraordinary fact. Um, but you know, and I've been telling my clients this for a long time too. Like what do you, do you have, uh, a story to share of a surprising transfer of, of innovation from industry to industry in case there's any doubters in the world.

Brian: Yeah, it's, let, I'm trying to think of one off the top of my head, but I know I've seen it on the reverse side. For example, we've seen, because I run a conference called inside, outside/innovation. And, one of the things we do is we, uh, go out and find startups in a variety of different markets, bring them to a showcase and then bring corporations around to kind of see what they're building and why and hopefully make some connections for that. And where I've seen it happen is a lot of times where, a startup will be working in a particular vertical market, early stage, uh, and they think they've got a solution in, you know, retail or whatever, and a corporation conversation will come around and they'll say, hey, I love your technology, but you're looking in the retail space. Did you know that you could apply this to insurance?

Brian: And the light bulb will kind of go off in the entrepreneur's mind. It's like, oh, this is an opportunity for me to potentially go into a different market or get traction with an early customer that I didn't have before. And so I need to happen that way. Um, and I'm sure the reverse could happen as well where a corporation, uh, is, you know, looking at a variety of startups out there and say, hey, that startup's, not in our industry, but we could definitely apply that technology to what we're doing and leverage it in some way.

Daniel: So that actually sparks, I mean, I definitely, I want to make sure we talk about the conference before we, before we leave, but in a way, like you said, this thing that was really interesting about startups, you know, they're, they're trying to, uh, you know, iterate and build their own, um, you know, their own growth engine. Right? Um, I would imagine that some of them are not necessarily open to this idea of like, well look, we're, we've got our roadmap and we're trying to build our own flywheel and move it, get that moving. This, they may not be open to this, this pivot or this expansion. Uh, there's like, oh, you know, well, we're just focusing on market X and like, do you want me to also like expand our, our code base so that we can also take advantage of, of why and collaborate with these guys. Like I how do you sort of, I know you've done a lot of work on building community through, through the conference. Like how do you find startups are expanding their perspectives to being open to this collaborative conversation versus like, nope, we're just doing our thing.

Brian: Yeah. And I think a lot of it depends on where the startup is in their lifecycle. A lot of the folks that we bring in are probably seed stage and so they, they haven't figured out their business model. They haven't figured out the exact markets sometimes. Uh, and they're looking for that early traction. And you know, one of the reasons we hold this in the Midwest is because, you know, venture capital and the traditional ways of kind of scaling a business in Silicon Valley don't exist out here. And so you've got to find customers. You've got to find ways to, um, to, to get that early traction. And a lot of that means, you know, getting out and finding those early customers. And so having conversations with customers, uh, real people out there and trying to define what problems are out there in the marketplace and then create a solution, uh, to meet those problems and then meet the market where it's at, I think is more effective way a lot of times in the Midwest here or in places outside of your core tech hubs that don't have the, the against the, um, the advantage of getting a venture capital and being able to have a year or two young, two year runway to figure out, uh, how, where that market is.

Brian: So I think, I think so part of that is that, um, I think when I'm talking to start ups, you know, I put my "accelerate" hat on and working as a person who is helping startups through that process, a lot of times I'll quite frankly tell them to stay away from corporates until they, until they figured out some of that stuff. Cause it's very easy to go down the rabbit hole of um, hey, if we just get this one big customer on our plate, we'll be good to go. But a lot of times you know that the timing of the two types of organizations don't match up and it can very, very easily kill start up really pretty quickly.

Daniel: Yeah. And it can kill them in that what they're, they're focusing, they'd lose their focus or their, they spread themselves too thin. You know, so like what, what sort of, I think beautiful about what you do is that there's this symmetry in a way you have a community driven approach to innovation through the conference you do building community, but building community so that you have a group of startups who are interested in this type of thinking so that companies can have an innovation community. So they're not just going it alone, that they have a view to what's, what's open in the world for them. I mean, I guess my question is like, have you always been so community driven? Like how did you come to value community as an approach, as in a solution to, to these challenges that you're seeing?

Brian: So, I mean, I guess I've always felt community is, is a way to accelerate your learning. Uh, and I think early stage ideas, no matter what they are, whether they're inside a startup or inside a corporation, the key to a lot of those taking place in actually taking hold is that the speed of learning. How fast can you, um, take your assumptions and navigate those and understand where you're on the right track or not, and, um, get to that next stage that you need to get to. So, um, community's always been away from me, uh, personally and otherwise to help accelerate those learnings, whether it's, you know, again, connecting somebody to somebody else who can, uh, an expert in a different field or, um, someone who can help me navigate to something else that I didn't know I needed. Um, and so I think it started from that perspective and it started because, uh, you know, quite frankly, when I started a lot of this stuff seven, eight years ago, uh, the, you know, entrepreneurship and startups were, were smaller, uh, both, you know, nationally as well as in our own backyard.

Brian: And so part of it was like, well, if we're going to do this, we're going to, we can't do it all are ourselves. So how do we create a community that allows startups to raise their hand and first say, Hey, I want to be entrepreneurial. I want to try some things. I want to build something. In my backyard. Yeah. And then what do I need and what am I missing and how do I then can be that catalyst to help, um, folks figure that out. Uh, and so it was an evolution of just having conversations, going to different cities, uh, meeting different people, starting a podcast, you know, telling stories, um, you know, starting a new newsletter and then, uh, eventually a conference and everything else around it. Um, and then all the while, you know, consulting and helping companies kind of figure it out on both sides.

Brian: And, um, it's been fun. It's been fun to see that journey and continue to figure out what the, what the next phase is as we build it out.

Daniel: Yeah. Well, I mean, I guess I'd begs the question, what is, what's the next phase? Can you talk about it? Is it Secret?

Brian: Yeah, no! Um, so yeah, so inside, outside innovation, you know, we started four years ago actually with the podcast and the original idea was it was called inside, outside, and it was an inside look at startups outside the valley with the idea that their stories, outside the tech hubs that need to be told and how can we help our entrepreneurs, uh, figure that stuff out. And so that's where it started. And again, it'll happen with further conversations as, as we built that particular audience and had conversations around those particular topics, we kept getting asked by innovators in bigger companies, you know, it's like, how are we doing this?

Brian: How, how's this working? We want to be connected to startups. We want to understand this new way of innovating things like design thinking and lean startup in that work, uh, becoming methodologies and tactics that could apply to, you know, start ups outside of a big corporation or, or startups within a corporation that were trying to spin up new ideas. So through that we started the inside outside innovation podcast as the, as the way to have those conversations and talk about corporate innovation and how we're corporate matching with startups and how corporate venture play out differently and how we're internal innovation accelerators popping up all around. And what were the different tactics that folks were using through that. We've kind of created this weird community. It's almost like two communities, but the, the advantages by bringing them together, they both learned from each other. So that's kind of how, that's how it's kind of evolved. What's next? We're trying to figure out the third year of the insight off the innovation summit. Uh, we haven't got the dates and, and that solidify, but it's looking like we're probably going to do it sometime in the end of October. I'm in the process, I'm looking at writing a book around this concept of collaborative and innovation and this innovation as a competency. And then, um, we'll just continue with the podcast and the newsletter and keep growing our conversations with great people out there.

Daniel: You know, Brian, it's really, it's, I mean it's, it's lovely to talk to you about this stuff because, you know, the, the ecological approach you have to this, to this processes, you know, it's, it's clearly organic. Like, like anything else, it's starting a conversation and then you've gotten feedback from the world and over time you've, you've built more than you've added to it. Like it's, it's a, it's just guy. It's a wave that is sort of, it has its ups and downs clearly. But you're just continuing to, to ride that wave, which was really awesome.

Brian: What the, it comes back to, you know, my feeling is that obviously with the world changing in the, in the speed of change that's happening out there, everybody is going to have to take on some of the skillsets of, of the early innovator. You know, again, a startup entrepreneur or, um, or innovator are going to have to have kind of core capabilities or characteristics that allow you to adapt and be nimble and, and, uh, execute.

Daniel: Unless you want a robot to do your job!

Brian: Yeah. That's executing different ways that, that you didn't have or that were different in the way that you could execute in the past. So things like, you know, curiosity having a bias towards learning characteristics like having a, an a customer focus and this bias towards problem solving for that customer. You know, the, the skill of collaboration and you know, knowing that you can't build everything yourself.

Brian: There's bias towards team, um, you know, some of the characteristics of just speed, you know, how can you have this bias towards action and experimentation. And then finally having kind of the reverse of that you are having patience and that bias towards that long term value creation. You know, I think those are some of the core concepts that make up, um, this new world that we're living in. And the more individuals, whether you're, you know, a traditional manager or a entrepreneurial founder, those are the skillsets that are going to take you to the next level in the world that we're living in.

Daniel: It sounds like a good book already, Brian. I don't know. I like it.

Brian: I'm still outlining.

Daniel: It sounds like a pretty good proposal to me. Um, so listen, I, I, we're, we're up against our, our, our time together. Uh, is there anything I haven't asked you about that I should, that we should talk about? Any, any, any final thoughts?

Brian: Yeah, I'm curious for, you've obviously been in the space of helping people have conversations and that I'm always curious to understand what have you learned from helping companies and people kind of navigate a, this world of change, uh, and in this world of innovation, what are some of the things that are obstacles or things that stand out that, uh, I could take back to my audience as well? Well,

Daniel: I mean, do you have a hard stop in the next three minutes because, no, go ahead. We can go over a little bit. Well, I mean, for me, what really resonated in what you were talking about is the necessity for patients. And I think this is one thing that's really, really hard, um, for people because we want to go fast and we want to have results. Um, but we also need to slow things down. So one of the things that like I'm becoming more aware of in my own work is psychological safety, which people, you know, Google identified as like the main characteristic of effective teams. The ability, the willingness, the openness to saying what's happening, to be able to speak your mind, to say what's right or to say what's wrong. And that, I don't know, that stuff doesn't really come for free. Uh, it's a really, you have to cultivate that environment.

Daniel: And so for me, you know, my angle and entry point is always that somebody, somebody has to design that conversation. Um, if a group of, you know, if a group of people is gonna talk about what we're going to do next and how to innovate, we can either contribute content or we can contribute process. Um, if the, to me, the most important and precious conversation is when a group of people is coming together, the fact that you're willing to, that you have a framework, I'm guessing, to stretch out the conversation about what's our innovation roadmap and where are we placing our bets allows people to say like, okay, what's my holistic view of this? It creates, it creates safety, right? It creates a moment where, where we can have the conversation about innovation, we can have the conversation about how we're gonna brainstorm.

Daniel: We can have the conversation about how we're going to, uh, evaluate ideas and how we know if they're good or not. Um, and so for me, I think, um, I feel like I'm ranting now, but I was at a problem framing workshop, uh, with my, my friend Jay Malone, who has a company called new haircut. They do a lot of design sprint training and he was teaching a problem framing workshop. And at the end of the workshop, he presented, uh, you know, on one hand, a very straightforward, like, here, this is what problem framing is in the essence. Like, uh, who has the problem, uh, why does it matter? Um, when does it happen? Uh, like, you know, think about like, where to play and how to win. And this one woman said like, well, yeah, what about, uh, uh, how do we know when it's been solved? You know, how do we know if it's working? And this is, I think one of the biggest challenges with, with companies is we don't know like what good looks like. We don't know when to start. We don't know how to stop working and grinding it out. Um, well, and the metrics

Brian: are so different from existing business model versus a new business model that you don't even know who the customers are and the value proposition you're creating at the beginning.

Daniel: Yeah. So I mean, for me, like I find the, one of the biggest challenges of innovation is that people bring me in to say like, okay, let's help this team coach through this process. Meanwhile, they've already got a job that takes 100% of their time. Um, and they look at me and they're like, this guy has just given us extra work to do. You know, the workshop that I come in is taking them away from their quote unquote real job. The, the work that I asked them to do to go out and do the interviews and to, to get customer contact looks like it's taking away time for them. And so this idea that that innovation's like something you can buy or pay someone else to do. To me, I want people to be earning their own innovation. But the problem is that most people are at 110% capacity.

Daniel: And You bring in somebody like me who says, okay, let's do some design thinking stuff. Let's do a, you know, even if it's a week long sprint, which doesn't give you everything you need, you know, if it's a six week process, it's people are like, Oh man, that was great, but oh, that was hard and I never want to do that again. It's like, it's really, really challenging to get people to find time to innovate. And that's frustrating to me.

Brian: Absolutely.

Daniel: As a person who just really wants people to get their hands dirty with it so that they value it and, and participated in it. So, I don't know. I don't know what the balance is there. That's... I don't know. I don't know if that's a question with an answer, but

Brian: I don't know if there's a clear answer for that one. No, no.

Daniel: that, oh, so, yeah, I mean that, that's, that's, that's my perspective. I don't know if that, if that's helpful to you at all, but that's, that's…

Brian: Very much so, very much so.

Daniel: Is there, is there anything else we should I this, this is definitely the shortest episode. You know, I'm, I'm sort of enjoying or slash you know, floundering in the, in the 30 minute time zone. So I just want to make sure that we've covered everything that you want to cover …

Brian: No, it's been great, thanks for having me on the show and the opportunity to talk about insideoutside.io and everything we're doing.

Daniel: Yeah. So like that's the, that's the final question. Like where, uh, where can people find all things insideoutside and Brian Ardinger on the Internet.

Brian: Yeah. Thanks Daniel. Yeah. So, uh, obviously you can go to the website insideoutside.io that has our podcast, our newsletters sign up for that. Um, and obviously I'm very, um, out there on Twitter and Linkedin in that happy to have conversations. So reach out and say hi.

Daniel: Well we will do that. Um, Brian, I really appreciate you taking the time. It's really, it's always interesting to have some patience and just slow down and have some of these conversations about this stuff, that's I think really, really important. Like you said, the future is unwritten and uncertain and all of us need to have skills of adaptability, the inside and I think both sides of the ecosystem that you're a co-creating - the innovator, the startups need to learn from big companies how to scale and big companies need to learn from startups, how to be more nimble. So I think it's really a really important dialogue that you're facilitating. It's really cool.

Brian: Thanks for having me on the show!

Power , Ritual and Wayfinding

wIrJcxgI.jpeg

Today I’m sharing a conversation with Larissa Conte, who I connected with last year at the Responsive Conference in New York.

Larissa is a transformation designer, systems coach, and executive rites of passage guide through her business, Wayfinding. Larissa specializes in facilitating aliveness and alignment across organizational scales to cultivate power that serves.

In her talk, she did a physical demonstration with the conference host Robin Zander that really inspired me to connect with her and have her on the show. (Also, you can check out my conversation with Robin on asking better questions here).

She and Robin did a sort of “push hands” play to show how you can push back against a force coming at you, or let it flow past you while holding your center of gravity. It was a powerful physical metaphor for dynamics we have all experienced in our relationships and work and illustrates different choices we can take in these tense situations.

Larissa and I have a far-ranging conversation about power, structure and ritual in our work as consultants in team and organizational transformation. I want to draw your attention to a few interesting ideas:

Rituals can be designed.Teams run on rituals, day in and day out. Week by week, patterns are followed, usually without question. Re-designing those rituals takes time and consideration, but it’s worth doing.

Facilitators can use ritual to create comfort for themselves and others.There are lots of patterns and exercises I use to build safety or energy for myself and others.You can create your own safe space and the more often you do, the easier it becomes.

Power can be taken, given or used. You can also choose your own response to power sent your way. I like to say you can fight the power or dance with the power.

Larissa makes an essential point though: there is power that is socially or culturally conferred or inferred based on stories we tell ourselves and each other. These stories are based on nothing more than what we see: skin color, gender or other body characteristics. Power that is given through these cultural stories is privilege. Power taken through these stories is oppression.

One of the most powerful things we can do as change-makers is to notice and question these stories.

Seeing is the first step. Larissa points out that if you can’t feel the energy in the room, it’s hard to do anything to shift it. If you don’t see the effect these stories have on our day-to-day lives, it can be very hard to change them.

Wayfinding is seeing signs and finding our way on poorly marked paths. Wayfinding has it’s roots in traditional cultures: The Polynesisans could use the stars, wind and waves to find their way across tremendous ocean distances. Similarly, Native Americans used signals of all sorts to find food, shelter and sacred spaces.In her Wayfinding work, Larissa is calling our attention to these old ways of seeing and asking us to use our own senses to see the signposts in our lives and work.

Inner sensing is valid. One thing I always try to convey in my facilitation masterclasses is that you are in the room and you experience what is in the room. It can be hard to know if we,ourselves, are anxious about our role as facilitators or if the room is experiencing anxiety. It’s only by getting in touch with our inner sensations that we can ever tell the difference between our own experience and our experience of what’s happening in the room. Larissa points out that there can be a stigma to that which is felt and that which exists“only” in our interior,beyond the reach of measuring tools.

I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did.

Larissa Conte on the web:

http://www.wayfinding.io/

Larissa’s talk at Responsive 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Lf2uOzr78

Robin Zander on Asking Better Questions: What's Your North Star?http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

The Future of Work

https://www.oecd.org/employment/future-of-work/

The Teal Movement:

http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Teal_Organizations

for more on Self Management check out my episode with Sally Sally McCutchion on Holacracy and Self Management at all levels of organization

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/6/6/sally-mccutchion-on-holacracy-and-self-management-at-all-levels-of-organization

Othering and Belonging:

http://conference.otheringandbelonging.org/

Alan Watts on The Intelligence of the World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbThJg6ehU

Jon Young

http://8shields.org/about/

Wade Davis: The Wayfinders:

https://www.amazon.com/Wayfinders-Ancient-Wisdom-Matters-Lecture/dp/0887847668

Tom Brown

https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Browns-Science-Art-Tracking/dp/0425157725/

Kate Quarfordt On the Seasons of Creative Conversations: http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/9/19/kate-quarfordt-on-the-seasons-of-creative-conversations

Transcription

Daniel: (00:00)

All right, Larissa, welcome to the conversation factory, then! We're here...

 

Larissa: (00:04)

That you so much, Daniel! So happy to be in the factory!

 

Daniel: (00:10)

You know, so I don't normally talk about this, but it's like, it is this really sort of confusing analogy cause it's like it's this thing that's organic and then you, yet, here we are, we manufacture them. Which you do, right? So you, you design rituals, which, um, which seem to be, uh, what sort of I'm looking for inherently paradoxical, which I've never, you know, we didn't talk about talking about this, but that's something interesting. Can you, can you, when, when you're at a party, uh, what do you tell people you do when they ask you that really horrible question of like, what do you do? They're like, oh, so Larissa, so what do you do? And you say...

 

Larissa: (00:49)

I usually will respond based on how we've already been speaking. Yes. Because I'm aware of the listening they're bringing to the conversation. Yeah. And so, um, I often share that I have my own business called wayfinding and that I work with people to cultivate power that serves through bringing forth aliveness, connection alignment across scales of self, relationship and organization. Oh and I love the quality of the noticing you just had about ritual and the, the paradox in it. Um, in my designs, what I'm doing rights of passage with people, um, and I'll share about this and we can see how things unfold from here. Um, I try to find the minimum necessary structure to hold the space. It's very Goldielocks and the three bears. Yeah. It's like not enough structure.. Like you don't get the fire. It's very similar to starting a fire. It's like if you have like four pieces of kindling that are spaced very far apart, like that thing's not going to start. And if you have too much structure and there's too much wood jammed in there, again, there's not enough air. So you need a balance between structure and space for the flow of like the creative life force and the beings participating and in life itself to do its dance. So I try to find like, what is the tone of what this person or this group needs to support their unfolding.

 

Daniel: (02:22)

So, so we're going to go back now... That's like... Wonderful because there's like, there's a ton of stuff to unpack there. And, and so like I have, um, one of my, uh, I'm gonna, I'm in a men's group and a men's community and one of the leaders, he, he sort of like sometimes puts up all like a little flag where he's like, okay, so we're going into the "woo woo" part. And for some of you who are not into the woo, this is woo, but there's still stuff in here that is that one needs to know because when I come into facilitation stuff, some people think about energy and energy in the room and some people don't. Like some people can feel the energy in the room and some people are like, what are you talking about? Right? And like you're talking at the analogy you're using of like it's a fire and you kindle it and you maintain it and you don't, you make sure it doesn't burn out. And I add more fuel to it. Like, like as a metaphor. It's really, really powerful metaphor.

 

Larissa: (03:16)

Yeah.

 

Daniel: (03:18)

Do you, do you ever find that like where's the fine line between people who are like, this is too much, this is the right amount or I want more woo from you in your work. Cause I know you do work inside of companies as well. And like companies have different appetites for, uh, you know, the age of Aquarius, right?

 

Larissa: (03:41)

Which like I'm not necessarily like waiving the age of Aquarius banner. And yet the things that I bring in my toolkit and my experience and my consciousness to people can get labeled in the "woo woo" which is hilarious to me because ...um....so I have a, I did my master's with a cultural focus, a cultural anthropology focus to understand the origin of the idea in western culture that humans are separate from nature. And I track the unfolding of that through Europe and colonization. And then as it's spread across what is now the United States. And so I'm constantly listening. It's fascinating that we call things "woo woo". And I'm going to, we're getting there. Yeah. Um, because it connotes a stigma to that which is felt and that which exists in our interior.

 

Daniel: (04:33)

Yeah.

 

Larissa: (04:34)

And all of my work is fundamentally based in helping people recognize that our sensing intelligence.

 

Larissa: (04:42)

One is actually an intelligence and two that it's not, um, that is not secondary to our intellect. So one, it exists and two it is incredibly powerful. And so how do we begin to build muscle with sensing and recognize that, um, and I, the way, so the way I find this edge with groups is I listen and I do so much work to make the invisible visible. Because all of these energetic dynamics, if we're, so we're in a, we're in a meeting, let's say you and I are in a meeting and we have another colleague and we all happen to be in a company and we're discussing like the budget and we're just going over the numbers and you say something that triggers me based on my background, based on the two physical bodies and identities we inhabit all of a sudden something else's in the room.

 

Larissa: (05:40)

And something else is happening. But we keep using words that refer to the budget. But there's another silent conversation, that takes the foreground, it takes the stage. And so a lot of what I do with people is I help them gain the awareness and the capacity to recognize the invisible conversation of power and connection or disconnection that is always speaking. People can be like, oh, that just got so weird. And it's like, well, like here are all the reasons why that's just got weird and here's what we can do to come back into connection. Yeah.

 

Daniel: (06:20)

So like there's several things I want to unpack there. Yeah. Cause this guys, I think this idea of talking about making the invisible visible is really cool. And this goes to where we met. So the thing that I think would be interesting when you, when you talked about making the invisible visible and power dynamics, I've thought what was really cool was the, let's call it the physical play that you did with, with Robin at the, at the Responsive Conference last year, which was last year now where you, you did a power play, um, with your bodies. And I'm wondering if you can potentially talk a little bit about that and cause you definitely made this invisibility visible.

 

Larissa: (07:15)

Yeah. Yeah. So I can describe that experience. It's something that I've found really immediately makes these things go from the subtle to the obvious and they like pop into the foreground. So the first thing that I did with Robin was I demonstrated how there are two primary like responses that humans can have when they come into a situation where like their boundaries are pushed upon or which we can call conflict. Um, and, and, and like, um, neuroscience... It's (inaudible) like fight, flight or freeze from the Amygdala. But physically what really happens is someone will either, like I had Robin come up and I put my hands up in front of me and I asked him to push me and I demonstrated one response. And one response is like taking a step back and, and losing your ground,

 

Daniel: (08:10)

taking the hit basically.

 

Larissa: (08:12)

Yeah. Taking the hit, um, which can be like flight or freeze. And then the other one I said, okay, now I'm going to show you the other end of the spectrum. And I asked him to come push on me and I pushed back really hard.And he was like "agh!"

 

Daniel: (08:25)

Cause he didn't expect it. Cause I think the first thing you'd demonstrated, to him is like, I'm a pushover

 

Larissa: (08:33)

I am literally a pushover. And then, and then like I'm a push backer, which is like I'm a fighter. But there's a third way that we get to practice is how, how to stand in our center. And then when a push comes, um, to like disarm the patterning that we hold internally, that the other person is our adversary. It's like, no, we're just having tension. And like, I'm not gonna fight you, but I'm also not going to, to give way on my needs and my space and my boundary in here and I want to be in conversation with you.

 

Daniel: (09:15)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and that sort of, uh, it's like when you, let's push hands, right. And it's, it's using your center of gravity to flow with their center of gravity. I, I, what I loved about that was it is a physicalization of what's my relationship to conflict. Yeah. Yeah.

 

Larissa: (09:36)

And what, what are the subtle things that comes through that is when I've had, I've led many groups through doing this and I only, I'm just, you know, spoiler alert, anyone who might do this with me, um, I'll have groups do it and I won't tell them what we're going to do at first because your body just does, it just responds naturally. Like people just do with their bodies what their wiring is. And that's actually doing all the time and conversation anyway.

 

Daniel: (10:09)

Well, so how do you set it up? Do you say like, oh, try to push each other over or are you like, so how do you, how do you try to

 

Larissa: (10:14)

I have people like take up the amount of space that feels good to them with their arms and they're like air shape it and like feel what feels good and were kind of laughing cause it's ridiculous and people look like idiots. And that's a very good way to like disarm people. Um, and then it's also a very good effective way to get people to walk into what feels woo and recognize there's wisdom in it. So I have them shaped the space. And then I have them stand in front of a partner and for one partner to volunteer to receive a push first, but by taking up the amount of space that felt good to them and then to just notice what their body does notice, like talk about what both of them saw and then they do it. to the other person. And then we have a room conversation.

 

Daniel: (11:00)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and just sort of unpacking people will have their own natural responses to those two things to, to, to that pushing and maintaining boundaries.

 

Larissa: (11:09)

Because the way we do anything is the way we do everything. So it's like you can't undo it. And it's also interesting because the two similar to the Yin Yang symbol. Um, they fold into each other. Yeah. So if someone's a pushover, there'll be like a pushover, a pushover, a pushover, right. And you could, you may have experienced this personally or in a relationship or like someone will take the hit again and again and then there'll be this like explosion of resentment and push back.

 

Daniel: (11:38)

Yeah. Yeah. And so people are then reflecting on that experience, right? What I love about this is that when I teach facilitation, I often talk about the difference between an icebreaker and an eye opener. And

 

Larissa: (11:54)

Oh, nice.

 

Daniel: (11:56)

And very often I feel like there's a lot of people who are like, oh, I need to break the ice! Like how do you do that? Like, I want an icebreaker for this, this, and this. And you're like, what would you really want to do? Is like what's an activity that can get people to be energized but also get them an entrance into something deeper. And I think, um, this is a really interesting example of like something that, you know, how to like this, I'm guessing for you, if you do this often it's potentially a ritual for you and your workshops. Like it's something that is comfortable for you to lead.

 

Larissa: (12:25)

It's an easy time, a little doorway to walk through. You know, cause then people are like, oh, with like my parents and my boss and my like that friend of mine, I'm like, that one teacher I had, you know, they just start seeing the map of their life in a different way. And a lot of my, like what I love about that is because I like supporting people to redraw the maps of their life. Two questions. The lines that have been drawn, the territories that they're told are, um, like successful to aim towards the territories that they're told to avoid and to instead reconsider and start to become more proactive authors of the maps of their life and the routines of their life and their relationship habits and their self talk and what they create in order to bring out more aliveness in their own being. That's my number one metric is alive.

 

Daniel: (13:27)

So I think this is where we can do the entry point into the pre-question of what's the conversation you're trying to create in the world and how are you designing it? Because wayfinding is a, is a powerful analogy but also like a very different way of talking about personal leadership and some of the, there's, there's more traditional ways and then there's this other entry point which are bringing in like talk to me about this metaphor and how you came to it. Like take me on your journey into this being your entry point to wanting to this to be your conversation with your, with, with the world.

 

Larissa: (14:05)

Hmm. Yeah. The heart of the conversation that I aim to foster in the world is greater awareness of worldviews and behaviors that support disconnection and worldviews and behaviors that support connection.

 

Daniel: (14:25)

Hmm.

 

Larissa: (14:27)

And to understand the, how these patterns live and breathe through our relationships, our society, our storytelling, our values, the things we consume and where we're habituated to and how power in particular in changing our relationship to power, how we can cultivate a relationship, power that serves connection rather than disconnection. Yes.

 

Daniel: (14:58)

So what, like in this context, like what does wayfinding mean? That's, that's a, that's a, it's a different metaphor for what you're, what you're asking people to do, what you're offering. On their path... I mean, I can see when we finding and path ...like they are, they're like, I can see how they're, they're related, but it's, it's, it's sort of a surprising way to talk about it.

 

Larissa: (15:24)

Yeah. So then the reason why I chose wayfinding, um, is that I mentioned my masters that I did, right. I basically mapped, I was unknowingly mapping the main historical points that kept nudging this unfurling of disconnection patterns from the, like European experience that then cascaded over the entire world and affected all people in all ecosystems.

 

Larissa: (15:55)

So one of the first untruths but can be held is like people of European descent were never indigenous and it's like, no, that's not true. Like everyone at some point in their ancestral line had indigenous ancestors meaning to be deeply have a place and to meet in a culture and that was based on connection based on relational understanding and rhythms. And that's just like we are nature. There is, we're not, we're not like in these little glass boxes outside, we are also animals. And in the course of my curiosity after my master's, um, which happened to coincide with my dad dying, I became intensely curious. Yeah. I became curious...

 

Daniel: (16:47)

Yeah, I know that Dad''s die, but like that's, that's sad... Yeah.

 

Larissa: (16:51)

I just, I was saying "yeah" 'cause I saw what happened on your face and I appreciate the empathy because it mattered. You know, I had this intellectual side happening simultaneously at this personal life side and, and Ha, which fuse together to inspire me to follow the question of like, what is connection feel like in life? And I have an amazing family. I love my family so much. I'm so lucky to have had the dad I had for 22 years and...

 

Daniel: (17:25)

yeah, I saw you went on a trip with your mom to like Ireland. Was that like, yeah, to Ireland. I was like, wow...vacation with folks, amazing life goals. You know, that's the thing is that, is that your indigenous..? Is that your, your, your, your place of origin?

 

Larissa: (17:46)

Um, Ireland is one of my family's place of origin. Dad's side was all Italian. My mom, Irish, Scottish, um, like mainland Europe.

 

Daniel: (17:56)

I'm gonna loop back around on something if you'd ... have you seen the series "Salt Fat Acid Heat" Um, which is an amazing food documentary series ...when she goes to Italy and you just talk to these people who've been farming olives and making pesto. There's just like, yes, they're talking about the quality of a fat in like what's you know, alive about it. Um, yeah, but I also want to put a link in here. I don't know if you've ever watched Alan Watts. Um, somebody's Matt Parker and, uh, wait, I'm mixing up their names. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the guys from South Park did a video where they animated an Alan Watts video, a speech where he talks about how if you go to the planet, this planet, you know, a billion years ago with like aliens, they visit the planet. They're like, oh, it's just some dumb rocks. Um, there's nothing interesting happening here. And they are like, whatever, let's keep going. And then they come back in a billion years later, they're like, oh look, the rocks of peopled. Interesting. There's people now... We thought they were just dumb rocks, but now they're, they've peopled. And he talks about this idea of like, um, you know, watch out. You never know when something, this idea that we are a smart things that came out of a dumb world, it's clearly not the case. It's just a question of timescales.

 

Larissa: (19:16)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and really like questioning: well where does intelligence sit? Is it a dumb world? And that that's also part of this larger question. So, um, got to power and got to way finding through recognizing, you know, so the wound of disconnection that happened, um, that was happening in different places around the globe. You know, there was like adversarial warring and different aspects, but then Europeans took it to a whole other level with colonization and starting to "other" people too, um, subjugate people to build overseas empires based on oppression and subjugation and then like, Tada the United States. Um, that's, and, and so all of these facets of the question of what brings our wholeness back. You know, in the future of work community and the Teal Organization framework, wholeness is one of the fundamental values of a teal organization. So we cannot possibly address the future of work and self management and wholeness without asking "what are the ways in which I have fractured myself in my own lifetime. And what are the culturally inherited wounds that I am inhabiting and benefiting from or being like massively unbenefited by, wounded by".

 

Larissa: (20:55)

And that I see the leverage point of working with leaders and raising consciousness around power and all of these aspects of identity because power can be um, we all have inner power and then there's socially conferred power and we're at work...

 

Daniel: (21:18)

is that your term? is that like a fundamental bifurcation when you think about types of power? Cause I was hoping we would have this conversation

 

Larissa: (21:23)

I make that like I have thought about my own definition of power. I've looked at the etymology of power. Om power is sometimes used to describe physics, sometimes used with like a controlling warfare-based Paradigm.

 

Daniel: (21:40)

Yeah, force and power are not necessarily the same thing, though

 

Larissa: (21:42)

Precisely. And so my definition of power is power is the capacity to move energy through systems.

 

Daniel: (21:51)

I'm just going to let that percolate for a second. Power is the capacity to move energy through systems.

 

Larissa: (21:57)

Yeah. So power doesn't have a valence in terms of being positive or negative.

 

Daniel: (22:04)

Yes. Yeah. It just stays. It's like a gun.

 

Larissa: (22:07)

Exactly. Or it's like a big tree. Yeah. Or like a big mountain or like the ocean or like lightning or like a rattlesnake and ...

 

Daniel: (22:17)

Let's just keep naming things. No, no, I like this game!

 

Larissa: (22:19)

Exactly. Or like a paperclip!

 

Daniel: (22:21)

or a moose!

 

Larissa: (22:24)

I was trying to name things that like we culturally associate power with.

 

Daniel: (22:29)

Yes. Oh, you mean like a good or badness, too. Like, a volcano.

 

Larissa: (22:34)

Yes. So we can tell. Um, so in our society we can tell a story that power has... Is like a is like a negative thing. Even though it's something we hunger after. And I, in my personal understanding, when we clear and create alignment in our own beings to move, move energy through the systems of our life, that's something every single person, regardless of their background, has access to. It's just part of the human experience.

 

Daniel: (23:05)

Okay. So this is like, I really want to unpack this...I'm so so excited. We're talking about that because there's the inner power, like I talked about this with regards to conversation where it's like we all have the power of speech. If we, you know, have physically working bodies, like you can't actually, unless you use force, you can't stop somebody from speaking. And so there's this fundamental inner power of I am here, I can participate, but then there's this other part which is systemic or... Uh, you know, based on authority. Um, but then I think there's this other piece which is like distributing power versus taking power. And I don't know, cause I know for myself, like I sometimes feel uncomfortable taking power. Um, and so I reflexively distribute power, which is a kind of taking a power.

 

Larissa: (23:53)

Yeah. So my current working hypothesis and the way I deal with it is like inner power, you know, which is connecting to my deepest desires...

 

Daniel: (24:02)

She's gensturing towards gesturing to her, to her core.

 

Larissa: (24:08)

For all you listeners, all you listeners.

 

Daniel: (24:10)

Yeah. There was no video for you.

 

Larissa: (24:14)

And then the other distinction I bring is societaly or culturally conferred power. Yes. Which are the rules we make up about what it means to interact with other humans. And one of those sets of rules can exist in like the type of conduct we have in a particular organization. So, and like the future of work community, we're talking about organizations and primarily businesses and there is um, there is a very common pattern of power arrangement in businesses today and people who are like the CEOs or the leaders or the executives have generally the most power and capacity to move energy through the system.

 

Daniel: (25:07)

And that is how we define their power in a way.

 

Larissa: (25:10)

Exactly. And the movement towards self managing systems requires a transformation of that state. Another very, very important aspect of culture and socially conferred power are the stories we tell about the bodies we're in, the identities we inhabit, the um, like religious and spiritual practices we have, our able-bodied-ness or not, um, all the facets of body being like the color of our skin, our, um, gender, you know, all of these aspects of identity. Then we tell stories and create valence about those identities.

 

Daniel: (25:52)

Sure. Like we assume types of power based on what we know about somebody.

 

Larissa: (25:59)

Right. And so just to get explicit, like in the United States of America, the fabrication of Whiteness is something that has been reverberating through this country for 400 years. You and I both inhabit bodies that are classified as white. And so we both privilege from that.

 

Daniel: (26:19)

Totally. And so again, and when I was in college, I remember reading the wages of Whiteness, which I'll try to dig up a link to where even the lowest class, you know, white trash, dirt, poor dirt farmer was still better than a slave, like hours. That was the wages of whiteness. Like even the lowest of the low totem pole. White Guy. Still one tick above. You know, and that is, and that's one of the things that helped reinforce the system. Obviously fear comes up when we try to the...oh man, we're going to talk about this now, like the, the making of a quality makes, feels like dis-equality to people who are that one tick above. And now it's like, Oh shit, I'm just the same as everyone else. I no longer even have that.... Just terrible.

 

Larissa: (27:11)

Right. And still how so in this like very large conversation that I feel is, you know, I'm just like one tiny little helper in it and there's millions, millions of people around the world and around the country contributing to the connection/ Disconnection conversation ...is to recognize like there are consequences and costs of the disconnection story and behaviors to every single person operating under the illusions told and the disconnection stories. It's like, oh, sure. Like, so if we look at privilege and oppression, it's like obvious how, um, any group of people inhabiting like the oppressed vector side are not winning in the disconnection story. But then when we look at the privilege, um, the....my experience, uh, I have a very embodied experience in my life.

 

Larissa: (28:18)

I've experienced near fatal accident and healing for eight years and the somatics of, clearing trauma. Yes. And I believe the human organism. And I've experienced how the human organism, when we are not connected, we're not, we don't, we literally don't have as much life force accessible. And the burden of what, um, hate does in the body to organs, and to our systems, and to our creative capacity, and to our energy and to our hearts. And what fear does and what, um, what like deep, like long held anger

 

Larissa: (29:14)

In traditional Chinese medicine...So I, um, we'll bring this in. I did a medical Chigong practitioner training last year cause medical Chigong was very important for me and healing my own body. Traditional Chinese medicine, they're, they're, um, like five, at least five. There are more. But like there are at least five main organ systems that are looked at and they all have what's considered a psycho-emotional aspect. So if we look at the liver, for example, the original nature of the liver is kindness. The acquired nature of liver is anger. When we do not have clear boundaries because the liver is the organ that filters our blood when we're not like correctly filtering... Than we feel violated. And that can make us angry.

 

Daniel: (30:05)

Hmm. So when we can release those, those negative experiences, that positive experience is available to us.

 

Larissa: (30:13)

Yeah. And that so many aspects, I mean there are plenty of scientific studies that have better demonstrating that deeply held emotional experiences in our body have physical ramifications.

 

Daniel: (30:29)

Yes. Yeah.

 

Larissa: (30:32)

So, so like it's all, it's like one thread pull on this whole system and the reason to come back to like why wayfinding is because the sensing intelligence...see, getting there! we didn't lose it.... Um, the sensing intelligence in our beings just like a plant that is sun-loving is always moving towards the light. It's always moving towards that which feeds us. And so when we tap into that listening, it will tell us how to navigate into deeper relationship with each other, into greater trust, into clear understanding of what our needs are. Um, the grief that we haven't yet released, the forgiveness we need to embrace. And when we clear away the blockage or stagnation, then that creates the space for flow.

 

Daniel: (31:30)

Yes. Yeah. Well, so I want to ground this because this is really, I know that this stuff is valuable and you know, just from the simple aspect of when a company thinks that when we think we're separate from nature, it's okay to pollute nature, right? When we are separate from other people, it's okay to create, um, more unequal, more inequality by our practices. Right? Um, and the question of like is this, you know, I have a friend who's, who's an engineer and he's at inner conflict with himself because he's automating jobs and he knows it's create stress in him where he's like, I'm an engineer and I'm doing my best work and I'm creating misery in the world so that I can make money and pay for the coaching and the retreats and my own growth. And like what the actual f about that. And so my question for you is, um,

 

Daniel: (32:33)

I know that people need some of this work. I know that what companies generally ask for is how do we go faster, cheaper, and smarter. And you know, when I come into an organization, it's like, okay, facilitation skills, we need those. Because it helps us sell better and build better, you know, innovation, product design. Like that's my entry point. Um, how, where do you start the conversation with an organization? What are they asking for and what do you want to offer, right? Like what's the balance of like of the conversation of like, oh we are think we're getting this but I slipped, you know, you're putting spinach into the brownies versus like maybe I'm, maybe I'm, you know, cynical or, or small minded and companies are like, "yes, Larissa show us how to wayfind!" But I'm guessing that people are like, Hey, can we talk about inclusion and power?

 

Daniel: (33:30)

Like that's something I know. Do you know what I mean? Like there's an anchor point for every consultant who's listening and then there are many like how do you mix the like here's what I, here's what they're asking for versus like here's, here's my north star. Cause I'm guessing that not every company is, is where your, there's not enough teal companies in the world who are asking for that. Is that wrong? Like, do, do you under, do you, do you follow them?

 

Larissa: (33:58)

I totally understand that question.

 

Daniel: (34:00)

And a lot of people are asking for conversation, help us redesign all the conversations at our company. Right. That's not, that's not a, that's not a thing. It's like the secret sauce. So I'm just assuming that that's potentially of your context too.

 

Larissa: (34:14)

Yeah. So I worked for several consultancies, um, and I also had a business prior to wayfinding. Um, and we're at this interesting moment in cultural evolution where if you look at the phenomenon of companies caring more about their people, companies caring more about the earth. But also if we like just look at companies caring more about people. When you start pulling on this thread like this desire to be a more human work workplace to value culture, to value the human experience at work, to make meaningful work, to have purpose driven work, you start pulling on that thread and what you surface are all of the tensions around disconnection. And so what comes up is an integrity moment.

 

Larissa: (35:25)

And I tend to accelerate the consideration of that question.

 

Daniel: (35:30)

That is the most wonderfully euphemistic phrase! "I accelerate the consideration of that question" ...you are a catalyst for crying. That's what I'm hearing.

 

Larissa: (35:43)

Well...it's basically like...So here, here's what I, here's how, here's an example of a conversation cause I will work with people at different levels and through the course of my career I have had a shifting baseline of, of um, base requirements. So now one of my base requirements for, um, engagement is like if I'm going to do a deep engagement with the group and this is excluded from if I'm like doing a workshop for them or we're doing a ritual or a ceremony or like things that are even more "entry". Um, but if they want to step into longer deeper work, one of my requirements for being in relationship is to have permission to mirror the points where I see, um, ego being surfaced and how it impacts the infrastructure of the company.

 

Daniel: (36:44)

Yeah. Being willing to call out.

 

Larissa: (36:46)

Yes. Because if I don't have permission to do that, then I'm dancing around the whole conversation that I can see that I know is impacting every other conversation. And so what I illuminate is, look, you can either invest in a brand new strategy, which is like building a house on like a rotting, like set of a rotting foundation or broken foundation. And so like you can sync like the money and the time and the energy and like the branding campaign for the new strategy and then the internal employee experience branding campaign and then like, oh, like it's, we still have a leak. Or we can do the courageous thing, that is uncomfortable and that will require us to put down aspects of denial. And to go on the exploration to see what courageous and connected leadership looks like.

 

Daniel: (37:51)

Yeah. So what I love about that is the thing that I've been thinking about lately is in any conversation, any interaction, there's uh, there's surface, there's, you know, we can have a fact based exchange where there's a willingness to go deep and to go even deeper. And,,, It's just interesting to hear how you're looking for signals of their readiness and availability to talk about the real stuff. And to create a boundary for yourself of, Hey, listen, I'm not going to make myself vulnerable and participate in a toxic culture. Like I don't care, you know, if you want me to come in and do a ritual a week for the next 10 years, it's like, whoa, there's no interest in what's really going to matter about that. So it's just really, I love hearing how you're sensitized to that

 

Larissa: (38:43)

it is a really nuanced conversation because, um, because then it raises the question of compassion and engagement. So I, I have a deep belief in human beings and I also know how the structure of the human ego operates, you know, and so that it's, um, I love supporting people who are open. I am not in the business of like, I'm not brought alive by the act of Oh, of opening, of being like, oh, I don't care about this at all. To then being like, oh, maybe like there's a, there's a level of commitment or current operating investment of energy in the disconnection, in disconnection patterns that there, um, so many practitioners and service providers who their contribution to the cycle is like, is like, let's start considering more connection based worldviews and paradigms without using that language.

 

Larissa: (40:00)

Um, and my sweet spot, I also just know like my, we can't live in all parts of the ecosystem, you know, and my sweet spot is have you started playing with some things and do you really have this longing? Because also there's this amazing aspect in human beings, once we start to experience more aliveness and creativity and connection and more power in self and in group, and to see what becomes possible, then we're like, let's go. And it gives us, that gives us the motivation and the fuel to encounter what is uncomfortable and to heal and to be courageous and to try new things. And that's, and then, and then when like people start seeing it working, they're like, oh my gosh, look at this. And so also in the grounding, I can give an example.

 

Larissa: (40:57)

I worked with the founding team of four partners for nine months, did a cascading rite of passage from their relationship constellation to their relationship constellation, um, with their six reporting directors and then how that like respired out to the rest of their organization. And that we did relational healing and um, asking like, how are, what are we bringing to the table that gets in the way and what are the unconscious aspects of our inhabitation our and to acknowledge what's occurred to date.Because we can't move on very well if we don't acknowledge.

 

Daniel: (41:40)

And that requires tremendous slowing down and tremendous noticing, which is uncomfortable and people would rather not do it mostly. So I, I feel I'm looking at as the facilitator of this conversation...We're getting close to our time together and so on. I'm wondering is, with all of that time thinking about, um, two things, one, what happened, we talked about that we should talk about, is there something that we haven't touched on about your work that's important. And one thing that I'm thinking of is we haven't really talked about ritual and designing ritual. We just seeded that in the beginning and we're like, oh, that's another thing. Because rituals are things that sometimes I think we think of as given and wrote and like Passover, which is a ritual. Versus like designing ritual. And I think for me, I'm trying to think about how teams do need to have rituals and, and I'm wondering like where your ritual work. That's something I'm interested in talking about. Maybe you want to talk about something else, but that's, that's sort of what's on my mind of like something I really want to get from you before we, before we go, what else is on your mind that you want to touch on before we go?

 

Larissa: (42:48)

I'm happy to go there. Okay. I have one thing I want to say before....

 

Daniel: (42:53)

She''s moving her fingers like a Mr. Burns sort of way

 

Larissa: (42:57)

So, um, one thing, so the story of wayfinding, um, that name, which this is important and the honoring.. Wayfinding is, um, if you look it up online, it's like considered the skill of being able to navigate, um, like poorly marked paths or unknown territories. And it can be like dead reckoning or value across landscapes are how you cross oceans. And, um, I, after my master's I had the wonderful fortune to learn, um, you know, skills of becoming of a place again. So animal tracking, wilderness survival, wildcrafting and, um, learned from a man named John Young.

 

Daniel: (43:54)

Can you give us some links to that where people can learn more about that stuff?

 

Larissa: (43:58)

Sure.

 

Daniel: (43:58)

I remember reading Todd brown stuff where it's like,

 

Daniel: (44:00)

John Young was mentored by Tom Brown... He was Tom Brown's first mentee and he was the first one who received this like deep, deep nature connection mentoring. Tom Brown is a man who lives in New Jersey who was mentored by an Apache Elder names Stalking Wolf

 

Daniel: (44:17)

which makes them, doesn't sound as interesting as he is. Like, he's from Jersey, not New Jersey.

 

Larissa: (44:24)

Hey, let's not dump on New jersey for a minute...they take a lot of heat

 

Daniel: (44:25)

Sorry. I'm from Manhattan...it's part of our story.

 

Larissa: (44:27)

No, no, no. I get it. I get it. It's part of the story.

 

Daniel: (44:33)

but I mean for me, like when I think of Tom Brown...the thing where he's touching your chest and like using yourself as a pendulum to try and understand where to go to next. Like there's some really deep stuff when it comes to wilderness... Being in the wilderness and, and not losing your way. Hashtag not a metaphor

 

Larissa: (44:52)

exactly like the, um, to recognize the indigenous lines that John was representing, this teaching to me. So like a Acumba of east Africa. I'm Hawaiian Culture, Lakotas and Apaches of North America. Um, the, these like different traditions of, of understanding how to read the signs of place and life. And wayfinding specifically was a role in Polynesian navigation culture. And so that they're, uh, anthropologist named Wade Davis wrote a book called the wayfinders about different wayfinding traditions. Um, in like the largest aspect of the definition. And I grew up as a sailor. And the conversation between wind and water was in a lot of ways, the beginning of my understanding how to listen to subtle, very clear, but also complex patterns. To find our way. And so that's, that's like the line and that's the honoring that I want to give and naming that.

 

Larissa: (46:06)

And that's also how it connects to ritual and ceremony because in that, um, training and this, it was a similar part of my life and my dad died the first ceremony, I designed was my dad's memorial service. And it was a really amazing opportunity and I realize like what a beautiful creation of love it got to be because we, it was, uh, you know, we weren't following a rote religious form for my dad's memorial service. Um, and then since then having the experience of ceremonies from different traditions and realizing this erosion of symbolic acts where as symbolic animals, when we externalize an experience with /through metaphor or um, you know, whether it's like where you were working with fire or, um, like I did an initiation ritual with a philanthropic board the other day where I had them use redwood seeds to symbolize the seeds that they're planting for this large vision they hold and then Pacific Ocean water because it's the water that unites their countries of the members present and then the branches to represent like, what are you putting down as you start this? So there can be more space.

 

Larissa: (47:41)

When we do that, it actually more deeply imprints into our being the consciousness of our choices and the updating of the stories and the internal conversations we have. So I choose ritual as, um, as an important vehicle to bring people into spaces of coherent awareness and meaning and to let their aliveness breath through in ways that we're not used to. And I also know that we are, we often feel like ritual and ceremony are like need to be deeply steeped in tradition because of those, the like disconnection reverbs that have been happening through time, a lot of ceremonies and rituals have been lost. And one of the beautiful things about human beings is we can listen to the energetic needs of a group and create an experience that meets them there. And in that way we're reweaving what's needed.

 

Daniel: (48:52)

I think it's beautiful and very much in line with my thinking of how I design a facilitative experience as an experience of where are they now and where do they need to get to. But we're speaking not just to their intellectual needs but to their emotional needs and providing them with metaphor to ground them. that is really powerful.

 

Larissa: (49:16)

So I have a question for you.

 

Daniel (49:18)

A question for me?!

 

Larissa: (49:19)

Yeah. For you! So when you, cause we, we have a similar frame and I'm curious, what are the things you consider when you see where a group is at present and where they need to go and how do you decide what to put forward to help get them there?

 

Daniel: (49:39)

Hmm. Well, I mean like you said, it's a question of like what they're ready for. It's a question of like the aperture, like what, what their level of interest is. Also like, you know, a nine month engagement with, with the six person leadership team, like that's great to get that level of buy-in. Um, in my own work, uh, stretching it out from this is not going to be a two day workshop. It can't be a two day workshop. People love it for just be a two day workshop and it's so much easier to do that. And so to me, like very often I still do think about the like, hey, how do I fit this into the smallest amount of space possible? For me, I think it's a question of when I teach facilitation stuff, I, I talk about how, um, the metaphor, the model you use determines what ingredients you put in.

 

Daniel: (50:31)

And so like, I'll reference and if you haven't listened to it, it's one of my favorite interviews, um, with Kate Quarfordt. Um, her, she uses this four seasons, a wheel that she co-created with one of her students. And when I teach people the four seasons, we all, they're like, wait, celebration and, and reflection are, are the part of the, the, the, the cycle? And I'm like, yes it is. And as a winter in my mind, I had my palate on when I was, when I was a teenager because, because of my mother, um, who will listen to this? Thanks mom. I love having my colors done, but it was weird. Um, winter is about regeneration, right? You can't, you can overwork soil, right? It's not doing nothing in the winter, right? It's you, you, you plant mustard grass and Dandelion and you just turn it over and then it's good again, like you, it needs to rest.

 

Daniel: (51:26)

And two years ago when I did a facilitation masterclass with my friend Mathias, who does a lot of visual thinking stuff, he's super into reflection and I don't think I was, I don't know if I'd done the, the, the interview with, with, with Kate at that point. He really spearheaded, he's like, no, we're going to do this if we're going to this masterclass, right? We need to have like 30 minutes of reflective journaling before lunch on day one and like 10 minutes of reflective journaling... after lunch on day two, and I was like, wow, nothing, right? Like people are paying money for this experience. We have to do things with them and teach them things. Um, but like giving them time with themselves is, is regenerative. Right? And so to me, it's actually like what's in your spice rack at all, right?

 

Daniel: (52:19)

You have some things in your spice rack that are not in my spice rack. Um, like water from the Pacific Ocean, not on my spice rack, right? But reflection is, and celebration is like, I've seen people run innovation days and workshops where, you know, at least they know that everyone in the group should high five each other, right? Like at least like the littlest moment of like, yeah, we did it. Versus like, no, we need to share the story of our project and I've, I've done this, made this mistake myself where people have created this thing and you're like, okay, great, let's do the critique. And it's like, well, no, they need to share it out. They need to get the, the reinforcement that they did a good thing, right? And so to me like it's about what are your, what are even your ingredients of the experience?

 

Daniel: (53:05)

And so to me, like my fundamental ingredients are opening, exploring and closing, generating, supporting and then landing and then like what you put into those things are whatever. But to me, like I think celebration and reflection are now will, like because of Kate just baked into my brain of like those two seasons, autumn and winter are just essential to me. Kate if you're listening you, you're the best. And that wheel, even if I don't use it explicitly, it's implicitly, always part of what I do. Where there will be celebration. There will be a reflection. Does that answer your question at all? I don't know.

 

Larissa: (53:43)

It totally answers my question. I also learned the wheel. The um, you know, many, many cultures have a four part, um, in particular many Native American cultures you know, medicine wheels...And what Iearned from John Young, It was like what are the eight directions or these energies that like flow to each other? Cause we can, and this is why to make this accessible. If someone's like, what are you talking about? I don't like what are the seasons? Um, this is the reason why ergonomically when we show up to a meeting, if we dive straight in, yeah. Straight into the content. It's interesting because if you think about showing up to someone's house and you get in the door and they're like, welcome, completely sit down for dinner, you're like, Whoa, whoa. Was that like, where was the arrival?

 

Daniel (54:42)

Where do I hang up my coat? I take my shoes off. What's going on?

 

Larissa: (54:47)

Exactly. Hi. Nice to see you. We need to have opening just like we need to have sunrise just like we need to have spring.

 

Daniel: (54:55)

Also like I don't think anybody would argue that...Well, what's interesting about Kate's approaches, like obviously there are these moments in the year, but this is when we'd go back to your, your not your thing. Um, but like the thing you mentioned about how we are disconnected from nature is like what really pisses me off about daylight savings is this idea that like that we should just like have the same working hours all year long, but we aren't connected to nature. Like there should be winter out. Like, you know, it's like summer Fridays. Like there should be Winter Mondays, right? Just get to stay home and be depressed, you know, or just can I sleep later on a cold day like this? Like I just need some more time with my oatmeal. And so we, we obviously work, it's a very, it's a privilege to say the lake that my work should flow with the seasons. There's a lot of people have jobs that like we all rely on people showing up and doing what has to be done right. Regardless o f how they feel. But we also need to talk about the cost of that...Wow we're just spiraling. I love it.

 

Larissa: (56:02)

I like it because these things...one of the patterns I've seen in our conversation (This will be the last thing I say) is the capacity for these topics to expand to like great, take up great space and to occupy, you know, a lifetime of work or long engagements with clients or hours of conversation... But they can also pack down, they can like go down into a little seed yes. Into a little high five. Into five minutes of journaling that there are ways to start and sprout and keep going. And I am, uh, I have loved this. I am so grateful to you for the conversations you host for the reflection that you host on how we have conversations. Um, and when, when I learned about conversation factory, uh, and your work, I was just so excited that you invited me to participate. So thanks.

 

Daniel: (57:04)

Thank you. Okay, well, so like I want to ask you one more question. This is those as this is one of Tim Ferriss' favorite questions and I, and it just, it, it sparked in my brain. So I'm going to ask you like, cause we're talking about seeds and Compacting it down and planting that seed. Um, one of his favorite questions is like, if you could, if I'm going to give you a billboard. Hmm. You know, on a very, very, you know, well traveled highway, um, what's Larissa's message to the world that belongs on that? Like the, the thing that you want people to, you know, and I remember they have to be able to read this, uh, at at 65 miles an hour and not die.

 

Larissa: (57:44)

MMM. Okay.

 

Daniel (57:48)

Her left eyebrow has gone up ladies gentlemen. And

 

Larissa (57:52)

I'm gonna, I'm gonna give you two variations of it cause I'm like, oh, this 60 miles an hour, um,

 

Larissa: (58:02)

Tend your aliveness like a precious flame... Or variation B...

 

Daniel: (58:09)

That was good. I liked that.

 

Larissa: (58:10)

Thank you. Or: Tend our liveliness, like a precious flame.

 

Daniel: (58:19)

That's really lovely. Thank you. And, and being aware of and sensitized to that alive in a room and a group in an organization that is the skill of all the people who want to create change like you first, which was to your question of like, how do you even know what's going on? You're like, well, I have to, I feel it. I detect it. You know, looking for little little twitches and putting two and patching together a narrative from that.

 

Daniel: (58:50)

Well, it's been a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate you making the time. It's really lovely to have this reflection time with you. Um, I will call ...and scene!

 

 

Organizational Change is a Conversation

cover_photo.jpg

Buckle in, ladies and gentlemen, for some straight talk about the future of work, the nature of the universe and the power of changing systems to change behavior.

Today I’m sharing a deep and rambling conversation I had a few months back with Aaron Dignan, author of Brave New Work and founder of the Ready, an org transformation partner to companies like Airbnb, Edelman and charity: water. He is a cofounder of responsive.org, an amazing community of like-minded transformation professionals. If you haven’t checked out their conference, it’s great. I co-facilitated some sessions there last year and I can highly recommend it. You should also check out the episode I had recently on asking better questions with Robin Zander, who hosts the conference.

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

I owe a debt of gratitude to Aaron. It was his OS Canvas, published in 2016 on Medium, that got me thinking differently about my own work in Conversation Design and led me to develop my own Conversation OS Canvas. His OS Canvas clarified and simplified a complex domain of thinking – organizational change – into (then) just nine factors. In the book it’s evolved into 12 helpful prompts to provoke clear thinking and to accelerate powerful conversations about how to change the way we work – if you are willing to create the time and space for the conversation.

Aaron doesn’t pull any punches – as he says, “the way we work is badly broken and a century old”. And he figures that “a six year old could design a good org, you just have to ask the socratic questions.” His OS Canvas can help you start the conversation about changing the way you work in your org and his excellent book will help you dive deep into principles, practices and stories for each element of the OS.

You’ll find in the show notes some deep-dives on the two core principles of org design from the book. The first principle is being complexity Conscious. The second is being people positive. For more on complexity – dig into Cynefin (which is not spelled the way it sounds). And for more on people positivity, there’s a link to Theory X vs Theory Y, a very helpful mental model in management theory.

Another powerful idea that I want to highlight is Aaron’s suggestion that we all have our own “system of operating” or “a way of being in the world” which is “made up of assumptions and principles and practices and norms and patterns of behavior and it's coded into the system.” 

Aaron goes on to say that “people are chameleons and people are highly sensitive to the culture and environment they're in. And the system, the aquarium, the container tells us a lot about how we're supposed to show up. And over time it can even beat us into submission. And so we have to change the system and that's hard to do when we're reinforcing things that we ourselves didn't even create,”

From my own work on conversation design, it’s very clear to me that communication is held in a space, or transmitted through an interface – the air, the internet, a whiteboard. The space your culture happens in is one very key component of how to shift your culture. Check out my episode with Elliot of Brightspot Strategy for more on changing conversations through changing spaces:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/7/24/elliot-felix-of-brightspot-strategy-on-changing-conversations-through-changing-spaces

Changing your physical space is easy compared with shifting power and distributing authority more thoughtfully in your organization. To do that, we need to shift not just our org structures, but our own OS:  we need more leaders who can show up as facilitators and coaches rather than order-givers. And that takes, as Aaron points out, a brave mindset. 

If you want to become a more facilitative leader of innovation and change in your company, you should definitely apply before August to the first cohort of the 12-week Innovation Leadership Accelerator I’m co-hosting with Jay Melone from New Haircut, a leader in Design Sprint Training. It kicks off in NYC with a 2-day workshop in September, runs for 12 weeks of remote coaching and closes with another 2-day workshop. We’ll have several amazing guest coaches during the program – a few of which have been wonderful guests on this very show: Jim Kalbach, author of Mapping Experiences and head of Customer Success at Mural and Bree Groff, Principle at SY Partners and former CEO of change consultancy NOBL.

Show Notes

The OS Canvas Medium post that started it all for me:

https://medium.com/the-ready/the-os-canvas-8253ac249f53

The Ready

https://theready.com/

Brave New Work

https://www.bravenewwork.com/

Complexity Conscious: Cynefin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework

Being people positive: Theory X vs Theory Y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Capitalism needs to be reformed: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/04/05/capitalism-needs-to-be-reformed-warns-billionare-ray-dalio.html

The Lake Wobegon Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

Game Frame

https://www.amazon.com/Game-Frame-Using-Strategy-Success/dp/B0054U5EHA

The Four Sons as four personalities at work in us: 

https://reformjudaism.org/jewish-holidays/passover/which-four-children-are-you

MECE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MECE_principle

Fish and Water: 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97082-there-are-these-two-young-fish-swimming-along-and-they

The Finger and the Moon:

https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/i-am-a-finger-pointing-to-the-moon-dont-look-at-me-look-at-the-moon/

also from Amelie!

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/am%C3%A9lie

Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Flesh-Bones-Collection-Writings/dp/0804831866

Agile

https://agilemanifesto.org/

Open Source Agility: http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/6/23/dan-mezick-on-agile-as-an-invitation-to-a-game

The Heart of Agile 

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/7/19/alistair-cockburn-on-the-heart-of-agile-jazz-dialog-and-guest-leadership

Lean

https://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm

Open

https://opensource.com/open-organization

Information Radiators

http://www.agileadvice.com/2005/05/10/bookreviews/information-radiators/

Asking better questions:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

Loss in Change: 

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/season-three/bree-groff-grief-and-change

Mapping experiences:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/2/5/jim-kalbach-gets-teams-to-map-experiences

Interview Transcript:

Daniel: So I'll officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Aaron. I really do appreciate you making the time to do this. You are in the long, you're in the long tail of your sprint, getting your book out into the world,

Aaron: ...almost there, almost there, and happy to be here. This is going to be fun.

Daniel: Thanks man. I mean obviously like I think back to like when I met you and we're like sitting in the park and...

Aaron: Yeah, you had an instrument of some kind?

Daniel: yeah! ....And you had this dream, like you were building this new thing and you're like, I feel like you've just crushed it .... in the most beautiful nonviolent way of crushing it, building this thing.

Aaron: Well, it looks good from afar. It's actually been, you know, difficult and fun and challenging and you know, up and down. But uh, it is, it's working. It's, we're doing the work that we want to do in the world.

Daniel: Yeah. And so like that's ... So I think that's actually a great transition because like the call to action on your book is strong. Like it's like, are you ready to change your organization? Like I could see how this is pushing out the idea that you're really passionate about. That's what this book is about, is trying to like, get people to say like, yeah, I am ready to do that. Tell me how!

Aaron: we had a, we had a big debate actually at the, at the publisher about, you know, what's the right subtitle for the book. And obviously as you're alluding to the message of the book is that, you know, the way we work is, is badly broken and, and, and you know, in most cases a century old and needs to be changed. I'm to something more adaptive and more human. But um, but the question of how to say that was, was really a challenge. So we tried all these different subtitles that they all felt like sort of traditional business bookie, sort of titles, you know, ditch bureaucracy and change your life forever. It Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah

Daniel: "A five part manual to blank, blank, blank, blank and blank."

Aaron: Exactly. And then someone said, why don't we just do a question? Like no one's done a question as a subtitle in a long time, why don't we do that? And then it became really clear because you know, the work is, is curiosity led. It's about questions. It's about asking yourself things we don't always ask ourselves. So it was cool to start with, are you ready to, to reinvent your organization? And you know, for most people the answer might be no. But for a lot that I run into the answer is hell yes.

Daniel: Yeah. And you're definitely this rallying cry like, and then here's the tools, here's how to do it.

Aaron: Right, right. Here's the way to start at least. I mean, I think one of the, one of my big goals with the book is not necessarily for everybody to have some "from to" journey cause I don't think that's what it's about, but it's really just about like, you know, are you ready to start being more deliberate and more considered in the way you work as an individual, as a team member, as a founder? Like are you willing to sort of take this stuff seriously?

Daniel: Well, so this is, I didn't actually think I would start this conversation this way, but like I think one of my theses in, in looking at things through the lens of conversation is that conversations are organic, ongoing and iterative. And as opposed to, you know, one that's mechanistic...

Aaron: They're not speeches

Daniel: yeah, they're not speeches. And in a way like starting with the question is starting the conversation of like, well are you ready to start changing your organization and what does that mean and how do we start and what does it look like and what does done mean? Does done ever happen? Like it seems to me that changing the organization is, is a conversation.

Aaron: Absolutely. And I mean in many ways an organization is nothing more than a set of conversations. Right? Like the, the main, the main fuel that flows through any gathering of people is communication.

Daniel: Yeah. It's like a bundle of like, I think of it as like a topography, like, uh, you know, like water flows and certain valleys in and other places. And it's like, so this gets to the question of like, what can you change about the topography, right? What's changeable?

Aaron: Right, What can we change about the structure that changes the conversations. Yeah. And the nature of the relationships, right? Cause if we can change the relationships, then we've changed the entity. So how do we change the relationships between us? And that means looking at, you know, our relationships and how they touch to things like power and information flow like we just described and structure and resources and you know all the other things that we get into.

Daniel: Yeah. It's like, I mean my mind is crackling with you know, cause power. It's something I want to understand better but which parts of this is not, I'm not leading the question, where are those questions going at all, but like which parts of the conversation are hard, where does the conversation hit a snag. And I would guess that power and shifting power is one of those those things

Aaron: For sure. Yeah, I mean I think one of the things I find surprising is that the first and foremost snag is to have the conversation like that at the time and space and, and a commitment to say, hey, let's stop working.

Aaron: Let's stop rushing. Let's stop our never ending quest for growth for one hour and talk about how the way we work is serving us or not serving us. That already is, it would be a huge step forward because we just don't have the conversation.

Daniel: Yes.

Aaron: You know, people go from meeting to meeting project or project week two week job to job until they retire or die. Yeah. And, and it's sort of like, you know, how do we actually make pause and make space and they're out the drawer a little bit so that we can think and we can observe and reflect. And so I think that's the first impediment to the conversation. And then, yeah, I think the second one is about, you know, identity and ego and power, which is, you know, if, if we're moving to a model as, as I'm sort of proposing and observing frankly in the book, it's not like I'm just making this stuff up.

Aaron: What I'm, when I'm observing in the book is organizations moving to a model that is more decentralized and requires more, um, you know, sort of more power and more ways and more transparency, um, and more participation in shaping the, you know, not just the work, but the way of working in the organization than a lot of people start to ask questions like, well, who am I then if I was the Checker, if I was the reviewer, if I was the yes, no person, then what does that mean for me? So I think there's, there's a lot of that kind of stuff going on and also just, um, the conversation of being uncertain and uncomfortable. Right? So what might happen if we, you know, what if got rid of a rule that's driving everyone crazy and we didn't have a replacement, what might happen? Right? And how do I feel about that uncertainty?

Aaron: And you know, that that control, I think sometimes even more than power is, is actually the hot button. It's the thing that we're worried about.

Daniel: Yeah. I mean, could, I mean, I don't know...is control different than power?

Aaron: Well in a way..

Daniel: Or are we, like, putting too fine a point on on that?

Aaron: Yeah. Let me see what I mean when I think the distinction is, and it may not be that you know, this is dictionary level true, but what I think the distinction is is often when I talk about power, I think about power with and over others. So how I relate to others and what I can tell people to do or not do. And you know, that kind of thing. I think about control certainly of other people, but also thinking about control of in the world, right? Can I ever really control what happens to me and to my business, my family into the market and, and this illusion of control that we're so in love with, with the plan and the, the rules and the boundaries that say like, Oh, I'm safer now because everything's in place, right?

Aaron: That when I talk about control, I sort of mean controlling the universe. Right? And not just other people

Daniel: You know, it's a friend of mine who's a senior Ux leader, he is being pushed by his organization to like make a five year plan. And he's like, no I won't. And they're like "no you have to!",

Aaron: He knows how crazy that is.

Daniel: Like I can't give you a three or five year roadmap. Like I don't know if people are going to be using apps like I don't know if people are going to be people anymore like

Aaron: right!

Daniel: But that's really scary. But we'll, so I mean cause I mean we're talking about some really fundamental things to like, pardon the French but fuck with, because this fucks with people, I mean just in my own experience

Aaron: And it's really just a trade, right? I mean I think the, when you first started talking about new ways of working and and self management and self organization and things like that, people's, I think many people's heads go to the idea of like, oh well the options then control, no control, chaos or bureaucracy.

Daniel: Like everything is false dichotomy there. Those are false dichotomies.

Aaron: And the reality is like, no, I just want you to trade one kind of control for another. So I always make the analogy, if you were, you know, sailing a boat across the Atlantic and you could steer once or every minute, which would you choose? Everyone's like, obviously I would choose every minute. Why? Because it gives you greater control. And then I'm like, cool, tell me about your annual plan. And it's like, you know, we're just doing the exact opposite in a different context because somehow it feels more like control.

Daniel: That's sneaky! That's not fair. You know the answer to that question, just setting people up to fail with that thought experiment!

Aaron: I do a lot of that, Actually I do a lot of that in my speeches, in my workshops. So I sort of, I ask, you know, questions that, that the commonsensical answer is yes.

Aaron: The point though is, is that yes, common sense is actually pretty good when it comes to org design. Like, if you actually just listened to your comments and sentence and then translate it. It's that we have all these other ideas that we've absorbed and metastasized that, that make the way we work. So, you know, weird and Byzantine and inhuman. Yes. Um, so like we're actually a six year old is capable of designing a good organization. You just have to like ask the Socratic questions.

Daniel: Do you think this is a very potentially controversial question? Like is all of this stuff that we're trying to do create more human companies being more um, uh, distributed? Is it, uh, in opposition to capitalism? Like are...

Aaron: no, no, I don't think it is actually. I think, um,

Daniel: because it seems like capitalism like, concentrates power necessarily and, uh, it's about ownership of the system versus authorship and...

Aaron: it is in opposition to advanced capitalism and crony capitalism. Yes. Um, but I think, you know, there's a big difference between the capitalism that we live in right now and capitalism, the idea ...of you say like, do we need competition and free markets? I would say, hell yes. And in fact, most of the companies we study in the book have extremely marketplace oriented systems, right? They have people serving people in relationships and agreements that you know where the things that work continue in the things that don't work, die. So that's very capitalist. The question though is in service of what, and so if you know, if you're capitalism os basically says that this is in service of never ending growth and ultimate winners who control monopolistic enterprises, that will lead you to a very particular definition. But if the, if the free market and the competition is about who can do you know, what's best for the community, then we're still competing.

Aaron: We're just competing on different terms. And so to me like capitalism is, you know, yes, obviously there's some, some aspects to, you know, who owns labor and who owns the means of production and all that kind of stuff. And, and I think you can get into that, but it's becomes a gray area to me. Like yeah, we already live in a world with a lot of socialism and a lot of capitalism and guess what I think the future is going to contain. Bits of both. Yes. And that's all fine.

Daniel: That's not American! Aaron, first of all, I'm just telling...

Aaron: sorry!

Daniel: ...but did you ever get pushback from leaders on this of like, well if I, if I let go of this control, it's, you know, they own the company, right?

Aaron: No, actually what's funny is with people who literally own their company, they don't have a problem because they're probably quite wealthy already and they're much more interested in the meaning and impact and nature of the work they do and being less stressed out by having to try to run everything.

Aaron: The problem is people who run companies but don't own them, who are subject to the demands of a faceless investor class that that effectively, that's where the real issue lies, right? That you know, your, your 401k holds shares in a thing alongside a big, you know, police pension fund that are demanding a certain rate of return actually, you know, nobody's really accountable for, and then it's put on the, on the, you know, sort of before the feet of the CEO. So, but what's weird is like in the book I talk about these two, mindsets, people positive and complexity conscious and the people positive mindset was the one about how almost all the cultures and examples I looked at, take it, take it as a given that people can be trusted and should be respected and should be, you know, that they're motivated by autonomy and mastery and purpose and connectedness and all these sorts of things rather than carrots and sticks.

Aaron: And rather than saying that people are sort of inherently untrustworthy or evil or stupid or any of the other myriad things that most businesses assume in their, in their model, right?

Daniel: Yeah, yeah.

Aaron: If you, if you have a clock where people punch in and punch out, you are assuming and not people positive characteristic that people are going to take advantage. So, so that was one view. And then the other view, complexity conscious is about recognizing that the world is complex. It's dynamic, it's uncertain, it's unpredictable. And so therefore we need to, uh, solve problems and build models and build organizations to adapt to that, to be, to be able to, you know, respond and sense accordingly. And what's weird is when you put them in tension with each other, that's where things get really interesting. So it's sort of the map back to the capitalism question, you know, all way itself, the complexity conscious mindset leads to these companies that are like relentless learners at the expense of the people inside and the customers themselves.

Aaron: And you can think, you can think of who I might be referring to, right? Like you can think of companies that learn really fast, but it sounds like they're ultimately not going to be good for us. Um,

Daniel: well cause we're gonna automate everything and put people out of business, out of jobs

Aaron: but they're just gonna, they're gonna follow the data to our, to our lowest common denominator,

Daniel: out worst impulses of clicky, click, click, click.

Aaron: yeah, we end up in the Wally World. So I think that's, that's one side of it. But then the people positive side pulls in the other direction says, no, you know, what's the most humanist, most human centric, most community oriented thing we can do. And of course that left to its own devices becomes really bad because you end up making you make bad stuff. Like it's, you're not even necessarily learning, adapting, you're not, you're not competing in a market of ideas.

Aaron: And so you end up with some really lazy work and some, you know, some, not all, but some nonprofits kind of go that way where they're there. So people focused that they almost suck at what they do ultimately. Right? Yeah. They've sort of forgotten what that is when their in tension, that's when things get really interesting. And I would say the same thing for capitalism and socialism, right? Like it's when we, it's when these things tug on each other that things get interesting.

Daniel: I think it's interesting and I'm glad that, I mean like I assume you saw the, um, the Ray Dalio video where he was talking about like, capitalism needs a reboot.

Aaron: Yeah.

Daniel: And so it's great that people are questioning the rules by which we live by. I I want to talk about OSs, but I will before we go into that, like we sort of touched on this idea of theory x versus theory y and I want to make it like explicit because I think in the book you made a really interesting point that, uh, for ourselves we're like, oh yeah, I'm conscientious, I'm, you know, thoughtful. But those people like...

Aaron: those other people...

Daniel: Yeah. So like that's a really, that was kind of an interesting, I'd never really heard x and y sort of put in that sort of like us versus them way of like, well, I'm responsible

Aaron: I think it's the lake Wobegon effect like gone awry, which is that, you know, we always think of ourselves in a better light. And then when we look at others, particularly distant others, we that are very, very unlike us. We just, we attribute all these things to them that are probably not the case. And so I just noticed that, um, you know, yeah. When you think about like am I creative, am I self directed? Do I seek responsibility and greatness? Yeah, of course. Yeah. What about the people at the grocery store and it's like, oh well the people at the grocery store obviously lazy and don't give a fuck.

Daniel: Okay, so here's our opening to talk about Game Frame! You gave it right to me! I was reading game frame, your first book that you're trying to bury with this second book, there's like the woman's not the, it's like she's there on job. And on her first day she was like, okay, there's lots of stuff to do. I'm learning things. And then everything flattens out and then, "I'm bored. I'm disengaged". She doesn't, you know, she's just clocking in and clocking out. And so the thing is like, it's not her fault, it's the way the thing is designed. And that...

Aaron: That's my general thesis about all of it is that um, people are people and people are chameleons and people are highly sensitive to the culture and environment they're in. And the system, the aquarium, the container tells us a lot about how we're supposed to show up. And over time it can even beat us into submission. And so we have to change the, we have to change the system and that's hard to do when we're reinforcing things that we ourselves didn't even create, you know, um, Seth Godin had on his podcasts recently, this story of this psychological or I guess a biological experiment where they have all these monkeys, they're reaching for a banana up on a tower and they spray them with a hose. And so the monkeys obviously don't like that. So they come down and then they bring new monkeys in and the new monkees see the banana and they're like, I'm going to run up the tower and get it.

Aaron: And the older monkeys had been sprayed, stopped them and they're like, don't, don't climb young blood. And then, and then they take out over time, all the monkeys who have ever been sprayed. And when a new monkey comes in, the monkeys who have never been sprayed still stop the, the new entrant from reaching for the banana because that's just what we do here now. So it's like when I ask questions of teams, like why do you have meetings this way? Or why do you budget this way or why you need a boss that looks like that or acts like that. It's just like, I dunno, that's what these monkeys do.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, so this gets to the point of like, why is it designed the way it's designed? Was it even designed?

Aaron: Why indeed!

Daniel: and this also goes back to the question of in this happens in my work where people are already operating at 100% and when you give them new tools, you know, I go in and I teach them new facilitation methodologies or design thinking or whatever. And they're like, yeah. So it was really hard to get those two days to even think about this stuff. You know, there's no time to think about how to use these tools in our work. And so it's just like, where's the space to like

Aaron: yeah, it just bounces off.

Daniel: yeah, it just bounces off...Cause they were like, well we're already at 100% like we don't, we can't think about designing our systems because we're using our systems all the time. So there's no time to design the system or to redesign the system.

Aaron: That's right. Yeah. If I find the same thing. And in many ways I think like the, the simplest version of explaining what myself and other people at the ready actually do is we're just good at asking slash helping people make that space. Like it's, you know, at the end of the day, a lot of the value is just in having a partner who's like, Hey, on Friday we're going to not do that. Like we're going to change our rhythm, we're going to make space and we're going to kind of hold ourselves accountable to that. And, and if you're not ready to do that, obviously it's not going to happen. But if you are ready to do it, I think having, having someone around who's encouraging it and coaching to that is almost more valuable than the ideas. And the, you know, new fangled way ways and not like all that's great, but you can find all that if you stop anyway and just pay attention.

Daniel: So like if, I mean the kind of clients that you and I work for are ones that are asking the question. Um, this is like, this is, oh, it's Passover coming up. This is perfect. Um, this won't release during Passover, but, you know, do you know, do you know about the, the, the, the, the question, the four questions. In other words, there's a story of the three sons, um, and, and uh, one of the sons, I'm going to get this wrong in the middle of like a horrible Jew, but the, the idea is like, one of the sons says like, okay, well what's going on? Like why is tonight different than all other nights? And you're like, okay, well here's why. Like, where's his, why we'd Matzah this is why you tell them the story of Passover. And then, um, the other son's like, well, why do you do all these things?

Daniel: And so he's separated himself from the question. And then the, the response is to say like, well, this is what God did for me when he brought me out of Egypt and this is what you speak to your own experience. And then there's another son that where they're just like, they don't even know how to ask a question. And, and for that you sort of like take time and you really stretch it out and you break it down piece by piece for them. And I imagine that there's like the spectrum of people who read this book, some of them are like, this is already a priority for us and we have budget for it. And that's why we're going to make time and space for it by paying consultants to do it. And there's others who are like, not even asking this question and some who's gonna read this book and they're stuck in the middle of this fershlugenah organization (that just working my Yiddish in there and get it in). And they're like, where does somebody start when the, when the company does not have the extra resources, right. Mental, emotional, physical to be having this dialog.

Aaron: Yeah. And I think, I mean, if somebody reads this work and it speaks to them, then I think that's one thing and it doesn't speak to them and who cares? Um, but if it does speak to them. Then they kind of have two choices. And I've seen people go both routes. One is that it feels like the organizational debt is just too high to pay off and by that I mean, so many policies and practices and norms are out of whack. That and the level of openness is so low. Um, then the easiest thing might be to just not work there. Um, and if that's a privilege that you have, then it's a privilege you can enjoy. Yeah. Not everybody has that privilege, but I think if you can choose where you work, then choose better.

Aaron: Um, so I think that's, that's one piece. But the second piece is if you, if you choose to stay or are you have to stay, then you can start where you are. And that means, you know, do I lead a team? Do I have, do I lead a project? Do I have an open ear of someone who does? Um, so that we can start by asking the question, you know, what's stopping us from doing the best work of our lives in this domain, in this space, in this sphere? And then start, um, start iterating, start playing with, with, with how we show up. So I think sometimes we get overwhelmed by the scale and the magnitude and all the other people we have to convince and it becomes this big thing. But reality is like, at least 50% of the stuff is driving us crazy is right here.

Aaron: You know, is right...And they can't see me. I'm waving at my face.

Daniel: Aaron's actually the problem, everybody. that was a metaphorical...

Aaron: So it's in the way for everyone. Like it's, it's going on with us. How we, uh, how we meet, how we share information, how we plan our work flow, how we do what we do. And then, and then certainly the people we're closest with, our teams are our colleagues. The people that trust us. Like there's, there's a lot going on just in those small pockets that frankly, you know, if you move on some of the stuff and you move it in the right direction, everybody else notices and they notice the, the energy and the engagement and the commitment and the service level that your group or team is providing. Um, and they start to be curious themselves.

Aaron: So I think the best way to create curiosity sometimes is to, is to just start acting where you can. Yeah. And then the other thing is, you know, being brave enough and it's why it's called brave new work, you know, being brave enough to ask these questions in larger forums like to ask, because one of the things I find is people are like, oh, I want to change this, this and this, and I go to my leader and maybe they won't like it or they won't agree or they won't hear me or I already have and they don't give a shit or whatever. And I'm like, don't ask, don't do that. Go to them and ask, what do they think is holding back the team from doing the best work of its life? And then they'll say, oh, well, you know, I, this is like everybody has an answer to that question. Everybody's got a thing that's on their mind that's, that's holding the organization back. Nobody's ever like, oh, it's perfect. Just keep doing what you're doing. So though when they say, then let's start there, let's start with what's true for them. And that's a way to invite and open possibilities up. So I think a good way to...

Daniel: I'm a big fan of that word invitation. Uh, you know, in my own model of conversations, you can either just initiate them or you can invite them. And what's interesting about the canvas is this idea, this is, I think this is a direct quote. The canvas can provoke the conversation. I also feel like it contains the conversation and in and in both good ways.

Aaron: It focuses it

Daniel: Yes, it focuses it and provides, like in my language, every conversation has an interface, something that mediates it. Like, like the luminiferous ether of, of space and time. But it's like, it's like it's an interface for the, for the dialogue. It's a place where it can happen.

Aaron: Yeah. And I, I did not want to create it as a, as sort of a frame or a tool to limit, but I did want to create it to focus because if you've done this work for awhile and you've had these conversations and you're, and you're digging deep, you're going to find all these nuances and interconnections and other things you want to talk. And that's all great because now you're doing it like it's going to the gym, your 500th time versus your first time, right? Like 500 time at the gym, you can make up your own circuit, you know what I mean? But, but for the people that I was encountering that were sort of coming to this fresh are coming to this for the first time or in a long time, they were kind of like, there's so much in our way of working. Like where should I begin? Where should I look?

Aaron: Where should I, where should I start to ask questions? And so the thought was these 12 spaces are the spaces where the organizations that seem to be working most differently that have ditched bureaucracy and found more human, more adaptive ways to work. These are the spaces where they're doing things most differently and where they're most aggressively flipping the table over. And so it's a good bet that if you dig in these holes, you're going to find little opportunities and treasures and, and things to, to act on. And then, yeah, if you want to go beyond that, are you, are you figure something else out? That's great that I'm not trying to restrict that, but I am trying to say, boy, if you haven't asked yourself the tough questions about these 12 spaces, we haven't even done the work of 21st century org design. Like you're not even there.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. You know, it's, it's amazing. And I, and I wanna I want to honor your work because like I read the medium article that you wrote almost like 2015. Now it's long time ago when it was just nine elements and uh, um, I think the idea of a, an operating system was interesting and inspirational for me and in my own work, you know, so the book that I'm working on, I think I sort of tried to ask myself like, what is the smallest number of elements that one can think about to make a canvas for what, what is controllable and what is alterable about a conversation? And it kind of blew my mind in the book that you, that you expanded it from, from nine to 12. Um, changing the symmetry significantly and, but also maybe being, is it, is it, is it MECE now is, is that even, does that matter?

Aaron: No, but it is, but it is more MECE now. So it's not,

Daniel: Oh, and can we define MECE for those people who are not as geekalicious as you and I are...

Aaron: mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive. It's actually an old consulting term. Yeah. So, no, it's not, it's never, it was ever intended to be. But what I found is that the first version, while it had nine boxes, really each box had many words in it. It was like a run on sentence in each one. So it wasn't really fairly nine things. It was, it was these sort of groupings of things

Daniel: you've chunked.

Aaron: Yeah, they were chunked. And so it was arbitrary in a way. And what I wanted to do is actually simplify it and say, all right, one big idea, one focal point in each space. And, and so in a way the 12 is actually a reduction.

Aaron: It's actually a simplification of what was there before. It just feels like more of a pain in the ass. I mean 12 not that many things. Um, right on top of things of things that you could, you could count. There's lots more numbers. There's 12 months. We can name them all. We're fine. Totally.

Daniel: So I think the thing that's really amazing is that in the opening of the book, I think you, you explained this idea of an operating system very well using the intersection analogy. Like, I don't know, where did, did the operating system concept come in from the game frame book, like your interest in games on, like how did that sort of filter into your brain and then into my brain?

Aaron: No, I mean I think it was, this is a, a way of using that phrase or that, that term that was bubbling up in culture in lots of different pockets I think over the last decade. In some ways it's a bastardization of the term, right? Because if you should go real technologists, like an operating system is a very specific thing and it's not this thing. And I was like, and then I, and then I talked to people on the, on the very like sort of teal, you know, um, new work side of the spectrum and they're like, an operating system is way too mechanistic a metaphor. It's a terrible metaphor for that reason. So, so I'm like, I don't, I don't appeal to either. I'm not trying to appeal to either of those things that I'm trying to say is there is a a system of operating, a way of operating, a way of being in the world and it's made up of assumptions and principles and practices and norms and patterns of behavior and it's coded into the system. It's sort of, it's the foundation upon which other things happen.

Aaron: And so what I mean by that is like, you know, we walk into a conference room and there's a table and chairs in there, table and chairs, our assumptions are baked in from the get go and no one who works in the company gets to change that. That's just the way things are. And so if you want to do something in a meeting where you want to move people around, tough luck. If you want to have another whiteboard in that space, there isn't one. Like it's just the choice has been made for you. And I think when I was, when I was originally scratching at was this idea that there seemed like there all these things in culture and the culture of business, particularly Western business that were like, the decision has been made for us, we're going to have an annual budget.

Aaron: That's how it is. Nobody even thinks to say, wait a second. Does that make any sense anymore? Did it ever make sense? Yeah.

Daniel: And this is the water the fish are not noticing

Aaron: exactly. Yeah, this is water. Yeah. So, so I think, um, that was the thought. So I don't mean it literally, uh, I, I just mean, you know, I know as a way of working a, a set of assumptions and, and so, uh, that metaphor, good or bad has really helped people that I work with connect the dots and be like, Oh yeah, I get it. Like there is an underlying set of stuff that we're living and breathing in and that might need to change. And so what does that look like?

Daniel: Yeah. But I, going back to that mechanistic thing, it's, it's um, I mean we're definitely, it's, it's, it's, it's interesting that we're using a technological metaphor instead of like a truly mechanical metaphor. We're using a metaphor of our age that people understand this idea of like an operating system and applications you can install on it.

Aaron: Yeah. But one, by the way, that's one way to go with it. I take umbrage at that as well because I'm like, look, DNA is an operating system. Physics is an operating system. Like don't tell me that they're not.

Daniel: They are, well, I mean, as a person with a physics degree, I would say I have a hard time with physics as an operating system versus like, the geometry of of space and time.

Aaron: But that's what I mean, the, the underlying first principle rules of physics or an OS layer on this universe and like do stuff that they don't allow.

Daniel: Sure. I mean with the presumption that there's, and, well this is an amazing rabbit hole, but there are other universes within our multi-verse where gravity is stronger. Right? But there's still gravity.

Aaron: And there are other companies for whom their OS is different.

Daniel: Yeah, totally. Well, so here's the thing. You cannot, uh, cut and paste somebody else's operating system, right? Like, which is, which seems frustrating, I would guess to some people where they're like, can we just do 20% free time and be, you know, as profitable as...

Aaron: Yeah, and we'd be Google

Daniel: Right...and be Google …can we do, because the cookies are not Google. I mean the cookies in San Francisco, Google, San Francisco office are delicious, but that's not what makes Google, Google. That's an outgrowth. You're looking at the wrong thing.

Aaron: Right. And also, I just think again, it mistakes the Organization for the complicated system. Like a watch and not a complex system like a garden. Yes. You know, you can't, you can't rubber stamp. So yes, if you, if you like my watch, you can buy all the same parts and build your watch. It'll be exactly the same. It'll work just the same. Yes. But if you like my garden, what are you going to do? Yeah. Talk. The only choice you have is to nurture and grow and look and try to compare and see what works and what serves because your sunlight is going to be a little different and your seeds are going to be a little different and your soil's going to be a little different. You can't rubber stamp my garden.

Daniel: Yeah. Micro climate. It's a thing. Um, so like the thing that's, um, it's, it's on my, my sketch notes near this, this idea of uh, the, the moon and the finger pointing at the moon. And this is like, um, I grew up reading zen, zen flesh and bones and I was sort of like pleasantly surprised to see that story, that analogy in your book. And maybe can you talk a little bit about that idea because it seems relevant to this context of the goal versus the path.

Aaron: Right. One of, one of the, um, results of having a culture of work that really came out of a factory model and that came out of a very mechanistic, complicated oriented model is that we, we want things to be the one best way and the answer and the method and the checklist and all that sort of thing we hunt for that were actually trained to look for that in business school. You know, the whole idea of the MBA business case, it's sort of like look for the lesson and apply the lesson liberally everywhere else you go. And so that we look for that stuff. And as a result, a lot of the emerging trends in ways of working like agile or lean or open or you know, you name it, um, are become kind of get turned into something else other than what they are.

Aaron: So instead of looking at like, what is the essence of agility, we look at capital A agile, how do I get certified as a scrum master? Right? And one of the boxes I have to check to be a, uh, you know, scrum organization and now I've done it and I've checked the box. And so I've done. And so the point of the, of the story obviously is that if you, you know, if you mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon, then then you sort of go down this path that is not wise, that you lack the wisdom. And in the same way, you know, when people get obsessed with the tactics and the practices and not the principles and the, and the meaning, they get lost as well. So there's so many teams I've coached who are like, Oh yeah, we, you know, we use a Kanban board already.

Aaron: We're hip to that. We got that stuff figured out. Cool. Why, why, why, what does the Kanban board, why a Kanban board, what does it do? Like what does it mean? And they're sort of like, it's the, it's a box that we chat. Like we're doing it as opposed to saying like, oh, well, you know, theory of constraints and here's how I think about flow and stock. And like, you know, all the ways in which

Daniel: Transparency!

Aaron: Yeah. Like information radiators and all this stuff that would like explain that they understand the reasoning behind the math behind that practice. And if you took it away, if you'd like, you can have a Kanban board, they'd be like, we can figure out another way to have all those things because we understand what all the things we're trying to have actually are. And so to me, the finger pointing at the moon was just a really good, you know, obviously little piece of Zen wisdom. But the idea that like, we love to look at the finger and we love to standardize and we love to sort of get preoccupied with the, with the best practice and with like, you know, the magazine article on what the cool company does.

Daniel: Yeah.

Aaron: It's much, much harder to wallow in the reality of figuring it out for yourself.

Aaron: That's true. Right. It's, it's because it's, and it's, and that's why, you know, conversations are messy and organic and fluid and, uh, there's no endpoint necessarily, right? Because right. Raymont until the company goes out of business,

Aaron: you can't, you can't borrow wisdom and you can't finish. So it means that you to decide to be a player of the game. Right. You know, you have to, the infinite game is something you have to be like, I'm going to do it.

Daniel: I'm so glad that I feel like every interview eventually has to touch on finite and infinite games. One of the books that everybody should read if they want to understand how the world is, well, how did you find the book that, that, um, which we would used to be a big secret. And now like Simon Sineck, as you know, I'm not going to get ripped off. Yeah. I mean, I'm a little offended that he's like, yeah.

Aaron: Well, I hope he does. I mean, obviously it could go either way, right? Like you could be, it could be very much a regurgitation of someone else's great work. But what I hope he does is um, mainstream at more because it, it is a secret thing. Like it is a kind of like passed from one person to the next kind of a book. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure that it never found its full footing. So if nothing else like, like I like seminar, the big platform can maybe help it find, find broader flooding, a best case scenario. But um, yeah I honestly don't remember how I got it. That's the whole point, right? It was like, it was sort of, it was handed to me. Um, and you know, and I think it's, it's an idea whose time has come for sure. Cause we, we've been obsessed with the finite for the last century and you know, start it's time to start thinking longer term than are the front of our own nose. Yeah. Is that, is that the sort of the fundamental yeah.

Daniel: What was the life lesson you took from that book? Like what, where, where does it, where does it live for you? I can tell you where it lives for me.

Aaron: Um, I think there's a lot of lessons to take from it. Obviously. I mean it's, it's, you know, how attic and weird and it's applications. My, my take is just that simply that, um, you know, they're like operating systems. There are different ways to approach problems and there are different ways to approach showing up in systems. And if we, you know, there are, there are games that are deemed finite and that have ends and winners and things like that. And there are games that are deemed infinite and don't have winner and continuing or more conversations, et cetera. I think what is, what is not necessarily set overtly in the book, but that I believe is that like the, that's totally arbitrary. Like we get to decide which games finite and infinite. And we, and so as a result, like when we, when we characterize it the wrong way, we've, we lose. And if we, if we characterize businesses finite, we lose. If we characterize politics is finite, we lose, if we characterize the environment as finite, we lose. So, um, so in some ways I think it's just about, uh, elevating, you know, to it, to a higher level of play. Yeah.

Daniel: Yeah, totally. Um, so we're, we're almost at the end of our time together. Like, is there anything we haven't touched on that you think it's important for us to, to dive into about,

Aaron: I mean, this has been, this has been pretty far reaching. Yeah. I haven't attended the physics operating system of the multiverse. I feel like I would be remiss to criticize the size, the scope and breadth of the conversation.

Daniel: Well, fair enough. I mean, I'm looking at my notes. I think, I mean, I guess the one question I would have is like his bravery enough.

Aaron: Hmm.

Aaron: I think it, I think, yes, I think it can be, um, you know, obviously the work that we face ahead of us to rethink our institutions. And I mean that very broadly, um, is, is huge work and it's the work of the next decade plus of it's the next generation plus that have to have to deal with that. And so I think the question is what are we willing to risk, um, and what are we willing to give up. And in many cases, you know, to let go of one vine, you have to grab the next. And you know, there's like a little bit of a, of a fear and a vulnerability and an a loss that goes along with that. So to me, I think the bravery, um, if we had a lot more of it would certainly go a long way. The bravery, you know, to be, to be vulnerable, to be bold, to take risks, to leave space to, you know, to do more with less. You know, all those things I think require us to sort of face ourselves and, and face the void. Um, so yeah, I mean, I mean Shit, you know, we could, we could use a lot of other things too, but I think if we had a lot more bravery, uh, pointed at how we work and solve problems together, um, that would, that would be quite far reaching.

Daniel: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's really powerful. And also just like the thing you said about loss, I haven't published it yet, but I did have a wonderful episode with um, with Bree Groff who obviously, you know, um, her, we talked a lot about this idea of like, change requires grieving loss and dealing with, with, with loss and letting go of the, of the old. And so I think that's like,

Aaron: Yeah, it's a rite of passage, It always is

Aaron: Yeah. So I think there's like that piece. Yeah. And we maybe don't talk enough about the sort of like, I think maybe there's a yin and Yang of, of bravery and also grieving.

Aaron: I think that's true. Yeah. I think that's very much very much the case. But of course you can't, you can't grieve what you're not ready to, to lose so that, you know, they go one there, one, two punches. I think, uh, which we could use more of all of it. Yeah. More of all of that. I say "pay attention...bring it!"

Daniel: So, I'm going to conclude our conversation. Like people can find you. Where should people go to look for the more of the things about, you know, all the, all things Dignan... Like obviously they can just Google brave new work and they'll probably find you

Aaron: They'll find stuff. Yeah. I mean bravenewwork.com is the site for the book, which is nice. And we've got information there about, uh, workshops and other things going on around it. Um, the ready.com is the site for the organization that I work with, with that sort of tries to do this work in the real world. And then I'm uncleverly Aaron Dignan on almost every social platform that I participate in.

Daniel: So it's reliable. That's, you know, there's nothing wrong with that...

Aaron: Full name, no spaces, hyphens, no underscores, just

Aaron: not love death and robots..Dot..You know, whatever?

Aaron: No, No, none of that.

Daniel: Well that's, yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Um, Mr Dignan, I really appreciate you making the time for this conversation. I'm glad we made it happen.

Aaron: Yeah, me too. Yeah. Thanks a lot. This is fun. And, uh, you know, we'll, we'll talk again when something happens or the next one happens.