898: How to Reduce Workplace Drama and Ego with Cy Wakeman

Pete Mockaitis
I am excited to be here as well and I have so much I want to learn about drama, and ego, and entitlement, and accountability, and results. So much juicy high-stakes stuff, Cy. But, maybe, first, could we back it up and tell us there’s a tale in which you had an accidental discovery which led you down the path of being a drama research. Could you tell us this story?

Cy Wakeman
Absolutely. I was doing some academic work, my Master’s degree, but also, at the time, managing position offices. I had 19 clinics and I was a pretty young leader, and wanted to combine my work with my studies so I could kind of do two things at once. And so, I was wanting to study how physicians were adapting to a lot of medical records, and I thought I would do a quick time study just to see if using dictation and moving to the computer where they had the keyboard would really change their productivity negatively.

So, I put an observer in every room and I had them time how much time the physician was spending with the patients or how much time they’re spending typing because I had a baseline from their dictation how much time they spent on recording. And I just wanted to see if the new electric medical record had really slowed physicians down as much as they were telling me that was the case.

And, very quickly, I got a call and I had only given the group two ways to record time – time with patients and time with the keyboard – and they pointed out they really wanted a third column, and I really wanted the research not to be changed. I just wanted to write my paper, graduate from graduate school, and be done. And they convinced me I would really lose out on a huge discovery if I hurried the completion of that course.

And I asked them, I got curious, “So, what would the third column be?” And they said, “Well, we record time with the patient, time with the keyboard, but the third column would be how much time the physician spends complaining about the keyboard and the patient.” And that was so juicy that I said, “Oh, my gosh, I’m a psychology social work background, I want to know this.” And it came out to be an astounding two and a half hours a day per person.

Pete Mockaitis
So, these doctors were spending two and a half hours a day complaining about how dumb it is that they had…and I guess this was in the early stages, it’s a new change. I guess, like, they would get old, I imagine, after some weeks or months.

Cy Wakeman
It doesn’t.

Pete Mockaitis
Like, years in, they’re still complaining for two and a half hours a day.

Cy Wakeman
Yes, the average person. So, when I found out that the average person, and it’s not just venting, but it’s internal, “This is freaking wrong. This shouldn’t be happening.” I thought, “Maybe these physicians, it’s a new change or they’re just whiners.” And I went out and I looked at nursing, I went out and looked at other healthcare, technical roles, I looked in finance, I just kept repeating this research, and the average person, good performer, spends about two and a half hours a day walking around, going, “I’ll do it, but I shouldn’t have to, and this is sick and wrong, and somebody should figure out a better way. And I was a consultant and no one asked me,” and it’s just this huge emotional waste, this source of emotional waste.

And so, that eventually ends up it’s 816 hours a year. And it’s not even about productivity because people can work while they complain. It’s about time spent being miserable needlessly because most of what people are complaining about, their suffering comes from story not actual reality. It’s their story of how things should be, not the real inconvenience of how it is. So, it just really opened up a lot of people’s minds to the emotional wastes that is really a problem.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s powerful. So, two and a half hours a day, and so some of this time is spent complaining and working at the same time, so it’s not necessarily all two and a half hours of that time…

Cy Wakeman
It’s not like we’re taking a break to vent, although some people do. But an example, as a senior vice president in a health system, we had a policy that really saw a patient or their family loss, we would be service oriented, we call it wayfinding. No matter your position, you would greet the patient and ask them where they want to go, or their family, and you would personally walk them there because hospitals are confusing complex places. It’s not always laid out very clearly.

So, while I’m doing that, with a smile on my face, “Where are you going? How’s your care here?” internally, I am thinking, “Screw all this. I have a paper bag. How hard could it be to do a GPS app to get people where they need to go. The signage around here is absolutely ridiculous.” But, outwardly, I’m kind to people but burdened because I shouldn’t have to be, “This is somebody else’s responsibility. I’m surrounded by jerks and idiots.” And it’s just that constant judging that separates and erodes, and it’s really the source of ego. It comes from ego.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, fascinating. So, some of this complaining is internally, inside our own headspace. You’re not verbalizing it externally.

Cy Wakeman
A lot of it is. A lot of it is judging. Yup, judging not helping. It is even creating a story about someone so that it inhibits your collaboration because your mind is saying, “I already know what this is about. They’re out to get me. I’m a victim. They want to disprove me with my boss.” Like, there’s so much dialogue internal and external. But what I’ve come to do with my research is teach people two things.

I teach them how their mind works so they quit getting played by their ego, and they quit believing everything they think as if it’s true, and I teach people how the world works so they stop arguing with reality, which is an argument you’ll lose, like, 100% of the time. Two colossal wastes of energy when people really could have an impact.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, boy, Cy, there’s so much to jump into here.

Cy Wakeman
Is that by topic?

Pete Mockaitis
All right. So, the book is called No Ego: How Leaders Can Cut the Cost of Workplace Drama, End Entitlement, and Drive Big Results. So, maybe first, let’s just define ego. What precisely do we mean by ego?

Cy Wakeman
So, ego is not a bad thing. We all have it. The way I talk about it is it’s a part of your mind that can provide protection, it helps you when you’re two years old, separate out from your mom, and come to know that you’re separate in the world. And, as human beings, we tend to really overuse it. It’s a very primitive part of our brain. Its job is really to keep us safe and be pretty paranoid, and not give people benefit of the doubt.

The way I explain it is, like, if you imagine having a light switch on your forehead, like a toggle switch, an old-fashioned switch, not a dimmer, not Alexa, like just a toggle switch. And when it’s toggled down, you’re seeing the world through the lens of ego, and it’s like wearing a pair of glasses, prescription glasses, but it’s the wrong prescription. It distorts your view of the world.

So, when you’re getting information in through the lens of ego, you see fact plus story, fact plus color commentary, and your view of the world is very distorted. You see the world as more dangerous. You come to the conclusion, usually, that you’re the victim, somebody else is the villain, and you’re helpless, and it’s distorted information upon which you make pretty outlandish decisions based on, and then you co-create the very thing you probably feared.

So, let me give an example. I’m driving down the road, and all I know if I told you the facts were that someone appear to be male, driving a pickup truck, bumper stickers which I disagree with on the pickup truck, saying things that I would not support, moves into my lane of traffic, allowing me less room than I prefer. So, all this happens on my morning commute as I was driving, and someone, who I described, moves into my lane of traffic, and I prefer more room than that person driving gave me.

Now, if that’s all the information I have, if I just keep it right there an accurate view of reality, I would make good choices. I would say, “Oh, my gosh, I prefer more room, so I will slow down and allow this person in, and continue my beautiful commute. There’s nothing to be upset about, there’s nothing to be mad about.”

However, many of us experience those facts and we add story, “He’s a male chauvinist. Obviously, he doesn’t care about human life. He’s the problem with this country. He doesn’t care about human life. Got up this morning, he doesn’t respect me, tried to kill me as if he owns the road. It’s absolutely ridiculous.” And it sparks in me what feels like real emotion and anger, but the anger didn’t come from reality. Our suffering isn’t from reality. It’s from the story we make up about reality.

So, what choice do I make? “I prefer safety and room between us, but given his behavior, game on, I speed up. If he wants it unsafe, I’ll show him unsafe.” And now I co-create the very thing I said I stood against, so I get to work. It’s not very bonding to say, “You know, Pete, my commute, just a lot of it is adjusting to other people moving into my lane with less room than I prefer. How was yours?” There’s no bonding to happen.

But if I’m like, “Oh, my gosh, thanks for asking. Attempted murder. This guy, like, literally, tried to take me out, and it was absolutely ridiculous and it escalated.” And now, what my ego has got me doing is just crunching on dopamine, crunching on like a brain cocktail, and actually believing everything I’m saying. And we operate at that heightened distorted view of the world.

And the conclusion I come up with is, “I was an innocent victim. He’s a villain,” and that we have to have very harsh consequences, two people who act like that. And we just keep separating it out. At the time at work, we need to be collaborative, we need to be inclusive, we need to be turning towards one another, and putting all ideas on the table. We’re judging, not helping.

And so, when you’re toggled down, you’re using the most primitive part of your brain and you usually don’t have very many options. You have fight, flight, freeze, or fawn, so what people do is they say, “There’s nothing I can do.” They disengage. They create impact. They disengage, they can’t have impact, and so then they feel, like, work is not engaging them but it’s actually their story that’s not engaging.

But when we’re toggled up, because we have another option, you’re bringing coherence, you’re using high levels of consciousness, you’re seeing the world as it really is. And when you’re toggled up, you have a thousand more choices, and it doesn’t feel like such a burden. And so, as you toggle up, you’re naturally your best self, you’re most evolved, you’re highly accountable, you’re collaborative, you’re resembling all the things that you could be to really co-create some amazing things.

But most people toggle down, outsource their happiness and their circumstances, rather than toggling up, seeing reality as it really is, and looking for ways they can plug and play that rebuilds and has impact, and is inclusive and collaborative, and creative and innovative. And so, once I can teach people how to run their toggle switch, which is simply through the act of self-reflection and questioning your own thinking, once I can teach them that, the same job is very different, the same colleagues are partners.

It’s not toxic positivity. It’s not just thinking better about people. It’s seeing reality as it really is so you realize most of what you thought happened never did. So, it was just your brain trying to protect you.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. All right. So much good stuff here. So, toggle up, toggle down is like we sort of have a switch or a gear shifter, and we got the down mode, which is our primitive lizard limbic stuff, fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. I understand fight, that’s aggress, “Let’s rip into it.” Flight, “You know what, I’m out of here. Forget it,” leave the room or check out.

Cy Wakeman
Or quiet quitting, “I stay and just quit.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Freeze, that’s just sort of like you just sort of disassociate or do nothing. You’re just sort of like do. And, now, what’s fawn? I don’t know about this one.

Cy Wakeman
Fawn is when, let’s say, we stop at the gas station, the guy goes, “Hey, sorry I cut you off.” And I’m like, “It really wasn’t any issue. I didn’t even get upset about it. I understand. It’s hard to drive a pickup, especially with all those bumper stickers on it. It might be difficult.” It’s that fawning is really a passive-aggressive approach.

So, like, in a meeting after the meeting, you talk really aggressively about what happened. And then when somebody asks you directly, “Do you want to add any comments or talk about the risk of this idea?” you’re like, “No, I think it looks amazing.” So, it’s really kind of self-abandonment, fawning is.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and it’s interesting to think of it in the same context of those other options because it almost feels more devious and conscientiously chosen.

Cy Wakeman
And people say, “Our culture is just nice. We treat people like family.” I’m like, “That sounds a pretty dysfunctional way to treat family.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Okay. And then toggle up, so I like it. There’s a limited set of options versus toggling up. I’ve got a whole broader set of options, like, “Do I engage? Do I give a gift? Do I problem-solve something?” So, there’s a whole lot of ways we can go about that. All right, understood.

Cy Wakeman
And, usually, when you’re toggled up and you’re in high levels of consciousness, you’re helping not judging. You’re curious, you’re compassionate, you’re open-minded, open-hearted, “How can I give a person the benefit of the doubt? How can I turn back towards them? How can I approach this with curiosity?” because you’re not being driven out of, “I’m in danger and I have to do drastic things.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

Cy Wakeman
I think your listeners want to know if they do this, go on social media, read some posts you disagree with, and look at how you respond. So, if you agree with me, and write, and like, “Heck, yeah, Pete, great post.” If you don’t agree, I just put an emoji, like a calf and a poop symbol, and go, “I hate for this woman to be my manager. She sucks,” after a one-minute video. And instead of, “Tell me more,” or, “How might you apply this to this particular situation?”

Like, so many of the algorithms in our daily lives drive us towards polarization and settle in cognitive dissonance where many things can trip us in time with simplistic polarized yes-no, “Whose camp are you in?” and then, like, “What if we can sit if there’s only one camp?” It’s like the world and the human race. There’s all these divisiveness, and that’s really the work of the ego.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, so then what are the tools we would use to do the toggling up to get out of some of the drama and unpleasantness here?

Cy Wakeman
Really simple. There’s these great questions that will set you free, and the first question I like to ask myself is, “What do I know for sure?” And that loosens the ego’s grip on my view of the world. Like, “You tried to kill me,” like, actually, I don’t know that for sure. “He’s a male chauvinist pig,” I don’t even know if it’s his pickup. I don’t even know if he believes the bumper stickers. I really don’t know what those four words mean to him.

So, when I ask, “What do I know for sure?” it gets me back to reality. And then the next question, now that I’ve stopped judging, I can ask myself, “What could I do next that will help? If I say I want world peace, what can I do next to be peaceful? If I say I want safe commutes, what could I do next?” And now it brings us back into helping, not judging, and personal accountability. And sometimes what I can do is just bless them or give them the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t have to be any action.

And then a really final call for me is I often ask, because I want to live according to my principles and integrity, is, “If I were great right now, if I were my most evolved self, what would my next right action be?” And those three questions, those questions live in me. I just walk with them and I ask my teams a lot. So, when they come in and they’re mad at that colleague, I’m like, “What do you know for sure? Now, that you’ve stopped judging, what could you do to help? And if you were great right now, what would great look like?”

And that, people in their higher self, they usually come up with really helpful things that will move things along in the direction we all hope for.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, maybe could you give us an example? Let’s say someone is upset, they feel like they should’ve been included on an email, on a meeting. They feel undermined, cut out, excluded, something along these lines. It’s like, “I was not consulted, and I don’t like it.” How would we work through that?

Cy Wakeman
So, I would first premise with is a lot of people are like, “I just need to vent,” and they think venting is sharing feelings but venting, really, is a behavior, and it’s not sharing feelings. Venting is feelings plus story. So, feelings are like, “I’m frustrated.” A little context is, “I understand there’s a meeting that happened that didn’t include me, and I have some expertise in that area. My preference would be getting included.”

The venting is the respite, “They did this crap on purpose. They’re purposely excluding me. They want to discredit me. They’re trying to get by with something. And then you go back in history, they’ve done this 18 times. I’ve kept score.” That’s the venting part. So, let’s say my team member Alex comes in, and for my team, we’ve committed to note third options. You can either step in and impact. You can radically accept and extend grace, mercy, and tolerance.

But the third option where they don’t want to do either one of those, they just want to vent about it, most really great spiritual teachers, if you want little suffering, say, the third option, you can impact, and not control, its impact, or you can radically accept. Alex comes in, and says, “I’m so frustrated.” And as a leader, I want to validate his feelings, his experience, I’m like, “You look frustrated. What’s up?” “Well, Sara didn’t give me the information I needed for my report tomorrow. I’m going to have to stay late and I’m going to miss my kid’s ballgame.”

So, I can validate for him his experience, “Gosh, that sounds frustrating.” What I don’t need to validate as a colleague, a friend, or a leader, is the sense his ego is making of that.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, “Boy, she really did you dirty there.”

Cy Wakeman
Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
We don’t go there.

Cy Wakeman
Feelings sharing is like, “I see you’re frustrated,” but when he goes on to say, “She does this crap on purpose. She’s just trying to discredit me. Ever since she got that promotion, she thinks she’s all that bag of chips, and doesn’t realize that we’re still equal.” And I’m like, “Time out, time out. Two choices. If you were great right now, what would great look like? Please step up and impact this.” And he might consider that because self-reflection, you can’t vent and self-reflect at the same time. Your brain cannot do that.

That’s why it’s such a good hack because you can’t vent and help at the same time. So, I’m like, “Consider this question. If you were great right now, and you really wanted to impact your working relationship, that you were included and informed, what would that look like?” And he’s like, “Ahh, I could just simply like maybe put a reminder on our calendar three days before due date every month I needed the information, and to reach out to her to see if there’s any issue.”

I’m like, “Oh, my gosh, awesome. Go be great.” He’s like, “Yeah, but I shouldn’t have to.” The ego came calling. And I go, “Oh, my gosh, you were almost great.” The ego makes up rules that aren’t real and then when people violate it and we get really mad about it, like, “I shouldn’t have to put a reminder on a colleague’s calendar that’s helpful.” So, I said, “No problem, you don’t have to impact it. Then your other choice is can you radically accept it, that some days are like that? Have you ever been in a position where you missed a deadline? Can you extend mercy, grace, and tolerance?”

And his heart softened. He’s like, “Oh, my gosh, yes. She’s a good team member. We’ve had a lot going on. She helped me out before.” And I said, “Perfect. Like, can I help you? Like, if you have to stay late, I’ll pull some numbers for you. What do you need?” And we start working on that, and Alex goes, “Well, wait a minute. So, she’s just going to get away with it?” And I’m like, “So, you’re not letting it go? So, you’re going to impact it.”

And when you put the bagel in a squeeze box like that, you can see it grows more and more ridiculous, “So, you want her to pay for it and you don’t want to help her remember it, and you want an engaging great place to work without you being willing to do any part in helping your human companions?” And so, that whole piece of it, in the beginning, people get really mad because the ego can’t find a place to be a victim in there. It’s like adulting. It’s how the adults step up to impact. Yeah, it’s like adulting.

Pete Mockaitis
These are fantastic distinctions which just really clarify and crystallize things. So, sharing feelings plus context is different than venting. Venting is creating a big old story, it’s like, “I felt this associated with these things.” Okay. And then the main choices are: make an impact, change the situation, radically accept this is how it is, and extend mercy, grace, and tolerance, which feels nice. But don’t vent because then you’re just sort of giving ego fuel and being a victim, and that’s not really great for anybody in terms of our emotions, our engagement, our feeling good, our work relationships, etc. So, that’s cool.

Cy Wakeman
Exactly. And that’s a great point because a lot of people, I’m like, “So, why do you want to vent?” They’re like, “I want to feel better.” I’m like, “I have a more scientific way proven to feel better, which is accountability.”

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Yes, I’ve seen some of the research.

Cy Wakeman
People are like, “I want to feel better,” but venting comes with a hangover. And the more you vent, the more you’ve trained your neural pathways that you need cheap dopamine and heightened disgruntlement. And for the ego to stay alive, it needs to stay mildly disgruntled. It eats anger for lunch. So, now you have to look elsewhere in the world for something that is wrong. And what we start doing is we outsource our happiness, “I’ll be happy when I have the perfect boss who’s never human. And I’ll be happy when everyone works exactly like I do. I’ll be happy when everyone agrees with me.” I’m like, “Well, your world has got to be pretty small then for you to get happy.”

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. That notion, “I shouldn’t have to,” and you said we make up rules, and then are angry when other people don’t follow them. And I’m thinking, I got a book on my shelf, Feeling Good, Dr. David Burns, talking cognitive distortions and ‘shoulds’ is a big one. I would love for you to dig into this territory a little bit. How should we think about ‘shoulds’? And what is an optimal approach when we hear our brains firing off that stuff?

Cy Wakeman
I’m so glad that you bring up on your podcast the solid evidence around cognitive distortions and all the ways that we do that. I think the best way I can explain my view on should is a question. So many people come to me as a therapist, it was about marriages, “Should I stay? Should I go?” And at work, like people come to me all the time, like, “Should I stay here and put up with this crap? Or, should I just leave and find another job?”

And what I tell people is, “If those are your questions, you’re never going to get good answers. If you want better answers, get better questions.” And when you’re using should, “Should I?” it’s a problem. One, it’s external focused, “What would you do?” or, “What would another person do?” or, “What would a good girl do?” or, “What would God have us do?”

It’s also very conditional, “I have a good week at work, then I should stay,” “I have a bad week work at work, then I should go.” So, it really keeps us externally focused. It’s so conditional, made-up, and silly. I would ask people, “What’s your soul craving right now?” or, “What do you hope to see happen? And then, how can you get that using your words and your actions, and evolving yourself to move through the world more skillfully to get that more often?”

Because that should piece has so many implications, like, “The world owes me something. There’s a formula on how the world should work. And I’m in charge of how people should behave. And I had some agreements, somebody’s ripping me off because my birthright is a perfect boss.” It really gets you into territory that you’ll be chronically disgruntled.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. So, if we catch ourselves in a should, is there sort of like a stop, drop, and roll or key protocol or steps you recommend we do?

Cy Wakeman
When you get into should, know that you’re absolute into story of how you would prefer the world to work, but you haven’t even questioned that. You may not even prefer it that way. But when you get into ‘shoulds,’ it is the key indication that you are externally attached and you’re into ego, your view is distorted, and you’re trying to dictate and control people, places, and things, and it will lead to complete and utter misery. It’s like co-dependency.

So, the minute you just start hearing that in your language about, “Here’s what they should be doing,” or, “Everyone knows that this is how it should happen,” just back out of it, and just say, “What is it that I want to be part of creating? And if I were doing that splendidly, what would I be doing right now? Invite other people to join me in that creation.” Like, get that internally focused. Get focused on, “What if we could? And how could we?”

And, for me, those stop, drop, and rolls are energy management. So, a lot of people are putting their energy into, “Why I shouldn’t have to.” If an organization has this strategy, like, “Well, they shouldn’t ask us to do that. And here’s what we shouldn’t have to. And here’s why it won’t work,” and I say that leaders today aren’t there to manage the work of people. They’re there to manage the energy of people away from why we can’t and why we shouldn’t have to, to how we could. And people get fired up about being part of the creation process.

And so, it’s like, “Well, let’s dream and scheme what would great look like. And what if we could, how could we?” and you re-plug people’s energy into that, now people have impact, which is what we all crave, and we’re in high levels of consciousness, and we’re out of ego. We’re seeing a lot of options that we didn’t see before. We’re into creativity and we’re into some big energy stuff. Very nourishing anti-burnout stuff.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And I think when it comes to should, in my own head, some of the most loud, or resonant, or powerful, emotionally feeling ‘shoulds’ involve things that are, I guess, associated with the law, like, “They should not be breaking the law,” or, “They should not be lying,” or sort of legal, or moral, or just like abundantly obvious resource things, that cost ten times what it could.

Cy Wakeman
It could be. I think what happens with should is it’s the way we feel justified in judging because I really believe that people are innocent till proven guilty. And so, I’m like, “They deserve a fair trial,” and I’ve already tried them and decided that what they did was wrong, or if a jury of your peers has said that by all accounts seems they have broken the law, then we support the consequence society has agreed on.

But we tend to take it out of the judicial system or out of the consequence system and put it in our own judgment system, and that’s where I have an issue. I wish people would replace the word ‘they should’ with ‘I prefer’ because that’s really owning it. That’s really owning it. Like, I grow as a therapist and social worker, and if you look at many of the people incarcerated, we can get from a privileged statement that’s really judge-y, and like, “They shouldn’t have broken the law.”

And so many times I want to say, “Come with me, give me all your money, give me all of your defenses, you grew up in a crappy environment, you have no boundaries, you’ve been traumatized, you’ve been sexually abused, your brain doesn’t work right, and you need position, power, food, something. Where’s the ‘should’ come into that?” Like, it’s very predictable when there aren’t those support systems there that the same people believing their same thinking will commit the same thing.

And that’s why most people who are saying ‘should’ have so much hypocrisy in their lives. Like, “People should not steal,” “And I cannot put something in my taxes because it’s not a big deal, and it’s not going to get caught. And the IRS is really underemployed,” or, “People should not lie.” And I lie every day. Actually, it’s a federal offense when I lie. I go into security at the CDC or NIH or NASA, the places I get to work, and if you lie to a security officer upon entry, it’s a federal offense. And they ask for my ID. And every day I turn over my driver’s license that says I weigh 150 pounds.

And so, all I’m saying is that when we are really focused on what other people should and shouldn’t do, we have these moral stances, it’s really just trying to protect ourselves in trying to control the world. Instead, I could say, “I would prefer we all seek to be more honest with one another.” That’s a more inclusive turning towards one another, but it happens a lot, too, at townhall meetings. Leaders should be kind and transparent, and create psychological safety, and make the world safe, and listen, and include.

Like, the list for leaders is long, and then in a townhall meeting, people are standing up, and are like, “Well, I don’t have all the facts, that I know that you’ve lied about this, and you fired that person,” and there are behaviors from employees that are not kind, or psychologically safe, or demanding answers, and it’s like their anger at leaders should include them, and we can also include in our leaders. Leaders should never lie to us, “Did you say when you called in sick that you weren’t sick, that you just really want to go to the Taylor Swift concert?”

And that’s where I think we need to be careful at ‘shoulds’ because ‘shoulds’ lead to shame but internally. We’re trying to shame others for not living up to it but they lead to internal shame because once I ‘should’ you, I’ve just guaranteed that probably a standard for you that I could never live up to.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, well said. Well, so while we’re hopping around your worldview, you also say that we should reject the fads of engaging employees and meeting their needs. What do you mean by this? And what should we do instead?

Cy Wakeman
Yeah, this is often taken out of context. What I have found out is that we really over-rotated on engagement. It’s like, “How can we create this workplace where people don’t have to face any sort of hardship and we can take care of as many needs as possible?” And while it’s beautiful, if it’s not balanced with personal accountability, it will lead to entitlement.

And so, I want people to create great engaging workplaces for high accountables. And the reason I say this is the same behavior will not please someone who’s in the state of low accountability and high accountability at the same time. So, if we need to make changes in our organization to stay competitive in the marketplace, if we slow change down, high accountables are like anxious, like, “Why aren’t we implementing this to stay competitive?” But if we speed change up, low accountables are getting anxious, like, “Why do we keep changing things? Why can’t we keep it the same?”

So, to think that we can engage people in a state of low accountability is really just not supported in the evidence. I can only work with the willing, and engagement has a lot to do with my shared accountability to lead. And what we found in the research, people in states of high accountability are more reasonable and they engage more easily in the same workplaces that people are in, say, low accountability are disengaging, that there’s a big part of engagement that is a choice that says, “I realize reality will be imperfect, and I would like to join you in relationship where we can move through that skillfully.”

And a lot of people, their minds are very conditional, “I’ll buy in as long as I get communication and I get this, and no one ever adds something on, and we’re all paid the same, and we’re always given enough notice.” And I’m just like, “What are the odds that that world is ever happening?” And it’s like, “Then what are the odds of you ever engaging?” And the part about that when you disengage is that you feel separate and you feel not part of something. And if you are a disengager, you will disengage at many relationships over time.

That’s just my therapist background, “I just show up at work and do no engagement. I do nothing. I hate it there. My life at home is amazing.” And I’m like, “Probably statistically impossible.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, then when it comes to engaging employees, it’s not so much that, “We’re going to do a thing that’s going to engage them,” but rather…

Cy Wakeman
“I can’t buy you love.” “I cannot buy your love,” that’s co-dependency.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. And, likewise, meeting their needs, it’s sort of like there’s an independent sort of responsibility piece that cannot be fulfilled by an external third party. Is that kind of your main message there?

Cy Wakeman
It’s my main thing. And I’m not anti-engagement. I think the people that work for me would tell you that it’s a fantastic place to work. We have very few rules. We just deliver great things. But the prerequisite is that you’re an adult, and a high accountable, and have a lot of skills to move through the world with a lot of loving kindness, inclusivity. The key is I can’t buy you in. Buy in is a verb. If you buy in, then we all have a responsibility to create a wonderful workplace.

And so, here’s a great tool to see where you’re at on this. A lot of people do engagement surveys, and then the leader comes in and says, “Okay, here’s what you said in the survey. Let’s make a list of what we need, what you want here at work. Like, what do you want? What would great look like? What do you want created?” And people come up with a really gold-plated list, like, “We want everybody included, and everybody should be consulted. Decisions have to be made quickly, and even if we don’t have expertise, and even if we have no stake in it.”

And this list is long, and most people want the leaders to take that list and go fix reality and deliver that. And a real question is, “Before I take that list to somebody’s leader,” I say, “Well, here’s the second part to this assignment. What are you personally willing to do to get it?” And a lot of times, that list is really short. The list is long that they want, and what they’re personally willing to do is, like, “Wait for it,” or, “Be here when you get back with it,” or, “Participate if everybody else does it.”

And I’m like, “What are the odds of that working?” And we just fill that list more robust where that’s personal accountability. And then our really awesome list is the third list, “Now that we have people participating, what can I, as your leader, what can the organization do to support all of this?” And that’s called attribution in a healthy way.

When high accountables are stressed or suffering, they first look to themselves, and they go, “What’s my part in this?” Like, I was betrayed in a marriage. Everybody could think he was the bad guy. I had a part in that. I abandoned myself long before he abandoned me. Like, I compromised on some. Like, if I don’t learn that, then I can’t really trust anybody in a relationship. I had to learn that.

So, once people identify that, then it’s like, “Here’s what we’re willing to do. What can the organization do?” So, when a high accountable suffers, they go, “I’m in pain here. What’s my part in it? And then what do I need from others?” And then they use the words and they don’t demand it. They request it and work to a solution.

If somebody is in low accountability, and they’re struggling, they skip that part where they attribute anything to themselves, they’re like, “I’m struggling. My leader sucks,” or, “I’m struggling.” What the ego does is it intellectualizes feelings, like anxiety into grievances. I wake up today anxious. I do a body scan, and I’m like, “I feel anxious. And so, great information. How can I move through today knowing I feel anxious? I can be more careful with people. I can really remember that they don’t read my mind and ask for what I need, and move through with that information.”

A lot of people have outsourced their happiness. They wake up, and go, “I feel anxious,” and then they intellectualize it, they’re like, “Why? Oh, I know, because my leader doesn’t tell me anything.” And so, we’re intellectualizing so many things into grievances, and now we’re outsourcing, we’re dependent upon everybody else for how we feel, we’ve outsourced that.

And I’m just inviting people. This isn’t blaming the victim. A lot of people get in, like, “Oh, she’s gaslighting.” And I’m like, “That would be your ego trying to discredit. Just stay curious for one minute longer and just wonder if your life might improve if you just reflect on what is also your part in this, and how can you partner differently with the people that can help you.”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Cy, this is a refreshing completely alternative way to run the brain to a common practice and culture, and I dig it. Tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Cy Wakeman
I really invite people to do what you did, the books on your shelf. Get to know you as a human being. Where is your co-dependency? Where is your dysfunction? Where is your trauma? Where is your own cognitive dissonance and limiting beliefs and ways your brain is playing you? And as you discover that, a whole new world sort of opens up to you. So, I just encourage people to become a student, a curious person.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Now, could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Cy Wakeman
Okay. Favorite quote, most of them that I love are from Rumi, a poet. And favorite quote is, “Out beyond the ideas of right-doing and wrongdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” And that’s just really a call for me to get out beyond judgment and just meet people where they are, and love people up, and call people up.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Cy Wakeman
My favorite study is the study that showed the observer effect, where as they shut light, it acted differently when it was being observed than when it wasn’t being observed. And it really just shows that we’re always involved in a process of co-creation. So, take your part of co-creation very seriously. We’re always affecting the outcome.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that experiment is so trippy.

Cy Wakeman
It’s mind-blowing.

Pete Mockaitis
Some folks are like, “This is proof we live in a simulation.” I was like, “You know what, I don’t know if we can jump to that conclusion.”

Cy Wakeman
It’s mental blue pill Matrix. I’m like, “No.”

Pete Mockaitis
It certainly makes you scratch the head, like, “What is going on here?” And a favorite book?

Cy Wakeman
My favorite book is, I’m huge into poetry, so my favorite book is anything by David Whyte, probably Consolations.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite tool, something you use that helps you be awesome at your job?

Cy Wakeman
I’d say it’s still low tech, my journal. If it needs to be self-reflected on, or remembered, or attended to, it goes pen to paper. I really think all war internally belongs in the ear. Once you get out beyond the ego, you can see it for what it really is. So, it’s got to be pen and paper, Byron Katie from TheWork.com talks a lot about that.

Pete Mockaitis
And is there a particular nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote it back to you often?

Cy Wakeman
Yeah, your ego is not your amigo, and stop believing everything you think, every question. If you think something that causes you, like you’re hooked, or you’re sure, or you’re out of curiosity and compassion, I would question them.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Cy Wakeman
I am at Cy Wakeman everywhere. Our newsletter is fantastic and you can sign up for that at RealityBasedLeadership.com/newsletter. We don’t sell you stuff. We just give you a great short content to consume and use with your team, friends, and colleagues.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Cy Wakeman
My final challenge would be tune in more to your own thinking and be an observer of your thinking. You are not the thinker. You’re the observer. And a lot of us are moving through life pretty unintentionally.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Cy, this has been a treat. I wish you much fun and love and minimal ego.

Cy Wakeman
Thank you. And thank you for the honor of being on the show. It’s fun to talk about these things. So, thanks for what you do.