Tag

Difficult Conversations Archives - Page 2 of 13 - How to be Awesome at Your Job

Jan 29
0

932: How to Have Breakthrough Conversations with Dr. Marcia Reynolds

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

 

Master coach Dr. Marcia Reynolds reveals how to prompt more lightbulb moments through reflective inquiry.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Why coaching is simpler than you think 
  2. How to shift into the ideal state of mind 
  3. Your most powerful coaching tool 

About Marcia

Dr. Marcia Reynolds is passionate about researching, writing about, and teaching people around the world how to engage in powerful conversations that connect, influence, and activate change.

She was the 5th global president of the International Coaching Federation and is recognized by Global Gurus as one of the top five coaches in the world. She is also the creator of the renowned WBECS program, Breakthrough Coaching.

Interviews and excerpts from her books have appeared in many places including Fast Company, Forbes.com, CNN.com, Psychology Today, The Globe and Mail, and The Wall Street Journal and she has appeared in business magazines in Europe, Asia and on ABC World News.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you Sponsors!

Dr. Marcia Reynolds Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis

Marcia, welcome back.

Marcia Reynolds
Yeah, thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I’m excited to dig into your wisdom, and we’re talking about creating little lightbulb moments within coaching conversations. Could you kick us off by sharing a couple of your most memorable lightbulb moments in such conversations?

Marcia Reynolds

It’s amazing to me how people always wanted to make coaching so complex that, oftentimes, that lightbulb moment can come with just some of the initial questions. I’ve been spending a lot more time when people start to talk about their issues, what they’re frustrated about, just the keywords that really stand out, asking them, “Well, what do you mean by that? When you say you’re really disappointed, tell me more about what are you disappointed about?”

That just asking them to explain what they just spouted off, often when they just start to think about, “Well, I did say that. What did I mean?” that that creates an aha, an insight. So, just even that, or, “So, what are the things that led you to believe that?” asking that question. Or, “If somebody were to argue with you, what might they say?” Sometimes it’s just those initial questions that kind of open people’s eyes and their minds. And so, I’m finding, even how I get into the conversation is just as important as what comes after.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s beautiful. Well, can you share with us how such a conversation unfolded and the lightbulb moment that emerged?

Marcia Reynolds

I was actually coaching this woman on how she shows up in her leadership meetings, and she says, “I just want to be more confident.” And I said, “So, tell me what confidence means to you. What does it look like?” And it’s such a throwaway term, and she was like, “Oh, oh. Well, I guess what I really want is to be able to disagree with someone, and to be comfortable with that.” Well, see, that’s a little different than just “Feeling good about myself, building my self-esteem.”

So, starting to move down that path, “So, tell me more about these times where you feel that your disagreement could be useful but you hesitated.” And it was just amazing when she started to lay out those moments and what she could’ve contributed, that that really led to easily, “So, what do you think got in the way? Let’s look at resolving that.” But it was defining what she really wanted to do, specifically, instead of this vague term confidence was so important to her to knowing what she really wanted to create for herself.

So, I often really push you’ve got to both have a very significant picture of what the person wants to create instead of what they have now. It can’t be a vague term. It can’t be, “I need to make a decision,” or it can’t even be an emotion, “I want to be happier.” It’s got to be a picture you and I can both see. And working to even just create that picture is so powerful for people to recognize this in their own head, that it makes the rest of the coaching easier.

And you can do this in any conversation. It doesn’t have to be a coach to a client, but a leader, a parent, that just asking those questions, “What do you mean by that? Can you expound on that a little bit? What would it look like if it were different for you?” That alone makes such a difference for people not just in their own understanding but they feel like, “Oh, you care enough about me that you want to help me walk through this.” It’s very engaging, so.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I was going to ask just that in terms of what do you suppose is the magic at work here, Marcia? Why do we suppose this works the way it does? And it sounds like there’s one skeleton key right there is folks really feel heard, appreciated, listened to, validated, cared about, and that’s powerful in our humanity.

Marcia Reynolds

Right. Right. So, I’m going to step into the conversation with you. I’m going to be willing. I feel safe to share what my fears are, what my doubts are, and that’s a big thing. The other part of it, on the science side of it, is that I’m using a different part of the brain when I ask you these questions instead of telling you what I think. If I tell you what I think, you’re using your cognitive brain. I’m actually pacifying your brain. You don’t have to think other than, “Oh, that’s a good idea,” or, “That’s stupid.”

But when I start to ask you these questions, you start to use the middle brain, which is the creative part of your brain, and you start having to really think things through, and it makes new connections, and that’s how we have a lightbulb moment, is that we see something we had not seen before. And that actually creates new connections that are sustainable. You don’t go back to what you were doing and how you were seeing things.

Which, when I tell you what to do, if it feels kind of awkward, you’re going to say, “Well, that was dumb. I’m not going to do that anymore.” But when you come up with it on your own, and you change your perspective, you’re likely to commit with more confidence to making a change.

Pete Mockaitis

Certainly, as opposed to just passively judging, “That’s cool,” “That’s dumb.”

Marcia Reynolds

Exactly, which is what we tend to do, right?

Pete Mockaitis

So, I’d love it if we could zoom into the context of professionals talking to other professionals, as opposed to a full-blown executive coach working with a coaching client. I’m wondering, how the context shifts and what things we should keep in mind when we are working with one of our direct reports, or even just a peer and a colleague?

Marcia Reynolds

Well, like I said, this can work in any conversation, but the main thing is that you’re very clear on your intent. I I go into the conversation with my intent is that I’m going to make you do something, then your questions are going to come out like judgmental or condescending, and they won’t engage.

So, I can ask, “Okay, so you used the word confidence. Explain to me a little bit more what confidence in this context means to you.” That’s different than, “What do you mean by confidence?” So, your intention will often shape the conversation. So, when I teach leaders a coaching approach, because I don’t make them into coaches. I can’t do that in a short workshop, but I say, “You start with intent.”

“Are you there to really help them achieve something they want, not just want you want? But you’ve got to know what they want. So, if you don’t know, start there. What would be important now for you to make a change? Do they want to be a leader? Do they want to have better relationships on their team? Do they want less stress? What’s important to them, because you need to tie the conversation into something they want, the what’s-in-it-for-me? And they need to know that you care enough about what they want.” So, it starts there.

And that no matter where you are with them, you might be disappointed, you might be angry, you have to also manage and actually set the emotional tone, whether you’re a leader or a colleague. You go into the conversation with, “I care about this relationship and I want to really have a good ending.” If you go in disappointed, angry, then, again, your emotion is going to impact the result of the conversation, even more than the words you choose.

So, you have to choose your emotional state, know what the intention is, and always respect the person you’re with, the human you’re with, they’re on a journey. And whatever they did, most people are trying to do the best they can with what they know, and they’ll get better. They may not have the experience you have, but just telling them what they should do, that doesn’t help either.

So, having a conversation where we can explore their thinking, and then even asking that question, “If someone were to argue with you, what might they say? Are there some things in their argument you might want to consider?” It’s better than saying, “Well, there are some things you should think about. You didn’t about this, this, and this,” but to ask the questions instead will help them to sort through their thinking and to see other possibilities. So, it’s intention, emotional state, and respect, that’s really critical to all these conversations.

Pete Mockaitis

Now I’m curious. When you say choose your emotional state, that sounds like a prudent thing to do but, in practice, I think my experience is that it can be a little bit tricky to just select from the menu of emotional states, it’s like, “Yes, this is the one I’d like. I’m currently feeling tired and crabby and irritable. But what I would like to feel is compassionate and loving and curious. Ah, yes, punch in those buttons and I’m now experiencing that emotional state.”

It usually doesn’t quite work out that way for me, even if I make my power moves and do all the things Tony Robbins told me to do. How do you recommend we…?

Marcia Reynolds

Well, it can be a cognitive process, and that’s what you’re saying, “Okay, I’m going to choose this, then I want to be this.” So, like you’re driving in your car, and the traffic is awful, and you’re tense, and it’s crazy, and you say to yourself, “I should feel patient. I should feel patient.” It lasts for about how long? So, you have to do something that’s going to help you to actually embody patience, so maybe turn on some music.

What I used to do when I used to make this long drive, the traffic was so jammed up, that I would just look in the sky and look for hawks because there was always a lot of hawks in the area, and I wouldn’t see them if I didn’t look for them. So, by looking for the hawks, and remembering I’m in this beautiful place, and turning on some music, I can start to feel a different state.

So, you have to feel it in order to shift. So, do you know what compassion feels like? What would it take? What do you have to feel about this person in order to feel compassion? And if you go into a conversation, and you’re just so kind of disappointed with them that you can’t, then at least say that, “I really want to be here in this conversation, and I’m disappointed because you promised this three times and haven’t done it, so I’m having a little hard time getting over that.”

So, explain it, don’t fake it, and then see what happens but that’s what emotional intelligence is. The word intelligence, the root of the word is choice between, that I have choice if I want to. If I don’t want to, I want to stay angry with you, then I’m going to stay angry, but at least choose anger. You do have the power to choose but you have to feel it. It’s a biological state, not just a cognitive state.

Pete Mockaitis

And when it comes to these lightbulb moments, I think these are fantastic principles and controlling what’s within our control, in terms of choosing the emotional state, and the intention, and such. At the same time, I wonder, it seems like a good part of it is really not up to us, even if we show up at our maximum.

And lightbulb moments, it almost feels like something…well, that’s what’s so intriguing about your book, it’s like, “Oh, lightbulb moments, huh? Like, can those just be engineered, we just make, push the button, make that happen? That seems impossible.” So, tell us, what are the conditions in terms of the environment or the person that we’re engaging with that also need to be present or boost the probability of us having some of these lightbulb moments?

Marcia Reynolds

So, first, I want to say that when I coach people, and their result is going to be based on somebody else, like, “Oh, okay, I’m going to go have a conversation with so and so,” I always, then, ask the question, “Well, if it doesn’t turn out like you wanted to, what will you then do?” because we’re not in full control of where they’re willing to go. So, to know that. But even then, if I sense resistance, then I’m going to say, “When you said that you were going to make this change, you didn’t seem to have commitment in your words. So, what’s the hesitation?” And so, I will ask about it.

What a lot of people don’t understand about coaching is that it’s not just asking questions. A lot of it is just reflecting. And I have found even far more power in the reflection than the question. So, if I said, like with the confidence example, “You used the term confidence. Tell me more about that.” I would have to use that. I wouldn’t just say, “Tell me more about what you just said.” I would use the word she said.

Or, with the hesitation, “You seem to be hesitating. It’s like you said it but you sighed before you said it. That doesn’t seem like a real commitment.” So, I would share what I noticed, and ask the questions. So, it’s that, that sharing back of what I hear, what I notice, what I witness that they then take in their whole experience, and then speak to it. And that then helps them to see beyond that.

And maybe they’ll say, “Yeah, I don’t really want to do this.” And that happened to me once, I said, “Okay, so we’ve had this whole conversation but you don’t really want to make a change.” “Well, no, not really.” I said, “Okay, so can we back up a little bit and take a look at what is it that you really want out of this situation?”

So, I think that really getting good at recognizing what needs to be shared back, and that’s all a part of being really present, to hear, “What are the key things? Or, what did you just notice that was significant, and share that back?” That’s really what being a thinking partner is, and that’s what we are when we’re doing even a coaching approach to the conversation. And that’s what creates those creative insights. A lightbulb moment is really just a creative insight that I have.

And then I help you articulate that because it doesn’t mean anything if you just go, “Oh, okay, great. I get it now.” It’s like, “Well, what did you get? Would you be willing to share that?” They must articulate the insight before they can act on it.

Pete Mockaitis
And you mentioned staying present, I think that distractions are omnipresent in our world, externally and internally. Do you have some best practices or favorite approaches you use when you find yourself drifting to get right back in the groove?

Marcia Reynolds

Well, Pete, there’s two things. Drifting before the conversation and drifting in the conversation are two different things. So, before the conversation, you can do some mental preparation, “What is my intention? What is it I’m feeling? Can I make the shift? Or, if I can, how will I address it? Do I respect this person?” You can mentally prepare.

During the conversation, that’s just a discipline of starting to notice. There’s something out my window distracting me, which I had to move, actually, my computer because I was getting, like, all kinds of wildlife out my window, it’s very distracting. So, I have to create this space where I’ll have less external distractions that will pull me away.

But staying, if I’m listening to share back with you what I’m hearing, what I noticed, the reflection, then I have to stay present to that, otherwise I’ll miss it. And I can see it. When I mentor coaches, and I’m watching this, and I see the key moment that they missed, I can tell that they got stuck on something that was said before, and they’re just waiting to ask this question. It’s like, “I’ll wait till this person shuts up so I can ask this question.” That’s a distraction because, then, maybe what they said after you noticed that was even more important.

So, “Can I stay with this person to really hear what’s going on with them so I can pick up the key elements that I want to share back?” That requires me to stay present in this moment, and it is a practice. It’s more important to practice, that being present in the conversation than even what I’m going to say.

Pete Mockaitis

And I guess, this is practical note, if someone said something you really want to follow up on, should you just write it down so that it’s there for you later?

Marcia Reynolds

I may write down one word. I don’t want to write a whole bunch because then they’re looking at the top of your head. But I might write down just one word, especially if I’ve got a verbal processor that’s like all over the place. Like, even just an hour ago, I had a client, and she tends to do that to me. She’s like, “Well, I want to talk about this,” and then she’ll drift off down this path, down this path, down this path.

And so, I will even say, “So, you kind of gone down some different paths. Do you want to go back to the original path? Or, is there’s something now that’s coming up for you that’s more important?”

So, I will indicate to them that there was something that seemed to be important. And I invite them to choose, “So, where do you want to focus on now?” and pull them back down. And most of the verbal processors that I worked with appreciate it because they know they are all over the place, and they’re always like, “Thank you for making me just drill down to what it is I really want.”

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, Marcia, tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Marcia Reynolds

This comes back to what you were saying at how important it is that people feel engaged. To remember why we’re there, I always say, “I’m not there to make people feel better.” We often think our conversations have to be, “Rah, rah, you’re so great, blah, blah.” We’re there to help people see better. And even if it’s a little painful for me to see some reality I had not seen before, I appreciate that you took the time to help me with that so I can move forward.

So, don’t ever think people can’t handle it because that’s truly what they see of value is, “You helped me to see things in a way I couldn’t, that helped me learn and grow.” So, I always say you aren’t there to help them feel better. You’re there to help them see better. And I think that’s a significant thing, a role that we can play for other people in our lives.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, lovely. Thank you. Now, could you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Marcia Reynolds

I have a quote on my wall that just says, “It doesn’t really matter that which I’m afraid if I’m acting in the service of my vision.”

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Marcia Reynolds

So, there was a study done last year, where it was just 16 people, but that’s how studies start. They start with a sample.

And they talked to these people to find out something that was important for them to work on, as we would in coaching. So, each one had their own personal dilemma, issue, decision, that they wanted to work on. So, they then, each person, first off, they gave them a really nice room, a comfortable room, quiet, no distractions, to where they can start thinking this through.

Now, all of them had on brain monitors, so they were monitoring brain activity. And then, afterwards, they talked to them about, “So, what did you discover? What were your insights?” So, they put them in the room, and they did this, and then they took them out, and gave them a mentor, somebody who would share their experiences, their suggestions, their ideas. Again, monitored the brain.

And then both things, both situations, it was actually similar brain movement, not spiky, it had some movements, they came up with some ideas. But then the third scenario, they had them sit down with a coach that used reflective inquiry, what I was talking about. The brain monitors went off the charts, they were like, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” all over the place.

So, when I said to you it pacifies people’s brains when you tell them what to do, but even self-analyzing, we don’t do this well on our own. And so, the third, with the activity, and then afterwards, they came up with all these different things that they hadn’t thought about before. And so, it just demonstrated for the 16 different people, with 16 different issues, had similar responses on their brain monitoring, that it was the coaching that had such a huge response in their brain.

Now, of course, they need to expand this out with other people, other scenarios, cultural differences, but, to me, that was just like, “Well, there it is, there’s the chart.” And I loved that research.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, that is good. And I’m curious, either from your own experience or from the study, are there any particular prompts, or patterns, that you can just tell, “Wow, when you prompt somebody with this, those wheels get turning”? Anything leaping to mind there?

Marcia Reynolds

Yeah, just asking someone, “So, how do you know that to be true?”

Pete Mockaitis

All right, that’s awesome.

Marcia Reynolds

Sometimes it’s as simple as that, but always after a reflection, “So, you told me that you think everybody is out to get you, you don’t have any allies in this company. How do you know that to be true? I’m just looking for the evidence.” And you know what so interesting, Pete? There are so many times I’ve had leaders start by saying, “Well, the team is resistant, and they don’t want to make changes.”

And I’ll say, “The entire team?” “Well, no, not the entire team. It’s just a handful of people.” “Okay, so you’re telling me that there’s a handful of people that are really resistant to this?” “Well, it’s actually just this one person that’s kind of really stirring, rocking the boat.” And it’s so interesting that, again, so I’m just looking at, “So, this is what you’re telling me, is that true? This is what you’re telling me, is that true?”

And how that brings forth, again, their thinking that they really narrow down their general statements to specific that makes the difference.

Pete Mockaitis

And could you share a favorite book?

Marcia Reynolds

I’ve been a follower of Robert Sapolsky for years, and he has a new book out on free will. And it comes back to what you were saying earlier, “Can we really change in that moment?” And a lot of the neurosciences say, “We don’t have a lot of free will. The more you are flooding with an emotion, the more difficult it is to actually choose. Your brain chooses it for you.”

Pete Mockaitis

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

Marcia Reynolds

Well, actually, I’ve been using, for email, a thing called Sanebox. You know Sanebox?

Pete Mockaitis

I do.

Marcia Reynolds

I absolutely love it because it sorts all my mail into what I should be reading right now, what maybe I might want to read, what I can totally throw away, and it does that quickly. And I just need to do that. We’re so inundated with email. So, that’s my favorite.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And now it’s time for a Marcia quote, something you share that folks quote back to you again and again.

Marcia Reynolds

“They really want you to be present more than they need you to be perfect.”

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And, Marcia, if folks want to reach out to you or learn more about your book, Breakthrough Coaching: Creating Lightbulb Moments in Your Coaching Conversations, where would you point them?

Marcia Reynolds

To my website. It’s CoVisioning.com. There’s a book page that has all the books, but also there’s a link if you do purchase the book, you can get a whole e-book of tools and tips and exercises. So, there’s a link on the book page on my website.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Marcia Reynolds

Work on letting go so you can receive, not just listen, but fully receive what people are saying and what they’re expressing. If we can do that, it makes them feel you’re there with them, as well as you actually hear them.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, Marcia, thank you. This has been a treat. I wish you many lightbulb moments.

Marcia Reynolds

Thank you. Thank you, Pete.

Jan 08
0

926: The Five Codes that Make and Break Trust with Jeremie Kubiceck

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Jeremie Kubicek shares how to end misunderstandings with the five codes of communication.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The root of every misunderstanding
  2. The simple trick to consistently meet people’s expectations
  3. How to repair damaged relationships  

About Jeremie

Jeremie Kubicek is a powerful communicator, serial entrepreneur and content builder. He creates content used by some of the largest companies around the globe found in the books he has authored: The 100X Leader; 5 Voices, 5 Gears; the National Bestseller, Making Your Leadership Come Alive; and The Peace Index. His new book, The Communication Code, co-authored with his business partner, was released last November.

Jeremie is the Co-Founder of GiANT, a company that certifies coaches and consultants that serve companies and their employees. Jeremie has started over 25 companies while living in Oklahoma City, Moscow, Atlanta and London.

Resources Mentioned

Jeremie Kubicek Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis

Jeremie, welcome back to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Jeremie Kubicek

So good to be here. Always good to be with you, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I want to hear about your book The Communication Code. You’ve done a lot of research on humans, relating, communicating, interacting. Any particularly noteworthy discoveries or learnings you have on all these lately?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yes, I do. In fact, we basically have a tool that we’ve used for eight years in our GIANT business, our community. But I’ve just done a lot of research around the idea of, “Why do people miscommunicate? And then, “How does miscommunication affect relationships? And what does it actually do?”

And so, the big aha that Steve Cockram and I had in this is every communication has an expectation attached to it. And every expectation has a code word, a clue. And if you can figure out the code word of what the other person is inferring or expecting, you’ll unlock that communication, that transmission of communication will get unlocked.

And when that happens over and over again, you’ll build healthier relationships, you’ll build more camaraderie, you’ll lower miscommunication, which will impact the other person. And so, how many people have relationships in their life?

Pete Mockaitis

I do.

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, everyone. And how many want those to be the best it possibly can be? Well, if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be good if you knew what the code words were? And wouldn’t it be great if you could figure them out before they told you, or the other person could tell you what the code word is? And that’s what we figured out.

We saw, like, “Oh, my goodness, there are five code words. If you figured out those five code words, it will unlock that communication, that one transmission of communication, which could then unlock the relationship.”

Pete Mockaitis

That’s so cool. And what’s coming to mind for me is I remember I had a really sweet woman, and mentor, her name is Marilyn Holt. Shoutout to Marilyn. And she just thought it would be kind of fun to get some students together to meet up with this billionaire friend of hers. She just thought, “Oh, I think you’ll probably learn some things from him, have some fun.” She’s like, “Hey, Ron, I think it might be great to get some students that I’m working with together to meet with you.”

And so, he just said immediately, “What do they want?” And she said, “You know, Ron, I’m sorry. You probably have everybody always wanting something from you. We just thought it’d be fun to get together and see a little bit about your story and journey, and have a cool experience for these kids.” Like, “Oh,” so he’s like surprised, like, “Oh, yeah, okay, let’s do that.” Because we do, we have this expectation which is formed by any number of things, and part of it could just be what most people tend to want when a stranger is calling up a billionaire.”

Jeremie Kubicek

That’s right.

Pete Mockaitis

And he’s like, “Oh, that’s probably what these guys want, too, is something in the world of what I could do for them with, I don’t know, jobs, or internships, or investments, or something.”

Jeremie Kubicek

And, in our case, we figured out this the really hard way. Steve Cockram is my business partner, he’s British. I was in London, we were meeting, I had just celebrated closing a strategic partnership, it was a pretty sizable partnership, and I was super excited about it. And I’m like, “Dude, we got to go to lunch. I’ve got so much to share.” That was a code, that was a clue, of like, “I want to celebrate.”

We get to lunch, and I start sharing the details of what I was excited about. And, again, I’m expecting celebration, high five, “Let’s have a great time. Let’s celebrate in this for a minute,” and he begins to critique. And the critique was, “Well, why did you do it that way? That’s not how you said we were going to do it. And what about this? And didn’t they provide this? And haven’t you…?” And I start turning green and red, Hulking out.

And, all of a sudden, I’m like, “What are you doing? Why can’t we just celebrate?” and I freak out. And he’s like, “Why didn’t you tell me you wanted to celebrate?” I’m like, “Wasn’t it obvious I wanted to celebrate?” And what we realized was, in this whole encounter, that Steve’s tendency is to critique in the form of collaboration. He wants to collaborate but it can come across as critique. My aha was I wanted to celebrate, or I wanted to at least clarify beforehand, and that was the game that we’re playing. I was trying to express my celebration, and he was bringing his full critique, and we missed, and we realized, “Oh, my goodness, how many times does that happen?”

So, I took this executive team recently through this exercise. They’re all married. I said, “Think about your spouse and what they tend to communicate, and what do you receive, and what do you communicate, and what do they receive?” And eight out of eight missed it. They wanted different things, “I want care,” or, “I want you to clarify.” “What do you get?” “I get critiqued or collaboration” “I want collaboration and celebration but I only get care and I don’t really need that.”

In each case, they missed. So, then I reversed it, and I said, “What about you? What do you tend to do to them? And what does your spouse want?” And only seven out of eight were wrong. One of them got it right. My point was, “How many people are missing it every single day?” So, what happens when you miscommunicate? You begin to put up walls. You begin to move back. You pull away. You begin to infer, “Oh, yeah, you know, Pete. That’s just how he is.”

And then we work around people because we know how they’re going to respond. And then, over time, relationship expectations go down. You begin to not expect much and just kind of live with it.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah. It is funny how we do make these assumptions, like, “Wasn’t it obvious I wanted to celebrate?” And it’s obvious in our own minds and yet we can get it wrong all the time. So, lay it on us, you’ve got five flavors here, each one starts with the letter C. Can you start by giving us what are those five C’s?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, so celebrate is the desire to express what you’re excited about. Care is the need for wanting to make sure that you’re taken care of. And clarify, clarity is really to clarify, “Is this what you’re saying, Pete? Let me make sure before I go in another direction. Let me make sure that I understand what you’re saying.” And then collaborate is the idea that you want me to help you. We want to work on this together. And then critique is you’re going to hold something up, I’m going to make it better. I’m going to show you where it’s wrong so that it can be right.

So, if you think about those five, that most of our interactions, the expectations are tied to those. So, if I’m going, like Steve example, I wanted to celebrate, and I wanted him to either clarify but he said, “You didn’t tell me. Why didn’t you just tell me?” And I’m like, “Why didn’t you just get it? It was obvious.” So, in this case, now I will go to someone, like in that case, I would say this, “Hey, Steve, I am so excited. I want to celebrate a few things. So, today is all about celebration, but then if you don’t fully get it, clarify. Ask me any questions. That’d be awesome.”

And I’ve given him two codes but the main one is, “I’m here to celebrate.” Or, he might come to me, as he does often, he goes, “Hey, Jeremie, I want to collaborate. I really value your input on such and such. I know you care for me. I’m not really here to celebrate. You can clarify if you want, but I really want to collaborate.” I’m like, “Cool. Got it.” So, now, I’ve been given the open door. I’ve been given the code word, and so I should be able to meet expectations. When we don’t meet expectations, that’s when all friction comes into relationships.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, this is good. And so then, collaboration, it seems like…well, I guess they’re all pretty big categories. Collaboration seems like just about anytime we’re trying to do a thing, it would fall into the collaboration zone, like, “I want to sell you something,” or, “I want to buy something from you,” or, “I want to figure a thing out together.” Then all that’s in the collaboration zone.

Jeremie Kubicek

That’s right. And it doesn’t have to be so rhythmic where you have to say it every single time. You get good at it over time. I can now figure out expectations. By even asking a few clarifying questions, I can figure out what they need. But sometimes with my wife, we’re set in a hot tub and we’ll talk at night, and it’ll be like, “So, what do you need tonight?” And she’ll be like, “I just need you to listen.”

That’s care. Got it. That means she doesn’t need my critique, she doesn’t need any collaboration, she doesn’t want to celebrate. She just wants me to listen. That’s care. So, showing her care is different. Now, her showing me care might be a little different than hers. I need to talk out loud so I need her to listen in a different way, so there’s nuances to it but we get the gist of it.

But to start out, Pete, if you and I were in a meeting, you’re like, “Hey, Jeremie, I really trust you. I’m almost finished with this presentation. Critique it, man. Blow holes in it so that I can make this really, really tight.” Great. You gave me the communication code to know what to do.

Pete Mockaitis

And it is so handy when you know. It’s funny, I think critique is among the most dangerous. It’s like, “I am not looking for a critique.” And we’ve had some other guests say that one of the best things you can do when you’re offering feedback is to, first, ask for permission to provide some feedback, or I guess you’re getting clarification there.

Jeremie Kubicek

That’s it.

Pete Mockaitis

It’s like, “Oh, you know, I’ve got some ideas for improvement. Would you like me to share them?” And then for the other person really has permission to say, “You know, not today. We’re not in the headspace for that, but other days you are.” And it can be so valuable. Like, when you’re really wide open for it, it’s so huge.

I’m thinking about I was listening to Mr. Beast, the famous YouTuber, as to how he got so huge. And he said, “Oh, I had a number of friends and we would always just get together. We would just roast each other’s videos.” And I like he used the word roast because roast is sort of like a funny thing, comedians do a roast. So, it almost sounds fun and celebratory, and yet what it consists of is being told all the things you’re doing wrong in your videos and how you can make them much better.

And so, you’re right. If you’re not feeling that, it’s just like you’ll get way mad. You’ll get way mad at that person, like, “Hey, shut up, jerk. I’m out of here.”

Jeremie Kubicek

It’s not helpful. Right, because what happens is critique is different than being critical. Critical is when it’s negative, “So, you’re against me.” Well, if we’ve done communication really well, if we’ve used a communication code, we’ve built up really good communication, expectations are being met, that means I trust you. I know that you’re for me, you’re not against me. If I know that you’re for me, I’m probably going to be more open to your critique than if I feel that you’re against me, it’s going to feel like you’re critical and you’re always critical. So, constructive criticism, those words don’t go together.

It also, though, plays out to different personality types. So, we have something, I think, last time I shared on the five voices, which is our personality system that is so, so scalable and potent, but we have thinkers and feelers. Well, thinkers, the thinker voices are going to be pioneers and guardians. They’re going to be way more open to critique than the feelers, the nurturers, the connectors, some of the creatives, because they live in logic, and they live in just the thinking mindset, so they’re fine, “Sure, shoot holes in it.”

So, they go, “Hey, what do you think of my idea, Pete?” and they shoot holes in it, and they go, “Okay, great.” They leave and then they come back, “What do you think now?” “Oh, it’s great.” “Perfect. Thank you.” The feelers take an idea, and they go, “Hey, Pete, what do you think of my idea?” and they put it right over their heart. And, all of a sudden, you shoot at it, and then there’s blood, and they’re like, “Oh, dude, why did you put it over your heart? What were you thinking? Move it.”

And so, the feelers have a harder time, and I’m one, have a harder time. We have a hard time with anything that feels negative towards us. So, that means we have to really build up the right rapport, the right relational trust with another person, and that takes time. And that’s what we’ve done, is we just built tools that make leaders more relationally intelligent so that they can not miss. They can actually hit what the expectations of the other person are.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, Jeremie, this is sort of your knack, is you present something, it’s simple, it’s like, “Well, of course. I should just do that and we’ll all be better off. Cool. Cool. Cool.” Tell us, Jeremie, what are some the nuances, or the tricky parts, or the sticking points, like, “That sounds easy enough. How about we all just go do this, declare what C we’re in, we’re looking for?” Where do things go wrong?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, it goes wrong because you need to think about your past. Every single person has a past with you. So, what’s it been like on the other side of you for the last five years or the last 25 years? So, it’s one thing if you’re like, “Oh, great. Figure out a new technique. Here we go,” and I start practicing it on someone. Like, well, wait. They’ve experienced you in a negative power test. They’ve experienced your domination where you brought low support and high challenge to them. You’ve been critiquing them for 15 years.

You can’t just change overnight. You actually have to get through a process of like, “Oh, my gosh, Pete. I’ve read this book, and I think I’ve realized I’ve been dominating. I didn’t mean to. I’ve been critiquing the entire time. I’m so sorry.” Stage one. Stage two is, “I’m going to practice The Communication Code.” But you’re going to have to do it for a long time for them to realize this is the new norm.

Because if you’re in a negative power, if you’re in a negative situation with someone, then it’s been an abuse of power, an abuse of your personality, abuse of your communication style, and that’s worn the other person out, and maybe their walls are so high. So, you got to let them drop their walls a little bit so they’ll actually begin to trust you again. That’s a nuance that people have to realize. If they want to experience true relational change, then they have to go back in the past and clean it up, which can be hard.

Pete Mockaitis
So, could you maybe give us a sample of what that conversation might sound like in practice?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah.

Jeremie Kubicek

“So, Pete, man, I’ve been reading this concept called The Communication Code, and I think I’ve realized in the first two chapters, it talked all about the negative power test. I think sometimes my personality is so overbearing that I feel like I probably don’t give you the chance to breathe or talk, or I think I’ve noticed also that you probably feel my critique more than you feel my celebration. Is that true?” And then I give you a chance to share.

And if you’re like, “Oh, yeah, that’s it.” It’s like, “Oh, my gosh, I’m so sorry, man. I probably didn’t realize that was just naturally happening. So, if you’ll give me a chance, I’m just going to work on some things. So, I’m going to ask you a question whenever we get together. What do you need right now? Do you want celebration? Do you want care? Do you want clarity? And then I’m going to start there. If you want me to collaborate or critique, I’ll let you tell me but I’m going to try to work on clarifying first or celebrating a little bit even though I’m not very good at it.” That’s an example.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Yeah, that seems like it’d be lovely to hear on the receiving end of that.

Jeremie Kubicek
That would be nice.

Pete Mockaitis

You might be met with some skepticism, like, “Okay, Jeremie, let’s see how long this will last till you’re onto your next flavor of the month.” So, you might get some skepticism but it’ll be a hard time imagining a strong negative reaction. There’s a scene from Brooklyn Nine-Nine which cracks me up where they get an amazing new captain that they’re skeptical of, and they say, “Oh, she wants to meet with us and talk about our goals and our strengths. Like, what’s she up to? This can’t be good.”

And so, that makes me chuckle in the professional development space. But tell us, how are some ways that might be perceived negatively that we should be on the lookout for?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, so it’s what you said, it’s being consistent. Consistency is the key to great leadership. If you’re consistent, and people know this isn’t the flavor of the month, this is something that you’re doing, and then you’re using the language consistently, then you’re going to probably work around it. We use language and tools at GIANT that get embedded in the water system. And over time, it creates common objective language versus subjective, subjectivity.

And that common objective language is a real source of help. So, that’s what we’ve experienced is if you can do that really well, just by practicing, that’s it. Just keep being consistent. And then, over time, it will break the other person down, and then they’ll start using the language. And it’s not crazy, right? We’re saying people have expectations. What if you met their expectations? See how that relationship will change.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, all right. Well, I’m curious then, if folks feel a little weird using the lingo, it’s like, “Jeremie, do I have to use the words care, celebration, collaboration, critique, and clarification? It doesn’t feel like me.” Are there any other ways you recommend flexing or adapting it?

Jeremie Kubicek

So, the way that I do it, I do it now. I’ll meet with somebody, and they haven’t read The Communication Code, or they don’t know the language. I’ll just ask, like, “Hey, can I ask you a few clarification questions?” if I feel like it needs to. And they’re like, “Yeah, yeah, sure.” “Great. So, in this case, are you saying this or this? Because I want to know, do you want me to…? Like, I’m ready to celebrate. Or are you looking for me to collaborate?” So, you can naturally weave it in almost like a decision tree, “Are we going to go left or are going to go right?”

So, by weaving it in naturally, it didn’t have to be crazy. If you sense someone just needs you to listen, you don’t have to say, “Do you need me to care?” You can just say, “Hey, do you just want me to listen? Would that be the most helpful?” “Yeah, it’d be great.” Because you have to train other people because they’re not used to sharing expectations either. Think of it, most of us don’t know how to share our own expectations. So, you have to give expectation and you have to pull expectation, and that’s ultimately what we’re trying to get people to do.

Pete Mockaitis

Now, I’m curious, when you mentioned one flavor of caring is listening, are there a few core subtypes or subcategories you might put in each of these?

Jeremie Kubicek

It’s based on personality. So, like a pioneer, which is a thinker, they would be someone, like in a Myers-Briggs, an ENTJ. They’re very type A driven, care for that person. It might mean that you’re listening to them and being a sounding board, and giving them a chance to vent or share their frustration. It’s getting the poison out so they don’t blow someone else up. That’s actually showing care.

Very different then to a nurturer because they want you to care for the things they care about. So, it’s just the idea of understanding care. And in the book, I go through each chapter. So, care, if you don’t know how to care, and here’s all the nuances, here’s all the subparts of care. The same with celebration. If you don’t know how to celebrate, what is a celebration? What’s it not? It’s not people looking for a parade. Just teaching people how to do these things that aren’t natural.

Pete Mockaitis

I’d love to get your hot take on sort of a couple of these details in terms of what is something that’s really high impact for folks, and that they tend to get wrong a lot?

Jeremie Kubicek

It’s interesting, and I think if you’re listening to this, you probably know this too. It’s almost like this Brooklyn Nine-Nine thing. There’s a cynicism that’s in culture. And when people hear buzzwords, they’re like, “Oh, he wants to celebrate. Oh, what does he want? Does he want us to throw…?” And they go off on these long tangential misnomers. And it’s like, “No, the guy wanted to high-five.”

So, here’s what we realized. There’s a custom communication code. There’s a general communication code, “Okay, hey, I want to celebrate or care, whatever.” But when I’m talking directly to Steve, for instance, and he’s talking to me, I can now tell him exactly what I want. Whenever we meet, “I want some care because you live across the pond. It can feel transactional if we’re only doing Zoom. Let’s text each other. Like, how is your weekend? How is your sports teams?” It’s just that we’ve been business partners for 10 years, so let’s make sure there’s some camaraderie. That’s showing care for me.

Then I want to be able to celebrate. But when I celebrate, I don’t want to celebrate me. I want to celebrate us. So, it’s nuanced, it’s specific of each word. I want to celebrate the whole dream team, the Avengers we’ve put together. I’m not looking for a personal celebration. That’s the way I roll. So, that’s what it means to being in third, and fourth, and fifth.

He did the same thing, he goes, “Jeremie, I want to collaborate with you. I want you to know you have freedom every single time to collaborate, which means I want to collaborate with you, too.” So, we went through each of them and we actually created a custom communication code. Oh, my goodness, the depths of like, “Oh, that’s what you want.”

So, now, imagine every marriage, every partnership, every friendship, every coworker, those that you spend the most amount of time with, let’s say the top three to five people. Imagine if you knew the custom communication code for everyone of those people. The chances of you communicating well will go up. The chances of your relationship to thrive goes up.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, that’s intriguing. And I’m thinking about with my wife in terms of critique. It’s like there’s a time and a place and a zone in which I really am, I’m eager, I’m hungry to hear, to learn, to understand. And I’ve even asked explicitly, directly, “What can I do that will help you feel most loved?” which is funny because that’s me. That’s my heart as a husband and as a strategy consultant at the same time.

Because it’s true, “We have finite time, energy, attention, resources, like I really do want to know what’s going to have the most bang for the buck, but it’s because I care about you, not because I’m an optimizing robot.” So, there are times in which I’m really hungry to know that, and there are times in which, like, “You know what, I’m really not in the mood to hear that right now. I don’t recall asking for your input on how I made this popcorn.”

Jeremie Kubicek

That’s right, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis

And so, yeah, I guess there’s an example right there with my communication code for a critique, is I don’t want the critiques to come unexpectedly, impromptu, out of nowhere. I want them to come in a, “Hey, let’s do some reflection about where we can improve and grow and do better.” And then it’s like, “Game on, yeah.” I’m anxious, I’m raring to go in those contexts. But when I’m thinking about something else, I have a set of expectations, I’m quite irritated by it.

Jeremie Kubicek
That’s right. Yeah, you just said it. And the better you get at it, the more you try, it becomes natural. It doesn’t become so rhythmic. And so then, it just kind of weaves itself in. And then sometimes I’ll say to my wife, “Hey, remember I’m needing a little clarity before a critique.” So, now I’m just giving a little hint, like, “Oh, yeah, yeah, you’re right. You’re right. Okay. So, let me ask it again.”

Because, again, it comes back to, “Are you an external processor or an internal processor?” So, that you’ve got extroversion and introversion, you’ve got thinking and feeling. All of these dynamics are at play between two people. Add in kids, add in a team, now the complexity is there. And if you can create common language, and you start realizing every communication has an expectation, and every expectation has a code, “Got it. What is the code?” Solve the code, solve the relationship.

It does not always work out that way when it comes to mother-in laws, or people who have narcissism, or other issues, but it’s still the idea that it makes relationships better.

Pete Mockaitis

And I like the way you said that in terms of, “Hey, it’s a reminder. I’m looking for this and then that,” which comes across as much more friendly than, “Um, I think what you meant to say was this.” It seems like you can provide that input in a very gentle, kind, friendly, non-accusative kind of a way which will, hopefully, be received fairly well most of the time, I’m guessing.

Jeremie Kubicek

Totally. That’s right.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, Jeremie, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Jeremie Kubicek

I think we’re great. It’s been fun to be with you, Pete. Appreciate it.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, yeah. You, too. All right. Well, let’s hear about a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Jeremie Kubicek

“Don’t despise small beginnings.”

Pete Mockaitis

And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Jeremie Kubicek

I’m doing research right now on fear-based performance. And what fear-based performance does inside teams, organizations, but also fear-based living, and what it does to your body, and where most of our health problems are coming from, from heart attacks, to arthritis and so forth. It’s very interesting.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And a favorite book?

Jeremie Kubicek

The book I’ve re-read, it was The Second Mountain by David Brooks. It was a really good book. The concept is there’s a first mountain that everyone is trying to climb. And most people, once they get to the top, they’re like, “Was that it?” And then there’s a second mountain. It’s maybe my age. I’m 52. I believe that 55 to 72 are the influence years of life. For a productive individual, those are the most influential years. So, I’m preparing for that 55 to 72 run. And The Second Mountain gave me a really good context for that.

Pete Mockaitis

And a favorite tool, something you use that helps you be awesome at your job?

Jeremie Kubicek

I do this thing every day, it’s called The Examen. I do it at 5:30 every day. On the way home, usually from work or wherever I’m at, and what I do is I do three things. I look backwards, and go, “What was I grateful for today?” I’ll text that person usually. Second, “Where was I off? Where was I not at peace today?” And I radically go after it, “What was my tendency? What’s my pattern here? What happened? Why did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed?”

And by doing that, I’ve figured out I have 32 tendencies, and they’re interesting. Being defensive, oversharing, tendencies to namedrop, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And what it’s done for me is it’s allowed me my evenings to go better because I keep short accounts, and I don’t let things build up any more like I used to.

So, every single day, I’m kind of like, “Yup, good. I’ve put that to bed.” And then I think about my schedule the next day, “Am I ready for it and prepared for it?” That’s the last thing I do. So, that has helped me tremendously be at peace at night, sleep better, I wake up more energized. That’s my tool.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote it back to you often?

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, it’s something I always say to people, and it’s really about limiting beliefs, and it’s, “Who says you can’t?”

Pete Mockaitis

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

Jeremie Kubicek

JeremieKubicek.com. J-E-R-E-M-I-E-K-U-B-I-C-E-K.com. That’s my speaking site. Or, GIANT Worldwide, so GiantWorldwide.com is what our main business is.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Jeremie Kubicek

Yeah, I think for each of you who are learning today, it’s like realize communication is a process, it’s a journey. It’s not a one-time transaction. If you want to get really, really good at it, you’ll start to think about the other person more than just yourself. What is it that they need right now? What are they wanting? What’s the expectation? Use the code words. When you do, you’ll start seeing breakthroughs happen. And just keep staying consistent at it, and that’s what I’m excited about.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Jeremie, thank you. This is fun. I wish you many lovely communications decoded.

Jeremie Kubicek

Thank you, mate. Appreciate you, Pete.

Oct 19
0

908: How to Work Across Differences and Overcome Polarization with David Livermore

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

David Livermore discusses how to engage and get along with people who strongly hold opposing views and beliefs.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Why we’re better off when we address our differences
  2. How to overcome the discomfort of discussing differences
  3. The one question that helps bridge divides

About David

David Livermore PhD is a social scientist devoted to the study of cultural intelligence (CQ) and global leadership and the author of several award-winning books. He is a founder of the Cultural Intelligence Center in East Lansing, Michigan, and a visiting research fellow at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Prior to leading the Cultural Intelligence Center, Livermore spent twenty years in leadership positions with a variety of nonprofits and taught in five universities.

He is a frequent speaker and adviser to leaders in Fortune 500 companies, nonprofits, and governments, and he has worked in more than one hundred countries. He has been interviewed and referenced by myriad news sources, including The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CBS News, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, Forbes, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Financial Times.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

David Livermore Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
David, welcome to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

David Livermore
Thanks, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to dig into the wisdom of your book, Digital, Diverse & Divided: How to Talk to Racists, Compete With Robots, and Overcome Polarization, to help folks become more awesome at their jobs. But, first, I want to hear a cool story from you about maybe a time you and a friend had some opposite views but came to a really cool mutual understanding.

David Livermore
Oh, wow, we’re going right in, right? Yeah, so there are many. I’m thinking about a conversation that I had with someone right after the first Trump election, so to jump right into politics. And without me really getting too far into the weeds of it, we voted differently, and we were having lunch together the next day, and kind of started around, like, “I can’t believe this,” and, “What, because you didn’t get your candidate to win?” And so, we were kind of bantering for a while.

And then we started to talk about, “Okay, let’s put everything on hold here for a moment. What’s most important to you and me?” And we were both dads – we are both dads – we started to talk about that. And, thankfully, by the time we ended the conversation, I think we both decided the world wasn’t going to come to an end, though we still retained some of the concerns that each of us had related to our politics.

So, that was the first of many conversations with him and other people about kind of my feelings about politics and issues related to diversity, reproductive rights, and on and on, the list could go.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And you remain friends to this day?

David Livermore
We absolutely do.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Okay. What I found troubling during some of those contentious elections were the proclamations, like, “If you voted this way, then you can unfriend me right now because we have nothing in common.” I was like, “Ooh, that feels like the opposite of what we need to do here,” is kind of my intuition. It sounds like you’re on my wavelength.

David Livermore
Yeah. And, Pete, name the issue of the week, we kind of get some kind of that. I’m watching it right now as we’re…watching, at least the time of recording, the atrocities going on in the Middle East, and it’s the same kind of rhetoric that’s been there, “Just unfriend me now if you believe X.” I’m like, “Okay, how does that help any of us move forward?” So, yeah, I think you’re right. Our unwillingness to even be “friends” on social media with someone who has a different viewpoint is clearly a problem.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s right. Well, to counterpoint that, David. The social media friendship is one of the most intimate and sacred relationships that we have, so, in all fairness.

David Livermore
No, fair enough that you say that because when the book first came out, people were often asking me about, “How do you work through some of these, like, conflicts you have with people?” And I’m like, “Well, I’ll tell you one thing, it’s not on social media.” And I swear, a couple weeks later, I suddenly found myself in a very cantankerous debate with someone on social media, I’m like, “I just violated my own principle.” So, yeah, you’re absolutely right. Part of the problem is if we assume there’s going to be meaningful constructive debate on social media, we’re probably already off on the wrong foot.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, maybe before we get too much into all these fascinating alleys and corridors, could you make the case, David, for why does understanding this stuff help a person be more awesome at their job?

David Livermore
Yeah. Well, it’s interesting because most of my work has actually been oriented around how it helps people be awesome at their job, and then I kind of backward-designed it into how does it also relate to personal relationships. So, a little bit of context to that, that response. Most of my work is in the field of cultural intelligence, so, “How do you understand people who come from different cultural backgrounds?”

So, in the job context, usually what that has meant is, “Hey, you are part of a team that’s scattered across Europe, Asia, and the US. How do you just deal with some of the frustrations of not only time zones but different ways of getting work done, etc.?” And the longer that I got engaged in that work, the more I was observing, just at a personal level, some of these increasingly polarizing conversations that happen in our own neighborhoods, maybe even in our own extended families.

So, I started to say, “How can we actually use some of these same principles that you might work in the work sphere in personal relationships?” So, I would say you’re hard-pressed today to be engaged in a work environment that isn’t going to be working with people who have different viewpoints than you and different backgrounds than you.

And we can try and stuff it for a while but, particularly under stress and time pressure, it’s going to start to surface. And the better that we learn the skills for how to actually lean into our differences and use those rather than ignore them is going to be helpful for all of us to become more awesome at the work that we’re doing.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’d love to get your take in terms of these sorts of conversations, if they are a political or other sort of hot button or divisive controversial matters. To what extent ought we not talk about them at work, versus, absolutely, engage, bring your whole self, your whole person? How do you think about that ball of wax?

David Livermore
Yeah, I’m a classic academic so I’m going to say it depends on the situation, because, in part, we’ve been told, particularly in US work culture, more the first point, like, just leave it alone, don’t go near politics, don’t touch. But that’s become harder and harder to do, particularly when some of the politicized issues are around unionization, or around reproductive rights, or whether or not people should be working from home or not, etc. So, it’s not realistic to say that this is never going to come up.

And in the wake of some of the atrocities that were happening after the George Floyd murder, like, sometimes people of color were sitting there on a Zoom call, going, “Everybody’s asking how my weekend was. I don’t even know how to engage in this conversation because I’m still reeling emotionally.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I hear you. It’s like, “Well, this thing happened and it was horrifying for me. Am I supposed to say that or am I supposed to not say that?”

David Livermore
Yeah, exactly. So, I think it comes down to what a lot of our friends in the DEI space say of creating psychologically safe environments where we’re not walking on eggshells, where it’s okay to voice our viewpoint but being mindful that there may be someone on the other side of the table who has a very different opinion, and it takes a special kind of leader to know how to create awesome teams who can handle that kind of intellectual honesty with each other.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, now we settled that. Thank you. So, can you share with us any particularly surprising or fascinating discoveries that might be sort of counterintuitive as you dug into this work and put together the book?

David Livermore
Yeah, a couple things. So, the first would come more from our broader realm of research in cultural intelligence. One of the things that was surprising to me is sometimes those who know a lot about the other side, whether the other side be how a German works versus an American, or whether it be a Republican versus a Democrat, actually, sometimes do worse than those who don’t know a lot.

And what emerged in the research in that is if I think I know a whole lot about you, then that can tend to make me arrogant and close minded, and think, “I already know how people like you think.” So, it was a bit counterintuitive for someone like me who’s in academic to go, “Actually, knowledge by itself can be dangerous.” But when combined with the other facets that we look at in cultural intelligence, “To what degree are you open and motivated? How do you actually strategize? How does that actually help it?”

The one that was more specific to the book in looking at, “How do we actually use these ideas to help us around some of these polarizing issues?” was surrounding an issue that we call, in the academic arena, perspective-taking. So, your listeners can certainly wrap their minds around it pretty quickly. Perspective-taking is just when I stop, and say, “Let me see this through your point of view.”

And so, there was some interesting research where Adam Galinsky at Columbia University, a colleague of mine, wanted to look at what happened when he asked a group of students to examine an elderly gentleman sitting outside on a chair in New York City. And the first group of students, he just said, “Write what you see.” The second group of students, he said, “Write what you see but avoid negative stereotypes.” The third group of students, he said, “Write what you see but I want you to write it in the first person as if you’re the elderly gentleman.”

And what happened? The first group of students with no parameters, they wrote all kinds of stereotypical things about this poor dithering man who’s been here and he’s losing his mind, he’s lonely.” The second group of students, it was relatively clinical, “He sits here every day. He’s been here for lots of years.” The third group of students who were asked to view it through the first person, they wrote the most humanizing, positive view of, “Ah, I’ve had such a rich life, and I’ve watched some of the same kids grow up on these blocks, etc.”

And so, it became a very useful kind of somewhat surprising finding of a simple trick to say, “What if I actually enter the mind of someone who views vaccines as the best or worst thing ever, and start to think about, ‘Could I argue their point of view from their perspective?’”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that really is powerful for just about any issue in terms of…because it’s easy to judge, to demonize, but then if you put yourself in a position of a mother, had triplets, they got vaccines, and then they all developed autism days afterwards, like, what is she to conclude? What is she to think? And she’s terrified, and so that’s going to be the perspective she’s going to have. It’s like, “Hey, vaccine is horrific.”

David Livermore
Great example. And shouting at her with the science isn’t even addressing the fear that she feels at that point as a mother.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly.

David Livermore
But it’s also super hard, right, because the minute we start to view that other viewpoint, we immediately start to, “Yeah, these clueless sheeple who think blah, blah, blah.” Like, “Hang on, just you’re them right now. How do they view it?”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s right, “I’m a clueless sheeple.” That’s not what they’re thinking.

David Livermore
Right, probably not.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so then lay it on us, is there a key theme or thesis that enables us to both talk to racists or compete with robots and overcome polarization? Is there a master key, David? Teeing you up.

David Livermore
Well, thank you for that question, Pete. I would say that one of the solutions to it is coming at it through this research-based work that I’ve done on cultural intelligence, and that is if we were to exercise with our racist uncle the same kind of perspective that we might exercise being with someone on the other side of the world, maybe we would get a little further along. And to be a bit more concrete about it, the first thing we know about just being more effective when you’re traveling or working with someone from a different cultural background is just openness, “Am I open to considering a different way of doing things?”

So, one of the tangible things that I suggest to people in the book, but just more practically in my interactions with my own friends and people that I’m working with in organizations, is if somebody has a strong opinion that differs from yours, like my friend did, related to the example just a few minutes ago, just simply asking the question, “Are you willing to consider a different perspective?”

And very rarely will someone go, “Hell, no.” And if they do, then there’s really no point in going any further because if someone has just said, “No, I’m absolutely closed-minded here. Anything more you have to say?” then don’t waste your breath. You might actually make it worse. But if there’s at least, “Okay, sure. I’ll, at least, listen to a different perspective,” that’s kind of an inroad. And, of course, coming back to the perspective-taking, it requires that I’m willing to do the same, “Am I willing to do that?”

And then the other key thing I would say that really try and bring out in the work that we do with people to be awesome at their jobs, and the kinds of things I write about in the book, is to find a shared problem that we both care about. Like, if it’s in the work setting, we both have to meet this deadline for this client. So, you might think the best way to go about is A, and I think it’s B, but, at the end of the day, we got to figure out how to get this done so that they’re pleased and they want to continue to do business with us, etc.

So, zooming wider than a my-way-versus-yours, to, “What’s the shared problem we’re trying to solve?” and then actually trying to use our different viewpoints of, “Can we actually come up with a better solution by both of us contributing to it?” Found that that can be a way that helps unlock people’s kind of close minded nature toward it to actually getting fixated on something that’s a little bigger than just our individual differences.

Pete Mockaitis
And, David, could you share a cool story of some teams, some folks in the workplace using some of this stuff to have some cool breakthroughs?

David Livermore
Yes. So, one example that comes to mind is we did quite a bit of work for a while with Goldman Sachs, and, in particular, there were many of their individuals in their Asian offices in Tokyo, Beijing, Singapore, etc., who felt like they were continually being passed over for promotions by people in London and New York. And so, they were hitting what often gets talked about as the bamboo ceiling. They weren’t being assertive in the way that perhaps their Western counterparts wanted them to do so.

So, we began to design a whole four-month program that would talk about, “How do you take on a different perspective? How do you kind of change the way that you voice things?” And so, a really concrete way that we worked with them on it is they had to leave a voicemail leaving the same information for three different individuals, sort of the caricature of somebody who was in New York, the caricature of someone who was in London, and the caricature of someone in Japan. Same information but how do you communicate it differently?

Of course, we cautioned against stereotyping and all that, but then gave them some feedback on, “Okay, if I’m your stereotypical New Yorker, here’s the way I heard that message sound.” So, this goes broader than just the, “How do you work across polarization?” but how do you actually develop this skillset in your job to be able to more effectively communicate in ways that people are going to hear things differently based upon their background and perspective?

Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing. So, in this exercise, they were delivering it in a way they were imagining a stereotypical New Yorker or Londoner would want to receive it.

David Livermore
Correct.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I’m just hearing accents in my head as I’m imagining such and such. Can you share with me some actual content? Like, what might that sound like and how that difference goes?

David Livermore
Yeah, no, fair question. Well, I’m speaking more about the words that are spoken and the level of assertiveness. So, with New York, no surprise, it’d be very direct, to the point, succinct, get the word out quickly. Whereas, in the UK, London, still not overly obtuse but perhaps a little bit more deferential, showing a little bit more respect for authority, and then all the more so with the Japanese example, all kinds of deference, more indirect.

So, it was more than nuance of how you communicate this in a way that you would be perceived to be competent, confident, assertive, and all those kinds of things but not over the top, or like, “Who is this dude that’s leaving me this voicemail that sounds like they’re arrogant or something else?”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. And I’m thinking about your magical question there, “Are you open to considering another perspective?” And I can hear it’s rare they’re going to say, “No way, no how, not ever.” Although, I think if I’m being honest and I’ve got a good relationship with someone, I might say, “You know, I’d rather not do that today. I’m not in that space today for that.”

David Livermore
And I think that’s actually a super mature response in some cases, like, “Yes, some day but today is not a good day for that.”

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Do you have any other favorite or least favorite words and phrases that are very productive or very destructive in these contexts?

David Livermore
Yeah, another, well, least favorite but then I’ll counterpoint it with what I would add to it. The minute you say, “That makes no sense.” Like, that’s just derogatory. It’s dismissive. And so, I just encourage people to say, just add “To me.” Like, “That makes no sense to me.” We don’t need to be super, like, we’re walking on eggshells, and, “Oh, Pete, I’m not sure I entirely get that.” But, like, it gets fair for us to banter then, “That makes no sense to me. Help me understand it.” But to just, “That makes no sense” sound like, “You’re not logical,” “You don’t make any sense,” etc. So, that’s another one that I like.

I think I already said this in our interview earlier but another favorite phrase of mine, and it’s one that I’m often known for, is “It depends.” When somebody is, “Should it be this or this?” “Well, it depends on so many different factors.” I think it’s fair for people when I’m facilitating a session in the workplace or something for them to say, “It depends on what?” Like, it’s not fair for me to just walk out of the room, and go, “It depends.”

But there’s far too much of our workplace advice, our advice for how you overcome polarization that’s super dogmatic, and it’s like, “What’s the nature of the relationship?” You just mentioned it. You said, “Well, it would depend on the friend and the relationship I have with them.” Exactly. There’d be some individuals where you might say, “Not today. I’m not open, okay? I’m shooting straight with you. Like, this is not a good day for me to enter the perspective of how you’re feeling about this.” So, those are a few of my favorites.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, okay. And so, generally speaking, cultural intelligence, what are your pro tips for how folks go about cultivating it and improving in this set of skills?

David Livermore
It won’t surprise you that there’s no substitute for developing cultural intelligence other than direct experience, so actually interacting with people who have different backgrounds than you. And so, to come back to your example, when we unfriend someone, whether virtually or in real life, just because they have a different perspective, like there’s very little hope we’re going to develop the skillset if we don’t purposely put ourselves in places where we’re interacting with people who are different.

We could say that when we’re talking about the more full-on cultural standpoint. The same would be if I’m not interacting with people from different races, ethnicities, as well as people on other sides of the world. Along with that, there is all kinds of research that says that formal education. We tend to see that as people get engaged in higher-level thinking in that, that it actually does have a link to cultural intelligence.

Many of your listeners may be very familiar with the idea of emotional intelligence, that is the ability to monitor and detect my own emotional state and the emotional state of another person. We know that that’s a key part of how you develop cultural intelligence because if I’m not, first, self-aware, or aware of the emotions of people from similar backgrounds, there’s very little hope that I’m going to do it with other individuals.

So, those are a few that are there. One more that I should just mention, obviously, absolutely key, is just starting with a self-awareness of, “What’s my own identity? What’s my own ideology? Can I transcend a little bit, again, engage in a bit of meta cultural intelligence, if you will, to take a look at myself, and say, ‘How am I, myself, shaped by my background, my upbringing, the profession that I’m in, the people I hang out with, etc.?’”

Pete Mockaitis
I’m curious to hear your perspective when folks, they hear, “Yeah, that probably is a wise move to talk to people who have the opposite point of view than me and some things?” And maybe they’ll make the determination for, “That’s kind of too risky to start at work,” or with this team, or with this individual. But if there’s a sense of terror associated with putting forth a perspective and hearing another person’s perspective as the opposite, like, “I actually think that abortion is murder.” It’s like, “Okay.”

If people feel terrified to voice their view, or the opposite view, it’s like, “I think that is oppressive to say abortions are forbidden,” then how do you recommend folks dip their toe in? Like, I think in some ways, these muscles, these skills have sort of atrophied in recent years as folks see the fireworks fly, and they shrink from that, say, “Okay, duly noted. That results in very spooky conversations and consequences. I’m not going to go there.”

And if we want to develop the cultural intelligence, it sounds like go in there is part of the game. So, how do you recommend we do that in a way that seems lower risk and higher safety?

David Livermore
I think one part of it is realizing we can’t go there with everyone. So, because someone just says it in line in the supermarket behind us doesn’t mean that we’re not being true to our convictions if we don’t engage it. And a more realistic example, like you said, just because someone might quip about that in a team meeting, now may not be the time.

So, it’s kind of say, “Who are the people with whom I really want to engage in this?” And then it’s probably an offline conversation, “Hey, let’s grab a drink together. Let’s have a meal together, and I’d love to talk about this further.” And this is where I would suggest we take on some of these tools that I’ve mentioned throughout of, “Okay, would you be open to considering a different perspective rather than just automatically assuming that it’s oppressive or assuming that it’s murder?”

Could you voice a perspective that somebody who is religiously similar to you and has a similar view of life, how they could actually arrive at a place that makes abortion legal as compared to you? So, sort of coming at it that way of forcing each other to not go to these soundbites. So, I realize it’s easier said than done, but I think finding a few individuals with whom we can go deeper on is probably going to be a lot better than us thinking that, on an offhanded comment or a quick social media post, we’re really going to get people to either change their perspective or get us to rethink ours.

Pete Mockaitis
And what sounds so powerful about this in terms of the cultural intelligence, if you engage in this practice multiple times, then you’ll have a greater confidence, courage, capability to disagree with folks about issues that may not be hot button cultural issues, but just like, “You think your boss is absolutely headed down the wrong path with this initiative.”

It’s, like, you have developed some reps of going there with folks in terms of saying, “Hey, are you open to considering a new perspective on the trajectory of this project?” And then a lot of that emotional stuff you’ve worked through a number of times.

David Livermore
I love that example, Pete, because I think that does bring it closer to home because, for many of us, it may feel daunting to dive into the deep end of reproductive rights, or Hamas versus Israel, or whatever the timely issue is. But clearly starting with some kind of, “Hey, on a team when we have a different view of how quickly should we be out to market, or how much time shall we spend consulting with 75 other people before we decide which campaign we’re going to roll out as a marketing team,” practicing some of these within a team on lower stake in terms of emotionally lower-stake issues is a great way to think about it.

And, to your point that the two are connected, that’s why I talk about cultural intelligence, which may seem a drift to people, of like, “Wait, why are you talking about Germany versus Americans at the same breath as you’re talking about Trump versus Biden, or January 6?” Well, some of those same muscles get exercised of, “Okay, I have a very different perspective that I’ve been socialized into seeing the world, as do you. How do we use some of these same kinds of techniques that can be used whether we’re talking about cultural issues or whether we’re talking about ideological ones or political ones?”

Pete Mockaitis
And, David, zooming into the heat of battle, if you’re hearing some things, or having a conversation, and you can feel yourself getting riled up, your defensiveness or judgment, “This guy is an idiot,” like whatever that internal voice sounds like, do you have sort of a stop-drop-and-roll or an immediate prescription for when you’re in the moment, and you’re starting to feel some intense feelings that are at risk for derailing your logical thinking abilities, what do you do?

David Livermore
A couple thoughts. One is, this is why I said emotional intelligence is a piece of it, is I do have to know myself enough to know, “Am I going to be able to engage in this in any kind of constructive way?” And if my heart rate is going, and I’m starting to think about four-letter words that I want to call you, then probably better to be, like, “You know what, kind of back to your strategy, now is not the day for us to talk about this, but I’d like to engage it.”

The other thing I think is really important for me to acknowledge, people can’t see me, but if they look me up at all, I’m a white, straight, middle-age guy. And so, some might say, “Okay, fine day for you to say that I should confront a racist bigot or whatever else. But what if you’re the person who’s continually on the receiving end of discrimination, bigotry, bias?” I absolutely give people an opt in or opt out of saying, “Hey, it might not be your job to say ‘Today is the day that I’m going to school the manager on how what they just did is a microaggression in that.’”

So, I think this does need to be something that is opt-in. I’m not campaigning for everyone that you all need, every time you hear something, you need to come up and challenge it, and have a culturally intelligent conversation. There may be times where any of us are not in an emotional state to do that, and all the more so if you’re somebody who has a very visceral reaction to this because of something in your own identity or a personal life experience. You may need to opt out and let someone else be the one who jumps in and takes the flak for it.

Pete Mockaitis
And, well, I was just going to ask, if you are on the receiving end of some, I don’t know, just rude, ignorant, discriminatory just bad news comments, what do you recommend you do in response? It sounds like it depends. But if you could share with us maybe some of the different contexts that suggest different responses.

David Livermore
Quick story, if you will, and I’ll come at it that way initially. So, a number of years ago, the university where I was, I was on a taskforce, and one of my colleagues also on the taskforce was a woman who always advocated for the importance of opportunities for women in leadership, staff, faculty, students, etc. And this taskforce I was on, the individual chairing the meeting, he knew that that was sort of Cristy’s, like, hobby horse even though it wasn’t her formal role.

So, he was just making every sexist statement in the book to just sort of push her buttons, “Oh, Cristy, why don’t you take the minutes for us? And how come you didn’t bring us cupcakes today?” And I’m just like, “Dude!” And she didn’t say a word. So, kind of coming back to, “What is your response?” She engaged in the meeting professionally in light of her role at the university but she didn’t engage in this banter at all. She’s a pretty good friend so I walk out of the meeting with her when it’s done, and I’m like, “Cristy, I can’t believe you took that.” And she’s like, “Yeah, I was hoping you would say something.” I’m like, “Duh!”

Yeah, so now I feel a little defensive, I’m like, “Wait a second, how is that not like the white male riding into, like, ‘Dude, don’t say that to my friend Cristy.’” She’s like, “No, I didn’t need you to defend me. I needed you to speak up on your own behalf of how you feel about that kind of banter and the role of women, etc.”

And so, it was a real reminder to me of when we hear all this buzz about allyship but that was a moment of what allyship would look like is, hopefully, there’s somebody else who can speak up. And it shouldn’t have been on her to have to speak into it. And sometimes people will say to me, like, “Isn’t it a little awkward being a white straight middle-age guy talking about all this stuff?”

And I’m like, “I don’t pretend for a moment to know that I have the lived experience of many of the groups that I care passionately about, promoting inclusion and equity for, but there’s a role for me to play, leveraging power, etc. in ways that others might not have it.” So, I guess it’s to think about that you’re not in it alone. Who are others that can help you with it?

And if you’re on the receiving end, it’s back to where I go. Opt in carefully. And if your mental health can’t handle it, you have my full support if you say, “It’s not on me to challenge the bigotry that’s going on right now. I need to just protect my own sanity in it.”

Pete Mockaitis
And I suppose then, in that context, there’s multiple ways that you can engage that challenge. You might bring that up right then and there in the meeting, or you might chat with the boss afterwards, like, “Hey, the cupcakes stuff is, like, some people will probably think it’s funny but other people would really don’t, so just heads up.”

David Livermore
I think that’s a great point. And I would say my preference overall, based upon my personality but also what I think helps people be awesome at work, is to do it offline rather than shame them. I guess the counterpoint I would offer to it is there’s also a message that’s being sent to everyone else in the group. If perhaps I was the leader and somebody else on the team was doing that, I think there would be some. And not necessarily shaming but some kind of intervention that’s needed right in the moment that demonstrates to the team, “This is not the kind of behavior that we want to be part of what we’re doing.”

And I think you could still do it in a way that isn’t like, “Shame on you, individual,” but, “Hey, we might all, like, be tired and sarcastic, and think we’re doing funny but we’re about an inch away from when it’s funny and when it’s actually offensive to people.” So, to your point, it depends as there are myriad ways you could confront it. But for those of us who at work are in leadership roles, I think there’s a different level of responsibility on us to call it out even publicly for the benefit of what everybody else is observing and learning from them.

Pete Mockaitis
And, David, if you do feel sort of excluded in the sense that it’s clear that your views or identity or whatever is not welcome or respected, I guess there are some environments where it’s just sort of like, “Don’t you dare wear a MAGA hat in this room,” or the opposite, “Don’t you dare wear a Biden shirt in that room.”

So, I guess I wonder about the extent of, and it probably just varies person by person, like, is that just sort of okay or should we speak up, which is like, “Hmm, something that I believe strongly is completely unwelcome in this room, and that’s just how it is, and I’m just going to live my life, and not bring that up”? Versus, do you think we miss out on a lot of good people engagement, whole self at work stuff when we’re in that vibe?

David Livermore
I think we do miss out. Like, I realize it’s idealistic for me to say that in every case you ought to just speak up, and be your whole self, and be authentic. And there are certainly cases where I would say if you don’t have the right power or if you just feel like this is just going to be misconstrued and it’s pointless, I give people all kinds of agency to figure out what bringing their whole selves to work is.

But I do think the team and the organization is missing out because the example you used, the Biden and Trump, look at the polls. Regardless of whether or not you think they’re legitimate, the fact that we can even be close to a margin of error of 50/50 on Trump versus Biden shows that if we have a whole room of people that thinks somebody of the other perspective is not welcome here, well, then we’ve just cut off half the country.

So, wouldn’t we be better to somehow be informed by that perspective, whether it’s from a business idea, whether it’s a way of developing a better product for people, or whatever it might be. So, I’m going to very much lead on at least the ideal is it’s better if we can speak that up, at least in certain cases. But I recognize that, as individuals, we have to pick our battles wisely, and may say, “I just don’t have the energy to go at this again if I’m the lone one on debating this with everybody else.”

Pete Mockaitis
And I think you brought up a wise point there with regard to the 50/50, is I guess I’m surprised at how often people seem to say things, which suggests they’re assuming everybody in the room holds their same views, or they don’t care at all, and they’re just going to say it loud and proud and deal with it.

David Livermore
I think of this often even, which no surprise, but even when you hear it on media interviews, “Americans want…” Which Americans? But then, likewise, like sometimes even I’ll meet a stranger in an Uber, the driver, or on an airplane, and the assumptions that they’re making of me, after like three minutes of talking about my presumed agreement with them about their political perspective, I’m just like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa.”

So, it’s actually one of the things I’ve mentioned to you before we started the interview, I recently moved to San Diego, and I came here from the Midwest, a very conservative sort of community, politically conservative, and I think everybody there was like, “You’re moving to the left Coast. Are you ready for this?”

But San Diego actually has quite a bit of political diversity, I think, because of the military presence, and it’s actually one of the things I’ve really enjoyed here is most social gatherings, as well as professional that I end up with, you can’t just assume that because someone lives in this town, they vote one way or the other, or even because they’re military that they might feel one way or the other about Trump or Biden.

So, I think we’re richer people, communities, and workplaces when we create space for that, but I’m with you. It’s amazing to me how a lot of people just…you couched it by saying either they think that or they just don’t care. And I think both are probably viable hypotheses of why individuals do that.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, David, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

David Livermore
I think I would just encourage people to have the difficult conversations because I think we learn so much from that and it’s much easier to just default to people who think, believe, vote the same way we do but there’s this vast fascinating country, or world, that’s out there. So, have a conversation with someone who views an issue differently than you and see what comes of it.

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

David Livermore
So I’m going to have to use one that I actually used at the very beginning of the Digital, Diverse & Divided book. It’s from the great Martin Luther King, Jr. who says, “People fail to get along because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other. They don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other.” For me, that kind of says really well what I’m after. A lot of this is driven by fear, and fear of people that we don’t really know at a deep level because we aren’t talking.

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

David Livermore
For someone like me, a favorite bit of research is a tough question, but one I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is there’s this whole body of research around you see what you pay attention to. And so, just this kind of idea of I’m paying attention to certain things in my life, and that directly impacts the way I view life. There’s all kinds of research on if you pay attention to negative things, you tend to have a more negative orientation. So, that field is outside my own expertise but is one that really fascinates me.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

David Livermore
So I’m actually going to say Abraham Verghese, Cutting for Stone which is just a brilliant novel that I love.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

David Livermore
I am an obsessive journaler, and it’s something that I do almost every morning. It’s the way that I work through problems. It’s the way that I reflect on things, make meaning out of things. So, for me, journaling is an absolutely essential skill for both productivity and just making sense of my life.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite nugget you share, something that really seems to connect and resonate with folks that they quote back to you often?

David Livermore
I think I would say that amid all of our differences that I’m really keened in on helping people pay attention to, but that, at the end of the day, we’re all human beings. And so, calling people to our shared humanity, not instead of our differences but alongside our differences, that’s something I found that has really resonated to people.

And polling from the Human Genome Project that tells us we’re 99.9% the same DNA, I find that that, in the space of talking about differences, polarization, diversity, and working around the world is a piece that really sort of resonates with people, like, “Oh, yeah, as Livermore says, we have the shared humanity that needs to shape the way that we interact and live.”

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

David Livermore
DavidLivermore.com is the easiest place to start.

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

David Livermore
Thanks so much, Pete. It’s really great to be able to interact with people who are thinking deeply about how they just do their work better and live better. And my challenge is going to hearken back to what I said to you earlier. Have a conversation with someone who has a different opinion to you, and see what you learn.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, David, thank you for this. I wish you many enriching conversations.

David Livermore
Thanks so much, Pete.

Aug 21
0

892: Tools for Thriving amid Change with Curtis Bateman

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Curtis Bateman shares simple tools that make uncertainty less frustrating and more rewarding.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The simple model that makes change predictable and actionable
  2. The critical first step to introducing any change initiative
  3. How to keep poor results from discouraging you

About Curtis

Curtis Bateman is one of FranklinCovey’s lead change experts and the author of Who Rocked the Boat: A Story about Navigating the Inevitability of Change and co-author of Change: How to Turn Uncertainty into Opportunity.  He is also the Vice President of International and a Senior Change Consultant.

Resources Mentioned

Curtis Bateman Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Curtis, welcome to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Curtis Bateman
Hey, thanks, Pete. It’s nice to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to be chatting about your book, Change: How to Turn Uncertainty Into Opportunity. And I’d like to kick off by hearing about one of the biggest changes you’ve made in your own life.

Curtis Bateman
Well, one that I love to talk about was a few years ago when I was deciding to either leave a business or stay, and the change that I ended up making was I offered to buy the business. So, the journey was pretty interesting because I was realizing I wanted to be doing more, and the whole fear notion got in the way for me and I was stuck for quite a while, thinking, “I want to do more. I think I could do more with this company. Should I leave? Should I stay?”

And then my wife, one day, quoted a line from Who Moved My Cheese, and she said, “What would you do if you weren’t afraid?” And, suddenly, the realization of answering that question meant, “I’m going to make a change. I’m going to buy this business versus staying in the employee situation,” so it was a massive change for me.

And, frankly, the reason I like to mention is because it transformed my career and my life, that one significant change and decision that I made.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s awesome. Okay. Well, tell us, what’s the big idea with the book Change?

Curtis Bateman
Well, there’s two big ideas in the book. The one is that there’s a predictable pattern, and that this pattern applies to personal change, work change, teams going through change, even organizations taking their whole organization through change. So, it’s this idea, there’s a predictable pattern, and if we can learn it, then we can start to drive some opportunity or some advantage from it. The second big idea is that individuals have more choice even though they don’t really feel like they do when the change is being imposed on them. And so, pattern and choice.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, tell us, what sorts of benefits or goodness is on the other side of understanding and mastering this stuff?

Curtis Bateman
In some research I’ve done, we found that as many as 88% of people think that a change is going to lead to something worse for them.

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. Now, you might be thinking, “Wait a minute.” But the data, over time, with thousands of respondents says a lot of people really think change is going to lead to something bad for them. Now, I’ve asked that question mostly in an organization context where change is a decision made somewhere else and I’m living with the consequences of it.

But what happens is most people start from the paradigm of, “Oh, this is going to lead to something worse for me and I don’t like it because I’ve had experience after experience where that’s the case.” And so, we’re trying to help people recognize that that doesn’t have to be the case. So often, it ends up being a lot better than they think, and so we’re trying to help people frame it differently, see it differently, and use some tools to get better success from it.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that really is interesting, and I don’t think it’s even occurred to me personally until you cited this, is that that is sort of my default reaction, like, “Uh-oh, here it is.”

Curtis Bateman
“It’s happening again.”

Pete Mockaitis
“Okay. All right.” And it’s like, in terms of, “This is going to be a big hassle. It’s going to be difficult. This is going to upset…” whatever. And, boy, maybe that just speaks to that human nature in our very, I don’t know, biochemistry or nervous system.

Curtis Bateman
It does. It does because we’re programmed as humans to protect ourselves. And so, often what happens is because we have experienced bias that says, “Change is cruddy for us,” and it feels threatening, it activates this, “I’m going to protect myself.” So, we immediately revert to, “How do I fight or flight on this?” rather than “How do I get something better from this?” So, it’s part of what we’re trying to point out and help people realize there is a choice in there and we can do some things to help you have a better experience with it.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s true. So, 88% percent of folks think going into it, “Okay, this change is going to be bad for me,” and yet it’s true, if I objectively assess, “Changes imposed upon me historically,” it’s probably more like 50/50 in terms of, “Yes, that was more of a pain,” or, “Actually, I’m so glad we made that change. It’s way easier now.”

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, and if it’s a change that, as an individual I’ve initiated, like, let’s say I buy a new house and I have to move, that’s a massive change, and you dread it, and you hate it, but there’s a reason you did it. You want something better. And when you finally settle into the new circumstance, you think, “I love this,” yet you take all that stuff in the middle, and you think, “This is going to be lousy.” And it may be difficult, to your point, but maybe there’s a little more joy in the journey if you realize it’s going to lead to something better for you.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, tell us about this journey of the change model.

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. So, there’s two variables, two axes. One is results, up and down or vertical, and horizontal is time. And we have this space where we’re achieving outcomes that we’re really comfortable with. We call that the zone of status quo. And then a change is introduced. Either we introduce it or it’s introduced to us. And when that happens, we start to see this decrease in outcome. It might be our engagement. It might be a financial outcome. It might be a relationship outcome. But whatever it is, there’s this negative impact that starts to create this downward path.

And what’s happening is we’re looking to understand “What’s changing? Why is it changing? And what’s the real impact on me?” And so, we stay in that space, this space of disruption until we really feel like we’ve got some answers. At which point, we pass through a decision point where we choose to opt in. And then we start working on, “How do we make this change come to life? How do we implement it?” It’s called the zone of adoption.

It’s a messy space. That’s where most changes really fall apart. They fall apart organizationally. They fall apart individually because it requires some determination, some acceptance if things didn’t work right the first time. And as we move through that, then we start to get back to a level of outcome that we’re happy with, then there’s last zone, which often gets overlooked, and, hopefully, we’ll get a chance to talk about that.

But it’s the zone of innovation where we take everything we’ve learned, and if we can really get curious about it, we actually can create higher, stronger, better extended outcomes from the change that really create even more value from the change rather than just making it through the zone of adoption.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, is it fair to say that this is the pathway of all or nearly all or the vast majority of changes of all flavors?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, I’ve been asked that question for years and years and years, and I keep looking for exceptions. Leaders often want exceptions. They want to jump to that third zone and skip the other two zones. It doesn’t happen as much as they want to try, push, cajole, encourage, whatever the right adjective is. So, all change follows this pattern. All change personal, professional, nonprofit, kids, teenagers, it goes through this pattern. And if you can learn that and appreciate it, it instantly starts to create awareness that you can do something about it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so just to make this all the more real, I’d love it if you could walk us through three examples. One would be a personal initiative, maybe it’s fitness, maybe it’s a hobby, or something, “I’m going to get organized,” or something, a personal initiative, a relationship, maybe a friendship or close romantic relationship but kind of one on one. And then an organizational team situation.

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, good. Let’s get practical. So, on an individual basis, we experience this pattern with so many things that happen, and we give them other labels. So, to your point, let’s say we’re going to start a fitness program. Status quo is where we are, what we’re doing, how we’re eating, our weight, our health, all of those things just kind of maintained at this level. And then what comes along, the New Year’s resolution, “I am going to eat healthier and be fit, or more fit.”

And we start to change our behaviors, and so it pushes us from the status quo into a different set of behaviors: eating patterns, exercise patterns, even thought processes, and that creates disruption. It takes us in this downward slope, which we’re just trying to figure out, “Is it worthwhile?”

Now, if we start a little differently, if we start with a vision of, “What is it that I want as the outcome?” and we stay focused on the benefits of that, it actually helps us move through this process. But if we don’t, if we just say, “I have to be more fit,” and we don’t really have a connection to the outcome that motivates us, what we find is we start to exercise a little bit, we start to eat differently, and we’re attempting to move through this dip part of the curve.

And this is where, in the zone of adoption, it gets messy, it gets squishy because we miss exercising one day, or we go out with friends and we eat differently, and we think, “Oh, I’ve lost it. I failed.” And what happens is we can get stuck in the bottom of that change process because we’re not pushing through the difficult part.

So, if we do, if we start to move through that, and we develop a new set of habits, those can take us either back to a new status quo where we’re eating a little differently, exercise a little differently, or they can take us continuing up the curve to a point where we get better and better outcomes.

And what happens often with individual New Year’s resolutions where we lose that momentum, is we get stuck in the bottom of the curve and we drift back to our old status quo. So, the vision, the focus on the value, to me, is what will help you move through the dip part of that curve towards the top, at a better pace and with some success. So, that’s an individual example.

I love that you asked about a relationship example. Take a parent and a teenager relationships are interesting, and if we think there is our normal reactions to each other, for example, I have a teenage son, he loves to challenge everything.

And so, if I’m thinking I want to improve my relationship with him, my status quo is he challenges everything, so it’s easy to say, “I told you so. I’m the parent. You’ll do it this way,” and we maintain the status quo, which is perhaps a lower level of relationship result than we would hope for.

And if you think, “What’s the result I want in this relationship with my teenager? I want to have a friendship. I want to be able to influence. I want them to trust me.” But if my status quo behavior is, “Gosh, this kid really pushes my buttons. I’m going to tell him what to do,” I’m stuck in that space between, “This is my result, and the result I’d like is up here. I’d like this better relationship.”

So, I say, “I’m going to change.” The person with the most responsibility in the relationship has to initiate the change. So, I initiate the change, and say, “I’m going to behave differently.” Well, I have to figure out, “What does that mean to me? What is it that I need to do differently?” And that’s that zone of disruption, “Why am I doing this? What does it mean to me? And do I really want to do this? Yes, I do.”

So, then I jump into the zone of adoption that says, “I’m going to behave differently. I’m going to choose different behaviors that will increase the nature of the relationship result.” And it’s going to be hard because I’m going to have a moment where he pushes my buttons, and we start to really feel some friction, and I think, “Okay, what’s the new behavior I want? I didn’t do that right last time. How am I going to do it better?”

And I have to work through that. I have to have some failures. I have to recommit to the change I want. I have to recommit to the relationship I want. And as I do that, and persist with it, I find myself moving up the change curve towards a different style of relationship. In my example, I’m saying, “I want higher trust. I want better friendship. I want higher levels of influence, and I don’t want to be activated by that behavior.”

And so, that’s where you commit and you recommit, and you start to see even better ways that you can improve your relationship. And so, that change journey is real, and I love that we can see the application that the result is the nature of the relationship. It’s not economic or anything else. It’s a relationship result. So, that’s a second one, Pete.

And the third one is an organizational change. Let me approach this from a different angle, and this is the angle where the change feels like it’s happening to me. In the other two examples, I might’ve been the one driving the change. But in a professional context, I might show up to work, or at a charity where I volunteer, whatever the organizational situation is, and they say, “Hey, this is what’s happening.” And I think, “Wait a minute. Why are you doing this to me? I like it the way it is.”

So, they’re saying something about my status quo is going to change. They introduced that change. Maybe it’s an organizational restructuring. Maybe I’m reporting to a new leader. Maybe it’s I’m being asked just to take on different things in my role. All of those represent changes, and it’s happening to me. Somebody else is telling me, “This is the change.”

So, that launches me over the edge of the change, and this is a little bit trickier because we have to figure out, “Okay, what is it that they’re saying that’s changing, and why?” And understanding the why in this context will really help. It will in the others, “I want a better relationship, etc.” “So, why is this happening? What does the organization need?”

Well, as I come to grips with what and why, I start to piece together a storyline that says, “What does it mean to me? And am I okay with that?” So, I reach the point where I say, “Yes, I am. I get it. I like being here. I like this job. I like the work.” So, I start to engage in implementing the change. Well, I have to learn new skills. There may be some new skills I have to learn. There may be some new relationships I have to develop.

And so, the process of doing that leads to starts and stops, successes and failures, and so that’s why this third zone, the zone of adoption, causes us to really feel like, “Argh, I’m not going to get the full outcome we want.” But as we work through that and we accept moments that don’t work, and moments that do, and we trial and error, and as a boss or a leader helps clear some of the obstacles out of the way, we find ourselves moving through that zone of adoption. And then we might even start to realize, “Hey, this can lead to something great for me in the zone of innovation.”

Here’s what’s interesting in all three scenarios that I think is really important for listeners to pay attention to. The middle two zones, the zone of disruption and the zone of adoption, represent a cost to the change. There’s an emotional cost, a relationship cost, a productivity cost, perhaps an economic cost. And the more we can do to shrink those two zones, move through them at a better pace, and move through them with less severity, we decrease the costs that we experience with change, and we get to the point where we’re starting to experience the benefit of the change.

And the better that we can become at that, that’s where the book title comes into play, “How do we turn that uncertainty into opportunity? How do we shrink the costs and increase the benefits?” So, tell me what you think.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, I think it’s handy and, one, I’d recommend folks, in the show notes, you’ll find a link to the Amazon page for the book, which I think is so useful, because as we talk about these zones and these axes, you want to look at the picture. So, that’s the audio medium. Hope that you could visualize that. We see a straight line, and then a dip downward, like a U, and then a nice big high level, so like a ladle, if you will. A ladle with a handle facing to the right is kind of what we’re visualizing, so check that out if you want the visual reinforcement.

But I think, one, it’s just so handy to know upfront, “Hey, just expect there will be a phase unavoidably in which your results dip down. This is worse, it is less than what we had before, and the way it will look, sound, and feel will vary based upon the nature of the change you’re making.” So, in terms of fitness, it’s like, “Actually, I’m exercising. This hurts, I hate it,” “I’m eating healthier. This doesn’t taste good. I don’t like it,” “I am eating less to lose weight. I am hungry and sleepy and cranky often. This sucks.”

And so, just to know straight up that is the nature of change and how it goes down. There will be a trough in which you think, “This sucks,” and you actually seem to be worse off than you were before. And now, boy, I’m thinking, biblically, just like the book of Exodus, it’s like, “Hey, I know we were enslaved before but, actually, we prefer that. We’re hungry out here and it sucks worse than being slaves back there.” And I think you can find this in sort of many bits of literature or great story. This is what‘s going on.

Curtis Bateman
When we wrote the book, we actually talked about that, that there are so many examples in literature where this model plays out. And once you recognize the model and know it, you start to see it in places in your life and in what you’re reading. Even what you’re reading in the news “Oh, there’s a change going on here. Here’s what it means.” It’s fascinating and, hopefully, really helpful to people as they learn to recognize the pattern. It does not make the change like a magic wand but it makes it 20, 30, 50% better, and it makes you more capable of approaching it because you know what to expect.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. And in those relationship areas in which you’re making a change, it won’t look like or sound like, “My body hurts,” but it might sound like, “Why is dad being weird? This is really kind of odd. Like, okay,” and then it feels like, “Oh, it feels like we’re more distant because he’s giving me weird looks, and says I should stop being weird. But what’s weird is just the fact that I’m doing something different than what I have done before, by definition, weird.”

Curtis Bateman
That’s right. And I think, as an observer of somebody going through change, we need to give people permission to try it because we usually change to get a better outcome, to be better, to become better, to have a better circumstance. And so, one of the things we can do if we’re watching change from the outside is to recognize where they are in the process, and give people support, to say, “Hey, it’s going to be worth it if this is a change you want,” because there is a funny space in the middle,” just like you’re saying, Pete, in that we have to recognize.

Pete Mockaitis
And so then, how do we make that space in the middle less brutally unpleasant?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, that’s a good question. And we had spent a lot of time exploring this, so let me give you a few ideas here that highlight what you can do. So, in each zone, we have a really clear one-word idea that we need to be looking at. In the zone of status quo, before a change starts, we should be thinking about preparing. What can we be doing to be ready for the change? And that actually helps with the middle two zones, this idea of preparing, developing our capability, whatever that might be.

In the zone of disruption, what we’re looking to do is clarify because mostly what we’re feeling there is uncertainty. And the more we can disambiguate, the more we can clarify what’s going on and what kind of impact it’s going to have. That clarity, that information starts to help us get traction and feel like we can make some decisions. So, prepare, clarify.

In the third zone, most of what we talk about in the book are ways that we can persist. How do we keep at it? How do we take something that didn’t work and do something better with it? And there are a lot of different tools that we provide to help with that, but if you’re going to remember one thing, “Hey, I’m in the zone of disruption. I know the thing I need to do is persist. It might look different in each circumstance, but if I persist, it’s going to make a difference.”

And then, as we get into that fourth zone, there’s a lot going on there but I would say curiosity is one of the best things we can do in that last zone. So, in the middle two zones, clarify and persist, and we’ll provide…if you take a look on Amazon, we’ll provide lots of specific tools on how you do that. But from a radio, from a podcast point of view, if we just listen and think, “Okay, I’m in the zone, I need to clarify. What are the questions I want to have?” You’re going to find it will help you a long way down the path.

Pete Mockaitis
Could you give us some examples of tools or key clarifying questions that make a world of difference there?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, I’ve mentioned a few in one of the zones, so I’ll just restate those, and then I’ll mention a tool that can help in the zone of adoption. So, in the zone of disruption, this is largely a personal space even in organizational change. So, we’re trying to clarify what’s changing, and we’re actually looking to understand, “What are we moving from?” so this is a tool, just to list, “What are we moving from – behaviors, actions, and results? And what new behaviors, actions, and results are we moving to?”

And if we can clarify that with our leader, with our peers, our colleagues, or in an individual circumstance, like my teenage son, “What is it that I want to change from? What are my old behaviors when I interact with him, and to?” So, from and to statements is a great tool there. And the other thing that I should mention in that zone, I can’t say it enough, is we need to really declare what we believe is happening for me, “What’s the impact on me?” so we’re clear about that.

In the zone of adoption, what often ends up happening is we discover there’s this list of 30 new things we think we need to do to make the change work. And, as a result, two things are happening. One, we’re feeling overwhelmed, and, two, we’re struggling to know what to do with all the ideas. So, there’s two sorting tools that I’ll tell you about, easily just write these down on a piece of paper. They’re really easy.

The first sorting tool is, “What’s my stop-doing list? There are all these new things I want to try with the change. What should I stop doing so I create space to work on it?” And that’s really difficult, particularly in an organizational change because we have this accumulated list of stuff we just believe we need to do. So, we need a stop-doing list.

The next thing we need to do is we need to sort through all of the new ideas, and we need to say, “Which ones are hurdles, meaning I can jump over these? They’re in my path. And what kind of obstacle is this?” The next one we need to look at, “What are the quicksands? Where am I going to get stuck on these new ideas? And where do I need help?”

And then the last one, the last bucket to put things in is, “What are the brick walls? Where is it that I can’t solve this but somebody else can – a leader, a change sponsor?” And so, as we look to sort, “What can we stop doing?” and then we look to sort through obstacles and opportunities and hurdles, quicksand, and brick walls, it lets us know, “Here are the ones I can focus on. I’m in complete control of these, and here are the ones where I need other people to help.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, that’s great clarification. And then for persisting, any pro tips there?

Curtis Bateman
Well, on the persist part, in an organizational context, if I’m an employee and I’ve got a leader, one of the things I need from my leader is for them to stay engaged in the change. Why do I say that? A lot of leaders think that once they announce the change, people will just go make it happen. So, I need a leader to stay engaged. If I am a leader, I need to stay engaged so that I can help clear the path, and I can help acknowledge successes. That’s one of the things.

The other thing that I need is the leader, like I said, to clear the path to understand where they can take obstacles out of the way. And if I’m an individual contributor, and I’m thinking, “Wow, I’m really stuck here,” what’s happening is I’m giving you a language that doesn’t threaten anybody, “Hey, team or leader, we’re stuck in the zone of adoption. We’re working hard, putting a lot of energy into it, but this seems like an obstacle that we don’t know how to get out of our way. Who can we go to? Or, boss person, can you get this out of the way?”

And so, the language pattern I’m giving is a non-threatening way to talk about it, that’s one way to persist. A leader clearing the path is another way to persist. And then the third thing I would say is if we really feel stuck and that we’re sliding backwards, one of the things we can do to persist is reconnect with, “Why are we doing this? Why are we even going through this change?” And the why can create energy and motivation to recommit and keep pushing ahead.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, now I’m curious, any super favorite examples of how you’ve seen this play out beautifully that really illustrates it and inspires?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. Let me tell you from an organizational perspective first, and then I’ll hit a personal one. Here’s what normally happens with a change. We have leaders working together for months on a change they want to introduce. They’re going through the data, they’re understanding what’s going on in the market, and they have all of this run-up to when the change is going to be introduced.

And a normal pattern is they’ve been working on it performance, they stand up in a town hall, and they say, “We’re making this change,” and then they think their work is done. And the problem is they’ve been on a journey of understanding why we need to make a change, and what we’re asking the organization to do.

And if you just stand up and make this proclamation, what happens is you don’t give the people the space to come on the journey with you. So, from a leadership perspective, and this can be a team leader, this can be a senior leader, it’s any level of leadership, what happens is if you’ll just capture some of your thoughts and some of what you’ve been learning into a story, and say, “In our organization, we’re seeing this and this and this happen in the marketplace, and so we need to make these changes to stay competitive.”

Maybe that’s, “We need to upgrade our technology.” Maybe that’s, “We need to modify how we go to market with our commercial model.” Whatever the case may be, we need to explain how we came to that conclusion, and then that’s the ‘why’ behind it. It becomes a storyline so the people can say, “Oh, I get it. I understand why you’re asking us to go through a change.”

And so, it’s not a super complex thing. What makes it complex is we usually skip it. That’s where the complexity comes in, Pete. And so, we’re telling leaders, “Don’t skip it. Bring your people on the journey,” and so it’s really the art of storytelling. And then let’s take a personal example about a change and why we would need to have that case for change. So, I’ll go back to the relationship example with my teenager.

If I say I want a different level of relationship, why is that? Well, somewhere in there, I see value in having a better relationship. Now, talking personally, I would say, personally, for me, Curtis, “Why does that matter?” Well, there’s going to come a point, because I’ve seen it with older kids, where my ability to say, “You will do this” goes away, and my ability to influence and help him is based on my relationship. So, the more that I can do to move from, “I will tell you…” to we build a trusted relationship, the more likely it is that I’ll have influence with that child long term, that relationship long term.

So, that’s the why, that’s the compelling why, that matters to me. Now, that may not matter to everybody. I’m just telling you; you need a compelling why. You need a compelling why.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I don’t know if it matters to him, not to dig too deeply into your personal family dynamics, it may not be of interest to him.

Curtis Bateman
And it may not right now. That’s right. But for me, it has value, and so it’s a compelling why, and that compelling why is what gives me the motivation to go through the cost of change. Now, that same thing could be true on just an individual level. Let’s say…I was talking to a friend who is mid-career, and he’s really stuck right now, and he needs to make a fairly significant change.

And so, the reason he’s not making a change right now is he doesn’t have a compelling why. Every time he starts to make the change, he’s told me about two different times he’s really started to make this professional change, and he gets stuck because his compelling why isn’t there. And I think that’s really one of the obstacles, because once we have that, it helps us have the courage and the tenacity to move through the cost part of the change model.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And I guess I’m curious in terms of the case or the story, so you’ve got a great why for you, but how about a great why for the other stakeholders who were up in it?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. So, when we do organizational change, hopefully, whoever is sponsoring the change has a compelling why and what’s changing, and examples of what we’re moving from and to at the top of that change. What’s special then is if the next group, let’s say there’s four teams that are underneath that, if each of those teams go through that compelling case for change, and they say, “How do we take this case for change and create a version of it that’s aligned but it’s our story, making it our story, our compelling why, aligned with what’s being put forward, helps us engage and connect with it?”

And I’m not naïve. That doesn’t always become possible. Some changes are really just they struggle to create that alignment, but a lot are, and a lot do. And so, as we can create our own case for change, and sometimes there’s two or three tiers of organization, if at each level we can create our own aligned case for change, it connects us to what’s going on, and it allows our people to connect to our substory.

And I’ve seen that work at large scale. I did some work with a call center in India, offices in Mumbai and Pune, about 5,000 people, and we started with leadership, and we took it all the way down to the front-level team supervisor, and we wrote this case for change. They’re short, they’re brief, they’re one page. But as we did that, and as we’ve reviewed them, what we found is it created the engagement top to bottom. Even the frontline workers were aware of what their case for change was.

And we were looking to move them from a kind of a mid-tier ranking in the JD Power for ranking for customer service, and they wanted to get to number one. And over a period of 18 months, they moved all the way to the top of the charts because we were able to take that story, that case for change, and help everybody be aligned. Then they started to align their behavior and their work in that zone of adoption and persisted through it to get the kind of outcomes they wanted.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m also curious to hear, when it comes to, we talked about persisting, and the disruption, and the adoption, and there’s a dip, and we’re in the middle of it, I think it’s also quite possible that you learn once you’re in the midst of it, it’s like, “Oh, shoot, this was the wrong change.”

Curtis Bateman
“Wrong change.”

Pete Mockaitis
“And it’s not a matter of us being resistant to change, or having a messy middle, but, like, for real, we probably should have never embarked on this, or new stuff has come to light, and probably the best course of action is to abort or change in a very different strategic direction than the one we did do.” How do you distinguish that in terms of noting, “Oh, no, seriously, that was the wrong change, and we need to switch it up,” versus, “Hey, we’re just in the midst of disruption and that’s how it goes”?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, what a great question. The model supports that. Now, there has to be some courage, as a leader or an individual, to say, “Oh, this isn’t it.” How do you know? So, if you’re looking at the costs in the dip part of the model, if you start to realize that no matter what you do, you’re not going to be able to offset the costs of that change, and it’s just back-on-the-envelope math, whiteboard math, saying, “What is it costing us to work and we’re getting this kind of outcome?” or, “What is the impact on our employee attrition because we’ve got low engagement from this?”

You just have to look and ask a couple questions like that, and you think, “Oh, I can start to just do some back-of-the-envelope math, and realize I don’t think we’re ever going to create an outcome that offsets that.” And that’s where having the framework says, “Okay, that means we’re stuck with a lower outcome. That’s not okay. What do we do? Do we go back to where we were? Or, do we just initiate a modified version of the change based on what we’ve learned?” And once you know that framework, you can realize where you are, and analyze what the cost impact or the implication is of the dip. You can make those choices.

The other thing you can do is, knowing the model, I really encourage people to think through while they’re in the zone of status quo and they’re considering a change, “What is the cost here? How significant is it? Is that cost worth it for the outcome we think we’ll get?” And I think if there’s more intentionality before we initiate changes, you can head off some of those mistakes. You can get to them before you ever get to the scenario you described. If you do get to that scenario, use the model, the framework to analyze cost and make a different decision.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And any quick do’s and don’ts associated with conversations and word choice when announcing and sharing a change with folks?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. So often what we find when we’re announcing a change is we initiate a monologue, “I’ll do all the talking. I’ll tell you what to do.” And if the change gets announced, and that’s the end of it, and it’s all monologue, you have set yourself up for failure. You have to create a mechanism or a forum for dialogue because it’s very unlikely that I will understand all the consequences of a change for an entire team or organization. So, you need to give people a place to have that heard.

So, the second key to that, which is a tool, leaders don’t like that sometimes. They get a little nervous, because they think, “Well, what if I don’t have the answers?” I usually encourage people to make a list of all the questions I don’t have answers to so that you just acknowledge it upfront and work together on it rather than avoid the dialogue. And when that’s the case, it makes it a lot easier to engage in a dialogue. So, that’s a massive, “Don’t do this. Don’t just monologue.”

The second thing I would say is a big no-no, we talk about common reactions to change in the book. There’s a parable and we talk about some common reactions. Sometimes people use those common reactions as a label of “You’re this kind of person,” and labeling is not the intent of those reactions. Those reactions are to say, “These commonly appear. They’re not right or wrong. Recognize it in yourself and in a colleague, and then if it’s not the best reaction, use the non-threatening language to talk about what is the right reaction and how do we help people get to that space.”

So, don’t label people so they’re stuck there. It takes away their permission or ability to go through the change, and make sure you engage in a dialogue so people have input.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, Curtis, any final thoughts before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Curtis Bateman
Final thoughts are it’s a really easy to understand model. If you can learn, share it, draw it, talk to people about it, you’ll find that it’s stuck with you forever, and it’s really easy then to reference it. So, rather than have it be an idea that you hear about and goes away, the minute you just draw it on a napkin and share it with two or three people, you’ll find that it becomes part of your thinking, and it’ll be a great tool for you to use the rest of your career and your life.

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

Curtis Bateman
Actually, I have this thought I put on a wallet. It’s from an Indian philosopher, and it talks about the need for silence because silence gives you space to consider, reflect, and get better. And, for me, I don’t know if you read Susan Cain’s Quiet, I’m a lot like some of what she describes there. And so, for me, the idea that comes from that thinker, that thought leader, is this notion of giving yourself space to reflect, and think, and to discover. So, that’s kind of what comes to mind.

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

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just recently read Dan Pink’s book, When, and it’s a research-based book. And what I love about it is he’s explored what’s going on with startings, middles, and endings, and our energy. And I love all of the research that’s gone in there to understand how to be and put forward your best self, your best effort, your best energy.

So, I use that a lot when I’m coaching people or working with employees, is energy management and timing management. So, that’s an area of research that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately, is Dan Pink’s When.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And any other favorite books?

Curtis Bateman
Well, I mentioned a couple business ones. I’ll give you a non-business one. I love books. So, Great Expectations, I’m a big Dickens fan. And maybe the reason is because there’s so much change that goes on in some of the characters, but, yeah, Great Expectations is one that I absolutely love.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Curtis Bateman
Yeah, I’m a productivity junkie, so I use Evernote. I use it to organize, to plan, to think, to create, so productivity tools. You could probably list 20 of them and I would love them all but Evernote is a good one that I use.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, I’m curious. So, Evernote. What’s maybe also on the top five for you?

Curtis Bateman
I use a journaling tool called Day One that I love. I use it for reflection, for when I’m doing mindfulness, or when I’m reading, I’ll capture learnings, and I do it in Day One. Also, what I love about that is it pulls from my Instagram and my LinkedIn, and so it creates this comprehensive journal of everything I’m thinking about on days and weeks, and I love to go back and reflect on it, so another one.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Curtis Bateman
Planning. Weekly planning. This is a very Franklin Covey, in which is where I work, a Franklin Covey answer but it’s been part of my whole life. I love to reflect each week at the start of the week on my mission, my vision, my personal values, the people that I want to impact, and then incorporate that into my daily and weekly planning. That’s one of my favorite habits. I really look forward to that time every Sunday evening.

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

Curtis Bateman
I was looking through on Amazon where people make quotes or in my LinkedIn and other places, and I was looking to see what that’s like. And I had somebody recently say from the book how much they valued understanding the human reaction and the human part of change, and I get that a lot. One of the things we’ve endeavored to do is acknowledge there’s all that change process stuff which is important but that there’s a human component to it, and how much the work we’ve done really helps people as an individual and a human move through change, not just having a checklist or a process.

And I’ve had several people, just recently on social media and other places, make that comment to me. So, I love that, I love that that’s the case that really gets a lot of value for people.

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

Curtis Bateman
So, I’m pretty active on LinkedIn. I continue to write blogs. I do keynotes and other speeches. And as I learn more and I think about more, I write blogs to update that and to the books, and that’s at Curtis A. Bateman on LinkedIn, you’ll find me there. And then FranklinCovey.com, there’s a Speaker’s Bureau link, and I’m listed there with bio and information and videos and things. So, FranklinCovey.com, Speaker’s Bureau, or Curtis A. Bateman on LinkedIn.

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

Curtis Bateman
Yeah. I’m going to say it again, and this for everybody – individual contributor, teenager. If you’ll learn the little change model that we’ve talked about, just how to draw that ladle-shaped curve, you just said, Pete, and you just explain it to somebody, I guarantee, 100% money-back guarantee, if you’ll learn it and teach it to people, it will start to make a difference in your work and in your life. You’ll find connections and it will help you.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Curtis, this has been a treat. I wish you much luck with all the changes in your world.

Curtis Bateman
Thank you, Pete. Nice to talk to you today.

Aug 07
0

888: How to Get Results without Damaging Relationships with Dr. Nate Regier

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Dr. Nate Regier reveals his process for practicing compassionate accountability that builds relationships.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The three switches for greater compassion every day
  2. A handy template for dealing with any conflict
  3. Why lowering standards doesn’t help those struggling

About Nate

Nate Regier, PhD, is the CEO and founding owner of Next Element Consulting, a global leadership consulting and training firm helping build cultures of compassionate accountability. Dr. Regier is a former practicing psychologist and expert in social-emotional intelligence, interpersonal communication, conflict skills, and leadership. Recognized as a Top 100 keynote speaker, he is a Process Communication Model® Certifying Master Trainer. Nate is the author of four books: Beyond Drama; Conflict without Casualties; Seeing People Through; and his newest book, Compassionate Accountability. He hosts a podcast called “On Compassion with Dr. Nate,” writes a weekly blog, contributes to multiple industry publications, and is a regular guest on podcasts.

Resources Mentioned

Nate Regier Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Nate, welcome back to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Nate Regier
Pete, it’s great to be here. Thank you.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to get into some fresh wisdom from your latest book, Compassionate Accountability: How Leaders Build Connection and Get Results. But first, I think we need an update on the barbecuing situation. Are you still competing? Where does that stand?

Nate Regier
Well, that’s a good question. I got some good news and I got some kind of sad news. Yeah, the competing continued and, in fact, I’ve taken on helping organize a local barbecue competition in my own community as part of a festival. So, we’re doing that but, sadly, the team that I talked about last time, we’re kind of on a hiatus.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, the butts.

Nate Regier
Yeah, my brother-in-law and the pit boss and the main organizer and the main impetus behind it all, he passed away from cancer last year.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I’m sorry.

Nate Regier
Yeah, thank you. So, we’re barbecuing in his memory these days but not quite the same level of competition.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Well, I’m glad to hear you’re continuing to stay involved and good things are happening in the community and with barbecue. I was recently on a camping expedition, and someone brought their smoker with them. It wasn’t backpacking. That would be a whole nother level of commitment.

Nate Regier
Oh, yeah, they make tabletop ones but, man.

Pete Mockaitis
And, yes, it was exceptional. So, tell me, any best practices for meat that you think normal folks who are not 100% committed at competition level should know about?

Nate Regier
Man, I tell you, I am such a fan of the Big Green Egg and you can give them almost anywhere now, and it’s just really hard to mess anything up in those things. So, that’s what I need. And they make little tiny ones. So, that’s what I’d recommend if anybody wants to get started in the smoking business.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now we know. We put it on the record. All right. Now, let’s talk about the book here. Any particularly surprising, or counterintuitive, or striking discoveries you’ve made about accountability as you did your research for your book Compassionate Accountability?

Nate Regier
Yeah, a couple, actually. This whole notion that accountability is not contrary to compassion and is not in competition with compassion is really the biggest thing that we’ve been discovering in that people really seem to think that they’re different. And that when push comes to shove, most people will choose one or the other, thinking that they’re somehow opposite. And it’s just an interesting phenomenon, and leaders struggle like crazy with that dilemma.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, how would you articulate the perceived disconnect?

Nate Regier
The word accountability is really loaded. This whole idea of, “We need to hold people accountable,” or, “They need to be held accountable for their actions,” it’s a huge word, it has somewhere, I think, people mean something like owning up, or maybe being punished, or maybe having consequences, or somehow need to have it pinned on somebody.

And so, the word has really negative connotations, it’s loaded. And so, it’s kind of like a hot potato, yet in leadership, as in most relationships, accountability is incredibly important for trust, for consistency, for integrity, and yet we don’t see a lot of people that are comfortable doing that in a way that preserves dignity, that preserves relationships. It isn’t kind of a gotcha kind of a mentality. And so, that’s where we’re kind of at that nexus between those two.

Pete Mockaitis
You’re right. The word accountability, it often shows up in criminal, like, law and order proceedings, “We need to hold them accountable,” which is a very different vibe, “We’re going to collect evidence and prosecute this person and send them to prison” than “Oh, hey, you didn’t quite do some of the things you committed to doing earlier in the workplace.” Very different charge and yet the same word pops up there.

Nate Regier
Well, the way you just said it invites me to clarify something that I should’ve said earlier, which is accountability isn’t something we do to people, and that seems like kind of the way you and I describe it, it’s like, “Oh, we got to go do this to them, make sure they own up and pay.” Accountability truly is something we do with people, so it’s really a process that happens within relationships. And so often, accountability, in today’s world, seems to be such an adversarial kind of a thing.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s a good one. Thank you. So, it’s collaborative process, not so much an intense, “I’m doing this to you. I’m inflicting accountability upon you.”

Nate Regier
“Oh, you’re going to pay.”

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, so before we dig into some of the details, I’d love it if you could get us fired up by sharing an inspiring story of someone who adopted some of your compassionate accountability perspectives to see some awesome results.

Nate Regier
Yeah, I’ll tell you one. I’m not going to name names because we’re kind of right in the middle of an engagement with this organization but the president shared with me the other day on one of our leadership team consulting sessions, she said, “Man, this template you’ve developed for compassionate accountability, it’s no joke.” She said, “I kind of was like, ‘Yeah, I’ll try it, I’ll try it.’” She goes, “I used it with my kids and it’s magical. Like, I couldn’t believe how we just resolved the situation.”

And she goes, “And so then I started using it with my employees and it just works.” And she goes, “I never really thought, I never really conceptualized that you could build a relationship at the same time that you’re trying to pursue accountability, and it’s really pretty cool.” She said, “I’m enjoying what it’s doing with my relationships.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Nate, we’re going to have to immediately go to that. Tell us about this magical template, what is it? Where can we get it? How does it work?

Nate Regier
Well, we’ve been teaching a process for engaging healthy conflict. I think I visited it with you on the last time but we’re really trying to make it simpler and simpler and simpler. And what we’ve identified is what we call the three switches of the compassion mindset. And it’s a way of thinking about ourselves and others that embodies the fullest intention, the fullest meaning of compassion. Compassion which means to struggle with.

Remember we talked about it’s a collaborative effort, these are hard things. And so, we’ve identified these three switches that we call value, capability, and responsibility. And we can give people some basic kind of guardrails and guidelines to say, “Are you keeping your switches on?” And if you have all three switches on when you’re engaging with somebody, you can really have pretty transformative conversations. And if you need more help, then we can get down to the nitty-gritty about some of the templates and formulas for how to actually do that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, the three switches: value, capability, and what?

Nate Regier
And responsibility.

Pete Mockaitis
Responsibility. So, then what do we mean exactly by having these switches on versus off? Could you maybe go into some demonstration of what that sounds and feels like in practice?

Nate Regier
You bet. So, the metaphor switches we chose carefully because, I’m right here, I’m actually holding, you can see these, I’m holding some switches.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, there you go.

Nate Regier
And we have them in our house. Imagine a three-switch wall played on your house, each one runs a different light or a different appliance or whatever, and behind all these switches is this incredible amount of energy, electricity, just waiting to be used. And when you turn on that switch, you complete the circuit and you give, you intentionally free that energy to go do its job.

And so, each of these switches is an intentional choice we make on how we’re going to spend energy in order to light up the world. And each one of these switches, the switch of value is powered by this fundamental belief that human beings are unconditionally worthwhile. We are valuable because we’re humans, not because of anything we do or say. And nothing can diminish our innate human value.

And so, that invites and imply certain behaviors. Same is true for the capability switch, which is powered by…well, let me just stop there. So, anything you want to know more about there, about this whole metaphor of the switches?

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. I dig it in terms of we flip it on or off, and the electron can flow to light up something when we’ve got it on versus it can’t if it’s interrupted, so understood there. And then when it comes to value, yes, I think that’s fantastic as just sort of a fundamental reorientation reminder maybe for every day and every human interaction that human beings have unconditional dignity just cuts.

Nate Regier
Right, just cuts.

Pete Mockaitis
Not because they perform well or poorly but just intrinsic to their humanity, whether you draw that from a religion, or wisdom tradition, or the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I think that is a foundational notion that is just great for all mankind to get down with and to recall.

Nate Regier
And, Pete, it doesn’t mean that anything goes. Saying that you are unconditionally worthwhile as a human doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want because the person and the behavior are two very different things. And this is where we really start to talk about what accountability means. Because if I treat you as unconditionally worthwhile, what that means is I take seriously your humanity, I take seriously your emotions, your experiences, the way you see the world. Your innate differences are a beautiful part of who you are.

And so, I see that for what it is and I don’t judge it, but that’s very different than behaviors, performance, goals, those kinds of things. And those are addressed in the other two switches.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Got you. So, let’s talk about capability.

Nate Regier
So, capability is the next switch. So, if we turn on the switch of value, it’s like, “Hey, I’m worthwhile, you’re worthwhile. Nothing we could do or say is going to change that, so let’s level the playing field on our humanity.” Then, capability is powered by the fundamental belief that anyone can contribute under the right conditions.

Now, that’s kind of loaded, anyone can contribute, meaning everyone and anyone can and should be part of the solutions in their lives, should be agentic beings participating in their own future, in the solving the problems that they’re dealing with, and that everyone has a capability of doing that. So, that means we look for gifts, we try to apply strengths, we teach people things, we mentor, we get curious, we learn and grow.

And when we fail, we pick ourselves up, and say, “What can we learn?” instead of saying, “Well, see, I know you couldn’t do it anyways,” which is a grave thing you would say if your switch was off. So, capability is about nurturing capacity because people are capable, and looking and finding ways that they can be part of the solution.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And responsibility?

Nate Regier
Responsibility now, if human beings are valuable and they’re capable, then they’re also responsible, meaning that we make choices, and we live in communities where our behaviors matter. And so, the switch of responsibility is powered by the fundamental belief that everyone of us is 100% responsible for our thoughts, our feelings, and our behaviors, no less and no more. So, what that means is, “No matter what happened before, I am 100% responsible for what I do next.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, then when we talk about the switches being off or on, what does that mean on a daily basis? Because in some ways, these are sort of beliefs or assertions, and I think that I can imagine they’d say, “Yeah, I believe those three things, so I guess my switches are on.”

Nate Regier
Sure. Yeah, so let’s talk about specific behaviors. So, let’s say I claim that my switch of value is on, and, Pete, you come to me in a moment of darkness and a moment of struggle, and you’re my peer. And you say to me, “God, Nate, I just don’t know if I feel comfortable sharing this with you but I’m just really feeling uncertain about this task that’s been put before me. I don’t know if I can pull it off. And I would hate to be embarrassed in front of my boss.”

You shared something really vulnerable that’s just kind of about what you’re struggling with. How I respond in that moment will let you know if my switch of value is on or off. Am I going to see you as less than because of what you’ve shared by saying something, like, “Dude, suck it up”? Which means I completely discounted your struggle.

Or, am I going to say something like, “Pete, thank you so much for sharing that. I’m really touched that you trusted me. I see you”? Or, maybe with my switch of value off, I would say something like, “Well, everybody feels like that at first. You’ll get over it.” Like, I just kind of say, like, your feelings aren’t that serious, and I’m not taking seriously your experience.

Or, I could turn my switch on and empathize, and say, “Man, I remember what it was like being new in my job. It sucks. I’m here for you, man.” Do you feel the difference between those two ways of responding when you kind of showed me your humanity?

Pete Mockaitis
I do, yes. And so then, I guess if someone does give a suboptimal response, like, “Oh, suck it up. It’s part of the job. Deal with it,” I could see how that’s inconsiderate, invalidating, although I’m not sure if I see how that is saying, “You do not have dignity,” or, “You do not have value as a person.” It comes off as, “I don’t care about your experience,” I guess. So, if we bundle the human experience within the human person, fundamentally, we’re getting real philosophical here, Nate.

Nate Regier
Well, you know, you’re getting at something real deep and it’s really important but I’ll let you finish.

Pete Mockaitis
So, yeah, I guess that’s what I’m thinking about in terms of distinguishing or uniting these concepts. Help me out here a little bit.

Nate Regier
So, when I say, “Suck it up,” or I say, “Oh, you don’t need to feel that way,” what I’m doing is I’m saying that I’m not comfortable with the way you’re feeling and I want to change it. I want it to be different than it is. You didn’t ask me for that. You didn’t say you wanted to feel different. I am now judging the value of your feelings and trying to change them or fix them, good or bad.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, value of feelings.

Nate Regier
Right, when I say, “Suck it up,” I’m basically saying, “Look, I’m uncomfortable with this. You need to change how you’re feeling in order to be okay for me.” Like, somehow your worth is now conditional on you being tough or being non-emotional. Or, let’s say I just shut down.

You shared something with me, and I’m like, “Look, I can’t handle this. I don’t got the bandwidth. Like, don’t bring your crap to me.” What I’m saying is, “I can’t handle your feelings, which means they’re too hot for me. Like, I’m not comfortable, which means I don’t see them. I don’t want to see them. Like, keep them out of my sight.” And those send really important messages about who’s okay and under what conditions that really contributes to psychological safety.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. So, then the value is perhaps broader than simply the human beings’ intrinsic dignity and value and worth but rather the entirety of their human experience. You are acknowledging the value therein and appreciating it and not rejecting it.

Nate Regier
Yeah, definitely. Well-said. And some of the traditions, like the self-compassion, mindfulness meditation kind of practices, they really try to be able to experience things without judging. They call it a nonjudgmental observation, nonjudgmental presence. That’s cultivating this capacity to see myself as worthwhile, independent of what I’m experiencing, and see my experiences as really useful teaching tools that are part of who I am but they’re not good or bad.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so now let’s hear about responsibility.

Nate Regier
If we want to talk about, like, specific behaviors. Can we take your scenario and take that through the switches?

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, sure thing.

Nate Regier
Because, let’s say you come to me with that, and I’m like, “Oh, man, that sucks. I remember that,” well, you’re still an employee, you still have responsibilities. Just because you’re anxious and not feeling good doesn’t mean you get a free ride today. Just because I care about you doesn’t mean that you’re off the hook. So, the capability switch now starts to get curious about, “So, what are the resources at our disposal to help deal with this?”

So, I might say things like, “What have you tried?” or, “I’d love to learn a little more about what’s going on with you,” or, “What are you struggling with?” or, “How can I help you?” So, now we’re starting to get kind of dynamically engaged in problem-solving, and I’m kind of owning that you’re capable of dealing with this situation that you’re in. I don’t have to fix it for you but I’m certainly happy to be helpful if you want.

But then, at the end of the day, to your responsibility switch now, the reality is you still have to get your work done no matter how you’re feeling today. And so, the responsibility switch sounds something like, “Okay, so our deadline is still Friday. How are you feeling about getting that done on time?” or, “How can I support you in meeting the deadline under these conditions?” or, “Can I still count on you n having it done?”

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. And so then, the switches, they really do seem to want to go in that order in terms of value first, then capability, then responsibility. Because if you jump right into responsibility, that says not feeling great on the other side of that.

Nate Regier
Oh, no, it’s not feeling good. And if you want to know what that feels like, talk to any of my daughters about their sports coaches. That’s pretty much where they like to hang out, is, “Here’s what you got to do. Here are the goals. Here’s what you’re doing wrong. You’re breaking the rules.” That’s all they ever do but they never acknowledge the value of the players and they never acknowledge the capability of the players.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, that was a useful example. I’d love it if maybe we could roleplay some more. Let’s just say that someone doesn’t even come forward to you in the first place. Like, you discover it, like, “Wait a second, this thing is not done or has lots of mistakes. Now, I got to have this conversation.”

Nate Regier
Wow. So, now I’m Pete’s boss, and Pete hasn’t told me anything is wrong, but I’ve discovered he’s behind. And I’m his boss, so it reflects on me. I’m accountable to my peers for your performance even though I’m not the one that’s supposed to do it. And if you don’t get the stuff done on time, it kind of lets the whole team down. All right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah.

Nate Regier
So, now I’m the one having a difficult experience. I’m the one that just noticed something. Maybe I’m surprised. Maybe I’m anxious. Maybe I’m angry at you. Maybe I’m, like confused by, “How come I didn’t know?” So, if I’m going to turn my switch of value on for myself, what I have to say is, “This experience is relevant. I have to pay attention to it, and I got to own it. I got to do something about this.”

So, I would probably come to you and I would turn on my switch, and say, “Hey, here’s what I’m experiencing. I just want to let you know that I’m kind of anxious about something, or I’m kind of shocked about what I just found out yesterday, and I want you to know.” Well, then I have to go to the capability switch, and say, “Because I’m also capable of handling my feelings and solving my own problems,” so what does that mean?

Well, maybe I need to start asking some questions. Maybe I need to get curious with you, and say, “Hey, can I check an assumption with you?” or, “I want to tell you what I saw and see if you can shed light on this,” or, “What do you know about what happened?” So, I’m getting curious and we’re learning about it.

But if my switch of responsibility is on, what I also have to realize is that, at the end of the day, I’m ultimately accountable to my team, I’m ultimately responsible for my feelings, and I have to be a leader, so I need to do what I need to do to get this corrected. It doesn’t mean doing your job for you but it means having a hard conversation, realigning priorities, figuring out what needs to happen, getting new commitments from you, removing barriers, whatever I need to do so that you can get that job done. Or, maybe I’ll learn something when I’m curious that I had no idea, and I have to completely change my frame of mind. Maybe it wasn’t you. Who knows?

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And could you give us some examples of actual verbiage you might use?

Nate Regier
Yeah, I might come to you, and I might say, “Hey, I’m really anxious about something I just found out the other day, and I want to tell you about it. Here’s what happened. So, I was going through the reports, and I noticed for three consecutive weeks, you’ve missed the numbers by 20%. The reason I’m concerned is because here’s what this means. So, I’m just curious if you could shed light on this. Let me know what I need to know, because, at the end of the day, this puts you in, whatever, 50th percentile, and you’ve got to be in the 70th in order to continue to get your performance raises.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. And then we just sort of see what happens.

Nate Regier
See where it goes, and we never know. As long as my switches are on, I can keep mobilizing responses that affirm your value, your capability, and your responsibility.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so tell us a little bit more about the compassion side of this in terms of what are some of the do’s and don’ts for ensuring that the compassion part comes through?

Nate Regier
Well, the good news is the switches are, turning on the switches is how we manifest full compassion because our definition of compassion is it’s the practice of demonstrating that people are valuable, capable, and responsible in every interaction, so we have to demonstrate this through our behaviors. And so, the compassion part means keeping our switch on and open by affirming your value. Keeping our switch on of capability by affirming your capability, and also by taking ownership over our stuff, and letting you do the same at responsibility.

In my book, I give a lot of examples of narratives and what you actually say and how you address these situations, but that is the compassion part, it’s making sure our switches are on.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And you say people are these things. And I’m curious, what if folks are not, like folks are just not taking responsibility for their stuff?

Nate Regier
Well, they are responsible for the behavior whether they want to own it or not. By function of your job, you are responsible to get that stuff done. Now, whether you do or not, you might be shirking your responsibility but it’s still your job, and it’s still your thing to do. And so, that’s the conversation we have about that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, your client who mentioned that this template is magical, what unfolds on the template?

Nate Regier
So, the template is something we teach in our leadership trainings, it’s called ORPO. And it stands for open, resourceful, persistent, open. And ORPO is a four-step process where when there’s conflict, when there’s a tough situation, where there’s a gap, and we got to talk about it, we go in, first, being open, which means touch the humanity, kind of like I did. I came in and I said, “Hey, I’m really struggling with something here. I want to check it out with you.”

Then we go to resourceful, which is where we get to being curious about what’s going on, let’s understand the problem. Then we go to persistent, and we get crystal clear about what’s at stake, what are the boundaries, what are the non-negotiables. And then we circle back to open, and finish back at a human connection point.

So, I might really shorten that example I gave earlier, I was using that template, where I said, “Hey, Pete, I’m concerned about something. I want to share it with you,” that’s open. “Here’s what happened. And I’m curious about how you saw it,” resourceful. “At the end of the day, we still have to have this in by Friday,” that’s the persistent part. Then I might finish by saying, “How are you doing with this?”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. And then any particular verbiage, thoughts, things to say, things to not say when we’re doing this stuff?

Nate Regier
What we see is most challenging for people is to get vulnerable by letting people know how they’re actually doing, how they’re actually feeling. And people have all kinds of reasons that they don’t want to, “And I’m going to be judged,” “They’re not going to take me seriously,” “No one’s ever been through this before,” “I don’t want to burden you with my stuff.”

And so, that’s one of the hardest things. And so, if I could say anything, I would say, “Look, don’t share it because you know the other person isn’t going to take you seriously. Share it because you matter and because it’s on your heart. And you got to take ownership for yourself and share that stuff because that’s the only way you could start working with other people, struggling with other people, to start doing something about it.”

Pete Mockaitis
And so, what are some examples of this stuff that gets not shared, withheld often?

Nate Regier
Putting a lot of pressure on myself to deliver because I need to impress people, maybe, for example, which is legitimate. Why don’t we talk about it? Needing to please people. Trying to be perfect in order to, somehow, be okay, and then just getting yourself tied up in knots because you’re just never good enough. So, when we talk about those things, we can get reality checks, we can get support, we can get people in there with us, helping us figure it out.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And then, I’m curious, how often do folks abuse our compassion or kindness?

Nate Regier
I’ve never heard that question before, and I love it, so I’m going to take a beat here. I don’t know that anyone has the power to abuse my compassion. I would never give that to them. I can choose to be compassionate. I can choose to have my switches on, and they can choose what they’re going to do. They may not accept the invitation. They may do their own thing. But my compassion stays my compassion. They cannot change it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Maybe I am comingling some ideas inappropriately. I suppose I’m thinking about compassion in the sense of if there is maybe you might call it lenience or mercy in a certain context, like, “Hey, I understand that some stuff came up and you couldn’t get it done on time. Let’s revise the deadline and make it this,” and then that’s sort of taken advantage of in terms of, “Aha, so this guy is a softy. I can walk all over him. I can make excuses.”

Nate Regier
If I did that, I would only have one or two of my switches on so that wouldn’t really be compassion. So, if I‘m not holding firm to boundaries or being reasonable, and if I’m not upholding the highest standards throughout, then I’m not doing my job and that’s not compassionate. So, I wouldn’t say that that’s a person abusing my compassion. That would be me not really being compassionate in the first place.

Pete Mockaitis
I see.

Nate Regier
And sending the message that, somehow, because you’re struggling, then the standards are lower for you. Why would we treat someone as less capable of meeting the goals just because they’re struggling? I would say we’d come around them and work with them to meet the standards. Now, yeah, there’s always opportunities where I might say, “Wow, this is a pretty extenuating circumstance. Look.”

My partner got all his flights delayed, and his family ended up in a hotel, didn’t get home till 4:00 a.m. in the morning, and we had a 9:00 o’clock meeting that day. And I was like, “Dude, let’s cancel the meeting. Let’s reschedule the meeting.” But I might’ve just given him a break for…? No. That’s kind of a one-time thing. We worked it out. We still have to get it done by the end of the week. But I guess you have to keep all three switches on or there’s no compassion on, really.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, I think that feels fresh in terms of looking at you’re being…in your worldview, you are not being compassionate if you allow someone to lower their standards.

Nate Regier
Yes, I am. I agree with you because what I’m saying is, “I don’t believe you’re as capable. I’m lowering my estimation of their capability, but I’m also shirking my responsibility to uphold the standards of the contract, of the family, of the company at the same time.” So, I’m letting my team down when I do that.

Pete Mockaitis
And what happens if we discover that, hey, sure enough, someone really is not capable of executing to the standards after all?

Nate Regier
The fundamental belief behind the capability switch is everyone is capable of contributing.

Pete Mockaitis
Contributing.

Nate Regier
That may not be in this job, it may not be today, and it may not be with this skillset. And so, what that means is we invest in them, we invite them to stretch, we are alongside them when they fail, and we don’t set them up to not be able to do stuff. It may be a different position, a new training. It might be even letting them go because this job is asking things of them that just set them up to fail. But that’s really not an indictment of their capability. It’s an indictment of their competence, and it’s commenting more on their skillset and competence for this job, so we look for places where they can thrive.

Pete Mockaitis
Got you. So, they’re certainly capable of making a contribution. However, it may be that the particular responsibilities of a role are poorly suited to them, and, thusly, they would be doing some bigger contributions in a different context.

Nate Regier
Yeah, I think sometimes we let people down because we either don’t equip them with the skills and training to do the job so they fail, or we just move them around in an organization, hoping something will work. And by doing that, we tell them we really don’t care about them as a human being anyways. And in both of those situations, the end result is the switches of capability and responsibility get turned off.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, Nate, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Nate Regier
Well, coming through COVID, I tell you what, compassion and accountability were on a wild rollercoaster ride through the last three or four years. Which one are we going to pick? And one day, we’re all in this together because everybody has COVID. The next day, we’re all trying to hold each other accountable for who’s wearing a mask or who’s not getting a vaccine.

So, I think what this has proven is you can’t treat these two things in isolation. They have to come together. Never before in our history have we needed both in full measure, together, to deal with the kind of stuff that we’re having to deal with. So, that might be my last thing I really want to emphasize.

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

Nate Regier
I’ve loved this quote, this has been my favorite for years, and it’s a quote by Wayne Dyer. I used to think Albert Einstein said it, but it’s actually from Wayne Dyer, and it says, “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Nate Regier
I’m a fan of the research that’s reported in the book Compassionomics. It’s a wonderful book about the power of compassion in the workplace. And there’s some research, neurobiological research on brain scans showing that when people are experiencing empathy, the pain centers of the brain are triggered, but when people are experiencing compassion, the reward center of the brain gets triggered. And that is critical. Different places in the brain, different things, and it shows you that compassion and empathy are not the same thing, and that compassion is actually energizing and intrinsically rewarding.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that is intriguing. Well, now could you expand upon the distinction between compassion and empathy?

Nate Regier
Yeah, empathy is a really important human trait, where the mirror neurons in our brain, they kind of sense how other people are doing, and they replicate those sense in us. And it’s really important for humans that we can kind of sense how people are doing so we can support them. But also left unchecked, empathy becomes we just take on pain, and it just, like, fills us up, and this leads to what we call, well, it’s misnamed compassion fatigue but it’s really empathy fatigue, and burnout, and depersonalization.

But compassion, in the way that I’ve been demonstrating it throughout our conversation, that’s a dynamic, active, generative, creative process. It’s hard work but the results are great, and I feel so good afterwards.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Thank you. And a favorite book?

Nate Regier
Right now, I can’t get enough of Brene Brown’s book called Atlas of the Heart. It’s a really cool book. And for kind of technical people like you and I, we like to see things organized, it organizes the whole gamut of human emotions. It helps give you the history of it, how it came to be, why that emotion is unique from other emotions, how to talk about it, how to express it. It’s amazing. It’s really helping me improve my emotional fluency, and I’d recommend this book to anybody who wants to get more compassionate.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Nate Regier
I can’t mention my favorite cordless drill?

Pete Mockaitis
You can.

Nate Regier
I am awesome at woodworking with my favorite cordless drill. But at my job, I love Calendly. I love that app for scheduling, and it’s just awesome. It makes it so much easier for people to find a place on my calendar and it takes care of the business. It was so cool that someone had just learned it the other day, called it Calendar Lily. And I’m thinking, “That’s kind of cool. It’s a calendar lily.”

Pete Mockaitis
It is. It’s like a refreshing flower in a landscape of weeds.

Nate Regier
I know, right? Makes my life easier, for sure.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite habit?

Nate Regier
I stretch every morning. I’ve been doing it for about 35 years. I have a routine, a series of stretches. It keeps me kind of limber. And then I love to go on walks with my dog, and with my wife, or both of them at the same time. It’s a wonderful time to process, to clear my mind, and I need the exercise.

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

Nate Regier
One of my favorites is not so much related to compassion, but we do a lot of work with personality, diversity, and communication. And I like to say that personality is not an entitlement program, and people seem to like that, especially if they’ve been burned by being trained in a personality model that puts them in a box, and stereotypes them, and people are thrown labels around, and all that stuff.

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

Nate Regier
I’d just say LinkedIn. Look me up on LinkedIn, Nate Regier, and that’ll take you anywhere you need to go.

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

Nate Regier
Yeah. I started using the hashtag #compassionateaccountability about 18 months ago. And if you go use that hashtag, you can find so many nuggets, daily tips, little things to be awesome at your job, to practice more compassionate accountability. So, yeah, just search hashtag #compassionateaccountability and see if something doesn’t pop that you can use today.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Nate, thank you. This has been a treat. I wish you much luck and much compassionate accountability.

Nate Regier
Well, thank you. It’s our mission. I appreciate this opportunity to be with you and your guest.