KF #14. Values Differences Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

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.

Devora Zack
Thanks for having me back. It’s a pleasure to be with you again.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, boy. Well, I’m excited to dig into your work here, The Cactus and Snowflake at Work. I’ve done a number of Myers-Briggs workshops in my day, and so I’m digging what you’re talking about. Can you maybe share with us what’s sort of overall the big idea or main thesis here?

Devora Zack
The big idea of this book is that some people lead with their heads and some people lead with their hearts, and they can really get on each other’s nerves. However, with the right set of tools and understanding of different personality styles, we can be each other’s best friends instead of worst enemies.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well-said. And so, can you maybe share with us, for starters, something that was particularly surprising or counterintuitive that you discovered in putting together this work?

Devora Zack
I’ve actually been really interested in this dimension of personality for many, many years, and, as you know, I’ve written a couple books that feature introversion and extroversion, and those are better known in the general culture than thinkers and feelers, so I really was excited to come out with a book with a different focus about thinkers and feelers. However, since those terms aren’t as well known, we decided to give the more playful terminology and called them cactus and snowflakes.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, the cactus, being the thinker because they might be prickly or blunt, and the snowflake, the feeler, because they may have hurt feelings. Is that the premise here?

Devora Zack
I’ve identified three main distinctions between these two. The cactus, who leads with his head or her head, tends to be more logical, analytical, and direct. And the snowflake, who leads with his or her heart, tends to be more sensitive, empathetic, and diplomatic. One thing to keep in mind is that everyone has bits and pieces of both of them, so it’s not that there’s just two clear-cut types of personalities, but envision a continuum, a line where people are somewhere along the middle. A few people are at the far ends, but most of us can identify to a greater or lesser extent with both personality dichotomies.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. That totally resonates. And I guess I’m curious, if folks are in one camp and then the other, what might be some mistakes that they make, they don’t even know they’re making, like a straight up blind spot, like, “Oh, I had no idea that I have offended you in this way or overlooked this key thing”? What are some real watchouts that each type should look out for?

Devora Zack
Well, one watchout is to think that people are all basically the same. In fact, people are dramatically different from each other in terms of how we live in the world and how we experience the same situations and how we communicate. So, a mistake many of us make is that we tend to use what would motivate us to try and motivate others or to build rapport with us to use that on others when, in fact, often what would motivate you, if you’re a different personality style than me, is completely opposite of what I would be motivated by.

So, I introduced the big two in this book along with a bunch of other ideas and tips and techniques. The big two is to observe and ask to figure out what someone else’s preferences are, and then to calibrate your communication to meet others where they’re at.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, when we’re observing, what are some of the key things we should be on the lookout for, some telltale signs that are helpful?

Devora Zack
One is the types of words people emphasize, the language people use, and I have a whole translation section in the book. However, at the most basic level, cacti tend to use the word “think” more often, and snowflakes tend to use the word “feel” more often. And in our English language, they’re mostly interchangeable. You can say, “Well, what do you think about that podcast?” “Oh, I felt like it was really interesting and enlightening.”

So, just listening, at the very beginning of learning how to flex your style, that’s what I call meeting people where they’re at, is to just notice and observe who uses “think” and uses “feel” more often, and then to match that language whenever possible. If you’re, let’s say, presenting to a large group, you can assume there’s cacti and snowflakes within the room, and you want to practice integrating both types of language into your presentation so that you can connect with as many people as possible.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s really an interesting point there in terms of just the language itself, there’s, “I think this,” “I feel that,” because a lot of times when people say, “I feel this,” it’s not actually an emotion that they’re identifying. It’s like, “I feel like we’ve been spending a lot of money lately.” It’s like that’s not an emotion. That is a thought and, yet, if someone who, a cactus, who prefers thinking would be more likely to say, “I think we’ve been spending a lot of money lately,” versus the snowflake who prefers feeling would be more likely to say, “I feel like we’re spending a lot of money lately.” And that’s really intriguing that we’re expressing the exact same thing and yet there’s a clue as to how we may be oriented in and working with the world around us.

Devora Zack
That’s right. And that’s the tip of the iceberg. We can also look at how people decorate their homes or offices, and you can do that even if you’re Zooming or working remotely. You can also calibrate how you envision or experience a situation against how others do.
Another important concept that I introduced in this book is what I call the non-event. And what that means is that something that could be a big deal to me, if I’m a snowflake, might be a complete non-event to you as a cactus. So, we may walk out of a meeting and I may think, “Wow! Everybody sure fell apart in that meeting. We’re going to have to start from scratch.” And you might respond by saying, “What are you talking about? It was totally productive. It was fine.”

And it’s easy to be judgmental to each other around that and think that each other is wrong, or insensitive, or too sensitive, when, in fact, what one person picks up on may be completely a non-event to the other person as if it didn’t even happen. Similarly, if a cactus and a snowflake are walking along together, and one of them maybe ignores the other one for a few minutes, then one person could be really offended, and the other one was thinking, “What are you talking about? We were just walking quietly.”

So, non-events are very big deal to look out for in the world to figure out if you and other people are on the same wavelength.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s interesting. Thank you. And so then, I’m curious, let’s say you got a clear sense, “Okay. Hey, I’m clearly a cactus,” or, “I’m clearly a snowflake,” and then, “I’m interacting with someone who has a differing preference,” what are your favorite tips in terms of how to do that effectively?

Devora Zack
Well, the first step, even before that, if we can just rewind it a tiny bit, is to get to know and understand your own personality style. So, the book actually has a self-assessment in it so you can figure out not only if you’re primarily a cactus or a snowflake but how strong your preference is. And then it’s to work with rather than fight against your own natural personality. So, that’s the first step, is getting acquainted with yourself and having a level of acceptance with yourself.

Then, we get to the next point, which is what you were getting at, which is, “How do we communicate with each other?” And we aren’t always going to get it right, particularly because we may not know what personality style people have when we first meet them. However, by listening carefully, that’s a very useful tool in finding out where someone is coming from, and asking general questions and letting the other person decide how specific to get in their responses. That helps us in building rapport and also communicating with people that we may or may not know where they’re coming from.

That presupposes also that we are open to understanding and working with different types of people. It’s easy to say, “Oh, if you’re the opposite personality style of me, that we’re just going to aggravate each other.” However, we can be each other’s greatest resources because, let’s say, if I’m cactus and I’m very logical and analytical, and I work with you, and you might be more of a snowflake, and you’re more empathetic, we can give each other tips and help each other out in areas that we’re not gifted in by filling in the blanks for each other.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, can you share some cool stories and examples that bring this to life?

Devora Zack
Sure. Here’s one and it is “do good” versus “feel good” leadership. So, a lot of people who read my books are interested in how they can work with other people, particularly if they’re managing other people. And what’s tempting, as a leader, is to be what I call a “feel good” leader to just make people feel good and to say, “Oh, that was great. Keep up the good work. I’m so proud of you. Keep at it,” but, in fact, it’s also very helpful, and that’s more of a snowflake tendency.

What the cacti is more likely to do is what I call “do good” leadership, which is to say, “Well, you can do better than that. I know that you can achieve higher aspirations than what you’re settling for, and I know you can try harder.” So, a snowflake might initially be really put off by the fact that someone is telling them that they can do better and it’s not good enough. However, what’s interesting is that when I work with different groups, the “do good” leadership style actually motivates people more and makes them feel better than the “feel good” leadership style, which just says to people, “Oh, you’re fine. You’re fine as it is,” and then they don’t achieve their potential.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now that’s quite an insight right there, and I think those who are practicing the “feel good” approach will probably have a better resistance to making a switch because one that could be rather uncomfortable. Yet, the prize is twofold there. That’s pretty awesome in terms of not only are you getting better results but people are feeling better, like, “Hey, I did great work and I’m improving and I’m making cool stuff in the world.” So, that’s powerful.

So, can you underscore that a little bit for the skeptic or the resistant snowflake? What’s some of the most compelling evidence that really confirms, “Yeah, this is absolutely true, so go for it even though it’s uncomfortable”?

Devora Zack
What I do, when I’m working with people and I’m trying to convince them that there’s a lot of benefit to “do good” leadership, is I ask them to reflect upon an important and meaningful coach that they’ve had in their life, and it can be an actual coach like from a team, or it could be a leader, or a family member, or somebody that inspired them, and to write down traits of that coach, and how the coach inspired that person.

And more often than not, the lists are full of things like, “Pushed me harder than I’d been pushed before,” “Didn’t take half an effort for…” “Didn’t accept half an effort.” And they’ve soon discovered that the people that have made the biggest positive impact in their life have often been people that pushed them further than they thought they could go, which is a trait of “do good” leadership.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it’s beautiful. As you say this, I’m thinking right now about a high school English teacher, Judy Federmeyer, and how I was kind of accustomed to getting great grades all the time fairly easily. And then I think with our first writing assignment with her, I got like a B or a B+, I thought, “What’s going on? I’m not accustomed to such things.” And it was kind of unsettling in the moment but, boy, it was so valuable in terms of it’s like, “Oh, I actually need to exert some effort,” in so doing, my writing got a lot better. And so, I am forever grateful to Mrs. Federmeyer.

Devora Zack
Pete, I loved that you gave that example because my best coach was also my high school English teacher, Mr. James Killian.

Pete Mockaitis
Awesome.

Devora Zack
And my first essay that came back covered in red ink was quite a blow. However, the fact that I could write books now, I give him all the credit.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. That’s good. Certainly, and it does feel good in terms of the growth in the moment, and then the long-term abilities that you have. And then my fondness for her, as you share, to this day. So, that’s beautiful. Cool. Well, so tell us, any other transformational tidbits along those lines in terms of, “You might think this but, in fact, here’s this other thing that’s true that you might want to get on board with”?

Devora Zack
Sure thing. So, another idea I have in the book is what I call “nay.” And it stands for “not about you.” So, whether you’re a cactus or snowflake, when you’re put off by another person’s behavior or language or style, is to think, “It’s not about me.” N-A-Y, “Not about you. Not about you.” Because we often tend to take other people’s personalities personally when, in fact, they just have different personalities than us.

And the more we can accept, once again, as I mentioned before, that we’re really different from each other and stop trying to correct other people, particularly in our own minds, the more effective we’ll be. So, if I want to improve the world, the best thing I can do is focus on myself and focus on the three things that I can control, which are my thoughts, words, and actions. And that’s it. I can only control what I say, do, and experience in the world.

And to this end, I encourage people to mind their own business. So often, when you hear, “Mind your own business,” it’s considered something kind of rude or impolite. However, it can be inspirational, too, that I don’t have to live outside of my own business. I don’t have to worry about other people achieving their potential by meeting me where I’m at, instead I can just always say, “It’s my responsibility to meet others where they’re at regardless of what our relationship is like, or if I report to them, or if they’re more senior than I am.” It’s to always just say, “I’m going to focus on my own thoughts, words, and actions and take responsibility for how I engage with others.”

Pete Mockaitis
I really like that “Not about you,” and sometimes it’s not about you even if they’re talking about you in certain occasions in terms of like just the mood, right? If folks are, I want to say, sometimes it’s lashing out. Or, if you’re in a mood, it can sort of color everything in terms of how you are communicating with other people and/or if you’re the cactus and have a certain bluntness, then it can be super helpful to remember, in the snowflake position, “Oh, I’m not horrible at my job. This person doesn’t hate me. It’s not about you at all. It’s just how they express it.” That’s lovely.

Could you give us some more cool examples of collaboration then when it comes to how we might complement each other’s temperaments extra nicely?

Devora Zack
Sure. So, let’s say, for example, I’m a cactus and I believe that this touchy-feely stuff can make a difference in building rapport, but I’m not really gifted at it, and so I think, “Well, my team is better off without us attempting to have this motivation of rapport. Our team is better off without having these touch-feely interactions.” Instead, what I can do is identify someone who I work with who seems to have a snowflake quality, and ask them to take the lead on maybe some get-to-know-you activities or building connections among team members.

And so, finding out who’s good at what, and you don’t have to always be the smart one in the room, or the one who’s leading, and instead finding people who match certain objectives you have and letting them take the reins. So, it takes a little bit of humility to do that. And, in the end, you’ll be having a more productive team because you’ll have all different perspectives introduced from the cactus and the snowflake perspective.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. And I think it can go vice versa in terms of I’m thinking about days where we interviewed a bunch of candidates, and then we made our decisions, and then we needed to call all of them and the vast majority were told, “No, you will not be moving forward in this interview process,” which I have a lot of snowflake tendencies myself, it’s like, “Oh, I don’t know. Oh, I really, really don’t want to do that, killing dreams, after dream after dream on the phone.” And then someone else on the team is like, “Oh, that’s fine. I don’t mind. Just like no problems.” So, it’s intriguing how it can take just way more or way less sort of emotional energy, depending on the nature of the task and the nature of their temperament.

Devora Zack
That’s right. And when you’re working with someone more long term, and let’s say you need or want or don’t want to but have to give someone feedback, it’s easy to give feedback in the way that you like to hear it as opposed to what resonates with the other person. So, that’s why I don’t totally believe in the golden rule, which is treat others how you want to be treated. I use the platinum rule instead, which is treat others how they want to be treated.

So, if I am a snowflake and I like to get feedback in the following way, like, “Oh, Devora, it’s so nice to see you. You look really nice today and we all really appreciate your input,” and then that might ease the blow of things I need to fix, or work on, or improve upon, or things I might not be aware of that are not in my realm of consciousness.

On the other hand, someone who’s a strong cactus, if I started giving feedback to that person in the same way, it would really get on their nerves and make them feel like it was just fluff and I was beating around the bush and so on. So, they might much prefer, and in my experience, this is true, feedback that’s very direct, like, “I want to give you feedback on three behaviors that I think we can switch and improve so that you can be more effective when working with the board of directors.” And that can actually make their eyes light up, like, “Oh, great. Thanks for the feedback.”

And I’ve seen this play out in real-life situations again and again, that flexing our style, in other words, giving feedback or communicating with someone in a way that works for them is way more effective than giving feedback in a way that works for you.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s nice. So, the platinum rule is a nice example of a best practice that sort of cuts across here in terms of regardless of whether you are a cactus or a snowflake, or the person you’re communicating with is a cactus or a snowflake, that notion of thinking about their style in a manner that works with their style works well. Are there any other “universal” best practices that kind of, “Hey, regardless of who you are and your preferences and temperament, and the person you’re interacting with,” some things that tend to work well across the temperaments?

Devora Zack
Yes, another concept that I introduced in the book is what I call “beans up the nose.” And its roots come from, perhaps you might recall in first grade or so, if a teacher might do an art project with dried beans and Elmer’s Glue and paper, and what you would do is glue the beans to the paper in artful designs, and that was your project. Does this ring a bell? Did you ever do that as a kid?

So, the worst thing the teacher can say, as the students start working away with their projects, is, “Now, class, whatever you do, don’t put beans up your nose.” And, sure enough, beans start flying up noses, and the school nurse has to come running in and help out. So, I’m using that as a metaphor, we put beans up people’s noses all the time, and whether we’re snowflakes or cacti, we just have different tendencies in how we do it.

So, what I caution people about is be careful what you say because you might be putting beans up someone else’s nose. So, always pause before you speak, and think, “Is this putting beans up the nose?” And I have to say, I do it myself, and it’s amazing how often I almost suggest to people to put beans up their nose in terms of, “Oh, I’m really not good at speaking off the cuff so I’m probably going to mess up this Q&A at the end of the speech.”

Or, if someone says, “I’m really very sensitive as a snowflake, so I might start crying in the middle of the performance feedback.” In other words, making people think about things that they didn’t have in their mind beforehand. And this happens in interviews a lot, and it happens when people are working with opposite types a lot, so just be careful about putting beans up people’s noses.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that connects in terms of some folks talking about certain kind of rules or guidelines or principles, and it’s like, “That wouldn’t have even occurred to me to do this thing that I’m not supposed to do.”

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

Devora Zack
Well, to know that everyone has times when they are their own opposite, and sometimes that can be by design because they want to be effective and so they’re using tools that come from the other side of the spectrum, which is fine. And other times it can be because we’re in a difficult spot and we kind of go into our own shadow state, which is based on some of Carl Jung’s concepts.

So, sometimes we short-circuit and become our own opposites. So, I might, for example, if I’m a sensitive snowflake, suddenly start being very insensitive to people around me, or if I’m a cactus who’s very straightforward, and I might start beating around the bush and not tell people really what I’m thinking. So, it’s to be understanding of ourselves and to be able to recognize when we’re in a shadow state, and that’ll help us get out of it.

And, also, if you have worked with someone, or live with someone, or know someone pretty well, and they start acting like their own opposite, to know that they might be short-circuiting also, and to respond in a way that’s supportive as oppose to amplifying the issues that someone is dealing with.

Pete Mockaitis
When you say short-circuited, I’m curious, what are some things that sort of trigger you to go opposite or shadow state?

Devora Zack
So, sometimes it’s unanticipated change, sometimes it’s when you’re sleep-deprived, or mentally or physically drained, sometimes it’s when you feel misunderstood or when you are unclear about what direction you want to head in. So, when you’re in challenging situations is when you’re most likely to go into a shadow state, and I call that being in the grip. Like, in the grip of your own personality short-circuiting.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And so then, those are sort of stressors. And then, ideally, someone will be supportive and encouraging when we’re in that place. And if we’re only kind of working on ourselves without that support, any pro tips in terms of kind of getting back to center?

Devora Zack
Yeah, and it actually a similar tip to people trying to be supportive also. A lot of times, people try and be supportive by saying, “You shouldn’t be upset,” or, “It’s not a big deal,” downplaying it either in your mind if you’re taking care of yourself or to someone else if you’re attempting to make them feel better by letting them know that they’re overreacting, and that completely backfires.

So, instead, is validating yourself and others when they’re in a shadow state, and to not say, “You shouldn’t feel this way,” but to say, “I can see that you’re really upset.” Or, if it’s just you dealing with something inside your own head, is saying, “It’s valid for me to be upset,” as opposed to saying, “There’s something wrong with me,” and then you get more upset about the fact that you’re upset.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s great. Thank you. All right. Well, now, can we hear a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Devora Zack
Sure. So, this is a Henry Miller quote, he’s an author. And I love it so much that it’s taped to my computer when I’m writing a book, “Don’t be nervous. Work calmly, joyously, recklessly whatever is in hand.”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Thank you. And how about a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Devora Zack
Well, I really just love following any up-and-coming neuroscience because I find it really fascinating to see how our brains work according to scientists, and how that plays into organizational behavior, and supports a lot of stuff that people in my field in general management have been professing for a long time, but then finding out what is happening with our neurotransmitter signals in our brain, to me, it’s just fascinating.

Pete Mockaitis
And how about a favorite book?

Devora Zack
My favorite book has always been The Phantom Tollbooth since I was about 11 years old, and I just think it’s the greatest book I’ve read in a million times.

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

Devora Zack
I actually have a brand-new favorite tool, I’m so excited. It’s a 1960 typewriter that still works. And to be able to do writing on a real typewriter is very exciting, and it’s called The Torpedo, which I think is kind of cool. But really, it gets a whole different part of the brain going when I write on it.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s intriguing. What part of the brain? How would you articulate the difference?

Devora Zack
Well, you can’t backpedal like you can when you’re typing on a computer. And so, you have to just move forward and do a pure stream of consciousness writing without rearranging things or deleting things. And what you come up with then is very visceral and often more raw than what happens when you’re writing on a computer, and a lot of great insights come of it.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. And a favorite habit?

Devora Zack
Journaling every morning.

Pete Mockaitis
And a key nugget you share that really seems to resonate and connect with people; they quote it back to you often?

Devora Zack
Be true to yourself. Work with rather fighting against your true personality.

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

Devora Zack
My company website MyOnlyConnect.com, and currently, there’s also a link to it for CactusSnowflake.com.

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

Devora Zack
Everyone is exactly how they’re supposed to be. Nobody needs to be fixed.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Devora, this has been a treat. Thank you. And I wish you many happy collaborations.

Devora Zack
Thank you. With this being one of them.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, thank you.