Tag

KF #29. Demonstrates Self-Awareness Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

1043: How to Uncover Your Hidden Aptitudes and Choose the Work You’re Meant to Do with Betsy Wills

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Betsy Wills shares the science behind aptitudes and how to use them for a thriving career.

You’ll Learn

  1. Where most career assessments fall short
  2. Why a low aptitude score shouldn’t discourage you
  3. The root of boredom, frustration, and burnout

About Betsy

Betsy Wills is the co-author of Your Hidden Genius and a pioneer in democratizing aptitude assessments. A co-founder of YouScience, she helped bring formerly expensive assessments online, now serving over 25% of U.S. high schools and 600+ colleges. With a master’s in Leadership and Organization from Vanderbilt, Betsy specializes in career guidance, helping individuals align work with innate abilities. Her book empowers adults to uncover their strengths, make informed career choices, and lead fulfilling lives.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Betsy Wills Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Betsy, welcome!

Betsy Wills
Thank you, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to be chatting about your work, digging into innate talents, aptitude, Your Hidden Genius. Marshall Goldsmith was raving about the book deal you had, so it must be good, Betsy, right?

Betsy Wills
It’s very good and very necessary for people. Very unique.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, tell us what is unique? I think people think, “Well, I’ve done a Myers-Briggs. I’ve done a DiSC. I’ve done a StrengthsFinder.” You got another one of these assessments, Betsy. What’s sort of fresh here?

Betsy Wills
Okay, I just love that question more than anything. Actually, the assessment is not new, but what it was, was extremely expensive. The assessment is from Johnson O’Connor, which is a career center that you go to in 12 different cities around the country. It costs about $750 to do it. When you do it, you’re doing these exercises that you cannot game on your aptitudes.

And most people do not understand what aptitudes are, and, basically, they’re hidden from people. You may have an inkling that you have certain abilities that are innate, but this is the scientific way to prove that. So, the book includes the aptitude assessment with a code to take online, and that is what’s unique.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, super. So, now when you say aptitude, this is bringing back memories, SAT. Does that stand for the Standard Aptitude or Scholastic Aptitude Test?

Betsy Wills
Originally, it was called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the people that make that test realize it is not an aptitude test. It’s not about your innate abilities. It was actually the Scholastic Achievement Test. And so, the term has kind of stuck and been conflated, if you will. But even the Scholastic Achievement Test rebranded itself to be called just the SAT, if you look into that history.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, inside scoop.

Betsy Wills
Inside scoop. So, we have sort of shifted in and moved in our terminology for these things, but aptitudes you cannot study for. They are innate. So, there’s actually 52 that can be measured and they range from, you know, glare factor. Some certain people are really bothered by glare and other people not so much on a continuum. It’s an actual innate ability. We don’t test that because it only really matters if you’re a truck driver or you’re flying an airplane.

Pete Mockaitis
Or a jet fighter, yeah.

Betsy Wills
Yup, it does matter, and they do test it in the military but it’s not one of the pieces of this particular battery. But what we do assess are things that really matter in the world of work. And these are things that typically school does not recognize, things like your spatial ability. Some people are able to see things in 3D very easily, and other people are more abstract. I know we’re going to talk about that in a minute.

And then there are certain cognitive things, like people’s reasoning skills or memories. But all of these things combined can give us great insight into where we’re going to find satisfaction in our work, as well as our best advocations, which I think are quite important.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, 52 aptitudes that we know about so far from science. Now that’s just incredible.

Betsy Wills
Yeah, and there’s others that are coming, believe me.

Pete Mockaitis
So, where might we go to just find the rundown, the list of these little tidbits from glare factor and more?

Betsy Wills
Another good question. So, the other thing that’s been hidden from people or they didn’t realize is the US government and the Department of Labor and Statistics has been tracking every single job and built, basically, a Rosetta Stone of information with each of the 52 and the amount of each 52 that are ideal for each job. So, think of it as this huge dataset.

But until I know your data on your aptitudes, I can’t really give you great career suggestions, and so that’s the purpose, in many ways, of having your aptitudes assessed because it maps to this enormous database, almost like a Match.com for your jobs. So, just like medicine, which has become extremely personalized using data, now we have the wherewithal, if we can have our aptitudes assessed, to find out where we would best fit in different types of jobs.

Now, let me be clear, there’s not one job for one person. There’s many, many options, but it helps you sort of narrow down what is basically a tyranny of choice and the misguidance of saying to people, “Follow your passion,” or, “Do what you are.” You’ve got to know what you are, and this gives you an enormous amount of data to make better decisions.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, Betsy, we don’t do an NPR-style journalistic narrative situation, but now you got me curious about this secret government conspiracy that has constructed the career Rosetta Stone, and we don’t know about it.

Betsy Wills
Right. Right.

Pete Mockaitis
Is it published somewhere deep in a backwoods site?

Betsy Wills
No, no, anybody can access this, and it’s not nefarious at all. It’s called O*NET, and I talk about it in the book, you can see that, but here’s the rub. When you were in high school, and I was in high school, and since the 1960s, they have been using a survey called the interest survey. You took it, I took it, pretty much every high gave it because it was…

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I kind of remember that.

Betsy Wills
Yes, and it asked you, Pete, “Like, on a scale of 1 to 5, do you like building cabinets?” Or, “On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you feel about medical terms or something?” Well, at 17, who the heck knows? You know, we’ve been exposed to almost nothing. But they called it career guidance, and that assessment mapped to O*NET.

And when it mapped to O*NET, with very little information that you self-reported, it would give you career suggestions, like be a funeral mortician hairdresser, or a forest ranger, or a doctor, or a lawyer, things like that. But it was using very scant data to do that that you were self-reporting. So, the database has been very refined and it’s very powerful, but the stuff we were putting into it with those high school surveys, that acted like a boomerang because it was just you telling the survey and it you something back, that’s pretty bad.

And now we know that that information was essentially career malpractice. You really need to have much better data. It’s like if you went to the doctor and you told the doctor you have cancer, and the doctor said, “You know what? I agree. Let’s start the chemotherapy.” You’d be like, “What?” You’d say, “Aren’t you going to run some tests or get some information?” I mean, you don’t self-report yourself like that, and this is the same with careers at this point.

So, that’s really what has happened is this is Career Guidance 3.0. Finally, we’re in an era where we can scientifically understand what we’re hardwired to do, where our best opportunities are, and where we’re going to find the most satisfaction by understanding what our aptitudes are. And that’s why this book is so, so important.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, that’s good, and I love that line about the doctor. You tell the doctor what you have, and they say, “Yep, you got it.”

Betsy Wills
“You’re sure right.” Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
So well, so much good stuff. You said they didn’t have a sense of the ideal amounts of aptitudes of different types for different jobs. So, now when you say ideal amount, that triggers me to think, “Hmm, so it’s not just more of everything is better? We’d be worse off having more aptitude in being in certain jobs?”

Betsy Wills
These are the most miserable people. There’s not very many who basically have powerful aptitudes in all of the things you can measure, and nobody does have that. But what you’re looking for and what’s wonderful about understanding what your aptitudes are is you’re looking for a combination of things as unique as your fingerprint.

So, let me give you an example. Idearate, you took it, Pete, and it told you, you were a brainstormer. We gave you a question and you remembered the assessment. I don’t want to ruin it for your listeners, but your result was you were a brainstormer.

Pete Mockaitis
I didn’t know. I was typing things. Was that a lot of things? I have no context.

Betsy Wills
Yes, that was a lot of things.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, that was a lot of things. Okay. Go, me.

Betsy Wills
People who score like this, they tend to, you know, it’s like ideas come out like a flood. They almost have trouble turning it off, okay?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s right.

Betsy Wills
At night, I need a glass of wine sometimes to turn this off, okay? So, it’s lots and lots of ideas that are coming to you at one time. The other side of the continuum, people who don’t score as if they come up with a lot of ideas, are called concentrated focusers. So, people who score like you do, make great podcast hosts, salespeople, marketers, journalists, writers, teachers. Pete, you don’t want your surgeon or your pilot to have this, okay?

Pete Mockaitis
“Here’s a fun idea. What if, instead, we cut this other part for funsies?”

Betsy Wills
“Yeah, yeah, like, let’s saw him up this way, you know?” So, the point is that is, oftentimes, the things that are not as strong for us are what unlock our best opportunities. So, think of your aptitude scores as looking almost like a soundboard. You’re going to have certain things that are way up here and certain things way down here. It’s that combination that makes the music sound so great, and that’s really how aptitudes work. So, we’re not looking for A+’s, you know.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s so funny, I was just thinking something about myself I’ve noticed kind of recently is, boy, I love designing processes, but I hate following them. It’s, like, does that make me some kind of a hypocrite? Like, “Listen, employees, you do these things that I’ve spelled out, but I don’t want to do these things,” because it gets boring for me. I want to mix it up.”

And to the notion of having optimal levels, not necessarily just more and more and more, we were talking with a Navy SEAL, Rich Diviney, about what he calls attributes. I’m seeing a little bit of overlap here. And he used, for example, the attribute of empathy, we think, “Oh, that’s a good thing. I want to be empathetic.” But he said, “If your role is being a stand-up comic, you don’t want to have high empathy.”

Betsy Wills
That’ll be highly distracting when you’re trying to make that sarcastic remark.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, you’re going to be offending a segment by necessity in order to be funny. I get maybe it’s possible to be kind to everybody in your jokes, but often those are like fifth-grade pun books, which are not that funny, in my experience with my kiddos. So, I think there’s a lot to be said there. Yes, those aptitudes, it’s intriguing how, if you have a whole lot of a thing, it might not feel like a great fit.

Now, well, you’re making me get all these flashbacks here. I remember I was at a Bain party because I used to do strategy consulting. And so, well, I think there was an event where beverages were flowing liberally, and folks were just sort of speaking their mind. I remember our corporate librarian person said to me, “I don’t know what you’re doing here, Pete.” I was like, “What? That’s not what I want to hear.”

Betsy Wills
“This isn’t a job review, I hope.”

Pete Mockaitis
“I’m trying to advance my career.” And she’s like, “You just have so many creative ideas. The consulting thing, this doesn’t really seem like you.” And I thought, “Hmm, you know, it’s interesting,” because, in a way, I totally vibed with my fellow consultants in, like, the problem-solving, find the insights, communicate it.
But then, boy, once we had to polish that PowerPoint deck for a sixth iteration, I was like, “Aren’t we done? Can’t we just move on?”

Betsy Wills
“No, I’m out.” Well, people, again, that are brainstormers like you, they tend to like to have multiple projects going at one time, and that’s probably what did attract you in Bain Consulting. But I will say, for you and your scores, because I appreciate you taking the assessment and investing in yourself, you scored as a diagnostic problem solver in the inductive reasoning assessment.

Which, if you recall, if anybody out there plays the New York Times Connections game, it’s quite similar the way this is assessed. People who like to draw connections with a lot of ambiguity and not all the information present. And that is how a lot of consultants score because they love problems where not all the information is necessarily in front of them, and they can draw inference well.

So, you scored like that, for example, Pete, and it’s not necessarily that usual to score like you did. In fact, not a high percentage of people score with that diagnostic problem-solving score, and so, congratulations. You should be leaning into that as much as possible.

And some people might tell you, because all of these aptitudes, wherever you score, there’s going to be an Achilles’ heel. And in the book, we talk about the positives and also the challenges for everybody’s course. And in your case, people who score as diagnostic problem solvers, they can tend to procrastinate actually because they work best when there’s urgency. They love when there is kind of a mini crisis or something to solve where they can, you know, the time pressure is on them.

And so, when there’s not enough time pressure, sometimes they create situations where there is time pressure because they like the thrill. I don’t know if that happens to you. I’m not saying you do that because not everybody exhibits the characteristics of some of these Achilles’ heels. I call it aptitudes gone wild, but it is good insight.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, what I really like this notion is you can have a high aptitude on a thing, and that just sounds good, like, “Yeah, I want a bunch of high aptitude. I want to be like limitless, you know, or Jason Bourne. Oh, these guys are so awesome. They can do anything. So capable, speaking all these languages, sniper-ing people far away.”

So, that sounds great, but you’re really highlighting here that you may have a high level of an aptitude, and that does have a shadow side to it. And then, likewise, a low level of an aptitude, things I just sort of felt, ashamed might be a strong word, but in the ballpark of ashamed. So, on the test, there was a “holes being punched into folded paper” situation for spatial reasoning, and I just utterly bombed it.

I could tell, for the first one, which I think was supposed to be easy, I still didn’t understand what I was doing. And I remember I’ve had these experiences.

And I do get lost without GPS, and people say, “Oh, just come back the way you came.” I was like, “That’s not going to be good enough. I’m going to need some more information on how to return from the bathroom to the doctor’s office.” Like, “Oops, which way did I turn on these hallways corridors?”

Betsy Wills
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
I feel, like, embarrassed. Like, I have something wrong with me.

Betsy Wills
Not a bit.

Pete Mockaitis
And you’re saying, “Well, hey, there’s a low aptitude on spatial reasoning.”

Betsy Wills
Spatial reasoning. It’s fine. I mean, that’s actually the one, Pete, that people feel like throwing the computer out the window. And a lot of people, even if they do well at that particular assessment, they don’t realize it in the midst of it. They all kind of come back and go, “That one was so hard.” And I’m like, “Well, you scored as a 3D visualizer.” Or, in your case as an abstract thinker, it wasn’t that easy.

But that fork in the road for people tells us a lot about, for instance, the types of careers we’re going to enjoy. People who score like you do, as an abstract thinker, they tend to be very good at reading emotions of people. They’re very good at so many different things that are more in the idea world, the theory world, the concept world. They like to think in the world of ideas and thoughts and emotions.

Whereas, people who score as 3D thinkers, it’s almost like a scratch that needs to be itched. And when we see that score, we ask them, “You know, what are you doing in your life to use this?” And if you’re a parent, so you know, you can start to see this aptitude emerge very young in children, actually. The kid who’s making the Taj Mahal out of LEGOs at four, and then, you know, me, if I’m trying to do something out of LEGOs, you wouldn’t know what it was even today, you know? It’d be such a mess.

But it’s just fascinating that we can parse these aptitudes and how much they tell us about our satisfaction in our jobs and in our lives.

Pete Mockaitis
And, Betsy, it’s interesting, you’re also illuminating for me, I think, one of the great mysteries of home ownership, which is, “How is it that a contractor or a plumber or an electrician or a carpenter, is just amazing doing things I could not imagine to doing myself?”

Betsy Wills
There you go.

Pete Mockaitis
And yet, I often have a heck of a time getting them to pick up the phone, show up? I was like, “Maybe there’s just too much demand for a limited number of tradespeople, and so we’re all just kind of in this boat.” But I think, Betsy, what you seem to be illuminating, this is my theory, there’s some abstract thinking for you.

Betsy Wills
Yes, that’s right.

Pete Mockaitis
My theory is, “Well, hey, they’re great on an aptitude I’m not good at, and I’ve got an aptitude that they’re not so great at. It’s relatively easy for me to pick up the phone and make an appointment, show up, do the things.

Betsy Wills
Come up with the idea, you know, all those types of things, yes.

Pete Mockaitis
But, actually, showing up and making great cabinets wouldn’t work so well for me.

Betsy Wills
And what a waste of time. And that’s also part of the point here is, you know, whether you’re managing a team or managing yourself, why stay on the struggle bus? There’s no point. We call the book Your Hidden Genius because everyone really does have these hidden abilities that they sometimes have recognized or maybe discounted in their lives because school didn’t reward them for it or they just thought, “Oh, everybody can do that,” and that’s really not the case at all.

Pete Mockaitis
No, that’s a huge takeaway right there. And we talked with some folks who are experts in the StrengthsFinder, and that’s sort of a funny thing about strengths is because they’re easy for us, we just assume, “Oh, this is easy for everybody,” but no, no. It’s because we have these strengths, we have these aptitudes.

And it’s also intriguing, “Why stay on the struggle bus?” I guess this might be hopeful or desolate, Betsy. Is it fixed? Like, there’s just spatial reasoning is not going to be improved by me no matter how what kind of exercises I try to do?

Betsy Wills
Well, that is a great question. No, we can do anything with practice, and that is the other good news about knowing what your aptitudes are. It’s often an indicator of where you may need to spend more time, or, for some people, learning a job is harder than actually doing a job, like acquiring the skill may take them longer and be more of a struggle, but all of us can do anything with practice.

But the point, too, is why would you? We all have things we’ve got to get competent at, but why spend a lot of time trying to perfect it or apologizing for why we’re not the best at it? So, I’ll give you an exercise I gave Marshall as well, and that was, you know, do you have a pen handy?

Pete Mockaitis
I sure do.

Betsy Wills
And if your listeners do, take out a pen and just write your name. Right, Pete?

Pete Mockaitis
I have a feeling I know where this is going.

Betsy Wills
You probably do, but why not? So, now, switch hands.

Pete Mockaitis
Alrighty.

Betsy Wills
Okay. I know you’re going to enjoy this.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah.

Betsy Wills
Okay. So, how does your non-dominant hand signature look?

Pete Mockaitis
You almost said left, which is correct. Well, it’s sloppy, it’s silly, it took longer, it was harder to do.

Betsy Wills
Right. Slow. Okay. Pete, if you lost use of your dominant hand for some terrible accident, I hope that never happens, and you had to use your non-dominant hand for the rest of your life, even by the end of today, you could get better. You would get more relaxed doing it. You could practice and get better. But you’re never going to be a calligrapher, okay, no matter what you do. So, that’s the way aptitudes work. You can become competent, but spend more time on the things that come naturally and easily to you versus constantly being frustrated.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that seems accurate that if something is hard for you to improve on for a long time, the odds are slim you will ever become exceptionally world-class at that thing.

Betsy Wills
Right. Well, think of it as also like you don’t become a musician at 35 years old, all of a sudden, because you work really hard at it. People have natural abilities that allow them to enjoy doing it and to get better and better at it the more they practice. But if your running start is at a different spot, it’s going to take you longer and become more frustrating as you go.

And that, again, doesn’t mean if you’re not a great musician from birth you can’t enjoy music or do well. But we all know, there are certain people who just it comes easily to, and that’s great. And there are things that are easy for you that aren’t easy for me, and that’s okay, too.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. So, with the book Your Hidden Genius, you’ve got the link to the code that lets you do the test and learn these things. And then there’s the O*NET from the government.

Betsy Wills
Matching, yup.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I mean, hey, I think it’s a great move to buy the book, do the assessment. If folks just aren’t going to, how do we take advantage of some of these insights without it?

Betsy Wills
Well, if you read the book, we did design it such that if you didn’t take the assessment, which I don’t know why you wouldn’t, but if you didn’t, we tell stories. And so, we explain these concepts and we talk about, you know, we talked to over 80 different people from ages 75 down to 18, because by the time you go through puberty, your aptitudes are fixed. So, you wouldn’t take an aptitude assessment any earlier than when you’re sort of in high school. But if you take the assessment, you’re going to score the same at 17, 37, 80.

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding?

Betsy Wills
Yes, because, again, we’re not testing what you know. We’re just looking at the baseline. So, it’s kind of fun to take them, but if you get into the book, we’ll go through all the different aptitudes and tell stories and talk about how they come out with different people’s careers and their advocations as well. But you talked about other aptitudes people were discovering. We have a chapter on that which I think is kind of cool. I’ll tell a story if you are interested about smell, which they’re really researching these days.

Certain people can smell things better than other people. This is why certain people enjoy wine or cooking in a different way. And there’s a woman, many people may have read this story, maybe you did, who had a husband with Parkinson’s disease, and he died. And she went to the doctor after and she said, “You know, I could smell it on him,” and he was like, “What do you mean you could smell it on him?” She goes, “I could smell it on him for years.”

And so, they got interested in this, and they gave her 24 T-shirts, and they said, “Tell me which of these people have Alzheimer’s.” I mean, have Parkinson’s, excuse me. And she picked out 12, and they said, “Well, that is remarkable because we have 11 candidates with it, and all 11 were in your pile. That other person not, but that’s remarkable.”

And two months later, the 12th T-shirt wearer was diagnosed. And it’s just phenomenal what they’re able to now study around people being able to smell diseases. And it is actually, I believe, an aptitude. It hasn’t been proven, but it’s things like that that are fascinating to me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it is fascinating, and I just can’t let it go. If one smells Parkinson’s on somebody, I am assuming the person with Parkinson’s, biochemically, has a smellable thing going on.

Betsy Wills
A disease.

Pete Mockaitis
And non-Parkinson’s sufferers don’t.

Betsy Wills
That’s the implication.

Pete Mockaitis
But we don’t know what that is yet, like a film on the skin or like a…?

Betsy Wills
I guess. I’m just now yacking away here because I think it’s interesting, but look up the story. But they do a tremendous amount of research on smell. But this is back to what I’m saying. These are science-based, research-based aptitudes that makes this quite different. You can’t self-report that “I’m good at this or good at that,” or have this aptitude. You do have to take these game-like exercises. And as you know, it took 87 minutes to complete, so it’s not a quickie fill-in-the-blank kind of assessment. Did you have fun doing it?

Pete Mockaitis
Most of it.

Betsy Wills
Okay. Well, it wasn’t all fun because it shouldn’t frustrate you, but, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, interesting. All right. So, let’s just summarize some of these implications. We got these aptitudes. They are not skills or knowledge or abilities. They are things that, dare I say, innate within us. We’ll know, and they’ll be unchanged post-puberty for the rest of our lives, and it behooves us to seek out opportunities that line up nicely with our amounts of aptitudes in different styles, like a Rosetta Stone, it maps just right, and we will struggle more if we are pursuing opportunities that are a mismatch to our aptitudes.

Betsy Wills
Yes. And further, you will be bored and frustrated if you are not using your aptitudes, and that’s really the challenge, is letting things sit dormant. Because a lot of people’s sort of boredom and depression and things like that is, oftentimes, because of an undeveloped aptitude. So, remember, when you discover what your aptitudes are, the onus is on you to apply learning and practice to develop them.

Motivation is sold separately, so you’re understanding what your opportunity set is, where your learning rate is going to be that much faster if you apply the aptitude. So, it’s clues for things you’re going to enjoy. It’s positive news. It’s not a dream killer. It’s all about, “Here are so many opportunities I might have left on the table. Here’s how I can pivot if I need to. Here are the skills I can develop that are going to feel great.”

It’s positive news, and that’s really the purpose of the book is to give people great motivation and excitement around what their possibilities are, rather than, what I would say, is continue to be the walking dead because a lot of us are sort of give up weirdly early about our development, and this will energize you.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, to do a bit of a recap, you mentioned that there’s a core four aptitudes: spatial visualization, idea generation, inductive reasoning, and sequential reasoning. Can you share what makes these the core four, first of all?

Betsy Wills
Well, those are just hugely, again, like forks in the road for people, like big ones that if you’re not using them, it’s going to bother you, or if you’re over taxing them, you’re going to feel burnout and exhaustion. So, knowing where you fall on those continuums is really, really helpful. The others are important, and some people have outliers.

Like, one that can be assessed is certain people can identify color really well, hue discrimination. So those are specialized aptitudes, and those can be super important if you have them. But those core four are going to impact most of us in our decision tree, and then the others are sort of like ornaments on that tree. Very helpful to know.

Pete Mockaitis
I like that, that metaphor there. And, it’s funny, well, hue distinction, I’m thinking about physical therapists. I guess this is my poor spatial visualization going on because I’m talking about Katie will say, “Does it look like this shoulder is higher or lower than this?” I was like, “I couldn’t tell you. I am clueless. They look normal to me.”

And, whereas, physical therapists, I’m often very impressed, like, “Oh, do you see how you’re doing this?” I was like, “No, not at all do I see how I’m doing this,” but they do.

Betsy Wills
See, they do, and there’s a perfect use of their spatial visualization, they just see it, you know?

Pete Mockaitis
So, maybe if you could lay it on us in terms of, if you could archetypically share what might be a great role or a terrible role for someone high and low in each of the core four. So, spatial visualization, we said, hey, great physical therapists, maybe great.

Betsy Wills
Oh, yeah, architect. Okay, let’s get into it. Architect, landscape designer, graphic designer, anybody working with a lot of charts, for sure, crafts people, anybody you know in the building trades, potters, you know, people. Let’s talk about avocations. Like, if you have a spatial visualization, you might enjoy things like sailing or even golf where you’re estimating space or there’s a whole list of things in the book that talk about each aptitude and where you fall but that would be one.

People who score in the abstract world, like I said, they tend to like things that are more theoretical in nature, even the law, a lot of typical types of law, like constitutional law would be an example, maybe not patent law, which would need more spatial visualization, if that helps you understand it. And then, by the way, there are people who score in the middle of each on this continuum. So, we break it down into three groups. And you will learn something in the book about that, too, wherever you score on that continuum. So, that’s spatial.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And idea generation.

Betsy Wills
Okay, idea generation: teachers, journalists, public speakers, comedians, actors, improv, salespeople, certain types of consulting, for sure, appeals to that, that’s brainstormer, strong idea rate. One of the Achilles’ heels of being a brainstormer might be that you may have a habit of interrupting people because you just can’t get all those ideas out at once.

Concentrated focusers, which is the other end of this continuum, tend to be excellent at implementing ideas. They tend to be the “Let’s pick an idea and run with it and go with it.” They tend to enjoy things that take a high amount of concentration, if you will. Anesthesiologists, for example, airline pilots, those would be examples. But there’s many, many things that utilize that concentrated focuser score.

Inductive reasoning is the next one we might pick. So, this is the one I talked about where you’re very comfortable drawing a conclusion under time pressure. Basically, if you’re an inductive reasoner, you need to be on a game show because you love the, you know, got to make a decision under time pressure.

But think of an ER doctor where someone comes in with three symptoms and they’ve got to really make that decision quickly, or a Wall Street trader. Sometimes an investigator might be a diagnostic problem solver. Consultants, for sure, like you were. The other opposite end of that continuum is fact-checking, a fact checker. That’s the people who really are not comfortable making decisions under time pressure.

Oftentimes they need to be pushed into the pool. They’re going to look at a hundred colleges before they’re going to make a decision because they’re looking for that one piece of data they may not have. They make great risk managers. They make wonderful HR managers because, when you’re hiring someone, you can’t infer from three different pieces of information and make a decision, or you shouldn’t. You’re going to need to do the background check, and they’re going to be the people who are going to complete all those steps. So, again, value with every score.

And then the last one is sequential reasoning. I don’t know if you remember that one where you were putting boxes in order. Sequential reasoning is interesting. A lot of people who score as sequential reasoners tend to have messy desks because all of their file cabinets are in their head. They don’t need organizational structures as much. They tend to be able to put things in order. They’re like, if they’re going to write a paper, they don’t need an outline. It’s all kind of organized in their head.

The people on the opposite end of this, we call process supporters, and they’re excellent at maintaining systems. Think about librarians. Think about people who, you know, don’t move their cheese. If you’re going to change a system, you’ve got to really explain it to them. But they’re going to make sure that system is followed to a T, and they’re excellent at it. And we need all types on our teams. If I may, I’ll tell a quick story also about that.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, please.

Betsy Wills
There was a guy named Charlie Plumb, who was a war hero and he took off from his aircraft carrier and was ejected from his airplane on a parachute and shot down into enemy territory and spent about two years, I think, in solitary or something, and got out and went and made all these speeches.

And one time, he was giving a talk at a restaurant, and a man came up and tapped him on the shoulders, and he was a sequential reasoner, Charlie Plumb was. And he said, “I was on the aircraft carrier with you.” And he said, “Oh, well, soldier, I’m glad to meet you,” Charlie Plumb did. And he said, “You know, I’m the guy who packed your parachute.” He was a process supporter.

He didn’t come up with a new way to pack the parachute. He did it the same way every time, and this is just like teams. We need all different types of people with all different aptitude scores to make us successful. So, in the end, this is all about empathy, and it’s about love. It’s about not seeing other people as a flawed version of us. It’s really valuable information.

Pete Mockaitis
Well said. Yeah, that feels like that’s a transformational key right there for many of our relationships, not to see others as flawed versions of ourselves.

Betsy Wills
Especially your spouse.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, but rather a person who has their own unique profile of different levels of aptitudes. Beautiful. Well, now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Betsy Wills
“A wink is as good as a nod to a blind mule.” Barney Fife said it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Betsy Wills
I’m reading Hampton Sides’ The Wide Wide Sea right now. So, my favorite book is always my last book that I’m reading. I would recommend it to anyone. It’s about Captain Cook’s travels. Captain Cook ended up being cannibalized on Hawaii in the 1790s, and it’s a fascinating read.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite tool?

Betsy Wills
Right now, it’s ChatGPT.

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Betsy Wills
It creates images for me, which I think is a lot of fun.

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

Betsy Wills
Network.

Pete Mockaitis
One word, okay. Do it! And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Betsy Wills
I would say go to YourHiddenGenius.com and purchase the book, and you can reach out to me that way as well.

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

Betsy Wills
Bring your best opportunities to your jobs and advocate for doing activities that meet your aptitudes and shed the things that don’t.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Betsy, thank you.

Betsy Wills
Thank you.

1042: Self-Improvement through Personality Change with Olga Khazan

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Olga Khazan discusses the surprising findings on how personality change can be possible and beneficial.

You’ll Learn

  1. The problem with “authenticity”
  2. The surprisingly simple secret to changing your personality
  3. The simple interventions that make us less neurotic 

About Olga

Olga Khazan is a staff writer for The Atlantic and the author, previously, of Weird: The Power of Being an Outsider in an Insider World. She has also written for The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Vox, and other publications. She is a two-time recipient of the International Reporting Project’s Journalism Fellowship and winner of the 2017 National Headliner Award for Magazine Online Writing. She lives with her husband and son in Northern Virginia.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Olga Khazan Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Olga, welcome!

Olga Khazan
Hi, thanks so much for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I’m excited to talk personality. We are going to get into the goods. Could you kick us off with a particularly fascinating discovery you made while putting together Me, But Better?

Olga Khazan
One finding that really surprised me is that when introverts are told by researchers to go out and act like extroverts for a little while, so to socialize with people for a few minutes and then come back, and they’re like, “Okay, how did that feel?” And they’re like, “Now I feel happier.” Okay, so the introverts feel happier acting like extroverts. And they said something else that was interesting, which is they also said, “I feel more true to myself.” So, they actually feel truer to themselves when they act like extroverts.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow, yeah, I could chew on that one for a while. Like, what is true, then? What is self?

Olga Khazan
I know, right? Yeah, that’s kind of where the book goes. Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Okay. Well, so that’s intriguing right there. So maybe, what’s sort of the big idea with the book, Me, But Better?

Olga Khazan
So, the idea is that our personalities are the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that come most naturally to us but they also help us achieve our goals. So, your personality can help you get a promotion. It can help you stay calm in times of crises. It can help you make more friends. And so, if your personality is not helping you reach your goals, if it’s kind of standing in your way, it’s actually possible to change your personality.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, it is, in fact, possible to change your personality. Olga, tell me, what about being authentic and true to yourself? Aren’t those noble virtues?

Olga Khazan
Yeah, so the problem with authenticity is that what is most authentic at any given moment is not always what is best for us. So, if you think about it, what might be most authentic to you on a Friday night after a difficult week at work is to just be at home on the couch by yourself, watching TV, and drinking a bunch of wine. That might be the most authentically you thing to do.

But if you do too much of that, that’s not healthy. And what the research shows is that, actually, in that moment, what might be kind of best for your mental health is to actually reach out to someone else or to do something a little bit more active or at least more socially connected. So, this is kind of challenging the idea that we should always be doing whatever is… feels most “authentic” rather than whatever will kind of help us follow our values and achieve our goals.

Pete Mockaitis
Interesting. So, well then, this is getting philosophical rather quickly. What does authentic even mean? How are we defining that?

Olga Khazan
So it can be sort of just whatever you feel inside and, like, who you really feel you are, but it can also be the things that you get good at over time because you apply yourself to them and you get practice doing it. So, I talked with one researcher, Sonja Lyubomirsky, who explained that. She now is a runner. She’s like an avid runner. She runs all the time.

But she actually took a while to get into it. Like, in those first few runs, she didn’t really feel like doing it. It wasn’t an authentic thing for her to do. But now that she has gotten better at it, she’s gotten more experience, probably figured out what shoes are the right ones, she does feel like it’s authentic to her to go running. So, what’s authentically us can actually change over time.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, indeed. If we think about authentic as just meaning what you feel like doing and what’s comfortable and natural to you, then, certainly, that would flex and move and shake, versus if authentic is living in alignment with your values, that’s a very different view of what authentic is, versus authentic is just not straight-up fraudulently telling lies.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. And those values can kind of require us to take on new personality traits to fulfill those values, and I can go into more detail about that.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. Well, when we say the word personality then, I get all about the definitions here, what do we mean, specifically, by this term?

Olga Khazan
So, personality, it’s made of five traits. Most psychologists think it’s made up of five traits. You can remember them with the acronym OCEAN. So, O for openness to experiences, C for conscientiousness, E for extroversion, A for agreeableness, and N for neuroticism, which is the bad one. You’d want to be low on neuroticism and you want to be relatively high on some of the other ones.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, so the Big Five, this is great juicy areas of debate, and I’ve read some of the articles. So, as compared to, say, the Myers-Briggs type inventory, that is another thing people use to say, “Oh, this is my personality. My preferences are extroversion, intuition, feeling, judging.” And so, how do you think about the Big Five relative to other personality typologies?

Olga Khazan
So, a lot of people are really invested and really into the MBTI, the Myers-Briggs, and also the Enneagram, like they have a lot of fans and people, like, really know their INTJ thing, and they’re like, “That’s who I am.” So, I really don’t like to yuck people’s yum, or like take that away from them if that’s like really, really important to them.

There is a little bit of scientific basis behind it, so I wouldn’t say it’s just like totally fake, but most scientists steer clear of personality tests that put people in categories like INTJ or like an Enneagram number, because most of us actually don’t really fit very neatly into categories. We kind of fall along a spectrum of all five personality traits.

So, you might be mostly an introvert, but you might be like 30% extroverted, so you’re not totally like an introvert. It’s not like you can never be extroverted. And so, really, what they prefer is to kind of show how you rank compared to all the rest of humanity on these five traits, because they all see them as a spectrum.

Pete Mockaitis
And, tell us, where can we go and see where we fall against the spectrum of humanity on each of these five traits?

Olga Khazan
So, what I used is a website designed by a researcher named Nathan Hudson. It’s a website called PersonalityAssessor.com, and he actually posts well-validated personality tests that other scientists use as well. He just put them in a web-friendly format so you can click through and get a score instead of like leafing through psychology studies and like the index or whatever. So, he’s put it up online but it’s called the IPIP, and it’s usually, like, either 120 or 300 questions depending on which version.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And it’s free?

Olga Khazan
Yeah, it’s free. He uses the data, I think, in his studies, but you don’t have to tell them your name or anything.

Pete Mockaitis
Very cool. All right. Well, that’s super. And then, yes, that debate is juicy because I have led Myers-Briggs workshops in which people were debating, “Oh, I don’t quite know which one fits, which one fits.” And so then with this system, you just completely sidestep this, and although I would say I got to give some pros to the Myers-Briggs for it’s really hard, I think, in a team setting to say, “Oh, I scored really high on neuroticism. How about you?” Like, “Oh, really? No, not at all. You’re the neurotic one,” it seems. And so, that could be sort of an off-putting experience in a team setting.

Olga Khazan
Totally.

Pete Mockaitis
But for a pure introspection situation, I mean, all for it. Let’s go where there’s a boatload of research here, and Big Five has got that going for it.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, the Myers-Briggs is definitely more fun, and I think for, like, usually corporate environments like it, because it kind of also talks about, like, how people like to think about problems and resolve problems, which is not really what the Big Five is doing.

Pete Mockaitis
Yep, understood. Well, so could you give us a quick rundown definition of what do we mean by openness, what do we mean by conscientiousness, etc.?

Olga Khazan
So, openness is like this kind of ambiguous trait. It’s basically like imaginativeness and creativity. Political liberalism is also part of it and, like, verbal intelligence, but not mathematical intelligence.

Pete Mockaitis
If I may, is that actually a part of the thing that they’re measuring, or just a fun correlation they seem to find out there?

Olga Khazan
It’s a fun correlation. What they’re measuring are things like, “I like to debate abstract ideas,” “I like poetry.” Open people tend to like kind of really avant-garde music and art and like foreign films. Like, they’re not watching The Avengers. They’re watching, like, whatever came out at the indie theater last week.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

Olga Khazan
So, there’s that. Okay, so conscientiousness is sort of like productivity, organization, meeting deadlines, being really diligent. Extroversion is things like friendliness and cheerfulness, and also just like activity. Like, extroverts are just always on the go. Agreeableness is sort of like warmth and empathy, and also trust in others. And then neuroticism, which once again is bad is depression and anxiety.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, someone who is high in neuroticism might find a given challenge or experience to be more triggering of depression and anxiety feelings. Is that what we mean?

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. So, when I noticed this in myself, it was sort of like, I would have a perfectly fine day, nothing especially upsetting happened, but minor frustrations would kind of start to stack up, and I would kind of start to use them in a story where it was like evidence that, “I’m just cursed and everything bad happens to me. And my life is just bad and it will never go well.”

And so, that’s kind of the cycle I was hoping to break out of, is sort of this, you know, neurotic people that just, like, really latch on to those negative thoughts, very, very hard to see the silver lining, and it kind of sucks the joy out of life, because, really, the amount that you enjoy life is determined moment to moment and day to day, and not sitting back on your deathbed and thinking like, “Did I get stuck in traffic like 12 times or 13?” you know, or whatever else.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, understood. Okay. And so then, your big idea here is that you can take these assessments, PersonalityAssessor.com or wherever, and you can see where you land, but that’s not the end of the story. We have the capability within us to say, “Hmm, I would prefer to be less neurotic, and that is an option for me.”

Olga Khazan
Exactly, yeah. And it’s, basically, so this research, once again, by Nathan Hudson, and a few other researchers have replicated it in Switzerland and other places, is what it basically shows is that if you behave in a way that aligns with the kind of person that you’d like to be, you can actually shift your personality in that direction.

Pete Mockaitis
That sounds important. Let’s hear it again.

Olga Khazan
So, if you behave in a way that aligns with the kind of person you’d like to be, you can actually shift your personality in that direction.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, that sounds a little bit like fake It till you make it.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, that’s, I think, one of the titles of one of his studies, or like one of the takeaways. He’s like, “Fake it till you make it is an appropriate way to change your personality.” Or, he says it in some very academic way, but, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
So, it’s, like, if I would prefer to be less neurotic, I would behave in the fashion like a less neurotic person would behave.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, and neuroticism is one, so, yeah, you can just simply think to yourself like, “Oh, man, this day was so terrible. I got stuck in traffic,” and some of the exercises would be like journaling, “Okay, but what are three good things that happened today?” Or, “What’s a different way of looking at this that’s less negative?” So, I did do some of that journaling, but most of the kind of actionable recommendations for neuroticism are actually various forms of mindfulness and meditation.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, mindfulness and meditation, it seems like there’s a boatload of studies saying it’s good. Can you share with us any of the particularly striking findings here?

Olga Khazan
So, the meditation class that I took, which is called Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, I think it’s like an 8- or 10-week class, and it’s actually been found to work as well as Lexapro for depression and anxiety.

Pete Mockaitis
So, this is an eight-week course. Where does one go about doing it?

Olga Khazan
Anyone can sign up for it. I think you just Google MBSR, and they’re virtual. They’re all over the country. You can go in person. You can go on Zoom. I did mine over Zoom because the pandemic was still kind of going on. But it basically consists of a 45-minute meditation every day, and also a class that is sort of, I want to say, like “Buddhism for Dummies.” It’s very, very watered-down, broken-down teachings from Buddhism presented by the teacher.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, just doing that eight weeks later, you’re less neurotic.

Olga Khazan
So, yeah, for me, it did work. It did bring down my neuroticism, especially the depression component of my neuroticism. But I don’t totally get why, because I didn’t ever really enjoy meditation. Like, I kind of always resisted it. I found it really boring. Even at the very end of the class, we did a retreat just in our houses, but we meditated all day, and I found that really grueling. But, yeah, something about it just like it made me less depressed. I don’t know how.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that is such a rich example and experience. I’m glad you’re sharing it with us because I have often had this experience of, they say, “Oh, yeah, mindfulness meditation is very good.” “Okay, yeah, I should do it. There’s a lot of benefits. It’s going to be worth it. There’s a clear ROI on my time. Okay, let’s do it.” And sometimes it’s very peaceful and pleasant. It’s like, “Okay, yeah, I’m glad I did that.”

But other times it’s a brutal slog. It’s like, “I would rather be doing anything but this right now,” and it’s brutal. And so, it’s encouraging to hear you say that you, too, were not feeling it in the moment, and yet, on the other side of it, you’ve got just an emotional experience that is more enjoyable just all the time.

Olga Khazan
So, Jon Kabat-Zinn, who kind of invented MBSR, for lack of a better word, he wrote a book about it. And but one of the things he suggests is, like, it’s best to go into meditation without striving to feel better. Like, you’re not supposed to really be pushing for it to work. You’re supposed to just kind of do it and let it, like, kind of work in the background. And so, that’s sort of what I tried to do, and I guess it did work, like, I don’t know, in its weird, magical way.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so that’s pretty cool, 45 minutes a day. Sounds intense, but it’s only for eight weeks, and then the benefits are lasting without maintenance?

Olga Khazan
I think you do have to maintain it to some level, but I will say that I do not have time to meditate anymore because I had a baby right after I finished the book so I have not kept up my meditation practice. And I’ve found that when I don’t get to any kind of mindfulness, even like mindful walking or yoga, whenever I have like a week or two without anything like that, I do start to feel more just like jumpy and irritable.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, it takes a good week or two, in your own experience. I guess it probably varies person by person, for you to go back to the jumpy spot, but it’s not 45 minutes a day.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, but I would say I wouldn’t tell people that if you don’t have 45 minutes every day that you shouldn’t even bother with this, because there’s a lot of meditations out there that you can do in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, just when you have time. I kind of don’t like this all or nothing feeling about meditation, where it’s like unless you’re committed to do it an hour every morning, like don’t even bother. I think you can just kind of try to fit it in whenever you can, and that’s good.

Pete Mockaitis
That is good. And there’s a study that put a dollar amount on just how good this can be. A reduction in neuroticism can be quite substantial and even put into some monetary equivalency terms. Olga, can you speak to this?

Olga Khazan
Yeah, one study found that even a small reduction in neuroticism was like earning $314,000 more dollars a year, which I think just goes to show how much neuroticism can really grind away at people, and how living this way and just being constantly plagued by negative thoughts can really bring you down so much that it’s like you’re like earning very little money, or if you didn’t have that you’d be basically rich. Because, honestly, our happiness is kind of determined by our level of neuroticism.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, this reminds me of a quote from Epictetus, “Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.” And that so rings true for me, as I’ve lived high-income and low-income years in the course of running business. So, it kind of doesn’t seem so outrageous. It’s like, “Yeah, if you have less neuroticism and are less worried about all sorts of things, it’s like $314,000 can sure take care of a lot of worries, but so, too, could worrying less.”

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. And, I mean, one of the kind of takeaways that I have from the book is that you can improve your life even if nothing in your life really improves. And that’s kind of what happened with me. Like, I had the same exact job before and after this project. I live in the same house. But I, honestly, feel like a lot better and more fulfilled. And, to me, that’s sort of the difference that a small amount of reduction in neuroticism can do.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, there’s the mindfulness-based stress reduction eight-week situation. Were there any other key interventions that were transformational for you there?

Olga Khazan
On that trait specifically? So, I would say, like, honestly, this is strange, but one of the most effective things about that class was that “Buddhism for Dummies” kind of like little aphorisms and things that they would teach us. So, one of the things that my meditation teacher would always repeat is, “Things happen that we don’t like.”

And I know this sounds strange, but I had been going through life thinking that everyone else can make it so that bad things don’t happen to them. They can, like, control their lives to a degree where only good things happen to them. And whenever something bad would happen to me, I would get kind of mad at myself for failing to avert that.

And I think there was just something really freeing. Of course, this is like a group class where we’re all sharing like negative experiences we’ve had, so it’s like even more powerful. But there was something really freeing in being told that some things are just out of our control and that you can’t always prevent bad things from happening.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s a big lesson to internalize, which will have big impact, no doubt. All right. Well, let’s hear about some of the other personality dimensions, if we’d like to be more extroverted or more conscientious or more or less agreeable. Sometimes I think I’m too agreeable, and I would be better if I felt a little bit more comfortable holding my ground, and saying “No, that doesn’t work for me. You’re going to need to fix it.”

Olga Khazan
I actually brought this up because, as I was working on agreeableness, I noticed that a lot of my friendships were falling apart, and I kind of thought, “Oh, if I become more agreeable, my friendships will stop dissolving.” And that one way to do that is just to do whatever my friends want. Right? Like that’s agreeable.

But that’s actually not really true, and I talked with this friendship expert who really drove home the power of boundaries within agreeableness. So, being agreeable doesn’t mean that you just let people walk all over you. It does mean having strong boundaries. So, as an example, in the midst of this project, I had a friend text me and tell me that I wasn’t texting her enough and that I needed to commit to texting her at least once a week to check in with her.

Pete Mockaitis
I’ve never had a request like that.

Olga Khazan
Me neither. So, I was like, “Huh.” And so, kind of my natural reaction was like, “Oh, my gosh, of course. Like, I will text you every week, like, no problem.” But I actually knew, internally, at the same time, that I was never going to do that because I actually don’t like texting. It’s not like a mode of communication that I like, and I also don’t like text check-ins. Like, I really don’t like having to remember to check in with someone when there’s nothing wrong and there’s nothing going on. So, I, basically, immediately fell off of this plan.

And so, I asked this expert, Miriam Kirmayer, I was like, “What was I supposed to do in that situation?” And she said I should have said something like, “Hey, I’m sorry that you’ve been feeling like I don’t text you enough. The truth is, I actually don’t really like texting. Is there another way we can keep in touch? Is there another way that I can meet my needs, but also meet your needs?”

And so, that’s really like the heart of agreeableness is setting boundaries with people so that you are treated well and you do get a say in the relationship but, at the same time, showing people that you value them.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I think that sounds dead on. And so, if we need to, it seems like that that’s the master key is kind of the fake-it-till-you-make-it situation, is if we think that we have been a bit on the doormat side and need to establish boundaries, we would act as though we were a person who were a bit less agreeable to everything.

And it will feel unnatural and uncomfortable and weird in the moment, like, “Oh, my gosh, was I a total jerk? Oh.” You might feel that way when you’re establishing a very reasonable boundary. But then, if this path follows the way it seems like it goes, you’ll say, “Oh, actually, I’m glad I did that. I stood up for myself. I feel good and proud, and maybe even more like myself.”

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. And it’s also a good way of kind of working on agreeableness and working on deepening your friendships with people without feeling like a doormat, which is, I think, one reason why people are sometimes reluctant to try to become more agreeable.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Okay. And how about conscientiousness? I would like more of that, I think.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, most of us would. Conscientiousness is like the trait everyone wants to increase on. It’s the trait that employers really love because conscientious people get to work on time and they do everything really fast and really thoroughly. It predicts like greater wealth and health and all this other stuff. So, I would say a really poignant example of conscientiousness, for me, was this guy, Zach Hambrick, that I talked to.

Zach is a guy who got to college from this small town in Virginia, and growing up he had never really studied and he had never really written a paper or, like, applied himself to school in any way. So, he gets to college and, suddenly, you have to study or else you will, like, fail college and would have to go home. So, he’s kind of lost, but he realizes that he would like to finish college and succeed and get into a grad school program for psychology. He decides he wants to be an academic psychologist.

So, he actually sits down and finds another student just like him who is like someone who doesn’t have a very scholarly background, and they actually study together and learn tips from each other of how to study better and how to, at one point, he bought a book that was, like, how to make A’s or something like that. They would stay up late, like, reading and highlighting these dense psychological textbooks, and it actually worked, like, not right away.

I think his first GPA was like a 2.7 or something like that, but, gradually, he actually did really well on the GREs and he got into Georgia Tech, and, actually, he is now a professor of psychology. And this kind of all happened because of this concept that, sometimes, doing things alongside other people, or learning from your peers, can actually be more effective than having it taught to you by a teacher or trying to do it on your own.

There’s research out of the University of Pennsylvania that shows that when people are told to go learn an exercise strategy from their peers versus just being told by the researchers, like, “Hey, here’s how you can fit more exercise into your life,” the people who learn from their peers actually end up exercising more because there’s something about it, like friendly competition, or just like seeing someone just like you apply those same skills, or, honestly, just having some solidarity, I don’t know. But it actually does work, and it worked for Zach.

So, that’s one strategy that I’d recommend, is like if there’s something you’re working on when it comes to conscientiousness, find someone else who is working on that same thing and learn from them.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I want to find someone who’s working on conscientiousness as opposed to someone who’s just already supernaturally just conscientious.

Olga Khazan
You could try to talk to someone who’s just super-duper conscientious, but I would pick someone who has, like, gained those skills in a way that they can explain to you. Don’t just pick someone who was like born meeting all deadlines and never had to think about it, you know?

Pete Mockaitis
“You just sit down and you do it. That’s all.”

Olga Khazan
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Nifty. Well, tell me, any other key things you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Olga Khazan
Also, for conscientiousness, something that I found really worked for people is this strategy called episodic future thinking, which is where you envision very clearly what’s the positive outcome will look like. So, let’s say you’re really having trouble motivating yourself to get through a spreadsheet, a PowerPoint, whatever else it is, boring work project, you can kind of think about what it will look like to present that PowerPoint.

What are you going to be wearing? How will your boss react? Where is he going to take the team out for lunch to celebrate afterward? And it’s not just like The Secret, like if you can see it, you can achieve it, because it’s actually just motivating you to get through that slog of doing something really rote or really tedious or something that conscientious people find really hard in order to get to that outcome that you really, really want. So, that’s another thing I would recommend for people who struggle with that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Episodic future thinking sounds fancy, although I think others would call that simply visualization. Are there some nuances or distinctions to be made between the two?

Olga Khazan
I think it’s just whatever you’re working on now needs to be connected really clearly with whatever you’re envisioning. So, it can’t be just like, “Oh, if I finish this spreadsheet,” and then imagine yourself flying around in a private jet with models and stuff. It has to be a realistic, positive outcome based on what you’re doing now.

It could also be a negative outcome as long as it’s not so negative that it’s paralyzing. So, for me, when I was struggling in journalism school, I had a really dead-end job right before I went to journalism school, and I would always just envision myself having to go back to that dead-end job and do these boring tasks that I was doing before I went to grad school. And that would always motivate me to be like, “Hey, okay, I really need to get to my interviews on time,” or whatever else it is.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I like that. So, the dead-end job, it’s negative enough to be motivating, but it’s not, like, horrifying, like, “I’m going to be homeless, sleeping in the ditch!” It’s like that may very well be paralyzing for you.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, it can’t be something where you’re, like, you know, if you’re the kind of person who’s like made so anxious by kind of like bad outcomes that you’re like, “Oh, my God, I can’t do anything now,” just don’t go there. Focus on the positive stuff. But some people I talked to did find negative outcomes really motivating.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, you’re bringing me back to the early days of getting my business going, and it was kind of spooky just like having no income and watching savings deteriorate month after month, while getting going. And it felt as though, “Oh, my gosh, if the savings goes to zero, I’m dead. It’s like game over.” It’s like, “No, no, no, that just means I have to get a real job. I’ll go do…”

I would always tell myself I would end up doing cheese strategy at Kraft Foods just because I felt like a lot of Bain people went to Kraft after their Bain tenure in Chicago. It’s like, “So, I would be excited about it but I could probably find some joy in cheese strategy but I’d really rather not, so let’s go ahead and make this thing work out.”

Olga Khazan
Yeah, I had a similar thing when I did journalism school during the recession, and then I graduated, like still in the recession, and I was like, my thing was always, “Oh.” I was like, “Am I going to have to do PR for people who pour acid into the eyeballs of puppies,” and like spin that to be a positive thing. And I was like, “Well, you know, maybe the puppies don’t really have a lot of feeling in their eyeballs.” I didn’t end up having to do that.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah. You know, Olga, I will hand it to you. Not once in over a thousand episodes has any guest referenced pouring acid into any animal’s eyeballs. This is a first.

Olga Khazan
Well, you said you wanted it to be memorable.

Pete Mockaitis
It is memorable. It’s fresh. It’s original. I appreciate it. So, understood. Well, let’s round it out. Can we hear about the extraversion as well?

Olga Khazan
Sure. So, for extraversion, this is the simplest one, you just have to get out and talk to people. You don’t have to be good at it. You don’t have to be the life of the party. You, honestly, don’t even have to talk that much. Just go to a group activity that involves other people, preferably one that occurs regularly, and you will gradually become more extroverted.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And openness?

Olga Khazan
For openness, the non-drug kind of option is travel. So, just traveling to cultures where you don’t speak the language, talking to people who you don’t totally understand. That kind of thing can really increase openness.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, now can you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Olga Khazan
So, this quote appears in the book, and it’s from David Axelrod, the political consultant, and what he says is, “All you can do is everything you can do.” So, you can set yourself up for success, you can check all the boxes, you can make all the phone calls, you can work super-duper hard, but then, at a certain point, you just have to let go and hope for the best. And, for me, that was really, I don’t know, comforting, especially as someone who was launching a book.

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

Olga Khazan
I like this study, also from the book, where researchers, they asked older people, “Have you changed in the past 20 years or something?” And they were like, “Oh, yeah, I’ve changed in all these different ways, I’m so different now.” But then they asked younger people, “Do you think you will change in the next 20 years?” And they were like, “No, I don’t think I will. I think I’m going to stay this way forever,” which just goes to show, like, we do change, but we think that we won’t. So, I thought that was, like, pretty poignant.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And could you share a favorite book?

Olga Khazan
I really liked How to Say Babylon by Safiya Sinclair. I thought it was just really beautifully written.

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

Olga Khazan
I use TapeACall Pro. It’s kind of janky, but it’s the best we got. That’s what I use to tape interviews.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Olga Khazan
My favorite habit is putting everything I need to do in a given day into Todoist, which is also an app, and that just helps me stay really organized, and I just don’t know where I’d be without it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks?

Olga Khazan
I think people really like the idea that, you know the summer between high school and college, how everyone kind of reinvents themselves, and they’re like, “When I go to college, I’m going to be cool, and I’m not going to be the loser anymore.” I think you should be able to do that whenever you want. It doesn’t have to be when you’re 18.

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

Olga Khazan
I would point them to TheAtlantic.com, which is where I’m a writer, and my Substack is at OlgaKhazan.substack.com. And you can find my book, Me, But Better, wherever books are sold.

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

Olga Khazan
Sign up for an improv class.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Olga, thank you.

Olga Khazan
Yeah, thank you so much. This was fun.

1036: Becoming a Happy High Achiever with Dr. Mary Anderson

By | Podcasts | One Comment

Dr. Mary Anderson shares key habits to fuel your career and well-being.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why high achievers often don’t enjoy their achievements 
  2. How to break free from the cycle of negative self-talk 
  3. The SELF care framework for high achievers 

About Mary 

Dr. Mary Anderson is a licensed psychologist, author, and sought-after speaker with over a decade of experience helping patients become happier, healthier, and sustainably high-achieving. Dr. Anderson earned her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, with a specialty in Health Psychology, from the University of Florida and completed her internship and post-doctoral fellowship at the VA Boston Healthcare System, with appointments at Harvard Medical School and Boston University School of Medicine.

Her book, The Happy High Achiever: 8 Essentials to Overcome Anxiety, Manage Stress, and Energize Yourself for Success––Without Losing Your Edge, was published by Hachette Book Group in September 2024. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Mary Anderson Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Mary, welcome!

Mary Anderson
Thank you so much, Pete. I’m so excited to be here. I’m excited to have a great conversation. And hello to all the listeners out there.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I am excited, too. We are talking about The Happy High Achiever. That sounds like something I’d like to be, and many of our listeners would like to be. You’ve worked with many folks in the zone of high achievers who are happy and not so happy. Could you give us, perhaps, one of your most surprising and fascinating discoveries you’ve made while working with this population and researching the book?

Mary Anderson
That’s a great question. Well, I think, really, what prompted me to write the book was the surprising thing that I came upon after working. I was working in the financial district in Boston. This was actually many years ago, I had the idea for the book, and I would have these amazing high-achieving patients coming in. So, successful business professionals, doctors, lawyers, grad students, just amazingly brilliant, talented.

And then they would sit on my therapy couch across from me, and really candidly, courageously describe struggling with self-doubt, worry, perfectionism, anxiety, and burnout. And that’s what really was so surprising to me was how much they were really struggling with even just feeling like an imposter sitting in meetings, even if they had the credentials, or even if they had experience or the talent.

And so, that really helped me realize, “Wow, there’s these amazing high-achieving people out there who are not enjoying their excellence.” And that’s what really prompted me to write the book, and it was really that surprising kind of discovery all those years ago that now inspired The Happy High Achiever to now be in the world.

It really motivated me to do the work to help put a book in the world, to share science-based actionable strategies and skills, to help these ambitious people who are amazing but struggling. And I wanted to give them specifically tailored strategies that they could use in their jam-packed schedules because they are busy people. So, that’s really what my aim was for the book.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s quite a turn of a phrase, not enjoying their excellence, not only because it’s alliterative, which I love.

Mary Anderson
Me as well.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, it’s kind of haunting and rings true. Like, we would imagine from the outside looking in, “You’re on top of the world! That’s got to feel amazing!” And yet, when you look in, and it’s like, “Well, you might think it would feel amazing.” but it sure doesn’t.” So, can you, this is probably maybe a whole other podcast conversation, but what’s that all about, Dr. Mary Anderson? Like, what’s getting in the way?

Mary Anderson
Awesome question. So, for this, I would say the approach I use is cognitive behavioral therapy, so CBT. It’s a science-backed approach for the treatment of anxiety and depression. And what it teaches us is that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors all directly impact each other. And the goal of CBT is to help people feel better, so we target their thoughts and their behaviors to help them feel better.

And so, why are people feeling so anxious, so overwhelmed, so worried? We can point to those two-pronged reasons of cognition and behavior, right? So, their thoughts or self-talk, so how they’re thinking about themselves, the world, and other people; and their behaviors, so their actions and their choices that they’re making in interacting in the world. So, that’s, really, what I target.

So, what this is all about is that often their thoughts are relentlessly self-critical, so they’re very hard on themselves, but not in a helpful way that you would think like, “Oh, I’m just, you know, keeping my edge there.” Actually, there’s a tipping point where if it’s negatively skewed where they’re really being self-critical, they’re being really hard on themselves in a really unhelpful way, their negative self-talk, that relentless negative self-talk, and then also relentless pace.

So, in terms of their behaviors, they have a relentless pace. So, they’re not implementing regular self-care that is necessary to provide the energy for sustained happiness and high achievement. So, it’s issues with their thoughts, their self-talk, and their behaviors that are creating this really unfortunate situation of they are high achieving, but in terms of how they feel, they don’t feel good. They feel anxious, worried, overwhelmed.

So, that’s at the very root of what’s going on, and that’s why I help target improving and optimizing patients’ thoughts, their self-talk, and their behaviors, and that’s what helps them feel better and actually perform at their best.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, when you say the pace, do you just mean doing a lot of things and not resting? Or what are kind of like the problematic behaviors there?

Mary Anderson
Great question. So, the relentless pace I talk about is often to help people understand that ambition itself is not a bad thing. Ambition is great. I think that’s a great quality to have. It’s that when people aren’t taking time to rest, and I have this acronym I use SELF, so self-care, right? We just need to make sure that as we are going into the world as these ambitious people, aspiring to be our best, that we are implementing the necessary self-care so that we can be our best, so that we have the energy necessary to be high-performing in the short term and to be our most excellent self in the long term.

Because, high achievers, we’re busy, right? We have jam-packed schedules. So, I often start talking about self-care with my patients, and they’ll be like, “Dr. A, I don’t have time for self-care,” because they’re thinking, which a lot of people do.

It’s kind of this myth out there that self-care means needing to take two-hour long bubble baths or go on week-long meditation retreats or buy yourself expensive treats, and that’s really not what’s necessary and it’s not what I’m talking about. When I talk about self-care, it just means taking good care of yourself on a regular basis so that you can feel and be your best.

So, I have that acronym of SELF, so it’s nice and memorable, and again, the four science-based self-care fundamentals that people can prioritize to get their best bang for their buck. These people are busy. If I’m asking them, “Okay, you’re already overwhelmed, your overextended schedule, I’m now going to ask you to add in lengthy, complicated self-care behaviors.” Is that going to work? No, right? It’s just not, it’s not possible.

So, I want to keep self-care doable so that we keep doing it, right? So, I teach them the four self-care fundamentals and help them really problem-solve how to implement that within their lives, and that’s what’s going to fuel them so that they can feel their best and perform at their best. And I’m happy to go through that self-care if you want to.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now we can’t resist an acronym, Mary. SELF, lay it on us.

Mary Anderson
Okay, SELF. So, S is for sleep, and I can’t stress enough just how essential sleep is. So, as adults, we want to aim for seven to nine hours of sleep a night, and we can just kind of know instinctually, right? It’s hard to feel and be our best if we’re exhausted all the time. But, also, research shows that there’s absolutely a negative impact to chronic lack of sleep. So, we know that it can negatively impact things like memory, attention, concentration, decision-making skills.

But, conversely, good night’s sleep, so, again, really getting that seven to nine hours of sleep a night can help promote things and have a positive impact on things like problem-solving skills, productivity, decision-making, so many amazing benefits. So, if you want to be a high achiever, you got to get that seven to nine hours of sleep a night. It’s one of the very first things I assess when my patients come in to see me, “How much sleep are you getting?” And if they’re chronically getting less than seven, they’re having a hard time.

Pete Mockaitis
And, Mary, maybe I’m getting too detailed here, but I’m a big lover of sleep. Are we thinking seven to nine hours of actually asleep as per your Oura ring or Fitbit or Garmin Watch wearable? Or seven to nine hours in the bed with your eyeballs closed?

Mary Anderson
Well, ideally, it actually means seven to nine hours of sleep, and I help people who do struggle with sleep. So, if they’re in bed trying to sleep and getting frustrated, we would actually say, you know, especially if it’s been, you know, people sometimes stay in bed 15-20 minutes, and they start getting frustrated that, “Oh, I’m not falling asleep, and now I have this big work meeting tomorrow.”

We actually encourage, “Get up. Get out of bed. Go do something really quieting. Just like make sure you’re staying in a dark room.” So, the issue is we don’t ever want to associate the bed with frustration, so it’s called stimulus control. So, you want to make sure the bed is just for sleep and sex only, and so if people are frustrated, “Get up and move out of bed.”

So, ideally, for what we call sleep efficiency, the ideal situation is when you are in bed, you go to bed. It might take a few minutes to go to sleep, but when your eyeballs are closed in bed, you’re sleeping. And then, once your eyeballs open, you get out of the bed. You’re not just staying there because, again, we want to really optimize that association cognitively, where the bed is actually where you’re going to be sleeping.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood.

Mary Anderson
So, that’s kind of the technical explanation of it. But, yeah, seven to nine hours. It’s really helpful for people. So, that’s the S of SELF. It’s sleep. Seven to nine hours. E is for exercise, and I think we all know the importance of exercise for physical health, but also for mood and stress management. Exercise, any type of physical activity, and I encourage, keep it doable. Do something you like. So, walking is great.

I think sometimes people vastly underestimate the benefits of walking, but exercise is one of the most efficient, effective ways of decreasing cortisol, our stress hormone. So, if we can aim to get at least 30 minutes of some type of physical movement in our day, it’s so incredible for managing our stress and that means preventing burnout.

Burnout is really chronic stress that occurs over time that’s not being managed. So, the best prevention of burnout is to ensure that you’re managing your stress along the way. And, again, one of the best ways to do that is to get physical activity in. L is look forward, and this one is the one that surprises people sometimes because they haven’t heard of this one.

L is look forward to pleasant activities. So, our goal, our mission, if we choose to accept it, which I hope we do, is to aim for at least one pleasant activity a week, okay? And that’s because so many high achievers, they’re just work, home, work, home, work, home, and things can start to feel really stressful if we don’t have anything to look forward to.

So, just the anticipation of some something positive is powerful. So, keep it doable. Again, I encourage people, plan a meetup with a friend on a Saturday, book a massage, have concert tickets for Sunday, or even something even smaller, like, make sure you queue up your favorite Netflix episode, or plan to get your favorite takeout on Friday.

And then what you do is you just remind yourself during the week. Maybe Tuesday is going to be a long, stressful day. You know, you have meetings all day, back-to-back. You have deadlines coming up and you’re like, “You know what, on Saturday, I’m going to make sure that I,” whatever it is that you want to do.

Just plan something that you know you’re going to look forward to and that is not about productivity.

Because so many of us, high achievers, we love to be efficient and productive, but we need to give our brains a break and have something to look forward to that’s not just about productivity. It’s just about something pleasant, because, again, that provides a powerful mood boost throughout the week and then when you’re enjoying the activity.

So, SEL, and then F is fuel.

And here the aim is to fuel our mind and body with good nutrition and hydration. So, making sure we’re drinking enough water. Our cognitive performance really declines if we’re dehydrated at all, research has shown that. Also, we know nutrition is important, right? So, fruits, veggies, lean protein, of course, important for physical health, but I think sometimes people don’t recognize for cognitive performance, it’s so important.

And so, I’ll ask people like, “Have you ever tried to concentrate when you’re hungry or thirsty?” And people are like, “Oh, yeah, it’s really hard.” But just making the time during the day where I have so many of my patients, right now most of my patients are probably ladies, like in their 30s, high achieving, and they’re like early to mid-career, and so they are working hard and they’re like, “Dr. A, I don’t even have time for lunch.”

And I said, “We have to fuel your brain. You know, our brain runs on glucose. We need to have some kind of fuel.” So, I have them, you know, ideally, it’s real food, but if not, get a protein bar or even a protein shake. That one’s good, and like that’s another pro tip where if they’re like, “Well, I can’t eat at the meeting,” but they’re in back-to-back meetings, have a protein shake in a mug. No one’s going to know it’s a protein shake, but you’re getting nutrition and you’re getting that nourishment that you need to fuel yourself.

And also, for F, for fuel, I talk about fueling your mind with some quiet. How often do we unplug? As high achievers, we’re constantly kind of just inundated with information and barraged with problems to solve. So, fuel also means fuel your mind with quiet. So, that means spending some time in nature, doing some meditation. I use the Calm app. I listen to the Daily Jay with Jay Shetty every morning. Or journaling or just doing deep breathing. Just taking three deep breaths is shown to calm your nervous system so that you can feel better and you’re going to perform better when your nervous system is calmer.

So, SELF, sleep, exercise, look forward, and fuel. Those are the four science-based self-care fundamentals that if you prioritize those as a high achiever, that is going to absolutely help you function at your best, function optimally, so you can be a happy high achiever that you deserve to be.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And over on the self-talk side of things, I’m curious if you could share a couple things you’ve heard in the self-talk realm that are particularly memorable and haunting, as well as typical and highly illustrative of what we mean by problematic self-talk that’s happening all the time?

Mary Anderson
Absolutely. Okay. So, for this, I actually have a term that I’ve coined. It’s called the Troublesome Trifecta. So, the Troublesome Trifecta are the three most unhelpful types of thoughts. We call them cognitive distortions in psychology. So, the three most unhelpful cognitive distortions that so often plague high achievers, and they’re obstacles to enjoying their excellence.

And, really what they do, Pete, is they needlessly ratchet up the stress and anxiety in a challenging situation, or even an everyday situation. It needlessly ratchets up the stress and anxiety, makes it harder to feel and be our best.

So, there’s three that I’ve found are really challenging for high achievers, and it’s specific to high achievers with anxiety. I’ve found from well over a decade of helping clients, these are the three cognitive distortions that are going to be most problematic. First, all-or-nothing thinking. This is so central to high achievers. So, all-or-nothing thinking is thinking in extremes or absolutes. So, it’s, “I must be perfect or I’m a failure.” How I’ve heard it in something that was really haunting, when you said that, I was like, “Yep, I got you on this one.” I’m like, “I got one.” This idea from patients where they’ll say things like, “Dr. A, everyone needs to be totally blown away by my project.” That is so much pressure.

It’s so much pressure to think everyone needs to be totally blown away by my project. That puts so much pressure. I call all-or-nothing thinking pressure cooker thinking because it puts needless pressure. And then what happens, I notice with a lot of high achievers, they start really tying their self-worth to their achievements, appearance, or performance.

They think that they need to prove that they’re worthy or valuable as people, and it makes them terrified, Pete, like they’re terrified of making mistakes or ever looking less than the best. And that, really, perfectionism that’s rooted in the all-or-nothing thinking, it limits them. Perfectionism limits people because they’re terrified to make mistakes. They want to look flawless. So, what that means really concretely, they won’t go out and try new things because they’re not going to immediately, you know, look adept at them.

Also, there’s what I call perfectionism-fueled procrastination, which is they start making the presentation or project or to-do item so monstrous, such a Leviathan, you know, this behemoth in their mind that it needs to be perfect, that they get overwhelmed. Again, it’s that thought feeling, behaviors, they start thinking, “This needs to be perfect,” so they feel really overwhelmed, and then behaviorally, what happens is they procrastinate. They don’t even start because they’re so afraid that it won’t be exactly right or good enough.

And, again, they’re really tying their worth to the outcome, to their achievements. So, the solution for this one is it’s not just like acquiescing to like mediocrity and stagnation, because patients are like, “Great, you just want me to become lazy.” And I say, “No.” The solution, thankfully, is excellence, and this is the first of the eight essentials in my book, The Happy High Achiever. Strive for excellence, not perfection.

And what that means is it allows for both high achievement and our humanity. We’re going to strive for our best while also realizing we’re human. We will make mistakes. Of course, we can do the work so we’re not making careless mistakes, but we’re human. We’re going to have, you know, flaws and fumbles and we’re going to fail.

And to know, really know that we can learn from that, so we don’t have to be terrified, and most importantly, to know that any mistake you make never, in any way, detracts from your worth as a human being, that we have inherent, unconditional worth as humans. And if people really embrace that, if they accept that as truth, that’s when they’re going to feel and be their best because they’re not so afraid anymore.

So, that’s all-or-nothing thinking. That is huge. It is like rampant in the high achievers with anxiety population that I help. So, all-or-nothing thinking, I really try to raise patients’ awareness about that cognitive distortion so that they can catch it and conquer it.

Pete Mockaitis
Could you give us a couple more examples of what that self-talk sounds like in terms of verbiage for all-or-nothing thinking? Because what I loved about that was, something like all-or-nothing thinking in terms of very broadly, like, “Oh, I either need to be perfect or I’m worthless,” right? So, okay. But then you put that note that’s in the context of a presentation, “This presentation needs to blow away everybody. It just needs to.” And so, I thought that was handy. So, we have all-or-nothing thinking applied in a specific context, and it’s still plenty troublesome. So, can we hear a couple more articulations of all-or-nothing thinking?

Mary Anderson
Absolutely. It can be things like, “I’ll never get this done,” “I’m always behind,” like anything where they’re really like just nitpicking themselves in this really extreme way. The other thing is even just they’ll say things like, “Well, now it’s ruined.” Like it’s this extreme kind of thinking, and it just makes you feel awful. So, if you’re like, “Now the product is ruined,” they feel awful and, behaviorally, it keeps them stuck. So, cognitive distortions make us feel worse and keep us stuck behaviorally.

And the other one is sometimes I’ll hear people say like, “I can’t do it, Dr. A. I can’t do it.” That’s very all or nothing. The truth, usually, it’s not that they can’t do it. So, they’ll be like, “Dr. A, I have this big presentation, or my boss wants me to speak at the meeting, and I’m going to have to speak for like 20 minutes in front of everyone. I can’t do it. I hate public speaking. I can’t do it. I’m going to stumble over my words.”

And their big kind of distortion that keeps them stuck is, “I can’t do it. I can’t do it.” But when we do what I call poking holes, so we ask questions to really question the veracity, the accuracy of their thought, which a cognitive distortion is based on faulty beliefs, assumptions, misconceptions. So, when we start to poke holes by asking questions, the truth usually is it’s not that they can’t do it, it’s that they don’t want to do it. They don’t like public speaking, but they can do it.

We can help them prepare and practice and then do their best. So, they can do it. Like, the can’t, it’s more so they don’t want to do it, but that we can find ways to help them be able to do what they need to do, and that’s called creating, I call it new and improved self-talk. It’s creating a balanced, helpful thought that moves people forward.

So, the all or nothing, can’t, never, totally ruined, anytime you hear that, absolutely, “And it was absolutely horrible.” Well, most things in life are not black and white, it’s gray. And so, that’s kind of the more practical application. It’s not just, “I have to be perfect or I’m a failure.” So, I think that’s a great distinction that you’ll find much more nuanced when you’re bringing that all or nothing to the workplace, and being able to, again, raise your awareness.

Because once we have awareness, then we can take action and start really, again, what I call poking holes and choosing to focus on a more helpful thought that moves us forward, not just keeps us stuck like that cognitive distortion well.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I like that so much, and as we’re talking, I think I caught myself doing all-or-nothing thinking and poking holes just this morning driving to the office, I was like, “Oh, I’ve got a lot of meetings on my calendar today but I didn’t sleep very well. I don’t know if I’m going to make it.” And it was like, “What exactly do you mean by make it?”

Mary Anderson
Awesome job, yes.

Pete Mockaitis
“You know, Am I going to, like, enter a coma? Am I going to off myself?” It’s like, “No, no.” And it’s like, “And I guess what I mean is, I don’t know if I’ll be able to show up to all of my appointments in an effective capacity,” or, “No, I guess what I really mean is, I don’t know, I won’t be able to be perfect in all of my appointments.” And it was just sort of that conversation, like, “Well, you won’t be. I mean, you might say something dumb. You might ask Dr. Mary Anderson the exact same question two times in a row, which is like, ‘Uh, dude, I just answered that.’ And then we’ll edit it out, and so no one will know,” and that’ll be that.

“I am capable of showing up, not falling asleep, and making some kind of valuable conversational contribution in each of the day’s meetings. So, if that’s making it, then I am going to make it. I’ll just feel kind of tired and grumpy sometimes and that’s okay.”

Mary Anderson
Oh, Pete, I love it. Yes. So, you poked holes and you helped move yourself forward. And you hit on a point that I talk a lot about with people and it’s so, so brilliant. So much wisdom what you just said is that you will make it through the day. It’s just this day, you know, if you didn’t sleep as well, or if you have lots of meetings, that this day is different in a way. And so, that’s the difference. You just highlighted like, no pun intended, you highlighted perfectly the difference between perfectionism and striving for excellence.

So, perfectionism is the unrealistic expectation that we will almost be like automatons and every single day our best will be exactly the same. Is that possible? No. So, again, excellence and striving for excellence means we acknowledge our humanity. So, we still strive to be our best, right? We’re striving to be our best while also acknowledging as humans, as human beings, our best will differ by the day. So, if you have a good night’s sleep versus, if I have people who are dealing with jet lag.

So, if I have consultants and they’re flying all over the world, I’m like, “We have to take into account, if you just did a 15-hour flight, we can’t expect you to necessarily be at cognitive processing speed the same as if you’re at home and you’re getting solid eight-hour sleep every night.” So, our best will differ by the day. Or if they’re dealing with like the flu or romantic breakups, there’s things that happen because we’re human.

And so, so when we allow for those natural inherent variation of day-to-day, things start to feel easier. And just like you did, you helped yourself in your self-talk, say like, “Okay, I can do this.” You know, basically that’s what I heard, it’s like, “Okay, it’s not going to be perfect, but I can do this. I can make it through the day.” And so, it’s going to help you feel better, and actually that is going to help you perform even better. It’s just talking to yourself in that way, like, you would a friend.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. So, we got the all-or-nothing thinking. What else?

Mary Anderson
Okay, so number two of the Troublesome Trifecta is jumping to conclusions, and this kind of comes in two flavors. The first one is negative fortune telling, and this is when we predict something negative will happen even though it hasn’t happened. And this one sounds like, “It’s not going to go well, Dr. A,” or like, “Oh, my presentation is going to be awful,” or, “The project’s going to flop.” So, they’re predicting negative, but it hasn’t happened yet. And so, what’s that going to do in terms of how they feel? It makes them feel overwhelmed, nervous, anxious, and then, behaviorally, it does not help them prepare and be their best.

The other type of jumping to conclusions is mind reading. I think we’ve all done this, when we assume we know what people are thinking about us. So, people will be like, “Oh, Dr. A, they think I’m stupid.” Or I’ll hear things, this is very common, like, “Oh, my gosh, I misspoke in a meeting and now everyone thinks I’m incompetent.” Or even things like, “Oh, if I ask a question…”

So, real high achievers who are trying to be perfect will almost say things like, “Well, if I ask a question, people will think I’m incompetent.” No, you’re asking for clarification on a question because you care so much. You want to know more about whatever the project is that they’re describing or whatever finding or outcome they’re describing. So, people assume that people think that they’re incompetent, which is a major fear of high achievers, to be deemed incompetent or foolish is a huge fear.

Also, it can just be things like where they assume an interpretation. So, say you’re at your desk, right? And again, so I’m having a lot of clients who are like early 30s, they’re sitting at their desk, their boss will walk past them. Now maybe the boss usually says, “Hi” in the morning. Well, this morning, the boss didn’t say hello. So, they’re going straight into their negative self-talk or unhelpful self-talk, that cognitive distortion, like, “Well, my boss must be mad at me.”

And so, imagine if you’re assuming your boss is mad at you, how are you going to feel? Not good, right? And they get really stressed. And then, behaviorally, what that can just concretely look like is maybe in the afternoon meeting, they don’t speak up, they’re like, “Well, I don’t know why he’s mad at me. I don’t want to give him any more reason to be.” So, you see how that all goes.

But what if instead, and this is the solution to the mind reading, stay curious. There could absolutely be alternate explanations. Maybe the boss is rushing to her office to hop on a Zoom meeting. Maybe she’s not feeling well. Maybe she’s just thinking about something. She’s kind of lost in thought and just didn’t say hi that morning.

And so, if you can stay curious and say, “Huh, you know, I don’t know why,” and just say the facts, right? Predict neutral, I call it. Predict neutral. “I don’t know why she didn’t say hi. You know, I’ll go talk to her later today and see what’s going on.” And if they say that to themselves, if they can stay curious and just stick with the facts, we call it evidence-based thinking, if they can stick with the facts, they’re going to feel at least better, not as stressed, and then it won’t negatively impact their performance, their behaviors.

Okay, so that’s negative fortune-telling and mind reading. Super helpful to just stay curious. It’s never helpful to negative fortune-tell and just predict something negative is going to happen, or to predict that people are thinking badly of you if there’s no evidence to support that. So, that is jumping to conclusions.

And then the last of the Troublesome Trifecta are “should” statements. Oh, “should statements,” these are so ubiquitous. These are the ubiquitous for high achievers, this idea of like, “Dr. A, I should be able to handle all of this. I shouldn’t be so stressed. What’s wrong with me? I should be doing more. I should be like them.”

So, this idea comes up too with the “shoulds” often because it’s so judgmental of ourselves, and it can be towards others or situations as well. But high achievers I work with often are very self-critical, and I call it the comparison trap. They fall into this comparison trap where they’re comparing themselves to others, you know, colleagues, friends, and they’re like, “Well, look at what that person’s achieved.” Often, honestly, social media can really fuel that comparison trap. So, it’s really unhelpful with the social.

Social media can be used for good, for sure. But if people are looking at it and feeling less than, it can really promote feelings of like inadequacy, because they’ll say, “Dr. A, my friend just got a promotion,” or, “Look at the award that they’re doing.” They’re like, “Wow, they just gave a presentation at that conference. Like, you know, I’ve been on a panel before, but I’ve never been like a keynote speaker before. Look at what they’re doing.”

And so, even if – it’s really interesting, Pete – even if, because these are, you know, brilliant people, they can articulate, like intellectually, they can say, “I know, social media is a curated highlight reel of just the best moments of people’s lives.” But still, it’s still impacting them in terms of how they’re feeling about themselves, and behaviorally, it doesn’t help them perform at their best. They end up usually feeling really stuck.

And so, a question I’ll ask here is, because they’ll say like, even things like body image, so like, “I should look like her. Like, look at how put together she looks at that conference. She doesn’t even look nervous.” And so, if they’re struggling with anxiety, oftentimes they’ll look at other people, and be like, “They don’t look anxious.” Well, who knows actually what’s going on inside of them?

But they’ll say like, “I shouldn’t look anxious. I shouldn’t be so stressed. What’s wrong with me?” And I’ll say to them, “Would you ever say that to your friend? Would you ever tell a friend, ‘You really shouldn’t look so stressed. You really shouldn’t feel anxious, and you should be more like that person?’ Would you ever say that to a friend?” And they’re like, “Well, no.” I’m like, “Well, why?” “Because it’s mean.” But people will say really like cruel self-talk to themselves.

So, that’s a quick pro tip. Just a litmus test for people. If you notice you’re feeling stressed or if you’re feeling badly about yourself, ask yourself, “What am I telling myself?” And then ask yourself, “Would I say that to a friend?” If the self-talk that you are saying to yourself you wouldn’t say to a friend, it’s not helpful. So, in that moment think about “What would you tell a friend in that moment?”

And that’s just a really simple concrete strategy but I can’t tell you how powerful that can be in helping shift someone’s mindset to something more balanced and encouraging, and that’s when we’re going to feel and be our best.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, that’s good. And “should” is tricky because there’s an implied standard. I had a friend say, “I should be able to keep the floor clean, but I was having trouble, so I just got a vacuum robot.” And I thought, I almost want to dig into that but he was excited to tell me about the vacuum robot, so we didn’t get into it. But it’s like, “Hmm, where is the standard coming from?” you know, just as a curiosity.

But I do the same thing to myself, and I’m thinking it’s like sometimes the standards have some level of validity, and sometimes they’re just nonsense, like, “Says who and why, huh?” Like, “Okay, we can just reject that standard entirely.” But other times, I’m thinking, like, “I have danced on both sides of a body mass index of 25 to be “overweight,” and then not, which is funny, because it’s, like, almost exactly 200 pounds is overweight for me at my height.

But it’s funny, so I’ll think, “Oh, I should not be overweight. I should eat less, weigh less, whatever.” And so, what’s interesting is like the body mass index of 25, I mean, it is population level, like we can debate that, but it has some level of validity like, “Yeah, generally, you know, when body mass indexes are like above this, there’s kind of more health problems tend to occur population-wide.” So, it’s like it has some level of validity as opposed to something I should just like cast off, it’s like, “Well, forget the body mass index. Like, you do you, Pete. Love that body!”

But I think your point about talking to yourself like a friend is really helpful. It’s like you wouldn’t say, “Yeah, you shouldn’t be overweight.” It’s like, “No, hey, I think it’s good that you are considering your health and keeping an eye on things and following some best practices. So, yeah. I guess the weigh-in today might be an indicator that it would be wise to put a little more attention on this kind of thing.” And that is more how I might talk to a friend, as opposed to, “You shouldn’t be overweight.” And so, that’s handy in and of itself.

Mary Anderson
Awesome job, Pete. Like, awesome, awesome example, and this is one that I help a lot of people with. They’ll be like, “Dr. A, I should be able to fit in my workouts even though I have a jam-packed schedule, but I should exercise.” And to your point, there really are things that are helpful for people to do, but when we “should” ourselves, it’s like we’re shaming ourselves almost.

If someone’s trying to shame themselves to go to the gym, is that going to work long-term? No. They found it just really won’t, and it’ll make people feel horrible about themselves. So, what I talk about, I talk about this in The Happy High Achiever, is when you notice you’re “should-ing” yourself, really know that that’s going to actually keep you stuck. It’s not going to be helpful. So just saying like, “I shouldn’t weigh a certain amount,” doesn’t actually promote proactive problem-solving, it’s not going to help promote healthy goal-setting and move you forward.

So, what I help people do is I decision-tree it out, so I ask them, “This thing you’re ‘should-ing’ about to yourself, is it something you want to do? Is it something you think would be helpful to do? Or are you saying you must do it maybe because of external pressure?” So, with the gym, you know, “I should be able to fit in these workouts. I should exercise.”

And I’ll say, and especially if they’re like, “Well, I should go to the gym,” and I’ll say, “Do you want to go to the gym?” And they’re usually really candid. I appreciate the candor, they’re like, “I do not want to go to the gym, Dr. A.” I’m like, “Okay.” So, just saying, “I should go to the gym,” isn’t going to be effective because they don’t want to, and then they’re shaming themselves about it. That’s not actually going to effectively lead to enhanced performance and behavior or meeting the actual ultimate goal we want for ourselves.

So, what we need to do is say, “Okay.” Then again, curiosity of “Why are you saying this to yourself?” So, I’ll say, “Okay, if you don’t want to, do you think it would be helpful to?” And they’re like, “Yeah, I do. I think it would be helpful to exercise.” “Okay, right? So, now we’re getting to the reality of the situation. Well, why do you think it would be helpful?”

And they’re like, “Well, it really does help me physically feel better. I do notice it helps me manage my stress. Mood-wise, I do notice like my mood is better. Not maybe before I go to the gym, but after. I do feel good I went. I’ve never regretted going to the gym.” “Okay.” And then I’ll say, “Is there a must in there?” And they’re like, “No, there’s not.” The must category is more like societal kind of influence about certain things.

Usually, people, it’s something that they think would be helpful, right? So, like your friend, it would be helpful if he could keep his floor clean, but there’s probably circumstances or reasons why he can’t. So, he was super smart and got himself a robot. That’s awesome, right? And if we can figure out how to move ourselves forward without the shame, that’s going to help us feel better.

And we know if people are happier, they’ve shown in abundant research, if people are happier, it fuels success. So, when we’re happier, when we have a positive mindset, that’s actually going to enhance our productivity, our performance, our efficiency, our creativity, our resilience. So, it really benefits us to be happier first, because you deserve to be, because you’re a human and you deserve to be happy, but also as people in the workplace who are striving to be high achievers, really know that if you can speak to yourself in a way that helps you cultivate a positive mindset, that helps in a positive, like a happiness feeling, that is actually going to play out, that it’s going to enhance your performance.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good to know. Well, now could you share a favorite quote?

Mary Anderson
“The greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another,” and it’s by William James.

Pete Mockaitis
Thank you.

Mary Anderson
Yeah, I love it. William James, considered the father of American psychology. And I love that it highlights, as humans, we’re going to have thousands of thoughts a day. And it’s an important point that I really try to underline for people. Our goal is not to try to never have a cognitive distortion. That would be an impossible goal. We are humans, we’re going to have helpful thoughts, unhelpful thoughts on a continuum of helpfulness, right? So, we can’t expect ourselves to never have an unhelpful thought.

But what we can do is equip ourselves with these strategies to raise our awareness of when we’re thinking a less helpful thought, so those cognitive distortions again, Troublesome Trifecta, we’re all-or-nothing thinking, jumping to conclusions, and “should” statements. Really raise your awareness so you can take action.

We want to catch and conquer those cognitive distortions, and we can choose to focus our attention on a more helpful thought. And when we choose to focus our attention on more helpful thought, we’re going to feel better and it’s going to help us move forward behaviorally. So that’s one of my very favorite quotes.

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

Mary Anderson
I challenge people, try to talk to yourself like you would a friend. If you’re in a hard moment, if it’s stressful, if you’re dealing with a challenging co-worker or boss, or you’re stressed out before a big meeting, really ask yourself, “What would I tell a friend in this moment?”

The more that we can speak to ourselves, so focusing our thoughts on a thought that something that we would tell a friend, it sounds simple, but again, the more you can be like a good friend to yourself, you are going to feel and be your best. So, that would be the call to action, really know that by speaking kindly to yourself, which sometimes high achievers balk at like, “Self-compassion, Dr. A., it’s not going to make me weak,” but I’m like, “Honestly, the more kind and compassionate you can be towards yourself, like you would a close dear friend, that is actually is what will help you excel. You will feel happier and you will be high achieving not only in the short term, but sustainably in the long term.”

And that’s the goal. We want to be happy high achievers, enjoying our excellence and putting our best out into the world. You can do it. I believe in everyone out there. You possess the power to be a happy high achiever. Start now. It’s worth it.

Pete Mockaitis
Thank you.

1008: The Nine Steps for Making Career Progress with Ethan Bernstein

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Ethan Bernstein reveals the process for finding and seizing career opportunities you won’t regret.

You’ll Learn

  1. The four quests driving every career transition 
  2. The exercise that keeps you relevant 
  3. The problem with job descriptions—and what to focus on instead 

About Ethan 

Ethan Bernstein is the Edward W. Conard Associate Professor of Business Administration in the Organizational Behavior unit at the Harvard Business School, where he teaches the Developing Yourself as a Leader and Managing Human Capital courses. He spent five years at The Boston Consulting Group and two years in executive positions at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including Chief Strategy Officer and Deputy Assistant Director of Mortgage Markets. Bernstein earned his doctorate in management at Harvard, where he also received a JD/MBA.

Resources Mentioned

 Thank you, Sponsors!

Ethan Bernstein Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Ethan, welcome.

Ethan Bernstein
Thank you, Pete. It’s great to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to hear some of your wisdom. And I’d love to know, you are teaching and researching organizational behavior, and that was a field of study that I did and I love it so much. Can you share with us a particularly surprising or fascinating discovery you’ve made about us humans and organizations that has really struck you and stuck with you?

Ethan Bernstein
So, I spend my days and sometimes nights studying workplaces, particularly trends in workplaces, like increased transparency, increased connectivity in workplaces today, the way that affects employee behaviors, and the way those behaviors affect performance. And one of the things that’s captured my attention, I suppose you call it a surprise, is that we’ve been two-plus decades in the field of organizational behavior telling people to chart their own path, find their own way, create their own journey, and people still don’t really know how to do it, and it shouldn’t be a surprise because we really haven’t told them how.

And so, that’s what led to this interesting bit of research that we’ve been doing around how people hire jobs for the job they want to do in their career as opposed to just being hired by organizations.

Pete Mockaitis
How people hire jobs. That’s a fun turn of a phrase right there.

Ethan Bernstein
Well, Clay Christensen, who was one of my dissertation advisors, created a theory called Jobs to be Done Theory, which Clay used to solve one of the key frustrations he had. He saw great organizations, great people, creating new products that didn’t sell, and for him, that was frustrating because it just seemed like a waste. All these great people, all the material and time and everything else that went into it and then ultimately didn’t work.

And the Jobs to Be Done Theory suggested that the reason for that was that people don’t just buy a product, they hire a product for a job to be done in their life. And so, if you sell a product based on attributes, like an apartment has granite countertops and an open kitchen, that’s not actually why people buy it. People buy it because they can imagine themselves cooking in that kitchen, talking to people.

That the experiences, not the features, are what matter, and that if you really understood the experiences people were looking for, the struggling moment that led them to hire that product for a job to be done, then you could create other products to solve that job to be done better. And if you think about why people move jobs, that’s oftentimes why they move jobs. They realize that they’re struggling, they want to make a certain kind of progress, that progress isn’t being delivered by the organization or the role they’re in, and so they seek a different role that could do that.

And that was the surprising moment, I suppose, for me in 2009 when I saw Bob Moesta, who worked with Clay on the protocols behind Jobs to Be Done, do one of his investigative journalistic interviews of a consumer who bought a product to understand the causation behind why that person had bought that product, what job they’d hired that product to do.

And I sat there thinking, “I gave some advice to somebody on their career this morning. I should have done this because then I would have been able to provide better advice.” And 15 years later, that’s what we’ve done over and over again, over a thousand times to collect the data for this book.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. That’s cool. And when you say, with regard to the data in the book, any really striking themes, patterns, insights that just pop off the page for you?

Ethan Bernstein
So, as an academic, I expect there’d be huge variation in the causation. People, it seems, choose different jobs for a whole variety of reasons. When we actually took all these interviews, these 60-plus-minute interviews, coded them, all the rigorous research that keeps me fully employed, we actually found that the things that push people away from a particular role and pull them towards a particular role, that there’s actually a lot of commonalities.

We clustered it all down to 30 pushes and pulls, which is a remarkably small number if you think about it. Now, I will say, to me that’s a small number. To the outside world, 30 was too many. So as publishers said, “Wait, wait, 30, that’s too many for us to remember,” we then went back and looked at patterns across and found even more so that if you look at the patterns across those pushes and pulls, people are largely just on one of four quests.

And what stage of your career you’re in, what stage of your life you’re in, can have impact, but people will filter through each of those four quests over the course of probably their career. But understanding what quest you’re on then provides a person with the ability to make them more awesome at their job because that’s when the advice matters. You can give great advice to a person on a different quest and it can be bad advice because they’re on the wrong quest for that advice.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s really resonating, and I’m chewing on this. Could you perhaps bring this to life for us with a particular person and a transformation that they saw as they were thinking through this stuff and coming up with fresh insights by thinking about it this way?

Ethan Bernstein
So, let me explain the four quests a little bit, and then I’ll do what Michael Horn, my co-author, made me do in the book, which is I put myself in the book, and I’ll write myself into the framework as well in a prior role, not in my current one, just in case the dean of Harvard Business School is listening to this podcast.

So, the four quests. One is, get out. These are people who genuinely find their energy drained by the role they’re in and find that the capabilities they want the organization to be drawing on aren’t the capabilities that is actually being asked for. So, they are both not happy with how their work is going and the what of their work. And for them, they’re just looking to reset both those dimensions, they’re trying to get out.

Think of the opposite dimension. If you’re trying to build on both things, you’re actually quite happy with the work environment and you’re happy with the capabilities you’re asked to deliver, you just want to take the next step. So, for some reason you’re ready for that next step and you want to take it, and the organizations of the world and the world in general is pretty much designed for the take-the-next steppers. That’s so-called progression in most organizations.

The off dimensions are more interesting. So, if I love what I’m asked to do, the what, and some of us are out there right now thinking, “I love being what I am, like, what I’m asked to do. I’m respected for the work I do, and so forth, but I hate the how. I don’t want to commute anymore because it wastes my time. I’m working too hard because I have a new family. I’m not working hard enough because I’m an empty nester.”

“The manager that’s now managing me because that person switched doesn’t respect me for the way I’m doing my work, and so they’re asking me to do work differently for their purposes, whatever the case might be. The work drains my energy more than drives it. And so, I want to reset the how, I want to regain control.”

The people who, on the other hand, love the work environment they’re in, everything about it, or most things about it, but they’re being asked to do things, that the reputation they’ve got, the work they’re actually being asked to deliver, is not drawing on the capabilities they either thought that they have or want to have, those people are trying to regain alignment. And so, once upon a time, Pete, I was a consultant.

Pete Mockaitis
Me too.

Ethan Bernstein
I thought we might have that in common. And I had been asked, at a firm I loved, I really actually, I loved the job, and I had been asked to step in for somebody who’d left a project midstream, and it was a restructuring project. And I stepped in, we delivered the product to the client, we delivered the project, all was good, and then another such project came along, and because they needed someone with that expertise in the local office, they asked me if I would do it, and I said, “Okay.” I mean, I was still at the stage of my career where I was like, “Sure, of course, I’m happy to help where I can.”

So, now I had two projects in restructuring under my belt, and we all know that restructuring projects oftentimes involve certain amounts of layoffs, and so that was something I was, apparently, getting good at. So, when the third time around, right, a client came to ask for this and wanted the same team that had done the previous projects, I got called and brought into the conversation with the client even before the project began, and was introduced as the expert on that.

And that was the moment I knew I needed to regain alignment because that had never been my intention. And this happens to a lot of people on project-based work and other work. You just develop a reputation and expertise that wasn’t what you wanted to do, and you love the how, but the what? And that’s how I ended up at the Harvard Business School doing a doctoral program.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. Well, I can’t help but chuckle, here we are, former consultants, and we find ourselves discussing yet another 2×2 matrix. We can’t help ourselves.

Ethan Bernstein
If it weren’t an actual 2×2, it would have to be a 2×2 in the sky that we would be seeing in our own imaginations. But yes, and I will be clear though, this is not categorical as a 2×2 typically is.

So, get out, take the next step, regain control, regain alignment. These are like poles on a map – north, south, east, and west. There’s a lot of space between the North Pole and the South Pole. There’s a lot of space between regain alignment and regain control, and people are in that space. So, these are just likelihoods.

In fact, we offer an assessment based on the pushes and pulls so people can try to figure out where they might be on the quests using an assessment at JobMoves.com. It’s available for free. But the assessment will just give you likelihoods and then you ultimately have to pick based on those likelihoods.

This is not about telling you what you are. This is about helping you be more aware of where the pushes and pulls are so you can understand if those forces are aligning enough that they overcome the habits of the present and the anxieties, the new solution that might keep us in our role feeling stuck, maybe silently quitting, I don’t know quiet quitting, I don’t know, but it’s understanding the alignment that might be drawing us to something new.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, that’s handy. So, we can think about things in terms of “Do we have a fit on the what side and on the how side?” You’ve got a juicy teaser, I can’t resist, there’s a mindset shift that helps us love instead of regret a new job. Is this it or is there another one you want to unpack for us?

Ethan Bernstein
So, that’s the broad one. So, if Clay’s frustration was around new products that didn’t get sold, my frustration is around people who disrupt their lives, sometimes their family, certainly their career trajectories, in order to take a new role only to find, six to twelve months later, they’re unhappy with it, which, if you just asked a room, “What’s the fastest you’ve ever gone from taking a new job to knowing it wasn’t right for you,” over three-quarters typically say between a month and a year.

That’s my frustration. And that’s not leading anybody into a good place. It is causing us a huge amount of disruption and it’s an indication, I think, of a process that’s broken. And so, my goal here is to try and help people do that better.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, I’m curious then, on the outside looking in, it could be a little bit tricky to know, “What’s my experience going to feel like in that month to year in which I go, ‘Uh-oh, oopsies.’” Do you have any pro tips in terms of, like, top research methodologies or questions to ask or steps to take to prevent this regret?

Ethan Bernstein
So, let me offer you a few a few thoughts from the book and from our research and from my course “Developing Yourself as a Leader,”

So first, I think having the pushes and pulls is helpful. That list, you ask somebody, “How do you do it? How are you feeling about this job?” they have no idea how to answer. You give people a list of 30 items and ask which ones are operational for them, it’s much easier. It does prime them, but given the data, suggests that most of those are going to be covering what people are feeling, it’s just an easier place to start with a menu as opposed to start with a blank slate.

Then, once you’ve got a sense of your quest, you know which dimension you’re on and where that likely is, then you start asking yourself the question, “Okay, so what drives my energy and what drains it?” And this is, again, not about attributes. It’s not about the granite countertop and the open kitchen. These are experiences. In the job world, those are titles.

Titles have a huge return to ego, and you’ve got to get a better one. Those return, that return does not last long. What you really want, actually, is to think about what you’re going to do, not what you’re going to be. That has a much longer life cycle in terms of its return to you.

On the capability side, similarly, we talk about strengths and weaknesses. I’m sure, Pete, when I talk about strengths and weaknesses to you, you have a sense actually, those are sort of ingrained in you, what we’d say their trait instead of state. Instead, think of something like a balance sheet that describes you in the current moment in time. Just like a company, you have assets, things that are acquired by you at material cost, that you are hoping will deliver future value in your career, acquired, by the way, and funded by liabilities, usually the expenditure of time, effort, and potentially money.

Those assets depreciate over time. If they depreciate without you replenishing them, thinking about the next role, you’re not staying relevant. So, you can think about a much more deliberate approach to building and keeping, maintaining, your capabilities, given the change of the world around you, than strengths and weaknesses really gives you permission for.

And all of that begins to then shape up what it is you’re hoping to achieve. Once you’ve done that, I have another set of five steps after that. So, we’ve gone through steps one through four, five steps of advice for how you actually get what you’re looking for.

Pete Mockaitis
Could you give us a few examples of assets to help shake off static strengths, weaknesses kind of a framing we might be operating with?

Ethan Bernstein
When I do this with my students, a couple typically show up routinely. There are skills out there, hard skills, technical skills. If you’re a software engineer, then your degree of knowledge about a particular platform of engineering, that’s an asset. These platforms, these languages change. That’s something you need to reinvest in if you want to stay relevant. And there are many other kinds of technical. For market analysts, your knowledge of the market, any one of these pieces of technical knowledge, that’s certainly an asset.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m thinking about marketing too. It’s sort of, like, things are constantly changing in terms of, like, just the rules for Google ads or Facebook ads. And then it’s like, “Oh, yeah. Well, that strategy worked three years ago, but, oh, you’re doing that now? Oh, wow, that’s really out of date.” And it’s funny, these, it seems like some skills have a short shelf life and some almost seem eternal.

Ethan Bernstein
There are some evergreen skills, but there aren’t very many. We want there to be more than there actually are, I think. And so, most technical skills today depreciate much faster than they used to. So Boris Groysberg, who once upon a time, he’s a faculty member here on the Business School’s faculty. Boris explained to me this exercise, and his favorite example is mechanics, an auto mechanic.

An auto mechanic of the 1960s, you learned a car, you leverage that for 20 years. You learn a car in 2020, 2024, how long does that really last? Things are changing much faster, especially the degree to which it’s about coding and not about the actual mechanical skills. It’s different. It’s changing. And part of the reason people are so so desperate for progress, on a daily or weekly or monthly basis, is because they’re just trying to remain relevant. So that’s one, technical skills.

Another one that comes up frequently? Relationships. Networks. Network might seem evergreen. My friends will always be my friends. My contacts will always be my contacts. Weak ties will remain weak ties. That’s, oftentimes, the way we find information. Not by the strong ties, not the people that we’re closest to, but the friends of friends, if you will.

And yet, really think about it. If you don’t invest in those relationships, how long do they actually last? Maybe a couple years? Maybe you can go back to someone five years, ten years down the line and say, “Hey, remember those great times we had? By the way, I’m looking for a job. Do you know any interesting openings?” But a network depreciates, too. Most things depreciate.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s heavy, and you’re right. We wish more stuff lasted longer, because just the way we wish our roof lasted longer. We didn’t have to spend the money to replace it as often. So, I would like your thought then, what does really, really last?

Ethan Bernstein
Well, my own view is actually what lasts is the constant effort we put into refreshing our assets. So, remaining relevant is a deliberate act, and the more deliberate you are, the better off you are on that capabilities dimension. Now, if you’re in a build, not a reset mode, you’re just trying to refresh what’s on there.

The good news for most of us, though, who are oftentimes finding ourselves on the reset capabilities front, where we’re trying to, for example, regain alignment, if all assets do depreciate over some amount of time, there’s actually quite a bit of flexibility as long as you anticipate it. And so, our advice, our core advice, is not to go for the evergreen product, but instead to think about where you want to be in five years’ time.

Worry a little bit less about your income statement, if you will, today, and a little bit more about your balance sheet tomorrow, because that’s what’s likely to be able to influence what you’re going to be considered for on the next job.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And do you have a general approach by which we attempt to deduce, “Okay, what assets do I need in the future? And how shall I prioritize the cultivation of them?”

Ethan Bernstein
So, we find that most people enter a move, either because of pushes or because of pulls, either they’re being pushed away from something, or they’re being pulled towards something. It’s an opportunity that looks too good not to consider, or, “I’m frustrated with my current situation.” Whichever one you enter in, the next step is to think about the other side of it. What are you leaving behind? What might draw you in?

We have not written a book about finding your dream job because we don’t believe in dream jobs, we believe in good tradeoffs. So, we encourage people to not answer the question, “What do you want to do next?” We, instead, ask people to answer the question, “What are three to five prototypes of what you might want to do next, given the quest you’re on?” It’s a much easier question for people to answer. And the more contrast you create across those prototypes, the more contrast creates meaning for you and you understand the relative nature of these things.

And that conversation then, combined with your energy drivers and drains of past jobs and the capabilities you have and the balance sheet you might have or might not have and want to build, help you begin to think about how to prioritize certain tradeoffs over others for your next move. So, it is about choosing, not about designing from scratch.

This is not just a two-by-two or pie in the sky, but it is about choosing wisely based on your particular progress, the kind of progress you want to make. Because what we saw in The Great Resignation, when people want to make a certain kind of progress and the world offers them progression that doesn’t match, what do they do? They leave.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, when you say three to five prototypes, could you articulate, like, “Here’s what I mean by a prototype, like how someone might articulate that sketch?”

Ethan Bernstein
It’s three to five versions of a job you might want to have. Just like if you’re a new product developer, it’s three to five versions of the product you think that people might want to buy. I’m not going to ask you, Pete, what you’re looking to do next, but…

Pete Mockaitis
I might do this until I die. We’ll see.

Ethan Bernstein
But maybe there’s a version of this. Maybe there’s another podcast around the corner. What does that look like? How is it that you would change this or change that? Would it be within an organization? Would it be outside an organization? A side gig? Is it a set of side gigs? Is it a part of my portfolio? What dimensions could I change? Could I change geography? Could I change role like a functional role? Could I change any one of a number of aspects of this?

If I took the core central quest that I’m on, let’s say it is regain alignment, and wanted to change some of the capabilities I’m being asked to do, okay, what are the three to five versions of that role I could imagine that would allow me to do that, that would still take into account the fact that I like the way my energy is driven currently by the job?

Those pushes and pulls don’t exist for me. And also took into account the capabilities I might want to keep, I might want to build on, so that I’m just focused on changing the dimensions that would allow me to achieve what I’m trying to achieve in the next round.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, I think I hear the conceptual idea of what you mean by a prototype. Could you now say, for yourself or someone, students that you’ve encountered recently, how they would articulate all of that in a conversation?

Ethan Bernstein
So, here’s an example. One story in the book is of somebody who believed the next job she wanted to have involved working with scientists and travel. So, a travel coordinator at a top scientific magazine sounded great, until she discovered that actually a travel coordinator neither works with a scientist nor travels. But the job description sounded fantastic. The party material was great, but what she was going to do wasn’t what she ultimately wanted to do.

But that’s where the prototypes come in, so that would be one potential prototype. And you can go out there and find these roles, if you need to, but most of us have the ability, especially if we have one or two or three jobs in the world, to get a sense for, “Okay, so based on what I’ve done, which are the pieces I keep, which are the pieces I don’t?” But that’s an example of it.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I like that. I like that a lot. And I think, so often folks get the wrong idea about a job from the outside. And I’m thinking about sort of early career or picking majors, and our folks will say, “I’m going to go to law school because I like arguing, and in the courtroom, I could do that.” And so, hopefully, they’ll learn pretty early in the research process that, “Well, hey, most of the work of a lawyer is not that most of the time, and you’re mostly researching stuff and writing stuff and talking about why this paragraph or clause needs to go or be adjusted in such a fashion. So, you want to know that earlier rather than later.”

Ethan Bernstein
And once you’ve specified five prototypes, you would do what any new product developer would do. You’d go ask people about them. So, you can actually learn before switching if you have the material to go have those conversations, and we’re not talking about just people talk about informational interviews. That is part of this.

But you’re not actually looking for a person’s job, or a job like theirs. You’re actually looking to truly understand that lawyer, “What does she do on a daily basis? Does it match this prototype or not?” Because if it doesn’t, then you’ve been sold a bill of goods by the world that doesn’t actually exist, and it’s good to know now before you switch than after you switch and discover that you’re one of those people who, one month to 12 months in, took a role that you didn’t want to take.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Thank you. Okay. Well, you say we got nine steps, and you say we’ve covered some steps and there’s more to be covered. Just so we get it on the record, could you enumerate, “Step one is this. Step two is that”?

Ethan Bernstein
So, nine steps, and you’ll notice in the book, it looks like a little bit of a Chutes and Ladders view. But step one, we’ve talked about, understanding the pushes and pulls. Once you’ve understood the pushes and pulls, we’re going to try to start putting those on the dimensions. So, step two is understanding the energy drain and drivers of prior jobs, and then the capabilities, doing a balance sheet exercise, a career balance sheet exercise, step three.

Step four, then, identify your quest. It doesn’t have to be exactly right, but at least getting an initial sense of what your quest might be. You can always go back and revisit these later. Step five, then you develop those prototypes, those three to five prototypes, because it’s a much easier answer than what do you want to do, to say what are the three to five things you might consider doing.

Step six, to pick the prototype. Here’s where we look at those priorities that you’ve made, the decisions you’ve made in the past, what you prioritize in your energy drivers and drains, what capabilities you might want to focus on and see if that can inform us to go towards at least one prototype, maybe two. Then check those prototypes against real jobs out there to ensure that these prototypes are not just dream jobs, they’re trade-offs, they’re ways of deciding on things that actually exist and matching them to those real opportunities.

So, now you’ve been through seven steps. At some point, someone is going to ask you to describe those seven steps so that they can have a compelling reason to hire you, and that’s step eight, to create your story spine. We’re not talking about an elevator pitch. Part of what we’re trying to do is encourage people not to sell themselves into a job that’s trying to sell them something about the organization, but instead go for match, go for fit.

So, instead of an elevator pitch, which is typically a sales pitch, we’re asking people to use the Pixar Story Spine to come up with the progression, the narrative, of how you ended up deciding that this is what you needed to do next and be able to do that quickly in short order. And only then, step nine, is to apply for jobs.

You only actually apply for those jobs once you have all those pieces because, especially in a talent environment like today, if you’re one of a hundred, you might have trouble finding the job. If you’re one of three, and you’re really compelling about the reasons why you’re one of three, and it’s a great fit, you’re much more likely to be successful in making that move.

And if we are, indeed, in a world, which we seem to be in, in which people will move jobs, that could be internal or external, once every four years on average, more frequently for certain generations, people make progress by moving. And if you’re going to do that, you want to make as much progress as you can within a single move.

Pete Mockaitis
And can you   a picture for what a one in a hundred candidate sounds like versus a one in three candidate?

Ethan Bernstein
So, I am the person around here who spends a lot of time thinking about HR. So, here you get to hear my pet peeve first.

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Ethan Bernstein
Job descriptions. Job descriptions these days have everything packed into them, and there’s a good reason for that. You mentioned lawyers earlier, Pete. Lawyers want us to be able to hire anyone so they put everything they can into the job description. And what it ends up sounding like, you’ve seen some of these, right, “Entry-level job. Five years of working experience required.” It’s just, no one can fit into a job description these days because it looks like they’re asking for unicorns.

So, what do we do as individuals in the workplace who want that job? We take our resume, we put it all in there, we pack everything we can into it so that we can be the superheroes who will fill that role. So, we’ve got a matching process between superheroes and job descriptions. It’s not doing anyone any good to find fit. It’s just two people trying to sell each other on a fit. Sales is not fit.

So, that’s what the one in a hundred looks like. You’re trying to convince somebody that you’re better than the other 99 on the dimensions you’ve read about in the job description using the lines of your resume. The one in the three? That’s the person who doesn’t just have the resume with all the stuff in the words, but actually can explain the spaces in between the roles, can talk about the trajectory.

It doesn’t have to be a line. It can be a zigzag. Most of us zigzag all the time. That’s how we make progress. If it looked like a straight line, then it’s just progression, which is fine, but most of us don’t look like that, and we haven’t written a book for people who are on a progression because they know where they’re going next. That’s the one in three, though.

The one in three is the person who actually has an explanation, a story spine that makes sense for the zig and the zag, that makes the person who you’re talking to convinced that actually this is the right role for you because you will grow in the role and the role will grow with you, and the organization and the individual will both benefit.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. So, we’ve got the story, the context, the whole picture, it fits together, and there seems to be a real deep congruence or rightness about it. That’s cool. I want to follow up on what you said about the lawyers. The lawyers want the job descriptions to sound like anyone could do them. Could you expand on that? What’s this behind the scenes for us that we should be aware of?

Ethan Bernstein
Oh, so for years, organizations have structured job descriptions to allow the hiring manager as much flexibility as she or he wants to hire the person they ultimately find for the role.

Pete Mockaitis
In order to protect them in the event of a liability situation, lawsuit.

Ethan Bernstein
Right. Exactly. Well, I don’t know if it’s just to protect them, to ensure that they can say “This person fits within the job description that we ultimately found.” I’m not an employment lawyer so I’m not going as far as pretending to be one. My law degree did not take me that far. But there is a degree to which it permits them flexibility as a hiring manager, because there’s just enough in there that anyone could fit the job description.

That’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? Anyone can fit the job description. We actually suggest shadow job descriptions that the manager can share so that people understand what the role actually does require as opposed to what could potentially be the shape and form of the job.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Well, it’s funny, this actually never occurred to me that the job descriptions are formulated with an intention other than clearly describing the job and who might flourish within it. Call me naive, Ethan.

Ethan Bernstein
Well, I’ll tell you, I, oftentimes, when I’m talking with people about this, will ask a poll question about how much jobs descriptions describe the work that people are ultimately doing in their roles. Some people come out in the 80 to 100 percent, but it’s a small number. Most of the time, most of what we’re actually doing, we don’t remember being in our job description, or we don’t think our job description really prepared us for.

And that’s because, if you track the history of job descriptions, where they came from and how they’ve developed, they really weren’t necessarily designed to do that over time. They’re designed to do something else. They’re designed to provide the hiring manager with the flexibility she needs in order to hire the people that she wants to hire.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, inside scoop, behind the scenes. Thank you. Well, let’s say that we’ve gone through a lot of these steps and it’s like, “Okay, wow. This is really clear. I need to make a change, and this is sort of what it looks like, and, boy, we’ve got an opportunity that looks appealing, and maybe we’re going to apply,” but there’s some just emotional stuff in terms of there’s some fears, some anxieties, there’s the devil you know. How do you advise folks when their head says, “Yeah, we got to get out of here and go in a direction like this,” but internally they’re feeling fear, anxiety, and really not sure about taking the steps, making the leap?

Ethan Bernstein
Development is a social process, we know that. So, therefore, is moving. If you’re not actively talking to people about your development goals, ideally people at work, then you’re going to end up in a situation just like you described, “I’ve gotten eight steps in and now I’m feeling very anxious because what I have in my mind and what the world around me thinks of me, we’re on two different wavelengths at this point.”

So, every step, of that nine steps, for us, is social. The pushes and pulls, we actually have a chapter in the book for mentors to be able to train up on how to do that job, that interview. What Bob Moesta, our co-author, developed with Clay in terms of the protocols for conducting an interview on Jobs to be Done, and then they do it together.

Each step, actually, involves other people. That should have a huge impact on reducing the fear and anxiety you’re talking about before it becomes overwhelming, before it becomes such a block that people simply don’t move forward. It is counterintuitive because most of the time, we don’t want to, don’t feel comfortable talking about this at work, but maybe that’s because we haven’t had a common language, we haven’t had a common framework, we haven’t had, Pete, the two-by-two.

But, more importantly, we haven’t had a process that we could bring to the table, that individuals could bring to the table, to make use of the assets, the people around them, because my field has been saying for decades. “Lead your self-development, this is great. It gives you all the flexibility in the world.” We were talking about this, to create your own journey, and we just haven’t given people the advice and the means for doing it. If we do, maybe they’d be more comfortable making this a social process.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Ethan, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention, top do’s and/or don’ts, before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Ethan Bernstein
Don’t talk about what you’re going to be. Talk about what you’re going to do. Don’t focus on strengths and weaknesses. Think about your assets and liabilities instead. Don’t do this alone. Be social in the process. I know it sounds very counterintuitive, doesn’t it, based on how people typically do this.

But I guess I would conclude with don’t keep expecting more from each other. So, this is a conversation, ultimately, in most organizations between the individual, the manager, and HR. Each of those parties has had a bit of a history for pointing the finger somewhere else. HR says, “Managers don’t have time.” Managers say, “I don’t know what the employee wants.” Employee says, “No one wants to listen to me.” This has to be a joint endeavor.

And so, top do? Don’t keep this a secret. People are very open, typically, to understanding what you’re trying to achieve. And the less you say as an individual, the more people think that what you’re needing in terms of progress is big rather than small. Whereas most people, when you really dive down, are just looking for little bits of progress over periods of time.

As a manager, don’t ignore the fact that we’ve given you 30 pushes and pulls. We’ve given you the reasons why employees quit. Many employees quit. So why not use those to have a conversation about which might be operating or not operating with the people that you’re working with, and see if you can’t start a conversation which people leaders are aware of how their individuals are feeling on those dimensions that matter for making them potentially move?

And then HR? Track it all. Because quests do change over time, but they don’t change over days. So, if you have a sense for what people are trying to achieve, you’re much more likely to both make them productive, as opposed to quiet quitters, and you’re much more likely to retain them than using the tools that we’ve been using forever, which include things like, frankly, money. Money’s great. Everybody would like more money. Everybody would like a better work life.

Everyone would like all these things, except when you give it to people, we, it affects us for a little while, and not so much after that, because in the end, we each have our own definition of progress. And if you’re not aware of what that is, either as the individual, the manager, or the HR person, you’re not actually customizing the employee experience to the person who you’re trying to keep.

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

Ethan Bernstein
I’m going to go to a Mark Twain quote, given where I am in the world. “The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why.” And every time I hear that quote, I’d love to ask him a question, “What on earth am I supposed to do in between?” The answer is, make progress. And, hopefully, some of this advice helps everyone out there not just be awesome at their job but make progress in it as well.

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

Ethan Bernstein
Chalk. Believe it or not, at the Harvard Business School, we still have chalkboards. You know why?

Pete Mockaitis
Tell me.

Ethan Bernstein
As opposed to whiteboards, this is at least my understanding of it, at least as opposed to whiteboards, when you write with chalk on the board, people hear it. You’re actually working with the students to make progress together in the classroom. And that’s why I love chalk because the sound, and the work together, putting their comments on the board, because I’m not writing my own thoughts, I’m writing theirs, goes from blank slate at minute zero to full board at minute 80, structured in a way that we actually understand how we’ve all contributed actively to the conversation and the progress we’ve made together.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. That’s poetic. Yeah. And a favorite habit?

Ethan Bernstein
I have a six-year-old and a 12-year-old. My favorite habit is reading to them every night.

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

Ethan Bernstein
Maybe I can answer that question and anticipate your question about my favorite book at the same time. I, oftentimes, will end my course with a children’s book that I then rewrite for the lessons of the course. It does turn out, though, you don’t need to rewrite that much. Yes, pull out the red pen, cross out some lines here and there, make it more focus to the course, but you can learn a lot from a book like Pooh’s Instruction Book.

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

Ethan Bernstein
I’m at e@hbs.edu, just the letter E.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s really cool. That’s one of the shortest email addresses I’ve ever encountered. Beautiful.

Ethan Bernstein

Seven characters without the period and the @ sign, yep.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Ethan Bernstein

Think about the next one now.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Ethan, this is fun. I wish you much lovely progress.

Ethan Bernstein

Thank you, Pete. This has been fun. I really appreciate the questions.

1007: The Overachiever’s Guide to Finding More Fulfillment at Work with Megan Hellerer

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Megan Hellerer reveals the simple shifts that make your career and life feel more meaningful.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why many overachievers feel underfulfilled 
  2. The mindset that leads to fit and fulfillment 
  3. The key questions to ask before any decision 

About Megan 

Megan Hellerer is a career coach and the author of DIRECTIONAL LIVING: A Transformational Guide to Fulfillment in Work and Life. She has led hundreds of women, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to transform their lives by transforming their careers. After checking all the traditional boxes of success—graduating at the top of her class from Stanford University and spending eight years as a Google executive—and still deeply unhappy, she quit her great-on-paper job with no plan. Now her mission is to provide others with the support and guidance that she needed when she herself was struggling.

Resources Mentioned

 Thank you, Sponsors!

Megan Hellerer Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Megan, welcome!

Megan Hellerer
Pete, it’s so good to be here today. Thank you for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to have you and discuss some of the insights from your book, Directional Living. And I would like to hear a story about a transformed client, but it sounds like, in many ways, your own story is like the picture-perfect textbook case for what we’re talking about here. Could you tell it to us?

Megan Hellerer

Absolutely, yeah. I consider myself my own first guinea pig. All of this grew out of my own need for solutions, for answers. And so, my story is I was what I now have come to call an under-fulfilled overachiever, which is someone who has checked all the boxes, done all the right things, did everything they were supposed to do, and really built this great on-paper life that did not feel so great inside.

And, for me, that looked like, you know, getting straight A’s in high school, captain and president of all the things, going on to Stanford, graduating at the top of my class, starting at Google almost immediately after I graduated, and dutifully climbing the ladder for eight years there, and getting a bunch of different promotions, and getting to work on cool stuff, and be exposed to a lot of interesting ideas.

And, in the meantime, I was having near-daily panic attacks, I was deeply depressed, and was struggling really even to get to work every day. I was just miserable. And I should say this wasn’t always how I was. My mental health started suffering in my time at Google, and yet I couldn’t quite connect it to the fact that I was unhappy at my work, and maybe it wasn’t the best fit for me. I felt so ashamed of the fact that I had this dream job that everybody would want, and what was so wrong with me that I couldn’t be happy or feel like a job was just a job or find fulfillment in this.

And, eventually, I ended up quitting my job with no plan, simply because I really could not do it anymore. And through that process of simply trying to help myself, I sought out many resources and teachers and mentors and programs, and nothing was quite helping me find a new approach or new way of thinking about my work and my career.

And through that process, I ended up taking a coaching training course, simply in an effort to help myself, but also thinking that it might help me when I was back in corporate land, mentoring and managing teams again, and I just loved the way that coaching worked, the frameworks around it. I did not intend for it to be a career. I was extremely skeptical and dubious of coaching as a career. I very much had a lot of ego involved where I was, like, “Who goes to Stanford and becomes a coach? That’s not a thing,” and didn’t really think I could also have an income from that.

But I kept sort of going through the process, and, in order to get certified, which I did just because I figured “Why not? I’m already here,” I had to coach, get a certain number of paid hours of coaching and reached out to some friends of friends. And what happened is that their lives started to change. My life started to change through helping them change their lives. They started referring people to me and before I knew it, before I even had the intention of having a coaching practice, I had a full roster of clients.

And sort of still dragging my feet, I decided it was something that I needed to, I couldn’t not try. And fast forward 10 years later, I’ve now been working with helping under-fulfilled overachievers find fulfillment and developed a methodology and a framework for thinking about this and looking at this, that I realized also applies beyond under-fulfilled overachievers, and now have had the great fortune and joy of getting to write a book about it as well.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s so cool. Well, I want to dig into so many little tidbits here. First, my own curiosity, which coaching certification body?

Megan Hellerer
Coaching Training Institute, CTI. I think they might have changed to Coactive Training Institute.

Pete Mockaitis
jI was going to say, I don’t know a ton about the coaching landscape but I did do the fundamentals course with the Coactive folks. And it seems like the people in the know often say “This is what’s up.”

Megan Hellerer
Yeah, that was the first course that I took was the fundamentals, and then, for the sake of brevity, I left this out of it. But I took that and then I didn’t go back, you know, there’s many other series. I didn’t go back for, like, three months because I was, like, “This is too much fun. This can’t be serious work because work has to be hard and serious, and, therefore, this is a waste of my time because it’s not going to lead me to where I want to go in my career,” which was a whole other mistake or misguided belief. And, eventually, I couldn’t stop thinking about it and went back and completed it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so then let’s back it up a little bit. The panic attacks and the deeply depressed and the miserable situation at Google, were these in your life prior to Google, like, as you were crushing it at Stanford, etc.?

Megan Hellerer
No. So, I think that’s a key part of the story is that I did not struggle with mental health previously. I should say, I had high-functioning anxiety, to some extent, but it wasn’t debilitating. It wasn’t getting in the way of the way I was living my life. I had pretty decent coping mechanisms. And so, it really escalated majorly at Google.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, now you’ve done a lot of work and a lot of reflection, and can you identify, is it your assertion that it was the primary driver of some of these mental health challenges, was the mismatch of you and that role there?

Megan Hellerer
Yes, actually. So, I often refer to it as the fulfillment ache, which is like the distance between who you are actually and how you’re showing up in the world. And when that chasm gets too big for too long, this sort of existential depression, anxiety, struggles develop in that gap. So, again, it really does become physically, viscerally painful to live that way.

And so, I think it was a misalignment of my life, in general, Google being a very big piece of it, given how much time I was spending there and how maybe unbalanced my life was. But I don’t think my relationship was a good match for me at the time. I don’t think the city I was living in was a good match for me. And so, there was, holistically, it was the misalignment of my life but that was a major piece of it.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, since we’re talking about being awesome at jobs here, at How to be Awesome at Your Job, I’m curious, can you identify the particular pieces of mismatch within Google? Because I would imagine, and you correct me if I’m wrong, that there may well be some roles inside the vast breadth that is this company, in which you might be delighted. Do you think that’s the case, or, no, no, there were a few fundamental things that just weren’t working for you?

Megan Hellerer
That one might be delighted in, or that I personally might be delighted in?

Pete Mockaitis
Ah, sorry, you, Megan, would be delighted in.

Megan Hellerer
Yes, because I was going to say, this is not an anti-Google thing, right? Like, there are many people for whom working at Google in whatever role they’re in, and I’ve coached people into Google or supported people’s decisions to be, to stay at, or join Google or other tech companies and all of that, so this isn’t anti-Google or anti-corporate. For me, personally, I do not think there is a role at Google. Never say never, but as far as I can tell, I do not think there’s a role at Google that would be aligned for me.

So, there are a few broader things, like environment, like I just don’t think I’m meant to be in, like, an open floor layout plan. Like, I’m very pretty introverted, and I like to do deep focus work separately from people. So, there are things like that, that I think were never a good match for me and really drained my energy.

Well, I love working from home, which I think is another thing, like, I am most creative and most effective from, like, five to nine in the morning, and that’s when I do my best writing, my best deep thought work. And so, it’s hard to do that when you are keeping corporate hours.

I mean, you can still do that, but then you’re spending four extra hours with your butt in the seat to demonstrate that you’re there in the office. You don’t have a lot of control. Like, I only take meetings at certain days and certain times in order because that’s like the best flow and efficiency for me. All of these things, not Google specifically, but are difficult in corporate land.

I also really like working for myself, as in being my own boss, and kind of, I don’t know, directing the flow of things and deciding what the priorities are, and I really like to be able to be nimble and make quick decisions, like hiring, firing, joining, a lot of testing and learning.

And I found that it was very, draining to have to support decisions and strategies that I really didn’t agree with because that’s the nature of the game. You can voice your opinion, leadership makes the decision, and then it’s your job to enact those things. I also was working on, like, sales and partnership side of things. But living and dying by the spreadsheets of revenue, and that are kind of arbitrary things were really difficult for me, and kind of just, like, the death by PowerPoint, I just like couldn’t. There was all the meetings about meetings and meetings, and I really, clearly, I need to go to more therapy for this.

I really had a hard time with things that felt inefficient or ineffective. And that stuff really grated at me. I also think that’s part of why I was good at my job there, is because I have an eye for scale and operations, and I was able to offer ways that we could improve things, but that isn’t always taken into consideration.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, well, Megan, I’m relating to this so much, and I love how you’ve teased out some of the very specifics. Like, based on who you are, how you roll, the means by which you operate and exist in this world, were not fitting there with regard to the bureaucracy, you wanted to do more testing and learning, the open floor plan was tricky, supporting things that you weren’t the boss of, making the decisions on, living and dying by spreadsheet revenue, things that felt inefficient.

And it’s funny, I can really relate to so much of this because I thought I had a dream job at Bain & Company and I learned a lot of stuff, and the people were phenomenal, and there was not a jerk or an idiot anywhere to be found there, in my experience, and some cases were really cool for me, and some really weren’t.

And that was really intriguing how we see, “Oh, well, some magazines say this is the best place to work,” Bain or Google, “And yet it’s not the best place for me to work. Huh.” And that’s natural for you to think, “Oh, well, what’s wrong with me? If the world says these are the best places to work, and I’m not happy there, maybe my happiness functioning is just broke.”

Megan Hellerer
Yep, exactly. And I think that gets to the point of there is no objectively great jobs or objectively perfect. It’s only good or right for you. And I will say that in terms of “Would there be a job at Google that would be a good fit for me?” I made many tweaks and shifts in the eight years there to try to make it work. This wasn’t like I did one thing the whole time and then I was like, “Hm, I’m done.”

Like, I changed teams, I changed roles, I changed locations, I changed organizations, I changed products, I changed, like, every managers, seating arrangements, like pretty much every tweak you could make, I made. And when I finally, in sort of the last role, was the thing that I was like, “This is my last hypothesis of what would make this work.” And my idea was, if I was working on consumer-facing products instead of ad-oriented or enterprise or some sort of products, like maybe then if I was working directly with the end consumer that I would care more about the impact I was having.

And even then, and we were working on Google Wallet at the time, like tap and pay, which was brand new and, like, such a revelation and was, like, novel and interesting, and as a consumer I was excited about it, and I still was not excited about doing the work involved in that and the day to day of what that actually felt like and the experience of it, really made it clear for me. And then I think working, I’d been working my butt off for this promotion. I really was like working so hard for so long and, whatever, doing all the things.

And then I got it, I got the promotion, and I felt nothing. In fact, I felt emptier, I was like, “What am I working for now?” And also, nothing actually changes. It’s the same job, which is like maybe more responsibility, maybe a slight pay increase, higher expectations, and now I just work for another promotion? And there was no one ahead of me that I could see, that I was like, “Oh, I actually really want that.”

And it just dawned on me, like, “Who am I doing this for?” And I think those were some of the moments where I couldn’t see somewhere that I truly wanted to get to, or where anything was going to feel different after having made all of those adjustments that I could think of.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, thank you. And I like the word “hypothesis” there. You were testing each of these things, and it sounds like that’s kind of like a fundamental means by which you cracked the code on this, in terms of “What’s going to do it? Well, let’s see. Maybe it’s this. Let’s try it. Oh, I guess that wasn’t it.” And then, “Oh, this coaching thing is really awesome. Huh, how surprising. Well, maybe let’s do a little more of that, see how that goes.” So, that seems to be one thread there.

Could you share what are kind of the fundamental principles you recommend people keep in mind? If folks are resonating, like, “Oh, this is haunting. Megan is like telling my story,” how would you recommend people start thinking about this thing all the wiser?

Megan Hellerer
I love that you brought up hypothesis because I often talk about it as sort of the scientific method for life, where our job is not to know the answer or to figure out the answer. We’re meant to sit there and be like, “Okay, what am I meant to do with my life? Let me think really hard about this.” We need to live into those things. We need to experiment.

So, have a hypothesis. That’s great. And think, “Okay, I think I want to go into this field,” or, “Coaching seems more interesting, or something to do with counseling and advising and consulting. That seems like a better direction for me.” And then the key thing, is that when you’re doing an experiment in scientific method, the goal is not to prove yourself right. The goal is not to prove the hypothesis right. It’s to find the truth.

And so, what often happens is we pick, in my language, a destination, and say, instead of a hypothesis, “I wonder if this is the right thing for me,” we say, “This is the thing I’m going to achieve. I’m going to become CEO by the time I retire,” and we get so attached to that goal as our failure or success, as opposed to testing and learning, that we don’t even realize somewhere along the way that that actually is not the truth, that’s not the results of the experiment, that’s not actually what we want. And so, when we get there, it doesn’t feel like what we thought it would. And that’s kind of where one of the biggest problems are.

So, to go to these core principles of what I call directional living, which is the first principle, which is focus on the direction, not the destination. And what I’ve found is that most of us who get stuck in our careers, and frankly in our lives, it’s because we focus on the destination. We are being outcome-oriented. We think we need to know exactly where we’re going before we start moving.

So, we think, “Okay, I want to be CEO in, however, many years. I’m going to reverse engineer my path in order to figure out exactly how I’m going to get there. And then I’m going to put on my blinders and I’m going to brute force, just make it happen because that’s what determination is,” and we miss out on so many opportunities and so much information about ourselves as we’re evolving and learning, and also the world as it’s evolving and learning.

And so, what we want to do instead is focus on the direction. And this is sort of the biggest place that we’ve been misled, I think, with traditional career guidance that says, like, have the five-year plan or the 10-year plan, and know exactly where you’re going. So, if you’re focusing on the direction, you’re focusing only on the single next directionally right step. That doesn’t mean, again, we don’t have an idea, a hypothesis of where we’re going.

So, if you imagine it’s a road trip, you might think, “Okay, I’m headed towards the West Coast,” which is different than, “I’m going to L.A. no matter what. No matter how many roadblocks there are, no matter how many detours, I am going to L.A.” to find out, when you get to L.A., that you actually don’t want to be in L.A., or that isn’t the best suited role or job or place for you.

So, instead we’re heading towards the West Coast and we’re allowing ourselves to launch and iterate, to use tech language, as we go. And that, I found, allows for so much more adjustment, flexibility, responsiveness, again, to our own selves and to the world around us, as all of these things are changing at a faster pace than they ever have before, and it allows us to evolve. So, that’s the first principle, focus on the direction, not the destination.

Pete Mockaitis
I love that. Thank you. And it’s intriguing, I loved when you said the word blinders, that resonated as the distinction in terms of directional versus destination. With the destination, we got the blinders, like, “Okay, just buckle down, grind, hustle, get her done.” But blinders, by their very definition, literally, I’m imagining a horse with the blinders on, it says, “You’re not looking around, you’re not observing, you’re not gathering the information.”

And yet, earlier in your story, you said, “I looked around and saw those in the elevated positions, those were also not what I wanted. Nobody was doing the thing that I wanted.” And I think that’s so huge, it’s like, “Are the blinders on or are the blinders off?” Because if they’re off and you’re observing, new stuff comes to light.

I’ve got a buddy who’s just on the cusp of the executive leagues at a major retailer. I want to keep it a little vague. And he’ll say the same thing, he’s like, “You know what? I thought I wanted to be a CEO and yet, when I observe CEOs and other executives, I don’t think that’s what I want. They actually seem to be working more than I’m working, and have more stress and responsibility and less time at home, and I’m already feeling like I’d like to spend more time at home with my two little ones and wife. So, I guess I don’t want to be a CEO?” And it was like quite a revelation for him.

Megan Hellerer
Yeah. So, I would say a couple things about that. So, in terms of your friend specifically, I love that he’s thinking about it that way. I would also caution that or I would question, if I were him, I would wonder if there is space to redesign what CEO looks like.

So, I wouldn’t just throw, like, “I don’t see any CEOs that look like the way I want to be a CEO, so I must not want to be a CEO.” Like, there may be room for him to design it in a way that works for him, especially because he’s going to be in a leadership position, or, again, he may say, “I don’t think I do want to be a CEO. What is directionally right for me? What’s like a one-degree turn? Is it something else in the C-suite?” Is it staying where he is for the next however many years? And then maybe he wants to be a CEO when he feels like it better suits his lifestyle at some later time.

There are many ways to look at this, but I love that he’s asking that question. And that is the opposite of blind ambition, in the sense that you aren’t looking around and you aren’t asking yourself the question. The moment you highlighted that I was recapping when I looked around and saw, “Oh, I actually don’t want this life that I have been working towards,” that was the moment my blinders came off. I wasn’t clear about that until those later moments. I was completely in the blinders, and this is where blind ambition comes from.

And a lot of people who come to me who are miserable, but have all the achievements and none of the fulfillment, all the success on paper, feel terrible, they’re like, “Maybe I’m just too ambitious. Is that the problem? Is ambition the problem?” And I feel like this question is coming up more and more. And the thing to me is that ambition is just the desire for impact, the desire for contribution, almost the desire for more life. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that’s a beautiful, wonderful thing, and it’s the type of ambition, the way and the how of the ambition.

So, the blind ambition is the destinational thinking, the pick the destination and decide no matter what you’re getting there. It’s sort of like the end justifies the means approach of navigating your career and your life. Aligned ambition is “Is this warmer? Is this colder?” launch and iterate, directionally right approach where you have an idea of where you’re heading, you’re not aimlessly wandering.

And maybe CEO has been a beacon for him, and that’s been incredibly effective as a direction, but it’s different than holding on so tightly in the blind ambition sense that it becomes a destination, and the only way that he can achieve success in his life.

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Okay. So, that’s a core principle right there. We are going directionally as opposed to strictly to a precise destination. We are not having blinders. Rather, eyes wide open, observing what are we seeing, what are we thinking, what is this information sharing about our emerging evolving hypothesis. Is there another key principle you reckon to keep in mind?

Megan Hellerer

Yes, and we’ve touched on it a little bit, so perhaps we don’t need to go into as much depth about it, but it’s launch and iterate. So, take an experimental approach to your career and your life, and this is especially important for overachievers, or perfectionists, where it’s like either you failed or you succeeded.

But when you take an experimental approach, it can really help to sort of loosen up your ability to try things because if you learn, if you get any more information from whatever you’re doing, it’s been a success. So, if we’re redefining success as learning, as where the only mistake or the only failure is not taking action, this gives us so much more freedom and so much more permission to figure out what works for us. And that is actually what tends to build the most effective, fulfilling, impactful, meaningful careers and lives, is a willingness to launch and iterate, and test and learn.

Pete Mockaitis
And when we’re launching, iterating, testing, and learning, do you have any favorite approaches by which we could do this that might be lower risk than, “Quit your job, move across the country, and do the thing?”

Megan Hellerer
Well, that’s the whole beauty of it. With a launch and iterate approach, with a directional approach, you never have to take gigantic leaps because every single step is just taking the next directionally right action. And so, I actually discourage people from making any gigantic sweeping decisions. This should be a lot of small tweaks, and then when the big decisions get there, they feel like just the next decision as opposed to some gigantic leap of faith.

So, your job is only to move the plot forward. If you made progress that day, you’re good to go. So, again, it’s not about quitting your job, or getting divorced, or moving across the country, or selling all your things, or switching industries, or any of that. And often that is impulsive and running away from something as opposed to running towards something.

Obviously, I had to do that but not everyone has to blow up their life, and my hope is that, had I had these frameworks and tools, I might not have had to do that. I may have been launching and iterating and testing and learning a lot earlier.

So, yes, small decisions are important. And whenever you’re feeling stuck, I encourage people just to, “Where’s my curiosity leading me? What’s one thing I can do that feels, that makes this feel warmer as opposed to colder, that’s moving me in the right direction as opposed to the wrong direction?” And following just that sort of simple calibration, if you make enough right turns, you’re going to end up in the right place.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And could you give us some examples of tiny, hotter, colder decisions?

Megan Hellerer
So I recently moved Upstate New York. I guess it’s been about a year or two now, so not that recent. But I grew up in New York City, I, obviously, did a stint in California, but I was like, “I’m New York for life,” and really thought I was never going to leave, but I haven’t really given it much thought. I was never like, “Where am I going to spend my life?” It just was like, “This is where I am.”

And in the process of writing my book, I realized I really needed to give myself a DIY writing retreat. And so, I rented a cabin in Upstate New York and went there just to focus and write this book. And I ended up in this one place and I was blown away by how much I loved it and how different it was than what it was in my head, and also how differently I experienced it at this point in my life versus other points in my life.

So, I went home, went back to our normal life but I kept thinking about it. So, the next summer, we decided to rent a house for the summer up in the similar area and try out for the summer what it was like there. And, again, I was like, “Wow, I really love it here.” And then I started thinking, “What if I don’t leave? What if we actually live here?” And that felt like a complete revelation. But instead of getting rid of our apartment and buying a house Upstate, and just like making it happen immediately, I was like, “I just need to take one more directionally right step.”

So, I asked the person who we were renting the house from, you know, what her plans were, and she was actually like, “Well, I happen to not be coming back, so I would consider renting this to you long term,” which is actually a big deal because we didn’t want to buy because we wanted to test.

So, we ended up staying in this house and renting for a while longer, and just testing and learning, because there were many variables that we needed to figure out. My husband has a job in the city, so he’s a professor, and so he does need to be there a few days a week. What was that going to look like? And so, we did that for six months, see how it feels, and we loved it.

And so, then when it turned out that she was going to sell the house, we ended up finding another place, looking around and deciding, “Okay, what are we going to do?” And we found the most perfect home, and it happened to be right around the same time that we found out we were pregnant and we were going to have room for the baby, and so it all sort of, like, worked out. There was a lot of synchronicities involved.

So, that’s an example of how some people might be like, “I need to figure out where I want my permanent home to be,” versus, “Wow, I’m just noticing I really like being here. What if we tried this out for a few more months?” or whatever it is that you have the possibility of doing. So, that’s not a job example. That’s another life example, but that is kind of the framework you can think about it.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, no, I actually love that right there. And what’s fun is it’s just starting with that directional, as opposed to destinational, and blinders off approach. When you went on that writing retreat, if you had a different mindset, you might not have noticed at all that you liked being there, it’s like, “Got to get the pages. Got to get the pages. What’s the word count goal for the day? Oh, not there yet. Got to hustle. Got to crank. Got to get more words on my writing retreat.” And it could just blow right past you, that, “Hey, this is actually kind of an awesome spot. I’m enjoying being here.”

Megan Hellerer
That’s exactly the point. And I love that you picked up on that, because one of the things I’ve found with people who are used to this blind ambition approach is that we have been taught, or we believe on some level, that our curiosity, our interests, or our joy are a distraction from the goal at hand. So, it’s sort of like, we actively ignore it.

So, for example, I mean, I could think of picking a major in college. I was like, “Oh, I love this creative writing thing.” Well, that is just a distraction from the very practical major that I need to decide on that I’m going to use, as opposed to seeing that as, “That’s really valuable information about what I care about, what I love doing, what excites me, what makes me, gets my creative juices flowing, all of that kind of thing.”

And so, most people, when you ask them, “What do you actually want?” don’t know because they’ve been ignoring it for so long. So, exactly that, had I had a different mindset, if somebody had said to me, “Do you like living here? Have you liked spending your three months here for the writing retreat?” I think I would have said, “I don’t know, that’s not the point of me being here. That’s completely irrelevant information,” versus allowing that information in.

So, one of the practices I tend to do with people a lot is learning how to allow that information, recognize that information, and just even register it. You don’t even necessarily have to do anything about it. But one of the first steps is what I say screenshotting your mind. So, when you’re having ideas or thoughts cross your mind, to get into the practice of noticing them, and you’re sort of sending a message to your brain, to your psyche, to your creative, whatever you want, of “I’m paying attention. I’m ready to capture these ideas.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, and I love that so much in terms of like the joy, we could perceive it as a distraction from the real work, or I think we could be quick to write it off. And what comes to mind is a few times my wife has said while I’m just being silly with the kids, “Dada needs an improv class.” Because I’m being kind of kooky and silly and ridiculous, and I sort of immediately dismissed that in terms of, “Well, you know, hey, there’s a lot of going down with work, and the young kids, and this is not practical.”

But I think a better approach, steeped in these principles, would be to say, “Hmm, there is something to that. Like, there is a part of my silly, kooky nature that is meaningful and joyous, that isn’t getting a chance to be expressed as fully in my current set of roles and duties that’s worth reflecting on” as opposed to immediately dismissing, “Oh, improv class. Ah, I’m not going to drive all the way into the city for that. Ah, forget it.”

Megan Hellerer
Yeah, exactly. And that’s exactly the type of thing, because here’s the other surprising thing or at least surprising to me, curiosity, so an interest like that, like, “Huh, improv,” is the best proxy that we have for purpose. So, we spend so much time, “What is my purpose? What am I meant to do here?” We’re not going to be able to necessarily figure out the answer to that. I don’t think we have to have some broad mission statement.

The best thing we can do is figure out what our curiosity is telling us and know that that is going to lead us somewhere. So, if there’s something, when someone said, “Oh, improv class,” first of all, if it wasn’t interesting to you, if there wasn’t something in there that you were interested in, you wouldn’t even bother rejecting it, right? You would just be like, “Mm, yeah, no, that that’s not interesting to me.”

The fact that you, one, have noticed it, but two, actively are like, “No, I’m not doing that,” tells me that there’s something interesting in that to you. And then doing that, I would love to encourage you to explore, even just looking up improv classes, or maybe it’s a one-day workshop, or maybe it’s just going to more improv shows.

The lowest stakes thing that you can think of as a way to take another step, to explore this curiosity, because we don’t need to know where it’s going, and it doesn’t mean most people will jump to the destination, “Well, I’m not going to be a professional improv person,” or, “How am I going to use that in my life?” But instead, realizing it may not be that you do improv in some way, but maybe it sparks you, like just makes you so much more creative, in general, that suddenly you’re having all of these other ideas for a podcast or for whatever other things that you’re working on.

Or, maybe there is something there that you’re, again, it doesn’t have to be improv specifically, but maybe it moves to some other kind of performance, or you make some sort of connection that ends up being something that becomes really meaningful for you. These are the breadcrumbs; these are the clues that are telling us, “This is where the meaning is. This is where the fulfillment is,” and we’re so used to ignoring it.

Another analogy I like to use here is that it’s like cravings for food. So, the cravings are meant to tell you where the nourishment is, right? If you are lacking vitamin C, you might start craving an orange. For us, the craving, the curiosity craving for improv, for silliness, for goofiness, for whatever that self-expression is for you, is your body’s, your psyche’s, your spirit’s way of telling you that there’s some sort of nourishment fulfillment purpose there for you, and that you need to follow that.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, thank you. Well, Megan, tell me, any other top do’s and don’ts you want to make sure to put out there for the under-fulfilled overachievers?

Megan Hellerer
The first thing that I want to highlight is that many people say that this, they feel like doing this work, this reflection on like, “Where’s my curiosity leading me? What am I interested in? What do I care about? What is fulfilling for me?” is selfish or self-centered.

And what I want to say is that I really believe and have found that everybody benefits when we are doing the work that is most aligned for us, when we’re living the life that is most aligned for us, because we’re not only happier and more fulfilled, but we are giving other people permission for them to do what’s most aligned for them, and we’re also doing our best and most impactful work.

You’re actually not being helpful to your team for you to be in a job that is not aligned for you. Donate that job to someone else who actually is really aligned for that work, who can actually show up and want to be doing that work. A lot of people feel like, “Oh, but I’d be abandoning my team.” You’re actually abandoning your team by doing work that isn’t really where you want to be doing and where you could be having such a more impact.

The way that you contribute most to the world, the way that you can benefit most to your community, to the people around you, to your family, is by doing the work to figure out what is most aligned for you because that’s where you’ll be the most impactful. And this ties into the second point, which is another pushback I get, which is, “But what if I can’t afford to quit my job?” or, “What if I can’t afford to do this kind of work?”

And this is completely valid, in the sense that coaching is not available to everyone, and most people can’t afford to quit their job, and the good news is you don’t have to. But we are making decisions every single day in the life that we’re already living. And my suggestion would be to start asking yourself in all of those decisions, “Is this directionally right or is this directionally wrong? Is this warmer or is this colder? And how can I make it more directionally right?”

This could be in what you’re eating for dinner, “Am I doing this because it’s something I think I should do or because I actually want to?” in what books you’re reading, what podcasts you’re listening to. If you can start to make all of your decisions, steering them more in the directionally right, most-aligned-for-you way, this is going to have huge ripple effects on the rest of your life and costs nothing.

Exploring your curiosity doesn’t mean spending a couple thousand dollars on a program. It could mean taking a book out from the library. It could mean listening to a free podcast. It could mean doing a Google search. It could mean sending an email to someone to have a conversation about them. Take an action, any action, towards your curiosity and advance the plot and you’re doing your job.

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

Megan Hellerer
One of my favorite quotes that is actually the best analogy I know for directional living came from E.L. Doctorow, which is, “It’s like driving in a car at night. You can only see as far as the headlights in front of you, but you can make the whole trip that way.”

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

Megan Hellerer
I think these are depressing studies, but I think they’re important, which is engagement at work is at an 11-year low, where only 30% of people feel engaged with their work. That’s a Gallup poll. And only 17% find it to be a source of meaning, which is half of the rate from four years ago, and that’s a Pew study. And both of those are post-pandemic. This isn’t like the middle of the pandemic when there are many other issues going on.

We have a huge issue with engagement and meaning and fulfillment at work. The way we are working is not working and it’s only getting worse. This problem isn’t going away. And I found that those numbers to be shocking and really important for that reason.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Megan Hellerer
The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron.

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

Megan Hellerer
I would say this inner navigation system, calibration and barometer of simply asking, “Is this warmer or is this colder?” when I’m making decisions to make sure that they’re aligned for me. And I use it for everything, including coming on this podcast. I get an invitation for a podcast, and I ask, “Is this warmer? Is this colder? Does this feel directionally right or not?”

And I do say no to podcast invitation events that don’t feel aligned for me. So, I think that is sort of the cheat code to keep it really simple if you’re confused, “Is this warmer or is this colder?” I think that’s the easiest, simplest, most basic, and most effective tool for decision making there is.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And do you have a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with your clients; they bring back up to you often?

Megan Hellerer
I think simply the terminology of under-fulfilled overachiever and people having a word that resonates with them to articulate what they’ve been struggling with, and then also the vocabulary of the old way of doing things that we’ve been taught, destinational thinking, and the new way of doing things, directional thinking. I think having words to capture this tends to be one of the most revelatory things for people.

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

Megan Hellerer

My website is my name, so MeganHellerer.com, and I’m also on Instagram, @meganhellerer. And my website also has connections to all my socials and books and more information on my philosophy and all of that good stuff.

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

Megan Hellerer
I would suggest asking yourself “Is this aligned for me?” and trying to be radically honest with yourself, tell yourself the truth about your life. And if the answer is no, or any part of that is yes or no, figure out what are the parts that are aligned and what are the parts that aren’t, and see what you can do to tweak the parts that aren’t. It doesn’t involve blowing up your life. Small tweaks can make a huge difference.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Well, Megan, this has been so much fun. I wish you many happy directions.

Megan Hellerer
Thank you so much, Pete. Have a great day.