Pete Mockaitis

Terri, welcome.

Terri Sjodin

Thank you, Pete. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I’m excited to be talking about being presentation ready, and you’ve been researching and teaching on persuasiveness and communications and presentations for decades. Tell us, any particularly surprising, fascinating, striking discoveries you’ve made about us humans and communication, and how we’re persuaded that really stick with you?

Terri Sjodin

Yeah, so as you know, my background is in speech and debate. I was highly competitive in high school and in college on the speech and debate teams, and so I’ve always had this awareness of the power and the impact of public speaking and persuasive presentation skills. And so, so fast-forward 20 years plus later, when we launched into this research study that did a deeper dive on the topic of persuasive messaging, we asked people, “Look, do you think that making a presentation mistake matters? Does it impact you getting a win or a deal or an opportunity?”

And 94% of our participants in the research study said yes, and that’s statistically a very high number, which I think is quite surprising. Secondarily, over 55% of the participants in the survey said that they had little to no presentation skills training over the course of their career, which means over half of the professionals in the market today are really doing the best they can with what they know through trial and error.

So, the goal behind the book and the research study was to help people build and deliver more effective presentations, whether they’re one-on-one, small group, or large group, whether they’re in-person, virtual, or hybrid, and then, what we know is that on some level, most people want to improve their presentations, but they just don’t know where to start, and that can be costly. So, in the book, and in the research, we identified the 12 most common mistakes, and help people course-correct faster so that they can get where they want to go.

Pete Mockaitis

Now, what’s really cool is your book is in the context of sales presentations, but the wisdom is applicable to all sorts of persuasive communications presentations. But what I love about sales is we’ve got numbers, we’ve got results, money dollars associated with them.

Terri Sjodin

Me, too.

Pete Mockaitis

So, can you share with us maybe a story of just what kind of a transformation is possible? If you maybe walk us through a situation where someone was doing some things wrong, they corrected it, how they did it, and then what they saw on the other end of it.

Terri Sjodin

Yeah, so I think one of my favorite stories is a confession of my own. I personally have made all 12 of the mistakes that we’ve identified in the book, and I try to take the reader or the listeners back to the beginning. As I mentioned, I kind of cut my teeth in this subject area when I was on the debate team. And what you learn early on when you go to a tournament is that it’s a pretty level playing field.

There are no matching uniforms if you compete in speech and debate. Everybody’s just given a number. And then six or seven competitors will go into a room, they deliver their presentation, and at the end of three preliminary rounds, the individual with the best overall scores prevails. They move on to semifinals and finals.

It’s pretty cut and dry, for better or for worse, you know if your talk was decent. But here’s the rub. I would stay, even if I didn’t win, and I didn’t always win, I wanted to, but I would stick around. I would go to the semifinals, I would go to the finals, and I would watch to see what was landing, what was working for that specific presenter, what made the judges or the audience lean in, and then I would go home and I would kind of tweak it and fix it and make my best guess at what I needed to do to make it better.

And the takeaway here is really very simple. You just don’t go back to the next tournament with the speech that didn’t win, but business people do it all the time. They go back out into the field over and over and over again. And I love that you made the reference to the fact that everybody sells something because I believe that to be true.

Even though we don’t always love the S-word, sales, whether you’re selling a product, a service, a philosophy, an idea, when you’re selling yourself even in a job interview or for a promotion, everybody sells something. And so, I hope that by helping people to understand what the most common mistakes are, then they can avoid them and again accomplish whatever their outcome is that they’re shooting for.

Pete Mockaitis

Terri, I love this so much. You’re bringing back fond memories for me of high school speech team. But what was interesting was I love that lesson right there in terms of learning, observing, turning everything into a source of wisdom there, because those who did not break, they did not get to the finals, they usually chose to go to the room where they were doing the original comedy finals.

They always rent the largest spaces for the original comedy, or OC, as they said in the biz, because that’s just funny, that’s entertaining. Like, “Let’s watch the funny guys since we’re stuck here until the bus leaves after the award ceremony.” And you’re saying, “No, I’m going to go see what are winners doing, and see what I can learn from them.”

Terri Sjodin

And isn’t that the takeaway for all of us? When we learn from the people who beat us out at whatever it is that we’re trying to achieve, then we can course-correct. But most people are moving so fast, Pete. They’re just, “I’m super busy. I don’t have time.” But what is it costing you if you don’t take the time to reflect and make those changes?

Pete Mockaitis

I hear you. Well, so you’ve got 12 mistakes. We’re not going to cruise through all 12, but maybe give us the overview of the three categories here.

Terri Sjodin

So, there are three main categories. The category of case development, “Did you build a persuasive and compelling case?” And then the second category is creativity, “Did you create a thought-provoking message, something that makes people lean in and go, ‘Oh, you know, I’ve heard this before, but the way you’re saying it, it’s landing in my mind in a different way’?” And then the third category is delivery. That includes your eye contact, your body language, but also everything from verbal missteps to the way that you deliver using visual aids. And in each of those three categories, there are four mistakes that live underneath each one of those main categories.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I’d like to jump into the ones I found most intriguing.

Terri Sjodin

Okay.

Pete Mockaitis

And one of them, in terms of case development is, you say, being overly informative versus persuasive. Aren’t facts good, Terri? How is that a mistake to be overly informative? What’s the scoop here?

Terri Sjodin

So, in the overall study, there were over 5,000 participants, and this was based on individuals whose livelihood is dependent on their ability to build and deliver a persuasive message. And so, we said, “Looking back over the last six to 12 months, is there anything that you think cost you that win?” And data dumping or being overly informative really came up over and over and over again. It was in the top three. So let me kind of give you the top three and then we’ll kind of circle back to being overly informative versus persuasive.

So, the top three biggest mistakes that most people self-identified included being overly informative versus persuasive, winging it, and failing to close the sale. And you might think, “Well, do those kind of overlap?” And in a way that they do. However, being overly informative sounds like this, “We do this, and we do this, and we have this, and we’re number one, and we really care,” and it sounds like this very long laundry list, if you will, of attributes. But it doesn’t pass the “so what” test. It doesn’t feel compelling to me.

And so, you might feel very well-intended, like, “It’s my responsibility to go out and give a presentation that is incredibly informative, and then the individual will be able to make a decision.” But in today’s compelling market, what would help you and serve you better is if you can craft a clear, concise, and compelling message that answers the questions, “Why do I need this? How are you going to save me time? How are you going to save me money? How are you going to save me mental sanity?” The list goes on and on.

And so, when I’m helping someone, it’s because I’m helping them to understand, “Do you hear how you’re giving me more of a list of attributes versus compelling arguments that want to make me move towards action?” And when they have that aha moment, again, they can tweak their presentations and really focus in the brief amount of time they’re given into a place where they can go, “Oh, shoot, I can be more compelling.”

Pete Mockaitis

That’s good. As we’re talking a little bit in the context of sales presentations and demos, I’ve been on the receiving end of many, because it’s very easy for people to get email addresses of podcasters. So, it’s right in the RSS feed, and so I get a lot of them. And then a fair number of them are cool software startup-y things in the podcast world. And that is, I would say, something I do see again and again and again. It’s, like, we hear about, like, “Oh, this is the history and the founder’s story.”

Terri Sjodin

“When you really care, and we have a lot of choices.”

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, the background of something like the technical architecture, yadda, yadda. And so, what I really want to hear is, “This thing is awesome at delivering this benefit to you,” in terms of like, “Hey, these nine podcasters quadrupled their audience size once they started rocking and rolling with our platform for a few months.” Like, “Oh, yeah. That’ll do it.” As opposed to, “Look at these cool graphics.” Like, “Okay, those graphics are cool, but I’m not seeing how this helps me accomplish the things I want to accomplish.”

Terri Sjodin

And brevity is your friend. So, again, that kind of moves us into the creativity section, but we have such a finite amount of time, and so you have to ask yourself, “How can I creatively share my most compelling talking points so that I’m creating a rock-solid case?” and pairing that with an interesting story or anecdote that makes people go, “Oh, that was good, good nugget.”

And then when you pair those with speaking in your own authentic voice and delivery, that’s when people go, “Oh, that was good. I enjoyed that. You seem authentic. I feel like you did your homework. Your arguments make sense to me.” And in that course, people feel better about making a yes decision or a moving-forward decision or, “Yes, let’s make our next appointment time decision.”

And so, in the context of your entire presentation, I mean, the intention of this podcast is to help people to get where they want to go faster. And, allegedly, if we understand and respect the fact that people buy people, then how else do we communicate our people skills, if not through our verbal communication skills?

Pete Mockaitis

That’s well said. And I liked how you conveyed, when we’ve got a compelling case delivered creatively with a strong, authentic delivery, it just feels delightful, so we’re more likely to offer a yes. And even if you don’t, I’ve had this happen before. I’m on the receiving end, and I get something that hits all those boxes, like, “You know, my takeaway is, like, this is really cool, and I like you, but it’s not for me. But I am really pretty stoked to be able to start providing referrals in terms of, like, because I feel like I’m going to look good.”

It’s like, “You got to check out this. I think you’re going to love it.” It’s like, “It doesn’t work for me, but I think it’ll work for you, and Terri’s just the best.” And so, I think it’s beautiful that, even if you don’t get the immediate yes you were seeking, when you check those boxes to deliver a delightful experience, you’re developing goodwill and an asset of a stream of good things coming to you.

Terri Sjodin

I liked your use of delightful experiences. Let’s pivot on that for a moment. I thought you might find it interesting that when we were working with our survey respondents, and we asked them, of course, “What are the most common self-confessions?” but on the opposite side, we said, “Who better to judge business and sales professionals and other business and sales professionals? So, when somebody comes in to present to you and you’re the listener, is there anything you’ve observed that cost them the winner the deal or the opportunity?”

And the number one answer was none of the three that I just mentioned that were self-identified. The number one answer that people noticed in others is that their talks were boring, boring, boring. So, don’t you think it’s interesting that most people self-identify as overly-informative, but other people are boring? And so, we call that the third person effect because, even when we’re presenting, we don’t always see ourselves in the same lens that we see others.

And so, having that dual perspective of, “How do I see myself as a presenter? But also, what do I expect when I’m in the role of the listener?” That gives us a different way of constructing our message because we’ve looked at it from both perspectives, and that can be a winning combination.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s great, and I did want to talk about boring, boring, boring. Terri, tell us, what makes something boring? And how can we be not boring?

Terri Sjodin

So, all three elements can be tied up in a boring presentation. You can have a really flat boring case where you’re like, “Oh, I’ve heard this all before. There is nothing new here. I’m bored, bored, bored, bored.” It can also come from your creativity like, “Wow, you know, you made some really great arguments, but your stories, your illustrations, your evidence, boring, boring, boring. Old, flat, too much text on the screen. It just doesn’t work in the creativity standpoint.”

And then in delivery, it could be a flat, boring, monotone voice. It could be word redundancy. It could be the fact that you just don’t seem very enthusiastic about your own content. And then, even worse, one of the new things that’s come up is, if you’re in a hybrid environment, meaning you might have two or three people that are in front of you on a presentation, but maybe you have six or seven people that are offsite and they’re participating via Zoom or Teams, and so it’s hybrid.

And oftentimes, the presenter will forget the people that are online or offsite. They forget that they’re even there. So, they’re only presenting to the people that are in person in front of them, and so it’s super boring for the people that are offsite. So boring can be impacting all three elements of building your message.

Pete Mockaitis

I hear you. There’s a lot going on there. It could be a number of culprits to get after. Is it possible, Terri, that we can zoom in on a major offender in terms of, “This is a frequent and pervasive and intense cause of boredom that needs to be rectified”?

Terri Sjodin

The easy go-tos are when somebody uses way too many PowerPoint slides in their presentation and they’re text-driven, and they’re ultimately reading you their slides. That’s just horrifying, and it happens all the time. And when we ask people, “Why do you do that?” And they’ll say, “Well, Terri, I have to get through the material.” And my question is, “What’s the point of getting through the material if nobody’s really listening to what the heck it is that you’re saying anyway?”

Or, they’ll say, “It’s not my fault. I have to read these slides because legal requires us to be compliant.” There are all kinds of lovely excuses for it, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t serve the listener. And our job, our responsibility as presenters is to always put ourselves in the seat of the listener, “Do I want to hear this? Do I think it was interesting?” all of those things.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s true, yeah. It’s funny, I recently had to read a legal disclaimer as part of a podcast ad, which doesn’t happen that often, but it was a financial service-y thing, it’s like, “Okay, this is required, so I get it.” And I think, I got a kick out of it, it even said, and you’ve probably heard this before, maybe on the radio or somewhere, in the talking points, it said, “Double speed recommended if possible.” I was like, “All right, at least you know, at least you know people don’t want to hear it.”

And I even flagged it, like, “Oh, we got a little legal disclaimer here.” And so, you’re right, I think those excuses are maybe technically true, but there is often a creative way around it, it’s like, “Oh, and we’ve got a legal disclosure. You’ll note that investment results can vary, and this is risky, and those sorts of things. Feel free to read it afterwards as well.” And there you go. You handled it in five seconds and onward to the fun stuff.

Terri Sjodin

And to your point, I know it really does come down to the individual presenter. It’s our responsibility And no one illustrates that better than the Southwest Airlines flight attendants that give you the safety announcements in their own authentic voice, or in some sort of clever and fun way, because they know that most people aren’t paying attention. But if they put a little creative spin on it, then, all of a sudden, people are like, “Oh, I wonder where they’re going to go with this.” And they can take even the most boring and mundane and make it lively and entertaining.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s good. Well, now in the zone of delivery, can you tell us what are some of the top verbal missteps people make? And how should we fix them?

Terri Sjodin

So, the surprising thing about verbal missteps was that it was an area that most people did not self-identify, but it was highly recognized in others. And the other frightening thing about that particular issue is that it is rarely something that another individual will communicate to you. So, for example, if you’re saying “um” or “like” or “you know” every other word, it will be highly irritating to the listener, but nobody will tell you.

Another issue that comes up is when somebody mispronounces a word, we just let them go. But in the back of their mind, they’re thinking, “That person has no idea how to correctly use that word,” and it undermines your credibility.

Or, if they use just too simple or basic of wording, again, that’s not something that people will tell you. If you swear in a presentation, you might think, “Oh, well, I’m just being, you know, familiar. Like, it’s cool if I swear. It’s not a big deal. They could see that I’m really down to earth.” But we found in the research that people find it off-putting, and they’re just not going to tell you.

So, all of these little things, or if you’re a close talker, and you’re just talking, it reminds, brings memories back of a Seinfeld episode where people are speaking, and you’re like, “You’re impacting my spatial relationships.” All of these things, kind of fall under that category of verbal missteps. If you’re speaking too quickly, you’re speaking too slowly, the list kind of goes on and on.

But, again, if you think about it, when was the last time somebody really spent an hour thinking about the way that they speak, the way that they articulate a word, to focus on vocabulary variance, to think about pausing instead of using a filler word, all of those graceful, beautiful elements to take your presentation to another level? You can still be in your own authentic voice. We’re just dialing it in so that your own authentic voice lands with the greatest amount of efficiency and effectiveness.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, Terri, that’s so much fun. So, it’s perfect because, you’re right, you’re not going to learn about those without asking. And even if you ask, you still might not get it. Like, you’ll need to videotape it and have like a trusted person really review that with you in order to get it, and you won’t know. And it’s so funny the assumptions that we just make, which is, “Of course, people like the swearing.”

And maybe some people do but, I mean, it sounds like, generally, we’re better off not doing that. Maybe that didn’t need to be said but we’re, generally, better off not doing that. And maybe, I don’t know if you know, if our counterpart is swearing, are we well suited to match them, or are we still better off not swearing?

Terri Sjodin

Yeah, it’s better to not. It’s, when in doubt, leave it out. The other issue is… kind of bleeds into strange body language and gesturing where you might have your hands in your pockets, or you’re fiddling with a pen. There are all kinds of little weird, strange, and incredible things. So, the takeaway here is people say, “What can I do?” You have a couple of choices.

So, one is just do a scrimmage. If you have a big meeting coming up, you have a presentation opportunity, sit with a friend, a colleague, a spouse, somebody in your industry, and say, “Look, will you just kind of do a run-through with me, and take out your cell phone, and just hit the video button, and leave it on a stand.” And then later on, kind of talk it through, and then watch the playback so that you can see and hear yourself as the listener will. And that will give you some of the insights that you need to be able to course-correct.

Now, try not to be too hard on yourself. We all flip out when we hear our own voice. We don’t sound the same to ourselves as we do in a recorded scenario. Just to give you an example, did you feel comfortable the first time you heard your playback on your outgoing voicemail message or recording? You probably are fine because you have such a beautiful voice, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I’m honored, but I’m not. Well, part of it is microphones. Don’t get me started because I won’t stop. But part of it is microphone quality and voicemails are horrific, and I don’t know how to fix it. I’ve Googled this before, Terri. But then even beyond that, it’s just sort of surprising. It’s like, “Oh, is that what I sound like?”

Terri Sjodin

Right. Or, “Oh, I didn’t like the way that I sounded.” And most people re-record their outgoing voicemail message over and over and over again until they feel like they get it right. And what does that tell us? It tells us, once we become aware of the way that we speak and present, what do we want to do? We want to perfect it. We want to improve upon it. We want to make it better, and we don’t want someone to have a negative impression of who we are, even based on our outgoing voicemail message, so much so that many people don’t even have an outgoing message on their voicemail.

But we know that when people hear your voice, when they hear you speak, that they connect with you, and so avoidance is not helping. What will help is to embrace it, lean into it, let’s fix it, let’s have fun with it, figure out how to make your own style and personality and authenticity really come to life. And remember that it doesn’t have to be perfect to work.

I’m not perfect. I’ve made all mistakes. I make mistakes all the time, but I’m consistently trying. That’s all. I’m trying to level up. I’m trying to make it better. And in the course of that, look, we’re all going to have wins and losses, and it doesn’t have to be perfect to work, but you do have to try. That’s really the takeaway.

Pete Mockaitis

Understood. I want to get your take on visual aids. You say one mistake is just way too much text and reading it, bad news. Any other top do’s and don’ts there?

Terri Sjodin

I’ll give you some do’s. One of the things that really works beautifully is if we just step away from your PowerPoint deck. So, think of all of the other beautiful ways that you can augment a presentation that don’t require a PowerPoint. Maybe you just use the actual physical item and hold it up, or maybe you use other sensory modalities: sound, sight, smell, that feeling, a texture of something. Things where you’re asking yourself, “Well, how can I allow the listener to engage in my presentation with other sensory modalities that don’t require a PowerPoint slide?”

And that, in and of itself, will set you head and shoulders above your competition. They’ll say, “Well, that was clever,” and you’re like, “Really? Because I moved away from a PowerPoint slide, and I used the real thing?” But it’s just those nuances make a difference and show people you care enough to make a unique kind of presentation rather than doing the same old, same old.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s super. And when it comes to really forming a connection with listeners, any top tips there?

Terri Sjodin

I think it starts with really genuinely caring about the outcome of that conversation. Even when you and I were having our pre-call before we jumped on the interview, I just like to take a couple of minutes and say, “Hey, what would make this a great experience for you? What would make it great for your listeners?” And you said, “Well, that’s a great question. Most people don’t ask me that.”

I think it’s just showing people that you show up caring, and that really helps to build connection from the get-go. Now, different people will lean into different aspects of your talk. Some people will lean into the evidence. They want to know that you can provide ROI, and they want to see the numbers. Other people are looking at your pathos, your heart, your storytelling. Others will want to know that you have the credibility, the street cred, the experience, that you’ve got your degree, or that you’ve got 30 years of experience.

So, there are a lot of nuances that speak to credibility or driving connection, and it really will depend on who you’re speaking to. But I think, from a nice general perspective, opening with a real clear intention to make a connection, not just for the sake of doing it to get the job done, but because you want to have a good personal experience with those people, that will come through, I think. And I don’t know that you have to try so hard. It doesn’t have to be that hard. I think we probably overcomplicate that part of the process.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Terri Sjodin

I appreciate the time today. And I say this to people all the time, people ask me, “Gosh, Terri, what’s the hardest product or service to sell?” And the answer is, “The one you don’t believe in.” So, I can give you the greatest tips in the world for crafting a persuasive and compelling message but the first requirement is that you sell and represent something that you believe in at your core. And then after that, try to have fun with it.

I think, on some level, everybody wants to improve their presentations, and so I hope that this book, Presentation Ready, will help you to do that just a little easier. And if you’d like, maybe books aren’t your thing, that’s okay, you can watch the course. I have a course on LinkedIn Learning, so it’s free if you’re a LinkedIn Premium member, and that also covers the 12 mistakes. But my intention is to just get people to think about the gift of using your voice to make things happen.

There’s a beautiful quote that we often think that it’s comfort and luxury that are the chief requirements for happiness in life, when all we truly need to be happy is something to be enthusiastic about. And I’m hoping that I help people get just a little bit more enthusiastic about their next presentation opportunity, because the more fun you have delivering it, the more fun the listeners have receiving it, and that’s how you create a win-win, presentation-ready opportunity.

Pete Mockaitis

Lovely. Well, now could you share with us a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Terri Sjodin

Well, of course, the State of Sales Presentations Research Study I did in cooperation with my alma mater, San Diego State University, and if you would like, your listeners can access all three of the reports, the pre-pandemic, mid-virtual, and then the post-pandemic study, if they go to my site at TerriSjodin.com, they can download the studies for free. There’s no cost. They can get the research study reports.

Pete Mockaitis

Lovely. And a favorite book?

Terri Sjodin

My go-to would be Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I’m an entrepreneur at heart, and so I really believe in the gift of entrepreneurial freedom and being able to contribute. I think we all have our own unique ways that we want to contribute on the planet. And so, I honor everyone’s right to use their voice, create, and to monetize that.

Pete Mockaitis

Alrighty. And a favorite habit?

Terri Sjodin

So I have this weird thing that I do. My friends tease me about it all the time. But when I have a dinner party or a lunch gathering, and everyone sits down, I say, “Okay, everyone, let’s do two-minute updates.” And I go around the table, and I ask everyone to give a two-minute update of what they’re doing personally and professionally so that everyone only has to share that nugget once with all of the people that are at the table, and then it stimulates really lovely dialogue. It gets people talking about things that are near and dear to our hearts, which is what’s going on with my friends and family.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Terri Sjodin

There are so many little isms, I suppose, that I say, but I say, “It doesn’t have to be perfect to work but you still have to try.”

Pete Mockaitis

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

Terri Sjodin

If people would like to learn more about my speaking opportunities or about Presentation Ready, please visit our website at SjodinCommunications.com, or the easiest way is to just go to T-E-R-R-I, Sjodin, and that’s spelled S-J-O-D-I-N.com, and you can access all kinds of information, including the research study, information about Presentation Ready, and much, much more.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Terri Sjodin

There’s a beautiful adaptation to a Shakespearean quotation, which reads, “All the world is a stage, and business and sales professionals play to the most discriminating audiences of all, their clients and prospects.” So, I encourage you to just take a little extra time to craft an engaging and persuasive message, and go make your dreams happen. That’s, really, it’s all up to you. I don’t know anybody who has a magic wand, so we have to kind of put our boots to the street, craft our messages, and go make it happen.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Thank you, Terri. This is fun. I wish you all the best.

Terri Sjodin

Thank you, Pete, for having me. I appreciate your time.

Pete Mockaitis

Alex, welcome.

Alex Edmans

Thanks, Pete, for having me on.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I’m so excited to dig into your book, fantastic title, May Contain Lies. Could you please open us up, perhaps, with a wild tale about a story, a study, or a statistic that exploited our biases and the mayhem that erupted from that?

Alex Edmans

Certainly. So, one example is the link between breastfeeding and child development. So, everybody tells you that breast is best. They even give the impression that you are not a good mother if you’re not breastfeeding your kids, if you’re taking the easy option of using the bottle. And so, this is based on some evidence which is cast iron, pretty clear that breastfed kids do better than bottle-fed kids across a range of outcomes. This might be physical development, it might be child IQ, it might even be a maternal-kid bonding.

However, the concern here is that whether you breastfeed or not is not random. It’s driven by other factors. So maybe mothers with a more supportive home environment, they are able to breastfeed because breastfeeding is tough, and it could be their supportive home environment is what’s causing the improvement in child IQ or child health.

So, when you control for that, when you strip out the effect on IQ, of parental background, you actually find no effect of breastfeeding on child development. And so, this is striking. Why? Because everybody tells you that breastfeeding is pretty much the only way to go, but once you have a more careful look at the data, you rule out alternative explanations, you find that the evidence there is much weaker.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay, Alex, so right from the get-go, busting myths. Okay. I was fed with a bottle, and I turned out pretty well, I think, and so I’m intrigued. Some studies, it seems, take the care to carefully explore potentially confounding variables and rule them out, and zero in on what’s really driving the variation, or the impact, and others don’t. And most of us are not, in fact, digging into the details of every scientific study that’s referenced in a news article. So, I guess if we don’t get into that level of depth, we may very well find ourselves with some misinformed views of the world.

Alex Edmans

That’s correct. And sometimes we don’t want to get into that level of depth. Why? Because if we see a study whose conclusions we like, then we accept it uncritically and don’t even bother to ask whether there’s alternative explanations. So, it’s a bit like if you are a police officer and you think that a person is guilty, then you might interpret every piece of evidence as being consistent with his or her guilt, even if it’s also consistent with some other suspects going on.

So, this is something known as confirmation bias. We have a view of the world and we will latch on to anything that supports that view of the world, even if the evidence is actually pretty weak. And so, what might this be in the breastfeeding study? We believe that something natural is better than something artificial, that’s why natural flavorings are better than artificial flavorings, and that’s why the idea that breastfeeding is better than bottle-feeding, it just sounds good. It seems to accord with our view of the world, and so we don’t think, “Is this a correlation but no causation?”

Pete Mockaitis

Like, “Processed food is bad. It’s, oh, so beautiful to see a picture of a mother and baby in that intimate moment.” So, there are a number of things that point us in one direction, so we’ve got the confirmation bias in action. We’re going to dig into some real detail about cognitive biases. I’d love it if, first, you could share anything that really surprised you as you were putting this together. Like, you’re pretty well-versed in this stuff, did you make any new discoveries that made you go, “Whoa”?

Alex Edmans

Well, I think that one thing that surprised me is how much I fell for this myself, because my day job is as a finance professor to think carefully about data and evidence. And then when I went to parenting courses myself, before my son was born, I believed all of this. It wasn’t until I looked into the data much more carefully that I found it was something quite different, but despite me being somebody who should do this for a living, I fell for that.

There are also other cases where I described in the book of things that I taught to my students without, again, looking deeply at the data. So, one thing is Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours rule, which people argue claims that you can be an expert in anything if you just put in the hours. And that’s something professors like to give that message because we like to say, “Yes, you might not like finance but if you just, yeah, put a lot of effort in, you can really change the direction of your life,” and again without looking at the evidence really closely, which is what I did for this book. I was duped into this myself.

And in my defense, it’s not just me. What the evidence tends to suggest is that more intelligent people, or more sophisticated people, will fall for misinformation more. Well, that’s surprising. You might think, “Well, isn’t it the case that the smarter you are, the more you’re likely to defend against misinformation?” But the answer is no, because the smarter you are, you deploy your intelligence selectively.

So, if there’s a study you don’t like the findings of, you’re able to come up with reasons to dismiss it, to knock it down, but then when there’s a study whose findings you like, you selectively choose not to use your discernment and to accept it. So, given you use your intelligence selectively and in a one-sided manner, this might actually lead to you becoming more misinformed rather than less.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s intriguing, and it makes sense when you put it in that context there. So, I’m curious, what’s the big idea then behind this book? And how is it helpful and relevant for professionals looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Alex Edmans

Well, the big idea is that the solution to misinformation is to look within you. So, we often think misinformation is somebody else’s problem, that the government should prosecute people for producing misinformation. But that’s a problem for a couple of reasons. So, number one is that misinformation is produced far faster than the government can regulate, and, number two is that many forms of misinformation are subtle.

So, they are not the case of somebody flagrantly lying or coming up with a deepfake. So, the statement that breastfed kids have higher IQ than bottle-fed kids, that is a correct statement. You can’t be prosecuted for making that statement, but the implication that this means that breastfeeding caused the high IQ, that’s where the problem is. And so, given that often statements aren’t incorrect, they can’t be prosecuted, the costs of misinformation might be ourselves making incorrect inferences from correct facts.

So, what I’m doing in the book is to highlight our own biases that lead us to make incorrect interpretations, and then come up with a simple set of questions we can ask ourselves to make sure that we’re not being misinformed.

Pete Mockaitis

Lovely. Do you have any cool stories about a professional up-leveling their game in this domain and making superior decisions with superior outcomes as a result?

Alex Edmans

Well, unfortunately, you don’t hear the cases in which situations were avoided. You hear about situations where bad decisions are made because those are the things that make the news. So, if somebody did something which avoided a disaster, that’s not going to make the news because if there’s no disaster, there’s nothing newsworthy. But you do know of cases in which people did not heed this and there were disasters.

So, one big disaster was Deepwater Horizon. So, that was a case in which the oil rig; they ran some tests to see whether it was safe to remove the rig. All these tests failed, but because the people were so smart, they came up with an excuse. They were able to fabricate a reason for why the tests failed. They called this the bladder effect. And because of this bladder effect, they gave themselves an excuse to run a quite different test. That different test passed, and so they thought the well was safe, and this led to the disaster.

Now, in the inquiry afterwards, the government found that this bladder effect was completely made up, that it was a fiction, but it was because the engineers were so desperate to finish this job, and because they had a strong bias, because Deepwater Horizon was the best performing rig, then they went ahead and made up this reason, and then they thought the well was safe.

So, there’s certainly cases in which we have these disasters which are a result of these biases. The cases in which acknowledging the biases led you to not make mistakes, they’re much harder to come by. Why? Because if a mistake was not made, then this is not something as newsworthy.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay, fair enough. That’s so meta, really, Alex, in terms of even there’s a selection bias at work in terms of the cases we hear about on bias.

Alex Edmans

Unfortunately, yes, because what makes the news, what do we hear about? We hear about when things go wrong. So, if, indeed, correct application, correct inference leads to things going right, we would not be hearing about that because of the selection.

Pete Mockaitis

Sure thing. Well, I mean, there’s a huge career benefit in an extra dose of disaster avoidance, both for the poor creatures of the ocean and our own careers and colleagues and customers and products, etc. So, break it down for us, you mentioned we got two big old biases that are largely to blame for us getting snookered, fooled by misinformation. Can you unpack these for us?

Alex Edmans

Certainly. So, one that I’ve alluded to is confirmation bias. So that applies when we have a pre-existing view of the world, and then we interpret evidence as always supporting that view. And notice here that this pre-existing view need not be deeply ideological. So, one might think, “Okay, maybe confirmation bias applies to things like gun control or abortion or immigration,” but it applied to something more subtle like breastfeeding.

And even though I don’t have a particular ideology about breastfeeding, something as subtle as me thinking that something natural is better than something man-made that led me to fall for that trap. So, that’s confirmation bias and that kicks in when we have a pre-existing view of the world, even a subtle one.

But what happens when we don’t have a pre-existing view of the world, if we think we’re open-minded? So that’s when a second bias comes in, and this bias is called black-and-white thinking. So, what is that bias? So even if we have no preconceived view, if we view the world in black and white terms, we think something could be either always good or always bad, then we will be swayed by misinformation which is extreme.

So, let’s give a practical example. So, the Atkins Diet was about carbs. Now, that’s something where people don’t really have strong views. So, protein, people think protein is good. You learn that protein repairs muscles, that’s why you’ve got all these protein supplements that you can want to buy. Fat, we think it’s bad, it’s called fat because it makes you fat. But carbs, they’re not so clear-cut, so many people might not have had strong opinions on carbs until the Atkins Diet, which demonized carbs. It said try to have as few carbs as possible.

That played into black-and-white thinking. There were no shades of gray there, and that made the diet really easy to follow. Well, you didn’t need to count your calories and figure out are carbs within 30 to 40 percent. You just looked at the carbs label on nutritional information and if it was high, you avoided it. But notice, if Atkins had had the opposite diet, saying try to eat as many carbs as possible, he might have also gone viral because that suggests, also plays into black-and-white thinking, it’s easy to implement.

So, what this means is that to be famous, to have an impact, you don’t necessarily need to be right. You need to be extreme, and, indeed what we typically see here are lots of extreme statements, “No bottle feeding at all. Exclusive breastfeeding,” “Don’t eat any carbs. Maybe eat as many superfoods as possible.” These things leave no potential for nuance but they become successful because of this black-and-white idea.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, Alex, that is well said. You don’t need to be right. You need to be extreme, and that’ll do it.

Alex Edmans

Yeah, and if you could put it in 280 characters then that’s something which will be really easily shared, and people want to share things which sound simple. And why people share misinformation is they’re not bad people. They want to share useful practical tips. And so, if the tip is, “Just avoid X or eat as much as Y,” that’s something that people share because they think it’s useful information that people can implement. It’s much easier than saying, “Make sure that X is between 30 and 35 percent of your daily calories.”

Pete Mockaitis

While we’re talking about biases, I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately to overconfidence. It seems like that can just sort of make everything a little bit worse. People are fooled, and then they seem quite certain about their point of view being correct, or true, or “This is the way. This is the only way.” Any thoughts on overconfidence?

Alex Edmans

Absolutely. I think it’s tied to my early comment about how more sophisticated people, or more intelligent people, suffer more from misinformation. Why? Because their biases are stronger, and potentially overconfidence plays into this. How can it play into this? Is that overconfidence can make the confirmation bias stronger? How?

So, one of my fields is sustainable finance. That’s the idea of companies that do good for the world, perform better in the long term. And I might think, “Well, why did I go into this field? I could have looked at many, many areas of finance.” The reason that I’ve chosen to go into sustainable finance is the evidence on this must be really rock solid. There must be rock solid proof that sustainability improves performance.

And so, if, indeed, there’s a new study which comes out, saying, “Well, actually, the evidence for sustainable investing or ESG is less strong than people believe,” I might be even more stringent in rejecting that. Why? Because I know that my field is sustainable investing, and the fact that I’ve chosen to be in this field means that I know more than anybody else, and it must mean that I chose to be in this field because the evidence is strong, and so that’s why I might choose to ignore people on the other side.

Pete Mockaitis

Yes, understood. Okay. Well, you’ve got a really cool tool, your ladder of mis-inference, and a few steps along that ladder. Could you walk us through these and give us some examples?

Alex Edmans

Absolutely. So, why did I come up with this ladder of mis-inference to begin with? It’s to provide a practical solution to the reader to try to figure out how to be awesome at their job by spotting misinformation. Now, you might think spotting misinformation is hard because, “There’s like thousands and thousands of types of misinformation out there, how can I remember all of them and put them into practice?”

So, I wanted to categorize them into just four. And so, I illustrate this into what I call the ladder of mis-inference. Why do I use the ladder as the graphic? It’s that when we start from some facts and then we draw some conclusions, it’s like we’re climbing up the ladder. And why I call it the ladder of mis-inference is that we actually make missteps up the ladder. We are drawing conclusions that are not valid.

So, the first misstep is a statement is not fact, it may not be accurate. So let me unpack that, and, again, with an example as you suggested. So, one big piece of evidence which supported the over-prescription of opioids in the US, which led to the opioid epidemic, was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics.” That has been cited over 1,650 times.

Now, that is a statement and there’s no misinformation there. The article was truly called “Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics.” It was truly in the New England Journal of Medicine. But if you click on the article, you find it’s just a letter to the editor. So, there was no study behind it, there was no science, just somebody wrote in to the editor, and so people just cited this article without reading it, without seeing the context, which was this was a letter to the editor rather than a scientific study. And this was seen to be one of the reasons why opioids were so readily prescribed, obviously with then fatal consequences.

And even if you think the letter was completely accurate, and it wasn’t made up, the letter considered patients in hospital. And maybe if you’re in hospital, you won’t get addicted because you’re given narcotics on a prescribed basis. That’s quite different from giving it to an outpatient who might take it whenever he or she wants to. So, again, a statement could be not flawed, it could be not made up, but it’s still inaccurate if you don’t see the context. This was a letter, not a study, it only looked at hospitalized patients.

So, you might think, “Well, the solution is just to check the facts. Let’s go to the original source, read the full context, and that’s enough.” But that’s not enough because of the second step up the ladder. This is the idea that a fact is not data, it may not be representative. So, again, let me give an example. So, one of the most famous TED Talks of all time led to a book called Start with Why by Simon Sinek. This argues that if you have a why, a passion, a purpose, you’ll be successful. Again, those are things that we want to be true. We believe in the power of passion.

And he gives the examples of Apple, clearly successful, that’s a fact. Wikipedia, clearly successful, this is the world’s founding for knowledge. The Wright Brothers, clearly successful, they got the record for the first test-powered flight. But those are just cherry-picked examples. There could be hundreds of other companies that started with a “why” and then they failed, but Simon Sinek will never tell you about them because they don’t support his theory.

So, even if the facts are correct, they might only be a small part of the picture. They’re not giving you the full picture and, therefore, they’re misleading. They’re not data.

Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing.

Alex Edmans

So, you might think the solution is to get the full picture. It’s not data, it may not be representative.

Pete Mockaitis

So, when you say a fact is not data, I mean, I suppose, not to mince words here, a fact could technically be data, but it’s incomplete, non-representative data. So, I guess an isolated fact is not the whole relevant universe dataset. That’s not as pithy though, Alex.

Alex Edmans

Correct, yeah. No, but you’re absolutely right. You could say it, technically, counts as data, but it’s selected data, so what you want is a full representative sample, a representative data sample, rather than just something cherry-picked and selected.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, Alex, is starting with “why” not a good move? Is that not a research-backed approach to success?

Alex Edmans

It doesn’t seem to be research-backed. So, there were a couple of companies which have been successful, but actually Apple never even started with “why.” So, if you look at Simon Sinek’s book, it says Apple had this “why” which was “Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo” but Apple never said that. And, again, this is something that I wanted to look at in the research for my book, as I thought that was a fact but it was never said, it was never in any of Apple’s documentation.

And also, Simon Sinek says, ‘Well, people don’t buy what Apple does. They buy why they do it. They buy the iPhone because they believe in Apple’s wanting to change the status quo.” Really? Don’t we buy Apple because of its functionality, its apps, its usability, the fact that it’s got great after-sales service? Do people really think about the higher purpose of Apple when they buy the products? No. What they will go for is how useful it is. But the idea that a “why” is what leads to success, that’s empowering. Why? Because anybody can come up with a “why.” If you have enough brainstorming sessions or market bends or flip charts, that is a nicer message to give than you need to produce an awesome product.

Not everybody can produce an awesome product or be really innovative, and so that’s why that book and that message has been so successful is it’s empowering. It tells us that the secret to success is in our own hands, and it’s something easy to do rather than something much more difficult, hard work in designing a really good product with great functionality.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s intriguing. And then as we’re thinking critically about these assertions, it seems like a lot of times the conclusions are more nuanced. Like, “Having a clear ‘why’ can result in increased motivation that boosts results. However, having a great ‘why’ is by no means a proven success principle that we can hang our hat on, as this will undoubtedly massively increase our odds of victory.”

Alex Edmans

You’re absolutely right, Pete. So, what causes success? There’s lots and lots of factors which contribute to the success of a person, a company, and there’s also luck which comes into it. But a book is never going to lay out all the different things that a company or a person needs to do to become successful. Books, typically, have one idea. And I know this through having tried to publish books, is that whenever you have a pitch, they say, “What is the big idea? Not the 10 ideas, what is the one idea in the book?”

And so, this is why a lot of books try to highlight this one thing which is the secret to success. So, this could be starting with “why” or it could be grit, to take Angela Duckworth’s book, or it could be ten thousand hours to take Malcolm Gladwell, so they focus on one particular thing, and say that’s the one thing that drives success, when it might not drive success. There might be lots of other factors which are driving success. And even if your one factor works, it might not work in every circumstance. It might work when combined with a lot of other stuff.

So, maybe a “why” does matter, and indeed some of my work is on the benefit of purpose, but it also needs to be combined with flawless execution, also discipline, and knowing what “why projects” to turn down, no matter how purposeful they are, maybe they’re pie in the sky, but those messages are much more nuanced. Instead, the simple black-and-white message, which plays into black-and-white thinking, that why will always lead to success in every situation, that’s something which sells, and this is why a lot of books with that message have been very successful.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. So, we got a statement is not a fact, a fact is not data or the whole dataset. And next, we got data is not evidence.

Alex Edmans

Correct. And so, when you get the whole dataset, so you might think, “Ah, this is the solution. Let’s get the whole dataset. Companies that started with ‘why’ and failed, and companies that succeeded even though they didn’t start with ‘why,’ and we have the whole dataset, can we not then just claim a conclusion from that?” And, the answer is not, but why? Because of the third misstep, because data is not evidence, it may not be conclusive.

So, what do I mean by evidence? Because people use the terms data and evidence interchangeably, but the word evidence, let’s think about a criminal trial, that’s where we often hear that word. And evidence is only evidence if it points to one particular suspect. So, if the evidence suggests that Tom or Dick or Harry could have killed Emma, that is not evidence because it’s with multiple suspects. And the problem with lots of datasets is, even though they look at the full picture, they could point to multiple conclusions.

So, if I go back full circle to the breastfeeding example at the start, “Breastfed kids have better outcomes than bottle-fed kids,” is it breastfeeding causes the higher IQ, or is it parental background leads to some parents to breastfeed, and that parental background also leads to the higher IQ, so that could be a correlation without causation? And, yeah, everybody knows, in the cold light of day, that correlation is not causation, but often we forget this if we like the story being paraded. Due to our confirmation bias, we switch off our discernment and just don’t ask that question if we like the conclusion.

Pete Mockaitis

Intriguing. So, data is not evidence. In the incidence of a crime, we might have data in terms of “The window was shattered.” It’s like, “Okay.” “The window was shattered with a hammer.” “Okay, so that’s some information that we know, yep, that window was shattered with a hammer.” But it’s not evidence because any number of people could have done that window-shattering with a hammer. So, these are just kind of facts that we’ve collected as opposed to things that are really strongly pointing in a particular direction.

Alex Edmans

That’s entirely correct. But if you’re a police officer and you already have a particular suspect in mind, you might interpret all of these facts as consistent with your suspect, even if there were alternative suspects going on. So, then what’s the practical tip to the listener or the reader? Is, “How do we know that we have the correct interpretation of data and are not being blind to alternative explanations?” It’s to consider and assume the data has the opposite result.

So, let’s assume that the data have the result that we don’t like. So, let’s say the data found that breastfed kids perform worse. Now, that goes against our biases because we think that something natural should have a good outcome. So, then we would try to appeal to alternative explanations, or alternative suspects. We might say, “Well, maybe the women who can afford formula are wealthier. They can afford to buy it, and maybe it’s their wealth which leads to the better outcomes of bottle-fed kids.”

So, now that we’ve pointed to the fact that there’s an alternative suspect, which is parental wealth, we have to ask ourselves, “Does that alternative suspect still apply even though the result is in our direction?” And the answer is, yes, it could well be that the parents who are wealthier are able to afford to breastfeed because it’s so exhausting, they might be able to afford home help as well, and maybe it is that income which is also behind the high IQ and other outcomes.

And so, what is the idea of imagine the opposite so powerful? It’s because it unlocks the discernment which is already naturally within us. So, when we hear about misinformation, we might think, “Oh, this is so difficult for me to tackle. I’m a time-pressed, busy person. I don’t have time to dig into the weeds of a study, and I don’t have a PhD in statistics.” But what I’m trying to highlight is we already have discernment.

Whenever I see a study posted on LinkedIn that people don’t like the findings of, there’s no shortage of reasons as to why this is correlation but not causation, why the dataset is not the full complete dataset. So, what the idea of imagine the opposite is, is to try to trigger and activate the same discernment when you find a study you do like and are just tempted to lap up.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s good. Okay. And then the fourth and final step, evidence is not proof. Lay it on us.

Alex Edmans

Yeah, absolutely. So, let’s say you found a perfect study which has perfect causation, that is evidence, but it’s not proof. So, what’s the difference? A proof is universal. So, when Archimedes proved that the area of a circle is pi times the square of the radius, that was not only true in the 3rd century BC in ancient Greece, it’s true in 2024 around the world. But evidence is only evidence in the setting in which it was gathered. So, if the evidence pointed to Tom killing Emma, and Tom was the husband, this doesn’t mean that in every case when a woman dies, it’s always the husband that did it. So, evidence has a particular setting.

So, I go to the 10,000 hours rule. Malcolm Gladwell claims that in any setting, from chess playing to neurosurgery, you need to put in 10,000 hours to be successful. But the evidence he cited was just on violin playing, and what leads to success in violin playing might be quite different to what leads to success in neurosurgery. Violin playing, this is a very predictable environment. You play the sheet music. You can practice that same sheet music 10,000 times.

Whereas, with neurosurgery, one surgery might be very different from another, there’s lots of other factors going on. So, what works in one setting might not work in others. But if you want to sell a bestselling book, you want to say that you’ve identified the secret to success in every situation. Had Malcolm Gladwell claimed the 10,000 hours rule for success in violin playing, he would have not had the same impact that he did.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s right, much smaller audience, the violin. Yes, those who are ambitious violin virtuosos in training is a much smaller market size than the broader sales group of customers for that book.

Alex Edmans

Absolutely. So, we want to claim a theory of everything, a secret to success in all situations, and so the broader we make the claim, the more impact we’ll have, but often these claims are over-extrapolating from evidence gathered in one specific targeted setting.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, so then, to recap, we got a statement is not a fact, a fact is not data, or the whole dataset, data is not evidence, and evidence is not proof. Well, Alex, it would seem to follow then we have not a lot of proof, not a lot of things are proven then, based on all the ways that this could fall apart. Is that fair to say?

Alex Edmans

That’s absolutely fair to say. And what this means is that while we think, well, this is really shocking because we don’t know anything, it actually means that we can live our lives in a more relaxed way, because often things are said to us as if they’re definitive proof, “You are a bad mother if you ever breastfeed your kid,” “If you want to lose weight, you should never eat any carbs,” “If you want to train for a marathon, you should never drink any alcohol.” Often the reality is much less black and white than these prescriptive statements say.

So, by be discerning with evidence, rather than this being exhausting, because we need to question everything, actually it’s less exhausting because if we question stuff, we realize that some of these dictums and rules we’re given are not as well-founded as people claim, and this allows us to live a freer and more relaxed life.

Pete Mockaitis

Now, Alex, I’m loving the way your mind is working and processing, and sometimes I go here in terms of, you know, being curious and skeptical and exploring, “Well, hey, could it be this or could it be that, and maybe it’s not fair to interpret this or that way?” Alex, do you find that when you do this in practice with teammates, colleagues, collaborators, they just get annoyed with you? Like, “Oh, my gosh, Alex, you’re slowing us down. You’re making this much harder and longer than it needs to be.” How do we deal with some of these interpersonal dynamics when we’re vigorously pursuing truth?

Alex Edmans

Yeah, thanks for the question, Pete. And I think people can sometimes get annoyed if you’re doing it in the wrong way. So, what do I mean by the wrong way? So, sometimes if you oppose an idea based on the evidence, they think you have different goal from them when, in fact, your approach might be different. So, let’s give an example.

So, some of my work is in diversity, equity and inclusion, and I would love the evidence to be overwhelming, that diversity pays off. I’m an ethnic minority myself but I point out that actually some of the research on this claiming that DEI improves financial performance is much flimsier than often claimed. So, people can get annoyed and say, “Oh, you must be racist or sexist if you’re anti-DEI.”

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, wow, that’s hardcore.

Alex Edmans

But what I’m claiming, well, that is pretty hardcore, and these are the reasons why sometimes, on these issues, where there’s strong confirmation bias, it is hard to speak out. But what I’m saying here is I absolutely am pro-DEI, but my concern is the evidence, and the evidence here on DEI might not be as strong. Why? Because all they look at is gender and ethnicity. So, they whittle down the complexity, the totality of a person, to just their gender and ethnicity.

That gives the impression that if you’re a white male, you can never add to diversity even if you’re the first in your family ever to go to university, even if your background is humanities rather than sciences, which is what everybody else is doing in your company. So, what I’m saying is that the problem with these diversity studies does not mean that diversity is not a bad thing, but if we are to put in a DEI policy, it needs to go beyond gender and ethnicity, and look at socio-economic diversity. It needs to look at diversity of thinking, also not just diversity but also equity and inclusion.

So, by trying to say, “Hey, I’m not going to try to debunk the whole DEI movement,” but to say that if we want to implement DEI, it has to be broader than these rather reductive measures analyzed by these studies, then that’s the way hopefully the message is more positive message rather than being seen to nitpick and to get in the way of people.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, that’s helpful, Alex. You’re sort of sharing where you’re coming from, the context, your goals, and what’s going on there. And, well, while we’re here, a brief detour. Alex, my understanding of the DEI research is that in jobs that require creativity and kind of novel thinking and approaches, that the DEI research is pretty robust in terms of having diversity in these contexts, sure enough, does result in more better ideas and good outcomes. Since you know, and I don’t, is that an accurate snapshot of the state of the support of DEI research?

Alex Edmans

That is the claim, but even that claim is not particularly backed up by data. So, let’s take one famous datapoint or one famous study. This is the TED Talk which initially was called “Want to be more innovative? Hire more women.” So, what this argued is that in an innovative setting, the more women we have, the better the performance is.

But why was the evidence incorrect? Well, number one, the measure of diversity looked at six different measures of diversity, not just gender diversity, but age diversity, lots of other forms of diversity. So, even if the results were correct, it could have been any of those diversity metrics, but they just honed in on the gender diversity because that’s the one which gets a lot of popular support.

Pete Mockaitis

It’s a good title, Alex.

Alex Edmans

Well, it was, and it was actually a good title but a misleading title. So, there were so many complaints to TED about that title that they were forced to change the title. So, the title of that talk is now “How diversity makes teams more innovative.” Now, but even that title isn’t accurate because how did they measure innovation? What they looked at was the percentage of revenues which were generated by products which were invented in the last three years. And so, that’s not necessarily a measure of innovation. That could be just a measure of obsolescence of your prior products, so maybe you’re just doing a bad job of maintaining your prior products.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, your old products sucked.

Alex Edmans

It might be, yeah, they all just suck. You’re just not able to maintain them, and it could be that the new products that you’re developing in the last three years, they’re just incremental changes over what you had previously. There’s nothing there which captures the magnitude of innovation. And, also, number three, it could be correlation but not causation. It could be that a great CEO, both hire as more diverse workers, and that same great CEO is also more innovative, so it’s not necessary that diversity causes innovation, something else causes both.

So, those are really basic errors. You measure diversity incorrectly, you measure innovation incorrectly, and also there could be no clear link between the two, but because that’s a nice message that people want to hear, this is something which has been well paraded. So, again, if I go back to, “How do I then approach this?”

Well, my goal is shared as the same as everybody else, I want high functioning organizations, and I’m a supporter of diversity. So, the reason why I’m raising objections is not I’m anti-DEI, but my approach to this is to look beyond just gender and ethnicity, and look at these other forms of diversity. And when you look at more careful research, then you’re right, Pete, in innovative settings, then these broader measures of diversity, such as socio-economic and cognitive diversity, they do lead to better outcomes.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, Alex, what you’re showing here is proof, and even evidence, is hard to come by. But, lay it on us, some of your favorite tactics and strategies for smarter thinking. I love that notion of that suspect. Let’s pretend the data came out the opposite way. What would we conclude? Or where would we be pointed to in terms of suspects? Well, now, how does that inform how it did come out? So that’s a lovely approach. Can you lay on us a few more tools like that?

Alex Edmans

Absolutely. And what I’m going to do to do this is to go beyond just analyzing specific studies because how we want to be smarter-thinking is you want to get just different information more generally not just from studies. So, in an organization, where will these different viewpoints come from? From our colleagues. But often, we have an environment in which people might be just unwilling to speak out. So, what can we do to actively encourage dissenting viewpoints?

So, there was a time when Alfred Sloan was running GM, and he concluded a meeting by saying, “Does everybody agree with this course of action?” And everybody nodded, and then Sloan said, “Well, then we’re going to postpone the decision until the next meeting to give you the opportunity to disagree with me.” So, he recognized that no decision, no course of action that he came up with was going to be 100% perfect. So, if there were no objections, it was not because his proposal was flawless, but simply because people didn’t have time to come up with objections.

And, more generally, what can we do within an organization to encourage dissent, to encourage people to speak up. Again, going back to diversity, people think a lot about just demographic diversity, but it’s not sufficient to bring in a mix of people. We need to make sure that they feel safe to speak up. And one example could be in a meeting where you propose a strategy, and most people agree, and then one person, let’s call him David, comes up, and says “Hey, I actually have some concerns with this strategy ABC.”

Now, despite David raising the concerns, you still go ahead. Then if the chair of the meeting at the end goes to David privately, and says “You know, I really appreciate you speaking up. Even though we ended up going with the strategy, we will take all of your concerns into account.” So why is that useful? Because in the absence of that, then David might have felt, just like the question you asked me earlier, Pete, “It’s costly for me to raise a dissenting opinion. People might have seen me as being annoying, and maybe the next time I have some concerns, I’m not going to speak up and say anything because it made no difference anyway, and I just annoyed a lot of people.”

But here, if the chair just takes five minutes to say, “No, we really value in this organization people who come up with dissenting opinions,” then maybe next time, the equivalent of the Deepwater Horizon disaster would have been avoided, because then somebody like David would have said, “Hey, we have failed this negative pressure test three times. We need to take seriously the possibility that this rig is unsafe to be removed.”

Pete Mockaitis

Beautiful. Any other top strategies?

Alex Edmans

Yeah, so, in addition to this, one thing that you can do is try to assign a devil’s advocate in particular situations, which is somebody to critique a particular course of action. So, this happens in academia, my field. So, whenever a paper is presented at a conference, after the presentation, a discussant comes and comments on this. And the discussant is somebody who’s assigned to read the paper in advance and to come up with critiques, particular blind spots that the author might have.

And so, the analogy of this in a situation might be if there’s an investment management firm where some team is proposing a particular deal, is there’s somebody who might be assigned to poke holes and to scrutinize the deal and highlight all the things that can go wrong. Now, ideally, you might have a devil’s advocate emerging anyway, the culture might be such that people are willing to share their concerns, but if you’re not at that stage, if the culture is still developing, maybe just assigning somebody to find some flaws in this, this is a way of getting different viewpoints.

So, this is something that John F. Kennedy came up with when faced with the Cuban missile crisis. The immediate response to seeing these missiles being installed in Cuba was to bomb the missile sites and have a full-scale invasion, but he created this executive committee of the National Security Council, where he had two teams, one proposing the invasion, another proposing the blockade, and each team was critiquing each other’s proposed course of action so that he was able to see both sides of this difficult situation.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Alex Edmans

It’s just to highlight that this misinformation is really important. So, you might think, “Why do I need to listen to an academic who goes through life reading and scrutinizing academic papers?” In my job, I never read a single academic paper. But what I’m trying to highlight is that whenever we make decisions, they are based ultimately on research. So, if we choose to breastfeed or bottle-feed our child, we are doing this on the basis of research.

When we’re trying to invest in a sustainable way or implement particular DEI policies, those are ultimately based on research, and so it really matters whether we use the best research, and to discern whether the research is best, we don’t need to be a scientist. We don’t need to scrutinize every footnote in a paper. We just need to ask simple, common-sense questions.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, now could you see our favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Alex Edmans

Yeah, so it’s from a Columbia finance professor, called Laurie Hodrick, where she was asked in the Financial Times, “What is your greatest lesson learned?” And she said, “You can do everything you want to and be everything you want to be, but not all at once.” So why do I like this? It’s that way because there’s loads of things that we want to do in our life, and lots of people just like to be spread really thinly and just do so many things that they just get burnt out. Instead, we have like different chapters to our career.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And could you share with us a favorite book?

Alex Edmans

Yeah, so The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey was something that I was given as a teenager. I didn’t read it because, as a teenager, I was busy doing other stuff. But then I read it about ten years later, and I wished that I had read it back then. There are some new books which are trying to play theme and variations on this. Books like Atomic Habits or Deep Work, and they’re not bad books, but I think the original authority on questions such as time management and discipline and focus were in the Stephen Covey book.

Pete Mockaitis

And do you have a favorite habit? Perhaps one of the seven or something homegrown?

Alex Edmans

Yeah, so it’s to try to just immerse myself without any distraction, to engage in deep work. So, there will be certain days where I will have zero meetings the whole day. So, that was yesterday, I had no meetings yesterday, no meetings all tomorrow, so that I can get really immersed in something. I’ll try to work without my phone near me. I’ll try to have my internet blocker on, which is not distracting me with email, so that when I am doing some writing, which I’m going to do tomorrow, I can do this and be in full flow.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Alex Edmans

I think it might be from my first book, which was on purposeful business, and actually the TEDx talk that that book was linked to, it’s to reach the land of profit, follow the road of purpose. And so, why is that sometimes a quoted phrase? It’s that often when people think about purpose, people claim it’s about being woke and saving the dolphins and saving the coral reefs, but a serious business person should not care about this.

I’m going to highlight that a purposeful business is not just one that is good for wider society, it’s good for the ultimate long-term success of the company as well. And so, this idea that there’s a business case for purpose, a commercial and financial case, not just a moral and ethical case, is something that resonates with people, particularly those who would otherwise be skeptical of purpose.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Alex Edmans

So, my website, AlexEdmans.com, where Edmans is E-D-M-A-N-S. I’m on social media, LinkedIn and X as @aemans. And my new book May Contain Lies, there is a website attached to that book, MayContainLies.com, where, if there were instances of misinformation that I learned about after I finished the book, I do simple blog posts on that.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Alex Edmans

I’ll say, just question stuff. So, if you want something to be true, just to apply this idea of imagine the opposite and think about how you would shoot this down, I think it’s just really important to try to be discerning and try to overcome our biases, these are so strong, these are things that I myself suffered from, and I think if we can overcome these biases, we will significantly improve our performance at our job.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Alex, thank you. This has been a lot of fun and I wish you much truth in your future.

Alex Edmans

Thanks so much, Pete. Really enjoyed the interview. Thank you so much for having me on.

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

Marianne Lewis
Oh, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to dig into your wisdom. We’re talking about Both/And Thinking: Embracing Creative Tensions to Solve Your Toughest Problems. I like so much those words. So, can you kick us off with maybe a particularly surprising or counterintuitive discovery you’ve made about problem-solving from all of your research and teaching here?

Marianne Lewis
Pete, I’ve been studying tensions, competing demands, that tug-of-war we feel in our hearts, whether it’s dealing with strategy, dealing with our lives, dealing with teams, for about 25 years. And I think the big aha and the reason I spent two-plus decades doing this was early in my career when I realized that our default is to this either/or thinking, that we get into this challenge, and we say, “Geez, do I spend my energy on work or life? Do I think about my performing and hitting my current targets or do I need to step back and learn and look around?”

And in this either/or approach, we weigh the pros and cons of these two sides and we make a choice and we think we can move on. Sometimes that can work if these are really simplistic issues but most times, either/or thinking is really limiting. It’s, “Are we really limited to only two?” Or, worse, when you start to kind of play that out, you go down this rabbit hole of saying, “Well, wait a minute, if I put all my energy into hitting my current targets, that would be great. I would excel, I would have lots to show on my resume, I would’ve proven my worth. But then life could change around me and I wouldn’t be ready. I’d be flatfooted.”

“But if all I did was…” So, let’s go to the other one, “If I really focus on learning, and I’m in higher-ed and I love learning, but if that was all I did, would I really make an impact? Would I make sure I’m applying what I’m learning in process?” And so, you get into this, you get stuck because what you really need is you need both. And so, what my work originally kind of focused on and the aha was we’re limited in our thinking, in our default. The good news is there’s a better way.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, that is good news. And so, if that is our default, I imagine it’d be quite possible that we’re doing it and we don’t even notice that we’re doing it. That’s what often happens with defaults.

Marianne Lewis
That it’s really automatic.

Pete Mockaitis
So, could you maybe give us a few rapid-fire examples to shake us out of it a little bit? It’s like, “Here’s what I mean by both/and versus either/or, and just notice that there might be more to things than first meets the eye.”

Marianne Lewis
Yeah, I’ll give you a classic example. We talked to people who’ll say, “Boy, I’m not crazy about the work I’m doing right now. So, do I stay or do I go?” And you’re kind of seeing a little clash as you’re thinking about that. But, again, you don’t really have to decide black and white, “Do I stay or do I leave this job?” You could also say, the both/and approach is, “Well, what do I like about what I do? What do I not like about what I do? Are there ways that I could either, personally and/or with my supervisor, talk about I need more of this and less of this? And how do I have those kinds of conversations?”

Or, vice versa, if I say, “Boy, what I don’t have this in job is what I’m starting to realize is what I truly want in life.” Well, it’s not just then going. It’s getting much sharper about what you want. If not, you’ll be in this grass-is-always-greener. You’ll get there and go, “How did I get…? Wait, this isn’t it either.”
And it’s kind of a constant flipping.

So, to us, both/and is about really diving into both sides of the equation, and saying, “At its best, what does each side bring? And at its worst, if that was all I did, what’s the problem there?” Because it’s through that kind of thinking you realize, “Okay, I could get more creative here.” And now it’s not a stay or go. It’s, “Let’s really dig into what do I want in my work.”

So, I use that example, Pete, because I think we’ve had, in some ways, kind of a global existential crisis during the pandemic. We’ve got a lot of people thinking, “Is this really what I want to be doing?” and questioning, and sometimes questioning in two simplified a way of, “Do I just leave?” you know, the Great Resignation. And then you find, I mean, we’re seeing this already in research that the Great Resignation has a lot of people not any happier in their second one because they haven’t thought through that fully what they want and what they don’t.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, thank you, that’s powerful, Marianne. And I was just about to challenge a little bit in terms of, “Well, ultimately, aren’t you either staying or going?” I mean, you could, of course, optimize, and finetune, and change, and have some good conversations about how to improve where you are, although that’s sort of a subset, I would say, if we’re going to nitpick about definitions of staying. But I guess what you’re putting forward here is, just by framing it that way, you’re missing out.

Marianne Lewis
Yeah, I think framing, that’s what…Wendy Smith is my co-author in the book and long-time research colleague. We think framing is hugely important, and it starts with really both/and thinking, starts with changing the kinds of questions we ask. That classic either/or question starts with, typically, a word like “do,” “Do I…?” “Do I stay or go?” versus a more typical both/and question that starts with “how,” “How would I make the most of what I like and where I am? And what am I missing? And how would I find a new combination?” because there are lots of combinations possible.

And you’re right, it still could sound like stay or go, but let me give you a couple of examples because Wendy and I worked with a variety of people who have gone through this one. It could also decide, “Well, maybe what I’m going to do is I’m going to stay for now, and I’m going to build a three- to six-month plan so that leaving means a much better view of what do I really need. And how do I leave in a way that doesn’t leave my team in a lurch or feel like I’ve been disloyal?”

If you unpack that stay-or-go challenge, you find that there are lots of other challenges within it that are going to make us lean towards one side or the other, and we’re going to have to deal with those if we’re going to really make a decision that has some lasting power and some creativity to it, for that matter.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s really powerful because I think we could really feel the urgency and the, well, tension associated with, “Oh, well, I need to reach a decision, and, ultimately, these are the only categories that we could fall into.” And, yet, by taking that pathway of either/or, we miss out on surfacing what’s really most important, what are some cool options beyond that, and then how do we get there.

So, I really like that notion of just check yourself if you’re asking a question “Do I…?” as opposed to “How…” that puts you down some different pathway. So, can you expand upon those in terms of what are some either/or-style questions or things to be on the lookout for and their both/and counterparts?

Marianne Lewis
Well, I’ll give you an interesting version of this. Sometimes people can ask, “Do I focus on the financial benefits of my job or the work that I’m doing, like grow the money, grow the profit, grow the margins, or do I focus on the social responsibility, my impact, how do I better the world?” Do you have a business school? I can’t stand that question because they should be synergistic and we’ve seen amazing leaders learn how to do both. But they changed that question to, “How can I grow my profits through social responsibility?”

That was a question posed by Paul Polman when he was turning around Unilever, and his goals were to double the profits while having their environmental footprint, and people said, “You’re crazy. That’s not how it works. The bigger you are the more damage you do.” And he said, “No, we touch two billion consumers a day at Unilever. We can’t afford that.”

And I actually just had an executive in my office who ran Gerber clothing, for children’s clothes, and he said, “Clothing is notorious for being unsustainable. We throw away billions of pounds, let alone tons of wasted clothing.” Unilever and Paul, who’s such a both/and thinker we study and write about him in the book, but this leader was talking about at Gerber, too, is you start to realize, actually, by being sustainable, you reduce wastes, you’re more efficient. By the way, that means you reduce costs which increases profit.

And, by being socially responsible, you have a whole host of customers who say, “I have choices,” and you will have customers say, “I’m going to choose, I would rather choose a firm that’s sustainable.” And, by the way, as we’ve seen from lots of these same firms, we actually have investors who will eventually, and this is happening increasingly, say, “I actually want to invest in more sustainable firms.”

And so, here are these questions of, “Do I focus on the financial and my social responsibilities?” and maybe not as quickly as we like, but it is becoming a moot point. The leaders of Toyota were saying this with quality and costs. In the ‘80s, they practically put the American auto manufacturers out of business because we were sitting there, going, “Oh, no, it doesn’t work that way. The higher the quality, the higher the costs.” And they said, “No, the higher the quality, the lower the rework, the more efficient,” right? And then you see Toyota and Honda take off.

I just gave you two strategic examples but we ask those similar types of questions in our lives, both in our work and our decisions about the work that we do in our own values. And I’d like us to open our minds a bit and reframe, as you said.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, when it comes to our minds, you’ve got an interesting term – the paradox mindset. What is that and how can it help us?

Marianne Lewis
Yeah, a paradox mindset. So, when we think about either/or, we think about tradeoffs. Picture, like, a scale, and you’re doing this weighing between the sides. When we think about a both/and thinking, we put those opposing decisions into a Yin-Yang, which is such a beautiful symbol of paradox. So, if you can picture the Yin-Yang, you have kind of a black-and-white sliver, and so you’ve got two sides to this. But there’s also this dynamic flow between them where you see that they actually define each other. It’s only together that you see this whole of the circle.

And if you can kind of picture the Yin-Yang in your mind, as you move higher into, say, the dark, there’s actually a pin prick of white. And the view is, as you get higher and higher into one side, you actually feel more pull in this ebb and flow into the other. This is night and day. It’s love and hate. It’s trust and distrust, self and other. I’m being more philosophical here, but those play into the way we think about challenges.

Why is a financial responsibility and social responsibility opposites on a scale versus Yin and Yang? And how could they work together more synergistically? So, that was a way of sharing. The reason we use the term paradox is to start to change our views from a tradeoff to this Yin-Yang mindset. And a paradox mindset means two things, we have two dimensions, and we’ve measured this now over thousands of people. It’s in multiple languages.

We started in three. We started in Chinese, Israeli, and then in the US, an American. I guess I did geography. This is where we did the study. But what we found is there are two dimensions. One is some people are more sensitized to see and feel tensions. Now, that could be because you’re in a particularly stressful conflict-laden time so there are a lot of tensions around you, and it can be you’re somebody like me who sees them in their sleep. I pick them out very quickly. And the more you practice paradox thinking, actually, the more sensitized you become regardless of your work.

So, there’s the, “How much do you experience and see tensions.” And then the other side is, “How much, when you see them, do you see tensions as just a problem to either ignore, work through, and move quickly? Or, do you see them as an opportunity that in that tension there is this creative friction and an opportunity to learn, innovate, grow?”

What we found is people who have this paradox mindset, they see tensions as opportunities, they think about them as this Yin-Yang, are much more likely, according to their supervisors, to be more productive and more creative, and, according to themselves, to be more happy, to be more satisfied. So, what we’re finding with the paradox mindset is, especially if you’re dealing with tensions, that ability to move into them, seeing opportunity, benefits for learning, and working toward a both/and, will pay off in really powerful ways for you as an individual and probably for your organization given those benefits.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, could you give us several examples of individuals who, they saw some tensions and then they considered them with a both/and perspective, or paradox mindset, and cool things emerged as a result?

Marianne Lewis
Yeah, I’ll give you a few of some leaders that I’ve enjoyed studying over the years. Muhtar Kent is fascinating. He was the CEO and chairman of Coca-Cola, which is an interesting example because one of the tensions we see quite a bit is global versus local. And you could think about this also as kind of centralized/decentralized is another way to think about it. But Coca-Cola is actually the best-known image in the world, even better than Mickey Mouse. People just know the red can anywhere.

So, you have this huge global reach and scale. Scale provides you incredible opportunities, really well-coordinated impact, reach, etc., and you’re talking about Coca-Cola. You’re talking about something you drink, taste, as differentiated locally as imaginable. And so, Coca-Cola, and particularly Muhtar, would always say, “Look, we have to be the best-known global brand, and leverage that scale, and have this tremendous value appreciation tapping into those local differences as possible. We have to be both if we are truly going to be a global brand.”

And if you go to the Coca-Cola museum in Atlanta, you will see they have lots of variations based on local differentiation of taste. So, even as a global brand, it also has local differences. Even that it has a global reach and scale of like the Walmarts and Amazons of the world, they also are really good at tapping into very local supply chains, retailers, because, depending on where you’re going, sometimes big boxes, let alone Amazon, they’re not there. So, that’s just a different kind of view of the global/local.

Another one I would share is a fun discussion I’ve had recently with Rocketbook. We wrote about it in Fast Company. But Rocketbook is dealing, like everybody else, with hybrid work, what do you do home versus away. And one of the reasons we started working on this with Fast Company, and we ended up going at Rocketbook, is that people might think that hybrid work is a win-win, but most often, it’s actually experienced as a lose-lose because you’ve lost the boundaries between work and home.

So, you go into work and you’re sitting on Zoom calls. That doesn’t exactly feel like a value to me. You’ve just on the commute and everything else. Or, you’re at home and you still got all of life and home, family, other things distracting and challenge around you, and you’re feeling like you’re really not at your best in either location.

So, talking with Jake and Joe, the co-founders of Rocketbook, Rocketbook does sustainable notebooks. They do reusable notebooks. It’s a really cool technology. I highly recommend it. They said, “Pre-pandemic, we were already hybrid.” And I said, “Well, why?” And they said, “Because we believe in the power of work-at-home, or work-non-office, as deep work, that work that you really need solitude, focus.” And they have a lot of designers, engineers, and they said, “We want them to have that opportunity to be at their best selves.”

And, on the other hand, we knew, and we still believe this wholly, that the best creativity will always happen around a table with a whiteboard, with all these, and that takes in the office. And so, because they had already believed in the power of hybrid work, they came out of COVID really strong because they kind of perfected why you come in, when you come in, how you come in, and when you would work at home.

And they learned this creative way to be both/and, to think about those synergies in ways that made people keep the differences, value separation, they used lots of cool ways to use technologies that we all use, like Outlook and other platforms, to respect people’s deep-work time and, while they’re at home, also have times that you say, “Now, I’m going grocery shopping.” They really got creative in how they use both.

But I think that’s a very different way than a lot of firms saying, “Is it three days or two days?” There’s a very basic approach to hybrid that isn’t how are you deeply making the most of the time together and the time apart. So, I would note those two because I love both options, and I think we’ve lived them in our lives, not just at an organization level.

Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing. So, the Rocketbook parameters then, for whether you work from home or from the office on a given day, is not just blanket two days, three days, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, but rather, “What is the nature of what you’re working on, and then, please, freely come into the office so we can do that better, or stay at home so you can do that better?”

Marianne Lewis
Yeah. And the other way I would say that, Pete, is we talk about in the book one of the key assumptions to moving to the both/and mindset is moving from thinking about your resources as scarce to abundant, and that an abundant mindset matters. And so, it was interesting talking to the folks at Rocketbook because time is a classic resource.

And so, you could say, “Well, yeah, but there are only 24 hours in the day, or eight hours in a workday,” whatever. And what Jake and Joe would say is, “Yeah, but every hour isn’t created equally.” Like, I’m a morning person, I like it super early, okay, then I’m going to work from 5:00 till 10:00. It’s going to be my deep-work time. I don’t want to be bothered from 5:00 till 10:00. But I want you to know I’m on it. And, by the way, I’m then going to take a break because I’m going to be really low, and then I’m going to come in for a few hours.

And so, they figured out ways to make that, and then, at the same time, they have people who are super late-night owls and they’ll even have office times, like at 11:00 o’clock. But my point with the abundance mindset is it’s not that they’re using more time or less time. They’re using time better, and they’re using it in a way, to your point about, yes, it’s the home versus work, but it’s also time that they’re playing with, to say, “What is the kind of work you’re trying to do? When are you at your best?” versus, “When do we get people together, whether it’s on Zoom or in the office?”

It’s a more nuanced approach than the, “Is it three days or two days? And, by the way, is it 8:00 to 5:00?” And I like that. I think that really is empowering to people.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. That’s cool. Well, tell me, Marianne, anything else you want to make sure to mention, any top do’s or don’ts about both/and thinking or embracing creative tensions we should cover before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Marianne Lewis
I think I would just, as a key takeaway, and, obviously you can do dive deeper in the book, we talk about kind of three key steps. You need to change the question you ask from this either/or to an “and,” “How do I accommodate my opposing, my competing demands?” The second piece is, instead of just weighing the pros and cons, and we say, “You need to separate and connect. You need to pull apart that Yin-Yang, think about really what you value on both sides, and then think about how you’re going to hold it together with a higher vision and some key guides.”

And then the third piece is you start to change the way you think about your solutions. Because, again, with either/or, the end result is a single choice. But with a paradox, when you’re dealing with these kinds of tensions, they don’t really go away. I might decide today between work and home, but I’ll have to decide again tomorrow, or I may have to decide between, “Am I really going to focus on current targets or learning for the future? But I’ll have to make that decision again.”

So, we think about one of the most kind of key decision-making modes that we see of people who are really good at both/and thinking, is think about it as tight-rope walking. You’re continuing to move forward but you’re making these kinds of micro decisions on an ongoing basis between challenges, between work or home, between social and financial, between learning and performing, between self and others, where your focus is.

But you don’t let yourself lean so far to one side that you fall because that’s really hard to get back up, and it takes some intention to know that you are holding them together. You need both elements and you’re moving forward. So, I do think that’s key to think about kind of three steps, in some ways.

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

Marianne Lewis
A quote that Wendy and I often return to was by Paul Watzlawick and his colleagues at Stanford, they’re psychologists. And the quote is, “The problem is not the problem. The problem is the way we think about the problem.” And, to me, that’s key to this decision-making. It’s actually the way we thought about the problem has limited our solutions.

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

Marianne Lewis
I think my favorite study was by Rothenberg. It was in 1979, I think, and Rothenberg was studying creative geniuses. He was studying Picasso, Mozart, Einstein, Virginia Woolf, and he was reading all their journals and different things. And what he’s finding was that the genius of these creative individuals came from valuing tensions, seeing them as opportunities; Picasso seeing light and dark; Einstein seeing things in movement and in rest; Virginia Woolf, it was life and death; Mozart was harmony and discord. He called it Janusian Thinking.

That was Rothenberg’s kind of finding. Janus was this two-faced god, looking in two directions simultaneously. But his point was that these creative geniuses found real value in the tensions. They sought conflicts for their greatest works, and I think that is a huge takeaway of instead of viewing these as problems, as in things that we want to avoid, work through as fast as possible, we should seek them out because they have potential, fodder, fuel, for really great creative opportunities.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Marianne Lewis
I think my favorite book is probably The Tao of Physics by Frank Capra. This is just a fascinating book. It goes back to Einstein. I really think Einstein and all the individuals that developed quantum physics were in this paradox mindset in a way that was really cool. But The Tao of Physics basically talked about how they turn to Taoism and insights from the Yin-Yang and ancient philosophy because they were literally thinking, “I’m going to go crazy because I don’t understand how something can be a particle and a wave. Which one is it? How can something be in motion or at rest?”

It was just one of those books. I kind of like a book that makes my head hurt sometimes because it’s really straining, and, at the same time, it’s kind of beautiful. And you realize, “Well, yeah, it was rocket science, it was quantum physics.” They went through some very simple powerful philosophy to get through it, keep themselves sane, but also get to a solution that was really remarkable with quantum physics.

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

Marianne Lewis
Probably my favorite tool is the Polarity Map by Barry Johnson. It’s this really cool, simple approach to when you have a tension, a conflict, competing demands. You put it on this two-by-two grid. And on the one side, you put the highs and lows of that side, like, say, “I love a leadership. I’m a leader and I love to be innovative but I also like to be really disciplined.” Well, at your best, what does your innovative self look like? At its worst, if that’s all you did, like you’re really risky. And then, at the same time, you do, “At my disciplined best, and my disciplined worst, am I a real pain?”

And the point of Barry’s Polarity Map is, “How do you stay in the top two quadrants? How do you let the tight-rope walking? You’re probably not disciplined and innovative at the same time but you’re iterating between the two. And how do you avoid going down into the depths of the negative?” But I love the Polarity Map. It’s just a great tool.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite habit?

Marianne Lewis
I’m not always good at this but I think meditation is a really powerful habit because I think our minds can get in our way, and meditation is just a powerful practice to just kind of clear out the mess and have some calm so that we might not jump so automatically to a place that isn’t always in our best interest, and listen to the voices that might be taking us the wrong direction in our heads.

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

Marianne Lewis
I think a key nugget is probably just the power of a paradox mindset, to say, at our best, let’s not get stuck in these vicious cycles of either/or thinking, which we think of as rabbit holes, wrecking balls, interfere, and really look for more creative lasting solutions. And that’s what I’m hoping our work is doing, taking it out of a more academic realm and thinking more about people’s lives and how do you deal with the tensions because they are human. That is what the world we live in, and it’s natural. But I also think tensions are beneficial.

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

Marianne Lewis
I’d point them to BothAndThinking.net. They can find out more about the work we’ve done in media, more about the book, other places to hear and see us, but, also, there are lots of places you can buy it, and so we just try to put it at one-stop-shop over there.

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

Marianne Lewis
Boy, I think this is a challenging time. I think a lot of people are stepping back and kind of saying, “What do I want?” I hope people use both/and thinking to make those decisions because I know we can feel we want impact. We want meaning. We also want flexibility and finances. We want a lot of things from our jobs that can feel like they’re pulling in us in opposite directions. I think this is the time to be more creative and think differently about what we really want and need out of our jobs.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Thank you, Marianne. I wish you much luck and cool results from both/and thinking.

Marianne Lewis
Thank you. I wish you all the best, Pete. Thank you for this podcast.