Tag

Leadership & Culture Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

Sep 14
0

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

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

Cy Wakeman discusses why engagement is overrated and what really drives results.

You’ll Learn:

  1. How your ego ruins 2.5 hours of each day
  2. Three questions for breaking free from your ego
  3. Why to stop saying “should”

About Cy

Cy Wakeman is a drama researcher, international leadership speaker, and consultant. In 2001 she founded Reality-Based Leadership. She is the author of four books: Reality-Based Leadership: Ditch the Drama, Restore Sanity to the Workplace and Turn Excuses Into Results (2010), NY Times Bestseller, The Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace: Know What Boosts Your Value, Kills Your Chances, and Will Make You Happier (2013), No Ego: How Leaders Can Cut the Cost of Workplace Drama, End Entitlement, and Drive Big Results (2017), and her newest release, Life’s Messy, Live Happy.

Deemed as “the secret weapon to restoring sanity to the workplace,” Cy Wakeman was voted in the top 100 leadership professionals to follow on twitter for 7 years in a row. In 2021, 2022, and 2023 she topped the Global Gurus list of Top 30 Leadership Professionals across the globe, coming in at #1.

Resources Mentioned

Cy Wakeman Interview Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cy Wakeman
It doesn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cy Wakeman
Is that by topic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cy Wakeman
Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
We don’t go there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that experiment is so trippy.

Cy Wakeman
It’s mind-blowing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aug 28
0

894: The Three Keys to Retaining Your Best People with Joe Mull

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

Joe Mull breaks down the fundamentals of why people leave their jobs then shares simple solutions to creating a happier, more committed workforce.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The true story behind the myth, “Nobody wants to work anymore.”
  2. The sweet spot for a team’s workload
  3. How to talk to your boss about improving your job

About Joe

Joe Mull is the author of 3 books including No More Team Drama and the forthcoming Employalty: How to Ignite Commitment and Keep Top Talent in the New Age of Work.

He is the founder of the BossBetter Leadership Academy and hosts the popular Boss Better Now podcast, which was recently named by SHRM as a “can’t miss show for leaders” along with podcasts from Brené Brown and Harvard Business Review.

In demand as a keynote speaker, Joe has taught leadership courses at two major universities and previously managed training at one of the largest healthcare systems in the U.S.

Joe has appeared as an expert in multiple media outlets including Forbes, the International Business Times, on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and on Good Morning America.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, sponsors!

  • BetterHelp. Calm racing thoughts with online therapy. Get 10% off your first month at BetterHelp.com/awesome.

Joe Mull Interview Transcript

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

Joe Mull
I am so excited to be here, Pete. Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to talk about your book, Employalty: How to Ignite Commitment and Keep Top Talent in the New Age of Work, whether listeners are managing, executivizing, keeping their talent, or they are the talent, and they’re thinking about looking elsewhere. You’ve got some great perspectives we’re excited to hear. But, first, I need to hear about you singing at Carnegie Hall. Joe, tell me, how did you get to Carnegie Hall?

Joe Mull
Well, I was one of those show choir kids in high school. I was really involved in theater and performing arts. And one year, one of our groups, our high school group, was invited to a choral that was being made up of kids from a whole bunch of other states, and we got to go to New York City and practice with a maestro for two days. And then we performed parts of Mozart’s “Requiem” on stage at Carnegie Hall in New York City. It was pretty amazing.

Pete Mockaitis
That is cool. That’s cool. I thought, when I asked, you would say practice, practice, practice but that was a very valid…

Joe Mull
That’s in there.

Pete Mockaitis
I was in the show choir combo for one year as well, and that was a good time. It’s a whole world there, man. Kudos. And it sounds like it’s a fond memory.

Joe Mull
Thank you. It is. And my jazz hands are still strong, I got to tell you.

Pete Mockaitis
Your rapid costume-changing abilities?

Joe Mull
No doubt.

Pete Mockaitis
That comes in handy sometimes, I bet. Cool.

Joe Mull
Absolutely, yes.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, now can you tell us a little bit about Employalty. First of all, what do you mean by this word?

Joe Mull
Employalty is actually a franken word of the words ‘employer,’ ‘loyalty,’ and ‘humanity.’ What we know is that if you want to find and keep devoted employees, it’s employers that actually have to be loyal to employees, and actually create a work experience that prioritizes quality of life. When you do that, people would join an organization, they will stay long term, and they will do great work. So, employalty is the commitment that employers make to a more humane employee experience.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, Joe, that premise sounds sensible, reasonable, logical. Do you have any interesting facts or research tidbits that suggest just how essential this concept is for folks?

Joe Mull
Oh, man, did you just open a Pandora’s box because I completely nerd out on a lot of the social science research on what leads people at work to be committed, to activate their emotional and psychological commitment. And for this book, we analyzed more than 200 research studies and articles on why people decide to quit a job, or what attracts them to a new organization, or what leads people to stay. And I can tell you with conviction that there are three areas of the employee experience that matter the most. We call them ideal job, meaningful work, and great boss.

So, ideal job is made up of compensation, workload, and flexibility. You get those three things right, and my job fits into my life like a puzzle piece snapping into place. For meaningful work, it’s purpose, strengths, and belonging. If I believe my work matters, if it aligns with some things that I’m good at, and I feel like an accepted and celebrated member of the team, my work is meaningful and I want to do it well.

And then great boss, there’s a lot of stuff you got to get right for someone to point to you, and say, “Man, I’ve got a great boss.” But we think the three most important are trust, coaching, and advocacy. If my boss grants me trust and earns my trust, if they advocate for me, and they coach me, then that job is something I want to be a part of.

So, all of the research that we see in what leads people to want to be part of an organization, and want to do great work for that great organization, comes down to ideal job, meaningful work, and great boss.

Pete Mockaitis
Joe, well said, I think that that really cuts through the clutter and simplifies things, and feels true to me in terms of, “Yup, if you’ve got those things going, it’s hard to see how your job is not amazing.” It’s conceivably possible there’s an even more amazing job out there for you somewhere, but that’s pretty hard. You’re quite the competitive situation when these things are true.

Joe Mull
Right. And we think of this as a kind of internal psychological scorecard. Everybody is walking around with a kind of internal scorecard of ideal job, meaningful work, and great boss. And if you’re checking most or all of the boxes around the employee experience for that person, it’s very unlikely that they’re unhappy, that they’re looking around for something else. It’s very unlikely that they can be poached from your organization.

But if things change, or you’re not checking those boxes consistently, then people’s commitment starts to wane, they start to look around, or, worse, they’re mentally checked out and they stay. What’s interesting about this though is that there is not equal importance across all of those dimensions of that scorecard for every person.

And what I mean is that people’s priorities are different. I’m 46 years old, I’ve got three kids under the age of 13. When I was first entering the workforce, what was most important to me was compensation because I had a car held together by, like, duct tape and prayer, and so I wanted to earn some money and be able to get a decent car and pay my bills.

Nowadays, I make a nice living. What’s more important to me beyond finances is, “Do I have some flexibility because I need to be home two days a week to get my kids off the bus because of my wife’s work schedule?” And so, the priorities within that scorecard can ebb and flow and change from person to person, and even within the same person over the course of our lives.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely, that checks out. So, tell me, Joe, it seems like you’ve got a real nice synthesis of what matters and how we can think about that in an organized fashion, and that in and of itself is valuable. At the same time, I guess it’s not particularly surprising. I think once you say it, it makes me say, “Yeah, it sounds about right,” which is valuable in and of itself because you could say a dozen things that, hmm, feel like a stretch and know these skills right on the money.

So, tell us, have you discovered anything particularly surprising in your journey of research and digging into this employalty stuff?

Joe Mull
Probably the most surprising piece is the degree to which these old beliefs and myths and misinformation about work and why people choose to stay with an organization long term or why they choose to do great work, that continue to persist. So, we write in the book about what we call the myth of lazy. And I’m sure you’ve heard people talk about that the real problem is work ethic, “No one wants to work anymore. These kids today are just entitled. They don’t care as much about their work.”

And one of my favorite things that we found in the research for book was we found a professor out of Canada who has been studying generational theory. And this idea, this “No one wants to work” is actually the most persistent generational trope in human history. This man found examples of this exact sentiment “No one wants to work” showing up in North American newspapers every year going back 120 years.

Pete Mockaitis
Boy, that’s funny. Well, I was thinking, is there a quote from, like, is it Socrates or Plato or Aristotle or one of them talking about, “Oh, this generation”? So, maybe thousands of years, but at least 120, every year in the newspapers in the US that that’s an eyeopener. Okay, so.

Joe Mull
And we really want this to be the problem, don’t we? I have a local small business owner in my community who owns several restaurants in retail locations, and, for the past two years, he has regularly posted on social media when he has openings, and he always does it the same way. He says, “Help me find good people. No one wants to work,” and then he lists the pay and the hours.

And it’s been a really interesting thing to watch people in the community come back, and say, “Hold on. Time out. It’s not that no one wants to work, it’s that no one wants to work for you.” And that’s really what this conversation is about. When we have trouble filling positions or keeping people in an organization, we want to blame people, we want to say that they left for greed, we want to say “No one wants to work anymore,” when the real problem has been the work.

All of the research that we did to kind of capture what’s happening at this moment around what we’ve heard called The Great Resignation and quiet quitting and all of these ideas is that we are living in an era where people are looking for upgrades to their quality of life. So, think about it this way, Pete. When did we start hearing about The Great Resignation?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, well, now it feels like it’s been a long time. Is it three-ish years?

Joe Mull
Three-is years, right. So, we first started hearing this language in late 2020 or early 2021 when a professor out of Texas labeled this as something that he predicted was going to happen in the labor market. Would it surprise you to learn that what we know as The Great Resignation actually started in 2009? It’s actually been going on for 13 years. And here’s what I mean.

So, if you remember The Great Recession in 2008, we get our economic feet under us a little bit in 2009. And then in 2010, something interesting happened in the labor market. Two million more people voluntarily quit their job than the year before. And then in 2011, it happened again. And in 2012, it happened again. And every year since 2010, more and more people than the year before have voluntarily left their job. But during that same time period, we had had 50% more hiring in every industry category in the United States.

So, if you nerd out around this stuff like I do, and you look at this on, like, a graph chart, you see that for every year since 2010, quitting has gone up but hiring has been above it and has gone up. So, what’s happening is not the people are quitting, it’s that they’re switching because they can, because we don’t have enough people to do all of the jobs that are available to us that we continue to add to our economy.

And so, people are upgrading. And if you ask people, “Do you know someone who switched jobs in the last year or two?” Nearly everybody raises their hand. And you ask them, “Why are people switching?” and you get a whole bunch of answers, “I need more money,” “I’m leaving a toxic work environment,” “I want more of work-life balance,” “I want a shorter commute,” “I want to work from home,” “I want more time with my kids,” “I want a better boss,” “I want more fulfilling work,” but all of those answers role up to a bigger idea, which is “I want a better quality of life.”

And so, when we talk about employalty, we’re talking about a more humane employee experience that prioritizes quality in life because we’re living in an era where that’s what matters most.

Pete Mockaitis
There’s so much good stuff here, Joe. So, it’s like, “I want a better quality of life, and because of the supply-demand market dynamics for labor at the moment, I can get away with it.” It’s like, “Things aren’t so tight and me so desperate that I’m going to hold on to something lame because I don’t have to.” So, there we are.

Well, now I’m curious. I’m thinking about my buddy, Steve. Shoutout to Steve.

Joe Mull
What’s up, Steve?

Pete Mockaitis
He listened to one of my guests mentioned that he put himself through grad school via juggling, and Steve said, “Oh, boy, this guy’s a boomer. You can’t do that now.” And I thought that that was interesting in terms of so we have, “The next generation is lazy, nobody wants to work,” sort of that idea is a myth that’s been sort of believed in or shared for 120 plus years in the US.

Although, I think it does also seem true that from a, I don’t know, I don’t exactly how we measure this precisely in terms of economist and quality of life, etc. but it also seems that the minimum wage could take you a lot farther 50, 80 years ago, like paying for grad school with juggling, like that kind of a thing was more possible then.

So, I don’t know what’s the best way to measure quality of life because I guess we’ve got bigger houses and iPhones now, but also more sort of dual-income households in order to make ends meet. So, it’s sort of like, “Are we better off? Are we worse off?” I guess it depends on how you look at it. But, nonetheless, it would seem that your minimum-wage restaurant job offer today is just way lamer than it was 60 years ago.

Joe Mull
And it’s not sustainable. So, since compensation is one of those nine dimensions of employalty that we talk about in the book, we devoted an entire chapter to talking about wages because it’s a complex issue right now. But one of the things that we know that is not up for debate is that we’ve endured nearly 40 years of wage stagnation here in the US. The average salary for the median US worker rose 10% between 2021 and 1979. It’s absurd.

Pete Mockaitis
In real terms?

Joe Mull
In real terms, and while the cost of living has gone up 400%. And so, we know, we write about it in the book that the number companies need to look at around compensation nowadays isn’t minimum wage and it isn’t market wage. It actually needs to start with what’s called a living wage, which is an economic calculation of what somebody needs to earn to avoid a substandard of living.

And what we know is that, in nearly every state in the US, a living wage is $17 an hour. But here’s the rub, that’s for a household of one. If you add a child, the living wage in the United States for a household with one parent and one adult is above $30 an hour. If that adult earns less than $30 an hour, they will struggle to afford adequate food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medicine, all of it.

And so, when we see folks who are changing jobs, for many of them, it is not about the money except for those for whom it is entirely about the money, and their choices around money aren’t being driven by greed, they’re not being driven by entitlement. They’re being driven by survival.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s powerful. Yes, living wage is near and dear to my heart when I’m hiring out of developing countries, and, sure enough, it lets me get fantastic quality talent because most people aren’t, “Oh, can I get away with giving you three bucks an hour? Then I will.” It’s like, “Okay. Well, good luck getting the finest talent from these nations.” That’s a whole other conversation.

Joe Mull
And that’s part of the reason we saw, finally after so much availability in the labor market over the last two, three years, especially since COVID, is organizations, employers have been forced to push wages up. They’re sort of reckoning with the sins of those 40 years and recognizing that, in that supply and demand model, we actually need to stand out more.

But here’s the crazy thing. There’s just been a bunch of news coverage over the past three or four weeks here in the US about how wage growth has actually slid back just a little bit this year. It’s not keeping pace with what it had been before. And what’s that old quote about “History is doomed to repeat itself”? We have these employers who are looking around, and going, “Oh, well, if the labor market is cooling just a bit, I’m going to try to get away with paying people less than I was coming through the door than I did a year or two ago.”

And in the aftermath of so many years of people being underpaid, you’re immediately creating a flight risk when that person walks through the door and knows that they’re not getting all that they could have, or they find out that somebody else in the company came in at a higher wage, or there’s an organization across the street that has decided not to slide back onto those lower wages and recognizes there’s an economic challenge for most people across their organization and they continue to pay at that level.

Pete Mockaitis
So much good stuff. This is good real talk about compensation that I appreciate. So, let’s say, okay, we check that box. You, as an employer, you are providing solidly above living wage, so that’s cool. So, then tell us, what are the highest leverage points, I guess, in terms of facilitating loyalty, in terms of what is something, a dimension here, that’s really broken really frequently, and is actually not that hard to fix? Joe, where shall we start?

Joe Mull
Well, one of the things that comes to mind for me is workload. So, we know that workloads in the last 20 years in the United States have continued to explode, and it was driven through the ‘90s and into the early 2000s by what we refer to as rightsizing or efficiency. In organizations, you would see the work of three people became the work of two people, and then, suddenly, that amount of work was foisted onto one person as organizations look to maximize shareholder value and revenue.

And so, we live in this world now where organizations of every shape and size are operating with minimum staffing thresholds. And we think and we connect all of the labor struggles that we’re having right now, and turnover, and The Great Resignation with COVID. But if you remember 2019, burnout was at an all-time high in the US workforce before anybody ever heard of COVID.

We took fewer vacation days as Americans than every other developed nation on earth prior to COVID. And the number one reason people don’t take vacation time in the US is fear of falling behind at work. And so, we know that our expectations of what one person can reasonably accomplish have slowly moved. In fact, we know managers here in the US, we know that their workloads have increased by more than 30% in just the last seven years.

And so, if we want to create a workplace where people join, and they stay, and they care and try, we want to create a workplace that doesn’t disrupt people’s quality of life. We have to look at workloads, and we have to look at staffing levels, and we have to disperse that workload across a greater number of people so that people aren’t running at 100% capacity all the time.

There was actually just some research that came out over the summer that pointed to, “What’s the sweet spot?” And forgive me for not knowing the exact source of that research right off the top of my head right now but I can certainly send it to you.

Pete Mockaitis
You are forgiven, Joe.

Joe Mull
But it said that about the sweet spot for effort and capacity around workload was right about 85%. That if you asked people to work to about 85% of their effort and capacity most of the time, you’ve actually hit a sort of Goldilocks kind of just right sweet spot because what happens is, that leaves enough time for people to build camaraderie, to engage in professional development, to have a little bit more creativity around their work, to invest time and effort into, if you’re a manager, building more relationships and trust with your employees.

And if something happens, and you need to ask your employees to ramp up, they have space to give. It’s the difference between putting the pedal to the metal in the car and driving with the accelerator pressed to the floor the whole time versus leaving a little something behind so that if you need to go up a hill, you have a little bit more there to push on, and so, I think workload is a big part of this.

In terms of how you fix it, we got to increase the staffing levels in a lot of organizations, we have to get involved and invested in evaluating the individual workloads that people have, or we got to figure out where we can minimize those a little bit more.

Pete Mockaitis
Joe, you must be really popular amongst the executives when you’re saying these things, like, “Joe, I’m hearing that we need to spend a lot more money. Joe, I need to pay people more per hour and get fewer hours out of them. How am I supposed to survive in my business, competitive forces, blah, blah, blah, blah?”

Joe Mull
Well, you know what I like, I like gin and tonics. So, here’s what I would tell an executive, I’d say, “Let’s sit down at the bar, and if you are so inclined to order a grownup beverage, what my wife and I call a drink-y drink, I’ll order a gin and tonic, you order what you want to order. And on the back of a napkin, we’re going to do some math. I’m going to ask you, what’s your turnover in the positions that you’re struggling to keep? How many did you lose last quarter? How many do you have open right now?”

“Because we know it costs between half to two times a position’s salary to replace that position in an organization. I’m going to ask, how much time your managers are spending on recruitment? How much time are they spending on performance management issues? I’m going to ask you on the back of that napkin, can we find a way to calculate the impact on your customer experience if you’re understaffed, or if your customers encounter someone who is not fully emotionally and psychologically engaged in their work.”

“And we’ve very quickly going to come up with probably millions of dollars of invisible costs that don’t always show up on the balance sheet that we know are offset if we can invest just a little bit more in the employee experience.” I was just telling an executive the other day, “You’ve got to choose your hard. You can run an organization on a minimum staffing threshold. You can run an organization paying people as little as possible. And you’re going to have some hard challenges as a result of that in terms of quality of product and service delivery, retention, churn, turnover, etc.”

“Or, you can invest more in the employee experience. You can pay people a little bit more. Ask them to work a little bit less. You can invest in quality-of-life initiatives. And is that hard? It is absolutely hard but only one of those hard sets of problems comes with a higher quality of product and service and a better customer experience, which is going to lead to improvement in every metric you care about in your organization as an executive.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, we’ve made the case. And speaking of numbers, 85% of effort and capacity, am I measuring that in hours?

Joe Mull
Oh, that’s a good question.

Pete Mockaitis
Like, on the numerator and hours on the denominator, and they cancel out, yielding a percentage?

Joe Mull
There’s a couple of different instruments that are being used popularly right now to measure workload. One of them is a Task Index that was actually built and founded by NASA, and so it does evaluate time but it also evaluates perception of effort. So, think about a one-on-one conversation that you might have with a direct report that asks them, “What are the parts of your job that demand the most time and attention and energy? What are the parts of your job that energize you versus what are the parts of your job that actually leave you feeling defeated or exhausted?”

And this isn’t a conversation about what someone can or can’t “handle” because that frames it in all the wrong way, and we know that workers will lie because they don’t want to give their perception that they can’t handle certain things in their job because that just works against them. But if we evaluate both time and perception and effort, it starts to give us a more complete picture of how workload is actually impacting someone.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. I guess I’m just thinking if a manager or a team is looking to get a sense of this, like, “All right, 85% is the number I’m shooting for. I do the NASA inventory to see what’s up.” I guess what I’m thinking is that it can really vary person by person in terms of physical fitness and vitality, or even season by season of a person’s life, it’s like, “Hey, my parents are aging and there’s a whole lot I’m dealing with there which sucks my energy outside of…”

Joe Mull
Or, season by season in the organization because there are some months of the year where a particular kind of work might be more demanding than in other slow times.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I guess I’m wondering, it seems like it’s not as straightforward saying, “Hey, 40 hours is the whole size of the pie, so 85% equals 34.” It sounds like it’s not quite that straightforward here, Joe.

Joe Mull
Yeah. And you also have to factor in, “How do people like to work?” So, I have one employee on my team who loves to be busy, like borderline overwhelmed. She thrives in it. She asks for it. She says, “Give me more,” whereas, I thought other people who really want to take on a little bit less so that they can go deeper and perform at a level that they think is a bit of a higher quality.

So, this is where the relationships that you build with your direct reports, one on one, truly matter, and it’s where just using an instrument like the one we talked about, like the Task Index alone, isn’t going to give you a complete snapshot of what people need to be at their best every day. And so, if you’re familiar with the concept of stay interviews, the idea is the opposite of exit interviews.

If someone’s decided to leave an organization, we ask them, “What could we have done differently?” or, “How can we improve?” And if you think about it, exit interviews are absurd. I’m a recovering HR professional, and I tell organizations all the time, “Exit interviews are stupid. Let’s stop doing them.” Because, if you think about how absurd they are, Pete, it’s, “Okay, we’ve got somebody who’s got one foot out the door, they’re leaving, they have no stakes here whatsoever, ‘Hey, now would be a great time for you to give us some feedback.’”

Well, why don’t we have that conversation with the people who actually stay, where we actually make time, and maybe it’s just once or twice a year, maybe it’s once a quarter? And we sit down with folks, and we say, “Tell me about what’s working for you here. Tell me about something you’d love to see changed around here. If you ran this place, what’s something you would do differently? What do you love about your work? What keeps you here? If you were to leave, what would the reason be? What energizes you about your work? What would you like to learn more about in the year ahead? Or, what would you like to do more of or less of in the year ahead?”

It’s really about getting inside that person’s head and their heart to understand what’s important to them, how this job fits into their life, and how you can turn their job at this place into their ideal job and a destination workplace.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s super. And let’s say someone listening here is the employee, and they would love for their organization, their team, their manager to deliver all the better on their internal scorecard, how can we nudge things in that positive direction when we don’t hold all the cards and power?

Joe Mull
Yeah, there are certainly power dynamics at play in terms of how risky is that conversation? But it really does come down to a conversation with your, first, your direct supervisor. If something is missing, then can we ask for it? And I think that’s one of my favorite parts of this framework that we’ve written about in this book, of ideal job, meaningful work, and great boss is it’s giving people both at the organization and leadership level and at the individual contributor level, it’s given them a vocabulary that we can use to talk about what I’m getting.

Because for years, what we’ve advised leaders to do is, “Hey, if you want to know what employees want from their workplace or from their bosses, you should ask them,” and that’s true. It’s 100% true. But employees don’t always know exactly what they want, or they don’t necessarily have the language or the vocabulary to put their finger on it. And so, we wrote this in such a way that it created some language around it.

And so, I can go to my supervisor, and I can say, “Hey, this job is working well for me in terms of flexibility, and in terms of benefits, and in terms of workload. But in terms of compensation, it’s falling short, and that feels to be like the one missing piece for me that would make this my ideal job, and it’s the one thing that makes me consider maybe looking around someplace else. Can we have a conversation about opportunity to grow my compensation, what the timeline might be for that? What would be your openness to that conversation and see where it goes?”

We know, for example, that right now, the shortest path to a significant pay increase is to change employers. But employers are also recognizing that as well, and they’re stepping up in some big ways to actually increase salaries to prevent people from leaving. And if you’re in an industry that’s really struggling with filling positions, if you’re in healthcare, if you’re in education, if you’re a laborer, if you’re in management, if you’re in corrections, if you’re in law enforcement, these are industries right now that have been decimated with turnover.

So, there’s more opportunity than ever before to say, “You know what, I would consider staying but we need to move the needle on this a little bit.”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. So, Joe, I think each of these things make sense in terms of if they’re in place, folks are more likely to stay, and they’re also more likely to be motivated. Can you share with us, is there a distinction between the psychological forces that keep people staying versus the psychological forces that keep people fired up and hungry to make stuff happen?

Joe Mull
Great question. So, when I am invited to be a keynote speaker at conferences or for corporate meetings, one of the first things I will do is I put a question on the board that says, “What motivates employees to care and try at work?” And I’ve got some of this cool software where everybody could take out their cellphone and they can type in, like, one-word answers, and we create this word cloud, and it sort of morphs and shifts on the screen.

And every single time I do this, the words that are the biggest, because the words that get entered the most across the group appear larger in the word cloud, the words that appear most as answers to this question, “What motivates employees to care and try at work?” are all related to money. You’ll see pay, you’ll see compensation, you’ll see raises.

And what’s interesting is that pay and benefits have very little to do with effort at work. They have everything to do with that join and stay. They have everything to do with hiring and retention. Money is about hiring and retentions, “Come through the door. Stay here with us.” That has a lot to do with money. Once we get them through the door and the money is right, it no longer has an impact on people’s effort.

The other things that we’ve been talking about here – belonging, purpose, a great boss who trusts and coaches and advocates, getting to do work that aligns with my strengths – these are the things that activate people’s commitment. Because if I come to work every day, and I’m getting my ideal job, compensation, workload, flexibility, that job fits into my life in a great way. But then I’m also getting to do work that gives me purpose, with a team I love being a part of, that aligns with my gifts, for a boss that I like working for, all of a sudden, we look around, and we say, “Wow, I hit the lottery. I want to be a part of this. I want to do great work.”

And so, those first three pieces of ideal job, they have a lot more to do with retention. The rest of that employalty model has everything to do with effort.

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

Joe Mull
I appreciated what you said at the top about how it really does seem like common sense. One of my favorite things that I mentioned about the book is that, quite simply, we know people generally do a great job when they believe they have a great job. Do we understand what a great job is nowadays though? And it really does come back to quality of life. So, thank you for noticing, and I think that is absolute truth.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I’m flattered. Absolute truth. That’s what we’re going for. Now, could you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Joe Mull
I am known for repeating the quote that, “Comparison is the thief of joy.” I say this to my kids a lot. I tell it to myself as a lot as an entrepreneur, as a speaker, as an author to remind myself not to benchmark myself against someone else’s perceptions or successes.

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

Joe Mull
I am a big fan of a lot of the research that appeared in Gallup’s book a few years ago called “It’s the Manager.” And my favorite little nugget from that is that they found that in organizations with some of the highest scores around employee engagement, that the managers in that organization had two things in common.

First, they were a part of a peer group of managers. Second, they had an ongoing commitment to professional development. And if you think about it, isn’t that the most simple, beautiful structure for getting better bosses in the world, is, “Hey, let’s make sure that these leaders have other leaders to talk to about being a leader. And, hey, let’s see if we can nurture within them an ongoing commitment to growing as a leader. Do they read books? Do they go to conferences? Do they listen to podcasts?”

It would seem that those two things alone actually not only move the needle on leadership but on engagement.

Pete Mockaitis
And can you share a favorite book?

Joe Mull
My favorite book is Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink.

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

Joe Mull
I use Siri a lot. I’m not going to say her name because she’s going to light up on my watch or my phone. But I ask her to remind me of things all the time. I’ll park my car at the airport, and as I’m leaving, I’ll say, “Hey, Siri, remind me on Friday at 10:00 p.m. that I am parked in 10-B.” And then when I’m landing Friday at 10:00 p.m., my phone goes “You’re parked in 10-B.” So, that’s probably my favorite tool.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit, something you do that helps you be awesome at your job?

Joe Mull
Vacation. I am a big believer in taking time away to be with my people, my kids, my wife, my dog. And I’m a big believer that a once-a-year vacation is not nearly enough. I believe that everybody should get away multiple times a year. I know there’s a lot of privilege in that statement, socioeconomic privilege, and entrepreneurial privilege and whatnot, but the truth is we are better for others when we take better care of ourselves.

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

Joe Mull
“Pull the weeds.” So, my first book was called Cure for the Common Leader, and when I did a lot of keynoting on that, and still around this topic, I talk about how we tend to tolerate toxic employees for far too long, in that they are weeds in the garden. They masquerade as flowers but they truly are weeds in a garden. And if you allow a weed to go too long and grow too strong, it suffocates the garden. And that once you know a weed is a weed, the only way to save the garden is to pull the weed.

And so, when I talk about “pull the weeds,” man, the number of people who have written to me, called me, come up to me after conferences, and said, “Hey, we pulled a weed, and it was the best thing we ever did.”

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

Joe Mull
JoeMull.com is probably the best way to go.

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

Joe Mull
Commit to creating a more humane employee experience at work. Never forget that people aren’t a commodity. People are people.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Joe, this has been a treat. Thank you and I wish you much luck and fun in your employalty life.

Joe Mull
My pleasure, Pete. Thanks for having me.

Jul 31
0

886: How to Become an Executive with Adam Bryant

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Adam Bryant shares powerful insights on how to get promoted and be successful as a leader.

You’ll Learn:

  1. What every aspiring leader should know about themselves
  2. How to get promoted without asking for a promotion
  3. The key ratio that positions you for advancement

About Adam

Adam Bryant is Senior Managing Director and Partner at the ExCo Group, where he works with hundreds of senior leaders and high-potential executives. As the creator and former author of the iconic “Corner Office” column in The New York Times, Bryant has mastered the art of distilling real-world lessons from his hundreds of interviews and turning them into practical tools, presentations, and exercises to help companies deepen their leadership benches and strengthen their teams. He also works with executive leadership teams to help drive their transformation strategies, based on a best-practices framework he developed for his widely praised book, THE CEO TEST: Master the Challenges That Make or Break All Leaders.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • BetterHelp. Make better decisions with online therapy. Get 10% off your first month at BetterHelp.com/awesome.

Adam Bryant Interview Transcript

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

Adam Bryant
Thank you for the invitation, Pete. I’ve been looking forward to this.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, me, too. Me, too. Well, I’m excited to hear the wisdom you’ve collected in your book, The Leap to Leader: How Ambitious Managers Make the Jump to Leadership. But, first, we need to hear about you and ping-pong. What’s the story, training with a ping-pong coach?

Adam Bryant
Yeah, that’s a sentence that I never thought I would utter in my life, which is that I have a ping-pong coach. But we moved down to New Orleans a few years ago where my two daughters are, including now my son-in-law. And he was blessed with great hand-eye coordination for things like golf. And in the townhouse we have, my wife generously gave me the loft for my “office,” and I put that in air quotes. But I have my desk up there, I have a pool table, a foosball table, and a ping-pong table.

And I just got determined to get better at this, and I found a ping-pong coach in New Orleans, and I train with him a couple of days a week, and it’s pretty cool. At my age, I’d recently turned 60, but it’s cool to get better at something. And my son-in-law used to beat me pretty consistently. I now beat him, I’d say, a little more than half the time.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, congratulations. And I’m just imagining these training sessions with the ping-pong coach with sort of Rocky montage type music in the background, and he’s, like, screaming at you to push yourself to the very limits. Is that how it goes down?

Adam Bryant
Not so much, but he’s a good coach. He’s from Vietnam and there’s a word he’s taught me, which is “Cho-le” which means sort of, “Let’s go.” And when you hit a really good shot, you celebrate and yell, “Cho-le.” The other thing, you’re taking me down a rabbit hole, Pete, but the one thing that is very cool about the world of ping-pong is that when you hit a lucky shot, generally, you sort of put up your hand just to sort of signal to your opponent that you acknowledge it was a lucky shot.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s friendly.

Adam Bryant
I think it’s very refreshing compared to some sports, like soccer, where people always just, like, fake flopping and things like that, so.

Pete Mockaitis
Right. It’s like, “Yes, I know. I’m so amazing. Look at me, I can pull it off.” Well, so tell us, I imagine there’s a lot of practice you invested. Are there any sort of tips or principles for folks also looking to be awesome at ping-pong? What would you suggest for them?

Adam Bryant
Well, there’s kind of basement ping-pong where you’re just sort of flailing your arms, but to do it properly, it is, and I know this sounds silly, but it is an incredible workout because you basically have to be squatting very low and also be on your toes. And footwork is a huge part of it, so you got to be super agile on your feet while you’re squatting, while you’re on your toes, and to get yourself in a position to hit the shots. So, it’s one of those things, like a lot of things in life, from afar it looks pretty easy, but it is an incredible workout. I get the same calorie burn from that as like a Peloton workout, so.

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding. All right. Good to know. Well, so now onto…

Adam Bryant
Less important matters, how to be awesome at your ping-pong, right, Pete?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now for some insights which could have maybe an even greater transformational impact on people’s careers. So, you’ve interviewed over a thousand CEOs over your life and career. That’s pretty cool. Can you share with me any interesting themes associated with what’s kind of different about these people than others? And how do they generally get to become one?

Adam Bryant
And just to give you the context, so when I first started interviewing CEOs, it was for a series I created at the New York Times called Corner Office, which was based on a very simple what-if, which is, “What if I sat down with CEOs and never ask them a single question about their company?” which is how CEOs are usually interviewed, and just focus on the leadership lessons and early influences, and how they talk and think about the sort of universal challenges of leadership.

So, that was my initial focus. I, also, from the very start, embraced diversity in, literally, every sense of the word in the people I interviewed. And so, looking back now and kind of saying, “Well, what are the patterns?” I think one of the clear patterns that emerged is this skill, this habit of mind, to be able to simplify complexity. And, to me, it is one of the common threads.

I don’t think you can lead effectively if you don’t have that because I do think it’s a leader’s job to take the complexity of the world, their industry, what’s happening in their company, and it’s just one of those key leadership moments to be able to stand on a stage, whether it’s literal or virtual, and basically answer the kind of questions that little kids ask in the backseat, which is, “Where are we going? And how are we going to get there? And when are we going to get there?” And I know that sounds simple but simple is hard, and I just think it’s such an important skill. Because if you know how to simplify complexity, then you’re also going to be a good communicator.

So, to me, that’s like one of the core skills that you have to have. In terms of how they became CEOs, what’s been so refreshing and so what I’ve really enjoyed just hearing people’s past and their stories is that, yes, I met a few CEOs over the years, Pete, who just seem like from central casting, like they were the class president, they were the frat house president. There were just those kids who, from an early age, they said, “You’re going to be a CEO someday.”

And I met a few of those but I have to say they were kind of in a distinct minority. I met a lot of people who you just never would’ve guessed, like they were former elementary school teachers, they studied classical organ in college, just really unusual backgrounds, theater. And, suddenly, they’re, like not suddenly, but now they’re running a huge company.

And I have thought a lot about this because I think people are hungry for career advice, and I think part of the thing that they’re looking for is an answer to the question, “Am I on the right path? What is the right path? If I want to move up, if I want to get that CEO job, what is the right path?” And what I always tell people is there are some obvious directional things you have to do. Like, if you want to be a CEO of a really big company, you should get a job at a really big company at a young age.

So, once you check the obvious things, what I always tell people is that there is no right path. The most important path is the path that you are on. And the thing that really separates people that I find is whether they keep their eyes open, and they look around, and they’re always, it’s this kind of machine learning of whatever their experience is, and keeping their eyes open, they’re just always sort of sifting that experience, it’s like, “What am I learning? What am I noticing? Boy, that boss seems to be really effective. What is it that he or she does? That seems like a really bad boss. Why is that? This team is effective.”

And so, to me, it’s just that quality of keeping your eyes open. I often reflect on a saying that I heard from a college president named Ruth Simmons. And what she would tell students is that, “You should always be prepared at any moment of your life to learn the most important lesson of your life.” And I think it’s just a great sort of guide for your life just to keep your eyes open and learn, because there are lessons everywhere.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s powerful. And I think, a lot of times, in my own experience, that can come up in just the form of a wild idea in terms of, “I’m noticing this and I’m wondering that. And then, what do you know, and now this is a business. Well, how about that? That was interesting.”

Adam Bryant
Yeah. And, to me, like a lot of that comes from silence. Like, yes, there is that sort of habit of mind. And, as you just described, you’re always questioning, like, “Why is that?” And you see sort of like a seam or a gap in the world, it’s like, “Why is that there?” And it is that sort of curiosity, that relentless questioning. But I also think that a lot of that, making the most of the experience that you’ve had, processing it, looking for the patterns, probing it, it does require time for reflection.

And I think a lot of people, silence isn’t comfortable, and they pick up their phone, and they start scrolling or something. And so, I always tell people, it’s like, “You need to get comfortable with silence, and just to have those conversations with yourself so you can process what you’ve been learning.”

Pete Mockaitis
And when it comes to the simplifying complexity, could you give us an example of, “Here’s complexity and here’s, on the other side of a CEO simplification. See how that’s great?”

Adam Bryant
Yeah, sure. And I often use the example of Bob Iger, the CEO at Disney. So, the backstory before he became CEO at Disney, he was the internal candidate, and I think the board actually wanted an external candidate. So, he went on this campaign for the job, and he basically created this very simple, like, three-part plan, he said, “If you make me a CEO, these are the three things that I’m going to focus on.”

He said, “Great content.” You can say, “Well, that’s obvious, right? Like, you’re Disney.” But, “Second one was global expansion. So, we’re going to place those bets. We’re going to go into newer markets.” And you could say, “Well, that sounds obvious, too.” But the third one that he said is that, “We are going to embrace technology in all its forms. New technology. So, whatever new technology comes along, whether it’s streaming, even if it undermines our traditional business model in the short term, we are going to embrace it.”

And what’s been interesting is that, Pete, he has never ever wavered from those three things. If you read his book, The Ride of a Lifetime, which is a good book, there’s good insights, it’s not that sort of CEO victory lap kind of book, you can just sort of see, like the growth of the company. It’s, like, all along those three pillars. And he’s just relentless about communicating that.

Last time I checked, the second sentence of his bio on the corporate website referred to those three things, like, great content, global expansion, embracing new technology. And so, to me, that is a good little case study of what that looks like. Because, again, like it’s a sweet spot, you can look at that and say, “Well, isn’t that obvious?” And it’s like, “Well, actually, great content maybe yes, but the other two were very clear bets and clear paths.”

And the great thing about when you get it right, when you do simplify complexity as a leader, then it’s actually really great for morale because everybody kind of understands how you’re going to win, they understand how the work they are doing can contribute to the success of the company. And there’s this popular expression you’ve probably heard that culture eats strategy for breakfast. You hear it a lot at conferences. It’s always attributed to Peter Drucker. It turns out there’s no record that he ever said it, and I increasingly believe it’s wrong.

That you need to have that really clear strategy, that simplified complexity so that everybody can understand how they are helping the team win. And if you do that, I think that’s great for morale and culture.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. So, in the Disney example, the simplified version is great content, global market, embracing technology. What would be the complex version that a CEO who is floundering might put forward?

Adam Bryant
Listen, you’ve probably seen them yourself. I certainly have. A lot of companies pull together strategy decks, and they’re 40-slides long, and they use 8-point font. You can’t even read it from the back of the room. There’s lots of pyramids, and there are colors and cork screw arrows, and just too much. And it’s the kind of thing that they may make sense in the moment but the key thing is, like, “Do you remember them?”

And we all know all the neuroscience shows that most people can’t remember more than three or four things day to day. And you can have that really complicated strategy document but you have to pass the hallway test. So, you just imagine, if you pick some random person in the hallway and stop them, and said, “Do you know what our strategy is?” would they be able to echo it back to you? And that’s why it’s so crucial to be able to distill that strategy.

I interviewed one CEO and she had this great line. She referred to her father, who used to talk about cows, chickens, and taters. And she internalized that as just a reminder, it’s like, “Just use really simple everyday language. Keep it simple,” because there is this bias in the business world.

People like reaching for that $20-word, it makes things sound better and more formal and fancier and all those things. And it takes so much discipline to hit that sweet spot of simplifying complexity so people go, “Okay, I get it. I get how we’re going to win and I get how the work that I’m doing is helping the team win.”

Pete Mockaitis
So, even if those synergies are highly impactful, you don’t want to say it like that.

Adam Bryant
Exactly.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood.

Adam Bryant
Exactly.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, so thinking about, specifically, your book, The Leap to Leader, any particularly surprising or fascinating discoveries that you came across in the direct preparation of the book or in the background leading up to it?

Adam Bryant
Yes. So, look, I think writing books is a process of discovery. You sort of write books to figure out what you know and to really put a sharp point on things, and I will call out a few things. The first section of the book is called ‘Do you really want to lead?’ And I think it’s an important question that people should really ask themselves because there is this kind of like momentum that just happens, either personally or institutionally, within organizations where you just kind of get carried along.

And if you’re a high performer, it’s like, “Well, of course, you want to lead, of course you want to move into that management position, and then a leadership position.” And I think people really need to stop and spend some time, again, in silence. Spend some time with themselves to be really clear about why they want to lead others and whether they want to lead others, and not just be carried along by that sort of river of promotion into the bigger title.

Because I think, a lot of people, it’s like, “Of course, I want that job because there’s a bigger title and there’s more money with it.” Or, they may want to lead because they like the idea of having more power or whatever. And I just think that leadership is so hard, and a lot of people get into leadership positions, and they go, “Wow, like I had no idea it was this hard.”

You’re dealing with people’s problems, you’ve got fires you’re putting out every day, the day is kind of a three-shift day, you’re tossing and turning, staring at the ceiling at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. And so, you need to be very clear in your mind about why you want to lead. And so, just having that moment, I think, is really key.

Another insight I’ll share is this idea of how to be awesome at your job, and I’m sure you talk in big part of the audience of people who want to move up in their career. And one of the things that I came to appreciate is that, look, we’re always taught, “You got to have your elevator pitch ready.” People are told that early in their career, “Have your elevator pitch ready.”

And, to me, that generally means one of two things. One is your elevator pitch are like, “What are you working on?” In case you’re in the elevator with a CEO, “Hey, what are you working on?” you got to have that ready. And the second elevator pitch is, like, “Well, what do you want to do? Like, what are your career goals?” You got to have that elevator pitch ready.

And what I’ve come to really appreciate is that people don’t spend enough time on their third elevator pitch, which is that if somebody were to ask you, “Who are you as a leader?” what would you say to them? And you may go through your entire career, taking over new teams, and nobody will ever ask you that question, but what if they do? And, to me, that then raises a question, “Well, how do you answer that? Like, what does a good answer sound like?”

And, to me, it’s about being able to say, “Look, these are the three values that are really important to me,” and you don’t just stop at the words because there’s a lot of fridge-magnet poetry in the leadership field. There’s a lot of words that people just sort of toss around, they sound right and good. But I think when people reflect on and think about how they’re going to talk about their personal values, it’s not enough to just say these words, “These ideas are important to me.”

You then need to be able to back them up, and say, “These are the stories of how these became important to me. And this is why they’re important. And this is what it looks like in action. And this is how I found these values to be really important and effective for driving success in the teams that I’ve been part of.” Really bring those ideas to life.

I talk about it as like your personal leadership brand, like, “What do you stand for as a leader? And when you’re not in the room, like how would a direct report describe you to a job candidate?” So, you want to be clear about what you stand for. And I think, in this day and age, just in the last few years, there’s been so much more talk about humanity and transparency and vulnerability and authenticity, all these qualities that people want to see more in their leaders.

And I think being very clear about your personal values and being willing to share those, I think that helps with all those things because you want to take the mystery out of who you are as a boss, because you’re always being studied by your direct reports, they are trying to figure out who you are, like, “Are you moody? Like, are you happy?” They’re studying your body language.

And the more you can be sort of up front, and say, “Look, this is who I am. This is my personal values. This is what’s important to me,” then your direct reports can say, “Okay, I got that. Now, I need to spend less time trying to figure you out, and I could spend more time getting my job done.” And, to me, that’s success on a lot of levels.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, to that first point, “Why do you want to lead?” you say it’s very hard, and you need to have a good why in place as opposed to just, “Oh, well, hey, you know, I’m doing pretty well and I like winning and achieving, so that’s the next step. Let’s just go ahead and do it.” So, that’d be a lame or ineffective why, it’s almost no why. You’re just sort of going with the flow. What would be some rich articulations of effective whys for leading?

Adam Bryant
Yeah, look, the older I get, the more I like sentences that begin with, “There’s only two kinds of people, Pete,” and sometimes those work. But I do think there’s only two kinds of managers in the world, and only two kinds of leaders as well, but I think there’s this sort of framework. It’s not black or white. It’s not one or the other, but I think some managers and leaders are more selfless and some are more self-centered.

And I think, to me, the best leaders, the best managers, are selfless. They’re doing it because they want to help the team, the organization. They want to help their direct reports. And, to me, not that there’s a right answer, but I think really effective whys start there, that you believe in what the organization does, you can see the impact that the organization can have. And then you want to have impact as a leader, and I think that means elevating people, and making them better, and helping build their skills, and seeing trajectories for their career that maybe they didn’t even see for themselves.

I say in the book that leadership is complicated and it’s okay to have a complicated relationship with leadership, and I have, in my career. I’ve been in plenty of roles where I was the number two, and I was very happy in those roles. And I was in other roles where I was the leader. And, to me, it wasn’t about being number one. It sort of kept my ego in check.

And the thing that motivated me in all my management and leadership roles was I approached the job as a coach, “I am here, I’ve learned a few things in my career, and I want to share them with you. And I want you to achieve, like, wild success. I want to help you get better,” and that was my why in all those years.

Pete Mockaitis
And I’d love to get your take, having interviewed a thousand CEOs, and I guess it’s hard you can’t peer into their souls, but what’s your sense of roughly what proportion of leaders are selfless versus self-centered?

Adam Bryant
If I could take your question and maybe reframe it slightly, it’s like my understanding of their why, like, “Why are they doing this?” again, people are complicated so there’s, like, a thousand layers of motivations.

That said, I have noticed sort of patterns, and I put them into three or four broad categories, because I’ve always been curious in, like, “Why do you want this job?” One of the questions that I ask so many of the leaders that I interviewed, Pete, is like, “Where does your drive come from?” Because I’m curious about that because you need a certain amount of drive and stamina to do these big jobs. Like, on paper they’re kind of awful jobs. They’re just all-consuming, there’s a lot of responsibility, there’s a lot of weight on your back.

And so, as I’ve tried to probe that, the patterns that I’ve seen, the first one is they grew up with some kind of adversity and sometimes really tough adversity. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard really sad stories about growing up, and not just sort of financial straits but alcoholic parent, abusive parent. I’ve heard stories about growing up in a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, mom stayed at home, dad worked, and then he died at a young age, and there was no life insurance. And, suddenly, the family was kind of scrambling to just put food on the table and pay the electric bill.

And there was one time I interviewed two CEOs, back-to-back, and they said the exact same thing, told me the same life story that I just explained to you. So, they had that kind of trauma, that adversity at a young age, they know what it felt like to be out of control, and so that was a big part of their driving motivation. And, again, not to get sort of too shrink-y here but I think sometimes people, when they face a lot of adversity early in their life, they want to have a little bit more control. So, maybe that helps explain part of their drive.

I think another big category is some version of, like, the immigrant story, which is this idea of the first in your family to do X. And I think if you grow up and you’re always the first in your family to go to college, to do this, to do that, that you spend so much time kind of forging a new path that, ultimately, that just becomes, like, your comfort zone. And you need that kind of mindset as a leader, it’s like you’re always comfortable doing new things and dealing with new problems.

I put another category. Some people just like hit the parent lottery, like had a great family, maybe they’ve got an interesting blend of DNA strands where an entrepreneur parent and the other one was a psychologist, or there was an engineering parent married to…and the other parent was an artist, so you get that sort of interesting yin and yang, and just had sort of great messages and lessons growing up.

So, again, armchair psychology on my part. It probably wouldn’t stand up to peer review in a scientific journal, but those are the patterns I’ve seen.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, now I’m curious, when it comes to the actual, let’s say, okay, we’ve got some great reasons, folks are raring to go, they want to become a leader executive, can you maybe start us with a story about someone who was not getting promoted, they wanted it, but then they made a switch in their approach and they pulled it off, they made the leap?

Adam Bryant
To me, a big part of making that leap, usually there’s a story under there where people explain, like, “What was that moment? What was that mindset shift?” and there’s a few that come to mind. There’s one executive I interviewed where she was moving up, and she hit this point where she realized she couldn’t do it all, and she needed to delegate. And she had the insight that she had to start giving away the stuff that she really liked to do and that she was really good at, so that she could then get to the next level.

And I can really relate to that because as people are moving up, we all have the things we’re really good, our strengths and weaknesses, and we tend to really like to do the things that we’re good at. But the point is if you want to get up to that top leadership position, at some point you have to start giving that stuff away, and letting other people do it.

There was another moment from another executive where she had become sort of a new CEO of a startup, and she was going to the chair of the board and sort of running key decisions past the board chair. And, at some point, the chairman just turned to her, and said, “Look, I can give you my advice but you need to realize, ultimately, this is your decision. And if you are wrong, we are going to fire you.”

And it was just that sort of moment of clarity, it’s like because when you are a leader, part of the mindset is it’s not about asking for permission anymore. To have that top job, you’ve got to own the accountability and you’ve got to own the outcomes of your decisions. And that’s a big part to me of making the leap to leader is being comfortable making decisions when the data isn’t there, because the higher you move up, like the decisions get harder, there’s less data, there’s more gray areas, there’s more unhappy people. Whether you go left or right, or up or down, you’re going to make some people unhappy.

And, to me, a big part of leadership is being willing to make decisions, to take the risks and own the outcomes, because, honestly, Pete, a lot of people aren’t comfortable doing that.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good to surface there. And I don’t know if there’s a recipe for how one gets comfortable doing that. Is there?

Adam Bryant
Well, I think it’s being aware of the fact that it is your job to make those hard decisions. I reflect on a conversation I had with one CEO, he was a first-time CEO, and he’s just feeling like, “Wow, like every day is kind of a hard day. These problems are coming to my desk, and I don’t really know what the answer is.” And the lightbulb went off for him where he realized, “This is my job. And, yes, it’d be nice to have the easy decisions come to you, but they generally get taken care of farther down in the organization.”

So, at some point, you have to make the shift, and realize what may seem like a burden is an opportunity. It is your job. There are no easy days. And you need to see those tough decisions as interesting puzzles, because I do feel like we’re in this, we’re just living through this breathtaking moment of change for all the obvious reasons since the start of the pandemic. But I do think managing people and leading people has gotten five to ten times harder.

And in our consulting work at my firm, The ExCo Group, we do see a lot of fast-rising executives who are kind of tapping out, and saying, “Look, I didn’t sign up for how hard this is.” And I think we are in this moment where it is kind of black or white, like we are not in this moment anymore where there’s some playbook for leadership and how to have these new conversations about compassion and remote work, and all these things. It’s like these are new and very hard problems for which there’s no clear answer.

And I think you need to do a gut check. It goes back to this idea of, “Do you really want to lead?” And you have to ask yourself, like, “Are you excited about this?” Because if you’re excited about it, and say to yourself, “What an amazing time to be managing and leading people where we’re figuring out the future of work, the future of leadership, and you have an opportunity to shape that and be a part of it. Wow, that’s really exciting.”

So, are you that kind of person or are you saying to yourself, “I just find all these problems just kind of overwhelming. Everything seems so hard. Just the lines are blurring between the personal and professional. Everybody is kind of trying to figure out this new world of work and expectations. And I just find this all exhausting and somewhat overwhelming”?

And you need to be honest with yourself because I do feel like we’re at this moment where you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, and say, “Leadership is getting harder. Managing is getting harder. Do you want to do this?”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, now to dig into a couple of your particular concepts in the book, I was intrigued by you’ve got a notion called the say-do ratio. What is that? And how do we perfect ours?

Adam Bryant
Sure. So, the third section of the book is called ‘How to get promoted without asking for a promotion?’ And it’s sort of this is in your sweet spot of how to be awesome at your job. How do you set yourself apart? Because if you are ambitious and you want to move up, the question at the core of that is, “Okay, how do you set yourself apart?”

And, to me, one of the easiest ways to do it is to have a great do-to-say ratio. And that comes from a CEO that I interviewed; a guy named Brett Wilson. When I first heard it, I kind of fell out of my chair but what it means is “What percentage of the things that you say you’re going to do, do you actually do?” And it’s about reliability, it’s about dependability, it’s about your reputation, it’s about trustworthiness.

And I think if you want to set yourself apart, if you just have this rule that whatever you say you’re going to do, that you follow through on. And if, for some reason, you can’t, you tell people, it’s like, “Hey, I know I promised you that but this happened. I need an extra day.” You’re just upfront about it rather than letting them discover that you missed the deadline. I think if you build a reputation as being super reliable and dependable, you can really set yourself apart.

And the beauty of this is that it is so easy to improve. Again, you got to be honest with yourself. Pete, your listeners need to ask themselves, “What is your do-to-say ratio? Is it really high? Or are there some things that you say you’re going to do that you don’t always follow through on? And the beauty of this, it’s like a really easy hack to improve your do-to-say ratio, which is just whenever you say you’re going to do something, just write it down. Make a note to yourself, your computer, or mostly on your phone. It doesn’t matter where, just keep a list somewhere.

And even in the small stuff, if you say, “Oh, I’m going to connect you with that person,” and you follow through on it, like if you do that consistently, people are going to start noticing things, like, “Wow, this person always does what they say they’re going to do.” And then that builds your reputation, and so you’re going to get more responsibility because people just know you’re that kind of person that’s going to own it and deliver it.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. You say that compartmentalization is a crucial art. What do you mean by that? And how do we get better at it?

Adam Bryant
Well, I think as you get higher in leadership positions, like the problems get harder, and as we discussed, the decisions get more difficult, you’re going to make mistakes, you’re going to be second-guessed, you’re going to be criticized, any decision you’re going to make is going to leave somebody unhappy just because of all the tradeoffs.

And so, I think a key skill of leadership is to be able to compartmentalize and to keep everything in perspective. Because if you’re not good at that, what does that look like? It means like you’re always beating yourself up for any wrong decisions, or you don’t take criticism well, you’re always worrying about the impact of your decisions on other people, you’re staring at the ceiling at 2:00 in the morning when you should be sleeping, and you’re just not going to be an effective leader.

And some people over-index the other way, Pete. I’ve certainly seen people who are so good at compartmentalizing, it basically means they have no empathy, like they just let everything roll off their back, and they don’t seem to appreciate the impact of their decisions on people. And maybe that’s not healthy either, but, to me, being able to compartmentalize to sort of acknowledge the challenges, but then sort of keep them in a box in your mind so that it’s like, “Okay, I’ve dealt with that, I’m thinking about that. I’m going to park this here and I’ll come back to it later.”

Pete Mockaitis
And if our compartmentalization art is not so artful and we do tend to ruminate and think about the thing that’s not so handy and we’d prefer to have it compartmentalized, how do we get better at it?

Adam Bryant
Part of it is to let go of perfection, because if things are chewing you up inside, it’s, first, you’re not going to be perfect and to give yourself a break. One of our mentors at my firm often shares this advice with startup founders and stuff, and it’s a great line. He says, “Look, if you talk to your friends the way you’re talking to yourself, you wouldn’t have any friends.”

And, to me, that’s a sort of a great point to keep in mind. It’s like you need to take care of yourself. And some people are very driven and they’re really performance-oriented and success-oriented. If something doesn’t go well, you could spend a lot of time beating yourself up, and you just need to let that go.

Another trap that people fall into is that we want to be liked. Like, who doesn’t? As a manager, as a leader, you want people to like you, and you need to let go of that as well, and shift from wanting people to like you to people respecting you. It doesn’t mean that it’s fine if they don’t like you because they’re not going to follow you, but just to worry less about whether people like you.

And I think if you just keep, for every decision you have to make, you can get chewed up about, “Well, is this the right thing to do? And it’s going to affect this person this way and have these consequences.” If you just run every decision that you face through a simple framework of, “What is the best for the company or for the organization that I’m running, or the team that I’m running?” like, that’s a way of sort of simplifying and clarifying.

And then you could probably sleep better at night, and say, “Look, I know there are some disruptions here. I know I’ve kind of created a blast zone, but I know this is the right decision for the organization,” that’s going to help you compartmentalize. So, I think those are a couple of specific strategies.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And how do you recommend we build our self-awareness muscle?

Adam Bryant
It starts with five words that I heard from a young CEO years ago, and it was one of those moments when she said it, it was kind of burned into my head. And the backstory was that she had a really rough childhood, very difficult relationship with her parents, they moved a lot, she was bullied at school, and she was sort of telling me about her life story.

And, at one point in the interview, I had said, “Well, you have such a positive attitude. Where does that come from?” And she said these five words, she said, “Reality is just source material.” And what she meant is that, “Look, there is the reality of the things we experience but it’s just a reminder that we are always creating narratives for ourselves. We are constantly sort of editing the films of our experience and focusing on certain things to tell ourselves good stories, bad stories.”

And, to me, that’s such an important insight because if you believe in the idea that reality is just source material, and that we’re always, in effect, telling ourselves stories, that it allows you to sort of step outside yourself a little bit and to ask yourself, like, “Wait a minute. What story am I telling myself about that experience? And is there another way to look at it?” And I think that helps guard against some of the traps that people fall into in the stories they tell themselves.

So, one of the common traps is the victim narrative, “Stuff is happening to me,” and you just start feeling like a victim when you should see everything as a learning opportunity. It reminds me of that expression I heard from one CEO, which is that, “Ninety-five percent of the worse stuff that happens to you winds up being the best stuff that happens to you because you really learn from those experiences. It builds your character, gives you a lot of wisdom about life.”

So, the victim narrative is one trap. The fairness or unfairness narrative is another trap. You can often feel like, in organizations, things aren’t fair. And it’s just a matter of, like, “Look, reality is what it is.” And if you really push yourself, it’s like, “Am I thinking about this in the most productive way? Am I seeing everything as an opportunity?”

Because, to me, that’s one of the things that really separates entrepreneurs. I’ve interviewed hundreds of entrepreneurs, and they are wired slightly differently. And I think one of the key ways is they don’t sort of dwell on bad news. It’s like everything is an opportunity, “What’s the plan B? What’s the plan C here?” and they just keep pushing forward. So, to me, those are a couple of the key things to keep in mind just to help build that self-awareness muscle.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And any thoughts on politics, office politics, networking, trickery?

Adam Bryant
Well, politics, there’s politics in every organization, especially the organizations that like to say, “We don’t have any politics.” And the one tip that I always keep in mind with politics is you really need to understand what the other person’s scoreboard is in their head for their own success. To me, that’s the secret to understanding office politics because, as much as companies like to say there’s a shared scoreboard and everybody is going to work together as a team, the reality is that everybody has got their own part of that.

And everybody is building their part of the business, and they tend to focus almost with blinders on about that. And so, to me, one of the ways to sort of help you navigate politics is always start by understanding what is the other person’s scoreboard. Because if you understand what is their scoreboard, then you’re much more likely to add clarity about how you can help them, and how you can kind of find a common ground. So, that’s my best insight about politics.

And I would also say about networking, I don’t know about you, Pete, but I’m an introvert. I don’t like the idea of networking. That’s sort of like, “There’s 20 people over there, just go mingle during drinks before a conference.” That makes me really uncomfortable, and I’m not good at it. But I think it’s important to build your network. And if you focus on, “Well, how do you build your network?” to me, the most effective way to do it is not just, “Hey, can we have a coffee? Or, do you want to grab a drink or something?”

To me, the most effective way is to do things with people, to build something together, just be on a committee with them to do some project together, maybe it’s outside your day job or something. But, to me, like that’s the way to sort of really cement those relationships. Whether it’s with colleagues internally or, like, maybe serving on a board, or part of an organization outside your company, but the way to build your lasting networks, so those relationships really last, is to do something with people rather than just share a coffee.

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

Adam Bryant
I’m over to you, Pete.

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

Adam Bryant
I mentioned the early one from Ruth Simmons about always be prepared at any point in your life to learn the most important lesson in your life. That’s one of my favorites. The other favorite is “Play in traffic.” And whenever people are asking me for career advice, I often mention that. And what it means is just, like, get out there and do stuff. Meet people. Get involved. Just start doing things. Play in traffic, and you’re going to build those connections that are going to lead to things.

And I think about that often because I think, sometimes, people when they’re first starting out their careers, they tend to have very specific ideas about their career plans, like, “By this age, I want to make this much money, I want to have this title,” and it’s sort of very linear. But that’s not how life works. Your career path is going to be shaped much more by the people you meet, the people you work with, people you connect with.

And so, you really just want to get out there and meet a lot of people in the context of work and doing things, so that’s why I love that expression – play in traffic.

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

Adam Bryant
There is a study about capuchin monkeys. And if your listeners look it up, capuchin monkeys fairness study, and it’s this great video about two monkeys in cages, and they’re fed like a cucumber versus a grape, and it’s sort of how the two monkeys react to getting either the grape or the cucumber. It’s just a powerful reminder of how, as human beings, one of our triggers is fairness. It’s a hilarious video.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Adam Bryant
I love In the Heart of the Sea. It’s a great book about whaling that got made into a movie. I love books about sort of adventure and resilience, and what people do, like, in really tough circumstances. I often go back to that.

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

Adam Bryant
I’ll probably say my recorders because I’ve done a thousand interviews, so that’s probably my Swiss Army knife. It all starts with that.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now I need to know. Recorders, we’re talking about, like, an external…?

Adam Bryant
Yeah, I’m a lot older than you, Pete. So, I grew up using external recorders.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, sure. Well, that’s handy when you’re out and about. Sure.

Adam Bryant
Exactly. I’m dating myself but, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
I have one as well, so. And a favorite habit?

Adam Bryant
Probably the best, but maybe not my favorite is just, like, exercising every day, like trying to go out for a run. And, to me, that’s how I kind of stay centered and blow off steam. I will share that I basically listen to the same playlist every time I go for a run. It’s not because I’m listening to the music. It’s I like to have music, but to me it’s just background noise. It’s kind of like a green screen that I can think against. So, I probably just overshared there.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, no, actually that’s perfect, and I would like to know a couple of the tracks on the playlist.

Adam Bryant
There’s Dave Matthews in there, there’s U2, John Legend. It’s a pretty eclectic mix, I have to say.

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

Adam Bryant
One thing, I’m sure, like an important insight for me, and it goes back to there’s a famous interview question that Peter Thiel, the entrepreneur who’s pretty famous for asking people, which is like, “What do you believe that 95% of the world disagrees with you on?” And I think it’s a great way to sort of getting that creative thinking and stuff.

And I have to say, like it was an important insight for me that I think the world has it completely wrong on in the following way, that the world tends to refer to children as young adults. And I think it’s backwards because I think adults are older children. And I think if we sort of all acknowledge that and recognize that, and that people bring their little red wagon of stuff into work, and we’re all motivated by a lot of the same things that kids are motivated by, like, “You want to go first. That’s not fair. Let me do myself,” all those reactions that kids have, adults have them, too.

So, I think it’s a good sort of unified field theory of understanding human behavior.

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

Adam Bryant
My personal website is AdamBryantBooks.com, and my firm is The ExCo Group, and our website is ExCoLeadership.com.

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

Adam Bryant
I think a huge underrated superpower of leadership is listening. I think most people are not that good at listening, and I think our devices are making it worse. But I just think if you want to be awesome at your job and separate yourself, I think it’s about being a good listener, and it’s a muscle that you can practice all day long in your personal life, your professional life. And, again, if the goal is to set yourself apart, I think being a good listener is one way to do it, plus you’re going to learn a lot more if you’re a good listener.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Adam, this has been a treat. I wish you much fun and many good leaps.

Adam Bryant
That’s great. I appreciate it. Thank you, Pete.

Jun 05
0

871: How to Lead More Powerfully by Being Human with Minette Norman

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

Minette Norman says: "Leaders tend to believe that they need to have all the answers and that they cannot show emotion. It’s time to set aside these limiting beliefs."

Minette Norman discusses what it takes to foster psychological safety for your team.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The secret to high-performing and high-engagement teams
  2. How to increase psychological safety in five steps
  3. What you should stop doing

About Minette

Minette Norman is an author, speaker, and consultant focused on developing transformational leaders who create inclusive working environments. Before starting her own business, Minette spent three decades in the software industry.

Minette is the co-author of The Psychological Safety Playbook: Lead More Powerfully by Being More Human. Her second book, The Boldly Inclusive Leader, will be published in August 2023.

Resources Mentioned

Minette Norman Interview Transcript

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

Minette Norman
Thanks for having me, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m excited to talk about your book The Psychological Safety Playbook: Lead More Powerfully by Being More Human. Could you maybe tell us, first of all, what does that term psychological safety mean?

Minette Norman
I’m happy to, and I just want to say, first of all, that it is not only my book. I co-wrote it with a wonderful co-author, Karolin Helbig, so it was a 50-50 collaboration, and I want to say that upfront.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, certainly.

Minette Norman
Yeah. And let me explain psychological safety because it does sound like an academic geeky term, people throw it around a lot without always understanding what it means. So, I will ground it in the idea that it’s a belief or a feeling that, in a group setting, I am safe to share my idea, to ask a question if I don’t understand something, to disagree with someone else in the room, and to show up the way I want to show up, not trying to conform to the norms of the group, without fear that if I do any of those things, I’ll be rejected, I’ll be excluded, or I’ll be seen as that troublesome person.

So, it’s really this deep feeling that we have as parts of a group, whether we’re in or out, whether our ideas are welcome, or whether they’re not. And if we think about it, we probably have all experienced both having psychological safety, like being in a team where I speak up, or I can share my ideas, or I feel like myself, and times where we’ve been in groups where we sit back, and we’re very cautious, and we don’t speak up because we think we’re going to be shot down, or we’re going be embarrassed if we say something here. So, that’s basically what it means.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have a sense for, in the United States workplace in 2023-ish, roughly what proportion of professionals generally have it and don’t?

Minette Norman
I don’t have a good metric to tell you so I’m just going to go on anecdotal evidence, which is that it’s less common than we would hope. So, I would guess that probably less than 50% of team environments would consider themselves to be really psychologically safe. And I’ll tell you, I worked 30 years in the tech industry, and I got interested in this work specifically because I would often be in meetings where even though I was pretty senior – when I left I was a VP of engineering at a large company – and I still would sit in meetings and go, “Do I dare speak? Do I not? I have something to say but I don’t think it’s welcome here.”

So, my own experience, and the experience of so many people I worked with, was that they didn’t feel comfortable speaking up, or they didn’t feel that they could be less than perfect.

Pete Mockaitis
And when you talked about being yourself, I think it’s interesting in terms of just, like, the political climate. It seems like in most mixed rooms, if you were to share a deeply held belief that was on one side or the other of the political continuum, there’s a good chance that won’t go so well for you. So, is that sort of included within the umbrella of what counts as being psychologically safe?

Minette Norman
Well, you have to also know these situations you’re in. So, if you’re in a professional setting, our book is focused on the workplace so I’m not talking about the world at large, in general, about how to have a conversation about politics with your family, but in the workplace, let’s just ground us there for now. In the workplace.

You have to know what is maybe just going to be a taboo topic in the moment and not go there. Like, you’re not going to say if someone’s a Trump supporter and someone’s a Liberal, like, that’s probably not a good discussion in a team meeting about how the project is going. This is just going to go badly and devolve.

So, I think that if we are talking about work, there’s this idea of showing up as your authentic self, so maybe let’s go back to that. Now, people bring as much of themselves as they’re comfortable bringing to the workplace, and it doesn’t mean you show up with your ugly colors if you don’t want to show those ugly colors at work.

And it means that, also, when you think about women having to prove themselves in different ways than men, or people of color having only certain aspects of their experiences that they’re willing to show in the workplace, we all have to decide for ourselves what we’re willing to share. But what I’ll say is that, in a psychologically safe environment, you may be someone who has a very different viewpoint than the rest of the room, and you’ll know that that viewpoint is welcome. And I’m not talking politics, so we’re talking work. But let’s say, and this has happened in groups that I’d been a part of.

We have all agreed that this is going to be our strategy moving forward. And then you see someone in the corner of the room who’s got some odd body language. They’re kind of sitting back in their chair, their arms are crossed, and you think you’ve all agreed. And then you, as the leader, you can say, “Hey, Alice, over there in the corner, you’re looking like you’re not quite with us. Is there something else you want to add to this conversation?”

Depending on the level of safety in that room, Alice may say, “No, no, I’m all good,” even though you can tell that she’s not, or she may say, “I’m seeing a risk that we haven’t even talked about. What if we…” and then she can share her thought, and then, suddenly, we may have a whole different discussion, “No one has brought this other thought up. It’s really important for us to consider what Alice just contributed,” but she wasn’t quite sure her idea was welcome until she was called upon and invited to offer an alternate perspective.

That, unfortunately, doesn’t happen enough. And what I see happen a lot, this is both in teams I’ve been a part of and teams I’ve worked with, is that you have a meeting, for example, and everyone ostensibly agrees in the room, “Here’s our strategy, here’s what we’re going to do, here’s how we’re going to proceed.”

Then you leave the room, whether it’s a virtual room or a physical room, and then there are the side conversations, the meeting after the meeting where people say, “You know, that’s just never going to work,” or, “I totally disagree,” but they didn’t feel comfortable speaking up in the room. There’s something about those team dynamics that are not healthy enough to invite the dissent or to invite the “Have you thought about this?”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s powerful. I guess as I’m thinking about this, it seems like the authentic-self component of the definition is, I guess, it seems to be, like, a higher bar in terms of that, or at least maybe I’m projecting my own viewpoint on things in terms of saying, “There’s a risk I don’t think we’ve considered,” seems perhaps less risky, to me, than sharing any number of, I don’t know, things about one’s self.

Like, I remember someone shared, let’s just say, any number of self-disclosure things in terms of, “I went to Burning Man,” or, “I went to an eight-day silent Jesuit prayer retreat,” or it’s like they’re sharing sort of their lived experiences associated with what they’re doing, what they’re thinking, what they’re passionate about, in bringing their authentic self. I guess, depending on the context and the group, it may seem more or less risky to reveal either a work concern or a personal bit of life.

Minette Norman
Yes, that is so true. And you only reveal, generally, someone has to go first also with revealing. And so, for example, if you’re a manager or a leader, if you reveal nothing of yourself, if you’re very guarded, and we talk about this in our book, like taking off that mask of perfection as a leader, if you come across as, “I am just this powerful leader. I know everything. I don’t have a life outside of work,” well, no one else in your organization is going to share who they are outside of work either, and it’s going to be this very stilted artificial environment where people just show sort of a mask of who they want to appear as.

But if you, in a position of any kind of leadership or authority, you show up in a more human way, and it doesn’t mean…this is where I think people get confused when we talk even about vulnerability. Like, it doesn’t mean you’re going to have to share your deepest darkest secrets, but to share something about who you are as a human being, or even that you’ve had failures in your life, you’ve had setbacks, you’ve had hardships, you have emotions, then you are more likely to invite others to do the same.

And that usually does have to start with someone who is either seen as a leader or as a dominant person in the group, that if they can let down their guard a little bit, then others will start to feel more comfortable doing the same. But if you feel marginalized, whether you feel you’re from an underrepresented group, and you just don’t feel like you’re a part of the in crowd, you are not going to be the first one to probably share who you are fully.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so psychological safety, we’ve defined it, we got a vibe for what that looks, sounds, feels like in practice, and it sure seems pleasant. I’d like to be in rooms where there’s psychological safety for folks. Can you unpack a little bit, associated with the performance, team effectiveness correlates to having versus not having psychological safety? Just how much of a difference does it make?

Minette Norman
Yeah, and there is a lot of research on it. I just want to unpack one word you said, which was it sounds pleasant. And I want to just say that it isn’t always, like, “Kumbaya, we all love each other all the time, and there’s never disagreement.” In a psychologically safe environment, you can have debate and dissent and it’s safe to do so. So, you may not always feel like it’s pleasant. It can be challenging, but it’s challenging in a constructive way. So, I just want to pick apart that word a little bit before I went further.

Pete Mockaitis
I hear you. So, it might feel uncomfortable but it’s not, like, terrifying, like, “I’m unsafe. I’m an outcast. I should polish up my resume now based on how that conversation went down.”

Minette Norman
Exactly. It can be, like, sometimes when you have a debate, it can be very energizing because you feel, like, “Pete, I’m not attacking you, personally. I disagree with your idea but let’s make this better together.” That’s actually really energizing as opposed to, like, “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, and you should be looking for a new job.” So, those are different ways to engage in dissent and disagreements.

So, yeah, it definitely enables you to have those hard conversations that may not always be comfortable but they’re more comfortable than they would be if we didn’t feel safe with one another. So, coming back to the question now of performance, there’s lots of research, and certainly Amy Edmondson, who has done decades of research on the topic, has uncovered that performance is directly correlated to having a higher degree of psychological safety.

And why that is is because, first of all, people openly discuss risk and failure so that they can learn from mistakes more rapidly rather than being doomed to repeat the same thing over and over. If there’s this stigma that we never talk about failure and we don’t talk about risk, what happens is that we go dark on that and we hide from one another when things have gone badly, and then we’ll probably just repeat those mistakes and failures over and over.

And her original research, which I don’t know if you’ve read her book, The Fearless Organization, but in her book, she shares that in her research in the medical field, that teams that had a higher degree of psychological safety had better patient outcomes because those medical teams were actually willing to talk about mistakes.

And, for example, in a medical setting, someone at a lower hierarchical level than, let’s say, the surgeon, could actually question, “I think that we’re risking something here. Like, is this the right medication? Is this the right dosage?” and they could question the surgeon or the doctor even if they were not at the same level. Whereas, in teams where there was sort this huge hierarchical difference between doctor and nurse, the nurse would never challenge, and, therefore, there would actually be worse patient outcomes.

In the world of other kinds of business, what we see with a higher level of psychological safety is we see more innovation. And why that is is because, in an environment where you’re trying to innovate and come up with new ideas, that will only happen if people are willing to share maybe a crazy idea, maybe an idea that seems like completely impossible. And that happens when people feel that, “My idea is welcome here. All ideas are welcome.”

And then we can refine them together, we can debate them, we can take the best nuggets from everyone’s thinking, and we can shape that into something that’s really greater than the sum of the parts. And that’s the way I see a psychologically safe team, is that if you can really tap into that genius that is there, because everyone has their own way of thinking and their own experiences, then you can get something that is bigger and better than the individuals in the room could do, but only if everyone’s ideas can come forth, and everyone’s voice is welcome, and everyone is really valued in a group.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Cool. Well, now could you perhaps share a story of a team that really upgraded their psychological safety and the cool things that came about from it?

Minette Norman
Yes. So, I want to talk about a team that had a high degree of psychological safety that I worked with early in my career before I knew that term, and then I want to talk about how I actually tried to do that in a team that I led. Is that okay?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, sure.

Minette Norman
Okay. So, early in my career, I was in the software industry in Silicon Valley, and I was in a company, and we were a cross-functional team, there were about eight or ten of us on the team. We all had a different function, and we just somehow, without ever talking about these terms or anything, we listened to one another in a really important way, and that everyone’s voice was equally weighted.

And we took turns doing things like administrative work. Like, in a team meeting, we would take turns who took the notes, because when you take the notes, you don’t participate as much. We got to know each other. So, to your point about your authentic self, over time, because we worked together and we met daily, working on our project, we got to know our little quirks, we got to know who did what, and who was strong at this, and who was weak at this.

We even got to the point where we could joke with one another about our little quirks because we knew each other enough that it was okay. Like, humor can be very dangerous when you don’t trust someone, but it can be very bonding when you do. So, we were this amazing team, we put out the best product that division had ever put out ahead of schedule, customers loved it.

That was early in my career, and I didn’t know that that was, like, a particularly psychologically safe team until I’ve discovered the research on it much later. But then I was leading teams, and what I found in my group was that people all stayed in their lane. I had a bunch of leaders who reported to me, and they all had their area of responsibility, and they were kind of guarded with one another. And it took us actually bringing someone in, an outside facilitator, to start getting us to talk about what was it we could do together, how we were stronger together, how we could help each other.

And it really wasn’t until we shared more about ourselves, like our whole career journey, or what was important to us in our lives when we got to know each other, then we started to care about each other as individuals, and not just as, like, “Okay, this is the head of engineering, this is the head of agile practice, and this is the head of training.” Instead of our functions, we got to know each other as individuals and we knew, like, “Okay, so-and-so grew up here, and this is what he loved to do, and this is what’s important to him and his wife.” And somehow then we could have the more difficult conversations.

We could actually disagree with one another instead of this sort of false harmony, and we became a much stronger team together, but we had to consciously get to know each other as individuals instead of just, like, “Okay, we’re showing up at work, we’re our perfect selves at work, and we’re going to be a gelled team together.” It didn’t work until we actually invested the time to get to know each other on a different level.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Thank you. Well, within your playbook here, you mentioned five essential tools. Could you walk us through each one and tell us some best practices for using those effectively?

Minette Norman
Sure. So, yeah, we wanted our book to be, first of all, as short as possible because we know that business leaders are busy people, and, if you’re like me, you have lots of business books on your shelf that you haven’t finished. So, we wrote this book as short as possible, and we have these five plays, and underneath them are five moves, and they can each be used individually so you don’t have to read the book sequentially.

But the way we started our first play is called communicate courageously. And for a leader, like, the very first thing that we advise you to do as a leader, if you want to be a more courageous communicator, is to embrace the idea that you don’t know everything, and to invite other people to help you with your thinking.

So, if you get up, for example, and you give a presentation, a powerful question you can ask is, “What am I missing?” because when you do that, what you’re doing is you’re inviting others to add on, or even to dissent with something you’ve said, but you’re saying, “I am a human being like everybody else. I can’t possibly think of everything there is to think of. And I am inviting you to contribute.”

And then, of course, it’s really important that then you welcome other perspectives if someone does say, “Well, Minette, did you think about this? Like, this seems to contradict your thinking,” that you welcome the other viewpoints and that you get comfortable with, “I am imperfect. I don’t know everything.” So, that’s a starting point. And, of course, that was just one of five moves under communicate courageously, but I thought I would just start with that one. So, that’s the first.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I like that, yeah.

Minette Norman
“What am I missing?” “What have I not thought of?” That’s another way of saying that. You can find your own language, but I think what’s really interesting is I said that to a leader once, and they said, “Okay, I’m going to ask if that was clear.” And I said, “No, no, because if you say, ‘Was that clear?’ what happens is everyone says, ‘Hmm-mm, yeah that was very clear,” because you’re the leader in the room.”

It’s not so inviting as saying, “What am I missing?” Then you’re asking someone to contribute something back as opposed to a yes-no. It’s really hard to say to your leader, “No, you were completely unclear just now. I didn’t understand you.” So, that’s our first play.

Our second one is about listening because we really believe that listening is something that we think we all know how to do well as human beings. Just forget about even being a leader, or a manager, or anyone in the workplace. We think, as human beings, we all know how to listen, that it’s an innate skill. But what happens is there are so many things that get in the way of us listening to one another well, and it’s a critical skill for everyone because, first of all, as human beings, we need to be heard. We want to be heard. We want to be valued.

And if you are sitting in front of me and, first of all, you’re distracted by something else, I know you’re not listening. But what also happens, and this is so hard to overcome, is that we, instead of listening, we are preparing our response. So, as soon as you start talking, Pete, I’ve heard the first thing you said, and I’m already reflecting on what I’m going to say next. But instead, the powerful thing to do is to truly stay with the person and just, like, listen, maybe ask a clarifying question to make sure you really understood them, and then only when you’ve fully heard them, then you can say, “Okay, maybe I’ll share my perspective now,” instead of this need to just come up with our response right away.

And then this leads into the third play, which is managing our reaction. So, let’s say we’re listening, and you challenged me, you may say something to me that feels like you just disagreed with me, or you dissed me, or you made me feel stupid for something, and I get defensive. And that is, again, this is human biology, every human being will get defensive because this is our brain’s way of keeping us alive and safe, and we don’t differentiate between a physical threat, like I’m about to get hit by a bicycle on the road, and I jump back, and my boss just criticized me in public.

So, to our brains, what just happened then is a threat, and what happens then is that our amygdala fires and kicks in with the fight, flight, or freeze reaction to keep us safe. This doesn’t serve us well in a work setting because, when we get defensive, what do we usually do? We lash out at the other person, or we freeze because we just don’t know what to say, and we can actually practice. And we talk about this in book, we can practice. We can’t stop ourselves from getting defensive, but we can practice how we respond.

And one of the most powerful things we can do is to just pause. So, if someone says to you, “You know, that is just a ridiculous idea. That’s never going to work,” you’re about to get angry with them, and then, instead, you go, “Oh, okay. Let me take a moment, let me come back, and let me say, ‘Can you say more about that? I really want to understand what you just said.’” It wasn’t very long. Like, I just took a little breath, I took a little pause, in that moment, I calmed my brain, and I was able to continue in a more constructive way.

So, that, listening, not letting the defensiveness take over, and responding productively, I will tell you, this was something I had to work on so much in a professional setting, and I’ll probably be working on this the rest of my life, it’s a hard skill to learn, to remember to pause, but it can change your relationships at work in such a positive way because, instead of it being this battle of who’s right and who’s wrong, it becomes a collaborative conversation and a real dialogue.

So, that’s our third one, is managing our reactions, and becoming more self-aware that we all have emotions, we all have reactions, and in order to handle ourselves better in a business setting, no matter what level we are in the organization, we can benefit from greater self-awareness and greater regulation of our response. So, that’s the third play.

The fourth play in the book is about embracing risk and failure. And it’s one of the things that turns out to be so critical in psychological safety that we can openly discuss the failures. And I mentioned in the medical setting, but it’s really in any setting. And that one of the best ways you can do it is just to openly share your failures as a regular practice, like what went well. Of course, we want to learn from what went well, and we want to replicate as much as possible; what didn’t go well, what can we learn from that.

And to make that a regular thing, and thinking a little bit more like scientists. Scientists experiment and go in the lab, and they know they’re going to have a lot of failures before they’re going to have success. And if we can think more like a scientist in any setting, and realize that failure is going to help us get to the big breakthrough, and if we’re not having any failures, we’re probably not pushing the envelope enough, we’re probably not reaching as far as we could go with new ideas and innovation.

And so, de-stigmatizing the topic of failure, and not making it like a finger-pointing blame game of “Who did that?” and “Why was that wrong?” but instead, “What can we learn from this? What did we do that we want to do differently moving forward?” So, that’s a really big topic. And one of the things we share in the playbook is that it’s something that came out of the software industry, that teams that I worked with use, and it can be used in any setting, and it’s called the blameless postmortem.

And the idea is that, like after you’ve had a failure, like in the software industry it’s often an outage. Let’s say you’re on Zoom, and Zoom has a big worldwide outage. The Zoom team would go back, and they would have a blameless postmortem to say, “What led up to that? What happened? What can we do differently to prevent that going forward?”

That can be applied in any setting. And it’s a great way for team members to not point any fingers but instead say, “What are we collectively going to learn from this? And how are we going to be better going forward?” So, talking about failure is not something, honestly, that I was used to in the workplace, and it’s something that you have to get accustomed to doing and practicing. So, that’s our fourth play in the book.

And then the last one is actually a really big topic, and it’s the topic I focus most of my work on, it’s about inclusivity. So, we call the play using inclusive rituals. And what we’re talking about there is creating an inclusive culture, and psychological safety is truly the foundation for inclusion. So, if you think about there’s so much talk, of course, about diversity, equity, and inclusion in the world today and in the workplace. And it’s often focused on hiring a diverse workforce.

And if it stops at that, you will not actually, as an organization, benefit from the diversity that you have on your teams because, without a safe culture, and without an inclusive culture, people who feel different will just conform to the group norms, and they won’t even show up with any differences. They won’t share their opinions. They won’t share their experiences.

So, we introduced the idea of inclusive rituals, and we start with how you run your meetings because meetings is how…we spend so much of our time in meetings, and meetings are often a very much sort of an expression of organizational culture. Like, how we show up in meetings, often what you see is that in a meeting of eight or ten people, there are two people who do most of the talking, and the other six or eight people who sit back and are fairly quiet.

And if you want to truly create an inclusive environment, you have to find a way to bring in those other quiet voices, and there are different techniques for doing it. So, we share some examples of taking turns, like doing actually a very deliberate turn-taking rule, pointing someone as a facilitator, and taking turns playing that role so that you make sure you hear and invite all the voices. And then, very deliberately, inviting dissenting viewpoints as opposed to quickly converging on agreements which don’t usually lead to great outcomes or thinking things through all the way.

So, that’s the fifth, and each one of these five plays with their five moves could be as complex as you want it to be, or as simple as you want it to be, and we try to make it very simple in that we give you ideas of what to put into practice right away. And then we offer, for the reading material, if you want to go deeper on any of these topics, because they’re all quite big topics, but we want to make it accessible and actionable.

Like, if I want to run a more inclusive meeting tomorrow, I’m going to use this rule “No one speaks twice until everyone speaks once.” Try that out. See how it works. And if that works, then maybe the next thing is you ask someone to play devil’s advocate in the room, and then that brings dissent into the room.

So, just trying out things, experimenting with them, see what sticks, see what doesn’t, see how you want to refine things, and that’s how we really want people to think about this material, is that this is a toolkit for you to use one bit of it, some bits of it, and find what works for you but then keep consistently trying other things, and trying to go deeper on this work because it can transform how people feel about being at work every day, and how they contribute, and how much they feel they can do their best work.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Thank you. Okay, so we heard about the five plays. I guess I’m curious to hear the opposite in terms of common mistakes, things that many professionals do that are harmful to psychological safety. They might not even know they’re doing it, but it can have a really damaging impact. Are there a few don’ts you would also highlight for us?

Minette Norman
Yeah, that’s probably a very long list so I’ll come up with a few don’ts. So, let me just start with meetings since we were just on meetings, and then I’ll work my way backward. Don’t in meetings. You know one of the ones that can really destroy psychological safety is someone is speaking, and you interrupt them, and you don’t let them finish.

I’ve read research about this, I felt this myself as a woman in a very male-dominated field. Women are interrupted three times more frequently than men in business settings, and actually in all settings. So, when you interrupt people, they start to feel that their voice isn’t welcome, and then they go quieter because it’s not worth the effort.

So, pay attention to interruptions, and it may be a very, very inadvertent and accidental interruption. So, I just talked over you, Pete, and someone, either I or someone else can say, “Oh, I’m really sorry I interrupted you. Please finish your thought and then I’ll come back to my thought.” And just that really the small correction can make all the difference because then I’ve just said to you, “I do care what you say,” as opposed to just talking over you and continuing, and then we never come back to your thought, and you feel minimized, and you feel excluded, and you feel like you don’t count. So, that’s one.

I will say a really important one, and that is when someone asks you a challenging question, and especially if you’re anywhere in a management or leadership position, it is so important that you not shoot them down, and that’s when we get defensive. But I mentioned it before, it’s one of the worst most destructive things I’ve seen happen in a business context is that someone asked a question, and maybe it wasn’t even meant to be a challenging question.

They’re brave enough to ask a question, and the person at the front of the room who’s holding a Q&A session, for example, makes them feel stupid in the moment, like, “I’m not going to answer that question,” or, “That’s a ridiculous question.” I’ve heard an executive say that, “That’s a ridiculous question.”

So, this is what happens. First of all, the person feels humiliated in front of their peers. But, second of all, everyone else who witnessed that interaction suddenly feels like, “Oh, it’s not okay to ask this person questions. They’re not going to respond well.” So, you basically just shut down the people in the room. So, be really careful with your responses that may embarrass people, or that make people feel less than.

And if you get a question that you can’t answer, just say, “Oh, I’m not prepared to answer that question. Can you give me a minute? Or, I’d like to come back to you on that. And thank you for the question.” So, there are ways to handle it that are going to increase the psychological safety, and there are ways to handle it like, “That’s a ridiculous question. I’m not even going to answer it.” That’s going to be pretty destructive. So, that’s one.

Pete Mockaitis
Anything else you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Minette Norman
Well, if anyone wants to learn more about the book, I will just say that we have a website, you can get some sample content, it’s just ThePsychologicalSafetyPlaybook.com. And what we’re finding is that there are so much interest in the book in all different industries. And that was maybe what was really surprising to us and fun to find out.

We’ve been finding out about people in the automotive industry, in law, in HR, in insurance, in tech, and the food industry, and they’re all finding value in this book. So, what I want to say is that psychological safety is important no matter where you are, no matter what you do. It’s any time you’re dealing with teams of people, it matters.

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

Minette Norman
Yes, and it’s hard to pick because I have my selection of quotes around my office, but I’m going to pick one. And this is from Madeleine Albright, and it was something that I kind of heard later in my career, and it feels right to me today, and it is, “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice. And now that I have it, I am not going to be silent.”

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

Minette Norman
Yes. So, this one comes out of UCLA, and I discovered it when I read a book called Social by Matthew Lieberman. It’s about the brain, and it has to do with our brains recognizing pain. So, they did these functional MRI studies on people, and they discovered that what they call, so the researchers from UCLA, call social pain.

When you are excluded, when you are left out, and when you feel hurt, you’re not part of this group, our brains register pain in exactly the same way they register physical pain. So, why is this so important? Because when we are feeling excluded at work, when we feel that our voice is not welcome, our brains are experiencing pain.

And so, I always say, like, we need to minimize the pain we are going through at work. People are suffering. And so, that’s why I think it’s so important to create a culture of psychological safety and inclusion so we can minimize that pain that human beings are going through every day in the workplace.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Minette Norman
My favorite recent book, as I read constantly, but my favorite recent book is actually a novel that I think applies to the workplace as well, and it’s the novel called Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus. Have you read it, Pete?

Pete Mockaitis
No.

Minette Norman
Okay. It’s a great book. It came out in the last year, and it’s about a woman who’s a chemist in the late ‘50s, 1960s, and how she just plows through this male-dominated industry, and does things on her own terms and with her integrity. And I think it’s about speaking up and staying true to yourself. I think it really applies to the workplace everywhere today in 2023, and it’s a great read.

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

Minette Norman
Lots of software, a simple software, but I will say the one thing I probably couldn’t live without, what tool I couldn’t live without is Evernote, or any note taking tool, because I’m constantly reading and collecting ideas, and things I want to come back to, so I put everything in Evernote so I don’t lose it, because if I write it in my physical notebook, I can’t read my handwriting afterwards.

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

Minette Norman
I’m a big walker. I’d love to exercise, in general, but I think walking is the best way that I clear my head, and I often get my best ideas and my clearest thinking when I’m just out for a walk.

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

Minette Norman
There’s a quote from the book that comes back a lot, that we’ve seen people quoting, so I’ll just share it. It was, “Leaders tend to believe that they need to have all the answers and that they cannot show emotion. It’s time to set aside these limiting beliefs.”

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

Minette Norman
If they want to get in touch with me, they can find me on LinkedIn or my website MinetteNorman.com, and I already mentioned the book site, ThePsychologicalSafetyPlaybook.com.

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

Minette Norman
I would say that small actions and small behavior changes can make a hugely positive impact. So, my call to action is just commit to trying one new behavior in your next interaction with a human being, in your next meeting, and it could be just commit to listening fully, or taking a pause before responding. And you may be amazed by the changes you’ll see in your relationships in the workplace and your relationships in real life. So, just try one small thing.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Minette, this has been a treat. I wish you much fun and psychological safety.

Minette Norman
Thank you. You, too, Pete.

Apr 24
0

859: How to Be a Leader–Instead of a Boss with Todd Dewett

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Todd Dewett says: "Collaborate, don't dictate."

Todd Dewett shares how to harness you and your team’s true power.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Why and how to collaborate–not dictate
  2. Why you should go for candor over kindness
  3. The low-cost way to optimize your team

About Todd

Dr. Todd Dewett is a globally recognized leadership educator, author, and speaker. After working with Andersen Consulting and Ernst & Young, he completed his PhD at Texas A&M University in Organizational Behavior as well as a prestigious postdoctoral fellowship.

He was an award-winning professor at Wright State University for ten years, teaching leadership-related courses to MBA students and publishing research. His activities grew to encompass speaking, training, consulting, and eventually online educational courses.

To date, Todd has delivered over 1,000 speeches around the world (including several TEDx talks) and created a library of courses enjoyed by millions of professionals. His clients include Microsoft, IBM, GE, Pepsi, ExxonMobil, Boeing, MD Anderson, State Farm, and hundreds more.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Todd Dewett Interview Transcript

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

Todd Dewett
Hey, great to see. I’m hoping this time, I, in fact, will figure out how to be awesome at my job.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I think you’ve been awesome for, well, at least these last seven years. It has been seven years. Wow!

Todd Dewett
Crazy.

Pete Mockaitis
Tell me, any remarkably transformational discoveries you’ve made over the last seven years?

Todd Dewett
Discoveries? I would say two, very briefly.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. That’s quick.

Todd Dewett
One is that the online world for education continues to surprise me, and surprise me, and surprise me with its ability to innovate and improve, and its ability to grow. And I didn’t ask for it but, somehow, I’ve got to be a part of that through LinkedIn. So, that continues to blow my mind on what they’re able to do. Just 15 years ago, people were saying, “You can’t learn online. You need a person in the room, right?” So, that’s blowing my mind.

And the other big discovery is, and this is the truth, and it’s a segue to our conversation we’ll have about this book I’m about to put out, but I now know, Pete, I now know with great confidence that I cannot write novels. And here’s how I know that. I’ve tried three times over 15 years, around 15 years, and each of those three times, I’ve ended up with a pile of words that was not useful.

And then the most recent time is the final time. I’m done trying to scratch that itch. I’m comfortable that I tried, but the idea that I was working on the story, then led to the book that we’ll talk about a little bit today.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yes, indeed, let’s do just that. Your book Dancing with Monsters, what’s the big idea here?

Todd Dewett
Well, like I said, I wrote this novel, I was trying to write a lighthearted take on a vampire going through office shenanigans, as we’ve seen in many television shows, I just was intrigued by the combination of those components, and I had fun writing it, as I always do. When I determined it was not good, and my beta reader or two determined it was not good, I sat there licking my wounds, and I thought, “Can I use this idea some other way?”

And for years, I had been interested in the business fable book market. Many years ago, I read Who Moved My Cheese. I read many of the Pat Lencioni books, etc., and I thought, “Well, maybe I can do that. I’d been thinking about that. Maybe that’s a style that fits me.” And so, I just got all passionate one day, maybe it was too much caffeine, and sat down with that idea, a rough small idea from the failed novel, and, out of me came this 18,000-word quick fable in six hours. It’s been edited, thank goodness, since then, but that’s why I had an idea. I had a market, a fable market, and I decided to see if I could write that style, and I think the answer is yes.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Cool. And so, what is the fable here?

Todd Dewett
Well, we got a premise of a monster, he’s the main protagonist, is Joe Vampire, and he’s kind of cocky and full of himself, but not performing well lately, doing the one thing all monsters want to do across many genres for the last few hundred years, of course, which is to scare children. And he’s pulled into a meeting with an HR-type person, which is a witch in the character, in the book, and told, “Look, you’re basically in trouble. We’re going to ask you to prove yourself by leading a team of other monsters who are having issues, and you’ve got a big goal. You’ve got to solve together to figure out whether or not we’re going to let you continue with your monster status,” so to speak.

And so, there is a mummy, and a zombie, and a ghost, and a werewolf, all having huge issues being themselves. The werewolf can’t turn into a werewolf. She’s just the human that’s not able to transform. Issues of that nature. So, Joe fumbles around trying to lead these misfits and does terrible at first and fails before he realized that he’s doing it the wrong way.

And he remembers some amazing advice from his grandfather who was quite capable as a leader, and he starts to humble himself, and he has some epiphanies about what it means to think through empathy and build rapport, and to use kindness as a means of connecting with people and getting them to really try harder for the first time.

And his efforts to humble himself and be a facilitator instead of a dictator really pay off as these monsters discover their inner awesomeness. At the end of the book, they actually…well, I won’t spoil the end. I’ll just say they become a much, much more interesting version of themselves. And along the way, you’ll learn some stuff about leadership.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, I was going to ask, when it comes to fables, yup, there are some lessons, some takeaways, some wisdom, hopefully, that readers walk away with. Could you share with us, is there maybe a key quote or excerpt from the book that you think really delivers some of these in spades?

Todd Dewett
Wow! I’m in love with the book. To be honest with you, I’ve never said that about anything I’ve created, so I’ll choose one because it’s personal to me. As I thought about these characters in this short fun tale, yes, some of them reminded me of archetypes of people I’ve written about or seen in consulting, coaching, and so on. And one of them really is reflective of me, to answer your question.

Joe Vampire, the protagonist, had a moment after failing for a while, where he thought to himself, “Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s me. And maybe if I get authentic with them about my imperfections and insecurities and fears, which we all have, and I show them something about myself that they’re not going to see coming, which will tell them how sincere I am about trying to reboot our relationship and our efforts toward making progress, that that will work for us.” And he did that.

That came from my life. The fact that he did that in one of the pivotal scenes in this little book came from my life. And I’ll tell you what it is because it mattered enough to center this story in a book. I used to work for Ernst & Young many years ago before I did a PhD and became a professor for years, and I didn’t fit well at all, to be frank with you.

Great job. Prestigious. Everyone thought I should be happy. Look at the young successful professional. Didn’t fit at all. And I knew that, and I didn’t know what to do because I thought I knew where I wanted to go, which was to get a PhD but that was risky and I was scared, “Was I smart enough that I want to go broke?” For all the years, you’ve got to go broke to do that much grad school, etc.

And I was in my loft in Atlanta, Georgia where I used to live, and my mom called, checking up on me one day, she lived in a different city. And I was, in my voice, giving it away that I wasn’t in a good place. And she said, “Hey, what’s wrong with you?” True story. “What’s wrong with you?” And I just broke down, I started crying. I think I was 28 at the time. I started crying, and my mom, not something I normally did at that stage in life, but it happened.

And she said, “What is going on?” And I told her, “I’m very unhappy and I think I know the answer but I don’t know if I should do it.” She said, “Well, why?” I told her what it was, PhD, all that, and she said, “Well, why wouldn’t you? What are you really scared of?” She said it to me kindly and firmly just like that. And I sit there blubbering at my mom, I realized the obvious.

There wasn’t anything to be scared of. I didn’t have kids. What are you scared of? There was nothing to be scared of but I needed someone to smack me with those words and wake me up and push me in a new direction. And that made a huge impression, and that’s why Joe Vampire stepped up and made a huge impression on these other misfit monsters.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, that is powerful. Thank you. And so then, can we dig into a few of the core takeaway messages then in terms of there are some rules of leadership in the book, such as collaborate, don’t dictate? Can you share with us a couple of the most you think are transformational, and need to be heard by the world, takeaways?

Todd Dewett
Well, I got to tell you, I loved the way you set up these questions, but the truth is most people to do what I do, there’s different ways that we do it from speaking to writing to what have you. There’s not much new under the sun. Sometimes there are new ideas but mostly it’s about finding new vehicles to help us convey well-known useful ideas that people have yet to focus on in the proper way or the proper amount.

The one you just mentioned, actually, is a spectacular example – collaborate, don’t dictate. What Joe and many other real managers have to figure out is that even though they’ve been vested with authority to do stuff at work, they have the legitimate power as a holder of a position in a hierarchy, that does not mean they should use that power just because they have it.

The truth is, a team is optimized not when they receive dictates from a boss but when they feel that they are being facilitated and collaborated with by a person who’s on the team with them, not looking down on them. Now, that sounds terribly simple, and I’m here to tell you the reason this book, and many others, really do focus on a few simple rules that make teams better is because busy people forget them at work every single day.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had leaders just kind of whip out a dictate, “A think I need you to do,” no explanation. It just sounds like an order being given. Now, you don’t need me, Pete, to tell you that adult humans do not like to be treated like children. So, when I thought about the small number of business leadership maxims I want to put in this book, definitely collaborate, don’t dictate, be a partner, not a boss is a different way to say it, was one of the first that came to mind, for sure.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, then it sounds pretty simple in terms of just do that, just collaborate and don’t dictate. Is there any sort of best practices or do’s and don’ts to following that?

Todd Dewett
Yeah. The book is simple on purpose. And later, if I’m lucky with a variety of companies, I’ll deep dive on exploring what you just asked, but I’ll give you a preview, for example, that you’d see in a deeper training course. There are different types of decisions people face at work. And the question is, if you believe in this collaborate, don’t dictate idea that many of us talk about, is, “Well, what kind of decision are you facing? And when should I be a boss using authority versus a quiet person listening and trying to get input long before I make a decision?”

Well, there’s decisions, frankly, that you have to own with no input. That’s part of the managerial burden that anyone in the leadership structure faces. Things about strategy, things about compensation, who to hire and fire, ultimately, is not for the team to make. Team can have inputs sometimes on those but they don’t own those decisions, and that’s probably proper.

Then there’s decisions where you absolutely are going to own the decision as the leader but you absolutely should spend time, as much as you can, given how busy you are, finding their voice, listening to them, understanding their view, and allowing that to shape your decision because you believe this particular decision is going to feel, they’re going to feel it. There’s going to be an impact on them. That’s a second type.

A third type, and this is most common, I won’t say an unimportant decision but there are a variety of decisions that have to be made all the time where it’s really best to let go completely and allow teams to own it. For example, “To get this work done, do we work a day that everyone’s going to be having a day off? Or, do we work extra hours three days in a row? There are different ways to get the same outcome. What do you prefer?” Let them own the answer to that question.

So, you’ve got to ask yourself as a leader, or as a decision-maker, “What’s the reality here about my need to use the authority versus the benefit, the smart wisdom of gaining their input before a decision is made?”

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Well, now could you share a bit about some of the other rules: the candor, not kindness; the opportunities, not obstacles; the authenticity, not acting; the be the change, not the boss?

Todd Dewett
Man, we don’t have all day. I love this. So, here’s one that probably is my favorite – candor not just kindness. I want to say that carefully – candor not just kindness. I didn’t say candor and no kindness. What we have right now, and I explore this a little bit, here’s the truth. We have so much love in forward-thinking organizations today for positivity, for kindness, for congeniality. These are things I absolutely value and preach, for sure.

But sometimes we’re so uncritical and so passionate about pursuing those types of ideals that this thing gets created, which some thinkers and scholars have now started calling toxic positivity. That’s the idea that we’re so wanting to be kind, so wanting to not offend others, that we will refrain all kinds of things. We’re really over-shape and resist. Why? “Because I don’t want to really ruffle feathers or cause tension, etc.” That’s a problem.

So, what I like to remind people is that kindness and all of its little brothers and sisters that go with it are immensely important, and that’s a foundation that gives you then the ability to use the other thing that pushes us towards finite needed conversations that are to the point, and that’s candor. Candor, which is just no beating around the bush, saying what needs to be said, this is important, ready, can be done positively. Candor does not imply brusque to the point of negative or mean. It just means you’re saying what needs to be said instead of beating around the bush.

So, here’s the truth, a lot of candor in an environment that doesn’t have a lot of positivity as its foundation, part of its culture, can be damaging quickly. But in a workplace, defined by a lot of positivity and congeniality and helpfulness and kindness, well, then candor is a thing that becomes directive and useful and digestible. That’s the difference.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And could you share a bit about the opportunities, not obstacles?

Todd Dewett
Yeah. So, I was talking to a boss the other day somewhere. I still say that word because I’m old. Supervisor is what I’m supposed to say now. And they were lamenting the lack of resources and budget they had for something, “And what should I do about this?” So, I say, “Well, don’t lie about it, don’t hem and haw, don’t tell them there might be more coming later. Own it and be honest, and then try and shape without BS’ing in any way. Try and shape how they feel about the situation.”

Opportunities is about perspective. That’s the whole point of the book. It’s about perspective. We all face challenges, budget-related, people-related, market-related, customer, etc. We all face them. That’s inevitable. That’s a daily if not weekly, we face big ones. How we feel about them, however, is a choice, and that starts with the person who has the most status and the most power in a group, which is the group leader, the supervisor.

There’s great science here that says when you help people see, forgive the cliché, the glass half full, the silver lining, call it what you want to, they will, on average, over time, tend to think about those issues more productively, more positively, and, thus, tackle them more effectively. For no other reason than choosing to think about them in a more productive way.

I’ve said this many times over the years, the greatest things we know about you optimizing you, and you optimizing a team really don’t cost a dime, or they’re low cost, but they usually don’t cost a dime. It just requires you to be a little more thoughtful about how you’re thinking about yourself and others and how you relate.

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

Todd Dewett
Well, no, I think in terms of leadership, this is a really fun 101 dose wrapped in a story that is emotional, fun, and memorable.

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

Todd Dewett
Well, there was something near the end where the HR person, embodied by the character of a witch, I love my HR brothers and sisters, by the way, if you’re listening. The HR person said to Joe, “I’m not sure if your performance, basically, was good enough for you to be saved or not. The committee,” it’s another reference to kind of management or bureaucracy, “The committee is still on whether or not they’d agree but they do know that they love what you had done today and want to offer you a job.” And he says no.

And that’s a big deal. I love that because fit matters and passion matters, and he doesn’t want to go, become the bureaucrat he’s battling against. He actually wants to stay where he is because he’s discovered now, that he’d figured out how to do it, that he loves being a manager. And what he said to her, and I’m misquoting myself because I don’t remember that clearly, what he said was, “One monster who believes in themselves is spectacular. But a monster squad who believes in themselves is truly formidable,” because that’s what he created. And I think that’s true, and that’s the power of a team.

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

Todd Dewett
Well, there’s tons of research. For example, why do people, this is classic stuff, why do people stay with certain jobs over the long term? Is it because of their immense fit with the role? No, although I wish that were true. Is it because of the love of the high pay at this particular job where they’re staying? No, I wish that were true.

The best answer, by far, is that they have a quality relationship with their manager. The number one reason people voluntarily leave, this has been a true finding, a known finding, for 30 years, jobs that they have voluntary turnovers is because of bad boss relationships. So, I loved, in this book, trying to bring that research to life by modelling what bad leadership looks like, by then having that person go through something of an epiphany, and then finding how to do it correctly.

So, there is good research to back this up. What do we know about, for example, perspective that we were just talking about? There’s tons of studies and psych cogs, social sites, org studies, etc. that talk about how we frame decisions and how people react. And when you take the time, and that is always the thing that trips us up at work because we’re so darn busy putting out fires, I respect that, but when you take the time to think, at least the important issues, and think about them first and how you’re going to package them effectively to be understood, and maybe even to motivate people, no matter how challenging they might be, you tend to deliver a better message. That’s powerful research.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And can you name a favorite book?

Todd Dewett
A favorite book. I’ll go with Please Understand Me by Keirsey. One of the classics on personalities, because I’m a huge believer, I actually posted about this today, a huge believer that talent is awesomely important but often overrated. And what I mean by that is what ultimately matters is chemistry. And great teams with chemistry that have less talent than teams over here with great talent and no chemistry often outperform teams with loaded talent.

So, how do you achieve chemistry? Well, you get along by first understanding yourself and then others. And one of the first books that really pushed people effectively to start thinking about personality types and how to understand others who are different than you, was Please Understand Me by Keirsey.

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

Todd Dewett
Well, I would say any kind of feedback tool. One in particular that’s on my mind lately people might check out, there’s a new company using AI called Yoodli. I think it’s Y-O-O-D-L-Y or D-L-I, Yoodli. And they’re trying to help people in terms of presentation and conversational speech. Look into a camera, open their app, speak, have it analyzed six ways from Sunday, using AI, and also attach, using feedback mechanisms, to people that you supply emails for so you can bring in that feedback, try again, and then have the program once again assess how you’re doing on a variety of ways.

I think AI, in terms of helping people study their interpersonal communication is a host of tools emerging there that people are going to enjoy in the coming years.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. And do you have a favorite habit, something you do that helps you be awesome at your job?

Todd Dewett
Yeah, I’m into humility because I’ve got plenty of go-go power in me, plenty of ego. And if you are like that, then you’re going to fail eventually. We all do. And so, I like to remind myself on a regular basis that I don’t know it all. And I like to remind myself of my favorite failures, no joke, because those are the things that make me think through what I’m doing now a little more thoughtfully, which is terribly, terribly useful.

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?

Todd Dewett
In general, yeah, outside of this book, I have a few that always stick with me that I love to share. Probably the most common is that “More is always possible,” which sounds like a motivational speaker, which is one of my hats, would say. The science actually backs it up. One of my favorite stories ever involves my ex-wife/one of my best friends, who had asthma yet somehow learned how to train for a marathon.

And when she was done, we’re having a conversation, and I said to her, “Wow, can you imagine what more you could possibly accomplish?” She never even dreamed of this because she didn’t think it was possible, and it blew her mind, and she’s been thinking about it and excelling ever since. More is always possible.

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

Todd Dewett
Well, thanks for asking. There are two obvious places. One is my website DrDewett.com, that’s D-R-D-E-W-E-T-T.com and the other is my favorite social media platform, which is LinkedIn. I would love to chat if this brings up questions from anyone listening. Find me on LinkedIn and connect. I’d love to chat.

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

Todd Dewett
I would say just don’t assume you know it all and stop blaming others, which is so easy and sometimes justified but never productive, and ask yourself what you can do differently to continue improving.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Todd, this has been a treat. I wish you much luck with Dancing with Monsters and all your adventures.

Todd Dewett
Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.