Tag

Relationships Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

Nov 02
0

912: Maximizing Your Impact by Leading with both Head and Heart with Dr. Kirstin Ferguson

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Kirstin Ferguson shares how modern leaders can best meet the challenge of the new work landscape.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Why traditional leadership is lacking–and what you should do instead
  2. Why you may not be as self-aware as you think
  3. Why you might want to talk less in your next meeting

About Kirstin

Dr. Kirstin Ferguson, PhD is an award-winning leadership expert, best-selling author, columnist, and keynote speaker. Kirstin has been called “Australia’s own Brene Brown” and been named one of the world’s top 30 thinkers to watch by Thinkers 50. Her latest book, Head & Heart: The Art of Modern Leadership, has been named one of the top 10 best new management books in the world in 2023.

Resources Mentioned

Kirstin Ferguson Interview Transcript

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

Kirstin Ferguson
Hello. It’s fabulous to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to hear about some of the wisdom you have for us from your book, Head & Heart: The Art of Modern Leadership. But first, I need to hear a little bit about your time with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And most top of mind is what was your involvement with Bluey?

Kirstin Ferguson
Well, every Australian likes to claim that Bluey is somehow connected to them, but I have two connections with Bluey. It’s made in my hometown where I live in Brisbane and produced there, and I was on the ABC board when we commissioned it.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, beautiful.

Kirstin Ferguson
But I can’t claim any responsibility for that but it’s fabulous, isn’t it? Have you got young children?

Pete Mockaitis
It really is, yes. I’ve got kids – five, four, and one – and Bluey, wow, is maybe the top thing. I think Daniel Tiger, in my own opinion, for whatever it’s worth, Daniel Tiger is very strong in terms of enriching, but Bluey I think is just about as enriching but so much more entertaining.

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah, they’ve done so well to make it entertaining for adults to watch as well. My children are now not children, they’re 23 and 21, and I can tell you I wish we had Bluey on repeat rather than The Wiggles and Wesley. I love The Wiggles, of course. Another Australian children’s export but there’s only so much, so many times you can listen to their songs.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, so you’re on the committee that commissioned it. And, I’m curious, when it comes to creative works, it’s like do you know if you have a hit on your hands or do you not? Like, people have famously passed on The Beatles and other smash hits in terms of culture and creativity. But what was the vibe, like, “Yeah, let’s give this a shot. Some blue dogs? Yeah, it can’t hurt”?

Kirstin Ferguson
Well, this is where I can’t claim any credit. The board is a long way from most kind of commissioning discussions. And I remember, at the time, our head of television, who’s now the managing director or the CEO of the ABC, quite visibly so, I remember he said to me, “Hey, I’ve just commissioned this show about a dog called Bluey.” And he said it’s going to be a massive hit. So, I think the people who know, know, and he certainly said that before anyone had seen it, and he was right. So, I don’t know, whether I could’ve had the same skill, I’m not so sure.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Kirstin, I’m now going to force a segue. I think Bluey does a fine job of engaging the head and the heart.

Kirstin Ferguson
It does.

Pete Mockaitis
And I’d love to hear, with your book, any particularly surprising or counterintuitive discoveries you’ve made as you’re learning and researching and putting it together?

Kirstin Ferguson
I think your podcast is fabulous because it’s all about helping people to be awesome at their job, obviously. And what I really hope people take away from our conversation is that delivering whatever your job is, an inverted commerce, your job description and the outputs and the KPIs and all those sorts of things, are obviously incredibly important to retain a job but to be truly successful, you have to be able to balance that ability to deliver, and that is sort of encompassed by leading with the head, and we can go through what that looks like, but with leading with the heart.

But I think people sometimes forget that. And that’s because, as leaders, and let me say, we are all leaders. It doesn’t matter where you are in the org chart, you are leading in your families, in your communities, and in your role, so it doesn’t matter who’s listening right now, I’m telling you you’re a leader because you’re impacting those around you through the words you use, the choices you make, and the behaviors that you role-model.

And so, I think leading with the heart, which is around humility, and empathy, self-awareness and things, it has to be balanced with all those technical capabilities to be awesome at your job.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, certainly. And so then, are there some folks who just totally don’t have it in their head that they’re a leader or that they need to lead with their head or their heart? What are you seeing is sort of the antithesis of that message or that experience?

Kirstin Ferguson
I think anyone who thinks they know everything and is the smartest person in the room, we all know those people, they’re a challenge because they’re the kinds of leaders, and we all worked with them, who aren’t interested in diverse points of views, they’re not interested in feedback, they’re not interested in a different way of doing things, and I think those kinds of leaders are not the modern leaders that we need in the workplace today.

So, if you’ve got a leader like that, that’s going to be really challenging but don’t be that leader yourself. So, it’s really easy to identify who those people are but it’s much harder for us to look in the mirror, and think, “Actually, am I doing some of that myself? And is my leadership style still fit for purpose?”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, you mentioned modern leaders, and that’s also in the subtitle, would you contrast that with traditional or old-school leaders, or…?

Kirstin Ferguson
Dinosaurs, I tend to call them. Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Dinosaurs. Okay.

Kirstin Ferguson
It’s not too bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But my mission is to rid the world of dinosaurs.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, sure.

Kirstin Ferguson
That pretty well covers most.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. So, that’s the mission. So, then could you maybe paint a picture for what does a dinosaur or old-school traditional leadership look, sound, feel like that you’re saying is not what we need right now?

Kirstin Ferguson
Oh, my goodness. I reckon everyone listening have someone in their mind who doesn’t believe in remote working. They think if you’re not right in front of them, you’re not working, you’re just relaxing at home somehow, watching television. They don’t believe in doing things differently. Everything is done the same way. They’re not interested in feedback, as I said. They’re really just there to tell you what to do and to make sure we deliver on the KPIs for the organization. And that’s really work is a task to be done rather than a way to sort of be as humans.

And I think you can’t separate who we are when we come to work. We have lives, we have issues we’re dealing with, we’ve got all sorts of challenges, and I think modern leaders actually understand that and factor that into their leadership.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. So, that’s a view of the dinosaurs. And then we talked about head versus heart. I’d love to hear how you think about this in terms of it sounds like it’s sort of a both-and approach as opposed to all head or all heart.

Kirstin Ferguson
Absolutely.

Pete Mockaitis
How do you think about, I don’t know if the word is balanced, or both, or simultaneous, or the same time, but what’s a view for too much of one versus too much of the other?

Kirstin Ferguson
I think we all know individuals like that, and, you’re right, being all heart is just as unhelpful as being all head. So, we would know, or people might know leaders who run a not-for-profit organization or really great causes, but they’re all about how they can benefit people, which is wonderful but they don’t think about the strategies for how they’re going to get there, how they’re going to fund it, all of those kinds of things. That’s as unhelpful in leaders as the CFO, and I always pick on the poor old CFO, but who’s just focused on balance sheets and not thinking about how decisions are impacting others.

So, it is about balance. And the art of modern leadership that I write about is knowing what is needed and when. And I guess I feel I’ve been really fortunate because I’ve been a leader myself for 30 years. I started in the military, I went through, as you heard, I sat on company boards, I’ve been a CEO, but I’ve also got a PhD in leadership.

So, not only was it important to me to write this book based on research. It also was sort of a counterpoint to some of the anecdotal leadership books you get, which are all very interesting. But I want to know, “How do you know that? And what’s the datapoint to show that?” And that’s how I came up with, obviously, it’s a metaphor, the head and heart, but four attributes of leading with the head, and four with leading with the heart.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s fun, as we’re chatting, I just finished listening to the Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk, and, well, there’s some head there.

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah, yeah. Well, I went and heard Walter recently, just a week ago, in LA.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, no kidding?

Kirstin Ferguson
Fantastic. Yeah, yeah, talking about the book.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, it was riveting. It was 20 hours, and I was, “Wow, am I done already? I wish it were longer.” So, there were these periods of, I guess, what he would call being ultra-hardcore, and having a surge, and saying, “This thing needs to happen by this time or everybody’s fired.” Now, that sounds super head and minimal heart. I’m curious, is there a place for that ultra-hardcore? And how do we play that game?

Kirstin Ferguson
Look, I don’t think so because there’s always repercussions for behaving in that way. When things are steadier, you’re going to have people around you that don’t know when you’re next going to decide that it’s time to be ultra-hardcore. There’s obviously times when there’s a crisis, for example, and your leadership needs to change.

And you, as a leader, may have once been very consultative and taking the time to get everyone’s feedback, and, suddenly, that is not a priority. You actually, as a leader, need to step up then and make some decisions, and perhaps have just a very small core group around you. It doesn’t mean though that you need to lose your humanity.

So, decisions still have impacts on people, regardless of whether or not you’re making them in a crisis or whether you are doing them because you want to save money because you just bought a new company. I think we must, as leaders, be thinking about what the impact is beyond ourselves. And, yes, in a crisis, the consequences may be weighed up differently but it doesn’t take away from our need to be human.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so you’ve got a number of attributes associated with being a great head leader and a great heart leader. Could you share those attributes and maybe a pro tip or best practice for doing that well in practice?

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah. So, the four attributes of leading with the head, this is all the tangible stuff we’ve been rewarded for at school and being promoted, and that we feel really comfortable in, so there won’t be too much of a surprise. There’s curiosity. Most people love curiosity but it’s scary to think that, while the research shows 92% of us value it, only 24% of us get to feel curious at work. So, that’s a real challenge for leaders.

The second attribute is capability, and that’s all about how we feel capable in our jobs. We’re not just capable, but how we actually believe we can do things, and that we know that making mistakes is all just part of the learning process. The third one is wisdom, and that’s all about decision-making and we gather data and evidence to make really good decisions.

And the last one, which is the most important, actually, of all eight, is called perspective. And that’s about, in basic terms, how to read a room and really bring in the signals that you’re seeing, understanding the environment and the context that you’re leading in. And it also means that you can see who’s missing from the room, which is incredibly important. And it’s highly correlated with empathy because it means you can put yourself in the shoes of others.

So, they’re the four head-based attributes. And, generally, people are pretty comfortable with this. And I should mention now, anyone listening can just jump on HeadHeartLeader.com, totally free, but I’ve had 16,000 people complete this scale since January, that’s one I built with one of the universities in Australia, and will give you personalized report and a comparison to how you’re going on each of these.

And same with the heart. So, the four heart-based attributes are humility, which is all around confident humility, intellectual humility, knowing we don’t know all the answers, and being quite okay with that. Second is self-awareness, which obviously understanding that impact that we’re having on others. Feedback is a critically important tool there.

Third is courage, and that’s the courage to speak up for what you believe in even in the face of pressure not to do so. And the final is empathy, and that’s our ability to really understand that your lived experience is not the same as others, and to appreciate that you’re going to need diverse points of view to make the best decision that you can.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so within these eight attributes, I’d love to hear are there some particular tools, or tactics, or practices, things that you’ve discovered, “Wow, this little thing makes a world of difference in improving curiosity or perspective or empathy”?

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah. Well, let me share one with you that I, first, came up with about 10-12 years ago when I first started sitting on company boards, and I was only 38 then, so I’m 50 now. And I remember feeling really insecure, and feeling I needed to contribute to every conversation even though I wasn’t adding much value, I felt I needed to say something, sort of prove myself. I think we’ve all been in that situation.

But, at the same time, I was noticing that my really experienced colleagues around me barely said anything at all. And they might only ask a single question, but that question was gold, and it would change the course of the conversation. So, then I came up with a concept I still use now called the word-to-wisdom ratio, and I would write, back in the day when it was still hardcopy papers, WTW, on the corner of my page.

And it was to remind me that I really needed to be mindful of the impact I was having on those around me. And at that stage, the number of words that was taking me to add any wisdom at all was pretty unhealthy, whereas my colleagues clearly were doing much better than me. But as I’ve become more experienced and a more senior leader, what I use it for now is to really make sure I’m not taking up all the space in meetings.

So, for people listening who do have a team, if you’re going into a meeting, and you’ve already got the answer in mind, and you sort of are just checking in to make sure they all agree with what you’re proposing, then it’s likely you’re taking up so much space no one else gets an opportunity to contribute. And the word-to-wisdom ratio is something you can think about in terms of your coaching ability.

And I would encourage modern leaders that even if you know the answer, use that opportunity, when you’ve got the time and it’s appropriate, to really ask good questions of those you lead so they can feel they’ve come to answer themselves.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, that’s a fun one, the word-to-wisdom ratio. Anything that you’d also put forward in terms of boosting our perspective?

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah, like reading a room is, I think, we all know sometimes it’s easier to do than others, and sometimes we get it wrong, and we really need feedback to calibrate whether or not we’ve read it correctly. But one of the challenges to reading a room is if you’re someone, firstly, who has blinkers on and pretty much thinks you’re right all the time, then you’re basically the only person in that room, and so that’s a problem.

So, you need to make sure that you’ve got people around you that are actually giving you dissenting opinions, respectfully, of course, but that you’re not surrounding yourself with people who just agree. But I think, also, around leading with perspective, it’s important to be getting feedback, and to really understand whether or not you’re reading of the situation is the same as others. Test that with people because, invariably, we’re not going to get it right.

Sadly, our self-awareness is very high, we think. About 95% of us we think we’re self-aware but only 10 to 15% of those we lead would agree. That’s a pretty scary statistic, and that’s why feedback is so important.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And I’m also curious about boosting that self-awareness. If we think we’re self-aware but we’re not, well, first, how do we know if we really are? And, second, how do we boost that?

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah. Well, that is why you need trusted people around you, and you need to sniff out the bad news. I think we, invariably, like to hear from people that tell us we’re doing a good job. We’re human, obviously, we love to be reassured, but they’re not the people that you actually want to seek feedback from. You also don’t want to go to the people who are really critical of you because that’s not helpful either.

But it’s finding those people in your life who know you well enough that they are unafraid to tell you what they think, and that they want you to succeed. So, it’s given in a way that’s there to help you actually do better. And I think if you’ve got those people in your life, whether they’re mentors, colleagues, your boss, someone that’s in your team, really thank them and take their feedback with a gratitude because it’s a gift.

And if you can be doing that for someone else, make sure that you’re open to that. I should say that when you’re getting feedback, though, curiosity is the most important attribute to bring into that conversation because we’re all going to have triggers. There’s three triggers we all feel when we get feedback.

The first is you think, “Well, you’re an idiot.” But the conversation or the feedback is clouded by your relationship with the person. Regardless of how valuable the feedback might be, you’re thinking, “How dare you tell me this?” The second trigger we’ll have is, “You’re wrong.” And you’re just thinking, “Well, I don’t agree with your perspective,” so you shut down, and that’s not helpful either. You need to stay present, even if you don’t agree. It’s not a matter of having to change based on the feedback but you do need to be able to hear it if you want to encourage others to give you feedback again.

But the third trigger is something in us, and it’s about shame, or embarrassment, or ego, or whatever gets triggered. And I think knowing that that’s going on for you, and still being able to stay present, is one of the most important things leaders can do when they’re practicing self-awareness.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so, zooming out a little bit, one of your key messages in the book is that we need to sort of know when is the right moment to lead with more head-style versus lead more heart-style. What are some of your top indicators or telltale signs which tend to nudge you one way or the other?

Kirstin Ferguson
Oh, that’s an impossible question to answer because that’s the art. And there’ll be situations, I know I’ve gone into meetings, that I think are going to be all about deliverables pretty much, and I’ve got my documents, or my policies, or whatever it is that you think you’re there to do. But in the course of that conversation, you know those things go a little bit off the rails. And some leaders need a huge amount of humility or empathy, whatever it is, to get that conversation back on track.

So, I think, in any given context, you’re going to be mastering this art back and forth, and that’s part of the learning process of being a good leader, and we never get it all right. It’s not as though you’ll ever get to a point in your career where you can say, “Alright, I’ve mastered that now.” And that’s okay, that’s part of being a modern leader.

You know you’re going to have a misstep but a modern leader doesn’t really fear that so much because they’re able to say, “Oh, I’ve got that wrong. Let’s talk about how we can get this back on track.” It’s freeing to be able to do that.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. So, there’s no cut-and-dry, hard-and-fast rules and algorithm that we can turn down.

Kirstin Ferguson
Wouldn’t that be easy if we do?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’ll just sort of see from my own experience, think about in Myers-Briggs language, thinker versus feeler, I am a feeler slightly. And I think there are definitely times where I need to be less accommodating and more hardcore, maybe not ultra-hardcore like Elon Musk.

Kirstin Ferguson
No. Talk it over.

Pete Mockaitis
So, what might be some indicators that more of a head approach is needed in a given moment?

Kirstin Ferguson
I’m similar to you, and so I’m naturally one who wants to make sure everyone’s on board with an idea, and I’ve consulted, and we’ve all got buy-in, and then I notice there’s been times in my career that that style, I’ve used it, and it just isn’t the right style for the moment, and so I haven’t read the room properly. And I think part of being self-aware is that you realize that fairly quickly. You’re assessing what’s going on, the response to that, whether or not it’s timely because, obviously, in some situations, it just practically takes far too long to be consultative in that way.

So, there’s definitely situations where you need to be adjusting your leadership style in that response, but you’re still using these attributes. Just think of it like a pendulum. You’re sort of moving back and forth as you need to, and really being intentional about the kind of leadership style. That’s all this is about. It’s about not mindlessly leading one way forever, and thinking that’s going to work.

And I think that might’ve worked in the past where it was pretty consistent at work that if you are ultra-hardcore, back in the ‘80s in some organizations where that was the culture, and you could just do that day after day for 20, 30 years, get to the top and then retire. I don’t think that is how organizations work now and it’s certainly not how individuals succeed.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, maybe instead of talking about broad-based rules, maybe you can just give us a couple examples in terms of, “Here’s a leadership situation, and, wow, that really pointed to head would be better,” versus, “Here’s another situation that points to heart would be better.”

Kirstin Ferguson
Well, I think a common scenario lots of people find themselves in, especially if you’re leading a team, is you’ve got your team meeting, and you sit down, you’ve got a bit of a plan you need to come up with, and you’re telling everyone what the plan is, and you ask, “Are there any questions or any feedback?” you’re trying to do the right thing, and it sucks, and everyone goes, “No, it’s great and it’s fine.” And everyone goes back to the meeting. This is a very common situation.

In that circumstance, it’s easy for a lazy leader, and I’m going to be pretty hard there, to just go, “Okay. Well, no problem. Let’s all go do this.”

Pete Mockaitis
“I guess there’s no questions. All right. Good news.”

Kirstin Ferguson
“I get to go to lunch early.” The better leader, a modern leader, I think, would see that as a signal, and like, “Okay, that’s something about my leadership is giving the impression that either I don’t want to hear questions, I don’t want to hear feedback, I’m not curious as to different ways we could do things.” I always think leaders need to look at themselves rather than thinking it’s the problem of the team.

And so, in that situation, you really need to turn it around, and maybe not in that meeting, but maybe having a second meeting afterwards to go, “Look, I noticed that in all our team meetings, there’s never really any feedback. What am I missing? Is it something about how I’m presenting the information? Is it something about how I’m asking? I’m really keen to know because I know you guys have got far more to contribute than what you’re showing. And I really need your contributions to make the best outcome.”

So, there’s different ways you can create a safe environment and try and explore what’s going on. And if you ask the right questions in the right tone, you might find that someone brave enough says, “Actually, well, when I did raise something three months ago, you really bit my head off, and I don’t want to bring it up again.”

Now, if someone was to say something like that, the only response you should have as a leader is gratitude because that person has had so much courage, firstly, to say that. But secondly, you’ve obviously not even remembered that that was an impact that you had. And remember at the beginning, I said I think leadership is just simply a series of moments. And that is a moment that you’ve missed, and you’ve got to do a lot of work to rectify it. But finding out what’s going on is the most important goal.

Pete Mockaitis
And it’s funny, as I imagine situations where I’m in the room and I have no questions, sometimes it means I am completely satisfied with the wisdom that I have received. And other times, it means, “I think this is boring, and stupid, and lame, and I shouldn’t really even be in this meeting in the first place. And I’m hoping this can be over as soon as possible.” Now, I’m not going to say that out loud. If someone really pressed me multiple times, one on one, yeah, I might let them know. But, generally, it’s like, no, I’m not going to go there.

Kirstin Ferguson
But if you think that, the chances are other people think that that meeting is a waste of time, which means leaders need to also be assisting, like, “Have I asked for feedback on whether these gatherings are even worthwhile? We sit here and you just listen to me for an hour. Is there another way you guys would prefer to work?”

And you might say, “Actually, I’d rather do all this stuff asynchronously because I don’t want to have to come in, or even get online, and have these meetings. I can be doing something else. But why don’t we…?” And you’ve got suggestion A, B, and C. If I’m prepared to hear that, it’s much more likely others in the team are going to have suggestions. And, suddenly, you come up with an agreed way that you’re going to lead, move forward, and you will be, as a leader, getting feedback.

Now, it might be that I’ve always thought, “It was better in a face-to-face meeting.” And, suddenly, when you are asynchronous, you’re giving endless feedback in a document. That’s something as a leader I need to get my head around.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. And it seems like, I guess, this is sort of next level humility for leaders to realize, “Oh, this whole initiative or project that we’ve been embarking upon is really ill-conceived, and should be shut down and reversed immediately. Oh, good to know.”

Kirstin Ferguson
But a modern leader goes, “Okay. Well, great, better we know this now than later. So now what?” And that’s when this isn’t all about bending to other people’s will. It’s about saying, “Okay, I’ve heard you now. Now, we’re accountable because this is an idea as a team we’ve come up with. What are we going to do? How are we going to get there? Who’s delivering what?” So, this is where that head and heart balance comes, but I don’t think you get there unless you’re prepared to open your mind to not having all the answers.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
Well, I’d love people to take a look at the book. It’s just been launched in the US. It’s been named in the Top Ten Best New Management Books for 2023 by Thinkers50. So, you can find it on Amazon. I’m all over the socials. I love connecting with people. So, please find me online. And do the HeadHeartLeader.com, go there and I’d love to hear how you go with the scale.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
Oh, that is so hard but I think the best advice I’ve ever been given that I give others, and perhaps I can sort of do it that way, is to just say yes. Say yes to opportunities as they come along. Even though I’m guaranteed that you’ll likely to think you’re not ready for them, say yes anyway because you just never know what other opportunities will come from them. And that’s certainly advice I’ve followed throughout my career.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
There’s one in my book that I’m currently loving, which is a guy who wanted to get better at chess, and this is back in the ‘60s, and he did an experiment with chess grandmasters and amateurs to see if chess grandmasters just had better memory, and it turns out no. They can read a board. Anyone who’s watched The Queen’s Gambit and seen her look at the ceiling and all the chess pieces move, that is perspective. They read the room or the read the board really well. But you can read more about the study in the book.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah, I think I’ve heard of this in that if pieces are just randomly placed on the board, the grandmaster has no better memory than your average Joe.

Kirstin Ferguson
That’s exactly right.

Pete Mockaitis
As opposed to they go, “Oh, wow, so that bishop is putting that kind in check right now, and so then he’s going to have to…” Like, it means something to them, like a configuration.

Kirstin Ferguson
It does. The researcher, his name was Adrian de Groot. And, yes, he put all, initially, just put the pieces in a position on the chess board so the amateurs couldn’t remember where they were, but the grandmasters easily because they must’ve looked at it, and go on, “Oh, that’s the queen’s gambit,” so they could put it back. But when he randomly mixed them up, as you said, they were no better than the amateurs. Not sure that it made old Adrian a better chess player, but he did learn about how they can read a board.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Kirstin Ferguson
Well, I’ve just picked up Elon Musk’s biography as well because I went and heard Walter Isaacson speak. So, I’m midway through that but I’m also reading the new book by Michael Lewis on Sam Bankman-Fried. So, I, obviously, have a penchant for reading about questionable businesspeople at the moment. I love reading about different types of leaders.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
I like the app Calm. So, it’s got good soundscapes, so this helps me get to sleep. I love having a good night’s sleep. So, I think every leader needs to sleep well.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
I walk my dog. I live on the beach in Australia, which is pretty tough, I can assure you. We’ve got a ten-mile beach in front of our house, and I definitely try to walk my dog when I’m at home every day. That helps me just center myself and remember what’s important.

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?

Kirstin Ferguson
Yes, to remember that everyone’s a leader, and that leadership is simply a series of moments. And every moment is an opportunity for you to leave a positive impact in your wake.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah, go to my website KirstinFerguson.com, or HeadHeartLeader.com, or you can find me on the socials.

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

Kirstin Ferguson
Yeah, have a look in the mirror first. So, as much as we can easily point out all of those leaders around us who are doing a bad job, it’s much more important that we’re considering how we’re going, and get feedback, and just work on it every single day.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Kirstin, this has been a treat. I wish you much luck and good head and heart moments.

Kirstin Ferguson
Thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure.

Oct 19
0

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

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

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

You’ll Learn:

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

About David

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

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

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

David Livermore Interview Transcript

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

David Livermore
Thanks, Pete.

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

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

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

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

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

David Livermore
We absolutely do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly.

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

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

David Livermore
Right, probably not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Livermore
Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Livermore
Thanks so much, Pete.

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.

Aug 21
0

892: Tools for Thriving amid Change with Curtis Bateman

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

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

You’ll Learn:

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

About Curtis

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

Resources Mentioned

Curtis Bateman Interview Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding?

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

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

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

Curtis Bateman
“It’s happening again.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curtis Bateman
“Wrong change.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And any other favorite books?

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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