Tag

Relationships Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

979: Building Greater Trust and Connection through Storytelling with Scott Mann

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Retired Green Beret Scott Mann shares battle-tested strategies for motivating people in low-trust, high-stakes environments.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why storytelling is super powerful 
  2. The key shift that makes stories memorable
  3. How to regulate emotions (both yours and others)

About Scott

Lt. Col. Scott Mann is a retired Green Beret with over twenty-two years of Army and Special Operations experience around the world, and a New York Times bestselling author. He has deployed to Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is the CEO of Rooftop Leadership and the founder of a 501c3, The Heroes Journey, committed to helping veterans tell their stories in transition. Scott regularly speaks to and trains corporate leaders, law enforcement, and special operations forces on best practices for going local, storytelling, and making better human connections.

Scott has frequent appearances on Fox News, CNN, and other national platforms as a thought leader on building organizational relationships, restoring trust in our communities, and a range of national security issues. He is also an actor and playwright who has written a play about the war called Last Out—Elegy of a Green Beret on Amazon Prime. Scott lives in Florida with his wife Monty where they are deepening their skills on empty nesting.

Resources Mentioned

Scott Mann Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Scott, welcome.

Scott Mann
Hey, thanks for having me, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to hear your wisdom, and I’d love it if you could kick us off with a riveting tale that’s also instructive about your time in Afghanistan.

Scott Mann
Build trust when risk is low, leverage it when risk is high. That was the one thing that has stuck with me, yes, Afghanistan, but pretty much every tough place that I went to. It was something that I think is very true here. As a Green Beret, we’re a little different than Navy SEALs and Delta Force and those kinds of outfits in that our whole focus, everything we do, is to work by, with, and through indigenous people. That’s what we do.

And all of that, it’s kind of a modern-day Lawrence of Arabia approach. So, most of it is around social capital, building trust, interpersonal skills in really, really, really low-trust environments. And one of the things that I learned in Afghanistan, on multiple tours, was that when things get really difficult and really dangerous and really hard, it’s the trust that you built back when risk was low that will serve you in those high-stakes moments, and I frankly think that’s true in everything that we do.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s a good principle. And can you share with us how you saw that come to life?

Scott Mann
Most prolifically, I would say it was in the recent abandonment of our allies, almost three years ago to the day, it was in August of 2021, our government made a decision to leave Afghanistan, and I mean leave Afghanistan, like immediately. And as a result of that, probably close to 100,000 Afghan allies were completely left behind. Many of them on the run, hiding. One of them was my friend. His name was Nazam. He and I had fought together in Afghanistan in 2010. We had remained friends for many years.

He was shot through the face defending U.S. Green Berets. That’s the kind of guy he was, and then five weeks later, with a pair of U.S.-made dentures, came back to the firebase and continued to operate. You know, just the kind of guy that the most loyal friend you could ever ask for, and he was one of those guys left in the dirt, you know, left on the side of the road. And when the government didn’t pick up the phone and he was on the run, he called me, and basically said, “You know, sir, I never really worried about dying. It kind of comes with the territory, but I never thought I would die alone.”

And at this point, the Taliban were texting his phone. He was hiding in his uncle’s house, like Anne Frank, and they were circling the driveway, and that just, I don’t know, as I was watching the Taliban roll into Kabul, Pete, it hit me so hard, you know, all those years of fighting there and now my friend, who had stood up for us on so many occasions, was just going to be executed. I couldn’t live with it.

So, I made a commitment to him right there on the spot that we were going to do everything we could to get him out of the country and get him back to the United States. I called up some buddies who were ex-Green Berets and we started formulating a plan using cell phones and relationships, and we helped move him surreptitiously across the city, got him close to the gate. He got himself close to the actual location where the Marines were, and then we started working our contacts to get him pulled inside. And, ultimately, right at the last second, as they were about to throw him out, we got in touch with a State Department guy on the inside who said, “Tell him to say pineapple.” That was the code word.

And so, we’re screaming it to him to say that, and he does, and he gets pulled in, and we became Task Force Pineapple at that point, and that set in motion about a five- or six-day operation of 120 or so veterans to move about a thousand Afghan commandos and their families through a sewage canal and a four-foot hole in the fence, and then ultimately on to the United States where they are today.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow! Well, that illustrates trust right there.

Scott Mann
Exactly. Exactly.

Pete Mockaitis
You built it by taking a bullet to the face and more, and then, when the risk was high and in desperate need, there you were.

Scott Mann
And no authority, no resources, no time. We weren’t on the ground, so none of the things that you would want as a special operator, and, by the way, I’d been retired for 10 years. I’m a storyteller and a playwright. I’m not exactly your number one draft pick for hostage rescue, but what we did have were relationships. We had a very large portfolio of social capital in that country that we had built over the years, as did the other Green Berets that jumped into the fray.
And, you know, Pete, what I saw in that moment, it was just the worst case of duress that I had ever seen. I did not have answers, I did not have solutions, but what amazed me over and over again was how people were showing up for each other based on years of friendship, trust, and even people that didn’t know each other who were unified around this notion of just honoring a promise. Just honor a promise to our guys and get them out of there, and what lengths people were going to cooperate in real time in just complete chaos.

And, really, I don’t know, it drove home to me that, even in the worst of situations and chaos when nobody’s coming, human connection is the absolute underpinning of getting big stuff done. And it doesn’t matter what the context is, we’ve got to have that.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s powerful. Thank you.

Scott Mann
Yeah, absolutely.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I’m curious, your company’s called Rooftop Leadership. Do these principles factor into the name? Where does that come from and what’s the big idea here?

Scott Mann
That’s a great question. Where that came from is back in 2010, we were losing the war in Afghanistan. We had already been there for 10 years and we were so angry after 9/11 that we had spent most of our time focused on targeting the enemy, including the Green Berets, who, really, our job is to work by, with, and through Indigenous people. We kind of got focused on this top-down targeting approach, and we needed to get back to our roots.

So, we established a new strategy of basically living out in the villages, growing our beards, indigenous clothing, and living and working the way we had done for decades, really, out in these rural communities, helping them stand up on their own. The only problem was, at this point, these communities had seen so much war and violence, and, frankly, we had kicked their doors in for 10 years. It was very hard to establish trust there, but we did, one village at a time, one community at a time, we persuaded them to allow us in small teams to live in their villages, kind of a modern day Magnificent Seven.

And what would happen is the attacks would come from the Taliban as soon as we would move in and live in this community, the Taliban would attack our compound and the village really, and we would go up on the rooftops and we would fight. The Afghan villages would not. They would stay down below and they would hide with their families.

But then after the attack was over, we’d come down, we’d tend to our wounded, and then the next day, you know, we’d go out into the village, we’d meet with elders, we’d drink chai, we’d help them in their fields, we’d try to help them find solutions to food shortages or any low-tech farming problems they were having, dispute resolution, whatever and wherever we could plug in and be relevant, and be relevant guests in their community.

And then two, three, four weeks after getting an entry in that community, there would be a muzzle flash from up on another rooftop shooting in the same direction we were, and it’s not one of our teammates, but it’s a farmer that’s climbed up there and he’s now defending his home – one dude. But usually that would be the tipping point. The next night, you would see three guys up on their roofs. The next night, you would see 10. And ultimately, until the whole village was collectively doing what it had always done, which was stand up on its own.

And over the years, I saw this again and again and again in these really trust-depleted places. And so, one of my jobs was to bring out senior leaders to see this and to talk to them about funding and resourcing, and I would call that rooftop leadership, this ability to move people up onto a proverbial rooftop when it’s hard, when it’s scary, when they don’t want to go, based on doing the right thing, even when people don’t follow you, and human connection, social capital, people taking action because they want to, not because they have to.

When I came back to the United States and I saw how divided we were as a country here and how disconnected, I thought, “Well, we could probably use some rooftop leadership here in America.” So, I started bringing those same skillsets to corporate leaders and associates here at home.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s powerful. Thank you. So, you said they were doing it before, but then it was a big deal when the first guy started getting on the roof. So, can we clarify that?

Scott Mann
Yeah, so let me clarify that. So, these were communities, most communities around the world, most collectives, have a tendency to stand up on their own, and that is one thing I should have clarified, is that these communities had seen so much war and so much violence that they had just lost their purpose. They had lost their collective focus. They have lost their collective will to stand up for themselves, and they’d lost trust in each other, trust in their government, and so that’s kind of what we walked into, you know, and it was very difficult to persuade them in the beginning to take any kind of overt action on their own behalf.

And even though they had a long history before the 40-year war of doing that, and so a lot of this was simply holding space, building human connections, and enabling these individuals to do what they were predisposed to do. Most humans are predisposed to take action. It’s just that when we’re inundated with conditions that cause low trust and low morale and lack of purpose, at some point you start to kind of throw your hands up and check out, and that’s what we were dealing with. Those are the kinds of conditions that Green Berets typically get inserted into. And we turned that around using relationships and bringing one person up at a time to kind of make a stand.

And those same social conditions, although the stakes were different, I see here at home. I saw them when I retired in 2013, the same kind of disengagement and distrust and division that was permeating society over there, it’s terrible over here. We have a lot of disconnection and distrust here at home, a lot of disengagement. I found that that same approach, these old-school interpersonal skills, putting an emphasis on human connection, that’s what people are starving for.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s powerful. Well, I’m curious to hear then, when it comes to this trust-building stuff, I mean, some of it sounds pretty straightforward, yup, just go ahead and courageously put yourself at tremendous risk, and they’ll see you doing that and they’ll notice and appreciate it, like, “All right.”

But in business context, that may not look like shots being fired, so much as, “Hey, I am actually going to vulnerably admit that I made a mistake, that I need help, that I don’t have all the answers, that I desperately need everyone’s best efforts for this thing to work, and I’m going to give my best efforts. That I, as owner, am going to not receive distributions for a little while, while we’re in this tough economic time and we’re sorting things out.”

So, it’s just like kind of put your money where your mouth is, or your heart, your courage, your risk where you want to display that, “I am in this.” That’s a huge trust-builder, in general. Can you tell me, do I have that right or any kind of nuances or elaborations you want to put on that?

Scott Mann
No, I think it’s really good framing that you just did. I’ll just build on that framing, if it’s okay, in the sense that one of the things that Green Berets do and that I’ve done for 30 years is we really study closely what I call the human operating system, the way that humans navigate the world in terms of civil society and their day-to-day life, because we mostly deal in influence and social capital. And by social capital, I mean the oldest form of capital in the world, the tangible and intangible linkages between humans that causes them to take action because we’re social creatures.

And the reality is, Pete, what I’ve learned is that, what works in life and death, the kind of stakes we were talking about in Afghanistan, works even better in life and business, and the reason is because we’re remarkably similar in how we’re wired to navigate the world. Humans we’re very primal. We’re very primal, even though we like to think that we’re sophisticated and that we navigate this modern world and, you know, highly technical creatures, and we are.

The way that we actually navigate the world, the way that we actually take action, is around meaning and emotion and social connection and storytelling and struggle. I mean, we are very, very primal. In fact, I think it was Jared Diamond, an anthropologist who wrote The World Until Yesterday, he said that humans have been primal far longer than they have been modern. And we still have so many of those tendencies with us.

And so, what I’m trying to say is, you know, what I dealt with in terms of tribal dynamics in different villages, and how these tribes and interacted with each other, you see the same tribal dynamics in a merger. If two companies are smashed together, you are essentially putting two tribes together. You’re putting two collectives together with two distinct cultures.

And no matter how good that looks on paper for the associates, for the people that have to go through that merger, it elicits the same primal response of resource scarcity and status and fear-based behavior that our ancestors experienced 20,000 years ago. The amygdala, the ancient part of our brain, doesn’t know the difference. It goes into survival mode.

And what I’ve found is the more that we can understand those primal realities about how we are as humans, how we navigate the world, how we operate, how we take action, the fact, again, that we are meaning-seeking, we need meaning in our lives, the fact that we are first and foremost emotional, and that logic usually follows emotion, those kinds of things that when we do stories, that’s how the brain makes sense of the world.

If you use PowerPoint slides, a recent study showed that an audience will forget 90% of your content 30 per seconds after you say “Thank you for your time” because you’re engaging working memory. You’re not engaging long-term memory. The brain actually needs stories to make sense of things. So, there’s just so much available to us in this primal reality that, if we can tap into and understand that human operating system, it really makes us better at leading ourselves, our family, our co-workers. And it’s the same stuff we use in those rough places, it’s just as relevant here in just about any situation that you could think of at work.

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, could you give us a key principle and then a story of that in practice at work?

Scott Mann
A hundred percent. I’m going to pick storytelling. Storytelling is, there’s different principles, but I’ll start with storytelling, and the reason is because we’re story animals. If you think about what most people have to do at work, I mean, we have to communicate in a strategic way. We have to influence, we have to convince people to believe in our ideas, our products, our vision. And whether that’s communicating internally to other associates or teammates, or whether it’s communicating externally as a salesperson or a client-facing professional, when you think about how distracted, and disengaged, and disconnected we are as a civil society today, I mean, just look around.

Look at how people are, they roll in kind of already skeptical. We’ve got our work cut out for us and you know most people are phones out in an environment where you have to get in front of people. If you’re not compelling right out of the gate, people are on their phones. So how do we how do we hold people’s attention? How do we actually engage them in a way that lends itself to authentic influence? And I have found that storytelling is absolutely at the heart of all of it. The storyteller is going to own the room every time.

And the problem is, our modern society has conditioned us for podiums and PowerPoint, which they’re kind of manifestations of the modern world, but they actually detract from good communication because we don’t understand what really makes humans communicate well. We don’t really have a language for it like we used to. And so, storytelling is such an essential skill. Whether you’re getting up and giving a presentation, whether you’re trying to pitch your boss on something or a sales engagement, narrative is everything.

If you could present your ideas in the form of a story, it’s far more impactful than if you just give facts and figures and PowerPoint, if you can lead off your PowerPoint presentation with a story. What do I mean by a story? I don’t want to be nebulous on that. Basically, a story should have a character. A story should have a character trying to meet some goals, who faces obstacles, and then ultimately overcomes those obstacles. We’re all natural storytellers. We really are. And if you can just integrate stories when you’re talking to your teammates, if you can integrate stories when you’re talking to your boss, it’s a much more effective way to connect with them.

The general rule is what’s personal is universal. Stories of struggle, stories of overcoming pivotal moments, stories of lessons learned, this is what people actually crave, and it kind of doesn’t feel that way and it feels awkward in a business environment, but it’s actually what we’re drawn to. And when you do that, and I’ll end on this, when you lead with story and how you engage people, it makes you more relatable to their pain, and it makes you more relevant to their goals, and that’s actually what people follow, way more than they follow experience or title or the money. We follow people who are relatable and relevant, and storytelling, by definition, makes you that.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Scott, give us an example of a story you’ve heard someone tell in a work environment that was just phenomenal at illustrating these perspectives and building trust.

Scott Mann
I like to see it in the day-to-day. It’s great if you can get up on the stage and you’re the boss and you can speak a story of your vision. That’s great. That’s awesome. But for most of us, that’s not where we’re living. What I like to see is what I call narrative competence, the employment of storytelling, purposeful storytelling in real time to meet your goals.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Give me one.

Scott Mann
For example, how many of us have the opportunity to recognize people that we work with? I mean most of us do. Most of us have opportunities to recognize our co-workers, to recognize new team members, to recognize people when they leave our team, to recognize people for achievement. I mean, those are just a few. And you don’t have to have a title to recognize people. You can do it in any social situation on your team.

But if you are a people leader or a supervisor, recognizing people on your team, there’s actually a very powerful way to do this, which is when you’re going to recognize somebody in front of their peers, is to meet with them a little bit ahead of time. I like to say 24 hours, but it could be a couple of hours before you’re going to recognize them, say farewell to them, welcome them to the team.

And when you do that, ask them a couple of thoughtful, open-ended questions about their recent experiences. If you’re going to recognize them, for example, for the work that they did on your team before they departed, ask them some thoughtful, open-ended questions that start with how and what, that have to do with their experience while they were on the team.

“What were some of your most fond memories while you were on the team? What was the most embarrassing thing that you had to overcome that really taught you a lesson while you were on the team?” And then just listen, just shut up and listen. You don’t need to take notes. You don’t need to write down bullet comments because the story brain is wired for narrative. It will remember everything. You just listen with pure discovery.

And then when they’re done, you say, “Would it be okay if I share a few of these with some folks when I recognize you?” They’ll probably say yes, I’ve never seen them say no. And then when it’s time to recognize that individual, you get up there and you share a couple of narratives or stories about what that person told you and why you think it matters to the people you’re talking to. And what you’ll see is a level of an immediate trust acceleration between the two parties. You’ll see a level of reciprocity with this person that you’re honoring, and there’s just no greater way to get that serotonin flow and build credibility with your people than something like that.

You can do the same thing with introductions. If you introduce somebody at a mixer or you’re going to introduce somebody on the stage, rather than get up there and read their bio, which is just so off-putting, meet with them a little ahead of time, ask them some thoughtful open-ended questions, and then tell their story. Tell their story. The one thing that just resonates so deeply with people we lead is when we tell their story better than they do. And no one does it.

And when you do, man, it’s an immediate trust accelerant. It opens doors. It’s sacred. I’ve seen it work in so many different situations, and it’s just a great way to use story in the day-to-day and elevate your role in your position, no matter what that position is.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s awesome. So, one great storytelling tip is just ask people those open-ended questions so that their stories bubble up and we can hear them and be enriched by them. Well, Scott, give us an example of when you told a story to introduce someone that was awesome.

Scott Mann
I actually did it recently.

Pete Mockaitis
Let’s hear the story.

Scott Mann
We were traveling around, and we were doing our play, “Last Out: Elegy of a Green Beret,” and we travel around the country performing this play. And there was a Gold Star family member who had lost a family member in in combat, who had really been through a lot.

And so, meeting with this individual a little bit ahead of time, I was able to ask some questions, and just get to know and some things about their background. And then to recognize that individual and tell their story up on the stage in front of a group of other people that were there to attend the play and that were there to basically attend this play, but what it transitioned into was an opportunity to really recognize a Gold Star family member that had been through immense loss, and who was really trying to find her way in the world.

And, all of a sudden, she hears her story told and the story of her loved one, and she’s immediately immersed in the social connection of this group, and the group feels an immediate connection to her. And, in that case, I’m just the vessel. I’m just the storyteller. I’m just sharing a beautiful narrative of this woman’s life and her loved one with these people that I know are going to care. I’m just that bridge. And as soon as that happened, it was an accelerant for trust. It gave her access and placement to a group of people that she really needed to be around.

So, it doesn’t have to be like epic, or it doesn’t have to have like an ROI to it that we typically evaluate engagements. It could be something as, it’s just a small touch point like that, but extremely profound in somebody’s life. And when we do that, we’re building social capital. One other thing I’ll just say, Pete, to this, and I think it’s a pivot to the same topic, a lot of times it’s not the stories we tell. It’s the stories we ask to hear, particularly in low-trust environments where everybody’s really going through it, or there’s a lot of stress.

Thoughtful, open-ended questions to the other party that just let them respond in story about what’s going on with them in their life, what’s going on with the merger, “How are you feeling about what we’re doing here? What’s the latest thing you’re seeing with this?” and just listen with pure discovery, trying to just see the pictures in their head, pain and goals, pain and goals. And I just keep asking how and what until I really get a sense of what the pictures in their head are.

And that alone, Questionology, Warren Berger calls it, using the reverse where you ask questions that let them tell you a story. It’s like a dance. Narrative competence, the integration of stories and everything that we do, and, hell, two-thirds of the time, it’s stories we’re hearing, not saying, that will really elevate our effectiveness in how we lead.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s a great perspective. So now, can we hear you tell a story that’s awesome?

Scott Mann
Well, there can be short stories that are like super short, even when we’re doing social media and things like that. There was Hemingway, had a bet with a reporter, when he was alive, that he could tell a sad story in six words. And the reporter said, “There’s no way you can do that.” So, they had a typical Hemingway wager over a bottle of rum, and Hemingway said, “For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I have heard this.

Scott Mann
And I think the larger point is that there is a way to tell stories that, if you train on it, you can integrate even your toughest struggles, your toughest scars. I tell a story, Pete, about my mental health when I came out of the military after almost 23 years. In 2015, I nearly took my own life, and right in this house, in my bedroom closet. I had reached a point after years of combat, and then coming home to a world, it was like a different planet to me.

The people that I looked everywhere were as divided as they were in Afghanistan. They were tearing each other apart, and my purpose and perceived sense of purpose was gone. Everything that I’d known about my life was no more. I’m walking around the house in a bathrobe and not having showered in two weeks, and just like two weeks earlier, I was a high-performing Green Beret. And I lost my way in a very short period of time and found myself in a closet holding a pistol.

And had my son not come home when he did, I don’t think I’d be here. But he did, and thank God I wasn’t able to go through with it. And as a result of that extremely dark low point in my life, it put me on this path to try to find an answer. I knew I had something to say. I knew there was something for me to do in this world. I still had relevance. It’s just that every time I would try to talk about, for example, my lessons that I’d learned as a Green Beret, about human connection, I would jam up when I got in front of people, when I started to talk about those lessons and the battlefield. I would lock up.

And so, I became convinced that there had to be a way for me to bridge that gap. And eventually I ended up finding a mentor, a civilian mentor who was a storyteller himself. He was a former NFL football player named Bo, and he had become an actor and a playwright and a storyteller, and a really good one. And when I saw him on the stage, and I saw what he did, I just thought, “Man, that’s what I ought to be doing. That’s how I can find my way again.” I just knew it like in my chest cavity. And he listened to me and he said, “Okay, I’ll train you.”

And he trained me for two years in the art and science of storytelling, and how to bring the physicality of it, and the struggle, the tough stuff, the scars. And that really was what I locked onto, was taking the struggles and repurposing them into stories that first healed myself, and then I started to use those stories as ways to bridge gaps with bankers, with associates in the tech industry, small businesses, because we’re all wired for struggle. We all go through it. We all struggle.

And when we hear stories of struggle, we listen autobiographically, we locate ourselves in them. And before I knew it, I had done three TED Talks, I had done hundreds of keynotes, I wrote a play about the war to complete my midlife crisis, I learned how to act at age 50 and took the play on tour with Gary Sinise. But at the heart of all of it, Pete, was storytelling, what we’re doing right now.

And it’s just crazy because, at this primal level, we all locate each other in our stories. And if we can just unleash that thing, unleash that muscle and put it into the world, there’s just no ceiling for what you can do. It’s a powerful, powerful tool.

Pete Mockaitis
Whew, I like that a lot. Well, one, I’m so glad you’re here, and thank you.

Scott Mann
Thank you.

Pete Mockaitis
And, two, thank you for sharing that. And, three, as we think about story, it’s amazing how, boy, it’s night and day in terms of like the impact of storytelling when you say, “After I returned from Afghanistan, I struggled with my mental health.” Now, a lot of times when we express ourselves, we kind of leave it at that. But when you actually paint the picture of you are in a closet with a pistol to your head, and your son walks in, it’s night and day.

And both of these descriptions, there is a person struggling with their mental health. But in the latter, in which you’re really sharing what went down, you, a human being in a physical place with objects that we can visualize, it ignites something inside of us, inside of me, and I imagine every listener with a heart, and I think there’s science on this in terms of like mirror neurons or biochemical stuff going on in there. And I think that’s a huge takeaway right there.

And it takes a whole lot more vulnerability as well and courage to share that, not so much, “I struggle with my mental health when I returned from Afghanistan” to painting that picture. And in so doing that, like the connection is like night and day. It’s like ten, a hundred-fold.

Scott Mann
I appreciate you calling that out. And what I want to get across here is this is available to every single one of us. When I was first exposed to this, I thought, “There’s no way.” I watched Bo do this, and I thought, “I could never do that,” and I had the stuff buried deep inside me that I hadn’t even told my wife.

But, Pete, I mean, I’ve lost nine friends to suicide since I got out of the Army, nine friends. And these were, look, these were Delta Force, Navy SEALs, Rangers. These were highly resilient individuals. And then I looked around, that’s what’s happening to mental health in our workplace today, two plus years of COVID, prolonged isolation. Honest to God, I feel like, in so many ways, what we’ve gone through as a society of employees and associates, post-COVID, is like coming home from a two-year deployment.

It’s very similar because people have had these different lived experiences and we don’t know what they are, but there is a, I know this, there is a mental health tsunami in this country right now that we’re dealing with in the workplace, and people are going through it. They’re dealing with stuff. And what I feel like is, “Okay. Well, if my story of how I’ve coped and went through this and struggled and overcame it, and found my way out, if that can allow a young associate somewhere in the country to hear that and locate herself in my story, that’s what I call the generosity of scars.”

It’s when we can repurpose our struggles through stories in the service of other people, and the cool thing is, it is actually why storytelling was invented. It’s what happened. You nailed it when you said the mirror neurons. When we hear a story of struggle, the armor comes down and we listen autobiographically to the person talking. And, all of a sudden now, yeah, you have the context of me in that closet, but there might be some version of you in that closet or someone you knew in that closet.

We start to make sense of, because story is a sense-making tool, we start to make sense of our lived experience, the tough parts, in the safety of somebody else’s narrative. And that’s where the love and the courage and the relatability comes in because, now, you’re holding space so somebody else can make sense of their life in the safety of your story. And, to me, it’s just like, “Man, what a gift to have gone through these things and then be able to repurpose them so that somebody else can make sense of it for their own journey.”

I mean, as far as I’m concerned, that saved my life. It saved my life in so many ways. It gave me my life back, and I love talking to people, like you who get it, who have an audience of people who, I know, will be capable of doing some version of that themselves, and who knows what that can lead to.

Pete Mockaitis
When you say it’s a gift, that really resonates. And I’m thinking that so often, this gift is sort of wrapped up so tight in opaque brown wrapping that we can’t even appreciate it in terms of like, “I struggle with my mental health when I returned from Afghanistan,” or I could just say, “I’m disappointed that I don’t seem to have as much energy, drive, and motivation for my work as I did in 2019.” It’s like, “Okay, that’s something.”

But then you can really share a story in terms of, “I remember when I used to be able to crank through 11 one-hour coaching calls in a day, and say, ‘That was awesome.’ And now, I’m struggling to roll off the couch at 2:30 p.m. after a hefty afternoon nap, just to make it through my inbox,” for example. So, now, it’s sort of like, it’s again, night and day in terms of, “Okay, it’s almost like you’re telling me about the situation versus you’re really telling me here’s the situation.”

Scott Mann
A hundred percent. And, look, the former, to me, is unwatchable. This is what we get all the time. We get this all the time, and we all know it’s false, and frankly, social media, the 24/7 news cycle, this represented reality that we live in most of the time, it’s all performative. It’s all performative. Everyone is giving a performance all the time. And when you’re dealing with that and you’re dealing with a growing level of disconnection in the country and different levels of distrust, you start to isolate.

That starts to have a really profound effect on every aspect of how you do your job, of how you think about your work, how you think about your purpose at your work. And we’re hungry for people, not even leaders, we’re just hungry for people who authentically connect to us. And I get it, some people worry about vulnerability, particularly like in corporate environments, in the military, and the V word gives people a lot of angst because you feel like you’re sticking your jugular out, and I get it.

And what I tell people is, “Okay, cool. Let’s reframe it. Rather than get wrapped up in the vulnerability or the signaling vulnerability, think about relatability. Humans are social creatures. We are actually wired to be social. It’s our superpower, and we connect to the other humans who are relatable to our pain, and that’s what we’re looking for.” And so, if you just focus on asking yourself, when your teenage daughter has been bullied on Instagram, “Am I being relatable to her right now?” You will automatically demonstrate the appropriate level of vulnerability for that moment.

And I found, at least for me, that’s a very, and I teach this to Green Berets and FBI, is it works. It still allows you to bring vulnerability in at just the right level. But as a metric, focus on just being relatable. Just be relatable to somebody’s pain. Be an empathetic witness, as Dr. Benjamin Hardy says. Bear witness to their pain just for the sake of discovery and curiosity, just to see the pictures in their head. No one does that. And if you do that, you’re immediately going to help them drop the body armor, there’s going to be a biological element of reciprocity, and you can start to connect.

We’re actually wired to do it. We just haven’t done it in a long time. And, unfortunately, this transactional world we live in drives us away from it. So, to bring it back to that Nobody’s Coming to Save You, that’s why I wrote the book, it’s just to give as many tactical tools as I can to folks that are having to do this with their teenagers and their spouse and their PTA. We need leaders that connect, and it’s not a foregone conclusion, that instinct is going to get you there.

Pete Mockaitis
And now, when you say, when you respond, just be relatable, could you maybe give us some examples of snippets of dialogue, which would be put in the relatable column and the not relatable column?

Scott Mann
Right on. So, let’s break it down this way. The guy that I studied negotiations under is a guy named Professor Stuart Diamond, and he wrote the book Getting More. One of the things I like that Stuart always said is, “You want to see the pictures in the head of the other party.” Humans operate off the transfer of imagery. It’s just what we do, theory of mind and all that. So, it’s really important to see the pictures in the head of the other party.

A great example of what you’re talking about with the relatability, Chris Voss talks about in Never Split the Difference. When you talk about relatability, I want to see their pain and their goals. I want to be relatable to their pain and relevant to their goals. If I can just get some sense of the pain points that they’re going through, if I can just get some sense of what they’re experiencing internally, of what it is that’s jamming them up, and just ask thoughtful open-ended questions of how or what, that allow me to ascertain what that pain is, and it can be incremental in the beginning.

Like, for example, if my son, Brayden, who’s my youngest, if he’s having a really rough day, I might just start with, “What’s going on, man? How are you feeling? What’s up?” It could just be as simple as that. And, usually, you’re going to get something, you know. And then, a lot of times you could just reflect back, reflective listening, “Really? Really, that’s what she said?” Just be curious. Just show discovery.

And, again, not from a transactional creepy kind of way. I really want to see the pictures in their head, like, “What’s the pain going on here? What’s happening?” And I want to get a clear picture of it, and my end game goal is that I get clear enough on what it is that’s going on with them that I can articulate it back, and they say something like, “That’s right. That’s right.” And when you hear “That’s right,” you’re probably really close to where that person’s ready to listen to what the hell you have to say.

Pete Mockaitis
So, for a teenage bullying situation, so lay it on us, what does relatable sound like there?

Scott Mann
The thing to remember in this is, see what a lot of people try to do when they’re negotiating or influencing is they try to just look at the Questionology aspect of it. In other words, they try to look at the formatting of the questions, and that’s cool, but what I like better is a, “What’s your approach? What is your approach to this situation?” Because, you know, every situation is different with every teenager.

However, there are some universal singulars at play here. For example, if your teenager has been bullied, then it is a foregone conclusion that they are in a sympathetic state. The emotional arousal is somewhere between fear and anger, and there’s pain, and it is a highly aroused state, trance-like state that they’re likely in. They are agitated to a very high degree. If it was a thermometer, they’re high in the red.

And the problem with that is when someone’s in a sympathetic state like that, they can’t hear you. Physiologically, the ears don’t work. Bullets get quiet in a gunfight because you don’t need to hear them. The body moves energy where it needs to move it so that it can handle the situation for survival. It’s an autonomic, physiological response. The sympathetic nervous system clicks in.

Think about if you’ve been in a car wreck or if you get in an argument with somebody, and you’ve heard the term “seeing red” why is that? It’s because you’re elevating your emotional temperature to such a degree you’re preparing to survive. You’re preparing. This is a primal 250,000-year-old response. So, it’s not conducive to reflective listening or cognitive processing and certainly not shared perspective.

So, if I’m a parent, the first thing that I want to remember is what James Claussen says, from Darden University, “Leadership is the management of energy.” Humans are mostly energy. It’s the management of energy, yours and then theirs. So, when I get in front of my kid, “What’s my emotional temperature?” What do most of us do when we see our kids bullied? We mirror. We go in the red, too, right?

And so, I look like I don’t trust myself as I go in, and what I’m trying to say to Brayden, I’m really scared for him, but I just want him to be okay. It comes across as what? I’m telling him how to do it. I’m telling him what he needs to do. It comes across as prescriptive, which immediately agitates him, and he goes up. So, a lot of it is the approach of three diaphragmatic breaths, say, “I have time” three times. Ask yourself these three questions, “Who am I? Why am I here? What do they need from me?”

Just those three steps, three diaphragmatic breaths, belly breaths, three “I have times,” and then “Who am I? Why am I here? What does Brayden need from me?” It will bring you down into a parasympathetic state, calm and connect.

Pete Mockaitis
It’s interesting, the “I have” times.” I’ve heard other things such as “I am safe,” “I am enough,” “I am loved.” If you went for “I have time,” can you expand upon that?

Scott Mann
It’s called temporal pacing. It’s actually something. And a lot of the techniques that I’ve actually learned for high-stakes engagement, I actually learned in acting, because in acting, when you get up in front of people, you go into a sympathetic state. Because we’re status creatures and we’re worried about how we’re being judged, and so we start to speak faster and we start to move up. The same thing when we get up in front of people to give a presentation and a briefing. We have to pace it down. We have to slow it down, which feels unnatural. It’s called temporal pacing.

So, just by verbally saying, “I have time,” I regulate my own emotional temperature. I slow my pacing down, and all of that crap that I just had in the last meeting that is jamming me up, by doing those three “I have times,” I can leave that at the door where they belong and not in the next meeting and projecting it on someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Pete Mockaitis
And I love this, the effect of the rate of speech. And I see this in my own world if I’m listening to an audiobook, sometimes I will crank that bad boy at over 2X speed, and that produces one effect, like “Okay, I’m dialed in. We’re doing this.” And other times, I will crank it all the way down to like 0.7 speed, so slow.

And Audible is amazing at this with their algorithms to not make the pitch get weird. I’m an audio dork in that way, and so it’s just very slow. But, sure enough, that gets me sleepy. It is fantastic when I want to fall asleep, it’s like, “We’ll make that super slow.” And, likewise, “I have time,” slowly to yourself, it would make sense, it follows then, that that would get you in that groove of, “Oh, okay, no need to rush and speed through this, because I have time.”

Scott Mann
It’s the coolest thing. And I’ve had guys take this into Afghanistan, Syria, acting, Broadway shows, interrogations, presentations. Like, it works, and I call it pre-engagement preparation. If you want, I’ve got it on a little video, I’ll flip it over to you, and feel free to share it with whoever. I think we need all the tools we can get, and that one does work.

But taking it back to the bullied teenager, regulating your own emotional temperature is essential, and then getting a sense of the emotional temperature of the teenager across from you, “What is her emotional temperature? Is she in the red?” And the ultimate question I want to ask myself in this moment, and it’s not just for bullied teenagers, it’s for any high emotion situation, “What’s it going to take to get her ready to listen to me? What does she need? What is it going to take to get her to a place where she’s ready to listen to what I have to say, because she’s clearly not. She’s clearly not.”

Nine times out of ten, someone is dealing with something, the last thing they want is another party coming in and chirping in their ear. They’re not ready for it. They’re still in a state. They are in a trance state of fear or anger-based behavior. So, the responsible thing is to show up, “Okay, how can I hold space here and help her bring her emotional temperature down to where she’s ready to listen to what I have to say?”

Now in this case, the most important thing is just, make a human connection first. Don’t try some questioning technique. Don’t try, you know, whatever. Just make a human connection, and your instincts will guide you in that if you’re open to it. Is it just sitting there in silence with them? Is it just putting your arm around them? Is it just letting them know you’re there? And is it just saying, “Are you okay? How can I help?”

But if we can ask these open-ended questions of how and what, even if they’re irate and angry, Pete, what will happen is their emotional temperature, they’re expending energy, right, so the emotional temperature from the sympathetic state will start to drop, and that’s why questions are so important instead of statements. How and what questions allow them to respond in narrative, which is the natural way to respond, and their emotional temperature will start to drop from sympathetic state of fight, flight, or freeze to parasympathetic state of calm and connect.

And then, at some point, and again, what am I looking for? I’m just trying to ascertain pictures in their head, pain and goals, pain and goals, what’s going on. And the more that I can get clarity on that with pure discovery and curiosity, and that’s it, at some point, when I articulate back to them, and they say, “That’s right,” “Would it be okay if I shared something with you?” like, then you’re probably ready to engage, really engage, and maybe offer something. Nine times out of ten, that’s what people need. They don’t need you to sit there and spew at them. They need two-thirds of every engagement, if it matters, is questions.

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

Scott Mann
He’s sitting right outside the room here listening to my podcast because that’s what he does. My dad, my hero, a 42-year firefighter in the Forest Service on his third bout with cancer, a stroke, my biggest fan, and I’m his biggest fan, “Leave tracks. Leave tracks.” That’s what my dad says that all of us should be doing in this world. And it is this notion that we’re all here to do something bigger than ourselves, that we’re all meaning-seeking, meaning-assigning creatures, looking for that impact, and our legacy is the most important thing that we can do.

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

Scott Mann
I would say mine has been in the generosity of scars. It’s been in noticing how storytelling works with deep grief and trauma and loss, and how it’s allowed people to come out of the darkness and really find new meaning in their life by repurposing these stories in the service of others. I think it’s not the silver bullet to mental health, but it is definitely a hugely helpful tool that we’re not tapping into and we need to.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Scott Mann
Let’s see, favorite book would be this one right here, Steven Pressfield, The War of Art. He’s a good buddy of mine, and I’m a big fan of Steve and his outlook on resistance and overcoming self-sabotage for something greater than yourself.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool?

Scott Mann
I would say my PEP, pre-engagement preparation is my favorite tool. Yeah, what we just talked about, “I have time” and those three things.

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

Scott Mann
I do a thing called the Tribal 12 every morning where I wake up and I work on my instrument as a storyteller. And it’s a series of 12 rituals that I do that involve everything from diaphragmatic breathing, to voice and articulation drills, to physical movements and character gestures, that no matter what I face that day, my instrument for communication is ready to go.

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

Scott Mann
“Meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.”

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

Scott Mann
ScottMann.com. It’s all right there.

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

Scott Mann
See if you can get somebody to say “That’s right” in the next 48 hours that’s going through something.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Scott, this has been a treat. I wish you much good trust conversations.

Scott Mann
Thanks, Pete. Appreciate you, man.

977: What Makes Leaders Bad—and What You Can Do About It–with Dr. Barbara Kellerman

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Dr. Barbara Kellerman explores the roots of bad leadership and offers strategic tips for challenging it.

You’ll Learn

  1. Where leadership training falls short 
  2. The two core components of “bad” leadership 
  3. Four tips for standing up to bad leaders 

About Barbara

Barbara Kellerman was Founding Executive Director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School; the Kennedy’s School’s James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Leadership; and a member of the Harvard faculty for over twenty years. She is currently a Fellow at the Center. 

Kellerman received her B.A. from Sarah Lawrence College, and her M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. (in Political Science) degrees from Yale University. She was awarded a Danforth Fellowship and three Fulbright fellowships. Kellerman was cofounder of the International Leadership Association (ILA) and is author and editor of many books. She’s appeared on numerous media outlets and has contributed to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Harvard Business Review.  

She received the Wilbur M. McFeeley Award from the National Management Association for her pioneering work on leadership and followership, as well as the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Leadership Association. From 2015 to 2024 she has been ranked by Global Gurus as among the “World’s Top 30 Management Professionals.” 

Resources Mentioned

Barbara Kellerman Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Barbara, welcome.

Barbara Kellerman
Well, thank you, Pete. I’m glad to be here. Thanks for asking me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to dig into your wisdom, and I thought it’d be great if you could maybe kick us off with hearing a tale of maybe the most wild case of bad leadership you have witnessed or heard about through your work and research in the workplace.

Barbara Kellerman
Well, Pete, if you know my work, it goes back on bad leadership, in particular, to a book I wrote or an essay. At first there was an essay I wrote called “Hitler’s Ghost: A Manifesto,” which was me arguing that, what I call the leadership industry, which is my field, all kinds of experts on leadership, whether in corporate leadership or political leadership, mainly corporate leadership, that my colleagues in the leadership industry were not paying any attention to what I call the dark side of leadership, the painful side of leadership, the egregious side of leadership.

But in the book that grew out of that, which came out about 20 years ago, which is called Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, I developed seven different types of bad leadership. Those types of bad leadership are important because they range from the ineffectual, all the way, in awfulness, to evil.

So, it really depends on which type of bad leadership are we talking about. Obviously, if we’re talking about evil leadership, which I define as someone who inflicts pain, literally physical or psychological pain, on his or her followers, that’s obviously a different case in point as somebody who is, dare I say, simply ineffectual.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, so I guess I’m interested in terms of, let’s go with evil, in terms of in the workplace, you say, “Whoa, so you think your boss is bad, check it. This is what full-blown bad looks like.”

Barbara Kellerman
So, I would say that the word evil as I define it, and again I developed and identified the types in the book, it very rarely applies to the workplace because it implies a kind of malevolent intent, which I don’t think we find that often in the workplace. In the workplace, I talk more about something called callous leadership, leaders who are thoughtless, mean, or unkind, not thinking carefully about the other, or leaders who are explosive, who lose their tempers too quickly.

Alas, it’s one of the mysteries of the human condition to me because it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of most leaders and managers to keep those who report to them relatively happy as opposed to unhappy.

Pete Mockaitis
I’ve often wondered, that’s one of my top mysteries of humanity, it’s like even if you are purely self-interested, and truly care not a wit, about your fellow human being, you’re still better off not being a jerk. You adjust, you get farther, you achieve more of your ends if people can tolerate you and, generally, are fine interacting with you.

Barbara Kellerman
I completely agree with you, Pete, but I would say it especially applies to, let’s say, the United States of America in the third decade of the 21st century, when the issue of talent retention, holding on to people that you think are really important to your enterprise, to your mission, to your purpose, that becomes really top of your list of priorities.

So, it is often in one’s self-interest, apart from the graciousness of being decent as opposed to indecent to other people, it is in one’s, as you imply, in one’s self-interest, in the corporate interest, and almost always in the interest of the task that needs to be accomplished to keep people, if not wildly happy, at least from being miserably unhappy.

Pete Mockaitis
That checks out. So, with all that said, can you lay it on us, a tale that was particularly shocking in terms of bad leadership at work?

Barbara Kellerman
I think I’m going to take a slightly different example, a man, because he’s so extremely well-known since, even since, though he’s now dead, a man by the name of Jack Welch.

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Barbara Kellerman
Who, of course, was one of the legendary corporate leaders of all time, the company, which many of your listeners will know, is General Electric, and it’s an example, I would not exactly call him a bad leader, particularly a prototype of somebody who’s awful, but he was known, very well known, and much admired for being lean and mean. And that, of course, meant letting a lot of people go.

Pete Mockaitis
I remember the nickname Neutron Jack. He would evaporate, make the people disappear, but keep the buildings and equipment.

Barbara Kellerman
Exactly. But I will tell you why I, in particular, think that history has proven him not to be a particularly good leader, even setting aside the point that we’re just making. So, Jack Welch was on the cutting edge of what I referred to earlier as the leadership industry. And you probably know this, Pete, that GE, again, was on the cutting edge of corporate training. They had a campus in Crotonville, New York, and it was well known, again, at the forefront of the leadership industry.

The irony of that, though, and it addresses what I am known for, I dare say, for better and worse, which is a kind of skepticism, if not even cynicism, about the leadership industry, which professes to teach people how to lead wisely and well, and I’m not sure we have an enormous amount of evidence for that. But setting that aside for the moment, the Crotonville campus was an example of something that didn’t work.

Because, as I hardly have to tell you that in recent decades, now it’s somewhat recovered under CEO Larry Culp, but for decades General Electric went from being the icon of American industry to being one of the fall guys of American industry, and Jack Welch’s successor failed absolutely to not only help the company thrive, but he succeeded in plunging it straight downhill.

Pete Mockaitis
And there, what do you believe are some of the particular behaviors that were so destructive and may have led to GE’s demise?

Barbara Kellerman
I don’t know that I would use that language, Pete, that it was particular behaviors, I think it was just a kind of hubris that assumed that, “You know, the way I teach leadership, it’s guaranteed to succeed.” As I suggested a moment ago, we have not a great deal of evidence that the way leadership is taught, whether within organizations, whether within business schools, schools of public administration, our criteria for measurement are rather meager.

We’re dealing here with human beings, not widgets, so it’s hard to measure the success of a leadership program, a leadership course, a leadership institute. And I would say that hubris was the main problem with Jack Welch and his legendary leadership training efforts.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And so, then could you maybe give us some examples of how hubris translates into some of the things they did and said that were problematic?

Barbara Kellerman
Well, again, I want to be careful to distinguish between being bad, or to use the word you just used, “problematic” and not being good enough. In other words, I’m not saying that what was done at Crotonville was bad. I’m saying that the successes that were touted were in scant evidence and are in scant evidence.

And I’ve taught many leadership courses, although I don’t tell people I teach how to lead, I tell them I teach about leadership, which is actually two different things, that when somebody takes a leadership course, whether mine or anybody else’s, and then they’re questioned at the end, or there was a kind of review, “What did you learn? How was it?” typically, the answer is, “This was a great course. I learned so much. It’s amazing. I’m a different person.”

But, in fact, in the real world, we don’t really have brilliantly successful ways of assessing the long-term impact of what most leadership courses, programs, centers, institutes, etc. actually accomplish. So, it’s a quick and easy sell, “Buy my book and you too can learn how to lead,” “Take my course and you too can learn how to lead better than you’re leading now,” “Follow my seven easy steps and you too can succeed,” I would argue that’s not as brilliant to sell and brilliant to buy as people generally like to believe.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, then I’m curious, from your perspective, having looked at a lot of things and having a lot of skepticism for a lot of promises, have you seen any bright spots and what makes them bright?

Barbara Kellerman
In a book I wrote called Professionalizing Leadership I argued that leadership learning should, much, much more strongly than it currently does, resemble learning how to be a physician, learning how to be a lawyer, learning how to be a teacher, learning how to be an engineer.

In other words, I argue that we need to take it more seriously, that we need to think more like some of the sages from the past, whether it’s Plato or Confucius or Machiavelli, which is it takes a long time, if not a lifetime, to learn how to lead.

And if you’re going to, again, emulate what the professions do, becoming a doctor, becoming a lawyer, you will realize that what I break down into a three-step process. First, it should be, in my view, leadership education, which is developing an intellectual understanding of what leadership and followership entail. Just like in medical school, one of the first courses that you take is anatomy. They’re not going to let you slice into a human body until you have learned, been educated about the anatomy of the human body.

So, it is with leadership. I believe first step should be leadership education. Second step should be what I call leadership training, which is where you develop the skills required to lead in your particular context. By the way, I’m going to deviate again because I want to stop at context. So, I can be a great leader in one situation but a lousy leader in another. So, I always talk about the importance of context, which is something we can return to if you like, but I’ll go back for a minute just to the three-step process of what I call professionalizing leadership.

Step one, leadership education. Step two, leadership training, learning the skills and talents that are required for your particular job or task in your particular organization, or situation, or circumstance. And step three is what I call leadership development, which is like adult development, which means, again, lifelong learning. You cannot get an MD in 2024 and presume that that medical degree, no matter how great the medical school, will stand you in good stead five, 10, not to speak of 15 and 20 years hence.

If you’re a physician or you’re a lawyer, you must take continuing education courses. You must take courses that keep bringing you up to date on what good medicine and good science entails. And so, it should be with leadership. There is no reason to assume that if I take a leadership course or a leadership training or a leadership program in 2024, there will be nothing new to learn in 2029, not to speak of 2034.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so then digging into your book, Leadership from Bad to Worse: What Happens When Bad Festers tell me, any particularly striking or surprising or counterintuitive discoveries you made here?

Barbara Kellerman
I would say they’re all surprising and counterintuitive, which is to say that our tendency, and this is the human condition, again, we’re not talking here widgets, we’re talking about human beings, which complicates the situation infinitely. The surprising thing is how passive we are when we have a bad leader or manager.

Now, again, let me go back, because on one level it is not surprising. Sometimes it is costly and sometimes it is risky to take on a superior, let’s say we’re talking in the workplace, to take on a manager or a leader, or whatever language we want to use, and it’s much easier for us to simply, even though we may dislike it or even become stressed out about it, which is not uncommon in the workplace, as I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, sometimes we just decide to put up with it, that it’s easier to put up with it than to try to figure out how to take it on.

The problem with that, as the title “Leadership from Bad to Worse” implies, unless we take on bad leadership, again, however defined, many different ways, relatively early in the process, it’s almost certain to get worse. In other words, bad leaders, probably like bad people more generally, don’t wake up one fine morning and say, “Golly gee, I’ve been bad. I’ve been not nice to my subordinates. I really ought to be a nicer boss. I ought to pay more attention to their well-being. I ought to care more about how they feel on the job. Silly me, I’ve not been behaving very well.”

What that means is that the only way then to get these people to change is in some way to intrude on, interrupt the process. Sometimes that’s an exogenous force, something that happens from the outside. But more often than not, it is unfortunately the subordinates that need to take on the issue and need to think through, “If there’s going to be any change for the positive, how can this be done, tactically and strategically, in a way where I don’t end up cutting my own head off, that is cutting off my nose to spite my face?”

So, I would say the issue of the reluctance to look at bad leadership and try to figure out how to stop it from getting worse, that to me is on one level surprising. Although, again, I hasten to add, on another level, really quite understandable.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, Barbara, this is fascinating. So many things are sparking up for me here in my brain. One is the movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” in which he sings the song, “Someone should do something.” You know, it’s that passive sense. It’s like, “I don’t like this. It’s very uncomfortable. It’s risky. I hope something changes.” But often, to your point, it just doesn’t.

I’m thinking, you might get a kick out of this example. We had a senior executive at a, I don’t want to name names here, at a major organization that teaches leadership, Barbara. And there was another…

Barbara Kellerman
We’re going to move on, yes.

Pete Mockaitis
…senior executive who, I guess, went through a startling number of assistants, maybe six, very quickly. And they were getting the recruiters, the headhunters fired up to hire a seventh. And then before they did so, it was a peer, a fellow executive said, “Hey, you know, I’ve noticed, and I want…” And so, he sort of demonstrated how to give this feedback well.

It’s like, “Hey, I want you to understand my intention is only to serve you and to help you out here. I’ve noticed that six people have left, and there’s been a lot of sort of comments or themes associated how your behavior has been perceived as pretty disrespectful and demeaning.” And so, boom, there it is. And sure enough, like, that’s hard to say, and nobody did.

Barbara Kellerman
And you’re talking about peer-to-peer.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, exactly.

Barbara Kellerman
You’re not even talking about subordinates to superior.

Pete Mockaitis
It was peer-to-peer, but that’s what it took. It took someone to sort of shake them up, to provoke the status quo, and sure enough it worked. At first, he was very upset, but then he took the feedback to heart and said, “Okay, I guess I can kind of see your perspective, and I guess I will behave differently.” And they had a good outcome, so that’s really cool.

So, yes, it does take something, and I think often, if there’s not a brave someone somewhere, it will just continue. What’s that famous quote? “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing,” Edmund Burke.

Barbara Kellerman
Yeah, that is a famous quote and it’s very much what I believe to be true, although I’m always very careful, Pete, as I suggested a minute ago, to not blame the, you know, I don’t want to blame the victim, I don’t want to blame the subordinate, because often people need and want to hold on to their jobs. Often people are really quite scared of doing that. It is, of course, as your example suggested, easier if it’s a peer as opposed to a subordinate.

But in the book, Leadership from Bad to Worse, I have examples of exactly that, including in the corporate sector, how, unless it is stopped, it almost does get worse. And one other comment on that is it’s much easier to stop it early in the process. When you start noticing somebody is not behaving well, however we want to define that, it is easier to say something, to do something earlier on.

The longer bad is able to take root, rather like a plant, the deeper those roots go and the harder it becomes to uproot them. So, without taking the plant analogy too far, I think you get the point that the longer this goes on, and the more entrenched everybody becomes, the more difficult and, indeed, sometimes often painful it is to upend what’s going wrong, to change it.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. And it just makes the conversation itself harder, like, “How long has this been going on? Why didn’t you say anything earlier?” That’s tricky.

Barbara Kellerman
Exactly. By the way, if I can add one other thing here, Pete. I mentioned in passing earlier that my interest in leadership is matched every bit by my interest in followership. So, what do I mean when I use the word follower? As you may know, if you’re in the leadership field, and your listeners will know who are familiar with the leadership literature, that’s a kind of loaded word, follower, because it presumes among other things that followers always follow, which is not actually how I define the word.

Followers, most of us, by the way, generally follow. We are socialized to follow. We’re rewarded by our parents, by our teachers, by our bosses, if we’re good followers, meaning relatively obedient most of the time, again at home, in school, in the workplace. If we disobey too much of the time, that’s not good. But in order to understand the leadership dynamic, the dynamics of power, and the dynamics of authority, and the dynamics of influence, it is impossible to understand them if you focus only on one half of the dyad.

You cannot have a leader without at least one follower, and I have argued now strenuously for several decades that, therefore, the understanding of what happens, let’s say, in the workplace, it is impossible to get it by looking only at the person or persons at or near the top of the hierarchy. It is important, equally important, to understand why everybody else in the workplace is behaving the way they do.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly, that makes sense. You mentioned tactically, strategically responding. I definitely want to spend some time on that. But first maybe you could clue us into what are some of the telltale signs we should look out for? Like, what’s truly bad versus something I just kind of don’t like and doesn’t jive with my personal preferences?

Barbara Kellerman
So, the word bad, Pete, is inordinately interesting. So, it’s childlike, right? “You’re being bad,” says a parent to a four-year-old. Conversely, “Oh, what a good little boy,” or, “What a good little girl.” So, when I wrote the book “Bad Leadership,” I wrestled with that, “How do I define bad? What does that mean to be bad? Is there a better word in the English language than bad?”

You earlier used the word, for example, toxic. Well, not all bad leadership is toxic. There’s a lot of bad leadership. Toxic, of course, means poisonous. There’s a lot of bad leadership that is not poisonous. It’s just bad. But it’s not so bad that it is toxic. And I was interested, and I remain interested, in what I call the universe of bad leadership, all kinds of bad. A little bit bad, a lot bad, evil bad, as I said earlier, but not so bad too.

So, I not only developed the seven different types of bad leadership, to which I referred earlier, but I also defined bad, or bad to good, if you will, along two axes. And these axes have stood, dare I say, the test of time. There are two of them. You can think of them as intersecting if you want. So, one axis is from effective leadership, which is, needless to say, good leadership, to ineffective leadership, which is, needless to say, bad leadership. It’s better to be effective than it is to be ineffective.

The other axis, again, very simple, but simple is good when we’re talking about such complicated subjects. The other axis, the second axis, is not effective to ineffective, it is ethical to unethical. So, a leader is presumably better if he or she is ethical than if he or she is unethical. Now, to go to your question, since I’ve defined these as two different axes, one is ethical to unethical, the other one is effective to ineffective, you can even understand intuitively that one can be along a continuum.

So, sometimes, really very ethical, but sometimes, and this is again the human condition, not uncommon. For example, lying. We, generally, think that lying isn’t so great, but lying, we have a higher tolerance for lying now than we did, and most leaders lie a little bit. Some leaders lie a lot, and people don’t seem to mind necessarily. But that’s what I mean about two core components of being bad, being good. One, again, ethical to unethical, the other, again, effective to ineffective.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Certainly. Well, so then, in a way, that can surface things pretty clearly, like, “Oh, this guy who’s really a jerk and screams and pounds his fists a lot, he’s kind of getting some results in terms of folks hop to and do what he says, and do what he says quickly, and work long hours, and make stuff happen.” So, in a way, that’s effective, at least short term, but it doesn’t feel ethical in terms of dignity and respect and kindness and the golden rule sorts of things.

And so, that’s kind of handy. It’s like, “are we generating results, effective and ineffective? And does this seem to violate the world’s wisdom traditions about the dignity of the human person and treating others the way you want to be treated?” that’s more on the ethical, unethical side of things.

Barbara Kellerman
I cannot support your point enough, Pete. Muddling those two criteria for being bad or good is a big mistake for just the reason that you say. It is really possible. I mean, lots of people didn’t like working for Steve Jobs. He wasn’t adorable. He wasn’t always nice to people who worked for him, but he was, as you say, incredibly effective, brilliantly effective, a genius at being effective as a leader.

By the way, this lesson was taught to me very early in my career as a so-called expert in leadership. When I was giving a talk, I was still a young scholar, and I said something about Hitler being a bad leader, which I thought was self-evident. But I remember to this day, somebody standing up in the audience and objecting to what I said for exactly the reason that you just said.

That person pointed out, and I’ve learned my lesson since then, that, again, I’m not assuming your audience are not experts on German history, but the truth about Adolf Hitler is that between 1933, when he first came to power, and 1939, when the Nazis marched into Poland, he was a brilliantly effective leader.

He was an extremely good leader between ’33 and ’39, if you define good, again to the point that you just made, Pete. If you define good as being effective, he was a good leader between 1933 and 1939. Not ethical, but very, very effective.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, that’s a handy framework we got there in terms of “What kind of bad am I looking at?” And so, let’s say, we see on either side, “Yup, we got an ineffective leader here,” or, “Yup, we have an unethical leader here,” what are some of the strategic or tactical steps we should take if we find ourselves in that position?

Barbara Kellerman
So, one of the reasons I’m interested in followership is because of what in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a phrase particularly associated with the women’s movement, was called consciousness-raising. Raising our consciousness about the possibilities, in this case, of action. So those of us who are employees, or subordinates, or ordinary people working in a group or large organization, whatever it may be, tend not to be aware of the possibilities that we might actually be able to act in an effective way, be agents of action.

So, if you talk about strategy, it’s one of the reasons I’m so big on followership. It’s one of the reasons I would wish in a perfect world that good followership, how to be a good follower, would be taught every bit as much as how to be a good leader, because ordinary people need to understand their own agency. If we don’t get the fact that we may not have power and we may not have authority, and, by the way, I distinguish, as some of your audience may have picked up, I distinguish among power is one resource, authority is another resource, influence is the third. So, I distinguish among power, authority, and influence.

So ordinary people, that is, workers in a large organization or even in a smaller group, subordinates, whatever you want to call them, may not overtly have much power or overtly have much authority, but that doesn’t mean that they need to think, or that we need to think of ourselves as being without agency. So, consciousness raising about the power, you can call it follower power if you want, that, to me, is step one.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Okay. So, once we have that awareness, what are some of the best possible moves?

Barbara Kellerman
Well, I’m always leery of putting people in bad situations. Whistleblowing, for example, has rather a romantic note to it, “Oh, my God, so-and-so’s a whistleblower. How great is that? They opened a can of worms at work and it deserved to be opened. Thank goodness somebody had the courage to do that.” In fact, in real life, it’s quite dangerous to be a whistleblower.

There are books on, if you’re going to be a whistleblower, you want to be a whistleblower, you better know the law. You better be sure of the financial resources you have because your agent, your organization, your company might sue you. So be careful. So, step one is to be careful. Step two is, in general, do not act alone if you can possibly help it. Step three is to start at the lowest level of action.

So, to use an example that you used a few moments ago, you said one peer came up to another peer, one boss to another boss, one manager to another manager, and said, “You know, you’ve lost six assistants in the last whatever,” let’s say it’s 12 months. “You might want to take a look at how your assistants are feeling, about being your assistants, about your attitudes and behaviors toward them.”

So again, “How do I do this at the lowest level?” which would be presumably a simple conversation, possibly between the subordinate and the superior, friendly, cordial, trying to raise issues that have perhaps nobody’s raised before, or to do it in a way that the superior can actually hear. Step four, five, and six is, at certain points you have a choice. Are you willing to risk your position, possibly even your job, assess your costs and your benefits. Don’t be dumb, even if you want to upend bad, however defined. Be careful, be aware of your own self-interest. Do you really need the job? Or is your talent sought elsewhere? And are you willing to lose your job over your intervention or over your action?

If you are not, you better assess your risks. You better be careful. But again, if at all possible, do not act alone. Get allies and consider tactically what your various venues are for possibly saying something and doing something. And that could include everything from several of you going to the person who is not acting the way you wish, to going around the person, possibly to a peer, possibly to a superior. So, there are all kinds of ways of doing it, but I never, ever want to make it sound simple, and I never, ever want to put people at risk professionally if, in fact, they can’t afford, literally or figuratively, to be at risk.

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

Barbara Kellerman
Well, I guess the last thing I’ll say, Pete, is that although our conversation has focused on the workplace, the work I do, I think of it as trans-sectoral. It applies as much to the public sector as to the private sector. It applies as much to Western Europe as it does to the United States. And, in fact, what’s interesting about our field, if I can assume you’re in my camp of being interested in these issues of leadership, is that for all the differences between, let’s say, Americans and Argentinians, or Americans even and Canadians, there are profound similarities in the human condition.

In the end, we’re all human beings. We all relate to power and authority and influence in similar ways, and that’s worth bearing in mind as we focus on the differences among us. It is, in this field, perhaps the similarities that are the most striking.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Barbara Kellerman
One of the courses I taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School, and it’s arguably my favorite, is a course called Leadership Literacy. So, there is a great literature on leadership where people have thought about these issues since time immemorial. I earlier mentioned the names of Confucius and Plato, but if you simply go to some of our own, and by that, I mean American founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers.

Men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. These men thought long and hard about the issues that you and I are surfacing. So, one could do worse than to go back to some of the classics of what I call the great leadership literature, of which I’ve just given you a small sample.

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

Barbara Kellerman
I hear that people are happy to have me surface subjects such as bad and follower. Those are the ways, as I said earlier, that I distinguish myself most from my colleagues, and people are relieved to hear a discussion, an honest discussion, of how to tackle bad, again, however bad is defined. People are relieved, eager to hear about their own possibilities for exercising influence even in large organizations.

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

Barbara Kellerman
I’m available on email. I have a website and I am, by the way, a regular blogger. I’m also on LinkedIn, so happy to connect to members of your audience. And I can be found easily, if somebody looks hard enough, and I have many, many books on leadership and followership. They’re mostly available, of course, on Amazon. So, if people are more interested, I’m sure they can find both me and my work.

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

Barbara Kellerman
Become aware of your own potential influence on the people and on the situation within which you find yourself. And becoming contextually conscious, conscious of your own role, it is amazing. It is amazing how that empowers people to act.

Pete Mockaitis
Barbara, thank you. I wish you many pleasant encounters with good leaders.

Barbara Kellerman
Or effective ones with bad leaders, right? Either one or the other. Thanks very much, Pete. Good to talk to you.

976: How (and When) to Freely Speak Your Mind with Elaine Lin Hering

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Elaine Lin Hering discusses why to stop censoring yourself at work—and how to strategically do that.

You’ll Learn

  1. The massive costs of keeping quiet
  2. The fundamental question that helps you speak up wisely 
  3. The subtle ways we silence others—and how to stop 

About Elaine

Elaine Lin Hering works with organizations and individuals to build skills in communication, collaboration, and conflict management. She has worked on six continents and facilitated executive education at Harvard, Dartmouth, Tufts, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. She is the former Advanced Training Director for the Harvard Mediation Program and lecturer at Harvard Law School. She is the author of the USA Today Bestselling book Unlearning Silence: How to Speak Your Mind, Unleash Talent, and Live More Fully. 

Resources Mentioned

Elaine Lin Hering Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Elaine, welcome.

Elaine Lin Hering
Thanks so much for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m glad that you’re breaking the silence here on How to be Awesome at Your Job. I’m excited to dig into this wisdom.

Elaine Lin Hering
We have all the secrets ready to go.

Pete Mockaitis
All of them.

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, no, let me rewind. Some of them, let’s reset expectations accordingly.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Some of the secrets. Well, how about you kick us off with one of the secrets, a particularly surprising or counterintuitive or extra fascinating discovery you’ve made while putting together Unlearning Silence.

Elaine Lin Hering
Well, I think that Unlearning Silence actually is the discovery because so often, at work, the advice given us, and that maybe we’ve given to other people, is just speak up.

Pete Mockaitis
Just.

Elaine Lin Hering
Speak up. Just speak up. Speak up more clearly. You need more courage. You need more confidence. You need to be more direct. You need to be less direct. You need to smile more. You need to smile less. The list goes on. And I gave out that advice as someone in leadership development for more than a decade, where I received it.

And I found it wholly unsatisfying, because “Just speak up fails” to consider all the reasons that we don’t speak up, that continue on, things that we’ve learned, which I term the silence we’ve learned, and the ways that other people continue to silence us. So, to me, the insight is, instead of telling people just speak up, we actually need to solve for silence on our teams and in our orgs.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, that sounds important. Elaine, could you unpack exactly how important and why? Like, what’s really at stake here if we masterfully unlearn silence?

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, if you haven’t come across it already, Google a Time Magazine article on how self-silencing is killing us, it’s focused on women, but basically health is at stake, lives are at stake, which sounds really radical and like too far out there. But if we are not getting our needs met in basic respect, in being able to communicate the things that we think are important, or the insights we have, there’s the value proposition from a work perspective, like less employee engagement, like quiet quitting.

But it also, the messages we internalize about the parts of ourselves that we need to censor, or that we need to leave at home when we go to work, really leads to loneliness and social isolation, as well as internalized messages of self-doubt. So, this whole conversation about imposter syndrome, the “Go fix yourself” is some version of imposter syndrome. And, to me, we’re asking the wrong question.

So, silence is when we’ve learned where and when it is welcome for us to share what we really think, which parts of us are allowed or acceptable, appreciated at work or not, and therefore what parts of ourselves we need to leave out of the equation. And what’s tricky is so many managers at the same time are saying, “Tell me what you really think. We need new innovative ideas.” And you can’t have innovation, and you can’t actually have real collaboration, if people feel silenced, and also many of us learned silence along the way of “bite my tongue,” “you want to be easy to work with.” Be a good team player, so often translates into don’t rock the boat. And so, to me, health is at stake, collaboration is at stake, business impact is at stake, engagement, wellbeing at work and in work life is at stake.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, a whole lot.

Elaine Lin Hering
That’s a lot of doom and gloom right there.

Pete Mockaitis
I hear you. And so, for the health, just to review the mechanism, it’s sort of like if we are doing a lot of the silencing, then we are not having as close of relationships, and we’re feeling lonely, and then we’re missing out on the healthy stress-buffering goodness associated with the relationships, and then that leads to potentially our early demise. Is that kind of like the biochemical pathway we’re looking at?

Elaine Lin Hering
Biochemical pathway in addition to if you feel like you need to edit out parts of yourself, then your nervous system is on chronic high alert. Our nervous system is useful in being on high alert. But high alert is not supposed to be normed. It’s not supposed to be every day. So, cortisol levels, stress, all becomes internalized, and that ends up leaking out in physical manifestation in hives, in hair loss, in loss of sleep, weight gain, etc. in addition to this epidemic of loneliness, of thinking, “It’s just me.” That’s the biochemical addition there.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, it’s intriguing how it sounds like a utopia to just, “Hey, bring your whole self to work, Elaine. Just share.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, it’s such BS.

Pete Mockaitis
“You do you. Just let it roll, and say what’s on your mind anytime.” That feels comfy, that feels free, and yet, in like most utopias, the reality is not so rosy, like meetings would go on forever, you’d say, “Wow, there are a lot of really weird things unfolding, and that was inappropriate, and that was offensive, and my feelings are hurt.”

And so, it’s really a tricky one in terms of my sense is, and you tell me, Elaine, is that we’d be better off if we were less silent and more courageous in putting forward more than we are now, generally speaking. Is that fair to say?

Elaine Lin Hering
So, I’m trained as a lawyer, so let me be as explicit as I can. Unlearning silence does not mean saying everything, everywhere, all the time to everyone. The world is far too noisy and complex for it. So, your point about utopia, we still live in reality. So, chapter three of my book is when silence makes sense. There are some instances where it does not make sense for me to share what I think because I’ve seen what happens to people who really say what they think. Or, I don’t have it in me. I don’t have the bandwidth today.

You don’t know what’s really going on. You don’t know who I’m caretaking at home, the sandwich generation, I’ve got kids, I’ve got parents, and you want to debate me on that strategic direction that’s really going to change in three months anyways. I might just sit there quietly because you know what, it’s all going to change anyways.

So, to me, though, the difference between silence that is additive or strategic, or is damaging and the health impacts that we’re talking about is agency, “Am I choosing, when I stay silent, how much I disclose? Or, do I feel like staying silent is the only option?” And there are a bunch of traps that our brains fall into, like not being able to distinguish between our current manager and current work situation, and our last manager and last work situation.

We all have baggage that we walk into a relationship with of, “If my first manager shot me a look or told me that my work product was crap, I am likely to be more tentative going forward in pushing back.” I have that datapoint that says, “Oh, that didn’t go so well. So, how do I avoid negative consequences now?” And so, our brains also trick us into forgetting what is present versus past, over-indexing on short-term costs.

Like, if I give feedback to my manager right now, I have to go have the conversation, I have to feel the sweat in my palms and my heart palpitations, I don’t have time for that. Versus if I don’t say something now, what happens three months, six months from now? So, we over-index on the short-term costs versus the long-term impact.

And, frankly, when it comes to group dynamics, why should I have to take the hit? Because if I say something, I may or may not benefit, but I do have to deal with the cost and the potential cost of the blowback in the moment, versus the policy change benefits everyone who comes after me, maybe, if it comes to fruition. So, that voice silence trade-off is one that our brains calculate all the time, often poorly, and most certainly subconsciously. And my argument is let’s just bring that calculation into the conscious so that we show up more intentionally rather than living on autopilot.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it feels like there is a lot of complexity and consideration, ins, outs, what-have-yous, to deal with here when we’re navigating this. So, Elaine, help us, are there some key guiding lights, principles to simplify this?

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. When it comes to silencing ourselves, there is this notion that researchers call the “illusory truth effect.” And what that means is, if I have beef, I’m frustrated with one of my colleagues, I’d probably go to talk with another colleague about it, probably go home and talk with whoever I live with about it, might even tell my manager about it. And in repeating that narrative, our brains start to think, “Oh, I’ve actually talked with the actual person about it,” when we haven’t.

So, when we think about silence, there’s just a check of, “Have I actually had the conversation with the person who is concerned by or with whom this issue is of concern?” rather than our brains tricking us into thinking, “Yeah, I’ve had the conversation,” when, really, I’ve had the conversation with everyone else in my life except for that person.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s a good tip. We may very well fall for that.

Elaine Lin Hering
We may fall for that. Another concept, mitigated speech. You can look at pilot training for this, but, essentially, we as human beings don’t tend to be as clear as we think we are. So, for example, particularly across lines of power and power dynamics, your boss says, “This is what we’re going to do,” and you’re thinking, “That is never going to work. I know that we don’t have the resources for it. We don’t have the budget for it. We don’t have the right skills that’s in place.”

And you might say something like, “Do you really think that’s a good idea?” to which, if you take that question on face value, they could say, “Yeah, of course,” and then end of conversation, and you’re like, “Oh, my boss totally doesn’t get it.” Notice the gap between what you actually said externally versus what you’re thinking, “It’s a horrible idea. It’s not going to work,” to “Do you really think it’s a good idea?”

And so, there’s a whole range of directness that we could leverage to say, “I have concerns about that direction. Here are some of the concerns,” or, “Here’s what I’ve observed of other teams who have gone down that path.” All of those things are more clear in actually communicating, “This is a horrible idea,” than, “Do you really think that’s a good idea?” or, “Have we thought this one through?” And so often we mitigate our speech without actually noticing that we’re doing it. So that’s another way that we silence ourselves or dull the impact and the clarity of our message.

The third idea that I probably should have started with is, fundamentally, do you believe you have a voice? Because so often in the workplace it’s, “I don’t have a voice. I’m a cog in a wheel. I play this project management role. That’s what I get paid to do. And so, my job is to literally channel the thoughts of whoever my leader is, whoever is giving me direction, or that the company has decided the voice of the brand.”

And, over time, it makes us a really good worker, but it dulls our sense of whether I have agency to think for myself. So, that very quick check of, “Do I believe I have a voice? And if not, why?” Notice that. And the reason I’m saying I should have started with that is double loop learning. So, this idea that if you want a result to change, you don’t just look at the behavior. You actually have to go back one more loop to look at the mindset that drives the behavior that then drives the result.

So, if your mindset is, “I don’t have a voice. I don’t have agency,” it changes how you show up at work, versus, “I have unique value-add thoughts of my own,” leads to different behaviors, which leads to different results.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Well, Elaine, help us unravel this. Let’s say we’re saying, “Okay, there are times when I don’t feel like I have a voice, what do I do about it?”

Elaine Lin Hering
I’m taking a deep breath there because there are so much of it really depends on the context. I don’t know who your manager is, I don’t know what the stakes are, I don’t know if you’re on a work visa here, and so the stakes are all different. The thing I would do is to start with the distinction of, “Do you know what your voice is?” versus how you use it. So, let’s break it down there.

If you are wondering whether you have a voice or what your voice sounds like, because you’ve just been so focused on doing whatever you think your manager would want, or your mother would want, or whoever role model of how you think you should show up would want, I would start by asking two questions. In a meeting, listening to this podcast, engaging with any sort of content, be asking, “What do I think?” not “What does my manager think?” not “What does my brother think?” not “What does my mother think?” but, “What do I think?” And what that does over time is remind you that you actually have unique thoughts of your own.

Second question is, “What do I need?” Because so often silencing is also suppression of our needs, our desires, our wants. And so, “What do I think? What do I need?” reminds you that you actually are an autonomous individual with needs, goals, hopes, concerns of your own. In negotiation theory, we would call those interests. So, that would be my advice on rediscovering or finding your voice. And then begs the question of, “How might you use it? And when might you use it?” which is the more situationally dependent one.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I love it. It’s so simple, and yet so easy to just fly right past it.

Elaine Lin Hering
Because we’re on autopilot. Yeah, and we’re moving to the next thing and the next thing, and this is how we’re used to operating, and also the advice given us is, “Well, just speak up. You need to have more courage.” So, we’re down this rabbit hole of trying to figure out how to be more courageous versus, to me, speaking up and using your voice is actually a matter of calculation, “Does it make sense? Is it worth it for me to speak up, which the way that other people interact or react to me profoundly matters and impacts whether I want to share what I think and what I feel?”

Pete Mockaitis
It does. And what I find interesting is that question, “What do I think?” can sometimes take a little bit of time to really develop. Because sometimes, “What do I think?” it’s like, “I don’t actually know what I think yet. I don’t have thoughts yet. I just have feelings. I feel a general sense of unease and trepidation about those things you just said, and I don’t even know why yet.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. And, by the way, based on your identities, feelings may not be appropriate for you to have at work. So then comes the suppression of, “Let me not even engage with that sense. Let me just do what the group or the dominant norm seems to want to do here because it’s far easier and not necessarily a better outcome in the short or the long term.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And then I guess, as you sit with it longer, in terms of, “What do I think?” if we only have a feeling, you got to dig into that a little bit. And sometimes it can just be like, “Oh, this kind of reminds me of another situation I had that went poorly. So let me examine to what extent is this really similar versus was there some surface level similarity that’s really not applicable to this that I could just be like, ‘Oh, okay. Well, this is a totally different manager, different situation, different project, different client. So, okay, that’s probably not a thing I need to worry about.’” As opposed to, “Well, no, these similarities really do surface that there is some extra risk here, or there are some difficult things I’m not so sure we’ve all thought through that probably need thinking through before we barrel down this path.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yes. And, by the way, there’s no time, or it feels like there’s no time at work, because we’re already behind schedule, we’re already behind the eight ball. I love what you said about sometimes it takes some time to even realize what you think because that is a difference in processing style and wiring that most modern corporate workplaces do not account for.

So, what I mean by that is, in organizations, particularly corporate America, it seems like there is one particular style of communication that is held up as effective leadership. It often sounds like three succinct bullet points with no ums, just the right amount of emotion to show that you care, but not too much emotion that you lose credibility, particularly if you present as female.

And so, those of us who are post-processors, and I’ll define that in a minute, are at a distinct disadvantage because we’re not as “quick on our feet.” So, two major styles of processing: real-time processing, where the more we talk it out in the moment, the more clear the idea gets; and post-processors, who are the type of, you know, if you’ve ever been in a meeting, you can’t quite figure out what to say, about 20 minutes after the meeting, you’re like, “That’s what I wanted to say.” Welcome to being a post-processor.

And that, to me, is just a difference in wiring, whereas, many workplaces consider that a weakness, “You need to be quicker on your feet. You need to be able to do the rebuttal. You need to be able to input your insight and expertise now or you’ve missed your shot.” And I want to believe that communication is not a Hamilton musical where you’ve got to shoot your shot, and if you don’t, then life has moved on.

Pete Mockaitis
In rap format, which makes it…

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, and wearing really cool clothes.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly.

Elaine Lin Hering
So much as we could actually design to account for those differences in wiring and that time to figure out what we think. So, in a meeting, for example, you still have your meeting, so the real-time processors can have their conversation. And at the end of the meeting you say, “All right, it seems like this is where we’re headed, but everybody sleep on it. As you post-process, share whatever comes up in your post-processing in a Reply-All on this email thread, or put it in Slack.”

You’re doing a couple things there. One, you’re normalizing that we’re all wired differently, and if we really want to hear the best ideas, not just the loudest or the fastest ideas, then we need to design the way that we communicate to leverage those different styles rather than penalize.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. It also makes me think about how it is even more so a fine idea to share slides or notes or documents or whatever in advance of the meeting so folks already had a chance to ponder, “What do I think about this? What do I need with regard to this?”

All right. So, within the complexity of “Do I speak up or do I stay silent?” could we summarize what are some…because in a way there’s this whole emotional element too, in terms of there may be a rational, optimal thing to do. But I might not even be seeing that clearly because I’m scared of what’s going on.

So maybe, first at the rational level, can you give us the pro speaking up indicators and then the con? “No, maybe stay silent” indicators in terms of what seemed to have the most impact, the biggest punch, and come up the most often as a consideration we should be working through?

Elaine Lin Hering
In terms of the pros, is it worth it to you? Is it worth it to you? Meaning, you care enough about the issue, the stakes seem high enough, “Can you live with yourself?” is probably the anchor I go back to. Can you live with yourself if you don’t say something? And if the answer is I can’t, then that would be pro-say something.

The don’t say something is you’re not yet sure what you think, you don’t have bandwidth, and you are unwilling or unable to stomach the costs of speaking up. Oftentimes, the greatest fear is like, “If I say something, if I give feedback, I’m going to get fired.” And there are some people who say, “Well, that’s a really extreme example. Who gets fired for giving feedback?” And for many of us, we know that it does actually happen. Sometimes it’s not overnight, although I spoke to someone yesterday who was let go for giving her boss feedback.

It doesn’t happen overnight, but do you stop getting the invites to the meetings? Do you stop getting the juicy projects at work? There are real costs, which is what makes it complex, but that takes me back to, “Can you live with yourself if you don’t say something? How much does it really matter to you?” The other way I’d answer the question, and you can decide what you want to keep, Pete, is in Chapter 3 of the book.

The questions that we tend to ask are, “What are the costs of speaking up?” and our brains tend to over-index on the costs, real and perceived, meaning, “If I say something, I’m going to get fired. Maybe that’s what happened at my last job, but that’s actually not the cultural environment that I’m in right now at this current job. So, what are the costs of speaking up?”

And our brains focus on the benefits of staying silent, like, “I don’t have to deal with it right now,” and we tend to assume that, “If I don’t have to deal with it, I haven’t heard about it, maybe it’ll fix itself. Maybe it’s going away.” Spoilers. Doesn’t usually. And so, that begs the third question of, “In light of the costs and benefits, what makes sense for me?” And this is why I really struggle with doing a hard line of, you must speak up in these contexts and don’t speak up in these contexts because I’m not you.

I don’t know what you’re carrying. I don’t know what you’re healing from. I don’t know what you are holding for your family or households. I don’t know what the stakes are for you. And that point, to me, takes us back to agency, of you getting to decide is the difference between silence that is strategic or that, frankly, is oppressive or is damaging.

The place that you’ll notice we didn’t explore, there are, “What are the costs of staying silent? And what are the benefits of using your voice?” And so, I would be looking in those four arenas, rather than focusing just on the costs of speaking up and the benefits of staying silent, also adding to your analysis, “Well, what’s it cost me if I don’t speak up? And what are the potential benefits, even if they’re not guaranteed, of speaking up?”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. And what’s intriguing with the fear and the notion of over-indexing on the short-term, like, “Oh, this is going to be really uncomfortable,” it can be fascinating how sometimes, if you’re the only one speaking up and providing the contrary opinion, it does happen that folks are annoyed that you spoke, “Hey, you want to get out of this meeting earlier? We were almost all wrapped up. We had close to consensus, and then you just had to throw this thing in here. So that’s kind of annoying.”

And so, it does feel like you lose a little bit of street cred or social capital or whatever in so doing that. And yet, at the same time, it is so case by case, there are some leaders who will just be absolutely delighted, like, “Here, at last, is someone who’s giving me a perspective I’m not hearing elsewhere, things I need to be worried about, making sure I’m not blindsided, giving me a heads up. This one has high potential and a bright future.”

And so, it’s interesting that those, I don’t know if we know what proportion of managers fall into what camp, that’s sort of hard to know, but if you know it, Elaine, drop some stats on us. But I think that might be an example of something we might undervalue or under-index for as we’re assessing this stuff, is you might discover that you have the potential to be differentiated as a super valuable person that your manager loves, loves, loves, and trusts you, and wants to run more and more things by you because they’re not getting that perspective elsewhere.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, because you’re not just plus one-ing everything else. You actually have a value-add because you’re offering a different perspective. I actually want to do one better because I don’t want to get us to the point where we’re at the end of the meeting and then you have to be contrarian. That cost is too high emotionally, socially, the social threat of speaking up.

So, what I tend to coach leaders to do is instead of leaders…leaders in a very, very well-intentioned way, saying things like, “What do you think?” or don’t even ask the question. It’s, just leaders assume, because they would do it.

Pete Mockaitis
“Sounds like we all love this idea.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, if you have something to say, you’re going to say it, versus using standard questions, “What about this works? What about this doesn’t work? What are the pros? What are the cons? What about this resonates? What concerns do you have?” If those are the questions that we, as a team, use to evaluate an idea, I don’t need someone to muster up the courage to offer a contrarian view or play devil’s advocate because it’s baked into how we’re doing the work, how we’re having the conversation, and it’s just the next agenda item, “Okay, we’ve talked about the pros. What are the cons?”

And that takes the pressure off of everyone, rather than, “Okay, Pete, muster up the courage now, take the risk.” We’re lowering the barriers to engaging in conversation and engaging by adding your perspective.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, that sounds like a wise best practice, to just go ahead and do that, when discussing decisions and options and considerations. Any other top do’s and don’ts you’d put forward?

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, so many. So many. Let me start with the leader. So, we as human beings tend to assume that people, other people are wired like us. It’s just human nature. So, unless we stop and intentionally realize, “Oh, there are some people who are post-processors. Well, I’m a real-time processor? Okay, then what do I do about it?”

The first reason I articulate in the book that leaders end up silencing the people they lead, the people that they genuinely want to thrive and want to unleash their talent, is that they fundamentally underestimate how hard it can be for someone to speak up. If your voice has always been welcome, if your ideas have always been well received, you forget that other people could have different life experiences, and this is just a cognitive awareness of, “Oh, it could be hard for someone not because they’re weak or deficient, but because they’re different than I am.”

And so, the “don’t” is don’t assume everyone is like you. The “do” is figure out what makes it easiest for people to share their thoughts and feelings. Some people are typers. Some people are talkers. Some people communicate best real-time. Some people it is asynchronous. Some people are morning people, evening people. Can you understand what makes it easier for someone to communicate so you, as a a colleague, lower the barriers to people telling you what you really think?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s great. What else?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’m like, I could just go down the table of contents.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m down.

Elaine Lin Hering
You’re game.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, let’s hear it.

Elaine Lin Hering
Okay. So let me do one more on leaders as a pet peeve, and then I’ll go from the how to speak up perspective. One of the most subtle things that we end up doing that silences other people is, when they finally take the risk to share what we think, what they think, we change the topic, and it’s really subtle, but we change the topic from their concern to my reaction to the situation.

So, example. They come and say, “Hey, Pete, I don’t think we’re going to hit the deadline.” And your reaction is, “What the hell? Why didn’t you tell me about this earlier?” It seems like we’re talking about the same thing, the deadline and our inability to hit it, but you’ve actually changed the topic to your own reaction or the process of why they didn’t tell you earlier versus focusing on, “Why do you think we’re not going to hit the deadline?”

In that moment, it’s a subtle shift of topic, but it actually signals to the other person, “Oof, they didn’t really want to hear me. We’re not going to address the thing that I finally mustered up the courage or taken the risk to share.” So, watching out for whether you are staying on the person’s original topic rather than changing the topic in the moment is one way of maintaining the open lines of communication.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s really good. This reminds me of land-lording.

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, no, that’s a whole ball of wax.

Pete Mockaitis
A tenant will tell you that something’s wrong and like your first reaction is like you’re mad, like, “What? How long has this been going on? What’s the problem? Why are you doing this?” And I’ve learned though, I had another friend who had a rental property, and she had this horrific rat situation brewing for months.

And so, she actually did ask politely, “Okay, so how long is this going on? Okay. So, why didn’t you mention that earlier?” They said, “Oh, we didn’t want to burden you or inconvenience you or whatever.” And so, I just sort of installed in my internal habit that, just no matter what you’re feeling, you say, “Thanks for letting me know.” Because I do, I want them to let me know early when there’s one or two rats, before there are dozens of rats or whatever the issue is, whether it’s a physical property or like an intellectual, algorithmic thing we’re doing in a white-collar environment. I want to know, so thank you for letting me know.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yes, and have you been explicit with your team or your renters about your hope and expectation? Or, is that an unspoken norm because that’s how you would prefer the world to work, that’s what you would do? Have we made the rules explicit? Meaning, tell me early, tell me often, come to me right away when there’s one or two rats or even when you see some rat poop. Let’s be really explicit versus the “I didn’t want to burden you. We thought we could fix it by just putting out some traps. You’re so busy.”

There are a thousand reasons why people don’t say things, and from a really well-intentioned perspective, but have we also communicated to them how we would prefer, what we’re inviting in from them, what the operating norms are, and making those explicit rather than implicit, and then getting frustrated when they get violated.

Okay, from a speaking-up perspective. You can find your voice by asking those questions, “What do I think? What do I need?” But then there’s this question of using your voice. And using requires action, and action can feel vulnerable. So, in order to see whether it really is my voice or whether it is worth it to me to say something, I’m going to have to take actions over time to experiment.

And so, I’m a big fan of small experiments. If you’re someone who tends to overthink, spiral and overanalyze, you can get out of that over-analysis by trying something, and I would recommend a low-risk environment. Meaning, if you are just starting to practice the muscle of giving feedback, you wouldn’t necessarily go to your boss right away and tell them everything that you think is wrong with them. Maybe it’s when you are at a coffee shop and the barista gets your order wrong. Do you say something in the moment?

And maybe you don’t really care if it was iced coffee or hot coffee, and maybe you really do, but say that you don’t. That’s actually a great time to practice because, if they don’t respond well, if they’re too busy to change the order, whatever it is, you don’t really care. So, practicing on strangers is a great way to build that muscle of sharing your thoughts.

Another context would be with a group of friends, and this whole debate of, “Okay, what are we going to have for dinner?” Do you practice having an opinion, expressing an opinion at a time that you don’t really care? So, “Hey, what about Thai? What about Thai food?” And they’re like, “No, I really feel like burritos.”

You’re like, “Okay.” But you at least get that datapoint that says, “I expressed a point of view, an opinion, and the world didn’t fall apart,” which, for many of us who hesitate to speak up, to use our voice, we don’t have that dataset that says, “I expressed an opinion, and it was okay. I have that dataset that is glaring in my head of, ‘I said something, and I got cut out of that team.’”

Or, that relationship never recovered. Or, “Maybe I’ve never tried, because in my family of origin, it was whatever dad says goes and no one ever challenged that. I never tested that out.” So, trying things out with strangers where you don’t really care about the relationship or it’s not a long-term relationship, trying it out where the stakes are low of things you don’t really care about, to get different data points that tell you, “It’s okay to express an opinion. It might actually be helpful.”

Pete Mockaitis
And what’s so interesting is as you do that, I think you go really just determine, discern some patterns associated with what kinds of things do I find difficult to say. Just yesterday, I noticed I needed someone to spot me in the gym for a bench-press situation, and I was so nervous to ask someone, which I thought, “This is a fairly normal request. Most of the time I don’t hear it, but it’s not a freakish thing.”

And then it’s really true, but my mom mentioned in a conversation like, “Well, Pete, you really do hate putting people out.” I was like, “I really, really do. You’re right, mom.” And it’s like I’ve seen this real time. And, at the same time, and so I did, I did, I asked for a spot. I was pleased with the bench performance, if anyone’s wondering, and it’s really cool to be able to practice in that environment.

And even if I got a disgusted response, “I have a lot of work I need to do here, and I have to be out of the gym in six minutes. Absolutely not.” Like, that’s the worst it could possibly go. And that’s fine, and I have grown those muscles as a result of having gone there.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. I also want to be really explicit that the framing of “This is what I’m trying on” is important. Because if you’re just trying it on, it’s like trying on clothes before you’re going to buy them, “Does this fit? Does this not fit?” And it may fit in that instance of, “Oh, yeah, that was fine. It was part of the normal course of being at the gym, and I’m still alive.” And you may say, “You know what? I did that.” And it doesn’t feel like me. It doesn’t feel right to me. Great. Try something else.” But the point of an experiment is not to get to a specific outcome. The point of an experiment is to learn something. So, this stance of, “What might I learn in testing a hypothesis I have, in expressing an opinion, in trying something on?”

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, Elaine, tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’ll say one last thing, which is, oftentimes, when we are thinking about expressing our points of view, we’re waiting for other people to give us permission, and that is a trap that I find many people falling into, which is why I’m naming it here. You think about school systems and you have to ask to go to the bathroom. At work, you have to submit for time off to take the PTO that is rightfully yours, and so there’s a lot of baked in “I’ve got to ask for permission.”

And in what ways might we be waiting for others to give us permission when we could give ourselves permission to experiment, to share an opinion, to try something on? That is, I’m always looking for, “What can I do, unilaterally, because if I’m waiting for the other people in my life to start showing up in a different way, I’m probably waiting for a really long time? But if I can do something differently myself, then I might be able to get to a different outcome faster.”

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

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, babble hypothesis of leadership. So, number one in a six-person meeting, two people end up doing 60% of the talking. And more interesting, that leads to the babble hypothesis of leadership, is that people code frequency or quantity of verbal contribution as a sign of leadership or high leadership potential. It has nothing to do with the quality of the contribution, so much as, “How much are you talking?”

And so, the babble hypothesis of leadership, to me, is something for us to guard against, that just because someone’s talking a lot, actually listen for the substance, and that if we want to have healthy workplaces, we need to create space for different models of leadership. This one dominant norm that’s very chatty but maybe, at times, lacking in substance has gotten us to where we are, and the question is “Where are we going from here?”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And could you share a favorite book?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’ll do recency bias. The one in front of me right now is Micro Activism by Omkari Williams, “How to Make a Difference in the World Without A Bullhorn.”

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

Elaine Lin Hering
Turning off email, 5:00 p.m., no longer load work email onto my phone, because there’s got to be some semblance of sanity.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?

Elaine Lin Hering
Leaving my phone. Apparently, I have a complicated relationship with my phone. Leaving my phone in a different room when I sleep.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share that’s really resonating with folks that they quote yourself back to you often?

Elaine Lin Hering
“In what ways are you silencing yourself to preserve the comfort of other people?”

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

Elaine Lin Hering
ElaineLinHering.com.

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

Elaine Lin Hering
Try something. Try something. The ruminating, the overthinking, the spiraling, you can get out of that by trying something. Because by trying something, you will learn something. So instead of waiting for the next perfect step, start by taking a step.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Elaine, this has been enriching. I wish you many optimized silences and un-silences.

Elaine Lin Hering
Thanks, Pete. To a life lived fully to you.

975: Elevating Leadership through Radical Humility with Urs Koenig

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Urs Koenig reveals how to level up your leadership through the five shifts of radical humility.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why leaders win more when they’re humble
  2. Two tricks to getting better quality feedback
  3. How to make any tough conversation less intimidating 

About Urs

Urs is a former United Nations military peacekeeper and NATO military peacekeeping commander, a highly accomplished ultraendurance champion, a widely published professor, bestselling author, and a seasoned executive coach and keynote speaker with more than three decades of experience helping hundreds of leaders and dozens of executive teams unlock new levels of achievement across four continents.  

He is the founder of the Radical Humility Leadership Institute and speaks frequently on the topic of leadership to corporations and associations across the globe. His message of Radical Humility in leadership has inspired teams from across the spectrum, including Amazon, Starbucks, the Society of Human Resource Management, Vistage, the University of Melbourne, and Microsoft. 

He holds a PhD in geography and a Master of Science from the University of Zürich, Switzerland, and an MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management.  

Urs is the loving father of two teenage boys who make commanding soldiers look easy. He lives in Seattle, Washington. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Urs Koenig Interview Transcript

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

Urs Koenig
Thanks, Pete, for having me. Looking forward to the conversation.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, me too. Me too. I was a Model United Nations student in high school and college. So basically, we’re the same.

Urs Koenig
So, how’s that, Pete? Tell me more about that.

Pete Mockaitis
No, no, there’s no danger zones. We just sort of dressed up in Western business attire, as we called it, and argued over our resolutions and who was going to put their hands on the keyboard and go to the printer. But I want to hear you share with us a riveting tale from your work as a UN peacekeeper that kind of shaped some of your thinking on leadership?

Urs Koenig
Well, two things, actually. I went back to the military after having been out for 22 years. And so, went back to serve as a peacekeeper, left the business, left my kids to volunteer to make a difference. On the second day of reporting to my peacekeeping command, I dropped my flak jacket. And the sergeant, 25 years my junior and well below my rank, is chewing me out for dropping my flak jacket. And I’m here to be of service to make a difference, and this young punk is chewing me out.

So, it takes all the…and that’s the title of my book, all the humility I possibly can master, not to make a snarky comment, but I picked up the vest and I say nothing at all. But it was one of the first lessons in humility I would have to learn over the next nine months as a peacekeeper. Just a small one, but there were plenty more later on.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m curious, Urs, did that gesture of humility have some positive impact on that relationship or did you just never bump into him again?

Urs Koenig
No, no, oh, no, I had to work with him later on, for sure, and he ended up being a nice guy. He was just posturing on the second day. But actually, so if I may, Pete, what then happened was I deployed into the peacekeeping mission and I opened my book with that story. We were escorted to a school play, end-of-year school play, and escorted to the front as part of the peacekeeping force, and I sat down and we were treated to a reenactment of the Kosovo War.

These are kindergartners, first and second graders, massacring their fellow students on the floor, shooting and shouting them, all with a roaring applause, to parents, teachers, and other students. And so, that was another lesson in humility. I thought I understood the conflict. I understood what’s going on. But when I sat there, I’m like, “You know what? I really still don’t get it.”

When you think you get it in a conflict zone, something happens, comes out of left field, like the school play, and you go, “You know what? I still am a student here and I need to ask bigger questions.” So that was another lesson in humility that I learned through the peacekeeping work.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, I can imagine you being in that scene, watching that unfold, and just kind of scratching my head, like, “What is going on here? And what does this mean?” And tell us, Urs, what was your takeaway from having witnessed that?

Urs Koenig
Well, you know what, my takeaway was asking bigger and harder questions, “So, is it our role as peacekeepers to not just build peace in their cities, but also in their hearts? What stories do these kids need to be taught at home and at school so that this nation can actually transform into a peaceful nation?” And so, the more I learned, the less I understood, it seems, but the quality of my questions improved, and like that’s no small feat. So that was a real takeaway.

The same in the Middle East a couple of years later. The quality of your questions improved but you’re always a student. You constantly need to learn because being in a conflict zone like that it’s just a humbling experience in itself.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, Urs, you put together some of your insights into a handy book, Radical Humility: Be a Badass Leader, and a Good Human. Can you tell us any particularly surprising or counterintuitive or extra fascinating discoveries you made while putting this together?

Urs Koenig
The best leaders are actually deeply humble. In my personal experience, the best commanders in the peacekeeping force, they ask great questions, they’re deeply self-aware, they let their team members shine, and they constantly ask for feedback on how to get better. And we can look at the corporate world. Microsoft, Satya Nadella, how he transformed the tech giant from the Steve Ballmer command-control into what it is today, based on his own values, curiosity, constant learning, growth mindset, and humility. And so, those are two examples.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, tell us, what’s sort of the big idea or main thesis of your book here?

Urs Koenig
The main thesis is that, to actually win in today’s world, we need to be deeply humble. Leading in today’s environment is, by definition, humbling. No one person can have all the answers. And so, that is the big idea. The best leaders, the most successful leaders are actually deeply humble. It’s not the show-off folks who win at the end.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, could you maybe tell us an example of someone that you got to see up close and work with who upgraded their leadership by adopting this radical humility approach? What were they doing before, and what did they do differently, and what results emerged?

Urs Koenig
So, one of the best commanders I’ve ever had in the peacekeeping mission, he opened one of the meetings we had in his office with these words, he said, “I love you, Urs. You know I do, and this is not even close to being good enough.” So that’s a deeply humble approach. So, his words made me shrink in my chair, and I turned myself inside out then to produce the very best work I could over the next nine months.

Now if the guy would have chewed me out, if the guy would have yelled at me, I would have tuned him out. But because he deployed a core element of humble leadership, namely strong relationship-building, we had a very close relationship, he got me as a whole human being versus just somebody who did work for him, I knew he cared, he was supporting me in my career path, I was really able to hear and take in his message.

So that’s an example of radical humility in action, building meaningful, collaborative relationships with your people while holding to the highest standards. I call that tough on results and tender on people.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, cool. Well, so in your book, you’ve mentioned five key shifts. Could you give us a quick overview of each of those five?

Urs Koenig
Sure. So, the first is dig deep. So that’s the first pillar of leading with radical humility. It’s deep self-awareness, really understanding, and that’s what people think about when they hear humility, like seeing myself accurately, not having an overly low or high picture of myself. So that’s deep self-awareness. What’s tied in there is also the humility to know that I can’t achieve everything, but I can achieve almost anything I put my mind to. So, there’s the notion of focus.

The second pillar of leading with radical humility is tough on results, tender on people. I just talked about that. Holding our people to the highest standards while building meaningful and trusting relationships with them. The third shift is called lead like a compass. So, this is getting out of the spotlight, empowering my people to execute at the frontlines, getting out of the weeds, leading with my eyes on, hands off, and comprehensively delegating.

The fourth one is full transparency. If we want our people to really be empowered to make good smart decisions at the frontlines, they need to know more. And the only way they’ll know more is if we share more. And all the research consistently shows that we think we over-communicate as leaders and the message still doesn’t get heard. So, heard, 150 times, seven different ways, and only when you hear your people paraphrasing back what you’re talking about, then you know you’re heard. What’s also tied into full transparency is, and I write quite extensively about this, the value of vulnerability.

Vulnerability is the quickest way to build trust with your teammates as a leader, as a peer, and as a direct report. So being transparent about my shortcomings and what I want to do about them. And the last shift is to champion a fearless culture. There, I’m leaning on Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety, providing an environment where it’s safe for anybody to speak up with questions and concerns without fear of being shamed or, worse, risking their career. So, these are the five shifts of leading with radical humility.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, we’ve had Amy Edmondson on the show, and we’ve heard some of the cool research on psychological safety. Can you tell me, are there any other veins of research or data or experiments or studies that really make this stuff pop in terms of saying, “Whoa, this is not just your opinion. This is gold”?

Urs Koenig
So, there is a particular study I’d like to talk about, but there is actually research on how humble leadership transforms into better bottom line results. So, there’s plenty of academic studies: higher employee engagement, better relationships, you know, healthier team dynamics, and ultimately actually better bottom-line results.

There was just an HR study published last week which showed that humble leaders are actually more likely to get promoted themselves. Why? Because they’re talent incubators. They grow and build their people up, and, as such, they become more successful leaders themselves, “So who do I promote? I promote the people who build other people up.”

But one particular study I’d like to talk about is this notion of vulnerability building trust. So, there is this study where pairs of complete strangers are brought into a lab, and they’re tasked for 45 minutes to ask and respond to meaningful personal questions, such as, “What does love and friendship mean to you, Pete? And if you only had one year to live, what would you change?” At the end of the 45 minutes, these complete strangers were asked to rate the level of trust they developed with their partner, 45 minutes.

When they responded, they rated their level of trust about as high as the level of trust they have with their average person in their lives. Some even rated it as high as their level of trust they have with their significant other. And I love this, one pair even got married. But what the research shows is that even sharing for brief periods of time with vulnerability is an incredibly powerful way to build trust in relationships.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, could you demo some of this for us in terms of either these conversations or these questions? I guess it’d just be really nice to get a view of what is this humble leadership, radical humility stuff look, sound, feel like conversationally, as opposed to perhaps the average or the norm that we’re accustomed to in our professional communication interactions?

Urs Koenig
It looks like asking for feedback. You know, Pete, it’s all simple stuff, but it’s not always easy. At the end of every one-on-one with my team members, I ask for, “Hey Pete, what do I do well as your manager? And what can I do better?” Increasing our self-awareness by constantly asking for feedback, and we don’t have to be a leader or a manager to do this. We can do this in project teams, right? We can ask our team members, “What do you see me do well? What can I do better?” That’s one thing.

Another piece is wanting to get to know my team members or also for the project team, my teammates, on a more personal level, actually having a conversation about what’s going on personally with their lives. So, getting to know people as whole human beings versus just worker bees. So, self-awareness by asking for feedback and deepening relationships.

And Gen Zs want this. Like, it’s all the research out there shows we want meaningful and trusting relationships at work, and some studies even show that those young adults actually value relationships and relationship culture more than they value salary and money.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Urs, since you’re an example for vulnerability, I’m just going to put you on the spot. When you’ve asked people these questions, what have they shared with you and what changes have you made as a result?

Urs Koenig
I have been told that I, especially early in my career, that I was too rigid. I’m Swiss, right? Too organized, too structured, and not flexible enough actually, and so that I needed to sometimes soften up a little bit and maybe look at things from a different vantage point versus just powering through the original plan. So that’s one of the things I most definitely learned about myself.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And how have you implemented that to become more flexible?

Urs Koenig
Well, I actually then, what I do is, “So Pete, you give me that feedback, what suggestions do you have for me to actually do this?” And so, I have team members hold me accountable for it. So, I say, “Okay, I’m working on becoming less rigid and more flexible. Give me feedback in the moment when you see me go down a rabbit hole, and just stick to the original plan because we said we should,” instead of asking, “Hey, what other options can we look at here? Or, how might we approach this a bit differently?”

Pete Mockaitis
And then, tell us, if folks are asking for this feedback, and folks are reluctant to give it, do you have any pro tips on how we can encourage that all the better?

Urs Koenig
Yeah, it’s an excellent question. It happens all the time, right? So, one of the options is to actually call it out explicitly. Say things like, “Hey, I know it can be uncomfortable, Pete, for you to give me feedback. I feel exactly the same way with my boss but I actually see your ability to give me honest feedback as part of your professionalism.” That’s one thing, call it out explicitly.

The second piece, the second thing we can do is we can actually say, “Hey, Pete, I’m working on becoming a bit more flexible. What feedback do you have for me on how I’m doing with this?” So instead of keeping it just open-ended, I make you give me feedback on a goal I already identified for myself so that it makes it less threatening for the person to be honest about giving feedback.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. And I’m reminded of some of my work experiences where I’ve had folks, managers I’ve worked with, and we talked about some things I was looking to work on and learn from the project, and then they just flipped it right around and said, “Okay, and here’s what I’ve been working on.” I was like, “Oh, wow, okay.” And it was just really cool to see, as well as, “All right, well, hey, as we start working together, how about you chat with some other folks who’ve worked with me historically and they’ll give you a little bit of a sense of what I’m like to work with?”

And I just found those so striking in terms of like, “Oh, wow, you are a human who is aware that you are imperfect, and you have no need to try to hide that from me or show me how impressive you are as the big boss,” and I just immediately respected them more from right off the bat.

Urs Koenig
You know, I love what you’re saying here. It’s exactly that. So how many of us have bosses who are so arrogant and so full of themselves because they’re actually deeply insecure, right? So, actually, people challenge me sometimes, “As a humble leader, you’re just weak. You’re an emotional doormat.” But, no, to actually humbly invite feedback and share what I’m learning, what I’m working on myself, I need to be fundamentally confident in myself, have a fundamentally strong sense of self, only then can I do what your boss did as well, or I’ll humbly ask for feedback on what I can do better. I need to fundamentally be confident in myself.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s right. You have to have some self-confidence and some courage. So, help us out, Urs, what if we don’t have that yet, and we’re like, “Oh, my gosh, that sounds really cool in this utopian happy work-life world, Urs, but that actually sounds kind of terrifying to me”? How would you speak to those folks?

Urs Koenig
Start small. If you’re concerned about asking your boss for feedback or as a leader or your direct, ask a peer. Ask your best friend at work. So, ask somebody who you’re close with at work for some feedback, and start there and then build from there. And you know what, it’s a contact sport. So, humility is not for the meek or the weak. So, it is tough, right? So, there’s no two ways about it. We need to make ourselves uncomfortable to actually grow. So, in time, I would encourage and push everybody to just always take a step further than what you’re comfortable with.

Pete Mockaitis
These are cool examples, Urs. Can you lay some more on us in terms of transformational conversations that unfold in this radical humility style that you’ve seen go down, people talking and growing as a result?

Urs Koenig
So, one example I love is Brad Smith, the former CEO of the financial technology company Intuit. He’s now president of Marshall University. He volunteered to his board to do a 360 survey. A 360, as many of you listeners probably know, anonymously surveys everybody around you, around your strengths and weaknesses as a leader. But he then shared his 360, which he volunteered with his board, but he sent the report to the entire company via email.

So, the anonymous feedback that he got back, he sent to everybody at the company. He even taped, back then, a copy to his office door. He even taped the copy to his office door for everybody to see. So, what happens in the process? The top dog is sharing his shortcomings and strengths, with some vulnerability, publicly, and in the process makes it safe for everybody at Intuit to start working on their own stuff as well. So that’s humble leadership in action.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. Well, do you happen to know any of the spookiest elements on that 360 report?

Urs Koenig
I am sorry, I don’t.

Pete Mockaitis
“I’ve received a lot of feedback that I’m a total jerk and a toxic boss. Very helpful. Thank you.”

Urs Koenig
That’s right.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I guess, because you wonder, Urs, like, in terms of how much volume vulnerability is too much, or in terms of it’s like, “Oh, shoot, we’ve uncovered some deeply troubling things here. I don’t know if I want to broadcast that to the world”?

Urs Koenig
Absolutely. So, a couple of things there. So, I often talk about humility in three acts. So, the first act is me. The second act is what I’m sharing, maybe an insecurity, something I’m working on. And the third act is, “What am I doing about it?” So, give me the three acts. Don’t just talk about all the stuff you suck at. Go all the way to the third act.

And then the other piece is there is definitely, this is why this is a thinking-person sport, places and times where you share more, and places and times where you share less. And so, this is about reading the situation, knowing your audience, and in a one-on-one with somebody you feel close to at work, you probably reveal a bit more about your weaknesses than publicly in your first senior leadership management meeting. So, it’s situational, is the best I can say here.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And with the notion of being tough on results and tender on people, I’d love to get your pro tips on if folks are so tender on people, they find it difficult to be tough on the results, they’re softies and they realize they need to hold people to a standard, but they’re very uncomfortable doing so, any pro tips for them?

Urs Koenig
It’s actually one of the most common mistakes people make when they hear my topic, when they hear about humility, when they hear vulnerability, then they are too conflict averse, and they think that it’s not actually holding team members accountable. So, one thing, identify the one tough feedback you know you have to give and you haven’t given it, and go and do that. Just one. One tough feedback. Identify it and go and give that.

Pete Mockaitis
All right, Urs, can you give us an example of a time you’ve done this, and what you identified, and what you said and what went down?

Urs Koenig
Well, I had, during my peacekeeping command, my first warrant officer was so nervous and so on edge that he endangered all of us in his handling of his weapon. So, I had to let him go, and he was the nicest guy. It was really hard to do. He was so motivated, the nicest guy but he just didn’t have it in him. So, I had to basically sit him down, and in a very loving way, tell him, again, “I love you, Marcus. You’re a great guy. You really try hard but you just don’t deliver. I cannot take you on a mission. You’re not fit for mission. You’re fired.” That’s it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And what did he say to that?

Urs Koenig
He cried.

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Urs Koenig
He did. Yeah, but he accepted it, and he had no choice. And, to this day, we actually exchange WhatsApp messages.

Pete Mockaitis
So, it sounds like he understood that what you said was the truth, though he didn’t like it.

Urs Koenig
Exactly. I mean, Management 101, this wasn’t obviously the first conversation we had about this. There was a long process coming and lots of, in the business world we would call it performance improvement plans and whatnot. So, we had plenty of ongoing conversations around it. It wasn’t a surprise to him at all, and it never should be a surprise. That’s the other piece.

When we give our people feedback in performance reviews or otherwise on a regular basis, if they’re hugely surprised about the feedback, then you have not actually done your job as a leader. Because it’ll be an ongoing conversation, right? Not only asking for feedback, but also providing feedback.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have any pro tips for the actual delivery of the feedback, do’s and don’ts in that conversation?

Urs Koenig
Well, try to take the emotions out of it as much as you can. I mean, this is such a cliché almost, right? Center yourself, because often these things make us nervous. We’re anxious when we have to deliver the feedback. So, I actually use breathing exercises to calm myself down before difficult conversations like that. So, whatever your technique is, and be in a good mind space yourself, be clear around your talking points, think about what the other person’s reaction might be, have contingency plans, but be very firm on what you want the message to be and stick with your message.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And I am a fan of Breathwrk. I actually subscribe to the Breathwrk app. So, Urs, what’s your go-to “Calm down because I’m freaking out about this conversation” breath protocol?

Urs Koenig
Well, so I actually go and work out. So that’s the first thing I do, and that really helps me. So, I go and work out and then I do the two-minute sitting meditation basically, where I just focus on my breath. That’s it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And for the workout, are we talking cardio, are we talking strength, are we talking both, are we talking intense, are we talking light?

Urs Koenig
We’re talking, for me, personally light cardio, in that case, because I don’t want to tire myself out. I want to still be ready, but the cardio certainly. I mean, the research shows it over again, helps to calm the nerves down and helps us to be centered.

Pete Mockaitis
And your light cardio is more intense than a leisurely stroll? Or where would you put that intensity?

Urs Koenig
Yes, it’s a run, or a StairMaster, or a treadmill, something like that.

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

Urs Koenig
One that comes to mind is General McChrystal. So General McChrystal. He was the commander of the taskforce fighting terror in the Middle East. And his taskforce was losing the war on terror, you know, Al-Qaeda, much more nimble, much more flexible, and McChrystal was leading top-down command control, very old style, what I call heroic leadership. But he had the humility to recognize that he needed to change the way he led his taskforce.

So, he shifted from top-down command control, or as he put it, he said, leading like a chess master, controlling his pawns on the chessboard to leading like a gardener, providing the right environment, the right culture, so that his people could execute more swiftly, and more precisely, more independently. If you think about it, as a gardener, we can’t actually make plants grow, you can’t make flowers bloom, but what you can, what you must do, is plant the right seedlings at the right time and the right spot, provide a nurturing environment by watering, weeding and keeping pests out.

So, from top-down command-control leader to humble creator of the right environment, strong relationships, radical transparency. He got into trouble with the intelligence community because he was sharing too much with everybody. And so, that was a really interesting transformation that McChrystal, a tough military leader, went through to become a more humble leader.

Pete Mockaitis
That is really cool. I like that metaphor, because, well, I like chess and gardening. So, you really do get the sense for, that is a very different vibe in terms of, “I am having all the great ideas and I am masterfully commanding that they be executed. I have all the smarts. You do the smart things I’m telling you to do,” as opposed to, “I can’t do much other than create a better environment that works for you.”

And so, that’s a fun example, sharing so much information, intelligence communities are upset with you. Any other examples of master-guarding behavior from General McChrystal?

Urs Koenig
He said, “Thank you became my most important word, and, nodding and showing appreciation, my most important behaviors.” And so, I don’t know if you’re familiar with his book, Team of Teams. But in terms of networking his taskforce, he asked that everybody know somebody else on every other team. So, you don’t need to know everybody in HR, you don’t need to know everybody in Ops, but you need to know one person, so that when you need to work with this other team, you don’t imagine some adversary, but actually a friendly face.

And so, he builds strong relationships across and up and down the taskforce by applying this team of teams approach where everybody knows somebody on every other team.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Thank you.

Urs Koenig
And, by the way, the taskforce became measurably more effective because of his approach. Al-Qaeda’s ability to strike was reduced by a factor of 17. And once again, or not once again, I haven’t probably mentioned it, I’m not advocating for humble leadership because you want to be nice or liked, because it produces bottom-line results, like McChrystal’s taskforce shows.

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

Urs Koenig
“Nothing changes if nothing changes.” Unless we make small changes every day, the big changes won’t happen.

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

Urs Koenig
So, I like the vulnerability research I just shared, and then Project Aristotle by Google, showing that psychological safety is the best predictor of a team’s performance, more important than talent, more important than the size of the team, who’s on the team and so forth.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Urs Koenig
My favorite book is Endurance by Alfred Lansing. It’s about Ernest Shackleton’s voyage.

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

Urs Koenig
I like the Johari Window. The Johari Window which identifies our blind spots. It’s a two-by-two matrix, basically.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share that is popular, resonates with folks, you hear quoted back to yourself?

Urs Koenig
People like the tough on results, tender on people. I get asked about that all the time, and that gets quoted.

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

Urs Koenig
My website, UrsKoenig.com, or on social, I’m primarily active on LinkedIn, actually.

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

Urs Koenig
Just ask. Ask for feedback. Just ask. And ask to get to know your teammates better. Just ask.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Urs, this is fun. I wish you many lovely exchanges full of radical humility.

Urs Koenig
Thank you, Pete. That was fun.

971: Mastering The Three Keys to Getting Noticed with Jay Baer

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Jay Baer discusses how professionals can use the principles of excellent customer experience to stand out above the rest.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why it pays to reply super fast
  2. The best way to recover from a mistake
  3. Why competency won’t get you noticed—and what does 

About Jay

Jay Baer is a 7th-generation entrepreneur, New York Times best-selling author of seven books, and founder of six multi-million dollar companies. In 2023, he was named a Top 30 Global Guru in both Customer Experience and in Marketing. Jay has advised more than 700 brands in his career, including Nike, Oracle, Hilton, The United Nations and 40 of the FORTUNE 500.

He is an inductee into the professional speaking and word of mouth marketing halls of fame. Jay has authored or co-authored among the best-selling business books of all-time in the categories of digital marketing, customer service, customer experience, and business growth. He has been named to more than 50 top global business influencer lists. Jay’s books are known for deep, first-party research combined with unique, compelling case studies, and a heavy sprinkling of humor. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You Sponsors!

Jay Baer Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis

Jay, welcome.

Jay Baer

Pete, thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it. Looking forward to it.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, I’ve been looking forward to it, too. You are so fun, and you have so much good stuff. I have to pick and choose within the ocean of your wisdom where to dive in.

Jay Baer

Well, I don’t know about that.

Pete Mockaitis

And I’m going to go with two books, actually, Talk Triggers and Hug Your Haters. I kind of see them as two sides of a similar coin. You might conceptualize them differently. But just to orient us, for starters, what’s the big idea behind these two books?

Jay Baer

So, the big idea for Hug Your Haters is that people who are unhappy about you or your business are not your problem, ignoring them is, and that you can win the day by being disproportionately kind even to, and perhaps especially to, those who are unhappy. So that book is really about retaining your relationships, retaining customers.

Talk Triggers is almost the opposite. Talk Triggers is a book about differentiation and word-of-mouth. The concept is that word-of-mouth is and will always be the greatest way to grow any business, to accomplish anything. It’s also the most cost-effective, but individuals and organizations are often loath to do anything that stands out because they think it’s risky, or they just don’t have a framework for how to do it. So that book provides the framework. A talk trigger is defined as an operational choice that you make so that conversations are created.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s so cool. Yeah. And so, in terms of we’ve got great wisdom to be gleaned from haters, as well as for raving fans.

Jay Baer

Yeah, absolutely.

Pete Mockaitis

Or, soon to be raving fans, with a little tweak. And I’d love to hear your take, if we’re talking to professionals who, and some are maybe not customer-facing, client-facing, marketing-driven, how do you think some of these principles apply to these sorts of folks?

Jay Baer

I think universally, because it doesn’t matter whether your job is customer-facing, you are still customer-adjacent. This happens all the time. I was talking to a CEO the other day of a Fortune 100 company, you know, it’s many tens of billions of dollars a company, and she was saying that one of the things they struggle with is their actual customer service department, if you will, is fine. Like, they’re good and they’ve got good policies, and they got good software, it’s all good. But she was like, all the time, customers are contacting people who are not “customer-facing.”

They’re a manager, they’re an executive. All you gotta do is look on LinkedIn and be like, “Hey, check it out. Here’s where Pete works. Let’s just send that person a message.” So, you don’t get to decide whether customers can think of you as customer-facing or not. And the reality is if you carry the business card and you’re associated with a logo, you are customer-facing.

Now, whether you’re talking to 100 customers a day might be a different story, but I think the right way to think about it is everybody is customer-facing at some point. Consequently, wouldn’t you want to be really good at that? Like, wouldn’t you want to be really great at working with customers when they’re unhappy, and also be great at explaining to customers why you are the only solution for them?

Pete Mockaitis

Absolutely. And I also think about “internal customers” in terms of another person inside our organization relies on me, or our team for these reports, or this information, or this key enabling stuff, and so, yeah, you’re going to have some folks who are doing some talking about you and your team and maybe some hating about you and your team.

Jay Baer

Absolutely. And I’ll tell you, I ran a correlation study a long time ago on the relationship between sort of employee culture and customer experience. So, we looked at companies that were awarded Best Places to Work designations versus Net Promoter Score, which is a measure of customer satisfaction, and the correlation is almost the same.

So, what that means is that it is essentially impossible to be great at outwardly-facing customer experience unless you are first great at inwardly-facing employee experience. So, you’re exactly right, Pete, like you’re going to have workplace conflict, and how you handle that can really separate you from other professionals in your organization.

And also, some of the people who go on to the greatest successes inside organizations are those where there is a consistent story told about them. And so, there’s like sort of an earned wisdom about, “You know, when you work with Pete, what’s great about working with Pete is X, right?” And that same kind of value statement gets attached to you throughout your entire career, and that can be a huge, huge advantage as you’re looking to advance in that organization or even move along to a different. organization.

Pete Mockaitis

Boy, that’s so powerful, that notion that the customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction are almost the same with regard to correlation. And, in some ways, this kind of makes sense, like, to the extent to which you are a jerk who doesn’t care about people, customers, your colleagues, or a sweetie who cares a lot is, like, I could see like that’s one dimension there, but there’s also some particular practices associated with things that make for excellence on both these dimensions.

So can you lay it on us, you say that there are three things that customers or clients really, really, truly care about. What are those things and how do we deliver them well?

Jay Baer

Well, I know three things are the same that your colleagues care about, too. So, we can set the customers aside for now because these three elements of sort of your behavior and your interactions are important to everybody, disproportionate to everybody. So, what you’ve got to focus on in your career is being quick, clear, and kind.

If you can be quick, clear, and kind, and really be demonstrably better at those three things than other people, you are going to be on a rocket ship ride to success in your career, because, yes, there’s a lot of dimensions of success, there’s a lot of dimensions about being a good teammate, and a good colleague, and a good company, and a good friend, and all those, but if you can consistently overdeliver on responsiveness, on clarity, and on empathy, the world is your oyster.

Pete Mockaitis

Now, Jay, there are so many directions I could go with this, but first, let’s hear. I know you are a marketing genius, if I may, I’m just going to bestow that upon you.

Jay Baer

Thanks.

Pete Mockaitis

I’ve admired your work for a while, and you do a lot of research. Could you share with us, when it comes to quick, like there are eye-popping numbers associated with, say, if you have an inbound lead land in your lap, if you respond to them within minutes or hours, it’s like a crazy huge difference? Can you share some of those figures with us?

Jay Baer

Yeah, and we did a lot of research for my most recent book, which is called The Time to Win, and most people, and certainly most organizations, feel like they are fast enough. Like, “I’m getting to it as fast as I can, man.” But what they fail to realize is that people’s expectations for what constitutes fast has changed dramatically in a three-year period. So, yes, you used to be fast enough, sufficiently fast, but you’re no longer sufficiently fast.

Two-thirds of customers say that speed is as important as price. And to your point, Pete, about something landing in your inbox, check this out. Fifty-one percent, more than half, of all customers will hire whomever contacts them first regardless of price. So, if you’re shopping for a car, a sofa, a hamburger, a mate, a job, I did a podcast last week for the manufacturing sector, and one of the things we talked about was they struggled to hire and retain talent.

I’m like, well, one of the reasons that’s so is they put out a job description, and they get some resumes, and then they don’t get back to anybody until they have a sufficient stack of resumes and begin to analyze them. Meanwhile, that person hasn’t heard from me for three weeks and took another job.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, that happens. It’s true.

Jay Baer

It’s just about response time and cycles. They’re not nefarious. It’s not like they don’t care about those candidates. It’s just that they haven’t tuned their processes to understand that even though we’ve been saying the words “Time is money” for probably 100 years, it was never true. But it is true now. The relationship between responsiveness and revenue is inescapable now. And you either are good at that, or you are literally losing money, friends, colleagues, every day.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s powerful, and it’s true. I’m thinking, I recently acquired a company, my first one, which is pretty exciting.

Jay Baer

Congrats.

Pete Mockaitis

Ooh, I feel like a deal-maker, a titan of industry.

Jay Baer

Doing some of that M&A, baby.

Pete Mockaitis

And so, I was like, “Oh, man, I’ve never done this before. I should probably have a lawyer and accountant who really know what they’re doing. That’s probably important,” So, I thought, “All right. So, it’s very important for me to select an excellent accountant and lawyer.” And what did I do? I totally went with the first person who got back to me, and said, “Yeah, I can do that.”

Jay Baer

Yeah, and it’s because we interpret speed as caring. We interpret responsiveness as respect. It doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s just how we internalize it. So, if you hear back from a potential attorney in four hours, you feel one way about that individual or that organization. If you hear back from them in two days, you feel a different way entirely, and that matters. It has nothing to do with their competency as attorneys.

But you’re like, “Well, this is going to be a better relationship because they got back to me right away, therefore, they must want my business. They want to work with Pete. They want to be part of this project.” Now, does that mean it’s actually going to be better? No, but we can’t help it. It’s psychology. It’s our need to belong. And when you get back to somebody faster, what you’re actually saying is, “We belong together.”

Pete Mockaitis

That’s good. Well, so now let’s zoom into the interior of an organization. Folks like to have their emails and their Slack messages responded to quickly. And you know, hey, we had Cal Newport and other folks on the show, talking about deep work and the importance of focus, and so in many ways the advice, current, more so often in many of these interviews is, “Hey, you know, don’t non-stop be responding to your emails and Slacks, but rather really take some time to have that focus, deep work, high-value, strategic initiatives. Do that, good professional, as a differentiator for your value.” And so, yeah. But at the same time, people love quickness, Jay. How do we navigate this tension?

Jay Baer

Yeah, I don’t believe in deep work during the day. I feel like what you’re doing is telling everybody else that your time is more important than theirs, and I feel like, eventually, that’s going to be a detriment to you and your career. I do deep work outside office hours. I do deep work at night and I do deep work on weekends. Does that hurt my work-life balance? Damn right, but I answer everything instantaneously and have for 30 years, and it has certainly served me well.

And I’ll do deep work later, and I will be as responsive as possible from 8:00 to 5:00, and that’s just the way I’ve always done it. And I think, largely, the research on human behavior bears that out as a very successful system, but I do understand how it can be a problem for people who are like, “Look, I’m not going to do two hours’ time on task from 5:00 to 7:00 o’clock at night.” I get it. I understand. That’s a choice you’re making.

Pete Mockaitis

Understood. So, at the same time, though, there are occasions where, hey, you’re doing a podcast interview here and now. I mean, you’re not emailing or Slacking in this moment but I’m imagining…

Jay Baer

You think that I’m not, but I’ve actually checked email twice since we started talking.

Pete Mockaitis

Is that really true? I had no idea.

Jay Baer

That’s 100% true.

Pete Mockaitis

You’re very slick. You’re very slick. Although, you didn’t respond though, right?

Jay Baer

I turned off my microphone and I typed an email a minute ago when you looked away.

Pete Mockaitis

I can’t tell if you’re joking or you’re not.

Jay Baer

I’m not joking. Why would I lie about it?

Pete Mockaitis

That’s impressive.

Jay Baer

I’m not joking.

Pete Mockaitis

That is impressive. Okay. Well, no, it’s fun to get multiple perspectives and varieties of counterpoints here. Because, yes, you have achieved towering success in your fields, which are pretty darn competitive, if I may add, you know, speaking and marketing and book writing, and you’re crushing it.

Jay Baer

Well, I mean, look at it this way. If somebody sends me an email, and says, “Hey, I’d like to maybe think about having you come do a keynote speech for our organization,” to me, the best way to do that is to build a life and a team and a system where we can respond to that within two minutes because I don’t want them to ever send anybody else a second email.

You never want them to say, “Well, we didn’t hear back, therefore…” and you don’t know how long their fuse is. When do they say, “I haven’t heard back from Jay”? Is it an hour? Is it four hours? Is it a day? Is it two days? I don’t know. I do know a little bit because I’ve done the research on it. But our SLA in our organization is we respond to everybody within 59 minutes, unless there’s like some weird extenuating circumstances, like that’s the deal, right? And, usually, it’s more like two minutes.

And, obviously, we’ve got to sort of build our work style around that, and I am better than most at being able to record a podcast and type an email with one hand, but you train yourself to be able to do that over time.

Pete Mockaitis

And it sounds like you also have teams and systems and processes enabling that.

Jay Baer

Yeah, of course.

Pete Mockaitis

It’s not all Jay email all the time.

Jay Baer

No, and I’d have to tell you, all of this is going to get so much easier because, in the near future, i.e. today, you’re going to be able to just say to Microsoft Copilot, Google Genesis, Meta, whatever AI suite you’re going to use, you just say, “Hey, send a three-paragraph email to Pete asking about what time the podcast taping is going to be and what he prefers in terms of promotional graphics.” That’s it. The email will be created and sent.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. So, quickness, it sounds like the takeaway is do it. Any other nuances to that?

Jay Baer

Hey, I’m not saying it’s good. I just want to point this out. I don’t love it either, man. I don’t love having to write proposals from 7:00 o’clock to 9:00 o’clock at night or whatever the circumstances are. I don’t love it. I’m not saying this is a net positive, either for me or for society. I am saying it will make you a better professional, and it will help your career, and it is the trend that we’re all going on.

I don’t think anybody, Cal Newport, nobody else is going to say, “Hey, you know, I’ve been looking at the trends and it sounds like we’re going to start doing things more slowly.” Like, I don’t think that’s going to happen. So, you either lean into the skid or you end up in the ditch.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. So, quickness, takeaway, do it. Let’s talk about being clear.

Jay Baer

Yeah. Well, look, people hate to wait. We just talked about that. The thing they hate the second most is to be under-informed. This is also something that has been changed over the last few years because, until then, we were under-informed all the time and we were okay with it. We didn’t have any choice. So, the other night, my wife and I were watching TV, and Cher comes on, and so I say to my wife, “Hey, how old is Cher?” She’s like, “I don’t know.” So, we’re like, “Siri, how old is Cher?” Cher is 78 years old, as it turns out, which is kind of impressive. A-plus plastic surgeon for Cher, for sure. A-plus, like incredible.

But then I thought, “Okay, what would it have taken, pre-internet, to figure out how old Cher was?” And I was like, “Okay, you’d have to get in a car, drive to a library, meet with a reference librarian who would maybe have a book on actors and their birthdays or something, and then you’d look it up, and then you’re like, ‘Oh, Cher was born in whatever.’” And so, it would take, I don’t know, a couple hours to decide how old Cher was. And, of course, nobody would do that, no employed person would do that.

So, we used to say, Pete, you might remember this, back in the day, we used to say, “I don’t know,” and people were totally okay with that. That was literally an acceptable answer to almost any query. You could just say, “I don’t know,” and that was fine. We just went about our business. But now you can’t say that because you can know, you can figure it out. So, we’re now in this era where when people are under-informed, where there’s an information asymmetry, where you know more than they do, it creates a ton of anxiety.

So, one of the best things you can do is to literally over-inform your colleagues about what’s going on, what’s going to happen next. Like, be the person who always knows exactly what the next step is, and is always telling other people what’s going on. Because this sort of black box, like, “We gave a thing to Pete. And I guess he’s working on it, but we haven’t heard a status report.” Like, all of that creates a lot of anxiety and really hurts you as a professional.

Pete Mockaitis

It really does, and I’ve been on the receiving end and probably delivering end – sorry, everybody – of that. And so, can you maybe give us an example of what is a disappointment, yet all-too-common demonstration of clear, like, “Not clear enough but you see it all the time,” versus what is exemplary clarity that we’d love to receive?

Jay Baer

I’ll give you an example of exemplary clarity because it really surprised me, and it sort of turned a negative into a positive for me. So, as you may know, my side job is I’m the number two tequila influencer in the world, and I was combining jobs, and I was drinking tequila while shopping online recently, and I don’t recommend that for this reason.

I bought a pair of leather sneakers, and they were super cool, very happy with them. And then I immediately got the confirmation email that said, “Okay, we’re going to make your sneakers. Expect them in eight weeks.” That was a surprise because I thought that the sneakers were ready to be shipped that day. I didn’t know it was a “make a sneaker” thing. I thought it was like, “We have these and we’ll send them to you.” And I was like, “Oh.”

So, then I thought about canceling the order, but I was like, “No, I really do like these shoes. Like, I can wait a couple months. I’ll survive.” But then, every single Wednesday, Pete, for eight weeks in a row, I got an email from my account manager at the sneaker company, saying, “Hey, this week, your shoes are going to the tannery. And this is Manuel. He’s our tannery guy, and he’s been doing this for 20 years. And here’s a video of Manuel doing his job. And then, next week, it’s going to go to the stitching people, and that’s going to be Sheila. Here’s Sheila’s workspace. Here’s what she’s all about.”

So, literally, it was like a week-by-week documentary film of how these sneakers were going to be made. So, the entire time, there was never any question as to, “What are they doing for two months?” Like, I knew exactly what was happening every week, and I could kind of follow along. It was an amazing, amazing experience. And I think we can take that same idea into our own workspace. And every time we’re working on a project, every time we’re collaborating with colleagues, just make sure that, wherever possible, you are over-communicating.

And I’ve done a lot of research on this, Pete. Here’s the way I like to frame it up. If it feels to you like you’re over-communicating, you’re probably communicating just the right amount. Because the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether they’re email, Slack, voicemails, puppet shows, Haiku, it doesn’t matter, whatever you’re creating for your colleagues, they’re not reading all of it. And if they are, they’re not letting it all sink in. Like, they’re skimming it like the rest of us do. So sometimes the best way to separate yourself apart is to just be the one that communicates more.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s really cool. And it sounds like the nature of communications is specifically in the domain of the status of stuff and what’s going on right now. Because sometimes people can feel a little bit of an information overload in terms of, like, you’re doing a report, or, “Hey, our recommended course of action is this. And it’s because if you look at the database, dah, dah, dah.” It’s like people often don’t want all that.

Jay Baer

Exactly.

Pete Mockaitis

But they do want to hear, “Hey, what is going on? What’s the deal with this thing?” And that reminds me of a story. One time, I made a boo-boo and I had a client…

Jay Baer

Hopefully, it wasn’t the buying the company part.

Pete Mockaitis

No, no, that’s been working out great. And I made a boo-boo and so I had a client who was rather upset. I put him in a pickle. And so, I told him, “Okay, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to reach out to everybody, and I’m going to have a helper also record the status of what’s unfolding with each of those people in this live Google Sheet, so you can see at any moment where do things sit with all of these people, and then I’ll be reachable via…” I was on a camping trip. “I’ll be reachable via satellite phone for dah, dah, dah.”

And they said, “Okay.” And then it was all said and done, they said, “You know, actually, everyone was really pleased with how you handled that.” I was like, “Oh, cool.” So, I was effectively able to get myself out of a tight spot because I was doing that. It’s like, “You could not have more information than this. The status of all of these people and the minute it changes at your fingertips, anytime you like.”

And I also love it when I’m coordinating a big project. I got a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous, to say, “Oh, okay, this is exactly where that is,” so that I could see, “Oh, shoot, we’re getting hung up here. I better get some more help there, pronto.”

Jay Baer

Absolutely. I’ll give you another little life tip for this notion of clarity. This really helps. I’ve been doing this about two and a half years now in my personal life, and not only has it made me a better business professional, but it’s improved relationships with my wife, and my kids, and my friends, and my mailman. Like, I really want everybody to do this because I’m telling you it’s going to work. It’s called reply without answers. So, here’s how it works.

Today, if somebody has a question for you, a work colleague, you don’t know the answer, what do you do? You go look it up. You ask Julie in accounting, you check with the boss, you check with the customer, you Google it, you look in the intranet, like whatever, you do the stuff. And then once you have manifested the answer, you tell the person what they need to know. Yep. Stop doing that. Don’t do that anymore. Because the entire time that you are figuring it out, that person is slowly freaking out.

Pete Mockaitis

All right.

Jay Baer

So, if I send you an email today, so this actually applies to both clarity and speed, if I send you an email today and I don’t hear back for like, I don’t know, two days from Pete, I’m like, “Oh, wow, I didn’t hear back from Pete. Did that go to spam? Did I attach something that would have sent it to spam?”

Pete Mockaitis

“Did I offend him? Is he mad at me?”

Jay Baer

“Did I offend him?” Yeah, “Is he mad at me? Should I now send a call, or a text, or a ping, or does that make me seem sad and desperate?” We play all these mental games, and our own anxiety goes up and up and up. So, what you want to do instead is, if somebody needs something from you, you’re like, “Good question. Such a good question. I have to go figure it out. I’m going to do that, and then I’ll let you know.”

So, the first response is instantaneous, and all you’re saying is, “I got it,” and then you give them what they need. Two huge things occur. First, their perception of how fast you are goes up dramatically, but, second, their anxiety goes way down. Because we studied this exclusively in the research I did for the most recent book, time to response is more important than time to resolution.

This is why, Pete, if you call the phone company, the cable company, whatever, they will say two things. First, they say, “Calls will be answered in the order that they were received,” which always makes me laugh because I think, “What was the second option?” “Calls will be answered by height.” Like, “What did they discard as the backup option?” I’d be like, “Why do you have to tell us that?” I love that.

And then the second thing is, okay, “Estimated hold time like 11 minutes.” So estimated hold time 11 minutes is the automated version of respond without answers. As soon as you say “I got it,” it takes it off of their mental to-do list and puts it on your mental to-do list, and that changes their relationship dramatically, and creates so much clarity around what’s going to happen next.

And here’s the secret tip, Pete. It actually buys you more time to respond. Because once they’re like, “Oh, Pete’s working on it,” then they’re not losing their mind. They know you’re on it. So, does this mean you’ve got to reply to everybody twice? It does. But the first one, you’re just like, “I got it,” right? And then you go figure it out, and then you respond. Do this. Implement it in your life. I’m telling you it’s going to change your relationships.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Now, let’s hear about being kind.

Jay Baer

Look, I wouldn’t have even talked about this a few years ago, this idea of empathy and kindness, because there is no point to it. So, I’m a seventh-generation entrepreneur. My son’s an eighth-generation entrepreneur. My family’s been self-employed since like the 1850s, and the number of conversations I had with my dad or my grandfather about treating people with kindness, respect, dignity, and empathy, literally, never in my whole life beat, not once ever, because it was just the default setting.

Like, that’s just, you know, like it wasn’t that long ago. It’s hard to remember now because we’re in an era of empathy deficit, but it wasn’t that long ago that we treated everybody with respect and dignity and kindness and humanity all the time. It was the golden rule era, like it wasn’t that long ago. But somewhere along the way we kind of lost our way, and now you know everybody’s always kind of angry and at loggerheads, and the sort of level of discourse has dropped dramatically, and it kind of makes me sad, actually, as a person.

But I’m telling you, as a professional, if you can be the hyper-polite, hyper-courteous, hyper-understanding, hyper-kind one, man, it stands out now like it didn’t used to because it is such the exception in the workforce. Be that person. And I want to make sure we define what empathy means here, Pete. It doesn’t mean that you do whatever. It doesn’t mean that the other person’s right and you’re wrong.

Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. What it means is that you’re the person inside your organization who can walk a mile in somebody else’s shoes and behave accordingly. You understand how this colleague is feeling and you change your own behavior accordingly. In an era that’s going to be defined by robots, the most empathetic professional is going to have a massive advantage over everybody else in the organization.

Pete Mockaitis

Jay, I’d love it if you could give us again a demonstration, illustration of what is typical insufficient empathy and the counter example of “And this is what would really be optimal”?

Jay Baer

Well, I think sometimes, when people believe they’re being empathetic, they’re actually being obsequious. They’re being fawning, or just, everybody’s been in that situation where somebody is so supportive that it feels saccharine and artificial, and that’s not what I mean. An empathetic leader is somebody who treats everybody on their team differently, not the same.

And there’s this business wisdom that says, “Treat everybody the same. Be a very consistent manager.” That’s terrible advice because everybody on your team has different needs, different circumstances, different scenarios. They’re motivated by different things. If you’ve got 10 people working for you, you should have 10 different management styles, and you should be adopting your management style to what that person needs at that time. That’s what empathy means.

People think that being an empathetic leader means having good work-life balance and taking people to the happy hour, whatever. No, no, no, no, no. It’s about looking at every situation and every circumstance and using your own innate humanity to make the best possible decisions for that person at that time.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. So those are the principles we’re working with. And so, I’d love it if there’s an example that comes to mind for you in terms of, “Wow, that was super empathetic and I loved it,” versus, “But, usually, I get something much lamer.”

Jay Baer

Well, my favorite example, and it has, fortunately, not happened to me personally, but I think people, some folks will know the tale, is Chewy.com. Do you know this story, the Chewy.com pet supply company?

Pete Mockaitis

The pet food website.

Jay Baer

Yeah. So very successful business, growing like crazy, and, look, it’s a good company. They’ve got good products at a good price, but they don’t have a different mousetrap. They’re selling pet supplies. But they are rooted in empathy. Rooted in empathy. It’s like a core value of the organization. So much so that if you, unfortunately, lose a pet, the pet passes away, in some cases, you might send a live chat or an email to Chewy, and say, “Hey, I’ve got an unopened bag of dog food. I’ve got this rawhide bone I never got a chance to give the dog. Can I return it to you?” And they always respond and say, “No, no. Please just donate it to a local pet shelter.”

But then they will find a picture of your pet in social media, they have a staff of 1,011 freelance oil painters working for the company. They will paint an oil painting of your deceased pet. They will FedEx it to you for delivery the next morning with a handwritten condolences note, and you open this box, “Where did this come from? Chewy.” And it’s from the day before, an oil painting of the pet you just lost with a handwritten note, “So sorry for your loss. Thank you for your business. Chewy.”

And there’s a video on TikTok or Instagram, etc., there’s just video after video after video of people bawling their eyes out because the simple kindness and the empathy and humanity that that brings with it. And the question I always have is, “In a situation like that, if you choose to get another pet someday, what are the chances you spend even a penny with any other provider of pet supplies ever in your life?”

Like, minus 50%, I think, is the actual answer. So, it is such a smart business decision and it’s proven to be true in their results. You can use empathy as a unique competitive advantage, both at the company level and certainly at the individual level.

Pete Mockaitis

That is powerful. And it’s intriguing because, okay, pet owners love their pets, and when pets die, it’s very sad. And that’s sort of like emotionally just true and simple and clear. I’m thinking about, and of other businesses that feel far less personal, like podcast production. It’s “How might that be utilized?”

Jay Baer

And some of this is even just something simple. Like, you don’t need to get an oil painting of the podcast host, although, hey, you know, we will take one. A lot of times, what triggers empathy, or lack thereof, is just the language that we use. In many cases, I talk about this a lot in the Hug Your Haters book, especially when somebody needs something from you, or, even more especially, if somehow you have been deficient, you’ve been slow, you’ve been inaccurate, something has gone less than ideal.

What happens in many cases, and it’s not nefarious, it’s just a natural human reaction, we will try to information ourselves out of the jam. So, we’ll start to say, “Well, here’s exactly what happened,” and you start to prosecute the case, and a lot of times we fall back on very specific details and jargon, and it becomes a very stiff, formal response. And I’ve certainly done that, and people have done it to me, especially in a colleague setting where you’re, like, you feel attacked, and so the way you prevent that attack is to put up a shield.

And that shield is very stiff, formal language that uses a lot of sorts of terse and mellifluous phrasing, and so you’re trying to information yourself out of it. The better way to go is to just lean into the empathy first, and just say, “I’m sorry that sucks.” Like, “We’ll make it better.” And so, it really is, sometimes in a colleague setting, it comes down, Pete, to just the words and the language you use when things are going less than ideal.

And the more empathetic professionals, actually, there’s almost a reverse correlation, so the stickier the situation, the more casual and personal their language. Whereas, what most people do is the stickier the situation, the more stilted and formal their language.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s good. That’s really good. In terms of the psychology emotions at work, it’s like you feel attacked and so you’re naturally like, “Well, let me explain why. In fact, I’m not bad. There’s a reason that this thing occurred that you don’t like.” And so, to really just be able to take a breath and shift out of yourself for that moment to do this.

Jay Baer

Yeah, I used to do this exercise in workshops, like the 13 words you should never use in that situation. And it’s things like division, department, per, “Per my last email.” If you’re dropping the “per,” then you know you’re falling into that sort of formal defensive language trap. Like, “heretofore,” that’s a good one. Like, all of these kinds of words that you never use unless you’re in, like, sort of this passive-aggressive kind of conflict thing.

And you see it all the time in tools like Slack. It does tend to drive very short, choppy interactions, which sometimes don’t have as much nuance as might be ideal in that kind of situation.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s powerful. Well, before we hear about some of your favorite things, can you give us any other quick do’s and don’ts for having folks rave about us word-of-mouth style?

Jay Baer

The biggest opportunity for word of mouth is to understand that competency doesn’t create conversations. Being good, even very good, at whatever doesn’t cause people to tell others about it because that’s what the expectation. They expect you to be good or very good. So, we talk about different and we ignore same.

So, if you want people to talk about you and tell your story, either in the workplace or outside the workplace, you need to do something different, and you need to do it different consistently. This is why, and this is a poor example, but it’s one that people will be able to recognize, this is why some professionals are like, “Look, Jillian always has the purple hair.” Now you may or may not like the purple hair on Jillian, but as a word-of-mouth device, it’s actually a sound strategy.

It doesn’t have to be your appearance, it doesn’t have to be your clothes, but even in your own set of colleagues. If there’s somebody who always wears whatever it is. I, not in this particular venue, but when I’m on stage, I always have a very bright plaid suit. It is my thing. Like, everybody knows it’s my thing. I’ve got 20 plaid suits. Meeting planners can pick out which color suit I wear on stage, I’ve got a whole, like, mobile app that they can do it with. Like, it’s my thing.

Pete Mockaitis

That’s distinction.

Jay Baer

Right. So, you just have to figure out what is your thing that you are going to do every day always that’s going to be just the device, the hook that people use to remember you, and it can be almost anything. And this starts to kind of meld over into the category of personal branding. So, what I always tell people is, “Look, your job is not interesting. It doesn’t matter.

Unless you’re like an astronaut or something, what you do for a living, nobody’s going to remember that. It’s your passions and your hobbies that people remember,” which is one of the reasons why in my bio, in my onstage introduction it says “Jay dah, dah, dah seven bestselling books, and also the world’s number two tequila influencer,” because everybody in the audience remembers that more so than, ‘Yeah, the guy wrote a book. Every speaker wrote a book.” But they remember tequila influencer.

And so, it’s understanding that everybody has something unique and memorable about them. It’s just giving yourself permission to put that out in front.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay, thank you. Now, could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Jay Baer

“Remember, some days you’re the pigeon, and some days you are the statue.”

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

Jay Baer

I think that in the most recent book, “The Time to Win,” one of the things that really surprised me was that the most patient generation of all, like willing to give each other and businesses more grace in terms of response time, Gen Z, the youngest consumers.

And I think it’s because they don’t have as many leases on their time, might not have kids of their own, job might not be as pressure-filled, etc. They’re just like,  “Yeah, it’s okay. You can get back to me.” Conversely, the least patient generation, Boomers. Is this because Boomers have less time left on the planet? Maybe. That seems a little maudlin, but the numbers add up. They’re like, “Hey, I’m retired. I have nothing else to do other than wonder how come this email is taking so long,” and they start freaking out about it. So, I thought that’s kind of funny.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And a favorite book?

Jay Baer

My favorite author, and there’s many, many books, is Bill Bryson, the travelogue writer. Probably my favorite one is his treatise on kind of small-town America. It’s called In a Sunburned Country. I love that one.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Jay Baer

Right now, I’m really enjoying a tool called ManyChat, which I use in my tequila business to gather email addresses from fans on Instagram, sort of de-anonymize that audience. We do monthly contests with tequila brands, where you can win a custom Yeti cooler or some such.

And we use this tool, ManyChat, so that people just comment “cooler,” etc., on an Instagram post, and then it automatically harvests their email address, which we then use as a contest entry. It’s just a really slick piece of technology that bolts on top of Instagram and solves a pretty sticky kind of data problem for me. It’s great.

Pete Mockaitis

Awesome. And a favorite habit?

Jay Baer

This probably won’t be a surprise based on our previous conversation, I try to be at inbox zero every day.

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 and retweet it often?

Jay Baer

I’ll go back to my second book Youtility. The thesis is this: helping beats selling. And that if you really focus on being as helpful and useful as possible, you don’t have to sell because people will sell you. And that’s certainly true at the company level, but especially for purposes of this show, Pete, I think that’s great advice for everybody.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Jay Baer

JayBaer.com. J-A-Y-B-A-E-R.com is the main website. You can find me for all things tequila at TequilaJayBaer.com. And the books and the podcasts and newsletter and all that’s pretty easy to find.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Jay Baer

When you’re interacting with a colleague or a customer or anybody in the workplace, I think it’s helpful to take a second in every exchange, and just ask yourself, “What do they really need?” Because often we just take the initial interaction, the initial question as that’s the depth, but there’s usually a lot more going on beneath the surface.

And if we just take a moment, just take a moment to say, “What are they really saying here? What do they really need? Not what they’ve asked for, but what do they really need?” If you can give yourself permission to just take that extra beat and think about that, and then respond and interact accordingly, it will serve you well.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Jay, this has been so much fun. I wish you many more delightful exchanges where folks are saying your name, and everywhere.

Jay Baer

We should do this with tequila next time.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, it sounds fun.