Tag

Relationships Archives - Page 2 of 52 - How to be Awesome at Your Job

985: Boosting Confidence and Slashing Anxiety through Great Boundaries with Abby Medcalf

By | Podcasts | One Comment

Abby Medcalf discusses how to set firm boundaries and keep negativity from ruining your day.

You’ll Learn

  1. What most people get wrong about boundaries 
  2. How to stop others from hijacking your mood
  3. A trick for dealing with people who are nasty to you

About Abby

Abby Medcalf is a Relationship Maven, psychologist, author, podcast host and Tedx speaker who has helped thousands of people think differently so they can create connection, ease and joy in their relationships (especially the one with yourself)! With her unique background in both business and counseling, she brings a fresh, effective perspective to life’s struggles using humor, research and her direct, no-nonsense style.

With over 35 years of experience, Abby is a recognized authority and sought-after speaker at organizations such as Google, Apple, AT&T, Kaiser, PG&E, American Airlines and Chevron. She’s been a featured expert on CBS and ABC news, and has been a contributor to the New York Times, Women’s Health, Psychology Today, Well+Good and Bustle.

She’s the author of the #1 Amazon best-selling book, “Be Happily Married, Even if Your Partner Won’t Do a Thing,” as well as the newly released Boundaries Made Easy, and the host of the top-rated “Relationships Made Easy” Podcast now in over 170 countries.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

  • Jenni KayneUse the code AWESOME15 to get 15% off your order!

Abby Medcalf Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Abby, welcome.

Abby Medcalf
Hey, thanks for having me. I’m excited to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to hear some insights on boundaries. Could you kick us off with a particularly surprising, shocking, stunning discovery you’ve made about boundaries that really dazzles people? No pressure, Abby.

Abby Medcalf
No pressure at all. I would say this, that most people think they’re setting boundaries and they’re not. I think we throw that word around a lot. So, I’ll hear things like, “Well, I told the person I didn’t like what they were doing and they needed to stop.” That’s not a boundary. Or, “I told them that I feel really uncomfortable when you talk to me that way. I said that to this person and they kept saying whatever they were saying.” It’s not a boundary to tell someone how you feel. It’s not a boundary to tell someone that you don’t like what they’re doing. That’s not a boundary. So that’s what you’re doing wrong probably first.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, right from the get-go. So, you’re expressing something like, “Hey, I don’t like that. I would like for it to be different.” So then, what is a boundary and how does that sound?

Abby Medcalf
So, the boundary would be “Hey, I don’t like how you’re talking to me. You’re going to need to stop, or I’m going…” and then you have to have what I call teeth or a response if the boundary is not kept. So, not a consequence, you’re not punishing anyone. You are just letting them know what will happen, and there has to be something that happens, and you have to do it, “Or I will leave the meeting,” “Or I will hang up,” “Or I will block you.”

I hope it’s not block. I don’t like people taking very drastic measures, but you want to do something. You have to be clear that, “This is what I’m going to do, period.” So, like, I’ll have someone who says, “Well, I’ve told people not to email me, you know, that my day ends at 7:00. I’ve been very clear, and they keep doing it.” And it’s like, “Well, don’t answer the email then.”

Like, it’s not anyone else’s job to hold your boundary. It is your job. And most people get angry that other people aren’t holding their boundary, but they themselves aren’t holding their boundary. So, really, how are you angry at other people when you’re not even doing it? So, it needs to be on you. You’re not a victim. I get a lot of victim-talk, which is not my favorite, and I talk a lot about that on my own podcast and in my last book.

You’re not a victim in life. You really need to stand up. You need to say what you’re going to do, and then you need to do it. I also say, never repeat a boundary. Once you’ve set your boundary, you just have to do whatever it is at that point.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, we’re in the thick of it right away. I love it. Thank you.

Abby Medcalf

I’m jumping right in.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, could you tell us then, I guess I’m curious, boundaries, they sound handy. So, you gave us a bit of a definition, is that your official textbook line?

Abby Medcalf

You know, yeah, there’s a few lines. Really to understand boundaries, you have to understand that nobody is responsible for how you feel, what you say, or what you do, and that you are not responsible for what anyone else says or does or thinks. And once you get that, because I think the thing I get asked the most is, “Well, how do I talk to my boss and they don’t get upset?” or, “How do I talk to a co-worker so that they don’t get mad at me?” and you can’t.

There is no answer to that. There is no perfect way. You could say the most perfect thing in the most perfect way. We’ve all done it, right? You’ve done it. I’ve done it. We’ve trained ourselves and gone in with all the good tools, and then the person still gets upset. It’s because it’s about them, not you. And so, you have to get rid of that. All you can do is focus on having integrity in the way you speak, speaking.

I call it speaking from love, not fear, like from the compassion part of your brain, and that’s what boundaries really are. I always say boundaries are love, walls are fear. Boundaries are meant to keep people in, they’re meant to keep our relationships moving. Walls are meant to keep people out. And that’s the big difference.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Thank you. Well, so we’re going to dig into a lot of the how-to and the nuances and the verbiage of how this is done. But maybe, could you paint a picture for us, perhaps an inspiring story or some data that would give us a clue as to just how important, useful, transformative, delightful can boundaries be?

Abby Medcalf

I’ve been doing these 40 years, and I work in organizations, and I work with executives, and I work with regular people just in their life. So, whether this is at work or home or anywhere, if you feel at all resentful in your life or helpless or hopeless, you don’t have boundaries where you should, and you’re not holding them.

So, if you want to have peace of mind, boundaries are the answer to feel more peaceful in your life, to have more connection, to have more love in your life, to have more efficacy, to feel more productive. You know how much more productive you are when you have boundaries? It’s unbelievable. 

When you hold the boundaries, what happens is your self-esteem is absolutely raised because you are having greater self-efficacy. You are doing what you say. And in my experience, as I work with people putting out boundaries and holding them, is that they get promotions, they leave jobs and get better ones, they save their relationships in different ways in their personal lives. I mean, your life will become exponentially better once you learn to have them and to hold them. It’s truly the answer to a lot of what you’ve been looking for.

Pete Mockaitis

Exponentially better, the answer. I like it.

Abby Medcalf

Exponentially.

Pete Mockaitis

Can you give us a particular story?

Abby Medcalf

A very simple one is when you say, you decide what your communication strategy will be at work. I think that’s the place that people get the most out of whack. We know from the research that people are working about 50 minutes longer. We know that the days are stretched.

And we know this from emails and when people are answering things and all kinds of different data. But basically, you’re having a longer day, and that’s a problem.

There’s a lot. of wonderful things about remote work and how we’re doing things now that I love, like, people can see a coach or a therapist in the middle of the day, things that you normally couldn’t have done before. There’s a lot of positive things, but the negative things are that folks don’t know when to say, “That’s enough,”

So, one of the simplest things you can do is announce how people can contact you. If you call me on my phone and you got my voicemail, it says, “Don’t leave a message.” It says, “I don’t listen here. If you want to get me more directly, you have to email me and it gets in my email.” So, right there, that’s a boundary. That’s a very simple one, “I’m not going to answer.” That’s the response you’re going to get.

But if you just did something very simple, I answer my emails twice a day. I have set times. People know that. I make sure that’s out in the world when I’m doing a project with a group or whoever, I’m like, “Here’s when I look at emails, these two times a day. And if you need something more immediate, depending on who I’m working with,” it might be Slack or Teams or something else, right?

But when you start to just be clear about, “Oh, I don’t work after 6:00,” or “I don’t work after 5:00,” when you just start to be really clear, that is your first step in the boundary world. But what I have found is that when I’m thinking, like, he was a middle management that I had who was feeling very, which I think is really common, feeling really pulled. His supervisor wanted more, his subordinates wanted more, everybody wanted more of his time. And I think anyone listening knows what that feels like, that your time, everybody’s looking for it.

And he started to really do the things I was asking him to do, and the number one thing I have is a lot of scheduling. Scheduling is my favorite boundary. You know Jim Rohn, I’m sure, like the wonderful Jim Rohn. He always said, “Run the day or the day runs you,” right? Success is scheduled. And so, even that, like when you think about, “Oh, I put boundaries on my time and I’m very clear because I do not answer,” that’s the response if you go outside of that. “But I schedule in when I’m doing things.”

And so, I really got him to schedule more. I got him to, we really talked more. He was always working on something, and he had 50 projects all kind of going, and I was like, “Stop working on things and finish things. So, give yourself an hour to do whatever this thing is that you have to do, or a half hour. Set a timer, do it, and then whatever’s done is done, and then move it along to the next thing.” When you even give yourself those personal boundaries, like, “That’s it. I’m going to end at this time with whatever this is,” you’re more productive.

Anyway, we worked together for about six months, and just from scheduling and creating boundaries around his time like that, he started being a house of fire. He started being so productive. He was also just happier. He felt more in control of his day. I think that sort of took over too, but he got a very coveted position he’d been looking for about two years, after about six months of us working together where I was helping him speak more directly to a supervisor, having boundaries there, asking for what he needed.

People are afraid, “If I set a boundary I’ll get fired,” that’s what I hear the most. And I have to tell you that has not been my experience. I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I’ve been very focused on boundaries for about 15 of those 40. I have yet to have someone fired for a boundary.

Pete Mockaitis

Not once out of hundreds, thousands.

Abby Medcalf

Not once.

Pete Mockaitis

Zero.

Abby Medcalf

Literally, thousands of people I’ve worked with. I have had people, I will say this, like, have a relationship with the boss get more contentious, or a supervisor or a coworker get more contentious because of the boundaries, that’ll happen for sure. Usually, that resolves itself, but I’ve had a few instances where it doesn’t.

But what’s happened is my client has gotten to understand like, “Oh, I don’t want to be at this job. Like, I don’t want to be somewhere where I can’t have a boundary. Like, this isn’t how I want to work anymore. And because I’m not productive in these environments, I don’t feel happy. I’m not satisfied.”

And you know this better than anybody with all the work, you know, with everybody you interview. If we’re not satisfied at work, it’s so much of our lives, what are we doing? So, I’ve had people realize from setting boundaries that they had to leave their job. They had to start really seriously courting another position or getting out of the system they were in completely, which I also see as success, because at the end of the day, you’re still happier and more content.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, so let’s really dig into this statement here, “I am not responsible for whatever someone else does or thinks or says.” And it feels like, I mean, you’re the boundary expert, but, to me, this feels like the holy grail of boundaries. Because if I could really believe that, and have that deep in my bones, and to be true such that I feel a sense of peace amidst whatever reacting rage or whatever someone else is putting out there, then it feels like I’ve won the whole game. That’s my perception. Does that feel accurate, Abby?

Abby Medcalf

It’s 100% accurate. And I would say, for every human, this is the hardest thing.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. So, well, it sounds like we’re on the same page, but we’re going to really drill into this a lot. So, first, let’s see, not to play philosopher here, but let’s push the boundaries of this definition a smidge. So, let’s just say I say something to you. This is just a role play. Let’s say, “Abby, you are botching this interview and it’s terrible.”

So, let’s just say I say something kind of rude. That’s not how I really feel. So, I say that, and then you, so, let’s say you react sharply, and maybe yell at me, and then I feel bad, and I think, “Oh, boy, Abby is really upset, and I guess I probably shouldn’t have said that to her.”

So, I guess in a way here, I guess I am somewhat responsible for my own. I’m reflecting on my own actions, and saying, “Hmm, those comments I said were probably not…I probably didn’t deliver those in the ideal manner.” So, I may feel some remorse or guilt or regret associated with my behavior, although your reaction is kind of what got me there.

Abby Medcalf

It’s not justified. No, no, no, no. no.

Pete Mockaitis

What’s not justified?

Abby Medcalf

It’s not justified that I have an angry upset reaction to you criticizing me, let’s say, or what I consider criticism. This idea we all have that, “Other people make me upset, or drive me crazy, or up,” that is your choice all the time. I can sit in traffic with my husband, and because I’m from New York City, and he’s from upstate New York, we have very different ideas of what the traffic is. He gets upset, I don’t, and it’s not because of the traffic. We’re sitting in the same car in the same traffic. It is because of my beliefs about the traffic. Do you know what I’m saying?

That’s what’s getting you upset. So, that’s the same thing. It doesn’t matter what you say to me. You feel the way you think, and you are in charge of your thoughts and you have to be in charge of your thoughts, and we know this is the basis of all therapy, is cognitive behavioral therapy, is that we change how you think to change how you feel.

So, a great reframe we know, we talk about cognitive reframing, my favorite and my favorite quote probably ever that I say a lot to myself and others is, “Life is happening for me not to me.” And so, if I thought that, and you said that, I might think to myself, “Oh, I really should ask more questions before I get interviewed,” or, “Oh, what is he…?” or maybe, “Oh, my God, what if Pete’s having a bad day? I wonder if he’s okay.” There are a hundred things I could think or choose to do besides get mad at you and react. Always.

Pete Mockaitis

Yes, and likewise.

Abby Medcalf

Yes, and likewise the way you talk to me, right?

Pete Mockaitis

Right.

Abby Medcalf

But that’s the point. That’s the point.

Pete Mockaitis

And so, I guess it’s true that in this demonstration example, I had some beliefs, and I guess we’d have to do some feels, dive deep to see what they are.

Abby Medcalf

Well, I could do a little psychological work with you there, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis

In terms of, like, “Oh, if people are upset with me, it means I’ve done something wrong.” Maybe that’s a belief. It doesn’t quite sound right.

Abby Medcalf

It’s most people do. Like, that’s what you think.

Pete Mockaitis

But I’ve got a belief in the ballpark of that belief, I think, in terms of, it’s like, “If someone is upset with me, there is a chance that I have done something wrong.” And in some ways, this learning comes from, I guess, life experience in terms of, you know, often as children, we genuinely misbehave, break the rules, are naughty, according to some definition or standard or rubric, and then receive discipline from teachers or coaches or parents or whomever. And so then, we have some learnings that suggest, in fact, “If I’m being scolded or someone’s upset with me, I may have done wrong.” So, if that’s a big one inside us, how do we unpack it?

Abby Medcalf

Again, but there’s a lot of times when people are upset with us and we’ve done nothing wrong.

Pete Mockaitis

Yes, indeed.

Abby Medcalf

Because that’s the day they’re having. And I would say that’s always the case, and what the hell does wrong even mean? If I spill milk because I’m a kid, is that wrong? No, I’m learning how to pour milk. If I fall down when I’m learning to walk, is that wrong? No, I’m learning. So even that idea that we can decide what’s right or wrong, I have issue with.

So, as we’re older, really what people are afraid of is “Other people not liking me, other people rejecting or abandoning me.” This is DNA, getting thrown out of the clan stuff for millions of years ago. And this conflict avoidance, I find, has become, and I think it’s way worse since the pandemic. It’s always been an issue, but it’s a huge issue, this people-pleasing, wanting others to like us, and thinking that being nice means not having boundaries, and that it’s mean to have boundaries. And that’s the big lie that, you know, wrong, faulty belief, faulty logic that people are working from, and we have to shift that.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And so, how does one? So, I guess, here I’m thinking about back to our scenario. I guess for me, since I am all about sort of learning growth and all that stuff and helping people and compassion, I think my “ideal response” would be not so much an emotional one of guilt, shame, sadness, but rather a curious introspective, I was like, “Boy, Abby, really got upset there. Hmm.”

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, “What’s that about?”

Pete Mockaitis

“Might I have communicated that differently or better?” So, I’m not blaming myself, but I’m taking that input as a prompt for reflection without the shame, blame, guilt, yuckiness. And I might conclude, “Okay, next time I’m going to deliver the feedback a little bit differently, and I think that’ll serve both of us better.” And that just feels like a healthy process that feels way less yucky, but we get to the same place.

Abby Medcalf

And that’s why I say boundaries are love and walls are fear. We block people, we cut them off when we’re afraid, but boundaries really are, again, meant to keep people in. We’re trying to create a relationship with them. But I would even say that self-reflection, like, “Oh, I could have said that better,” you know, even that, I would step back even further, and sort of go, “Wow, Abby’s having quite the reaction to that. I seem to have hit a nerve.”

Yes, I could look at myself, for sure, like, be self-reflective, but I could also have compassion for Abby, like, “Wow, I wonder what’s going on there?” because again, I have a choice how I react to that information. So, “Wow, this is really a trigger for her.” If you told me I was, you know, I’m 5’9″, so I’m relatively tall for, I guess, a female. And if someone said, “You’re so short. What’s wrong? You’re so short. You should grow.” If someone said something like that to me, of course, I’d be like, “They’re crazy.” Like, I wouldn’t react to it. I wouldn’t be upset.

But if someone is saying something to me that I think is true, that’s when you get upset. If someone comments on something else, says, you know, I’m old. Maybe if they said, “Oh, she looks really old,” I might be like, “Oh, God, that hurt,” because it feels like something I’m aware of. And that’s the thing to remember, it’s always about us. If someone yelled something to me in Swahili, I don’t know what it means, so I’m not getting upset because I don’t know what they’re saying. Like, it’s really not about the words coming at us. It is about what we understand of them, what we believe about them, what we don’t believe, and that gauges our reaction to it.

If I think I’m going to lose our relationship, if I think it’s going to damage my reputation, I don’t know, like, there’s a lot of things at stake, that make that up. But you know, and you know, I don’t know, you’ve been doing this a while. Like, I get nasty comments under my YouTube videos sometimes or to my podcast or something. And I’m really, thank God, the overwhelming is positive. Really, I have that first initial, like, “Oh, God, I can’t believe someone’s complaining when I’m giving free information. They’ve got to be kidding me. Aargh!”

I’ll do that for a second and then it’s like, “Oh, this poor person. Like, who are they that they’re so mad that there was a commercial in the free, amazing content they were getting? Or that I talked in the beginning, and I introduced Pete, or whatever, you know, too long to them, ‘I had to wait two minutes till you started to get into the…’” you know.

It’s like, “Wow, this poor person, what are they doing?” And I really do feel that. I think, “Oh,” and I try to send a prayer. I never respond, and I just try to send a prayer to them. But, like, that’s a choice that I’m making all the time of how I’m viewing it. So, people do say really nasty things to me sometimes, and maybe to you sometimes, but it’s a choice. about how we respond. It’s always a choice, 100% of the time.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, that’s really intriguing in terms of, like, we could hear all kinds of things and some of them won’t trigger us or fluster us in the least, like, “Pete, I think your shirt is dumb.” It’s like, “Okay, whatever. I don’t know.”

Abby Medcalf

Sure. Exactly. Right?

Pete Mockaitis

And yet, there could be another context in which it’s like, “You know, Pete, I am shocked that you didn’t take the time to dress appropriately for this event. It seems like you don’t care and you’re not taking this seriously. This is very unprofessional.” And then I’d be more prone to take that personally because I’m like, “Oh, well, I do care about this, and I do care about that person, and I do care about this event. But it just didn’t occur to me that it was business casual. No one told me that.”

Abby Medcalf

But can I actually even, like, to me, that wouldn’t be wrong? Can I even give you, like, to me, the boundary, when someone’s talking to me that way is, I try to be curious and understand, I’m like, “Oh, what is it about when people aren’t dressed the way you think that has you thinking they don’t care? Because, wow, I deeply care, and I have a different idea about how I dress, conveying how I care. I feel like the care is in my words and in my showing up and in my time, for me. What is it for you? Tell me more. Like, what other ways do you not feel heard or seen? Or what other ways do you feel like people don’t care?”

I would want to really want to have a conversation about that, and that’s a boundary I have that I want to lean in to conversations. So, if you have somebody at work who’s really upset with you, let’s say, or is acting nasty to you for some reason, you know how that can be, like for no apparent reason, and, really, it’s incredible, and I’ve had people practice this. I’m telling you it works, is to stop and say something.

Go like, “Are we okay?” But not angrily, with the compassion and the curiosity. “Are we okay? You seem real mad at me.” And I do it in meeting, I do it all the time, and I actually can think. I’m working with a group of vice presidents right now, and the one guy does not like me. He just doesn’t like me. You know, not everybody likes you. He doesn’t like that I’m there. He thinks they’re paying me way too much money. He thinks it’s a waste of time, and he subtly tries to undermine sometimes.

And so, in the meeting, I’ll just, and again, not in a… I’m just like, “You know, I’m not sure what to do. It feels like there’s a lot of anger coming towards me. I’m not sure how to make this work with how angry you are.” And he started to say, the first time I did it, he was like, “I’m not angry. I’m just trying to make a point.” And he, you know, as people do sometimes. And I said, “Okay. Well, how do you feel like we’re connected right now? Do you really like what I’m saying? On a scale of one to six…” one to six is my favorite, by the way, for feedback, because people, there’s no middle, so they have to give you one side or the other.

I said, “On a scale of one to six, six, I’m doing an amazing job, you’re so happy to be here, you love what’s going on, and, one, you think I suck and this meeting sucks, where would you put it?” And he hemmed and hawed for a while, and I pushed and pushed, and finally he said, “Well, I guess a two.” And I said, “Oh, all right. So maybe I’m picking up on that two energy. Maybe you’re not mad. Maybe I’m probably,” I’m saying an emotion, “What are you feeling? Like, what is happening? How can we move forward?” And you start being curious and asking questions and naming what’s going on.

And I’m telling you, when you have those kinds of boundaries, I have a boundary that people, I don’t allow people, I don’t allow the thing to go unsaid. I’m going to say the thing. If someone’s mad or angry or passive-aggressive, I’m going to address it, that’s a boundary I have. I will not sit in the lie. To me, it’s sitting in a lie. But I also am a kind, compassionate person. So, I’m not going to be like, “What the F is wrong with you?”

Pete Mockaitis

“What’s your problem, dude?”

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, “What’s your problem, Bob?”

Pete Mockaitis

“Stop being a jerk.”

Abby Medcalf

Exactly. And I always say, “Would you rather be correct or effective because you can’t be both?” So, if you want to be correct all day and call him a jerk, God bless and good luck with that. But I want to be effective. So, I’m going to ask questions, I’m going to ask collaborative questions, “Could you tell me more about…?” is probably my favorite question whenever we’re dealing with just communication and boundaries, and trying to get to what is,“Could you tell me more about that? Like, what does that mean to you? Could you tell me more?”

And when people start to give you those answers, we start to connect. When we show an interest in where people are, instead of trying to drag them where we are, I go to where they are. I try to understand, go in trying to learn something, not prove something, that old adage, you know. So here I am in that meeting trying to learn something, I’m not trying to prove to Bob that he should like me and how we are. I’m trying to try to learn something, like, “How does Bob tick? And what exact…?”

Sometimes, Bob doesn’t like that I’m female. I can’t do much about that, right? You know, like he doesn’t like maybe, you know, I’ve had that. They don’t like a woman telling them what to do. I’m Jewish and I’m very out about that. Some people hate Jews, you know, it happens. And so, there’s not much there, but I can still try to figure out a way that there might be a way to connect, and sometimes there’s not, but that’s what I’m going to do.

Because no matter what he’s doing, I’m not going to change my boundaries, that I’m a kind, compassionate person who’s curious and asks questions. And that’s the big mistake people make. If someone’s mean to them, they slam the door and they change their boundary. And if someone’s nice to them, then they collapse the boundary. You don’t want to do that. You don’t want to change your boundaries depending on what other people are doing.

Pete Mockaitis

I got you. And, Abby, I’m curious, I think some listeners right now is like, “Wow, Abby’s like a super, super woman, super woman, wonder woman. I want to be like her.” Tell me, have you always been like this or did you have any transformational aha moments that shifted you into this spot?

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, many. I think I’ve had many transformational aha moments. Some of it is just getting older, and I will say that. I don’t know, my 30-year-old self, who’s trying to prove herself in businesses and with these executives and all that, I didn’t feel the confidence I feel now, obviously, you know, at 60, that I did at 30. That’s different. But there is a space. I mean, I think in some ways I’m lucky. You know, I’m a recovering drug addict, which I talk about a lot. I’m a recovering heroin addict.

And one of the things you learn as you’re getting clean is that you’ve got to start being honest. You have to start saying the thing. And what I found over time, through my own therapy and coaching, I’ve done all the things, I’ve walked on hot coals with Anthony Robbins back in 1980.

Pete Mockaitis

I did that, too.

Abby Medcalf

1986, yeah. You know I’ve done EST with Warren Erhard and, you know, Life Spring, yeah. I’ve done them all. And I was on a path to try to figure out how to be more authentic, and how to speak the truth. And what I found is that I just really want to connect with people.

When you’re in counseling school, they teach you that every interaction should be therapeutic. Every interaction is a chance to be a therapeutic interaction, and that’s how I like, even if I’m at the checkout line at the grocery store, that’s how I like to think about it. Like, this could be, you know, I say hi, I make eye contact. I say, “How’s your day going?” I connect.

Because every time, it’s an opportunity to be authentically connected to people, and the more you practice it, the better you get. And the more you realize that you can tell people the truth from a loving heart, again, not trying, you got to follow the rules. Do you want to be correct or effective? You’re trying to learn something, not prove something, right? You have to go in curious. If you don’t go in curious, people pick up.

One of my favorite bits of research is from Timothy Wilson. It’s in one of my favorite books called Strangers to Ourselves, but he’s a very famous sociologist. Malcolm Gladwell loves him, so now he’s been getting some good press through him. But one of the best pieces of research I ever read was his, and it’s that our conscious brains process information at a rate of 40 bits per second, while our subconscious brains, or what we psychologists call your unconscious, our unconscious brains process information at a rate of 11 million bits per second. So, people don’t hear what you say, they hear what you mean.

So, if I’m in that meeting, and I know that Bob hates me, and I’m not saying anything, and I’m just getting frustrated and irritated, even if all my language is, “Well, Bob, please, I’d really love to hear what you have to say,” and I’m doing that, Bob knows I’m full of crap. Just like every single person listening knows that someone has said something to them at work, and they were saying all the right things, and in your head you’re like, “This person is full of it. I don’t believe a thing they’re saying.”

And you can’t say why, you just know. It’s the 11 million bits. So, that is always at work, and I know it’s always at work, so I am working hard to align that 40 and that 11. Do you know what I’m saying? That’s what I’m doing.

Pete Mockaitis

And so then, you’re just saying it’s like, “Hey, Bob, you seem really angry about this. What’s going on?” And then they’re…

Abby Medcalf

“What’s going on? Like, what is it? Are you okay? Are you afraid of change? Like, let’s talk about it. Are you worried about losing your job? Like, what’s the fear? Let’s get there so we can talk about that for real.” And I will tell you, people start to say, “Oh, well, people like you have come in before, and next thing I know, Jane gets fired.” And it’s like, “Oh.” They’ll tell you.

When you start asking, people will tell you, not directly, but they’ll tell you. And then we can talk about that, it’s like, “Oh, do you feel some firing is going to happen? Is that what you’re thinking I’m here for maybe?” And people will get real. They’ll say, “Well, what else are you doing?” “Like, do you want to ask me some questions about what I’m doing? Maybe I haven’t been clear up front. Or maybe I was clear, but your fears overrode the clarity, so let’s do it again. What do you need to hear from me to feel better? What could I say?”

One of my favorite questions to ask is, “If there’s one thing I could say to you right now that would help you have faith in this process, what would it be?” And I’m like, “If I was going to give you a million dollars, Bob, I know you, you’re like, ‘I don’t know’” I’m like, “No, if I was going to give you a million bucks, come on, what would it be? Could anyone else here tell me? If you were to have more faith in this process, what would it be?” That’s a conversation you want to have. That’s team building. That’s coming together. That’s connection.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, so, Abby, what I love is that, like, fundamentally, this takes a grounding of courage, belief, self-confidence, because, I mean, you probably hear about some hardcore stuff, like, “That you won’t take a penny of fees from us until you get all, deliver all the promised results?” I don’t know, like, you’ll probably hear some hardcore stuff, and you’re ready for it.

Abby Medcalf

I do. I am.

Pete Mockaitis

So, tell me, when it comes to beliefs, let’s say we’ve zeroed in on some beliefs associated with, “I need to please people. If people don’t like me, there’s something wrong with me. I’m going to be rejected.” So, let’s say we’ve zeroed in on a belief. We know it’s there. Now what?

Abby Medcalf

Now what? Well, now you do some therapy. No, I’m just kidding. So, now, your job is to practice it. So, you have self-awareness. I speak a lot on my podcast and on my website, I have a lot of free stuff about this, about being more mindful. And when I started doing mindfulness, we called it attention training it’s learning to train your attention. When you’re mindful and in a moment, you can notice what you’re doing and what’s happening.

So that’s the first thing is you have to get more mindful and be in your moment. You have to practice that more. So, you can do something simple like setting a reminder on your phone for three times a day, and when it goes off, anytime you want, 9:00 a.m., 2:00 in the afternoon, and 8:00 at night. I don’t care. And when it goes off, all you do is just check in and notice how you were feeling. And good and fine are not feelings. Okay is not a feeling.

It’s, like, to truly identify, people kind of suck at how they feel. So, to really think like, “Oh, yeah, I’m in the meeting, I’m a little anxious. I kind of want to say something but I’m afraid people will laugh or…” whatever. You’ll start to notice what your thoughts and feelings are. This is step one. And, by the way, mindfulness is different than self-awareness.

Self-awareness is judgmental. Like, I’m very controlling, I’m very self-aware of that, and so I judge that, right? I don’t want to be as controlling. Mindfulness is noticing what you’re thinking or doing in a moment without judgment, with no judgment. That’s the difference. And so, I’m self-aware that I’m controlling, but sometimes I’m not mindful that I’m doing it. it. Does that make sense? I just want to be clear.

Like, I hear a lot of people say, “Oh, I’m very self-aware.” It’s like, “Nah, you’re mixing them up.” And by the way, Tasha Eurich has done a lot of research on self-awareness, something like 85% of people say they’re self-aware, but her number from her research is 10 to 15% are actually self-aware. So just for the record, people think they are and they’re not.

But beyond that, I would say start with mindfulness so that you can notice that, “I’m going into a meeting with Bob, and I know he doesn’t like me, and knowing that I’m going to react to that.” Do you know what I’m saying? Like, I’m noticing I’m feeling anxious about going in the meeting because then I could use some tools to calm my nervous system around that, “It’s okay. Bob is not scary. Bob might not like what I say. I’m okay. Life is happening for me, not to me. Whatever’s happening, as long as I’m coming from a true heart, then it’s going to be okay. Everything is figure-out-able. Everything works out.”

Whatever your mantra is, I don’t care what it is, but have something there that helps to calm you, whatever that is. For me, it’s doing some deep breaths, getting my vagus nerve activated. I have to do that before I go to meetings with these guys. I’m usually in a room with a bunch of men, and there’s a lot of agitation, and I’m often called in because someone’s not doing the right thing so they’re feeling very defensive. So, it’s often a hot room to walk into.

And I’m not immune from people being upset so I have to take a moment, and be like, “I’m here for their greater good. I’m here for the company’s greater good. I’m here for my greater good to connect, to learn, to be better at what I do, to inspire, to motivate. Like, I’m here and I’m going to be fully present. That’s what I’m going to bring.”

Like that, when you go in with your, I call it your calibration with your energy intact, that’s the point of bringing other people towards you, instead of you calibrating to them. I hear that a lot. I’ll hear like, “Well, I was in a good mood, and then I got to work and my boss was miserable, so then I was miserable. He was making me miserable.”

I’m like, “Oh, no, no, no, no. First of all, why do we always assume the bad mood wins? Like, where’s that from? Why does the bad mood win? Why doesn’t your good, huge, amazing, inspired mood win? Because it can, but you have to decide about that. You have to go in with that intact.”

So, when I’m walking in that meeting, I’m intact, and sometimes I just say something right away. I’ll just lead the meeting maybe, and I encourage everyone who has to sit in a meeting to take a minute right before, and just ask everybody, like, “Can we all say what our intention is for this meeting?

And so sometimes that person who talks too much maybe can say, “Hey, well, my intention is to listen more. My supervisor’s been telling me I should listen more. So, all right, my intention is to listen more. My intention is that everyone feels heard and leaves this room feeling like they got seen or something.” Whatever it is, I don’t care.

But when you do that, it brings the energy into the room and it’s very present-focused as opposed to outside the room. Does that make sense? And just doing that will help you do this thing where you can talk to people honestly because you’re starting honest. You’re starting with everybody leaning in.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Well, Abby, we’re having a lot of fun, covering a lot of stuff. Tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about your favorite things?

Abby Medcalf

I would say don’t waffle on your boundaries ever. Make sure that you say the same thing over and over. Like, if you say no to somebody, don’t justify, don’t explain. I’m sure people have heard no is a complete sentence. So, when you start to justify or explain, you get into trouble because people will start to have something to push back against, and you just say no.

And make that, if they ask again, say the exact same thing again, “Yeah, I can’t come to the meeting on Friday.” “Well, why not? What’s more important? What are you doing?” “Like I said, I can’t come on Friday.” “Well, what are you doing?” “Like I said, I can’t come on Friday.” Do you see that? Same, over and over and over, like a mantra. Don’t get into it, “I’m just letting you know I can’t come on Friday.” Don’t get mad. Don’t get upset. Don’t take it personally but use that as a thing over and over. So, that’s, I think, what I really want people to hear.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, now, could you share with us a favorite book?

Abby Medcalf

Oh, well, I named my son Max after Maxwell Maltz, so Psycho-Cybernetics is the book that definitely changed my life.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Abby Medcalf

It’s the scheduling. I don’t have to-do lists, and I put everything in a schedule. Everything. Phone calls, everything I’m doing goes in a schedule, and that has changed my life and the lives of all the people I work with. And, by the way, this is especially good for people with ADHD. I do work with a large company here with their employees who have ADHD, and scheduling and not having to-do lists and not having stickies is the way to go.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Abby Medcalf

“Don’t sac in your relationships.” Don’t S-A-C. Don’t offer suggestions, give advice, or criticize. Instead, be curious and ask questions. So, try to get through a whole conversation without making a statement, and just asking questions to really deepen a conversation. It’s a game-changer.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Abby Medcalf

Just to my website AbbyMedcalf.com. Everything is there, and social, and all my things. Everything is there. And I’m sure you’ll link to it in the show notes, so that’s the place.

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

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, I really want you to have a morning practice where you put yourself, before you look at your phone, before you do anything else, before you touch a piece of electronics, that you have some, even if it’s two minutes, some practice where you start with yourself, where you come first, not what everybody else wants, but what you need. So, anything that fills that space.

15 minutes is my goal with all my clients, but I will take two minutes to start, where you just stop, you take a breath, you set intention, you start with that, and then maybe you move into meditations, or visualizations, or journaling, or whatever else, or prayer, I don’t care, but start with something that puts you first and keeps that momentum in a positive place right from the get-go.

Pete Mockaitis

All right, Abby, thank you. This is lovely. Thank you.

Abby Medcalf

Thanks for having me. It was great being here.

982: How to Build Trust, Repair Relationships, and Make Collaborations Great with Dr. Deb Mashek

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Deb Mashek reveals the critical factors that make workplace collaborations less painful and more productive.

You’ll Learn

  1. The key ingredients of great collaboration
  2. Why hiring good collaborators isn’t enough
  3. The key questions to kickstart great collaborations

About Deb

Dr. Deb Mashek, PhD is an experienced business advisor, professor, higher education administrator, and national nonprofit executive. She is the author of the book Collabor(h)ate: How to build incredible collaborative relationships at work (even if you’d rather work alone).

Named one of the Top 35 Women in Higher Education by Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, she has been featured in media outlets including MIT Sloan Management Review, The New York Times, The Atlantic, Inc., Forbes, Fortune, The Hechinger Report, Inside Higher Ed, Reason, Business Week, University Business Insider, and The Hill. She writes regularly for Reworked and Psychology Today.

Deb is the founder of Myco Consulting LLC, where she helps networked organizations (e.g., consortia, collaboratives, associations, federations, etc.) avoid the predictable pitfalls of complex, multi-stakeholder initiatives so that they can drive impact and achieve big visions. A member of the Association for Collaborative Leadership, Deb has been an invited speaker on collaboration and viewpoint diversity at leading organizations including the United Nations, Siemens, and the American Psychological Association.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

  • Jenni KayneUse the code AWESOME15 to get 15% off your order!

Deb Mashek Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Deb, welcome.

Deb Mashek
It’s a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m so excited to talk about collaboration and/or collabor(h)ation with an H, silent or not silent, but we’ll get into that. But I’d love it if you could kick us off by telling us a super fascinating, intriguing discovery you’ve made about us humans and how we collaborate well and not so well.

Deb Mashek
I think the most interesting finding in my research over the years and then writing the book Collabor(h)ate, is that we’re not taught how to collaborate well. So, it’s critical to our jobs, workplace employers, they demand it, this is what they’re hiring for, they’re expecting us to be great at it, but we’re not actually educated in how to do it.

So, it’s kind of like all these other social relationships we have, whether it’s how to be a good friend, or how to be a good parent, or how to be a good spouse, most of us don’t receive direct education and training on how to do that. The same thing is true for collaboration, and I find that gap absolutely fascinating, that it’s an essential skill. It’s required by workplaces, and yet we’re not learning it in college, we’re not learning it in business school, and we’re not learning it on the job.

Pete Mockaitis
So, we’re not being explicitly directly educated in the art and science of collaboration. So then tell us, maybe in the US professional workforce, roughly speaking, what’s the state of collaboration? Are we generally doing okay, terribly, fabulously? What grade would you give us and why?

Deb Mashek
So, we know from the US Bureau of Labor that people in the United States spend more hours in the workplace working than they do on all other waking tasks combined, so we’re doing a lot of work. And in my research, when I asked people, “Okay, so tell me about your thoughts and feelings about collaboration.” Whether I’m giving workshops or running, facilitating teams, or actually conducting research with people, I say, “What are the three words or phrases that best describes your true feelings about collaboration?”

And people say these really deliciously positive things, like it’s exciting, it’s essential, it’s about possibilities. And alongside that, they list these really negative things like it’s grueling, it’s painful, it’s miserable, it’s horrendous. So, I find that really interesting. And when I was writing the book one of the things I did is send out surveys to a bunch of people who were in the workforce who were collaborating, and I said, “Have you ever been part of a collaboration that was absolutely horrendous?”

And something like seven out of ten or eight out of ten, I forget the exact number, said, “Yeah, yeah, I absolutely have.” And I also said, “How about, have you been a part of a collaboration that was thrilling and positive and amazing?” and a whole bunch of people, I think that one, that was also really high, like seven or eight out of ten, said that as well. So, most of us know the highs and the lows of collaboration.

We know that it sometimes feels amazing, it goes great, I’d call it “collabor-great,” and other times it hurts. We want to get out of it. And those are the relationships, those are the experiences that we come to collabor(h)ate.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m intrigued. So, we’re talking about this on the dimension of the experience of doing it, so certainly we would like to have more positive, fun, enjoyable collaboration experiences. That would be delightful. At the same time, I’m thinking about how sometimes an uncomfortable collaboration is just what the doctor ordered in terms of having a little bit of friction, a little bit of disagreement, a little bit of different perspectives and tension bring us into a place of growth and achieving more than what we could have if we were nicely aligned. So how do you think a little bit about that distinction between the feeling of collaboration and the “true” effectiveness of that collaboration?

Deb Mashek
I think the distinction I would challenge us to make here is that collaborating, should I agree, absolutely involve conflict and tension, viewpoints coming together, figuring out how to optimize across perspectives. That’s different than feeling like your ideas are never being listened to, that the other person is going to take you down no matter what they do, that your outcomes are so tied to another person’s that you don’t trust them or like them, such that, whether you like it or not, they’re taking you over the bridge.

That’s really different because you can have conflict and viewpoint diversity and challenge within a container of mutual respect, of trust, of realizing we actually do have a shared goal in common that we’re jamming toward. And so, pulling those constructs apart, I think, is useful there. I’m curious if you agree.

Pete Mockaitis
I absolutely do. And, in fact, you have a matrix. Tell us about it.

Deb Mashek
I’ve developed a lot of models of collaboration, and there are also just a lot of others out there in the world. And the one that I highlight in the book is called the Mashek Matrix, because why not have a little alliteration? And the idea is this, that if you think about what makes for a high-quality collaboration, there are really two independent dimensions.

The first one is relationship quality. And relationship quality is just your subjective sense. It really is, in your heart, “How good or bad is this relationship with a particular other person?” And, fascinatingly, so my background is as a social psychologist who studies close relationships, and in the close relationships literature, this idea of relationship quality is the most studied construct in the entire literature, which is fascinating.

And we know that – I’m stepping outside of work relationships for a second – we know that in romantic marital relationships, people who have higher relationship quality heal faster and have lower mortality compared to those who have lower relationship quality. So, there’s this whole stress response and the protective nature of positive relationships. When we think about then in the workplace, where we’re spending, again, a whole lot of our waking hours, why would relationship quality not also matter there?

So, this is, anyway, one dimension and it involves things like trust, feeling a sense of interdependence, and, at some point, we can go through all these different ways that you can actually improve relationship quality in the workplace for collaborations. But the point at this stage is just to know that relationship quality is one of these two dimensions.

Now, make another dimension, I go left to right, X-axis on the other dimension of interdependence. Interdependence is the extent to which your outcomes are tied to the behaviors of another person. So, they start to control what resources you have access to, perhaps, or they start to influence it, they start to influence what sort of rewards you’re getting for your work, what sort of accolades, attention, raises, it can be all sorts of things. So, you’ve got these two dimensions, and you can imagine now these two dimensions making four quadrants.

When relationship quality is really, really high and interdependence is high, it feels amazing. This is the quadrant I label “collabor-great.” This is where I know if I toss the ball, you’re going to catch it. We both know our roles and responsibilities. We do it. We trust each other. We have really high accountability. I give you honest feedback on how things are going, and I know that when you’re giving me feedback, I’m not taking it as critique or I’m not taking it as attacking critique, but as challenge that’s going to make me better. So, this is a beautiful quadrant to be in.

In contrast, when you have really, really low relationship quality and interdependence is really high, that’s the quadrant I label collabor(h)ate. This is where we’re miserable because we don’t like the other person, we don’t trust them, and we don’t think they’re doing good work. We don’t think they understand what our needs and interests are. They’re not taking our needs and interests, our abilities in mind. They might be stealing turf. They might be taking credit or placing blame. There are all sorts of really bad behaviors that can bubble up in that quadrant.

Deb Mashek
So then when you have this low relationship quality and low interdependence, for example, what would be the case when someone first joins a team? So, they first joined the organization, they don’t know anybody, they’re not really on any projects yet, so you have low-low. This is, I needed a very neutral word to label this quadrant, and I just labeled it emerging.

There’s potential here but it could either shoot over to that collabor(h)ate space if we start putting people onto super interdependent teams and projects before we’ve given them a chance to build relationships with other people, or it can move in the direction of what I called high potential. So, these are where you already have high relationship quality but you haven’t yet turned the dial to increase the interdependency in those projects and those relationships.

So, any questions about those quadrants before I talk about maybe how to move through them, depending on where your relationship is?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, as I think about the word interdependent, I mean, sometimes that feels structurally just in the nature of what’s up. Like, “I’m more interdependent with my wife than I am with the person at the DMV.” And then we have some level of interaction, collaboration, but much more in my home than over there at the DMV. So, but you suggest that increasing our interdependence is a thing we might want to do. What might that look like in practice as a means by which we increase interdependence?

Deb Mashek
Yeah, so I want to touch on your DMV example first because you do have some sort of a relationship with that person, at least for, I’m going to say, five minutes, but more likely two hours that you’re sitting there. And one of the ideas that you’re starting to touch on there is to, “What extent is a relationship exchange-oriented versus communal-oriented?”

So, when you’re in a more exchange-based relationship, it’s very tit-for-tat. So, I give the bus driver my $3 and they drive me across town, or I pay my gym membership and I get to go use those cool ropey things. Just kidding, I don’t use the ropey things because I can’t figure out how to do it, but theoretically I could. So, those are more exchange-oriented relationships.

Communal relationships, we’re not tracking inputs and outputs. It’s not, “Your turn to take the meeting minutes and my turn to take the meeting minutes.” It’s not about, “I sent around the agenda last time, you have to do it this time.” It’s really about looking for ways to improve other people’s experiences at work, to make little contributions, not because you have to or because it’s your turn, but because you know that, in the long haul, things are going to balance out, that other people are going to be contributing to you in equal measure as you’re contributing to them, and you don’t need to be monitoring this. So, this is a more communal orientation.

And it turns out that that setting up that, you know, more communality is one of the ways we can increase relationship quality. So, I wanted to mention that because the DMV example is so fantastic. Now to the point of, is it good to increase interdependence? The answer is not always.

So, if you’re already in that collabor(h)ate quadrant of the model, or if you’re in that emerging quadrant of the model where you have low relationship quality and low interdependence, you don’t want to jump right in and rev up interdependence by having you engage in more diverse activities together, or making the outcomes more contingent on the other person’s performance, or what would be another one, making you spend even more time together. All those interdependence moves can actually set the situation up for negative collaboration experiences.

So, when do you want to increase interdependence? You want to increase interdependence when relationship quality is already high. So, I know you said most of your listeners are not necessarily in leadership positions yet. Is that right? So, this is really interesting because if you think about when you came on to your job, what did onboarding focus on first? Was it about focusing on, “Here is the org chart,” “Here is, you know, you need to do a deep dive on the projects,” “You need to figure out how to use our project tracking system, our CRM”?

Or did it focus on, “You know what, your job this first week is to go have coffees with everybody else on your team. It’s to figure out what makes other people tick. It’s to give yourself a chance to be known by other people”? Those are all moves that increase relationship quality, and that I advise the leaders I work with to give that space and, say, you’re onboarding for people to know and be known as individuals before they’re just known as an avatar of some role and responsibility. So that’s just some initial thoughts on when you want to increase interdependence.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, those are cool thoughts on interdependence. Thank you. And I want to talk a little bit about approaches to boost relationship quality. But first, I’d love to get your take on just how much is really possible when boosting relationship quality? I think many of us might think, “Ah, that person’s just a jerk, and I guess that’s what I’m stuck with.” Could you inspire us with a tale of a team that really saw some tremendous strides in boosting their relationship quality?

Deb Mashek
One of my favorite examples of someone who, this comes from the story of a leader, who saw a challenge and this is how they navigated it. So, it was a large international manufacturing firm, and they had two people, so they were cross departments who needed to work together often, but, really, it was an oil-and-water situation. They were not getting along well, and every time they were in the room, the snide comments would start, eye rolls would happen, and there was just friction.

What the leader decided to do was ask one of them, “Would you be willing to move over to this other division for a while?” Then the two people who were oil and water, they were invited to come and do various relationship-building activities, and we can talk about what some of those looked like. So, what you’re hearing here is that they worked on relationship quality separate from interdependence. So, they totally severed, there was no more interdependence. They were in totally different places.

They got to know each other, they got to understand things like, “What do you care about? What variables are you optimizing for in your work?” So, some of us might be optimizing for quality, others might be for on time. Some might be optimizing for, “It’s really important that we engage everybody.” And others might be optimizing for, “You know, it’s important that we get the best decision possible as quickly as possible.”

And what they realized is that the two individuals hadn’t taken the chance at all to understand where the other one was coming from, what their work even looked like, what their roles even were. So, other than, “Here’s your title. Here’s what I think you do.” But they sat down and had conversations like, “Okay, walk me through what your day looks like. What are the pressures? What are you really juggling with? What happens if you don’t do your job? What’s at stake there for you, for your team, for these products that we’re trying to manufacture?”

In other words, it was a whole lot of empathy-building, closeness-building, getting to know, and coming to understand. So, love that story because then what happens is the leader, after it was something like six months, it was like, “Oh, we’re going to do another reshuffle,” brought them back together, and now their relationship quality is actually high, and they’re able to engage in that interdependency with a lot of vibrancy, with a lot of energy, cool ideas coming up. So, I love that story. Can I share another example with you?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh yes, please.

Deb Mashek
So, this one was, she’s actually a friend of mine, Susan, who started a job at an advertising agency, and so she was new and she is a total fangirl of collaboration, so she’s all gung-ho, “You know we’re better together,” and it’s all about “Let’s bring together our strengths, and we can make amazing things happen.” So, she loves collaboration, she’s really good at it, she’s conscientious, all these good things.

So, she joins this team, and within, I don’t know, it was like maybe the first month, it’s time for her to work on the first big project for one of their big clients, and the whole team gets together, they set up their timeline, they say, “Here are our milestones. We’re going to do this. And I’m going to do that. And here’s who needs to do what by when.” So, it was all beautifully laid out. Everybody agreed to this timeline, including her supervisor, John. Everybody was involved in designing it. Everybody signed off on it. Awesome.

So, the first big deadline comes, I think it was maybe a month later, and, Susan, she knocks it out of the park. She has her deliverable in place by Monday, just as planned, and she hands it over and is expecting feedback from John by Thursday. Crickets. She doesn’t hear anything from him. Friday. Nothing. Monday. Nothing. And, eventually, like sometime in the next week, John finally gives feedback, but, of course, now the turnaround time for the big client moment is now just a few days away.

So, Susan has to decide, “Gosh, what do I do here?” because she was supposed to be having weekend plans, and she had to decide, “Do I say I can’t do it because you got your feedback to me late? Do I say I’m going to have to half-ass this and just do sub-quality work, but that’s going to let the team down? It’s not going to show me in my best light, it’s not going to be great for the client? Or do I forego my weekend plans and work my butt off over the weekend to make up for this gap that John has created by not doing what he said he was going to do?”

And she’s the new person, she wants to show what she’s got. So, she changed her weekend plan. She worked really hard. The deliverable went out. The client loved it. Great. Next time there’s a new client, John does the same thing, and of course at this point, Susan’s getting pissed. She’s like, “Why am I giving my all if supervisor guy can’t hold up his end of the bargain and get the kind of input he needs to give in order for us to deliver this big project?”

Now we’re talking about the third big client. This is like a year into the job. Same sort of, or she goes into it as she’s working on the project, she’s not actually giving it her all. She’s cutting corners, and, she’s basically sitting there with her arms folded, looking petulantly like, “Yeah, I’m not going to even invest in this. It’s not worth it because I know John’s going to flake off anyway.”

And so, this example of we’ve got someone who is really, really skilled at collaboration, she’s a rare bird, she’s really, really skilled at this, and feeling antagonistic and checking out. And if I am an employer, I’m also starting to wonder at this point, “Wow, is this person a flight risk? What else needs to happen in order to use this incredible skillset and leverage it for our team, for our clients?”

So, I love that example, too, because it shows that it’s not enough to hire good collaborators. That’s like the first thing you should do, but you also need collaborative cultures, you need collaborative processes, and there are ways of getting all of those wrong.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Deb, I have to know what happened. So, we have three incidents of the same behavior being troublesome and her response or reaction is that, “You know what, forget this. I’m kind of tuned out. I’m not as into it.” So, then what happened?

Deb Mashek
She did the right thing of trying to have the conversations about, “Here are my expectations, or here were the expectations we set together. Here are the behaviors that I observed. Help me understand how you make sense of this discrepancy. What are you going to do differently next time to address this?” And, eventually, I mean, she lasted, I think, two years in that position, and then she was like, “Never mind, I’m going to go to another team.” So, in fact, she was a flight risk.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, Deb, my curiosity is just insatiable. So, I think that’s a fun turn of a phrase, “Help me understand how you make sense of this discrepancy.” If I’m on the receiving end of that message, I’d be like, “Yeah, I’m sorry. I just kind of got overwhelmed with all my other stuff, and I put you in a tight spot and that wasn’t cool and I’m really sorry about that. I’m going to try to make sure I got some space on my calendar so that we’re in a better situation next time. And, by the way, if there’s a day you could take off to try to have some fun on the weekday, to make up for some of the weekend plans shattered, please, take that.” So, anyway, that’s how I would imagine receiving that message.

Deb Mashek
That sounds lovely. That sounds really lovely, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
How did John receive it?

Deb Mashek
I don’t even remember. Honestly, that degree of repetitive, I’ll just call it flakiness because I think that’s what it is, tends to be driven by things like, and I don’t remember how he, in particular, received it, but it tends to be driven by just people are juggling way too many things, or a time pressure issue. It can also be a function of when we decide who needs to give feedback when.

Sometimes it ends up looking like everybody’s trying to be involved in everything, and so he might be overwhelmed in part because too many projects need minutiae sort of feedback as opposed to organizing projects in the first place so that, depending on where they are in development and review, to actually get out the door, you need different levels of feedback.

It could be that he just hasn’t taken his commitment seriously or that he hasn’t thought about the impact of his behaviors on the experiences and ability of his teammates to really shine, to do their thing. I’m a parent, I’m a pet owner, I’ve been a teacher, and what we know, this is like one of the biggest truisms of psychology, is that what gets rewarded gets repeated. And so, I would also wonder about what in John’s learning history has rewarded that sort of behavior? And has there been an absence of negative consequences that, as a result, it’s keeping that behavior in place? Because the same is true of kids, of pets, of students, what gets rewarded gets repeated.

Pete Mockaitis
And it’s just sort of our own personalities in terms of, “How profoundly uncomfortable do you find that conversation as a learning experience?” Where it’s like, “Ah! She’s kind of upset. What are you going to do?” You know, like it rolls off the back versus, for me, it would trouble me maybe more than is ideal for mental health and wellbeing, but it would trouble me pretty substantially. And so, do we call that agreeableness, or neuroticism, conscientiousness, maybe a combo of them all? But, yeah, it hit me.

Deb Mashek
It really gets to that point of, “Can we depersonalize feedback and imagine it’s not an attack on the core self? It’s a critique of a behavior.” And I struggle with that too, and I’m always trying to remind myself, “Don’t take it personally. Don’t make assumptions about what this person is saying,” and see if I can separate those, but it’s not always easy. Some days it’s better than others depending on what else is swirling about, and where my energy and focus is.

But I agree with you. That can be challenging feedback to hear. And it can help, before we give that sort of feedback, to reaffirm our commitment to the shared goals first, of like, “This is what we’re after, and this project’s important to me, and I really want to shine for our clients. With that in mind, this discrepancy I noticed, how do you make sense of that? And what can we do differently next time to make sure that you’re able to give your feedback, I’m able to have my weekend, and most importantly, we’re able to really just knock it out of the park for that client?”

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, tell us, Deb, before we hear about some of your favorite things, could you tell us some of your tippy-top absolute favorite things that are pretty easy but make a world of difference in boosting relationship quality?

Deb Mashek
My favorite one, and I feel like I’m cheating because this is also my favorite quote, so maybe we’ll just skip that part on the favorites, but my favorite one is simply to ask, “How do you see it?” So, what you’re doing there is inviting another perspective in. You’re doing it without ego or commitment to your perspective, and it invites collaboration because it’s like, “Oh, now we show how we’re seeing the world differently and we can integrate that.”

Other things, asking people, listen, I feel so silly even offering this as a suggestion, but I really believe it, “How are you?” And if they ask you that, and you answer that question in less than 30 seconds, I think you’re doing a poor job. So, “How are you?” is an opportunity to let yourself be seen and to be known. And so, when they answer, hopefully they’ll say something other than “Oh, I’m fine” and flip it around. So, it’s that very rote, this is just how we tend to how we tend to respond. We’re, like, trained socially like, “Oh, you just give the two-word answer, and you get out of there.”

But, “How are you?” is an opportunity, if the other person tells you something, to get to know them as a person. It’s an opportunity to follow up with them. When they say, “Oh, gosh, I have just had the most chaotic weekend,” and they tell you that on Monday. And then on Friday, you see them again, and you’re able to say, “Is the chaos settled a little bit? Do you think this weekend’s going to be better?” And what you’ve just done there is you’ve told them “I listened to you. I paid attention to what you said. And I care enough about you as a person to just check in on that.”

And you don’t need to be creepy about it, and be like, “You said you had this at two o’clock on Tuesday. Did that go?” You don’t want to be a stalker about it, of course. But curiosity and genuine interest in other people is a fantastic way to build relationship. That idea that I call the tip, really, here is to bring the donuts. So that idea of investing in the communal good by doing things like, you know, your office mate’s chair is super squeaky, you happen to have a can or a jar, what’s it called?

Pete Mockaitis

WD-40.

Deb Mashek
Yeah, WD-40, and you’re like, just bring it in this week, that way it’s not squeaking, and it didn’t take you any extra effort to do that. I mean, it took you a little bit of extra effort and maybe that person would totally appreciate it. Or when you’re on the Zoom call and you realize that someone’s mic has gone out, just typing and telling them like, “Hey, your audio dropped.” And so, you can do little things just to take care of each other and that increases relationship quality and that empowers that ability to really unlock what’s possible with collaboration.

Pete Mockaitis
I like that a lot, taking, just remembering, or maybe even just jotting it down if you’re inclined to forget over a four-day window about asking for the next weekend, and just to be a little bit more proactive and think. I love that rule of thumb, maybe just because I love numbers, 30 seconds is a good gauge for go ahead and share that much or more in response to the question, “How are you?”

Which, it’s funny, I’m thinking now, it’s like, “Oh, how might I answer it the next time if someone asks?” It’s like, “Oh, I’m doing pretty well. I had a cold for a while, which is really annoying. And so that is almost over, and it feels good to be back in this almost swing of not feeling sick anymore.” Okay. There’s a little bit more than fine.

Deb Mashek
Yeah, and that’s such a great example too, because some people will say, “I don’t want to reveal my inner self or my inner soul. I don’t want to tell people about the divorce I’m going through or how my kid is really, really sick, and is having a major medical. I don’t want to share that.” That’s fine, but the example you just shared, you told us something real and it wasn’t particularly revealing or vulnerable, and it felt appropriate for the podcast where the public is going to hear it.

If you and I were colleagues and we’ve been working together for a year, we might be engaging in deeper self-disclosures at that point. Maybe, maybe not, because it does depend on the comfort level of the individuals. But the idea is that there are ways of being honest and open with other people that are context-specific and relationship-specific that are still really valuable for developing relationship quality.

Pete Mockaitis
And now I’m thinking about it, flipping it to the other side, so there’s, you know, go ahead and disclose. Is there a question that might be more probable to get us a bit more of a self-disclosure response as an alternative to “How are you?” Because in some ways it’s almost autopilot, “How are you?” “Fine.” It’s just like, “I didn’t even think about your question. This is just what I respond to as a knee-jerk reaction.”

Deb Mashek
Can I tell you? I have a 14-year-old and I love talking with him and his friends in the car on the way home from the mall or wherever it is, and I never ask, “How was it?” It’s always, “What was the most surprising thing you saw somebody else do while you’re at the mall?” So, give them something specific to react to, or of the things you purchased, whether it was the coffee drink, “What one brought you the most joy? Why?”

It’s just like, and I’m making these up on the spot. It’s not like I have a set list of questions that I ask, but I avoid “How was your day? How was school today?” It’s usually something like, I might say like, “What’s something that pissed you off today?” or, “What’s something that brought you joy?” or, “How did you make the world a better place?” or, “What’s something you felt grateful for?”

And you can use these in the workplace, maybe not exactly worded like that, but “What’s bringing you satisfaction in your work right now?” or, “What’s something you’re looking forward to over this next quarter in your work or in what the team’s doing?” “Where are you feeling a little frustration or tension that you’re looking to resolve?” And those start to open up some really good conversations.

Pete Mockaitis
I love that so much, and questions are fun. Podcasting, I like questions. And, surprise is a fun one just because we’re getting in. It’s by definition, surprise is almost the most interesting thing that there is, and you can say, “What’s the most interesting thing that happened in the mall?” And it’s like, “Oh, I don’t know.” But you call it surprise, it’s easier to like, “Oh, yeah, this thing, that was kind of crazy,” “The coffee drink is now $8.” “What? When did that happen?” And so, then you’re off to the races, as it were, in that conversation.

And then I’m also thinking about, sometimes I might feel uncomfortable to just go there right away, but other times, folks ask questions that bring about self-disclosure, and yet also have utility for the team or the business. I’m thinking, is it Peter Thiel who has a question something like, “What’s something you strongly believe that 99% of people believe the opposite?” And that’s cool, it’s like you’re going to learn something when you go there both from self-disclosure as well as, “Huh, okay, there’s an opportunity that had never occurred to me. And as an investor, that’s good to have a broad knowledge of such things.”

Or, like, “What’s the most fascinating thing you’ve read recently?” If you’re talking to a group of podcasters, “Hey, what’s a new development of podcasting that struck you?” “Oh, there’s this company called Introcast, which is a really cool way to potentially discover new shows and grow a show on a paid basis, whatever,” and off you.

Deb Mashek
And, honestly, those same questions are fantastic in networking situations, where rather than, “So, tell me what you do,” and people launch into their elevator speech. You can ask instead, “What has your attention? What are you most excited about coming up?” For me as a relationships-person, I see more opportunities to connect in a more authentic way with people when there’s authenticity there.

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

Deb Mashek
So, back to good questions, you can ask it after the movie, after the book, after the meeting, after the, you know, someone pitched the project. Whatever it is, just, “How do you see it? How are you thinking about this? What strikes you about this?” I love that as a quote and a question.

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

Deb Mashek
This one, also, my mind’s thinking in the direction of self-disclosure. Art Aaron and his colleagues, back in the day, created this protocol that they call Fast Friends, and it eventually became the study that went viral via the New York Times article about 36 ways, or 36 questions to make you fall in love. These questions were never designed to make you fall in love. They were designed to increase closeness and intimacy, meaning, sense of connection.

And in this study, Art and his colleagues, within the protocol, takes about 45 minutes to an hour to administer, and all you’re doing is bringing total strangers into the room together and staging a series of self-disclosure questions that are reciprocal. So, I’m sharing and you’re sharing. And over those 45 minutes, the nature of the questions escalates in how vulnerable they are asking you to be.

So, for instance, at the beginning it might be like, “What did you have for breakfast this morning?” and by the end, the questions are things like, “How do you think you’re going to die?” Really, like it gets core, some core mortality salient stuff there. But what I love about this study is it gives us empirical evidence of the value of self-disclosure, and it tells us how to structure it.

One of my favorite factoids, and I happen to have been a graduate student in Arts Lab, so it might be one of the reasons I love this study. But one of my favorite factoids is that one of the stranger couples, so they came in as strangers, they were paired together as a couple for this activity. That’s how they met. They eventually got married. So, in that case, they did fall in love. But empirically, what they showed in the study is that people, on average, felt closer to that stranger after just an hour of this intense self-disclosure that a lot of them did to their best friends. So, it’s a real powerful strategy.

Pete Mockaitis
It is. It’s a great set of questions. And though they weren’t made for people to fall in love, I did once do that with a girlfriend on Valentine’s Day, and it was cool. It was really cool.

Deb Mashek
It’s so cool. And not surprisingly, there are so many question decks out there and relationship intervention decks that are focused on this precise mechanism. I love them. I do them too.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Deb Mashek
I love Liane Davey’s, The Good Fight, and it’s about how to fight well in the workplace, and it’s fantastic.

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

Deb Mashek
I love thinking visually, so whether I’m writing a talk or anything, I like to have the picture of it. So, I have totally fallen in love with these digital whiteboards, like Miro, where it’s just infinite and I can drop pictures and drop links and move things around and have connections. And I have one for every project, whether it’s a personal project or a work project. I love that tool.

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

Deb Mashek
I never have my phone on. I mean, it’s on but it’s always silenced. There are no notifications. And I do this because I don’t like the idea that other people can be in charge where my attention is, and this is to me such a sacred resource. And so, I choose, you know, kind of a sacred reclamation idea. Like, I have, for a long time been committed to when I decide I want to break, I’ll check my phone. And it is so good because I really get to fall into my thinking, into my doing in a way that my friends say they can’t.

And it does create some challenges and some relationships where some people wish that I was responding to them the second they send a text, but I can’t do it. I don’t want to do it, and I’ve chosen to celebrate my ability to hold my own attention.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m 100% with you, and I do the same thing. And is there a particularly resident nugget, a Deb-original quote, that people really dig and quote back to you often?

Deb Mashek
Yeah, people like, when I’m talking about collaboration, I often say it’s not rocket science; it’s relationship science, and people, really, they like that one. They also like just when I point out that we’re not taught how to collaborate, and it’s a big surprise. It’s difficult and challenging, and it’s learnable.

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

Deb Mashek
I would go to DebMashek.com or Collaborhate.com.

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

Deb Mashek
Be “collabor-great.” I mean, this stuff is so worth it for you and your happiness, but also helping other people unlock their capacity, and helping your team do amazing things, and helping your organization, whether you’re at a non-profit or a for-profit or wherever you’re working, we’re able to do together better, or when we’re able to do together better, we’re really able to have a great impact and change the world.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Deb, thank you for this. I wish you much “collabor-greatness.”

Deb Mashek
Back at you. Thanks for having me.

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.