Tag

Thinking Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

1117: How to Hack Your Odds to Succeed More and Fail Less with Kyle Austin Young

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Kyle Austin Young shares his techniques for de-risking goals to improve your chances of success.

You’ll Learn

  1. The thinking trap that accounts for most failures
  2. The four paths to success
  3. Why thinking negative improves your odds

About Kyle 

Kyle Austin Young is an award-winning strategy consultant for high achievers, entrepreneurs, and leaders in a wide range of fields. This work has given him the opportunity to develop and refine a powerful system for accomplishing big, meaningful goals that focuses on understanding and changing your odds of success. Kyle is a popular writer for Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, The Boston Globe, CNBC, Psychology Today, Forbes, and Business Insider. When he’s not writing, consulting, or spending time with family, you’ll usually find him fishing.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Monarch.com. Get 50% off your first year on with the code AWESOME.

Kyle Austin Young Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Kyle, welcome!

Kyle Austin Young
Thank you for having me. I’m excited to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to talk about success and numbers, two of my favorite things, Kyle.

Kyle Austin Young
Good for you. This is a good fit.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, right. Well, could you start by sharing with us a particularly surprising and fascinating discovery you’ve made as you are putting together this opus, Success is a Numbers Game?

Kyle Austin Young
I think one of the biggest surprises to me was I feel like I’ve been able to stumble into why we see so much failure in our world, why we have stats floating around that nine out of 10 businesses fail, that such a vast majority of people who set New Year’s resolutions, ultimately, won’t accomplish them. We hear that most mergers and acquisitions fail to create lasting value for shareholders. Why does that happen? Ultimately, I think that a lot of people are falling into a really specific thinking trap, and I’ll explain it in the context of an example.

Let’s say that you’ve set the goal of trying to run a marathon, and you hire a running coach who says, “I can get you there, but there’s three things you’re going to have to do. I need you to eat, sleep, and train exactly how I tell you to. I’m going to give you a regimen for each of those three things. And if you do all three of them, you’ll be ready on race day. If you don’t, you’re not going to be able to successfully run such a long distance.”

So, in this goal, we’ve learned that there’s three things that have to go right for us to get what we want. And I think when humans set goals, we instinctively try to get a sense of what’s going to be expected of us, what’s going to be required for us to achieve success. I think that’s something we do naturally. I think we also check in with ourselves and ask the question, “Do I think I can do each of those things?”

In this case, “Do I think I can eat, sleep, and train the way that I’m going to have to?” And we try to get a sense of that. I’m going to layer some numbers on it to illustrate where the thinking trap often occurs. Let’s just say that we think it’s 70% across the board, 70% chance I’ll eat the way I’m supposed to, 70% chance I’ll sleep the way I’m supposed to, 70% chance I’ll train the way that I’m supposed to.

This is where the trap happens. A lot of people fall into this error of averaging. We try to consider what’s going to have to go right in order to get what we want, and if we feel good about the individual prerequisites, we feel good about the goal as a whole. And, intuitively, that makes some sense.

If we feel good that we can eat the way we’re supposed to, sleep the way we’re supposed to, train the way we’re supposed to, then why would we not feel good about our ability to run a marathon if it’s the product of these three behaviors, these three disciplines?

But in reality, we can’t average, we have to multiply if we want something that’s mathematically sound. And if we multiply 0.7 times 0.7 times 0.7, we find there’s only a 34% chance that we’re going to be ready on race day. We don’t know where we’re going to slip up, but the odds are we’re going to drop the ball in at least one of these three areas.

And I think that was the most surprising discovery for me writing the book was when I took it outside of the context of my own consulting work and into the world at large. And I think it’s an explanation for why we see so much failure in our world. In this example, we only need three things to go right. And we feel pretty good about each of them individually.

Now, imagine how many things have to go right for a business to be successful, for a merger to be successful, for a public policy to be successful. We start to understand how we can quickly experience a lot of failure if we’re not doing everything that we can to optimize our odds.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I like that a lot. I was literally multiplying in my head as you were speaking like 34%. And, yeah, that is an eye-opening paradigm shift that illuminates a whole lot. And I’m thinking about this applies to just buying something. Like, if you have a lot of criteria for, let’s say we’re talking about food, “Okay, I want to eat healthy. Well, okay, well, it has to be organic and it has to be gluten-free and it has to have, you know, at least a third of its calories from protein.”

And then it has, there’s like two foods. There are two foods in the universe of food that meet my criteria. And it’s like, “Well, I’m not asking for too much,” but when you’re asking for all of those things at the same time, and most things don’t have any of your individual boxes checked, when you aggregate it, yeah, you narrow the field in a hurry.

Kyle Austin Young
It’s a good parallel and it explains or illustrates how important it is to try to design really straightforward paths to the things that we want. A lot of people are trying to wing it, “Oh, I’ll figure it out as I go,” but every time we add a new prerequisite to our success, we can dramatically reduce our odds of getting what we want.

So, it’s important to do what, I call it creating a success diagram, but write down, “What’s the goal? What’s everything that has to go right in order for me to achieve it?” and that’s the beginnings of having the ability to tinker and try to make sure that we’re optimizing to make this as streamlined as possible, because if we’re adding in steps that we could make work around with a better plan, we’re ultimately hurting our odds of getting a good outcome.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, it’s interesting when you spoke with the 70-70-70, you know, I’m a former strategy consultant from Bain and my brain just goes that way. I have a feeling, though, Kyle, you and I may be in the minority in this universe. Can you maybe get us oriented to your numbery probability worldview, if that doesn’t come naturally for folks?

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, let me give you an example that has no numbers whatsoever, okay? So, when I first graduated from college, again, here’s a no numbers example, I wasn’t super excited about the entry-level positions that I was seeing. I wanted something more engaging, something more demanding, something with more responsibility, something with better opportunities for growth and career acceleration.

So, I did something really audacious. I was 21 years old, had a bachelor’s degree from the University of Oklahoma and I applied to be the product development director at a growing health organization. And, were I to win this position, I was going to be the boss for people who were in their 50s, 60s, 70s. Again, I’m 21. Some of these people have PhDs, master’s degrees. They’re experts in their field, and I’m applying to be their boss. So, a little bit audacious, but I got the interview, and I wanted to make the most of it.

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding.

Kyle Austin Young
So, at that point, what I did is I engaged in a habit that I call thinking negative. Most of the time when we’re pursuing big goals, people encourage us, “Think positive. Don’t worry about what could go wrong. If it’s meant to happen, it’ll happen,” or, “You’ll cross that bridge when you come to it.” I think that’s really, really bad advice.

I understand it. The fear is that if we identify these risks, maybe we’ll be so discouraged that we won’t move forward. I believe we have an opportunity to use our creativity to systematically de-risk our goals. So even at this time, before I was consulting, this was when I was just trying to get my first job out of college, I tried to identify, “What are the potential bad outcomes that could happen instead of what I want?”

And the reason for that is we can understand probability similar to how we traditionally understood matter. We pretty much all heard the phrase that, “Matter can’t be created or destroyed. They can just be transferred and rearranged.” And that’s true when it comes to probability. The odds of all the different outcomes that could happen add up to 100%.

So, if we want to make a good outcome more likely, we have to make the bad outcomes less likely. And one of the most straightforward ways to do that is by thinking negative, identifying the bad outcomes, and trying to reduce the risk of those things coming to life.

So, in the context of applying for this really important position, something that had the opportunity to really accelerate my career, I identified three potential bad outcomes. The first was that maybe the hiring squad would reject me because I looked so young and they were concerned there’s just no way that someone so young could lead this team. You know, understandable.

Well, what could I do in response to that? I couldn’t change my biological age, you know, I couldn’t do the Captain America thing and take the superhero.

Pete Mockaitis
Put a white beard disguise.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, well, that’s literally, half of that is what I did. Half of that is literally what I did. I was 21 years old. I looked like I was even younger than that. So, in preparation for the interview, I grew a beard and it just made me look several years older. It didn’t make me look as old as the people I’d be managing, but it at least took the edge off. I didn’t walk in looking like a little bitty kid.

So that was just a creative solution to try to de-risk that potential bad outcome. In the book, I call them PBO, another PBO that I identified was they might not want to hire me because of how flimsy my resume was. I didn’t have a lot of experience. I was fresh out of college. Again, I couldn’t change that. I couldn’t go out and get years of experience in preparation for this interview. But I could try to redirect the conversation.

And so, what I did is before the interview, I typed up a plan for all of the ways that I was going to try to reinvent and optimize this department. It became so thick that I had to have it spiral-bound, it was a book, and I took it with me and gave it to everybody I interviewed with.

And when they would ask me questions about my past, about my resume, I would just redirect it to become a conversation about the future, about the plan that I had for this department. And it, ultimately, took a lot of the pressure off when it came to not having a lot to show in terms of prior work experience.

The third potential bad outcome I realized, this is the last one I’ll give an example of, was that there was concern that I might not fit in with the existing team members. They might reject me thinking, “How is somebody young going to get along with these people who are so much older than he is? These people who are his parents’ age, his grandparents’ age, how is he going to be able to manage them effectively?”

So, what I did was a little bit creative. I asked an existing team member if the department had read any books lately, and she recommended a few different titles. And so, I went out and read all of them. And what that gave me the ability to do was speak this team’s language. I knew about their goals. I knew about some of the frameworks they were using and considering. I could make inside jokes.

I ended up in a group interview at one point where it was me and several other candidates who had gray hair, much older than I was, much more experienced, probably much more qualified. And I was running circles around them because I knew exactly what the team was up to. I made a joke at one point. There was a book out called The Whuffie Factor. It was about how brands can win social capital.

And somebody on the team presented an idea and I said, “I think that could bring us a lot of whuffie.” And I remember looking around, the other candidate’s eyes are bugging out of their heads, like, “What did he just say? What is he talking about?” But the existing team members were all laughing. They knew exactly what I meant.

So, at the end of all of this, I got the job. I became the product development director for this health organization at 21 years old. It all started by identifying what was going to have to go right. In this case, it was pretty straightforward. I just needed the offer. I already had the interview. But what could go wrong? What were the potential bad outcomes that could sabotage me getting what I wanted?

I identified three. I used my creativity to try to take as much risk out of them as I could. I tilted the odds in my favor and I walked away with a good outcome. I would later be laid off from that job, laid off from my next leadership position, and that’s what inspired me to start consulting. It was the diversification that it brought. But it was certainly something that set my career on a very different track than it would have been if I’d started in one of those assistants to the marketing manager roles.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Kyle, that is a heck of a story. And I imagine that the people hiring you must’ve been scratching their heads, like, “Who the heck is this guy? Where did he come from? Are we crazy to actually consider this? But, like, we all saw the same thing. He was saying a lot more smart stuff than the other people. Nobody else had a spiral-bound opus master plan for what to do. So, in a way, it seems crazy to hire him, but another way, it seems crazy to not hire him.”

Were they open with you about this?

Kyle Austin Young
Oh, that’s exactly what happened.

Pete Mockaitis
Like, Kyle, “Here’s where we’re coming from, man. Here’s the deal.”

Kyle Austin Young
I got a call from one person, I think, it was kind of unsanctioned, and it was just him saying, “Obviously, we can’t offer you this job, you’re 21, this makes no sense.” But then I, just listening to him talk himself out of it. And so, I just sat there and it was about 30 minutes of him trying to talk himself out of voting to hire me.

I got an email from the CEO the day after that interview where there was a group interview. I just bumped into him in the hallway and, again, I’m crazy. So, I said, you know, “Hi, I’m Kyle. Here’s one of my spiral-bound plans for turning around the product development team,” and gave it to the CEO of the organization.

The next morning, I woke up to an email from the CEO, who I wasn’t really supposed to have even seen that day, and I thought, “Oh, this can’t be good.” And he said, “In my entire career, you’re the most prepared candidate I’ve ever seen.” And so, there’s this line in sales, I’m not a salesman by trade, but there’s a line that, “Selling is overcoming objections.”

And I see probability hacking as a similar discipline. Essentially, we have something that we want to happen, reality has some objections to that because our goal comes at the opportunity cost of all these other potential outcomes, and it’s our job to kind of sell life on the future that we want, try to overcome these objections, take these risks off the table, and make it where our path is the path of least resistance.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, boy, you know, Kyle, this is a very exciting conversation. I feel like this whole body of work, this collection of ideas, has tremendous flexibility and power and implication. What comes to mind for me is, like, the 80-20 principle. Like, that’s just, like, eye-opening, game-changing, a wide array of things. And, boy, when you get it, things can be so transformative, it almost can feel like magic.

And so, boy, there are so many implications to this, but one I’m thinking about is that you got to get pretty specific, and you got to get pretty somewhat focused on a narrow-ish set of priorities. Because, Kyle, I mean, you can’t make a spiral-bound plan and read everybody’s favorite books for 20 interesting job opportunities. You got to kind of narrow the playing field in order to go all in on that thing and create unheard of results.

Kyle Austin Young

I think that’s true. I think that, in that specific example, had I been applying for 20 jobs that I wanted as bad as I wanted that product development director job, there could have been some challenges. Now, I would, in a friendly way, counter and say that I think some emerging technologies are making that more possible than ever.

We now have tools that can help us create proposals much more quickly than we could when I was applying for my first job out of college. We now have tools that summarize books for us and give us the opportunity to digest the key insights from a piece of content a lot faster than we would have, otherwise.

But, yes, you’re absolutely right that it starts with a goal. It starts with getting really clear on what you want, and, in that context, you then have the opportunity to optimize your odds. One of the reasons why I think that’s really important also is when it comes to asking for advice. I’ve, historically, this sounds arrogant, but I’ve historically been kind of opposed to asking for advice, and it’s not because I think I know everything, not by a long shot.

But what I found is a lot of people’s advice is unapplicable in ways that sometimes can even be confusing. And I’ll tell you a story about that. One time, I was considering taking on this new consulting client and it was going to be a huge retainer, lots and lots of money. But this was also just a notoriously difficult person. It was going to be a really stressful engagement if I chose to take it on. And I wasn’t sure what to do.

So, I decided to reach out to some peers and colleagues and ask them what they thought. And, originally, I was really frustrated because it almost split down the middle. About half of them told me, “Take the money,” and about half of them told me, “Why would you want the stress?” And at the time, I just thought, “How am I going to be able to make heads or tails out of this advice?”

And, finally, I noticed a trend. And the trend was that the people who I asked who had significantly less money than I did, almost unanimously said, “Take the job. Make the money. Why would you not?” And the people who I asked who had a lot more money than I did, almost unanimously said, “Why would you enter into such a stressful contract just in exchange for a paycheck? You don’t need that money. Go make it somewhere else.”

And what that taught me was these people weren’t really giving me advice in the context of what I wanted, in the context of my opportunities and limitations. They were giving me advice from their own context. The people who wanted money told me, “Go get the money,” and the people who wanted to avoid stress told me, “Go avoid the stress.” But that wasn’t really something that accounted for my priorities.

So, I encourage people to create a success diagram, which includes everything we’ve talked about. What’s the goal? What’s everything that has to go right for you to achieve it? For each thing that has to go right, what are the things that can go wrong?

And what’s powerful for that is it creates a context. It creates a context that allows me to ask other people for advice because now we’re on the same page. It creates a context that allows me to collaborate with other people who might be participating in the project. I can now delegate, I can brainstorm, I can say, “Here’s what we’re pursuing, here’s what has to go right, here’s what could go wrong.”

“Kevin, what can you do about this risk over here? Felicia, what can you do to help us take the risk out of this other potential bad outcome?” We now have the ability to have a shared text and, ultimately, it makes us a lot more effective when we’re pursuing big goals.

It also just gives us a way to store information. So, just as you mentioned, as the context changes, as we get new information, we have a place to put it where we’re constantly getting smarter over time and we can get that focus that you described.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Kyle, this is such good stuff. Walk us through the whole thing in depth. So, we’re talking about the diagram. You just keep talking.

Kyle Austin Young
Well, you know, ultimately, what I teach in the book is I think that there’s been this cultural narrative that there’s two types of people who succeed. People who are really talented, connected, privileged, and people who get lucky. I don’t think that’s a very good understanding. It doesn’t take probability into account at all.

I think there’s four paths to success. I think some people succeed in spite of really bad odds because they get lucky. I tell the story in the book of Norma Jeane Dougherty. She’s working at an aviation munitions factory during the war when a photographer comes to take pictures for a military magazine. He notices how pretty she is.

He says, “Would you be interested in potentially having a career in modeling, be on some magazine covers?” She says, “Sure.” Quits her factory job, has a successful modeling career, and then, ultimately, has a really successful acting career under the stage name Marilyn Monroe.

Now, that’s a cool success story. Good for her. But if you met somebody who is an aspiring actress, would you reverse-engineer Marilyn Monroe’s story?

Pete Mockaitis

“Here’s what you got to do. Just get discovered on your job and then…”

Kyle Austin Young
“Step one, we’re going to need to get you a job at an aviation munitions factory because that’s what Marilyn Monroe did.” No, you wouldn’t. She, undeniably, achieved enormous success, but she did that, overcoming really bad odds. She got lucky, right?

So that is one of the paths through which people succeed. And it’s important to acknowledge that because it explains some of the success stories in our world that people have had such a difficult time reverse-engineering. It might not be as obvious as Marilyn Monroe, but there are stories where we’re out there, you know, “Oh, every CEO drives a blue car. Buy a blue car and you’ll be a CEO.”

No, you won’t. That’s unrelated. There’s no causation there. They just like blue cars. It has nothing to do with that. So, it’s important to understand that some people are succeeding through luck. It’s important also to understand that we have the opportunity to experience more luck in our lives when we recognize that you don’t always have to beat the odds, sometimes you can play them.

One way that you can overcome bad odds is through the power of multiple attempts. I interview entrepreneurs for the book, like Apoorva Mehta who founded Instacart. Instacart experienced enormous growth during the pandemic because people were at home, they couldn’t go to the grocery store, and grocery delivery was in exactly the right place at the right time.

I think it was, don’t quote me, I could find the number, I believe he said it was a $9 billion increase to their valuation. Just absolutely remarkable what they were able to achieve. So, you hear that, you think, “Wow, how could anybody be that lucky to be in exactly the right place at the right time?”

Then you learn that Apoorva Mehta started over 20 businesses before Instacart. And you think about these numbers in our heads that nine out of 10 businesses fail. Well, we would expect a couple of his businesses to be successful. Maybe not nine billion in ten months, but, all of sudden, these odds have changed because of the power of multiple attempts.

In the book, I also talk about Thomas Edison. Thomas Edison was in a race to develop the first practical incandescent lamp, and he’s, ultimately, competing for this really valuable patent that could change the trajectory of his career, but he’s not the only person trying to do this. All of them are struggling to find a filament that can get hot enough to glow without catching on fire or snuffing out, not being worth the effort.

What he did that was different than these other inventors, was he experimented with 6,000 different plant materials, and he ultimately finds that carbonized bamboo, which would not be my first guess, is this nearly ideal filament for what he was looking for. He gets this patent. It helps him achieve enormous success in his career. So, some people are succeeding because of the power of multiple attempts, and I give some examples of that.

Other people are succeeding because they choose to, very intentionally, pursue goals where their odds are good. And I think there’s a lot of wisdom in that, too, to recognize that we have areas of strength, and that because of those areas of strength, we have an opportunity to choose goals that are more likely to succeed. And then success tends to beget success in other areas.

I give the example in the book of people who want to play in the National Basketball Association, just to illustrate how our attributes can change our odds. If you’re shorter than six feet tall, and the average US male is 5’9″, I’m 5’11”, so I’m under six feet tall, then your odds of playing in the NBA are one in 1.2 million. So that’s terrible odds. Terrible odds.

But here’s what’s really interesting. If you’re between six feet tall and six foot three, your odds go up to one in a hundred thousand. If you’re between six four and six seven, it’s one in eight thousand. Between 6’8 and 6’11, 1 and 200. And this is what knocks people over if you happen to stand over 7 feet tall, if you’re over 7 feet tall, your odds of playing in the NBA are actually 1 in 7. One out of every seven people over seven feet tall is playing in the National Basketball Association.

Pete Mockaitis
The rule of seven.

Kyle Austin Young
At least in the United States of America, yeah, you’d line them up. And that’s pretty incredible to think about, that as we just got incrementally taller, our odds changed and changed and changed. And by the end of it, we went from one in 1.2 million to one in seven.

So, there’s real power in taking stock of, “What are the areas where we do have strength? What are the areas where we do have advantages? They might not be the goals that we’re most excited about right now, but could pursuing some of those goals lead to opportunities down the line?

You know, I’m really thankful to have this book deal. One of the things that made that possible was, first, writing for sites like Harvard Business Review and Forbes. Those were smaller accomplishments, but they brought bigger accomplishments within reach.

And then the fourth path to success is what we’ve described. It’s probability hacking. It’s taking the odds we have, thinking negative, identifying bad outcomes, and using our creativity to ultimately make those odds better.

In some ways, we can layer those onto the other three paths. We can use it to get lucky more often. We can use it to reduce the number of repeated attempts that we might need. We can use it to make more goals, things that actually look pretty good from an outlook standpoint. So that’s more or less how I think about this.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so thinking about your second chapter, “Understanding Your Odds,” I mean, you had a delightful bit of research there about the NBA. How does one go about knowing the odds given, by definition, the future is not completely knowable? So, I mean, I could just make up some numbers in a spreadsheet, but how do I get those?

Kyle Austin Young
It’s a fair question, and I’m very transparent about the fact that this is going to be an estimate. You have to kind of choose between two different realities. You can turn to base rates, which don’t typically take your individual attributes into account. They’re normally a guess. Often, odds are dramatically misreported. Some of the things that, you know, considered understood to be absolutely true aren’t even close to that.

I bring in a couple of news headlines. Here’s three. These are real-life headlines published by actual news outlets. One of them is, “Texas man survives one in a million chance of being struck by lightning.” Another is, “One in a million chance, Salado couple’s car struck by lightning.” Another is, “The odds of getting struck by lightning are one in a million. Wednesday, it happened three times in Wichita.”

One of those stories actually features a quote from an emergency room doctor affirming the idea that your odds of being struck by lightning, actually the exact quote is, “Your chances of being struck by lightning are roughly one in a million.” But according to the National Weather Service, the actual number for the average American is one in 15,300.

It’s not one in a million, not even close to one in a million. The closest I could come to explaining that one in a million number is that’s roughly your odds in any given year, but it’s not your odds over the course of a lifetime.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I think you’re being generous, Kyle. I think no one really thought about it. They just say, “It’s really rare, so we’ll call it one in a million.”

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, sure, it’s a one in a million thing. We love the number one in a million. It’s one in a million. I give the example. I share a short story that’s about someone who dies in a tragic bicycle accident. It’s fictional, but the phrase one in a million comes up. And, okay, sure, dying in a bicycle accident, one in a million. Surely, right, I mean, that has to be so rare. According to the National Safety Council, one out of every 3,546 Americans will die in a bicycle accident.

So many of these numbers that are circulating in our world are just made up. They’re misreported. They don’t take our individual attributes into account. Sometimes they’re weighed down by people who made bad decisions.

When we think about the odds of a new product succeeding when it’s released to the market, there are rates for that based on research. But then you think about projects like Bic for Her, which was a line of writing pens that were marketed to have a thinner barrel to fit a woman’s hand.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, women need that.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, women need a thinner pen so that they can write effectively. And this product got laughed out of the market, pretty quickly discontinued, but there were significant investments made to release this product.

And so, when you think about that, if they were to just do even a little bit of keyword research, I give some examples in the book, they could find pretty quickly that no one was looking for pens for women. That wasn’t a desire. There were people looking for a lot of other types of pens that could’ve been potentially a better opportunity if they were to release a product in that space.

And so, base rates are also weighed down by people who made decisions that you probably wouldn’t make, right? We look at how many failed products there are. Well, we found that the number one cause of failed product releases, according to some data by CB Insights, is a lack of, they call it no market need. It’s just a lack of demand.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, nobody wants the thing.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, nobody wants the thing. So now we’re thinking about, “Well, base rates say that most of the products that get released failed.” Okay, but is that because people are releasing things that they never took the time to validate at all? If I take the time to validate demand for my product or service, my odds are very different.

So, ultimately, you ask the question, “Where do these numbers come from?” And you have to make a choice. You can turn to base rates, which have a number of flaws, or you can estimate. And what the leading forecasters in the world do is they will typically try to break big predictions about world events into smaller ones.

Instead of saying, you know, “What are the odds of this war happening?” they’ll say, “What are the odds that this country experiences an affordability crisis while this other country experiences a surge in nationalistic pride?” whatever the case may be. They try to break it down into the component parts, the ingredients that could lead to a conflict like that or to a good outcome, depending on what they’re predicting.

And when we break that down in the context of our goals, I find that we have an opportunity to make predictions that can be, in some ways, an antidote to overconfidence. If we go back to that idea of running a marathon, we need to eat, sleep, and train according to specific regimens for 90 days, what’s the base rate that says whether Kyle will stick with his diet for 90 days? I mean, I’m Kyle. Like, there’s no statistician running the numbers on that.

So, to some extent, there is an expectation in the context of these very individualized and personal goals that we’re going to have to make some estimates. But by breaking them down into the component parts, and then being informed by base rates, letting them challenge our assumptions, I think we have an opportunity to deepen our understanding of how likely we are to get what we want.

And again, beyond that, by probability hacking, by using our creativity to take the risk out of these goals, we have an opportunity to improve our odds of success. And that’s what I think can change our lives.

Pete Mockaitis
And I’m curious, do you have any rough numbers for starters that you like to hang your hat on or base level assumptions? Because, for example, when I’m considering a business initiative, it’s like, “I have no idea if this thing is going to work out.” It’s like, “But it seems like a good idea to me.” But historically, you know, the slight majority of “seems like a good idea to me” things did not work.

So, my base level assumption is like, “There’s a 30% chance that this thing will work out.” And then I like to see, “Okay, well, given that,” this is why I think you and I are simpatico. It’s like, “Well, given that, is it worth the time and money to embark upon this risky path, knowing there’s a less than one in three chance it’s going to work out?” And it’s like, “Well, heck, yes, it is because the upside is so substantial within. Well, then game on, let’s do it.”

So, I found that quite helpful, it’s just like put that in a spreadsheet and mapping it out. So, 30%, it’s a little bit arbitrary, a little bit made up, but it’s kind of based on my own experience, so there’s more than nothing in terms of the evidence supporting it. So, do you have any rules of thumb, guidelines, numbers that find their way into your estimates often?

Kyle Austin Young
Sure. I’m not a financial advisor. I can’t give investing advice, but I can say that I tend to be more risk averse than most people do. I hate losing money. I just almost can’t stand it. So, I want to be pretty confident that a goal is going to be successful.

And how do I get a sense of that? Well, I create a success diagram and I try to look for gaps in my thinking. I, then, again, have a context for asking for advice. I can go to people who know more than I do and say, “Are there bad outcomes I’m not considering or bad outcomes that I’m not taking seriously enough? Is there a more straightforward path to what I want?”

The thing that I find encouragement in. There are two things, actually. One is, you mentioned earlier that this isn’t really intended to just be a step-by-step framework, that that’s part of it, but it’s really a way of thinking and a suite of tools that we can use situationally.

Sometimes we might want to leverage the power of multiple attempts. Other times we might want to create a success diagram and try to do everything we can to minimize the risk of potential bad outcomes. We can do that in real time at every step in the process.

So even if we need to pivot, even if we think we need department manager A’s approval, it turns out we’re going to need department manager B’s approval. Great. What are the reasons that that person might reject what we’re, ultimately, offering?

So, there’s an opportunity to do this work as we go and improve our odds. And the knowledge that I have the ability to do that is one of the things that gives me confidence that even when uncertainty arises, even when unexpected speed bumps get in my way, I know how to change my odds, and that’s something that I find encouraging.

The other thing, though, is I encourage people not to think of our goals necessarily as pass/fail. Even if we don’t accomplish the original outcome, we can sometimes accumulate assets and resources that can be repurposed.

In the book, I tell the story of this group of friends who, I believe they just left jobs at PayPal when they don’t, I’m pretty sure it was PayPal. I’m not 100% positive. They decided to start this new dating website at a time when the internet was much younger or much newer, and it was difficult to upload content to the internet. It just wasn’t something that many people had the tools or the skills to do.

And one of the ways this dating site planned to differentiate itself was it was going to make it really easy for people to upload a video introducing themselves, and then put themselves in a position to meet people who might want to go on a date with them. And that was a pretty clever differentiator at that time.

The challenge was they just couldn’t get people to do it. It was a time when it was a new tool, privacy concerns were a little different back then, the idea that I was going to upload a video of myself to the internet for strangers to watch to consider whether or not they wanted to go on a date with me, that sounded crazy. Now we put content of ourselves online all the time, but that was a concern.

So, ultimately, this dating website fails. But this group of entrepreneurs didn’t give up on the idea. They instead stopped and asked the question, “What assets and resources have we accumulated through the work that we’ve already done?” And one of the biggest things was they’d use their programming skills to develop this incredible tool for uploading videos to the internet, something that was really difficult to do at the time.

So, they pivoted a little bit to a new goal, which was, “What if we started a website where anyone could upload videos about anything they wanted to?” And they call it YouTube. They end up selling it for one and a half billion dollars, and it becomes this thing that changes their lives. And so, you asked the question, “At what number is something a go for me?”

Well, I’m more risk averse than most people are, but I know I can change my odds over time. And I also don’t necessarily view failure the exact same way, because I know of a failed dating site that made over a billion dollars.

And so, I think there’s typically opportunities when we have a success diagram to be able to collect, or rather remember and process, “Here’s all of the resources that we’ve been able to get our hands on as a result of the work we’ve done.” We’re not finishing where we started, even if we’re not finishing where we wanted to.

Pete Mockaitis
So good. Well, so, Kyle, we’ve said the words success diagram a few times here. Can you tell me, literally, pen to paper, what does my success diagram look like?

Kyle Austin Young
Your success diagram starts with the goal you want to accomplish. That’ll go on the right side of the page. And then you will make a list leading up to it of the steps that are going to have to be achieved in order to accomplish it or the things that have to go right. Sometimes it’s not linear per se. Sometimes it’s just, you know, the ingredients in success, like in that training for a marathon example.

It’s not that we’re going to eat a certain way, and then we’re going to sleep a certain way, and then we’re going to train a certain way. In reality, it’s that we’re going to be doing three things simultaneously that we’ve been told can lead to success. So, there is a template.

This will get better over time, but I wanted to give people something because it’s a question I get a lot. If you go to SuccessDiagram.com, there’s a free template that you can just print. You don’t have to buy my book or anything like that. You don’t even have to give your email address. It just makes it really easy for you to fill in, “Here are some of the critical points on the path to my goal. Here are some of the things that might go wrong.” So, that’s something you could certainly take a look at. It’ll be helpful for you.

I know that podcasting, you know, it’s a little bit tricky with an audio discipline to paint a word picture for you, but I typically draw a circle for everything that has to go right. I write the thing in the center of the circle, one at a time, goals at the end of the list, and then beneath each thing that has to go right, I just make a list of the potential bad outcomes that could ultimately sabotage my success.

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

Kyle Austin Young
I want to talk about my favorite things.

Pete Mockaitis

All right, let’s do it. Can you start with a favorite quote?

Kyle Austin Young
You know, one of the real privileges of writing this book was I got the opportunity to interview Jack O’Callahan who played for the U.S. Men’s Olympic Hockey Team in 1980 during the “Miracle on Ice” when the United States beat the Soviet Union, this very unlikely victory.

He has this, I wouldn’t call it a quote, they used it as a quote in the movie version, but he says that he doesn’t remember exactly what was said by his coach Herb Brooks in the locker room before the game.

But he says he remembers leaving the locker room to take the ice with the impression that what his coach had said was, or tried to communicate, was, “If we played these guys 10 times, they would probably beat us nine times, but they aren’t going to beat us tonight.”

And that’s a quote that means a lot to me, because it acknowledges that we often are up against goals where our odds aren’t very good, but through the power, in my opinion, of multiple attempts, we have the opportunity to persist, achieve success, and then dramatically change our odds on subsequent pursuits.

And if we go into each one of those, recognizing that we’re going to fail maybe even more than we succeed, depending on how audacious the goals we’re pursuing are, but this mindset, “They’re not going to beat us tonight, that we’re going to do everything we can to make this the time that we ultimately find success,” I think we put ourselves in a powerful position.

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

Kyle Austin Young
I’ve already mentioned this one, but I think that one of my favorites is just the story of Thomas Edison because what I love about his story is a lot of people have this idea of kind of decision overwhelm, that, “If there’s too many options, we’re going to be paralyzed and we won’t know what to do.” I can understand why people would feel that way.

What I think the opportunity is when we’re making decisions like that is we just need to find a standard to measure the ideas against. And in his case, it was just, “Which one of these filaments glows the longest without burning out or without catching on fire?” And that allowed him to sift through 6,000 different ideas, and it wasn’t overwhelming. He just had a stopwatch. It’s just, “Which one of these accomplishes the goal?”

And so, I think a lot of people who are struggling to weigh their options and make a decision that they’re proud of are doing that because they haven’t really defined what success looks like. If we know what success actually looks like, we can hold our ideas up against it, and, all of sudden, it becomes a lot easier, in my opinion, to identify the one that makes the most sense in our context.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Kyle Austin Young
I’ll tell you book that I think pairs really well with mine. It’s a book by a friend and colleague, Dr. Ron Friedman, it’s called Decoding Greatness, and he takes the idea of reverse engineering and brings a framework to it. It’s basically, “How can you take great work, completed by other people, and use it to improve your own performance?”

And I think it’s a really nice pairing with my book because, ultimately, if you have a framework for learning how to do things that comes from studying others, and then you have a framework for improving your odds of success, then I think you’re in a pretty strong position.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Kyle Austin Young
A favorite habit for me is thinking negative. I’m sorry to be an Eeyore, but I think that the idea that positive thinking is an antidote to risk just doesn’t make any sense, the idea that I can somehow wish something into existence. I think there’s tremendous value in focusing on what we want.

I think there’s tremendous value in that sense of kind of manifesting what our intentions are because when we’re really clear on what the goal is, it helps us sort through the information that we experience in life. We know who to talk to at a networking event. We know which news headlines to pay attention to and which might not be relevant to us. So, I totally value and appreciate the level of focus that I think is implied there.

But for me, tell me how if I’m training for a marathon, positive thinking is going to keep it from raining on a day when I need to run, to tell me how wanting to run a marathon is going to prevent shin splints? It just doesn’t work like that. We have the opportunity to think negative, identify the things that could go wrong, and use our creativity to systematically de-risk our goals.

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

Kyle Austin Young
Probably you don’t have to beat the odds. Well, sometimes you don’t have to beat the odds. You only have to play them. Obviously, there’s goals where that doesn’t apply. I talk about the story of someone trying to graduate from college, and some people have better odds at that than others do.

And it wouldn’t make sense for someone with bad odds to enroll in four different universities and hope that they’ll complete one of the four programs. So, there’s certainly exceptions to that. But in many goals, one of the most reliable ways to overcome bad odds of success is through the power of multiple attempts.

Can I tell one last story very quick?

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, yeah.

Kyle Austin Young
In the book, I talk about Ben and Jerry’s. Ben and Jerry’s was this upstart organization that wanted to enter into the really crowded industry of ice cream sales. And at that time, and also today, the best-selling ice cream flavor in the world is vanilla. It’s really hard to make a vanilla ice cream that’s so much better than everyone else’s that they leave their favorite ice cream brand and come over to your company, right?

So, they decided to do something different. They said, “We’re going to try to make exotic new flavors that no one’s ever heard of before. And it’ll be so provocative that people will say, ‘Well, I’ve got to try that.’ And if they like it, we’ll be the only place they can get it because no one else has these crazy flavors that we’re dreaming up.”

But that’s an unreliable strategy, at least in the context of one attempt. It’s hard to guess what bizarre ice cream flavor enough people are going to like and want to actually try. So, what they did is they entered into a model where they knew that failure was going to be a big part of it, and they resolved to celebrate those failures.

And so, if you ever go to the Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, Vermont, I’ve been personally, outside, they have what they call the flavor graveyard, and it has actual headstones with these little funny epitaphs for failed ice cream flavors that they’ve had over the years. They have over 300 discontinued flavors of ice cream.

But recognizing that that was going to be part of the game is what allowed them to, ultimately, uncover classics that made them the best-selling ice cream brand in America for many years.

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

Kyle Austin Young
If you want to grab a copy of the book, you can do that pretty much anywhere – Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, directly on the Penguin Random House website. If you want to learn more about me, you can go to my website, KyleAustinYoung.com.

But if you want to connect, then find me on LinkedIn. That’s been one of the fun surprises about this journey is, at first, I wasn’t asking for that specifically, but people would find me on LinkedIn after some of these interviews and reach out. And it’s been a lot of fun to have those conversations. So now I’m just trying to shorten the path to that. If you have any questions, send me a message.

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

Kyle Austin Young
I would encourage you to try to create one success diagram for a goal. I would encourage you to try to see what it looks like. You’re not going to have all the facts, and, in some cases, that means you won’t want to rely on predictions that would come out of it, but you’re now going to have a tool that allows you to collect information, add it over time.

And when you create diagrams for various goals that you’re considering, you can start to make decisions around which one makes the most sense in your context. In so many cases, when people are trying to prioritize a goal, they’ll sometimes ask the question, “Which one aligns most with my values?” or, “Which one sounds like the most fun?” or, “Which one do I think will bring other opportunities within reach?” All those are great questions.

But if we aren’t stopping to also consider our odds of success, then why does it matter how much alignment there is if the goal’s almost certainly going to fail? I think that we need probability to have a seat at the table. Certainly, there’s goals like curing cancer, where even when the odds are bad, we need to keep trying to do it.

But in the context of our careers, I don’t see any reason to invite that level of risk. Let’s find the goals that are most likely to have a good outcome and then ask questions like, “Where is there the most alignment?”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Kyle, thank you.

Kyle Austin Young
Thank you.

2025 GREATS: 1010: Getting the Most Out of Generative AI at Work with Jeremy Utley

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Jeremy Utley reveals why many aren’t getting the results they want from AI—and how to fix that.

You’ll Learn

  1. The #1 mistake people are making with AI
  2. ChatGPT’s top advantage over other AI platforms (as of late 2024) 
  3. The simple adjustments that make AI vastly more useful 

About Jeremy 

Jeremy Utley is the director of executive education at Stanford’s d.school and an adjunct professor at Stanford’s School of Engineering. He is the host of the d.school’s widely popular program “Stanford’s Masters of Creativity.” 

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO
  • Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome
  • Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.

Jeremy Utley Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Jeremy, welcome.

Jeremy Utley
Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m so excited to chat, and I’d love it if you could kick us off by sharing one of maybe the most fascinating and surprising discoveries you’ve made about some of this AI stuff with all your poking and prodding and playing.

Jeremy Utley
I’ll poke the bear right from the get-go. My observation is most people are what I call prompt hoarders, which is that they’ve got a bunch of Twitter threads saved, and they’ve got a bunch of PDFs downloaded in a folder, marked, “Read someday,” but they aren’t actually using AI. They’re just hoarding prompts.

And I think of it as empty calories. It’s a sugar high. And what a lot of people are doing is they are accumulating, for themselves, prompts that they should try someday, but they’re never trying them, which is akin to somebody eating a bunch of calories and then never exercising.

And my recommendation, like, here, I’ll give one simple thing that somebody would probably want to write down. Hey, when you’re jumping into advanced voice mode, isn’t it annoying how ChatGPT interrupts you? Well, did you know that you can tell ChatGPT, “Hey, just say, ‘Mm-hmm’ anytime I stop talking, but don’t say anything else unless I ask you to”?

Everybody who’s played with advanced voice mode one time is like, “Oh, my gosh, I got to do that. That’s, oh, it is annoying.” And I guarantee you 95% plus, people who even think that, will never actually do it because they think it’s more important to listen to the next 35 minutes of this conversation than actually hit pause and go do that. And my recommendation would be, stop this podcast right now, go into ChatGPT and actually do that. That would be like going to the gym.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m thinking I’m doing that right now. Is that okay? Is that rude?

Jeremy Utley
Yes, of course. No, it’s great.

Pete Mockaitis
I think I’m following your suggestions. So, in ChatGPT, iPhone app, I’ve got Pete Mockaitis, I just issue the command, like, “Remember this”?

Jeremy Utley
I would open a new voice chat. So, from the home screen, on the bottom right, there’s kind of like a little four-line kind of a button. If you hit that, that’s going to open a new conversation in Advanced Voice mode. And the first thing I would say is, “Hey, I want to talk to you for a second, but I don’t really need you to say anything. So, unless I ask you otherwise, would you please just say, ‘Mmm-hmm,’ one word only and let me keep talking.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Hey, ChatGPT, here’s the thing. When I’m talking to you, what I need you to do, if I ever stop talking for a moment…there, he just did it.

Jeremy Utley
Isn’t that hysterical? Yeah, that’s hysterical.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, Amber, when I’m talking, I need you to remember to only interrupt with just the briefest mm-hmm, or yes, or okay until I ask for you to begin speaking. Do you understand? And can you please remember this?

Amber
Be as brief as possible with confirmations and wait until prompted to speak further.

Pete Mockaitis
Thank you. It’s done.

Jeremy Utley
Now what you need to do is you actually need to continue the conversation. And you need to see, “Does ChatGPT respond with mm-hmm?”

Pete Mockaitis
You know, I like that. And I love those little tidbits in terms of, “Hey, remember this and do this forever.” Sometimes I like to say, well, I have. I have said, “Give me a number from zero to 100 at the end of every one of your responses, indicating how certain you are that what you’re saying is, in fact, true and accurate and right.”

Now, its estimates are not always perfectly correct, but I know, it’s like, “Okay, if he said 90, I’m going to maybe be more inclined to do some follow-up looks as opposed to if I get the 100.”

Jeremy Utley
Yeah, I think that’s great. I think there’s all sorts of little things. The problem is, right now, people are accumulating, or they actually aren’t even accumulating, but they think they’re accumulating for themselves all these tips and tricks, but they aren’t using any of them. And so, to me, what I recommend folks do, I actually just wrote a newsletter about this just yesterday, it went out this morning.

What I recommend folks do is take 15 minutes per day and try one new thing. It requires two parts. Part one, a daily meeting on your calendar that says “AI, try this.” And that’s it. It’s just 15 minutes, “AI, try this.” And thing number two, you need an AI-try-this scratch pad, which is just a running list of things that you heard.

So, like everybody’s scratch pad right now, if they’re listening to this conversation, should include, one, tell ChatGPT to only say mm-hmm unless you want a further response. That’s not forever, but at least in a one interaction, right? And, two, they should tell ChatGPT to always end its responses with a number, an integer between zero and 100, to indicate its conviction of its response.

Everybody literally what? We’re 10 minutes into this conversation, not even, everyone should have two items on their scratch pad. The problem is most people are going to get to this, to the end of this interview and they aren’t going to have a scratch pad and they aren’t going to have any time blocked on their calendar to do it.

And the next time they use ChatGPT, it’s going to be mildly disappointing because they’re coming off a sugar high and they think the treadmill’s broken, basically. So, I mean, obviously, there’s a ton there that we can unpack, but I think for most people, what most people fail to understand is the key to use is use.

And just like a treadmill doesn’t help you combat heart disease unless you actually get on it, AI is not going to unleash your creativity or your productivity unless you use it and learn how to use it. And that, to me, that’s pretty much my obsession these days, is helping people be good collaborators to generative LLMs.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s lovely. And I suppose we could dork out about so many tips and tactics and fun things that you can do. But I’d love it if you could just orient us, first and foremost, in terms of, if there’s research or a powerful story that really makes the case that, “Hey, these things are really actually super useful for people becoming awesome at their jobs for reals as opposed to just a hype train or fad.”

Jeremy Utley
I’ll tell you about my good friend, let’s call him Michael. It’s not his name. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. But Michael was a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. and he and his family wanted to move back home to Tennessee.

And he was looking for a job, and he got a job offer from a firm. And he reached out to me and said, “Hey, I’m kind of bummed because I feel like this firm is low-balling me. But my wife really just wants me to take it because she wants to be back near family in Tennessee, and I’m really struggling with knowing ‘Should I push back?’ because I know that I deserve more, but I don’t want to screw up this opportunity to get close to family.”

And I said, “Well, have you role-played it with ChatGPT?” And he said, “What do you mean roleplay with ChatGPT?”

Pete Mockaitis
Of course, the question everyone asks.

Jeremy Utley
Right. And I said, “Well, you can roleplay the negotiation and just kind of get a sense for what the boundary conditions are.” And he’s like, “Okay, wait. What do you mean?” And I said, “Well, open ChatGPT and tell it you want to roleplay a conversation. But, first, you want ChatGPT to interview you about your conversation partner so that it can believably play the role of that conversation partner.”

“You want it to start as a psychological profiler and create a psychological profile of your counterpart. And then once it creates it, you want ChatGPT to play the role of that profile in a voice-only conversation until you say that you want to get feedback from its perspective and a negotiation expert’s perspective.” And he’s like, “Give me 15 minutes.”

So, he leaves, texts me in 15 minutes, “Dude, this is blowing my mind. What do I do next?” I said, “Well, Michael, the next thing I would do is tell your conversation partner that you want it to offer less concessions, and you want it to not be nearly as amenable to recommendations because it’s had a bad day or it’s slept poorly or something, okay? I want you to get a sense for what does it feel like if the conversation goes badly, right?”

He goes, “Okay, I’ll be right back.” Comes back, “Dude, this is blowing my mind.” And he did a series of these interviews, and I touched base with him. And a couple of days later, I said, “Michael, what’s up?” And he said, “Well, three things. One, I didn’t know what my leverage in the conversation was until I roleplayed it a handful of times. Two, I didn’t have clarity on what my arguments were until I roleplayed it a few times, what the sequence of my argument should be. And, three, and most importantly, I’m no longer nervous about going into this negotiation.”

And then a week later, he dropped me a note saying, “By the way, we’re moving back to Tennessee, and I got a much better salary than they had originally offered me.”

It turns out one of generative AI’s unique capabilities is imitation and taking on different roles. As an example, you can go into any conversation you’ve ever had with ChatGPT and just say, “Hey, would you mind to recast your most recent response as if you’re Mr. T?” And, instantaneously, “Yo, fool, I can’t believe you didn’t believe the last thing I said,” just immediately starts doing it. It doesn’t take much.

And the power, actually, emotionally and psychologically, of having roleplayed with a very believable conversation partner has a profound psychological and confidence boost effect to the person who’s engaging the roleplay.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s perfect in terms of, yes, that is a top skill that the AI has, and about the most lucrative per minute use case I can think of a typical professional doing. And you’re right, that confidence, I have actually paid a real negotiation coach, and he suggested we do a roleplay. And I had the exact same experience, like, “Oh, you know what, I guess I don’t feel so silly asking for what I wanted to ask for now. It seems fairly reasonable for me to do so. And I’m going to go ahead and do so.” And it worked out rather nicely. And so, to know that you can do a decent job for near free with AI instead of hiring a phenomenal negotiation coach is pretty extraordinary.

Jeremy Utley
It’s remarkable. And so, we actually, my research partner, Kian Gohar and I wrote a weekend essay in The Wall Street Journal about this topic. But think about a salary negotiation as a flavor of a broader thing, which is difficult conversations. Maybe it’s a performance review. Maybe it’s a termination conversation. Maybe it’s talking to a loved one about the fact that you’re not going to come home for the holidays.

There’s all sorts of scenarios where roleplaying the interaction increases your confidence, strengthens your conviction, helps you, perhaps, exchange perspectives. Perspective taking is a really important thing, to understand, “How did this land to the perspective of my conversation partner?” That’s actually something that’s really hard for humans to do but an AI can read it back to you in a way that’s really reflective of your conversation partner, and, in a way, that you can understand.

So, we wrote a whole article about this but that’s just one class of activities. But the point is it really helps when you actually do it. Again, the tendency is for somebody right now to go, “Oh, cool, roleplay.” But if they don’t pull out their scratch pad, and say, “Ask ChatGPT to be a conversation partner in this upcoming salary negotiation, or my quarterly performance review, or my conversation with my loved one about our care for our kids,” or whatever it is, you just won’t do it.

I’ve even built, and you can link it in the show notes if you want, I built a profiler GPT, which is basically, it’s a version of ChatGPT which remembers who it is, unlike Drew Barrymore in “50 First Dates” where you have to remind ChatGPT who it is every time. A GPT is just like a Drew Barrymore who has memory, right, and like a real human being.

And what this GPT is instructed to do is interview a user about their conversation partner as a psychological profiler would, and then create an instruction set to give the user to copy-paste into a new ChatGPT window of instructions to GPT to perform the role of the psychological profile that it created. So, that’s totally free, but somebody can just open that up and you can say, “My significant other, Sherry,” and all of a sudden, this GPT will just interview you, ask you a bunch of questions, you answer them, and then it spits out an instruction set to a new GPT to play the role of Sherry in the scene that you have told it about.

Pete Mockaitis
I love that. And it also illustrates one of your core principles to effectively using AI is to flip the script a little bit and say, “No, no, you ask me questions.” Can you tell us a bit more about that?

Jeremy Utley
I mean, why is our default orientation that I’m the one with the questions and an LLM is the one with the answers? That’s how everybody approaches it, right? Because that’s how Google works, right? We never think, “Google, ask me a question.” It’s like, “Uh, what are you talking about?” A language model is not a technology, it’s an intelligence. That’s how I would invite people to think about it.

And you can get to know another intelligence, in a weird way, that sounds kind of crazy, but one of the things you can do is another intelligence can help you get to know yourself better. And the simple way to think about it is, here’s another thing for your AI-try-this scratch pad, folks. Get ready to write this down.

Think of a difficult decision you’re trying to make in your life, “Okay, should I take this job? Should we make this decision? Should we move? Should we put our kid in this other school?” whatever it might be, think of that decision, and then go to ChatGPT and say, “Hey, I’d like to talk about this. But before you give me any advice, would you please ask me three questions, one at a time, so that you better understand my perspective and my experience?”

Well, that is right there. If you say you were trying to figure out whether you’re going to send your kid to a new school, I have four children so it’s a very realistic kind of decision for me. I can Google and learn all about the school. But should I send my child to the school? I’m just going to get their marketing material and it’s not going to be contextualized to me at all. But if I go to ChatGPT, and say, “Hey, I’m thinking about sending my child to this school, I’d love to get your advice. But before you tell me anything, would you please ask me three questions?”

All of a sudden, well, it’ll… “Tell us about your child’s favorite subjects.” I’ll tell it. “Tell us about any weaknesses or difficulties that your child has had in school thus far.” I’ll tell it. “Tell us about your child’s favorite teachers.” I don’t know, but an LLM will ask questions like that. And then it will say, “Based on your answers, here’s how I would approach this conversation.”

That’s what I mean by turning the tables on an AI, is put it in the position of an expert that’s getting information from you rather than the default orientation, which is you’re the expert and you’re getting information from the AI.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, we’ve been saying the words ChatGPT a lot. I’m curious, in the world of LLMs, we got your ChatGPT, we got your Claude, we got your Perplexity, we got your Gemini, we got your Grok.

Jeremy Utley
Don’t forget Llama.

Pete Mockaitis
Do you think of them as having different strengths and weaknesses? Or are they kind of all interchangeable for whatever you want to use them for?

Jeremy Utley
I don’t think they’re interchangeable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily because of the underlying model. I think a lot of it is a UX thing. I think that the best AI is an AI that’s available to you that you will use. Again, the key to use is use. So, which is the best AI? Well, it’s the AI that you’re going to use. So, where are you? Most of the time you’re on your mobile. So, I would say it’s probably the AI that’s got the best mobile experience.

And what’s your default orientation? My belief is that the far better orientation towards AI is voice, not fingers. If you think about how you typically interact with a machine, you’re typically typing stuff into a machine. And I like to affectionately refer to my fingers, like as I wiggle them in front of the screen, as my bottlenecks. These are my communication rate limiters right now.

Notice you and I aren’t typing to each other. Like, that sounds absurd, right? And yet that’s how we talk to most machines. I’m typing into the terminal. Well, now, I mean, OpenAI, besides developing the world’s fastest growing consumer application, they created the world’s best voice-to-text technology. And furthermore, now they’ve got AIs that actually just process voice, don’t even go to transcription.

But the point is AIs are now capable of understanding natural language. We talk about this phrase, natural language processing. You probably hear that phrase, natural language processing. And that means something technically. I think to humans, the important thing about natural language processing isn’t what happens technically, but it’s actually you as a human being can now use your natural language, which is your spoken word with your mouth instead of your fingers.

And I would say to anyone who’s listening to this, if your default orientation to any AI, ChatGPT or otherwise, is fingers, you are limiting yourself. You’re trying to run with crutches. It’s, like, you’re in a sack race, okay? Use your voice, lose your thumbs, and watch the level of your interaction skyrocket.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, as we speak in late October of 2024, as far as I know, having played around with the apps, it seems like, indeed, OpenAI’s ChatGPT has got the voice natural interaction thing down the best, as far as I am aware of. Is that your experience?

Jeremy Utley
In my experience, it is. The only other comparison I would say is Meta’s Llama has voice as well, which you can access via WhatsApp or anything like that. The caveat, I would say, is, you know, I was doing a demo. I had a reporter at my place yesterday, kind of I was doing a demo of how I how I use AI in my personal workflow as a writer. And one of the things that I was showing was I’ll use OpenAI ChatGPT voice mode, but then I’ll often grab all the text with my cursor or with my mouse, and I’ll drop it into Claude, and I basically will parallel process ChatGPT and Claude.

So, the fact that Claude doesn’t take voice input isn’t a hindrance if I’m on my computer. When I’m on my mobile device, which, I’m probably on my mobile more than I’m at my computer actually, Claude doesn’t handle voice input, and it’s a little bit unwieldy to go back and forth in apps on your mobile relative to toggling between windows on your computer. So, it’s not to say that means ChatGPT is the best, but when you say, if you have to choose one, right now the model which is most optimized for voice interaction in a – intuitive interface. That, to me, is the way that you should prioritize, is, “What’s intuitive? What can handle the widest range of human input?” And ChatGPT’s got great vision and great voice recognition. And, therefore, I would use that. I’ll give you another example. I’m taking Spanish classes with my kids, okay, and we’re doing these lessons and we have a tutor talking to us on a bi-weekly basis.

And I get this assignment. I’ve got to conjugate a particular verb, and she wants us to write it down. We got to take pictures of it right now. Write it down in my notebook. I’m trying to conjugate this verb, and I kind of get stuck. And I’m thinking, in my mind, like, we only get her twice a week. I’m not going to be able to talk to her until Thursday. It’s Tuesday afternoon. And I thought, “I wonder if ChatGPT can help me.” And I just take a photo of my notebook and my crappy chicken-scratch handwriting, okay, in Spanish, by the way.

I take a photo, I say, “Hey, you’re my Spanish tutor. Can you tell me what I’m doing right now?” “Oh, it looks like you’re trying to conjugate the verb “estar,” and it looks like you’ve missed seven accent marks. If I were going to correct your paper, I would do this,” and rewrote all of the statements that I just made, but properly. “I made this change because of this. I made this change because of this. I made this change…”

And I go, “Dude, it read…” I mean, if you see my handwriting, it’s abysmal. But I did miss all the accent marks, it got that right, because I’m not an accent marker. But, anyway, the point is, the vision capabilities are spectacular too. And when you start to think, again, right now, write that down on your AI scratch pad, people.

Like, people are listening, and the thing is it’s like popcorn at a movie, and we’re just like, “Nom-nom, that’s so interesting. Oh, photos of AI should do that.” You will not do it if you don’t write it down. I’m obsessed with this idea. As you probably know, I’ve got this AI podcast called Beyond the Prompt, which we have amazing kind of experts and lead users and things like that.

We had a guy, who’s former dean at Harvard, 30 plus year learning scientist veteran named Stephen Kosslyn, recently. And he’s kind of the father of the school of thought called active learning. Maybe some folks have heard of it. Active learning, some people mistake as, you know, learning by doing, which isn’t exactly correct, but doing what you learn is an important step.

And what he says is he would contrast what’s typically known as passive learning, which is just consumption, but he would say it’s not actually learning at all. It just happens to you. It’s like you’re renting it. And that information has a very short shelf life and a very short expiration window. Any information that you consume but do not use, you effectively did not consume it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Yes, well said. Well, I’d also love to get your pro take here. It seems like we’ve got a whole lot of cool things we can do that are very handy. What are some things you recommend that we not do, or some limitations like, “No, no, you’re not prompting it wrong. It’s just not going to do what you want it to do right now”?

Jeremy Utley
You know, I’m not a fanboy, I’m not a stockholder, I don’t have any secondary shares. I have yet to butt up against the limitations of use, to be honest with you. I think, right now, most people’s primary limitation is not the technology, it’s their imagination. I would say, like, one way that I’ve put it to students at Stanford is, “The answer is yes. What’s your question?” “Could it…?” The answer is yes. The problem is, for most people, they don’t actually have a question.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Jeremy, if I could put you on the spot a little.

Jeremy Utley
Yeah, please, please, please, by all means, but the challenge is actually finding a question worth asking.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. One thing I’ve tried every which way I can to say, “Yo, here’s a transcript of a podcast interview. What I want from you is to give me 10 options for titles that would be great, that are kind of like these dozens of title options I’ve written for you right here, I previously selected, or teasers.” And then whenever I do that, I get 10 or 20 options, and I go, “Hmm, not one of them am I like, ‘Yes, that is intriguing. That is awesome. That’s a phenomenal title that I want to use.’”

Now, it can nudge or steer me in some good directions, like, “Okay, that was a good phrase there. That was a good word there.” And maybe that’s sort of good enough in what I should expect from it in terms of, yeah, you can have a back-and-forth dialogue, it’s not going to spit out the perfect thing the first time, and be grateful for that. But I don’t know, since you are the master, any pro tips on how I can make it do this thing it just doesn’t seem to be able to do?

Jeremy Utley
So, this is great. What I’m hearing you say is actually a great case study of what we observed in our study, which got published by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times and NPR. We studied teams trying to solve problems, and you could call “Titling this podcast” as a problem that you’re trying to solve. We studied teams and individuals trying to solve problems with generative AI and studied “What do they do?”

And one of the kinds of natural problems that people have is they treat an LLM like it’s an oracle. Like I give it a question and it just magically gives me the right answer right off the bat. And what we would say is teams that treat AI like an oracle tend to underperform. But that’s not to say that everyone who uses AI underperforms. There’s a small subset of folks we studied who actually outperform.

The difference is they didn’t treat AI like an oracle. They treated AI like a co-worker, like a collaborator, like a thought partner. And so, what that interaction might look like is you ask for, say, 10 or 20, “Make it like this.” And then you get the output, and what it looks like to…let me ask you this. If an intern gave you 10 titles that you thought were mediocre, what would you do? Would you fire the intern?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, no, I would say, “Oh, hey, thank you for this. This is my favorite. This is my least favorite. That kind of what I’m looking for is, generally, more actionable, more intriguing, based on the needs of our listeners,” da, da, da, da.

Jeremy Utley
Do you do that to ChatGPT?

Pete Mockaitis
I’ve tried it sometimes.

Jeremy Utley
Yeah, you got to kind of, you got to critique the model’s output. You got to give it feedback. And I had that experience, actually. I had a hero of mine, Ed Catmull on my show a while ago, founder of Pixar, and I wanted the perfect title, of course. It’s, like, got to be the best title ever, right? And I asked for 10 and then I immediately always asked for 10 more.

I don’t even read the first 10. I asked for 10 more and never had ChatGPT say, “Dude, come on, you didn’t read my first ones, you know.” And they’re mediocre, you know, they’re okay. And I said, “Hey, I like one and three in the first set. I like seven and nine in the second set. Can you give me 10 more like those?” What do you think, are they better or worse?

Perfectly the same. Like, not any better, not any worse. And I was like, “Huh, but why? Why didn’t I like one?” I said, “Huh, okay,” I had to think. And what’s funny is, in our study, people who underperformed, AI feels like magic to them. It’s, like, they don’t do as well, but they’re like, “Wow, it just happened so fast.” People who outperform, who use AI to get to better work, it doesn’t feel like magic. It feels like work.

And that’s actually, that’s kind of a fundamental tension. I think we expect it to feel like magic or it sucks. And the truth is it’s just like working with another collaborator, and you do get to better outcomes if you’re willing to put in the work. And in this case, for me at least, the work was, I like number one because I’m a nerd and it has like an obscure movie illusion. I like number three because there’s a pun, and I’m a punny guy. I like number seven because there’s a movie reference baked in and I like number nine, whatever it is.

Then I said to ChatGPT, “Would you leverage that rationale as design principles for another 10, please?” six of the 10 were better than anything I had thought of. But the point is, it does require that collaboration. Now, that being said, that’s as a one-off interaction, Pete. I think what you should do in this case, if that’s it, and what anybody should do is, if there’s a routine workflow, like, how often do you title a podcast?

Pete Mockaitis
At least, twice a week.

Jeremy Utley
Okay. So, to me, that’s kind of square in the crosshairs of a task that it’s kind of a creative challenge, probably takes some amount of time. There’s a potential, you know, so there’s, call it, there’s a two-by-two somewhere that you would hire BCG to spit out, right? But you got a two-by-two, and this probably falls in the top right corner in terms of, like, it’s in GPT’s wheel housing capabilities, and there’s enough regularity that it would meaningfully impact your life or productivity. Great. Okay, there’s your two-by-two. I think that that’s a prime candidate for making a GPT.

Pete Mockaitis
I’ll just make a full-blown GPT?

Jeremy Utley
Yeah, why would you not make a podcast-naming GPT? And then you would put in its knowledge documents, all of the titles and your rationale. And then, importantly, it’s not that you make a GPT and you’re done. You make a GPT, then you try it, and then you see where it’s deficient, and you work to get it right, and then you reprogram, you iterate the instructions to the GPT relative to the work that you had to do in addition.

And what’s the process for that? I would say probably you’re going to instruct the GPT, “I want you to analyze the transcript. I want you to find what are the key points of emphasis in the conversation. I define emphasis as we spent more than two minutes on it or whatever,” I don’t know, right? “I want you to find wherever there is more than five back and forth, that’s evidence that this was particularly engaging.”

Or, furthermore, you might develop a protocol where, after your calls, you have a two-minute Zoom call with yourself, where you say, “Hey, here are the four things I thought were interesting.” And you load that into the GPT as well. I don’t know, “Consult the transcript and the follow-up call transcript that I’ve provided for you. Look for these points, then distill these into these brand guidelines, perhaps, or whatever it is. Then do this, then do this.”

You’d kind of walk the GPT through, you would actually articulate and codify that workflow. And then you would test it, and then you’d iterate it, and you’d test it, and you’d iterate it. And you’d get to the point, I would say, probably, if you’re doing it twice a week, by the end of the month, you’ll probably get to the point where, if you really take it seriously to iterate the GPT’s instruction set, over the course of a month, you’ll have something that’s really great.

Now, the problem is most people aren’t really systems thinkers and they just want to do like a one-off kind of like band-aid solution, which is fine. I’m probably more that way myself, unfortunately. So, I’d rather just, it’s less painful on a one-off just to do the work again myself. Systematically, it’s much more painful to do it one-off every time by myself. And so, you kind of got to decide.

And to me, that becomes a function of “What is a task whose output you would refuse to settle for less than exceptional?” That’s a great task for a GPT because you’re not going to be okay with anything less than a really good GPT. And it summons the requisite activation energy required for you to continue to invest in iterating it.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Okay. So, it starts with a mindset of, “Okay, don’t talk to it like it’s an oracle. Expect we’re going to need some back and forth, some collaboration, some iteration, some refinement.” And then it’s your bullish take that, at the end of the day, it’s going to cut the mustard and deliver the goods.

Jeremy Utley
Unequivocally.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Beautiful.

Jeremy Utley
That, to me, is it’s unfathomable that it can’t deliver on that use case.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. You heard it here first.

Jeremy Utley
I mean, really and truly, and I’d be happy to workshop with you if you’d like. But, to me, that is absolutely a use case that GPT can shine with.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, we talk about use cases. You’re real big on idea flow. It’s getting a whole lot of ideas, a whole lot of creative options generated. Tell me, how do you use AI in that endeavor well?

Jeremy Utley
Well, the easiest thing to do is, which you did well in your example, is request options. I think, for most people, they ask one question, they expect one answer. And with a probabilistic, non-deterministic model, which means LLMs are probabilistic in nature, every time you ask a question, you’re going to get a different answer.

And sometimes the answer is there’s a higher degree of overlap, sometimes they’re radically different, even within the same instruction sets. You could say it’s a bug. I actually think it’s a feature because I believe in variability of thinking is actually what drives creative outcomes. And so, when you realize that, then, “Wow, I could hit regenerate and it will reconsider the question again?” “Yeah.” “Well, why wouldn’t I hit regenerate five times?” Great question. Why wouldn’t you?

And most people go, “I’ve never hit regenerate.” I think it’s actually probably the most important button on the screen. Because you have a collaborator, you and I are going back and forth, and I say, “Hey, Pete, what do we do about this?” You go, “Well, here’s an idea.” And I go, “Okay. Well, what else?” And you’re like, “Okay, let me dig deeper,” and then you say something. I go, “Okay. Well, what, like five more ideas?” And after a while, you’d be like, “Dude, I gave you all my ideas.”

But ChatGPT is not like that. AI is not like that. And so, one of the simple tricks for idea flow with AI is recognizing you’re not going to tire itself out. In fact, you need to recognize your own cognitive bias. I mean, it’s one of my kind of nerd obsessions is what’s called the Einstellung effect, which is the tendency of a human being to settle on good enough as quickly as possible, demonstrated since the 1940s by Abraham and Edith Luchins, where they’ve kind of documented, very clearly how human beings kind of get in a cognitive rut, and they just want a good enough answer, and they don’t actually get the best answer. They just get a good enough answer.

And so, to me, the key to maximizing idea flow with an AI is recognizing that the creative problem in that collaboration is actually your human cognitive bias, not the AI’s bias.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Thank you. Oh, boy, Jeremy, I could talk about this forever. But before we hear about some of your favorite things, could you share any other top do’s and don’ts?

Jeremy Utley
One thing, I think, is a really simple thing that you can do, and it’s not unrelated to your idea of asking ChatGPT or whatever, for a number, kind of saying how confident it is. One thing that you can often do is ask it to evaluate its own work, “Scale of zero to 100, how great was the previous response? Be like a tough Russian ballet instructor, give me critical feedback.” And it’ll go, “Oh, it’s a 60 out of 100 for this reason.”

Well, then you could say, “Okay, based on that feedback, can you rewrite it as 100 out of 100? Rewrite it as 110 out of 100. Now, regenerate it. Now, regenerate it again. Now, grade that one. Is it really 100? Bring in another Russian judge. What does the second Russian judge think?” So, one thing that you should definitely do is get AI to evaluate its own work. It’s far better at being objective.

Like, as a simple example for me, and then I also want to mention chain of thought reasoning, so make sure I come back to that. But one thing I’ll do is I’ll do kind of parallel processing between ChatGPT and Claude, and I’m having both work on something. I take their output and I feed it to the other, and I ask, “Which one is better? Is Claude’s work better or ChatGPT’s work better?”

You would think that they both advocate for themselves. They don’t, but they almost always agree. It’s fascinating, actually. There are times where ChatGPT is like, “I actually prefer Claude’s response for this reason, this reason.” And if I go to Claude, it goes, “I think my response is stronger for this, this, this.” And half the time, it’s the other way.

But it’s actually exceedingly rare that they disagree. They often will say the other’s is better, but they almost always agree with the other’s assessment too, which is fascinating, which is to say you can have models evaluate one another’s work. The other thing, the other huge do, probably the single greatest empirically validated finding is that the best way to get better output from an LLM. is to prompt it with what’s known as chain of thought reasoning, which is to say, tell the language model to articulate its thought process before answering.

And so, humans have this tendency, so do AIs, of what we all know as ex post rationalizing. So, if I ask you, “What’s your favorite color?” You say, “It’s blue.” “Well, why did you say blue?” You go, “Oh, well, I like the sky, and I like the ocean, and da, da.” But if instead, I say, “Hey, tell me how you think about what your favorite color is,” and you go, “Well, I probably think about my favorite things.”

And then I go, “Well, what are your favorite things?” You go, “Well, my wife, obviously, and I think about her eye color, and they’re green. You know, green’s my favorite color.” “Well, is it blue or is it green?” Actually, and for me, even as I think through that thought exercise, green, emphatically. I take my wife’s eyes any day over the sunset. That’s a no-brainer, right?

Well, similarly, language models do the same thing. If you ask it for an answer, and it says blue, and then you go, “Why did you say blue, ChatGPT?” it will ex post rationalize. And blue is very subjective, but even with things that are objective, more objective, it will ex post rationalize its answer. If, however, you say, “Hey, before you answer the question, would you walk me through how you’re going to think about solving this problem?” It will articulate its answer and it arrives at, from a research perspective, empirically better, more valid, more cogent, etc. responses.

And the reason it does so is because of how language models work. They aren’t premeditating their answers. So, what it’s not doing, as Pete asks a question, and then it thinks of its answer and writes it out. That’s not what happens. What happens is Pete asks a question and it reads the question and says, “What’s the first word of the answer?” and it says it.

And then it reads your question, and the first word it thought of, and says, “What’s the second word?” And then it reads your question and its first and second word, and thinks, “What’s the third word?” So, it’s not premeditating responses. It’s, literally, only predicting the next token. And so, when you ask it for an answer, the only thing it’s predicting is its answer.

If, however, you ask for reasoning and then answer, it first next token predicts reasoning, and then it incorporates the reasoning that it has articulated in its response, which results in a much better response because it’s not only considered your question, but it’s also considered reasoning first. And as a user on the other side of the collaboration, what that enables you to do is not only, one, get better responses, but, two, you can interrogate its reasoning too.

And you can say, “Actually, it’s not that I have a problem with your answer. I have a problem with how you approach the question. I actually think you should do this.” And then you can guide its reasoning path because you’ve asked it to make its reasoning explicit. Those are the two probably biggest do’s, I would say, when you ask for do’s and don’ts.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. And it sounds like the key is that you ask for it in advance as opposed to, “How did you come up with that?”

Jeremy Utley
Yeah, exactly. That’s ex post rationalizing. It will give you a great answer. It’s a sycophant. LLMs have been programmed to be helpful assistants. And when you realize what that means, it’s a euphemism for suck up. So, if you ask it what it thinks, it’s going to say, “I think that’s a really great idea, Peter.” But if you say, “I don’t want you to compliment me. I want you to be brutally honest. Don’t pull any punches,” like, you got to really ask an AI to level with you to get honest feedback.

When you’re aware of that, it influences how you collaborate with the model, which goes back to the question earlier about idea flow. It’s recognizing your own, I mean, there are limitations to the technology, but a lot of times the truth is we want a suck up. I don’t want to hear how my first draft sucks. I want to hear, “Actually, you don’t need to do any more work. You go have a coffee.” That’s what I want to hear.

And if I don’t realize that the model has been trained to be a suck up, I ask it, assuming I’m getting the truth, and then when it tells me I’ve done great work, I say, “Well, let’s take a break, boys. We’re all done here.” Whereas, if I realize, “You know what, unless I really push it to give me straight feedback, it’s probably going to tell me I’ve done a great job. And I know my human cognitive bias is to overweight the response that I did a great job, and to underweight…” So, you have to understand yourself. In a way, the key to good human-AI collaboration is to really understand our own humanity.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s powerful. Thank you. And now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Jeremy Utley
One is Thomas Schelling, Nobel Prize winner in Economics, who said, “No matter how heroic one’s imagination, a man can never think of that which would never occur to him.”

The second quote that I love is Amos Tversky, Danny Kahneman’s lifelong research partner, who died prior to receiving the Nobel Prize. But Amos Tversky was once asked how he and Kahneman devised such inventive experiments. And he said, “The secret to doing good research is to always be a little underemployed.  You waste years when you can’t afford to waste hours.”

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

Jeremy Utley
I think there’s a great one that I always come back to called the creative cliff illusion, which is conducted by Nordgren and colleagues at Toronto, I want to say. You can look it up, creative cliff illusion. But the basic idea is when they ask participants what their expectations of their creativity over time were, there is an illusion that one’s creativity degrades to a point that reaches a cliff where it almost asthmatically falls off. And people’s, their expectation is, “I’m just going to run out of creative ideas.”

The paper is obviously called the Creative Cliff Illusion because then, when they test people, it’s not true. They don’t run out of creative ideas. They, actually, their creativity persists. And my favorite part of the study is the shape of the creativity, over time, the variable that it’s most highly correlated with, i.e. “Does creativity dip or does it increase?” because it does increase for some people. The variable that determines the shape of your creativity over time is actually your expectation.

So, if you expect that you will keep having creative ideas, you do. If you expect you will cease having creative ideas, you do. And so, that to me is just totally fascinating.

Pete Mockaitis
Totally. And a favorite book?

Jeremy Utley
I love Mark Randolph’s book about the founding of Netflix called That Will Never Work. It’s a fascinating story about entrepreneurship, about grit and perseverance, and about ideas. And there’s a lot of very practical takeaways about the importance of experimentation in finding product market fit and succeeding.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite tool?

Jeremy Utley
I’ve got an electric chainsaw, and I love tromping around the woods, just chainsaw in hand, like, just in case I need it. It’s just so fun.

Pete Mockaitis
Awesome. And a favorite habit?

Jeremy Utley
NSDR, non-sleep deep rest protocol, Andrew Huberman. It’s, basically, laying down and becoming totally still, not for the purpose of sleep, necessarily. It’s okay if you do sleep, but it’s not in order to sleep, but to facilitate neurological replenishment, connections between neurons, and codification of memory. And I try, if I can, to NSDR once a day.

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

Jeremy Utley
I talked earlier about the value of variation in one’s thinking. And the truth is ideas are naturally occurring phenomena, which is a nerdy way of saying they’re normally distributed. So, you got some really great ideas, very small, it’s a bell curve, right? You got a lot of ordinary ideas and you got some stupid ideas. Steve Jobs called them dopey ideas. He regularly shared dopey ideas with Sir Jony Ive.

Taylor Swift says, “It’s my hundreds or thousands of dumb ideas that have led me to my good ideas.” You got dopey or dumb on one side of the spectrum, you got delightful on the other side of the spectrum. The quote that I often say that people remember and resonates, and they take with them is, I tell people, “Dopey is the price of delight.”

The only way you get good ideas is by allowing yourself to have bad ideas. And the reason most people don’t have better ideas is because they won’t allow themselves to have worse ideas.

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

Jeremy Utley
JeremyUtley.design And LinkedIn, I’m happy to chat with folks on LinkedIn. My website, JeremyUtley.design, I’ve got a newsletter folks can subscribe to. I’ve also got an introductory AI drill course where you get two weeks of daily drills for, you know, they say you need 10 hours of practice with AI to start to become fluent. This gives you daily practice to get your first 10 hours under your belt.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a final challenge or call to action for folks who want to be awesome at their jobs? Sounds like we just got one.

Jeremy Utley
To me, it’s very simple. Do one thing you heard here.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Jeremy, this is fun. This is fascinating. Thank you. And keep up the awesome work.

Jeremy Utley
Thank you. My pleasure.

1103: The Four Universal Patterns of Winning Innovation with JoAnn Garbin

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Former Microsoft leader JoAnn Garbin reveals the patterns and principles behind Microsoft’s biggest innovation wins.

You’ll Learn

  1. What most people overlook about innovation
  2. The secret to getting executives on board
  3. The four patterns responsible for Microsoft’s success

About JoAnn

JoAnn Garbin is a sustainability and technology entrepreneur with a 25-year track record of leading teams “from nothing to something to scale,” creating numerous innovative products and profitable businesses. During her tenure as Director of Innovation in Microsoft’s cloud business, she guided her team in developing billion-dollar opportunities, including the Regenerative Datacenter of the Future. In 2024, she founded Regenerous Labs, a collaboration committed to creating cross-sector transformations. 

JoAnn is an active alumnus of Villanova University, where she studied mechanical engineering and philosophy. Her fresh eyes and thought leadership were instrumental in driving novel insights into The Insider’s Guide to Innovation at Microsoft.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome
  • Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO
  • Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome
  • Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.

JoAnn Garbin Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
JoAnn, welcome!

JoAnn Garbin
Hi, thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, thank you. I’m excited to talk innovation, and I want to hear your backstory. I understand, one of your earliest tech innovations occurred at a mascot-cooling system company. Tell us the whole tale, please.

JoAnn Garbin
Well, it was my company, a brave 22-year-old that I was, and it was an innovation that came out of being a mascot. And if you, which I’ve heard a rumor that you were a mascot, if you’ve ever been in a mascot suit, you know that it takes about two minutes before you’re completely overheated. And I was a mechanical engineering student, and I was, like, “I can solve this problem.”

So, what turned into a senior project with some friends, then after school, became my first company, and I actually managed to sell a few, which was really cool, including to the Seattle Seahawks, which, full circle, I live in Seattle now.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I was a mascot way back in, maybe seventh grade, eighth grade. I was the Holy Family Hornet. So, I don’t think I ever got crazy hot because I was mostly at basketball games, inside airconditioned gyms, as opposed to being in a brutally hot outside baseball, football stadium. Whew.

JoAnn Garbin
And you were in seventh grade, and we seem to be able to tolerate anything when we’re kids.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, that, too. So, how does the cooling system work?

JoAnn Garbin
It was a passive system, which, today, when I look at the tech we use, so this is late, early ‘90s, we, as students, we reached out to DuPont, and they had just come up with this new fanciful material called wicking material, which is now in every sports garment you wear. And we reached out to this Danish company that had something better than ice, what’s called a phase change material, which is essentially a salt that has a higher capacity to absorb heat.

Phase change materials today are also in everything. Like, you can get a cooling vest for your dog that, from like Chewy or the local pet store, that is essentially what my classmates and I designed in the early ‘90s.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s intriguing. And just because I’m full of curiosity, we’ll get into how it could be more innovative shortly. But a phase change material, so does that mean it changes phase from solid to liquid at a different temperature, or it takes more total energy to pull off the phase change, or both?

JoAnn Garbin
Both. And so, the practical advantages of it, is that if I put ice packs against my skin and then put a mascot suit on, that ice melts in minutes, and now you’re carrying around pockets of water on top of, you know, already having this heavy suit on.

But this one, this salt pack that we found back then, if you put it in the Gatorade cooler on the football bench, so just iced water, essentially, it would refreeze.

And then because it had a higher capacity to absorb heat, you could wear it for two or three times longer than an ice pack before you needed to refreeze it.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. Well, now I’m thinking about coolers. It sounds like we could probably do a lot better than ice, but I don’t see much stuff, according to America’s Test Kitchen, that freezing packs are performing any better than just normal ice.

JoAnn Garbin
I haven’t done the research since the early ‘90s. But I do know, like, I get meal kits delivered half a dozen meals a week so that I eat, and it comes with non-ice packs.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, the gel stuff.

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah. And the really cool ones are the kind that, once they thaw, they’re biodegradable and non-toxic, so you can just pour them down the sink, so now you don’t have this massive collection of ice packs. We could talk all day about packaging innovation. I’m a total packaging nerd, but I would venture to bet that a lot of those gels are phase change materials.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, you’re a packaging nerd, I’m a packaging sucker, “Oh. that looks pretty. It must be a great product.” “That’s what they want you to think, Pete. Be a critical thinker.”

JoAnn Garbin
Well, that’s why YETI can charge what they charge.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s right.

JoAnn Garbin
It’s not that dramatically different than a regular cooler. It just has the brand appeal of being a brand of mountaineers, and they use, this is marketing innovation, “How can I make you feel like a mountaineer? I can sell you the same cooler the mountaineer uses.”

Pete Mockaitis
I remember, I was with my buddy, who is a long-term Nike employee, and we were at the Nike employee store, which is fun because he’s got a big old discount. And I said, “Ooh, I really like this backpack. And it has these grooves in the back. And I wonder if that would facilitate airflow to cool my back down a little when I’m walking on a hot day and I got all that backpack sweat?” And he just said, “Hmm, do you perceive it to?” I was like, “That’s your whole game, isn’t it?”

JoAnn Garbin
That is a big part of it in a lot of products.

Pete Mockaitis

“Do you perceive it to?” Okay. Well, we’re talking more broadly and, hopefully, actionably about innovation. And, boy, you’ve spent decades directing innovation and teaching it and consulting on it. So, can you share with us, for starters, what’s one of the most surprising or counterintuitive discoveries you’ve made in your career about how innovation happens?

JoAnn Garbin
This is something that pops up every time I start a company, I join a company, I have a crazy idea and I start executing, but it’s really shown through in the book case studies, The Insider’s Guide to Innovation at Microsoft Dean Carignan and I, we studied all these cases across Microsoft history.

And, time and again, we go into innovation discovery thinking it’s that lightning strike. It’s that moment of genius where the dots just connect, that’s innovation. It’s totally not. It is the 99.9% of the sweat and effort that comes after that. That is the biggest thing that comes up again and again throughout innovation, that doesn’t surprise me so much anymore, but I think it does surprise people because we just get, again, perception is everything.

We get sold the story that it’s the genius idea, or the lightning bolt, but it’s actually execution. So, Dean and I set out to write a book on how to innovate. And one of the major themes that came out of it is, it’s all about execution.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And what is that, was that Edison, the famous quotation, that, “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”?

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
So, execution is where it’s at, and understood. Well, then tell us, what are some of the key places that folks go wrong when they’re executing, “Ooh, we got a cool idea. Let’s go make it happen”? What are some of the common pitfalls?

JoAnn Garbin
There are so many missteps to be made. And then there’s just bad luck, bad timing, bad environment. But if we look at the things we can control, one of the hardest things for the person with the insight, or the idea, to accept is that it won’t be so obvious to everyone else.

Just because you have connected the dots and are so psyched about this doesn’t mean your boss will be, your coworkers will be, your vendors or suppliers will be. And you have to recognize that it does take all of those people to bring something into the world. There’s a great quote in the book by the head of the developer division at Microsoft, Julia Elgluisen. And she says, “If your idea hasn’t made it into the world and isn’t changing someone’s life, it’s not innovation. It’s just a cool idea.”

So, when you frame it that way and realize just how many people it takes, the very first thing you have to do is get them excited about the big vision. Once you do that, and that’s, like, that’s not engineering, that’s storytelling, that’s, you know, passion, that’s meeting people where they’re at and connecting into what wakes them up in the morning, and gets them out of bed, not what gets you out of bed.

So, there’s a whole mechanism and process and tools for doing that. Marketers know this. This is how they get us to buy the YETI cooler. You got to tap into that skillset very early on so that you get the people you need on side with you. And then you got to give them a path forward. You can’t keep people bought in for the long run on a hope and a prayer, right?

You have to lay down stepping stones, little wins, quick value creation, things that return investment to the company right away, but are in the direction of your big idea so that you can point to it and say, “Look at what we just did. Isn’t that great? We’re on our way.” And then you do the next one. And those stepping stones give you the confidence, and your teammates the confidence, that you might actually get to that horizon point you laid out.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I like that a lot. And talking about that marketing skillset, it seems that many of the top luminaries, visionaries, billionaires, at the heads of tech companies that are super famous, that seems to be one of the top things they do, is that the storytelling and the framing of their thing. And I’m thinking about the TV series, “Silicon Valley,” and it’s almost sort of like a joke. It’s like, “And we’re changing the world.”

And it’s like, “Okay. Well, you know, it’s a website and people post their pictures and stuff.” It’s like, “Okay, we’re changing the world to be more connected.” And so, it sounds lofty. And yet, at the same time, this storytelling, this framing, it seems to do the trick for investors and for users and for customers to hop on board.

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah, it’s how we’ve communicated since the beginning of humanity. We’ve told stories, and there’s plenty of science and research to support it. Actually, one of my friends just has a new book out called Primal Intelligence, by Angus Fletcher.

And he’s a neuroscientist, and what he calls a professor of story-thinking, and he breaks down why we respond so strongly to stories, and how to construct stories to get people bought in and moving along with you, whether that’s external marketing or internal rallying for the troops and innovation.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, can you share with us any top tips or stories about stories that really got the job done?

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah, one of the favorite examples is the original Nike “Just Do It” commercial. So, if you remember, it was an octogenarian, an 80-year-old marathon runner. And when the commercial starts, they zoom in and he’s running across the Golden Gate Bridge, and he’s shirtless and he’s got this big tattoo on, but he’s this older man and you’re already like, “What is even happening here?”

But you’re brought right into the middle of the action, and then they back up and they explain, “Here is this 80-year-old marathon runner who runs 17 miles a day, but he didn’t start running until he was 70. Just do it.” And now your brain is going, “Oh, what do I want to just do? What’s my future? How do I get there? If he can run 17 miles a day at 80, I can do it, too.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I like that. It is, and primal, I think, is the word. It goes beyond an intellectual understanding of, “Ah, yes it’s possible even for someone who was elderly to embark upon ambitious endeavors.” It’s more of a, “Aargh, yeah. Let’s get after it.”

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah. So, Angus knows I love his book, so highly recommend diving into storytelling, story-thinking and all the tools around it.

Pete Mockaitis
Super. Thank you. Well, so could you share with us, perhaps the big idea in your book, The Insider’s Guide to Innovation at Microsoft?

JoAnn Garbin
Yes, of course. Dean and I set out, we’re both innovators at Microsoft. I was leading the data center of the future program in our cloud business. And my background is really as a repeat entrepreneur, figuring out a problem I want to solve, building a team, going out and trying to solve it.

So, I came into Microsoft, this big organization, I’m like, “How the heck does innovation happen here? I’m in an innovation role and nobody can tell me how it happens here for real.” So, I sought out Dean, we got to know each other. And as we started trading what we joke are war stories about innovation, because it’s often a rebel cause or a battle, we started seeing that we had a lot more in common than different.

So that set us on this path of there must be common principles and tools and processes and insights that just cut across industry, time, and business model, right? So, we set out to talk to as many innovators from past and present Microsoft as we could. The company just turned 50, so there was just this massive history of stuff we could dig into.

And we came out, you know, that was our hypothesis, “We’re going to uncover these commonalities.” So that’s what we set out for, and we were very pleased that it showed to be true. We ended up finding four big patterns of innovation.

And we broke it down into everyday things you do, things you do over the years to be continuously and adaptively innovative, how you innovate with everyone, which goes back to that storytelling, and then everything beyond technology, because, too often, we think about the lightbulb and we don’t think about the marketing and the pricing and the supply chain, and all of those things matter.

So, within those four patterns, we identify a set of tools and a way to put them into use together to go from what we call nothing to something to scale.

Pete Mockaitis
And could you give us the one-minute version of what are each of these four big patterns, one minute-ish each. No pressure.

JoAnn Garbin
So, no, no, no, I’ve read the book a few times. Everyday stuff is building up habits. So, you’ll hear this from coaches and leaders alike in all walks of life – musicians, artists, professional sports player. Anybody that has become a master of their craft, they will talk about the habits that they form and that they practice every day, so that what they’re doing isn’t something they have to write a checklist to do or think about doing. It’s just how they function.

So, the first pattern of every day is, “How do you do that as an individual? But also, how do you build that habit-building cycle into your organization?” Because it’s one thing for you to be doing discovery by design as an individual. It’s another thing if you have your entire company doing discovery by design. Or, another one is double-loop learning, where you don’t just iterate on the solution to whatever problem you’re solving, but you iterate on the assumptions that you’ve made about the solution. So, there’s a whole toolbox just to that.

Over the years is, “Great. You have all these habits now, and you have all these ideas.” But if you’ve paid attention at all, disruption comes all the time. So, the idea that you’ve set out five years ago is either dead or dying right now. It’s just not going to be what you can run your company on. So, we spend a whole chapter talking about that pattern of continuous innovation.

It’s the theme of the cover of the book, which looks like an infinity. And we talk about both how to stay on that curve and keep going around and around so that you, like Microsoft, can say you’re 50 years old and have done it a few times. But we also talk about how you get kicked off the curb and you end up in the very deep pool of companies and great ideas that came, died, and disappeared.

Then we have innovating with everyone. And I think, Dean and I talk about this. This is probably the most important of the four because it takes so many people to bring something into reality. And that’s recognizing that change is hard, that most people are not pioneers or cliff divers or adrenaline junkies, that want to be the first one out on the big wave or whatever.

So, you’ve got this whole group of people in your company, you’ve got to figure out what moves them and how to speak to them in their terms, and how to connect with them and bring them into your idea so that it’s their idea too.

And then, finally, is the last one, we have this predisposition to think that innovation is technology, but there’s lots of books beyond ours that talk about all the innovations that have happened throughout history. Most of the value has been created by everything upstream and downstream of the innovation. A simple example, Uber or Lyft, these rideshare companies.

They didn’t create new cars, new scooters, new bicycles. They created a new business model in the sharing economy and how to connect people to the mode of transportation that they need. That’s not technology. Like, their applications aren’t all that wild. It was thinking through the problem from a different angle. There are all these aspects to innovation, and that fourth chapter goes into that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, let’s perhaps zoom into a typical professional, mid-level at a mid-size company, not necessarily a tech giant, and they would like more cool, innovative stuff to be happening more often. Do you have any top do’s and don’ts you’d suggest for right away today?

JoAnn Garbin
Yes. First thing is you have to find your tribe. You’ve got to find other people looking to fix something that you think needs fixing. There is a lot you can do. You got to make time for learning and exposing yourself to what other companies are doing and the new science or tech or marketing. That you can do on your own.

But to really innovate, you’ve got to find other people that want to do it too, because that’s where the magic happens. Right now, it’s Hack Week at Microsoft. So, 70,000 plus Microsoft people are coming together in Hackathon to go from idea to prototype in one week. That started way back before Satya was CEO. He’s the CEO that brought Hackathon into being.

But before he existed, a bunch of people that just felt like the company wasn’t innovating enough at their level, at that mid-level, it was all like big guys coming up with ideas and passing it down the chain for execution, this group started what has now become the garage, but they called it a speakeasy.

And they would just get together and they would brainstorm and they would prototype and they would try things and they would bring other people in and tap into everybody’s skills to propose solutions to problems they saw every day. Again, practice, right? So, they started innovating by innovating. So, find a problem you want to solve, find some friends that want to solve it too and just start trying to solve it.

But then there’s the other side of it. No matter if you’re in anything other than a solo company, you’ve got to get buy-in from leadership. And every single case study, we’ve studied everything I’ve ever done in my career and Dean’s career, you have to have the executive champion. Especially, the bigger the initiative, the more important that becomes.

So, if you’re going to do the speakeasy in your organization, only push that rock up a mountain so far before you find your executive champion who can pull it to the top, because, otherwise, it gets a bit exhausting to keep pushing against what everybody else is looking to the leadership for what’s important.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now in your book, you have many case studies. Could you share, which story do you think is perhaps the most illustrative and full of actionable wisdom for everyday folks looking to be awesome at their jobs? And can we hear that tale?

JoAnn Garbin
Everybody loves the Xbox story. The Xbox story is one of innovating culture. And what’s really cool about that one is that, at the time, this little team was challenged with creating gaming at Microsoft, actually, two teams were spun up to do it and one won out. That was the Bill Gates-Steve Balmer way is put people head-to-head and see who wins. But it was a productivity company. It was SQL Server.

It’s cubicles and, you know, pocket protectors and it’s not the thrill and the excitement of a gaming company. So, this group of people, from the very outset, had to overcome a cultural disconnect with the rest of the company. And they’ve had to do that four more times, if not more, since then, because of all the industries we deal with, gaming has changed the most and fastest. It’s always on the cutting edge of tech. It’s always using the fastest processors and doing the most incredible things.

And so, this little group of folks, back in the day, they first had a challenge, the perceived, things like Bill Gates saying, “I want this to obviously run on Windows. Like, our gaming platform is going to be a Windows platform.” And this group of people saying to Bill Gates, “Hmm, no, it can’t run on Windows. Windows is too bloated and slow. Nobody will want to play our games.”

So, those types of challenges are just so fascinating that you see in practice how having that tight-knit group of people that are passionate and productive in solving the problem can convince somebody like Bill Gates to invest in them.

One of my favorite pieces is, in the early days, they had this role, this middle management role called the business unit manager. And that person owned…

Pete Mockaitis
The BUMs, if you will.

JoAnn Garbin
The BUMs. I love that it was called the BUMs. And they had profit and loss control, right? Like, so each one of them had their own little fiefdom, their own little business. And Robbie Bach, who was the head of Gaming at that point, looked at it and said, “They’re all preserving their own fiefdom. They’re not working together because they want their P&L to look the best, get the biggest bonus, etc.”

So, he blew it up, and he said, “We’re going to have one P&L, the Gaming P&L.” And they got rid of the BUMs. And that changed everything at a critical moment for the organization to be able to come together and innovate cohesively, moving forward, without the inner competition between the teams.

And they didn’t know. It was an experiment. They didn’t know if those senior leaders, used to having P&L responsibility, would be okay with it being taken away from them. And once they put it out there and they did the storytelling and the reasons why, and they brought people along, all but one BUM transitioned, one left.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, and I also recall, I saw a YouTube video about the history of the Xbox, and I have all sorts of fun little memories associated with, I don’t know why, I guess it really left an impression, when Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was on stage with Bill Gates, and they presented the first Xbox.

But I heard that, in one of the meetings, a transformational moment, to the point about storytelling and talking about what people really, really value and what moves them, is I heard, and tell me the inside scoop here, that Bill Gates was kind of on the fence, like, “Ah, okay, maybe, yeah.”

And then someone said, “What about Sony?” And then that was pretty transformational in terms of it’s like, “Well, we can’t let Sony just take this. Let’s go. Yeah, we got to do it.” And so, just like that. Can you share about that?

JoAnn Garbin
Yes. So, if you remember the old Microsoft mission statement, it was “A personal computer in every home and office.” Well, they were doing great with the work, and they were doing great at home, to a certain extent, you know, PCs were leading the way. However, you have Sony, all of a sudden, and they own the gaming console, the TV, the radio, like, all of a sudden, the living room is starting to be Sony’s world.

And what Bill and Steve Balmer heard from the team was, “All right, if you don’t want to do this for the opportunity, how about fear? Sony owns the living room. How long is it going to take them to move into the home office?” And that little nugget, that little insight was enough, I’m sure among a few other things, to get them over the hurdle, and say, “Oh, that’s an existential threat.”

And we actually saw that come up in other case studies as well, like the Bing case study. I love the Bing team. I am their biggest fan after I heard their story, just blown away by what they were able to do for the company that nobody even knows about. But one of the biggest things that answered a question that I long had is, “Why does Bing exist? Like, if Google owns 90% of search, pre-AI, why does Microsoft keep investing in Bing?”

But it was for the same reason they started Gaming. Google, owning all of search with no competition biting at their heels, that’s a bad thing for everybody. So, Microsoft has stayed in to just be a thorn in the side of Google for all these years, chewing away half a percent of the market share at a time, so that Google couldn’t just say, “Oh, well, we won search. Let us go win productivity and let us go win these other markets that are the Microsoft bread and butter.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s interesting. The notion of winning dominance, influence, power, it’s a theme or a force or a motivator, I guess it’s primal, it’s emotional and present within some of the leadership there at Microsoft. And then I guess another theme is the being able to just jettison the old stuff that wasn’t working.

Because my understanding now, in the world of gaming, like Microsoft, as far as I know, is winning big with, like, the Game Pass and the monthly subscription. And part of that was they have chilled out a lot on the notion of, “We have to have these exclusive titles because we have to have them by the Xbox because they want the coolest games that are only available on Xbox.”

And now it’s shifted a bit to, “Yeah, we kind of don’t care what device you’re bringing to the table. We would just love for you to have a subscription to all these games, whether you’re playing them on an iPad or a TV or an Xbox or anything.” And it seems to be financially working out quite well.

JoAnn Garbin
Yes. And again, this is business model innovation, right? This isn’t technology. It’s actually decreasing the emphasis on the tech itself, because consoles, there’s only so many you can sell. There’s only so much diffusion of that tech out into the world.

And as Phil says in the book, Phil Spencer, the CEO of Gaming, “When you have 3 billion gamers, is there one device or one business model that is going to be affordable and enjoyable to everyone? No.” And, in fact, most games to this day are played on PC or laptops and mobile, not consoles.

So, it takes a lot of really good innovation discipline to look at your prized thing, like, in this case, a console, and say, “You got us here. You got us to a hundred million players, or maybe even 500 million players, but you’re not going to get us to three billion players. So, how do we get those three billion?”

And flipping those questions around, and it’s not, “How do we get more people to play our games, or play our games on our consoles?” It’s, “How do we get into the hands of three billion players?” Well, let them play games anywhere. Let them play any game. Let them play games with their friends that aren’t on the same technologies.

So, when you turn the problem around and really focus on how to win the gamer, not win the console war, it changes what you bring to market.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, JoAnn, tell me, any final quick tips, tricks, do’s, don’ts before we hear about some of your favorite things?

JoAnn Garbin
I’m going to steal from another friend who I think is brilliant, Michael Gervais. Michael Gervais has a show called Finding Mastery, and he’s the former advisor to the Seattle Seahawks, a theme that keeps coming up. And he’s a sports psychologist for high performance.

And again, we can learn a lot, looking at professional athletes because they’re at the top of their field. And it’s about breaking it down. Like, if you have an intention or a purpose, maybe your life purpose, that’s overwhelming. But if you can take that life purpose or intention and bring it back to, “What’s my purpose today?” and then live into that, “Tomorrow, what’s my purpose? Today, live into that.” And then gradually build that up into a weekly habit, monthly habit, annual habit.

This is the same thing we see in the innovation world of, “If my first instinct becomes curiosity, not assumption, ask more questions, don’t try to answer things right away, I’m going to be a better innovator because that’s just habit.”

So, I would say take whatever big thing you’re trying to do, bring it back down to those stepping stones, or what Michael calls the thin slices, and just start stacking them and make progress. And then congratulate yourself on the progress that you’re making, because that matters. You need to own up to what you do, both good and bad.

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

JoAnn Garbin
So, this is not a famous quote unless you happen to be in Goju-ryu karate. But the rules of the dojo that I practiced in with my oldest brother when we were teenagers and into college. They’ve really become guiding principles for me in pretty much everything I do. “Everyone works. Nothing is free. All start at the bottom.”

But those middle three, I see them again and again. And it just reminds me, when I’m not the best at something, I’m like, “Everybody starts at the bottom.” You got to do the practice, do the work, move up. “Everyone works.” You don’t age out of doing the work. You don’t get promoted up above the work. Everyone works and, “Nothing is free.” There’s always a tradeoff. There’s always a cost. You have to determine whether it’s one that’s suitable for you.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool?

JoAnn Garbin
My favorite tool is the question. I love, like, if I’m stuck on anything, I get a couple people together and we throw a hundred questions at it, and I never have walked out without some forward progress.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, that’s beautiful. We had Hal Gregerson talk about question-storming and how transformative that can be to unblock things. So, it’s cool.

JoAnn Garbin
It’s one of my favorite practices. I talk about it in the book, and I’ve taken the class with Hal.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, cool. And is there a key nugget you share that folks really love and quote back to you often?

JoAnn Garbin
It’s, “Say it ugly.” So, this is a mantra my teams use to remind ourselves that there’s no ego, there’s no holding back, no toes are going to get stepped on. Say it ugly. Put it on the table. We’ll pretty it up together. Because if you keep it stuck in your head, it’s not doing anybody any good. So just get it out quick and often.

Pete Mockaitis

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

JoAnn Garbin
We’re everywhere at this point, except TikTok, haven’t really.

Pete Mockaitis
You do some dances, get them worked up, some choreography.

JoAnn Garbin
Yeah, pull out the old mascot-ing moves. LinkedIn is our favorite platform, not just because Microsoft owns it, but because we are predominantly a business conversation. So, Dean and I are both on LinkedIn. The book is on LinkedIn and you can follow us there.

But we also have our website, InnovationAtMicrosoft.com, and we have a free Insiders Group where we share articles and new bonus chapters for free in the book. And we intend to keep it free forevermore. So, if you just want a place to go and continuously learn about innovation and meet other innovators, we would love to see you there.

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

JoAnn Garbin
Be honest with yourself. That’s the final call to action. Taking in all these things about building habits and thin slices and stepping stones, like really wake up every day and be honest with yourself about what brings you joy. And if you don’t have it right now, start laying those stepping stones down toward it.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. JoAnn, thank you.

JoAnn Garbin
Thank you. Really appreciate you having us on.

1102: How to be “Lucky” by Hacking Hidden Markets to Get More What You Want with Judd Kessler

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Judd Kessler discusses how to navigate the hidden markets that decide how scarce resources—like time and attention—get distributed.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why some people seem to score more coveted resources
  2. The counterintuitive advantages of settling
  3. An easy way to become the more appealing candidate

About Judd

Judd B. Kessler is the author of LUCKY BY DESIGN: The Hidden Economics You Need  to Get More of What You Want and the inaugural Howard Marks Endowed Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. For his work on the hidden market of organ allocation, Kessler was named one of the “30 under 30” in Law and Policy by Forbes. He is an award-winning teacher as well as a sought-after speaker.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome
  • Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO
  • Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome
  • Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.

Judd Kessler Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Judd, welcome!

Judd Kessler
Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to talk about this stuff. This is a concept I don’t think people even know exists. Can you share with us what is a hidden market and why should professionals care about them?

Judd Kessler
Great question, my favorite question, because I’ve been thinking about hidden markets for a long time. So let me tell you what I think of as a visible market, the kind of markets we’re used to, and that’ll help us think about what a hidden market is. So visible markets allocate things by prices changing. And they’re easy to do business with, and we’re used to them. If you want something at a store, you go, you see what the price is, you decide whether to buy it. If it’s worth the price, you buy it, and if not, you don’t.

And this is how economists often think about markets. We think that prices move around to decide who gets what. But that’s not how all markets work. A lot of markets don’t have prices that decide who gets what. There’s a lot of people who want something and either the price is too low, so there’s more people who want it at that price than we have things to give. Or we don’t have a price at all. There’s lots of markets where we decide we don’t want to let kind of the richest buy access to the thing.

And in that second case, we have what I call a hidden market, where there’s something that decides who gets what, it’s just not prices. And so, you have to understand what it is that’s allocating the scarce resource.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. That’s as fun, brain expanding. Can you give us an example of how this might apply in the professional world?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, it’s much easier with examples. I give you the theory bit first, but the examples are lots of products that you purchase have prices that are kind of too low from the standard economics, kind of sense of what prices are supposed to do.

So, if you want live event tickets or you want a restaurant reservation at a kind of popular place, in these cases, there are more people who want the thing than they have available to serve. And for a variety of reasons, the artists that are having that concert decide that they don’t want the price to just rise until only the rich can afford to go.

Pete Mockaitis
You know, I was going to ask, is that why? Because I’m thinking, if these Taylor Swift tickets or whatever sell like within seconds of them opening up, like, my immediate thought is, “Well, shouldn’t they just increase the price?” So, is the artists or others making the request to keep it at a lower rate?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and people debate about why they do this. So, one argument is, well, think about the restaurant first. That, I think, is a little easier for us to think about. Like, the restaurant might like a line around the block or stories about how hard it is to get a table. They might think that kind of keeping prices low enough that they’re getting a lot of people who want to eat there, and that’s kind of creating its own buzz, is going to be helpful to be able to fill the restaurant for months and years.

I don’t think Taylor Swift needs to do that. Like, I don’t think she needs more buzz, but she might have different reasons to keep the price low because she has a bunch of fans, and if she were to set kind of market-clearing prices, prices where only one person wants to buy the ticket for each seat, then those prices would have to be very high and that would make it untenable for a lot of her fans to actually be able to afford tickets.

And as a billionaire, it might not be a good look to be charging $1,000 for a ticket. She’d much rather charge $99. But, of course, then it creates a frenzy for getting the tickets and a hidden market that pops up to decide who gets the tickets and who doesn’t.

Pete Mockaitis
It’s probably less fun, I’m imagining as well, as a performer if it’s like everyone in the seats is a multimillionaire. It’s like, “Okay, the vibe in here is not as enjoyable.”

Judd Kessler
No, and that is an absolute issue that, you know, kind of we think about in lots of different markets. So, it’s not just concerts, right? If you think about a baseball fan who sits in the cheap seats all season, and then the World Series comes along and prices are much higher, right, well, that fan might be the one who’s going to enjoy the seat the most and also kind of bring the most excitement to the stadium.

But if you price that fan out and you sell the ticket to somebody who’s never been to a game, but wants to say they’ve been to the World Series, that might not be a good use of that resource, and it might be less fun to kind of be in the stadium on that day. And the same thing is true in hidden market. I mean, there’s lots of hidden markets. I’ll give you a million examples, I’m sure, during the conversation.

But we also don’t, at Wharton where I teach, we don’t just raise tuition until only we can fill the class with just people willing to pay a very high price. That would not be a cohort of students that we would kind of think are the best fit for our school. We have different market rules, a hidden market that decides, “Okay, who is going to get admitted to our program this year?” And we don’t base it on price because we care about who actually is filling the seats in our classrooms, just like the artists might care about who’s filling the seats of the stadium.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Okay. So, there’s our concept. And your book, Lucky by Design: The Hidden Economics You Need to Get More of What You Want, you suggest that there are things that we can do to have more luck, to be the ones who are in the seats more often.

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so there’s lots of different examples in the book of these hidden markets. Basically, any time there are more people who want something than we have goods or services available to give to everybody. And so, what we need to do as market participants, as people who want those things, that scarce resources, we have to see that the hidden market is there. We have to be able to kind of see through the hidden nature of it and identify it.

Then we have to learn what the rules are. And that’s kind of a key thing, because there’s lots of different rules that determine who gets what in these markets. And the rules differ by which market you’re in. But then once we see the hidden market and understand the rules, then we can develop a strategy that actually lets us succeed.

Then we can figure out, “What is it that I have to do in this market to actually get what I want?” And that’s what I mean when I say getting lucky by design. It’s kind of you’re figuring out the hidden market, its rules, and how to play in it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so in the case of concert tickets, it seems, as far as I understand, maybe you got some inside scoop, Judd, a music fan, it seems the name of the game is, get on your computer, poised and ready to go, the second tickets become available.

Judd Kessler
This is what we call a first come, first serve race. So, we’re familiar with first come, first serve, but this is a race. It’s whoever clicks the fastest, gets the thing. And this is a very common type of market rule. So, it’s for the tickets for a lot of shows and sporting events. It also happens for restaurant reservations. If all the reservations for next month are released at the same point in time this month, you have to be there ready to click.

And, there, one key strategy, obviously, is, like, you have to know that this is a race and then you have to be ready to go on your highest speed internet, with your finger on your mouse.

Because a lot of times you’ll be playing in a hidden market, not realizing that the market is there, you’ll show up to make a reservation or to buy a ticket, only to find out that everything is taken. And it was taken weeks ago when the race started and you happen to not know that the race was on, you’ll miss it entirely.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s funny, it sounds so simple, but you say, you have to see that there’s a hidden market there. You need to know the rules and then you need to develop a strategy to do so. That seems, in some ways, very, “But of course,” and yet I think that we overlook a lot of these things, like, “Hey, I want a lot of stuff. And it seems like I keep missing out.”

Judd Kessler

Yeah, “How did that person get that reservation? How did that person get the tickets? How were they able to do it? I showed up to Ticketmaster an hour after the tickets were released, and everything was gone.” It’s like, well, it turns out an hour is too long a period. You have to be there the minute it opens. And that might not be obvious to folks. But even if it is obvious, there’s other ways, other kind of strategies you should be thinking through when you’re running in these first come, first serve races.

Pete Mockaitis
Ooh, tell us, Judd. What do we do?

Judd Kessler
So, this is a strategy that comes up a lot in a lot of different hidden markets. And it kind of works against our instincts. And so, we have to think about when we should use it. But then we could potentially use it successfully. And I call it settling for silver. So, silver as in silver metal, as opposed to going for gold. So going for gold, being going after the thing that you want more than anything that kind of is, the most desirable option for you.

So, imagine, I tell the story in the book, I’m trying to get my wife a reservation at a very difficult to get reservation restaurant called The French Laundry in Napa Valley. They have only 60 seats. It has three Michelin stars. It’s also crazy expensive, but it was her 40th birthday. So, it was like, “All right, let’s give it a shot.”

They release all of the reservations for a given month on the first of the preceding month. So, at 10:00 a.m. you have to be there, ready to click. And in that situation, I might decide I want to go for gold. I might decide that I want to get the absolute best reservation that I can, the thing that I think my wife would want the most, maybe 7:30 p.m. on Saturday night.

The problem with that strategy is that a lot of people want to eat dinner at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday. It’s a very desirable time. And so, if I go for that, if I go for the thing that I really want, then I’m facing a lot of competition. There’s a lot of people that are trying to click at the same time as me.

It also turns out, this is very true in the live event space, also now more so in the restaurant space as well, there are also bots and, like, computerized programs competing against me to get those so that they can secure them and then sell them to me later at a higher price, if I’m unlucky.

But while I’m kind of going for gold, there are other people who are settling for silver, who are saying, “Look, I would love to eat at 7:30, but maybe that’s too aggressive a strategy. Why don’t I try for something less desirable? What if I try for a 5:00 p.m. reservation or 4:30 reservation? There’s going to be a lot fewer people racing for that. And if I go for that, I’m substantially, more likely to get it.”

And so, you, as a participant in this market, you have to think like, “All right, do I really want to go to the restaurant and I kind of care less about exactly when I go? I prefer 7:30 to 4:30, but it’s not that big a difference. Like, the key thing is getting to eat there.” If that’s the case, maybe settling for silver, even though it kind of feels tough because you’re settling, it’s right there in the name, maybe that’s a better strategy.

If you absolutely want to go at 7:30, you only want it if it’s the best, you know, the ideal thing for you, then you go for gold, but you kind of deal with the fact that you’re less likely to get what you want.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. You know what’s funny, this brings me back to, I’m thinking about high school, Model United Nations. And so, the most desirable countries to represent were those who had the permanent five seat veto power on the Security Council.

Judd Kessler
The power. The power in Model UN.

Pete Mockaitis
And we’re just, like, well, “Hey, if we want to be in the Security Council, everybody wants the permanent five seats, so let’s go for some nations that are on the Security Council, but don’t have one of the permanent five seats. In that way, we can get what we want with less competition. And is it such a big deal if we don’t have that veto vote? It’s fine.”

Judd Kessler
And this settle for silver strategy is one that students, you know, time of the year, you’re starting to think about applying to colleges, this is where this strategy might come into play.

So, college admission is another hidden market. And this time, there’s a participant on the other side of the market who’s deciding whether or not to admit you. So, I call these choose me markets, right? Unlike first come, first serve, where whoever clicks fastest gets it, and it’s kind of algorithmically decided who wins the race and who doesn’t.

With choose me markets, the market participant on the other side is trying to kind of suss out whether you’re going to be a good fit for them. It turns out, colleges in the US, they really like when they get high-quality candidates, but they also really like to have high yield. They want a large fraction of the folks who apply and are admitted to matriculate.

So, their concern with yield, their concern with getting people who they admit to matriculate, leads them to like applicants who apply early, and in particular early decision, where you’re basically committing to go if you are admitted. Now what’s the difficulty with early decision as an applicant? You can only apply to one school early decision, because if you get in, you’re committing to go.

And so, the colleges reward you with a higher chance of getting in if you apply early. But this is a case where you, as an applicant, have to decide, “Are you going to go for gold or are going to settle for silver?” Because if your dream school, your actual first choice is, like, really a reach and really unlikely to admit you, even if you apply early decision, then that might be a waste to go for gold. Like, you might use your application, your early application on your ideal place, but it might be that the competition is too stiff.

Go to your second or third choice school, maybe that’s a school that will admit you if you apply early, but might not admit you otherwise. Then, all of a sudden, you’re using your early application kind of effectively, it’s kind of getting you into this second or third choice. Sure, it’s not your dream school, but it might be the more realistic option for you. And that might be the strategy that you want to play in that market.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now let’s not just talk about admissions. Let’s talk about career, job-hunting stuff. These principles sure seem to apply. We have one role opening available and hundreds of candidates applying on LinkedIn jobs, etc. So how shall we think about this hidden market strategery to boost our odds?

Judd Kessler
Yeah. So, again, this is a choose me market. There’s you as the applicant applying, maybe there’s 250 applicants applying to the same job posting. I’ve seen those numbers as estimates for how many people apply on average to a given job. And there’s a firm on the other side that’s trying to screen through those job applications.

So, I think from us as the applicant, on the applicant side, I think the traditional thing to think about is making sure that we look good as a candidate. We want to kind of make it so that the firm finds us very appealing. And one of the ways we do that is by kind of making, you know, being great and investing in skills and things like that.

What we often don’t think as much about is kind of the firm’s thoughts about us and our interest in that job relative to other options. So, in a lot of these choose me markets, just like the college wants to know that you will matriculate if you are admitted, like they kind of care about yield, firms care a lot about it for a different reason.

They want to hire folks who will stay with the firm for a while, “If I’m going to hire you, if I’m going to train you, I’m going to invest in you, I’m to plug you into my team, I want to make sure that you’re actually going to be a good investment and be with the firm for a while.” And so, one thing that we don’t think about as much, or maybe as much as we should, is, “Are we communicating to the firm that they are actually, like, are one of our top choices?”

And we would not only be happy to accept a job, right? Obviously, we’re applying, so we would think you would apply only to jobs you would take, but also that we’re likely to be there for a while and add a lot of value to the firm. And the way we used to send those signals, and maybe in some markets we still can, is through things like long, detailed cover letters, right?

So, the reason we have so many people applying to every job posting is it’s so easy to apply. You press a button and your application goes. But to signal that this is actually, like, one of your favorite job opportunities and, thus, probably a job that you would stick with if you were given the opportunity, those jobs we give extra attention to.

We write kind of long, detailed cover letters that explain why we would be a good fit for the firm, how we see our background fitting in and adding value, and we’ve researched the firm, and so it’s clear that we care. And in the old days, you would only do that for, you know, it takes a bunch of hours to write that cover letter, and you would only do it if the job was really one of the few that appealed to you.

The reason I say it’s kind of something that used to work, and might not work for all that long anymore, is that large language models are making writing that cover letter kind of vanishingly easy. And so, that way that we used to signal to firms that we were a good fit for them, that we were really excited to be there, it’s kind of, it’s not going to be something we can rely on forever.

Pete Mockaitis
Just very recently, I had a podcast guest, Madeline Mann, who’s discussing some of these ideas. And one alternative signal is, if your LinkedIn profile headline is matching the kind of role that they’re thereafter. So, if you say “food marketing” and, sure enough, it’s a food marketing role, “Well, that looks good.” Like, you are for real. You’re into this. As opposed to just any kind of marketing or any kind of food.

Judd Kessler
And that’s great because that’s the kind of signal that you can’t send to multiple different firms about different roles, right? You have to pick one and it’s a public statement that you’re making to kind of everybody that, “This is the thing that I care about.”

There’s a tradeoff there because it could be kind of limiting. Like, maybe you do have multiple interests, not just food marketing, but marketing of other products, other consumer packaged goods, for example, then you are kind of, you might want to have signals that you can send to a subset of firms.

And those might be things, like on LinkedIn, kind of engaging in a real way with folks that are already at the firm, kind of engaging with their content and making comments. It could be networking.

There’s a way there to signal that, “This is a firm that I care about. I clearly have talked to a bunch of people that work there and gotten to know the place,” in a way that can’t be replicated with AI.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, and in terms of knowing the rules, I mean, that can be so wildly different, job post to job post. Some job posts, unfortunately, aren’t even really available to outsiders. That’s just a formality. They got to check the box, the legal, the HR, the whatever, compliancy thing. So, there’s that.

Or other times, it’s like, “Well, we’re going to do this just in case someone just blows our mind with a wildly awesome resume, but most likely it’s probably going to be someone that we’ve talked to at some point earlier in the process and we’re vibing with.”

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and it’s funny, when you think about how much energy to put into a job application, say, or networking with the firm, then it’s you on the other side of that. You want to know that the firm is actually serious about hiring somebody before you invest. And that’s the analog to the firm wanting to know that you’ll stick with it if you get hired. It’s the same problem, just from the other side.

So, I think probably seeing if the job posting is being advertised widely by the firm, they don’t do that when they’re posting the job just for a legal requirement, just to like kind of say they did it. But if you’re starting to see them kind of posting, or people that work there being like, “Hey, we’re looking to fill this role. Great people, come apply,” all of a sudden, that’s a signal to you, like, “Oh, maybe they actually are looking for somebody. Maybe the person they met early in the process turned out to take another job, and now it’s up for grabs.”

But again, in that environment, you’re on the side where you have to decide how real is this job opportunity. So, I can understand why people play a numbers game applying to lots of jobs. You want a job, but a successful kind of efficient outcome, in the econ speak, efficient way of kind of that market resolving is when a firm finds somebody that’s going to be a good fit. And that means both they like the candidate and the candidate likes the job.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, let’s say we’re zooming into, okay, you’re in a job right here, right now, and you would like to have cool projects, cool opportunities, advance, receive promotions, etc., are there any hidden market principles or strategies that you’d surface for us here?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so I love that because if you start to think about what a hidden market is, it’s when there’s a scarce resource, “We’re not going to just raise the price to decide who gets it. We’re going to have some other set of rules.” Well, that describes our time and attention very well.

We have a limited amount of it. We’re not going to have people pay us to respond to their emails or take a meeting. Maybe some consultants or corporate lawyers might do that. But for the rest of us, we are deciding how to allocate our scarce resources to the projects and the people and the activities that matter most to us. And so, thinking about the same principles of, “What is this market trying to achieve? And is it doing it? And is it doing it in a way that we kind of value?”

So, when I look at a hidden market, and particularly as a market designer, kind of deciding how to allocate my resources and in this case, my time in my email inbox or the time on my schedule or kind of which projects I focus on, I think about whether the allocation is efficient, meaning it puts my resources to the best use. I think about whether it’s equitable.

Like, if I want to treat two people kind of fairly, the same, am I actually doing that? If I have two managers, and I want to make sure that, kind of, both are happy with me, like am I doling out my resources appropriately?

And then is it easy for market participants? Are the people who are trying to get my time and attention, like am I making them go through an ordeal to get it? Do people, do my subordinates have to send me 12 follow-up emails to get me to respond? Like, that’s not an easy way to operate.

And so those same principles can help us kind of think about, “All right, are we designing this in a way, our own allocation of time and attention, in a way that actually achieves our goals?”

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, that gets me thinking. And so, do you have any fun examples or stories of any clever professionals who were doing some things?

Judd Kessler
Yeah. So, this was something that I came to when I was doing research for the book. So, it’s going to start out outside the office, but I’ll bring it in. So, the Colorado River runs through the American Southwest and delivers water to California and a lot of the states in the Southwest, into Mexico. And the way that the rights to the water in the river were allocated was using a hidden market with the market rules, “First in time, first in right.”

And what the rules were was that whoever was the first to tap the water from the river to kind of pull it out of the river for their use, it turned out to be California in 1901. They pulled it out to irrigate their farmland and they’ve been using it ever since. And the rules were, whoever tapped the river first, if there was a drought, that state got their water rights kind of guaranteed.

And the states that tapped it later, like, think Arizona, their rights were subordinate. So, if there was a drought, California would still get their water, but Arizona would not. And you think about that and you think about, this was a race that was run 120 years ago. And at that time, Phoenix, Arizona was less than 10,000 people and now it’s almost 2 million, so it doesn’t seem like, like those rules don’t make sense, “Why should we give California all the water that they want and Arizona has to cut back? Should we care about how efficient the water use is and whether the allocation is fair?”

And I was reading about this, and I was like, “Yeah, this is so silly. Why would anyone have these rules?” And then I looked at my calendar for the week, and I was like, “I’m doing this constantly. Every recurring meeting that I’ve set up is first in time, first in right. A year ago, I started this project. I set up a meeting. Once a week on Thursday, 10:00 a.m., we’re going to meet every Thursday. And now I schedule a meeting for a new project.”

I have to squeeze it between these meetings I set up months or years ago for projects that, independent of how valuable that hour of my time is, I’ve kind of set up a system that looks like the system I was making fun of when I was reading about it.

And so, that for me has got, I basically pulled off all my recurring meetings. My teaching, obviously, sacrosanct, I teach when I teach, but any kind of project, it’s like, “We’re going to decide case by case whether we should be meeting or not.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, that is compelling, to look at those recurring meetings and see, “Is that sensible?” And it’s funny how we just accept, “Well, this is what the calendar says.” It’s like, “Well, wait. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I actually have some authority, autonomy, in driving this thing here and saying, ‘Hey, like I recently changed my recurring podcast meeting times to facilitate school pickups.’”

It took me weeks before I was like, “Oh, yeah, it’s kind of tricky. I mean, I got podcast interviews there.” It’s like, “Oh, I could just change the slots available for people to take for their interviews.”

Judd Kessler

This is like so much, so many of the hidden markets that are out there, and that I talk about and saw when I was researching the book. Like, a lot of them are just historical accident, like, “We always did it this way, and so we continue to do it this way.” So, it’s true of, when you put a meeting on your calendar that recurs, it’s kind of set it and forget it, and you have to remind yourself, “No, it is under my control,” as you just said.

But we talked at the beginning about live event tickets and having to click faster than everybody else. It is not clear to me why we use first come, first serve races for ticketing. Like, I understand why when, before credit cards and before the internet, like it made sense to say, “All right, people have to be there physically to buy tickets from the box office or buy tickets from a record store that would sometimes sell them for concerts.”

And you want it to be efficient so you want people who care more to get the ticket. So, what are we going to do? We’re going to have a line and the people who wait the longest, like they’re clearly the most kind of motivated. Now there’s some efficiency gains there, in the sense of like you’re giving the tickets to the real diehard fans because they’re spending the night, you know, overnight, camped out in front of the Box Office.

It might not be equitable. There are some people who don’t feel safe sleeping on the street in front of Box Office or a record store. And it’s not easy. I mean, it’s an ordeal to spend the night there, but you could understand why you would do it that way. You move it to the internet and now it’s whoever can program the fastest bots gets to buy up the tickets.

And it’s like, “Why are we still doing first come, first serve?” Like, when you look at these markets and the market rules, and you think, “Oh, well, of course we do first come, first serve. That’s how we’ve always done it.” But maybe that’s not the right way to do it anymore.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, absolutely. Well, you got me thinking in terms of there is…well, that’s a fun title you have – market designers. I was like, “What exactly does that mean? Oh, that’s what this means. Thank you.” There are so many ways that can achieve the outcomes that you’re after, it’s like, “Yeah, we want the diehard fans.” And so, it could be very well, especially with all this technology, it’s like, “Okay, well, if you’re on the email list, how long you’ve been on that email list? How often?”

Because, I mean, my own email software will tell me who are my most engaged email subscribers, in terms of opens and clicks, and how long they’ve been around and they’ll even, like, put some numbers on it. So, it was, like, you could very well roll that out in terms of the super-engaged email subscribers are the ones who get the first crack at being able to buy these tickets.

Judd Kessler
And there are innovations in that direction. Like, the Ticketmaster has something called “Verified Fan.” I think it’s more about, like, trying to figure out who’s a bot and who’s a real person. But you can, and they have kind of built-in, like, “Okay, do you stream Taylor’s videos? And are there ways to kind of indicate that you are more engaged?”

But another way that I like, and I talk about in the book, is how about just flexibility in when you will see the show and where you will sit? So, if you asked me how to allocate tickets to The Eras Tour, I would say, “Well, what if we just did, like, kind of lottery section by section? And you could say, ‘I will sit in any section of any stadium within these four cities on any night.’”

That person will have a higher chance of winning than somebody who’s like, “I only want to sit in the premium seats on the Saturday performance in my hometown.” And that is a way of indicating that you are a real fan of basically being, ultimately, flexible to move around the rest of your schedule. And so, kind of a lottery structure, which gets used for kind of rush tickets and in other contexts.

That strikes me as a nice way of saying, “These are the people who really value it because they are basically entering themselves in for every possible chance to get to see this artist perform live.”

Pete Mockaitis
And it also has me thinking about the movie “War Games,” where the computer says something like an interesting game, the optimal choice is not to play. And sometimes, as you really think through these hidden markets, and you understand the rules and how they work and what you have to gain or lose by participating, you may make smarter choices, like, “Oh, it’s not worth playing this game at all. Maybe I need to try to invent my own game over here. I got to invent a different opportunity to accomplish what I’m after, rather than entering the meat grinder mosh pit over here.”

Judd Kessler
No, and people do that. They look at markets and they think about, “How difficult will it be to be a market participant? And what is the chance that I get what I want?” And when you look at that, when you see the hidden market, you understand the market rules, and you think about what strategy you’d play, you might decide, “You know what? I’d rather not.”

There’s a great ice cream parlor about 10 blocks from my apartment, and on some Sundays, they give away free sundaes at 3:00 p.m. And my kids are like, “Oh, it would be great if we get a free sundae.” And it’s like, “Yeah, but I think it’s going to be crazy when we get like, we’re either going to have to arrive super early or there’s going to be shoving matches.”

And it’s, like, even if the whole family goes and we get five free sundaes, like, it’s probably not worth it. We’ll pay full bore for the sundaes some other time, right? But we have to decide in these situations, like, “Is this a market that is really worth it for us to be in?” Or should we be trying to go to a different restaurant, go to a different live event, wait until there’s less demand for this kind of very popular show and go see it later?

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, Judd, tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention for professionals looking to be awesome at their job, thinking hidden markets and being more effective?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, I mean, there’s other examples in the book that are kind of about not just how we allocate time and attention, but how we allocate other resources within the firm, like financial resources or kind of budgets that you might be in charge of allocating. And it’s the same kind of logic of thinking through “What are the incentives you’re creating for people on the other side of the market?”

So, I teach in one of my classes for executives in the executive MBA program at Wharton, about American Airlines had their AAirpass, and other airlines had similar products where they basically sold unlimited first-class tickets. Like, you could buy a pass that basically gave you as many first-class ticket flights as you wanted for as long as the pass holder lived.

And it was a strategy in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s to get a bunch of cash early when the airlines needed it. But it turned out that when you set the price of an airline trip to be free, but it’s very costly for you to provide that because it’s crowding out a paying customer, then, all of a sudden, you are kind of creating this incentive for folks to fly constantly.

Many of them are still alive and they cost the airlines millions of dollars a year. And it might not be a smart move for you to offer kind of membership style services where you give a lot of benefits away for free that kind of continually costs you. And it kind of speaks more broadly.

Like, if you’re in charge of budgets, like use it or lose it budgeting where you give folks money, and you say, “If you don’t use it, we’re going to take it back. Or, worse, if you don’t use it, we’re going to take it back and give you less next year.” Like, you’re creating the same kind of incentives of people to just, you know, at the end of the year, be like, “Oh, we haven’t spent this all. Let’s go on a spending spree.”

Pete Mockaitis
“All right, 50 iPads. I guess we’ll buy them.”

Judd Kessler
“Yeah, that’s what we need.” And research shows, like when the government does this, and they evaluate the projects that get bought at the end of the fiscal year, they’re bad. They’re not good projects. They’re the groups that have these funds kind of just spending the money so they don’t have to give it back to the US Treasury.

Pete Mockaitis
And really thinking about the market participants and their incentives can really help cut through a lot of the noise. And I’m looking at on my bookshelf, I got Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics,” in which he says that, “We really shouldn’t evaluate policies based on their intentions because most of them are great. But we should really think about what are the incentives that are creating and, thus, the likely behaviors.”

And it’s funny, as I think about some digital marketing type stuff, and people really stress the algorithm, it’s like, “Ooh, how can I get to the top spot of Google or the recommended videos in YouTube?” And so, they think about all these things, “Well, there’s my keyword density, and there’s my thumbnail, and there’s my, compelling clickbait-y title,” whatever.

But often, it actually could get pretty simple. It’s like, “Well, what Google wants people to do is keep Googling. So, if you want to be in the top spot, ideally, you will just phenomenally address the question that people are Googling. Or, what YouTube wants people to do is keep sticking around YouTube and being served ads.”

So, ideally, if you could be so engaging and captivating that they watch your whole video and then want to watch more of your videos, then you’re doing just what YouTube wants and they’ll automatically get the memo and try and shove you in places. And so, I find that this approach of just thinking from the higher-level principles, the participants and their incentives, can cut through a lot of noise to get you after. What do we really got to focus in on here?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and a lot of times, I mean, I think we’re trained to do this, to think that kind of we have to outsmart the system, that, “Oh, we have to kind of play a strategy that’s too clever by a half.” And it’s like, “No, sometimes you don’t want to do that. Sometimes you want to just deliver high-quality content because that’s what’s going to be the best possible outcome.”

But you’re exactly right, that thinking about the incentives of the people that you’re participating in the market with, whether it is people competing against you or people on the other side of the market who you’re interacting with, is the ball game. I talked about your time and attention, I used to want to be a good professor and I want to be responsive to my students. That’s the intention of the policy.

When students would email me, I would try to respond as quickly as possible. And I realized a lot of the questions they were asking me about were stuff that they could easily find out if they read the syllabus or kind of did the old meme of like, “Let me Google that for you,” where you, speaking about Googling, just like kind of saying, “Hey, this is something you can find out on your own. You don’t have to ask me.”

It made me realize, like, I have to stop responding to these emails because I’m creating more work for them. They have to email me and wait when, really, I should be teaching them to kind of gather the information, get the information on their own. And I’m creating a ton more work for myself because I’m responding to all these emails I don’t need to.

So, if I just kind of lay off and say, “Hey, if you have a question, look at the syllabus. If you ask it to me, you know, I’ll get back to you, but it might take a couple of days.” Like, that has dramatically shut down the number of, kind of unnecessary communication, kind of waste of everybody’s time, and particularly mine, that I’m doing, again, because of this change in the incentives that I set up for people on the other side of the market.

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

Judd Kessler
So there’s a quote by Seneca, the Roman philosopher. It’s attributed to him, these old quotes, you never know. “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.”

The other one is one that I worked really hard to make sure was in the book. It’s in a footnote. One of the market rules that I talk about is first come, first serve waiting lists, where you put your name in, you kind of wait. So, I got in this quote from The Simpsons, where Homer comes back from the video store, and Marge, his wife, asked him if he got the movie, and he says, “Well, they put us on the waiting-to-exhale waiting list, but they said, don’t hold your breath.”

I was like, “I’m going to get that in. I’m going to, really. I’m going to do it.” Editor back and forth, but it’s in there. It’s in there, it made it in.

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

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so there’s a great one that I talk about in the Choose Me Markets chapter. It’s a dating study, and it kind of dovetails really nicely with the labor market studies. A lot of the economics that is happening is the same across those two. But it’s a South Korean dating market, and folks have to pick 10 people that they want to match with and maybe kind of meet in real life.

And the researchers vary whether they have eight or two signals, special kind of, they call them roses that they can send along with their proposals to meet with somebody on the other side of the market. And it’s a really great study that looks at kind of, “What is the effect of these signals? And are people using them correctly?”

And they, typically, do not. Everybody sends their roses to the kind of most attractive people on the other side of the market. But the optimal strategy there is to send them to people who might be surprised to learn that you are interested in them, that you are kind of, they might have thought you were out of their league, and here you are kind of saying, “No, I’m actually really interested in you.” That’s when these roses, that’s when these signals are super effective. I really liked that study.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Judd Kessler
So, I have to say the kind of book that comes before this one, in terms of a pop economics book about market design, is Al Roth’s book, Who Gets What — and Why, which kind of sets the stage for a lot of what I talk about in my book.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool?

Judd Kessler
So, I really like the snooze feature in Google, in Gmail. I used to use Boomerang, a kind of third-party add-on, but this has really helped in me achieving some of my goals. Like, for example, not responding to student emails right away, so I can just snooze it for three days, and then respond. So, I won’t forget to respond if they do need help, but it trains me not to just kind of react to the fact that somebody sent me 12 follow-ups.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And a favorite habit?

Judd Kessler
So, I have gotten in the habit of making sure that I get some time for myself, maybe not every day, but a couple of times a week. So often that’s working out, but sometimes it’s just going for a walk. And in the book, I talk about how important it is to give some of your scarce resources, like your time and attention, to yourself, but I’m trying to live that better. But actually, I find it makes me more productive and more attentive and engaged when I am devoting time to other projects or people.

Pete Mockaitis

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

Judd Kessler

So, I would point them to JuddBKessler.com, B is my middle initial for Benjamin, and that’s my website. They can also go to GetLuckyByDesign.com. It takes them directly to the book page. And they can find me on LinkedIn.

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

Judd Kessler
I think they should think about the hidden markets that they control, and whether their rules that they have set up for those markets are actually achieving the things that they want them to achieve, or whether they’re kind of, they’re doing what they’ve always been doing and kind of the inertia is holding them back. And I think if they look at these markets with fresh eyes, they might be much happier with the outcomes that get generated.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Judd, thank you.

Judd Kessler
Thanks so much for having me.

1084: How to Navigate Change and Encourage Innovation with Jeff DeGraff

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Jeff DeGraff shows you how to go from managing change to mastering it.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why facts don’t actually change minds—and what does
  2. Why you should seek out constructive conflict
  3. What to do when you’re overwhelmed with choice

About Jeff

Jeff DeGraff is a top academic speaker, professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, and founder of the Innovatrium Institute of Innovation. Known as the “Dean of Innovation,” he has worked with Fortune 500 leaders like Google, GE, and Apple and advised key military and government leaders globally.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Jeff DeGraff Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Jeff, welcome back!

Jeff DeGraff
Thanks, Pete. Thanks for having me on.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to chat. And I’d love to hear, since we last chatted eight years ago, what’s one of the most fascinating things you’ve discovered about us humans and change in that time?

Jeff DeGraff
One, that we’re hypocrites, starting with me. We know how things work, but it’s sort of like knowing you need to lose a little weight, but we don’t want to do that. And then sort of really using that to our advantage, kind of working through our own resistance to help not only ourselves change, but other people.

Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing. So, we’re hypocrites in the world of change. What’s one of the top ways that we are hypocritical?

Jeff DeGraff
Well, all of us know, because we’re on social media, that facts don’t change minds. And yet, whenever we’re trying to change, what’s the first thing we do? We use facts. So, it’s a paradox. It’s one of the first paradoxes in the book. And the challenge is, even though we know it, we still do it because it’s habitual.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s intriguing. Well, we’re going to go in all kinds of fun directions. But while we’re here, okay, Jeff, lay it on us. If facts don’t change minds, what does?

Jeff DeGraff
Experiences. You know, one of the things I worked on during COVID, I worked on the acquisition process for the COVID vaccine. So, I got a letter of marque from Congress, and one of the few people that was called in to try and work on this. And what was really interesting to me was, when we started looking at the data, and this is not a political comment, this is just a comment about how powerful beliefs are.

It depends on whether you look at the Johns Hopkins data or the Brown University data, the first million people who died, somewhere between 25 and 40% of the people who died had a vaccine available to them. Meaning, people would rather die than change their mind. That’s how powerful that is. I’m not trying to be a provocateur, and I’m not trying to make a political statement. I’m trying to say that’s what belief systems do.

And the whole challenge of that is that the only thing that really changes minds is experiences. Experiences change minds. So, you’ve had something happen, you learned from it, now you have a different point of view. Learning and innovation and change are all sort of inextricably interrelated. So that becomes the big thing, “How do we help people get those experiences?”

What I mean by that is ask your listeners to think about a bell curve. At one end of the bell curve, there’s a crisis, and at the other end of the bell curve there’s exceptional, “Are you doing really well?” Think about when people really change. They lose their job, they lose their health, they get a divorce. And the reason they change at the edge of the bell curve is the risk of trying something radical, and the reward of staying where you’re at is reversed at the edge of a bell curve. The same is true when you’re on a roll.

When everything’s working, you got promoted, you graduated, you’re in love, whatever it is. So, the thing that people get wrong is it’s not the 80-20 rule. That’s a terrible rule for change. It’s the opposite of what change is. It’s the 20-80 rule. And what that means is it’s easier to change 20% of your life 80% than it is to change 80% of your life 20%. Let me repeat that. It’s easier to change 20% of your life 80% than it is to change 80% of your life 20%.

What you have to understand is that change is almost always going to happen when there’s an inflection point, a crisis, or exceptional. And part of the reason that I think people changed during COVID was that 20-80 rule. There was a crisis. They had to, right? When it ended, that everybody went back to their own finger pointing and yelling at each other. But during it, that’s the galvanizing piece, the inflection event.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, and I think that’s interesting when you talk about the crisis is on one side and on a roll is on the other, I’m thinking about how it could also happen in a good way and it’s still an experience. And this is so mundane, but I’ll say it. So, I am all about cold plunging now.

And it used to be when I saw this expensive cold plunge device, like tubs, and all like the hip, sexy Instagram influencers, you know, plugging it, I was like, “Oh, brother, it’s really like, this is something. If it works, maybe, I don’t know. A second, it’s like ancient and we’ve found a way to make this really expensive and monetize it.”

So, I had all kinds of skepticism, but I saw a scientific paper, which sounded very compelling in terms of like dopamine release, whatever. And I did, I had the experience, like, “Well, let’s just put some ice in a bathtub. It doesn’t cost much. See what happens.” And I was like, “Oh, wow, this is amazing.”

Jeff DeGraff
You’ve hit the nail on the head here, Pete, about something really important. The main reason people don’t change is they’re stuck in the planning cycle. The meeting about the meeting, the report about the report. They’re gathering, gathering, gathering, gathering data. They’re getting no real feedback from the world.

So, what you do is you hedge. All you got to do is pay attention to kind of how the COVID vaccine got developed, or anything else. Meaning you give things very little money and very little time and you spread them out and you make them radical. So, you did a radical experiment.

You said, “Let’s go down and get some ice, put it in the bathtub.” It cost you very little money. If it didn’t work, you would have gotten out of the bathtub. It would have been the end of it. And you probably had three or four other experiments after that. You probably tried different kinds of devices, or you talked to people who are athletes and what they did with cold plunge. And you talked to the Finns and how they did it from sauna, right?

So, you probably had some pieces in there before you decided that this was really the thing for you. And that’s how most of us actually do it. The people who say, “Go big or go home,” what I’m delighted about is most of them go home. They’re obnoxious. It doesn’t work that way. And if it did, you got lucky.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, so you’re saying, sprinkling a little bit of resource in a lot of places and see where something radical happens. Can you give us a work example of that?

Jeff DeGraff
Yeah. So, let’s say that I was trying to, I’m a nurse and I really want to start a bakery, right? So, what I’m going to do, rather than I’m going to plan for five years and then I’m going to quit being a nurse and try and buy a bakery and then I’m going to fail, you hear these all the time, what I’m going to do is, instead, I’m going to try my Italian grandmother’s, you know, her tiramisu. And I’m going to go to three different kinds of restaurants.

I’m going to go to an Italian restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, and a German restaurant. And I’m going to see if they’ll sell a little bit of this tiramisu. So, I’m going to take the risk of maybe making some of this up.

What I’m going to find out is that the Italian restaurant doesn’t want it. The German restaurant has a different name for it, but they actually like it. And the Mexican restaurant actually really likes it, but they’d like some differences to it. So, in the next round, you get rid of the Italian restaurant. Now you’re trying the other two restaurants, and you stumble onto something that makes your tiramisu radically different.

You put cayenne pepper or something, I don’t know, I’m not a cook. You put something radically different in it and it starts to catch on. So, what happens is think about it like a funnel, right? What you’re trying to do at the top of the funnel is not only see how wide you can go with experiments, but you’re also trying to mitigate risks. You’re trying to manage risks and you’re trying to accelerate failure. And the reason you’re doing that is you’re getting real information from the world and very quickly you’re drawing down.

You don’t have to have money or have a big thing like a COVID vaccine. You could just be trying to sell tiramisu. But you got to hedge at the beginning. You’ve got to get real information from the market before you draw down.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, understood. Well, so in your book, The Art of Change: Transforming Paradoxes into Breakthroughs, you lay out seven paradoxes of change. I’d love to hear a quick rundown of what they are, but first tell us what makes them paradoxes?

Jeff DeGraff
Well, I think most of us in modernity are living in this world where things are either incongruous, antithetical, or, most importantly, ambiguous. And we do know, going back to the ‘40s, there was two very famous scientists, one called E. Paul Torrance, the other called Calvin Wilson, and they started studying highly creative people. And this was really kind of for the Korean War, that kind of period, the Vietnam War.

And what they noticed was very creative people had a high tolerance for ambiguity. And what that meant was that they had a highly adaptive mindset. They were able to kind of make it up as they go along. Well, one of the big challenges in modernity, I believe, Pete, is that strategy is dead. And more and more people are trying to go to futuring. Again, God bless them, but the truth of the matter is events and technology is now moving faster than strategy does.

Ask yourself this, “How many people in their 2019 plan had a pandemic?” Well, pandemics have been around since Thucydides, Herodotus, they were in the Bible, right? How many had that there’d be a Russian invasion of Europe? How many, right? Go down the list of these events and almost no one had them. So, the issue becomes planning has become obsolete.

I’ll give you a perfect example of this. During COVID, all the big tech companies were not prepared for what happened. Remember the first day of COVID, Microsoft Teams collapsed. And yet there was this small company, Zoom, that didn’t have a great strategy, but was highly agile. Does this make sense? And they won the day. So, we’re now in this era of strategic thinking as opposed to just strategic planning, right? And, yes, we have to try and predict the future, but we should all look at the future like it’s Jello.

There’s a lot of things we don’t know about the future. How fast things are moving in the magnitude is an inflection point. People love to talk about that, Pete. They love to say, “This is the greatest period of change, and I’m very skeptical.” You’re living in Europe during the Crusades. They march back through your village in France, and three quarters of your village dies. Or the infidel’s at the door. That’s the human condition.

But we are going through this sort of punctuated piece where…and it’s not, I don’t think it’s going to be AI that drives everybody crazy. I think it’s what AI allows us to do. It’s going to change power generation big time. It’s going to change biology. What’s everybody going to do now that we’ve mapped all 200 million proteins in the genome, right? We’re pretty close to figuring out how to build a person, right?

So, the notion is the whole idea of work that we’ve got to handle on this, I think we have to say we don’t. I think we have to say we’re making it up as we go along.

Pete Mockaitis
You know, I think that is so wise. And I think about that as I watch the pundits say what will happen with AI. It’s like, “You don’t know. You don’t know.” And I guess that’s what I find. Here’s my little joke, Jeff. Maybe you could appreciate it. It doesn’t get much, many laughs when I share it with my friends, but here it goes, Jeff, “Obviously, overconfidence is the most destructive force in the universe.”

Okay, thank you. Thank you. But I believe it. We don’t know, we don’t know, but we say we know and because we act with such confidence, when we ought not to, we get ourselves into some trouble.

Jeff DeGraff
We sure do, and that’s particularly true for change, change and innovation. These are what we call convex forms of value, which means they pay in the future, for which we have no data. So, the interesting thing is you got to know who actually knows, and that doesn’t mean you went to school.

If you want to know about raising children, talk to a woman who’s got five of them. You want to know about how to fix your toilet, talk to a plumber. The notion is somebody who has experience with it, somebody who has real trade, what I call trade craft. They understand how things work.

That’s why for my 36 years here Michigan, I’ve always had a very active portfolio of building companies and trying to turn things around. Because theories of practice don’t come from theories. They come from practice. They come from getting dirty. You have to. Otherwise, you don’t really understand.

Surgeons have to do surgery. Engineers have to build machines. Business school professors, my belief, should build businesses. That’s what we do. And it’s kind of vocational. I know it sounds terrible, but it is kind of vocational. It’s a how-to kind of thing.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Okay. Well, so let’s hear some of these paradoxes.

Jeff DeGraff
So, one of my favorite paradoxes is that we seek to change others but we can only change ourselves. And I start the book with this interesting story. I learned this as a young man. I had a girlfriend in college named Katie.

She was really pretty and really smart and I liked her. And I came to college as a wrestler. So, I’m training all the time. I wasn’t bad, but I wasn’t as good as maybe I could have been. And Katie was a chain smoker. So, every time I would see her, it always felt like my training was being undone, because she just smoked a lot of cigarettes. So, you do the three things that everybody does.

You start out with trying to inform her. So, you show her the surgeon general stuff, you show her the reports. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. Next thing you do, you try and be charming. You try and really get Katie to, you know, so I was doing some work in New York City and really invited her to go with me to New York with the caveat that she couldn’t in the hotel room, couldn’t smoke the whole time or I’d have to go out and smoke. She passed. She didn’t want to do that.

And, of course, the third thing you go through is what everybody does, “Well, you know, if you’re going to smoke like this, maybe this relationship isn’t what I think it is.” And you can imagine she dumped me. Right? So, I tried all the things that you try to change another person. None of it worked. Well, there’s a postscript to it. About graduation time, I was in a grocery store and I ran into her. And I noticed she wasn’t smoking. So, I had to ask, Pete, “Why aren’t you smoking?” And she said, “I met a guy.” So, I felt about two inches tall.

And then she said, “He never pressured me. He just really loved me and I started to love myself and so I decided that I would quit smoking. I decided it was really good for me to quit smoking.” Well, here’s the moral of the story. The moral of the story was this guy, who’s obviously quite a bit smarter than I was, had created a situation where he was very supportive to her. And she kind of figured things out for herself, right, because you can’t change other people.

And that’s one of the big things that people do all the time in these change books. They’re about how to use bonuses or how to use fear. Those things don’t last and they don’t really work. So, the question becomes, “How do you get to understand a person in a deep way, understand what they really want, understand how they really function, and put them in a situation where they can correct their own behavior, assuming that you want that to happen?”

And then they have a choice whether they make the change or not. And some changes are really hard to make and some are easy. If you’re talking about skill or things like showing up on time at the office, those are relatively easy. If you’re talking about how people handle stress or whatever, those are harder and those are things that you probably need some professional help for.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Very good. Thank you. So how about the second paradox?

Jeff DeGraff
Well, I think one of the other ones that I really like is we set goals for change, but the goals for change, change with the change. So, people get really upset. We do this big program for the United States Air Force, and one of things that we start out with is to say, “What’s your challenge statement?” It’s usually somebody who’s a commanding officer is given a challenge.

Well, we say, “That’s great. That’s what everybody thinks the problem is now. But the truth of the matter is you’re going to start turning over rocks, talking to people, you’re going start running experiments, and what you’re going to find out very quickly in two weeks, if you’re really going, if you’re really doing this, you’re going to find out that’s not the problem at all. You’re going to find out it’s a different problem.”

Anybody who’s ever worked on their house gets this. You know, there’s a leak in your house. So, you get an Allen wrench and you go up, or you go downstairs, and you turn the wrench and that leak stops and you feel good. And then the next day the leak happens in the bathroom upstairs. And it’s much more active and you’re not sure what that is. So, you try and watch a YouTube video and figure that out.

And then what happens is you figure that out and the next day the pantry is flooded and you have to call a plumber. And everybody who owns a home has had this experience. Well, the challenge is the problem wasn’t the problem. And it almost never is.

It’s the same thing when people, you know, they go to WebMD, and they go to somebody who spent, you know, they spent four years in medical school and have medical certificates, which another four years, they’ll come in and say, “This is what’s wrong with me.” And inevitably, most of the time, it’s just a symptom of something that’s more endemic.

So, the change changes with the change. So that means you have to get rid of X marks the spot. You have to start thinking of yourself like you’re a scout, like you’re constantly looking for disconfirming information, “Where is it that I’ve tried something and it’s not working?”

So, the confirming information doesn’t help. All your friends on Facebook who like you are not going to help you get to the next place. The people who are going to help you get to the next place are people who have different ideas than you do. They have constructive conflict. Constructive is the key word here. Constructive.

They love you. They care about you. They want to help you get there, but they don’t agree with you. Those are the best people in the world to have around you.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, we have an overarching theme associated with, you know, be emergent and see what happens and go where the trail is leading you. Find the disconfirming information, solve the real problem and not sort of the upfront stated problem, and change and flow and roll with it. At the same time, we humans sure don’t care for this uncertainty business, Jeff.

Jeff DeGraff
I’m a total hypocrite.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

Jeff DeGraff
I hate change. I drive the same car I’ve driven for 15 years. My wife says, “Get a new car. People will think you’re not doing okay.” I’m like, “No, I like this car.” I sit in the same seats in the stadium I’ve sat in for 40 years. I don’t like change. I need your listeners to understand, I don’t like it either. Incidentally, some of the best innovators I know don’t like innovation either.

I don’t buy new stuff. Most the stuff that’s new I look at, and go, “Meh, it doesn’t, really, it’s not a game changer.” So, I’m not that guy. So, the first thing is, nobody likes to change. And there’s two modalities of change. I can tell you how I get through it.

If it becomes, I have to change something that I’ve got, I’m in a reactive position. I don’t like doing that. That’s when you tell somebody about your new idea, but it’s not their new idea, they’re going to tell you everything is wrong with it because you’ve left him in a reactive position. Right?

This is the problem with change. Somebody goes, “I hate your change plan.” And what people forget is the next question should be, “Okay, good point. What would you do?” Because that one question takes you from a reactive position to you now have to participate. You’re not a proactive position. You have to show your hand. So what changes, and this is what I do, is I stop thinking about the past and I start thinking about what I want.

Now, this is important about how people are going to deal with it. Now, one is, how do we do this without being uncomfortable? We don’t. We don’t. We become uncomfortable. You have to make that normative. How do you deal with it at work when there’s conflict? Well, you have to keep the conflict constructive. I want to repeat this. Anybody who’s ever worked on a great team knows everybody doesn’t agree, but you want to be safe. You want to feel safe, right? But the notion is ideas are in play.

So, if you feel safe, you feel comfortable back and forth about ideas, which is important. So, it’s the creative power of constructive conflict, not destructive. It’s hard to keep that in front of you, between the buoys. Now, what’s important about this? People who just kind of make it up as they go along seldom accomplish anything. So, you have to have a North Star.

But what you’re doing is like navigating. You’re constantly correcting to that North Star. And as the North Star maybe looks differently depending on what hemisphere you’re in, etc., you have to make those adjustments. It doesn’t mean that you’re rudderless. It doesn’t mean that you’re going just anywhere. It’s not improvisation. It means that the road to it is going to be circuitous. That’s the first piece.

Second piece. The place in which you almost always want to start your journey is a place where the current situation seems intolerable. And that doesn’t mean it’s difficult. It could be you feel stuck. It could feel in your career like, you know, “I was trained as a doctor. I’m now 50 years old. I’ve been a doctor for X amounts of years. I think I’ve done as much as I can as a doctor. I’m stuck.” So that’s a place where you’re, because risk and reward there is reversed, you’re going to try stuff. You’re going to be willing to try stuff. Remember hedging.

The third thing. Nobody makes the journey alone. I’m so tired of the self-help stuff about, “Here’s how you’re going to do it alone.” Nobody gets there alone. We all get there with other people, and if the other people who are with you all agree with you, you’re probably not going to get there because you’ve added no skill, no wayfinding, nothing that you have on your own. So, you need to find people who follow the same North Star or people really care about you and love you but are different than you. Sort of think about like your mom.

Your mom, hopefully in your life, was very supportive, maybe your dad too, hopefully he was very supportive, really liked the stuff that you did. But didn’t they also provide some real differences in views than you had about things that maybe you needed to do? It doesn’t mean that mom or dad were always right, but it means that they probably had your best interest at heart.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you. All right. So, it’s just going to be uncomfortable. Just is. And so, we have to learn to deal with that constructive conflict. Any thoughts in terms of our own internal emotional management? Any mantras or practices?

Jeff DeGraff
Yeah, I do. I think that the issue is you have to be able to take a higher point of view about your life. And, again, I am not an evolved being. I have the same problems your listeners are going to have with this. But think about it this way. Think about it like one of the big contemporary issues that we have is the freedom of choice paradox. We can make any, you know, I talk to people all the time. I spend a lot of my year abroad. I’m one of those guys that’s coming up on three million miles on Delta Airlines alone. So, I’m in a lot of different parts of the world.

Well, somebody made a comment to me recently in Asia, and they said, “You know, it’s really funny to me, America is one of the freest places in the world, but nobody acts like they’re free.” And I went, “Yeah, that’s true,” right? Because unlimited freedom to do whatever you think, you know, within morality and within the law is scary, right?

So, the one hand, you like that you have all that freedom, but on the other hand, you don’t want all that freedom because it’s kind of overwhelming the responsibility you have for your life, right? So that becomes kind of a paradox.

So, one of the things I think we have to do in modern life is to take a higher point of view, which would mean, “What’s best for me? What’s best for my family, my community? What’s the balance I’m looking for in here? How do I work through that we’re free? But too much freedom brings too much responsibility and that might be overwhelming to me.”

So, it’s like gauging. It’s like gauging how much sweetness do you want in your coffee? Are you a one Splenda person? Are you a three Splenda person? I don’t know. You have to figure that out.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s just really an intriguing, provocative statement from your friend in Asia there. Americans are so free and yet we don’t act like it. What are some of the top ways that Americans do not take advantage of their freedoms? It’s like, “Hey, you could do this, but you never do. It’d probably be good and wonderful for you.”

Jeff DeGraff
People vote one party, typically vote that party all their life. People belong to one religion, belong to it. People who drive to work, usually take the same route to work. People like a certain type of music seldom move to a different station or to a different streaming service than they like. People have a tendency to want to feel comfortable, which is, of course, part of the human condition, right? But they have the freedom to change all of that.

And often they don’t. And I come back to you have to pay attention to when people change and why they change. And this is an important part about the book. I’m looking at this from a situational standpoint. So, this is not a Myers-Briggs test. I’m an ENTP or an INFJ. Okay, that’s great. It’s important. Isabel Briggs Myers actually is from here in Ann Arbor, right?

But here’s the issue. Think of it like it’s a bull market or a bear market. If it’s a bull market and you’re a bear trader, you’re not going to make any money. If it’s a bear market and you’re a bull trader, you’re going to lose your butt. You have to trade according to what the market is. If you like football, is it a running down, a passing down, or are we playing offensive? Pick whatever it is.

There’s a situation in which a certain skill is optimized. And this is true for all professors too. There are periods of time when being the change and innovation professor is like, “Oh, now everybody calls.” But then what will happen five years from now when everything kind of settles? No one will call. Well, that’s because it’s not – does this make sense? It’s not my situation, right? So, what people have to understand is that they have to fit within the system. Families have it, companies have it, churches have it. Understand who you are and what character you are in that movie.

Pete Mockaitis
And so then, it sounds like you’re not saying, “Hey, find what way the wind is blowing and then rock and roll with it,” so much as, “Accept that this is your time, this is not your time.”

Jeff DeGraff
And adjust to where you can adjust. I think everybody, like companies, they used to, you know, CK Prahalad, the late great CK Prahalad, of course, coined the term core competencies. I think the same is true for people. And CK would famously say, “Is it valuable, rare, difficult to imitate? And are you organized for it?” Right? What do you call the VRIO? Is it valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and you’re organized for it? I think the same is true for people.

I think most of us have one or two things that we’re really good at. And even though the situation changes, how do we use that one or two things, because they’ll be useful? But how do we use it in that situation? And what frustrates people is they’ll say, “I used to be really great at this and then the situation changed.” I’m like, “Yeah, it does.” And again, that’s outside change. None of us like that. I don’t like it either. The inside change is, “I’ve been doing this for a long time. I want to grow.” And this is the fundamental tension, Pete, below everything.

Just like people, organizations have two states. They have a state of sustainability and they have a state of growth. In an organization, the state of sustainability is basically management. And the state of growth is change and innovation. Change and innovation, by definition, is a form of deviance. Hopefully positive deviance. It’s negative too. I mean, wars create innovation, I’m sorry to say.

But the notion is, the whole idea of being the same and growing is not just a style issue. It’s a fundamental issue about value. So, think of it this way. You have a small company. You’re trying to be really efficient. So, you keep track of everything and you’re really a hawk on top of everything. That’s great.

There’s no resources or no opportunity for somebody to explore a new market because that’s the opposite. You have to have slack resources to do that. You have to have non-accountable resources to do that. And what happens is these small companies will say, “What we’re going to do is we’re going to innovate. And we’re going to innovate under the kind of efficiencies that we normally do.”

And what they get is they get product improvements, etc., and they get left behind by the companies that basically say, “This is a different season now. Now we’re going to try and get into something new.”

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Thank you. Okay. Well, before we hear about some of your favorite things, I’d love it if you have any final top do’s or don’ts when it comes to change.

Jeff DeGraff
Yeah, I think my big top do when it comes to change is, understand the limits of what you actually know, and understand where your blind spots are. Know who does actually know. Stop trying to figure everything out yourself.

Start calling other people. Start bringing other people in that have different ideas than you do. I know I do this all the time because the way in which I build these change teams is they’re very cognitively diverse and they’re different. They’re very diverse in the skillsets that they’ve got. And that’s really important.

Now, people will say, “But we share a common culture.” I’m not even sure that’s required. I think what’s required is you have fond regard for each other and you have a similar goal, right? So, the notion is you’re not trying to destroy anybody or whatever. You’re basically understanding that they have commensurate skills that you have.

The other thing that I think is really very important is that the paradox you’re looking for, the things that seem incongruous to you, it’s not that this is an element of change, it is the change. It is the change. So, think about what’s going on right now globally with AI. Think about this for just a minute. Think about the sustainability paradox.

Here’s the paradox. In order to get to the kind of devices we need to have a low footprint, almost low emissions, we’re going to need a lot of artificial intelligence in all different areas, right? On the other hand, in order to have artificial intelligence, it basically drinks energy. It’s a huge energy. It consumes a large amount of energy. So it’s not that we need a change. The change is in the paradox.

The change is implicit in, “How do we get to the next place without destroying the planet in the next place?” Now let’s bring this down to a listener so it’s not so highfalutin, right? Somebody’s got a company that they’re trying to run. It’s a small company. You’ve got a company that does electrical wiring. And you’ve got a bunch of high schools in your community that you wire. And you keep track of all that’s going on.

And what goes on is you’ve got contracts, but because of federal laws, all of sudden, the cost of the wire that you’re putting everywhere or the, you know, whatever we’re using these days, right? Because of the cost of doing that has gone up exponentially, you’re going to go bankrupt if you keep doing things the way you’re doing it.

So, your paradox is, “How do I keep the business and keep myself at the center of this using new technology and maintaining cost containment? So, I’ve got an innovation piece and I’ve got an efficiency piece that I have to do at the same time.” So, think about this.

So, somebody’s going to find out that there’s devices that basically can move energy in different ways or there’s different ways of routing energy in different ways. And you’ve got to go back to school and maybe hire a couple different people. Maybe you have to lay off a couple people. But it’s in the paradox itself that the success of the change exists. The paradox is not a sidebar, it’s not something along the way, it’s fundamental.

Pete Mockaitis
So, if that’s the case, then what are we doing wrong if we fail to acknowledge that?

Jeff DeGraff
So, the issue becomes, even in our own life, “How do we get to the next place before we’re required to get to the next place?”

And, again, I come back to get out of a reactive position. Once you’re in a reactive position, it’s what you’re trying to not make happen. Get into a proactive position saying, “What should it be? Is this an opportunity for career change? Is this an opportunity to write that novel you wanted? Is this an opportunity to semi-retire?”

There’s a whole bunch of freedom in the middle of this that I think people could take advantage of. And we have to get out of this either/or thinking.

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

Jeff DeGraff

I love Bertrand Russell’s quote, which we now see everywhere, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves. And wiser people so full of doubts.” I hope your listeners are like me, I’m full of doubts. I think that’s the only way to go through life.

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

Jeff DeGraff
Yeah, I think one my favorite experiments, is going back to sort of a classic one, which is the prison experiment at Stanford and how people, when they’re around other people, have a tendency to defer their moral judgment. And I think there’s a lot of that that goes on in the world.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Jeff DeGraff
I love a book by Henryk Skolimowski, as I think how you say his last name. He wrote a book called The Participatory Mind. And I love the book and it’s kind of weird. It’s almost new age-y.

But what he’s basically saying in the book, which I think is so important, is that our thinking is largely informed by the world around us and we largely inform that as well. And there’s a whole kind of philosophy behind this called emergence philosophy, if your listeners are interested in this whole idea. But it basically means that we can never really transcend our world, we have to live in it.

And we can imagine what the world is like beyond this world or whatever, whatever you believe about the world, but you’re still in the fishbowl. And so, the good news is you’re a fish and you have some agency. The bad news is you’re in a fishbowl and you can’t get out of the fishbowl.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?

Jeff DeGraff
Yes, napping. Every day after lunch, I lock the door and turn the lights out. And I don’t have to have an alarm or anything, I nap for 20 minutes and I feel completely different.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share, a Jeff original that really seems to resonate and connect with folks?

Jeff DeGraff
Yeah, “Nobody cares about your innovation.” They care about you solving their problem. Nobody cares about your innovation, so stop showing it to them. Show it how it solves their problem. Everybody reads their own horoscope first.

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

Jeff DeGraff
Number one, I would go to LinkedIn. So, I’m one of the original LinkedIn influencers. So go to LinkedIn, look up Jeff DeGraff and connect.

The other thing is I would go to TheArtofChange.net, which has all of the stuff about the new book, and I would go to JeffDeGraff.com. That would be probably the easiest way to reach me.

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

Jeff DeGraff
I do. My final call of action would be what I call the democratization of innovation. And that is, I think we think about our own selves and what we’re doing. I would say apprentice somebody. If you’re an innovator out there, apprentice someone. I’m very much concerned that kind of the way I came up in America, behind these kinds of grizzled old innovators who’d been through the war and all this stuff, we learned to be great that way.

I think we’re missing some of that. We’re missing some of that human connection, somebody who’s got some trade skills, somebody’s got some trade craft about change and innovation. Find somebody who’s the next generation, who’s going to carry the torch beyond your generation, because that’s what matters. It’s what we do to keep us moving forward, all of us moving forward.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Jeff, thank you.

Jeff DeGraff
Pete, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. Good seeing you again.