Tag

Thinking Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

1158: The Science Behind Why People Quit with Dr. Anthony Klotz

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Dr. Anthony Klotz discusses how to manage the big and small moments that make us question our next career moves.

You’ll Learn

  1. How the pandemic fundamentally altered our relationship with work
  2. Why doing nothing is often your best solution
  3. How to find more satisfaction in a job you’re stuck in

About Anthony

Dr. Anthony Klotz is a professor of organizational behavior at the UCL School of Management in London. Known for predicting a global labor shift and dubbing it the Great Resignation, Klotz writes for Harvard Business Review and The Wall Street Journal, and his research is regularly published in leading management journals. He has discussed the current and future state of work with media outlets, including The New York Times, BBC, and CNN, and with executive teams at Fortune 100 firms.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Anthony Klotz Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Anthony, welcome!

Anthony Klotz
Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to chat with you. You are undercover famous. Is that maybe the term we can use?

Anthony Klotz

Yeah, it’s definitely undercover, low key, yeah, whatever synonym you want to use.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, you are the man who coined the term, “The Great Resignation,” which is kind of wild.

Anthony Klotz

Yeah, I mean, it still strikes me as wild and we’re coming up on almost exactly five years since that initial article came out and went viral, and it still strikes me as strange and surreal.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I understand there’s really some misconceptions as to what the heck that phrase even means. So let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. What do we mean by that term and what is its relevance for career folk?

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, so the Great Resignation was a prediction back in May of 2021 that there would be a spike in resignations in the US workforce, really the global workforce, but mainly centered on the US. And in the months following May, pretty quickly starting in June, we saw this wave of resignations, fairly historically high.

But it’s important, there’s a caveat there, that, really, we only started tracking resignation numbers closely in the US in 2000, so we don’t have the whole history there. But, yeah, turnover, quitting, resignations, whatever you want to call it, spiked and stayed elevated at historically high levels for almost two years into 2023.

And then it tailed back down, and it continued to tail down to where we are today, which is a rate of quitting in the economy that’s lower than it was before the pandemic, but not by too much. And so even though it feels like we’re in a pretty sluggish job market right now, it’s more active than a lot of people think.

Pete Mockaitis

Intriguing. Okay, so we’ve got 25-ish years of data here, and so we’ve seen some ups and downs. And so does that mean, now we’re kind of in a normal-ish band of resignation levels?

Anthony Klotz
We’re on the low side of normal, but we’re in that range of normal, for sure, on the lower end of it. I was going to mention, you asked about some of the misconceptions around the Great Resignation, and I think the biggest one that maybe continues to this day is that the prediction was that people would leave the workforce entirely.

And my prediction was largely that people would quit. And when people quit, the vast majority of the time it’s to find another job in the same industry or something related. We did see higher levels of people taking career breaks, of people starting entrepreneurial ventures, of people doing early retirement.

Yeah, but, in general, it’s when people leave jobs, they’re, of course, switching to another role somewhere else.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And you’ve done some real deep research into this phenomenon. Your book’s called Jolted: Why We Quit, When to Stay, and Why It Matters. So tell us, what’s a particularly surprising and fascinating discovery you’ve made as you dug into this stuff?

Anthony Klotz

It’s just how close all of us are to quitting our job. And that doesn’t mean we’re always thinking about it or we’re always wanting to quit or anything negative like that. But we tend to, both as academics, as leaders, as workers, tend to think that quitting is a fairly rational process that slowly accumulates over time and slowly.

Maybe your discontentment with your current role increases or the appeal of these alternatives that you have to your current job increase over time, and you make this rational decision to move on. And that’s true about half the time.

But what we found is about the other half of the time, the decision to quit can be traced back to a single event. And these events, these jolts, can be big or small, they can come from our personal lives, they can happen in our professional lives, but they move the quitting process along sometimes fairly quickly.

Sometimes they move us along to where we’d like to quit, but we can’t. And sometimes they should be nudging us to leave and we completely miss them. But going back to your question, it’s that, and I think this is part of why I predicted the Great Resignation was this understanding of how these events work.

And, of course, the pandemic was several of these jolts wrapped up into one. And that’s somewhat surprising to me when I first learned it and to a lot of individuals, just this one event, how it can change our relationship with work and shape the arc of our career.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, could you expand on that? How is this event that…? It’s funny, I think many of us would like to forget entirely, so apologies to resurface this. But how has the pandemic shifted our overall perspective on work?

Anthony Klotz

Yeah, so, like I mentioned, the pandemic had several different types of jolts wrapped up all into one, and I’ll mention a few of them. One of them was, of course, that for many people, work became different and more difficult in a short period of time.

So if you were a frontline worker or a healthcare worker, all of a sudden, your job maybe became more dangerous or completely changed. And when our job tasks change, for some of us, that comes at a point where we’re already not sure about our job and then, all of a sudden, it changes and that pushes us over into wanting to change what our job is.

For others, like healthcare workers, it also increased the level of burnout, so, “All of a sudden, this event changed my work in a way that it’s more difficult, led to higher levels of burnout.” Many of us experienced switching from working in person to working remotely, and we all reacted to it a little bit differently.

Some people, really enjoying it, some people not so much. And then, finally, there’s the pandemic being a health threat. And so for many individuals, or probably most individuals, at some point, it caused us to take a step back and think, “Is this the end of the world? Am I going to make it out of this?”

And when we think those big existential thoughts, we think about the way that we’re spending our time. And how we spend a lot of our time is at our jobs. And so these changes to how we work, these increases in burnout, this switch in the place that we were working, and then finally these big existential thoughts are different types of jolts that lead us to stop and rethink our relationship with work.

Now, hopefully, the pandemic, this is a once in a very long time event that we don’t have to go through again. But getting back to your question, there is some evidence that it has permanently changed many people’s relationship with work.

And this goes back to a question that’s asked in the United States on this general social survey every two years. And it’s been asked every two years since 1972. And the question is, “If you came into all of the money that you needed to live as comfortably as you want for the rest of your life, would you keep working?”

And this is called the lottery question. And it’s been asked every two years, and pretty consistently, about 70% of Americans say, “Yes, I would keep working,” which is somewhat impressive, and it shows that most of us see the value that work could have in our lives.

But what’s interesting is when you look at that 70% has been sort of flat as a board with a little bit of fluctuation from 1972 to 2018 before the pandemic. And so a little bit of a side note to this is this thought that nobody wants to work anymore or that less and less people want to work. The data don’t really support that, with one exception.

Coming out of the pandemic, it dropped from just over 70% to 62%. And so that equates to 10 to 20 million Americans who are, if you extrapolate that out to the country, who are answering that question differently.

And, keep in mind, they were answering this question during the Great Resignation, which was one of the best labor markets for employees, for workers that we’ll ever see. And yet, more people than ever were indicating that, “If I struck it rich, I’d be done with work.” And that number has stayed in this sort of 65% range, five points lower, you know, millions of Americans lower than the 70%.

And so what that suggests is the pandemic years and the tumultuousness that it caused in the world of work, and the thinking, and the jolts that it caused, there’s some percentage of the population now who have permanently changed the way they view work. And I think that’s going to be part of the lasting legacy of that period of time.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m intrigued about that question. They would continue working if they won the lottery, but do we have the clarity on would they continue working with their current employer or role or doing…? Because, I guess, this is what researchers do. We get definitional in terms of, I imagine, I wouldn’t sit on the beach continuously, but I would probably make some changes in what I was doing. I’d keep this podcast going because it’s fun and awesome, talking to peeps like you. So do you have some detail on that?

Anthony Klotz
So that’s a fantastic follow-up question. And it’s a question that I didn’t think of at first, and then somebody suggested it to me, and it really changed the way I thought about this question. So after I had learned about this lottery question, I would ask my student audiences, executive audiences, professional audiences this question and see how many hands go in the air. And it’s always around 70%.

You’re asking Gen Z, Baby Boomers, it’s always around that 70% mark. And that’s usually an eye-opener for people. And then I was asking that question during a masterclass that I was giving once up in Idaho, at Idaho State University a few years back after the Great Resignation.

And one person gave the follow-up question that you gave, they said, “Okay, okay, that’s great. Ask it again, but ask how many people would keep working at their current job if they struck it rich, if they won the lottery.”

So I’d asked the first question and seen the 70% response rate. So I asked again, “How many of you, if you won the lottery, would keep working at your current job?” It dropped below 10%. So I haven’t collected big data on this, but every time I present this now, I ask the two questions.

And it’s a little less consistent on that second question depending on the audience, but it always drops from this like 70%-ish down to 10 to 20% of people who would keep working. And, to me, there’s this really powerful lesson there that the majority of people see the positive side of what work can do for their lives.

Like, in general, want to work and see a positive version of work out there that they would really enjoy doing. That is not the version that most people are getting in their current job. So there’s this gap there between what we think work could be for us and our wellbeing and our happiness and our sense of meaning in life, and then what we’re actually getting.

And you mentioned you would keep doing this awesome podcast. So I asked people who say they would keep working even if they won the lottery at their current job, “What are you doing? What’s your profession?”

And it’s almost always something in the entrepreneurial realm or something that they’ve clearly chosen that really is their passion. And so, you know, “I always knew I wanted to be a chef and that’s what I pursued,” or “I always wanted to be a chef, but then I went and I was an accountant for 30 years, but then I circled back and went back to being a chef.”

So it’s these really deliberate choices people have made that align with their interests or that give them a great deal of autonomy, which is like entrepreneurship, having a fantastic podcast, being able to have the kind of impact that you want on the world.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, you know, that’s heavy. It’s almost kind of sad that it’s so low. I mean, we all got bills to pay, sure, but… So, this is funny, my wife, she gave me a hat, a hat out of nowhere, and it said, “Ever since I was little, I’ve always wanted to turn unstructured data into actionable business insights.”

Anthony Klotz
Perfect hat for you.

Pete Mockaitis 

It’s a lot of words on a hat. and it’s sort of funny, like, “Ha, ha, ha, that’s the joke. No one wants that when they’re little. They want to be an astronaut or a firefighter or something.” And yet, sure enough, when I was in high school, I did want to be a strategy consultant. And then I did that, and it was fun, you know? I wanted to make some adjustments to that career path, which I did, entrepreneurially.

And it really hits home for me that I’m a bit of an anomaly here, like, to actually go after it with this kind of purpose, and then for it to work out.

Because you might think you want to be a lawyer, and be like, “Oh, shoot, this isn’t what I wanted. Oopsies!”

Anthony Klotz

That happened to me.

Pete Mockaitis 
So I guess it’s not only that you’re autonomously pursuing the thing, but the thing ends up being the match that you hoped it would be.

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, that’s exactly right. When I started out of university, I had grown up in a family business in logistics. I got my degree in logistics. I thought, “I’m made to do this. I’m good at it,” got good grades, and then went to work for General Mills in their manufacturing plants in logistics, and was terrible at it and didn’t enjoy it.

So it was like, in theory, this is what I was put on this earth to do. In practice, not so much. So I switched over into management, into operations, and that was a somewhat better fit. But, yeah, I mean, I think there is this experimentation that goes on.

And, yeah, probably for a number of people who are saying, “If I won the lottery, this is what I would do.” Some percentage of them would find, if they made that switch, it’s actually not what they want to do.

I mean, this is part of the rough thing about being humans. We’re terrible at forecasting, you know, what’s going to make us happy. And it’s not until we actually experience it, that we see if our affective forecast lines up with how we’re actually feeling when we do it.

Pete Mockaitis

Understood. Okay. Well, so you’ve painted a stark picture for us. So I would love for you to unpack a little bit of the big idea associated with Jolted. You say we don’t so much super rationally and gradually come to the conclusion that, “Ah, yes, it would, in fact, be optimal for me to exit now.” What is going on?

Anthony Klotz
Most of us in our day-to-day work lives are on a bit of autopilot where we’re trying to be successful in our jobs, have a nice life outside of work, pay the bills, enjoy time with friends and family, and so forth. And these jolts come along and disturb that.

And so jolts are these moments where we question what’s going on with our relationship with work, “Am I on the right path or am I not?” And these can be really confusing. And you’re not really sure what to make of it.

In the book, I talk about, you know, that jolts are sort of everywhere in the modern work world, and there’s six different types of jolts that we’ll experience over our career. And so the problem is these can be really useful signposts to tell us maybe we do need to make some changes to the arc of our career.

But often, when they appear and sort of snap us out of this autopilot, we’re not sure how to respond to them. We get stuck in a bit of a rumination loop. Maybe we give them too much credence and we end up moving towards the exit door too soon. We just don’t really have a system to process them when they happen.

And so what I advocate for in the book is being more deliberate about realizing that, “Hey, look, these events, we don’t know what they are, we don’t know when they’re going to strike, but they’re coming, and they’re going to make us question our relationship with work. And that can sort of lead us down a path to make a suboptimal decision about our career and our happiness.”

Or, if we’re a little bit more prepared for them and we have a bit of a system, not a super strict system, but a system for dealing with them, we can treat them sort of appropriately when they arrive and make a much clearer and better decision about what we should do with them.

You know, part of the punchline here is that a lot of these events that cause us to rethink work should really be dismissed. And if you just walk away from them for a little while, they’ll go away naturally. And I think part of the challenge of the modern work world is we are able to take action pretty quickly when we have a moment where we think, “I don’t know if I want to work here anymore.”

Well, you know what? Almost right away, you could mass apply for hundreds of jobs in that moment right then. You can go on social media and burn bridges really, really easily. This wasn’t the case, I’ll just say, 50 years ago.

When something really terrible happened on a Tuesday, you’d think, “You know what? I don’t know if I want to work here anymore. Maybe this weekend I’ll get out. I’ll get out my resume and freshen it up, or I’ll go look for a new job. But by the time the weekend gets there, you realize, “Oh, that was just a bad Tuesday. No big deal.”

Here, you know, nowadays, we’re in a position to take action right away and make career changes that we may end up regretting. And, let’s face it, the research is clear that almost the majority of career moves end in some form of regret, not complete regret, but some form of regret.

And so understanding these jolts and how to respond to them at an appropriate level, I think, is critical for staying level-headed in our day-to-day work lives and to also be really intentional about crafting a career that brings us what we want.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I think that’s one tremendous takeaway that could really alter a life trajectory right there, Anthony, in terms of, like, “When some bull crap goes down and you’re thinking, ‘I’m out of here,’ hold on for a moment.” Duly noted.

Anthony Klotz
Well, in terms of being really powerful advice, doing nothing, it’s kind of a hard piece of advice to sell. But, again, these these jolts, these moments are fairly common, and I think the more that we have the news coming to us while we’re at work, the more that we have social media in our lives, the more we have these moments where we think, somebody else is getting a better deal, there’s better options out there, and so all the more reason why doing nothing as a first option is a good option.

Now a lot of these problems that you experience or that a jolt signifies some sort of real problem with your relationship with work, some of them don’t go away with time. And if you get to the weekend or you’ve decided, you know, for me, like about every six months at the start of the year, and then midway through the year, I sort of sit down and think through the past six months and what have I experienced at work and how am I feeling.

In that way, over the course of time, as I experience problems with work, instead of having to deal with them right away in the course of my working week, working day, I can sort of tell myself, “Come June, I’ll sit down and I’ll think through these.” And I might even write on Post-It notes and set them aside to think about then.

In that way, when it comes to that time when I’ve batched those jolts together and I can think through them, I can realize a lot of these don’t matter anymore. This was just something that mattered in the moment, but didn’t really matter.

But there’s probably a few of them that maybe I’ve written down a few times that signal, “Something is off here and I need to address it.” Now that doesn’t mean quitting. That means addressing it. And there’s a number of ways that you can address problems at work without quitting.

And so that’s sort of the next step. You experience a jolt, it reveals a problem with your relationship with work that time isn’t healing, then you have to take some more action. Doing nothing won’t cut it.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, you mentioned six types of jolts. Could you maybe give us the two-sentence-ish definition of your six types of jolts with maybe an example so we can get our arms around, precisely, “What is Anthony thinking when he says the word jolt?”

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, so six types of jolts, and I’ll give you a warning. The first five are negative, and that’s because of this positive-negative asymmetry effect we have, where, as human beings, we’re hardwired to pay much more attention to negative events than positive events.

And that’s for good reason. Negative events signal something is wrong, and we need to attend to it. Whereas, positive events are more like, “Keep going. Things are going well.”

So the first type of jolts is direct jolts, and these are negative events that happen directly to us at work. So the most common ones are, of course, failure, or experiencing mistreatment, or interpersonal strife. But these jolts can also be really subtle as well.

So we’re increasingly seeing that small acts of incivility, like being treated rudely or being ostracized, like, you find out that your office has a group chat that you’re not on. That has a pretty strong effect, a pretty strong signal that you’re not part of this group. So direct jolts, negative events that happen directly to us at work.

The next type are collateral jolts. These are events, often negative, that happen to those around us at work and reverberate and have effects on us. A simple one would be witnessing mistreatment. Even though you’re not the victim, it can have an effect on you that makes you think, “I don’t know if I want to be in a workplace like this.”

But the most common type is turnover contagion. So when we have a friend who quits, it’s sort of a triple whammy for us. Our workday becomes less bright because our friend is gone. We probably have to pick up some of their work in the interim, and we wonder where they’re going. Like, “Are they getting a better deal?” So those are collateral jolts.

Maybe my favorite kind of jolts, and they were the ones when I learned about them, I was the most surprised, are honeymoon jolts. So there’s this statistic that surprised me that the most common year for quitting across all years of your employment is year one.

And we tend to think, “Year one? That’s when people are the most committed and the most excited about their jobs.” But honeymoon jolts, you know, during the recruitment and selection process, we form this idea of what that job is going to be like.

And honeymoon jolts happen when we’re in the first year and we realize, “Wait a second, the way I thought this job was going to be in terms of the schedule or the pay or whatever it may be, is not lining up with reality. And I took this job under maybe false pretenses,” or we perceive that we do. So those are honeymoon jolts.

You know, moving outside the workplace, there’s crossover jolts, which are negative events that happen in our personal life that make us rethink, “What am I doing at work?” And anybody who’s had a health scare or a family member or friend who’s had a health scare has experienced those.

And then, finally, for negative jolts, there’s remote jolts. And we’re increasingly seeing that negative events that happen on the other side of the world that you hear about can have this sort of effect on you because they often call to mind the preciousness and the scarcity of life and make us think, again, these big existential thoughts, like the pandemic did of, “How am I spending my time?”

There’s a little bit of research that shows that this is especially likely to happen if the event on the other side of the world happened to a group of individuals who you identify with in whatever way that could be.

And then last, but not least, are happy positive jolts. So, sort of counterintuitively, the good things that happen in life can also lead to us quitting. Not as often, but this is because when positive events happen to us, they open our minds.

We tend to start to think, “I can achieve more than I thought I could. I’m on a roll here. This is great. I could take on more things.” And you have this open-minded positivity at the same time that your resume has just gotten more impressive than ever, perhaps, because you just had a promotion or some accomplishment at work. Of course, they can come from wonderful events in our personal lives as well.

So, like I said, jolts are everywhere. They’re common. We’re going to experience many of them in our careers. And the key is to be ready for them, and then manage them appropriately when they happen.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So what is the ideal or optimal or appropriate way to deal with a jolt beyond doing nothing?

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, well, we already talked about the first one, right? Do nothing and wait and see if it goes away on its own. Now, obviously, and it goes without saying, for egregious jolts, that might not suffice. In my dissertation research, I talked to one worker who said they had a toxic boss, but the worker themselves, they had thick skin.

And so the boss could insult them, you know, whatever, it didn’t bother the worker. They were happy to do their job. But the boss noticed this, “I’m not getting under that person’s skin.” And so one day they went one step deeper. They didn’t insult the person. They insulted the person’s daughter to really get…

Pete Mockaitis
My goodness.

Anthony Klotz
And it worked. The worker said, “I took my keys off my belt, set them on the desk, and walked out the door,” which we call impulsively quitting. So that’s an example of where this do-nothing strategy is not a good one. There are times where, if you can, perhaps impulsive quitting is the right thing to do if you’re in a really bad situation.

But most of the time, the next step is to say something, to speak up. And this sounds again pretty simple, but it’s amazing how many exit interviews that I’ve been in or that I’ve talked to leaders and they say in exit interviews, one of the most common things that happens is the person says they’re leaving because of this reason, that they really can’t stand their work schedule, or they need a little bit of pay bump.

And so they’ve gone out and got another job because they’re not getting it here, and they didn’t ask for it first, or the leader didn’t hear it when they did ask. And so it’s pretty critical… Often as workers, we don’t have the power in the work relationship. The leader has the power, or the organization has the power.

So it’s easy for us to think, “Why would they give me a raise? Why would they change my schedule in this way?” And so we don’t speak up. But if you’re going to move down the path of, “I want to solve problems, or else this may make me leave the organization,” it’s really important that you, at least, give the organization a chance to fix it.

Not only because they may surprise you, but what’s also useful is, if you do continue to move down the path and you do end up quitting, you’ll do so in the knowledge that you tried to fix this problem. You gave them a chance to do it. And that will actually lower the odds of regret down the road, “Maybe I shouldn’t have quit. Maybe they would have fixed that.” No, no, no, you know, because you asked.

I talked to one worker who was in a really bad situation, and I guess this is similar to the prior story, but they were working closely with a coworker interdependently, and the coworker was really abusive. And one day, the abuse got to a point where the worker said, “I can’t take this anymore.” And this person worked in a hospital, and they said, “This is harming my wellbeing. I’m going to quit even though I like this job because I can’t work with this person anymore.”

And they walked around the hospital, and on their walk, they found a random empty office. And they had this thought and they went to their boss and said, “I just walked by this empty office. Can I just move out of where I am near this person and move into this random empty office?”

And I think there’s a lot of bosses who would say, “No, you can’t have some special office in the corner.” But this person’s boss said, “Yeah, you know what? Sure, that’s fine.” And this person was completely surprised, moved their stuff over into this new office, and is now like, that was like three years ago, and they’re now happier than ever in their job.

And so it’s just an example of, like, even if you think it’s wild, ask, especially for medium performers and high performers, the companies do not want to lose you.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Well, I am vibing with that and I’m thinking back to, boy, I think of him often, it’s my buddy, Muhammed Mekki, back in Episode 346 in 2018, he said, “All the time, you don’t get what you don’t ask for.”

And that was his observation, is that in almost any context, you do not suffer reprisal, like it rarely hurts to ask. I’m sure there’s counter examples out there and maybe some of these toxic bosses that you’re mentioning here.

But, yes, it rarely hurts to ask. And at worst, I think you’ll get just a little bit of a, “Oh, man, this guy, huh? Can you believe it?” And then you move on and that’s over. So you may well be surprised. You get a cool office space. Any number of things can be opened up to you if you just ask.

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, and the research does show that, yeah, a lot of the time these positive outcomes can happen just by asking. There’s also some research that shows, in organizational settings, when you ask for something, you’re much more likely to get it if you frame it in a way that it doesn’t just benefit you, but it, of course, benefits other people or benefits the organization.

So, like, “I need Saturdays off,” “I need a $10,000 raise,” “I need,” “I need.” You’re better to take 10 minutes and say, “How do I frame this such that it doesn’t just benefit me, but here’s why it benefits the company, here’s why it benefits my colleagues, here’s why it benefits, it makes my boss’s life easier?” Something like that, like a little bit of sweetener that really increases the odds of the medicine going down successfully.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I like that a lot. And I’m thinking about, I think there was a famous book about fundraising called Asking. Well, you’re going to know the answer now, it was like, “You know, the number one reason prospective donors do not give to a nonprofit organization…?” Can you guess, Anthony?

Anthony Klotz

Because they’re asking what’s in it for them?

Pete Mockaitis

Well, yeah, they weren’t asked at all. No one asked them, it’s like, “Hey, could you support this cool work we’re doing?” It’s like, “Oh, that was not on my radar. But now that you asked, that does sound pretty cool.” So you got a real crack at it.

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, that’s spot on.

Pete Mockaitis
Awesome. Okay. So ask. So maybe do nothing, maybe ask. What are some other top tips?

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, so after you ask and you find out what is, and let’s say it doesn’t go well. Let’s say that you’ve identified this problem with your relationship with work. It’s draining your well-being. It’s draining your positive energy, and you ask and try to make some changes proactively or reactively. It doesn’t work.

Then it’s time to think about, “Okay, is this a sustainable situation?” And maybe it’s sustainable and you think this is just a bad part of my job, but it’s okay because the good parts outweigh it. And so part of, I think, as you start into this process, it’s important to weigh up the positive sides of your job.

And there’s the obvious positives like, “Hey, I’ve got a nice office. I’ve got this amount of pay. I work with friendly people.” But also thinking about the goodwill that you’ve built up over the years, because that won’t carry with you if you move into a new organization.

So as we work in an organization for a while, things tend to get easier for us because we’ve built this sort of goodwill with the people around us when we can get things done. So really being honest about the positives and the negatives of your situation.

Now if you find that you’re in a situation where, “I can’t leave this job,” for whatever reason it may be, then I think that takes you down a different path than, “I can leave this job.” So for much of our working careers, most of us are in a situation where we can’t just up and leave right away.

And it could be this term is called embeddedness, like how embedded are you in your job and your community. And it could be like, “Look, this is the only engineering firm in this town that I’m in, and my family is never going to leave this town. So this is it for me, so I can’t leave,” versus, “Yeah, I’m in this metropolis with all sorts of engineering jobs and I can go remote and whatever it may be,” then you have a much lower level of embeddedness and you’ve got options.

But if you’re in this situation where you’re in huge problem with your relationship with work that can’t be fixed and you can’t quit, which I think many people are in this situation right now, then it makes sense to think about, “How do I reduce the size of work in my life in a way that doesn’t cause negative repercussions back on me?”

And so this is why the term quiet quitting, I think, went viral, right, three years ago, is thinking about, “How do I lean back a little bit from work such that I can dedicate my time and energy to pursuits outside of work?” and that could be anything from just well-being to a side gig or whatever it may be, or dedicate more time to try and find an alternative.

And I talk about, when you want to shrink the size of work in your life, when you want to lean back a little bit, it doesn’t make sense to do that in the core of your job, your core job tasks, because that’s going to lead down a negative path.

But I think most of us, if we’ve been in a job for a little while, we find this phenomenon called job creep happens, where we slowly take on more tasks, we slowly do a little bit of extra here and there. And not through anybody’s fault, our job becomes sort of bigger than we meant it to be.

And so then it’s time to do a little bit of landscaping and say, “What are the parts of my job that I’ve taken on, that I’m doing, that really don’t add much to me, to the organization, that nobody would notice if I quit doing, that I could delegate these tasks to someone else?”

And so it’s really about job crafting, about rightsizing your job to say, “How can I make this sustainable because I’m stuck in this situation for now?” So I think that’s the next move after speaking up, is maybe saying, “I need to lean back and see if maybe this job is actually fine if it’s just a nine-to-five job and not with all of this extra attached to it.”

Pete Mockaitis

And I guess I’m curious about the other side of all this in terms of we’re not jolted and we are on autopilot, and yet, we would totally stop working if we won the lottery. Do you have any prompts or questions or approaches where perhaps we need a jolt to cause us to evaluate what’s up and see if we’re, in fact, where we ought to be?

Anthony Klotz

Yeah, that’s interesting. There’s some old research where some researchers studied, “How do people and why do people become entrepreneurs?” And there’s this narrative of entrepreneurship as sort of a very proactive, positive career move that people make, that breaking free from the corporate overlords and becoming an entrepreneur.

But when they looked into it, they found that most people end up as entrepreneurs as a result of some negative event, some failure or something like that. And when they talked to the entrepreneurs, they were like, the entrepreneurs were like, “Look, I was stuck in inertia. I was stuck on autopilot, and I needed these layoffs to shake me out of it.”

And they’re, essentially, saying, “I needed these jolts in order to live the life I wanted to live.” So I think you can self-jolt perhaps in a couple of ways. And one I already mentioned, which is saying, “Every year or twice a year, I’m really going to sit down and take a hard look at my relationship with work, the trajectory of my life. Is it moving toward my version of the good life as much as I want it to?”

The other thing I would say is having some sort of partner who really challenges you, to have that meeting with them every six months. And the two of you, and who knows, it could be your romantic partner, it could be a friend, it could be a therapist, you know, sit down and say, “Let’s really question, take a critical look at my relationship with work. And do I need to make a change or not?”

And so I think you asked a great question, there are certainly times that entrepreneurship research would suggest that there are life pivots out there that we should take. And if we can self-jolt into them, for some of us that would make sense.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Anthony, tell me, any final things you want to mention before we hear about your favorite things?

Anthony Klotz
The only final thing I would say is after this sort of leaning back or shrinking the size of work in your life, I mean, if that doesn’t work, or if you have the option to quit, then I think it is time to quit. This is why jolts do lead to a lot of quitting.

And I would just say, you know, especially for people early in your career, which was me at one point, like, nobody really teaches you how to quit or gives you advice on how to quit. More and more today, we’re seeing employees boomerang back to their former employers. And that only works if you resign in a way that’s largely positive.

And so there’s a lot of, I would say, online content showing the upsides of burning bridges as you leave organizations, and I think that’s probably quite overstated.

Pete Mockaitis
Upside?

Anthony Klotz
I think a lot of people are saying that it’s somewhat… there’s a lot of videos that make it seem like it’s really cathartic to have a marching band play as you quit your job, bake your boss a cake that says, “This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

And these are hugely entertaining, as your laughter is suggesting, but as you might imagine, I’ve done a lot of research on how people quit their jobs, and there’s several different ways that people do quit their jobs.

And you can imagine that from a career standpoint, the positive styles of resigning make the most sense. And there are a few rare instances in which I would say it’s okay to burn bridges, but those would be very, very rare.

My research shows that about 10% of people engage in some form of dysfunctional behavior on the way out, some form of bridge-burning. That sort of behavior is probably only warranted in like 0.1% of quitting.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I guess, if anyone needed to hear that now, you’ve heard it from the expert on the matter. Don’t get a marching band and a dramatic exit. Maybe, like, if your career move is into a viral video creator and you’re getting a kickstart with the marching band, but almost never.

I think, yeah, I mean, that was my impression is that, yes, this video is entertaining, but it is not a optimal life approach. That’s what I think the imagination is for. Enjoy imagining doing that, but don’t actually do it.

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, go ahead and type up that email and then delete it, what you really want to say when you quit, yeah, but don’t actually say it.

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

Anthony Klotz
There’s a quote by George Mallory when he was trying to hike up Everest, and people wanted to know why he was doing it. And I won’t get this quote exactly right, but he essentially said, “There is no reason. We just do it for the sheer joy.”

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

Anthony Klotz
Yeah, there’s a study, Greenberg 1990, where somehow this researcher talked a manufacturing company that was doing pay cuts into letting him manipulate the way that they deliver those pay cuts, which we wouldn’t even be allowed to do anymore for ethical purposes.

But it showed that just in very small ways, the way that leaders deliver negative messages have huge implications for whether employees steal and quit after a negative announcement, like a pay cut or a layoff.

Just doing it with compassion and care versus doing it in a very perfunctory style makes a huge difference for how negative news is received and reacted to by workers. It’s just a really powerful design.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Anthony Klotz
I like dreaming and reading about travel. So probably The Log from the Sea of Cortez by Steinbeck, where he’s tooling around Baja Mexico, the Sea of Cortez, and making all kinds of fun discoveries with his buddies. That sounds pretty good.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Anthony Klotz
In the evenings, usually about an hour before I go to sleep, I put away the screens and go for a walk, usually with my partner. But being away from screens, going for a walk, definitely contributes to a good night’s sleep, which then kind of has a more positive effect, a nice little cyclical positive effect.

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

Anthony Klotz

I would point them to email, for one. Anybody can reach out to me at my UCL email, which is easy to find, or I’m at AnthonyKlotz.com or LinkedIn, of course.

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

Anthony Klotz
If you’re looking to be awesome at your job, I would recommend challenging yourself to say, “When these jolts come, I’m going to set them to the side for the moment. I’m not going to ruminate on them, give them more energy than they need. And I’ll revisit them every three months or every six months.” So that would be the challenge.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Anthony, thank you.

Anthony Klotz
Oh, it’s been a pleasure, Pete.

1151: How to Harness the Surprising Power of Ignorance with Alan Gregerman

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Alan Gregerman shares why the right kind of ignorance is the secret to driving innovation.

You’ll Learn

  1. How to challenge assumptions that are keeping you stuck
  2. Why not knowing can often lead to better solutions
  3. Six ways to unlock ignorance as a superpower

About Alan

Alan Gregerman is an internationally renowned authority on business strategy, innovation, and hidden potential who has been called “one of the most original thinkers in business today” and “the Robin Williams of business consulting.”

As the president and chief innovation officer of Washington, D.C.-based consultancy VENTURE WORKS, a bestselling author, and a sought-after keynote speaker, he focuses on helping companies and organizations unlock the genius in all of their people in order to deliver the most compelling value to their customers. He is also the founder of Passion for Learning, an award-winning nonprofit that teaches girls technology skills as a key to life and career success.

His three previous books—The Necessity of Strangers, Surrounded by Geniuses, and Lessons from the Sandbox—challenge conventional thinking about people, the world around us, what it means to be remarkable, and where brilliant ideas actually come from. He’s also the author of the critically acclaimed blog Surrounded by Geniuses.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Alan Gregerman Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Alan, welcome!

Alan Gregerman
Greetings! Delighted to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I am a plenty ignorant person, so I’m excited to hear about how that could actually be a force for wisdom. Could you kick us off with a particularly surprising and fascinating discovery you’ve made as you were putting together your book, The Wisdom of Ignorance?

Alan Gregerman
Sure. So I’m really keen on the idea that all of us have the ability to innovate consistently, but we’re going to do it by paying attention and taking a fresh look at the things that matter most. And so the world around me is such a fertile ground for innovation. So let’s start with a simple story I love to tell. And that’s 1941, a guy named George de Mestral walking through the Alps with his dog.

So George is walking with his dog and he notices his dog is covered with burrs. All of us have had that experience and we’ve said, “What a nuisance!”

George thought burrs were cool. So he took some of these burrs off of his dog and he took them back and looked at them under an old microscope. Probably a lot of listeners have an old microscope somewhere.

And he noticed that these burrs were amazing because they had an amazing ability to hook on to things as they brushed against them like his dog. George discovered Velcro. Velcro wasn’t discovered by geniuses with expertise in a lab.

Velcro was discovered by a guy walking his dog. So my guess is all of us can walk around, pay attention, and imagine remarkable things that could be different. And that’s really part of how we keep our careers energized and valuable.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, Alan, I love that story so much. And that really reminds me of occasions in my own world and life where I noticed something and then I dig in and then it becomes really potentially impactful. I remember one time, I was at a podcast conference, Podcast Movement. It’s amazing. And someone had a podcast app. They had a booth. Everyone is promoting their stuff, you know, walking around the exhibit hall.

And I remember what I was struck because I saw this podcast app actually listed how many subscribers to a given podcast were on that app. And I said, “Holy smokes, you don’t see that anywhere. Not on Apple podcasts, not on Spotify.”

“So I could conceivably deduce based on your market share, a very rough estimate of the total listenership of a show based upon this number.” And the person behind the booth was like, “Huh, yeah,
I guess you could.” Like, that hadn’t occurred to them, but it was very fascinating.

And, hopefully, you’ll sort of deconstruct this alchemy because, I mean, I just noticed it and then it was like Eureka, and it was exciting. And then that was pretty helpful in terms of figuring out maybe some promotional opportunities, priorities, etc., and sort of market research and all kinds of little things. It’s been a handy tool going forward. And now Listen Notes exists, so people just go there.

But before they did, I had this nifty tool at my disposal because I noticed a thing and was really curious about the potential implications. But I’m imagining, Alan, I’m leaving a lot of noticing on the table. Like, there could be a lot of cool ideas just waiting to burst forth, but I’m oblivious to the implications of stuff, just like that Velcro burr example.

Most of us were like, “Ah, how annoying these burrs,” versus someone goes, “Wow, how fascinating. Let’s dig deeper.”

Alan Gregerman
Well, so think about most of us in most of our jobs don’t take the time, and it’s either because we’re determined to do a good job or our organizations don’t ask us to take the time to actually step back and imagine, “Could we do more with whatever we’re working on?”

And then imagine one other thing, which, for me, and I’ve been in innovation consulting for a long time, people can’t see me, but I have a few gray hairs. And so imagine what I talk about as the 99% rule. And that is 99% of all new ideas are based on something that already exists.

And yet, in most organizations, they ask us to come to a meeting, they give us a blank sheet of paper or a beautiful whiteboard, and they say, “Does anybody have a brilliant idea?” It’s as though we can turn on the part of our brain that has brilliant ideas because we haven’t been using it the rest of the time. The reality is just get out there, pay attention, and suddenly things start to click.

Everyone listening, I’m sure, uses Uber. Was Uber created by folks who knew the taxicab business? No, Uber was created by two friends who couldn’t find a taxi on a trip to Paris and suddenly realized something called GPS technology existed, which had the ability to bring someone with a car to someone who needed a ride. And so that was the origin of Uber.

And so the world is filled with ideas and they’re all based on people actually stepping back, paying attention to things that exist, and imagining how they can adapt it to their world.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now you got my wheels turning. I’m pondering here with regard to the 99% versus the 1%. Just so I have a taste for what does a completely new idea even sound?

Alan Gregerman

Okay, yeah. No, that’s a good question. So, of course, fire, that’s like a completely new idea when it happened two million years ago. And whether it happened because a lightning strike hit something and it’s set on fire, and then people suddenly decided, “We don’t have to wait for lightning. We can do it or not.” So that’s an original idea.

And then in 1895, the folks at Weber created a grill based on the idea that fire existed, okay? So that’s an important thing. The wheel, about a 6,000-year-old idea. Now the wheel is used in everything and we couldn’t get around on a scooter or a car or an Uber without the wheel. So those were original ideas,

Optical lenses. So I wear glasses, I’ve worn them since kindergarten, lucky guy. And when I was in kindergarten, glasses were pretty dorky. I’d like to think I have pretty cool glasses now. But the reality is optical lenses to improve vision didn’t happen until around 1285. And they’ve gone through lots of iterations.

So now we can even get Lasik surgery or whatever we want to do. But that was an original idea, I think, when it happened, and it improved the ability of 60% of people who see badly to be able to see. So there are lots of original ideas, but most ideas actually are based on something else. It doesn’t mean they’re not original, but they didn’t start by somebody taking a blank sheet of paper.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, okay. And then, by contrast, can you share with us some ideas that are just like, “Hey, you know, I combined a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and here we go”?

Alan Gregerman
Well, think about it. I mean, so many things that are all around us. So Airbnb, people like to use Airbnb. It’s an alternative to hotels. Not started by people in the hotel business. Started by some friends who were design students who needed to pay their rent.

And one of them said, “Gee, should we let someone surf on our couch?” And then, suddenly, they realized, “Well, couch surfing, everybody has a couch, an extra couch. Some people have an extra apartment. Some people have an extra house. Maybe those are places we can rent.” But the idea of having somebody stay somewhere and pay you wasn’t a new idea at all.

So ideas kind of abound. You know, the folks at Southwest Airlines, when they actually were really doing a good job – I shouldn’t probably say they’re not doing a good job – but they’ve changed their business model.

They changed not by knowing a lot about the airline industry but by knowing there had to be a better way to travel. And their model actually was Greyhound buses, the idea that people needed to get from point to point and it shouldn’t be particularly expensive.

So look around at almost anything that really matters to you, and the reality is somebody has thought about how to make it better. And when we get into talking about how to make your career more valuable, I believe the folks who pay attention and figure out how to make things better are the ones that are going to be consistently valuable and relevant and really be desirable in the marketplace.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. Okay. Well, so it’s funny, Alan, as you do this, it seems like these ideas seem super easy in hindsight, “Well, of course, we just do this.” But when we’re in the midst of things, sometimes coming up with these combinations, these creative breakthroughs feels real hard.

Alan Gregerman
Well, it feels real hard for a few reasons. One is I don’t want to downplay that it’s not hard, but it’s doable for all of us. And the reason why I think it’s particularly hard for all of us is because we don’t get up and wander around and pay attention.

Think about when we were kids, we were innately curious, partially because we didn’t know a lot of stuff. And so we were trying to figure things out. So we asked questions, looked, wondered what things were all about.

We don’t know a lot as adults. The percentage of what we know compared to what we could know or think about is really, really small. But we don’t get up. And so either we’re working in a business or organization, or we’re working virtually, and we tend not to get up and wander around and pay attention. So the world passes us by.

My view is, if we simply get out there and engage the world, ideas are going to come to us. We see some place using a technology. We see people on scooters. We see whatever is going on. And, suddenly, it dawns on us, “Why can’t I do things differently?”

You gave the example of the podcasting conference. And, suddenly, when you saw an app, you thought of all the possibilities. Well, we should look at the apps on our phone and imagine what are the possibilities. Could we create an app that has that same functionality that does something a bit different?

So I believe we just don’t pay attention and we don’t wake up each day saying, “Maybe I should think differently about the world around me.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. You’ve got a fun turn of a phrase, enlightened ignorance. What is that? And how is that different than just not knowing what’s up, being uninformed?

Alan Gregerman
Okay, good. So we live in a world, let’s be honest, where we’re surrounded by stupidity, okay?

Pete Mockaitis
Okay.

Alan Gregerman
And so I think of the difference between stupidity and enlightened ignorance as stupidity is really, “I really don’t know but I actually don’t care to know.” And for me, enlightened ignorance is, “Great. I don’t know but I’m challenged to figure out how to do something remarkable.”

And so that’s what the book is really about is the idea that we can find a problem that we don’t know anything about and we can figure it out if we have the right mindset. And so I want people to think about in organizations how we have the right mindset so each and every day we can show up and be really kind of engines of innovation.

And so enlightened ignorance is really a formula for how we take something we don’t know, we admit that we don’t know the answer, and we actually figure out how to get smart enough to think about solving it.

And so that, for me, is really the heart of innovation. That’s what almost every innovator has ever kind of lived as, someone who’s enlightened about something that needs to be done, but ignorant about how to do it and determined to figure out a better way.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah. Well, it’s funny, I’m thinking about, I remember a moment of my ignorance back when I was consulting, I was, you know, a fresh Bain associate consultant, and we had a giant department store, was our client, a chain of department stores.

And I remember, they had some apparel stuff going on, and I learned about the concept of size packs, which was totally new to me. I thought, “So a department store doesn’t just tell, like, the manufacturer of the clothing, ‘I want 10 larges and 20 extra larges, etc.,’ like per their needs, but rather they are constrained to order a size pack, which has like five larges, four mediums, whatever, and then just hope they can mix and match like the size packs to get what they actually want?”

And I thought, “That seems really silly to me.” You know, not me not knowing about whatever supply chains and logistics and all the things. And I thought, “Well, wouldn’t a manufacturer really like maybe working with us more if we order just…?” or, sorry, “Wouldn’t it be better for us if we could just buy the things that we wanted to hit our inventory needs for the customers at a retail stores instead of being, you know, constrained by these size packs?”

And I was genuinely curious, this is new to me. I’m learning. I’m asking. And when I asked that question, basically, like, “What’s up with size packs?” I remember the partner on the case looked at me, and was like, “Are you serious?” I was like, “Oops! Oops! I guess I wasn’t supposed to ask that question.”

I’ve revealed that I am a total neophyte, ignoramus in the world of, you know, department stores and clothing distribution logistics. But, to this day, and maybe I should just look it up, but I still think there’s something to it, in terms of you could disrupt the way that game is played.

And there would be, I’m sure, you know, pros and cons on playing the game the same versus differently. But I felt like, in that moment, my ignorance could have potentially been an asset.

Alan Gregerman
Well, I think ignorance is often an asset if there’s a better way to do something. So now, based on what you said, let’s use our imagination.

Pete Mockaitis
Sure.

Alan Gregerman
I can imagine now, using AI and having cameras located in department stores, and having those cameras look at all the people who come to shop for clothes, and those cameras, based on some parameters, making some decisions about the general sizes of the people who are coming into my store.

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, the customers will love it.

Alan Gregerman
And then I order based on that, okay? But now I just assume that people are evenly distributed and people looking at certain types of clothes are evenly distributed, and that’s why I get extra large and large and medium and small and extra small. And there are better ways to do things.

You know, so I’m always thinking about the fact that, and I’d love your listeners to think about, we’re only limited by our imagination. So anytime you get in a situation where you get a little bit frustrated at work or somewhere else, just pause for a moment and say to yourself, “There must be a better way. What’s my initial thought about how there could be a better way?”

And that’s really kind of part of the reason why I wrote the book, is I’d like to give people a guide to thinking about how there could be a better way to do the things that really matter.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And it’s interesting, and then, I guess, also to keep that humility, and I do want to hear about that’s one of your six keys. So let’s talk about those in a second, but to also have the humility that is like, “Well, no, Pete, actually, a size packs save us a huge amount on transportation and warehousing and whatnot. And to get all customized without size packs, you’re going to dramatically increase that cost. And it’s actually not worth it for anybody.” Like, “Okay, understood.”

Alan Gregerman
Okay, but I’m not certain that’s the case, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it may or may not be the case. There may be certain contexts where, you know, it’s often, I guess, I’m biased towards the middle a lot, Alan. That’s kind of my thing is I imagine there are probably certain contexts and circumstances in which size packs are perfect and others in which an alternative is superior.

Alan Gregerman
Well, so I’m not an expert in retail clothing, but I do know, because I order a bunch of stuff online, that when I order online, I actually vote with my feet, right? So I know roughly the size I wear and so I’m ordering.

So if I run an online clothing business, then the reality is, and Nordstrom Rack or something else comes to mind, that people are giving me guidance so I now know what to order because I can see what people are ordering.

If I run a store, maybe I’m stuck a little bit with size packs, but I think in the future I won’t need to be if, in fact, there actually are retail stores. But what I want people to think about is the idea that there are ways to collect information and that I can be most successful by starting fresh with a new challenge and saying, “Okay, what do I need to know to figure this one out?”

I’m not certain that retail stores are thinking about that and that’s why they offer the array of size packs or whatever they do. But I want people to actually just pause and say, “Okay, I can do anything here. Let me think in a new way.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, let’s talk through your six keys to enlightened ignorance.

Alan Gregerman
Okay, so here’s the thing, and I appreciate the chance to talk about enlightened ignorance and the idea that actually we find something that matters to us and we actually want to be remarkable at it. And I think, you know, as I think about your podcast, if I think about the things that are most important for people in their careers, it’s that that’s the challenge we need to navigate.

And the challenge is that we need to be committed to continuing to learn, grow, think of valuable ways to make a difference wherever we work, and then be open to suggesting those ideas. So where do we start?

The first one, I think, is, if I have a clear purpose, something that matters to me, I’m likely to make a difference. I’m likely to be focused on all the things I need to do because this is something I want to solve for. I want to create a solution to a problem. I want to create a new opportunity. So purpose is really powerful.

And purpose can be, “I want to create a product that enables women to feel good about the clothing they’re wearing.” Sara Blakely creates Spanx, okay? So Sara Blakely, think about this, she was a door-to-door fax salesperson.

Some of your listeners, because I know your demographic are first going to go, “Door-to-door sales? Would anyone open their door for somebody?” And the second they’ll say is, “What in the world is like a fax machine?”

So this woman was selling fax machines door-to-door, and she suddenly realizes that her undergarments probably can be seen through some of her clothes. So she says, “I’m going to solve this problem.” She becomes, for two years, totally purpose-focused on solving this challenge. And she does.

And she creates this company called Spanx. And she’s a billionaire now, all based on having no idea how to solve this problem, but then doing a series of tests and experiments to see if this problem is solvable. So that can be a purpose, certainly, but other purposes abound.

If any of your listeners are ever in Washington, D.C., and they come to the National Portrait Gallery, they’ll see a piece of art called “The Throne.” And “The Throne” is a remarkable piece of 184 objects that are all wrapped in aluminum foil, which was the work of a fellow named James Hampton, who was an untrained artist who worked in the federal government, and, for 14 years, evenings and weekends, built what he thought was a tribute to God.

He was determined to be ready when God came back to Earth and to show that he was among the most faithful. So he built this. This was his purpose, his life’s work, and he was doggedly determined to do this.

And this piece of art is amazing. In fact, you can Google it. Just called “The Throne of the Third Heaven.” And if you look at this piece, you’ll say to yourself, “Wow! What drove somebody to do it?” A clear sense of purpose. So I just like people to think about, “What am I doing and why does it matter? And why do I want to learn and excel at something?” And if we have a clear purpose, that really matters.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m also just thinking very, very tactically, was it the reticular activation system? Like, that notion that if you’ve got a purpose and there’s something you’re trying to solve for, any number of random stimuli can become the impetus for, like, Eureka inspirations, like that dog Velcro situation.

I don’t know his story if he was looking for fastening options or anything, but if you were, you would get really fired up. You would notice that, like, “Holy smokes, I got to know everything about burrs stat.”

Alan Gregerman
Well, right, so I think you’re onto something. So here’s the idea, and that is if I have something that really matters to me, a problem I want to solve, an opportunity I want to create, then almost anything becomes the raw material for thinking about it.

So I wake up each day kind of overwhelmed with the idea that I can create a breakthrough and do something different. I show up at work on Mondays – can you imagine that? – really energized to do something different.

I’m going to improve customer service. I’m going to improve distribution. I have an idea for a new product or service. I am energized. If I don’t have a purpose, I show up and I’m just kind of slogging it through, you know, I’ll do more of the same.

And so I find purpose is the great energizer, in a way. It’s a great starting point for making a difference. I’m kind of super highly motivated to show people that you don’t have to be an expert to create a breakthrough. I wake up every Monday, super excited to get the word out to more people.

But I think whatever we have as our purpose, if it drives us, then it really makes us really powerful in terms of our ability to take a fresh look, because we’ll do whatever it takes to be remarkable at solving that purpose.

So that then leads us to the second, which is curiosity. And that is, if I have a purpose, I ought to be curious about, “Is there a better way to do the things that matter most?” So if you’re thinking about your job, think about, “What should I be curious about? And it might not be folks in my industry who are awesome at what I do, but it might be folks who are in something else, who do something else, another business, another walk of life, who would be a spark, a source of inspiration.”

So let me give you an example. A team of people came to me because they needed to improve customer service in their organization. And they said, “Well, where should we think about it?” And I said, “Well, think about all the leading providers, where have you gotten great customer service?”

And then I said, “How about this? Let’s go to Cirque du Soleil together.” And I have no idea what goes on at a Cirque du Soleil performance. They’ve got a funny language, they’re doing all kinds of things, they’re cool costumes, but I know they’re focused on, from start to finish, a remarkable customer experience.

So we arrived an hour early and we simply paid attention to everything they do to engage customers and get people excited about this kind of different type of entertainment. And then we stayed an hour afterwards to see all the things they were doing afterwards to make it so that people would really be involved, tell other people, be repeat customers.

So wherever you think folks are remarkable, in any walk of life at doing what you do, commit to being curious about what they do, figuring out what they do and seeing if you can apply it to your work.

Pete Mockaitis
And when I’m thinking about the biography of Leonardo da Vinci here, it’s like that dude may be the most curious human who ever lived. I mean, it was astounding in terms of it didn’t need to be remotely relevant, so it seemed, what he was directly working on, but he would just go deep into researching a random animal’s functioning body part, like, “Why it did it the way it did.” And in so doing, I mean, well, I guess the proof is in the pudding. That was remarkably fruitful for him.

Alan Gregerman
Well, yeah, so I mean, he ended up being called a Renaissance person, right? So I guess we have a term for somebody clever, but imagine, here’s one example from his world that ended up having a current implication.

So Igor Sikorsky, in 1939, invents the helicopter, the first vertical lift craft, okay? As an 11-year-old boy in a market, he saw a toy called the Chinese top. For those of you kind of listening, but you can’t see it, I’ll kind of demonstrate here.

It’s a stick with a propeller on it. You rub it in your hands and it goes straight up in the air. As an 11-year-old, that sparked him to think about humans someday going straight up in the air. He goes to a library in Kiev where he’s from, or Kiev, and the librarian says, “Well, you know, there was this guy, Leonardo da Vinci, and he actually drew pictures of a helicopter, like, he never, ever created one, but he drew pictures of them.”

Did he come up with this on his own? No. On his balcony in Florence, he saw dragonflies. And dragonflies are actually the natural embodiment of a helicopter. They’re like miniature helicopters. Sikorsky saw this, looked at dragonflies, and many, many years later created a helicopter that actually, on the maiden voyage, flew for 59 minutes. That’s kind of awesome, actually.

I mean, compare that to the Wright brothers, eight feet above a beach for a hundred yards, and they’re the fathers of flight? Sikorsky goes up for 59 minutes straight up in the air and flies around. But da Vinci was an important part of that because, as you said, he was innately curious about everything around him.

And so he imagined that dragonflies were something humans could do, and it took about 500 years for humans to actually do it. But, no, so I just feel like I would love everyone listening to just get out there and pay attention.

You know, when I wander around, and I’m in DC, but I’m in Chicago a lot and lots of other places, I see people walking around glued to their phones, you know, as though that’s like really important. They got to send a text or they got to take a call or they got to check their email. They’ve got to do all those things.

Just put your phone in your pocket and wander around and pay attention. You’ll be shocked at all the things you see and the connections you start to make just by being curious.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And how about respect?

Alan Gregerman

Well, so let’s, for a moment, because in my mind there’s a little bit of an order about it. So let me insert one more and then we’ll get to respect. And so that’s humility. And it’s a natural thing. So, look, if I honestly realize I don’t know everything, or that the stuff I know isn’t appropriate for solving the problem I’m trying to solve, I ought to be humble.

I ought to admit that I don’t know, and that ought to energize me even more to figure it out. And so I like the idea of humility. So let me give you a great example there. It’s a sad example that turns out to work out really well.

So a fellow named Dixon Chibanda, and you can Google his TED Talk, is one of only 13 — 13, that’s an actual number — of licensed psychiatrists in the country of Zimbabwe. And Zimbabwe is a country of 17 million people. And so if you do the math, and I was not like a rock star math student, but I can tell that’s not enough psychiatrists to take care of an entire nation that might have some mental health challenges.

One day, one of his patients can’t get to him and she takes her own life. And he decides there has to be a better way. And so he decides, in a country that’s under-resourced with psychiatrists, that he has to figure out who would be respected that people would listen to. And he determines that it’s grandmothers, the most respected people in lots of societies.

He trains thousands of grandmothers to be the front line of mental health defense, and creates an organization called Friendship Bench, in which he places benches in communities throughout Zimbabwe, and tells young people they can book a time to hang out and talk with a grandmother. And he teaches the grandmothers the fundamentals of talking with somebody who’s facing depression.

Pete Mockaitis
I love that. I’m reminded of the Vince Vaughn movie, “Nonnas,” with the Italian grandmas who started a restaurant, but this is way cooler.

Alan Gregerman
Well, yeah. And so imagine this, five years later, the suicide rate in Zimbabwe goes down over 90%. And it’s based on the fact that people have someone they can turn to, and it’s a grandmother, and nobody’s going to do something really bad when a grandmother cares about you.

And so kind of a brilliant idea, but that’s the idea of humility. I’m trained as a psychiatrist. That’s not solving my problem. I’ve got to get more people involved in mental health. So, back to what you were asking about — respect.

I can learn something remarkable from any other person on the planet if I’m open to doing that and if I’m willing to connect with them. So imagine, I tell a story in the book about a homeless man, an unhoused person, that I met by actually going to McDonald’s to have my Egg McMuffin and coffee.

And I met a man out there who was sitting on the curb who asked if I could buy him two apple pies. And I said it first, you know, because I was trying to focus on health, I said, “Well, you know, two apple pies is not really a balanced breakfast.”

And he said, “Well, I really like apple pies.” And I said, “You’re an adult. Go for it,” though I did get him an orange juice because I figure we all need vitamin C. I began to see him regularly. You know, I would go to McDonald’s every week and buy him two apple pies and an orange juice. Never got him to eat protein, but I’m not sure there’s a lot of protein at McDonald’s.

And so I befriended him. A person who, on the face of it, most people would say, “What would I learn from him?” I learned a lot from him during our conversations. I would guess I learned at least as much from him as he ever learned from me. But I learned about, you know, he was a jazz musician. I learned about his love of jazz. I listened today to lots of the musicians he recommended to me.

I learned about his life and his family and some of the ideas he had. And, most importantly, I learned about resilience. Almost every company and organization talks about, “We need to be more resilient in a fast changing world.” Here was a person who lived on the street for two years. He had to figure out how to be resilient every single day. And the things that he knew were things that I incorporate in my life and my world.

So whether somebody is in another culture around the world, whether somebody is of a different generation, whether somebody, through a quirk not necessarily of their own, has landed in a difficult place, we can learn something from everybody but we have to wake up each day believing, “Anyone I meet, potentially, could be valuable to me.”

And the idea of respect is that, “I don’t know where the ideas that I’m going to need are going to come from but I ought to cast a wide net and be open to those.” So that’s the idea of respect.

The fifth thing I’d love people to think about is what I call future focus. Many of the people listening probably were either subject to or they loved reading about Jules Verne, Around the World in 80 Days, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

Jules Verne was like the first science fiction writer or one of the first. He wrote all of his books based on wandering up and down the streets of Paris and imagining things, and going to the library and reading other books.

We can imagine what the future is going to be like by just engaging with the world around us and paying attention to the clues it’s giving me, “Why is everybody riding a scooter?” “Why do some restaurants not even have service people? I just scan a QR code and then I order online, and then my food appears.”

Lots of things going on. “Why are driverless cars really popular?” All kinds of, but I need to pay attention. I need to get up and pay attention. I need to think about what the clues are about the future that are actually leading me to the future, and then I need to figure out how to win by getting to the future before anybody else.

If I’m in a job, I should think about that for my company, “What’s going on out there in the world that’s going to impact us? And how do I bring that in and be valuable, suggesting ways we can respond?” So that’s the idea of future focus.

And then the last thing is the simple idea that I talk about all the time, and that is, and it’s not something that we all think is great, but we all should be paranoid. And what do I mean by that? You know, the reality is we all should pay attention to what’s gaining on us.

Right now, we’re all afraid that AI is gaining on us. It’s going to take our job. It’s going to make what we do irrelevant. I think we need to pay attention and then we need to figure out what’s our strategy, “As a human, how can I be valuable in a world of AI? I can imagine. I can make connections. I can care. I can be curious.”

AI is only as good as my ability to be all those things. And I can show how I can connect the dots in ways that no machine ever could. But I have to always believe that somebody is following me because that motivates me to have, you know, as we’re talking about it, this enlightened ignorance.

It motivates me to say, “Each day, I can learn something new that will make a difference that’s going to make me more valuable in the work I do. And I’m determined to do it.”

Pete Mockaitis
You’re right, the word paranoia doesn’t have the greatest connotation in terms of positivity. And yet, if we think of it as the antidote to complacency, I think that’s super useful to just have a bit of, well, we had one guest saying, you know, fun, fear and focus is just a great mix for getting stuff done and having creative ideas and all that.

So, in a way, there’s a bit of sort of an emotional, maybe biochemical component there. But also, you know, I think it’s possible that I’ve probably been guilty of it, it’s like, “Hey, the thing I’ve been doing has been working pretty well. I’m just going to keep doing that on repeat for years.”

And it might be worthwhile to not be so comfortable and to proactively change things up instead of having to have them change, thrust upon me from external forces at a timing and in a context that’s not ideal.

Alan Gregerman
Well, no, so I think you’re right. And just think about it logically. And that is, five years ago the world was very different than it is today. Five years from now, it’s going to be even more different than it is. If we believe we can do exactly the same thing and know exactly the same stuff and be relevant five years from now, I think we’re kidding ourselves.

In fact, if we think that we can go to school and major in computer science, and that the day after we leave school and get a job, we won’t have to learn something new, we’re probably kidding ourselves. So the reality is we need to constantly up our game, but I think that’s part of the fun of life, actually, learning the right new things when I need them.

I like to think about the idea that we should learn how to engage the world. These six things I talk about are the things we should be learning as kind of habits of our lives. And then we should learn how to kind of “just in time” learn.

Say, “What do I need to know in order to do what I need to do to get me or our company or our organization moving forward? And then I’m going to figure that out. I’m going to be all in and I’m going to cram like crazy to figure that out. And then I’m going to make some mistakes but I’m going to refine what I know and I’m just going to get better and better at it.”

Pete Mockaitis

Well, you mentioned AI, I’d love your hot take in terms of how can AI help and hinder our creativity.

Alan Gregerman

Well, so I use AI a lot, but I don’t write anything with AI, and I don’t come up with my final answers for AI, and I don’t even imagine using AI. I often use AI just to think about what’s known about a certain topic, and I use that as a bit of a starting point in helping me to think differently.

I use AI to collect information. If I were to go to the web, I do a lot of speaking around the world, and I often say to myself, “I’d like to do some speaking in Chicago or Japan or wherever. Can you give me the names and contact information of folks who book speakers in these places?”

And AI can do that. I’m sure I’m using up way more energy than I have a right to. But AI can do that really, really quickly. If I had to search a lot of data sources to figure that out, that would be a monumental effort.

So I collect information using AI, but I use my human ability to imagine and to connect dots after I’ve used AI.

And so I think of wherever a job requires creativity and innovation, wherever it requires building strong relationships with other people, wherever it requires kind of connecting dots in different ways, seeing patterns in different ways, I think all of those things are things that humans are going to do really, really well. And so I’d invest in those things and then I just invest in how to learn quickly.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, Alan, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Alan Gregerman
I just believe, for everybody listening, we’ve been sold — I don’t want to say it’s a bill of goods — but we’ve been convinced, a lot of us, that we’re not particularly innovative, that the world is a place in which there are people who are really creative and then there’s the rest of us, and we need to be resigned to just doing stuff.

I believe we all have the potential to be remarkably creative. It’s just we’ve got to open our eyes and pay attention and start thinking in different ways. You know, I wrote this book to truly challenge people to say, “I can actually take a fresh look at the things that matter most and come up with something different.”

And so I want everybody out there to believe you can do awesome things. You just have to be open to trying to make those happen. And so that’s really what I’m kind of passionate about, is the belief that every single person can do awesome things with kind of this straightforward formula for the six things we need to do really well.

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

Alan Gregerman
So I love José Andrés, you know, the restaurateur who also created World Central Kitchen, and who’s determined, especially in war zones and danger zones, to feed people.

So he once said, “Life begins at the edge of the unknown.” And so I believe the stuff we already know is fine. The stuff we don’t know but could know is like energizing and awesome. So I love that quote.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Alan Gregerman
I like Don Quixote by Cervantes. I love the idea that we all need to kind of battle windmills and think about what’s possible, and imagine no matter where we start that we can do remarkable things.

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

Alan Gregerman
If I were to give a favorite tool that I like in the world of work that’s relevant to your audience, I would say, each day, find somebody in your organization you don’t know very well, but that you, working with them, would be beneficial to the organization.

And set up either a call or a meeting or coffee, depending if you’re co-located in the same place, and have a conversation in which you just talk about things you have in common that have nothing to do with work.

And I can guarantee you, in 10 minutes, you’ll make a connection with that person and you’ll be more eager to think creatively and make a difference with that person.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?

Alan Gregerman
I wake up each day and we have three dogs, I take them for a walk, and I pay attention to kind of what interests them, probably the smell of another dog being in some place. But because they take their time walking, it’s kind of called a sniff and stroll, it gives me time to ponder and think about things.

And so I’m imagining all the things I see, and kind of the power of the bright color of flowers this time of year, of kind of the different ways people transport themselves around. I just pay attention and my morning walk is a great start.

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

Alan Gregerman
There are a lot of key things, but I’d love to think about the thing that people kind of resonate with most is just the reality that we can figure out the stuff that matters most if we have the right mindset.

That we don’t have to know everything, that we should just get started. Figure out something that matters to you and, even if you’re bad at it, just get started because you’ll bump into ideas along the way and figure out how to be remarkable.

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

Alan Gregerman
Well, so lots of places. I mean, they can go to AlanGregerman.com. You can connect with me on LinkedIn. Don’t follow me. Connect with me. I’d like to learn what you’re up to. So you can do that.

As Pete said, you can go on, actually, on Listen Notes and put my name in there and kind of listen to me. I mean, I’m honored to be on your show. But if you want to hear more stuff, if you’d like more information, I can send you other stuff about me, articles or books.

Read a few of my books. I mean, read The Wisdom of Ignorance, and if you don’t like it, I will Venmo you the money, you know?

Pete Mockaitis

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

Alan Gregerman
I think, just show up at work each day and say to yourself, “How can we be more valuable to the internal or external customers we serve? So how can we make an even greater difference in their lives?” And I think if you use that as the starting point of your purpose, given whatever job you have now, it’s going to energize you to take a fresh look at the things you do. You won’t get stuck in the things you do. And, over time, you’ll find you’re more and more valuable to wherever you work.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Alan, thank you.

Alan Gregerman
Thank you. I’ve appreciated the chance to be on your show. Thanks.

1133: The Philosophy of Scores: How to Measure What Truly Matters and Stop Playing Someone Else’s Game with C. Thi Nguyen

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Thi Nguyen draws on the philosophy of games to explain how scores and metrics impact our lives—and what we can do to use them more meaningfully.

You’ll Learn

  1. How metrics can coopt our values and behavior
  2. The hidden costs of the desire to quantify everything
  3. Why the wrong people often seem to get ahead

About Thi

Thi Nguyen is associate professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, and a specialist in the philosophy of games, the philosophy of technology, and the theory of value.

A former food writer for the Los Angeles Times, Nguyen is active in public philosophy, writing for The New York Times, The Washington Post, New Statesman, and elsewhere.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Thi Nguyen Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Thi, welcome!

Thi Nguyen
Hello. Hello.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I am so excited we have a learned philosopher here that, I think, the first time we’ve had a full-blown, legit, credentialed philosopher on the show, and I’m stoked.

Thi Nguyen
I’m sorry, I’m about to under-meet your expectations.

Pete Mockaitis
We’ll see. Well, your book, The Score, I found absolutely riveting, fantastic, plowed through it. And I’ve got one burning question I want to address right away, which was, you mentioned you loved just about every game you’ve played, or rather, more pointedly, the one game you regret playing was the computer game Civilization. What’s the story here?

Thi Nguyen
I think one thing I realized, one of the, actually, origin points about thinking about this, about what kinds of things that we did in our lives are worthwhile and not, is that, I don’t know, I spent a whole summer playing Civilization and I just have this memory of a vague anxiety sweat blur of like nothingness.

And when I think about other times I’ve spent with other games, like everything from rock climbing to Go to like really interesting video games, like, Baba Is You, I have this thick memory of how many interesting things happened, how many things I did. And Civilization is just, I don’t know, that time is just gone.

Pete Mockaitis
Interesting. So this kind of reminds me of the distinction between liking and wanting. It sounds like if your whole summer went away, you had a whole lot of wanting, you had to get back to it, see what happened with your trade routes or your armies or your whatever. But there wasn’t a rich memory that felt uplifting afterwards.

Thi Nguyen
Yeah, I also think, one of the things that exposed to me is something that I think we can be wrong about whether we’re having fun or having a good time. And I’ve had this in relationships, friendships, and games.

And I think my favorite example of this is my experience with the first Star Wars prequel movie, which I was so excited for at the time, in which I convinced myself that I had a great time at. And I spent a week being like, “That was awesome.”

And it took me a week to realize that I was talking myself into thinking that it was valuable, that I kind of overwritten the actual experience with my need to think of it as a valuable experience. And I think that’s actually something that can happen in a lot of places.

And I think when I play Civilization, I tell myself, “This is fun, I can tell. Like, it’s a good game, I’m into it.” But, actually, afterwards the time seems valueless.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah. I think that’s so true that we can talk ourselves into it. For any number of reasons, we want to think we haven’t been duped, we want to justify the money, the time we’ve invested. And, yeah, I think we totally have the capacity, a great capacity for self-deception.

Well, let’s get into things a little bit with regard to The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else’s Game. Could you maybe tell us a little bit of the backstory for how these ideas got swirling around your head and seemed like a worthwhile thing to spend years researching and putting together some great writings on?

Thi Nguyen
So, a bunch of this comes, I’ve spent a lot of the years of my life working kind of an insane path through philosophy. I’ve been obsessed with a part of philosophy that I think isn’t even supposed to be part of my field, which is the philosophy of games.

I’ve been trying to figure out what games are and why they’re valuable. And this started way back when, because I was reading a bunch of stuff with some students about video games. They wanted to know whether video games were art, and we read about, you know, a bunch of articles about it.

And most people were trying to say that video games were art because they were like a movie. And I was like, “Yeah, some games are like a movie. Some games have cool cutscenes.” But, actually, the thing that I really care about is how it feels to be playing, the fact that I get to make interesting decisions or interesting movements.

And when I was trying to figure this out, I found this moment from my favorite game designer, Reiner Knizia, he’s a German board game designer. And in one of his talks, he says that the most important part of his game design toolbox is the scoring system because it tells the players what to care about. It sets their desires.

And that, I think, is the moment where I was like, “Oh, this is so interesting. This is even more interesting than I realized.” Because games, I think they don’t just create worlds, they create alternate selves for us to plunge into.

And so I wrote an entire book about the beauty of games and how game designers use scoring systems to push around our motivations, to give us alternate ways of caring, and to create all this incredibly beautiful, rich action.

And then I started worrying about gamification because I think a lot of people were saying like, “Oh, you love games. You must love gamification. Let’s gamify the classroom and let’s gamify the workplace.” And I thought that if we actually understood what made games really valuable, we would understand why most gamification was rotten and why it sucked out what was really valuable.

And so I ended up telling a story about what is wrong with gamification, and what is wrong with thin metrics in the workplace, especially when they start to capture our values and change our sense about what’s valuable in our life.

And I got to this point where I realized I had an entire story where scoring systems in games turned out to be beautiful, delightful, the seat of joy. And then I had this story about how scoring systems in bureaucracy, government, and corporations, seemed to suck the life out of people, and I wanted to understand why.

And that’s basically why I wrote this book. I was obsessed with why scoring systems were basically responsible for my favorite parts of life and my least favorite parts of my life.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And I think you do a masterful job in the book, as you say, that it hits different when we’re scoring in a game versus when we’re being scored at work or with the KPIs and the metrics associated with performance there.

Can you maybe tell us a cautionary tale for professionals of why should this be on our radar? Why should we have our antenna up to these philosophically concepts in terms of our real-world life, happiness, flourishing career implications?

Thi Nguyen
Let me tell two stories. One is personal and one is institutional, and I think there’s a lot of lessons to be learned from both. So the personal story, I mean, I went into philosophy because I thought, I mean, philosophy is a terrible career decision, right? Like, jobs are hard, pay is terrible, work is hard.

The only reason you do it is because you love it, because it’s this weird, fascinating thing. And there are particular kinds of questions and ways of asking about the world that I loved. And then I got plunged into the world of philosophy.

And philosophy, just like every other world, is a profession that has its internal metrics and indicators. There is a status ranking of journals and a status ranking of universities. And I, like a lot of other people, were brought up to aim intensely at getting articles published in the highest status journals. Let me really clear how we did that.

What you did was that you had to write a very specific, very narrow, very technical kind of philosophy on very specific kinds of topics. And it was really boring. And I, basically, spent five years in this field that I was supposed to love, working on things that were more and more boring to me, precisely because I’d come to be guided by a system that represented, not like my sense of what was important, but some kind of like external redigestion and like vomiting back of what people in general thought was important. There’s one story.

I think another one, one thing that I’ve started to think about is not just like the external metrics are external, that they’re somebody else’s, but there’s a particular flavor to them. And I think most people know what I’m talking about. They feel inhumane, in a way. They feel distant, they feel rigid, they feel like they don’t capture what’s actually important. And I’ve been trying to figure out why.

And there’s all these examples that I find really interesting. So here’s one. Sally Engle Merry is an anthropologist who studied human rights work, and she got really interested in the ranking of, so the US State Department issued something called the Trafficking in Persons Report. It’s their sex trafficking report. And they’re rating countries on various countries’ ability to combat sex trafficking.

And the primary metric is conviction rates of sex traffickers. And what Merry points out is that this is actually a terrible metric because a lot of sex trafficking is highly correlated with ambient poverty. So if a country manages to decrease general poverty, uplift the economic status of its poor citizens, actual sex trafficking evaporates.

But since it’s evaporated, there are no sex traffickers to convict. So, by the metric, an actual successful lifting of general citizen well-being, and an actual reduction in sex trafficking, counts as a failure because the thing that the metric is picking up on, it’s not actual sex trafficking, but a very rough proxy of when that kind of activity enters into the government site via a particular kind of interaction, the arrest of a sex trafficker.

I think one of her reasons she says why this happens is because actual sex trafficking is actually incredibly hard to track partially because, by its nature, it occurs out of view and because it’s really, like what counts as a sex trafficking victim and an actual sex trafficker is really, really fuzzy on the edges.

She has this incredible example. She says, imagine someone who’s starving, a woman who’s starving, who crosses an international boundary to work in a brothel. And then the next year, they bring their friend, who’s also starving, across the boundary to work in the same brothel. Is the first woman now an international sex trafficker, right?

Really hard to answer those questions. You don’t have to answer them if you go to conviction rate, right? It’s so easy. It’s so bright. It’s right in front of us. Another example nearby is the example of Charity Navigator. Do you know Charity Navigator?

Pete Mockaitis
I’ve been there many times.

Thi Nguyen
So Charity Navigator is supposed to be a nonprofit watchdog that watches on other nonprofits and rates them for how good they are at charity. And for a really long time, it’s changed recently due to these exact criticisms, but for a long time, over a decade, I think, their primary metric for rating nonprofits was a throughput ratio.

It was a ratio of how many donations were given versus how many of those domain donations emerged on the other side, and were given as resources or money to the other place, to whatever the target is.

It turns out, this is, again, a terrible metric. And the reason it’s terrible is because by that metric anything spent internal to the nonprofit counts as waste. The metric depends on this image that nonprofits are just kind of pipelines for money. And, say, any money that a nonprofit wants to spend on an internal expert, will make it plunge in the rankings.

This example is so interesting to me, because the reason that we seize on that metric is because, in order to actually rate nonprofits, we would actually have to know a huge amount about their very specific domain.

So we would have to understand, like, about the housing crisis in one particular part of the world, and the lack of doctors in another part of the world. And we would somehow have to figure out how to compare those in a clear way. That’s really hard.

Accounting, on the other hand, is really stable and nonprofits do it in a similar way. And so if you focus on that layer, right, the accounting layer, you can find a kind of similar-enough quality that automatically outputs a kind of quantitative measure.

So you can generate an objective ranking, but you’ve generated that objective ranking by shifting the target over from what actually matters to a topic matter that has been chosen precisely because it can create an easy ranking.

There’s more kind of large-scale explanation to unpack, but I think these are really interesting examples of how the process of measuring things at scale seizes on certain kinds of parts of the world and has a lot of trouble coping with the parts of the world that actually might matter.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and I hope, I know the way some people’s brains just fire off. They see implications right away. And sometimes you need a little bit of a bridge. And so, as you’re saying these, and I’m hearing it, and I thought like, “Whoa, this is actually epically high-stakes transformational stuff.”

Because when you say what counts as a sex trafficker, I mean, like you bring it into a business, like, “What counts as revenue? What counts as a customer? What counts as customer satisfaction?” And then, “What is the underlying view?” Like, nonprofits are pipelines for money. You make a point here that metrics are not neutral and objective. They’re values-laden.

Like, a person decided, “This is the metric we’re going for and this is what counts and this is what doesn’t,” based upon what they were trying to accomplish. And that has major downstream amplifications or ramifications for everyone that’s engaging with these numbers.

Thi Nguyen
So I’m not a philosopher of science, but I hang out with lot of philosophers of science, and there’s philosophy of science in this other field nearby called science and technology studies.

One of the primary themes that emerges from this work is that a lot of people tend to think that a lot of scientific tools, a lot of measurement tools, and a lot of data collection systems are value-neutral. They just represent the world in a kind of neutral way, but actually these tools are value-laden. This means they represent a particular point of view with particular interests. And they often do that by what they put in and what they leave out.

One of the places this becomes really clear to me is just thinking about maps. So maps are a kind of representation. You might think that a map is neutral, but a map, by definition, deletes most of the world, right? What a map is doing is something that highlights certain parts of the world. Who chose what to highlight, right?

Maps are good for certain kinds of things and not good for others based on decisions we made in the background. So most of the maps I look at are very good for telling you how to find a business or how to drive there. They’re not really good at telling you where the places that sound pleasant are, where the friendly neighborhoods are.

And they could do that, right? You could create a map that represents where nightlife is or represents where nature is. And people do make those maps, but the standard maps leave that out. They represent an interest.

The data system, I think about this a lot, so at my school, the administration is interested in lifting student success, which sounds awesome. But student success is largely defined in terms of graduation rate and graduation speed, and it’s not defined in terms of things like reflectiveness or thoughtfulness or creativity or ethics, right?

So, for example, if your primary measure for student success is graduation speed, and I meet a student who is bored, their major isn’t doing well for them, they’re not that good at it, they’re kind of frustrated. And I convinced them that the major is the wrong one for them.

And we talk and we’re like, “Oh, that’s what they’re really interested in,” and we help them find another major that’s better fit for them, that makes them happier, that fits their skill set more, but it’s going to take another year, that counts as a failure.

Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes, the political philosopher, I think a lot of people might know that he said that morality comes down to political power, and political power comes from the tyrant, whoever has the ability to, like, get people to do what they want.

And Hobbes actually says that the real source of political power, the ultimate form of political power is not military strength or might, or even economic strength. It’s power over language. Because if you can dictate to them what success and failure mean, then you can control them from the inside. And these are the stakes, I think.

What metrics actually are, are a way of fixing what counts as success and fixing what we should all be moving towards. And if there’s some systematic slippage between what actually matters and the kinds of things that it’s easy to build metrics about, then our entire internal guidance system is going to be deeply rewritten at its core based on somebody else’s values, right, some particular person that made the measurement system.

So I was reading this paper from a philosopher named Philippi about values and measurement systems. And he was pointing out how value-laden the idea of intelligence is, right? So intelligence testing is a very value-laden measure.

So you might know that IQ tests are racially and gender-biased. That might be true, but that’s not the center of what he’s talking about. Here’s the value-laden system inside our intelligence tests. The intelligence tests we have right now all encode into them the view that mathematical and logical ability is more important than emotional sensitivity, right?

There is such a thing as emotional intelligence. But think about the fact that our intelligence tests either don’t test it or, if they test it, it’s barely weighted, right? That is a particular set of interests and a representation of how people should be that’s baked into a measurement system that then looks objective once it’s become like a kind of standard use measurement system.

People just think that’s the way the world is, “Of course, that’s what intelligence is,” But it’s a decision that somebody made to weight things that way.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And I’m thinking about, so we missed the emotional intelligence, but we also missed some of the creativity-type intelligences, or I’ve got a posse of craftsmen who are fixing some water damage right now and doing some amazing things, and that’s a different kind of intelligence than what shows up on the ACT.

Thi Nguyen
Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t use that system. You could start to think about people as having hundreds of different capacities, each of which you could think about in a different way. Some people are good at drawing, some people are good at sensitivity, some people are good at telling stories, some people are good at logical and mathematical ability.

But instead, what we’ve done is we’ve created something that says, “No, all of these boil down to one thing.” And the idea that there’s one thing that is intelligence is a worldview that’s subtly been baked into a kind of metric.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. And it’s so interesting when you talked about scoring sets their desires, and it’s true. I think about strategy games. You probably know the name for this. There’s a principle at which, if there is a dominant strategy, folks are going to do it. And so a great game, they say, is one in which there’s not a clear cut, overpowered strategy, but rather a variety that you can choose from.

And I found myself doing this. Like, I’m playing this game, ostensibly, to have fun. And yet, if I find there’s a winning thing I can do, even if it’s not fun, I do it. And I wanted to hear your take on values capture. I remember back when I was consulting at Bain, we had what’s called a sell weekend or offeree weekend, in which the folks who had received offers to work at this consulting firm come out and we try to show them a great time, and how cool it is to work at Bain and all that.

And this one person, I remember, she also had an offer from McKinsey & Co., a rival consulting firm. And she was torn, you know, between this. And then she said, “I feel like I’m choosing between happiness…” which was Bain, “…and prestige or pleasing my parents,” which was apparently Mackenzie, is what these things represent to her.

I don’t know if that’s really a fair summary, but that’s how she saw the world. But she did, she went with McKinsey. And so the scoring, in terms of like the rankings of prestige, kind of like the philosophy schools, whether they’re consulting firms or whatever, does, in fact, have the ability to set our desires, and we can just kind of default to stuff without even thinking about it.

Can you expand upon your concept of values capture? How does it happen and how do we guard against it?

Thi Nguyen
So value capture is a term I came up with to describe something I was feeling all the time, and I think a lot of people were, which is that your values are rich and subtle or they’re developing, and then you get put in some kind of institutional or social setting that presents a simplified, typically quantified version, and then the simplified or quantified version takes over in your heart.

I want to be clear that value capture is not the same as being incentivized. So I think a lot of people know Goodhart’s law, right? When a measure becomes an incentive, it stops being a good measure. And Goodhart’s law is gesturing at the same thing. It’s gesturing at this idea that incentives don’t capture what’s important.

But I think there’s a big difference between the first stage, when a metric incentivizes us, right, when we think like, “Oh, if I go to the higher-ranked thing, I’m more likely to get a job. I’m more likely to get more money.” And the second-stage thing of when the metric intrudes into you and starts to become how you conceive of the point of everything.

I think is that different? For me, like, here’s an example. I think that’s a big thing to ike, “Oh, you know, I’m on Twitter. I need to build a bigger following in order to get my message across.” But if you understand that you’re doing it just to get the kind of power to do the thing you really want, you’re not going to sacrifice your message just to get a bigger following.

But if your soul gets redefined and you start thinking like, “No, the thing that I care about in the end is just having the most followers and likes,” then that’s going to transform your entire way of interacting with that system. I’m not sure about your case.

I think there’s a big difference between a student, for example, who thinks, “I’m more likely to get a job if I go to a higher-status university,” versus a student that thinks, “Success in life is going to the highest-ranked university.”

Because once you go to the second thing, you no longer have a standpoint to reflect on whether or not the metric is working for you. If it’s the first thing, if it hasn’t gone all the way to your core, you can always think to yourself, like, “Well, I know this is important for money or resources or whatever, but is it really worth it to me? Is it really making me happy?”

And you can step back. People can step back from high-paying jobs and high-status jobs because it’s making them less happy. But if you’ve redefined in yourself that that’s what success is, then you’re no longer going to think to yourself, “I should stop doing this because it doesn’t make me happy.”

And I think that’s actually one of the cases I’m most interested in. Like, what happens when you forget to listen to your own sense of happiness or your own sense of value? And it’s gotten overwritten by this easy, clear, outside meter.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And I think the easy, clear, outside meter is what’s so darn tricky about it. Like, money or compensation is, I think you call it, the most fungible of scores in terms of, yeah, you could turn that into a lot of different things, and we all understand it, and it is compared across many different opportunities.

And yet, it could be a lot harder to evaluate two options, like, “Well, one is clearly more money. Cool. But the other makes my heart come alive more, I think, but I can’t quantify heart coming aliveness on it as quite nearly as readily and directly as I can money.”

Thi Nguyen
Yeah. I mean, this is one way to put it. In many cases, I’m not saying that the metric is bad or even that it doesn’t track something real and something important. I’m interested in the fact that easily measured things tend to win out in justification fights against less easily measured things.

Like, should you eat rich cheeses high in saturated fats? On the one hand, there’s data about correlations with lifespan and heart attack rate. And on the other side, there’s the fact that it’s delicious and it makes you happy.

And it’s really hard to hang onto that in the face of those other numbers, especially when you have to have a public fight, right? This is the weird thing. Like, before I say this next thing, I just want to say I’m not anti-science. I believe science gets real truths.

But the world in which all our policies need to be evidence-based and data-based is a world in which we can only target things that are easy to count and easy to data-fy, and we lose our grip in things that are hard to data-fy. And I think, if you think that everything in the world that matters, can be counted by bureaucratic processes, then you have no problem.

But I think we have a really good reason to think that much of what’s really important tends to elude the specific institutional character of large-scale counting processes.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, absolutely. And when you mentioned there, when there’s a slippage in metrics between what we’re going for and what actually is captured in the cut and dry definitional metrics, all kinds of implications can ensue. I think, perhaps the most terrifying part of your book was when you described five conditions that, when they’re present, folks who game the system will prosper or rise. And so could you just lay this out for us?

Thi Nguyen
So this is based on an article from Paul Smaldino and Richard McElrath, who are scientists, anthropologists, and computer modelers, and they have a paper called “The Cultural Evolution of Bad Science.”

And they do a computer model of a scientific community where the following is true. One, status is connected to publication rate. Two, if you use the most rigorous, most careful method, you’re going to publish more slowly.

So the people that will gain the most status and power are the people that are going to game the system and use the least rigorous method that will get them just barely over the finish line of publication.

And then if you assume, the last assumption of the model is that if young scientists imitate people with higher-status jobs and their methodologies, then we should expect science to turn pretty crappy pretty fast. And I thought this argument generalized.

The general version is, first, if you think there’s a gap between what’s important and what’s easy to measure, and then you think that the institutions we have tend to reward people with power and resources for hitting the easy-to-measure metric, then you should think, “Look, then there’ll be two populations.”

There’ll be the people who still care about what they care about and are aware of the importance of the metric, but trade off between them. And then they’re the fully value-captured people, the people that are just going to go all out and just game the system and ignore what’s really important and just aim at the metric. And we should expect that the latter population, the narrow hyper gamers, are going to be the people that win out, right?

And if they win out and they, in particular, if they re-tune their institutions once they gain power to make the metrics even more powerful, then you should expect a terrifying feedback loop where, over time, the systems will tend to sort for the people that are willing to ignore the quiet whisper of what’s really important, and just target hell or high water the thin metric that is written, and that kind of narrowness will systematically gather all the social power. That’s the model. Then you can decide for yourself about whether it fits reality.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, and it’s spooky and it’s partially explanatory for all kinds of things, you know, why the rich get richer, why we have corrupt politicians, why that idiot is the boss, you know, in terms of, “Oh, well, they were rewarded not so much based upon their inspirational leadership. They were rewarded because they hit a number,” or, “The board thought they really liked that guy and he seemed sharp.”

And so, like, there was a gap between what was readily measurable or observable versus what we would hope is the fundamental thing. And the first thing that came to mind when I was reading this was just about politicians and votes.

Like, we would hope in, like, in a representative democratic republic situation, “Well, yeah, votes are kind of the measure by which we have, and which we feel someone’s doing a good job of representing us or should represent us.”

And yet, that is a tremendously gameable metric via monies that can just blast enough advertising to, apparently, get enough votes, as well as polarizing messaging, “What gets people mad enough to actually show up at the polls instead of just sitting on the sidelines?”

And then you could just imagine this in all kinds of scenarios, like, “It seems like this person is at the top, but they don’t deserve to be?” Head scratch, “What’s behind that?” Well, I think, a decent amount of the time, it’s exactly this underlying dynamic that you’ve spelled out.

Thi Nguyen
I think a big part of the background is that I think a lot of metrics are extremely usable if used with care, if we know that they’re just a rough approximate proxy. It’s only when we treat them as all important.

I think there’s an important piece of the background puzzle, of the background picture to put in right now, which is why metrics have this character, right? I mean, one response you might have to all of this is, “Let’s just fix them. Let’s just get better metrics. And then the people that are all hell-or-high water gaming the metric, will just do what’s good.”

But I think that’s not going to work. I had this intuition that it wouldn’t work. And I think the best explanation came from a bunch of historians. So, Theodore Porter, I think, helped me understand a lot of what was going on. He’s a historian of quantification culture.

And he’s trying to explain why he thinks that bureaucrats and politicians compulsively reach for quantificative reasoning even when the metric they know is bad, right, even when it’s just a blatantly terrible metric.

His explanation was that qualitative and quantitative reasoning were different styles of thinking and justification that were good at different things. So qualitative reasoning, he said, is rich and subtle and context-sensitive and dynamic, and can capture all kinds of complexity, but it travels badly between contexts because it requires a lot of shared background knowledge to understand. And it doesn’t aggregate.

And part of why it doesn’t aggregate is specifically because it’s working on so many different dimensions, right? When I’m writing qualitative descriptions to my students about their philosophy essays, I’ll talk about their originality, their rigor, their carefulness, their curiosity, all along different dimensions. And then somebody else might write in their qualitative assessment a bunch of different dimensions. How do you aggregate those?

To make quantitative data, says Porter, we identify a context-invariant kernel and we stabilize it across context. So we make it rigid. And to make it work across context, we have to figure out the bit that everybody understands the same way, which means that bit cannot depend on specific context, specific background, or specific sensitivities.

So, for me, this is like letter grades, like A, B, C, and D. There’s not a lot of information there. But what information there is, is thin enough and simple enough that everyone can understand it the same way. And so that message travels, right? And it aggregates instantly.

So Porter’s insight is that quantitative measures communicate well and are an incredibly good way to connect people and coordinate people because they’ve been designed to communicate, right? His claim is that quantitative data is portable, it travels well between contexts. But portability is a design achievement achieved at the cost of high context, and it’s not just accidental.

Removing context is the thing that makes it extremely accessible and extremely cross-cutting across contexts. And that vision, I think, is really terrifying to me. Because, for me, this shows me that this is not a trap we can get out of, right?

The essential thing that gives metrics their juice and makes them so powerful is that they are narrow by design, and that narrowness is precisely what makes them so usable and so dangerous.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And I guess, maybe to have some hope in here, I think just having a bright light of awareness, which you are providing here, can work wonders for ourselves and our own spheres of influence, and leadership, and families, and organizations, and communities, and careers, to know, “Okay, a narrow, dogged, ferocious, focus on a metric or two or three will necessarily be incomplete and comes with some major downsides. So we got to really check ourselves and note, ‘Okay, this is a rough gauge and it gets an approximation of a thing and it can’t be the whole thing.”

Thi Nguyen
And yet, we also see why it’s so tempting to treat it as the whole thing. But, yeah, there’s not a world in which we can have our institutions work without metrics and without measures that we coordinate over, but they’re so dangerously thin, and it’s so easy to forget. And part of why it’s easy to forget is, if you use them, you’re instantly comprehensible to everybody. And I think that’s very tempting.

Pete Mockaitis
Very much. Well, Thi, tell me, as you think about this domain of knowledge, and when it comes to individual professionals navigating their work lives, their careers, do you have any top do’s and don’ts you think that come to light or emerge out of this rich set of ideas?

Thi Nguyen
I have a goofy idea I want to run by you and see what you think. So a lot of the problem of metrics comes from their being established very distantly at scale and being rigidified, right? They’re distant measures of our success.

I’ve been trying to think about various solutions. And, for me, games are an inspiration. And one of the ways they’re an inspiration is that game scoring systems aren’t distant. They’re modifiable in a few ways. You can move between them. You can change them. You can house-rule them. You can design your own.

And so I’ve been wondering if this can be applied to institutions, too. So here’s something I tried. In the age of trying to figure out how to grade students in the era of ChatGPT, in my last class, I let the students design their own grading system.

I let them design, as part of the class through a conversation, what the assignments would be and how they would be graded on them, given what their goals were and what the limits were, and how the world was changing.

So here’s one thought. Maybe in the workplace, if you’re a manager, what you can do is constantly redesign your metrics in conversation with the people that are being measured about to capture what is a value. Is this goofy and insane? Part of the problem is that you’re not going to be able to export them readily, and you’re not going to be able to take off the shelf a pre-established form of measurement, but roll your own. What do you think?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, I like it a lot. And I’m thinking about how I’m on the board of a nonprofit. And so the board always says, “Hey, Pete, so you’re going to run the performance review for the executive director, right?” And I’ll say, “I guess I’m the How to be Awesome at Your Job guy, so, okay, I’ll take that on.”

And what I think is cool is that, well, each year she has her goals, and each year the goals are different in terms of what is needed at the time. And, thusly, each year, the metrics can change. And I think, because we’re, well, it is, it’s context rich, you know.

Like, I’m in it. I understand it, like what we’re doing, what we’re trying to achieve and how these numbers are incomplete and they’re are means to an end, but also like they do have value and give us a gauge in terms of, “Does this look more or less like a win, or like a loss, or something in between?”

And so, if the numbers are way, way low when they should be higher, it’s like, “Well, yeah, that looks like a loss, even though they’re imprecise and imperfect, that will show up accordingly in the performance review.” So I think that it is, it’s very much doable. And, in a way, kind of fun, keeps it fresh and relevant. But it does, it takes a heightened level of commitment, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all, “Here’s your production goal. Make sure you hit it each quarter. Boom!”

Thi Nguyen
Yeah, and you won’t be able to compare between groups. The whole point is that it’s not that metrics are bad in and of themselves. It’s that the thing that makes them insensitive is their fixity at scale. And that’s also what lets them aggregate easily.

And so the proposal here is just at a different point in the trade-off scale. Now you’re going to be thinking in a context-sensitive way about what you care about at particular moment, and you might set up a metric for a period of time and then change it.

But you won’t be able to auto-compare teams, you won’t be able to auto-compare one person’s performance over a huge amount of time, but you will be able to generate metrics that are responsive to the details of what matters in the case. But, again, it’s a massive trade-off.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, thank you. Can we hear a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Thi Nguyen
William James, philosopher, pragmatist, says, “When you’re seeking truth, there are two totally different goals that people confuse. One is to get the most truths in the end, and the other is to avoid error. And they’re totally different and they suggest different strategies.”

If what you want is a lot of truths, you might actually want to be really risky and take a lot of risks and make a lot of mistakes. Because if you take a lot of risks and try a lot of things and make a lot of mistakes, you will move more quickly towards the truth.

If you want to avoid mistakes, you should be very careful and conservative with what you try out. And these are two totally different strategies.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, that’s exciting. And I’m imagining, I don’t know who said it, but I thought there was some wisdom to it. Like, most great thinkers, a fair critique to just about all of them is, “Nice idea, but you took it too far.” And that really sounds like the first group that’s trying to maximize truths. It’s like, “Ooh, yeah, you made some mistakes, and there was some mess and dirt along the way there. But you did, you really advanced some stuff, and all of mankind is enriched as a result of having done so.”

And how about a favorite study or experiment or piece of research?

Thi Nguyen
I think one of the most interesting studies and a huge inspiration for this book was James Scott’s Seeing Like a State. And this is a book about how, you’ll recognize the themes, but it’s a book about states.

And by states he means governments and corporations, and about how they can only see the parts of the world that are processable through large-scale bureaucratic means, exactly what we’ve been talking about so far.

And then the second part of the study is an argument that states, “In order to make the world more processable, tend to reorder it to make it easier to count.” So they tend to want to even things out to make things easier to count. And it’s a study that crosses about 50 different historical case studies, and it’s extraordinary.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Thi Nguyen
Well, it’s in a book, it’s a paper. It’s by Annette Baier. It’s called “Trust and Antitrust.” And it’s a paper that taught me, I think about the most important ingredient in social life. She thinks that the center of human life is trust. And what trust is, is making ourselves vulnerable to some external power by putting something of ours in their power.

And that we have to do this to extend ourselves and to cooperate, but that human life is, essentially, one where we are constantly at risk because we constantly are so entangled that we’re entrusting ourselves to other people. And this, I found, just incredibly explanatory of the state of the world.

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

Thi Nguyen
I think my favorite tool is walking away. I think, sometimes, the right answer to being stuck, for me, is to put everything I’m stuck, write everything I’m stuck, on a whiteboard so I don’t forget it, and then just walk away. Leave the office. Leave the desk. Leave that problem. Go work on something else for days, weeks.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share with students or readers that really seems to connect and resonate, they retweet, they Kindle book highlight, they say, “Professor, this was amazing”?

Thi Nguyen
I often give students the argument that Bernard Suits, this philosopher of games that I was really inspired by, that he gives the end of his book. And he says at the end of his book, “Imagine utopia where we’ve solved all our practical problems. What would we do if we cured all medical problems and all technological problems?”

He says, “We would play games or we would be bored out of our minds. So games must be the meaning of life.” And, you know, it’s kind of a goofy argument, but what he’s really saying is he’s restating an old nugget from Aristotle, which is that the meaning of human activity can’t come from stuff we make or the outcomes of our actions. It has to come from the action itself. It has to come from the process of doing.

And if we drain out all the interesting processes of doing just to make a ton of stuff, then we’ve accidentally leaked away a meaningful life.

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

Thi Nguyen
My website is Objectionable.net. I’m on Bluesky @add-hawk, A-D-D, underscore H-A-W-K.

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

Thi Nguyen
Every time you look at a metric, be suspicious and ask what values it’s imposing on you.

Pete Mockaitis
Perfect. Well, Thi, thank you. This was a treat. I wish you many, many high scores of the most meaningful sort.

Thi Nguyen
Thanks, man.

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.