The Highest Performance Strategy is Caring About People ft. Simon Sinek

Summary

---

The Curiosity Shop: "The Highest Performance Strategy is Caring About People"

With Brené Brown, Adam Grant & Simon Sinek
Date: June 18, 2026 | Recorded live at Brilliant Minds, Stockholm
[Vox Media Podcast Network]

---

Episode Overview

In this thought-provoking live episode, hosts Brené Brown (qualitative researcher) and Adam Grant (quantitative researcher) welcome their first-ever guest, Simon Sinek (ethnographer, author, and optimist), to dissect the state of leadership, transformation, and team performance, with a focus on why authentic care for people is not just a human value, but a critical performance strategy. Drawing from research and stories across sectors—from C-suites to special forces—the trio explores how organizations can move from short-termism to sustainable, people-centered cultures and why genuine connection is an irreplaceable ingredient in both leadership and high-performing teams.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of Organizations Today

• Demand for Change (05:00):
  • Simon observes a global "mass rebellion" against short-term, profit-only capitalism (Milton Friedman/Jack Welch model), highlighting an increasing appetite for a "more human" form of capitalism led by younger and more enlightened leaders.

    "There’s a movement afoot where either enlightened leaders or younger leaders want that more human form of capitalism back." — Simon Sinek [05:09]

• Transformation from the Middle (06:00):
  • Most pressure for culture shifts is coming from mid-level change agents eager to transform their organizations from within, despite reluctance at the top.
• Misleading AI Narratives (08:11):
  • Adam highlights dissonance where leaders push AI adoption as justification for layoffs, masking overhiring, and creating unnecessary fear about technology.

    “There’s no substitute for human ingenuity and human judgment.” — Adam Grant [08:11] “They’re creating a narrative that is creating the rebellion against AI… decisions for short term gains are creating long term damage.” — Simon Sinek [09:42]

• Leadership in Chaos: The Soccer Analogy (10:34):
  • Brené likens current C-suites to five-year-olds in a soccer game: overwhelmed by rapid changes, lacking anticipation and team trust, often “kicking and falling over.”

    "For the first time in my three decades…the biggest relief... is when I say, 'Don’t worry, no one knows what the fuck is happening.'" — Brené Brown [13:22]

    • The gap: absence of "player leaders" (informal leaders on the ground).

2. Leadership Skills for a Disrupted Era

• Transition from ‘Playing Not to Lose’ to ‘Playing to Win’ (15:23):
  • Brené and Simon discuss how most organizations operate defensively out of fear, which stifles innovation and growth.

    “You can’t manage strategy or people if you can’t manage your nervous system.” — Brené Brown [16:34]

    • Adam brings in threat rigidity: the more leaders fear, the narrower their thinking—leading to micromanagement.
• Building Future-Ready Leaders: The Core 5 Skills (17:59):
  • Brené shares that her leadership research found five essential skills emerged at the top (out of 38 in total):
    1. Self-awareness
    2. Metacognition
    3. Emotional regulation & emotional awareness
    4. Mindfulness ("Paying attention")
    5. Systems thinking (revealed later)

    “When I started my work, I couldn’t talk about purpose at work. That was hippie, dippy stuff…so I called it the why.” — Simon Sinek [19:36]

  • Discussion on finding market-friendly language for such “soft” skills to foster broader organizational adoption.

3. Individual Mastery vs. Team Excellence

• The Tennis Mindset and Learning Mastery (22:53):
  • Top performers (in tennis, and by extension business) succeed by training "performance = potential minus interference" — with mental mastery and joy in the process as differentiators.
• Pivot to Team Over Individual (25:33):
  • Simon cautions against misapplying high-performance individual metaphors to teams; true organizational excellence is about collective consistency and “no blame” cultures.

    “It’s the team that wins... He [Toto Wolff, Mercedes F1] cares more about consistency than best performance.” — Simon Sinek [26:09]

  • Adam references how most incentive structures misalign, rewarding individual performance instead of team outcomes.

    “We changed it in our organization where the bonus structure is based on the company… So if one group is struggling, what are you doing to help them?” — Simon Sinek [28:09]

• Special Forces as Team Ethos Model (29:07):
  • SEAL Team 6’s ethic: “They fear letting down their team more than they fear dying.” Why civilian organizations struggle to replicate this ethos — incentive structures and culture.

4. Care, Connection, and Narrative in Leadership

• Care is Non-Negotiable for Leadership (32:06):
  • Brené’s research: leaders must genuinely care for and connect with those they lead. She shares her discomfort when she can’t, and the difficult steps taken.

    "Care for and connection with the people you lead is a non-negotiable prerequisite for leadership." — Brené Brown [32:29]

  • Simon’s rule to battle damaging team narratives and gossip:

    “If anybody creates a narrative about anybody else, it’s the responsibility of everyone else to interrupt that narrative.” — Simon Sinek [33:39]

• Military Lessons: Deep Relationship is Survival (36:01):
  • Military doesn’t stop at “care”; they require “deep loving relationship” among leaders and teams as a matter of survival.

    "Love was the secret sauce of the Marine Corps." — Simon Sinek [36:39]

5. Shame, Empathy, and Motivation

• Shame & Guilt in Leadership and Parenting (55:01):
  • Brené outlines the critical difference: shame = “I am bad”; guilt = “I did something bad.” Guilt-prone kids and employees thrive; shame leads to destructive coping.
  • Simon offers a military story: discipline is more effective when consequences are tied to letting others down, not to shaming the person.

    “You can dislike people and still care about them.” — Adam Grant [37:25]

• Empathy’s Limits and Burnout (65:02):
  • Affectively over-empathizing (taking on others’ pain) leads to burnout (the "sin eater" role); cognitive empathy ("holding space") is healthier.

    “My job is not to jump in it with you. My job is to say, I see you... Then get back on my ladder and go.” — Brené Brown [66:04]

6. Systems Thinking and Transformational Change

• Mental Models and True Transformation (47:54):
  • Changing systems (and especially mental models) is the toughest, longest part of true transformation—often requires 3 years and significant leadership churn.
    • Expect to "hit the wall at full velocity and watch things fall apart." — Brené referencing David White [47:54]
  • Patience is key: most execs bail because they want change on a set timeline, not a process-based timeline.

    “I know 100% it works. I can’t tell you when… Like going on a first date and saying: on this date on the calendar, you and I will be in love.” — Simon Sinek [51:13]

  • Short-term performance change may appear in 6-9 months, but deep culture change takes much longer.

7. Technology, AI, and the Human Element

• AI Will Not Replace Human Connection (72:05):
  • Adam and Brené: Work is not just tasks, but a network of relationships. AI subtracts some tasks but cannot substitute for discernment, judgment, and interpersonal sense-making.
  • Simon: Technologists always “forget the people” — even Amazon/Whole Foods' cashier-less tech underwhelmed because people crave human interaction.

    “Medicine is not just about data. Medicine is human. That’s my life you’re talking about.” — Simon Sinek [77:25]

  • If organizations default to tech and strip away care and connection, expect plummeting well-being and a cultural rebellion against AI.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On naming and language:

  “The reason I called it the why is ... they all said, ‘it’s why we do what we do.’ … We weren’t afraid to talk about why, but we were afraid to talk about purpose.” — Simon Sinek [20:06]

• On AI replacing people:

  “These decisions … are creating the narrative for AI. They don't realize the long term damage they’re doing...” — Simon Sinek [09:42]

• On what truly sets organizations apart:

  "You want the customer service agent that cares. You want to feel that somebody cares about you. That’s irreplaceable by technology." — Simon Sinek [77:25]

• On team vs. individual incentives:

  “If the company hits its numbers, everyone gets the bonus. If they miss, nobody gets the bonus. If one group is struggling: what are you doing to help them?” — Simon Sinek [28:09]

• On regulation and introspection in leadership:

  “Can you manage your nervous system, or can’t you? That’s a prerequisite.” — Brené Brown [16:34]

• On the consequence of not adapting:

  "If it [AI adoption] goes according to what the technologists and the AI zealots say, my prediction is you will see massive increases… of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Why? Because you took the people away from social animals." — Simon Sinek [79:55]

---

Audience Q&A Highlights

• Shame with Kids (55:01):
  • Teach children the difference between shame (self-condemnation) and guilt (behavioral regret)—the former is highly predictive of negative outcomes.
• Empathy and Self-Shame (65:02):
  • Affective empathy leads to burnout; healthy, sustainable support requires boundaries, cognitive empathy, and high trust among teams.
• Tech and Human Purpose Post-AI (72:05–80:00):
  • Jobs may shift, but the “purpose” and relationships within a job are more valuable than the tasks themselves, especially in complex fields (radiology, medicine).

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [05:00] State of organizations globally (market demand for change, pressure points)
• [10:34] The “soccer swarm” C-suite analogy; need for player-leaders
• [13:49] Are team captains necessary? How informal leadership works
• [15:23] Playing to win vs. playing not to lose
• [17:59] The 5 core skills of future-ready leadership
• [22:53] The "inner game of tennis" and learning professional mastery
• [25:33] Applying lessons from sports and special forces (team > individual)
• [32:06] Why genuine care and connection are leadership non-negotiables
• [36:01] What business can learn from military “love” and culture
• [55:01] Shame, guilt, and teaching resilience to children and teams
• [65:02] Empathy, burnout, and the dangers of affective overload
• [72:05] The future of work and job design in the age of AI
• [77:25] The irreplaceable value of compassion and connection in service work

---

Tone & Atmosphere

The conversation is lively, candid, and often humorous—punctuated by personal stories, straight talk (“no one knows what the fuck is happening”), and a shared willingness to challenge conventional business wisdom. The trio’s chemistry turns what could be an academic leadership panel into an open, relatable exploration of the human side of performance.

---

Summary Takeaway

The core thesis: The highest-performing organizations do not win because of their tech, strategy, or star individuals, but because they make the difficult (but essential) choice to center care, genuine connection, and team trust — over and over, even when the pressures of profit, risk, and short-term narrative make it feel countercultural. In a world of rapid AI evolution and organizational turbulence, this “people-first” approach remains the strongest performance strategy of all.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hi, Adam.

[B]

Hey, Renee.

[A]

I'm excited about this episode.

[B]

Me too.

[A]

Yeah. We have our first guest for you this episode. Adam will tell you all about our guest and our conversation. Before we get there, I want to let you know we are coming. This is the close to season one. It has been a wild ride. We are so grateful to y' all for being on the ride with us. We're going to be. We're taking a hiatus for five weeks. During those five weeks, we're bringing you some best of podcasts that we think you'll really enjoy. And then we'll be back on July 30th with new episodes, including some really fun guests. We're gonna try something new and interview some folks and then talk about what we're learning from our guests. So excited. But really, really want to make sure I'm clear that we're both so grateful for y' all coming to the Curiosity Shop and hanging out with us and learning with us. It's been really fun.

[B]

It has been. And speaking of fun, we're very excited to bring you a special conversation that we recorded at Brilliant Minds in Stockholm. It was last week with our friend Simon Sinek. If you don't already know Simon, he's an ethnographer, TED talker, author of books like Start with why and the Infinite Game. He's also a podcaster and an optimist. We had a great conversation about the state of work in organizations, about how to build strong teams, how to get the most out of leaders. And we also got to do a live Q and A with leaders from around the world. Enjoy.

[C]

Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o dot com.

[D]

AI is moving fast across the enterprise, but without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do so you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com

[C]

support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder? With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o.com.

[A]

Welcome to the Curiosity Shop, a show

[B]

from the Vox Media podcast network.

[A]

Hi everybody. We are in Stockholm and we are at the Brilliant Minds conference joined by none other than Simon Sinek. Welcome to the Curiosity Shop.

[E]

Nice to be here.

[A]

We're excited.

[E]

Thank you. Me too.

[B]

You're the first guest ever.

[A]

Ever.

[E]

I remember you told me you said, would you be our first guest? And I was very excited to say yes.

[A]

I have questions for all of us and we're going to round robin them. So here's my thinking. The three of us have spent our careers inside organizations and working with leaders, but we do it in very different ways. So you build very deep and lasting relationships with leaders. You're with them over time. You are very relational in your work, Adam. You bring research, cutting new findings and you work with leaders, you work with teams. I go into organizations to lead transformations. So I'm there usually for two to five years working specifically with the C suite and then I work with the level of leaders that report up to the C suite. So we all have very different interactions but do very similar work. So I want to start with this question and we'll go first to you. State of the org globally, how would you describe what you're seeing today?

[E]

There is. Look, the good news is, is that there is demand for our work. There shouldn't.

[A]

I agree.

[E]

No, no, but, but I mean it like there shouldn't be.

[A]

That's true.

[E]

Right. And none of us would have careers in the 80s or 90s. There would be no demand for what we do in that time period. And I think that there's this sort of mass rebellion around the world against capitalism. But it's the form of capitalism that exists now, the sort of Milton Friedman, Jack Welch form of capitalism of short termism and using people to balance the books. And rewarding shareholders before you take care of your employees or your customers. That's the form of capitalism that exists now that we all don't like and rebel against. And the good news, there's a movement afoot where either enlightened leaders or younger leaders want that more human form of capitalism back. And the problem is there's still a lot of pressure for the old form. And so the trend that I'm seeing right now and the questions that I'm getting the most questions for is transformation. How do we go from this to that? And the most common question I get is, is what do you do when your boss is against all of the stuff we talk about? It's the most common question I get. And so the good news is we're seeing the demand for change, for the way we do business coming from the middle. And they want to be change agents inside their own organizations rather than just say, I'm out of here and quit and go somewhere else. But transformation is the topic. How to do it, how to do it in a way that doesn't create excessive pushback rebellion. How to do it in a way that is considerate but at the same time responsible to the business model. I mean, they still have to keep the doors open. And so, yeah, that's the thing. But I'm proud of the fact that the three of us are on the front lines of this movement.

[A]

I love that framing. And I have to say, I think work would have been bleak for us during Welchian times.

[E]

It would've been non existent.

[A]

Yeah, I think. And what I mean by that is during a period of time when performance and humanity were cast as mutually exclusive.

[E]

I think so. True story. I did some work back in the day, long ago, before this form of my career, I did some work for a division of ge, GE Silicones. And I'll leave out all the long stuff, but I came in with some recommendations on how to re understand loyalty. And it was all about humanity and rewarding people for, for actual loyalty, not just how much they spend, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And the guy who ran the division, he was, he was great. He said, simon, this is great work and I think you've made some excellent recommendations and I agree with what you're suggesting and I just want you to know that we will implement none of it. And he says, because you have to understand if I implement your stuff, I don't get a bonus. So great work not doing it. And they were honest and open about it.

[A]

Straightforward.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, very honest and open about it. But so even if there was appreciation for the work, the incentive structure, they're just not going to implement it.

[A]

Yeah. Charlie Munger, show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. Yeah. Adam State of the Org.

[B]

Oh, I think there are two things that jump out at me. The first one is a lot of leaders pushing their employees to adopt AI while at the same time planning to do major job cuts in the next two to five years and not telling anybody. I think that's a travesty and I think it's a mistake too. I think there's no substitute for human ingenuity and human judgment. And I think a lot of these leaders, to Simon's point, are being very short sighted in just assuming they can get rid of a bunch of people just because we have LLMs now. That's probably the first one. The second one I'm seeing is related to that. Accusations of hypocrisy constantly. I hear it from my students, I hear it from junior people in the organizations I go and visit. They say we were told that we had a voice and then we brought concerns, we brought ideas and nobody listened or did a thing. So what was all of that lip service to inclusion? What does it mean? You obviously didn't care.

[A]

Thoughts?

[E]

So the AI thing is funny. You got all these organizations laying off significant numbers of people claiming that AI can do the job of these people, which is complete nonsense. It's because they overhired and if they come out to the marketplace and say yeah, yeah, yeah we over hired. So now we need to correct because we've, we're carrying too much, you know, expense on the books, then their stock price would go down because they were idiots. But if they say I'm laying off, you know, thousands of people because AI can do their jobs, which is not true. AI can't do that yet. Not for that quantity of people.

[A]

We have the data that support that.

[E]

It just can't. It just can't. Yeah, and so they can, but they say to the market, you know, AI and then they look like on their, they're on the cutting edge so their stock price goes up. But the problem is, is they are creating the narrative for AI. So now you have mass fear that AI is taking my job, which is not true. But these decisions, but more importantly the narratives they're putting out to protect their own short term gains is creating a narrative that is creating the rebellion against AI. They don't realize the long term damage they're doing for the adoption of a very important technology.

[B]

So what do you both make then of? I feel like every third post on LinkedIn says your job won't be taken by AI, it'll be taken by someone using AI.

[A]

Somebody got a good tagline and went hard, I mean, I think so I'm gonna, I'm gonna. Someone just in marketing went hard and it was great. It's a meme.

[D]

It's a good.

[E]

It's a good line. It's a good line.

[A]

It's a good line on the writer. We're like, Daniel, we give you an A plus on the line. Like we give you a D minus on the message, but an A plus on the line. I think for me, the state of the org for me can only raise your hand if you're in this room and You've ever watched 5 year olds playing soc Football swarm. Yeah. So this is the analogy that I would use to describe what I see in the C suite right now. So when you've got both of my kids played, you've got five year olds on the pitch, the balls are coming in really fast and really high and they're coming in like at shoulder height. And so what the five year olds do is they lift up their little five year old feet and they kick the ball at shoulder height, which immediately they fall over, right? And so this is kind of what to me the C suite looks like right now. A lot of balls coming in really fast, lifting little feet, hitting them, falling over, no control over time. What ends up happening with a developing football player Is by about 14 or 15, if they stay with the sport, they can see the high ball coming in, they anticipate the high ball, they jump they chest the high ball, they drop the ball to the ground, they put their foot on the ball to maintain possession, because that's the game. Then they look down the pitch, they find the striker, they understand where the striker is in relation to the person in the goal, and then they kick the ball down the pitch to not where the striker is standing, but to where the striker's going to be in a minute and a half or a second and a half. So that's the evolution of on the pitch. So I think for me, if you think about what that skill is to anticipate the high ball, chess, the ball, drop it, maintain possession, look down the pitch. You're talking about a very serious cluster of skills. You're talking about situational awareness, temporal awareness, anticipatory awareness, trust on team training. And that's what we're missing for what we're facing. Leadership and what we're missing, even more than the gaffer, the coach. I follow a lot of football, I'm a big Liverpool fan, we can talk about that later. But what they're really missing are the player leaders. In Liverpool terms, they're missing Gerard. They're missing the person who's actually on the pitch but is a player leader, which is a really under explored, I think, position. So to me, for the first time in my three decades of doing this work, the biggest relief that I hear when I'm surrounded by the top senior leaders is when I say, don't worry, no one knows what the fuck is happening. That's the biggest relief. I hear people are like, oh God, it's not. We actually don't know what's happening. And so in order for that to work at that level of leadership, you have to be surrounded by people you trust and people who are very comfortable with productive challenge. People who are very comfortable saying, I see your enthusiasm for this play, I don't think it's going to work. And here are the data I'm using to make that assumption. You have to have a ton of trust with a team that's not there right now for a million reasons, but high fastballs, little kicks, falling over.

[B]

Okay, so that makes me wonder, should we have team captains in organizations? Not formal leaders or managers, but somebody who's respected by.

[E]

They happen, they happen organically, I guess their culture. It happens organically.

[A]

Yeah. And I think the minute you label them that they cease to lose their authority and power as informal player leaders. As soon as you put the armband on, things change. But I think, I think it's for the first, that's the first thing time in my career I've seen people willing to not even pretend they know what's. Because you wake up. What's the American fever dream today? Tariffs. What is it? Tomorrow, straight up Hormuz. Like, it's like people don't have. It's not even. It's too fast and too much.

[E]

Well, the good leaders are saying that out loud.

[A]

The good leader, that's the difference.

[E]

The good leaders aren't pretending that they got it all under control. The good leaders being like, whoa, another one.

[B]

The.

[E]

I think. And you're saying sort of the high and fast coming at their head, that they're just honest about it and they're looking to the team to help.

[A]

I love it. That's exactly. Yeah.

[E]

Guys, I don't know. I don't know. And it's so uncertain, but I'm open to Suggestions, and I'm looking for help, and let's experiment, and if it doesn't work, we'll pivot. And the willingness to try and not be the final decision. You know, I think there's this sort of weird thing that, you know, when a leader makes a decision, it has to be the right one and it has to be the final one, which of course is nonsense. But the idea of dipping your toe and trying things out and seeing what works, the good leaders are doing that. They're open about it, they're honest about it.

[A]

I have another metaphor that I think is really resonating right now with leaders, which is especially companies that were doing well before last year. There's this I think I use a lot of times. We've talked about this before on the pod, the metaphor of playing to win versus playing to not lose and the difference between the behaviors of playing to not lose and playing to win. One of the things that's really interesting is unless you are scared, most of the time you are playing to not lose. And if you are playing to not lose, you are absolutely losing. Because even if you've had a string of great quarters or whatever your metric is, you're standing on top of a mountain protecting a flag, and the mountain is crumbling from underneath. Tariffs, geopolitical instability, market shifts, competition. You can't maintain a mountain that's crumbling. You've got to go. And so to me, show me a leader. The first thing I look for in a leader, because we say no to 70% of the transformations that people come in and ask for, the first thing I look for in the top leadership is what percentage of the C suite can manage their nervous system. If you can't manage your nervous system, you cannot manage strategy or people.

[E]

I mean, you're talking about defense and offense, right?

[A]

I'm talking about defense and offense.

[E]

If you want to, you play. You have to play defense occasionally, but you want to play offense. If you're building a business. And to your point, you know, too many people are playing defense as a means of building their businesses and.

[A]

Because they're afraid.

[E]

And they're afraid.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

The minute you. Even if you have possession of the ball, the minute you're afraid, you're on defense with possession of a ball, which makes you useless.

[B]

Yeah. When. When I hear playing to lose, I think about the psychology of threat rigidity and how.

[A]

Love this.

[B]

I mean, the tunnel vision, the narrowing of. I'm just going to do the thing that I'm already good at.

[A]

That's it.

[B]

I'm not going to take any risks. I'm not going to experiment. Simon, to your point, I'm not going to innovate at all. And I think those leaders end up doing a ton of micromanaging because they focus on the little things they can control, not realizing, like, in this sea of uncertainty, their job is actually to be macro managers, not micromanagers, to help people make sense of the change that's happening, or at least be honest about the fact that they don't have the answers yet. And I think most leaders have not been trained in how to do that. Brene, I love your point about regulating a nervous system as a core leadership capability. Can you talk to us about how leaders can learn to do that? Because I see at least six dysregulated people in this room right now.

[A]

No, I would be one. So it'd just be five of y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

It's a skill set. I mean, when I was doing the research for Strong Ground, I really wanted to come up with a cluster of skills that were, how do we future ready people? And I was really hoping it would be a great number, like eight or ten. It ended up being 38. And I divided.

[E]

That's a nice round number.

[A]

A nice round number. And you know, as a writer, that shit sucks. Like, you're like, welcome to the impossible cluster of future ready leadership. The good thing is I use a lot of gym metaphors, like strength training metaphors. And I said, you know, this is 38, but we have five or six kettlebells. That'll hit 15 of them at one time. So we got it. But what I was surprised that emerged at the top, which I call the core, was five that I, again, did not want to be true because they're the ones that we would have never been working in the 80s. The first one, self awareness. The second, metacognition. Do you understand how you learn and how you think? 3. Emotional regulation and emotional awareness for mindfulness, which don't you hate saying it, though.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Do you hate saying it?

[E]

I don't use it.

[A]

I don't use it either.

[B]

Wait, you just did.

[A]

I know, but, like, what am I supposed to do? Like, lie? It's the data. So I was gonna call it paying attention. Cause that's what the term I use. But it's so funny, because how many of you in here would love to have a lecture from someone come into your organization about mindfulness? Nobody. Like, if I walked in and I saw that, like, up on a deck, I'd be like, dude, I got Shit to do. I can't. Like, there's a butterfly and the grass is green.

[E]

This is a failure. This is a failure of that market. Right? Because, like, when. When I started my work, I couldn't talk about purpose at work. That was hippie, dippy stuff.

[D]

Purpose.

[E]

No, no. When I started. If you use the term purpose at work literally, I got either. There's a small percentage who were already converted. But if you want to. If I wanted to move the needle, literally, that's like. Like you said, I want to come and talk about purpose at your office. They'd be like, thanks, hippie. No, you know, and so part of part of my journey.

[B]

They thought you were selling drugs.

[E]

Yeah. So part. Part of part of my journey was was language. And so the reason I called it the why, the reason I called it the why is because I went around and asked people who believed mission was preeminent or vision was preeminent or purpose was preeminent or brand was preeminent. We had all these different words, but nobody agreed on the definitions of these words. And I went to all the people who thought all of these things were the most important thing and asked them, what's the definition? And they all said, it's why we do what we do. It's why we get out of bed. It's why the company exists. I'm like, great, we'll call it the why. We can all agree. And it was the term the why that allowed the concept to then come into work. Because people weren't afraid of talking about their company's why. They were afraid of talking about their company's purpose. And so I think the same thing goes for mindfulness, which is the problem, is it sounds like hippie dippy stuff. And so you have these people screaming and yelling from the treetops, saying, you have to do it. But they aren't doing marketing 101 and finding language for the thing that the people actually want. Rather, they're bringing the thing that they think is important. And so we do need new language for mindfulness. And then maybe in 10 years, we can talk about mindfulness and it won't be a big deal. I don't know what that term is, but we do need more. We need different words.

[A]

Synonymous. It's with. Synonymous with paying attention. Right.

[B]

I actually love the attention frame because I like attention. Because we're all facing an attention crisis right now.

[E]

Yeah, yeah. Be being fully attentive, whatever word we use it. But I think attention is in the right ballpark for sure.

[A]

Yeah, We. I Can't convert that. This is one of the words. I mean, I, I, I, I was successful in converting shame as a word. So I mean, like, in the beginning people were like, can we call it sham? I, I mean, how many of you follow sports, any sport? How many of you watch the French Open? You don't think those folks have very serious mindfulness trainers?

[E]

Oh, I saw a thing about tennis. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like of the hundred top players, it's always the top 15 or 20 that are always the top 15 or 20. It's not like other sports where it like bounces around a lot.

[A]

It's always, it's hard, it's narrow, it's,

[E]

it's a very narrow band of always the top. And so the question was asked, how is it the narrow band is always the narrow band when all the players have access to the same training, nutrition, coaches, it's an equal game for all of them. What is it about these top few? And I can't remember who did the research. I'm on brand. I can't remember who did the research. But what he found was that these top few, all of them had a different mindset than everybody else. And the mindset was absolute love and joy of the game. So if they won a point, they would say, oh, I love this game. And if they lost a point, they'd be like, lost this time, but wait for the next one. And what ended up happening by the end of the game after five sets, their stress levels were lower, so they had more energy and so they just played better at the end of the game than the other players. But it was this, it's all mindset and absolute joy versus the frustration and the anger which then sucks the energy out of you, which I found so interesting.

[A]

Okay, but you're such a good storyteller, so you're so on brand. This is so important because having worked with athletes and probably some of the ones you're talking about in the band, that is not inherent.

[E]

Did they learn it?

[A]

That's what CEOs need to understand. They don't know.

[E]

They weren't born with it.

[A]

They did not self select into a top band of mindful, positive people. That is P equals P minus I. That is a book that I have read every year for 40 years. I read this book and now I teach it all the time to leaders, which is the inner game of tennis. Performance equals potential minus interference. So what ends up happening when you're working with high level athletes is performance equals potential so we push and push and push and drill the shit out of potential. Where are your volleys? Where are your baseline hits? Let's work on our shirt. Let's work on your return. What about your ball toss? And at some point you're not moving the needle there then, so you have to go back to it. So performance equals potential. We've drilled that to death minus interference. What is your interference? And so what you're talking about is trained. And you can track any of the top 20 tennis players in the world. And if you track them from the juniors, you will see the 12 to 18 months where they learn that. You will see the difference. If you watch film, you will see the difference in their game.

[B]

This, this reminds me we were with Novak Djokovic last year and great example. I think he's an amazing example of this. But his emotional arc is different. He explained that he felt like when he entered tennis, the niche of the fan favorite was already filled. Federer and Nadal were kind of, they'd covered it, right? They had all the love and he needed to do something to activate his energy. And so he decided he was going to make himself the bad guy and get the crowd to hate him. And the booing was gonna fire him up around the energy to prove them wrong and say, okay, you all think I can't do this. I'm gonna show you. And he said it actually took the pressure off because he felt like, nobody expects anything of me anyway. Nobody believes I can do it, so I have nothing to lose. And now I can play to win. And I think that can be just as powerful as I love the game,

[A]

I think it can too. But if you hear Djokovic talk about the mindfulness training he's done and his ability to, I mean, even I think all of us do special force. We've all worked pretty closely with special forces, military, the whole thing that when there's a mistake, it's one of the most common ones I hear from them is data received.

[E]

Well, I think, and I think you're touching upon the big mistake that happens in business consistently, which is we often talk about team performance and people will interpret our work about high performing teams and apply it to individuals.

[A]

Okay, wait, I want you to slow down and say that again because it is like the number one infuriating, hard thing to get your head around.

[E]

So what makes high performing organizations is high performing teams. And you all three of us talk about what makes high performing teams. And then people take our work and they try to apply it to individuals that's exactly right. And that's not how it works. And even these analogies that we're using, we're using them to our detriment, which is we're talking about an individual player sport. And that's not what business is. Now the analogy is that, hey, CEO, you looking at this high performing athlete, they learned this, you can learn it too. That's sort of where the metaphor ends. I look at like for example, I look at Mercedes F1 Grand Prix. The way that Toto Wolff runs. That organization is, first of all, it's a no blame organization, which I find fascinating, which is mistakes get made and a kid changing a tire could lose the whole race. So they recognize that no matter how good the driver, no matter how good the car, it's the team that wins. And so when things go wrong, nobody will say you lost the race, they'll say something went wrong. How do we fix it? It's a no blame organization. And he cares more about consistency rather than best performance. So when the pit crew, they're not trying to go fastest, fastest, fastest, get it faster, he wants consistently 2.2 seconds, doesn't need it to be quicker, doesn't want it slower. It's the consistency, because that makes predictability and they train for consistency. But again, it's all about teams. The unity is all about the unity of the team.

[B]

Hal Levitt wrote a classic article half a century ago. It was called Suppose We Took Groups Seriously. And his thesis was if we really believed that excellence depended on having a great team, we would hire teams intact, teams that had already gotten to know each other and proven their ability to work together. We would promote successful teams, we would fire failed teams as opposed to placing all the responsibility on the individual. I don't know that I'm willing to go that far. I would be really interested in a model of what if we hired pairs? What if we promoted pairs? If we could find dyadic relationships where people were more than the sum of their parts, that feels like a unit that's actually manageable.

[E]

I mean, also the incentive structures. Most of the incentive structures in organizations are individual performance. Hit your numbers, you get the bonus, irrespective of how everybody else does. We changed it in our organization where the bonus structure is based on the company, and if the company hits its numbers, everybody gets a bonus. And if the company misses its numbers, nobody gets the bonus. That's how we do it. And so, and if, and if one group is struggling, like when we look, you know, we sort of review, we don't hold same thing, which is, it's not like, sucks to be them. You know, it's not like one of those, we'll turn to everybody else who's doing well and being like, what are you doing to help them? Like, if they're, if they're struggling, that means you aren't helping them. That means we're not helping them. And it's, and I have to say, I mean, we hold ourselves to higher standards because, you know, we out, we're out there preaching it and we have to be able to do it ourselves. And we know too many people who don't practice what they preach. But I think one of the things I respect about you guys is that we all work very, very hard to practice what we preach. And so it's been a, it's been an education for me also to learn what team performance looks like and how you create team performance. Because individual performance is just much easier. It's easier to incentivize, it's easier to manage, it's easier to hire, it's easier

[B]

to fire, easier to measure team.

[E]

It's easier to measure team stuff is actually really difficult. Which is one of the reasons we love the special operators is because, and I mean, you guys already know this. So getting to spend time with Seal Team 6 and we talk about their courage and their amazingness and all of this and their team ethic and their team ethos is so intense that it's not that they have raw courage and that they have no fear of dying. That's not what it is. It's that they fear letting down their team more than they fear dying. Think about that for a second. They fear letting down their team more than they fear dying. Now translate that into business. You know, we don't fear letting down our team. You know, can you imagine fearing letting down your team more than getting your bonus? You know that ethos and that's. And by the way, these are the highest performing teams in the world. And this is what I don't understand, which is we're here, we have this amazing access to look at these organizations and say, hey, general world, like, look at what they're doing. You can do this too. And they don't.

[C]

Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder? With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other. Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM accounting, inventory, E commerce and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o.com support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder? With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other. Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o.com

[D]

AI is moving fast across the enterprise, but without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different mod, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place, what it's doing, what it's done and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com I had a really weird

[A]

experience maybe five or six years ago when. No, no, it was longer than that. It'd been a decade now. Some new data had emerged from our research on courageous leadership which was, and this will be interesting and it's somewhat controversial I think, but it was very clear in the data that care for and connection with the people you lead is a non negotiable prerequisite for leadership. If you do not care for, genuinely care for and genuinely find yourself able to connect with the people you lead, you can't lead them well. And that's hard because I've led some people that I didn't feel connected to them at all. And I actually, because of the research and trying to practice what we teach, I did end up moving their reporting lines, which is hard when you're the founder because it just feels like. But I'm like we only have two options here. Yeah. And this move is going to be a better option for you.

[E]

Can I share something that that helped me soul for that.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Which was its narrative.

[D]

Right.

[E]

So when you're having a meeting with a bunch of whoever's in the meeting, let's say that the senior leaders in the meeting, and somebody's name comes up in the company, and somebody will go, ugh, such an idiot. Right? And like, it happens. Like the lazy one, the underperformer.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

You know, the Debbie death of a party. You know, like, whoever it is. Debbie Downer. Like, what happened?

[B]

Donald Downer.

[E]

Donald Downer is like, I'm training Adam

[A]

on the use of women's names and terrible things.

[E]

Yeah, fair point.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

So, but we do. We. We create narratives. And what happens is even people who don't work with them, that's the narrative they have of that person now. So when they do interact, they're going to start treating them based on the narrative. And by the way, it happens everywhere. Like, it happens when people are talking about their leaders. They're like, oh, you know, they're clueless, they're stupid. They don't get us. Right. Whatever it is. And so I realized that we were doing it right. And so, new rule. I said, you know, we're human. We vent. It's fine. But if you're in a meeting where somebody is creating a narrative about somebody else, it is the responsibility of everybody else in the meeting to interrupt that narrative and simply say, hey, they may be lazy. They may also be stressed. They may also have stuff going on at home that we don't know about. We may have put them in the wrong job. They may be under trained, they may be overworked, or they may be lazy. It could be one of those things. And just by giving grace and allowing for more things to be on the list, we changed the narratives. And once we started doing it as a senior team, because it became sort of a new rule, then I went to the whole organization and said, now this is a rule for the whole organization. If anybody creates a narrative about anybody else, it's the responsibility of everybody else in that meeting to interrupt the narrative. And it helped tremendously, because what it allowed for was when you have that tension with somebody and sometimes you just have personality clashes even with people in your own team, it allows you instead of to form narrative about them, to offer grace and be like, you know what? We just don't get along. It's probably me, but why don't. I'm gonna let you manage this issue with them? Because I'm gonna get it wrong just for personality reasons. And it just offers this magical grace. And it's so easy to implement, and it has such disproportionate positive impact on the performance of the team.

[A]

I like it because when you adopt a courageous system, as opposed to asking some individuals to do that. You normalize it so the person that gets interrupted with it doesn't feel like they're like, oh, shit, this is what we do. We just stop each other. This is.

[E]

It just becomes acculturated. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And I think it's. Yeah. So the care for and connected with, I. I didn't believe it at first, but then I saw it. And then I ended up on an Air Force base working with a squadron of fire fighter pilots. And I went to the general, who was this very, very serious guy, and I said, listen, I just want to let you know that I'm going to have to talk about care for in connection with as a prerequisite for leadership. And he said, why are you telling me this, ma'?

[D]

Am?

[A]

And I said, I'm a little concerned. I'm not concerned. I just wanna make sure you know that this is coming. And he said, that is a very low bar for us. And I said, what do you mean? And he said, we don't require care for and connection with. We require deep appreciation and deep loving relationship for the people you lead.

[E]

Amen.

[A]

And I said, say more. And he said, that's how we stay alive. And I thought to myself, I have never. I can't even get care for and connection with love. I can't even get that by or through the corporate sector.

[E]

This is what the corporate world doesn't understand. You know, like, I was hanging out with Marines and talking to a general who's responsible for all Marine Corps training officer and enlisted. And he's a warrior, he's infantry. He's been deployed multiple times over the course of his career. You know, he's. He's a hardened dude. And I said, what is the secret to the Marine Corps? Why are you guys so good at what you do? And he said, love. Love of. Love of country, love of corps, love of your fellow Marine. And the Marines are constantly referring to the intangibles. And what they mean is all this mushy, mushy stuff that they, you know, loyalty, love, and these. I believe it. They just call them the intangibles because they're just hard to measure. He was unabashed about saying love was the secret sauce of the Marine Corps.

[B]

I think there's a nuance here that often gets overlooked, which is you can dislike people and still care about them. I think it's one.

[E]

I think that's true 100%.

[B]

It's one of the most important lessons I've learned as a teacher. I will never Forget one day, our daughter Elena, I think she was 8 or 9, she came and she said, I wonder if I'm my teacher's favorite. And I said, elena, teachers do not have favorites. Your job is to like every student. Just like, you wouldn't have a favorite parent. And she looked at me and she said, or would I? And it was hilarious. But it also really got me thinking, and it was an uncomfortably honest moment for me where I realized, you know what? There are students I like more than others, of course. Like the student who comes prepared to class, who raises their hand enthusiastically, who challenges constructively, as opposed to, you know, just complaining about every idea that they don't like. Those students obviously are easier to like, but my job is to care about every one of them and try to help them grow and succeed. And the effort that it takes to figure out, okay, what is it about that student that is worthy of support? What can I do to help that student become better? Inevitably leads to something that makes them less dislikable.

[E]

I think this is a. I love this, because what you're talking about is the dichotomy of two different things. It's kind of like joy and happiness, you know, or fulfillment and happiness, you know, where happiness is, you know, is fleeting. You have a nice meal, you see a good movie, happy, you know, and it comes and goes. But joy and fulfillment can be more of a constant, even on bad days, you know, it's like you love your kids every day. You don't like your kids every day. And so I think people think of these things as interchangeable where they're not, you know? And you, to your point, like, you can like people more. That's okay. You definitely like some people more than others, but you can care for everybody.

[A]

That's true.

[E]

At the same time, like, they can coexist these two lines. And I think it's really important to make those distinctions because people think they have to choose one over the other.

[B]

I think romantic relationships are the best example of this. How many of you like your partner every day? Those of you who have a partner. Okay, Pierre, your partner's in the room. Where's he? Very, very few people would honestly raise their hand. I'm. That.

[A]

Yeah, of course. I've been with Steve for 40 years. Like, no, I mean, we don't. Yeah, we don't. We love each other deeply every day. Every day. But do we like each other? No, we, you know, we frustrate each other immensely sometimes. I mean, I don't frustrate him, but, like,

[B]

I have a friend, Jared, who said you just have to win the week. Like, just be liked four out of seven days. And that's a successful relationship.

[E]

So here's a question for you.

[B]

Just.

[E]

I'm changing. You just sort of spurt a thought. Do you want to win or do you fear losing? Like, is. Do you want. Do you like to win or do you fear losing?

[A]

In what domain?

[E]

Just as a motivator, as a personality.

[B]

Yes.

[E]

I think it's different. Some people hate losing, and some people love winning. Do you know which one you are?

[A]

Oh, you know what? I am driven almost solely by mastery on the court. And so for me, I'd rather lose a game where I learned than win a game. That was easy.

[E]

Different conversation.

[A]

Maybe it's so foreign to me, this idea that you're.

[E]

No, but do you get more excited by the win? And you're like, okay, well, I lost. Or do you hate losing, but when you win, you're like, I won a different.

[A]

Oh, no, I like to win.

[E]

So you love the win?

[A]

I love the win.

[E]

Okay.

[A]

I mean, I'm telling you this. I was playing pickleball, this is a couple months ago, and it was open place. You just stack your paddles, and you go on with a random doubles partner. And I'm playing, and we're down like, 6, 0. And this kid is like, 30. And I look at him, I'm like, son, you need to lock in. And he was like, I'm sorry. I said, I need you to lock in. Focus. And he said, ma', am, it's a game. It's fun. And I was like, no, winning is fun. And he's like, okay. And I said, another thing. If you're gonna come across and get my ball, that's great. I love that move. Make sure you make it. Otherwise, I got the ball on this side. And he was like, got it. Lock in. Stay on my side unless I can make it. And he was like, okay. So they never scored again. And we ended up winning 11, 6. And then we went back, and I was like, let's stack our paddles together. And he's like, I don't think so.

[B]

And I was like, wait, what? I'm learning now. We already concluded we can't play against each other. We can't play on the same team either.

[A]

It depends on your game.

[E]

So do you. Do you. Do you like to win, or do you hate to lose?

[B]

I think I hate to lose more.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

You.

[E]

I think I hate to lose more.

[A]

Really? Yeah. Oh, I don't mind. Losing. If it's a good fight, I love. I just want a good fight.

[E]

Trying to think. Because I. I'm not. I'm more competitive against myself than I am against other people.

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

And so if I'm. If I. If I do well, I'm like, all right, onto the next. Like, there we go. Like, okay.

[A]

Oh, no. I got cellies for everything.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I'm like, let's go. You want to pet that dog? I'm like, I've got all. I've got a cellie.

[E]

I don't have every move. I don't have any of that. I mean, I get the rush, of course. I get the dopamine rush of a win, of course, but it doesn't last very long, and then I go home.

[A]

Let's go. Yeah.

[E]

Don't care about trophies or medals or anything about that.

[A]

No, I don't care about those.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

I just care about the shit talk.

[E]

The shit talk.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

That's my. That's my love language. My love language is sports trash talk.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You sit next to me at UT football, baby.

[E]

And the reason I hate to lose is because if it's on me, right, I'm like, I could have done better, but if I lose to somebody who genuinely played a great game and bested me, then there's lessons, and I'm good with it. But. But I'm. Because I'm pushing myself. I hate to lose. You're. Are you. You're the same. You hate to lose.

[A]

I think you're. Yeah. What are y'? All? Raise your hand if you're a love to win, driven by the love of winning. And then raise your hand if you're a hate to lose person.

[E]

It's about 50. 50.

[A]

Wait, just do that again. I just need to do a quick analysis. Raise your hand if you're a love to win. Hold them up. Okay. Never mind. Okay. You're my people, first of all. But secondly, there's not a gender divide. But I do want to get a click real quick one more time about. If I'm looking for, like, a paddle or pickleball partner, I'm picking the winners.

[B]

I don't know. I will say there are two personality traits that predict where people stand on this. Introversion. Extroversion is one, and then emotional reactivity, stability is the other.

[A]

Oh, shit.

[B]

So, no, I. I think because we're both introverts.

[E]

Are you an introvert?

[A]

Oh, yeah. I'm a. I. I test off the charts on introversion. Like, this is fun, but don't come up and talk to me afterwards if I don't know you, because I'll get really anxious.

[B]

And I. I'm happy to talk to you afterward, but definitely not before, because I don't know what we're going to talk about.

[E]

And I'm happy to talk to you, but not as a group. Just one on one.

[B]

We have a lot of rules around social interaction here.

[E]

No, I just hate groups. Like, I went to a party last night.

[B]

You should probably study them.

[E]

I know. I went to a party last night, and I very quickly left when I realized there were a lot of people there. I mean, I've never been to an after party in my life. You and I had that interaction last year.

[B]

You just.

[E]

There was a party, and then there was an after party, and Adam was getting ready to go to the after party, and I went up to him and said, hey, I'm going back to the hotel. Good night. Good to see you. And he's like, you're not going to the after party. I'm like, no, no. Never going to the after parties. And he says, how do you just leave? I went, just leave? Yeah. And you went.

[B]

I felt like I was gonna let my team down otherwise. Yeah, No, I told people I was going. They probably don't care if I should've.

[A]

No, it's really funny. Cause when I go do events, you know how they'll say the list of things that they'd like for you to do? And we have a standing policy. Brene doesn't do dinners. And then some people will push back and say, only does she. Does she eat. We had a new person we hired right out of college who returned an email that's like a Fortune 20 company. And it was directly in the CEO's office. And she just put, yes, but not with y'. All. I was like, so that's not how we answer that. But I do think it's like a social. Like, this is fun for me. And we could talk about a lot of.

[E]

But you and I are cheating because we're like. There's a. Like, it's. I mean, it's the three of us chatting, which we like, oh, no, I do love that.

[A]

And we. I can talk about work stuff all day long with people, but, like, if. If a disco ball came down and people started drinking, I'd be like, it's

[E]

not that I can't do it. It just the drains of social battery much quicker. Like, one on one, I can go for quite a while. But if I've got a. If there's a group of people, like a dinner table or a room full of people. And I have to speak louder, especially because it's noisy and loud and it just drains the social battery a lot quicker. So I'll just have to go home sooner.

[B]

So introverts get overstimulated faster than extroverts. And one of the greatest stimulants in life is eye contact. Just having other people look at you.

[A]

Really?

[B]

Really.

[E]

I'm exhausted.

[A]

I'm dysregulated. But I'm trying to be mindful. Okay,

[B]

can we go back to one thing that I've been thinking about for at least 20 minutes now? Simon, you were saying, we study these elite organizations that teach us how to do things like care and build connection and how critical that is to performance. Why don't other organizations listen? And this has been a frustration for me for two decades. My current hypothesis, and I would love to hear your reactions and yours is a lot of them are falling victim to organizational uniqueness bias. They hear Navy seals or they hear Pixar, or they hear pick your favorite extreme case. And they think, well, we're not like them. We can't do that. They have a special culture. They hire special people. That doesn't apply to us. Not realizing it's kind of like saying, well, I can't learn anything from an Olympic athlete about how to improve my workout. That is the person you want to learn from. And then you have to tailor it to you. I wonder, how does that track with what you see? What are the barriers? How do you overcome that bias?

[E]

I think it's simpler. I just think it's misaligned incentives. I think it goes back to the Charlie Munger, show me how someone's paid and I'll show you how they behave. I think incentive structures are so screwed up. Good intentions, bad intentions, biases. I don't think any of it matters. They'll do what they're incentivized to do.

[A]

I think it's a greedy quarter issue. I think it's interesting because what we do specifically is we don't do adaptive change or incremental change. If I'm going into an organization, we've assessed them for a long time and they're ready for transformation and they want transformation. What people don't understand about transformation is you will break some shit if you're trans. That is the definition of transformation. You are going to assess existing systems and break the ones that do not serve and desperately protect the ones that serve. And no one, even in your immediate team at the C suite level will agree what systems need to be broken and which ones you need to keep. And then you're gonna go through a very rigorous three year. The poet David White has this great definition of. And I might get it wrong, but it's the great definition of transformation. To hit the wall at full velocity and watch things fall apart. That's how he defines transformation. And that's what happens in organizations. It's not unusual in a trans for there to be a 30 to 60% churn of leaders that report up to the C suite. Because what's happening, I think, and this goes to your question, it's systems theory, which was the fifth of the core, the top. When we were talking about the five top leadership skills. If you are not engaged deeply in systems thinking right now, I don't think you can play to win. And if you were a systems thinker and you got away from it, you need to revisit the scholarship on systems thinking. But one of the biggest things I think that helps with systems thinking is this iceberg model of problem identification. That above the water we see a problem. And this is where as leaders, we attack. We attack what we see. But underneath the iceberg are several other layers. One is behavior. The next one is structures and systems. The deeper you go for change, the more leverage and lasting and meaningful the change. The bottom layer is mental models. What is the mental model from which people work? And a mental model, when I go in and I'm talking to a CEO about a potential transformation and we go through this assessment, and the second I hear that a mental model has to change in a group of people, I'm like, this is going to take three years. It's going to be very difficult transformation. Because a mental model is the way we make sense of the world and it's how we assess our value. In a corporation or any organization, to change mental models is absolutely. To excavate them to begin with is hard, but then to change them is very hard.

[E]

You're touching upon something that I think is also essential because you're talking about three year as the timeframe, whether that, you know, which is ish, right. It should happen within three years. But I think the insight there for me is the letting go of I can't predict when. I mean, most companies don't implement my work. And the reason is because I can't tell you when it's going to work. I know 100% it works. I know that if you work out every single day for 20 minutes, 100% of people will get into shape, can't tell you when, and neither can any doctor. And you just have to sort of. You have the discipline and you stick to it. And you can have good days and bad days, you can take days off, but it will work. And so when we go through these transformations that we're able to sort of guide people through or guide organizations through, the big challenge they have is they want or need it to work by the end of the calendar year, the end of the fiscal year. And so it might, but I can't promise that it will. And because I can't promise that it will, then they want a model that will at least appear that the change has been made on their timeframe. And that's like saying. It's like going on a first date and saying, on this date on the calendar, you and I will be in love. It's like, it may happen that way, but I can't predict that it will. All of the things that you and I, the three of us, talk about, we talk about process and discipline and sticking to it. Good days and bad days are allowed. Like, you can have chocolate cake even when you're on a diet. Just don't do it every day. And the minute you can let go of when it has to happen and just stick to the process, invariably it almost always happens.

[A]

And I'll tell you that. I mean, you cannot predict it. And this is what this is.

[E]

But most people can't let go of that.

[A]

They can't let go of that.

[B]

It's a failed mental model. It's a failed mental model that doesn't need to know. I need to know how many days or six months that this is going to work.

[E]

This has to work in 12 months, otherwise I've wasted my money. It was like, well, it might, but I don't know.

[A]

Here's what's shocking to us when we do a dare to lead transformation. We only measure for 18 months on performance metrics. No cultural metrics, where everything from organic growth, stock price, and we start to see them within six to nine months on those metrics. Cultural metrics are like the falling in love that takes a lot longer. But we measure performance metrics right off the bat. And those. We can see change because we're teaching people how to have hard conversations. We're teaching people how to.

[E]

You're starting to see the evidence towards those performance metrics are evidence towards the cultural change, but they're not. But they're not the change themselves. And the problem is, is because you can measure those in the short term. Too many organizations will only measure those in the short term. Declare success, end the process, and the whole thing collapses.

[A]

Yeah, that's. Yeah, that's. I'm telling you, it's.

[E]

This is infinite thinking.

[A]

It's infinite thinking.

[E]

Yeah. Study and play come together on a Windows 11 PC and for a limited time, college students get the best of worlds. Get the unreal college deal everything you

[A]

need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft

[E]

365 Premium and a year of Xbox game. Pass ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn [e-mail] studentoffer while supplies last ends June 30th turns at aka mscollegepc.

[A]

You have one new message

[D]

translating Disney and Pixar's Hoppers is now available on Disney. Disney plus.

[B]

You could say that again.

[D]

Critics are calling it Pixar's funniest movie ever and a wildly entertaining ride. Blizzard potato. It's certified fresh and verified hot.

[B]

Now we party.

[E]

This is incredible.

[D]

Wow.

[E]

I am clearing the rest of the day.

[D]

Disney and Pixar's Hoppers now available on Disney.

[A]

Rated pg.

[B]

This Father's Day, do more with dad and spend less with low prices guaranteed

[E]

at the Home Depot. Get him fired up with a new

[B]

grill and accessories like the next Grill

[E]

5 burner for just $299 so you can spend more time together while he becomes the grill master he was always meant to be. Or build memories with savings on top brand power tools so you can tackle

[B]

projects side by side, gift more and do more together this Father's Day with

[E]

help from the Home Depot. Exclusions apply.

[B]

Seehomedepot.com Pricematch for details.

[A]

All right, let's take some questions.

[B]

We will cold call if we have to.

[A]

I will not. But I will. Yeah, he will.

[E]

Yes, I have a question regarding shame

[B]

and talking about it and getting people to think about it, which I find

[E]

very, very helpful when it comes to leading organizations.

[B]

My question is how do I talk

[E]

about it with kids?

[B]

Okay, Renee, how do we talk about shame with kids?

[A]

So the question is I find the work interesting about shame and how it applies to leadership and talking about talking about it in organizations. How do we talk about it with kids? Did I play that back correctly? Okay, so one of the things that's really important just right now, I will say about shame in organizations, you have to remember I don't have to do anything. But I would suggest it's really important to hold in mind right now that the number one Shame trigger professionally for us is the fear of irrelevance. So imagine the levels of shame in organizations right now. And it's not just about AI. It is about everything that's happening at one time and people not understanding. I will tell you, this is one of the questions I had was, what are you seeing for the first time that you've never seen before? And my answer is, for the first time in over 25 years of doing this work, I am seeing the C suite more frustrated with the level the leaders that report directly to them than any other level of leaders in the organization. Not the frozen middle, not the folks that report up to the senior leaders underneath, but those senior leaders. And why? Because they are really the mental model of the senior leadership right now is the most painful to excavate. Because they put their value on being knowers, not on being learners. And their learning agility is lower right now than any any other level in an organization. That's good 100%. And so it's a really scary time for very senior people with kids. I think the most important thing is to not mystify it. Just to say, I was at a conference and I talked to this woman who studies shame and this is what I'm learning. I think it's interesting. Shame is, I think the easiest way to talk to kids is the basics. It's the same way I talk to adults, really. Shame is I am bad. Guilt is I did something bad. Shame is a focus on ourselves. Guilt is a focus on behavior. So if you get a bad grade, you get a paperback and you look at it and you got a D and you say, God, I'm so stupid, that's shame. If you get the paperback and you get a D and you're like, wow, going out last night, not studying for this test was really stupid. That's a focus on behavior and that's guilt. Why is it important in parenting? Because in the first longitudinal nested cohort studies of kids, we see that shame bound kids are more likely to have significant struggles with alcohol, drugs, sexual irresponsibility, aggression, depression, suicidal attempts. I mean, across the board, guilt prone kids. This is what the crazy part of the study is even less likely to engage in those behaviors than the general population. So the way we measure shame and guilt is by self talk. When something goes wrong, how do I talk to myself? We believe that the number one variable that predicted self talk was parenting style. So your kid does something and you say, God, you're so stupid versus riding your bike up that ramp with your Friends was a really stupid thing to do. Very big difference. Today, I think we're beginning to question whether the parenting style is the big predictor of the only one, because we can have siblings within one family that are wired different for it.

[E]

There's a great leadership lesson here as well. It's a military story. There was on base, a bunch of young officers who were in an elite school went out partying, and they took a junior enlisted with them, and they came back on base, and one of the young officers was driving the car and was afraid of getting stopped by the cops on base for drunk driving. So they told the junior enlisted, you drive. And so she took the wheel. They got pulled over by the cops. She got breathalyzed. She was over the limit. She got arrested. And it turned out also later on that the officer, one of the officers enlisted, were dating, which is forbidden military code of conduct.

[A]

It just keeps getting worse, right?

[E]

So as a result of all of this happening, these young officers were ejected from this elite program, and their senior officer had to sit down with them. And, you know, they got in trouble. And you think about sort of how people get in trouble from their parents or people get in trouble from their bosses at work. We say things like, how can you be so stupid? You have destroyed your career. What were you thinking?

[B]

Right?

[E]

We say things like that.

[A]

We do.

[E]

And what I found was so amazing when I heard this story was these wonderful human beings are driven by service, giving of themselves to others, and the pride of sacrifice for others. And that same mentality works the other way. And the way they got in trouble, the senior officer sat down with them and said, do you have any idea how many people you've let down? You've let down your parents for believing in you. You've let down your team members for believing in you. You've let down me. Like, do you realize how many people you've let down because of your actions? And this idea of, like, you take risks to support the team, but you manage your behavior because you'll let down the team as opposed to, how can you be so stupid? And the idea of connecting it to the greater good, I thought was way more powerful. So intense to hear that. And to your point, which is the idea of guilt is more likely to regulate the behavior rather than calling you stupid or calling you this or calling you that. I found it so fascinating.

[A]

So what's interesting there is how that message hits. So if that message hits, I've engaged in a series of behaviors that let down people that are important to me. That's probably an indicator of behavior change. If that message, which is as likely hits as I am a discipline appointment to the people I care about most, that is a super detrimental trauma based response. So it really depends on. That's why the parenting piece is really important. Because by the time you're this person and you're probably in your early 20s,

[E]

they're probably in their early 30s.

[A]

Early 30s, yeah. You're going to have a filing system internally for whether you're going to accept that as I made some decisions that disappointed a lot of people or, or I am a disappointment.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

And that how do you change what you inherently are?

[E]

But we know this, like when there's somebody that we admire, like, you know, when we look up to our boss or to a friend and they say, I'm so disappointed, you know, like that when we want to do right by people, like that hurts more than you are a disappointment or you're an idiot.

[B]

You know, I have to drop in a study here. Do you know the study by the sociologist O. Linen O Liner on Holocaust rescuers? Oh, I love this study. So this husband and wife sociology team, they look at hundreds of non Jews who rescued Jews sticking their own necks out and putting their lives on the line during the Holocaust and compared them with bystanders who were in the same towns and did nothing. And the question was, what differentiated the people who were willing to engage in these potentially self sacrificing, heroic acts from their peers? And many, many hypotheses not supported. Basically, the adults were similar in many more ways than they were different. One of the differences was when you looked at the parenting that they'd been exposed to as kids, the rescuers were punished at lower rates for misbehavior than the bystanders. But the parents didn't do nothing. When the rescuers did something disappointing, the parents highlighted the consequences of the behavior for others. It's exactly the point you're making. They said, hey, like when you, when you stayed out late, I was really worried and I didn't know where you were and I didn't know if you were safe and I didn't know if I could reach you. And they taught the kids to reflect on the impact of the behavior, of their behavior on others and realize, wow, every action I take has consequences for other people. And you fast forward the clock 20, 30 years and you see someone who's being persecuted and that message sticks.

[A]

There's gotta be some kind of confounding variable of empathy in there too, because I mean One of the things we teach kids around what you do can affect other people. Like, that's a really big part of how we teach empathy, which, by the way, is the antidote to shame. So if you put empathy in a petri dish, I mean, if you put shame in a petri dish, it needs three things to grow exponentially. Judgment, secrecy, and silence. But if you put shame in a petri dish and you douse it with empathy, you've created a hostile environment for shame. Shame cannot survive empathy. So that, that kind of connection and

[E]

disappointment, it teaches everything we're talking about in this entire podcast, which is we're talking about service, we're talking about that your actions have repercussions for others. You're good in bed. We're talking about connection, we're talking about that. This is a team sport. You know, business is a team sport, life is a team sport. You know, it's a beautiful. It sort of ties a nice little bow in it.

[B]

We should take some more audience questions and also give shorter answers here and then here.

[D]

Really quick.

[A]

You talked about empathy is the antithesis to shame. What about a human that has deep, deep empathy, but the self talk is always shame oriented. So in the same body you have deep empathy, a deep feeler, but also someone who's very, very self critical. So let me play back the question to make sure that I've got it right. You are asking what about someone who has a deep capacity for empathy but also has kind of internal shaming, messaging empathy almost to a fault?

[B]

Like, yes.

[A]

So empathy to a fault often stops being empathy. So empathy to a fault almost becomes enmeshment and taking care of others. And that's really quickly a very short walk to shame. Does that make sense? So I am no longer. Simon calls me. And so this is really, this is one of the things we talk, Adam and I talk about a lot because there's a big attack on empathy right now, especially in the US which would make perfect sense politically. I mean, it'd be easier to get away with the bullshit if no one cared for anybody else. So I understand the attack on empathy personally, not speaking for my co hosts, but empathy, Cogni, there's two types of empathy. And when you hear people attacking empathy, they use a type of empathy that is actually fairly detrimental. And the types of empathy are cognitive empathy and affective empathy. So cognitive empathy is you call me and you say, shit, do you have a minute? I'm like, yeah, what's going on? And you tell me something really hard and like, oh, God, what a shit show. I'm so sorry that happened. I'm unloading the dishwasher when you call. I am not feeling what you're saying. Affective empathy is taking on the feelings of another person. I'm not like, if you are calling me with a sense of despair, I am not all of a sudden in my kitchen, unloading the dishwasher, putting myself awash in despair so I can connect with you. I am cognitively connecting to my understanding of what despair is. And I'm going to be there with you and for you, but I'm not taking on your emotion. So that is cognitive empathy. What leads to burnout and compassion fatigue is affective empathy. I'm going to feel what everyone's feeling. So when you say, really? So it's affective empathy, then what happens is you call me, you're in despair. I'm labeling that as an emotion because it's a hard one. I take on your despair, and now I'm filling myself with shame self talk because I can't fix you. You called me from a dark, deep hole. My job is not to jump in it with you. My job is to. Is to say, I see you. Let me really see you. I take a ladder out of my backpack, I put it in the hole, I go down, I see you. I say, I care about you. I say, you're not alone. And then I get back on my ladder and I go, otherwise we just have two suckers in a dark hole. So that's how shame is related to over to enmeshment, or what I would say is taking on the emotions of other people.

[E]

A little red flag here. I've seen this in businesses and companies where we had somebody quit. And one of our great, like, we loved her. We were like amazing, amazing, amazing human beings. And she quit. And we were like, what's the reason you're quitting? She says, I'm burnt out. And we're like, we know your workload. Like, what you know, like, how's burnout? And what we discovered when we sort of like went and sort of investigated is she's an empath. And when other members of the team discovered she was an empath, they all went to her with their problems. And so she was taking on everybody's problems. And everybody loved to go and dump their personal problems. If I had a fight with my parents, I'm having a fight with my spouse, whatever it was. And she took on everybody to the point where she couldn't hack it anymore, and she left and I've talked about it publicly, and people have come up to me and said, oh, my God, I go to somebody, I take advantage of them. I'm dumping all my problems on them. And it's creating burnout in companies, even though it has nothing to do with their workload.

[A]

Go ahead.

[B]

No, Peter Frost studied this. He called it being a toxin handler and found that that role is critical for an organization. But if it gets located in one person, that person is going to burn out.

[A]

It reminds me, what was the series? That I might be aging myself here for sure. I'm aging myself. What was the Wii? No, but. No, of that genre. You're right. Hey, I loved Bonanza.

[E]

I love Bonanza too.

[A]

Okay, watch it.

[E]

I can hum the theme.

[A]

I can hum the theme, too. I love Bonanza. No, but it's of that black and white television. Kind of weird and freaky things would happen.

[E]

Twilight Zone.

[A]

Twilight Zone. There's an episode of the Twilight Zone where there's a character called the Sin Eater, and he just goes from village to village, eating the sad stories of the village. And I always think about that when I think about the wrong use of empathy. Okay, next question.

[B]

Can we just send a ladder down to the person so they can climb out ever? Because that's what I always want to do.

[E]

No, I mean, you have to ask them. This is the thing that I've learned about, like, doing the right thing for somebody in the time that they need it. And like, the thing that I found remarkable is, a, people know what they need, and B, you can adjust in the middle. So I remember I was in a bad place. I called a friend. I'm like, hey, do you have a minute? Can I just talk it through with you? And she started fixing. And I said, I don't need you to fix it right now. I just need you to, like, shut up and listen. I just need to. And she. And the adjustment was made. I was good. Or if she couldn't, then I had to get off the phone.

[A]

But.

[E]

And I've now learned that. So when somebody comes to me and says, blah, blah, blah, blah, I need to talk, I go, do you want me to fix or do you want me to hold space? And they go, I need you to hold space. And so they. I find that it's. We don't have to guess. Like, people know what they want in the time.

[A]

Huge.

[E]

And you can just ask huge.

[A]

But I only see this in organizations or on teams where there's high levels of trust. Like, I have sisters, so it'll Be. My sister will call and be like, hey, do you have a second? And I'm like, yeah. And she goes, I'm really upset. And I was like, listen, fix or bury a body. She goes, man, grab a shovel. I'm like, on my way. I don't even need to know who you killed or where we're going. I got the shovel and a big trunk, you know, like, but that requires. Or sometimes my sisters will call and say, do you have a minute? I'm like, yeah, this is gonna be hard. And I said, okay, I'm gonna tell you what's going on. And I'm gonna hang up and don't you fucking call me back. And I'm like, well, what do you want me to do? Just listen to it and I'll call you back when I want to talk to you. But I just need to say it out loud. I'm like, go. Then I'm like, and then she's gone.

[C]

So.

[A]

So I think asking.

[E]

It's so. It's such a magical thing and people know what they need and it's a trust earner and they can change. They can change. Okay, I've now said it. Now can you give me some fixings?

[A]

You did this the other day. I did, yeah. I called you and I was like, I'm so upset. And you're like, what would be helpful right now? And I said, call me back when

[B]

you're ready for a ladder. No.

[A]

And I think I, you know, my husband's a pediatrician. And it's really interesting because he said he to ask because even with the same patient and the same 10 minutes, a parent will be like, I just, I. I like it when you just listen and you're, you know, and then sometimes he'll just say, I'm just going to listen. They'll be like, is this why I'm here? I'm paying you for just listening. What's the answer? And he's like, oh, have we moved on from the just listening empathy? He's like, yeah, we're in the godlike doctor state now. How are you going to fix this? He's like, shifting gears. Question.

[B]

I have a question regarding your view on the impact of AI. Earlier you said about, you know, AI isn't going to replace your jobs by somebody using AI. And I think a couple of weeks ago at a conference in Palo Alto where the main investors and leaders in the space were talking about it in a very different opinion, and Jensen Huang was interesting because he said, it's more about purpose.

[E]

Purpose of a job versus the task of a job.

[B]

You name the example of a radiologist, which the task can be tightly replaced by analytical part, which takes most of the time. But the purpose of the job, like healing disease, is elevated. So now there are more radiologists than ever before. So I was just wondering about your, your view on the impact of computation. Okay, so the question is, how is AI going to affect our jobs? I think that Jensen is onto something. We were with him not too long ago and I think, look, I've been studying job design for 25 years. Most leaders define a job as a collection of tasks, and that's only half of the puzzle. Jobs are also collections of relationships. And so when we map what somebody is supposed to do at work, we have to think about what is each project and assignment that needs to get done, but also what is all the communication and coordination that needs to happen. I think the radiologist's job is such an interesting example of this because I think even three years ago, as soon as generative AI burst onto the scene, people said radiologists are going to cease to exist. And it is true that a large language model can substitute for some of the tasks that a radiologist does. But there are other tasks that still require human judgment. I know I would not go to an AI radiologist solely. Right. I want a human to look over it, just like I want a human in the cockpit, even though autopilot is doing most of the work on a plane. But also there's a whole collection of relationships that really matter there. There's the radiologist seeking a second opinion from another radiologist. There's the coordination with a whole team of experts. There's the interaction with the patient. I don't think we're ready to outsource that. And so I think that's an evolution of a job to maybe subtract a task or two and add a task or two and maybe increase the interaction complexity as part of it. And I think that's probably where jobs are going. But I don't have a crystal ball. And anyone who says they do is lying to you or themselves or they

[E]

have a vested interest.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, you were in the mothership. I agree 100% with everything you said. I think that I'm a tech optimist and an early AI user. So I interact with AI. I mean, I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is I get a four page brief from an agent that knows me better than I know myself sometimes. It was weird that I get a four Page brief from an AI every morning that gives me the geopolitical impact on all the organizations I'm working with. Any news that I need to understand, stock analysis of investor calls, things that I need to know for my job and I've used it for a while. I also have an agent, like a personal agent that will, I'll say, is it true? I saw on Instagram that I can stop using retinol if I eat more carrots. And then it'll come back and say, sometimes it's hard for me to believe you're a social scientist. You are the biggest sucker. Stay off social media and keep using the stack we put together a year ago. Like that's what it'll say to me. Or I'll say, there's a new paddle out, I need to buy it. And they'll say, you need to work on your game. You don't like drilling. Like this is. So I'm a fan and I use it for things. What it will never replace, at least not I don't think, I don't think you'll ever replace. This is discernment, is deep discernment. And so the radiologist is really interesting because let's say you have a film that is alarming and it can give you percentages and predictions about that film. But what I need is that radiologist talking to my primary care doctor, who's also talking to my cardiologist, who's also talking to this person in a consult about the real, not just statistics of what we can do and what different protocol outcomes are. But here's what's important to she talks in terms of health span more than lifespan. She's on a court six days a week. This is what makes sense for her that I don't think will ever be able to replace. The thing that I think is most alarming to me is that people say, and this goes back to our very beginning, people say over and over, we don't need to worry because what will save us from AI taking over our world and our jobs is what makes us human. But we are shit at what makes us human. The Welchian era brought in a deep seated belief, you and I have talked about this before, that actually what makes us human is a detriment to performance. And that has turned out to be wholly false across all of the research

[B]

studies, which is why there are more radiologists today than there were pre AI.

[E]

Right Technologists, God bless them, always leave the people out when the rise of Internet and we're all old enough to remember this, they were saying it's the death of bricks and mortar, but they forgot that human beings like to hunt and gather. And we like to go shopping. And so the business model of bricks and mortar is different. That's a numbers game. But we like to go shopping. And you saw these stores that Amazon put up that are now going away because there's no people in them, them. And like, we would rather go to a supermarket and ask the kid who's stocking the shells like, hey, where's the mustard? Than we would just like pull out our phone and look up mustard. We want that human interaction. You know, Whole Foods had a thing where you could do a palm reader. Like the things you check out and all you do is do your palm. It connects to your Amazon account, gives you your discounts that you're supposed to get, connects with your credit card and you just pay. And it's great and wonderful. And they got rid of all of them because of low adoption. And people still stand in line for a human being checkout where we could all could just go to the auto checkout, but we don't. We don't. We like human interaction. And going back to the radiologist, medicine is not just about data. Medicine is human. That's my life you're talking about. And we always complain about the doctor that has a terrible bedside manner. Well, imagine having a doctor with no bedside manner, right? Where here's the data, here's the prescription, go. You know, you want the compassion. You want the doctor that cares. You know, you want the customer service agent that cares. You want to feel that somebody cares about you. A human being cares about me. I feel seen and heard. And that is irreplaceable by technology. So technology, living alongside the human being, we all love that. But these grand prediction of replacement, none of us want that. If you want any prediction, I'll make one prediction about the adoption of AI. If it goes according to what the technologists and the AI say zealots say, my prediction is you will see massive increases over the course of the next 10 years of depression, anxiety and suicide. Massive rates of suicide going up. Why? Because you took the people away from social animals and we're completely forgetting that it's not making our lives easy. What it's doing is making us more productive, which means there's going to be greater demands in our time. So I have a friend who's a photographer, so when she does a photo shoot, then she does retouching for the client, she's using AI. Photoshop has amazing AI tools. She can do massive amounts more, much quicker, much better, much, much easier. I said, do you have more time? Isn't it better? Don't you love AI? She said, absolutely not. Now my clients want their deadline shorter and they want more work. And now there's just an expectation. Instead of doing, you know, 10 photographs in a week, I have to do 100 photographs in a week. So all it does is change the bar of expectation. But her workload, she's working exactly the same amount. She's just producing more. So I think the one thing I would just be cautious of is human beings want human beings in our lives. And it's totally fine to have technology help us, but it's not going to replace us. We will rebel against it or watch that suicide number go up.

[A]

And we're rebelling. Now. Look at the commencement addresses in the United States.

[E]

Oh, yeah, yeah. Booing.

[A]

Where technologists took the stage and got booed by students who. We did our last podcast on it. Like, why? I mean, we've been college professors. I'm going on year 30. Like, what people want is moral imagination.

[E]

What connection and belonging and do you want to feel seen and understood and everything we're talking about, you know, it's so funny when you're talking about it in a business context, people are like, that's mushy. That's not productive. But when you, soon as you take it out of a business context, everyone's like, that's what I want. You know, it's like, this is a

[A]

good place to end. Thank y' all for coming. And Simon, thanks for joining the Curiosity Shop. Thank y'.

[D]

All.

[E]

Good time.

[A]

I loved our conversation. It was fun and I love the conversation from the folks in the room. What do you think, Adam?

[B]

Yeah, I'm still thinking about a few of the questions. We might have to do a follow up.

[A]

Oh, we should. That would be great. Just a reminder to y' all that we're going on a hiatus, but stay on because we're gonna give you five of our best kind of Adam and I together. Another one with me, Adam and Simon. So stay on the feed. We'll be back July 30th. And if you want more information about Simon, including where you can find him, where you can follow him, where you can learn more, go to thecuriosityshop.com, our podcast website, and we will see you. Have a wonderful five week summer and we'll be back.

[B]

Can't wait.

[A]

The Curiosity Shop is produced by Brene Brown, Education and Research group and granted production. You can subscribe to the Curiosity shop on YouTube or follow in your favorite podcast app.

[B]

We're part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Discover more award winning [e-mail] AI is

[D]

moving fast across the enterprise, but without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower, you see see all your AI across the business in one place, what it's doing, what it's done and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com

[C]

support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o dot com.