ReThinking: Breaking leadership barriers with hockey coach Jessica Campbell

Summary

---

Episode Summary: "ReThinking: Breaking Leadership Barriers with Hockey Coach Jessica Campbell"

WorkLife with Adam Grant (TED) — Released March 17, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Adam Grant is joined by Jessica Campbell, the first full-time female assistant coach behind the bench in NHL history (Seattle Kraken). They delve into Jessica’s journey through hockey’s gendered landscape, breaking professional barriers, and her visionary approach to coaching. Jessica shares insights on authentic leadership, the challenges of being ‘the first’, and the psychology behind building trust, giving feedback, and fostering high-performing teams. The episode brims with both actionable leadership advice and candid reflections on pushing against tradition.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Jessica Campbell’s Origin Story: Finding Belonging in Hockey (01:19–03:20)

• Upbringing: Grew up as the youngest in a hockey family on the Canadian Prairies, often as the only girl on all-boys teams.
• No Room for Isolation: Despite gender differences, Jessica never felt lesser or out of place.
  • Quote: "I never, ever felt lesser than or not equal to my teammates or that I didn’t belong in that room." (A, 02:42)
• Challenges: Faced some opposition or questions about her place but reframed hostility as recognition of her impact.
  • Quote: "If they’re threatened by me, then I’m doing something better than them." (A, 04:53)

2. Power of Difference & Becoming a Trailblazer (06:32–08:04)

• Sense of Belonging and Identity: Experiences as a minority (‘token’) made her feel responsible to carry the torch for others.
• Imposter Syndrome: Being ‘the first’ comes with bouts of self-doubt but also drives her to create change.
  • Quote: "When I lean into my differences, that actually has me showing up as my most confident, authentic self." (A, 07:27)
• Role Models: Credits her mother, who coached her first boys’ team, as a supporter who granted her ‘permission’ to see leadership differently.

3. Building a Coaching Career: How the Pathway Emerged (08:04–11:18)

• No Blueprint: There was no direct path to coaching in the NHL as a woman; focus was on excellence and unique value.
• Turning Point: A pivotal moment of affirmation came when NHL player Brent Seabrook said, “You’re gonna be in the NHL one day, you’re gonna be coaching in the NHL one day.” (A, 08:56)
  • This outside belief gave Jessica “permission” and motivation she hadn’t felt before.
    • Quote: "He mirrored a belief in me that I had maybe in a naive way thought about, but never had…visibility, to believe it was possible." (A, 09:34)
• Unique Approach: Her drills and interpersonal follow-ups with players distinguished her coaching style.
  • Quote: “You always reached out and followed up with, ‘How are you doing? How are you feeling?’” (A, 10:36, relaying Seabrook’s feedback)

4. Facing Resistance & Responding to Skepticism (11:18–12:37)

• Frequent ‘No’s’: Encountered skepticism and closed doors, including outright negative commentary.
• Resilience Mindset: Focused on ‘building her own house’ rather than forcing entry into resistant spaces.
  • Quote: “Instead of...trying to be the first, I just said, that's okay. Walked away and built my own house and decided to see who would walk in.” (A, 12:29)

5. The Coaching Philosophy: Listen, Lift, and Love (12:41–16:18)

• The Three L’s:
  • Listen: Building authentic human connections beyond just athletic ability.
  • Lift: Helping players reach their potential with a process-oriented approach.
  • Love: Creating standards of excellence and psychological safety; not just ‘soft’ love but commitment to high standards.
    • Quote: “Without love, I don’t think coaching is anything, to be honest.” (A, 14:05)
• Empathy and Accountability: Creating an environment where tough feedback is accepted because players feel seen and valued.

6. Navigating Gender Stereotypes in Leadership (14:46–16:18)

• Straddling Expectations: Acknowledges both the usefulness and challenge of being perceived as 'softer,' and how different approaches (not tied to gender) make for stronger teams.
  • Quote: “Balanced teams with different skill sets, different perspectives, regardless of gender, actually make for a more dangerous coaching staff.” (A, 15:34)
• Grant’s Perspective: Adam challenges the shorthand of attributing empathy and trust to ‘women leaders’; it’s about core leadership traits, not gender.

7. Giving Feedback & Tough Love (17:05–20:46)

• Style of Critique: Prefers specific, behaviorally anchored feedback—highlight moments where a player succeeded, as opposed to focusing on failures.
  • “It’s about, I think, reframing and rephrasing it…build the vision and dissect it for them and then approach them with a plan.” (A, 19:30)
• Reference Points: When prior success is absent, she'll use admired role models as exemplars.
• Team vs. Individual Feedback: Sets ‘standards of excellence’ for the team, reinforcing shared identity and calling out deviations in a non-shaming way.

8. Lightning Round: Practical Wisdom (21:56–24:13)

• Worst Coaching Advice (22:02): “‘Just be grateful to be in the NHL.’ That one really sucks…Just being grateful, you know? No. Demand more, be more, want more, strive for more.” (A, 22:02)
• Best Coaching Advice (23:16): “You cannot judge a player and love them at the same time.” (A, 23:16)
• Rethought Ideas (23:48): “When the world or industry you work in tells you to try to fit in, it’s crap. Don’t listen to it.” (A, 23:48)

9. Coaching Q&A: Adam Grant Responds (24:13–36:10)

• What Kind of Feedback Creates Change (24:13–27:32):
  • Adam summarizes research: Effective feedback focuses on actionable behavior, not the individual’s traits. Self-assessment first helps lower defensiveness.
    • Quote: “Feedback gets less effective as it focuses on the person and more effective as it focuses on the task and behavior.” (B, 25:22)
• Trust & Gender (27:37–30:43):
  • The research is mixed: Women often have to establish warmth and care before being granted trust or authority, but sometimes benefit from deliberate, modest stereotype violations.
  • Jessica notes a peculiar dynamic: sometimes silence and disappointment from her as a coach impacts players more strongly ("like, mom’s mad").
• The Cost of Going First (30:46–36:10):
  • Breaking barriers feels heavy, carries unique psychological weight.
  • At higher levels, top female leaders may face less stereotyping because their presence signals proven competence.
  • The analogy to being ‘the first’ in figure skating/judging: if you’re competent, going first can set a new standard; if not, it’s riskier.
  • Quote (Jessica): “There’s all this weird, interesting things of doing things for the first time. And then also, what’s the psychological cost to that? Because it feels heavy." (A, 30:46)
  • Adam: Research shows leaders prone to guilt (vs. shame) deliver more servant leadership—a quality Jessica embodies.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On being the only girl and belonging:

  “When you’re often in a room or on a team where no one looks like you, that difference is an edge. And it’s perspective, it’s input, it’s skill, it’s different lived experience. It is value added to a team.” (A, 01:06)

• On tough love in coaching:

  “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care about them.” (A, 14:22)

• On gratitude and ambition:

  “Just being grateful has not gotten me anywhere in life. Just being grateful, you know? No. Demand more, be more, want more, strive for more.” (A, 22:11)

• On breaking conformity:

  “When the world or industry you work in tells you to try to fit in, it’s crap. Don’t listen to it.” (A, 23:48)

• On the psychological cost of trailblazing:

  “There’s all this weird, interesting things of doing things for the first time. And then also like, what’s the psychological cost to that? Because it feels heavy. It does feel heavy.” (A, 30:46)

• On the power of leading with a sense of service:

  “Leaders who are prone to guilt are actually more effective... they feel that weight on their shoulders of, ‘I can’t let the team down.’ ...That seems to describe you pretty well.” (B, 34:10)

• On unique authority:

  "I see different players...kind of caught off guard when I’m disappointed. Like, I’ve seen my best turnaround in players when I am silent and angry, and they’re like, oh, no. It’s like, mom’s mad and disappointed." (A, 29:43)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–01:19 — Jessica’s entry into being the first female NHL bench coach
• 01:19–03:20 — Childhood hockey experiences and sense of belonging
• 06:32–08:04 — Trailblazing, imposter syndrome, and representing women
• 08:04–11:18 — Becoming an NHL coach; pivotal encouragement from a pro player
• 12:41–16:18 — Coaching philosophy: Listen, Lift, Love
• 17:05–20:46 — Delivering and structuring tough feedback
• 21:56–24:13 — Lightning round: Best and worst coaching advice
• 24:13–27:32 — Adam on research behind effective feedback
• 27:37–30:43 — Gender, trust, and leadership
• 30:46–36:10 — The cost/psychology of being ‘the first’; guilt vs. shame in leading

---

Final Takeaway

Jessica Campbell’s journey is a masterclass in authentic, courageous leadership. Her approach—rooted in openness, resilience, and using difference as a strength—offers a contemporary blueprint for anyone breaking barriers, whether in sports or in the wider world of work. Her actionable philosophy (Listen, Lift, Love) and nuanced handling of team and individual feedback reflect both her innovative coaching mind and the emotional intelligence necessary to lead in spaces where tradition runs deep.

For leaders, coaches, and trailblazers, this conversation is a reminder: Authenticity, belonging, and raising the bar for others are the true markers of impactful leadership.

---

Transcript

[A]

I never, ever dreamt of being the first in a space where I've always been part of this game. I've been on fantastic all girls teams. I've had men's coaches, I've had women's coaches. I was the only girl on an all boys team. I've always saw myself belonging in hockey, but I never really understood what I was doing until I was standing behind an NHL bench in a space no woman had held before. And I felt this flood of of emotion and pressure and responsibility to do something good with it.

[B]

Hey, everyone, it's Adam Grant. Welcome back to Rethinking my podcast with Ted on the science of what makes us tick. I'm an organizational psychologist and I'm taking you inside the minds of fascinating people to explore new thoughts and new ways of thinking. Jessica Campbell is a hockey coach with the Seattle Kraken. She's the first full time female assistant coach in NHL history to work behind the bench. And her approach to the game has been a winning combination for the teams and players she's coached.

[A]

When you're often in a room or on a team where no one looks like you, that difference is an edge. And it's perspective, it's input, it's skill, it's different lived experience. It is value added to a team.

[B]

Jessica's coaching style has been shaped by her impressive hockey career. She captained The Canadian under 18 team that won gold at the World Championships and by her experiences being the first in different environments. Over the years, we chatted about leadership, building trust, and yes, being first. All right, Jess, so let me start by asking you a little bit about your past as a hockey player. Tell me about your origin story. How did you fall in love with the ice?

[A]

I probably have the most typical Canadian story of just small town kid, grew up in the Canadian Prairies and found myself falling in love with being on the ice. I was the youngest of four kids and both my parents played hockey at a high level, so I was kind of born with skates on my feet. You know, I think about my childhood upbringing and being oftentimes the only girl on every boys team that I played on. There was no all girls teams at the time I played, which is a testament to how far the game has come, which is incredible. And so to end up in the position I am now, we can always connect dots backwards, right? But not forwards perhaps.

[B]

Well, that's amazing. Foreshadowing on several fronts that I want to cover. I'm curious, as a kid, what did it feel like to be the Only girl on all boys teams.

[A]

You know, I wouldn't say it felt isolating, because at such a young age, when you're young and you're curious and you're falling in love with something, you just feel those joys. And if I look back to my younger self, you would think, oh, she was alone. She was only one. She had to get dressed in janitor rooms, the cold storage lockers. She put her skates on by herself and walked into the room and dropped her bag and then was part of the team. There were so many little interesting things that were part of that experience, but I never, ever felt lesser than or not equal to my teammates or that I didn't belong in that room.

[B]

I'm just curious about what it was like with opposing teams. I can imagine. You know, when I think about girls that I grew up with who played on boys teams, I think I saw two dynamics consistently. One was they would be, you know, extra careful, like, not wanting to injure them, and. And the other is that they would sometimes go harder and try to just knock them out. Both sad responses. Did you experience both?

[A]

Yeah, absolutely, I experienced both. I experienced the allyship, the good teammates who loved having me on their line and wanted to give me the puck. And I had an innate gift of skating, where I was often, especially at a younger age with the boys. I was faster than them, which that always gave me an upper hand on how to compete with them. And they had to keep up with me. Obviously, they got stronger, grew quicker at a certain point, where then eventually I moved to the women's game just because of the physical differences that were potentially putting me at risk. But that was a parent's decision. I would have played in the boys game as long as I could, but that was my parents helping me move on. But you're hitting it on the head in the sense that some boys and girls, even coaches, didn't believe that I belonged playing boys hockey there. You know, if I got hit and I fell down, injured or not, there was, well, that's why she should be playing with the boys. And they never said that to the boys when they hit and cried on the ice and their parents came and picked them up off the ice. And, you know, I had a rule with my parents. It's like, unless you can't walk, get up and get to the bench, or unless you're throwing up sick, you're gonna play through it. So I was coached by my own parents to really push through some of, I think, what would have been potentially seen as on other teams, bullying, like the comments that came at me from other teams, But I always saw it as if they're threatened by me, then I'm doing something better than them, and to just keep pushing into leaning into that. And it definitely fueled me to want to do more, be more, and strive for more.

[B]

It's such a powerful reframe to say, hey, it's actually positive feedback if people are threatened by me.

[A]

Yeah, I think it takes some deep reflection to feel it that way. But when I look at it now, that was something that drove me because I was different, because, you know, I was the only girl on the team. I sometimes had a target on my back. And you're right, sometimes I was treated differently, and sometimes players were softer with me, and I didn't like that. That pissed me off. Sorry for the language, but that made me very angry. Like, no, I'm here. I want to battle, I want to compet. This is hockey, so don't treat me any differently.

[B]

So you spent your whole childhood training for the situation you're in now without knowing it?

[A]

Honestly, yes. And you know what's the most interesting thing of all of this? I look back. My mom played college hockey, and she actually coached my first boys team. So I have this powerful photo where my mom was the coach of this all boys team, and I was only girl. She didn't know it then, but when I look back on it now, she gave me permission to believe in leadership, looking a little bit differently as well.

[B]

So interesting. So I'm thinking about some research that one of my collaborators, Karen Knowlton, did on becoming a trailblazer, where she was interested in what motivates people to want to break barriers. And in your case, I guess that would be a pretty significant glass ceiling. And she found that one of the key catalysts is having a strong sense of belonging with your group. So if you didn't identify as a woman in her data, you'd be less likely to want to go and break the glass ceiling. Whereas feeling like you're a representative of the group leads you to say, okay, I've got to open that door for others. So that leads me to wonder, did being, as Rosabeth Moss Kantor first described it, did being a token, like the one woman in a group of men or the one girl in a group of boys, did that strengthen your identification with your gender, and did that pave the way, in some ways, for you to become a trailblazer?

[A]

Yes. I've learned that when I lean into my differences, that actually has me Showing up as my most confident, authentic self. But when you're going through it as the first or you're the only one, you can also feel imposter syndrome regularly. But I'm very much fueled by now what I kind of call carrying a torch for other women, because it definitely drives me and motivates me knowing that I can use my differences as a woman to continue to hopefully change the game forward.

[B]

What was the turning point that led you to say, yeah, I wanna do this. I wanna become the first full time female coach in NHL history?

[A]

Well, I didn't have a blueprint. I had no clear path to follow per se, of how it's done or how to get to working at the high of hockey. But it was never about that for me. It was always about doing the work and following my passion and just loving that process. And I knew that if I was excellent at what I did and that I had a positive impact, that would take me exactly where I was meant to go anyways. So I worked with players of all ages, youth, boys and girls, and that went up to junior hockey players, college, pro, and then the NHL players started to show up and they were showing up for my coaching, my business, my approach, my method. And that's when it started to click for me. Like I'm doing something different or they're showing up for a reason. What is that? And as I started to unpack that and just kind of really take in all of the input and build relationships with NHL players. One of the pros, he's now retired, Brent Seabrook, you know, we were doing one on one private sessions, working on rehabbing his skating. And he said to me, you're gonna be in the NHL one day, you're gonna be coaching in the NHL one day. And I'll never forget it, because it was on my 27th birthday and I came home, I called my dad, how was your birthday? I said, guess what Brent said to me? And I said, he mirrored a belief in me that I had maybe in a naive way thought about, but never had what I thought was permission to believe I could do or never had visibility, to believe it was possible. And he said something to me in that that I think became so affirmative inside, or gave me that internal seed that just exploded at that point. It was like, you know what? I can do this. And there's, I think, some sad truth in that, that I didn't need permission. But when that was mirrored back to me from a player who obviously was a vetted pro, a winner, a champion at this level as a young, aspiring coach that went so far for me to believe that it was possible. And at that point, I just said, all right, I'm going to chase this. I'm going to do it as best as I can, and I'm see where it takes me.

[B]

Did he tell you why he believed in you?

[A]

No, not in that moment, but he has unpacked that with me since. I had a unique approach to the drills, the sessions, they were all my own drills. I hadn't worked in the NHL before, and it is a copycat league. I kid you not. We have very, very good coaches in our league, but when you're the best league in the world, everyone's copying. And I never came from the NHL. So all of my drills, my ideas were from my own experience, and they were new. And whether they were innov, they were different. And so they were hitting differently for the players. And something Brandt said to me was, you always reached out and followed up with, how are you doing? How are you feeling? And what are you thinking for tomorrow? Even though I had a plan in my head of how it was going to go, I did that. And I didn't realize that that was paying dividends for my relationship with him and what he valued in good coaching at the NHL level.

[B]

So I imagine not everyone you've encountered has been so supportive. What are. Maybe I'll ask you, what's the most extreme skepticism you've encountered?

[A]

I heard no more often than not. And there was a lot of closed doors and awful things said, things that I wouldn't even repeat, but terrible things said of why I was getting opportunities, why she would be at this level. And I had to silence all of the hate, all of that noise. And I had to avoid all of that and ask myself, okay, what am I gonna do with these no's? Like, am I gonna let it squash my passion? No, because I love this. This is what I love to do. So it's not about being in the NHL or getting to the NHL. It's about following that passion and trying to have the best impact on every team, every individual. And I always said, there's no player too big or small that's not worthy of my coaching. And that kind of was my guiding mantra early on. And that silenced out the noise around me and what I was doing and what I was building. And instead of, you know, getting to the door and trying to apply, trying to get the job, trying to work for the team that was resistant, trying to be the first, I just said, that's okay. Walked away and built my own house and decided to see who would walk in.

[B]

What would you say are your key strengths as a coach?

[A]

So, okay, three things for me that I've really put my finger on in the last few years. It's three Ls, okay, listen, lift and love. And those three things are at the core of listening, building real human relationships. Like, not just approaching the player that I'm working with as a player, as a talent, as an ability, approaching them as a human being that has a backstory, has an experience, has thoughts, has feelings, has viewpoints, ticks differently. And I think that's really integral. And, you know, helping lift them up to their highest potential is about showing up when it's hard and really being process oriented with the player. How can we get to work to do more and be more while still being content with being asked to play a certain role on a team? And so it's really showing up with belief and care. And I think that an empowered person goes through walls when they feel seen and valued. And so then the last part of it is love. And without love, I don't think coaching is anything, to be honest. Like, that's the root of why we show up for others. And I'm not talking the necessarily soft kind of love. I'm talking creating standards of excellence and creating a safe space and psychological safety. I think for players to be able to function at their best and know that, hey, a kick in the ass can be a good thing. Because I have high standards for you, because you and I have created this agreement between each other that to be your best, you gotta do xyz. I'm here to guide you. I'm here to get you back there. But it also goes with when they are doing well, like lifting them up and celebrating their wins and saying, hey, remember when you couldn't do this? And now you're here and look what you're doing. And something I heard early on, and this is so true, and you probably can help me understand research behind it, but they don't care how much you know until they know how much you care about them.

[B]

That. I mean, Jess, that makes a lot of sense to me. I have to wonder, does it ever worry you, though, that you're playing into feminine stereotypes that way? I see this all the time with female leaders where people are trying to make the case and they say things like, well, we need. We need more women in leadership. Because women excel at empathy and trust and care. Like, no, no, no, that is not the right case. To make the right case to make is let's talk about all the essential skills of leadership and say there's no gender that has a monopoly on those.

[A]

Yeah, it's. I'm like laughing because I feel that all the time. All the things you said, I think are strengths that I have. But I think that there's strength in taking a different approach. And whether that's a soft one or whether that's a more pragmatic approach to the person understanding the scenario, that's actually more thoughtful and strategic, not weak or soft or not serving to the player. And I've seen players thrive on a softer approach than a harder approach. And that's why I think having well balanced teams with different skill sets, different perspectives, regardless of gender, not about gender, actually make for a more dangerous coaching staff.

[B]

Yeah. I think also it's worth noting that when you invest in listen, lift and love, you then earn more license to challenge 100%. Players are less threatened, they're less defensive than when you tell them they're not living up to their own goals or your expectations of them.

[A]

The gold in coaching and in leadership, probably you could say, is creating a space where you can meet a person and really like, unpack what's important. There's a space that I think if you can go there and be vulnerable and be real. Like I say to players all the time, how are you feeling? Where are you at? I'll have a bunch of clips to show them mistakes or affirmations of them playing the right way. But before I show them anything, I'm like, where are you at right now? Because unless I know that, I can't approach what I'm about to show you without better understanding of how it could help you. And I think that takes emotional awareness. I think it takes reps and time to figure that out. But it is about a foundation of communication and trust.

[B]

A lot of leaders and this actually, this isn't unique to leaders at all. I know so many people who struggle at dishing out tough love. They just, they don't know how to do it. And you get to do it every day. I'm wondering if you can give me some concrete examples of like, what do you say to players when you have to give them. You said a kick in the ass, like, give me some sentences. What does that sound like?

[A]

Well, I don't like giving tough love. It's not something that I love to do. But I'm not a coach that when I see a problem or for a mistake in our team's Game, the structure of how we play. I don't see that mistake and go, ugh, he can't do this. He sucks. I see it as like, hmm, that's out of norm. If he only were to move his feet quicker here, he wouldn't be in that situation in the first place. So it's about a breakdown before the actual mistake. It's not his incompetence or, or, you know, he's incapable of doing it, performing at it. So when I have to deliver a tough message to a player, I do try to sandwich it with a scenario of when they have been in that same scenario before but done the right thing. I try to lead with that path of, hey, you've been in this position before. I have a clip here, a bad turnover that cost us the game and we don't even need to watch it. You know, you lived it, you felt it, but you've been in this position. And look, here's three scenarios where you've done it right and look what it led to. A goal, the next shift. Because you made the simple play, you made the selfless play. You're not a bad teammate. You just made a bad decision in that moment. It's about, I think, reframing and rephrasing it. This is why I listen to your podcast so much. I think we're in the business of psychology, of working through people and how to get them to better serve themselves. And so it's all approach intact and then also understanding that player.

[B]

What if you haven't seen them do it well in the past? What do you do then?

[A]

I try to show them someone they admire or respect in the game, doing it correctly. And I ask them, what do you see? Like, what do you see? When he's coming downhill, it's like, oh, he's got his toes here. And I'm like, okay, let's watch the same clip, because I think you can do the same. And when you get the puck in that position, you're scoring. Every time, there's that mirroring of belief of what they can do if versus, like, showing them all the ways that they can't do it. It's like build the vision and dissect it for them and then approach them with a plan. Hey, so tomorrow before practice, let's rep that out. Let's get you handling pucks in that position. I just want you to feel it, I want you to see it. But it's the art of convincing them and selling them through. Like, what would be, I think, a very difficult conversation that Tracks so well

[B]

with the psychology of goal setting and feedback. Where what we want to do is we want to show you the gap between where you are and where you want to go.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And often that means we have to both make sure you're clear on what the present looks like, but also, like you said, build up that image of, okay, and this is what the desired future looks like. And it's in reach. It's something that I can emulate, it's something I can work toward. I'm thinking about some evidence on coaching individuals versus teams, which shows that sometimes when you give individuals feedback, they end up making adjustments that are good for their growth but don't serve the group. And in order to get people to improve together as a team, you have to give group level feedback. Like what? How does your, your coaching and feedback look different when you have to give comments to the whole team as opposed to one player at a time?

[A]

Well, that's the standards of excellence you have to establish early. Usually that happens in training camp for us and then from there reinforce the message, this is us, this is what we do. Then you can start to call out those who are deviating from that standard. And that's painful. In moments like when players get called out, they all respond differently. Some actually feed off of like, oh no. And they like, next game never happens again. Others are like a little bit more dogs around it. It's like shame. And then they forget that they just got whacked and they do it again. And you're like, ah, you have to figure those guys out how to then go work through them on an individual. But they all respond differently. And I think unless you have clear set standards, not rules, I don't like rules. But clear standards of how we are going to operate. I always say, what's our MO? And these are somewhat non negotiables to the identity of the way we want to play. And when those things show up, you celebrate them. This is team, this is team. And when they're not, this is not team. But again, it's about framing it that way.

[B]

Okay, Lightning round time. You ready?

[A]

Okay, cool.

[B]

Worst coaching advice you've gotten.

[A]

The one that drives me the most crazy is just be grateful to be in the NHL. That one really sucks because, you know, I had a player, this is a role player who's kind of in and out of the lineup. Unbelievable character. One of the best guys on the team. Totally a glue guy. Who said, I asked him, how's it going? He's like, hasn't played a game in, I don't know, 15 games. He said, there's no bad days in the NHL, Jess. And I said, hmm. When I hear that sometimes I'm like, just be grateful has not gotten me anywhere in life. Just being grateful, you know? No. Like, demand more, be more, want more, strive for more. Like, we're all playing this game to continue to grow something, and if we just are grateful, that, to me, it's just like a sense of contentment and complacency. And I don't know if you have thoughts on that.

[B]

I've actually published some research that speaks to that. Yeah. Showing that gratitude feels good, but it doesn't always motivate us to do better. It can be, to your point, very passive. I think it's good to be grateful for the opportunities that we've gotten, but we also have a responsibility then to make the most of them.

[A]

100%.

[B]

Okay, back to the Lightning round. Best coaching advice.

[A]

Oh, I got this recently from a player, actually, who's now turned to executive coaching. He said, you cannot judge a player and love them at the same time. When you're judging someone, we are oftentimes putting them in a box or assuming things about them that aren't true or real. When you remove judgment, then love can come back in and potential and opportunity and perspective changes greatly.

[B]

That's good. I like that. Okay, what's something you've rethought lately?

[A]

When the world or industry you work in tells you to try to fit in, it's crap. Don't listen to it. Because anytime I find myself starting to creep that direction, I lose sight of myself and what I'm good at and what I bring to the table.

[B]

Good riddance to conformity for conformity's sake. Okay. You said you had questions for me.

[A]

Okay, I do. All right, so I wrote this down in regards to coaching or leadership. Like, what kind of feedback actually changes individual behavior, doesn't just create awareness of it.

[B]

Yeah. So I'm thinking of a. There was a meta analysis, Kluger and Dhanisi, of a hundred years of feedback research where they accumulated all the experiments that have ever been published on the topic. The first thing they did was they busted a myth that I had believed in for a long time, which is, I think, as an optimist, I assumed that positive feedback was more motivating than negative feedback, and negative feedback was more informative than positive feedback. And basically, it was a wash. There was no difference in the effectiveness of praise versus criticism overall.

[A]

Oh, that's so interesting.

[B]

And I think you could probably attest to this. It is true that often novices need more praise to believe that they can do it. And experts are more motivated to seek and benefit from criticism because they don't have as much doubt and, you know, they're trying to overcome whatever's got them stuck where they are. But then the second thing that stood out was if it's not whether it's, you know, encouraging or deflating that really matters, what is it? And the key finding was that feedback gets less effective as it focuses on the person and more effective as it focuses on the task and behavior. So if I tell you you suck at something that tends to elicit defensiveness, if I tell you that the behavior you engaged in sucked or that your approach to this task sucked, then you look at that and say, okay, I need to adjust that and I have control over that. And it relates to the point you were making earlier about guilt versus shame.

[A]

Right? Like this is team and we all want to be part of that team concept, playing to that team behavior.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. And I think one of the lessons for me on that is when I give feedback, I want to get people to the behavior as quickly as possible. And so I will often ask them to do the self assessment first, which reduces defensiveness and gets them into a conversation, but also prevents it from being a one way monologue and allows us to have a real dialogue. And what I want to know is if you could redo that performance, what is the first thing that you would do differently? Or if you get to do this again tomorrow, what's the first adjustment you're going to make? And we're immediately in the zone of talking about specific controllable actions. And that way I'm not judging you. Right. I am here to try to help you get better. And as a coach, I want to know what you think was standing in the way of, you know, of you being as effective as you could be. So I think that would be my first answer to your question.

[A]

I love that. That's very powerful. I think that can definitely trigger awareness. I love that. Because it's not necessarily a way to just slam them with the toughness side of it. You can still paint that in a very positive way to get, I think, a direct behavior change.

[B]

I think so too. And when people start coaching themselves out loud, you see what they already know and you can just say, yeah, I agree with that. We don't have to spend a lot of time on it. You also discover what their blind spots are, what's Invisible to them. And then you can pay more attention to the things that are novel for them.

[A]

I love that. Okay, I have a couple more for you.

[B]

Oh, fire away.

[A]

Do women have to earn trust differently than men? And, like, what actually builds that trust if there's a difference?

[B]

There's actually an active debate on this in the research right now. Interesting, conflicting findings. So for a long time, the dominant trend was that basically, unfairly, women had to fulfill certain gender stereotypes in order to be liked and trusted. So, you know, women were evaluated more harshly if they, you know, failed to be warm and caring than men were, for example, and, you know, men sort of got a pass if they were, like, a little bit too tough, because that didn't violate gender stereotypes. But there's a growing body of evidence suggesting that women actually can differentiate themselves effectively by deliberately violating gender stereotypes. And so if you're going to speak up, for example, with a challenging idea or you're going to give some tough feedback, it surprises people more if you do it in a way that shows real authority. And so I think the jury is out right now. I don't have a clear sense of what are the really robust gender differences. I think my hunch, if I had to try to reconcile the conflicting evidence, and this is me thinking out loud, my hunch right now is that what's going on is deviating from stereotypes works if you do it to a small degree, but major violations are still seen as unacceptable. And so I think we probably still live in a world where women have to do more to establish their warmth and their care. You have to. You have to earn the right to say no, which is ridiculous. You have to earn the right to tell somebody they really let the team down. Right. But I think, you know, sort of the daily, hey, that wasn't your best practice, might actually work better for a woman than a man. And I think it's. I just think it's absurd that we still have to think about this in 2026, but here we are. What do you make of that?

[A]

I really respect what you're saying because I think it's real, and I'm living that right now. In terms of. I see different players throughout my journey and experience where they are kind of caught off guard when I'm disappointed. Like, I've seen my best turnaround in players when I am silent and angry, and they're like, oh, no. It's like, mom's mad and disappointed and they feel that weight differently or something. I don't know what it is. I can't put my finger on it, but I have joked with former players that I've coached and they're like, you were so mad and you didn't speak and we knew exactly we needed to change.

[B]

Wow. Yeah. I think this is. This reinforces what we were talking about earlier, which is, you know, I think my read of the evidence is if you didn't bend over backward to listen, lift and love when you came down hard on them and you showed disappointment, they would unfairly think you were a bitch.

[A]

Yeah, exactly.

[B]

Men just don't have to deal with that.

[A]

Period, 100%. Yes.

[B]

All right, did you have anything else on your list or did we cover your questions?

[A]

The only other, last one that I have thought about a lot is just more so around the cost of going first. There's all this weird, interesting things of doing things for the first time. And then also like, what's the psychological cost to that? Because it feels heavy. It does feel heavy. I will say that I do carry. I carry a lot of that and I try to do it with grace and pride, but yeah, what's the line?

[B]

Heavy lies the head that wears the crown. I'm thinking of a few pieces of research on this. The first one is, I think it actually depends on the level you're at. So there's some research by Ashley Rosette showing that at the very top of a hierarchy, a lot of the negative judgments of female leaders start to dissipate because people know that you had to be that much better to get there. And so I think first full time female coach in the NHL, it's probably more stressful because of the responsibility level, but maybe you get negatively stereotyped a little bit less than, you know. If you're like the first female coach at your high school, that's the first one. I don't know if that one tracks.

[A]

It does. I think it's interesting because some of my most wholesome positive experiences have been with the pros and some of my worst experiences have been exactly that at smaller levels with junior players who've disrespected me or think that's right because they have not developed their brains fully to be able to respond to new or different leadership. Right. So that's definitely on brand to some of the vetted out pros and the environment has proven to respond more positively.

[B]

Okay. Secondly, I think you've had some work on Olympic figure skating judging, which my read of some of the data there is that you want to go first if you're good, but not if you're average. So an amazing skater who goes first will set the standard and everybody's just blown away.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Whereas if you're a mediocre skater, you're judged by a harsher standard if you go first, but once a bunch of other people have gone, you're held to more realistic expectations. And so I think the more competent you are, the easier it is probably to be the trailblazer.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, that feels like a coaching decision when you're in the moment of a game's on the line and you gotta put your best shooter out to win the game. And there's sometimes where you think, okay, this young talent, this could both help him or hurt him. Is he mentally ready for the moment he has the talent and the ability to score, but does he have the vetted experience to handle the magnitude of the emotional moment that comes behind putting the game on the line for your team? You typically go with the one who obviously has the skillset and the most experience, obviously the competence piece, because we can live and die on that decision if it goes wrong somewhat. I actually love the risky approach too, of like, everyone has to do something for the first time before it's done. That was good advice I got from a coach. Like, what are you stressed about? Everybody who's ever done anything in life had to do it for the first time somewhere on some level, on some platform. Just the bigger the stage, the higher performance and the magnitude of having the microscope on that moment is what I think feels different and heavier. But it does hit with me in terms of exactly that. The figure skating analogy.

[B]

Yeah. Okay, good. Last one. I'm thinking about some work that Becky Schomberg led showing that leaders who are prone to guilt are actually more effective. Interesting, because I think what's going on here is that instead of withdrawing or attacking from the shame of feeling like a bad person, like, they get the guilt of, oh, I did a bad thing, or maybe more often, the anticipated guilt of, I don't wanna screw this up. And they feel that weight on their shoulders of, I can't let the team down. And that, I think, drives more servant leadership. I think it drives more caring coaching, more planning. I think this one seems to describe you pretty well.

[A]

Yeah, I love the first time moment of stepping on the ice with a player who's never experienced having a female coach, because there's always this, like, curious experience on the receiving end of the player of, what's this going to be like? And I think that's huge opportunity for me. It's like, everything to gain, nothing to lose. Because what are they comparing me to? I could come into this with my full self and at the end of the day, I could walk away. Whether it hit or worked or didn't, it can only get better. It can't get them much worse.

[B]

As I listen to you, I actually think this connects back to our earlier discussion of gratitude. Amy Rezneski and I did some research years ago where we found that people who are givers rather than takers, who tend to be very other oriented, were less likely to get complacent. And that was because they both anticipated other people being grateful when they succeeded, but also worried about feeling guilty if they failed.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

And I think both of those emotions have a place right. I want to expect that people will, you know, will really appreciate what I've done when I excel. But I also want to know they're going to be disappointed. They're going to be bummed if I don't deliver.

[A]

Wow. Yeah. That's it. I'm going to be thinking about that all day.

[B]

I love it. Jess, thank you for joining us. What a treat.

[A]

Thank you so much.

[B]

Rethinking is hosted by me, Adam Grant. The show is produced by Ted with Cosmic Standard. Our producer is Jessica Glaser. Our editor is Alejandra Salazar. Our engineer is Asia Pilar Simpson. Our technical director is Jacob Winick, and our fact checker is Paul Durbin. Our team includes Eliza Smith, Roxanne Hylash, Banban Chang, Julia Dickerson, Tansika Sung Manivan and Whitney Pennington Rose Rogers. Original music by Hans Dale sue and Allison Layton Brown. Worst advice.

[A]

You've gotten worse. Someone once said to me, fake it till you make it. That is so small and silly to ever say to someone who has big dreams.