Speaker 1: Today. It's great to have Gary Hyle on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Gary is an author, educator, lawyer, consultant and coach. He's
Speaker 1: the co founder of the Center for Innovative Leadership, where
Speaker 1: he continues to advise leaders in a wide range of
Speaker 1: industries and cultural issues, and he has served on a
Speaker 1: number of public and private boards, including Jimboree, red Envelope,
Speaker 1: and front Rage Solutions. He presently serves as the chairman
Speaker 1: of the Board of cell Tech Medals. He is the
Speaker 1: co author of a number of best selling books, including Leadership,
Speaker 1: including Leadership and The Customer Revolution, One Size Fits All,
Speaker 1: Maslow and Management, The Leader's New Clothes, Revisiting the Human
Speaker 1: Side of Enterprise, Douglas McGregor, Douglas McGregor revisited And This
Speaker 1: is Hard to Get Through Douglas McGregor Revisited and choes
Speaker 1: Love not Fear. How the best leaders build cultures of
Speaker 1: engagement and innovation that unleash human potential. Gary, it is
Speaker 1: so great having you on the Psychology Podcast. Thanks Scott,
Speaker 1: It's an honor to be here. Can you start off
Speaker 1: by telling me and our audience here a little bit
Speaker 1: about yourself and your background. Well, as you said, I
Speaker 1: was a frustrated coach. I navigated a polar icebreaker. You know,
Speaker 1: I was a lawyer for a while, did some trial work,
Speaker 1: and finally came to my senses and went into the
Speaker 1: lawyer protection program. I'm presently in step eight of recovery.
Speaker 1: And about thirty five years ago, I started working with
Speaker 1: businesses that basically worked. I think that work didn't have
Speaker 1: to be a four letter word, and that there was
Speaker 1: so much human potential left on the cutting room floor
Speaker 1: that we could do something about it. And I've spent
Speaker 1: most of my career working with leaders to try to
Speaker 1: understand what's that rates great teams from the merely good ones.
Speaker 1: I love that well, I wanted I want to kind
Speaker 1: of double click on your Love book, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of let's pivot around that for a moment when we
Speaker 1: talk about what supreates good from great leaders. So some
Speaker 1: people might wonder, well, what the heck does love have
Speaker 1: to do with building great teams? Right? Have you asked
Speaker 1: that question before? Like? Oh, right, really, Gary? Really? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And then and then I read this really cool book
Speaker 1: called Transcendence by Scott Kaffin. You know that I wasn't
Speaker 1: as far off in the mainstream as I thought, I
Speaker 1: love it, So I went out actually not looking for that.
Speaker 1: I went out and I started interviewing, and they did
Speaker 1: almost five hundred interviews with leaders trying to create change,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out why everybody talked a better game
Speaker 1: than they played. You know, everybody's got the language, everybody's
Speaker 1: heard the speeches, they've read the self help books. They
Speaker 1: just weren't making many changes. We spent about what sixteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year are trying to create better leaders,
Speaker 1: and we're not much better off than we were two
Speaker 1: decades ago. And I wanted to know why, And so
Speaker 1: we went and interviewing leaders trying to figure out why.
Speaker 1: Methodology aside. We found a couple of things we were
Speaker 1: not surprised about. But one of the things I was
Speaker 1: really surprised about is every time we found a great team,
Speaker 1: a really good team, not one that just won games
Speaker 1: or made huge profits, but sustained itself over generations, we
Speaker 1: found leaders and teams that had a fundamentally different relationship.
Speaker 1: And I didn't really want to find that. But I'd
Speaker 1: sit there and walk in and you could feel the
Speaker 1: energy when you walk through the door, and you go,
Speaker 1: what is this And Finally, this crazy football coach in
Speaker 1: South Carolina named Dabo Sweeney is talking to us about love,
Speaker 1: and I think he's a little crazy. And he's right
Speaker 1: before the National Championship. He says, we're going to win
Speaker 1: because we love each other. And you're like, okay, and
Speaker 1: you start to think about it. But it reminded me
Speaker 1: of what a guy named Jan Carlson who was the
Speaker 1: leader managing director of SAS, the Scandinavian Air System airline
Speaker 1: years ago. He said, the first choice every leader needs
Speaker 1: to make is choose lover or choose fear. I thought
Speaker 1: I got it thirty years ago. To get it, Dabo's
Speaker 1: talking to me and I'm starting to get it going.
Speaker 1: Is that what I'm seeing here is a culture where
Speaker 1: people really care deeply for each other more than they
Speaker 1: do just about money. And I mean making no mistake,
Speaker 1: Dabo cares about winning, so did Carlson running airline of
Speaker 1: the year. But there's something deeper about the way people related.
Speaker 1: And then I was walking down and talking to you
Speaker 1: Alan Malalley one day, who were at Ford for a
Speaker 1: number of years and did the turnaround, and he'd say, yep,
Speaker 1: got to love him up before you coach him up,
Speaker 1: and I started to hear this thing. Everybody didn't use
Speaker 1: the word love, but the way they cared for each
Speaker 1: other was so fundamentally different than most of the people
Speaker 1: I interviewed. I couldn't help but stop and think, is
Speaker 1: that the secret sauce that were missing? Is that what
Speaker 1: Douglas McGregor was trying to tell us seventy years ago
Speaker 1: when he talked about our assumptions about people, and it
Speaker 1: certainly was what you and I and our at least
Speaker 1: some of our mentor in Abe Maslow was saying along
Speaker 1: the way, is that love is a need to be
Speaker 1: loved and to love. And the people who cared deeply
Speaker 1: for each other like that, why should we be surprised
Speaker 1: when the teams they create in that image work harder,
Speaker 1: play harder, play better for each other. So I started
Speaker 1: to see it. We didn't choose to write a book
Speaker 1: like that because that was our predilection from the beginning.
Speaker 1: We had to write a book like that because the
Speaker 1: number of leaders that we met creating great teams and
Speaker 1: the way they treated each other. Well, what if in
Speaker 1: order to compete sometimes you need to not show so
Speaker 1: much love. Well, you know, I think we confuse the
Speaker 1: love with this positive thing. But you know, I love
Speaker 1: you love your kids, but you demand more from them.
Speaker 1: You love your friends, but you demand more from them.
Speaker 1: The leaders I met were tough sobs. They weren't really sobs,
Speaker 1: but they were tough right. They were like, we take
Speaker 1: no prisoners. We are not going to lose. You know,
Speaker 1: Mike McCloskey took a bunch of companies public before his
Speaker 1: fortieth birthday in Silicon Valley, and working with him, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you he cared so deeply for the people, but
Speaker 1: you didn't want to let him down. He set the
Speaker 1: bar so high. Alan Malalley sets the bar. Dabo Sweeney
Speaker 1: sets the bar high. These guys that love are just
Speaker 1: like you would treat your kids like love. It's like,
Speaker 1: we're going to set the bar up there expect you
Speaker 1: to surpass that bar. So it doesn't mean soft, That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they live in la la land. It means
Speaker 1: they care deeply, so deeply that they think it's almost
Speaker 1: their moral responsibility to help you reach your potential. And
Speaker 1: you don't reach your potential by singing Kumbaya on the beach.
Speaker 1: I mean, wasn't that. I mean, there's no more knowledgeable
Speaker 1: guy in the world than you about a Maslow? Wasn't
Speaker 1: Maslow frustrated when people talk about self actualization because he
Speaker 1: thought people thought that self actualization was sitting on the
Speaker 1: beach contemplating their navels, and he knew it was hard work.
Speaker 1: He got frustrated with the students that didn't recognize that,
Speaker 1: its heart, takes a lot of hard work to self actualize.
Speaker 1: For sure. Although I do enjoy singing Kumbaya on the beach,
Speaker 1: I must say so. I don't want to be a hypocrite.
Speaker 1: I do enjoy that me too. I only laugh when
Speaker 1: I think people think they're going to grow and change
Speaker 1: and create change in companies run as without some disruption. Sure, no, absolutely,
Speaker 1: But how come despite a fifty billion dollar a year
Speaker 1: in investment and decades of effort, we've made so little
Speaker 1: progress in developing better leaders? Boy, I wish I knew
Speaker 1: the answer to that. I think it's a fair question.
Speaker 1: Oh it's a great I think it is the question.
Speaker 1: And I think that for me when we would do
Speaker 1: these interviews, you know, we we we would find that
Speaker 1: the biggest impediment probably for us, and what we found
Speaker 1: to people making changes to become better is the pressures
Speaker 1: that exist in the present culture, which doesn't want them
Speaker 1: to shag, I mean how it goes. You say, well,
Speaker 1: we would, we would. We'd go in and we'd say,
Speaker 1: give me two leaders, living or dead, who most influenced
Speaker 1: your thinking? Are you most admired? Twenty percent of their
Speaker 1: time it was their mom, their dad, or their little
Speaker 1: league coach. Eighty percent of the time it was somebody
Speaker 1: they'd never met, you know, Martin Luther King, George Washington,
Speaker 1: mother Teresa. And you'd say, what do you think about
Speaker 1: doctor King? What makes him so unique for you? And
Speaker 1: they give you this list of traits that's probably the
Speaker 1: same list of traits that everybody's been given for two
Speaker 1: thousand years, about being empathetic and the decisive it all.
Speaker 1: And finally they realized they didn't know doctor King very well.
Speaker 1: They're talking about themselves. And so we would say, well,
Speaker 1: if that's what the syllogism, you think doctor King was great,
Speaker 1: you think this is what a great leader is. Therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, are you those things? And they would go,
Speaker 1: oh no, And I'd say why not, Why aren't you
Speaker 1: those things? And they would go, well, have you met
Speaker 1: my boss? You know? Have you met the people that
Speaker 1: work for me. You don't understand are the way we
Speaker 1: do things here? My personal favorite was can you really
Speaker 1: make money doing that crap? And you know, people just
Speaker 1: had a thousand reasons why the existing environment they were
Speaker 1: in inhibited their ability to be what they they should be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so I think most people are not surprised. I
Speaker 1: mean they talk about inclusion and autonomous teams, but they
Speaker 1: don't want to give up power. I mean it just
Speaker 1: goes on and on like that. Yeah, you're you're really
Speaker 1: calling it as it is good for you? Well, can
Speaker 1: we can we unpack more of some of the other
Speaker 1: characteristics of exemplar leaders that you've discovered, you know over
Speaker 1: your long illustrious career. Well, sure, sure, where would you
Speaker 1: like to start? You know, pick just pick one more character,
Speaker 1: you know, just pick something else. You know, we are
Speaker 1: talking about love, But what else do you see that
Speaker 1: that specifically separates exemplar from good leaders? You know, Scotta,
Speaker 1: I think that you have have really hit the nail
Speaker 1: on the head in your work. I really believe that
Speaker 1: to my very soul as I as I page through
Speaker 1: your book Transcendence, I think that because everything is about
Speaker 1: whether we call it engagement, or we call it motivation
Speaker 1: or whatever we call it, This willingness of people to
Speaker 1: give every bit of their discretionary effort to reach closer
Speaker 1: to their potential. And how do we set up the
Speaker 1: environment to do that? I think is the question for leaders,
Speaker 1: But I think we answer it poorly when we go
Speaker 1: into I love your experience. I'll go into executive development
Speaker 1: programs and I'd go, well, if your main job is
Speaker 1: creating an environment where people are excited to go attain
Speaker 1: this purpose, and they would go yeah, And I would go, well,
Speaker 1: what's your theory, what's your hypothesis about how people will
Speaker 1: choose to give that kind of effort? And I don't
Speaker 1: think it would be surprising to you, And I wonder
Speaker 1: if you have a similar reaction. But for most practicing
Speaker 1: leaders that I would meet, Their primary theory of motivation
Speaker 1: is some version of behavior modification or some version of conditioning,
Speaker 1: based on a world of compensation consultants and the manipulation
Speaker 1: of rewards and punishments. They wouldn't call them that, They
Speaker 1: call them incentives, but there's so much manipulation, and I
Speaker 1: think that their mindset about that that's been handed down
Speaker 1: for generations is a real stumbling block to them becoming
Speaker 1: the leaders they want to become. And I just don't
Speaker 1: know how we get to the other parts of leadership.
Speaker 1: While we still believe that controlling people and manipulating them
Speaker 1: to get their best is a theory of humanity, that
Speaker 1: it just runs contrary I would think for the last
Speaker 1: eighty years of research, Am I am? I off on that? Scott, Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: you're I don't know exactly what if we did a
Speaker 1: statistical analysis of where all the leaders are at, what
Speaker 1: would be the most predominant thing today. But I certainly
Speaker 1: do see it, you know, I certainly do see that
Speaker 1: carrot stick mentality is still a very prominent theory of motivation,
Speaker 1: and it's it's very unfortunate and very misguided, and it
Speaker 1: makes you wonder how so many brilliant people can can
Speaker 1: can do so. Dare I say stupid leadership strategies? Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're sitting with the head of a
Speaker 1: comp committee in a public company these days, the one
Speaker 1: thing that marches through your office, you know, is a
Speaker 1: non ending litany of compensation consultants, each telling you how
Speaker 1: to better manipulate the senior managers in the company. And
Speaker 1: I can still remember on one company I was in
Speaker 1: when the compensation was came up, if I only would
Speaker 1: bribe them slightly differently or incentivize them slightly differently, how
Speaker 1: much better they were doing. And I said, well, you
Speaker 1: know they they've raised EPs five hundred percent of four years,
Speaker 1: they've transformed the company any shit, but they could be better.
Speaker 1: And so that I remember the CEO walking by and
Speaker 1: I called him in and I said, they think that
Speaker 1: if I just do a little better with the compensation system,
Speaker 1: you're you're And he started laughing, going and said, I
Speaker 1: hope you're not paying much for that. It's not like
Speaker 1: I'm holding back waiting for you to bribe me with
Speaker 1: a few more shares. Right. You know, there is this theory,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean all incentive compensations, because that's certainly
Speaker 1: the research doesn't show that, right, But I am saying,
Speaker 1: if you do this, you will get that manipulations of
Speaker 1: behavior have a dark side that I don't think we
Speaker 1: want to face many times. Yeah, you know, something that
Speaker 1: really we both have in common is this passion for
Speaker 1: human the human side of a business and well everything
Speaker 1: really and one characteristic that's a real human thing is
Speaker 1: create creativity and creative expression right and activating kind of
Speaker 1: the unique potential of each employees. You see so many
Speaker 1: leaders talk about creativity, but then they punish creative expression
Speaker 1: when they see it. So what in the world do
Speaker 1: you do about that? But this bias against creativity that
Speaker 1: Jim Miller was writing about other people who have done
Speaker 1: the studies over the last ten years is so real. Pragmatically,
Speaker 1: I think because I don't think we love novel as
Speaker 1: much as we say we do. I think we love
Speaker 1: certainty more than we think we do. And the human
Speaker 1: condition to like people like us and to love certainty
Speaker 1: is hard to overcome unless we face it. And I
Speaker 1: don't think we talk about the need for certainty. But
Speaker 1: you know when you see the research that you're much
Speaker 1: more versative than I am. But when I read the
Speaker 1: research around, okay, I get a couple of presentations. One's
Speaker 1: beautifully novel and one's far more button down and certain
Speaker 1: and you say, well, I love that novel research, which
Speaker 1: person would you hire? I take a certain button down person,
Speaker 1: not the creative person. And it always doesn't work out
Speaker 1: so well for the creative mind inside companies that are
Speaker 1: looking to promote and If the culture doesn't reward the
Speaker 1: novelty or at least the expression of creatives, then the
Speaker 1: diversity that we're hiring really doesn't make much difference if
Speaker 1: we don't want to hear opinions different than we do.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't know what you think, Scott,
Speaker 1: but I I'm amazed by the power of culture to
Speaker 1: homogenize behavior. And I'm also amazed by how few people
Speaker 1: in companies can define the word culture or really understand
Speaker 1: the power inherent and shared assumptions and values. Yeah, yeah, preach, preach, preach,
Speaker 1: It's very true. No, I love it. Yeah, value quality
Speaker 1: and having pro social values is both those things are
Speaker 1: in short supply. You know in a lot of these companies. Well,
Speaker 1: you've used the phrase, You've used the phrase motivational or
Speaker 1: motivated blindness. I think that's an interesting phrase, motivated blindness.
Speaker 1: Why are leaders suffering from this? Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: think the I think it's sometimes it's been used in
Speaker 1: a lot of different ways. The way I would use
Speaker 1: it is that sometimes it's inconvenient to see what's really there,
Speaker 1: especially when it reflects on you, and I think that
Speaker 1: we tend to confirmation bias, call it whatever, we want
Speaker 1: to call it. I tend to think we look for
Speaker 1: the information that confirms what we know, and in the
Speaker 1: process we become motivatedly blind to that which is inconvenient
Speaker 1: for us to know. And I think culture does that
Speaker 1: to us. I think ed Shine's work is right on
Speaker 1: when he says the most powerful parts of culture are
Speaker 1: tacit non articulated, and operate below a level of consciousness.
Speaker 1: And so sometimes it's motivated blindness, like we could see it,
Speaker 1: but we don't. And sometimes I think that the cultural
Speaker 1: pressures we feel are unarticulated and we don't really know
Speaker 1: they're happening to us. Oh can you can you allaborate
Speaker 1: on that a little? Like what would be one kind
Speaker 1: of example of that? Sure? I think in well, for instance,
Speaker 1: I think if we talked about even the motivational stuff
Speaker 1: in the compensation or they're not looking for the downsides
Speaker 1: of incentives and stuff. I think that there's pressure to
Speaker 1: do more or yesterday, what we do more tomorrow of
Speaker 1: what we did yesterday inside every company, right, because culture
Speaker 1: is a stabilizing mechanism, right, So it tends to stabilize
Speaker 1: collective human effort in ways that are predictable and so
Speaker 1: you might be the same person in company A, but
Speaker 1: then then you move to company B and you become
Speaker 1: slightly different because the culture homogenizes you, socializes you in
Speaker 1: some way. And I don't think we always know it
Speaker 1: happening to us. I think we sit there and we
Speaker 1: think we're being independent, rational thinkers, but we start to
Speaker 1: act like those people around us. I mean when I
Speaker 1: spent I went to one of those service academies as
Speaker 1: an undergraduate, and the funniest part of it is you
Speaker 1: sit around in one of the academies and one of
Speaker 1: the things cadets do all the time is they go,
Speaker 1: I'm never going to be like that when I grow up, right,
Speaker 1: I'm never going to be like that when I grow up.
Speaker 1: And next thing, you know, if you're around long enough,
Speaker 1: your classmates all grow up and they exact they act
Speaker 1: exactly like that, and they don't they would disagree, they
Speaker 1: would say, no, that didn't happen to me. But if
Speaker 1: you're standing on the outside, you go, he's acting just
Speaker 1: the way they did for the last thirty years, and
Speaker 1: they don't know what's happening to them. I think that's
Speaker 1: how culture work. Well. They need someone like you to
Speaker 1: come in as a consultant and let them know the cold,
Speaker 1: hard truth of the matter. Yeah. I think we have
Speaker 1: a inate ability to disregard anything, you know, confirmation bias.
Speaker 1: So that would be pretty tough because I think culture
Speaker 1: tends to perpetuate itself. It's so tough to change, right,
Speaker 1: It's a really good point. Yeah. Yeah, And it's it's
Speaker 1: it's like water to fish. Yeah. Sometimes our culture as
Speaker 1: we take it for granted and like we don't realize
Speaker 1: there could be any other different kind of environment. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: And you know you kind of laugh because you're going, yeah,
Speaker 1: and you hit the nail on the head when you said,
Speaker 1: you know that our bias against creative thought or creative action.
Speaker 1: You know, you can see how the existing culture wants
Speaker 1: to do more of what it did yesterday, and the
Speaker 1: number of companies that start out and say, well, let's
Speaker 1: try that, and then the innovator's st lemma happens, and
Speaker 1: resources get a little tight, and the first thing we
Speaker 1: kill is the new thing in favor of the old thing.
Speaker 1: And big companies don't innovate very effectively for a thousand reasons,
Speaker 1: not the least of which is the existent culture. Right. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: let's talking about another aspect of the culture. You've talked
Speaker 1: in your work about democratization. I mean, I was scared
Speaker 1: to have to say that whole word out loud. But
Speaker 1: what is the effect of democratization on leadership? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that this idea of the one trend in
Speaker 1: studying leadership all the years that I've been looking at it,
Speaker 1: which you can tell since Lincoln was president to take
Speaker 1: a look at my hair, right, stop it is there's
Speaker 1: been a shift in power from those that used to
Speaker 1: have all the power to people who didn't used to
Speaker 1: have power. Right, And that technological shift happened in every generation. Right.
Speaker 1: The printing press was novel at one time and allowed
Speaker 1: people to coalesce around an idea that could overthrow a government,
Speaker 1: or TV and radio free Europe, or or the media
Speaker 1: bringing down part of the Iron curtain or cementing revolution.
Speaker 1: And now you know, with Twitter and Facebook and social media,
Speaker 1: you see the Arab spring, and you see presidents of
Speaker 1: universities being fired over a weekend because you know, one
Speaker 1: fraternity does one thing on a bus, it goes viral
Speaker 1: and they can bring a president of a university or
Speaker 1: a CEO to their knees almost overnight because the technology
Speaker 1: allows the power to shift to those who never used
Speaker 1: to have power. And you could see it in the
Speaker 1: stock market, you know, when when a group of crowdsources
Speaker 1: they're buying techniques and brings hedge managers head to their
Speaker 1: knees in terms of their short sales. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have a thousand things and experiences where the technology has
Speaker 1: allowed people to come together and foment a power shift.
Speaker 1: And that's what I think we mean by democratization is
Speaker 1: that it spreads out the power. It doesn't do it
Speaker 1: in the short term, but over some period of time,
Speaker 1: the tenure for CEOs is reduced to like three and
Speaker 1: a half years now the power has the power shifted
Speaker 1: somewhat and it's not necessarily day to day that I'm
Speaker 1: not saying CEOs are powerless or head coaches are powerless,
Speaker 1: but I mean, if you look at athletics, college athletics
Speaker 1: coaches used to do a lot of things that they
Speaker 1: don't get away with today very easily, and the old
Speaker 1: guard wouldn't survive very much today. Maybe they survive too long.
Speaker 1: I mean, the latest research would show it's three times
Speaker 1: more likely to be abused in a college d one
Speaker 1: college program than in a business But is that right? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, Temper did this study in Ohio State and
Speaker 1: they show that with the goal study that the NCAAA
Speaker 1: did that it's kind of a perfect storm. When you
Speaker 1: have powerful coaches hold scholarships over people's heads, and when
Speaker 1: the student athlete has no ability to fight back without
Speaker 1: losing their scholarship, they're ripe for some of the incivility.
Speaker 1: I thought when I read that research, I think it
Speaker 1: said fifty two d one college athletes suffer from anxiety
Speaker 1: or depression. That's really sad. I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: college students in general are suffering from anxiety and depression
Speaker 1: right now. The rates are pretty high. Boy without especially
Speaker 1: as they're separated sitting on zoom all day. Right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm totally stressed out by Zoom. I want to, you know,
Speaker 1: just talk to people in they're real particles, not their
Speaker 1: simulated particles. Yeah. I think I think we missed a lot,
Speaker 1: don't you think? In your work? I mean, you've done
Speaker 1: an extraordinary amount of work on the connectedness issue and
Speaker 1: the love issue as it applies to our basic needs
Speaker 1: as people. That has to be quite interesting to you,
Speaker 1: isn't it about this idea of how we are, how
Speaker 1: we are suffering from this lack of connection and belonging,
Speaker 1: this being so isolated. I am very interested in that
Speaker 1: and its effect among young people today particularly. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have written yourself just to turn the question back
Speaker 1: in you second, you know, how has the millennial generation,
Speaker 1: this millennial generation changed the way leadership and organizations work.
Speaker 1: Do you see a shift there? Yeah, you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's really a great question because it's not simple. Right.
Speaker 1: They're people, and so human needs is you know, our
Speaker 1: human needs. And you know, you and I both would
Speaker 1: agree that Maslow never wanted to make a hierarchy or
Speaker 1: a triangle out of human needs. Your version, your version
Speaker 1: of those needs is brilliant about how to how to
Speaker 1: look at those But I think, as you say, we're
Speaker 1: working on growth levels and our subsistence levels simultaneously all
Speaker 1: the time. And I think that because of the absence
Speaker 1: of the ability to to not only connect, but to
Speaker 1: trust that there's going to be more there that I
Speaker 1: think millennials have a great BS detector to realize that
Speaker 1: the here and now matters, and they want it now,
Speaker 1: and so they sacrifice less on the subsistence or the
Speaker 1: deficit level. I think then some of us might have
Speaker 1: been hooked there and need less they're used to be
Speaker 1: having taken care of and they want an opportunity to
Speaker 1: learn and grow with no bs, and I think that's
Speaker 1: very difficult in a world that is used to controlling
Speaker 1: people based on techniques that are more fear based than
Speaker 1: growth based. Well, that was very well said. That was
Speaker 1: very well said. You know, we had to. It was
Speaker 1: funny in jimbree when it was still alive, when before
Speaker 1: we sold at the Pain Capital. I think one of
Speaker 1: the things that Matt McCauley was doing, which I thought
Speaker 1: was brilliant, is we had to actually go out and
Speaker 1: we wanted to create much more involvement with our teams
Speaker 1: with charities and kids and things, a because we were
Speaker 1: a group dedicated to those things, but also because our
Speaker 1: employees were challenging as they asked to do so. The
Speaker 1: millennial group in the Bay Area where Jimboree was headquartered,
Speaker 1: we're having none of us ignoring that for any length
Speaker 1: of time. The need to be part of something bigger
Speaker 1: than themselves was so apparent to all of us, and
Speaker 1: for most of us that seemed like a change from
Speaker 1: the past. Well, you know you've made there's some interesting
Speaker 1: arguments about about choosing love not only over fear, but
Speaker 1: even over competence. I mean, your argument's really interesting. You've
Speaker 1: argued that warmth should come before competence and not saying
Speaker 1: choosing one or the other. That I shouldn't have framed
Speaker 1: it that way, but just in terms of what order
Speaker 1: do you do? You show it first? You know, oh jeez,
Speaker 1: I would never try to make that distinction, really, Scott.
Speaker 1: I think the argument I would make is that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of really brilliant, competent teams that fail. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I've played on some of them. I've worked
Speaker 1: with some of them, and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: brilliant people who come together collectively we're one and one
Speaker 1: equals one half and so. And I've played on a
Speaker 1: few teams that worked with a number of teams where
Speaker 1: one and one equals about six, right, And so I'm
Speaker 1: a pragmatist. I think we need competence. I think we
Speaker 1: need a mindset that's about exploring the unknown and growth.
Speaker 1: I think those things are really important. But I also
Speaker 1: think that we ignore the idea that the collective has
Speaker 1: its own identity, and that if we have a collective
Speaker 1: with no identity, then we're in trouble. There's a really
Speaker 1: interesting piece of research that was done a few years
Speaker 1: ago which says that if we get more and more
Speaker 1: talent but don't have a central sense of purpose for
Speaker 1: which we're acting, the more talent we have, the more
Speaker 1: disruptive it can become, and the worse our results might be.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean I don't want talent. If I'm
Speaker 1: out recruiting, give me the talent. But I think it's both.
Speaker 1: I want the most talented team in the universe. I
Speaker 1: want the most diverse team on the universe. But I
Speaker 1: think I need a collective that is more the belief
Speaker 1: in every individual that we can only succeed individually if
Speaker 1: the collective succeeds. So I don't think I could put
Speaker 1: them in a hierarchy at all. Yeah, very interesting that
Speaker 1: you equated competence with talent, because in my model, I
Speaker 1: differentiate them, you know that people. Yeah, I have this
Speaker 1: like four C model where competence is different than capacity,
Speaker 1: you know, or like talent, you know, how quick you
Speaker 1: earn something. A lot of people may seem untalented, but
Speaker 1: through hard work and even love. Dare I say show
Speaker 1: eventually show very high levels of competence and we shouldn't
Speaker 1: count them out. So anyway, that's just my own little
Speaker 1: sort of theory. Well, no, I think that I think
Speaker 1: that's far more distinctive than the way I was probably
Speaker 1: and artfully using the words in those terms, because when
Speaker 1: you separate it that way, it makes perfect sense. Right,
Speaker 1: I need capacity and present capability, right, yeah, and so
Speaker 1: and so I think that your way of saying it
Speaker 1: makes makes it much more actionable actually than the way
Speaker 1: I was saying it. What do we disagree on? Then
Speaker 1: let's find something we disagree on? Tell me, well, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I can't. I have yet to find find
Speaker 1: something we both nerd out over Douglas McGregor and Abraham
Speaker 1: Maslow and how we want to kind of bring their
Speaker 1: work more to the fold. I don't know. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be difficult to find something we disagree on.
Speaker 1: But can we talk about Douglas McGregor a little bit
Speaker 1: since I just kind of mentioned that name. Absolutely, you've
Speaker 1: done a beautiful job resurrecting him and end revisiting, revisit, revisiting.
Speaker 1: So what do you think you know he was so
Speaker 1: frustrated about I know we're talking beforehand, and you said
Speaker 1: that he died frustrated that he said that it was
Speaker 1: too complicated to change human motivation for the hire to
Speaker 1: strive for the higher ceilings. But what you know, what
Speaker 1: do you what do you make of McGregor? There, I
Speaker 1: guess what I know of McGregor right, because he died
Speaker 1: in sixty one or sixty two. What I know mostly
Speaker 1: about McGregor I learned from Warren Bennis, who worked for
Speaker 1: Doug McGregor and Abe Maslow at the time as a
Speaker 1: young man, and I wrote this book with Warren, who
Speaker 1: is a seminole person in my thought process, because he
Speaker 1: would explain some of those things and what I thought
Speaker 1: was intriguing to me about what I had learned or
Speaker 1: you know, secondhand give it. But about McGregor is when
Speaker 1: he postulated theory and theory why he believed that the
Speaker 1: way we treated people weren't just the tactics we believed in,
Speaker 1: but had more to do with the way we viewed
Speaker 1: human beings as either willing to accept responsibility, willing full
Speaker 1: of life and wanting to do it differently right, or
Speaker 1: more like machine like at rest and they needed to
Speaker 1: be incentivized or jump started, right. And I think McGregor,
Speaker 1: although he didn't talk a lot about his belief in
Speaker 1: theory why, the belief that people have ordinary people are
Speaker 1: capable of great things, I think that's the way his
Speaker 1: mindset went, and what he was frustrated by is he
Speaker 1: was getting trying to get people to look in the
Speaker 1: mirror at their assumptions, right. And I think that what
Speaker 1: people did at the time was they saw theory X
Speaker 1: and theory why and started to talk out about him
Speaker 1: like they were leadership styles, like there's a theory X
Speaker 1: leader and a theory why leader. And he's like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about that. They're not styles. They're just
Speaker 1: ways to test your assumptions about people. And he couldn't
Speaker 1: get people to think deeply about looking in the mirror
Speaker 1: and what do you really believe about human beings because
Speaker 1: people wanted a simple magic pill that they could take,
Speaker 1: adopt the style and make their workplace is hugely more productive.
Speaker 1: So my understanding of it in those days was that
Speaker 1: that he was frustrated because he wanted people to think
Speaker 1: deeply about the nature of human beings and they wanted
Speaker 1: a contingency look at leadership styles. Well, I'm even in
Speaker 1: this generation, I'm frustrated by that thing. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: and I think I think Maslow at the beginning was
Speaker 1: it was really funny because as you write about it
Speaker 1: in your book, and we both know, went out with
Speaker 1: Andy Ka at Kpro Computers for a summer and dictated
Speaker 1: you psycheic management. But in You psyche and Management, there's
Speaker 1: a chapter as it became Maslow and Management, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a chapter that's written about thirty four ideas that
Speaker 1: if you want more enlightened leadership or more enlightened management,
Speaker 1: here are thirty four ways you got to think differently.
Speaker 1: And that was Maslow's missile at McGregor saying, Doug, if
Speaker 1: you really think you can be more enlightened, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to do these thirty four things differently, to which
Speaker 1: I think they were in absolutely you know, argumentative agreement
Speaker 1: that you know, here was the psychologist in Maslow and
Speaker 1: the organizational theorist in McGregor coming to the same conclusion
Speaker 1: at the same time. Yeah, I know they had great
Speaker 1: affection for each other. Well, MacGregor, you know, I have
Speaker 1: a letter from McGregor to Maslow. That was very very kind,
Speaker 1: very kind. Yeah, I mean, Maswell called that theory Z
Speaker 1: in that chapter, you know, and it is kind of
Speaker 1: like a bit of a cheeky thing to do because
Speaker 1: of McGregor's theory X and Y. He said, he's not
Speaker 1: We're not complete. We need the theory. We need to
Speaker 1: get to theory Z, which is real and enlightened leadership
Speaker 1: and transcendent, not just self actualizing. Yeah. Yeah, And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's where the beauty of your title to
Speaker 1: your book is so big, and you know, and reading
Speaker 1: through yours, And I wasn't even aware until the last
Speaker 1: year or so that you know, Maslow had combined his
Speaker 1: efforts with Victor Franco and others. Yeah, totally totally focused
Speaker 1: on the idea of transcendence. And and I knew he
Speaker 1: had thought about theory Z and that he thought that
Speaker 1: thinking about individuals was was not where he wanted to
Speaker 1: be at the end of his life, because we do
Speaker 1: everything in groups and teams and collectives. And he said,
Speaker 1: being part of something bigger than yourself. But there was
Speaker 1: a group of people whose sole focus in life became that.
Speaker 1: And I still I'm not sure we still understand that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, if you see one more CEO stand up
Speaker 1: at a conference and go, the reason we exist is
Speaker 1: shareholder value and everybody, everybody in the audience is like, really,
Speaker 1: turns me on. That's that's our purpose? And were we
Speaker 1: write a purpose that it sounds like everybody else's right?
Speaker 1: I think we still don't quite get that. For people
Speaker 1: to find true meaning in what they're doing, it's it's
Speaker 1: not only personal, but it's emotionally engaging. Yeah. No, I
Speaker 1: mean you keep coming back and returning to the theme
Speaker 1: about human the human side of it, and it's, uh,
Speaker 1: why are people need to listen to this? Well? You know,
Speaker 1: it's very interesting, isn't it. I mean? Power? I mean
Speaker 1: I think maybe if there's one thing you guys who
Speaker 1: really do the research and it probably agree over one
Speaker 1: hundred years, is that power tends to corrupt study after study,
Speaker 1: And maybe Laura Acton was right way back then. And
Speaker 1: as long as power corrupts and people don't share power voluntarily,
Speaker 1: that isn't you know, power and control the opposite of
Speaker 1: the autonomy based enlightenment that you know we all keep
Speaker 1: writing about. Yeah. No, very well said, there's the power
Speaker 1: paradox that doctor Keltner talks about where the very traits
Speaker 1: that get someone the power to begin with are the
Speaker 1: things that eventually cause their downfall. Once they've achieved power
Speaker 1: and then become you know, they they completely uh it
Speaker 1: goes to their head, you know, like you know that,
Speaker 1: you know, they the thing that gave the power was
Speaker 1: usually was usually love, and then when they get the power,
Speaker 1: they forget about that, about those traits. But anyway, a humans,
Speaker 1: humans are missing what is what is the quiz you
Speaker 1: Cannot Fail? So I want to take that one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the quiz you Can't Fail was a quiz set
Speaker 1: up by a professor emeritus at Michigan State years ago
Speaker 1: who had come after Joe Scandaler And when when Doug
Speaker 1: McGregor brought Joe Scandlon the factory worker to m I
Speaker 1: t to be a lecturer, right, his proteget goes out
Speaker 1: and he starts trying to create change in factories in
Speaker 1: the United States, and he's or it's failing. He starts going,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to create change. But you know how it goes.
Speaker 1: People say yeah, yeah, we want to change, and then
Speaker 1: two years later they're still saying they want to change.
Speaker 1: Is there's no change, so he got frustrated. So the
Speaker 1: origin of the original term quiz you can't fail is
Speaker 1: he would go in to companies and he would give
Speaker 1: him the quiz, and he would say, do you know
Speaker 1: where you want to be different? Is there a compelling
Speaker 1: reason for you to do it? Do you think you
Speaker 1: can make it happen? And if you did, is there
Speaker 1: nothing in it for you to want to commit? For
Speaker 1: simple questions about and if people answered no to any
Speaker 1: one of the four, he would say, you're probably a
Speaker 1: really good company and want to change, but I don't
Speaker 1: have time in my life to work with you to
Speaker 1: be a Scalon like company because you're not ready. And
Speaker 1: so he believed that readiness for change became these questions
Speaker 1: that if you know where you want to go that's
Speaker 1: different from where you are, you have a compelling reason
Speaker 1: to want to do it. You believe it's possible that
Speaker 1: this group can do it, and you'll be better off
Speaker 1: for having done it. There's a fighting chance you can
Speaker 1: create the kind of changes you want. So the quiz
Speaker 1: you can't fail was his test, his litmus test originally
Speaker 1: for whether he would take him as a client. What
Speaker 1: I found interesting was it's also a great test for
Speaker 1: are you ready to create change inside a company? Sort
Speaker 1: of are you unfrozen in a way, Because if you
Speaker 1: know where you want to go and you're really committed
Speaker 1: and there's a compelling reason to do it and you
Speaker 1: think you can do it, you have confidence and you're
Speaker 1: going to be better off, you have a fighting chance.
Speaker 1: I like that reframing. Yeah, and so the guy's name
Speaker 1: was Carl Frost, right, I want to look up that cat. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: he professor Meris. I think he's maybe not with us
Speaker 1: at this point at Michigan State. And he was instrumental
Speaker 1: in spreading scandalon like idea is throughout the manufacturing sector
Speaker 1: of the US, you know, fifty years ago or so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He passed away in two thousand and nine. Yeah, wow, wow, Wow.
Speaker 1: There's a book changing forever the well. I like that,
Speaker 1: The Well Kept Secrets of America's leading Companies. Have you
Speaker 1: read that book? Uh? No, I read. I read a
Speaker 1: different one than he actually wrote earlier when he started
Speaker 1: lamenting trying to create change and meeting the resistance, that
Speaker 1: what seems inevitable. Thanks for introducing me to him. You've
Speaker 1: introduced me to a lot of really cool people. Since
Speaker 1: I've well not personally interested. You know, you've introduced me
Speaker 1: to some dead people, but they're really cool, usually because
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. You introduced me to them, but not directly.
Speaker 1: I'm being a dork, Okay. So how much better might
Speaker 1: people perform if leaders were to believe that ordinary people
Speaker 1: are capable of greatness? You've writ a little bit about this,
Speaker 1: and I just loved what you've written about it. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much potential we have it is, but
Speaker 1: it is amazing to me when I find these teams.
Speaker 1: I mean, I found this wrestling coach in southern California, Poway,
Speaker 1: who took over a wrestling program thirty years ago, and
Speaker 1: he thought he got a great job. He was going
Speaker 1: to be the head wrestling coach. And the only problem
Speaker 1: is he showed up for work and they didn't have
Speaker 1: a wrestling team. And they said, and they said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't have a wrestling team and we
Speaker 1: don't have a history of wrestling, but you can be
Speaker 1: the wrestling coach if you can find wrestlers. So he
Speaker 1: asked to do freshman p and you'd go around freshman
Speaker 1: pe and He'd pick out people and say, hey, you
Speaker 1: want to wrestle, And within two years he won the
Speaker 1: two district champion in Chip's district champion hip in San Diego.
Speaker 1: And he's won the state championship in wrestling a number
Speaker 1: of times, I'm not sure the exact number. And they
Speaker 1: built a building for in thirty years later. And what's interesting,
Speaker 1: at the end of every year, I'm looking in his
Speaker 1: files and he writes love letters to every one of
Speaker 1: his wrestlers, not about wrestling, but about how gratefully was
Speaker 1: that they would let him coach them. But what he
Speaker 1: took was that people who had never wrestled before and
Speaker 1: within three years made up state champions And you go,
Speaker 1: how could you tell? He says, I never got the
Speaker 1: best athletes. He says, I would go up to LA
Speaker 1: and they had these big players and football players who
Speaker 1: would wrestle, and I never did. He says. These people
Speaker 1: had to work hard. But it's amazing what people can
Speaker 1: do if they find a passion and want to make
Speaker 1: it happen. And you know, I'll never forget the first
Speaker 1: day I went to Marysville when they were building Hondas
Speaker 1: twenty years ago in Ohio and you watch them, and
Speaker 1: you watched them Bill Carrs, and these were people that
Speaker 1: had never done it before, and they were building world
Speaker 1: class cars as well as they did in Japan. And
Speaker 1: and and you look at the experience that that Toyota
Speaker 1: had with Numi in northern California when they took over
Speaker 1: the joint venture with GM, and the same workers who
Speaker 1: were the one of the worst GM plants in the
Speaker 1: country became one of the best joint venture plants with
Speaker 1: the same employees doing it. And you go, you need
Speaker 1: a certain amount of talent, but a certain amount about
Speaker 1: is desire to get better, and willingness to take feedback,
Speaker 1: and willingness to grow, and willingness to be a part
Speaker 1: of a team bigger than yourself in which you commit
Speaker 1: to it. And I don't think teams without talent win
Speaker 1: a lot of championships. But I think there are a
Speaker 1: lot of good players who can become great players in
Speaker 1: the right environment. And I think McGregor wrote years ago,
Speaker 1: he wrote that the biggest way in his world was
Speaker 1: the waste of human potentially witnessed as he traveled from
Speaker 1: company to company. And you go into a company today
Speaker 1: and you say, how much more do you think you
Speaker 1: could do if we could change the environments and people
Speaker 1: have a zillion things, or even we used to do
Speaker 1: an experiment where we go in and we'd say, no
Speaker 1: more money, no more resources, no reorganization. How many ideas
Speaker 1: do you have could you that you could improve once
Speaker 1: you delivered to a customer or make the delivery less expensive,
Speaker 1: not changing a whole lot, not talking about total quality,
Speaker 1: just you're in your control. And they on average had
Speaker 1: fifteen ideas per person in fifteen minutes. And you say,
Speaker 1: why haven't you done anything with these? And you know,
Speaker 1: you know, well, it's not my job. I'm total once
Speaker 1: you know there's a thousand excuses why they don't do it.
Speaker 1: But when you talk to people and sit down for
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes, and I don't know how to quantify this exactly, Scott,
Speaker 1: but when you talk to them for fifteen minutes over
Speaker 1: a couple of year period in different companies, and everybody's
Speaker 1: got a number of ideas. Let's even say that eighty
Speaker 1: percent of them are dumb ideas. If we just took
Speaker 1: the twenty percent of them, how much better would they be?
Speaker 1: And if they felt like they accomplished something, how much
Speaker 1: more would they be willing to do tomorrow. I don't
Speaker 1: think we're using half of the human potential in most teams.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's the wrong number. I have no way of
Speaker 1: quantifying it, but you must see it in your work
Speaker 1: around that if people were in the right environment, is
Speaker 1: a lot right. So can you go like can you
Speaker 1: bypass the good route? Can you go from like bad
Speaker 1: to great? I don't think so. You know, it's funny,
Speaker 1: you know, to talk to Jim about that when he
Speaker 1: wrote from good to great, But it's we should do that.
Speaker 1: But it's hard to take, you know, somebody who who's
Speaker 1: totally turned off and make them turned on in the
Speaker 1: same situation because there's a reason why they're turned off.
Speaker 1: But before I would say you can't, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think I've had a number of experiences in companies where
Speaker 1: people who are turned off and part of that seventeen
Speaker 1: percent who come to work every day undermining the company,
Speaker 1: and you give them a new job with real responsibility,
Speaker 1: and they become all stars. Really, I think all of
Speaker 1: us have seen that because they're really like they feel
Speaker 1: a great greatest sense of identity and motivation and purpose. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I don't think there are unmotivated people. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of unmotivated workers. But at five o'clock when they
Speaker 1: leave work, they become the head of the cup Scouts
Speaker 1: or the Little League team. And some of them do
Speaker 1: extraordinary things if there was some opportunity worth challenging their effort.
Speaker 1: In their mind, they have extraordinary capabilities. But potentially a
Speaker 1: lot of jobs aslo saying, you know, any job not
Speaker 1: worth doing is certainly not worth doing well. What's not
Speaker 1: worth doing is not worth doing well? Yeah? Yeah, And
Speaker 1: so how many jobs have we organized in ways that
Speaker 1: we wouldn't want the job for a human being because
Speaker 1: the training costs would be lower, or you know, I
Speaker 1: still I remember walking into a retail out of years
Speaker 1: ago when it came hit me in the face. I
Speaker 1: walked in and I was returning two pair of shoes
Speaker 1: for my son at the time, and I wanted to
Speaker 1: get a pair of the right size, and I have
Speaker 1: to wait twenty minutes for a twenty dollars return till
Speaker 1: a supervisor comes and signs the slip and gets them
Speaker 1: to approval to do the exchange for twenty dollars. She comes,
Speaker 1: she signs that she's the supervisor's walking away and I
Speaker 1: yell at her, I'm going, hey, ma'am, would you come
Speaker 1: say hi? I waited twenty minutes for the experience, you know,
Speaker 1: I was a little frustrated, and I look at this
Speaker 1: probably nineteen year old kid serving man. I said, whatever
Speaker 1: he said that pisses me off, you know, and he
Speaker 1: yelled at me, Scott. He flat out yelled at me.
Speaker 1: This nineteen year old looks at me and he goes,
Speaker 1: pisses you off? How many times a day do you
Speaker 1: have to do it? I'm the one that ought to
Speaker 1: be pissed, not you. And he was so right. I
Speaker 1: was laughing to him. You know, he's right. God, he's
Speaker 1: so right that how would you like to have a
Speaker 1: job which forces you to get a signature that they
Speaker 1: don't even look at when they sign for a twenty
Speaker 1: dollars return. I'd almost feel as bad as going to
Speaker 1: one of those customer service seminars where they tell you
Speaker 1: how to greet people when you say hello, say it
Speaker 1: this way. And I'm just thinking the people in that
Speaker 1: class are going they don't think I'm even capable of
Speaker 1: saying hello, right, I mean, when we're so controlling as
Speaker 1: we tell people how to say hi, Yes, and then
Speaker 1: we say, why aren't they turned on? Because you just
Speaker 1: know that guy for the shoes some supervisors away at
Speaker 1: a two day training program. I am trying to figure
Speaker 1: out how to motivate it. It's a little is that
Speaker 1: a little too cynical? No, no, it's not not cynical enough.
Speaker 1: It's not cynical enough. I think you're you're you're spot on. Gary.
Speaker 1: I just I want to thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being on my podcast today and and I'm so glad
Speaker 1: that we could finally I could have a chance to
Speaker 1: showcase some of your really timely and important ideas about
Speaker 1: transforming the workplace and UH and reconceptualizing leadership. So thank
Speaker 1: you Gary, well Scott, thank you Ed. I need to
Speaker 1: thank you. I think that the work that you're doing
Speaker 1: with Transcendence and the new center that you're creating, and
Speaker 1: all the things that you're doing to help move all
Speaker 1: of us to think in a more disciplined manner about
Speaker 1: creating transcendence is going to add to the body of
Speaker 1: work for for a long time to come. So I
Speaker 1: I thank you Ed. You know I have appreciate all
Speaker 1: that you do means a lot to me. Thanks Gary,
Speaker 1: Thank care Scott, thanks for having me you too, That
Speaker 1: was that was splendid. I can't wait to talk to
Speaker 1: you on your podcast soon as well. That'll be a
Speaker 1: hot hell. I can't wait. Yeah, and I get to
Speaker 1: ask I bet, I get to reflect the questions back
Speaker 1: and find out what I really should have said. Nah,
Speaker 1: this is really great, really great interview. Have a great day, Gary,
Speaker 1: Thanks Scott, see you so. Thanks for listening to this
Speaker 1: episode of The Psychology Podcast. If you'd like to react
Speaker 1: in some way to something you heard, I encourage you
Speaker 1: to join in the discussion at the Psychology podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: That's the Psychology Podcast dot com. Thanks for being such
Speaker 1: a great supporter of the show, and tune in next
Speaker 1: time for more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.