Vollständiges Transkript von Ep 101 The relationship between resilience & success w. Will Fraser

allowed me to ask the questions I needed to ask, it allowed me to actually say, Well, why do it like that? 00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:29.680 Does this not make a little bit more sense? 00:04:29.759 --> 00:04:31.120 Or you know, challenge things. 00:04:31.199 --> 00:04:32.480 And I had a grace period. 00:04:32.639 --> 00:04:43.279 Again, I'm very aware that coming up professional sport, I was probably given a much bigger grace period than most people are when they start a new job and a new role, and I had a lot of people that would go out and limp for me and help me. 00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:51.920 And I suppose my ignorance allowed me to really lean into that again and actually ask for that help and say, Well, I have no idea what that means, you know, especially acronyms. 00:04:52.000 --> 00:04:56.639 One thing I've I learned very quickly is business and acronyms is a whole nother language. 00:04:56.959 --> 00:04:57.279 Mindfield. 00:04:57.519 --> 00:04:59.600 You know, it's oh absolutely minefield. 00:04:59.680 --> 00:05:01.839 And so I'm asking, yeah, what does ABC mean? 00:05:01.920 --> 00:05:06.000 And and get stared at as if I'd, you know, I'm coming from out of the Stone Age or something. 00:05:06.079 --> 00:05:11.360 It's so I think the organist allowed me to actually learn very quickly, which sounds a bit counterintuitive. 00:05:11.519 --> 00:05:21.920 I think it allowed me to challenge, I think it allowed me to view things through potentially less of a commercial lens and more of a is this actually doing what it needs to do? 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:23.680 Like, is this actually doing what we say it's going to do? 00:05:23.839 --> 00:05:26.879 Is it actually kind of staying true to what we did and this, that, and the other? 00:05:27.120 --> 00:05:29.680 And then that carried on into start my own business. 00:05:29.839 --> 00:05:31.199 And it's had its pitfalls. 00:05:31.360 --> 00:05:42.800 The running the business side of the things, it's this again, this kind of irony, the bigger your business gets or the more work your business does, in many ways, less of the work you actually end up doing as the as the founder, the more of running the business you do. 00:05:42.959 --> 00:05:45.279 So I've I've had still a lot of learning on that side. 00:05:45.360 --> 00:05:51.519 But again, it's just allowed me to really kind of stay as focused as I can in what are we actually delivering? 00:05:51.759 --> 00:05:53.839 Is it doing what we say it's going to do? 00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:59.279 And if we do that, theoretically, the business then starts to look after itself because we're actually impacting it. 00:05:59.360 --> 00:05:59.920 So I think that's right. 00:06:00.079 --> 00:06:13.759 When I talk about ignorance and naivety, I think it's that aspect, that ability to not be tainted, to therefore go in with little bias, to be able to ask this the dumb questions, to be able to challenge things that need to be challenged, and just kind of have this well, why

not? 00:06:13.920 --> 00:06:14.560 Let's try this. 00:06:14.639 --> 00:06:15.600 If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. 00:06:15.680 --> 00:06:16.720 And if it doesn't work, great. 00:06:16.959 --> 00:06:17.759 That sort of element. 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:19.040 It's very interesting, isn't it? 00:06:19.120 --> 00:06:27.199 Because as humans, we seek approval, we want to be liked, we have a need often to please, and our brains will send us in that direction. 00:06:27.439 --> 00:06:33.040 Therefore, we're less likely to admit mistakes, we're less likely to admit that we don't know. 00:06:33.120 --> 00:06:49.759 And I remember some of my very first clients where I felt like I needed to have a complete understanding of their strategy, their goals and aspirations before going in the room, not realizing actually the question is my greatest tool and greatest technique for success, actually asking so many questions that I can uncover what was going on. 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:55.360 I felt like I had to go in with an answer when I first started consulting, which was over 30 years ago. 00:06:55.600 --> 00:07:03.360 Now I realise I don't, I just need to go in being curious and asking lots of questions and not having a predetermined solution that I'm just going to lift and shift. 00:07:03.439 --> 00:07:05.439 It really truly being client-led. 00:07:05.759 --> 00:07:07.120 So yeah, I like that. 00:07:07.279 --> 00:07:09.199 Clearly, I'm also ignorant and naive. 00:07:09.360 --> 00:07:10.000 Marvellous. 00:07:10.399 --> 00:07:10.959 There you go. 00:07:11.199 --> 00:07:14.879 It's really interesting because I it's actually something I'm trying to hold on to now. 00:07:15.040 --> 00:07:24.319 It's almost like I'm trying to stay a bit more ignorant because the more you do something, the more knowledge you have, the more experience you have, which obviously is hugely, hugely beneficial. 00:07:24.480 --> 00:07:28.000 But I suppose the flip side of it is then it starts to create your own bias in your head. 00:07:28.079 --> 00:07:30.000 Oh, I've seen this before with another client. 00:07:30.160 --> 00:07:38.560 So I catch myself sometimes a scenario unfolds with a client, and my mind immediately goes to a very similar scenario that's happened with another client. 00:07:38.639 --> 00:07:40.399 So I start going, well, what do I do there? 00:07:40.480 --> 00:07:42.800 How do I bring that into this situation? 00:07:43.040 --> 00:07:50.560 When actually I need to, as a reference point, I actually just need to hit listen and hear to what's going on right in front of me and react to that. 00:07:50.639 --> 00:07:52.480 And if that becomes relevant, I bring it in. 00:07:52.560 --> 00:08:06.160 So actually, it's one of these hard balance between you need as much experience and knowledge and information as you possibly can, but then still trying to hold on to that ability, as you say, to be able to still ask the right question and not come in with the preconceived ideas. 00:08:06.399 --> 00:08:16.800 I think that's one of the risks of some of our competitors, even for ourselves to be honest, not I think all of us, is that we take the path of least resistance and we're naturally lazy as humans. 00:08:16.879 --> 00:08:19.360 I talk about it on a pod that I was just a guest on, actually. 00:08:19.519 --> 00:08:24.240 And as a result, what will happen is we'll naturally defer to, oh, I've done something like that before. 00:08:24.480 --> 00:08:27.279 I've had a similar situation happen to another client. 00:08:27.360 --> 00:08:30.639 Let me tell you about that example and let's see if it'll work for you. 00:08:30.879 --> 00:08:32.080 So it's very true. 00:08:32.240 --> 00:08:38.559 We have to refrain from doing that and continue being curious, asking questions and looking for the right solution. 00:08:38.799 --> 00:08:43.440 I think it's a good reminder, anyway, to remind yourself that you don't know what you don't know, right? 00:08:43.919 --> 00:08:51.679 And this is the thing about I suppose what the space we're all in, is it's starting to actually apply to yourselves what you talk to your clients about. 00:08:51.840 --> 00:09:07.039 It's that kind of full circle moment where it's going, well, if we're asking our clients to be curious, to kind of have the relevant conversations, to not be afraid of X, Y, and Z, it's then being in situations where cool, I need to apply that to myself now, you know, and start to really kind of practice what you preach. 00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:07.759 Yep. 00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:10.320 So we're talking about team resilience. 00:09:10.559 --> 00:09:14.559 Often we talk a lot, don't we, Angelo, about personal and professional resilience. 00:09:14.639 --> 00:09:17.440 So yeah, that's going to be a different lens for us, well, yeah. 00:09:17.519 --> 00:09:30.399 So a lot about personal habits and how individuals can learn to manage their physiological system in response to stress in order to create really good, happy, safe, high productive, successful environments. 00:09:30.639 --> 00:09:35.120 Would you mind just talking us through kind of your angle around team resilience, Will? 00:09:35.519 --> 00:09:40.320 So I suppose if we go back to the actual word itself, I'm very much kind of preaching to the choir here. 00:09:40.480 --> 00:09:43.759 But I think resilience holds different meanings to different people. 00:09:43.919 --> 00:09:47.679 And I think when you go right back to the kind of crux of what does it actually mean? 00:09:47.840 --> 00:09:51.039 So resilience fundamentally is our capacity to deal with stress. 00:09:51.279 --> 00:09:58.639 So if that's what resilience is, by definition, if we've never had to deal with stress, we'll have zero capacity to deal with it when it comes. 00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:02.879 So by dint of that, that means resilience is almost a learned behaviour. 00:10:03.039 --> 00:10:05.120 It's something we experience and learn from over time. 00:10:05.200 -->

00:10:13.519 So I think the first thing when it comes to team resilience is this basting this myth that a team is resilient or they're not, just by their just by the fact that they are or they're not. 00:10:13.759 --> 00:10:22.879 A team is resilient because a team has had to deal with stress on multiple occasions, therefore, it's grown its capacity to deal with stress, therefore, it can deal with big stresses when it comes. 00:10:23.039 --> 00:10:26.320 So then you go, well, when we say capacity to deal with stress, well, what is that? 00:10:26.559 --> 00:10:31.519 And I think in a team context, the capacity to deal with stress fundamentally is our ability to problem solve. 00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:36.960 So when we're as a team, take sports as a you know the obvious lens to look through. 00:10:37.200 --> 00:10:48.639 Let's say a team I play in in multiple games where you'd be 10-20 points down at halftime or half an hour into the game, you've got a real problem on your hand that in that moment you've got to try and solve. 00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:56.559 Our ability to solve that problem is entirely dictated by the level of understanding within that team of what is it we're actually trying to do. 00:10:56.720 --> 00:10:59.039 Are we all in agreement with how we're gonna do that? 00:10:59.279 --> 00:11:03.360 Are we then able to do that under high pressure and high levels of fatigue? 00:11:03.600 --> 00:11:08.960 And if we are, then we'll solve that problem, we'll deal with that stress, therefore we become resilient. 00:11:09.120 --> 00:11:16.480 So then you go back one stage a bit further and go, well, how do you create that level of understanding that allows you to solve those problems in those moments? 00:11:16.799 --> 00:11:19.360 So actually, if you go back to well, what does that look like? 00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:20.879 That's kind of day one. 00:11:21.039 --> 00:11:22.879 How do you build levels of understanding in a team? 00:11:22.960 --> 00:11:25.360 Well, actually, it's having these types of conversations, right? 00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:28.480 It's actually understanding that have the obvious conversations. 00:11:28.720 --> 00:11:39.279 We often, and we see it a lot in corporate clients, that we have this, we assume everyone knows what we're trying to do, we assume everyone knows how to do it, therefore we assume when pressure comes, we'll be able to do it. 00:11:39.440 --> 00:11:45.039 Now, nearly every single time that always falls apart because of the that word assumption. 00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:48.559 So because I know what we're trying to do, in my mind it's really, really obvious. 00:11:48.720 --> 00:11:52.399 So my assumption is well, it's so obvious, you must know what it is we're trying to do. 00:11:52.639 --> 00:11:54.480 And that variance only has to be small, right? 00:11:54.559 --> 00:11:59.600 But if you think something's slightly different, I'm doing this, you're doing that, the thing we're trying to do doesn't happen. 00:11:59.679 --> 00:12:08.240 Then when it doesn't happen, we then blame the wrong things, we then attribute negative behaviors to the other person because how on earth could you not know this is what we were meant to do? 00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:09.039 It's so obvious. 00:12:09.200 --> 00:12:24.639 You either are lazy or you don't want this as much as I do, and then the problem with that is is we actually rarely have that conversation, which means that we think in our heads, then we form an opinion, so everything that person then does off the back of that opinion just reaffirms our negative opinion and you get to spit the doom loop. 00:12:24.799 --> 00:12:27.679 So that's a massive answer to a very straightforward question. 00:12:27.840 --> 00:12:46.159 But fundamentally, what what we're trying to what I'm trying to get to get at is team resilience essentially is the shared level of understanding within a group of people to be able to solve problems in high pressure moments, to therefore increase our capacity to deal with those moments when they come. 00:12:46.480 --> 00:12:54.720 I know we're talking about resilience, Amanda, but honestly, a lot of what you were just saying there, Will, was screaming psychological safety at me. 00:12:55.120 --> 00:12:58.559 So many things about like having those conversations and yeah. 00:12:58.879 --> 00:13:08.240 I was gonna say it's a really interesting one because again, I'm sure everyone listening to this, well, the exact same reaction that every single person we work with has in that this is so obvious. 00:13:08.399 --> 00:13:12.399 You know, if you if you say this to people and go, Well, of course that's what you need. 00:13:12.799 --> 00:13:19.840 Why do so few organizations actually specifically put time aside to have these types of conversations to build the understanding? 00:13:19.919 --> 00:13:27.279 And it's not saying every conversation is a you know what you're most afraid of and tell me what your life was like as a kid type conversations. 00:13:27.360 --> 00:13:28.159 It's going, right? 00:13:28.639 --> 00:13:30.720 I think I think this project means this. 00:13:30.879 --> 00:13:31.600 What do you think? 00:13:31.759 --> 00:13:32.240 Oh, really? 00:13:32.320 --> 00:13:32.960 That's what you think. 00:13:33.039 --> 00:13:34.159 Why what why do you think that? 00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:44.320 It's it's trying to mitigate those variances so then under those moments, and the reason why so few teams or organizations actually have those conversations because it's there's no direct return on your investment. 00:13:44.480 --> 00:13:48.799 So just because we have this one conversation doesn't suddenly mean we're gonna be a really resilient team. 00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:59.279 This is something that accumulates in pounds over time, so that a year down the line, suddenly we deal with a moment that a year ago there's no way on earth we would have been able to figure out and and manage. 00:13:59.440 -->

00:14:02.960 So it's this very kind of indirect return on your investment. 00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:15.600 So therefore, perceptually, other things take priority, and then you go into this whole ecosystem of well, how our time is incentivized very differently depending on what your role is, depending on where you are in your organization, and all these sorts of things. 00:14:15.679 --> 00:14:28.399 And so, if my time was incentivized by hitting a number to be really generic as an example, why would I give any of that time up to have these conversations when it means that that number doesn't get hit, which means and I miss out on XYZ? 00:14:28.960 --> 00:14:30.399 So there's a number of things. 00:14:30.559 --> 00:14:33.600 When you first started to answer that question, you talked about learning. 00:14:33.759 --> 00:14:39.519 So the very first thing you brought up was about the team learning a route, a path together. 00:14:39.679 --> 00:14:53.600 And that's really interesting because of course resilience does come from learning because we need to learn the right way so that we create the neuroplasticity, we create the neural pathways, so that when we're facing the challenge again, we know how to handle it. 00:14:53.840 --> 00:15:04.480 And in the answer that you've given, what we need to understand and need to learn is that it's not always obvious, that it's not always the case that everybody's on the same path. 00:15:04.639 --> 00:15:07.759 That almost seems to be the very first point is the check-in. 00:15:08.240 --> 00:15:09.279 Are we all clear? 00:15:09.440 --> 00:15:14.320 And we talk a lot about clarity, but are we sure we all know what we're aiming for? 00:15:14.480 --> 00:15:15.759 Are we all on the same path? 00:15:15.919 --> 00:15:20.240 Are we all really clear what we are here to do and what we're trying to achieve? 00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:26.080 I think that shared level of understanding and mitigating variances is really cool, actually. 00:15:26.159 --> 00:15:32.159 Because in our business, actually, there's often variances about what we want to achieve with a new project or a new task. 00:15:32.399 --> 00:15:41.120 Or even that we all want to achieve the same thing, but the way we visualize it, the end result looks different if you don't ask how exactly are you seeing this in the end? 00:15:41.360 --> 00:15:45.039 But even then, just because we asked a question doesn't mean we're going to get the true answer. 00:15:45.200 --> 00:15:54.559 And even that takes time because if you're asking your team, if you've never had that conversation with your team before, or it's not a common conversation, I want you to challenge me, I want you to be honest in the room. 00:15:54.799 --> 00:15:56.559 Do you all understand what I'm telling you? 00:15:56.639 --> 00:15:58.480 Yes, we're absolutely got it. 00:15:58.639 --> 00:16:00.159 Go away, and it's this is it. 00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:04.000 So we have this concept of probably not out of his blue language here, am I? 00:16:04.080 --> 00:16:06.559 So we have this concept, it's called a BS production. 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:10.480 I'm gonna go on on a slight tangent and bring it back. 00:16:10.559 --> 00:16:11.279 So bear with me. 00:16:11.440 --> 00:16:12.080 I love tangents. 00:16:12.320 --> 00:16:14.240 I have to stop myself talking on these things. 00:16:14.399 --> 00:16:18.399 So Michael McIntyre has got a skit about ordering wine in a restaurant. 00:16:18.559 --> 00:16:26.080 So he talks around, you sit down at a meal, you're out with a group of friends, you give them the wine list, you're looking down the wine list, you have no idea what any of the wines actually are. 00:16:26.159 --> 00:16:30.399 You're looking purely at the cost of them, so you want to pick something kind of a respectable cost. 00:16:30.559 --> 00:16:32.799 You then tell the waiter what wine you want. 00:16:32.960 --> 00:16:34.399 The waiter says, Oh, good choice. 00:16:34.480 --> 00:16:36.399 They have no idea whether it's a good choice or not. 00:16:36.559 --> 00:16:41.279 You then continue your meal, you've then got to stop your conversation to stare at a bottle of wine. 00:16:41.360 --> 00:16:44.399 You know, I'm just looking at a bottle that I what am I looking for? 00:16:44.559 --> 00:16:49.120 You then got to taste it, and he goes, This whole thing of, I thought you were tasting it to see if you liked it or not. 00:16:49.200 --> 00:16:51.039 And if you didn't like it, they bring you another one. 00:16:51.120 --> 00:16:53.360 You're actually tasting it to see if it's corked, which means it's off. 00:16:53.519 --> 00:16:59.200 And he kind of says, I'm paying for this, you ascertain whether it's off or not, and if it's off, don't serve it to me. 00:16:59.440 --> 00:17:04.960 So it's not like you order a coffee, or excuse me, and they bring out the milk and ask you to sniff the milk first to see if it's off, right? 00:17:05.039 --> 00:17:13.519 So you've got this whole like process, and he and he he then he then wraps it up by saying, At the end of the meal, you know, you have your meal, it's 11 o'clock at night, you're about to go home. 00:17:13.680 --> 00:17:14.640 Would anyone like a coffee? 00:17:14.720 --> 00:17:21.519 And he says, if my wife at home at 11 o'clock at night before bed came and asked me for a coffee, I'd say, Have you lost your mind? 00:17:21.680 --> 00:17:25.519 You know, why do I want the drink I get out of bed in the morning with before we go to bed at night? 00:17:25.680 --> 00:17:29.759 But in a restaurant, oh yes, I'll have a double espresso, I have a latte in three o'clock in the morning, you're wired. 00:17:29.839 --> 00:17:32.079 So, anyway, so you go into this whole kind of thing. 00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:39.039 Essentially, what he's getting at is we do these things, we go on this BS production because we're in a restaurant, that's what you do in a restaurant. 00:17:39.119 --> 00:17:44.160 You don't want to be the one to challenge

the status quo to look like an idiot and go, just go, just get on with it. 00:17:44.319 --> 00:17:48.079 So, when we are in teams and think performance, the same premise still applies. 00:17:48.160 --> 00:17:50.559 So, when you ask the question, does everyone agree with this? 00:17:50.720 --> 00:17:54.640 and people nod and say yes, but internally they're going, I don't have a clue what I'm doing here. 00:17:54.720 --> 00:17:55.920 It's a BS production. 00:17:56.000 --> 00:17:59.440 So then you go, Well, what's stopping you from saying that you don't understand? 00:17:59.599 --> 00:18:01.359 Why don't you want to ask that question? 00:18:01.519 --> 00:18:05.440 And inherently it's things around fear of judgment, it's I should know this. 00:18:05.599 --> 00:18:08.000 If I don't know this, are people gonna think I'm no good at my job? 00:18:08.079 --> 00:18:09.200 Or X, Y, and Z. 00:18:09.279 --> 00:18:13.519 It's being well, I don't want to be the one to put the boat looking like anyone else gonna ask the question, and I can jump on that. 00:18:13.680 --> 00:18:27.599 So we kind of pose this opportunity cost question of going, well, what's the opportunity cost of having a BS production conversation where we nod along or we say the thing that they want to hear as opposed to the thing that actually I need to say, and it's it's all modelled, right? 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:45.279 So it's there's kind of at every stage as a stage beforehand, so it sounds a bit daunting, which again is why a lot of people don't dive into it because the starting point feels really rudimentary and it feels really kind of not mundane, but just almost too simple to actually solve the thing we're trying to solve. 00:18:45.440 --> 00:18:53.759 But it really does come down to how do you create a space where if someone doesn't understand what's going on, they can actually say, Sorry, can you explain that again? 00:18:53.920 --> 00:18:56.799 Because I don't understand what I'm meant to be doing in this situation. 00:18:57.039 --> 00:18:57.680 Exactly. 00:18:57.839 --> 00:18:59.839 Without it snowballing, this is it. 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:02.160 Without that, that's where the mistakes happen. 00:19:02.240 --> 00:19:18.400 So you then fast forward it if we don't have these things, and you get to a point where nearly every single error that happens in a team doesn't happen because of the competency of the people, it doesn't happen because of the strategy of the plan, it happens because of the lack of understanding within the group of what we're trying to do. 00:19:18.559 --> 00:19:22.880 But yet we blame competency or the plan, but it's the gap in between. 00:19:23.200 --> 00:19:35.759 That was a brilliant embodiment of what Amanda talks about occasionally on here of functional stupidity when everyone's sort of nodding along and the whole group is sort of going in one direction because no one bothered to stop and ask. 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:49.440 And it's really interesting because you you did drill into that, and it's often the case in teams, and Amanda, you guys would have seen it loads of times, where people would have done it in the past, and if they had, they would have got shut down for it, or it wouldn't have come to any kind of conclusion. 00:19:49.519 --> 00:19:51.759 So you get to this kind of like, well, why bother now? 00:19:51.920 --> 00:19:59.839 You just get this almost like concept of willful blindness where we all know this isn't going to work, we all know how this is gonna end, but no one's I'm not the only one to challenge this. 00:19:59.920 --> 00:20:00.400 I don't want to be able to do that. 00:20:00.559 --> 00:20:01.599 No one's prepared to speak up. 00:20:01.759 --> 00:20:02.079 Yeah. 00:20:02.319 --> 00:20:19.920 I find it fascinating how prepared we are to live with that cognitive dissonance of knowing that actually we're sitting facing something that isn't right or isn't working, but being prepared to willfully be blind in the face of it rather than face the discomfort of acknowledging it. 00:20:20.079 --> 00:20:22.960 And they talk about that in our personal life and our professional life. 00:20:23.119 --> 00:20:33.759 So one example is a man or a woman in a relationship knowing that that partner's not being honest or it's cheating on them, but being not being prepared to face into it would prefer to just carry on. 00:20:33.920 --> 00:20:38.000 I mean, that's the one example they use, which I was just surprised and shocked by. 00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:43.599 So I'm interested, Will, with the teams that you work with predominantly, what's the assumption? 00:20:43.680 --> 00:20:45.519 Because we've been talking a lot about assumptions. 00:20:45.680 --> 00:20:53.119 What's the big assumption that you see that's the most consistent in undermining success or undermining performance? 00:20:53.519 --> 00:21:05.519 There's three that we specifically talk around that are very agnostic when it comes to kind of jobs or sectors or organizations themselves, to the point you made in terms of across that professional and personal sphere. 00:21:05.759 --> 00:21:10.880 The curse of knowledge, expertise reversal, and what we kind of call the tapping mistake. 00:21:11.039 --> 00:21:14.319 So the curse of knowledge is assuming people know what I know. 00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:17.759 So that example we spoke about earlier, whereby you see it in corporate world. 00:21:18.079 --> 00:21:24.880 I make this very facetious kind of joke when I'm talking to clients around how many organizations have ever actually completed a three-year plan. 00:21:25.039 --> 00:21:28.880 You know, you kind of get 18 months in, you're not where you said you would be. 00:21:29.039 --> 00:21:35.359 So you either sack the person that came up with the plan, new person comes with a brand new plan, or you rip up the plan and come up with a new plan. 00:21:35.440 --> 00:21:38.640 So you kind of go in these 18-month rotations of three-year plans.

00:21:38.720 --> 00:21:42.160 When the reality is the person was fine, the plan was fine. 00:21:42.319 --> 00:21:46.640 Again, it's a lack of understanding between the people implementing it and the plan itself. 00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:56.720 So you get this curse of knowledge whereby, to use that example, I'm the one or my team the ones that decided, because we're senior leadership or C Speed, whatever it is, we've decided we need a new three year plan. 00:21:56.880 --> 00:21:59.759 So we're the ones that have gone away, done all the research, crunched numbers. 00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:08.400 Pull together what this plan is, we've then triage that information into a deck, we've then decided how we're going to impart information to the rest of the organization. 00:22:08.559 --> 00:22:11.759 So by the time we've got to that point, like we know this back of our hand. 00:22:11.920 --> 00:22:13.279 It's blindingly obvious. 00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:20.720 So we town hall it to the organization, we send a 50-slide deck out to everyone, and cool, we've done our bit. 00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:22.000 You must know this now. 00:22:22.079 --> 00:22:24.880 You know, the assumption, the customer of the assumption that people know what I know. 00:22:25.200 --> 00:22:26.319 Just pass you that knowledge. 00:22:26.480 --> 00:22:28.240 Yeah, and then inevitably doesn't happen. 00:22:28.319 --> 00:22:30.240 We go back on that side for blame the wrong things. 00:22:30.319 --> 00:22:34.079 The second one, expertise reversal, the assumption that people can do what I can do. 00:22:34.240 --> 00:22:38.079 So when you become expert in something, you forget how basic basic is. 00:22:38.240 --> 00:22:43.279 We have a sports psych, David Jones, who, to be honest, I'm really just a mouthpiece for him, to be completely frank. 00:22:43.359 --> 00:22:45.519 He's an absolute kind of oracle on all this stuff. 00:22:45.599 --> 00:22:47.200 And he used the example of driving. 00:22:47.359 --> 00:22:49.519 Driving is the ultimate kind of expertise. 00:22:49.599 --> 00:22:49.839 Yeah. 00:22:49.920 --> 00:23:01.039 So we can all get in the car, put our favourite podcast on, have a coffee there, maybe with on hands-free, of course, take a work call, all whilst driving, knowing exactly where we're going without that being the forefront of our mind. 00:23:01.200 --> 00:23:03.279 It's all in that kind of automatic memory. 00:23:03.440 --> 00:23:07.759 Now, if we were teaching someone to drive and we sat in the car with them, they say, Cool, what do I need to do? 00:23:07.839 --> 00:23:13.359 And if we said, Right, brilliant, just put your coffee down there, stick your favourite podcast on, you know, then we're like, Are you joking? 00:23:13.440 --> 00:23:15.200 I don't even know how to get the first gear, you know. 00:23:15.359 --> 00:23:17.759 So it's this kind of whole cognitive load piece. 00:23:17.920 --> 00:23:31.519 And I think when you look in teams, you see it in sport a lot as well, where you'll get people who are the top end of their sports, and their advice to young kids coming through or aspiring professional sports people coming through is listen, just play what you see. 00:23:31.599 --> 00:23:34.319 And these young people going, Are you joking? 00:23:34.480 --> 00:23:36.559 Like, I don't even know what's going on in front of me. 00:23:36.720 --> 00:23:41.759 This is it, because they're at a point where that is what they're doing, but you forget that there was a journey to get there. 00:23:41.920 --> 00:23:49.839 And so, expertise, when you're an expert in something, again, this assumption of you're the best at what you're doing, but actually you're an expert in something means you know what to ignore. 00:23:50.000 --> 00:23:55.440 So when you've got all this noise in front of you, being expert means I can ignore this, ignore this, ignore this, and focus on that. 00:23:55.599 --> 00:23:56.559 Just hone in on this. 00:23:56.720 --> 00:23:59.440 Whereas when you're a novice, you're hearing all the noise. 00:23:59.599 --> 00:24:04.319 So, again, in the corporate world, you see that a lot, where this assumption of it's so obvious. 00:24:04.480 --> 00:24:15.519 Then the last one, and I think I forget her name, which is terrible coming onto a podcast like this, but uh, it was a lady who was an undergrad at Harvard, I believe, did an experiment called the tapping experiment. 00:24:15.759 --> 00:24:19.599 So the tapping experiment is assuming instructions have been understood. 00:24:19.759 --> 00:24:28.880 The experiment was a group of tappers, group of guessers, the tappers were tapping out a song in their head, and they had to guess the amount of time the guessers would guess the song that they're tapping out. 00:24:28.960 --> 00:24:30.720 So the tappers all guessed 50%. 00:24:30.960 --> 00:24:33.279 So every other time the guess would guess the right song. 00:24:33.359 --> 00:24:34.400 It was actually only 2%. 00:24:34.880 --> 00:24:38.240 So 2% of the time did the guesses guess the song that's been tapped out. 00:24:38.319 --> 00:24:47.039 Now, the the genius of this experiment was they then recorded the taps, played the taps back to the people that tapped them, and they couldn't even guess what song they were tapping out. 00:24:47.279 --> 00:24:50.400 Because the song is in my head, I'm gonna go, it's wonderful. 00:24:50.559 --> 00:24:52.319 It's so like I'm in tune, I'm on beat. 00:24:52.480 --> 00:24:53.200 How are you not hearing this? 00:24:53.599 --> 00:24:54.480 It's obvious, yes. 00:24:54.640 --> 00:24:57.200 And all you're hearing is taps on the table, right? 00:24:57.359 --> 00:25:05.039 So again, it's kind of I suppose the encapsulation of the first two assumptions of because I know what we're doing, whatever's coming out of my mouth is gospel. 00:25:05.200 --> 00:25:12.000 They might just be hearing taps, you know, they have no idea what you're saying, but then you get into BS production where they'll say they

understand, and then you get this whole spiral. 00:25:12.079 --> 00:25:22.400 And again, these things have nothing to do with someone's ability to do their job, it has nothing to do with competency, it has nothing to do with experience or tenure, anything like this. 00:25:22.559 --> 00:25:26.079 This it has everything to just do with there's a variance of understanding. 00:25:26.240 --> 00:25:27.039 They did it on Mr. 00:25:27.200 --> 00:25:27.519 and Mrs. 00:25:27.680 --> 00:25:33.680 as well, so stag and hendo kind of games, you've got to try and match on answers with your your partner and all that sort of stuff. 00:25:33.759 --> 00:25:37.839 And they got a group and did that, and they I think they asked how many do you think you're gonna match on? 00:25:37.920 --> 00:25:48.400 The average guest was nine, the reality was six, which is good because it obviously means they knew their partners better than they knew Joe Blogs on the street, but that variance is every single argument that couple have ever had. 00:25:48.640 --> 00:25:53.200 So remind us of the three things then, because I wrote arse of knowledge and it can't be right. 00:25:55.519 --> 00:25:56.720 For the curse of knowledge. 00:25:56.960 --> 00:25:57.759 That's what I wrote. 00:25:57.920 --> 00:25:59.599 Let's curse, let's not arse. 00:26:00.880 --> 00:26:04.000 Curse knowledge, expertise reversal, and tough mistake. 00:26:04.240 --> 00:26:05.359 Brilliant, thank you very much. 00:26:05.519 --> 00:26:08.160 I just wanted to make sure I got all three down. 00:26:11.200 --> 00:26:15.680 Do you know if people in your organization feel safe to speak up about their concerns and ideas? 00:26:15.920 --> 00:26:19.440 We often talk about the importance of psychological safety on this podcast. 00:26:19.599 --> 00:26:24.480 But did you know we offer a diagnostic tool to help measure the climate of psychological safety within your team? 00:26:24.720 --> 00:26:28.319 When your people feel empowered to speak up, innovation has the chance to thrive. 00:26:28.480 --> 00:26:34.079 Visit the CPO.co.uk to learn more about the B Talent Suite or get in touch with me on LinkedIn. 00:26:34.160 --> 00:26:36.880 That's Angela Malik, M-A-L-I-K. 00:26:37.440 --> 00:26:40.079 Open the door to the art of the possible today. 00:26:42.160 --> 00:26:45.839 Each of those things then are going to really trip up somebody, aren't they? 00:26:45.920 --> 00:26:47.279 Because it's all down to bias. 00:26:47.440 --> 00:26:49.759 Fundamentally, what we're talking about here is bias, are we not will? 00:26:50.079 --> 00:26:51.119 Yeah, to a large degree. 00:26:51.200 --> 00:26:56.960 And again, I think to your point earlier, there's an element of do you call it functional stupidity? 00:26:57.039 --> 00:27:05.039 We spoke with because for a lot of these things, to even accept that these things are in play is an acceptance that that's on my shoulders. 00:27:05.200 --> 00:27:15.440 So as a leader, if the curse of knowledge is at play, that means that either I'm assuming people know everything I know and they don't, or they're assuming that I know what they know and I don't. 00:27:15.599 --> 00:27:29.599 So either way, there's an element of ownership on you as an individual, which is why I think, again, very few people are going to off their own back willingly lean into that, which is where obviously people like us come into play and we can articulate that in different ways. 00:27:29.759 --> 00:27:36.319 And that's where the biases come in, because then no one wants to kind of that to be on their shoulders, so then you'll convince yourself that it's not you, right? 00:27:36.400 --> 00:27:40.000 It's them, which then only feeds the assumption, but then has this bias in your head. 00:27:40.319 --> 00:27:47.920 So, Will, what does good performance actually look like in your experience versus what most organizations are measuring? 00:27:48.160 --> 00:27:52.480 I think the first one again is having the understanding of reality. 00:27:52.640 --> 00:28:02.880 So, as much as we've had the conversation we've had, the reality is that I don't think any team in any organization has ever 100% of the time had all of these things in play. 00:28:02.960 --> 00:28:07.599 So there's never a time when there's not elements, a variance of understanding. 00:28:07.680 --> 00:28:10.000 That just because we're humans, that's always going to be there. 00:28:10.160 --> 00:28:14.319 So we talk a lot around well, it's about making that variance as small as possible. 00:28:14.480 --> 00:28:24.720 Because I think if you go in on the assumption that you're gonna get rid of it entirely, that in of itself is a myth and therefore drives kind of a certain set of behaviours and assumptions and biases off the back of it. 00:28:24.880 --> 00:28:35.920 So I think the first one, good performance, is an organizational team that are just constantly having these types of conversations and it's baked into their day-to-day, so it's part of the team's role, it's part of their job. 00:28:36.079 --> 00:28:48.480 So rather than having conversations where you're sticking to a very you know set agenda where you're ticking off very operational boxes and this, that, and the other, it's actually a team that are coming together and going, right, this is what we're dealing with this week. 00:28:48.640 --> 00:28:50.480 Let's go around the room or let's open this up. 00:28:50.559 --> 00:28:53.839 What do we all think about this as team leader to be generic? 00:28:54.000 --> 00:28:54.880 What am I missing here? 00:28:55.039 --> 00:28:57.279 This is what I'm thinking, this is where my head's at, what am I missing? 00:28:57.599 --> 00:29:01.279 And the team that can actually go, actually, you haven't seen this and have you thought about this. 00:29:01.519 --> 00:29:09.839 I think the second one is then probably more nuanced to the group of people themselves, and there's an element then of what the jobs are, because you said about

in terms of measuring. 00:29:10.000 --> 00:29:18.960 And I think measuring is a really interesting one because if you could measure it, the biggest mark of any high in avert commerce high-performing team is one that has huge amounts of discretionary effort. 00:29:19.119 --> 00:29:21.359 So people are willing to do more for less. 00:29:21.519 --> 00:29:27.920 Measuring that's really difficult, it is fairly intangible, but I think that's something to have an intangible kind of sense of. 00:29:28.079 --> 00:29:38.720 Do we have people here that if push came to shove and we needed this thing doing, someone would put their hand up because they understand the impact it has on the team, the importance it has to the group, and these sorts of bits. 00:29:38.960 --> 00:29:47.039 I think then this sounds maybe a bit kind of like not to get too political on it, maybe a bit socialist, but it's having group incentives. 00:29:47.200 --> 00:29:56.799 I think often when we incentivize individuals, very obviously we drive very individual behaviours, but then we talk about very collective values and missions. 00:29:56.960 --> 00:30:04.559 So I think nearly every organization has that tension where we want to be a family and it's one team, one dream, and all this BS. 00:30:04.799 --> 00:30:20.480 Cool, but you're incentivising Angela to hit that number, you're incentivizing Amanda to hit this number, you're incentivising me to go and do this thing over here, which all in many ways kind of contradict each other, but then you're asking us to all come together and live under this kind of tent of you know kumbayar and all that kind of stuff. 00:30:20.720 --> 00:30:26.799 So I think a team that can incentivise the group in one way, shape, or form. 00:30:26.960 --> 00:30:35.839 And the reason I say make the point of its nuance to the team or what they do is because I equally appreciate that's not necessarily always possible at the same time. 00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:49.119 In certain industries and certain organizations, it is always possible, but the reality of it happening is is next to none just because of the way these institutions are and how they've been set up, you know, which in reality just isn't going to happen. 00:30:49.440 --> 00:30:51.359 One of the things I think is really interesting what you've said. 00:30:51.440 --> 00:30:55.680 So if you go back to the three things you said, the first one really links back to purpose. 00:30:55.920 --> 00:30:58.160 The purpose is the foundation of psychological safety. 00:30:58.319 --> 00:31:07.599 We always talk about the fact that if we're going to create an environment where people are able to speak up and to challenge, they need to understand what they're challenging against and they need to understand why they come together. 00:31:07.759 --> 00:31:12.160 But given what you've just said, that there's always going to be a variance of understanding, yeah. 00:31:12.400 --> 00:31:18.079 How realistic is it that we're going

to achieve clarity of purpose, which is the foundation of psych safety? 00:31:18.160 --> 00:31:24.960 And no wonder, therefore, we rarely find a team that truly is psychologically safe if that is truly the foundation. 00:31:25.200 --> 00:31:36.880 The second thing around discretionary effort, I think that's a really interesting point because it's all about commitment and engagement and belief and belonging and all of the other things that we know are also truly important. 00:31:37.039 --> 00:31:38.079 So inclusion. 00:31:38.480 --> 00:31:50.960 If we feel like we're included, if we feel like we belong, and we feel like we're part of something that is going to make a difference and I connect with and aligned with my values, I'm therefore more likely to give discretionary effort. 00:31:51.039 --> 00:31:54.720 And also probably as long as my line manager is someone I respect. 00:31:54.960 --> 00:31:57.759 There's so many factors for giving discretionary effort. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:31:59.920 I'd add accountability in there too. 00:32:00.160 --> 00:32:02.240 Yeah, totally accountability, true. 00:32:02.400 --> 00:32:12.960 Yet we measure discretionary effort, I think a lot by time rather than by capacity or expansion of ideas or thinking beyond the current brief. 00:32:13.119 --> 00:32:21.200 I think we think of discretionary effort as they didn't they stayed behind work for another hour, not they did something on the side of their desk, which has made a real difference for our business. 00:32:21.440 --> 00:32:29.039 And then the third one, which is about group incentives, I really see that challenge and that conflict actually, because you're right. 00:32:29.200 --> 00:32:36.799 We always talk about a single mission, a single purpose, a single direction, that unity for a team or for an organization. 00:32:37.039 --> 00:32:51.680 Yet we know that a lot of people are not motivated by team goals, they're motivated by individual goals because of the truth you've mentioned, which is they have to prioritize their family, they have to prioritize some sense of commercial stability. 00:32:51.839 --> 00:32:54.799 And if they're dependent on colleagues, then there's increased risk. 00:32:54.880 --> 00:32:57.200 They can rely on themselves more than they can rely on the team. 00:32:57.359 --> 00:32:59.680 So I can see why these challenges exist. 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:02.319 But how do we overcome them, Will? 00:33:02.799 --> 00:33:07.039 Well, again, in reality, I don't think you necessarily wholeheartedly do overcome them. 00:33:07.119 --> 00:33:14.880 So to your point, psychological safety, as you know infinitely better than I do, is probably one of the most difficult things to attain within a team and within a group. 00:33:14.960 --> 00:33:19.839 It's incredibly difficult because there are so many factors and so many constantly moving parts. 00:33:19.920 --> 00:33:25.440 You you get quite settled, and then something else happens, which means that this person

leaves, that person leaves, or there's new ideas, or whatever it might be. 00:33:25.680 --> 00:33:30.240 So I think everything's a compromise in this, it can get a bit deep now. 00:33:30.400 --> 00:33:31.440 But life will stop, right? 00:33:31.519 --> 00:33:42.640 So you have this concept kind of work by balance, and there's a book called 4,000 weeks, and the premise of the title of the book is quite a morbid premise where it's just basically on average, humans live for 4,000 weeks. 00:33:42.720 --> 00:33:44.079 That's why it's called 4,000 weeks. 00:33:44.720 --> 00:33:51.440 But the point of the book is we have an assumption that our lives are infinite, you know, we we behave and act as if we're gonna live forever. 00:33:51.759 --> 00:33:55.920 It's an extreme kind of but actually, life is one of the most finite things on the planet. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:04.480 So he kind of talks around this concept of once you have an appreciation that life is finite, your whole rationale behind why you do things completely changes. 00:34:04.640 --> 00:34:10.400 Why am I spending time doing this when I've only got two and a half thousand weeks left and I could be doing this? 00:34:10.559 --> 00:34:18.400 So then go into kind of more work-specific bits, and he says this concept of work-life balance is a complete misnomer because you cannot have a balance of both. 00:34:18.480 --> 00:34:23.519 You can't have a billion-dollar empire and a brilliant family life, and you can't have a brilliant family life and a billion-dollar empire. 00:34:23.679 --> 00:34:24.480 It's a compromise. 00:34:24.639 --> 00:34:28.880 In order to have a billion-dollar empire, you are compromising your family, and vice versa. 00:34:29.039 --> 00:34:36.559 But he says, once you accept that that's the case, it then gives the thing you're doing meaning because you're doing it, and by doing it, you're not doing this. 00:34:36.719 --> 00:34:39.679 So all of a sudden, it lifts that, whichever one it is. 00:34:39.840 --> 00:34:44.719 So I think with these bits, it's an element of that whereby it's a compromise. 00:34:44.880 --> 00:34:53.840 So, in order to have these types of conversations, we are compromising time in front of your computer, we're compromising selling those emails, we're compromising other meetings. 00:34:54.000 --> 00:35:00.800 But by doing that, this conversation suddenly has infinitely more meaning attached to it, which means people are gonna buy into it. 00:35:01.039 --> 00:35:07.760 So, therefore, when you get that mindset and people are gonna give more to it, you immediately start with a more engaged higher. 00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:10.880 But there's a conversation before that conversation about the compromise, right? 00:35:10.960 --> 00:35:15.360 So there's all these kind of bits to it, and then I think it's the whole incentive thing. 00:35:15.519 --> 00:35:22.559 Again, you're not gonna find many teams that actually do it or want to do it or able to do it, but in many ways, that's not the whole issue. 00:35:22.719 --> 00:35:26.880 The issue is teams that operate that way but pretend that they're not. 00:35:27.039 --> 00:35:33.360 So if you get a team that says we want to be all in, we want to be one team, one dream, but our incentive structure is this. 00:35:33.599 --> 00:35:39.039 So, knowing those two things, this is how we want to be, but this is how this is how this our system operates. 00:35:39.280 --> 00:35:41.199 How do we start to bring those two together? 00:35:41.360 --> 00:35:45.039 How can we get as much of this within a system that operates like this? 00:35:45.199 --> 00:35:50.719 So I think the issue lies is in we think we're one thing, but we're actually the opposite. 00:35:50.880 --> 00:35:58.320 If we can have an awareness and that level of understanding of this is who we are and this is where we want to be, cool, let's have that conversation. 00:35:58.480 --> 00:36:06.159 So you arm incentivizing you because again, to give a mundane example, you're in sales, so you have a commission structure and you've got targets to hit. 00:36:06.239 --> 00:36:07.519 That is just what this is, right? 00:36:07.599 --> 00:36:10.320 We can't change that because it takes too much, whatever it is. 00:36:10.559 --> 00:36:17.599 But we want you as a sales team to try and operate as much as a team as possible, even though we have individual incentives. 00:36:17.760 --> 00:36:19.840 What is that gap from your point of view? 00:36:20.079 --> 00:36:20.880 What help do you need? 00:36:21.039 --> 00:36:21.679 All this sort of stuff. 00:36:21.760 --> 00:36:27.760 And I think again, when you get to any form of leadership, the more senior you get, the less of the job you actually do. 00:36:27.920 --> 00:36:41.840 And often the case, the more detached from the job you become, because historically, you know, you go into the corner office, so you become completely isolated, even though that's the one time you need to be right in the mixer, because actually your role is facilitating. 00:36:41.920 --> 00:36:46.480 You know, there'll be elements of the job you'll still do, of course, but the majority of your role is facilitating your team. 00:36:46.559 --> 00:36:53.119 It's giving your team the ability to do their job as best they can, it's enabling them to go and have the conversations they need to have. 00:36:53.280 --> 00:36:58.159 Therefore, you need to be in there really understanding what is going on. 00:36:58.320 --> 00:36:59.440 What do you need from me? 00:36:59.599 --> 00:37:00.559 How can I help you? 00:37:00.800 --> 00:37:05.519 Which is very counterintuitive to a lot of people that come and senior positions because the relationships are often the other way around. 00:37:05.599 --> 00:37:06.880 Is how can you help me? 00:37:07.119 --> 00:37:07.519 Indeed. 00:37:07.679 --> 00:37:12.000 Gosh, the 4,000 weeks, that's quite a shocking point, actually. 00:37:12.239 --> 00:37:13.679 Sorry, that's a bit morbid. 00:37:13.920

--> 00:37:21.119 Really, I think the powerful thing for me there is the compromise point because that's one of the words I like the least in our language. 00:37:21.920 --> 00:37:31.119 I'm not great at compromise, but I'm great at making decisions usually, in that I'm a quite decisive individual, albeit impulsive, impatient individual under pressure. 00:37:31.360 --> 00:37:35.199 And therefore, I'm at my worst if I have to compromise. 00:37:35.360 --> 00:37:44.400 I'm at my worst if I'm not in ability to be decisive and don't feel like I'm in a position to make a good decision, if that makes sense. 00:37:44.639 --> 00:37:46.079 And I think you're absolutely right. 00:37:46.159 --> 00:37:51.280 With hybrid, with work environments, often we are in a situation where we want both things. 00:37:51.440 --> 00:37:54.000 We talk about wanting our cake and eat it with hybrid. 00:37:54.159 --> 00:37:57.199 We want our cake and eat it with work-life balance as well. 00:37:57.360 --> 00:37:58.239 We want both sides. 00:37:58.400 --> 00:38:03.440 I want a really fabulous home life and I want to be that very successful businesswoman. 00:38:03.599 --> 00:38:07.679 But you are right, there has to be compromise along the way, albeit I don't like it. 00:38:07.840 --> 00:38:13.679 But I think the point for me is that once you decide where you're going to put your energy, that's when it gets easier. 00:38:13.840 --> 00:38:15.920 And I think that's the same with sales too. 00:38:16.079 --> 00:38:17.519 You're back to your sales example. 00:38:17.679 --> 00:38:21.199 Is it group and team sales targets versus individual? 00:38:21.360 --> 00:38:29.920 There's always going to be cognitive distance, there's always going to be the conflict of the two things that are going to be fighting against one another and the risk of one versus another. 00:38:30.159 --> 00:38:43.360 But I think it's that point is once you decide that it gives you the path that you're kind of pursuing and it frees you up, and you no longer have that limbic friction, that internal argument, that internal dialogue with yourself. 00:38:43.679 --> 00:38:49.119 I think, in a way, understanding the concept actually in a way allows you to be better at decision making. 00:38:49.199 --> 00:38:51.840 It allows you to genuinely weigh up your decisions. 00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:56.000 Another way, rather than compromise, I said about early opportunity cost. 00:38:56.079 --> 00:38:59.199 So, what's the opportunity cost of me doing this or me doing this? 00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:02.639 So maybe it's a slightly less confrontational way of talking about it. 00:39:02.800 --> 00:39:10.400 But you know, I think it allows them to actually make better decisions because if we're making a decision on the assumptions that I can have it all, then the decision we make could be the wrong one. 00:39:10.559 --> 00:39:12.079 And again, it's the frame of the question. 00:39:12.239 --> 00:39:19.519 Compromise, a bit like you have to go full circle in this conversation, a bit like ignorance and naivety, has a negative connotation to it, right? 00:39:19.679 --> 00:39:22.000 Compromise, it's not a nice sounding word. 00:39:22.159 --> 00:39:30.159 Again, you reframe it, actually, it could be a really positive word because it gives us that level of understanding to actually go and do something really good. 00:39:30.320 --> 00:39:36.719 And I think it's something we talk about, particularly we use the opportunity costs in the work we do in our foundation with the people we work with there. 00:39:36.880 --> 00:39:44.239 When you talk around much bigger decisions that have bigger impacts than whether or not we make money, you know, you go cool, well let's play that out. 00:39:44.400 --> 00:39:45.440 We go down this route. 00:39:45.519 --> 00:39:48.880 What's the opportunity cost taking this path compared to taking that path? 00:39:49.119 --> 00:39:55.920 A lot of these things, again, it's it's very easy to sit on a podcast as I am and have a brilliant conversation like this. 00:39:56.159 --> 00:39:58.320 Putting it into play is incredibly difficult. 00:39:58.400 --> 00:40:03.280 And so we often talk about, you know, all of this is common sense, but it's very uncommon practice. 00:40:03.440 --> 00:40:07.440 Everyone listens to this will go, obviously, of course, of course, we need all these things. 00:40:07.679 --> 00:40:16.960 Actually, putting it into practice is incredibly difficult because we all work within very ingrained systems that have operated, other operated for a long time. 00:40:17.039 --> 00:40:23.440 Everyone's holding on to different assumptions and different misunderstandings and different myths, and are more willing or less willing to have conversation. 00:40:23.599 --> 00:40:36.880 Yeah, so that there's so many variables at play, which is why I made the point of the reality of getting psychological true psychological safety is insanely difficult because there's so much going on, so it's all around there's gonna be variances. 00:40:37.039 --> 00:40:41.119 If our variance can be less than their variance, we're gonna do better. 00:40:41.280 --> 00:40:43.920 So, again, in sport, going back to that example. 00:40:44.079 --> 00:40:48.239 Again, I think everyone views performance as scoring more points than the opposition. 00:40:48.559 --> 00:40:51.679 But the reality is performance is making less mistakes than the opposition. 00:40:51.760 --> 00:40:52.800 Can we make less errors? 00:40:52.880 --> 00:40:58.239 If we make less errors, we're gonna win the game, and so that's why it's often the case in nearly all sports. 00:40:58.320 --> 00:41:07.360 You know, the top five in any league table aren't necessarily top five for most points scored, but they'll nearly always be top five for least points conceded. 00:41:07.519 --> 00:41:18.559 Because in attack, you know, talent can score you a goal, it can score you a try and rugby, it can hit a six in cricket, but defense is about

understanding, it's a system, it's how do we all move together, you know. 00:41:18.639 --> 00:41:23.360 And if I think we're shooting up and you think we're going across, it creates a hole. 00:41:23.519 --> 00:41:25.840 And then mistakes find the gaps of understanding. 00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:31.039 So if we can shore up kind of that system, then that's the thing that allows us to actually move forward. 00:41:31.280 --> 00:41:33.920 Mistakes find the gaps of understanding. 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:34.719 I really like that. 00:41:34.960 --> 00:41:36.639 And I'm really I mean, I need to voice this. 00:41:36.719 --> 00:41:42.159 I very much stole that from David Jones, so I'm just gonna voice that before I get him before. 00:41:44.719 --> 00:41:45.679 No, no, no, no. 00:41:45.840 --> 00:41:46.239 There you go. 00:41:46.320 --> 00:41:48.079 I'll be humble and admit that wasn't me. 00:41:48.320 --> 00:41:48.880 No, that's it. 00:41:49.119 --> 00:41:49.760 It's very cool. 00:41:49.840 --> 00:41:55.280 And I the other one I loved was about common sense because I talk a lot about psychology as the science of common sense. 00:41:55.440 --> 00:41:59.840 Yet the point is that we wouldn't be psychologists if people weren't able to actually apply it. 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:04.079 And so I love that statement that common sense yet very uncommon practice. 00:42:04.320 --> 00:42:08.639 Right at the start of this episode, we talked about how this episode was about team resilience. 00:42:08.719 --> 00:42:12.880 And I think everything we've said so far sort of touches on that. 00:42:13.119 --> 00:42:17.760 But I wonder, Will and Amanda, if you couldn't explicitly draw that line. 00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:21.920 What does all of that have to do with team resilience? 00:42:22.400 --> 00:42:25.920 The reality is our brains need simplicity, predictability, and control. 00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:30.079 And when we don't have that, what happens is we feel like we're in a threat situation. 00:42:30.159 --> 00:42:35.280 So when we're in a threat situation, we're scanning the environment and we're looking predominantly for risk. 00:42:35.440 --> 00:42:37.440 We're not necessarily looking for success. 00:42:37.599 --> 00:42:41.360 We're looking to remove risk rather than to move towards success. 00:42:41.840 --> 00:42:55.840 And so what's really helpful with this is that what Will has really helped me understand is with all of these uh assumptions, with the curse of knowledge and all of these things, what's happening is it's potentially throwing threat in our midst. 00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:05.519 And then when it happens, we have this diminished cognitive capacity because we are using our brains to fight threat rather than to think expansively. 00:43:05.679 --> 00:43:09.280 And what we need teams to do is to think expansively to succeed. 00:43:09.440 --> 00:43:11.199 So that's kind of my reflection. 00:43:11.440 --> 00:43:12.559 And what about you, Will? 00:43:12.639 --> 00:43:13.760

Have you got anything to add? 00:43:13.920 --> 00:43:16.320 How does all of that touch on resilience? 00:43:16.639 --> 00:43:18.239 I think that more of the above. 00:43:18.320 --> 00:43:31.679 So everything that Amanda said, and then to tag on, I suppose, would be what that then allows teams to do in the heat of the moment when you're in a crisis or when things aren't going right, is to be able to go, well, what are we doing about this? 00:43:31.840 --> 00:43:42.639 So we're not in a position where we assume we all know what to do about this thing, which is where the variance comes in, which is then where actually we end up making the wrong decisions, and that plays out in that snapshot moment. 00:43:42.719 --> 00:43:46.239 Being up to the clarity or the ability to go, what are we doing about this? 00:43:46.400 --> 00:43:47.679 Who wants to take that bit? 00:43:47.840 --> 00:43:52.880 I'll take this bit, let's go forward, and have that ability to solve the problem in the moment. 00:43:53.039 --> 00:43:59.760 If we have these assumptions, these myths, we don't have to do that, which means um we don't figure it out, which means we get um perceived. 00:44:00.239 --> 00:44:02.239 be a low resilient team. 00:44:02.559 --> 00:44:19.440 So just to finish the call, Will, just wondered if you were to give a few tips to our listeners on the things that they could take back into their teams or back into their organizations if they're HR and talent, what are the few things that you recommend to your clients that they could tangibly use? 00:44:19.760 --> 00:44:25.519 Yeah, so a good one is so going on we've had a lot of the conversation around kind of performance and what that looks like. 00:44:25.760 --> 00:44:29.119 So David talks a lot around as a sports psychologist. 00:44:29.199 --> 00:44:36.800 You know, often players or coaches will come to him because they're at the end of this journey where I just can't do this thing or I don't know what's going wrong with me. 00:44:36.880 --> 00:44:43.920 And that's the consequential symptom of a much deeper kind of level of lack of belonging understanding all the things we've spoken about. 00:44:44.159 --> 00:44:55.039 But often because of time constraints or assumed pressures of time coaches or fans will assume the error is that person's ability to do their their job or their competency on the pitch. 00:44:55.199 --> 00:45:00.880 So for example in a coach's meeting they're talking about a player let's say they were in the wrong position on the pitch in a certain time. 00:45:01.039 --> 00:45:07.679 The conversation inherently be like well they're just lazy like they didn't make the effort to run to that ball or to support that player or whatever it was. 00:45:07.760 --> 00:45:14.239 So David often talks around right let's have this conversation and make the assumption that that is not why it went wrong. 00:45:14.400 --> 00:45:31.840 So if we take competency out the question it can't be you know oh they've made loads of money now they're not bothered anymore and it's kind of like well no they were very rich before they signed this contract you know any elite person is going to want to do well that's so if you take out that little quadrant this cannot be the reason to blame for why this happened. 00:45:31.920 --> 00:45:37.119 So it can only be this side over here and this isn't all they didn't understand what they were going to do. 00:45:37.280 --> 00:45:39.519 They weren't aware that this thing was about to happen. 00:45:39.679 --> 00:45:58.880 So therefore let's tackle that and if we know we've had those those conversations and we've exhausted those then we can start to look at the other bits and I think too often in all organizations the starting point when things go wrong is nearly always if not always let's blame the person let's look at their competency first. 00:45:59.039 --> 00:46:06.639 No that's not saying sometimes it could be and sometimes it is but the amount of times it is compared to the amount of times we think it is a huge gap. 00:46:06.800 --> 00:46:14.880 So I think the first one is if things aren't going to plan the initial starting point of as a leader what have I not given my team what could they not understand? 00:46:15.039 --> 00:46:16.320 What have I not imparted? 00:46:16.559 --> 00:46:23.599 Those conversations are the first ones to go and have the second one is actually kind of this broader look on the system in inverted commerce. 00:46:23.840 --> 00:46:34.320 So kind of mapping how you want your team to run and how you want them to behave compared to what does the system actually allow them to do and what does the system actually incentivize them to do. 00:46:34.480 --> 00:46:50.239 Because again not everywhere but what a lot of people will find is when you map those two things they massived each other is that with all the right intention very authentically and all this sort of stuff we want to be like this but actually the system we're operating in just doesn't fundamentally allow it. 00:46:50.400 --> 00:47:35.039 So it's therefore going cool how do we start to map those across so like the incentive structures we spoke about how do we start to map how we want to be with the realities of of what things are and then I suppose the third one for any kind of anyone in any leadership or seniority is going through I suppose those assumptions of going where might I be the victim of the curse of knowledge on both sides of that where might I assume people know what I know and where might I assume I know what they know actually am I forgetting how I got to where I got to and how difficult things were when I started and all these bits and then that type of mistake how often is it is it the case when I'm talking to someone when I've got the song in my head that I'm assuming that everything's coming out my mouth is is bang on. 00:47:35.119 --> 00:47:44.639 And sorry I've got one more then the final one is then off the back of that when

people tell you they understand kind of having this BS production radar ticking in the back of your head. 00:47:44.800 --> 00:47:46.159 Do they really do they really? 00:47:46.239 --> 00:47:56.559 And it's not a case of saying that's BS but a case of going the radar dings what question do I now need to ask just to uncover do they actually understand? 00:47:56.800 --> 00:48:03.679 Not in a threatening or patronizing or no not at all in a way to check in a nice way to make sure that they're on board. 00:48:03.920 --> 00:48:05.519 And open the door for questions. 00:48:05.760 --> 00:48:06.079 Yeah. 00:48:06.639 --> 00:48:27.920 It's so interesting Will that that entire sequence starting with yourself looking at the system checking your assumptions and biases is almost like step by step the same approach that I did an article with Ellis White who's a neurodivergence consultant about creating neuroinclusive workplaces. 00:48:28.079 --> 00:48:52.400 And that was her exact advice on how to approach tricky situations, whether the employee is neurodiverse or not, but especially if you suspect that that's the case to look first at yourself, the system, where are the incentives and checking your biases and assumptions at the door before you enter even into a conversation then about what that person is or isn't doing or why. 00:48:52.639 --> 00:48:54.639 Very interesting that it's the same approach. 00:48:54.880 --> 00:49:08.079 Yeah and again I think it's in this space again I'm I'm very happy to say it I think we're all fundamentally trying to do the same thing right in trying to help people whether it be individuals or teams get to the best place they can possibly get to. 00:49:08.239 --> 00:49:39.519 And again we all know the same ways of doing that and the mechanisms it's just we all deliver that slightly differently and we all have different narratives which how we tell the story or we articulate it differently and it's kind of horses for causes in terms of its way of delivery best suits that group of people and it might not the way we deliver might not suit your clients and vice versa right so to your point Angela I'm never not surprised we all think the same things in this space but which just reinforces that common sense element it is a case it's like no shit Sherlock of of course we need this right it it really is. 00:49:39.760 --> 00:49:41.039 And what about you Amanda? 00:49:41.199 --> 00:49:45.760 What sort of practical advice have you got because you're no stranger in this space yourself. 00:49:46.079 --> 00:50:09.440 Gosh I think for me I alluded to the question that for me I learned early on that asking questions rather than coming in and feeling like I needed to impress or needing to feel like I'd done enough research that I was worthy to be in the room for me that's one just be really prepared to ask the silly questions because actually some of the silly questions can give some of the best answers actually. 00:50:09.679 --> 00:50:34.639 And I think for me the other one I like the point around assumptions because it's very easy to go into a room and to make assumptions that everybody at least understands some of the key principles that we're aiming for and to make sure that some of the quietest members of the room have a voice as well because of course we are prone to listening to the more active more verbal colleagues. 00:50:34.880 --> 00:50:38.239 So to make sure that we really invest time in the people who are quieter. 00:50:38.480 --> 00:51:19.519 We do it because actually we know that they can be the most clear because they spend the most time reflecting but make sure we really go there as well because actually maybe they're quiet because of low psychological safety they're silent for that or it might be because of personality because they're introverted or it might be because actually to Will's point they're just not clear and so therefore they're stepping out they're tapping out so yeah that's some of mine very simple actually and just to remember finally that our brains lie to us we acknowledge that we accept that we will always defer to the path of least resistance we'll always defer to the safest route to protecting ourselves to not looking like a fool. 00:51:19.760 --> 00:51:30.960 We have to be prepared to take a chance we have to be prepared to step into that change which is not the path of least resistance actually to recognize we've got to actually work harder to get to this. 00:51:31.119 --> 00:51:35.119 So there are a few little reflections from today so really helpful really enjoyed it. 00:51:35.280 --> 00:51:40.800 There's been some real nuggets for me there around the assumptions around so obvious so Will thank you. 00:51:41.119 --> 00:51:45.440 No you're welcome thank you for having me on thank you both and thank you to everyone listening. 00:51:45.599 --> 00:51:52.000 If you've enjoyed this episode please share it leave a review give us a rating on whatever platform you're listening on. 00:51:52.159 --> 00:51:56.559 It makes a genuine difference to how many people we reach we'll be back soon with another episode. 00:51:56.719 --> 00:52:04.639 Until then take care thank you Angela thank you Will and thank you to our listeners hope you have a wonderful and successful day