Podcast appearances and mentions of Amy Edmondson

Twee derde van de Nederlandse organisaties houdt zich bezig met sociale en psychologische veiligheid op de werkvloer. Maar daarover bestaan veel misverstanden. Want niet alles wat onprettig voelt, is ook daadwerkelijk onveilig.‘Er is nog nooit iemand ontslagen omdat hij zijn mond hield,' zegt Amy Edmondson, professor aan de Harvard Business School. Waarom is het zo moeilijk om je uit te spreken op het werk? En hoe leidt een onveilige werkomgeving tot zogenoemde corporate silence?In deze aflevering spreekt Or Goldenberg met journalist Daphne van Paassen over de betekenis van veiligheid op de werkvloer.Lees ook het verhaal 'Comfortabele conflicten' in De Groene Amsterdammer. Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Te gast zijn Rob Smits van Bureau Voor Durf en Laura Struijk en Josefien Kemper van Inspiratiebureau Struijk & Kemper en we spreken over leiden met moed. Inspiratiebronnen zijn de boeken van Rob zelf, Durf is te doen! en van Brene Brown, Dare to lead, waar Struijk & Kemper vanuit werken.Rob ontwikkelde zich van Amsterdamse lefgozer tot een oefenmeester in durven. De essentie van durven is voor hem in 1 woord dat je een durfdeuger moet leren zijn. Deuger, omdat je niet alleen je lef moet inzetten, dat nog maar een eerste impulskracht is, maar ook je moed en je waarden, waarvoor je in tweede instantie je denkkracht moet inzetten. Durf is deze beide krachten gebruiken. De impulskracht is een snelle trigger, die je moet leren waarnemen en vertragen tot een time-out, waarin je bewust vanuit je waarden kiest wat je uiteindelijk wilt en gaat doen.Fear the fear and do it anyway, zo vat Laura van Struijk & Kemper dit werken vanuit triggers samen. Ook zij en Josefien vinden dat je vanuit je why en waarden moet werken aan je leiderschap. Hun inspiratie vinden ze bij Brene Brown, die stelt dat je daarvoor de empathie en de moed moet hebben om te leren stoeien met kwetsbaarheid. Je moet als leider de verantwoordelijkheid leren nemen voor het herkennen van het potentieel in mensen en de moed hebben om hun potentieel te ontwikkelen. Belangrijk is dan het creëren van een cultuur van vertrouwen, waar Brene Brown de acroniem Braving voor gebruikt, of van psychologische veiligheid, een tweede concept van Struijk & Kemper, dat ze van Amy Edmondson hebben geleerd.Deze podcast is mede mogelijk gemaakt door schoolleidersopleiding ATTC, onderwijsadvies School Matters en rustplek De vallei van het goede leven.

Neste episódio especial do Podcast VendaMais, Karen Jardzwski volta do ATD 2025 — o maior evento de Treinamento e Desenvolvimento do mundo — trazendo novidades sobre o futuro da capacitação em vendas.Raul Candeloro e Marcelo Caetano conduzem essa conversa poderosa sobre o que realmente funciona (e o que está ultrapassado) quando o assunto é desenvolver times de comerciais com inteligência, propósito e impacto de verdade.

Send us a textIn this episode I sit down with renowned organizational designer and author Jurriaan Kamer to explore the high-impact concept of psychological safety—a key ingredient for healthy teams and effective leadership that often gets lip service but little follow-through.Psychological safety isn't just a buzzword—it's the bedrock of trust, collaboration, and innovation. So why do so many workplaces struggle with it?Together, we get into the heart of what psychological safety really means, the barriers that block it, and the leadership behaviors that foster (or destroy) it. If you're leading a team, supporting people through change, or working to create a culture of openness and accountability—this episode is your playbook.

Dr. Amy Edmondson is the Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, a world-renowned expert on psychological safety, and the pioneering researcher who first identified and defined the concept. She is a #1 ranked management thinker by Thinkers50 and the award-winning author of several groundbreaking books including "The Fearless Organization" and her latest work "Right Kind of Wrong: Why Learning to Fail Can Teach Us to Thrive." Her research on team learning, psychological safety, and organizational innovation has transformed how leaders approach building high-performing teams across industries worldwide.Questions for personal reflection & journalingWhat specific moments in your life have shaped your relationship with failure, and how might these experiences be limiting your growth today? Consider the learning opportunities you might be missing by avoiding certain risks.What elements create psychological safety for you in your most comfortable environments, and how might you recreate these conditions in teams you lead or participate in?How do you typically respond when someone shares a mistake or failure with you, and what would a more curiosity-driven response look like in practice?What language patterns do you use when addressing setbacks with others, and how might you better separate events (failures, mistakes, losses) from a person's identity or worth?What specific questions could you introduce in your next team meeting to invite diverse perspectives, and how might these questions shift your team's dynamic toward greater psychological safety?Download my FREE 60 minute Mindset Masterclass at www.djhillier.com/masterclassDownload my FREE top 40 book list written by Mindset Advantage guests: www.djhillier.com/40booksSubscribe to our NEW YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MindsetAdvantagePurchase a copy of my book: https://a.co/d/bGok9UdFollow me on Instagram: @deejayhillierConnect with me on my website: www.djhillier.com

We all work in teams, from families, to companies, and everything in between. So what's the secret to doing it better? This hour, TED speakers share surprising strategies for successful teamwork. Guests include activist Hajer Sharief, social psychologist Amy Edmondson and private equity investor Pete Stavros. Original broadcast date: September 20, 2024.TED Radio Hour+ subscribers now get access to bonus episodes, with more ideas from TED speakers and a behind the scenes look with our producers. A Plus subscription also lets you listen to regular episodes (like this one!) without sponsors. Sign-up at: plus.npr.org/tedLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Everyone makes mistakes. How do we learn from them? Lessons from the classroom, the Air Force, and the world's deadliest infectious disease. SOURCES:Will Coleman, founder and C.E.O. of Alto.Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership management at Harvard Business School.Babak Javid, physician-scientist and associate director of the University of California, San Francisco Center for Tuberculosis.Gary Klein, cognitive psychologist and pioneer in the field of naturalistic decision making.Theresa MacPhail, medical anthropologist and associate professor of science & technology studies at the Stevens Institute of Technology.Roy Shalem, lecturer at Tel Aviv University.Samuel West, curator and founder of The Museum of Failure. RESOURCES:"A Golf Club Urinal, Colgate Lasagna and the Bitter Fight Over the Museum of Failure," by Zusha Elinson (Wall Street Journal, 2025).Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, by Amy Edmondson (2023).“You Think Failure Is Hard? So Is Learning From It,” by Lauren Eskreis-Winkler and Ayelet Fishbach (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2022).“The Market for R&D Failures,” by Manuel Trajtenberg and Roy Shalem (SSRN, 2010).“Performing a Project Premortem,” by Gary Klein (Harvard Business Review, 2007). EXTRAS:"The Deadliest Disease in Human History," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2025).“How to Succeed at Failing,” series by Freakonomics Radio (2023).“Moncef Slaoui: ‘It's Unfortunate That It Takes a Crisis for This to Happen,'” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2020).

In this thought-provoking episode, we sit down with Tobias Mayer—author, coach, and longtime voice in the Agile world—to explore the journey from his early discovery of XP (Extreme Programming) in 1997 all the way to today's debate around the death of Scrum. Tobias shares his personal transformation from developer to Scrum Master, his resistance to early XP, and how he learned great practices from developers he managed. We unpack his reflections on Agile's semantic drift, the role of Scrum Masters as change agents vs. bean counters, and what happens when teams do Agile without even knowing the Agile Manifesto.

Giving up can be painful. That's why we need to talk about it. Today: stories about glitchy apps, leaky paint cans, broken sculptures — and a quest for the perfect bowl of ramen. SOURCES:John Boykin, website designer and failed paint can re-inventor.Angela Duckworth, host of No Stupid Questions, co-founder of Character Lab, and professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership management at Harvard Business School.Helen Fisher, former senior research fellow at The Kinsey Institute and former chief science advisor to Match.com.Eric von Hippel, professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management.Jill Hoffman, founder and C.E.O. of Path 2 Flight.Gary Klein, cognitive psychologist and pioneer in the field of naturalistic decision making.Steve Levitt, host of People I (Mostly) Admire, co-author of the Freakonomics books, and professor of economics at the University of Chicago.Joseph O'Connell, artist.Mike Ridgeman, government affairs manager at the Wisconsin Bike Fed.Melanie Stefan, professor of physiology at Medical School Berlin.Travis Thul, vice president for Student Success and Engagement at Minnesota State University, Mankato. RESOURCES:“Data Snapshot: Tenure and Contingency in US Higher Education,” by Glenn Colby (American Association of University Professors, 2023).Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, by Angela Duckworth (2016).“Entrepreneurship and the U.S. Economy,” by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016).“A C.V. of Failures,” by Melanie Stefan (Nature, 2010).Ramen Now! official website. EXTRAS: “How to Succeed at Failing,” series by Freakonomics Radio (2023).“Annie Duke Thinks You Should Quit,” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).“How Do You Know When It's Time to Quit?” by No Stupid Questions (2020).“Honey, I Grew the Economy,” by Freakonomics Radio (2019).“The Upside of Quitting,” by Freakonomics Radio (2011).

In medicine, failure can be catastrophic. It can also produce discoveries that save millions of lives. Tales from the front line, the lab, and the I.T. department. SOURCES:Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership management at Harvard Business School.Carole Hemmelgarn, co-founder of Patients for Patient Safety U.S. and director of the Clinical Quality, Safety & Leadership Master's program at Georgetown University.Gary Klein, cognitive psychologist and pioneer in the field of naturalistic decision making.Robert Langer, institute professor and head of the Langer Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.John Van Reenen, professor at the London School of Economics. RESOURCES:Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, by Amy Edmondson (2023).“Reconsidering the Application of Systems Thinking in Healthcare: The RaDonda Vaught Case,” by Connor Lusk, Elise DeForest, Gabriel Segarra, David M. Neyens, James H. Abernathy III, and Ken Catchpole (British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2022)."Estimates of preventable hospital deaths are too high, new study shows," by Bill Hathaway (Yale News, 2020).“Dispelling the Myth That Organizations Learn From Failure,” by Jeffrey Ray (SSRN, 2016).“A New, Evidence-Based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care,” by John T. James (Journal of Patient Safety, 2013).To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, by the National Academy of Sciences (1999).“Polymers for the Sustained Release of Proteins and Other Macromolecules,” by Robert Langer and Judah Folkman (Nature, 1976).The Innovation and Diffusion Podcast, by John Van Reenen and Ruveyda Gozen. EXTRAS:"The Curious, Brilliant, Vanishing Mr. Feynman," series by Freakonomics Radio (2024).“Will a Covid-19 Vaccine Change the Future of Medical Research?” by Freakonomics Radio (2020).“Bad Medicine, Part 3: Death by Diagnosis,” by Freakonomics Radio (2016).

In their pursuit of heightened productivity, organizations are leaving little room for failure. However, failures are an inevitable part of the innovation process and often serve as a precursor to breakthroughs. By solely focusing on productivity, organizations may be missing out on valuable opportunities for innovation that could propel them forward. In the worst-case scenarios, a failure-adverse climate can lead employees to hide concerns or problems, which can lead to potentially catastrophic issues. Amy Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School and author of "Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well," shares her expertise on the Talent Angle podcast, offering insights on how organizations should shift their mindset toward failure and embrace it as a catalyst for growth and improvement. Amy C. Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, is a management scholar best known for her research on psychological safety and team learning. She has been recognized by the biannual Thinkers50 global ranking of management thinkers since 2011 and was ranked No. 1 in 2021 and 2023. She is the author of eight books, including her most recent book, Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, and more than 100 academic articles.   Jessica Knight is a vice president of research in the Gartner HR practice. She leads research teams to identify best practices and new opportunities to address HR executives' most urgent challenges. Her areas of focus include employee experience, organizational culture, change management and the future of work.

We tend to think of tragedies as a single terrible moment, rather than the result of multiple bad decisions. Can this pattern be reversed? We try — with stories about wildfires, school shootings, and love. SOURCES:Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership management at Harvard Business School.Helen Fisher, former senior research fellow at The Kinsey Institute and former chief science advisor to Match.com.Ed Galea, founding director of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at the University of Greenwich.Gary Klein, cognitive psychologist and pioneer in the field of naturalistic decision making.David Riedman, founder of the K-12 School Shooting Database.Aaron Stark, head cashier at Lowe's and keynote speaker.John Van Reenen, professor at the London School of Economics. RESOURCES:"Ethan Crumbley: Parents of Michigan school gunman sentenced to at least 10 years," by Brandon Drenon (New York Times, 2024).Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, by Amy Edmondson (2023)."How Fire Turned Lahaina Into a Death Trap," by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Serge F. Kovaleski, Shawn Hubler, and Riley Mellen (The New York Times, 2023).The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, by Jillian Peterson and James Densley (2021)."I Was Almost A School Shooter," by Aaron Stark (TEDxBoulder, 2018). EXTRAS: "Is Perfectionism Ruining Your Life?" by People I (Mostly) Admire (2023)."Why Did You Marry That Person?" by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."What Do We Really Learn From Failure?" by No Stupid Questions (2021)."How to Fail Like a Pro," by Freakonomics Radio (2019)."Failure Is Your Friend," by Freakonomics Radio (2014).

Jeff Wetzler, co-CEO of Transcend and former Chief Learning Officer at Teach for America, joins us to share his journey in unlocking human potential through the power of inquiry. With a rich background in transforming educational landscapes, Jeff discusses his book "Ask: Tap into the Hidden Wisdom of the People Around You." Our conversation explores how leaders can use powerful questioningtechniques to uncover hidden insights within themselves and within their teams, fostering a collaborative and innovative environment that drives decision-making and shared understanding.Curiosity takes center stage as we unpack the concept of evidence-based leadership, where science meets real-world application. Jeff and I shine a light on the unspoken thoughts and challenges encountered in professional settings and the valuable insights that can be gained when these thoughts are communicated clearly and openly. We emphasizethe significance of creating a learning environment where honest feedback is encouraged, allowing mutual learning and problem-solving to flourish. Drawing from expert insights, including those of Amy Edmondson, we discuss strategies for crafting questions that genuinely seek to uncover deeper understanding.The transformative power of open-ended questions is a recurring theme throughout our discussion, offering listeners a tool to foster authentic dialogue and inclusivity. By contrasting open-ended questions with leading ones, we illustrate how genuine exploration can lead to higher-quality and more creative solutions. We highlight techniques for rekindling innate curiosity and fostering a more inquisitive mindset, encouraging a dynamic and innovative organizational culture. Whether you're a leader looking to enhance team dynamics or simply curious about the benefits of inquiry over advocacy, this episode offers a wealth of insights into harnessing the power of questions.What You'll Learn- How to utilize the power of inquiry to enhance leadership effectiveness.- Techniques for unlocking a team's full potential through curiosity.- The impact of masterful questioning on innovation within a team.- Ways in which open-ended exploration fosters inclusivity.Podcast Timestamps(00:00) - Unlocking Human Potential Through Questions(09:51) – How to Use Questions to Enhance Communication(19:42) – Curiosity: A Crucial Skill for Life and Leadership(33:24) - The Power of Open-Ended QuestionsKEYWORDSPositive Leadership, Unlocking Human Potential, The Power of Inquiry, Evidence-Based Leadership, Curiosity, The Art of Asking Questions, Open-Ended Questions, Organizational Behaviour, Creating A Learning Environment, Improved Decision-Making, Effective Communication, Leading with Vulnerability, Inquisitive Mindset, Questioning Techniques, Authentic Dialogue, Innovative Solutions, CEO Success

Is your teamwork not working? In this episode of HBR's advice podcast, Dear HBR:, cohosts Alison Beard and Dan McGinn answer your questions with the help of Amy Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. They talk through what to do when your team isn't communicating, doesn't respect its leader, or has one employee who's causing problems. Key episode topics include: managing teams, managing difficult people, managing conflict, team dysfunction, organizational culture, communication styles, feedback, trust, employee performance management, leadership styles, leadership Listen to the original Dear HBR: episode: Dysfunctional TeamsFind more episodes of Dear HBR:.Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org.]]>

Kristen and Mike kick off their new Buzzword Breakdown series by tackling psychological safety, a term often referenced in leadership discussions without clear explanation. Created by Harvard professor Amy Edmondson, psychological safety is the belief that you won't be punished for speaking up with ideas, questions, or concerns. Research shows it's the #1 predictor of high-performing teams - more important than who's on the team. Despite its importance, many misconceptions exist around what psychological safety actually means and how to create it. Whether you lead a team or are part of one, understanding this concept can transform your workplace relationships and help everyone do their best work.Highlights:Introduction of the new Buzzword Breakdown series formatAmy Edmondson coined "psychological safety" in 1999 while researching hospital teamsPsychological safety is a team concept that predicts high performance (Google's Project Aristotle)Myth: It's about being nice (Reality: It's about candor with respect)Myth: You can declare a space "safe" (Reality: Actions create it)Myth: It's a luxury (Reality: It's essential for effective teams)Signs of low safety: silence in meetings, blame culture, fear of failureSigns of high safety: challenging ideas without fear, open discussion of mistakesLeaders create it through: admitting uncertainty, sharing lessons from mistakes, thanking people for speaking upLinks & Resources Mentioned:The Fearless Organization by Amy EdmondsonAmy Edmondson on LinkedInHBR: What Is Psychological Safety?HBR: What People Get Wrong About Psychological SafetyMcKinsey: What is Psychological Safety?Previous Love and Leadership episodes:#37 Workplace Buzzwords #31 Motivating Employees#38 How to Win Friends and Influence People#17 Interview with Rebecca YangPodcast Website: www.loveandleadershippod.comInstagram: @loveleaderpodFollow us on LinkedIn!Kristen: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristenbsharkey/ Mike: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-s-364970111/Learn more about Kristen's leadership coaching and facilitation services: http://www.emboldify.com

Episode #349 // Psychological safety is a critical part of a high-performance culture. Unless people feel comfortable contributing their ideas and challenging the vocal majority, the team will easily slip into the complacency of groupthink. But psychological safety is often misunderstood, which is why we produced this mythbuster episode to debunk some of the commonly held misconceptions.I talk, from two different perspectives, about how the term ‘psychological safety' has been misappropriated: first from my own experience, then from a recent article by Amy Edmondson, who pioneered the concept.Most importantly, I give you the one practical step you need to take to put your team culture on the road to psychological safety.————————

AFFEN&Co 362, La Collégiale de l'AFFENavec Éric Melet, président de SoL France et co-auteur d'un ouvrage sur la psychologie positive (PP) au travail, explore l'apport de cette discipline dans l'entreprise, notamment à l'occasion de la réédition enrichie de son livre. Fort de son parcours managérial et de son intérêt pour la philosophie et le sens, Éric Melet souligne que son travail vise à partager ce qui l'a marqué en tant qu'opérationnel. L'ouvrage, intégré à la collection pratique "La boîte à outils" de Dunod, permet de "picorer" des informations et des exercices Il est crucial de distinguer la psychologie positive de la simple pensée positive Alors que la pensée positive est subjective et utile pour développer l'optimisme (comme la méthode Coué), la PP est une approche scientifique. Lancée en 1998 par Martin Seligman, son objectif est de comprendre scientifiquement les facteurs d'épanouissement et pourquoi les individus et les organisations fonctionnent bien, en complément de la psychologie traditionnelle axée sur les manques et la souffrance. Le courant européen de PP, auquel se rattache l'auteur, se caractérise par une perspective plus critique que certains aspects du courant nord-américain, insistant sur la responsabilité de l'entreprise, notamment concernant les conditions et l'organisation du travail, et pas uniquement la responsabilité individuelle du bien-être La PP peut être apprise et développéeIl ne s'agit pas de nier les problèmes existants, mais de choisir délibérément de voir d'abord ce qui fonctionne pour être mieux outillé face aux difficultés. Se concentrer uniquement sur les problèmes tend à les faire grandir Plusieurs concepts et pratiques sont mis en avant : L'optimisme contribue à l'épanouissement et peut être cultivé en travaillant sur son "style explicatif", c'est-à-dire la manière d'interpréter les événements (notamment les échecs) et de reformuler son discours interne. Cette idée de se concentrer sur ce qui dépend de soi renoue avec d'anciennes sagesses philosophiques La gratitude est fondamentale : réapprendre à apprécier et à s'arrêter plutôt que de courir après une performance maximale La connexion à soi implique de prendre le temps, se déconnecter pour identifier ses ressources et valeurs personnelles Connaître ses valeurs est essentiel, y compris au travail où des valeurs différentes peuvent entraîner des conflits. Un exercice dans le livre aide à identifier ses cinq valeurs clés et leur intégration professionnelle La dimension collective est aussi importante que l'individuelle. Construire des relations positives est un pilier au travail Se concentrer sur les forces de caractère des individus et des équipes, plutôt que sur les manques, demande un "recablage" car notre cerveau est naturellement câblé pour anticiper les menaces Les neurosciences confirment l'intérêt de la PP : le cerveau fonctionne mieux dans un environnement sécurisantLes émotions positives, comme la joie, élargissent l'esprit, favorisent la créativité, la résolution de problèmes et la connexion sociale La sécurité psychologique, concept développé par Amy Edmondson, est un facteur clé de performance des équipes, permettant d'oser exprimer des idées ou des erreurs sans peur du jugement. Google l'a identifié comme critère numéro 1 d'une équipe performante Pour intégrer la PP en entreprise, il est suggéré de commencer simplement, par exemple par des conférences incluant de la mise en pratique, ou des ateliers sur les valeurs ou l'appréciation des forces L'équipe elle-même peut devenir un "groupe de parole" favorisant la sécurité psychologique En résumé, la psychologie positive est présentée comme un outil pertinent pour reconstruire la confiance, favoriser l'épanouissement et améliorer la performance dans un environnement incertain, en soulignant l'importance d'une démarche à la fois individuelle et collective, soutenue par l'entreprise

Taavet Hinrikus, the co-founder of Wise, one of the world's biggest fintech firms, gives advice on forming and running teams. Andrew Palmer learns the secrets of teamwork in Afghanistan, Mumbai and Silicon Valley; and Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School explains how to foster psychological safety.Boss Class season one is free for a limited time. Season two will appear weekly starting May 12th. To hear new episodes, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Taavet Hinrikus, the co-founder of Wise, one of the world's biggest fintech firms, gives advice on forming and running teams. Andrew Palmer learns the secrets of teamwork in Afghanistan, Mumbai and Silicon Valley; and Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School explains how to foster psychological safety.Boss Class season one is free for a limited time. Season two will appear weekly starting May 12th. To hear new episodes, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.

Episode 1136 – Blame, Brains & the Behavioral BeefOn today's Rated R Safety Show, Jay Allen dives headfirst into the philosophical (and occasionally theatrical) debate tearing through the safety world right now.It started with a bold session at the Western Conference on Safety—“Investigations Done Differently,” featuring Jeff Lyth and Bruce Jackson. But when a longtime behavior-based safety veteran publicly questioned whether HOP (Human and Organizational Performance) has any evidence of reducing incidents or injuries… the floodgates opened.So today, we talk about it.Is HOP just razzmatazz—or is it the necessary evolution of how we treat error, people, and performance?Jay pulls receipts from:Amy Edmondson's work on psychological safety

Isabel Berwick is a journalist, podcaster, and advocate for workplace evolution. Having navigated the changing landscape of media and corporate culture, Isabel is dedicated to sharing her expertise on the future of work and career development and re-defining what ambition and fulfilment mean today. In this episode, we discuss the post-pandemic workplace, important distinctions between management and leadership, and the value of creativity. Isabel also shares insights from her upcoming book, "The Future-Proof Career", which offers insights into finding your purpose and achieving success in today's rapidly changing job market. As the host of the Financial Times's acclaimed podcast "Working It", and the hugely successful newsletter Isabel has been a leading voice in discussions about workplace dynamics and career progression, drawing on her extensive experience and conversations with industry leaders.  But Isabel believes that success isn't just about climbing the corporate ladder; it's about finding purpose and balance throughout one's working life. Her insights are invaluable for understanding the challenges we face in modern work environments. Check out her ‘Book for Emmeline' recommendation, as well as some of the other wonderful books and resources we discuss in this episode:  Book for Emmeline Recommendation:  The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phantom-Tollbooth-Essential-Modern-Classics  Other books and resources:  Ambition Redefined by Kathryn Sollmann  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ambition-Redefined-Corner-Office-Instead/dp/1473679095  Arthur Brooks at The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/author/arthur-c-brooks/ Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bullshit-Jobs/dp/B07CTT2DT3/  The Fearless Organisation by Amy Edmondson https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fearless-Organization-Psychological-Workplace-Innovation/dp/1119477247  

Adrienne is digging into the Power Hour archives and today's episode comes from 2023. dAmy Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School. Renowned for her world-leading research into the concept of psychological safety, Edmondson has been named by Thinkers50 as the most influential management thinker in the world.In her new book, Right Kind of Wrong, Amy Edmondson - the world's most influential organisational psychologist - reveals how we get failure wrong, and how to get it right. She draws on a lifetime's research into the science of 'psychological safety' to show that the most successful cultures are those in which you can fail openly, without your mistakes being held against you.She introduces the three archetypes of failure - simple, complex and intelligent - and explains how to harness the revolutionary potential of the good ones (and eliminate the bad). And she tells vivid stories ranging from the history of open heart surgery to the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, all to ask a simple, provocative question: What if it is only by learning to fail that we can hope to truly succeed? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Scrum.org Community Podcast, guest host Lindsay Velecina is joined by Professional Scrum Trainer Joanna Plaskonka to answer lingering questions from her recent webinar on psychological safety in Scrum Teams. Joanna shares practical insights on measuring psychological safety using Amy Edmondson's model, handling micromanagement, and fostering safe environments even in challenging cultures. From using behavioral questions and action learning to creating psychologically safe retrospectives, this episode is packed with actionable ideas for Scrum Masters, leaders, and teams seeking high performance through trust and openness! 

What if healing isn't the same as curing? Dr. Amita Kalaichandran draws from her unique background in conventional medicine, public health, integrative approaches, and journalism to reshape our understanding of true wellness in ways that might surprise you.At the heart of this conversation lies a powerful distinction: while Western medicine excels at curing (removing disease), healing represents something far more profound—a return to wholeness that integrates illness and challenges into our lives. Amitha thoughtfully explains why even those facing terminal conditions can find healing, creating meaning and wholeness right through the end of life. This perspective challenges our cultural tendency to view death as simply "losing the battle" with disease.The discussion moves into fascinating territory exploring psychological safety in healthcare settings. Drawing from Amy Edmondson's groundbreaking research, we discover how the ability to speak up without fear creates not just better patient outcomes, but also nurtures innovation and prevents provider burnout. This concept extends beyond hospitals into every workplace, where a sense of belonging and voice directly impacts both individual health and organizational success.Perhaps most intriguing is Amitha's nuanced take on psychedelics as healing tools. She explains how substances like psilocybin and MDMA might work on the brain's default mode network to "untangle the knots" of fossilized thought patterns where traditional therapies sometimes fail. The conversation acknowledges both the promising research and necessary cautions while suggesting that these compounds might offer flexibility in thinking that many of us lose as we age.Don't miss this rich exploration of healing that weaves together cutting-edge science, ancient wisdom, and practical insights for anyone seeking a more integrated approach to wellness. Subscribe now and join us in reimagining what healing truly means for body, mind, and spirit.Free sample chapter -Lies I Taught In Medical School :https://www.robertlufkinmd.com/lies/Our sponsors:Complete Metabolic Heart Scan (20% off with 'LUFKIN20') https://www.innerscopic.com/ Fasting Mimicking Diet (20% off) https://prolonlife.com/Lufkin At home blood testing (15% off) https://pathlongevity.com/Mimio Health (15% off with 'LUFKIN') https://mimiohealth.sjv.io/c/5810114/2745519/30611 *** CONNECT***Web: https://robertlufkinmd.com/X: https://x.com/robertlufkinmdYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/robertLufkinmdInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/robertlufkinmd/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertlufkinmd/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertlufkinmd Threads: ...

Send us a textIf your school avoids hard conversations, you don't have belonging. You have politeness.We confuse being nice with building belonging. But “nice” often means silence, avoidance, and surface-level smiles. Comfort isn't the same as safety. Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson coined the term psychological safety—the ability to speak up, take risks, and be vulnerable without fear.In “nice” cultures, people feel comfortable... but not safe. Real belonging requires vulnerability, not just harmony. Listen to this episode to find out how to move your culture from polite silence to real belonging—and why discomfort might be the missing piece.  Want more on this? 

In this final episode of the podcast before beginning his research sabbatical, your host Dr. Nathan Reiger welcomes high performing teams expert and scholar Amy Edmonson. She is a Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School, author, and pioneer in the role of psychological safety in high performing teams. This conversation explores the science of failure and insights from Amy's new book Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, including the empowering components of compassion, vulnerability, and intelligent failure.    Key Takeaways: [3:05] What piqued Amy's interest in the topic of failure?  [4:15] The three main kinds of failure.  [6:12] What role does psychological safety play in failing well?  [9:56] Compassionate accountability is essential in conflict.  [11:32] The relationship between trust and conflict.  [12:02] Compassion mindset is essential in failing well.  [15:55] High performing teams don't always make more errors, but they report them quickly.  [17:55] What makes a failure intelligent?  [21:36] Failure is an option, not trying is not an option.  [22:44] Why should we acknowledge vulnerability to self and others?   [28:03] Amy's favorite visuals and tales of failure from Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well.  [32:45] The potential role of AI in the face of complex failure.  [36:48] Amy's response to massive failure, such as plane crashes.  [38:30] Amy is a coping role model for failing well.    Mentioned in this episode: The Compassion Mindset Compassionate Accountability: How Leaders Build Connection and Get Results, Nate Regier Visit Next-Element   Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well by Amy Edmonson  Amy Edmondson on LinkedIn   The Compassionate Accountability Podcast is produced in partnership with Podfly Productions.   

In The Parlor Room's season two finale, host Chris Linnane shares his favorite questions and answers from his conversations with Harvard Business School faculty, including Christina Wallace, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Amy Edmondson, Sunil Gupta, V.G. Narayanan, Nancy Koehn, and Anthony Mayo. Tune in for their insights into marketing, the future of work, psychological safety, and more.  Catch up on Season 2 of The Parlor Room: Amy Edmondson on Building High-Performing Teams: https://hbs.me/ade6yb9d Sunil Gupta on Data-Driven Digital Marketing Strategies: https://hbs.me/3j3jcpmw Anthony Mayo on What Makes an Effective Leader: https://hbs.me/3ttp4c56  Christina Wallace on Building an Entrepreneurial Mindset: https://hbs.me/2p87t4j8  Felix Oberholzer-Gee on the Frameworks of Business Strategy: https://hbs.me/yc3f5jb3  Nancy Koehn on How Crisis Brings Out Extraordinary Leadership: https://hbs.me/ycksfcds  V.G. Narayanan on How Accounting Connects the Business World: https://hbs.me/mry92699  Watch The Parlor Room on YouTube: https://hbs.me/4j99nbwc

Het is feest in de DenkTank opnamestudio. We tikken de 100ste aflevering aan. Dus is het tijd om even nostalgisch te worden en je een ‘the best of' van de afgelopen 100 afleveringen te presenteren.Christ en Hans maken de trip down memory lane en luisteren samen met jou terug naar een paar bijzondere verhalen en wereldberoemde gasten. Je hoort:De leefregels van Bibian MentelDe politie-anekdote van Jan van SettenMathieu Weggeman over een bijzondere autofabriekSander de Kramer over zijn werk bij daklozenEn drie wereldsterren: Tim Ferriss, Amy Edmondson en Simon SinekSmullen van een Grand Dessert boordevol lekkere hapjes. Dat is deze aflevering van DenkTank.

Business school professor and author Amy Edmondson shares her views on how we can make our workplace more productive, enriching, and positive for everyone.  By creating an environment with “psychological safety,” Amy says that organizations allow people to do their best work by not fearing to make the “right kinds” of mistakes and/or speaking up when things go wrong. Order Amy's book Right Kind of Wrong Chapters:01:08 Introduction of Amy Edmondson Host Bill Burke introduces guest Amy Edmondson, a renowned professor at Harvard Business School, known for her work on psychological safety.06:50 The Role of Managers in Psychological Safety The conversation shifts to the role of managers in understanding human behavior and fostering an environment where employees feel motivated to contribute 09:15 Hierarchy and Its Challenges The discussion delves into the impact of organizational hierarchy on psychological safety, with Edmondson explaining how it can inhibit open communication.  12:25 Creating a Safe Environment for Mistakes Edmondson discusses the importance of allowing employees to make mistakes and learn from them as a pathway to innovation.  16:30 Navigating Political Divisions at Work The conversation touches on the challenges of political divisions in the workplace and the importance of maintaining professionalism.  18:01 The Impact of Remote Work on Culture Edmondson reflects on how remote and hybrid work environments affect psychological safety and workplace culture. She discusses the need for face-to-face interactions to foster relationships and connectedness among team members. 23:41 Exploring the Right Kind of Wrong The focus shifts to Edmondson's recent book, ‘Right Kind of Wrong,' where she explores the concept of failing well.  28:40 Understanding Different Types of Failures In this chapter, we explore the distinctions between basic, complex, and intelligent failures, emphasizing the importance of recognizing these differences. The conversation highlights how basic failures stem from single mistakes, while complex failures arise from multiple contributing factors. 31:50 The Value of Intelligent Failures The discussion shifts to intelligent failures, which are the results of thoughtful experiments aimed at innovation. The speakers discuss how organizations can learn from these failures and even budget for them in research and development. 33:49 Learning from Failure: A Difficult Process This chapter delves into the challenges of learning from failure, emphasizing the emotional aversion many people have towards it.  35:29 Reframing Failure: Insights from Ted Turner The conversation highlights Ted Turner's perspective on failure, illustrating how he framed losses as learning opportunities. This chapter discusses the cultural shift needed to embrace mistakes as part of the journey towards success. 36:31 The Role of Optimism in Leadership In this chapter, the speakers explore the significance of optimism in effective leadership, contrasting it with blind optimism. They introduce the Stockdale Paradox, emphasizing the balance between maintaining hope while facing harsh realities. 41:49 Optimism vs. Realism in Leadership The discussion continues on the interplay between optimism and realism in leadership, highlighting research findings on how these traits affect team dynamics. The speakers share insights from their studies during the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrating the importance of transparent communication. 44:08 The Future of Business Leadership As the conversation wraps up, the speakers reflect on the qualities of young leaders entering the business world.  

Ethan Kross: Shift Ethan Kross is the author of the national bestseller Chatter and one of the world's leading experts on emotion regulation. An award-winning professor in the University of Michigan's top-ranked Psychology Department and its Ross School of Business, he is the Director of the Emotion and Self-Control Laboratory. He's the author of the new book, Shift: Managing Your Emotions--So They Don't Manage You*. Being a leader means that our emotions get triggered, often many times a day. While none of us can avoid those triggers, how we respond to them can make all the difference. In this conversation, Ethan and I explore his research on how to better manage our emotions. Key Points We often assume that approaching emotions is universally good and avoiding emotions is universally bad. Reality is much more nuanced. We can strategically use our senses to modulate our feelings. Music is a simple and powerful way to manage emotions proactively. Use playlists that align with the mood you wish to create. Using distancing language when talking to yourself (i.e. saying “you” instead of “I”) can help you regulate. Time shifting may help regulate your emotions. Ask yourself, how will I feel about this in a week? A month? A year? Different tools work for different people at different times. Experiment to help you determine what works best for you. Resources Mentioned Shift: Managing Your Emotions--So They Don't Manage You by Ethan Kross Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes How to Find Helpful Advisors, with Ethan Kross (episode 516) How to Grow From Your Errors, with Amy Edmondson (episode 663) How to Handle High-Pressure Situations, with Dan Dworkis (episode 701) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

In this second special episode of season two bonus content, host Chris Linnane shares exclusive, never-before-heard clips from his conversations with Harvard Business School faculty members. Tune in to hear Amy Edmondson, Anthony Mayo, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, and Nancy Koehn discuss leadership, strategy, and resilience. Amy Edmondson on Building High-Performing Teams: https://hbs.me/ade6yb9d Anthony Mayo on What Makes an Effective Leader: https://hbs.me/3ttp4c56  Felix Oberholzer-Gee on the Frameworks of Business Strategy: https://hbs.me/yc3f5jb3  Nancy Koehn on How Crisis Brings Out Extraordinary Leadership: https://hbs.me/ycksfcds 

What if the way you think about failure has been holding you back? What if reframing failure could be a major breakthrough to unlocking your potential?Today's guest is Dr. Amy Edmondson, a Harvard Business School professor and one of the world's foremost authorities on leadership, psychological safety, and the transformative power of failure. Her research has redefined how teams thrive, how innovation happens, and how individuals can unlock their full potential.In this episode, we dive into Amy's framework for failure—how understanding the difference between basic, complex, and intelligent failures can reframe our approach to learning and growth. We also explore the tension between perfectionism and ambition, the significance of purpose in navigating setbacks, and why true belonging is rooted in authentic connection rather than seeking approval.If you're ready to rethink failure and discover how it can be your greatest teacher, then tune in for this insightful episode with Amy Edmondson.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Is Agile still relevant in today’s fast-paced world? Brian and Joshua Kerievsky reveal the four game-changing principles of Modern Agile that prioritize safety, empowerment, and continuous value delivery. Overview In this episode, Brian Milner sits down with Joshua Kerievsky, a pioneer in the Agile community and the creator of Modern Agile. They discuss how Agile practices have evolved, the critical role of safety and empowerment, and how to deliver value continuously in today’s fast-paced world. Don’t miss these insights into creating better teams, products, and results through simplicity and experimentation. References and resources mentioned in the show: Joshua Kerievsky Industrial Logic Joy of Agility by Joshua Kerievsky Modern Agile #33 Mob Programming with Woody Zuill #51: The Secrets of Team Safety with Julie Chickering Badass: Making Users Awesome by Kathy Sierra The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg The Lean Startup by Eric Ries Experimentation Matter: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation by Stefan H. Thomke Agile For Leaders Mike Cohn’s Better User Stories Course Accurate Agile Planning Course Join the Agile Mentors Community Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Joshua Kerievsky is the founder and CEO of Industrial Logic and author of Joy of Agility. An early pioneer of Extreme Programming, Lean Software Development, and Lean Startup, Joshua is passionate about helping people achieve genuine agility through principle-based approaches like Modern Agile. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back. And this is another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm here as I always am. I am Brian Milner and today I am joined by Joshua Kerievsky and really excited to have Joshua here with us. Welcome in Joshua. Joshua Kerievsky (00:16) Thank you so much, Brian. Happy to be here. Brian (00:19) Very excited for Joshua to be here. Joshua's been around for a while. He's been doing this for a long time. He said, you know, when we were talking before, and he's been involved with Agile before, it was called Agile. And, you know, that probably tells you all you need to know there. But a couple other things here about him, just so that you kind of can place him a little bit. His company is Industrial Logic, Inc. and he's the CEO and founder of that company. He has a book called Joy of Agility that's out there that I highly recommend. It's a really great book. And he's also closely associated with something that maybe you've been aware of, maybe you've heard of, maybe you haven't, but something called Modern Agile. And that's what I thought we'd focus on here for our discussion is really to try to understand a little bit about it. especially for those of you, maybe you haven't heard of it, haven't been around it before. So... Why don't we start there, Joshua? Tell us a little bit about what was the need that was trying to be filled with something like modern Agile. Joshua Kerievsky (01:19) Well, it goes back to a conference I attended in Prague back in around 2015. And I was giving a speech, a keynote speech there, and that ended. And then I went and said, well, I'm going to go join the OpenSpace. And I was just looking at what people were talking about at the OpenSpace. And at that point in time, I had already been experimenting with a ton of stuff that just kind of different from what we had been doing 10 years earlier or even later than that. I mean, just this was new things that we were doing, whether it was continuous deployment or ideas from lean startup or ideas from the pop and dykes and lean concepts applied to agility or just a lot of things that were just different. And none of the sessions I was seeing in the open space seemed to be talking about any of that stuff, like giving up story points or moving away from sprints until continuous flow. just nothing was being talked about. So I just said, well, I'm going to host a session, and I'll call it, I don't know, a modern Agile. And so that's as far as I got in terms of thinking about the name. I just wanted to run a session where we could talk about, there's a lot of new things we're doing that kind of display some of the older ideas. And they're very useful, I found. So the session ended up getting a lot of attention. 60, 70 people showed up there. So we had a big group. And it was well received. People were fascinated by the stuff that they weren't aware of. And so I then repeated this open space event in Berkeley. Like a month later, was Agile Open Door Cal in Berkeley was running and did it again. And again, there was tremendous interest. in this, so much so that I decided to write a blog and wrote the blog and started getting more conversations happening. And that sort of began the movement of describing this thing called Modern Agile. And it took a few twists and turns in the beginning, but it wasn't sort of, I guess, if anything, I felt like Agile needed to be a little more simple. in terms of what we were explaining, because it was starting to get very complex with frameworks, enterprise frameworks coming along like safe and just too many moving parts. And so what ended up happening is I wrote some things and people started to notice, there's kind of like four things there that are really valuable. One of them was The names changed a little bit over time. But anyway, what ended up was four principles emerged. And that really became modern Agile. Brian (03:58) That's awesome. just for listeners here, I've pitched attending conferences in the past. If you've listened to this podcast, you've heard me say that, and I'll create things come out of that. And here's an example, right? This is something that was open space discussion. Open space, if you're not familiar with that, at conferences, can, if there's an open space day or a couple of days, then anyone can present any topic they want. And whoever shows up is who shows up. And this one got a lot of attention. And a movement grew from this open space topic, which is awesome. So let's talk. You mentioned there's four principles here. And I like the distinction here we're making also between the frameworks and the practices versus the cultural aspects or the philosophy behind it. And returning to those roots a little bit more from what Agile originally was. So you mentioned there's kind of four areas of this. Let's walk our way through those. I know the first one, or one of the first ones here is make people awesome. So help us understand, what do you mean by make people awesome? Joshua Kerievsky (04:59) Probably the most controversial of principles, because you'll get people coming along saying, wait a minute, people are already awesome. What are you talking about? And it comes from my, I'm a big fan of Kathy Sierra. And her blog was incredible. And her book, she wrote a book called Badass, Making Users Awesome. And in her book, she was really wonderfully clear about Brian (05:07) You Joshua Kerievsky (05:24) that teams that build products ought to focus on the user of the products more than the product itself. In other words, she would say, don't try to create the world's best camera. Try to create the world's best photographers. Big subtle difference there. Like that is focusing so much on empowering the users, making them awesome at their work or whatever they're doing, whether it's art or accounting or whatever, whatever your product does, how can you give them something that elevates their skills, that gets them to a point of awesomeness faster? And that's what she was talking about. So I thought, what a wonderful message. And initially, I used language like make users awesome. you know, having been an entrepreneur myself and created products and sold them and You learn a heck of a lot when you make your own product. And we've made several products over the years at Industrial Logic, probably the most successful of which was our e-learning software. And that has taught me so many, so many lessons. One of them is you have to serve an ecosystem of people. You can't just make your main user awesome. What about the person who's buying the software? How do you make them awesome in terms of helping them buy something that's going to get used? If they buy your e-learning and they never use it, they've wasted a lot of money. So we've got to make sure that their reputation is intact because they made an excellent investment and it got used and it got into valuable, it created value in the company. So how do I make the buyer awesome? How do I make the person that like rolls out the licenses to people awesome? How do I make their experience awesome? How do I make my colleagues awesome so that we love what we're doing and really enjoy working together? So it kind of morphed from make users awesome to make people awesome. And it's so expanded. If anything, we set the bar higher. And all of the principles of modern agile are like unachievable. They're all kind of high bars, right? But they're the goal that we go towards. So that really is it. It's about creating Brian (07:23) Ha Joshua Kerievsky (07:35) you know, wonderful, you know, the in Great Britain, they use awesome kind of sarcastically sometimes, right? They'll say, well, that's awesome. You know, and so for them, it would be brilliant. You know, I thought of making an English version. We have many translations of modern agile, and I thought of making an English version, which would be a proper British English version, make people brilliant. But it's meant to be to empower folks to give them something. And it's so it is. Brian (07:43) Ha You Joshua Kerievsky (08:04) It does have a product focus in the sense of we're typically building a system or a product that someone's going to use and it's going to give them skills they didn't have before or abilities they didn't have before that are going to be very valuable. Brian (08:18) Yeah, I love that. And there's a sort of a servant nature to that servant leaders, not servant leadership as much, but servant nature of I'm serving these people and how do I, how do I serve them in a way that really empowers them? Kind of reminds me of like, you know, the, the great principle with, with dev ops of just, know, if I can, if I can empower the developers to be able to do these things on their own. And so they don't need someone else to come and check the box and do everything for them. You're making them awesome. You're empowering them to be more than they were otherwise. Joshua Kerievsky (08:54) Yes, yes, absolutely. I I think we've seen a history in the software field of a lot of tools coming along and helping. It's not just tools, it's also methods as well. I mean, I'm entirely grateful to the Agile software development movement because it helped nudge everything towards a far better way of working and to make us more awesome at our craft. yeah, you have to have a North Star though. If you're going to build something, You have to know, what are we going for here? What are we shooting for? And with Cathy's influence, again, it's not so much make the greatest product in the world. It's, that focus on the users, the people who are going to be using the work, using the product. Brian (09:34) That's really good. Let's talk about the second one then on my list here, the make safety a prerequisite. What was the point here behind this principle? Joshua Kerievsky (09:40) Yes. So starting probably around 2011 or so, I could not stand going to the Agile Conference anymore. It had just become too commercial and too filled with just people hocking stuff. And it just was bothering me too much. I couldn't go. So I ended up going to South by Southwest, which is an Brian (09:54) You Joshua Kerievsky (10:09) Enormous conference tens of thousands of people show up So it'd be 20,000 30,000 40,000 people showing up for these for this event, which is musical film technology just it's just wild and I came across this book by Charles Duhigg called the power of habit. He was there that year and In that book. Well, first of all that particular year was 2012 that I went my first year there it poured The rain, it was every day, it was unusual for that time, but it was just like pouring rain. So what could you do? I bought some books and I was sitting there in my room reading them. And I'm reading this book, The Power of Habit, and I come across this chapter called The Ballad of Paul O'Neill. Now who the heck's Paul O'Neill? Well, it turns out Paul O'Neill is this incredible guy, a complete business maverick. He ended up becoming the treasury secretary under Bush and not. in 2000 for a short period of time, but that's another story. And he ran Alcoa for about 13 or 14 years. And so the Ballot of Paul O'Neill is very much about what he did at Alcoa to turn the company around. And in essence, you could say he made safety a prerequisite. That safety was his guiding light in turning that company around, which meant left people empowered to do all kinds of things. So it went way beyond safety, but started there. And it's an incredible story. I've written about it in Joy of Agility. I got so into Paul O'Neill that I ended up interviewing his main lieutenant. And then I got a chance to interview him a couple of times. the man's a genius. He passed away a few years back. Absolute genius. this concept of safety started to really pull at me in the sense that I felt, first of all, extreme programming, and I'm a big practitioner of extreme programming, brings a tremendous amount of safety to software development. It may not be as explicit in saying safety, safety, safety. When you look at extreme programming, doesn't really talk about safety, but it's implicit. And these days, Kent Beck's much more vocal about, you One of his missions is to make software development safer for geeks. But safety to me is almost like I found my home. Like safety was something that, what I learned through Paul O'Neill was that it's a doorway to excellence. And he transformed a hundred year old company with safety. I would complain about companies we were working with that were 25 years old and had an embedded culture. Like, how are we gonna change this company? But safety started to be this thing that I hadn't really thought enough about, and making it explicit opened up a lot of doors, right? And I became very interested in the work of Amy Edmondson, who's extremely famous today, but back then she was not so famous. And huge fan of hers. I, you know, I can email her and she'll email me back and she wrote a nice thing about my book. So. She has done some incredible work there. And so when we talk about safety in modern agile, it's psychological safety. It's financial safety. It's any of the safeties. There are many safeties that we could talk about. And it looks at all of them, right? It's brand safety, software safety in terms of security. you know, of the software and on and on and on. So make safety prerequisite is vast and big in terms of what we're trying to do there. Making it a prerequisite means it's not an afterthought and it's not a priority that shifts with the winds. It is permanent. It is something that we know we have to have in place. And it's very, very hard to achieve. Just like make people awesome is hard to achieve. Boy, is make safety a prerequisite difficult. Brian (13:43) Hmm. Yeah, I love Amy Edmondson's work as well. I'm just kind of curious. does the safety kind of inclusive of things like quality as well? Do you intend that to be part of what you mean by safety? Joshua Kerievsky (14:11) Well, mean, to the extent that it makes it safer to do good software development. So if bugs are happening all the time, you can't make people awesome, typically if you don't have quality. If you have really poor quality, nobody's being made awesome. They're experiencing all kinds of problems with your product. So make people awesome and make safety a prerequisite are very much tied together. That is, there is no real excellence without safety. You could think you're having an excellent experience, so that all of a sudden there's a major problem, and boy, are you unhappy. So they really go hand in hand. You could have the most incredible restaurant, and then one day you've got food poisoning happening. Great, no one's come to your restaurant. So you will not make anyone awesome if you don't make safety a prerequisite, and quality is part of that. Brian (14:57) Awesome. Well, let's move on to the next one then, because the next category is one that just resonates with me a lot. Experiment and learn rapidly. What was kind of the thought behind this one? Joshua Kerievsky (15:06) Yeah, and this is one where it that's shorthand, if you will, because you can only fit so many words on a wheel there. But it's important to know that that really means experiment rapidly and learn rapidly. And that comes a lot out of it in the influences of something like Lean Startup. I'm a huge fan of that book and of Eric's work, Eric Reese's work. Brian (15:13) Ha Joshua Kerievsky (15:29) And the fact that we can experiment rapidly and learn rapidly rather than just building everything and then learning slowly. Right? How can we do cheap experiments quickly to decide what's important to work on and what isn't? Let's not build stuff nobody wants. Let's find more time with our customers and understand their needs better so we can build the right things that make them awesome. In other words, and a lot of these are interconnected. In many respects, modern Agile is a Venn diagram. ideally want all four principles to be overlapping. And right there in that middle is where you really want to be. Not easy. But experimenting, learning rapidly, yeah. So challenge yourself to find ways to do quick, cheap, useful experiments. You can do lot of unuseful experiments. Amazon experienced that. There's a story in my book about how Amazon had to start just shepherding the experiments a little more and having some better criteria. Because you could do an endless array of experiments and not get anywhere. There's a wonderful book called Experimentation Matters by a Harvard business professor. Wonderful book as well. But I love experimentation and learning. And I see it as critical to building great products. So that's that principle there. Brian (16:46) Yeah, there's a real difference, I think, in organizations that put value on that learning process. if you see it as a valuable thing, that we invest time to gain knowledge, then that really can truly make an impact when you go forward. I know I've talked about this in classes sometimes where people will say, isn't it a little bit selfish from the organization to try to always just figure out what's going to sell the best? or what's going to work the best in advance of putting something out. My response is always, well, yes, there is a benefit to the business, but there's a benefit to the customer as well because they would rather you work on things that they care more about. Joshua Kerievsky (17:24) That's right. Yeah. I mean, we once put out an experimental product to a large automotive company. And we were really excited about it. We had a whole list of features we wanted to add to it. But we were like, you know what? Let's just get this primitive version kind of in their hands just to see what happens. it turned out that we learned very rapidly that they couldn't run the software at all. There was some proxy. that was preventing communication with our servers from their environment. So it was like, excellent. We learned really quickly that instead of those fancy new features we want to add to this thing, we're going to fix the proxy problem. And to me, that's the nature of evolutionary design is that we create something, get it out there quickly, and learn from it rapidly and evolve it. So it goes hand in hand with that as well. Brian (18:11) That's awesome. Well, there's one category left then, and that is deliver value continuously. So what was the genesis of that? Thinking about delivering value continuously. Joshua Kerievsky (18:19) So that was heavily influenced by my own journey into continuous delivery and continuous deployment and that whole world. We got into that very early. I was lucky enough to catch a video by Timothy Fritz, who he worked with Eric at IMBU. And he coined the term continuous deployment. And that video is actually no longer on the Brian (18:43) Ha Joshua Kerievsky (18:44) But this was something that I became enamored of was doing continuous deployment. And we started doing it at Industrial Logic with our own e-learning software back in about 2010. And by the time you get to like 2015, it's like, hey folks, there's this thing where you can do a little bit of work and ship it immediately to production in a very safe way, a safe deployment pipeline. It's friggin' awesome. But the principle doesn't just apply to that because this modern agile is not just about software development. It's how can I work in a way that gets value in front of people as fast as possible? So for example, if I'm working on a proposal, great, I'm not going to work for two weeks and then show you something. I'm going to put something together, a skeleton, I'm going to show it to you and say, what do you think? Does this add value? Where would we improve this? Blah, blah, Again, going hand in hand with evolutionary design. continuous delivery of value is something that is a way of working. With artists that I work with, they'll do a quick sketch or two or three sketches of something first before we start settling in on which one do we like the best and how do we want to craft and refine that. So there's a way of working in which you're delivering value much more finely grained and approaching continuously instead of in bigger batches. Brian (20:05) Yeah. I love the connection there between artists as well, because I've got a background in music, and I'm thinking about how when you go to write a song or create a new work like that, you start off with the roughest of demo tapes, and you move from there to increasingly more sophisticated versions of it until you finally have the finished product. But no one thinks that's strange or thinks that's weird in any way. But you're right. Sometimes there's this attitude or kind of I think in some organizations of, we can't let anyone see that until it's absolutely finished, until it's done. Joshua Kerievsky (20:39) Yeah, yeah, and that maybe that's that there's some fear there, you know, because they don't want to be thought of as, you know, being lesser because they put something rough in front of someone. Whereas I view it as a, you know, to me, it's a sign of weakness when you when you only send something polished because you haven't had the courage or the sense of safety to put something rough where we can make better decisions together early on. So. There's a lot of learning, I think, around that. But it's a challenging principle of its own, deliver value continuously. And people would say, well, what does value mean? Value is one of those words where it's unclear, because you could improve the internal design of a software system. Is that value? It probably is. But you've got to be able to quantify it or prove that it's going to help make things more graceful in terms of flowing features out. yeah, quantifying, communicating what the value is. is important. I'm also a big fan of maximizing the amount of work not done, as it says in the manifesto. So how can we do less and deliver more sooner? Our motto in industrial logic now is better software sooner. And a lot of these principles go straight into that. that drives it. Brian (21:38) Yeah. That's really great. Yeah, I love these four principles and I think that they really represent a lot. There's a lot that's baked into each one of these things. And I'm sure as you kind of put this together with the community and started to talk more about it, I'm sure there were some challenges. I'm sure people came up to you and said, well, what about and how about this? Is there anything now looking back on this that you'd say, gosh, we really... really didn't quite cover this or, know, this is maybe I could fudge it and squeeze it in this area, but you know, there's this other thing that I really think would be important to kind of mention here as well. Joshua Kerievsky (22:28) Well, you know, it's funny, because I thought I was going to write a book. I started collecting stories. I love telling stories, and I find stories to be a great way to help educate people. Not the only way, right? But as part of some of the workshops I give, you tell a story. Hopefully it's a story that's sticky, that sticks in the person's brain. And over the years, I collected stories like that, stories of agility. I thought I'd be writing a book about modern agile when I started writing Joy of Agility. Gradually, as I wrote more and more stories, they didn't quite fit into all those four principles. And I think the lesson I learned there was that I was starting to talk about what pure Agile means, the word Agile. What does it really mean to be Agile? Whereas modern Agile is really almost in the context of product development, of building services or products for people. Whereas Agile itself is even more pure. And so the... the book itself got into the difference between quickness and hurrying, which you can relate to this. You could say experiment and learn rapidly. Well, OK, maybe we shouldn't rush it. Don't rush. Be quick, but don't hurry is one of the mantras in Joy of Agility. So adapting, right? Adapting, we talk about adapting all the time. So to be agile, you need to be able to adapt quickly. These four principles in modern agile don't say anything about adapting. Brian (23:46) Ha Joshua Kerievsky (23:48) So that's kind of implied, but it's not there. So it's a different lens on agility. If anything, I'd say the make people awesome principles are not meant to. It created some dislike, I'd say, from some people. It could have been called empower people, potentially, although a lot of people really love make people awesome. I don't know so much what I'd change there. I'd say we have a .org. So it's a modernagile.org is a website. There's a pretty large Slack community, which, know, four or 5,000 people on that. We don't certify anyone in modern agile, so there's no certifications, but it's something that is neutral in the sense that whether you practice Scrum or Kanban or Safe or whatever, these principles can influence you. And, you know, but again, this all came out of like, when I went to that open space conference in Prague, I had no idea I was going to talk about modern agile. You know, it was not like a predetermined thing. It was just like, my God, they're not talking about the modern ways we're doing stuff. So, and I always encourage people to, you know, keep pushing the limits and keep modernizing. I said to my own company the other day, our wonderful ways of working that we've been doing now for years that have evolved, they're probably antiquated as of today. You know, with generative AI, what would we do differently? Let's have a perspective on our own work as it needs to be modernized constantly. So the term modern in modern agile means always be modernizing, always be looking. Okay, I've had people say, well, Josh, some things don't need to be modernized. There's things that are just evergreen. They're classic. I'm like, absolutely. I'm not changing evolutionary design anytime soon. I find it to be quite useful in so many contexts. So yes, there's the evergreen stuff. And then there's the stuff where you can, indeed, discover a better way. The manifesto itself says, we are discovering better ways of working. Great. Keep that going. Keep modernizing and looking for easier, simpler, quick, easy grace. as the dictionary definition of Agile says, how can we work with quick, easy grace? That's always going to be improving, hopefully. Brian (26:12) Love that, yeah. And you're right, I mean, think there's some, to some people I think that there's, I guess at times an attitude of, you this is all new stuff or this is a brand new concept and something they don't really see the connection backwards in time to how these things are all built on other ideas that have been progressive over the years. So the idea of, yeah, this is, you know, we're, we're not saying that certain ideas are bad because now we're trying to modernize them. We're just saying we're trying to apply that same principle forward into kind of the context of today, which I don't see anyone should have a problem with that. Joshua Kerievsky (26:48) That's right. That's right. Well, and if you are experimenting and learning rapidly with your own process, which I highly encourage, chances are the way you work today will be different than it was yesterday. You will be exploring, like we use discovery trees today. We didn't use them before. Years ago, no one knew what a story map was. There wasn't such a thing as a story map. Now we have story maps. There's constant improvement happening. And you've got to be open-minded and willing to try new things and drop old stuff. We thought sprints and iterations and extreme programming was absolutely fundamentally part of the way to work. Then we started experimenting with dropping them and turned out, wow, this is pretty cool. We like this. It works pretty darn well for our purposes. That came through experimentation. some of our experiments were terrible, just terrible. It's not an experiment if you already know the outcome. keep pushing the limits of what can make you happier and more joyful at work in terms of producing great stuff. Brian (27:46) Awesome. That's great stuff. Well, I can't thank you enough for coming on, Joshua. This is great stuff. just, you know, we'll put all the links to the books mentioned and everything else in our show notes for everybody. But as Joshua said, you can go to modernagile.org and find out more about this if you'd like to. You'll find information there about Joshua himself or his company again is Industrial Logic, Inc. And, you know, his book again, just to mention that, Joy of Agility. We were talking how some people get that title a little mixed up or whatever, but it's just the three words, joy of agility. So just look out for that book. I think you'll find it a rich resource for you. Joshua, thanks so much for coming on. Joshua Kerievsky (28:25) Thank you, Brian. Thanks to you. Thanks to Mountain Goat and the folks there. And I really appreciate chatting with you. It was really wonderful.

Sunita Sah: Defy Sunita Sah is an award-winning professor at Cornell University and an expert in organizational psychology, leading groundbreaking research on influence, authority, compliance, and defiance. A trained physician, her research and analyses have been widely published in leading academic journals and media entities including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Harvard Business Review, and Scientific American. She is the author of Defy: The Power of No in a World That Demands Yes*. We often think of defiance as a snap judgement. Yet, it's so much more nuanced and purposeful than it often appears. In this conversation, Sunita and I explore the common patterns of defiance and how we can all do a better job of standing up for ourselves. Key Points We follow bad advice – even when we know it is obviously bad – to avoid appearing unhelpful. Defiance means acting in accordance with your true values when there is pressure to do otherwise. True defiance is not a snap judgement; it's a process. Acts of defiance are preceded by many moments of conscious compliance, when defiance is deferred. Five stages of defiance often emerge: (1) Tension, (2) Acknowledgement (to ourselves), (3) Escalation (vocalize to others), (4) Threat of non-compliance, and (5) Act of defiance. Vocalizing our concern to someone else is a key pivot point on the journey to ultimately saying no. Respond explicitly to these questions: (1) Who am I? (2) What type of situation is this? and (3) What does a person like me do in a situation such as this? Resources Mentioned Defy: The Power of No in a World That Demands Yes* by Sunita Sah Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes Find Courage to Speak When It Matters Most, with Allan McDonald (episode 229) How to Build Psychological Safety, with Amy Edmondson (episode 404) How to Speak Up, with Connson Locke (episode 546) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

Can failure be the secret ingredient to our success? As we stand on the brink of a new year, it's time to rethink how we perceive failure. Contrary to the traditional view of setbacks as purely negative, this episode unpacks the transformative concept of "failing well," inspired by Amy Edmondson's groundbreaking book, "The Right Kind of Wrong." We dissect failures into three categories: preventable, complex, and intelligent. Understanding these distinctions not only heightens our resilience but also enhances our capacity for growth, both personally and professionally. Through this lens, we discuss the importance of intelligent failure, where venturing into uncharted territories becomes a fertile ground for innovation and learning. As we prepare for 2025, the challenge is to embrace failure as a driving force for growth. By adopting acronyms like "First Attempt In Learning" and "From Action, I Learn," we emphasize the significance of learning through doing and experimenting. Rather than waiting for unattainable perfection, we learn valuable lessons through action and can use this feedback as a pivotal and far more accurate tool for refinement as opposed to reflection alone. With this mindset, we transform failures into valuable insights, enabling us to stretch our capabilities, refine our strategies, and ultimately, achieve a more enriching and fruitful year ahead. Let's get started! What You'll Learn: • Why our unhealthy relationship with failure holds us back. • Embracing intelligent failures as a catalyst for growth. • F.A.I.L. forward to achieve your goals.  • How to adopt a growth mindset for failure. • The importance of learning through action and experimentation Podcast Timestamps: (00:00) - What is Your Relationship with Failure? (04:20) - Not All Failures Are Created Equal (08:01) - Embracing Intelligent Failures for Innovation (19:06) – Looking Forward to 2025 Key Topics Discussed: Positive Leadership, Dealing with Failure, Achieving Success, Pursuing Goals, Amy Edmondson, Preventable Failures, Complex Failures, Intelligent Failures, Continuous Learning, Growth Mindset, Embracing Innovation, Minimum Viable Product, Feedback Through Action, Building Resilience, Insight Through Action, Embracing Challenges, Capitalizing on Opportunities, CEO Success More of Do Good to Lead Well: Website: https://craigdowden.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdowden/ Mentions:Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well by Amy Edmondson

Leadership in 2024 was challenging, and 2025 promises to be even more demanding. With economic pressures, hybrid work complexities, and the rapid rise of AI, the expectations for leaders have never been higher. But the good news is we've packed the best leadership advice from 2024 into one powerhouse episode, giving you the tools to thrive in the year ahead. In this episode, Guy Kawasaki, Author & Chief Evangelist at Canva, kicks things off by sharing how a growth mindset and resilience can help leaders tackle challenges head-on and turn them into opportunities. Dr. Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership & Management, reveals why creating psychological safety and embracing “intelligent failures” is the key to innovation and team trust. Finally, John R. Miles, Founder & CEO of PASSION STRUCK, wraps it up with his next-level framework for mindset and behavior shifts, showing leaders how to unlock intrinsic motivation and lead with intention. Get all the insights you need to lead with confidence, inspire your team, and make 2025 your breakthrough year.   ________________ Start your day with the world's top leaders by joining thousands of others at Great Leadership on Substack. Just enter your email: ⁠⁠https://greatleadership.substack.com/

What makes a team intelligent? Brian and Linda Rising explore the surprising factors that foster group intelligence, from psychological safety to diversity, backed by groundbreaking research from MIT and Google. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with Agile thought leader Linda Rising to explore the concept of group intelligence. They dive into what makes teams intelligent, discussing the importance of diversity, psychological safety, and social perceptiveness. Using research from MIT and Google, Linda also highlights how storytelling and a growth mindset can enhance team dynamics, leading to more effective and innovative collaboration. References and resources mentioned in the show: Linda Rising Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas by Mary Lynn Manns & Linda Rising MIT Center For Collective Intelligence Project Aristotle The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmonson Amy Edmonson’s TED Talks 3 ways to better connect with your coworkers - Mark T. Rivera’s TED Talk Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner® Advanced Certified ScrumMaster® Agile For Leaders Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule Join the Agile Mentors Community Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Linda Rising is an internationally recognized consultant, speaker, and author with a Ph.D. in object-based design metrics. Known for her expertise in agile development, retrospectives, and the intersection of neuroscience and software, Linda has authored five books and numerous articles. In 2020, she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the World Agility Forum for her impactful contributions to the industry. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back here with you for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I am with you as I always am, Brian Milner. And I wanted to introduce you today to someone I think you're really gonna enjoy here on this episode. I have the one and only Linda Rising with me. Linda, thank you so much for coming on. Linda Rising (00:09) Okay. It is my pleasure, Brian. Thank you so much for inviting me. It's a beautiful day here in Nashville, Tennessee. Brian (00:32) In Nash Vegas, yes. I actually spent a couple years in Nash Vegas. So I know that area back in the day, back in the day, because I worked at Opryland. So that'll tell you how long ago it was. Yeah, back in the dark times, right? But Linda, for those, if anyone who might not be aware, Linda is an author. She is... Linda Rising (00:33) Yeah! wow okay Brian (00:58) really what people would call an agile luminary. She has been involved with this movement for quite a while and has really, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say shaped the conversation around this a lot with her research and other things that she's provided. we wanted to have her on because she, well, because it's Linda Rising, right? We wanted to have her on for that, but. Recently, she spoke at the Scrum Gathering, the regional Scrum Gathering that took place in Stockholm, and her topic just sounded really fascinating. I thought it would be fascinating for us to talk about. It was a topic of group intelligence. So Linda, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there like me that when they heard that the first time thought, I have no idea what that means. What does group intelligence mean? Linda Rising (01:43) Yeah. Actually, normally when I do anything, give a keynote or an interview on a podcast or the interviewer or the person who's inviting me will say, what would you like to talk about? That's what you did. What would you like to talk about with the idea that I could come up with a list of things I was interested in that I wanted to talk about because I knew something about it. Brian (02:09) Yep, it's true. Linda Rising (02:20) But in this case, no, it was, want you to be the opening keynote for this amazing gathering in Stockholm. and by the way, we want you to talk about group intelligence. So. That was about a year ago and I thought to myself, I don't know anything about, well, maybe I do. Maybe I do know something about group intelligence. But I have spent the past year getting ready for that talk. It was just a few weeks ago and along the way, what I found was it pulled together the research around this topic. pulled together a lot of things that I have been thinking about and it is still not over. I had to give that talk, there was a date for that, but now there are little threads that, as you say, I'm following those down various rabbit holes because they're connected to other things that I'm interested in. So this turned out to be, even though I didn't pick it and I didn't know a whole lot about it, It's turned out to be a great introduction to a different way of thinking. So we know what intelligence is, I think. Don't you? Do you know you have an idea? And aren't you intelligent? Brian (03:41) That's so awesome. Well, that's a quite a loaded question, right? Linda Rising (03:53) Of course you are and and so are our listeners our listeners are intelligent and what's interesting is that the psychologists who measure that They don't really have a definition for intelligence. What they do is they can test for it So have you ever had you know an intelligence test You know, an IQ test. Have you? Have you ever had one? Brian (04:25) You know what, I don't think I ever have, but I know my wife has, my daughters have, I'm very familiar with them, but I can't point back to one to say, hey, I know what my score was. Linda Rising (04:28) I'll bet you have. Well, sometimes you're given that test at a particular point, maybe in high school, and they didn't tell you that it was an intelligence test. You just took it along with the other battery of tests that you were taking at the time. And maybe they didn't tell you, you have an IQ of 145. They didn't tell you how smart you were. Brian (04:47) Yeah. Linda Rising (05:06) but somebody, somewhere, somehow along the way, they did. They measured it. And that's without having a definition for whatever it is. So what that test does is it says you're pretty good at solving a bunch of problems. And that's what the test is. Brian (05:17) That's amazing. Linda Rising (05:32) it asks you to look at some math problems, logic problems, spatial problems, different kinds of problems, and you either solve them pretty well or not so well, and when they are finished with that, that score on that test says something about how well you do at solving those problems. And that's what they're calling intelligence. Brian (06:03) I think I see where you're going with this because to me, if we're going to try to be very precise with words on that, I would say that sounds more like education. If I know how to solve a particular kind of math problem, that's because I've been educated to learn that. It's not a measure of my... Linda Rising (06:13) Yeah. Yep, yep. And so those tests, yeah, those tests do have a bias. They're biased toward people who have a certain kind of education biased against people who maybe didn't have that kind of education. Also, it doesn't even begin to talk about music. Here I am in Music City. Doesn't talk about musical talent. Brian (06:43) Yeah Linda Rising (06:46) It doesn't talk about your ability to perform, say, some sports activity, whether you're going to be a great basketball player or a baseball player. There are a lot of things that intelligence tests don't even, they don't even think about. Now, it doesn't mean this isn't a valid exercise because those IQ tests have been around a long time and they do measure what they measure, they measure it very well. And they do correlate with a lot of performance activities. In fact, if you were hiring somebody, the absolute best thing, if you could just do one thing, would be to give them an IQ test. That correlates most strongly with any kind of performance on the job. So it's a valid test, even if it has some biases, some problems. So that's individual intelligence and we call that IQ. So now the question is, can you do that for a group or a team? Brian (07:53) Yeah. Linda Rising (08:03) Could you say this group, could we measure it somehow? And if so, would it have the same kind of validity? That is, if they do well on this test, would that mean they would do well in the workplace? If we had that, then could we use it to say, all right, this team. is really going to be great for whatever it is that we wanted them to do. Is that possible? So obviously the answer is yes, or I wouldn't be here talking about it. Yeah. So the research is fascinating and it would take a long time to actually go into it, but it was started at MIT. The organization is called the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. and they have been doing this now for over a decade. So this is not brand new out of the box. We're not sure where this is going. This has been happening and has been happening successfully. They do have a test. They can give it to a group. And what they find is that if the group does well, that group will also do well on other, just like IQ, other kinds of things that the test measures. And so, yes, they can measure group intelligence. Brian (09:38) Very interesting. This is really fascinating. Yeah. It's fascinating. I'm going to interrupt you for just a moment because I know, and forgive me if I'm taking you off track with where you were intending to go. But I know, having heard some of your other talks in the past on agile mindset and what you've written about, I know there's kind of this fundamental idea of the fixed verse. Linda Rising (09:39) It is interesting. Yeah. No, no, no, it's okay. Brian (10:05) growth mindset and the idea of intelligence being not necessarily a thing you're born with, but really something that you have the potential to change and grow. And how does that translate then to the group environment and the group's intelligence? Linda Rising (10:23) Yeah, so that's a great lead in because the next part of it was, well, okay, so we have this test and we can give it to a group, but we'd like to tease out some attributes of teams to say, you know, the teams that do really well on this test, they all seem to have, and they found there were three things that characterized Brian (10:26) Yeah. Linda Rising (10:52) intelligent group. The first one was called social perceptiveness. That is, are the people on the group, are they able to relate to each other? If one of the persons in the groups having a struggle for some reason, are they able to pick up on that? It's kind of hard to say, well what is that social perceptiveness? and we can come back to that, but that's first on the list. The second attribute is that when they have any kind of a discussion, that everybody talks. And that's pretty easy to see, and I know that you've probably been on teams as I have, where really not everybody talked, where maybe mostly one or two Brian (11:24) Yeah. Okay. Linda Rising (11:49) You know the loud people they did all the talking and the rest of us We just kind of sat in the corner and we said well, you know, whatever Yeah We've been there. Well, have we have we have seen that and I don't know how you're gonna feel about the third one But we all are concerned about diversity Brian (12:00) Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Linda Rising (12:17) We know that diversity is an issue. All organizations are struggling with the best way to deal with that. But the third attribute has to do with the percentage of women on the team. Brian (12:34) Really? Linda Rising (12:35) So this isn't like 50-50. This doesn't mean that you should have some women. It means the more women you have, the better. Ooh. You wanna think about that one? Brian (12:38) Yeah. You know what? I would not argue with that one bit because all the women that I've had in my life have been the most intelligent people I have known. So I would wholeheartedly concur with that. We're just a bunch of knuckleheads, the guys are. So I completely... Linda Rising (12:58) Ha! Brian (13:17) You know, I'm having some fun, but you're right. I can see that, you know? Like, I could see how that would be a really distinguishing characteristics. Linda Rising (13:22) Wow! So the researchers say maybe it's really not a gender thing because women are very good at social perceptiveness. And maybe what this third attribute, and they did a lot of statistical analyses, you you have to really dig down into the statistics and we don't want to do that. Maybe this third attribute is really a reflection of the first. And then if you, and here we're going to come to your growth mindset, if you could work with the people on the team who were not women, but who were these nerdy guys, know, could you somehow have them grow, improve, get better at social perceptiveness, then that would have the same effect as having more women on the team. And that's kind of where they are right now is can you do this? Are they equivalent? Are they really measuring the same thing? But they know that somehow that's what you've got to have is this ability to read. It's called theory of mind. Read the minds of the people on the team and that typically You know, we're stereotyping here. Typically men are not as good. So can you, could you, can you grow that characteristic? Can you get better? Can you get better at that? Brian (15:06) Yeah, I'll take a slight little side trail here and say that that makes perfect sense to me because one of the things that I found when I was doing my research on neurodiversity and specifically autism was that there's a book out there that I think I've shared on the podcast before, but it's called Autism in Heels. And basically the point of the book is to really examine autism in women. And one of the key points that's made in the book is the fact that when you see statistics about autism, you'll find that there's a huge number, there's a disparity. There's a large number of men, of males that are diagnosed and a few, a smaller percentage of females. And it gives the impression when you look at the data that you might think, well, this is a male thing, right? It's something that happens much more often than male. But this book is making the point that really, Linda Rising (16:02) Yeah. Brian (16:04) the criteria that was set aside to designate whether someone was autistic or not was really geared towards how it presents in males. So women were vastly underdiagnosed and still are to this day vastly underdiagnosed. And one of the things that makes it difficult to diagnose them is women are better at masking their symptoms. very much, they adapt to the environment around them. They pick up on the people around them. Linda Rising (16:18) Yeah. Brian (16:34) and they will mask the things that maybe are naturally a part of them, but they've learned in other parts of life how to do that. And so they're applying that to their autism as well. So that makes perfect sense to me. Linda Rising (16:43) Yeah. Yep, exactly. And of course, if we want to talk about women who have this tendency or on the spectrum, we have to mention Temple Grandin, who is one of the most famous female autistics in the world. I she's done more to gain attention for this problem, and she's definitely female. yeah, it's not it's not a male thing. But you're right that what's happened is that the women have had a growth mindset and whatever they inherited or were born with, they've done a better job at learning how to adapt given what they had as a limitation, adapting to working with others and using that as a strength. So that means that possibly, We could do that kind of thing to improve our teams if we included men in, well, what would it be? Would it be a training program? Would it be just coaching? Maybe this could be the job for a coach can certainly watch. The behavior of the team can notice, for instance, for that second attribute, is the discussion. Brian (17:54) Ha Linda Rising (18:10) Does that involve everybody equally? That could be a first step. And to encourage the growth in that direction. So one of the experiments that was done to follow on with that was to try to get male members of the team who didn't do well, you can actually measure social perceptiveness. And you mentioned autism, one of the tests. for autism is called reading the mind in the eyes. And with that test, you can show that people are better than others. And so maybe this could help us identify people who might benefit from this experimental approach. And that is to have something like, you know, I'm a patterns fan. So a collection of patterns that we used to talk about back in the day was written by Joshua Kerievsky and it was for running a study group where you read a book together a chapter at a time and you talk about it. So in the experiment the hypothesis was that reading a book together would improve the theory of mind or the social perceptiveness if it were a book that was fiction. Brian (19:37) Huh. Linda Rising (19:37) It's a story. A story. There's a hero and a beautiful princess and an adventurer and a bad guy and a good guy. in reading that, you learn to identify with the characters. And you talk about it. What was the character feeling when the handsome prince ran in to rescue the what was he thinking? Brian (19:39) Yeah. Linda Rising (20:05) So in a structured study group situation like that, reading fiction together and the results so far are positive but not enormous. It does help. It does help. Brian (20:20) Yeah. Yeah, I can see that, because you're trying to collectively interpret and you're getting a peek into someone else's mind of how they might interpret a situation and that can help you to interpret other situations. Yeah, I can see that. Linda Rising (20:23) May not. Yeah! Yeah, especially if someone was not in the habit of doing that. There are a lot of people who say, I've never even stopped to think about how the other members of my team are feeling. Brian (20:43) Yeah. Linda Rising (20:56) So attached to all of this is an enormous project that Google also started called Project Aristotle. And their idea was we wanna know what the secret is, what makes great teams. And they looked at everything. They spent years. mean, Google collects data, data they've got. and statisticians and analysts, they got it. And they spent years collecting and analyzing. And the summary at the end of all that was they found nothing. Brian (21:38) Hahaha Linda Rising (21:40) Did you read that? Did you read about that study? Yeah. Brian (21:44) I I'm familiar with that study. I really like what they did. Because when you have that kind of data available to you across cultures, across business units, it was an ambitious kind of study. I'm really thankful that they did it because I think they had some good findings there that came out of that as well. you're right. Linda Rising (21:52) Yeah! Yeah. Yeah? Yeah, they didn't find anything. Brian (22:12) Right, they thought it was gonna be, you know, it's a skill, it's the right mix of skills that makes it a high performing team or expertise and none of that really had a bearing. Yeah. Yeah. Linda Rising (22:15) Get off! And what was interesting about all of this is it sort of all came together because the folks at Google kind of looked over and said, well, look at what these folks at MIT are doing. And they said, maybe we're just not looking at the right thing. And they had talked about this social perceptiveness and what is that anyway? And it was kind of serendipity at about this time. Amy Edmondson wrote a book called The Fearless Organization, and it was about something she called psychological safety. And it was bigger than what the folks at MIT had identified. This has, I am free, I feel safe. Well, that would mean that you could speak up in a discussion and that would make the discussion more, okay, now we would think about what, I mean, what she talked about kind of put a big blanket around all of it and said, hey, I think we might be all talking about this. And the folks at Google said, well, you know, that makes sense. Maybe that's what we're looking for. And how do we do it? How do we do this? So your listeners might wanna just wander out to the Google site because now Google's been very transparent about this. How do you make this work? How do you bring about this psychological safety? How do you get people feel free to talk and to discussion? How do you help people be aware? of what other people are feeling. And they've got a whole raft of suggestions for managers, suggestions for team members, for, you know, and they're really all singing the same song. It's about this awareness of others, feeling that you are safe and that thinking about what other people are thinking. can lead your team to behave in more intelligent way. Brian (24:41) That's so, that's awesome. Right, right. Linda Rising (24:41) It's kind like a miracle. It's like a miracle. It all just came together. They weren't planning that. know, here at MIT, going one direction, Google going another direction. Here's Amy Edmondson at Harvard, and that it all kind of came together. Brian (24:48) That's awesome. You came together now. Yeah, Amy Edmondson is definitely one of my heroes. we've tried to get her on. We tried to get her to come on, but I know that there's layers to get to people like that. so if anyone's listening and has an end to Amy Edmondson, tell her that this is a welcome, this is a psychologically safe podcast to come on. We'd love to have her, but yeah. Linda Rising (25:07) Yeah. Well, yeah. think she did go out and talk to Google. I think there's a Google talk about psychological safety. So they did have her come in and give them some ideas, some suggestions or yeah. And she's on to failure now because her book, After Fearless Organization, which was about psychological safety, the one that, in fact, I just finished it is about failure. Brian (25:44) Yeah. That, Linda Rising (25:59) and their case studies of failures and what can you do about failure and yeah but anyway so she she's on she's she's on to whatever but yeah. Brian (26:07) That's awesome. Yes, she does great research and it's it's chock full in her book So I highly recommend her writing to anyone who's listening if that if this interests you Yeah, definitely read Amy Edmondson's work. You'll really enjoy it Linda Rising (26:14) Yeah Yeah. So, and if you do, then the story is not over, it's still going, which is, not just Amy Edmondson, but there's a fellow named Kevin Dunbar. This is not Robin Dunbar who did the 150 is kind of the magic number. This is a different Dunbar, same last name, but he did a lot of studies about thinking and. especially in science, how do scientists think? And in particular, he was interested in failure. And you know that as a scientist, you propose some hypothesis and then you test it in an experiment and then you stand back and you do an analysis and you say, well, did this work out or not? And he found that some scientists don't... like it when things don't go well. What a surprise, huh? Brian (27:26) Yeah, right. Linda Rising (27:28) Yeah, and they just ignore it. They either pretend it didn't happen or they put it in a drawer saying, we'll come back and, you know, we'll look at it later. But some scientists do a really good job of accepting that failure, working with it, and building on it. saying, hey, this is something we didn't think about. Maybe we can, they, you know, and they're off and running. It doesn't slow them down at all. And it turns out that the scientists who have that characteristic, who are able to do that, are scientists in groups. and they're in groups that are intelligent. They're diverse and open. They let everybody speak. They think about what other people are thinking if they're discouraged or not with this bad result. So the characteristics of those groups of scientists who do well with failure is the same. Brian (28:22) you Linda Rising (28:40) as the groups that MIT identified, the groups that Google is trying to grow. And I think it's really what we want in Agile development. We want groups like that. Not just because we think, intelligence is what. No. We want groups that have that characteristic. We want groups that feel psychologically safe. We want groups that feel free. Brian (28:54) Yeah. Linda Rising (29:08) to express their ideas. We want groups of people who are aware of what other people are thinking. That's what we want. Brian (29:16) Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That's so cool. Linda Rising (29:18) So they're all talking about the same thing. They may be using different words, but they are really, and one thing that we might wanna note right here is that all these different researchers made the same mistake in the beginning. And it's the same mistake organizations make. Is they thought in the beginning that what makes a smart team is smart people. Wrong. Not that you don't want smart people. Brian (29:48) Yeah. Right. Linda Rising (29:53) But that's just an okay thing to have. You can have a team of very smart people that doesn't have any of these other characteristics that is not intelligent as a group. So I think we really have to wake up and realize, first of all, that we're doing that, that we're valuing IQ or individual intelligence, smartness, you went to this school or you got that particular SAT score. It has nothing to do with that. It's not that there's no correlation, but it's weak, it's very weak. It's much better to have people who have these other characteristics. Brian (30:33) Yeah, let me just, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Let me connect it just a second to maybe someone who's listening who's a Scrum Master or someone like that, right? You might hear this and think, those foolish leadership people, they make these kinds of mistakes. I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. I know better than this kind of thing, right? Well, how much emphasis are you placing on whether your team knows all the details of what they should be doing in Scrum versus... helping them to know and understand each other, communicate with each other, right? How much effort and energy are you putting into those things versus the facts, right? I think that's where it can hit home for us is, these other areas, I think are, as you said, really much stronger predictors of success. And I think as Agilist, that's where we should be pouring our attention into because that's what's going to make the most significant difference. Linda Rising (31:40) Yeah. And I think since software development and I've been in it for a long time has had this really strong emphasis on smartness. We like smart people. And it's not that that's a bad thing necessarily. It's that it's not enough. So as a mathematician, you could say necessary, but not sufficient. Not even close. and that all of these researchers all said the same thing, that we thought it was going to be about smart people. We thought it was about IQ, that teams of smart people would be smart. And you and I both know that's not true. Brian (32:32) Right, right, right. I've been on some teams with some very smart people that were horrible teams. Linda Rising (32:35) Yes. Yes, yes, exactly. And I guess without belaboring it or beating it up, what's happening to me right now is that in reading about all of these different research activities, more and more things start to bubble up. that sort of are like the glue that holds all of this together. And the one that just, it just happened yesterday has to do with brainstorming. So I've been on a ramp to not, you know, I'm against brainstorming because there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. They've done experiments, they've said, okay, here's a group of people and they're gonna get together and they're gonna come up with ideas. Okay, we know how many ideas they came up with and whether they're any good or not. And now let's just take individuals and tell them individually, you come up with ideas and then we'll just measure. And the results are always the same, the individuals do better. So I have come up with explanations for that and I'm like, okay, well here's what. Well, I was wrong. Because in the research, it just was like an accident. I just happened to discover it in one of the papers that the groups that are intelligent, the groups that are aware, the groups that embrace failure, the groups that do well also do better at brainstorming. Why is that? Well, because everybody feels free to talk. Everybody feels psychologically safe. Everybody's aware of how other people are feeling and that impacts how they come up with ideas or think about things that other people suggest. So as a group, they do superbly at brainstorming. So it's not the brainstorming, it's the group and how they... Brian (34:43) Yeah. Ha Linda Rising (34:48) get in a room together and discuss things and share ideas. And so, you know, I hate to say this is gonna be the answer to all our prayers. And of course we still don't, we're still working on, well, how do you do this? How do you make this happen? And I remember a story. It's in fact, it's in one of the documents, I'm trying to think now on the Google website. It's a story of a team. Brian (34:58) Hahaha Yeah. Linda Rising (35:18) where the team leader tells the other people on the team that he has a terminal illness. And when he did that, everybody else on the team realized that they didn't really know anything about this guy. And they in turn began to share, well, I'm also having some struggles and here's my story. And going through that. cause that team to move up a notch, if you will, to become more intelligent, to be more aware, to suddenly be a little more respectful of how the discussions were. It was just telling stories about what you're going through so that everyone will be aware of how you feel, what you think is gonna be your... Brian (35:48) Yeah. Linda Rising (36:11) future in the next six months that they didn't have any training or study groups or they just told stories. Brian (36:26) They got to know each other as humans. And it's amazing how often we forget that that's who we work with. At least right now, we work with other human beings. And I hope that never changes, because that's where the best ideas, that's where the best creativity comes from. And yeah, it's fascinating, but you're absolutely right. I can see that point. Linda Rising (36:28) Yes, exactly. think for me, this is all, it's been really a hopeful journey because in the beginning, I wasn't even sure how it would go. I didn't know anything about the intelligence of groups. And in the beginning, it was all, okay, here's what MIT is doing and reading through, I mean, there were a lot of papers that I slogged through and it wasn't until about halfway through that, I discovered. Project Aristotle and I saw, this really connects. And now all these other things start to bubble up that really make a lot of sense. And of course, that it fits. It fits with Agile. It fits with the Agile message that the big things like that cause you, especially if you've had any experience with Agile, to sort of wake up and say, how do I miss this? Brian (37:50) Ha ha. Linda Rising (37:52) I should have seen this and it's news to me. So, wow, we're all still learning, I guess, aren't we? Brian (38:03) Yeah, I mean, you get presented with something like that and think, I've kind of intuitively known this all along, but I didn't have words for it. And now, now there's a vocabulary that can describe it. And I agree, right? That's exactly what it is. So yeah, you're absolutely right. Well, Linda, this is, this is such a fascinating discussion. And, you know, it's, I had no idea where, you know, group intelligence would lead us, but that it's all just fascinating. Linda Rising (38:09) Yeah Brian (38:32) the different threads of the spider web and where this kind of ends up. So I know it led you in a lot of places with your research and everything else. I really, really appreciate you sharing that with us and helping us to try to understand a little bit of the journey you've been on and kind of discovering this over the past year or so is what you said. Linda Rising (38:53) Yep. And I was going to say, anybody, I know most people don't want to spend the time reading the original research papers, and I don't blame you, that does take a lot of, you know, have a lot of investment in that. But there are some, I would call them sort of lightweight. There's some excellent, excellent Harvard Business Review articles that do a very good job of talking about. what is happening at MIT, what is happening at Google, that kind of a high-level summary, like Harvard Business Review does that like nobody else. And of course, there are TED Talks that Amy Edmondson has given, and there are all the Google Talks, of course, are also out on YouTube. And she has been to Google as well, so you can go listen to what she has to say there. So if you want to dig into this for yourself, there's a lot that you can get without having to read the book or read all the research papers. Brian (39:57) Yeah, we'll try to link to as much of this as we can in the show notes of this. So anyone who's listening, if you want to go down one of these rabbit holes like we talked about, maybe we can point the direction and say, hey, try this one. So we'll also include in the show notes some links to some of Linda's work as well so that you can find out more about her and maybe read one of her books as well and see some of the Linda Rising (40:11) Yeah! Brian (40:27) some of the insights she's already brought to this Agile community. And if you like what you heard here, I know you'll like her books as well. So Linda, thank you so much for making your time. I know it's very busy. Thank you for coming on the show. Linda Rising (40:41) It's been my pleasure. Can we close with some good wishes, some thoughts and prayers for all the people who are in Western North Carolina or in Florida who have just been two horrible disasters and are going to be a long time recovering. And that includes my good friend and co-writer Mary Lynn Mans who's in Asheville, North Carolina. So fingers crossed, prayers, good thoughts. Brian (41:11) Absolutely. I wholeheartedly concur with you on that. So I agree. Well, thanks again, Linda.

In this bonus solo episode, I explore why it pays to make failure your teacher, with highlights from past guests Amy Edmondson and Garry Ridge.

Stephen M. R. Covey: Trust & Inspire Stephen M. R. Covey is a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestselling author and former CEO of Covey Leadership Center. He led the strategy that propelled his father's book, Dr. Stephen R. Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, to become one of the two most influential business books of the 20th Century, according to CEO Magazine. He's the author The Speed of Trust and more recently Trust & Inspire: How Truly Great Leaders Unleash Greatness in Others*. Despite everything we know about good leadership, a lot of places still operate in a command and control mindset. In this conversation, Stephen and I explore the key ways to shift from command and control to trust and inspire. Key Points In spite of all progress, most leaders today are still operating from a command and control mindset. The carrot and stick approach still dominates most organizational cultures and tactics. The biggest barrier to becoming a Trust & Inspire leader is when we think we already are one. People are whole people. The best leaders care for the body, heart, mind, and spirit. There is enough for everyone. Trust & Inspire leaders elevate caring above competition. Enduring influence is created from the inside out. The job of the leader is to go first. All people have greatness inside them. Trust & Inspire leaders work to unleash potential, not control it. Resources Mentioned Trust & Inspire: How Truly Great Leaders Unleash Greatness in Others* by Stephen M. R. Covey Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes How to Build Psychological Safety, with Amy Edmondson (episode 404) Leadership Means You Go First, with Keith Ferrazzi (episode 488) The Starting Point for Repairing Trust, with Henry Cloud (episode 626) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

In this episode of the Just Schools Podcast, Jon Eckert interviews Rachel Johnson, the CEO of PiXL in the UK. They discuss PiXL's mission to improve student outcomes by supporting leaders in schools and highlight key challenges faced by school leaders today. Johnson shares insights into overcoming people-pleasing tendencies, setting boundaries, and creating ownership. The conversation covers practical tools for healthy communication and empowering leaders to think deeply and make transformative changes in their schools. The Just Schools Podcast is brought to you by the Baylor Center for School Leadership. Each week, we'll talk to catalytic educators who are doing amazing work. Be encouraged. Join us for Just Leadership on February 3rd at Baylor University, a one-day professional learning event for school administrators – from instructional coaches to superintendents – that focuses on catalyzing change as a leadership team. Register Now! Connect with us: Baylor MA in School Leadership EdD in K-12 Educational Leadership Jon Eckert LinkedIn Twitter: @eckertjon Center for School Leadership at Baylor University: @baylorcsl   Jon Eckert: Today we are here with Rachel Johnson, a friend that we've made through mutual friends in the UK who's doing amazing work. And I just want to jump right in to what you're learning and then we'll back into more of what you do. So what are you learning through PiXL? So you can give us a quick introduction to what PiXL is and then what you're learning from the leaders that you're supporting. Rachel Johnson: Yeah. So PiXL stands for Partners in Excellence. We work with two and a half thousand schools across the UK. And what we're learning is how important leadership is in the conversation in school improvement. So we believe in improving life chances and outcomes for every young person irrespective of background or status or finance. But behind all of that is the ability for brilliant people in schools to lead well. And that's the conversation people want to have now more and more than perhaps they ever have because people are fascinated with how they can be better, how they can thrive, what's stopping them thrive. And that is the attention that I've been giving a lot of my work recently around that issue. Jon Eckert: So love that mission. We always push at the center for moving from some students to all students and now to each student, what does it mean to do that for each student so that thriving for each student is powerful. In order to have those thriving students, you have to have thriving leaders. So what are some of the things, I think you mentioned you have 3,200 people in leadership courses, what are some of those takeaways that are keeping people from thriving that you're finding? Rachel Johnson: Yeah, we're finding a lot of very common things. And actually it doesn't matter what level they are in school leadership, it's the same issues. So things like people pleasing, which is getting in the way of leadership and decision-making, not being able to hold a boundary, sometimes not having a boundary. So there is no difference between work and life. There is no stopping. We just carry on going. I think that's a real issue. We're finding people not really knowing are structured to have difficult conversations or as I like to call them, crucial conversations. They shouldn't be difficult, but the lack of confidence in having those conversations. And then I think other things like how to create buy-in, how to get momentum, how to have that very delicate balance as Jim Collins calls it, between the brutal facts and the unwavering hope. So what does that actually look like on the ground? How can I do both at the same time without going for hopium where you're drugging people on things that can't actually happen or being so honest and brutal that nobody wants to follow you because it sounds so depressing? So what does the reality of that look like in school leadership? And what we are finding is across nearly three and a half thousand people on our leadership courses, they're all struggling with those kind of issues. Jon Eckert: No, that's powerful. I think one of the questions that I'm always asking leaders because it's a hard one is, and I think it comes from Patrick Lencioni, but I'm not sure. It could be from another theorist, they all start to run together a bit. I don't think it's John Maxwell, I don't think it's Jim Collins, but is for who are you willing to make enemies? What ideas are you willing to make enemies over? So what are those things that like, "Hey, this is a non-negotiable for me." And I think a lot of educators don't think about that because we have a people pleasing sense of what we want to do. And so that's a really hard conversation to have because I agree, we tend to lean toward hopium. I think that's a great term for what we do. And so how do you get people into those crucial conversations? I like that reframe as well. But how do you get them into that when you know that there's kind of a natural resistance among a lot of educators to those kinds of conversations? Rachel Johnson: It is really difficult, but not having the conversation doesn't make the issue go away. And I think as soon as people realize, "It's actually making me miserable. My department is underperforming, therefore young people are underperforming all because I'm not courageous enough to have the conversation." And what we find using Susan Scott's model of fierce conversations is when you give them that seven-part model of how to have the conversation in one minute where you say your peace but you stay in adult, as Transactional Analysis would call it. So you're not giving it a kind of sly interpretation. You're not giving a mean tone to your voice. You're being absolutely clear and absolutely kind, but absolutely straight, then people respond usually really well. But I think one of the things that is most disconcerting for leaders and educators is you have to listen to what the other person says. It isn't just about us delivering our truth and how we perceive things. It's about being quiet long enough to hear what they're saying and maybe more importantly what they're not saying. And so it's fascinating to me that what is stopping us sometimes is the courage. But this is really affecting our schools. And certainly in the UK, in a recent survey that one of our big agencies did called Teacher Tapp, 64% of teachers said they had worked or did work in a toxic environment in school. That's a lot of people calling their environment where we should be seeing young people thrive, and our leaders and our teachers are saying it's toxic. So something's going wrong somewhere. And what stops us dealing with this I think is the lack of courage and the lack of tools to be able to know how to approach it, which is why that's where we put our weight in the practical tools that can help people unlock this. And people say things like, "We feel liberated, transformed. It's like a weight off and we feel like we can do it." And that is the kind of feedback we get regularly. And I think that is really very, very important that people are helped to do these difficult things. Jon Eckert: Really, really good stuff there. It reminded me of two things in what you said because you've shared a lot. And I love how much we've into right here off the bat. The book High Conflict by Amanda Ripley. I don't know if you've seen that book. It came out in 2021, so it's been out for a while. She introduces this concept, which I think is what you're getting at in that one minute conversation a little bit in the way we listen. So it's not her idea again, but this is where I came to the idea. It's the idea of looping, that when you're in conflict with someone, the key is when you're receiving the feedback from the person where they're telling you how they feel, where they're upset, where they're disagreeing with you, you have to listen, then you have to distill what's being said. Then you have to check for understanding and then question, "Did I get it right?" So that you're repeating back. Because I think sometimes, at least in the United States, some of the conflict is due to poor communication, and that looping provides an opportunity to correct that communication error and it's a form of empathy because it's taking on that perspective, did I hear you right? Now, just active listening, you can really alienate people with active listening skills without being genuinely curious. So that's one of the things when you're doing that, you can't do it in a formulaic way that feels like you're just jumping through hoops because that's really alienating to the person doing it. Does that square with what you found or am I thinking about something differently than you are? Rachel Johnson: I think what's fascinating is that, and this is what I do really for my job now, is I take lots of different things like that from High Conflict from Chris Voss and his hostage negotiation techniques, crisis communication that we have over here with a fierce conversation and I kind of mush it all together in one model. And so what all of these people are saying, including Nancy Kline who's written brilliant work on listening and thinking is we mustn't overdo it when we talk to people. We mustn't kind of interpret what they're saying and then tell them what they're thinking. We have to ask great questions. We have to be comfortable with silence and let the silence do the heavy lifting. Most of us are not comfortable with that. We have to summarize like you've said and say at the end, "Is that right?" And if the person says, "No, that's not right," that's the opening of the conversation, not the end of it. That's when we say, "Okay, great. What did I not summarize well? What have I not understood? Tell me?" We've got to be more curious and less judgmental. But because I think educators are so used to making judgments, because that's literally our job a lot of the time is making judgments on grades, on behavior, on progress, to not make judgments on fellow adults, it's sometimes really hard. Jon Eckert: I always say educators are way more gracious with students than they are with each other. And- Rachel Johnson: Or themselves. Jon Eckert: Yeah. Oh. And typically that lack of graciousness to others is because of the lack of graciousness to self. I think one of the key points you said, and you mentioned earlier in tone when you asked that question, "What did I not get right?" You can say, "What did I not get right?" In a very curious way. Or, "What did I not get right?" With the eye roll. And then you've either closed off the conversation or you've opened it. And I think the tone and the facial expression goes a long way to that, which is why I think we have to have this interpersonal connection. If you're doing this over text or you're doing it over email, it's pretty doomed to fail. I don't know. Would you agree with that, that this has to be kind of face-to-face as much as possible? Rachel Johnson: Yeah. I think a lot happens on Zoom these days or on Teams, which is difficult. And I think that is manageable if you get your tone right, if you get your eye contact right. I think one of the most damaging things in communication with anybody is the not listening, as you've mentioned, and the tone. So making it sound like a judgment. But the other thing I think is really difficult is when we speak in ulterior transactions. So the conversation we're having is not the conversation we're thinking. And people can smell it a mile off, can't they? I think of all kinds of situations at home where I say to my children like, "Oh, did you not have time to tidy your bedroom?" And what I'm actually saying is, "You're absolute slobs. You round here making a mess of my house." And they can hear the criticism and then they say, "Are you having a go at me mum?" And then I go, "No, I don't know what you're talking about." And that's dishonest. And I think we fall into that a few times when we are not courageous enough to have the real conversation. So I think that's another trap we can fall into. Jon Eckert: Right. I think I had a couple of those conversations with a daughter and a wife this weekend potentially, so that I need to go back and do some correcting. So thank you for that. One other thing you mentioned earlier was, and I think it's a chapter in, I think it's in your first book, about getting buy-in. One of the things that I've been pushing on here, and I'm curious to hear if there's a cultural difference here potentially. I found Gen Zs and millennials in the US, they do not want to buy-in to things because it sounds like an idea is being sold that they're just supposed to get on board with. And they don't do that. And I almost say that to their credit because they want to co-own what they're doing. And so buy-in is not something that they're interested in. They want to own it with you sometimes in ways that make it way better if we do that. Do you find that in the UK that there's less interest in buying in and more of an interest in kind of co-owning the work? Or is that still something that works relatively well in the UK, trying to get buy-in? Rachel Johnson: I think you're absolutely right, and I think this new generation are very different and I think they don't want to do it the way we did it. We wore tiredness and exhaustion like a trophy, like a medal. "Look how knackered I am, look how late I was up doing all my work." They look at that and go, "I don't want that. I want to have a sabbatical. I want to have a life. I want to go to the gym. I want to do what I want to do." So I think the way we are talking about buy-in needs to change. But I also think the way we get buy-in needs to change. We, I think have thought buy-in means, "Here's my idea, here's what we are doing, join me in what I'm doing." And that isn't really genuine buy-in. Buy-in is saying, "What is the problem we're trying to solve? Let's get people around the table, listen to really healthy conflict within a boundary where we feel safe to be able to disagree." All that psychological safety stuff by Amy Edmondson, it's crucial. It's not easy, but it's crucial. And then I think people do buy-in when they're heard. I think all these things we're talking about are linked. If I'm ignored, I'm not going to buy-in whether it's a great idea or not, because you're not hearing me. So I think we have to create more time to be heard and to hear. But I think one of the issues we have in leadership, particularly in education is we're always in such a rush. That hurry-up driver like, "Let's get everything done yesterday driver," can stop us really engaging and listening. And so where we can go fast, we sometimes do, and I think we lose a lot in that, especially this new generation who want to be heard, want to think things through, want to be well-researched. Great, that can really benefit us, but we have to give it time. Jon Eckert: Well, and again, leadership's always going to be messy and it can either be messy on the front end where you all own, where you're going together or it's going to be messy on the back end. So I'd much rather have it be messy on the front end. That just takes some patience and some ability to avoid falling victim to the tyranny of the urgent where we constantly throw one change after another at people in a way that doesn't actually produce what we want because we're too impatient to see it happen. So I'm curious how you got to this work. So this amazing work that you're doing through PiXL, which we can get more into PiXL in a little bit, but you personally, how did you end up writing these books, doing the podcasts, building out being a catalyst at PiXL to do this kind of work with leaders, but where did that come from? Rachel Johnson: So I think it started fairly young really when I was, my dad led a church and he was a leader in schools and so was my mom. So I watched all of that all of my life. But I was kind of old before my age really, and I always wanted to lead something. So I did Sunday school when I was 10, teaching three-year olds. I always took on more responsibility. And so what I wanted when I was 13 and 14 was to work out what does leadership look like? How can I be a better version of me? How can I make change happen? And apart from reading people that you've mentioned, like John Maxwell, there wasn't an awful lot for people my age. And so I never had anything age appropriate. So I read all the adult stuff. And I was looking back at my old journals actually yesterday. I was clearing out the loft and I look in my journals at me at 13 and go, "There she is, there's the person I am now. There, I can see her so clearly when I look." But it wasn't usual back then. And so I was a bit different and did different things, but I was absolutely committed to leadership. And so from that point on really, wherever I was I wanted to lead. And it wasn't that I was bothered about promotion or position or title or money. I'm not bothered about any of those things. I want to go where I can be to make the biggest difference. And so for me, leadership is where you make the biggest difference, where you could have the agency to make the difference. And for me, that has become the driving force really to try and do good in the world, to try and help people create their own change. So yes, that's where it started, very young. Jon Eckert: Love that. And so now at PiXL, what do you try to do organizationally? You gave us a little bit of what PiXL stands for, but how are you doing that and what different avenues in different countries? I know you have a number of ways you're trying to serve leaders who want to become the kind of leaders you wanted to become as a young person. Rachel Johnson: Yeah. So we do conferences, we did big conferences in the UK and those are hugely attended. We work with different types of leaders. We have two podcasts, PiXL Pearls, which are just 10 minutes leadership reflection. So not heavy, but just a moment of reflection to think about our own leadership. And then we have the PiXL leadership book club where we take non-educational school books because that's another really important thing of mine, to look outside of education, not always within. And so I interviewed two school leaders about a non-educational leadership book and how they've applied those messages into their context. And that's the kind of thing I'm interested in. I'm interested in looking at what other people in the world are doing and how we can take that from marketing or that from branding or that from hostage negotiation and how we can turn our schools around based on the lessons that've been learned elsewhere. So that's become a really big thing. Now I write all kinds of things on that. The books which I wrote that two have come out already, the chapters in those are all of the things that I asked our leaders, "What do you struggle with?" And that's what they said. And so I wrote the chapters for them really to try and help us all get a little bit more unstuck. Because we all get stuck and sometimes it's too difficult to find a great big book and read all the way through it when you haven't got time. So it's really short, bite-sized chunks to help get us unstuck. And so with that and working and with how we have resources and strategies, a whole range of things to help school leaders get the support they need. But I think one of the most important things we've just started doing is named after the book, we have something called Time to Think where leaders are able to book time with my team to just think a few ideas. We're not going to talk, they're going to book 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes. And that time is for them to talk through their ideas, for us to ask questions to help them get clarity, but for them to leave more empowered than they came in. And what school leaders are telling us is they don't have enough time to think. It happens on holidays, in the mornings, in the middle of the night. And it shouldn't happen then, it should happen in working hours too. But sometimes people need a bit of a helping hand to get there. So that's one of the most exciting things we're doing at the minute, creating that time to think and walking with people as they do that. Jon Eckert: I love that. I tell people when they start masters or doctoral programs at Baylor that the biggest gift we're giving you is time to think through what you're doing with the kinds of books that you're talking about. I totally agree, we need to look at education, but we need to look beyond education. So I love that conversation you're having with school leaders about books. Everything you described from the PiXL Pearls to everything else is trying to give people this catalyzing force to spend more time thinking and just carving out that space is a huge gift. So I think you mentioned that you primarily work in the UK, but that you have some connection into 46 different countries. Are there things you're seeing that feel like they work cross-culturally, like, "Hey, everyone is dealing with this." Because I know most of our listeners are in the United States and we can spend way too much time navel-gazing at our challenges and opportunities here. I'm wondering those conversations that you've had where they identify challenges that leaders have, are there any things there that you're like, "Hey, this feels like a common challenge. It does not matter where it is. This is..." Maybe it's the Time to Think, but if it's something other than that as well. What are some of those challenges you're seeing that cut across contexts? Rachel Johnson: Well, how I would kind of evidence that really is it's the podcasts that have gone all over the world in different countries. And we haven't really pushed those out. We've had them in the UK and they've gone everywhere through Apple or Spotify. But the ones that are most listened to, that's what's really fascinating. The biggest episodes are Dare to Lead with Brené Brown. So clearly if that's our leading episode, it's because people don't have courage like we've touched upon. The other one that is massive is the People Pleasing one, which is based on a book by Emma Reid Terrell called Please Yourself and is around the real problems of people pleasing. That's been another massive hitter. And then the third one, which has been a really big hitter, is based on Cal Newport's work on Deep Work and Time To Think. So if that's the three places where people are going across all of the people who listen to our podcasts. And I think in total there's about 195,000 downloads now maybe. I think that says something about where people's attention is, that's what they're craving. And I think we should listen to that because I think these things are quite deep-rooted and I think people don't find solutions to how to handle those three things either. Jon Eckert: Well, I love Brené Brown, I love Cal Newport. I need to read the people pleasing book, so. Rachel Johnson: Wonderful. Jon Eckert: I'm getting good recommendations. Yeah. The Slow Productivity by Cal Newport that just came out is kind of the latest manifestation. I still think Deep Work is his best book, but Slow Productivity I've worked into some of my classes because I do think this idea and his premise there is that we do less things, work at a natural pace and obsess over quality. That's how we provide the human value that is going to become increasingly value as AI and other things automate other pieces. It's what are we uniquely suited to build and do? And that's really to me, the extension of deep work. That's the critical component. And you have to have time to think because- Rachel Johnson: Yeah, you have to have time to think. And then you kind of think, why are we not doing deep work? Why are we overstretched? And I think it comes down to what I would call now toxic productivity. I think when you have a profession full of people who love to be efficient and love to-do lists and tick things off and feel great about themselves, the danger is we become addicted to productivity. We can't rest, we can't stop, we can't switch off. We have to be doing something productive. We even monetize our hobbies for goodness's sake because we can't do them for free, because that's a waste of time. It is quite astonishing. And we are obsessed with adding things, not taking things away. So I don't speak to many leaders who say, "We're reducing our efforts by half because we don't think it's working. So these five things are going and these five things will replace them." They should add more things. No wonder we're all frazzled, so. Jon Eckert: Well, and social media has turned us into the product. So our attention is what is demanded and that is what is being sold. And that's new and I think devastating for especially adolescents who are coming into leadership, those 13-year-olds that dreamed about leading the way you do. "Oh, I can do that through my followership on this as I sell products for someone else." And so you become a conduit for other corporations to grab other people through you. It's not real leadership. And so I worry about, I do not want this to happen, but my email box, I worry that I will be getting AI-generated emails into the box. I will then have AI-generating responses, and I'll just be a spectator watching AI talk to AI which by definition, Darren Speaksma says this all the time. AI is consensus because all it is scraping from large language models. It is not wisdom. To get wisdom, you need the human. And that's the point of deep work. How do we pursue joy through truth and love? How do we do this and this? And AI just, that's not what AI is designed to do. It can summarize, it can collect, it can scrape. But that's the part that I'm like, "Oh." And that's the life-giving work. And so Greg McCown, UK guy, Essentialism, that was the book. And then it became how do I? I've reduced all the small rocks out of the jar and I've just got big rocks and now the rocks are too much. And I feel like that's where we're at. So I love his work as well. So based on all that, those common challenges that we see, where do you see hope? Where are you most hopeful? Rachel Johnson: I'm hopeful that people want the conversation. I'm hopeful that in a room of thousands of leaders, I can say, "Put your hand up if you're a people pleaser." I've been a recovering people pleaser since 2020. I often say to people, I went into recovery in March 2020 when I read that book, Please Yourself by Emma Reid Terrell. And thought, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to be that." She says, you can either be an authentic person or a people pleaser. You cannot be both. And I was really convicted by it because I thought, I want to be the best kind of leader, but if I'm people pleasing, I can't be. This has got to change. And I am with roomfuls of people now virtually and in person who are embracing this, who say, "I want to go in recovery too. Enough. I realize it's holding me back." And wherever there are people who are willing to change and are up for the work and up for the debate about it all, I think there's always hope. And when we face our own brutal facts and we believe we can change, then I think there's always hope. And that is the kind of message we want to talk about in education in the UK and further afield, that we are not stuck. We don't have to be stuck. Human connection, human understanding, human wisdom, as you mentioned, these things that we can learn to be better and overcome our stuckness can change our lives first and foremost before we change anybody else's, but then help other people to change. And I think there is a great deal of hope. I think sometimes we have to look hard for it because social media and the news don't talk hope, they talk despair. And so we have to be very open and vocal about the hope. But that's one of the things that I hope to always be, the voice of hope. Not ignoring the brutal facts. We mustn't do that, but always saying, "We'll find a way if we think about this. If we invest, we will find a way." Because I believe we will. Jon Eckert: Love that. The next book I'm working on right now is "Gritty Optimism: Catalyzing Joy in Just Schools." How do we build on what we know can change in schools and what they can be? Because there's so many great stories out there and there's so many ways to do it. So this conversation has been super encouraging that way. So I'm just going to end us with a quick lightning round here. You've already given me at least one book recommendation I need to read. I'm just curious, in the last year, what's a book that you've read from any field? It doesn't have to be from education, that you would recommend to me and to us? Rachel Johnson: I'll give you two, Ruthlessly Caring by Amy Walters Cohen about the paradoxes in leadership and the Friction Project by Robert I. Sutton and Huggy Rao. Jon Eckert: Yes. So I have been reading pieces of the Friction Project, remarkable. Have not read Ruthlessly Caring, so I've got to get on that. Thank you. All right. What is the worst advice you've received or given as a leader? And then follow that up with the best advice you've either given or received. Rachel Johnson: The worst advice I've ever been given is that humility is putting yourself last. Because it's not true. Jon Eckert: That's good. Rachel Johnson: That's a very blunt and terrible definition. The worst advice that I've probably given would be in my early years of leadership when I was first new and basically said to people, "Maybe don't cause a fuss about that." Because I was a people pleaser, I didn't want to make a fuss. And so sometimes I told other people not to make a fuss and that was a mistake. Jon Eckert: That's good. So if you were, oh, so I had a quick break on the connection. So our connection broke there a minute. So don't make a fuss, that's also bad advice. Correct? Yeah. Rachel Johnson: Yeah. Jon Eckert: So what's the good advice that you've received or given, what's the best advice you've either given or received? Rachel Johnson: The best advice I think I would give is make sure when you have any interaction that you are okay and you're seeing the other person as okay. And what I mean by that is that we're not coming with an attitude of judgment or superiority or anything that someone can sniff, which is going to put their back against the wall immediately. So be an adult, be in control of yourself. And if you're not in control of yourself, be vulnerable, but don't do it and create a mess in front of somebody else when it's going to damage them. I think that is unfair. Jon Eckert: That's great advice. Love that. What is one word, if you had to describe the schools you work with right now, what would be one word you'd use to describe the schools or the leaders of the schools that you serve? Rachel Johnson: Resilient. Jon Eckert: Love that. Love that. No, that's right. If we're still in education right now, we're resilient people, so good word. And then what would be one word you would hope would describe the next year in the schools that you serve? Rachel Johnson: I'd hope, it's a dramatic word, but I'd say transformational. Because I think if people can grasp this stuff, if they can make the time to think, if they can put themselves on their thinking tank first, I honestly believe we'll overcome challenges that we didn't think were possible. And I hope that in turn doesn't transform PiXL. It's not about that. It's about transforming them first and then transforming the way that they lead because that, I believe, unlocks everything else. Jon Eckert: That's a great word to end on. Well, Rachel, this conversation has been great for me. Huge encouragement. Thank you for the work you're doing and thanks for spending the time with us. Rachel Johnson: Thank you so much. I have loved speaking to you.  

In this episode of Transform Your Workplace, Brandon Laws interviews Harvard professor Amy Edmondson, diving into the idea of "intelligent failure" and the importance of fostering psychological safety within teams. Edmondson, author of The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well, shares insights on how stepping into unfamiliar territory often brings failure but also opens the door to critical learning experiences. Tune in to discover how leaders can cultivate an environment where employees feel empowered to take risks, address mistakes openly, and drive ongoing growth and innovation.   TAKEAWAYS Failure can lead to valuable insights if approached thoughtfully. Creating an environment where employees feel safe to voice concerns and admit mistakes is essential for fostering innovation and improvement. Teams that embrace failure as a learning opportunity are more likely to develop new ideas, improve processes, and grow from their experiences. Encouraging employees to take calculated risks without fear of judgment is critical to driving creativity and progress in the workplace. While fear can sometimes be helpful in dangerous situations, interpersonal fear in the workplace can stifle communication, prevent learning, and create unnecessary barriers. It's important to take the time to reflect on failures holistically, gathering insights from all team members to understand what went wrong and how to improve.   A QUICK GLIMPSE INTO OUR PODCAST 

Dan Dworkis: The Emergency Mind Dan Dworkis is Chief Medical Officer at The Mission Critical Team Institute. He's an emergency physician who helps individuals and teams apply knowledge under extreme pressure and perform at their best when it matters the most. He is the author of The Emergency Mind: Wiring Your Brain for Performance Under Pressure*. Every leader, at least occasionally, faces emergencies. In an emergency, the only way out is through. In this conversation, Dan and I explore the mindsets and tactics that will help us handle the most difficult situations. Key Points Emergencies are not just worse bad days. They are liminal — the only way out is through. Apply graduated pressure. Never allow suffering to be wasted. By going a bit slower, you notice where and why failures happen. Label an emergency with language that both recognizes the urgency of the situation and your faith in the team to resolve it. The room is always smarter than any one person in it. Tell people what problem they are working and your confidence level in it. Staying cool under pressure is not a fixed personality trait. You can get better by noticing and experimenting with what works for you (and doesn't) to handle high-pressure situations. Experience makes working under pressure easier, but you still need to practice for it. Notice what's effective (and not) in past and new situations before you experiment. Use situations in everyday life (a hard workout, an angry customer, getting cut off in traffic) to train yourself for responding in the toughest situations. Resources Mentioned The Emergency Mind: Wiring Your Brain for Performance Under Pressure* by Dan Dworkis Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes How to Become the Person You Want to Be, with James Clear (episode 376) How to Build Psychological Safety, with Amy Edmondson (episode 404) How to Prevent a Team From Repeating Mistakes, with Robert “Cujo” Teschner (episode 660) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

The “Master of Disaster” Dr. Thom Mayer shares his most valuable lessons learned from leading during times of major crises. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) The critical first step to leading well 2) The recipe for a great workplace culture 3) Why to suck down instead of up Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep998 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT THOM — Dr. Thom Mayer is the Medical Director for the NFL Players Association, Executive Vice President of Leadership for LogixHealth, Founder of BestPractices, Inc., Speaker for Executive Speakers Bureau, and Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine at George Washington University and Senior Lecturing Fellow at Duke University. He is one of the most widely sought speakers on leading in times of crisis, patient experience, hardwiring flow, trauma and emergency care, pediatric emergency care, EMS/disaster medicine, and sports medicine. In sports medicine, his work at the forefront of changing concussion diagnosis and management in the NFL has changed the way in which these athletes are diagnosed and treated. His work in each of these areas has resulted in changing the very fabric of patient care.In 2022, Dr. Mayer helped lead a mobile team to Ukraine, caring for more than 350 internally displaced persons during the current war and training over 1,700 Ukrainian doctors, nurses, and paramedics. On September 11, 2001, Dr. Mayer served as the Command Physician at the Pentagon Rescue Operation and has served on three Defense Science Board Task Forces, advising the Secretary of Defense.He has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles, over 200 book chapters, and has edited or written 25 textbooks. His newest book, Leadership Is Worthless…But Leading is Priceless will be released on May 7, 2024 through Berrett-Koehler. He has won numerous awards, including the ACEP James D. Mills Outstanding Contribution to Emergency Medicine Award in 2018. He has also been named the ACEP Outstanding Speaker of The Year, ACEP's “Over-the-Top” (three times), and ACHE James Hamilton Award (three books).• Book: Leadership Is Worthless...But Leading Is Priceless: What I Learned from 9/11, the NFL, and Ukraine • Book: Hardwiring Flow: Systems and Processes for Seamless Patient Care • Email: thommayermd@gmail.com — RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Book: Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts by Brene Brown • Past episode: 707: Amy Edmondson on How to Build Thriving Teams with Psychological Safety • Past episode: 832: How to Restore Yourself from Burnout with Dr. Christina MaslachSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I've heard it said that the quality of our questions determines the quality of our lives. I agree with this idea. I mean, think about it: how many times in your life have you learned something super important just by asking? Children understand this but, sadly, as we age and become more self-conscious of asking questions, we tend to lose this skill. But with a little effort, we can retrain ourselves to engage in asking questions. Dr. Jeff Wetzler (https://transcendeducation.org/) cares deeply about people leaning into this ability and has written a book I loved called Ask: Tap Into the Hidden Wisdom of People Around You for Unexpected Breakthroughs In Leadership and Life. I am hardly alone in my love for this book. Harvard Business School professor and SuperPsyched guest, Dr. Amy Edmondson said, “…learning how to ask others what they truly think, know, and feel has never been more important.”  I couldn't agree more! So, listen in as Jeff shares how to rebuild our abilities to ask, a crucial life skill we may have lost along the way.

We all work in teams, from families, to companies, and everything in between. So what's the secret to doing it better? This hour, TED speakers share surprising strategies for successful teamwork. Guests include activist Hajer Sharief, social psychologist Amy Edmondson and private equity investor Pete Stavros. TED Radio Hour+ subscribers now get access to bonus episodes, with more ideas from TED speakers and a behind the scenes look with our producers. A Plus subscription also lets you listen to regular episodes (like this one!) without sponsors. Sign-up at: plus.npr.org/tedLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

We used to view failure as the opposite of success. Now, we're often torn between two conflicting approaches: “avoid failure at all costs” or “fail fast, fail often.” Neither perspective helps us distinguish between good and bad failure, leading us to miss the chance to fail well. In this episode, we explore the complexities of failure with Amy Edmondson, a renowned Harvard Business School professor and leading expert in organizational behavior. In her book, Right Kind of Wrong, Amy presents a framework for understanding and navigating failure effectively. She provides actionable strategies to transform failure into a powerful catalyst for growth, teaching us how to recognize when failure is beneficial and how to minimize its unproductive aspects. Her insights will help you cultivate a growth mindset, take smart risks, and learn from your failures. Get my new book, Dynamic Drive- https://getdynamicdrive.com/ 

Maurice Ashley: Move by Move Maurice Ashley is a Chess Grandmaster, an ESPN commentator, a three-time national championship coach, and an author. In 1999 he earned the title of Chess Grandmaster, making him the first Black Grandmaster in the game's history, and in 2016 he was inducted into the US Chess Hall of Fame. He's the author of Move by Move: Life Lessons on and off the Chessboard*. There was a time that you could get a degree or a certification and you've be set on your learning for awhile. Those days are long gone. With change happening at the speed of thought, we must keep improving. In this conversation, Maurice and I discuss the mindsets and tactics that will help you keep growing. Key Points Jazz artists don't think about each note, but instinctively know how to make beautiful music. The best chess players are like this. Elite performers constantly look for ways to cultivate the beginner's mindset. Chess players who pay attention to the endgame are less likely to get caught up only in the tactics. The most vulnerable time for a chess player is when they have a big lead. Poor performers avoid spending time with their mistakes. The best players learn from them through debrief. Determine in advance where you need to stay hyper-focused. Temper overconfidence by posing additional in-game challenges for yourself and your team. Resources Mentioned Move by Move: Life Lessons on and off the Chessboard* by Maurice Ashley Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes How to Actually Move Numbers, with Chris McChesney (episode 294) How to Prevent a Team From Repeating Mistakes, with Robert “Cujo” Teschner (episode 660) How to Grow From Your Errors, with Amy Edmondson (episode 663) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

Mary Murphy: Cultures of Growth Mary Murphy is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University. She is also Founding Director of the Summer Institute on Diversity at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and founder and CEO of the Equity Accelerator, a research and consulting organization that works with schools and companies to create more equitable learning and working environments. She is the author of Cultures of Growth: How the New Science of Mindset Can Transform Individuals, Teams, and Organizations*. Many of us have heard the distinction between a fixed and a growth mindset. Turns out it's actually an either/or, and it's certainly not with our teams. In this conversation, Mary and I discuss how team collaboration can support a growth mindset. Key Points Nobody has only a fixed or a growth mindset. While we may favor one, all of us shift between them. Team culture is so powerful that it can either block or encourage a growth mindset. Mindset doesn't just affect perceptions and behaviors, it shapes the bottom line. To support collaboration, begin with a cues audit. Consider starting with affinity groups. It's misperception that cultures of growth are less data-centric than cultures of genius. The opposite is actually true. Don't eliminate competition, recast it. Consider how incentives align with supporting others and the organization as a whole. Traditional rating systems, especially forced-rankings, often reinforce cultures of genius. Resources Mentioned Cultures of Growth: How the New Science of Mindset Can Transform Individuals, Teams, and Organizations* by Mary Murphy Culture Cues Assessment Interview Notes Download my interview notes in PDF format (free membership required). Related Episodes Growth Mindset Helps You Rise From the Ashes, with Jeff Hittenberger (episode 326) How to Build Psychological Safety, with Amy Edmondson (episode 404) Help Your Team Embrace Growth Mindset, with Eduardo Briceño (episode 644) Discover More Activate your free membership for full access to the entire library of interviews since 2011, searchable by topic. To accelerate your learning, uncover more inside Coaching for Leaders Plus.

We live in an age where we have more data than ever. But most leaders have two strong reactions to new data. Either they rely too heavily on studies or information to make decisions. Or they dismiss outright data that could be very relevant. The better way is learning how to interpret, question, and engage with data and studies, say Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson and Johns Hopkins Carey Business School professor Michael Luca. They break down the essential analytical tools to assess and interrogate data to be able to apply it to business decisions. Edmondson and Luca are coauthors of the HBR article "Where Data-Driven Decision-Making Can Go Wrong."