• The Guardian of Standards Case Study

Case Study: The Guardian of Standards

Who keeps us from falling off the proverbial cliff? While some are naturally inclined to dream new ideas or others can’t help but build new relationships. There is this segment of society whose entire focus and role are to protect us from poorly constructed shortcuts.

This typically skeptical personality recognizes that nothing around us is a coincidence. Things are either poorly designed, or build to exacting standards often being shamed for not seeing the world as glass half-full. This transactional personality plays the vital role in offering the evidence required to claim to facts. Karl Strand founded his consultancy by making the most of his skepticism and guarding the standards for commercial architectural exteriors.

Karl and his wife Randy have been students with Influence Ecology since June of 2015. They live in Dallas Texas.

Here’s the interview:

Karl Strand: Karl Strand, I live in Dallas Texas, I’m a specialty architectural consultant. Over the years, I’ve worked my way into this niche of consulting, where I evaluate the exterior walls of commercial buildings.

“I’ve always wondered how anyone can do what I do without having a judge personality. Without always keeping a grasp of what’s happened in the past, to be able to literally use that on a day-to-day basis going forward, even to the point where from a literal basis.”

John Patterson: I think I’ve seen pictures of you from time to time, hanging off the sides of some rather tall buildings. Is that right, you spend a lot of time on the outside of buildings hanging off of scaffolds and rappelling down the sides of buildings?

This is a transcript of Karl Strand’s podcast episode titled: The Guardian of Standards. Listen to the episode by clicking the button below.

Karl: I do. I rappel on buildings on ropes up to about 20 storeys, and then above that, we use various kinds of scaffolding. I’ve been up; I think 67 storeys, is the highest I’ve been on the outside of a building. It’s a lot of fun once you get out there. You don’t want to become too comfortable with it at any given point. You always want to be a little bit scared of it, but it’s a lot of fun once you get out there.

John: As I understand it, what you do is you provide consulting to these building owners, or perhaps some architects and the like, to make sure that what?

Karl: We help architects to design the outside walls of buildings so that all the parts and pieces go together correctly. Then we also evaluate existing buildings, either for corporations that currently own a building. Maybe, it has problems it leaks water, and we need to figure out how to make it not leak.

Or maybe they’re purchasing a skyscraper or a commercial building and they need to know how much money they’re going to spend on the building, on the outside walls over the next ten years or so is the normal term. They hire us as a specialty consultant, to evaluate the outside walls.

John: Very good. You’ve been studying with Influence Ecology for how long now?

Karl: About three years.

John: All right. I don’t know why you began to study, but obviously, something picked your interest, or you saw an opportunity here. Can you just tell me a little bit about why you decided to study with us?

Karl: My wife Randy, had actually begun studying with Influence Ecology. She was referred by a friend of hers, and I actually thought she was in some sort of a cult or something. Because she was doing this study that seemed like it made no sense to me. She tried to describe it to me, and I really wasn’t getting it.

Influence Ecology is the leading business education in transactional competence.

Those who transact powerfully, thrive.™

At a certain point, she convinced me that I should at least talk with you guys and see if it was something that could help me out. It didn’t take long once I heard what it was actually all about before I decided that it really could help me.

John: That’s great. Now you’ve been to many conferences. I think what two, three, four conferences or something like that the both of you?

Karl: Five at this point, yes. We enjoy it.

John: Absolutely. We enjoy you too. I adore the both of you Randy’s a treat. She’s such a rare find as well, so it’s great to see her and you together at the events and the like.

We have some opportunities here because as we distinguish it here in Influence Ecology, we study personalities. We do study talk about the inventor, performer, producer, and judge personality.

We’ve had many podcasts where we’ve spoken to inventors about their own, the asset and the liability of their personality, or different traits about that. We’ve occasionally had some performers and producers. We rarely get to experience the benefits of talking to a judge personality.

You did such a great job of talking a little bit about your own litmus tests which I love this for so many reasons. I want to address that. First, would you just say in your own words what’s a judge personality? What does that mean?

Karl: Very skeptical, very much using the past experience, having a chronology in your mind of all the things that you’ve done in your life. Having an encyclopedia in your mind of experiences that you use to judge what’s happening now and predict what’s going to happen in the future.

I feel that’s what makes me good at my job in terms of being a consultant. Because one of the main things that we do is someone’s buying a building and they want to know how much money they’re going to have to spend over the next ten years. I dig back in the past with similar buildings that I’ve looked at, similar systems.

I know what works, I know what doesn’t work. I know how it fails when it’s going to fail and what needs to be done to fix it. I can use that to then develop. I say I polish my crystal ball to be able to tell them when things are going to have to be done and how much money it’s going to cost to do them.

I would summarize it as being very skeptical. Our first answer to anything is, “No.” If someone asks me if I should do something I’ll say, “No.” Then you push the issue; I expect some evidence to show me why what you’re saying is going to work, is actually a possibility.

John: Now let’s give a little freedom to our judges. We have from time to time people who start our programs, or they’re attending our live events. They come to understand that they’re not alone, that there’s some extraordinary value in skepticism. That’s not the way that we were taught generally speaking. There’s a lot of people that would say, “Come on Karl, be more positive. Quit being so glass half-empty,” all that kind of stuff, right?

Since we don’t teach that some personalities are better than others, or there’s good ones or bad ones, or what not. What are some of the things that you’ve learned from us about your own personality and how it’s an asset?

Karl: The first thing to do is to actually come to grips with the personality that always realized that I was skeptical. I’ve been told in meetings before, that I’m negative and like you say, “Why can’t you be positive about something?” Like you say about the glass half-empty, I’m the guy who wonders if they cleaned the glass up before they put anything in it.

I’ve had to come to grips with the fact that having a judge personality is not a bad thing to me. Other people may view it differently and yet to me; it’s an asset for what I do. The other thing is I’ve realized that I have to change the narratives of how I actually approach arguments, or meetings, interactions with people who have different personalities.

Because I’ve come to the realization that over the years, there are some specific topics that I’ve not been able to address in, I guess, you would say, a persuasive manner with people who have other personalities. Because my delivery is all wrong, but the narrative that I’m using to try to convince them of my line of thinking is wrong. If it’s not wrong, it’s not the right delivery to be convincing to them, if that makes sense.

John: Absolutely. You need to, perhaps, tamper the way it might normally land in someone’s ears and perhaps present it in a way where it’s not perceived in a negative way, but perhaps in some other way.

Karl: Yes.

John: Do you have any examples of the way that you do that? Do you find that you just simply have to smile when you’re talking? What are some of the ways that you tamper that perception of negativity?

“I’ve had to come to grips with the fact that having a judge personality is not a bad thing to me. Other people may view it differently and yet to me; it’s an asset for what I do. The other thing is I’ve realized that I have to change the narratives of how I actually approach arguments, or meetings, interactions with people who have different personalities.”

Karl: To smile or even to form a joke around it. To bring some humor to a situation and then re-phrase what I’m trying to say, in a way that can put a positive spin on it and yet get the same point across.

John: Great. I personally work with a lot of judges. Judges are some of my favorite people; my spouse is a judge. All of the executives of this company are married to judges. We love our judges.

One of the opportunities that we have created at Influence Ecology is to be able to study that personality and the misunderstandings about that personality. Every personality and the way that we teach it has the assets and liabilities of that personality.

Every one of those personalities has you could say the trials and tribulations of growing up and having everybody say, “Hey, stop being so negative,” or perhaps to our performers, “Hey, why don’t you stop being so flaky? Why don’t you get more disciplined?” Or to the inventors, “Hey, stop being such an ego-driven whatever.” We all have that kind of thing.

The judge is the kind of personality I think is an important one to have in any transaction because they are the standard bearer. They are the one that holds the standards, offers the constraints. They’re the one that says, “Hey, watch out, this is about to go off a cliff.” They’re that kind of personality.

I love that you’re doing what you do as a consultant. Because you’re in one of those positions where you’ve made the most of something’s that very natural to you. Anything you want to say to comment about all that?

Karl: I’ve always wondered how anyone can do what I do without having a judge personality. Without always keeping a grasp of what’s happened in the past, to be able to literally use that on a day-to-day basis going forward, even to the point where from a literal basis.

On my computer, I have emails that I wrote ten years ago that I routinely go back to pull verbiage. I have documents that I wrote 15 years ago, that I go back to because I can remember what I wrote on a report for a certain project, and I want to use it again. I know people who delete everything right after they did it. It baffles my mind as to how you could do what I do, without doing it the way that I do it.

John: I’m one of those people. I delete everything in my calendar once it’s finished. I delete everything in my email once I’ve attended to it or read it, it’s all gone. There’s no past.

Karl: I cannot even wrap my mind around that.

John: [laughs] I know. It’s just a different orientation. We could talk a lot about that. I think one of the things that I do want to address is this notion of a standard bearer. I want to address it because as we teach it, every one of the personalities has a currency that they wield, something that they transact with.

For example, our performers they are skilled at a relationship. If I want to get something done, for example as an inventor, I go get my performers to go rally the trips. They got the networks and the people, and all of that.

With my judges, they offer evidence, and they offer standards, and they offer history. You said you keep everything emails and whatnot, maybe 10-years old, beautiful things. If I need to remember something I just go to our CFO, Darryl Anderle, who is also a judge. Darryl’s got all that stuff. He’s got every e-mail, he’s got the stuff on his calendar, “Hey Darryl, when did we have that meeting on the blah, blah, blah?” He goes, and he finds it.

I’ve extended my brain by using my judges for all that kind of stuff when I need to. It’s rare, but it does happen. I’ll admit it does happen. You write in your notes something about your shortcuts, and you wrote down you said, “We recognize that we use very general rules or shortcuts to make decisions.”

We would agree. There’s all kinds of shortcuts we talk about at Influence Ecology, certain principles that guide our behavior and shortcuts we take as a species. You say, “Expensive is better than cheap.” These are your examples, “Expensive is better than cheap, hand-made is better than machines. Something made slower is better than something made quickly, et cetera.”

You’re fascinated with the idea of boiling us down to very specific shortcuts or litmus test. I love that you wrote that because these are standards, set of standards that you’re playing with. Tell me a little bit about this and your fascination with the topic.

Karl: It all started when I was reading a book. Our friend Cory Shepherd wrote a book called Cape Not Required. It’s the idea you don’t have to be a super-hero to do great things. I was reading Cory’s book, and in there he talks about a renaissance era painter, who had a deliberate practice that he did of drawing circles. He drew circles over and over again. Even though he could already draw them perfectly, he continued to do that as a deliberate practice.

Not that he drew circles in his art, but he realized that the act of drawing a perfect circle gave him the hand-coordination to do the art that he was famous for. The question that was posted in the line of thinking was, “Okay, that’s what this artist did. Now for you in your expertise, what are the circles that you need to be drawing? What is the thing that you need to be doing as a deliberate practice, to get better and better and better at your line of expertise?”

That caused me to think about the things that I need to be doing. That line of thought led me down this path, to what I realized that I have what I call litmus test, that I’ve developed over the years to access all sorts of different situations. Some of them are real-life situations, some of them are work situations, and some of them are I think, very well-grounded. Some of them are probably a little bit naive.

You think to maybe high school chemistry, you think back to what a real litmus test is. It’s where you dip a strip down into something, and you pull it out, and it tells you if it’s acid or base. Even in real life, if you have a swimming pool, you have strips that you deep down in the water, and then you measure it against the scale that tells you if the water is good or not. That’s a real-life true litmus test type of operation.

Then think about all the other shortcuts that you can use in life. Like you’ve probably heard that if you want to know if a pearl is real or not, you can rub it against your tooth. It feels rough it’s a real pearl, if it doesn’t, it’s a fake pearl. Consider you take your car in to get it worked on by a mechanic. You see the mechanic’s hands, and you might think “Well, his knuckles are all skinned up, that must mean he’s a good mechanic.”

The reality is that a good mechanic doesn’t have skin knuckles because he’s developed practices over the years, where he knows when he’s going to skin his knuckles, and he does it differently so that he doesn’t do that. That’s a real down nose line, real-life type situations.

For example, in my consulting business, in my area of expertise, there’re one or two specific products that I guess, I would say they’re ubiquitous within our industry. People who are in the industry know these products, they know what they do. They know there’s a good product for this use. There’s a cocking product that we use in our industry, that’s essentially it’s with army knife for waterproofing.

If you’re in the industry, you know that product. If you’re not in the industry or if you’re playing like you’re in the industry, you’re trying to make people think you know what you’re talking about. All you have to do is pose a specially worded question essentially ask them, “What do you think about this product?” Sit back, and you gauge the facial expressions, and the body language, and the verbal response.

From that, you can tell, it gives you an idea of whether they know what they’re talking about. Maybe, it’s not a true test, but it’s a quick indication of whether they’re in the game or not.

“The judge is the kind of personality I think is an important one to have in any transaction because they are the standard bearer. They are the one that holds the standards, offers the constraints. They’re the one that says, ‘Hey, watch out, this is about to go off a cliff.’ They’re that kind of personality.”

John: You said, do you have lots of these kinds of litmus test? I can hear that you do have lots of them. Do you have some that you think are useful for our audience? Little litmus tests that they might utilize in their own business endeavors, or in their own, perhaps, in the satisfaction of work, career, or money anything that comes to mind?

Karl: It’s hard for me to know what specifically is going to be useful to someone else for their specific needs. For example, it all tends to revolve around my aims and what I need to accomplish.

For example, I’ve used the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program nearly every day for the last 30 years. I use it at a certain level and the people that I work with need to use it at a certain level. We don’t use it for any level, rocket science or anything like that. We use it at a fairly low level.

For example here, a litmus test that I use for Excel is that you can use a dollar sign in a formula to make it do a certain operation. It doesn’t have anything to do with money. It’s a dollar sign that’s used to execute an operation. If you know what the dollar sign does in an Excel formula, then you probably know how to use Excel at the level that I need for you too.

If you don’t know what the dollar sign does, then that tells me that you are at a different level of use of Excel. I may have to train you to do some things.

John: That’s really fascinating because I’ve been thinking about a variety of ways that one might test for personality. For example, just last night, I was leading a workshop, and someone said, “How do I find the right person for the job?” I had said certainly, “You would need to make sure that they understood their skills.” Then we have people who share with us all kinds of ways, that they’ve approached having the right personality in that role.

Also, we have a group that invites all of the salespeople that they’re applying for a job into a room with a two-way mirror and watches to see which ones are talking to one another. They tend to know, “Okay, well, those are the social ones those are the performers,” for example. All kinds of little tests like that I got. It’s just a fascinating subject. I can imagine then creating all kinds of different tests or standards for things. Maybe, thinking of another way I can utilize my judge here.

Karl: One that comes to mind that I’ve actually talked with Randy about this before I can imagine that most people who keep a diary are judges. I would also consider that most people, who do scrapbooking as a hobby, are likely judges because they’re focusing on preserving the past and having the past to go back and look at.

John: Nice.

Karl: The other thing that I’ve noticed is, pay attention to when people talk about how they schedule things. Whether they talk about knowing what they’re going to be doing in two years or five years, versus not having any plan for the future. When someone tells me that they have their schedule set out for two or three years, it leads me to believe that they’re likely an inventor.

John: Very good. Anything else you want to say about this notion of litmus tests or standards?

Karl: I’ve actually observed situations where people have run litmus tests on themselves, and they didn’t even know it. Let me give you an example.

John: Meaning– [laughs] I’m starting to get nervous.

Karl: Imagine that you have two mechanics in a mechanic shop and they’ve finished the car they’re working on. Then someone pulls in the next car that they need to work on, and it’s a Ford. One of the mechanics turns to the other mechanic and says, “Oh Gosh, this has Ford on it. I wonder if the Ford people are still in business.” That would be a pretty ludicrous question for one mechanic to ask another.

It should be common knowledge in their area of expertise that Ford does in fact exist. I was at a meeting a number of years ago, where a consultant doing essentially what I do for a different client all working on the same project, asked a question in front of a group of people. He asked the question that he should have known the answer to and all the people in the room knew that he should know the answer to, but he didn’t.

You probably heard people say that there’s no such thing as a damn question. I decline to accept that. I think that if there’s a specialized piece of knowledge about your expertise that you should know, and you ask the question in front of a bunch of people who do know, and they know that you should know the answer to it I would offer to you that you just ask the damn question. You essentially just run a litmus test on yourself or the people in the room, and you didn’t even know it.

John: Very well put. Tell me a little bit about what you’ve learned here. Everybody has a journey. The journey through your own transactional competence and I imagine, for me, I’m not done with the journey. What you’ve learned here, and perhaps how it’s impacted you, anything you want to say about that?

Karl: There’re a number of major things that I’ve learned. I essentially grew up in an upbringing, where I became an adult thinking that living independently, in terms, of not having any help doing everything myself was the pinnacle of life. That if I didn’t have to hire anyone to help me to do something on my house, or my car, or in my business, that I was doing it the best possible way.

I’ve come to the realization that having help is a good thing. It’s a transition for me, to move out of that way of thinking and come to a place where I’m actively seeking help so that I don’t have to do everything myself.

John: Anything else?

Karl: The other aspect of it is that I’ve come to the realization that I can actually have some control over planning what the future can look like. I can actively work towards meeting that plan for a future. Instead of just simply working hard day-to-day, and year-to-year, and hoping that it’s going to turn out the way that I think it might turn out. That it can actually be planned.

John: I would say that for many of the people that I know that are judges, that’s not easy. When Darryl tries to think about the future, he says, “My brain hurts.” It’s like it just makes his brain hurt like, “How can you think about the future? It doesn’t happen. So what if and what does that have to do anything?”

Do you recognize yourself in that kind of statement, and are you saying that you’ve overcome that to some degree? Or you found a way to look at the past and then gauge the future or what do you mean by all that?

Karl: It is a very difficult challenge because I think we tend to go down a lot of rabbit holes of what could happen? How can I plan for all this very large number of things that could happen that we don’t have any control over? Instead of focusing on the specific things that we can have more control over, at least some level of control and move forward with it.

John: As we teach it here, we talk a little bit about the two personalities that get together to plan which is the inventor and the judge. I, as an inventor, would go to my judge and together we would look at the resources that we’ve got. We would look at the current set of facts all the things that are known so that we can begin to speculate on the future as a possibility based on all those facts, resources and so forth.

Do you find that you are more able to take what you’ve got as facts and look towards the future? How are you beginning to plan the future?

Karl: It’s very much a work in progress at this point, in terms of really just wrapping my mind around that. Because at this point I don’t actually have an inventor involved with my life in any way. I don’t have an inventor in my relationships, and I don’t have an inventor in my business. I’m working on it.

John: For you how do you plan? What do you imagine when you think about improving your business over the course of the next year or two years or something like that?

Karl: Taking advantage of outside resources that I can draw on, to give me advice on moving that way.

John: That’s very interesting to those with the knowledge, those with resources, those with the connections, that kind of thing?

Karl: Yes.

John: I’m asking because I’m authentically interested in understanding the judge in all kinds of ways. Every time I talk to some of you, I learn more. There’s a natural tendency, it sounds like, to look at the resources that you have at your disposal in people, and knowledge, intellectual property, all that kind of stuff. Anything else you want to say about that?

Karl: I would say that in general judges, we’re not people-people. We don’t spend a lot of time around other people. Inventors tend to be agitating to us in a lot of ways.

John: Am I Agitating to you? [laughs]

Karl: No. Nothing personal towards you in any way, but the potential for having to work actively with an inventor is agitating. It’s something that has to be overcome. I think a lot of judges experience that.

John: Yes, I would agree, and I integrate. I think one of the places that we share in common, and this may help in whatever way it does, is we both have an interest in the inventory resources. All of the tools we might have at our disposal whatever they may be.

Because as I’ve said, I think I said it on another podcast, “Inventors aren’t so much people creating from nothing as they are getting in front of an existing parade. Where we will take a look at the resources that we’ve got at our disposal and then begin utilizing those resources, look to the future.” All right, I’ve got these things and these tools, and these people, and what can I do with that?

As I would imagine somebody approaches in our project, looking at all these things they could utilize. We end up put a little paint there and that there and so forth. I’m commenting on my own experience of that. Anything you want to say about that?

Karl: That makes perfect sense.

John: All right is there anything else that you would like to say about your journey here with us or perhaps any little soap-box moment? We’re always asking people an opportunity to stand in a soap-box and say just about anything?

Karl: As far as my soap-box I guess my main point there is I’ve gotten to the point where I get frustrated with people who won’t take any personal responsibility for what they do, and in particular, taking responsibility for the personal safety. The phone is not always going to get you out of trouble, and it won’t always take you where you need to go.

Even something as simple as right now if you needed to call 911 and tell them specifically where you are. So that someone could come there could you do it? The person next to you needed first aid in one way or another. Do you have any way of providing that?

I’ll offer to you probably a month or so ago your entire life was surrounded by the Thomas fire. I would bet that you probably have a renewed appreciation for the idea of having some food in your house to eat, and some water at your house in case you had to be there for a week or so, maybe having gas in your car to be able to go a certain distance.

For me, one of the most horrifying things I ever saw was watching the house across from me burn down in the middle of the night and seeing the fire department pumping thousands of gallons of water on the house. All the people fell on the curb in their pajamas watching their house burn. We have fire extinguishers all over our house.

I often fear that there are a lot of preparedness things that you can do that may take a little bit of time now to set yourself up in a way that you can handle some situations that very likely may occur. Once you reach that level of preparedness, it doesn’t take a lot to maintain it. It can give you a sense of calmness in a way that you’re not worried about things that might happen. Watch out for the fake news is out there. Fake news is everywhere.

John: [Laughs] That certainly is. That’s fantastic. I listened to a lot of that through the lens of what we would say that diamond that needs for happiness for a judge personality which is what? What do we say it is?

Karl: Security.

John: Security, right. For me, it’s certainly. Inventors its certainty. For performer it’s freedom. For judges, it’s security. For producers, it’s consistency. It’s fascinating because I can hear that all of that provides you with some peace of mind. It’s really great. As I said, I love the both of you dearly. In fact, I didn’t know that Randy and I share a hobby in common. Do you know about this?

Karl: Would it be aquarium?

John: [laughs] Yes, it would. I would imagine do you have a basement or something that’s filled with aquariums or a garage or something? Is that right?

Karl: They are actually scattered all over the house. We have about 700 gallons of salt water in our house in various tanks. We started with a small saltwater aquarium, and then it grew to the point where we decided to do 180-gallon tank in our bedroom. From there we did a 240-gallon tank in our living room.

Then Randy got interested in raising corals. We set up an extra bedroom in the house with two different aquariums that are solely for the purpose of propagating corals.

John: That’s fantastic.

Karl: We share the responsibilities. I tend to be more in charge of keeping all the pumps and mechanical equipment running. She tends to be more focused on the livestock, the fish, and the corals. Then we both work on whatever needs to be done to keep the water quality the way it needs to be.

John: Yes. I find it fascinating. I don’t know if you know this or not, but I had a saltwater reef aquarium for many years. It wasn’t that big; it was 75 gallons I think or something like that. I’m raising a lot of corals and the like.

It was around that time probably 15 or 20 years ago that I started to talk about the health of the fish is given by the health of the water. We used to address the fitness of the environment, the health of the environment. I was always very fascinated in the relationship between a new organism and environment.

As you know, Influence Ecology has a lot to do with the relationship between organism and environment and some of the ways in which we as human beings don’t often address the environment to tend to ourselves. We tend to ourselves like a thing as opposed to something that the environment and the organism are inseparable.

Many years ago I started to give the speech that went something like the health of the fish is given by the water. Don’t treat the fish treat the water. That was actually some of the carnal of what turned into a whole host of talks and papers on that organism-environment subject. It all started with aquariums.

When I found out that Randy, I was just watching a certain man on Facebook the other day and saw she was unpacking some new frogs and talking about that I was like, “Oh, my God. I love it, great.” Anyway, I think she knows about my love for all that. I’m sometimes living like curiously through her. I don’t know that I want a stomach the work that it takes, but I certainly loved every bit of it. I don’t know if you knew all that, but I thought I should share it.

Karl: No, that’s great. One thing about it is it reminds me of my dad used to make wine. I saw at an early age that there’s something he have to be very patient with. You’re going to spend a bunch of time to make this wine and then put it in a cabinet for five years and not touch it. Growing coral was a little bit like that. It grows at such a small rate that you really have to do it for a while to see any appreciable change in the size much less just keeping it alive.

Then when you do actually start to see the changes, and we take photos of our corals every once in a while just so that we can track it what rate they’re growing. It really is fulfilling to see this thing propagate and grow larger. You can actually break pieces off. It’s like a plant where you cut off part of the plant and propagate it. It’s not necessarily destructed to the environment because what you’re doing is just propagating something that someone else has propagated already.

John: That’s fantastic.

Karl: It’s a lot of fun. Probably a couple of years before we were in Influence Ecology and before we would do anything like assessing whether it meets our aims or do the 13 step on whether we should put up 240 gallons of aquarium in our living room. There’re probably parts of it now that we would do differently having the hindsight of maybe we should have thought about what we’re getting ourselves into. In hindsight I wouldn’t say we regret it, it makes it challenging to go on vacation.

At this point, we have a person who comes and takes care of our dogs and is able to take care of the aquariums and keep them going without us having to worry about it too much. It is definitely a level of added lifestyle maintenance I guess you would say.

John: I remember that you used to be beepers you could get on your belt in case your chiller stopped working and you have, right?


John: You need to go home and add some ice cubes to your water. There’s all kinds of stuff.

Karl: The level of sophistication the LED lighting setups that they have now are just insane compared to probably what you were used to having back then.

John: Yes, fun topic. Thank you very much for being us today on the podcast. I appreciate it.

Karl: It was great. I enjoyed it.

More about Karl Strand:

Vertical Solutions Consulting


Cape Not Required by Cory Shepherd

Influence Ecology is the leading business education in transactional competence.

Those who transact powerfully, thrive.™

Interested in learning more about Influence Ecology, our programs or our members?