The Influence Ecology podcast features case studies, stories and lessons from business owners, executives, and entrepreneurs and is followed by ambitious professionals in 80 countries and counting.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is hosted by Co-Founder and CEO John Patterson.
Naively Righteous with Jeff Miller
As we teach it, the study of transactional behavior allows each of us to understand both the value and cost of our role in any transaction. For example, rigorous standards are valuable when confronting our limited resources–and at the same time–destructive when gregarious or imaginative moods are required. Too often, we get stuck when we assume our assets or contributions are always a good thing. We are often surprised when they backfire. In 2016, Jeff Miller's standards had him so imprisoned that the toll to his health finally stopped him in his tracks. Although the money was good, throughout most…
As we teach it, the study of transactional behavior allows each of us to understand both the value and cost of our role in any transaction. For example, rigorous standards are valuable when confronting our limited resources–and at the same time–destructive when gregarious or imaginative moods are required. Too often, we get stuck when we assume our assets or contributions are always a good thing. We are often surprised when they backfire.
In 2016, Jeff Miller’s standards had him so imprisoned that the toll to his health finally stopped him in his tracks. Although the money was good, throughout most of his 25-year career, he was miserable. After studying with Influence Ecology, not only has he found peace of mind, he’s found freedom and satisfaction in a new career that takes advantage of his specialized knowledge while also enjoying a new chapter of art, music, and performance.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded November 20th, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology faculty, staff, mentors, and students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence™. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled “Fast Train to Everywhere.” You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment to go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Sound Financial Group
Jeff Miller on LinkedIn
Free 30-Day Guest Access
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
Scaling Up! with John James & Lauren Cato Robertson
In 2012, John James and Lauren Cato Robertson started studying with Influence Ecology to develop their massage therapy business and now co-own the Academy where Lauren first trained. Their journey underscores many of the lessons that come with first expanding, then scaling their business. As John James says: It's been pure joy and frequent discomfort. In this interview, you'll hear a very transparent view of what it's like to start and grow a successful and expanding business. We first interviewed the business partners in May of 2017, where they spoke about the early days of working together and going from…
In 2012, John James and Lauren Cato Robertson started studying with Influence Ecology to develop their massage therapy business and now co-own the Academy where Lauren first trained. Their journey underscores many of the lessons that come with first expanding, then scaling their business. As John James says: It’s been pure joy and frequent discomfort.
In this interview, you’ll hear a very transparent view of what it’s like to start and grow a successful and expanding business. We first interviewed the business partners in May of 2017, where they spoke about the early days of working together and going from generalists to specialists. Now, you’ll hear how they’ve continued to transact powerfully and thrive.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
There are times where I literally stand in the bathroom, look in the mirror and go, ‘I have no freaking idea what I’m doing.’
It scares the hell out of me and yet I’ve just stuck with it. I’m not going anywhere and what’s so different is I’ve reached out for help in the areas where I don’t know what I’m up to, don’t know what to do and I reach out her help very quickly. That’s made a huge difference.
John Patterson: So first of all, John James, Lauren Cato Robertson, welcome back to the Influence Ecology podcast. It was great to have you here some time ago. I think you both know that from time to time we use your offer as an example in our fundamentals transaction program because you did such a great job, in applying a lot of what we teach to what you do and how you do it.
I was eager to have you both back because you may know it, but we’ve been doing a little bit of a, where are they now, podcast interview with some people and finding out that people have studied with us for all of these years are really doing some amazing things and that includes the both of you. So I just thought it would be great to have you back. How are you?
Lauren Cato Rob: Great. Happy to be back.
John James: Yeah, very much so.
John Patterson: Good. Well, let’s do this first. Let’s take a moment and have you both introduce yourself, just briefly. Just say who you are, what you do, and if there’s any of that you want to say about, how long ago you studied here, that’s also fine. But just so people can get a sense of who you are.
Lauren Cato Rob: All right. I am Lauren Cato Robertson and I am John’s business partner. We co-own a massage academy in Plano, Texas called Ke Kino Massage Academy and Institute of Healing. Inside of that organization, we also have the C-Section Recovery Center, an advanced clinic, an intern clinic, and a walk-in clinic. So education therapy, all sorts of pieces to that.
I am involved personally in management and all the kind of stuff that goes with that. I’m teaching our business and ethics curriculum and I am a practicing massage therapist. I have been working with Influence Ecology for I think five or six years and I am one of eight people who has completed every program you guys offer. Very proud of that fact.
John Patterson: Good. Go on James.
John James: Well, I in part could say ditto, there’s a lot of the same things. I’m the CEO and co-owner of Ke Kino. Lauren and I also co-founded and co-own the C-Section Recovery Center. The company that we designed and built within the curriculum and Influence Ecology. I’ve been with Influence Ecology, I don’t know, six or seven years, it feels like.
John Patterson: Is it 2012?
John James: It’s a little bit longer than Lauren. So, by maybe a few months.
Lauren Cato Rob: I think that’s six months.
John James: That sounds right. Here at Ke Kino, we’ve been here at Ke Kino, we acquired Ke Kino going on a year and a half ago. So, we’ve been here applying and transactional philosophy and I’m also involved in teaching the business class. I still have a practice here as well, I wear many hats and just like Lauren does.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic.
John James: I also have a wife and three kids in Melissa, Texas. So about an hour North of Dallas.
John Patterson: I know you’re in the thick of it, right? You’re in the business, you’re in the thick of it. You’re in the day-to-day as we all are. We know the ups and downs, the headaches, the joys, the oh craps, all of it, right? There’s all of those kinds of things. But over here, looking back at you guys, when we first met you were massage therapists. Is that the best way to say it?
Lauren Cato Rob: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
John James: Yes.
John Patterson: Okay. And now you own an entire school. You own an academy, you own a school that teaches people a whole bunch of stuff, and we’ll get into that in just a minute. But, throughout this journey you… I’m going to sum up from my viewpoint, you’ll fill in blanks, but you started out where you were, you began to specialize, you got more specialized, you got more specialized.
You started to find a real niche and specialization grew and more and more successful. An opportunity came along for you to not only do what you do, but to teach what you do and to expand all of that through the acquisition of the school. You acquired the school and now here, a year and a half later. John, I think you said you’ve tripled your net worth in this whole time.
So there’s a lot that’s there, and if I were simply listening to this podcast as a massage therapist, I may never ever imagine my life would go that way. So I think there’s something worth, first of all, just stopping to acknowledge about what you have accomplished. Again, I know you’re in the thick of it. It’s not all flowers and roses, right? There’s a lot. But at the same time, it’s extremely phenomenal and worth celebrating. So, first of all, kudos to the both of you.
John James: Thank you.
Lauren Cato Rob: Thank you.
John Patterson: Yeah. Really, proud of you.
Lauren Cato Rob: It’s worth celebrating.
John Patterson: Yeah, it is. And just want to hear anything about that journey in general.
John James: So one of the things I would say first is that, the opportunity of acquiring the massage school was a strategy. Because the question had come up about what were we going to do next regarding the success of C-Section Recovery Center. So it’s success had allowed us to do something like acquire the school. I guess if a lot of people will look at it they’d go, “Yeah, that’d be great if I could do that.”
John James: But it was very well thought out. It was actually very much tied to our aims. For example, if it had been any other school in Dallas, we wouldn’t have bought it. It was very specific to this school and for a lot of reasons. So, I think that’s one of the reasons why it worked. Because it seemed impossible to be really… The amount of money we were talking about, it seemed impossible.
John James: But because it was so well thought out, it wasn’t impossible. So I think that, that really made a big difference because it wasn’t a new thing really. It’s connected to our previous aims. It was very much an extension of what we had already been doing. So I think that made a difference.
John Patterson: So do you mean that the teaching this or owning a school or something, that thinking occurred earlier and was a part of a strategy or it was a means in which to satisfy some larger, grander aims?
John James: The aim was how to grow the C-Section Recovery Center and I guess one of the possibilities would be that we dump millions and dollars into it and take it nationwide or something like that. That really wasn’t a route that we were prepared to go. But a question, and Lauren can speak to this as well, a question in our conversation with Kirkland Tibbels came up about, how to scale that business.
John James: One of the possibilities or one of the things that came up was the condition of life’s education. A problem that we were finding of finding qualified help, and then the light bulb started to come on of, “Well what are the ways that we can find qualified help is to get involved in the creating it.” Lauren I’d love for you to give us some input here too.
Lauren Cato Rob: In my mind, even before we had the conversation with Kirkland before, even before C-Section Recovery Center even existed. I had this thought of having a community of therapists come together to study and practice and support each other. That’s kind of the, I would say the other piece of what this business has become is a resource for therapists to use each other for help.
Lauren Cato Rob: Because often we leave school, we go off into our single room all by herself when we never talked to another therapist again. So having a place where everybody can come and commune and have real discussions about how to elevate this profession, how to support each other better is a big piece of it for me.
Lauren Cato Rob: Then in the discussion of C-Section Recovery Center and scaling that up, it’s been incredible to see the therapists in the building, they’ve really taken it on as a project where they’re like, “How can we help those clients?” And they’re starting to find little areas of specialty within what they were already doing, that are things that John and I weren’t already doing.
Lauren Cato Rob: We didn’t have to retrain anyone for the most part. We just brought people in who were already doing really good work, and figured out how do we apply this to the same client base. Then we’ve done a little bit of additional training with people where, we’ve taught John’s breathing technique and some other techniques like that. But, I couldn’t have predicted how easy it has been to get other therapists on board with what we’re doing.
John Patterson: That’s great.
John James: What Lauren is saying, makes me think about how, I’m not sure we realized the deficiencies we had in talent. It’s just been the two of us, until we had a building full of talent. We began to go, “Oh, that’s what it looks like to be autonomous.” Is that, we were like, “We didn’t know we didn’t have that.” Because we didn’t know that existed in a way. So what we’ve found is that we were servicing these clients at a better level than we had before we got here.
John Patterson: Can you impact that just a little bit, because that’s an amazing bit of thought. There are people that are hearing that for the first time saying, “What? What do you mean by that? We didn’t know were auton…” Can you just say a little bit more and give that some clarity for people who may not understand any of what that means?
John James: Well, I think our culture or the current teaches us that autonomy is some sort of state of independence and some state of not needing anything from anybody. I always say that autonomy is independence through dependence. The definition that you guys taught us is, that it’s having more help than we need. I guess you could say with just the two of us, maybe we had some sort of autonomy going.
John James: But as we moved into a larger environment, and we started working with more people, we realized that we haven’t even scratched the surface of what it would look like to truly use all of the resources that are available to us, that we take for granted or that I certainly do. There were a couple of practitioners here in particular, I’m thinking of one person in particular and when we got here I was just shocked at how talented he was and that, he immediately became a resource for us.
John James: He was doing something that our clients not only needed, but we did not do at all. So we didn’t go and try to learn what he does. We created a relationship with him and I’m hoping a really lasting one. And so we started to experience a different level of autonomy, I believe.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic. Lauren, anything to add?
Lauren Cato Rob: Well, I mean one thing that feeds into that same idea is, we’ve had a number of practitioners in the community who are people who are extremely qualified to help us, who’ve been practicing 25, 30, 40 years, who have approached us going, “I want to be a part of what you guys are doing and how do I do that?” We’re actually having the problem of, “Okay, we really want some of these practitioners who are working at this level up here.
Lauren Cato Rob: How do we bring them in without causing a breakdown for them in a major transition? How do we continue to support the people we already have that we love and appreciate and who are doing a great job.” But also, there’s a balancing issue now between all of the amazing help that’s available and what we can actually support given the limitations of space and time. Yeah.
John Patterson: Absolutely. Absolutely. Welcome to the problems of scaling up. So, it’s fantastic that you’ve expanded the environment in the way that you have. Is there anything else that you want to share about what’s happened, or what new opportunities or discoveries have you had now that you’ve expanded your environment to include all those others?
John James: One of the things that comes to mind for me really quick is that, I’d always heard from you guys that the more successful we become regarding transactionalism, is the more declining we will do.
John Patterson: Yes.
John James: Man, I wanted so bad to experience that life. I maybe had time periods where we were experiencing it with the C-Section and Recovery Center, but once we moved here, it’s a totally different story. We have more offers, offers to come join us or to be a part of this organization or just a variety of different things.
John James: So we do find ourselves pausing and checking our aims and then accepting or declining offers. We certainly experiencing that. I don’t know that you guys made that as a promise, but if it was a promise you made, well, we finally got it. It makes it a little easier to build an organization of this size when there’s people coming to us rather than us having to go to everyone.
John Patterson: Yes.
John James: The more we decline or the more we counter offer with people, we find that people are more careful about how they approach us and what kind of offer they show up with. We’ve had people here in our building that show up with the best that they’ve really thought it through. They’re thinking of ways they can be more helpful. And of course, we’re thinking of ways that we can help them and help them to meet their aims.
John Patterson: That’s great.
Lauren Cato Rob: I would say that one thing that has been really exciting, I think, is that not only do we have all these seasoned therapists and therapists who are working with us and in our offer and C-Section Recovery and other things, but then we have this whole new category of students.
Lauren Cato Rob: We have a class right now where we’ve got a chiropractor, a Reiki master, a yoga instructor, a high school graduate, a naturopath, all these people who are coming in who already have a set of skills. They’re not headed in this direction because they couldn’t figure out what else to do. They’re here because they really want to be here and they want to learn this art.
Lauren Cato Rob: There’s just been this amazing transactional back and forth with the side of the staff that is experienced and knowledgeable and helpful. Then this whole group of students who are just thirsty for knowledge, and there’s all this transacting back and forth across the aisle, so to speak.
John James: It’s like a performance dream
John Patterson: It’s a what?
Lauren Cato Rob: Yeah, it’s a performance dream.
John James: Like a performance dream.
Lauren Cato Rob: I went here, I was a student here and that did not exist when I was a student. If it did, it was little and it was individuals finding those relationships. But, under new management it’s been very much encouraged to get to know everybody in the building, get to know who your resources are. Make sure that you get to know these people while you’re here as student, because they’re going to be the people who can help you as you move out into the world, into your careers.
John Patterson: That reminds me of something, you said you went to the school and not too many people got to then later on a school they went to. I think that’s the unique accomplishment to you. I’m interested in your… I’ll say it this way, Influence Ecology where, we’re in our scaling years. There’s some scaling up that’s been going on and it’s pretty amazing and I sometimes have to look back and think, “My God, how did we get here? How did this happen? How did this come together so quickly?”
John Patterson: All those kinds of things and from time to time it surprises me or, I get a sense of what we’ve done here. I’m just wondering for the both of you, here you are, five years or seven years or however many years later, what’s that like for you as a human being moving through all of this, this quickly? What are you going through?
Lauren Cato Rob: Do you mean, as far as owning the school or going through Influence Ecology?
John Patterson: Owning the school, but more than that, accomplishing what you’ve accomplished. You now have a tribe around you, you have a school, you have a group of people around you, you have an environment of people, you have people coming to you with offers. So that wasn’t happening five or seven years ago for you, right? So what’s that like?
Lauren Cato Rob: I think for me it’s, I kind of pinch myself. Like, “What? How did this happen?” It was such a natural progression of events over the last few years. I think being in partnership is a big part of how that has gotten the ball rolling. Having both personalities involved and having both of us and our spouses in Influence Ecology, we’re kind of inundated and surrounded by this world of work. So for me, I kind of pause. I can’t believe I’m in the position that I’m in. It’s not that it’s not deserved and I love it. I love what we’re doing is just not something I ever imagined.
John Patterson: John, for you?
John James: For me, there’s these two competing experiences going on. One is, kind of living my dream in a way. For me at practicing, January will be 28 years for me. I’m looking at legacy and that’s not something that we’ve honed in on yet, but at some point for me, this is legacy. So there’s that.
John James: The other part of this, is it’s been the hardest project I’ve ever done. It’s been so difficult and it’s just required so much more of me and I’ve been in that knowing-doing gap a lot. [inaudible] of where I have an idea of what needs to be done, but I’ve never done it before and I’m just… It’s this kind of dichotomous experience going on of cheer joy and discomfort.
Lauren Cato Rob: Absolutely. Absolutely.
John Patterson: I think we can all relate. We can all relate. Yeah, it is. We’ve been dealing a lot here at Influence Ecology with knowing, and you talked about the knowing-doing gap. But also fitness, and the kind of fitness that it takes to do things, the kind of fitness to do what you do, to know what you know. The fitness to manage a school, run a school, run a business of a school.
John Patterson: Nothing can prepare you for the fitness required and oftentimes it is the case. I can see Lauren is nodding, yep, yep, yep, yep. John, I think you’ve put some of that in your own notes as well. Nothing can prepare you for discovering that you aren’t fit, doesn’t mean you’re not prepared.
John Patterson: You have the ambition, but you wake up and say, “All right. Well, I know I’m not fit. I’m clear I’m not fit. I’m still going to go forward and I’m going to develop my fitness.” And it’s very uncomfortable. It takes a large amount of humility, the willingness to know to admit to yourself and to everyone else, “Here’s what I’m good at, here’s what I’m not. Hey, I’m working as best I can. I’m developing my fitness.” So any comment to all of that?
Lauren Cato Rob: I mean there’s been a massive knowing-doing gap here. All I can say is, “Thank God everybody didn’t just quit as soon as we bought the place.” Because, the people who were already here, don’t have the knowing-doing gap. Their knowing-doing gap was, “How do I have new bosses?” They weren’t used to having somebody on site. The previous owners were in Florida.
Lauren Cato Rob: So they were pretty independent here. I think that really worked to our advantage because, they were already doing everything the previous owners did… I mean they did some work, but it wasn’t a huge amount. Thank God for Jeannie and Annie, say their names on air, because those two, and the other people here, I don’t know how we would’ve done it without their guidance.
John James: Yeah, it’s like we acquired a business full of friends and business partners. I literally think they care about it as much as we do. Not any less. I don’t know, maybe somebody is faking it but I don’t think so. It’s really amazing to watch and be a part of that and have acquired something, I just feel really fortunate.
John James: There are times where I literally stand in the bathroom, look in the mirror and go, “I have no freaking idea what I’m doing.” You mentioned that, it is so uncomfortable for me as an inventor personality. It’s scares the hell out of me and yet I’ve just stuck with it. I’m not going anywhere and what’s so different is a reached out for help in the areas where I don’t know what I’m up to, or I don’t know what to do. I reach out to her help very quickly. That’s made a huge difference, to get help.
Lauren Cato Rob: We had a moment a couple months ago where Jeannie, she’s the judge who runs the place. She was my kinesiology and AP teacher, all that stuff. She came in, to John and I one day and she went, “For two people who have no idea what they’re doing, you guys aren’t doing a bad job.” I went, “Coming from you, that is high praise and I will take it. Thank you.”
John Patterson: It reminded me of the major conference just recently, just last week. There was a whole conversation about what it means to be an ambitious adult, and you’ll hear a little bit more about this. But, there’s a few things I’ll share with you and I’m dying to get your response to them.
John Patterson: So first of all, we said that adults let the environment do them, ambitious adults build environments to do the heavy lifting. So I bet that resonates with you. We might be wrong about our fitness and assume we know what we’re doing. Then asking for help is a demonstration of ambitious adult. I’m interested in that particular comment. So asking for help is a demonstration of ambitious adult. John, you just talked a little bit about that. Anything else about that?
John James: The question I would ask myself, “How can I get through this without bothering anybody or getting any help?” Or, “Looking like I don’t know what I’m talking about.” Is probably more appropriate. I don’t do that anymore, I still want to look like I know what I’m talking about. But, by having help, with this recent issue, I immediately thought of someone, thought of two people, coaches that I thought could help me.
John James: Along with the PRP training I was doing with Influence Ecology and I reached out to her and 48 hours later I was in. It fixed the problem that I was having, the problem being that I seriously was considering that maybe I wasn’t qualified to do this job. I went ahead and allowed myself to go there and go, “Yeah, I’ll promise myself if I find that out, then I’ll walk away from this.”
John James: I’ll be honest, I think I found out, I’m absolutely not qualified, but I am really ambitious and I’m getting qualified as fast as I can and I care a lot. I’ve spent about three months with that coach, and I think I’ve found that it’s plugged the gap. I found that I had some naiveté in certain areas around being fit.
John James: Having organization, that’s being organized enough to run a company or my environment being suitable to run a company and found out that we actually have some things we need to take care of. As those things are getting taken care of very quickly, I think maybe I can do this.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic. Well, first of all, I’ve got to say I’ve known you now for all of these years and for you to say on a public podcast something like, “I discovered that…” However you said it, “I realize I may not be fit.” Or “I’m not fit for this.” First of all, congratulations for the transparency and for the ambition. I find that there is of course, the natural tendency to look like we’ve got it together and we know what we’re doing.
John Patterson: But for many people who are launching enterprises or who are creating value in the marketplace. They’re doing their best guesswork. Now, thank goodness you’re surrounded with lots of help where you can say, “I’m not fit, I don’t know what I’m doing, this isn’t something I’m familiar with. I have a specialization that has a lot to do with treating people who are in pain. But running a school? Those are different worlds.” Right?
John Patterson: So that you’re dealing with yourself about closing that gap, bravo to you both. Bravo, bravo, bravo, because I think that’s a real strength to be able to admit that. Because of course, you can now find help and it’s in abundance. I mean there’s a ton of it around. So, congratulations John.
John James: Thank you. Thank you.
John Patterson: Well, we’ve got about ten minutes left before… I’m going to have to jump here. We’ve talked a lot about some things I think that are very valuable to our listeners, especially because people will want to know where are you now, what are you going through?
John Patterson: Certainly you can hear that there’s all kinds of growth and with growth comes all kinds of new levels of fitness and dealing with where you’re naive, not fit and everything else. Is there anything else that we should know about where are you now? Let’s look at the goodies of where are you now? What’s happened?
Lauren Cato Rob: I think one thing that there’s a change in the way that we work, that has largely been influenced by the work with you guys in applying the distinctions of transactionalism in the philosophy to bodywork. Looking at primarily, of obviously we are dealing with condition of life health. What we’ve come to, through this study is that, in dealing with people’s health in our treatment rooms, we can’t ignore all of the other conditions of their environment.
Lauren Cato Rob: That we’re really looking at it even more holistically than we were before, and looking at what is, “How is your relationship, how is your spirituality, how is your education affecting how you’re able to deal with your health?” So there’s a lot of that happening here and I think being injected into the curriculum, into what the students are coming out knowing is that, this isn’t just rubbing oil on a body.
Lauren Cato Rob: I mean, it’s great if somebody wants to go work in a spa and take care of people in that way. That’s totally, totally respectable and legit. But one thing that we’re really trying to do here is make sure that our students get a different level of education on that philosophical, ethical level of, “How do you really provide valuable help to somebody?”
Lauren Cato Rob: And, how do you develop as a therapist in a way where you’re actually able to really help somebody go through something really… Process something really deep, as opposed to the old narrative is, “Don’t deal with that, just be quiet and rub lotion on people and know your place.” Almost. Part of the purpose of us being here is changing that narrative, changing on the basement level of education, how students are looking at this profession.
John James: I think, a long time ago I had this idea for a book, and it was called the touch revolution. Typically, [inaudible] I just had the idea of the cover and the name, there was no content. What it was coming from is that I felt like that health care in general was returning to something that they had lost. It’s rather unbelievable that they lost it, but they did.
John James: We’ve gone through a pretty significant period of time where Western medicine in particular quit touching their patients. I worked in physical therapy for many years and I remember one time thinking about the days I had gone without seeing a physical therapist touch a patient. That’s not the case anymore both of those industries are changing.
John James: One of the things that makes me so proud of this industry is that we’ve been around as best we can tell about four thousand years and we’ve always used touch. We never left it, we’ve always been here. Why that’s significant to me is I don’t think that we’re the followers here. I think that we’re the leaders in this industry, in the healthcare industry.
John James: It reminds me of midwives a lot. The midwives that stayed, if you meet a good old midwife, man, they’re just so valuable and they’ve always been there. They’ve always been there with the philosophy that the mother can do this. And we’re always here with this philosophy that the patient can do this, “You can do this, you need to be touched more, you need to breathe more.”
John James: We just felt like that we’re leaders in that and that if someone wants to use touch, as a way to express themselves or as a way to make a living, that they should come here, because we’ve got our hands around this. We really can help a person turn that into a career.
John Patterson: It’s fantastic. So for the [inaudible] I can hear some satisfaction in some of the higher conditions of life and the commitment to contribute, the commitment to make a difference. Some of the transactional traditions of life like spirituality or self actualization, legacy and the like. Some of what you’re attempting to do. I’m interested in… By the way, I love what you just shared. I couldn’t agree more.
John Patterson: I’m interested also in some of the other conditions of life now, in terms of what happened? Last time we were together was what, three years ago maybe? Something like that?
Lauren Cato Rob: I think so.
John Patterson: Three years ago. So, what’s happened to your money? What’s happened to some of those more fundamental conditions of life? What’s happened to your work, what’s happened to your money, what’s happened to your identity? How have those changed for you?
John James: I started a project probably three years ago on correcting my money, I guess you could say and correcting my credit. I have a credit score, well over eight hundred now. I just kept working on it. I just really turned it into a project. I did not do it alone, I got some help. In that time period, my wife quit working to stay at home and work and take care of our children. So even with the loss of that income, we’ve done really well. So the condition of money, I would say it was an area that I’ve worked on a lot.
John James: Spirituality wise, Lauren and I both have been working with a shaman from South America for the last three years. We’ve involved that person who in our community as well. So I’ve worked on that condition a lot. As far as my identity, I would say that it’s changed a lot. Those are the main things I’ve worked on.
John Patterson: Okay, great. Lauren for you, anything about that?
Lauren Cato Rob: Well, we just bought a new house, so that’s exciting. So that’s part of-
John Patterson: Congratulations.
Lauren Cato Rob: Thank you. Money and environment are improving. I mean, I think about when I started FOT, I was living in a one bedroom apartment next to a busy street and hardly making any money. I mean, three or four hundred a week and things are very different now. It’s nice and I mean, it’s not extravagant or anything like that, but it’s nice to be able to go and buy the house that I wanted to live in, to do some renovations and things that we’d wanted to do.
Lauren Cato Rob: On a fundamental level, the basic biological needs that were problematic in the beginning are no longer. For me, I think the biggest change has been in my health. I came into this program really desiring to make some changes to my health and doing some things right, but not all things right.
Lauren Cato Rob: Looking back, I couldn’t have done all of them at once. It took the deliberate practice over the last almost decade to get me where I am now. I don’t know if you know this, but I actually had a fibromyalgia diagnosis about seven or eight years ago.
John Patterson: I didn’t.
Lauren Cato Rob: Well, when the doctor said it, I said, “Please don’t write that down.” I haven’t been back to her since, and I said, “Okay, well.” To me hearing those words, goes, “We don’t have anything left for you.” So I decided to go work on other things. I work with a trainer two to three times a week and I eat really well and I feel really well. I have good health for the first time in my life. So, to me that’s been the most significant development of the last few years is that, I feel capable of doing just about anything physically.
John Patterson: Right. That’s really great. Well, I’m proud of both of you. Influence Ecology, we celebrate our 10 year anniversary this year and we know the number of businesses that start and fail. We know the number of businesses that don’t make it to five years. We know the number of businesses that don’t make it to 10 years.
John Patterson: We’re headed into our annual member conference, looking at our satisfaction for the next 10 years. What does 10 years from now look like? I bring that up only to say that you guys have been on a journey and I hear it only taking speed. I hear it growing and expanding and I hear you’re surrounded by some really valuable help.
John Patterson: You’re so smart to ask for help and to put yourself in an environment of the right people and I just couldn’t be more proud and I couldn’t congratulate you more in any way. Bravo.
Lauren Cato Rob: Thank you.
John James: Thank you. We couldn’t have done it without you.
Lauren Cato Rob: Amen.
John Patterson: Back at you. Back at you. Didn’t we learn a lot together, right? We learned a lot together. All right. John James, Lauren Cato Robertson, congratulations to you both. Thank you for being on the podcast today. Really appreciate it.
John James: Thank you.
Lauren Cato Rob: Thank you for having us, John.
Kirkland Tibbels: Remember, deliberate practice includes practices that are designed by someone who understands how to develop your fitness there, it’s repeated a lot, that feedback is continuously available. Qualified feedback, is the kind of feedback where if I want to perform at a very high level, I may want to seek some really qualified feedback.
Because all the while I might self-manage or I might get somebody a little bit better than me, a little more fit than me in the same skill or ability to provide feedback. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to really shortcut my training, my learning, by finding someone quite qualified to be able to say, “No, no, no. Listen, if you do that, you’re going to spend a year later, trying to undo all that stuff. Let’s get you serving properly from the get go. Let’s make sure that you truly know how to serve the tennis ball.” For example.
Begin to seek qualified feed back from those who have demonstrated or evidenced their fitness, in the thing that you seek to accomplish. I think that’s an important point for all of us, as we have ambitious aims, as we are always pointing out around Influence Ecology, “Get help.” But don’t just get any help, get some help from qualified feedback. Those who are qualified to offer it.
Finally, just taking a look at the other elements in deliberate practice, highly demanding mentally. In other words, it’s intense. It really is it. It is intense. This kind of practice is a kind of focused practice that requires an intensity of action and thought. It can’t be done for long periods of time because it is just simply demanding mentally. And finally, it’s not much fun.
Now I know some people that for them, deliberate practice is everything and in fact we have a lot of people with Influence Ecology because of their ambitions. For them deliberate practice is a lot of fun. In fact, it’s how I know I’m at work on my improvement, it’s how I know I’m at work on achieving some of my aims. So while it’s not much fun, it’s repetitive, you’re mostly going to have someone qualified saying, “Nope, not it yet. Nope, not it yet. Nope, not it yet.”
That’s good. Not much fun, but good and so I’m inviting you to find the fun in it. All right. A few things just to wrap. Remember, this year of ambition, lots of pigs, just as many valleys, but don’t worry, as long as you’re continuing to develop your fitness, your fitness may move along the needle from a two to a five over time. Continue to work on your fitness. It will improve
John Patterson: My special thanks to our guests, John James and Lauren Cato Robertson. In our show notes, you’ll find links to connect with them and all the links to websites, books, or downloads mentioned in this podcast.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded July 23rd, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology faculty, staff, mentors, and students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence™. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled “Fast Train to Everywhere.” You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment to go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
Built for Speed with Alex Bould
Alex Bould works with large tech corporations to shorten their time to market. Working in the San Francisco Bay area, he leads enterprise-scale Agile transformations to help solve billion-dollar problems. In this interview, he talks about what differentiates market leaders from market followers - and how this is changing. For the longest time, the pursuit of efficiency and productivity has dominated the landscape - higher efficiency and productivity leads to lower costs and lower risks for greater scale. As the marginal return for increased productivity diminishes - the landscape is now shifting - it's shifting to one where the companies…
Alex Bould works with large tech corporations to shorten their time to market. Working in the San Francisco Bay area, he leads enterprise-scale Agile transformations to help solve billion-dollar problems. In this interview, he talks about what differentiates market leaders from market followers – and how this is changing. For the longest time, the pursuit of efficiency and productivity has dominated the landscape – higher efficiency and productivity leads to lower costs and lower risks for greater scale. As the marginal return for increased productivity diminishes – the landscape is now shifting – it’s shifting to one where the companies that can outlearn their competition will dominate.
Recently he and I worked together to bring Transactional Competence™ into his work with Western Digital Corporation. Western Digital is a Fortune 200 American computer data storage company. Alex is helping companies enter a new era where developing their fitness in how to think accurately is a core competency for any business operating at scale. He also addresses how the speed with which stuff gets done or where hard problems get handled creates a lot of room to move freely in an organization.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
“What’s decisive around time to market is the capacity to learn, and what impedes learning is people’s lack of awareness about how their deployment of asset slows down, grinds transactions to a halt, or creates delay.
Then just by paying attention to how I get to participate in a transaction, really does speed things up straight away.“
John Patterson: Alex, welcome to the Influence Ecology podcast. It’s great to have you here.
Alex Bould: Thank you, John. Good to be here.
John Patterson: Take a moment, introduce yourself for people that don’t know you.
Alex Bould: Sure, my name’s Alex Bould, I live in the San Francisco Bay area, and what I do is work with large tech corporations to help them shorten their time to market. Living in the Silicon valley, it’s an environment where there’s a lot of large tech corporations, lot of brands that people know, and those brands have very large market presences, and they operate at scale. We’re in an environment where the markets are wanting to move much faster than the existing product development lifecycle. So large companies are dealing with, “How do we speed up our product development time? How do we get our products in market sooner?” And that’s a challenge.
John Patterson: Because … may be obvious, but to those that are listening newly and don’t know that environment, why is that a challenge?
Alex Bould: Well, it’s essentially a function of scaling, generally, which is as things scale, they tend to take longer. Things tend to take longer, and the cost of coordination tends to create delay. And also, not having access to information at a timely manner means that people can’t take actions that are actually counter-productive to shortening cycle times or getting products out. So it’s a bit of an irony. As companies become more and more successful, and it’s scale grows, their ability to move quickly declines. So we have ways of working with companies primarily, and implementing Agile practices at scale that allow companies to shorten their time to market the products.
John Patterson: And since you bring up Agile – Can you just say something briefly about what that is for the general audience?
Alex Bould: Well, it’s a category name that’s used to describe a way of working together. What it primarily distinguishes is that it’s team-based and it’s cadence-driven. So things happen in time boxes, and it’s with teams. And some of the salient points about that is, work is brought to the teams rather than teams being brought to the work, and that work is being mediated through a backlog, and that managers no longer direct work.
John Patterson: Okay, good. Thanks. So let’s talk a little bit about your own journey before Influence Ecology. You participated, now, since when? Do you remember?
Alex Bould: Yeah, I’m going to do the math. So it’ll be October 2016.
John Patterson: ’16? Okay. And everybody has a journey when they participate here. Everyone goes through a kind of learning journey. In brief form, can you describe your learning journey once you started studying here, what you discovered, perhaps what you were thinking then. What you discovered about where you might be naïve, or where there might be some conceits or what not. And we’ll get to where are you now, but take us a little bit back before, to the early days.
Alex Bould: Well, immediately before starting at Influence Ecology, I was kind of baffled. What is it that people can not see about how I see the world, that leads them to constantly struggle in areas that seem to me to be obviously? like, well, if you just did this, or did that, things will just work out. And it’s a somewhat … you can probably hear the hubris there right away, it’s like, I’m the one who’s struggling right now, because I’m baffled about how come they’re not baffled, right? So there’s a certain self-referential tenor to that. So I first learned about Influence Ecology through a good friend of mine, Anna Athanasiu, and I was aware that she had been studying with Influence Ecology for maybe two years by that stage, something like that. My version of it is, “Oh look, I’ll just do the six month program, that’ll be enough, I can’t imagine needing to study for more than six months.”
And so again, there’s some arrogance right there, making up immediately that I knew what the benefit was going to be. So I got started, and our first program is six months long for twelve webinars. And I think the thing that I really had to deal with, was how much study was involved. Eight hours a week for me, but I think some people study much quicker than I do, but it was a solid eight hours a week of study. And what was really irritating was having to … These questions that are on the learning system are really simple questions, but they take hours to answer, because there’s critical thinking required, thinking that I hadn’t done. And anyway, I just got confronted from the beginning about how naïve I was, thinking about important things, things that turn out to be important.
And then, regardless of that, I was dealing with putting a new offer into the marketplace, and engaging with people, and my experience was simply this, is that I just did the work that was being described to do. I just did the work. I started inventing transactions and moving in transactions the way it’s described, and people started responding positively. And then I started to get offers, and then I got contracts, and then, I mean, my revenues started going up, and it was like, “Wow, this really works!”
John Patterson: That’s good. And then just for a moment, because I know a little bit of your journey. So your revenues started to go up, you had some offers that begin to get accepted, larger offers that begin to get accepted, you found yourself moving into, as we describe it, higher and higher ecologies. In other words, the ecologies that if they accept your offers, you can meet your aims. That’s what you mean by that.
Alex Bould: Yeah, yeah.
John Patterson: And so here you are now, three, perhaps almost four years later, and life is very different. So just, in brief, is different how, now, for you as an individual than it was three or four years ago?
Alex Bould: Well, I think primarily the … I mean it sounds trite I’m just happier.
John Patterson: That’s not trite.
Alex Bould: So there’s a way … what used to be a mystery to me is why doesn’t everybody think like I do? Was a mystery. But now, just through applying the distinctions of Influence Ecology, I find it’s so much easier to move in the world, moving with my colleagues and friends where I spend most of my time at large corporation. Moving freely in that environment, seeing them accomplish their aims, seeing the results that we’re wanting to accomplish with the company, getting accomplished as well, it’s just joyful. I mean I focus a lot on fitness and performance, and it seems odd to me that I would describe it as joyful, but it is.
John Patterson: For those that may know you personally, you seem to get a great deal of joy out of a variety of ways in which to develop your own fitness, whether it’s your physical fitness, mastery over certain approaches to different things from … I can hear you talk about riding a bicycle for an hour, as it pertains to your fitness, or you happen to be involved in marksmanship, and the like of that fitness, or physical fitness, or the fitness to perform. In fact, many of our conversations have opened my own eyes to the way in which people either do or don’t address fitness as a key component to satisfying some of their aims. You made some notes in what you offered, and you talked a little bit about … you said this, and I’m just going to read this because I think it’s brilliant. You said that “As the marginal return for increased productivity diminishes, the landscape is shifting, and it’s shifting to one where companies that can outlearn their competition will dominate.”
Alex Bould: Yeah.
John Patterson: And so it brings me to fitness because you’re speaking about a fitness to what?
Alex Bould: Well, so there’s so many layers to this John. So there’s a history to the way in which people seek to operate at scale in corporations, where a lot of the initial learnings came out of manufacturing, and a lot of people will be familiar with the Toyota production system, theory constraints, lean manufacturing and so forth. And these were popularized and generally shown to be extremely valuable for companies to manage things, which are otherwise counterintuitive to them, but when we apply the product development, something goes missing, which is that people don’t notice that in manufacturing there’s very low variance, the fact the design of a manufacturing line is to have almost no variants, but product development is very different. Product development has inherently got a lot of variants, so people mistakenly take lean manufacturing techniques and apply them to product development, and end up with really bad results. What’s missing from this is if you ignore the fact that you’re in an environment that has a lot of variants, what that’s really pointing to is that there’s a lack of accurate thinking in the planning.
And it’s not because people don’t know how to think accurately, it’s that there’s uncertainty in variants in the planning, inherently…in the product design inherently. So we need a process that’s resilient to dealing with the variants. And if we can take the thinking that’s required to manage for that, in a responsible way, that gives us the timelines we want for product development, it goes extremely well. So a way to characterize that is that an essential component to product development nowadays is how quickly can I learn. And one of the challenges we have is learning requires us to acknowledge that we don’t already know. And that’s really, really difficult for companies that are addicted to predictability.
That’s really difficult, distinguishing between the predictability that’s associated with manufacturing, and the predictability that’s associated with … here’s what’s predictable in product development. Oh, the schedule will vary, and there’ll be breakdowns. That’s the predictable. So how do I develop my resilience to that? How do I think accurately about thinking accurately. I think we’re getting to the point now where large scale organizations have mastered the pathways around efficiency gains and productivity improvement, and what’ll differentiate is the speed with which they can learn. Who can out learn others will be the differentiator.
John Patterson: Fantastic. I read an article recently, and it talked about the generations or the eras of organizational learning or organizational activity. People are familiar, of course, with the industrial age, or the factory, the assembly line. People are familiar with the quality and efficiency movements and all of those kinds of things. I’m hearing you describing much other eras. So is it, in your mind, that the ability to learn is a new era that’s beginning to arise? Like if organizations are to compete, and keep up, and produce products at the speed with which we are now moving, is that kind of learning an era?
Alex Bould: Yeah, so there’s an arc in this, which is that it’s a pattern that repeats every time. So where there’s some kind of advantage, we would call it specialized knowledge, which is not able to be easily replicated by others, especially if it’s counterintuitive. That’s creates an advantage in the marketplace that allows some people, if they take advantage of it, to keep growing faster than others. And then over time the codification of that specialized knowledge becomes more and more general, in fact it becomes a stable state. So before I can compete, I literally can not compete nowadays in the world unless I use lean manufacturing. Lean manufacturing number one, reduces the cost of capital. That’s just decimated volume of work in process. It’s a tenth of the volume it use to be around. I mean it’s not viable as a manufacture scale on a second due lean manufacturing. Now, as we move into lean product development, as we learn how to do things in much shorter timeframes, that advantage really … there’s huge penalties to coming second and third and fourth in marketplaces.
John Patterson: Yeah, say something about that, because I know you and I talk about that a bit, but say something about that.
Alex Bould: Well, there’s lots of way people talk about it, first mover advantage, fast follower, so forth, but some markets are characterized by paying a huge premium for first in market, because the customers are dealing with a constraint where earlier access to their product gives them an economic advantage. And so they’re willing to pay a lot. So in some markets they’ll pay an 80% premium for first in market. Second in market will be par, third will be par, fourth will be a 50% discount, and fifth will be 100% discount. In other words, no one will buy any of your products if you’re fifth in market.
So what becomes important is, can I get to market first. And then what becomes negotiable is what feature sets are in the product. So the economics of the customer applying the technology of the product actually dictate the value. And what we might think is valuable when we first start our product development, might change over time. So what matters is, can I show up to market on time with the best product I can? So it’s a bit like … we talk about it like this, you can’t … the Olympics is going to happen on a certain date, so if you want to compete you have to show up as fit as you possibly can on that date to race. You don’t get to go to the committee and say, “Hey listen, I haven’t quite got my schedule sorted out for my training, can we shift the 100 meters to three weeks later?” That doesn’t happen. And yet most product development methodologies are set up in a way where that’s absolutely inevitable. We will show up later than the scheduled delivery date.
We’re saying, companies that are capable of delivering on a particular date with the best product they can, are outperforming companies that can’t. And we see that with Apple, and we see that with any seasonal kind of product. There’s no question that the next version of the iPhone is showing up in October. It always does. It has whatever features and capabilities they were able to put in, in time for that release date. They’re never not going to ship on that date, because the Christmas purchasing is just too valuable. So yeah, that’s an example.
John Patterson: For those who don’t know, Alex in Influence Ecology we’ve been working together now for, is it about a year, a year and a half?
Alex Bould: Yeah, yeah.
John Patterson: Year and a half?
Alex Bould: Yeah.
John Patterson: On the way to bring to the market our approach and more of an enterprise offer. And I’m curious as to how you see transactional competence helping with the endeavors that you’re charged with solving.
Alex Bould: Sure. It’s probably two or three lines of thought that could get woven together here. So there’s a consequence to rolling out these Agile translations at scale, which is that because the work starts getting done by teams and the work is being mediated through a backlog, managers no longer have a role, which involves directing the work that team members do. And so that kind of creates a bit of a vacuum and then there’s a second order of it, which is that in using the disciplined approach that Agile brings to the way in which we make trade offs and allocate work, the amount of firefighting that is required actually diminishes enormously. So what you end up with is a lot of really talented people as functional managers, whose last viable ten years has involved a substantial amount of firefighting. Now, more or less idol. And some of them have a predisposition to become arsonists. And so we can light some more fires to put them out, right? And it’s a perineal problem, and it can be talked about really disparagingly in the Agile community.
It’s not a term I favor at all, but sometimes they call it the permafrost or the clay or something, but it’s that’s body of people that exist between the executive management in teams that are extremely influential in creating the kind of environment in which performing happens. In fact, in Influence Ecology, we would call that the consequential environment, and they are the authors and the maintainers of that consequential environment. So in dealing with this, I was looking at it as okay this is a tremendous resource here, and I would like to find a way to make use of this for accomplishing our own at reducing cycle time. So having studied with influence Ecology it was like, okay is there a way for us to bring together a lot of the distinctions that we have available to us to manage our personal aims? Could we package that up in some way that would allow us to satisfy team aims. So this is an essential component.
Could we take this group of functional managers, that otherwise operate independently, and bring them together into a team, where the team aim was to deconstruct the existing environment and reconstruct the environment in a way that actually supported the team performance for the product development, so that-
John Patterson: Can you pause for just a moment? In working with some of these teams, and in experiencing some of the difficulty, there’s the; you called it the permafrost, there’s the culture of commanding control, as we would say it at Influence Ecology, we would talk about self-acting or interacting. A bit of over-lording or a bit of trying to get people to do the things I need them to do from on high coming down, right? So now that’s all taken apart, and you now have people who need a new framework, who need a new approach, need a new way in which to address their role in the larger transaction, right?
Alex Bould: Yeah, so we tended to characterize it like this, is this idea of working on the environment in which the teams could perform in building the product is an example of working on the business. And so the work we did to build transactional competence for cross-functional teams, that particular offering, is it provides a lexicon and provides a way of reasoning with using language, how to work on the business. It’s a big shift from working in the business, right? And it’s also really relevant for people’s own career paths, because as people become more senior, they’re actually working on the business rather than in the business generally. That’s generally the shift that’s happening. So yeah.
John Patterson: So for you, what have you seen happen as you brought some of the principles and distinctions of transactional competence into the work you’re doing at Western Digital?
Alex Bould: One of the precepts or tenets behind this is that in any engagement myself or my team has with the organization, we’re always looking to what happens when we leave. So how do we leave the organization where there are people within the organization that can be responsible for the ongoing transformation, can be responsible for people’s fitness and performance. So how do we do that? So we have a particularly attention on the environment, we have three levels that we work with. There’s what we call the Agile change agents, which are at the team level. We have the guiding coalition, which is the executive leadership at the line of business level, and we have the lean Agile leaders, which are the group of functional managers that have made a transition to being a team that works on the environment.
And so initially our thought was that bringing in TCX [Transactional Competence™ for Cross-Functional Teams] would accelerate things and would raise people’s fitness beyond what we could ordinarily do. What we’ve seen, as a consequence of that, that these groups, these Agile change agents and these lean Agile leaders, and the guiding coalition had become substantially self-organizing and do not require the direct involvement of me or my team to continue the work of a transformational fitness, which is really great, because it accomplishes one of my aims, which is how to get out of that part of the organization, because we have many other parts of the organization that we need to work on. So it’s been the big one. Secondly … oh, I can share one more thing.
John Patterson: Yeah, yeah. I’m going to come back to when you said something amazing, but go ahead.
Alex Bould: Oh, okay. The thing that I like about it is one of the things we say for people is that we have an asset, and that asset, when it’s deployed, if we’re not mindful about how we deploy it, can be incredibly costly for others, and at the same time it can be incredibly valuable. It’s a real delight to watch people discover that there’s no mystery to why things have been a struggle for them, because this asset they posses, they’ve been deploying it somewhat mindlessly, creating a lot of cost for other people, and at the same time they actually discover just how valuable their asset is when it’s being deployed really well, in other words, we’re wildly off calibration in terms of how much value we are, and how much cost we are.
And so when people actually can take ownership of the way they deploy their asset, they really like it. You get this groups of people that are really clear about how to keep the cost down, and how to keep the value up. And it’s a joy. It’s a real joy. In fact, it becomes somewhat problematic, because when they fond themselves in other environments it’s like, “Oh, my god. This is really painful. Having to deal with people who are deploying their assets in really costly ways.”
John Patterson: So well said. So, so well said. And so to make it clear for anybody that’s listening for the first time, some of the personalities that we teach, and their role in a transaction simply said … that somebody can deploy their asset in a part of the transaction where that’s good, that provides value. They can deploy the asset in another part of the transaction where that’s a cost. That’s bad. That slows things down. So people, as you’re saying, are becoming more aware of where to deploy their asset or perhaps withhold their value et cetera. And that speeds everything up.
Alex Bould: Yeah, yeah. And I think there’s some second order, third order kind of effects that are really satisfying. It’s, again, kind of back to the joy thing. It’s like when someone shares, “Wow, in 25 years of being trained, this is the most valuable thing I’ve ever been trained in.” It’s like, okay good. It made a really big difference. Pretty happy about that.
John Patterson: So we’re going to go back to a thing that you were talking about a moment ago, is one of the things that you said about bringing TCX to the organization and what it is offering. You mentioned that the teams are self-organizing.
Alex Bould: Yeah.
John Patterson: So it’s been, I think, our commitment in working on the Transactional Competence™ for Cross-Functional Teams, or TCX, as people are coming to know it. That, that program is designed to sort of bring people around a common campfire, or we’ll call it a framework. So the framework is transactional competence, or the transaction cycle, or the personalities as they’re related to that transaction cycle, or their role in the transaction, or to build a transaction requires building an environment in which the transaction does exist, and how do we speed that up, and how do we eliminate the cost, and how do we make the most of the assets, and all of that. So tell me a little bit more about what you’re observing as people begin to learn the principles of transactional competence and then self-organize. What are you seeing?
Alex Bould: Well, I think it’s an arc. So one way we distinguish fitness in our company is we talk about sit, crawl, walk, run, fly. There’s five states of fitness, and we also say what has people move from sit to crawl is training, from crawl to walk is coaching, form walk to run is mentoring, and from run to fly, which is a transcendence that takes development. And then what has someone at sit at all is the framing. They find themselves in a frame where they can identify their fitness. It’s like, well that’s a gap, right? Until you’re actually in the frame, it’s like, how would I know?
So as people participate in Transactional Competence™ for Cross-Functional Teams, it’s set up as a webinar where 45 minutes has got some of the distinctions, and 45 minutes is where we’re engaging in a dialog about what people have found, and there’s an arc to their participation where over the ten webinars they’re raising their fitness through the crawling stages and starting to get into walk. After the webinar finishes, it’s like, “Well where’s the opportunity for deliberate practice, where is it that we get to keep applying this?” And so we’ve been at work on building in it. So the teams have come together around particular programs and project where we’re building something called a consequential environment for teams. Fitness for hundreds and hundreds of engineers. We have a working group that’s doing that, and we’re at work on how do we build that. We use transactional competency distinctions to help design that consequential environment, and in that process it’s been fascinating to watch as people learn.
We have a personality type called a producer. Their orientation to the world is very much grounded in objective reality. And this particular producer is in tears if she works out for the first time, that there are other ways to invent. You can invent possibilities that are not always the effects to a breakdown. Her relationship to possibility is it has to solve a problem. And as … there are inventors in the transaction design who are actually able to invent possibilities that satisfy aims, regardless of the breakdowns. And that was really moving to her. She discovered that she had been angry at people that have been to possibilities that weren’t grounded in breakdowns.
And in fact, it’s really kind of … and she was telling me, she would say, “I’m really agitated and frustrated that we’re in a conversation for possibility that’s not grounded in any kind of reality.” And then over the course of that time she found that what had been created by the group was actually a solution to … it actually met one of her aims about the commitment she has for people’s self-expression and personal development. So very, very satisfying in that regard. In a self-organizing nature it’s super interesting watching how people come together. We have some distinctions around planning, strategy, tactics, and some implementation. They mean something very specific, but what happens when this group comes together, they ask the question, “Where are we, and who’s leading? Which is a really interesting way for a group to come together, because there’s like, “Well, where are we in the transaction cycle? Are we in strategy or in tactics, are we in implementation, are we in planning? Where are we?”
And then who’s leading is automatically a function of that, or in strategy then it’s the inventor, performer who’s leading the dialog, and the others immediately take on other roles. And so leading becomes very fluid. It becomes a function of where are we in the transaction cycle. And so we say it like this, leading is a verb. You can see it. It’s in the doing. It’s a phenomena of team. It’s a phenomena of the environment. It’s just not a designation, it’s people at work, and it’s really awesome.
John Patterson: So the framework for transactional competence includes what we call PSTI, or planning, strategy, tactics, and implementation, and it defines where we are in the transaction, and then the roles that are involved in that part of the transaction. So where are we in the transaction, and who’s leading is a fantastic way to approach the transaction at play. And I think that’s one of the things that I want to turn to for just a moment, because it’s been my experience that another aspect of what is discovered when we get a team together, we find very early on around, I think, module four or so, we seem to find it around module four that people begin to address what are the aims of this group, or of this team. And it starts to make very real that there is a transaction, you could say, on the table, or in the room, or in the enterprise, but there’s a transaction outside of us that we begin to address, and that transaction has an aim. And then the question is, what’s the aim, and where are we?
Alex Bould: Right.
John Patterson: So what’s the aim, and where are we. And what begins to happen is that the people begin to see themselves as an aspect of a transaction, not the overlord of it, or not, in fact, distinct from it. Is there an aspect of the transaction I begin to see that I’m able to show up and lead in a part of the transaction where I’m of value, or remove myself where I’m actually a liability. In one of our MAP2 papers, Kirkland calls on the All Blacks, where the All Blacks are famous for the transference of leadership depending on who’s got the ball. I think that’s the simplest way to approach that. So what can you tell us about what you experience with people grabbing the ball, and the impact that it has on the speed of the transaction, because ultimately think from what you were talking about before, if we go back, we have a commitment, a primary aim that we’re quick to market, and we’re able to learn very quickly and move very quickly. So can you tie all that together?
Alex Bould: Well, there’s a little bit of a cascade there of context within context and so forth, but what’s decisive around time to market is the capacity to learn. And what impedes learning is people’s lack of awareness about how their deployment of assets slows down, really either grinds transactions to a halt or creates delay. Then just by paying attention to how I get to participate in a transaction, really does speed things up straight away. So you touched on this idea about leading moving. So there’s a layer in there, which deals with how do I lead a conversation from a place of intention, rather than from an agenda, or … yeah let’s say from an agenda.
Alex Bould: Leading a place from an intention lets the thing unfold. And so when we talk about being in a particular part of the transaction, “Hey we’re in planning, or hey, we’re in strategy, and who’s leading?” There’s two people having a conversation at that point, the inventor and the performer if it’s strategy. So what’s happening is it’s a dialog. And so in the dialog, things are starting to emerge that are consistent with the accomplishment of the aim. And everybody else is participating in the … what’s happening in the participation, even if people are silent, they’re out to fulfill the intent of the conversation, which is to resolve strategy, which is actually the allocation of assets.
That’s might seem a little airy fairy, but bear in mind that this group’s already grounded in Agile practices, and every ceremony in Agile practices has an intent to be fulfilled. And so we grounded them in the fulfillment of an intent, regardless of the actually practice. So this dove tails so nicely into the practices of Agile, generally. It just works really well. It’s really resonant.
John Patterson: Fantastic. Around session eight or nine of the TCX program, we often see people asking the question, “All right, how do I bring this back to my function? I come together in this team; there’s a cross-functional team. I now know I’m walking back into an environment that lacks some things; that lacks the consequential environment, that lacks the understanding of transactional competence, or the framework, or personality. Lacks all these things.” So we begin to address that people, in fact, need to build a kind of environment around them. And we talk a little bit about that. Is there anything you want to say about that, or anything you can tell us that you observe about that as people begin to go build that environment around them?
Alex Bould: Wow, yeah that’s a really interesting one. So I think what starts to become apparent is people’s willingness to be … there’s a decision point, and it’s kind of the decision point around fitness for anything. The environment that I go back into after having been in, say, TCX, is an environment that’s set up to accomplish a different set of aims. It’s organized to operate very differently than one might operate in a transactionally competent way. And so what people have to confront is, here’s a different way that I could be operating, and nothing in my environment is set up to deal with that, nothing. And then the next question is, “Well, what’s my relationship there. Do I do anything about that, or am I just going to kind of accept it?” I mean it’s a bit of a red pill, blue pill kind of thing. Am I just going to just go back to the way it was, and just put up with things, or am I actually going to move in ways that actually cause a state change?
Now, in a transformation around agility, we’re already committed to the state change, so the only question is, is it sooner or later. So that’s part of what comes out of this, is like, “Oh, I have to deal with the fact that my environment is just not set up to it.” Now, if people say, “Yeah, I’m ready to step in.” Well, then the next thing is, well, where’s the opportunity for what we call deliberate practice. And that’s what we see in any kind of raising of fitness, my own journey along crossfit. It’s like, well there’s a reason these moves are called Olympic moves. I mean they are not easy to do. Oh god, I used to think I could do moves. I was like, “No, there’s a lot to an Olympic move.”
Anyway, so that’s the same kind of thing. It’s like, “How do I become fit? Transactionally fit?” And so part of my role, and part of the role of others that help cause a state change on organizations is to create the kinds of environments people have deliberate practice in. What we say is qualified feedback from someone who’s actually competent at whatever it is that you’re trying to learn as a discipline. So that’s a piece of the puzzle for people to figure out for themselves, and they opt in. And then generally speaking, people that opt in and participate, they start to distinguish themselves from everybody else. In fact, they start to occur as not just transactionally competent, but competent in their roles. And they start looking like they’re in the wrong roles, in other words, they should be promoted. And so that has its own consequences as well. It’s like this thing accelerates people’s careers.
John Patterson: One of the notes I’m going to read, just as a segway, you talked about Marcus Bell, I believe Marcus Bell, who describes what you do, and what you wrote is that, “Marcus characterized what I do for large tech companies, is help solve billion-dollar problems for pennies on the dollar.”
Alex Bould: Yeah.
John Patterson: Which I love. It is a great characterization of the value that you bring to large corporations. And so I wanted to know if there’s anything you would like to say about that as a way to begin to wrap up, and then also perhaps as a transition into telling us a little bit about Consequential Agile.
Alex Bould: Oh, okay, sure. So let’s see. I think one of the things that’s an unexpected delay in studying with Influence Ecology is one of the conditions in life we talk about is money. And I think, like most people … well here I’m generalizing like I know, but I think at least for myself, my relationship to money was kind of grounded in a background of scarcity. And as we study money as help, it became really apparent to me that large corporations are allocating money to organize help. It’s part of the process. I don’t know, there’s something inherently theatrical I’m not sure if theatrical is the right word, but it just really resonates with me to help companies organize their help. They’re a collection of people. How do we be organized. And it’s not like the headlong pursuit of efficiency, it’s actually how do we organize … another way I might say it is that there’s a way to be organized where you can really minimize the suffering and maximize the joy.
And by the way that’s economically advantageous. So it’s kind of helpful. And I think they take the Agile principles and look at how do we operate at scale? I think TCX is one of those things that really allows us to operate at scale and really accomplish economic outcomes and people-related outcomes around suffering and joy. So that’s really why I go to work each day. It’s what I like to do.
John Patterson: It’s fantastic.
Alex Bould: Yeah. Thanks John.
John Patterson: There’s a couple of other things I’m curious about. So if you were to speculate on the next two, three, five, ten years for yourself and what occupies you, can you imagine?
Alex Bould: So it is fuzzy. It’s kind of a fuzzy frontier for me, but I think when we talked about consequential … you referenced Consequential Agile. So there’s a website, consequentialagile.org, and if anybody had told me that I would be building a website that’s an org thing for a group of people to galvanize around a set of ideas, it’s like kidding, why would I do that? But anyway, we have, and it’s a collection of insights. And my assertion is that if you go to work on any three of these insights, you’re going to knock it out of the park. It’s an invitation to anybody who has an interest in this area to get involved in a dialog about what is their own experience around these insights, and when we rolled it out at the SAFe conference in San Diego about two weeks ago, I mean the audience was just lots of nodding. So it was like okay, so there’s shared experience around these insights.
So I think there’s a seed being planted in the environment that says, “Hey, one way to think about what we’re dealing with here, is through this lens of insights.” It’s not prescriptive, it’s just saying, “Hey …” it’s helpful to know that people value promises, or it’s helpful to know that knowing requires doing, or it’s helpful to acknowledge that thinking accurately beats the alternative, and that there’s something to deal with about thinking accurately about thinking accurately. Those are things to really get our teeth into. So I have some kind of, I want to say it’s not really a vision, it’s like, here’s a seed. Let’s see where that goes. And if people want to galvanize around that, I think we can build a body of knowledge that really supports people training and engaging, and really fulfill on the promise of Agile at scale, and less suffering, more joy, and great prosperity.
John Patterson: That’s great. That’s all. Thank you so much for being a guest today. As always, it’s a pleasure to speak with you.
Alex Bould: Hey, thank you John, and thank you to everybody at Influence Ecology.
Today’s talk is a small segment of the program we mentioned in our interview. The program is called transactional competence for cross-functional teams, or TCX for short. This is merely my introduction to the program and is a means to begin to orient participants. Here’s the talk.
John Patterson: We are the leading business education in transactional competence. That is our specialization, that is our focus. Transactional competence. And fundamentally we just teach ambitious professionals and executives how to construct the fundamental transactions that accelerate their influence, value and results. And that piece, accelerate your influence, value and results, we’re going to focus on throughout the program, because ultimately what we’re here to do is to accelerate some things. So, that’s the way to relate to this. We’re here to accelerate some things, and ultimately we want to accelerate your influence, your value and results with those initiatives that matter to you.
The way to relate to transaction briefly is that I’m going to point you to a transaction cycle. We’re going to come back to this in a variety of ways. The transaction cycle is the fundamental model on which everything else lays. So this model will be something you become very familiar with over time. Just to orient you rather quickly, because I’m going to come back to it, we invent things, invite people to consider them. We present them to others, we agree, or commit, or contract to something, we fulfill that contract to some satisfaction, then we complete or judge that transaction, assess its value, reinvent it, and around, and around, and around we go. So our commitment is that people find a means in which to accelerate transactions by identifying a few things.
One, where they’re valued, where they’re an asset, where they’re competent in some part of the transaction, where they’re fit in some parts of the transaction, and more important where you’re not fit in some parts of the transaction, or where you may dismiss parts of the transaction, or where you may dismiss the value of some piece of the transaction. And many people find that their initiatives, their aims, their transactions, what they’re working on often fail where some piece of the transaction is simply dismissed, not considered, or weak. So we’re going to address that in a variety of different ways as we go along.
We find that many people don’t think accurately about the transactions built to satisfy their aims, and they may not fully understand that framework that I just showed. And understanding that framework allows people to participate in exchanges that can either allow them to reach their highest aspirations, or cripple their ability to meet their aim. So we’re interested in making sure that you can construct transactions that accelerate things, or more important, find the holes in the boat where some aspect of that transaction’s missing, and it does impact your ability to meet your aims.
As a sense of what our programs do for people, as I told you in the beginning, our programs spread word of mouth for almost a decade. Last couple of years a little bit more in the open market, but they spread so rapidly, because what we do and what we teach allows the average person to produce 46% more income than anticipated in six months. So on a personal level, there’s a big impact that people experience in the fundamentals of transaction program, for example, and as Alex said before, that’s a personal program, but what you’re about to learn is something quite similar in nature. Some of the basics that we teach in the fundamentals in transaction program are taught here. Now that’s a six month program, this is ten weeks. So we’re not going to be able to do much other than teach you some of the basics, in this program, but again, focused quite clearly on a team, and a team’s initiative.
This program, transactional competence for cross-functional teams, is meant to, as Alex talked about, address some team initiatives, and as you know very well, with Agile project management, there’s an approach where individuals within a group must coordinate across functional teams. And with that there are some inherited things. There’s some inherited allegiances, alliances, there’s an entire inherited environment of command and control, and so forth. And there’s an importance in working with cross-functional teams, where removing those impediments requires a new kind of framework, a cohesive framework with which to honor a new alliance, where you now transact for influence and compliance across functional teams. So this program offers that framework with which to accelerate initiatives.
Now the important piece here is that this acceleration can produce a reduction in expenses, however most important, we can profoundly reduce the cost of miss-market revenue. The aim of this program is both to provide that framework, cohesive framework, a way for everyone to orient to some framework, to coordinate action, but also to arm you individually with the competence to produce the influence and compliance you require in the environment that you seek to occupy, build or maintain. It’s quite apparent from some of the work we did before, that often is the case that and individual within its group is attempting to produce some buy-in, some influence, some compliance in some environment.
So we’re going to work on that. In fact, we call that building an influence ecology. So our name, what that means, we’ll get to in just a little bit, but this is really the point and the aim of this program.
My special thanks to our guest, Alex Bould. In our show notes, you’ll find links to connect with him and all the links to websites, books, or download mentioned in this podcast.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded October 15, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology faculty, staff, mentors, and students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence™. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled “Fast Train to Everywhere.” You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment to go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Alex Bould on LinkedIn
ConsequentialAgile.org
PlaybooksAndPathways.com
Free 30-Day Guest Access
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
R.E.S.P.E.C.T. with Dawn Spiller, Jenn Oliver, Carolyn Saint, Ellen Beverly, and Olga Kipnis at the University of Virginia
At the University of Virginia, I interviewed a group of women about the impact of our programs. I spoke with Ellen Beverly, Dawn Spiller, Olga Kipnis, Carolyn Saint, and Jenn Oliver about how the framework of Transactional Competence™ has helped them in their roles within the university. What might, you wonder, is the most surprising outcome? An environment of respect for different roles and personalities. While they each experienced more effectiveness and influence, the ability to understand Personality and Transactional Behavior™ has produced a culture of respect both for the simple day-to-day transactions and for the larger transactions that support…
At the University of Virginia, I interviewed a group of women about the impact of our programs. I spoke with Ellen Beverly, Dawn Spiller, Olga Kipnis, Carolyn Saint, and Jenn Oliver about how the framework of Transactional Competence™ has helped them in their roles within the university.
What might, you wonder, is the most surprising outcome? An environment of respect for different roles and personalities.
While they each experienced more effectiveness and influence, the ability to understand Personality and Transactional Behavior™ has produced a culture of respect both for the simple day-to-day transactions and for the larger transactions that support the aims of the enterprise.
You can hear how Transactional Competence™ provides a framework where each individual can understand their own and others’ roles in the transactions we all serve.
I apologize in advance that some of the audio quality may be difficult—but stick with it, as there are many great lessons here.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded December 4, 2018 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology faculty, staff, mentors, and students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence™. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled “Fast Train to Everywhere.” You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment to go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Dawn Spiller
Ellen Beverly
Jenn Oliver
Carolyn Saint
Olga Kipnis
Free 30-Day Guest Access
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
How Resilient Are You? with Kim Corbett
Why do some quit while others bounce back? Chances are you've heard tales of Thomas Edison overcoming failure. Edison (1847-1931) most famously invented the long-lasting, practical electric light bulb and is credited with developing devices for electrical power generation, mass communication, sound recording, and motion pictures. As a master of trial and error, these innovations have had a widespread impact on the modern industrialized world. When asked about the many thousands of failures he had when trying to create the light bulb he famously said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Success is not…
Why do some quit while others bounce back? Chances are you’ve heard tales of Thomas Edison overcoming failure. Edison (1847-1931) most famously invented the long-lasting, practical electric light bulb and is credited with developing devices for electrical power generation, mass communication, sound recording, and motion pictures.
As a master of trial and error, these innovations have had a widespread impact on the modern industrialized world. When asked about the many thousands of failures he had when trying to create the light bulb he famously said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
Success is not for the faint of heart. Lofty goals are challenging to achieve, and most won’t reach them. But why do some quit while others bounce back? How do some muster up the resilience to try again when faced with failure? Maybe some people are not equipped with the constitution to handle failing, much less, repetitive failure. Likely, most of us wouldn’t stomach 10,000 failures in search of success. So, how do we develop the resilience we’ll require for our ambitions?
Perhaps it is useful to consider resilience in a new light. What if it isn’t an inherent trait or behavioral characteristic? What if it isn’t something fate happens to bestow upon us. Maybe there is something we’ve overlooked. What if resilience is not an individual trait but to a greater extent, an environmental phenomenon?
In today’s’ episode, we’ll hear Kim Corbett, a poster-child for resilience, talk about how she’s built a surplus of help to bounce back during challenging times.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
“I had a high, ambitious aim for this year, to triple my income. And I thought, ‘How in the world… I am not fit for it.’ And to confront the lack of fitness was upsetting. I had a few moments of, ‘Forget it. What were you thinking?’
I thought, ‘No, do not move that target. How do I start studying and talking to people that can help me in the company? Hey, how can I reach that? How do I do that? I’ve never done it.’ And I would have been embarrassed in the past to do that.”
John Patterson: First of all, for our listeners, if you would please introduce yourself, say your name, where you live, and all that good stuff.
Kim Corbett: I am Kim Corbett. I live in Carmel, Indiana, which is a suburb of Indianapolis, Indiana.
John Patterson: And what do you do for a living?
Kim Corbett: I work as a territory director for a diagnostic imaging company, the largest in the country. We provide radiology services. I set up cancer programs and such in hospitals throughout Indiana and Kentucky.
John Patterson: Then you have a son aged 22, right?
Kim Corbett: Yes. Yes. Ryan.
John Patterson: Good.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. Very proud of him.
John Patterson: Good. And you’re also health enthusiast.
Kim Corbett: I am. Yep.
John Patterson: Good. Anything else we should know about? We want to get the full round of the character that is Kim Corbett here.
Kim Corbett: Oh, let’s see. I can’t think of anything. Those are my main…
John Patterson: Okay. Good.
Kim Corbett: Yes.
John Patterson: Okay. No worries. No worries. First of all, you and I had a great conversation on an earlier podcast and we wanted to invite you back. And we’ve had this kind of conversation also with several others, Marcus, Joe and Joni, Paul Adams, and the likes. There’ll be several more. Really the purpose of this conversation is to find out, where are you now? A lot has happened since we last talked, from what I can tell. And you’ve been studying with us from… When did you start studying with us?
Kim Corbett: 2012.
John Patterson: 2012.
Kim Corbett: Yes.
John Patterson: So, seven years ago. And when we last talked, I think you had made some moves. There were some accomplishments that you had noted. We talked a little bit about the whole world of selling. But where are you now? What’s happening with you? Kind of take us to the end of your journey, where here you are. You’ve been studying with us for seven years. What’s happened?
Kim Corbett: Wow. Well, from the last podcast, I’m still with the same company. My goal within that company was to move into more of a larger complex sales role. So I worked on developing my identity within the company, and being well known by volunteering for projects. And I watched out the company for opportunities for growth. I was last year promoted to a director level. So I went-
John Patterson: Congratulations.
Kim Corbett: Thank you. Thank you. Because that was quite an accomplishment. It took work. So I worked my way. I, in, my last role became… Because they said, “Well, prove yourself.” So I became number one in the company, won president award, won a trip to Turks and Caicos from that. Took my son on that. But then I worked into this role where I now work with very large multi-million-dollar contracts, which is… that’s what I love.
Kim Corbett: I love working with the hospitals. I work with very large academic teaching hospitals throughout Indiana and Kentucky, so I am responsible for a large quota and retaining these multi-million-dollar contracts.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic. Congratulations.
Kim Corbett: Thank you.
John Patterson: I am so happy for you. I knew you way back when, right, of…
Kim Corbett: 18 years ago.
John Patterson: I know you’ve been working with Influence… Yeah. Yeah. That’s really fantastic.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. That was a lot.
John Patterson: You should be proud of yourself.
Kim Corbett: I am. I am. Because I think back where I didn’t think it was possible ever. First of all, ever to even get in the six-figure range. But then I thought… I’ve worked in diagnostic imaging for several years. And in our world, we call them modalities. And so, there’s mammogram and x-ray and MRI. But when I started studying and learning about PET scans, I was so drawn to that. But the company I worked for previously didn’t offer that. And everybody on my dad’s family had cancer, and I wanted to work in something where I could make a difference, but also make money, because it was always the other way. I was always giving and I thought there’s no way to marry the two.
So, for me, to then look at working for the largest company in the country that offers it, but I sub-specialize mainly in PET scans, and then all of the new things that come out with cancer. So I educate the hospitals and the physicians, and encourage them to offer… A lot of them are all focusing on building robust cancer programs, so I come in and help and partner with them. So it’s pretty exciting.
John Patterson: For the lay people, including myself, a PET scan is…
Kim Corbett: Is for instance if you have cancer and you want to see, has it spread to other parts of your body. So you need a… or if you are getting cancer treatment, is the cancer treatment working? Yes. And they do some of the scans for brain, so there are some new things coming out with Alzheimer’s where they’re detecting signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain. So it’s a very precise test.
John Patterson: Fantastic. And you mentioned that you, in your early days, couldn’t imagine both making a difference and making a good living, and now you do both. In the early days, what’d you deal with about that? Do you remember?
Kim Corbett: I worked hard at fixing my personality. I thought there was a flaw. I thought, “I have to fix… There must be something wrong with me. I don’t know how.” Then I thought, “Well, if I just hoped and wished for it, that it would just turn out.” And I knew though. Deep down, I knew I was in trouble, so it created a high level of anxiety.
And since studying with Influence Ecology, that’s where I learned to do accurate thinking and think, “Okay, I have this skillset. I have this aim. How do I take it with what I already know, with my education background. And then how much do I need to make? And then where do I want to work where I enjoy it? What do I want to do, and how do I put that all together?”
And it looked impossible. Especially as I’m getting older, I didn’t think I could. Some people told me it was impossible. They said, “Go and get married to a rich man and just hang it up.” And I thought, “No. I don’t want to do that.” So I found a way-
John Patterson: Fun.
Kim Corbett: I know. I hear them more often than you can imagine. I still hear it. Why are you working so hard? And I love what I do. So I’m having fun.
John Patterson: Oh my gosh.
Kim Corbett: I know.
John Patterson: That’s a topic for another day.
Kim Corbett: I know. Exactly.
John Patterson: So since 2012, you doubled your income, at least that and more, and expected to do that again and so forth. Really, congratulations on all that you’ve accomplished.
Kim Corbett: Thank you.
John Patterson: It’s really amazing.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. It’s hard to believe. Sometimes I forget about it. I had a friend, within Influence Ecology, that I’m close with. She had me step back and take a look at that recently and said, “I want to just look at where you’re at in comparison to the statistics in the country. You’re up there for your age. You’re a single woman. This is what you’re doing.” So it’s important for me to reflect on that occasionally.
John Patterson: It is. From time to time, I’ve gotten out I think it’s the US census on income or something like that. And there’s a particular set of ranges that people can look at and get the truth about where you are in those different levels of incomes. And I think many people that work with us are kind of surprised, like, “Oh, I’m kind of up there. I’ll take it.”
Kim Corbett: Well, and it never seems like… For a while I thought, “Okay, is it enough when I didn’t measure it?” Because a lot of people said, “Well, if you’re going to spend your life just chasing that, what kind of quality…” So that’s why I’m not doing that now. I look at all the areas of my life. What does it mean to be satisfied? And then, where do I say yes and no to, and then where am I going to focus? And that’s what I’ve been doing.
John Patterson: That’s great.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. And then to see people in my life like my parents who… they’re starting to be a demand for satisfaction. My dad’s in his 80s, my mom, late 70s. And so, first of all, it’s getting on them… Even my son, he’s aiming to be high honors in college and graduating next spring. That’s been the bonus part of me studying here, is watching them watch me, and then how they’re taking it on as themselves. So that’s exciting.
John Patterson: One of the things that I’d love to talk to you about and get your thoughts about, because I know people… You and I, again, we’ve known each other for so long, right?
Kim Corbett: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
John Patterson: And sometimes there are people, and I think of them, and I think, “Oh, studious.” Or maybe somebody else, I think of them and I think, “Oh, they’re hilarious.” When I think of you, I think of the word resilience because you’re resilient. You bounce back. You aren’t thrown by the… everybody has peaks and valleys. You don’t seem thrown by that, the valleys. I’m not saying you’re not bothered by them. I’d rather have just peak, peak, peak, peak. But you tend to be rather resilient around your own health, around your money, around what’s happened in your earlier days around your own son’s health, around your moves.
When I said earlier that you’ve moved around a bit, know that you did a lot of moving, some of which was not of your choice, right? You’re like just this resilient woman, and I just wanted to find out if you have any secrets to share with us about that.
Kim Corbett: Something Kirkland pointed out is he said he watched how I related to things as they came up, as it’s another transaction. It’s not to say that I don’t get upset and I’m not distracted and delayed. But I don’t stay there. There was something you said early on in my study, is, “You transact for help until you’re satisfied.” The part, for me, that I’ve learned the most, because I’ve been very independent and never ask for help in the past, what I’ve done since 2012 and I continue to do it at higher levels every year, is ask for help.
I don’t spend a lot of time suffering. I get help and I get more help, and I just continue to do that. That’s why I get through things. I have a study group that I’ve had now for a couple of years. We call each other beyond our study time and I get help from them. And I don’t have a problem any more with shame or embarrassment, that I have weakness that I have to ask for help. So that has been the biggest impact for the resilience and bouncing back and just doing what has to be done.
John Patterson: I was going to ask you about that because you wrote in your notes something about… You said it and I wrote here. You said you ask for help and ask for help again and again and again until you’re satisfied. First of all, I think it’s very brave. I would, as in a Inventor Personality, tend to want to look like I’ve got it going on, I’ve got it all together. Took me a while to learn to ask for help. So I’m glad that you brought that up because I’ve never thought about that as maybe a key to resilience.
Kim Corbett: Oh yeah.
John Patterson: Anything else you want to say about it?
Kim Corbett: Yeah, because I think about… It was late last year, I lost everything I owned to a flood. And I was studying at the time-
John Patterson: That’s so funny. I’m laughing now because, if anybody’s listening to this went, “Oh my God.” Oh yeah, I just lost everything. Oh fire. Oh yeah, my house just… Oh yeah.
Kim Corbett: Yeah.
John Patterson: Please continue.
Kim Corbett: I started studying minimalism right before it happened. I didn’t think I’d be impacted to lose so much. I went to start replacing my belongings. And I went to a furniture store and I froze. I could not even think straight. So I went to my study group during one of our calls, and I was embarrassed that I was in that state of mind and mood, because I thought I should be able to have it all together, I’m strong, I’m confident. But I wasn’t at the time.
And so, one of the people in my study group suggested hiring somebody and getting help. And I never would have thought of that. Not only did I replace, I went beyond what I ever imagined because I asked for the kind of help that I need. Then there is times that I ask for my health. At my age, I feel like I’m 30, and I sometimes when I’m having problems with hormones or hair loss or whatever, you go to some physicians and they’ll say, “Oh, it’s just part of aging.” And so, for a while I started accepting it. Then I thought, “No, I’m going to decline that,” and I went to another physician and another one and another one, and I got help until somebody said, “You can still lose weight. You can still get your hair back.”
And so, I was unstoppable because I thought, “All right. I want to live with vitality into my 100s,” and my goal this past January to mid year for our conference coming up was to lose 10 pounds, and I did.
Which was going to be impossible. That all came from asking for help and keep asking for help. And I researched and studied health, and then I finally hired them and built a team that could help me with that. Now it’s starting to pay off. I learned stand-up paddle boarding with my 22-year-old son, and I did a 20-mile bike ride a couple of weeks ago from… They did a night ride here in downtown Indy, 11:00 pm till 1:00 in the morning. I did 20 miles straight without stopping, with 2500 bikers.
So now I’m like, “Wow,” and I feel fantastic. And I need that kind of vitality to do the kind of work that I want to do and fulfill on my… Part of my work is legacy because I am making sure these hospitals offer the top possibility for detecting cancer early. And some hospitals are… So I need to have that, and for the kind of money that I’m aiming to make. So it’s part of my plan, is to have a level of vitality. So it’s all fitting together.
John Patterson: Now, for it to make the kind of impact that it could, do you mind saying your age?
Kim Corbett: I’m 56.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic.
Kim Corbett: I know.
John Patterson: Fantastic.
Kim Corbett: And I went kayaking. My son visited recently from college, so he stayed with me. He’s 22 and he’s 6’2, handsome, very lean. And we went kayaking on… It was windy. There were weight caps on this lake. We kayaked for about an hour and a half. And he had to stop and rest, and I kept going. I do weight training, personal training, two to four days a week. And I hate it. I’m not going to lie. I’m not a fan for it. And I hired somebody to work with. So it’s paying off.
I work with 30-year-olds who, I’m passing them up even with work measures. So I love it. And then also to be asked out on dates from 30-year-olds, that kind is fun, but I don’t go that route. But it’s still fun.
John Patterson: Just to know you could.
Kim Corbett: I know. Yeah, it is.
John Patterson: Just to know you could.
Kim Corbett: I know. Yeah. That’s a little added…
John Patterson: Well, so 56 years old. So you bounce back from the flood. There are some other bounce-backs. What are some of those other bounce-backs. Your son’s health.
Kim Corbett: Oh yeah. While the flood was going on, my son had a very high-risk health issue. He was in ICU. He had blood clots above his heart, so that was life-threatening. It was all around the same time, and I really didn’t think I could make it through that, watching your child, they’re doing this drip in ICU trying to break it up. And the risk of it going to his brain or heart was high. That’s why I was determined, watching that, I was going to win that president’s club trip and take him to Turks and Caicos.
I asked him. I’m like, “I know I’m your mom, but would you want to go with me?” And he said, “Yeah.” And at the same time, he had a goal to be high honors in college. So when he was sitting with the doctors and they were telling him the kind of surgery he needed to be able to live through all of this, he was like, “I’ve got to get back to my classes.” So he started transacting with the professors and he got back on track. And he’s going to do high honors, so even with all of his health stuff. So it’s been phenomenal.
Even years ago, because I didn’t know how to transact before I studied with you all, I spent years in court with his dad because our personality types clash. So, now, the level of friendship that I have with his dad even is phenomenal, and the kind of partnership that we have. When my son graduated from high school, and I think, “Man, if I would have known how to transact, I could have saved 16 years of being in court. I could have saved thousands of dollars.” So I really would love to see this in every level of education, that people know how to transact.
John Patterson: I’m imagining that some people might listen and think, “Oh my God. If I had her life, I’d be exhausted.” But I don’t think that’s how it is for you.
Kim Corbett: Mm-mm.
John Patterson: I don’t think, when we talk about all of these different conditions of life… And for our audience, just to say a moment about that, we’re talking about being satisfied in many different conditions of life. So while you’re very satisfied with money and health, for example, you can’t do that and then trash everything else.
Kim Corbett: No.
John Patterson: No. So there’s a real balance that people take care of here. Anything you want to say about all that?
Kim Corbett: Oh yeah. I no longer accept… Even different friends that invite me to go places, I am very conscientious about time and my rest, and my downtime, and my sleep. Some people might think I’m boring, but I make sure to rest, and I take care of myself. I nurture my relationships even with my family who live in another state. I don’t want people to misunderstand that being ambitious is like that Taipei personality where you’re driven to exhaustion. I don’t do that. So there is a complete difference of that, because I look at my sociality.
Kim Corbett: When I even moved here, I didn’t know many people in Indianapolis area. So I wanted girlfriend relationships. I knew the importance of the sociality. So I started a book club to meet girlfriends immediately. And so, I already have a connection of people here that I can call on. We study fun books, and then now we’re starting to explore nice restaurants in the area. I found a biking person, a friend. I’m not exhausted. Now, sometimes, I mean, I may get tired. But I mean, I’m not an exhausted, worn-out, overdriven person.
John Patterson: Yeah. I’m so proud of you.
Kim Corbett: Oh, thank you. Back at you.
John Patterson: I’m so very proud of you. We’ve actually covered a lot of ground here because I think resilience points to a variety of things. One of the things that you do, as a specialization, is to help poorly performing markets produce record-breaking sales. So you help companies bounce back too.
Kim Corbett: I do.
John Patterson: Well, can you tell us about that?
Kim Corbett: Yeah. For instance, I took over this market now for Indiana and Kentucky, and I’m responsible for not only retaining the market, but I also need to bring in a million dollars a year. I really love messes because I know how to take a step back. And I have what we study, the judge personality. I take time to analyze, assess, talk to people. And then I look at what’s the company’s goal, what’s my goal financially, and then I create a plan before any action is taken. Where there’s other people who will just get out and start doing the hard work.
Kim Corbett: I started this position the end of November last year. And then I moved here December 1st. And so, I had a goal, a six-month goal. I had three pipeline development goals that I had to obtain. So I hit two of those three but I exceeded the two of them. For instance, to have 2.5 million in the pipeline. I had 5 million. And to have three joint-venture leads which are substantial, multi-million-dollar contracts. I have six.
And for third quarter, I’m probably going to close 5 million. And my annual is a million. So I don’t just do it in a hopeful space. I first of all look at who has to be taken care, and that’s always what I’ve done, like coming from the level of, we call it, influence ecology, customer intimacy, that’s what I do. I look at what customer relationships need the attention immediately.
And so, I’m working right now on saving… Out of Indiana right now, it’s 2.9 million. We’re at risk of losing 2.5 million. And I’m pretty close to saving… And it looks impossible to the company because people with the odds were against normally doesn’t happen. Again, talking about the resiliency and if people are thinking I’m exhausted, I really manage… Because my thing was how do I stay at high-level vitality and energy in a high stress environment of work where there’s pressure? If I lose $2.5 million, 13 people lose their job. You can imagine the pressure.
I know what it feels like… I know what my blood pressure feels like. I could measure it, so I know what it feels like if it’s rising. To avoid it going high, I will stop and take walks. I will take a day off if I feel like I can’t even… My health and wellbeing is number one, that I focus on that.
Now, I still have room. I’m studying people in the company who seem to have that figured out, and I’ll ask them, “What are your routines?” Some of them go to bed by 9:30. They never miss a day of exercise, especially cardio. They start their day… Some of them meditate. So I’m studying the practices of people who are well. Because when my son got sick, I didn’t feel well. And I thought, “Okay, I need to find people who…” I talked to people who lost their children who had similar things, “How are you staying healthy? How are you staying focused,” because there’s other people that I still have to take care of like my parents and my job. So I would never have done that level of attention without knowing what I know with my aims. That was a long answer.
John Patterson: No, it’s great. It’s great. I’m just studying resilience. And like I said, I was very interested in talking to you. One of the things that we’re dealing with this year, as you know, is this is the year of ambition. And because this is the year of ambition for Influence Ecology, many people started out the year with an ambitious aim. And by that, it’s an aim that is difficult to achieve. So, ultimately, when people start out looking at that aim, it’s difficult to achieve, they start out, they’re not fit for it. They don’t know how to do it. They don’t have the help to get it done. If they did, they’d be doing it. So there’s something that people begin to confront about moving towards that aim.
I have seen you on many membership calls or webinars where we’ve been in conversations about that, that we’re headed towards, in the latter part of the year, one of the topics will be resilience. And your life is a study in resilience, as far as I’m concerned, and from people’s health and wellbeing, to what you need to do, must do, have to do, if you’re going to be up to big things, the degree to which your health is numero uno. I think that’s a fantastic lesson for anybody.
But also, the degree to which you just ask for help and ask for help and ask for help until you find something that really does work for you and help you satisfy those particular aims. So I think we should just put you up as a poster child for this and just… we’ll just have a, “All right, today’s webinar is with Kim Corbett,” because it really is something that, if we could all be a little bit more resilient, we could all reach it a little higher, but not exhaust ourselves.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. And that right there is the key because I watched two… There were several people within my company that died because they didn’t take care of themselves. They pushed it. It’s a high-pressure… When you’re working with anything to deal with healthcare and cancer and the equipment and all the changes in healthcare, I love the industry. And I don’t want to leave it. And I had a high ambitious aim for his year, to triple my income to me.
And I thought, “How in the world… I am not fit for it.” And to confront the lack of fitness was upsetting. I had a few moments of, “Forget it. What were you thinking?” I thought, “No, do not move that target. How do I start studying and talking to people that can help me in the company? Hey, how can I reach that? How do I do that? I’ve never done it.” And I would have been embarrassed in the past to do that.
Plus, companies usually just say, “Here’s where we expect you to go.” And nobody goes and says… They say, “All right, well, that’s our target.” But what if I want to make this much? How do I do it? And I learned somebody surpassed that, so I listened during our different sales meetings of how did people… It is possible. It may not happen this year by my deadline, but I’m not moving it, just like my weight loss. I’ve been working on that for a while and I didn’t move my aim for it.
John Patterson: It’s great. It’s really great. Last thing I want to ask you about is, you say in your notes that it’s now clear more than ever that you become who you hang out with. Tell us about that.
Kim Corbett: Oh yeah. I have preached that to my son since he was little, that you really do become who you hang out with. And I’ve had my eye on this team that I work with now, and I was intimidated by them. It seemed like in my past, I was always on the top where the cream rises. And I thought, “Okay, well, I’m not learning anything.” Then I realized, oh, because I didn’t put myself out there for more challenging environments because it’s hard. It’s embarrassing, because I don’t like making mistakes publicly and flailing at the beginning. And I am doing that a lot. Very humbling. So I needed, with Influence Ecology, I have people, from all walks of life, from around the world, that it’s almost like… I don’t have that anywhere else where I have other ambitious people with their health, with their money, with their legacy, with their family relationships, with intimate relationships.
Even now as I move trying to find new friends, it’s surprising now, especially in my 50s and I’m looking to date, how many people are in their space in their head that they think… They’re disappointed by how life turned out. They’re divorced. They paid child support, alimony. These men now have to rent. They don’t have a home, and so they gave up. So they’re depressed, they’re drinking, and they’re overweight. But they’re not putting themselves in an environment where they can reinvent themselves. And that’s where I want the world to get, that if you put yourself in a place…
I interviewed a lot of personal trainers in gyms because I knew I had to go two to four times a week, and that person better be walking the talk because it’s going to get on me. I mean, I interviewed a lot before I even came to Indy, and I found a woman who’s in her 50s, rocks it in a bikini. She lives and eats very healthy. She’s mentally and spiritually healthy, and I’m with her two to four times a week. And we laugh a lot, but I figure I’m going to become what I hang out with.
I know because I used to hang out with people who love to go and eat an eight course meal, and eat cake for dessert. I liked it because then I had the permission almost. But I can’t do that for my health. I would love to, but I can’t. I know that was a long answer as well.
John Patterson: No, no. They’re fantastic answers and examples.
Kim Corbett: Good. Good.
John Patterson: Yeah. I don’t accuse you of being long-winded.
Kim Corbett: Okay, good.
John Patterson: You’re a storyteller with some very good examples. Well, I think that we’ve covered most of what you’ve offered in some of your notes here. I just wanted to find out, before we end this today, is there anything else you would like to say or share?
Kim Corbett: Well, just, I know another podcast, because I listen to them all. I love them. I travel a lot and it’s great listening content. But you are sometimes on the Soapbox and I was thinking about that, and I just want people to… the exercise of asking for help and asking for help and keep asking for help. I don’t care what age you are, where you’re at. You don’t know everything. And that it’s too late to reinvent. Just because life didn’t turn out how you expected, and there’s still some level of satisfaction and legacy for somebody no matter what they did. But you need help. And you need the environment of people to surround yourself. I would love for that to get out to people in the world.
John Patterson: And Kim, you’ve never occurred to me as somebody who’s too proud to ask for that help. Is that true? Would you say that that’s true, or you just learned to sort of mitigate your own pride.
Kim Corbett: No, I learned here in this study because I didn’t want to ask for help. I was always a bubbly Doris Day kind of que sera positive-
John Patterson: It’s all good.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. And people-
John Patterson: I’m fine. I’m awesome.
Kim Corbett: Yeah. And if I was sad, people are like, “No, you can’t be.” I couldn’t even tell people if I suffering because they didn’t know how to be with it. They’re like, “You always have it figured out. You’ve got it together.” I would try to ask for help and it didn’t even resonate with people that, hey, her ship is sinking. So it took something for me to… At the beginning, I had to ask for help a lot before people could even here it. And then I was more of demanding and a command for help because I didn’t want to waste… Now I don’t waste time.
It’s getting to be such a muscle. Like in this new position, I work remotely and we’re all throughout the country. Everybody’s busy, so there’s times I’d call and I couldn’t… I would call 12 people until I got the answer, because I’m dealing with two-million-dollar contracts and I’ve got language that has to be corrected. I have somebody possibly not following legal healthcare guidelines, so I don’t waste time now. I get on the phone and I am non-stop. And I even reach out to people at night. I’ve learned, do they respond by text or phone call, or I’ll do all three. Then I get compliance. That’s why everything’s moving faster for me, is because of that.
John Patterson: That’s great. All right. Well, Kim Corbett, it’s a pleasure to have you on the podcast.
Kim Corbett: Thank you.
John Patterson: I can’t wait to share this with the world.
Kim Corbett: Thank you. It’s been an honor and lots of fun as usual.
Drew Knowles: Here’s what autonomy is all about. It’s a condition where you have more help than you require, not one where you’ll be able to act alone as you see fit without the need of others. It’s the opposite of that. It’s a surplus of help. It’s demonstrated when you start to see autonomy, and many of you will begin to see this a lot more out of your step of Influence Ecology. When you’re bumping up with people out there, you’ll see it’s demonstrated by those who have their invitations, offers, and requests met quickly and at low cost.
I’m going to keep expanding this for a moment to have you confront and see and inquire further into, like, “Well, what does that look like? What does having more help than you require look like, a surplus of help, and how do you actually get that?” We have this really well-thought-out step that John and Kirkland came up with called Build and Expand Your Influence Ecologies and Cooperation.
Power in the marketplace is determined by your ability to get things done. Now, that takes the cooperation of many people who comply with your invitations, offers, and requests. Now, cooperation requires co-existence, coming back to what we were just saying of relying on yourself and not depending on anyone else. You are not going to create any cooperation because cooperation happens with others in reciprocal relationships.
So if you start to get your head around what build and expand your influence ecologies and cooperation means, it really starts with, how much cooperation do I have? How many reciprocal relationships do I have where if I made some kind of invitation, or offer, or request, that would get accepted and somebody else, not me, somebody else would coordinate some kind of action or work to get a thing done that helps me meet my aims.
When you’re building and expanding your influence ecologies and cooperation, we’re not talking about networking. It’s not to say that if you go to some kind of networking event or you’re doing the activity they call networking… The market out there has this name called, “I’m going to do some networking.” The pitfall people can fall into is they…
I talk about it like this. If you can imagine a dartboard and grabbing a handful of darts and throwing them all at the dartboard from quite far away, maybe 20 or 30 feet away, and hoping that one of those darts hits the bulls eye. It might not, which is…
I’ve been to those network meetings, John, and hoping that I could hit the bulls eye if I gave out enough business cards, and it was a useless waste of three hours of my time. In fact, a whole lot of other people just wanted to get me to home their business. How about if you really thought out some very specific series of exchanges that needed to take place with some specific individuals, that if you had some sort of invitation or offer or request accepted by that individual, that exchange could move things forward for you to meet your aims in a very, very powerful way?
That takes some time to slow down to really think through, what would I need to do to get into that center of influence. I’m going to talk about that in a moment. But I love this quote here, John, “No individual has efficient experience, education, negative ability and knowledge to ensure the accumulation of a great fortune without the cooperation of other people.” What kind of other people? Well, hopefully, a center of influence.
John Patterson: Hey, before we go to center of influence, I want to just back up for just a second because, Drew, one of the things that you’ve done such a great job in distinguishing for people here at Influence Ecology is you often talk about having a surplus. And so, an example might be that you have a surplus of health, health fitness. And if you have a surplus of health, then what that means is that you’re able to manage the threat to your health in ways that someone who does not have a surplus of health does. So you’re able to manage the threats in a different way.
When you have a surplus of something in any condition of life, then you’re not threatened in the same way that other people are. So if you have a surplus of money, you’re not threatened in the same way that other people are. And so, one of the ways that we’d like for you to think about a surplus of help, help, H-E-L-P, is as something that is available to you to produce autonomy.
One of the things that I don’t think that we often do is make the connection between autonomy and a surplus of help. And I just want to take a second and create that connection because many people imagine autonomy as that condition where they can do what they want and have what they want, and live as they want, and so forth and so on. But no one ever says how you get there, how you get to a condition where you have the freedom to act as you’d like, is because you’ve removed all threat.
How you remove all threat is you have a surplus. In every condition of life, you have a surplus of help. So when there’s a breakdown around money, you’re not threatened. When you have a breakdown in your career, no problem. I’ve got a surplus. When you have a breakdown in relationship, no problem. I have a surplus. You have a surplus in those conditions of life. So autonomy is about having a surplus of help. Well, I’ll just say the same thing again. So, Drew, I wanted to connect those dots for just a moment. Is there anything you want to say to add to that?
Drew Knowles: Yep. Two things. It requires you to take some time to really think about and sit down and look, what would that look like for you, having a surplus of help? Just taking the condition of life, health, for example, who do you need? Basically, you use this term in America, but who do you need in your Rolodex or your address book, or your iPhone or whatever it might be, where if just about anything comes along, that challenges your health or the health of someone that’s very close to you, do you have some very, very professional and successful and specialized people that you can call upon to stave off any threat to your health? Or people that can actually call you on if you’re not acting as you should regarding your health.
In the domain of money, like you said, John, do you have professionals and people that are guiding you and that it’s like, all you need to do is follow their advice and do what they say and you’re going to be well taken care of with your money. And I could go on and on. One example I love, John, is a friend of both yours and mine, that works in the government. And some media and press came out about him that was inaccurate. Before he could even try and do anything about it, or anything, the community that this person had produced so much value in of his help, rose up and basically declined it on his behalf. That is what I would call a surplus of career, of identity.
John Patterson: That’s right. It’s a great example.
Drew Knowles: I’m not saying this person… Maybe now they would because they really understand career. But I don’t think they would have been diligently working on having that surplus of people in such a conscious way that it came along like that, it would stave off that threat. But you can do that now that you know, and you can do it consciously.
The last thing think, John, was this doesn’t happen haphazardly. It’s not just going to happen if you ran around transacting as well as you can. It’s you’ve got to think it out. You’ve got to spend some time and look, who do you need in your ecology. And, John, that will lead into our next conversation.
John Patterson: My special thanks to our guest, Kim Corbett. In our show notes, you’ll find links to connect with her and all the links to websites, books, or downloads mentioned in this podcast.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded July 16, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology faculty, staff, mentors, and students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence™. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled “Fast Train to Everywhere.” You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment to go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Previous Episode with Kim Corbett
Kim Corbett on LinkedIn
Free 30-Day Guest Access
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
When Being Likable Isn’t Enough with Janet Asher Vreeland
We all assume we can play to our strong suits - but what about when these don't work? How do I influence or gain compliance when being likable is my primary tool - and it sometimes backfires? As we teach it, all personalities experience themselves as both an asset AND a liability depending on the state of the transaction. For example, if we're brainstorming new possibilities, it doesn't work for skeptics to chime in with critical standards. However, skepticism is required if we're making assessments about the value and relevance of something. In today's' interview, our guest, Janet Vreeland, found…
We all assume we can play to our strong suits – but what about when these don’t work? How do I influence or gain compliance when being likable is my primary tool – and it sometimes backfires? As we teach it, all personalities experience themselves as both an asset AND a liability depending on the state of the transaction. For example, if we’re brainstorming new possibilities, it doesn’t work for skeptics to chime in with critical standards. However, skepticism is required if we’re making assessments about the value and relevance of something.
In today’s’ interview, our guest, Janet Vreeland, found herself puzzled when her attempts to be likable were met with disdain. We discuss how each personality may not know that their most powerful asset – can also be their most costly mistake.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
“It’s taken me studying with Influence Ecology to fully respect the different personality types and how my skill of being able to create a mood is one to be honed and refined, and it really is a gift.“
John Patterson: Well, first of all, what I’d like to do is I’d like to introduce our guest today. This is Janet Asher Vreeland. And Janet, I want to give you an opportunity to say hello and introduce yourself.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Thank you, John. Hello everyone. This is Janet Asher Vreeland recording live from Long Beach, California. Delighted to be here to put together a podcast that I hope will bring value to the ecology.
John Patterson: Great. And say a little bit about what you do. Tell us about your work and a little bit of a bio, if you don’t mind.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Absolutely. My work is with a firm by the name of Mercer. We’re an international global consulting firm, and my role is to bring in new clients in the US primarily, specifically here in Southern California. And my target client contacts are either human resources or financial executives or other business leaders or organizations that have approximately 200 employees or more. And I’ve been in this industry quite a long time, a number of decades. I started off working for group insurance companies like Prudential and Cigna, and along the way enjoy the opportunity to build relationships, to communicate, to help others help their employees. I’m originally from Kansas and I’ve come to Southern California by way of Texas and Arizona. And my husband, Bob, is a CFO for a publicly traded company, which is just coincidental because he’s also not just my perfect mate in life, but he’s also my perfect target customer.
John Patterson: That’s really great. So that works well. I’m assuming you pick his brain a little bit about how to position this or say that?
Janet Asher Vreeland: Yes, we do, John. We love talking about business, and I absolutely enjoy pillow talk with Bob about business and how people approach him and the marketplace. Just this morning we were having a great conversation about the misuse of reciprocity with somebody approaching him by sending him a Starbucks gift card that he didn’t ask for. And now the follow-up email, now that you’ve received the Starbucks gift card, when can we meet? And I said, Oh boy, that’s just such a shame that it happens so frequently in the market. So yes, he gives me all kinds of great insights.
John Patterson: That’s great. All right. You have been, Janet, studying with Influence Ecology for how long now?
Janet Asher Vreeland: I started in October of 2015 with Fundamentals of Transaction, class 41.
John Patterson: Class 41. Okay. And I got your notes about sort of your journey through your participation here, and I’m eager to talk to you for a couple of reasons. Janet, one of the things that I loved about your notes, you send this great things, and I think it’s the best part in your early days, your kind of journey with Influence Ecology. It sounds like one of the things that you recognized and you wrote it that, I was puzzled when my attempts to be likable were at times met with disdain.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Yes.
John Patterson: And I almost think we could talk about that for, oh, I don’t know, two or three days for a variety of reasons. And one of the reasons I want to bring this up is because as we teach it, as you know, we talk a lot about personality and transactional behavior. So for those that are listening for the very, very first time, do you want to talk a little bit about the four personalities and then talk about your own?
Janet Asher Vreeland: Oh, absolutely. Think of a transaction cycle. So at the very top you have inventor. And you got one step to the right, you have performer, which is where I reside. Come down to the bottom and you have producer. Keep coming to the left clockwise, then you have your judge, and then you come full circle to inventor. The inventor is someone who sees far out into the future. They have unlimited possibilities. They tend to be arrogant. When you first meet them, you might think, boy, this person certainly thinks well of themselves, and that is inherent to the inventor. They are quite cerebral, they’re confident in their intellect, and if you don’t know that about an inventor, you can misinterpret how helpful and how generous they are. In fact, they have an almost unlimited generosity with their ideas.
And then if you go to the right to the performer where I reside, I look at time as real time, right in the moment. I can be late, I can be a little bit early, I can be on time. I don’t dwell too much in the past and I don’t bother myself too much with what might happen in the future. What really motivates me are building relationships, and it’s paramount to me in that process that I perceive that I’m being liked and well-received in my efforts to be helpful. And I was recently told by an inventor friend of mine that the reason he doesn’t trust performers is because he doesn’t see them as being genuine. That they try too hard to be likable, and that he sees that as not being authentic. So that was quite an insight to me on how that could be misunderstood.
John Patterson: That’s great. I think we’re going to come back to that in just a moment too, so please continue. You’re doing great.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Good. Thank you. The other thing I will say about a performer is I have an orientation where I see others relative to others. I am highly inclined to say, Oh boy, John Patterson, I think he would love meeting this friend of mine who lives in Ventura County. I’m going to put the two of you together. I’m oriented toward putting people together outside of how that might support my aims necessarily.
And if you come down to the producer, producers are vitally important to the two personality types I’ve mentioned because they are really focused on accomplishment and execution on getting things done. Producers might seem to be a little bit, not thoughtless necessarily, but they’re such task managers that while it’s critical to a producer to not be left out, I’ve learned you can really hurt a producer’s feelings and not meaning to, if you don’t include them in communications, invitations even in things you wouldn’t think they would be interested in them. Producers don’t want to be left out. And my interpretation of why they don’t want to be left out is that it impedes their ability to be effective. They need all the data and all the input. They’re almost like a border collie, if you know that kind of dog. A border Collie lives to herd sheep, and I think a producer kind of lives to take chaos and list of things to do and to bring them to fruition.
And then you come around to the judge. I’m married to a judge, and I’ve learned in the ecology that it’s not uncommon for judges and performers to do well together. A judge by nature will come across as a pessimistic individual, glass half empty or however you want to describe that personality type. And I learned that with my husband, Bob. I just didn’t understand why he was so cautious and skeptical and worried. And that’s because a judge is oriented toward the past. They draw from that to assess what could possibly take place in the future, and they really can get stuck in analysis paralysis because there’s just so much data to contemplate and consider. Judges make terrific CFOs, so Bob plays the type quite nicely that way. They’re quite loyal. Judges don’t need a lot of relationships. They can have a handful of relationships for life, and they’re critical to the planning process because they will keep you grounded in reality. And then you come back up to the inventor.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic. All right. You did a beautiful job. I think we should all give you a round of applause for that. It’s a beautiful job.
Janet Asher Vreeland: My pleasure.
John Patterson: So now one of the things that I think some of your notes really illustrate in your own journey is that for every one of those personalities you just described, we’re all an asset in some part of a transaction, but sometimes we are a liability in another part of the transaction. And so we tend to, all of us, think about surviving, thriving, doing well in life by playing to our strong suits. So in other words, I bring my strong suits to every situation. And I think that’s where what you point to is so valuable, because it looks like in your own journey that you discovered that this strong suit, this approach, just being likable or being a people pleaser or doing something like that didn’t always fly well with the other personalities. Sometimes it did and sometimes it didn’t. And I just want to find out if there’s anything else you want to say about that.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Absolutely. I’m thinking of a specific example where I worked for a firm with a similar responsibility prior to joining Mercer for 10 years, and in the office, we were constantly bringing on new associates, new colleagues in the role of producer or sales similar to my role. And I remember we brought on this big, heavy rainmaker. He was just going to do great things for us. And in my efforts to build a relationship with him, regardless of the fact that we could be competing for the same client, competing for the same resources, I upon reflection was a little bit clownish in the office. I would see him down the hall in the office and I would take my hands and I would not quite do a jumping jack, I’m just appalled to say this, but I would give a little kick and a clap. I could make certain people laugh, like the receptionist thought that was really funny, but my colleague who is highly ambitious toward making as much money as he could, didn’t see that as being tremendously valuable to him. And I remember a distinct moment when I was giving him my best performer routine and I thought, boy, he just looks horrified.
John Patterson: Was that a bit like … One of the things that you say about performers is that they campaign for moods, right? So to say more about what I mean by that for all of our listeners, many of the performers that I know that are really good at campaigning for moods, they’re often attempting to cultivate a good mood in the room, at dinner. Isn’t this spaghetti delicious? Oh my gosh, isn’t this a wonderful day? Can you believe how amazing that was? Those are kind of campaigning for mood, and some people campaign in a lot of ways. They cheer lead, they ra, ra. Sometimes they do that with their voice, their expression or their body, for example. And it sounds like … Would you say you were doing a little bit of campaigning for mood?
Janet Asher Vreeland: I was. I was. That’s very well put.
John Patterson: And it didn’t land, right? It didn’t do the trick.
Janet Asher Vreeland: It didn’t land at all.
John Patterson: Right. Okay. So it sounds like this was puzzling to you. What did you think about that?
Janet Asher Vreeland: I defaulted in true performer fashion to thinking this guy was a jerk. I thought that, Oh gosh, what a buffoon. The kind of the term we use in performer land. Either the other person’s great or if they’re not great, they’re buffoon. And as opposed to looking inward and evaluating how that might come across that particular physical almost cheerleader type move, how that might come across, I invested in the emotional response that it was a shortcoming of his and I didn’t contemplate changing or behaving differently necessarily, although I probably did tone it down. It’s taken me studying with Influence Ecology to fully respect the different personality types and how my skill of being able to create a mood is one to be honed and refined and it really is a gift. I wasn’t aware of that at that point though.
John Patterson: I think this is an important point. So you began to see that other personalities may not receive your campaigns for mood in the same way. Did you then through our study start to learn more about how to tailor your approach to the different personalities? And if so, how?
Janet Asher Vreeland: Oh, absolutely. I became quite focused and studied on body language as well as linguistic narratives starting with a very simple body language, and that’s smiling. Sometimes you can smile too much, sometimes you don’t smile enough. And I started practicing with my chief financial officer prospects and relationships that I was building here in Southern California and I made a concerted effort to be cordial and pleasant but tone down the smiling, and be a little bit more judicious with the boys and the food grade and everything’s lovely but rather to be more calm, I would say. And it’s helped me tremendously to understand that when I’m in a conversation with a judge and on occasion with a producer as well, that their negativity or their lack of being in a good mood or wanting to laugh is actually quite appropriate for the conversation that we’re having, because we’re talking about a lot of risk to the company. We’re talking about perhaps an HR executive having to deliver bad news to the CEO who in turn will have to deliver bad news to the board of directors.
And it’s really empowered me, John, to be more empathetic, which comes whole circle to being congruent with a performer. I see other performers at their best and I really appreciate that quality and empathy, and that comes full circle to what you asked me about and that’s the personality types and understanding how I can be most effective in creating a mood that’s going to be conducive to a successful transaction.
John Patterson: I think what you’re saying then is that what you’ve learned about different personalities and shaping your own response to those personalities allowed you to do what you want to do anyway, which is ultimately to empathize with their situation and in some way empower whatever needs to be empowered in that transaction to move that transaction forward.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Yes. Yeah. That’s right. That’s funny. I was noticing that myself. Ultimately, I still get to do what I want, which is to play to my strengths, which I think it suits everyone to play to their strengths. It’s taken awhile though. As I mentioned, I’ve now been studying for four years with Influence Ecology and I can see how continued study will yield even greater results, but it’s been a great awareness for me.
John Patterson: Sometimes when I’m training a room full of people about personality and I’m trying to make it normal that a performer is a much more present moment kind of person, right? And a producer is really just trying to get the tasks done. And a judge is really concerned with the past and the standards and the evidence and so forth. The inventor is just really committed to the future, the longterm future, that we often don’t get the opportunity in life to consider that the degree to which we compare ourselves to other people. So for example, sometimes with judges, judges will spend a lifetime being told to, Hey, cheer up. Stop seeing the glass so half empty. Hey, you know what, pull the stick out of your butt. Just chill, relax, lighten up. Right?
Performers may hear quiet the opposite. Hey listen, this is serious business. Come on, don’t you take this seriously? My performers, I’ll sometimes talk about the degree to which they spend a lifetime trying to get more disciplined, all of that kind of stuff, like trying to get, I need to be more disciplined. I find a lot of performers trying to work on that, because they can see it around them, people doing things like they’re using their calendars and schedules and showing up on time. And for the performer for example, that’s not necessarily what happens. In the present moment, what’s going on for performers, whatever’s going on in the moment, in that moment, it’s what matters, not the future, not the past, whatever’s going on right now.
So I’m bringing all of this up to say that for every one of the personalities, and I think you’re doing a beautiful job here, there was a kind of accounting for how do I temper, tailor, shift my own approach so that it works for the other personality, so that it speaks to them in their language. And I wanted to find if there’s anything else you want to say about all of that. And I have another question for you.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Well, the one thing I would say to all that is that it helps to be biologically prepared to deal with other people. And my mantra for years has been the secret to success at business is to be hydrated and well rested. If you don’t fundamentally start out with enough sleep, and if you don’t drink enough water, just as key examples, other people will just exhaust you if you don’t exhaust yourself. So I would just offer that as a little bit of advice that physical fitness is a key component to being able to study and manage and develop a skillset for customizing your approach to take into consideration other personalities.
John Patterson: Now, tell me a little bit about what you discovered here at Influence Ecology about indifference.
Janet Asher Vreeland: Oh boy, that’s a tough one. Indifference hurts deeply to a performer because you feel you’ve lost your magic. You don’t have that ability to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and be helpful or thoughtful kind of that level of helplessness that’s typically seen as positive and likable. Indifference, I first noticed it as I was becoming, I think, more ambitious and moving away from being an adult in terms of my thinking and behavior and becoming more in tune with my aims and what I wanted. And as I was getting a sense of a narrative in my mind about my aims around the condition of life, and I would approach others within the ecology or outside of the ecology, that’s when I became sensitized to how indifferent other people are to your aims.
John Patterson: And so for people that are listening that may not know exactly what we’re talking about, to make it really clear, one of the things we teach here is we want to make it very clear for people that every day, 7.5 billion people get up to transact to satisfy their own aims, and they may in fact be indifferent to yours. And that if everybody else is indifferent to your aims, then it’s your job to, of course, to transact powerfully because no one’s going to make sure your aims get met. That’s your job, right? So sometimes it’s really profoundly upsetting to consider the reality that people are indifferent to your aims. In the fundamentals of transaction program, it sounds like something about this really opened your eyes to that all pervasive indifference. What can you tell us about what you experienced, what you went through and how you dealt with it?
Janet Asher Vreeland: Well, I’ll correlate it back to Mercer, which is what inspired me to join Influence Ecology. And that as I was new to Mercer, although not new in my career, I wanted to take full advantage of being at such a prestigious firm and such a robust market. And I had a sense that Southern California and Mercer would be a competitive environment. And yet I wasn’t fully prepared for … The day I was hired, as an example, I was hired with another person in the exact same role and I was perplexed by her behavior toward me. First it was, Oh, let’s be best friends. Let’s take coffee breaks. Oh, let’s go home early. Let’s not fully comply with what was being asked of us as new hires, which made me very anxious. And yet she seemed to want to be great friends. And it didn’t take very long for me to realize that she was behaving quite differently with other people.
And I feel that her goal was to undermine me, to kind of disarm me, sort of take me out of play so that she could build up more powerful relationships in the office. And when I recognized that, I distanced myself versus accepting every invitation to coffee breaks and every invitation to happy hour and that sort of thing. And I was shortly promoted above her to move into a management role in the region. And when I shared that with her, I could just absolutely see that look in her face of hurt and upset. And within maybe five, six months, this particular individual had filed a claim against the company, not about me, but with regard to another manager and subsequently left shortly. So it wasn’t very long before I was confronted with somebody who was ostensibly going to be a peer and a colleague who’s also a contemporary, same age by the way, but was not any of those things at all.
John Patterson: And so all of that kind of indifference must have been quite surprising. It sounds like the world that you know and the world you trafficked in, that was not necessarily something you expected to come across, but you did. Did you then discover a kind of vulnerability that you sometimes have as a performer personality? Can you say something about that?
Janet Asher Vreeland: I did. I did. I recognize that my go-to over the course of my career had been to simply work harder, literally put in more hours, generate more output. And I’d come to a place in my profession, in my career, that it wasn’t as effective for me to work long, long hours or work every weekend. Simply I didn’t want to. I wanted to spend time with Bob. We were relatively newly wed. I say the honeymoon never ends for us. We’ve been married nine years now. But moving here six years ago, we had just married. So I was confronted with a choice. I didn’t want to work harder. I didn’t want to work weekends. I was already on a number of volunteer boards at the leadership level, putting in a lot of hard work and labor.
I recognized that I needed to do the harder work of having powerful conversations with those personalities in the office leadership. And I still worry every day I had the chance to practice and to learn and grow, but instead of putting in more hours rather to think more strategically or thoughtfully about how I approach the leadership, my consulting colleagues, my prospects, to derive a better result. I don’t know if that makes sense or not.
John Patterson: It does. It does. It’s a kind of working smarter, not harder. Being more strategic. Well, I would also call it that as we describe an ambitious adult, so an ambitious adult moves strategically and tactically to satisfy their aims, which requires a kind of thinking that is a bit uncommon, right? And I think that leads me to my last question. How are you now? How’s life now? I understand before Influence Ecology, there was a kind of life where your personality didn’t win every game, right? And you learned to tailor that and everything. How is life now? How is life now? How’s work? How’s career? How’s money? How are things now?
Janet Asher Vreeland: Things are fantastic, I would say, now. I guess what I mean by that is I can think more accurately across my conditions of life and recognize life for all of its positives and challenges. It’s been a very extreme year for me. I lost my father earlier this year, and-
John Patterson: I’m so sorry.
Janet Asher Vreeland: … I know. I know. Everyone’s been very supportive, John. Just such a dear close person to me and at the same time I learned so much from him and his focus on legacy that it’s helped me put into perspective how I think about my own legacy. What’s life like for me when I’m past my profession that I’ve cultivated so carefully for so long. So I would say life now is informed for me by far more accurate thinking. I’m extremely appreciative of being with a judge with that personality type. We do financial planning together and it’s a pleasure. So we have a clear sense of our resources and our planning for the future.
I have a greater ability to appreciate my resources available from Mercer and here in Southern California. I’d have to pick and choose my ecologies. I was on too many boards, I was volunteering to do too many things, and I took the opportunity this year to resign in good standing from two volunteer leadership boards, and this evening one of those boards is hosting a happy hour in my honor to thank me for my service to them. So that validates that that was a good decision, and it freed up all kinds of time on my calendar. I feel really quite fortunate and want to thank Patricia Tyler who introduced me to the ecology, and you for taking the time to have this webinar with me so that I can share how grateful I am for the learnings and that Bob too appreciates the quality of thought that I bring to our conversations now. And I feel better prepared to deal with the inevitable breakdowns that will occur in life.
John Patterson: Well, Janet Asher Vreeland, thank you so much for sharing your story with us, and we’re grateful for having you participate here as well. It’s been my pleasure and I’ve enjoyed our time together today. Thank you so very much.
Janet Asher Vreeland: The pleasure was all mine, John. I look forward to seeing you very soon.
John Patterson: In today’s talk, you’ll hear a segment of a webinar where cofounder, Kirkland Tibbels and I speak on the subject of the asset and liability of each personality. Here’s the talk.
Kirkland Tibbels: When you consider, for example, the inventor’s asset and liability of ego, it would make perfectly good sense if you know that inventors step out into the future or point in a direction and say, we’re going that way. It’ll make perfectly good sense to understand that that personality has to have a pretty big ego to declare something that doesn’t exist and produce a kind of vision for people to be willing to follow that individual into something that doesn’t exist yet. That takes some brass, right, to step out there and say, that thing is possible. I declare and assert that if everyone goes in that direction, does what they are supposed to do, we can achieve this vision, a possible way to live our life that would have us be better today than we are right now.
To expose themselves in a way that opens themselves up for all kinds of criticism, all kinds of assessments, I mean you name it, when those visionaries that we all know so well point out there and say, we’re going to the moon, we’re going to invent a technology that has never been invented, and in fact, nobody knows this, but they want it, they just don’t know they want it yet because it hasn’t been invented, we’re going to go do that thing, that’s a visionary. That’s the ego. That’s the asset of that personality. And it’s a damn good thing we’ve got people like that, and we live better lives because of it. But at the same time, that ego will run the show to the point that it will overshadow and cause problems for the rest of us who are attempting to do the work and take the action to make that vision something into a mission that other people can follow, work that we can actually get done and declare and pass certain judgment on that being acceptable and satisfactory.
So while that’s a huge asset and it’s necessary, inventors must recognize, and those of us who work with inventors on a regular basis must recognize that it is also a liability we’ve got to confront. What of the personality that is relationship oriented? We’ve got to have people who are mission-driven and who can have a dialogue in the moment with other individuals where people can see themselves on a mission and in the ideal situation, following a vision set by someone like an inventor. A performer’s job is to construct narratives that have people see themselves playing roles and fulfilling the functions required to commit to and do the work and action that produce the satisfaction of many people.
While inventors are global in their perspective, performers are local in their perspective. They are mission-driven and their asset is relationship. They know about producing moods and using influence that anything is possible with enough people will go along with it, and we need people like that. We have to have people who know how to do that, and they live and die by their relationships. And as an asset, it’s pretty easy to see we need people and we need lots of people to be willing to consider our invitations and our offers and be willing to commit, and that’s their job, but that’s also their greatest liability, because they don’t want to give up those relationships. They don’t want to produce consequential environments that threaten those relationships, so they hang on to them for dear life, and for many performers like me, way too long, too often.
And who’s going to do the work, by the way? All that, everything and anything from the vision and the mission, from the great ideas and we’re going to go to the moon to here’s all the people that we need to go, and they’re lined up and ready to go. Who takes care of the day-to-day activity, the work in action? Who produces the deadlines as currency? Who through alliance and force gets the job done, holds people accountable, and in many times is the rigor that’s necessary on the factory floor to get the production taken care of? Well, that’s your producer. Their greatest asset of course is that they want to be included, they need to be included, and that inclusion has them the vision and mission accepting. They want to surround themselves with people who are big thinkers and they want to satisfy the work required of those transactions.
John Patterson: And you want them to be included.
Kirkland Tibbles: And you want them to be included. You need them on that wall. They must be included. And if they’re not included.
John Patterson: Watch out.
Kirkland Tibbles: … you’re in serious trouble. They get belligerent about it even. They’re people oriented in a way that is different than the performer. They build alliances. And this is important to understand that they build alliances to get things done. They are the rigor of production. But at the same time, that inclusion biology can be problematic because they’ll think they want to be involved in places where they don’t belong. It’s our job when we transact with producers to make sure that they understand what they’re being left out of and why. They’ll accept that. What they don’t like is to find out after the fact that they weren’t included in something where they have to be left with the responsibility of getting the job done. That’s a terrible mistake on your part if you do that.
If you go have a meeting and you’ve gotten into the tactical apparatus of a transaction and you walk out and you tell your producers what you’ve just decided without them being in the room, tell the truth, John. It’s brutal.
John Patterson: Never. Never. It is brutal. It’s very brutal. The liability is also when they burden a transaction for the need to be included where it ought not happen. Not a part of that as well.
Kirkland Tibbles: A lot of people misunderstand the mood of determination and rigor as being negative. While I would accept that it’s certainly not a bed of roses being hammered with deadlines and requests, which is the way that producers move, can be unpleasant sometimes, it’s necessary. But being included is the Achilles’ heel of every producer. One of the biggest mistakes we will make in dealing with a producer is this whole inclusion biology. They need to be included in anything that’s going to include them or they’re required to do the work and take the action and fulfill on the transaction. So keep that in mind when dealing with a producer. John, anything else about producer you want to put in there?
John Patterson: Nope. That’s good.
Kirkland Tibbels: When we get around to the judge, that most skeptical and critical and often confrontational personality, we bump up against standards. The asset of standards is that if we follow along the rules, the laws, the regulations, the expectations, the standards, the ethics, the codes of conduct that we all agree we would when we engage in this transaction in the first place, we end up better off for it. The general public, those with whom we engage on a regular basis, our business partners, our superiors, our subordinates, our employees, our vendors, everyone sees a consistent representation of who we are as an enterprise operating by a standard. Those standards include quality, they include consistency, commitment. They include a number of things. Those standards, we pay bills at a certain time, we make our payroll at a certain time, ethics and standards. And that is the asset of having a highly critical confrontational skeptic who is always concerned about whether or not the enterprise and the individuals in it are holding to that standard.
That to me is probably the easiest one to see. Maybe ego, but this one tends to be a pretty easy one to see how it can also get in the way when it’s time for innovation, when it’s time for some creativity, when the standards become bureaucratic, when they become too narrow and they begin to choke the possibilities that exist in re-invention, then it becomes a problem. And judges will hold on until their last breath to every single standard that gets put in place, unless you are working with them continually, ongoingly to recognize which standards are appropriate, which ones work, which ones are becoming outdated along the way.
The mistake to make with a judge is not to have that dialogue on a regular basis, ideally allowing the judge to bring up the standards that ought to be put in place when they ought to be changed, rather than taking the same route of you making that determination Mr. CEO, Mr. President, and then you letting them know that. That’s a terrible mistake just like the inclusion biology of a producer. That’s how judges respond to being told what to do when it comes to standards. When make a rule and you give it to the judge, they’re going to hold tight to that rule. If you’re going to make an amendment, include the judge in that work.
John Patterson: Great. Any conclusive statements about the asset and liability of any personality?
Kirkland Tibbels: If you look at the work we do in our most advanced programs, we begin to see how these personalities work in quadrants. And you can see the benefit of standards and vision coming together when you start to do your planning. You can see the ego needed to think about the future right next to the person who’s there to hold the standards of the enterprise at the same time. When those two personalities work together, you’ve got the proper unit to do the planning on behalf of the enterprise. You can see vision and you can see ego right next to skeptic and standards, and that pairing is very important in terms of planning. You can see the same thing working with the ego of the inventor and the relationships needed to build the mission with the performer.
As you’re looking to invent the strategic intent and commitment of how you’re going to deploy resources, you can see how those two are the perfect two to be in the room to talk and to design the strategic intent of the enterprise or the transaction. And ideally when you get into tactics, the relationships, tactics are mostly how you’re going to have other people take action, right? When you’re talking about people, the two people, personalities in the transaction, the performer and the producer, the ones who go out and build the alliances along with the person who is going to be engaged in making offers, relationship and building alliances and being included in all of what has to be done, tactics. Maybe that’s a good trigger line, John, is anytime you’re working on tactics, that producer better be in the room.
When you’re working on anything that has another human being engaged in work and action, you put the producer in the room, and ideally it’s the performer and the producer working on the specific tactics, the commitments that must be made by other people and themselves to get the work done. You can see how they come together in that quadrant and there’s nobody better to capture the metrics required that get done in work, that get produced on the factory floor, and the person who will be declaring and passing judgment on and drawing certain conclusions about the work in action, in metrics than your judge and your producer together. You can even go so far, and we do in our advanced programs to look at the entire hemisphere of the transaction cycle in the same way.
John Patterson: My special thanks to our guest Janet Asher Vreeland. In our show notes, you’ll find links to connect with her and all the links to websites, books, or downloads mentioned in this podcast.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded July 27th, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology Faculty, Staff, Mentors, and Students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled ‘Fast Train to Everywhere.’ You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
Decisions Based in Evidence with Neil Calvert
Twin Studies have been used for decades to settle the age-old Nature vs. Nurture debate about human behavior: are we hardwired to act according to our biological blueprint, or does our environment influence our behavior or gene expression? Twin Study research has helped find answers to questions on space travel, obesity, IQ, and much more. Empirical evidence has settled the debate for good. The answer? We are both Nature AND Nurture. But what about a Digital Twin...and what can it teach us? A digital twin is a real-time digital replica of a living or non-living physical entity. This replication is…
Twin Studies have been used for decades to settle the age-old Nature vs. Nurture debate about human behavior: are we hardwired to act according to our biological blueprint, or does our environment influence our behavior or gene expression? Twin Study research has helped find answers to questions on space travel, obesity, IQ, and much more. Empirical evidence has settled the debate for good. The answer? We are both Nature AND Nurture.
But what about a Digital Twin…and what can it teach us? A digital twin is a real-time digital replica of a living or non-living physical entity. This replication is used to find the root cause of issues -or- experiment with changes before they are implemented in real-time. Neil Calvert and his company LINQ model your business with a digital twin – helping organizations experiment with future opportunities before investing in change and transformation. Think of it as Twin Studies for organizations – offering decisions based in evidence.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
“Have I got the right people, the right time, the right money, the right systems, the right data to be able to achieve this thing I want to achieve in the future?“
John Patterson: Neil, welcome to the Influence Ecology podcast. If you would, please take a second and introduce yourself. Tell us a little about you.
Neil Calvert: Yeah. Thanks, John. It’s great to be here, a brilliant opportunity. My name is Neil Calvert. I’m the co-founder and chief executive officer of Linq. We are a technology startup. Though I say startup, we’ve been going for five years now in disguise, but it still feels like a startup. I’m based in Wellington, in New Zealand, so I have an amazing opportunity to live somewhere fantastic and lead a lifestyle that works with a platform that is based around being on the cloud, being an incident-based platform. I can pretty much work from anywhere. That’s what I do.
John Patterson: Fantastic. By the way, Wellington is one of my favorite cities. It’s a beautiful place. To me it’s kind of European in its feel. It’s not too big, it’s just right. It’s in a Goldilocks Zone. It’s just the right size of a city to really enjoy. It’s in a beautiful environment. Anyway, I love where you live. It’s a fantastic place.
Neil Calvert: Well, you’re welcome here at any time. You know that.
John Patterson: That’s great. There’s a few things I’d like to do here. First of all, I’d like to learn a little more about Linq. If you can tell us a bit more about what that is, and what that company does.
Neil Calvert: Sure. I describe Linq as being a time machine for your business. We let organizations peer into their future and understand whether that future is going to be successful or not. We do that by helping the organization model their digital twin, so a digital representation of how they operate. That digital twin lets them account for the people that they have, a really highly valuable resource, the work that gets done, the systems they use. Our point of difference is, we also account for the data and information that makes all of that possible. We bring together this model of what people are doing and which tools they’re using … and the information they need to do that work, and how they do that work. We effectively account for all of that, in terms of how the business then generates the value that it needs to create to be successful. Whether that’s, you’re producing something that you’re selling. Or even down to things like, you might have the budget inside the organization which you are using to plan your fiscal year, but also know when you might recruit or you need to tighten up on operational costs. We account for how all of that work leads to those outcomes.
Neil Calvert: Then we let the business really gain insight, what does that mean to them, the way they work, and what they’re doing? You can effectively do future planning because you can say, if I got this area of the business which is really high value to me being successful, but I find things that are not quite so efficient or effective as they could be, what happens if I change that? So you do that in the model before you make the investment to do it on the ground, which of course, that costs real money at that point. You might be reorganizing teams. You might be thinking about recruiting new people. You might be buying new technology, which costs real money. So we let the business do that in the model before they go anywhere near doing it for real. That process lets them basically, as I said, peer into the future and define the measures and the metrics meaning they will be successful. Then they can get on and implement that change and that transformation with a much higher degree of confidence than they have had before.
John Patterson: That’s fantastic. I was going to ask you about digital twin because I’m not familiar with the term. Is that a term that’s used in some technology I don’t know about, or is that something that is your own IP?
Neil Calvert: No. It’s been around for a very long time. NASA were actually the first organization to think in terms of having a twin. You might have seen Apollo 13, the movie. They’re up in space heading to the moon, and their carbon dioxide filter stops working as a result of the fire. So in order to fix that, there were six teams on the ground who were in simulations of the module that they were in, with exactly the same environment and equipment. They worked really hard to come up with a solution that was then implemented in space. That’s the kind of analog version of a digital twin. Now if you think about doing that, using the technology that we have available to us today … the digital twin primarily is used in the engineering space. So there will be a model of a wind turbine, or the model of a generator, or an aircraft engine. That model exists to an engineering specification. What happens is, there are sensors on the real thing and that sends data to the digital twin, which responds as the real twin is responding to the environment. So you now have an effective mechanism to be able to monitor, to control, to maintain the real twin from the digital environment.
Neil Calvert: So it’s moving out of that engineering space and the term that’s been used is, the digital twin of an organization. We have to think slightly differently now. The organization as an ecosystem, as an entity, is made up of people, of systems, of work processes and of information. That’s where the digital twin just starts to extend the capability that we’ve had around the engineering digital twin for a good number of years. I’m taking advantage of the fact that the environment is changing. We’re recognizing, this is a term. I like it because it’s an interesting term. I get that response you just had from people when I talk to them, and that allows me to really help them step into the future. Because that’s what this feels like, and people like that.
John Patterson: Yeah. I pretty much would like to stop the podcast and just ask you about this for the next hour. I won’t. I won’t do that, but I do have some additional questions about it, just for our listeners as well. And especially those of Influence Ecology, because here at Influence Ecology our very name has a lot to do with the environments we find ourselves in, and how those environments influence us. My questions are first about your own business. You launched this approach as it pertains to businesses. You mentioned that it had been relevant in the engineering. Is this something that you guys began to bring to enterprises itself, generally speaking, as an ecosystem? Or was that also already being done some other way?
Neil Calvert: No. The digital twin of an organization isn’t something that’s been implemented inside the enterprise, other than for a couple of very select exceptionally large and wealthy organizations that have the capacity and the capability to do it in a way which is really unattainable for the majority. So we responded to that change in the environment at Linq in terms of our messaging. We started out talking about information flow modeling. How does data flow through the business, which is a bit yawnie. People are kind of, I don’t really understand that. This was us really adapting to a change in the ecology, which was led by some research that we did. So we’ve really jumped on the back of work that they’re doing, and just connecting ourselves to that messaging, which is becoming more and more adopted and accepted inside the enterprise. But as far as we are aware today, nobody else is creating an opportunity for a regular business to take advantage of something which is really exciting. So the digital twin of the organization is something which will fundamentally change the way that organizations operate in the future, and the way they make decisions about their future in response to what’s going on in the external environments in terms of digital technology and how that impacts all of our lives.
Neil Calvert: For me it was an opportunity to really make sure that Linq was being connected at the forefront of where the business is going, and align ourselves to a term, which just generates interest. It’s not just that, we have a capability which absolutely aligns to what a digital twin is supposed to do for an organization. It was the coming together of several things which allowed us to take advantage of that as a business.
John Patterson: I’m now wondering what other questions you commonly get, but I’m going to ask one and see if this is one of them. So in this digital twin, do you account for in this ecosystem factors outside of the system itself? Say, the market place or certain trends. I mean, there is countless variables, of course, in an ecosystem. You couldn’t count for all of them. But are there ways in which you do account for some of those kinds of variables?
Neil Calvert: Yes. But we do it by allowing the organization to stipulate the business’ outcomes that they need to create. So within Influence Ecology, within any organization, we have a set of strategic level aims that we are aspiring to, which is really driving the ethic and the culture inside the organization. We’re motivating our people to achieve things because we believe they’re the right thing to do for our business. Those get accounted for in terms of the business outcomes that we need to achieve as an organization. We’ll have a set of those, which we know about based on the horizon through which we look at time. We’ve got some near-horizon objectives that we’re trying to achieve, some medium ones and some far-horizon objectives. As you push out to the far horizon those things become significantly more aspirational, because you’re not really sure how you get there. Linq expresses those planned-for outcomes in terms of what the business is trying to achieve, and then lets the business understand whether they’ve got the capability inside the business to deliver those. At that point, in all terminology I guess, that looks like a gap analysis. Have I got the right people, the right time, the right money and systems, the right data to be able to achieve this thing I want to achieve in the future?
Neil Calvert: So, yes, you’re right, the environment external to the organization is huge and complex, and ever-changing. We would say, it is in constant process. You can’t account for all of those, so you have to rely on the people inside the business that have their finger on the pulse to help define objectives that need to be met, so then you can start to account for them.
John Patterson: All right. Very good. Well, thank you for taking the time to let me know about that. It’s fascinating. Maybe we’re in together at the conference, I can ask you some more questions about it. I’d love to turn our attention to the reason that we’re here really. People, Neil, have a commitment to find out about other people’s journeys because other people’s journeys teach us something. If I can learn from you, or if a listener can learn from you, then it serves all of us. Now you’ve had a journey here at Influence Ecology, where obviously you found out about us and started studying here. First of all, how long ago did you start studying with us?
Neil Calvert: I’m into my third year now.
John Patterson: You do a third year, okay. When you first started studying with us, how was life then? What was happening, what were you dealing with, struggling with? You obviously came this direction for a reason. How come?
Neil Calvert: I was introduced by another Influence Ecology member in Wellington, Jen Rutherford, who I think is in membership now. She had just come back from a new member conference, and we were talking just about, how do you help people understand the new thing that you’re trying to get them to think about? How do you disrupt their thinking? We were throwing some ideas around and she said, “Do you know what, Neil? You would love this study. It’s all about people. It’s all about how you think and how you can understand what they’re thinking, so that you can alter your messaging.” I was like, “Oh, that sounds really interesting.” I’ve always had this ponderance about psychology. At some point in my life I might have wanted to become a psychologist. To understand people I think is fascinating. I love airports for that reason, you know that. People watching is incredible at airports and the behaviors that come out are fascinating. Jen suggested it was something that I looked at. So I spoke to Drew, had a good conversation with him. And then sat back, based on that first hour of conversation with Drew and went, well, how am I dealing with this stuff today?
Neil Calvert: I think my overriding ethic was, if I work hard, good things will happen for me. I realized, that puts the reliance on other people to do things for you. If you sit and you just work hard, you’re expecting somebody else to recognize that you’re working hard and then reward you with something, whether that’s a new role or an increased salary. The combination of what Jen said to me and that initial chat with Drew made me immediately realize, that’s ridiculous. I’m effectively passing control of myself to somebody else who has their own things that they’re dealing with, and I might not be their priority. So it was a reasonably quick realization that my mindset was probably entirely wrong. As you know yourself, one of the first things you have to do is a huge amount of self-reflection in order to accept that is the wrong way to think. That you are naïve to all of those considerations. As I reflected more, I realized that’s where my mind was. I was just a really hard worker. I’d be lucky to some degree with that, but luck’s not a planning tool.
Neil Calvert: So it was time to really start thinking about whether there was a better way to understand what I wanted to achieve and how to get there, and at the same time connect that to the business opportunity that Linq had. It was very much, for me it was a personal journey, but it was my personal journey connected to Linq as an organization because of my position or the fact that we were trying to build something new. All of that was going on in my head at the time.
John Patterson: In the very early days when you began to study with Influence Ecology, did it impact how you thought about Linq?
Neil Calvert: Oh, without a doubt. I challenged Drew from day one that my learnings within Influence Ecology had to be practical enough that I could pretty much implement them immediately. I wasn’t interested in theoretical study, which didn’t really go anywhere, because there was no action to be taken as I learned. That was my challenge to Drew, okay, I’m in, but best I can apply this. And thinking about the fundamentals of transaction, paper one, that whole conversation about, can you articulate and aim in anything in a fundamental condition of life? When you start thinking about money, career, health and work, and going, I can’t. I don’t know for me what that means and I also don’t know what that means for Linq. So immediately having to do the work and say, right, wow, what does success look like in terms of the identity that Linq is trying to push into the market place? How do I get to the ecology without spending a million dollars, to make a million dollars? There were some very fundamental thought processes put into my head from effectively week one, fortnight one of FOT, and to be perfectly honest with you, it’s been that way ever since.
Neil Calvert: It’s been three years of monthly challenges to the way I think. That’s what’s it made so exciting.
John Patterson: It’s really great I think there’s an opportunity for those that are listening, because we do often get the question, is this just all theory? Which we would say, no, it’s quite pragmatic. You just described a bit of that. What would you say to those people who wonder about that?
Neil Calvert: It’s absolutely not just theory. The tools that you’re provided with, like the 13 steps, the transaction cycle, provide a framework where you can implement your thinking immediately. You follow the 13 steps against the challenge that you’re having, or some barrier in your thinking, and you can find a way to break through it. The tools are provided as part of the study to really let you, if you want to, begin to think differently and make it work for yourself and the business.
John Patterson: How did this study help you understand yourself and others?
Neil Calvert: That’s a great question. I don’t know if I’m there yet, the study of yourself, right? The thing I’ve realized and I’m still working on is, what does a successful, happy life mean for me across the fundamental conditions of life? I never thought about my life in that way before. So I’m beginning to understand me. I’m married. I’ve got a son. We have a dog. We’ve got a nice life, but what does it mean to say, I’m successful and satisfied in my relationship? The distinction between work and career, I’ve never really thought about that. Career as an identity. What does it mean to have an identity? What is the identity you want? How do you want people to see you? How does that fit with your ethic and your morale base? I’ve never really thought like that. So to be asked some really simple questions … there’s nothing simpler really than, how do you know that you’re happy in your relationship? It’s a really simple question to ask. It’s a massively complex question to answer. So for me that was a bit of a revelation. Then, of course, there are aspects of that, which cross right into the business. Therefore, what are your aims for your business? If you took the money aim, how do you know that you’re satisfied as an organization with money? How do you even describe that?
Neil Calvert: So the challenge that has been laid down that I’m still dealing with is, yeah, how do I describe to myself what those things mean? If I can’t articulate those, how do I expect to understand whether an opportunity that’s staring at me, is really an opportunity or a threat to myself and my business? I think that’s one of the fundamental pieces of challenge that was laid down by Influence Ecology and remains for me today. It’s not a simple thing to do. But the thinking that you have to do, the accuracy with which you have to approach that work, is astonishing. And it gets deeper and deeper the more you go into it. So, yes, that crossover is very, very real. I’m getting there. I’m focusing on the things that matter today. There are a bunch of them which I know I have neglected to even think about, but I think that’s just part of the timeline and the journey. We have to deal with those more fundamental conditions before you can start to worry about some of the more aspirational ones like legacy and politics. They don’t matter when you’re still worrying about keeping a roof over your head and feeding yourself and your family, as an example.
John Patterson: Any correlations between the work that you’re doing to produce a digital twin for an enterprise and considering all the conditions of life for a human being?
Neil Calvert: Absolutely. There’s a really interesting philosophical conversation that could be had about, what is an organization? It’s an environment, but it’s an organism in its own right. It’s an organism that’s made up of individuals who have aspirations and aims. They’re an entity inside that bigger entity. And the environment is created on a daily basis between the people that are working together, and where that organization sits in its own market place. So you have to make sure that, as you are talking about the digital twin, you’re not oversimplifying it, but at the same time you’re not overcomplicating the conversation because then it can feel too big. I’m always minded to come back to, who am I talking to? How does this help them, at this point in time, achieve something that they are aspiring to? Whether that’s their reputation inside the organization, whether it’s keeping their job because they’re under pressure, whether it’s giving them time back to do some of the other things that are important to them. So if you can break this massive idea around, yeah, we can model the whole of your organization and show you how things are working, right back down to, and your place in it … so you can understand your impact on the whole of this organism that you are part of. But also, how do you manage the environment that you’re operating in on a minute-by-minute basis potentially, because of the way that the people interact?
Neil Calvert: That’s for me where the excitement is around the opportunity, but that’s why it makes it so complex and you have to think carefully about it. These are conversations that you often start with some trepidation, but you have to navigate that in order to make this valuable to the people that you’re talking to, and have them understand it and accept it and want to be a part of it. So that’s a huge crossover, and probably I’m only just scratching the surface of the implication when you start thinking that way.
John Patterson: Yeah. In the work we do with enterprises there is a lesson that moves people from thinking of themselves as some sort of overlord in an enterprise … or that they have some sort of means in which to command things to go their way. At some point they begin to consider themselves as a mere aspect of a larger transaction, of a larger enterprise. And in doing so start to then be concerned, instead of over-lording and commanding, perhaps to influence or to build environments that begin to move things in the ways that would benefit the entire transaction. Are there any correlations with what I’ve just described in the work that you do to produce a digital twin and what it shows to people?
Neil Calvert: Yeah, absolutely. Most organizations think about their people … or they like to believe they think about their people as individuals inside the organization.
John Patterson: People.
Neil Calvert: As people, right. But they tend to come down, at some level they turn into a line item in the budget, an X number of FTEs, which depersonalizes them, but also doesn’t reflect anything about the value that individuals have inside an organization. So the models that we build contextualize the people and put a value on the people. At that point I think you can’t help but begin to understand that your influence is only achieved by having a relationship with all the other people who are delivering value into an organization. You take one of those pieces out, because you’re not thinking the right way … you’re unkind, or your approach doesn’t sit well with them, you can impact the whole of the system. So the models that pivot around what do people do and how do they do it, and the value they enable inside the organization, those really sit well with helping senior leadership understand how they can do that in a new way. A friend of mine is an expert in leadership, and I need to have a conversation with him about the stalls of leadership, and it moves away from the shtick.
Neil Calvert: It’s not even a carrot, it’s a full collaboration between people who understand that without the team around them, they’re not going to achieve the success that’s required.
John Patterson: In your view, what is it most people are dealing with to move away from the command and control model into more of a collaborative organizational model?
Neil Calvert: Oh, there’s a few constant struggles, I think. The first is time. People never have enough time to do anything. I’m more and more convinced that a lack of time to step back, have a look around you, reflect on what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, actually leads people to become trapped into a way of working, that might have been a way that was defined for them before they even arrived in the organization. This is a bit of my bugbear around the word ‘process’ in business. Process modeling. Because as a methodology that organizations use, it becomes very stale quickly because it’s out-of-date. It also turns into procedural documentation as opposed to an evolving way of describing what people do. So time is one of the key reasons most things never get updated. It has a huge influence over the way people work. That’s definitely a constant struggle. I think the other is that we know human beings as animals are reluctant to change. We don’t like it, so we will always follow the path of least resistant. When something new comes along, it might be the best thing since sliced bread, to use that analogy, but it’s hard and it’s significantly harder than the way I’m doing it today. Even if the way I’m doing it today doesn’t necessarily give me all of the results I need, it’s easy. So why would I choose something hard over something that’s easy?
Neil Calvert: There’s a psychological barrier, a cognitive bias, that exists in all of us, that I think you break down through diversity in teams. The more diverse you can have a team with different backgrounds and different experiences, those biases become much easier to overcome. But we’re not built that way. We don’t default to that inside organizations. Those are two things that immediately spring to mind where the impact is severe, because we don’t ever think about doing anything differently. Because we don’t have enough time and we’ll just stick with doing what we’re doing. It’s that safe.
John Patterson: You’re talking about a bit of … what I saw in your notes was your soapbox moment, if you will. A bit about the cognitive bias that we don’t realize we have. Anything else you want to say about that?
Neil Calvert: My soapbox can get pretty big when I start thinking about these things. For me it’s about, we’ve got to think differently. This is not just me inside Linq. I just think as a worldwide society it’s time to think differently. Einstein’s got this amazing quote, which is, “We can’t fix problems using the same thinking that we used when we created them.” But I see that happening all the time, this is the way we’ve always done it. It’s a very hindsight, oversight-orientated perspective to have, rather than an insight and foresight perspective. I’m looking forward, so I’m trying to think of new ways of doing things. I’m innovating, I’m being curious. I’m intrigued by the things I see and I’m motivated to do something about it. I think it’s necessary for people to understand what it means to think differently. Bringing that soapbox back to why I study with Influence Ecology, and why am I in that too, and here in year three, it’s because it forces you to think differently. You have to reflect on yourself and how you deal with other people, in order to have the opportunity to show them that there is an opportunity. Bringing it back to business, I see that all the time, that the way business cases are written today is an abomination.
Neil Calvert: It takes so much time. It’s so complex, people don’t enjoy doing it. The statistic that gets thrown around is, 70% of the change projects fail. It’s become a myth in the industry that 70% of projects fail. The number is pretty close to that, and it’s because we’re just constantly doing things the same way. We haven’t stopped to go, if we approach this from the other way, could we actually get to a decision faster and save ourselves time and money … and actually do something of value and control what that looks like, and care about the people that are impacted? We just don’t seem to. We’ve got ourselves fixed on this methodology that we’ve learned from people before us, and we just carry on the same old way. Yeah, my soapbox is about challenging people to reflect on what they’re doing, and be brave and think differently, and help them articulate that inside the organization to people that will listen and care. I think if we do that across all sorts of aspects of our lives, we would be living in a very different world right now. We need to moving forward, we need things to change.
John Patterson: It’s great. Very good. It sounds as if you’ve learned some things about personality and transactional behavior, especially yourself as an inventor personality. Then as a typical inventor … by no means that you’re typical, but we don’t ask for help too much. You’ve learned a lot about asking for help. I want to give you the opportunity to address anything about that area of your notes.
Neil Calvert: It was a bit of a revelation I had at the last, at your member conference, when we were in Los Angeles. I started asking people for help. I started talking about … not about me. That was the other revelation, I think. Don’t talk about yourself, talk about the gaps that you have and the challenges you’re facing, and really sit down and ask people for help. You can’t expect people to read between the lines, so you have to say it. I could really do with some help with this, can you help? Do you know other people that might be able to help me? The reaction you get from these most simple words is astonishing. I’ve had more help as a result of my conversations at the member conference, than I think I can remember at any point through my career. Because people are interested and they do genuinely want to help, if they can. The majority of people do. I continue to use that. I’m having conversations right now, and I turn around to the guys and I said, “Look, I’m not too proud to say, I really need help.” The reaction you get from people when you do that … you’re putting yourself on the line, there’s the heart on your sleeve, you’re being vulnerable. But I think it’s necessary when you want other people around you and a huge acknowledgement, I can’t do all of this on my own.
Neil Calvert: LINQ is a really small team and I know the impact of being stretched too thinly. So the only way of resolving that without having huge operational expenses, to have people help you. That’s been really good. I think the other point you asked about was understanding more about personalities. I often talk to people … I think Kirkland told a story once about two people walking down the corridor and one comes up with a good idea and articulates it to the other. The other either thinks they’ve been told to run away and do something, or one of them thinks that they just transacted for somebody to go and do some work, but the other one just hears a great idea and goes, oh, that was nice and wanders off. And two weeks later it’s like, where’s that thing? What thing? You didn’t ask. Once you become aware of that, you see it happening all the time. We might speak a different language.
John Patterson: Everywhere.
Neil Calvert: Yeah. But it’s not what comes out of your mouth that’s different. It’s what people hear going in through their ears, and how that processes in their heads that is hugely different. Yes, understanding the personalities and how they hear, that’s been super useful. Being able to quickly go, right, you’re a judge character. Now I know the things I need to say to you to have you help me, or to prevent your biology from overtaking you and causing this conversation to self-destruct. That’s hugely valuable because that happens every day.
John Patterson: How has that understanding impacted your relationship with your team or your spouse, or the actual construct that is LINQ itself?
Neil Calvert: You can find yourself having a lot more control over your own biology. It’s not about having control over other people, because you can’t. You can’t control other people. You can’t tell other people how to think. What you can do is control your own reaction to the things that come out of other people’s mouths, and use that to move the transaction along in a really positive way. So whether that’s just a calming voice, or an alternative viewpoint put in a specific way that works rather than a reaction … don’t react but contribute instead. I’m now able to do that with the people that I talk to. That includes my wife and my son. Max is 12 years old, is a very typical boy. Being able to have a different type of conversation with him when he reacts to things … even if it’s as simple as, hey, Max, can you unload the dishwasher? A typical reaction. Well, you can deal with that because you don’t have to react biologically to him reacting biologically. And you can go and have a proper conversation that diffuses everything, I’m getting to unload the dishwasher. There’s some highly practical outcomes, knowledge and tools that you end up being able to use in everyday situations.
Neil Calvert: As well as then you start talking to a chief financial officer inside an organization that you’re trying to sell to, and you realize they’re a judge. They are trying to diffuse your innovation that you want to talk to them about by thinking about the results that they have had in the past. But they’re talking cheese because this is entirely new. So having the skillset to be able to handle the dichotomy of situations, you find yourself in on a daily basis, has resulted from a better understanding of who people are and how they operate and what they hear.
John Patterson: It’s great. Neil Calvert, it’s a pleasure to speak with you today.
John Patterson: In today’s talk you’ll hear a segment of a webinar where co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and I speak on the subject of accurate thinking. In this talk I refer to a quote we’ve included in our show notes. Here’s the talk.
Kirkland Tibbels: Accurate thinking is a term or a terminological distinction that we borrow from Napoleon Hill. Napoleon Hill has done some great work in his philosophy of success. One of, I think, the most powerful things that Napoleon Hill offers us in his philosophy is this notion of accurate thinking. Because as much as he lives in a world of positive mental attitude and enthusiasm, all along the way Napoleon Hill also offers in his philosophy a sense of deliberate and accurate thinking. Accurate thinking asks you to consider the facts of the situation that you’re currently in. John, that’s where I’ll stop and let you move on.
John Patterson: All right. What is accurate thinking? I put this quote up and I hope you’re laughing, because the Internet is filled with a lot of stuff. It’s filled with a lot of stuff. It’s my biggest fear that people will attribute say, quotes to me and millions of morons on the Internet will believe it. Albert Einstein, right, I don’t know that Albert Einstein was alive during the Internet. Is that right? Anyway, I hope you get the joke, but this is a kind of thing we see a lot of. I remember early on in my work with you, about a decade ago, Kirkland and I said something to which you said, “Yeah. John, I don’t know that I accept that as fact.” I was slightly offended when you said it, as if I wasn’t entitled to my view. But it was a wonderful course correction for what began to be a journey to think accurately. Because I was quite used to saying things and thinking things, and believing things that I heard or saw on the Internet, or that were common notions, or what you and I, Kirkland, call the current.
John Patterson: I think it would be useful to say a little about what we mean by the current, because this slide is such a great demonstration of it. Could you say what the current is?
Kirkland Tibbels: Yeah. I’d be happy to. We coined the phrase the current. A phrase that essentially addresses the kind of environment we can get swept away by, or caught in, like a river current or a stream, if you will. The current is simply the dominant narrative in any particular ecology or situation. If you’re in an environment, say a business environment, you can count on, the social narratives that drive your particular business environment are the things that are most current. The things that aren’t necessarily true, they’re not necessarily factual, but they catch hope. You could state in some ways they’re cultural narratives that sort of sweep us away and carry us in a direction without us necessarily stopping to check the facts. I’m expecting most of you recognize what we’re talking about, that it’s easy to get swept away in a current of narrative. We call that distinction ‘the current.’ The current, sometimes it is accurate. Sometimes there are things going on in the dominant narrative that are accurate and we should pay attention to it, for sure. But my experiences for the most part, it’s mostly not accurate. It’s mostly a dangerous place to spend a whole lot of time.
What is required of us, as we move in our social constructs, is to demand some fact. To have people ground their assertions. To have people recognize and qualify their opinions. We are a social being and we exist in language, and predominantly we do that through the construct of narrative. More and more, especially as the Internet is taking hold and media begins to be more and more distinct, distilled and specialized, we tend to traffic in bubbles or currents that we like, and resist those that we don’t. Every one of us is comfortable in some narrative, say politically, or in some kind of cultural environment. Some of us would rather not look at or even hear the views that are counter to the way we were brought up or some of our beliefs. We would like to invite you to consider that there is opportunity in that diversity. That there is opportunity in finding out the other side of the story, and to examine the facts of situations before we jump off and make critical decisions and start taking action on things.
John Patterson: My special thanks to our guest Neil Calvert. In our show notes you’ll find links to connect with him and the links to websites, books or downloads mentioned in this podcast.
The Influence Ecology Podcast is produced by Influence Ecology, LLC in Ventura, California. This episode was recorded July 15th, 2019 and was produced by Tyson Crandall and John Patterson. You can find a transcript for this and other episodes at InfluenceEcology.com. This episode is made possible through the assistance of the Influence Ecology Faculty, Staff, Mentors, and Students around the world. Co-founder Kirkland Tibbels and our colleagues comprise an international collective of professionals who are active in the development of the philosophy of Transactionalism and the discipline of Transactional Competence. Kirkland is considered a leading philosopher and authority in the field and he has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline.
This episode includes contributions by Karal Gregory. The podcast theme is by Chris Standring and titled ‘Fast Train to Everywhere.’ You can subscribe to the Influence Ecology Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via email at podcast@influenceecology.com.
If you haven’t yet offered a rating or review, I ask that you take a moment go to iTunes or your podcast app and let us know what you think. This helps us more than you know.
Podcast Bonuses:
Neil Calvert on LinkedIn
LINQ
Neil Calvert on Twitter
LINQ on Twitter
Free 30-Day Guest Access
Influence Ecology is the leading business education specializing in Transactional Competence, having published and contributed to the only comprehensive text on the subject, Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study by Trevor J. Phillips. Co-Founder Kirkland Tibbels has authored more than 500 papers on the subject, study, and discipline of transactional competence and is a sought-after lecturer at universities, major corporations, and civic organizations around the world.
Influence Ecology’s curriculum includes conferences, webinars, online tools, podcasts, and mentorship utilized by men and women in over seventy countries around the world. Our membership includes an international assembly of accomplished professionals, faculty, and peers from a variety of countries, industries, and cultures.
Ambition Is Not a Dirty Word with Darryl Anderle
In a 2015 speech, American actress, producer, and entrepreneur Reese Witherspoon launched a campaign to support women and their aspirations with the battle-cry, "Ambition is not a dirty word." In 2018, Oprah Winfrey interviewed Reese Witherspoon and American actress, comedian, writer, producer, and director Mindy Kaling to talk about that moment. Growing up in lower-middle-class Texas, Influence Ecology CFO Darryl Anderle was raised to think of ambition as a negative word—it had selfish connotations. It seemed as if the standard for success was to get noticed for being independent, self-reliant, and hard-working; waiting for someone to consider him for advancement…
In a 2015 speech, American actress, producer, and entrepreneur Reese Witherspoon launched a campaign to support women and their aspirations with the battle-cry, “Ambition is not a dirty word.” In 2018, Oprah Winfrey interviewed Reese Witherspoon and American actress, comedian, writer, producer, and director Mindy Kaling to talk about that moment.
Growing up in lower-middle-class Texas, Influence Ecology CFO Darryl Anderle was raised to think of ambition as a negative word—it had selfish connotations. It seemed as if the standard for success was to get noticed for being independent, self-reliant, and hard-working; waiting for someone to consider him for advancement . . . which never came.
In our interview today, you’ll hear how his life is now very different; how a little ambition can go a long way to satisfy our aims.
Here’s the interview.
Below you’ll find a transcript of this podcast episode that has been edited for your reading pleasure. You’ll also see links at the bottom of this post where you can find more information on the people and ideas mentioned in the episode.
by John Patterson
Produced by: John Patterson & Tyson Crandall
“Businesses don’t do business with businesses. People do business with people. And until we all learn how to people, we will not be successful at business.“
John Patterson: Today on the podcast I have a special guests with me. It is the CFO of Influence Ecology, our own Darryl Anderle. So Darrell, it’s a pleasure to have you with us today.
Darryl Anderle: Thank you John. It’s really nice to be here with you there in surfers paradise Australia.
John Patterson: I know, the power of technology, so you’re in Ventura, California and I’m in surfers paradise Queensland, Australia. It’s fun. A couple of things,