The Long and The Short Of It

Episode 260 - Post-Seth Reflection

Transcript:

Pete: Hello, Jennifer.

Jen: Hello, Peter.

Pete: I still think to myself that one day you're going to say, "Pete-ifer." Do you remember that?

Jen: Yes, yes. And every week, I have to stop myself from saying that.

Pete: "Hello, Pete-ifer." So we are a week on from recording an episode with Seth Godin. And given it's a rarity...in fact, it's only happened twice in five years that we had guest, and it was the same guest in Seth...I felt like we should pick our brains up off the floor and look at the pieces that fell out and talk about them and unpack all of the wisdom that came from having a guest on the show.

Jen: Oh, I agree. My brain is still completely melted, so let me try to put it back together and make some sense of what we heard with Seth Godin. This is The Long and The Short Of It.

Jen: It was wild, Pete.

Pete: It was great, even better than I had hoped. I mean, I went in hoping we'd talk about the various aspects of the book that we really liked, and then we did that and so much more. Like, the part where...there was a point during the podcast where he said, "I just made that whole rant up." And I was like, that was so good.

Jen: That was my hope, is that he would say something that he had never said somewhere else. And that happened. That was cool.

Pete: It did. And then, it's like, how do you react in real time? So yes, I feel like it was a bunch of fun.

Jen: I feel like we should say to any listeners who haven't listened to last week's episode with Seth Godin, hit stop right now and go listen to that first so that you can contextualize this conversation. Most of our podcast episodes are not dependent on having heard any of the others, but this one probably will be.

Pete: It's true. This is one of the few that is. This is one of the few that is. So, a few ways to do this. I guess one is just like, what were your immediate reactions since? Or what have you been thinking about that he said since? Or what did it make you noodle on? How do we go about approaching this mind melt? Because I feel like my mind is still melting. (As you can tell, by the way I'm terribly articulating my questions.)

Jen: Well, Pete, I don't know if you know this, but I'm a professional compartmentalizer. And I am very good (and also to my own detriment) at putting walls between things. And when I read The Song of Significance, I loved it. And I didn't have as easy a time with this one of his books, as I had had with all of his previous books, lifting the walls between the corporate and institutional applications and then the work of a freelancer and specifically a freelance artist. But after the conversation with him, suddenly, I could see it all in a totally different way.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: So now, of course, I'm back to re-reading The Song of Significance and seeing how literally every point he makes about choosing leadership and doing work that is meaningful and important, it applies across...I dare not say industry lines...it applies across lines.

Pete: Yes. Yes, yes. Because it's not an industry, according to Seth. I agree with all that. The thing that I was thinking about, just as you were talking, was, I don't know your industry anywhere near as well as you do, obviously. And yet, that point he made around, "While you might not be able to differentiate and be significant and lead on stage, because you're playing a certain role, who is leading and creating the conditions for significant work backstage?"

Jen: Right.

Pete: To me, that was just like, "Ooh, that is such a beautiful reminder of why and how leadership is a choice. And that leadership isn't contained to organizations or to very obvious things like being the lead in a show, and that it's available to us as a choice in all of the different contexts that we may not think about." So I just thought that was such a perfect example of the walls being lifted of like, "Sure, maybe not onstage, but what about backstage?

Jen: Right.

Pete: You know, like he doesn't let you off the hook that easy, which I really like.

Jen: I always appreciate that about him. In fact, he used the phrase "the chance of a lifetime" to describe what it's like to be able to be a part of the theater. And you know, as a person who lives and breathes it every day, it's kind of like water to a fish for me sometimes, where I'm like, "This is just, you know, it's Broadway. Big deal." But to hear someone say, "You have the chance of a lifetime to do something significant," I was like, "Oh my gosh, yes." It's easy to take certain things for granted, and then that little reminder. I wrote it down, you know, "This is the chance of a lifetime," and I'm just trying to remind myself that every day since that podcast, that I really do have the chance of a lifetime to do something significant. And thank you, Seth Godin.

Pete: Yeah. And I think that like this idea of like influencing our little portion of culture, influencing our little, you know, whether it's a cohort or a cadre, that idea that we sort of joked about around being in a boat and paddling and like, "Where does the water go?" And the reminder of like, you're probably not going to move the ocean, or you're probably not going to change the whole world. But you can get some leverage in that small little part of the world or the theater or the organization that you're a part of and intentionally seek to create something different, or leverage that to create change that is somewhat significant in some way. Breaking down this idea of, "It's the chance of a lifetime, but also, like your lifetime doesn't have to mean changing the entire system or the entire world."

Jen: Right. You know, several years ago, I became kind of fed up with the phrase "change the world". And I can't even remember who suggested this to me, but they suggested that I replace "the" with "my".

Pete: Yeah, nice.

Jen: And it just makes all the difference.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Because I believe in changing my world.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah, "my" or "your", I was thinking "your" would be another way of framing the same thing.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: Okay, the thing that I'm still obsessing about (and I know I said it in the podcast) was this notion that turnover is okay, and like how that fit into your point around like, "Let's get real, or let's not play." And the reason I have not stopped thinking about that is because I spend so much time with leaders. And so often, I could think of like five specific examples just off the top of my head, where a leader will start a new role as a general manager in a new organization. And they may have inherited a team that is a little dysfunctional or has a little bit of tension. And perhaps there's people in that team that have been there for too long or getting to the point of not being on the bus, i.e. they're not here to be real. They're not here to play, in the sense that Seth mentioned. And so often, the conversation that the leader comes to me with is, "How do I rebuild their trust in the work that we're doing, in the vision that we have? How do I get them back on the bus?" And I think that's a really valid way of looking at it. And I think it's totally okay to also look at it now through the lens of, "Or maybe they're not part of the team, or part of the change you're seeking to make. Maybe this, for them, is an opportunity to go somewhere else and put their energy elsewhere," i.e. turnover is okay. And in fact, rather than turnover being a reflection of you, the leader, unable to create a culture that people want to be part of, what if actually turnover is a step forward in you getting to create that change you're actually trying to create? I just, I see so many people spending so much energy trying to get people back on the bus that are clearly not on the bus. And I just want them to hear this idea that in some contexts, turnover is okay. It's okay for them to go somewhere else and use that energy elsewhere.

Jen: Yeah, that is so fascinating. In the theater, we're just constantly turning over. And in fact, it is considered an outlier if someone stays somewhere for more than a year or two. So you book a show, and it might be a long running show but it is so ingrained in us that the second you get into the show, you start looking for the next thing.

Pete: I feel like that's the exact opposite, in many ways, of what happens in organizations.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: That is fascinating. I feel like that's probably a whole separate episode.

Jen: Yeah, I'm sure there's something there. That is really wild to me.

Pete: Okay, the other two things I have been thinking about is the connection between how we talked about significance is inconvenient, and how we as human beings love convenience. I really thought that point he was making was so interesting. And this idea that he was ranting about (which I loved) was, you know, that modern meetings are broken. And I was just thinking about what I see almost every day, which is like within a corporation, a meeting that looks exactly like he described, which is on Zoom. Someone will present a slide deck, and everyone else will kind of fall into line and just listen for thirty minutes or an hour or whatever it is. And maybe there'll be time for questions at the end. But usually, it's just one person talking at a group, and away you go. And I was thinking, that is now so convenient for people, in terms of it's inconvenient to challenge that because it requires energy and effort and intention and risk and you trying something that might not work. And the reason that really hit me is I had got some really lovely feedback recently from a few general managers, which was something along the lines of...I'm paraphrasing, but it was like, "Your approach to a workshop and not having slides is really unique in the world we live in today." And I was kind of like, I was chuffed with the feedback but I was also like, "The bar is so low at the moment, isn't it?" Like, if you can create a conversation that is using breakouts, that is Socratic, that is like putting people on the hook to come up with an idea based on a prompt, and not use slides, that is considered like, "Oh, that was a refreshing unique experience. I felt tension. I felt part of it. I felt that was significant, because it was inconvenient and I actually had to contribute. But actually, it's so much better at creating change." So I was really obsessed with the link between like inconvenience, tension, and hosting meetings that aren't just one-way presentations but are actually (like the word he uses) conversations.

Jen: Wow, isn't that wild? That human connection is refreshing, and not the norm, and unique?

Pete: It's wild. Yeah.

Jen: Oh dear.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Managers who are listening to this, help.

Pete: But it's fascinating because it, I think so much of that happened during COVID where, to Seth's point, he thought Zoom was going to fix it because there's so much capability to create interactive conversations through breakouts, through chat, through Q&A. And yet...

Jen: And yet...

Pete: ...so many of us squandered that opportunity, and said, "Oh, there's a screenshare button. Let me share my screen." I feel like those words, "Let me share my screen," like they just make me shrivel up inside, every time.

Jen: Yep. Yes-sir-ee. Okay, Pete, I'm going to turn this conversation in a different direction.

Pete: Right.

Jen: We've been discussing some of the topics and points that came up that were part of the external conversation, but I would love to just dig into the internal conversation for a second because my experience recording that was kind of fascinating to me. So while we were recording with Seth, I was telling myself that I was completely inarticulate, that nothing I was saying was making sense.

Pete: Wow.

Jen: That I sounded crazy. I was just having like one of those moments where I was like, "Oh my god, I'm going to listen back to this and be like so embarrassed and not want to release it." You know, the demons inside were very loud. And then, on the heels of recording it, I went back and listened to it. And I was like, "Oh, it's fine."

Pete: Yeah, it was so fine. It was great.

Jen: I mean, I have notes for myself, like actual practical notes. But I didn't sound crazy, which I thought I did. And I didn't sound like a person who couldn't string a sentence together. And I have such admiration for Seth and his ability, he always comes in so calm and so gentle, and he is so articulate that I think my admiration for that made me assume that I couldn't possibly possess any of that myself. It was pretty wild.

Pete: That is why...I mean, I think all of the listeners and myself appreciate you sharing that, because what we hear in the way that you frame your questions and interact with Seth and do every episode with me is so clearly articulate and so obviously insightful. And yet, that's not the story you always tell yourself, which I think is just so human. Like, we often tell ourselves stories that are just completely contradictory to how other people are perceiving our reality. I think that's so helpful. Yeah. I mean, the feedback I would give to myself, on reflection listening back, was, "You don't have to mention that you caught up with Seth a year ago so many times." I feel like I was trying to use it as a way to build credibility and connection and demonstrate context for certain questions. But I was kind of just like, listening back, I'm like, "No one cares. Like, that's so irrelevant. Just ask the question. Just ask the question." You know? I feel like sometimes I was too much like, "Oh, when we were doing this, and we did this, and you said that." And sometimes it's helpful, but I think I did it far too many times.

Jen: It's so funny, that is the same feedback I have for myself, is, "Just ask the question, Jen. Just ask the question." Like, I had to do a full on-ramp before I could actually just say the thing that I wanted to know. So yes, I give myself that feedback too.

Pete: Yeah. Although, in hearing you say that though, I'm like, "No, I quite like the context you give." So maybe this is another example of the story we tell ourselves about the way we frame our questions is actually not the same as the story others tell. I mean, it could also be the fact that we've had two episodes in two-hundred-and-sixty where we've had a third person on the podcast, and both times that was Seth.

Jen: Right, right. We're like, "What do we do?

Pete: Yes. "What do we do with this third person?"

Jen: You know, the other thing that I recognize, in addition to the fact that I was talking in a higher pitch than I usually use and a little faster than I usually do, but the other thing that I was recognizing is that I think I was reluctant to offer any challenges to any of the ideas he was sharing. Now, in hindsight, I'm like, "Did I really have an authentic challenge to anything? Not really." But it's a great way to spark conversation, is to say, "But what about this? Or have you thought about this?" And I feel like that's something you and I do for each other. We agree with each other a lot, but we also don't always agree. And so listening back, that is a note I would give myself for the future, is, "Be brave enough to say, 'Well, have you considered this?'"

Pete: Love that. There's a couple of examples of this I've heard recently with Seth talking about his book (I'm going to put them in the Box O' Goodies), where the interviewer pushed back a little bit, of like, "Yeah, but how do I actually implement this with my team in my organization? Tell me how to actually do it." And it creates such a great conversation amongst the two of them, because they're like respectfully sparring about this idea of, he's like, "I buy it. I'm in. I'm catching what you're throwing, Seth. But I literally have a team meeting in like five hours. What do I do in that team meeting?" Like, he's like so specific and tactical in trying to get Seth to be on the hook for like, "Give me specifics."

Jen: Yeah. Yeah, I love that. I can't wait to listen to that. Well, I quite liked having a third person. I particularly like that it was Seth Godin, so not too shabby.

Pete: No, we did well.

Jen: And it'll be interesting to see, dear listeners, if ever there is another guest in the next two-hundred-and-sixty episodes of this podcast.

Pete: I will say to anyone who does do a guest show, I have so much respect and tip my hat to those of you, to organize logistically three of you or two of you every single week...

Jen: Oh my god.

Pete: I think you and I, part of the reason we've been able to go five years of podcasting...in fact, so much of the reason is that it's literally just you and I.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: And we kind of made that easy for ourselves, in that sense. So while I absolutely love having a third person on, and especially when it's someone of the caliber of Seth Godin, I also feel inclined to say if we did a guest show every week, I don't think we would still be going.

Jen: Oh, no way. Not a chance.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Not a chance.

Pete: So, hat tip to all those that are still going out there on guest podcasts. And who knows, maybe we'll start to get a few more guests on the show every now and then.

Jen: Yeah. Actually, I'm curious who the listeners would like to hear us talk to. If you have ideas...because legitimately, Pete and I have not bounced around ideas for other guests. Seth is just someone we both know. And so it makes a lot of sense, since he is the reason Pete and I know each other, that we would ask him. But I'd be very curious to hear who the listeners would like to hear a conversation with.

Pete: Definitely. Please send us an email: hello@thelongandtheshortpodcast.com. Who should we get on the podcast as guests? There's a fun challenge, a fun noodle, a fun provocation.

Jen: And for now listeners, in the words of Seth Godin, "Go make a ruckus."

Pete: And that is The Long and The Short Of It.