Lead With That: What the Writers’ Strike Can Teach Us About the Importance of Trust and Transparency

Interview Transcript

INTRO:  

Welcome back to CCL’s podcast, Lead With That, where we talk current events in pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

Ren:

On May 1st, TV and movie writers went on strike for the first time in 15 years, after months-long negotiations with film studios failed to create a new contract. The strike is a complex issue, like many strikes, involving power dynamics between the writers and the studios, negotiations between union reps and production companies, and the real potential for long-term impact on the entertainment industry as a whole.

Now, while the writers’ strike is primarily about fair treatment and compensation for workers, it also highlights, from a leadership perspective, broader concerns about workers’ rights, the importance of collective bargaining, and the future of work. So, this impacts more than just the TV and movies we watch. The outcome of the strike could have implications for other industries, the labor movement, and the ever-shifting landscape of what it means to lead in 2023 and beyond.

Now, for a lot of us, what happens in Hollywood is reserved for those “Hollywood types.” However, what’s going on in the Golden State right now is a lot closer to you than you might think. Today we’ll explore the 2023 writers’ strike, why it’s happening, how it’s evolved since the beginning of May, and what leadership has to do with it — and what you might be able to take away from this experience, even if you don’t live in LA.

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington. As usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, do you like Daniel Craig?

Allison:

I feel indifferent. I have to admit to you, when you said you were going to ask about Daniel Craig, I had to Google him because I could not remember who he was. Once seeing his face, I realized who he is. I am indifferent. What about you?

Ren:

Okay. Well, I mean, I love him in the Rian Johnson movies… what, Knives Out and Glass Onion, as our generation’s Poirot. But Daniel Craig, James Bond. I think it’s funny. I thought you might have to look up his face. Then, I thought, when you looked up Daniel Craig, I wondered what pictures would come up because, famously, Daniel Craig in his youth has that shot of him coming out of the ocean in small bathing suit bottoms. You’re welcome, listeners. But also, famously, he was James Bond during the writers’ strike that happened when his movie, Quantum of Solace… I don’t know. Did you ever watch any of his James Bond films?

Allison:

I didn’t. I’m not going to lie to you. But when we were preparing for this, or as I was preparing for this, I saw some interesting quotes from him regarding the writers’ strike. What was that? 2008? 2007? Something like that.

Ren:

Yeah.

Allison:

I suspect that’s where we’re going, maybe.

Ren:

Well, it’s interesting. Maybe I’m using that as context. For anyone who’s listening now and who either loves that movie or, weirdly, you might think, “Why do I not like that movie?” or anyone who can tap back into how many crazy things were going on in ’08, but that was when a writers’ strike that maybe we remember happened. It might be a sample of how this kind of thing impacts us. But I think, this time around, it might be different than a little movie or, rather, just one James Bond movie. There’s some other things that were impacted then. But do you remember the writers’ strike? Did you feel that or experience it at all?

Allison:

I don’t remember it. But I vaguely remember my oldest sister being upset about certain shows. I couldn’t tell you what those are off the top of my head.

Ren:

That’s fine.

Allison:

But I don’t remember it. I really don’t.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, now that you say that, I’m like, “Okay, so 15 years ago. Is that when it was?” I guess I was probably in my TV-watching prime 15 years ago. Well, how old was I? I guess I was in college. I must have been in college. Yes, just finishing. Anyway, I’m just channeling that thing about how old we might have been, and then what our TV experience looks like now. Because in 2023, I think the landscape looks entirely different.

Talking a little bit about who it was, when it happened, May 1st, the Writers Guild of America, that’s who went on strike, and that was about 11,000-plus film and TV writers. Up to now… And we’ll talk about this a little bit more. There’s a lot more players involved, like the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, TV and radio artists, Teamsters throughout LA. There’s a lot of players. But what happened was those folks got negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. I’m not going to say that the whole time. I’m going to call them the group. Sometimes you hear them referred to as “the studios.” But what we mean by that are Amazon, Apple, Disney, Warner Brothers, NBC, Netflix, Paramount, Sony. Hey, Allison, do you have any subscriptions to any of those production houses, I wonder?

Allison:

Well, yes, quite a few. Quite a few.

Ren:

Maybe.

Allison:

Do you?

Ren:

Yeah, I do. Somehow we’ve been able to stay away from Apple and Paramount, though my best friend in the world just gave me a Paramount link. No, he didn’t. That didn’t happen, everybody.

Allison:

Oh, busted.

Ren:

But I think if you like Yellowstone, well, I think, actually, that might be over. But these are the places that are affected. It’s going to be different than ’08 maybe when there were 3 big houses that were making TV. Now, there’s TV all over, and  it’s this premium television.

You’ve already experienced late-night television being affected right away. They’ve been doing reruns since May 2nd. If that’s your jam, you know you’re going to be experiencing that. Streaming and movies will be affected. But when we start to think a little bit around what people want, we start to explore a little bit more around why we care here. Allison, from your perspective, what do you think’s at stake here? Is this just people who shouldn’t complain, who are complaining?

Allison:

Well, that’s hard for me to say. As I understand it, writers are looking to be treated with fair employee conditions. So, that includes payment, of course, you already mentioned that as well as the retention of… Really, the writing profession is at risk in general in their eyes, as I understand it. Some of this relates to AI, of course, but not all of it.

Financially speaking, they’re asking for less than 2% of $1 billion. You do the math, less than 2%. Some of the picket signs, if you Google them, or on Twitter… Some of them are quite funny. But one of them says, “If one executive gave up one yacht, this would all be over.”

Again, I mean, I think it’s about being treated with fair employee conditions. Again, that does include payment. I think it’s probably worth noting that negotiation talks are private. We’re not hearing all the details. I’m trying to listen to both sides. And again, it’s worth noting that there are some things that AI cannot do yet. I know we’re not going to get into AI deeply. But AI is a small part of this as well. Have you seen the show Beef on Netflix?

Ren:

I haven’t yet. Though I’ve seen clips. People that I trust enjoy it. Have you?

Allison:

Same. I’ve seen clips. I think what people probably don’t know who are not in the industry… And I’m not in the industry… What the writers of that show recently talked about, a common occurrence in the entertainment world, which is the ability to change directions quickly while filming. It makes me think sometimes, too, about our job, Ren, in the classroom. Sometimes we have a plan. We have a pretty solid plan, but sometimes we shift quickly. In this specific example, the writers of Beef created a much more powerful ending to the show with the ability to make a shift that was last minute and unplanned. I think that ties a lot to the world of work. Part of the concern of the writers is that the ability to do that is being taken away. Some of their creative power.

Ren:

Right. Then, maybe even fair compensation —

Allison:

Yeah. Exactly.

Ren:

… for it. Because I think some of what you’re talking about is that, as I understand it, there was a negotiation factor on the point, like writers being allowed on set because what we’re really talking about is paying you for your time, and then people negotiating about, “Well, how much time do we really need to cut you in for?”

It’s interesting you talk about Beef, because I thought you were going to go with the angle that, similarly for Beef as an example, it seems like there’s a notorious example of this show that’s I think, what, Netflix-produced, that’s being heralded as this really interesting and impactful show that’s creative and fresh and new, which there are not a lot of new experiences like that. They’re doing red-carpet premieres for this, and then their writers can’t even afford to go. They’re barely being able to pay for rent.

It’s interesting, too, when you talk about a cast, of the continuum of a lot of different people because, I mean, at its core, what we’re talking about is a dispute around some of the explosion with streaming services and the effects, and then the erosion on writers’ pay and job security. Something you were alluding to. Now, that’s according to the Writers Guild. They’re saying that the pay has not kept up with the rapid pace of tech changes.

Now, admittedly, I was reading a Vanity Fair article. I think the average pay for someone in that realm or per project is 4,500 bucks a week. But when you hear that from an outsider, you might think, “Whoa, if that’s the average, then people are doing okay.” But you must know that there are people who are getting paid considerably less. Either way, I think you alluded to it, what does a fair cut look like?

Allison:

Right. If you just can put yourself in that position… I mean, this is to you, Ren, and to anyone who’s listening… and you imagine that you’re creating a product for a company or an individual or streaming… whatever. You’re creating a product. You are the one who’s creating that product. And your boss is making billions, with a B, billions of dollars, and you are making $4,500 a week. Yes, $4,500 a week is a very good chunk of money. So 2 things can be true at the same time. That is, for a lot of people, a good chunk of money. And … the point still remains that without them creating the product, how well — and that’s up for debate — how well is that industry going to survive? And is that fair? Is that fair for your boss, or a group of people, to be making… I don’t even know what that percentage growth would be off the top of my head, but that’s exponential. That’s unreasonable when you are the one creating the product.

Ren:

Yeah. I think that’s a really valid point. I’m contributing to your yacht. And then, we get into that debate of, “Well, you wouldn’t have the money to buy a yacht if not for my creation.” “Well, creators, you wouldn’t have a place to put your creation if not for my production.” There’s an interesting tension in there. I’d be interested in exploring the debate. But what I do know very plainly is that since 2018, the inflation-adjusted pay for screenwriters has fallen 14%. That’s according to the Writers Guild. But I don’t think it’s contested. Certainly, for writer-producers, pay has sunk 23%, as opposed to where it would comparably be as rates have raised.

It’s that age-old adage. I know those who are listening have heard this, “Do more with less.” Or somehow, because you’ve been effective and your pay at a certain level has reaped benefits, we might even be exploring, “Well, congratulations, you’ve done a lot with your budget, and you saved money.” We know what happens, Allison. “No, you don’t get to keep that money for next year. We know that you can do it now with less, so we’re going to trim your budget,” which then encourages weird practices of, as we know it, what we do with the budget on the end.

Now, that might be a different conversation. But from a basic level, I think when we explore this, as you all are trying to make sense of what’s going on, does it make sense for an organization or an industry to keep up with inflation and pay at a commensurate level? I think maybe. That’s what’s at stake.

Allison:

Yeah. All of this gets me thinking about polarity thinking or paradoxes in the workplace, which is, for those of you who’ve never heard the term polarity, it’s an obstacle that seems to be ongoing and does not have a direct solution. If you talk about inflation, companies can’t control… our boss or our CEO cannot control inflation. He can’t. I wish he could. It’s a response to a problem that may or may not have more than one answer. And it doesn’t have a direct solution.

That’s not what we’re dealing with right now. I think we can all agree that we’re still in disrupted times from the start of the pandemic, which was in 2020. It feels like it was so long ago. But things don’t just magically rebound. We’re still feeling the impact of that, and workplaces are too.

I heard an interview with Matt — I think you say his last name Belloni or Belloni — who talked about the writers wanting to create new rules and norms given the changing work world. I think that’s something to look at. If we, again, scale that away from the writers’ strike, organizations are having to do this constantly, given the shake-up of the pandemic. Years ago, I think leaders would agree on a strategy and focus on it relentlessly, and growth would be the primary focus. But there are downsides to a growth-only focus. You get a bloated  infrastructure, cost overruns, inefficiencies, etc. Then, the pendulum shifts the other way, where people just focus on cut, trim, “We’ve got to be more efficient. Do more with less,” et cetera. I think that’s where a lot of companies are living today, in the cut-cut-cut space, where the focus can be on both growth and efficiency. It’s like, “How can we do both of these things?”

Ren:

What you’re talking about, too, is that… What I love about the polarity management thinking is the natural ebb and flow between the two. You’re talking about the cut-cut-cut phase, or what are we going to reduce? We’re going to trim that intellectual capital, or we’re going to lean into extraction capital. We’re going to look at our writers and be like, “There’s a million of you. We’ll get more. We’re not worried about it. We’re going to pay you less.” And then, what happens is that the system responds. We get an echo. It doesn’t just go like, “Okay, we’ll respond and we’ll go back to the norm.” It’s like the reverse happens, and the pendulum swings hard the other way.

And then, what we’re seeing here… that started with the writers. And now, it’s the actors. And now, it’s the directors. And now, it’s television radio artists and 6,500 Teamsters from the local 399. I mean, this has become a really interesting game of chicken, where production is so interesting.

I just wish I was in boardrooms, because they have things in the can, right? So leadership has an interesting opportunity. The highest reaches of them have to say, “How long is my vision? I’ve got a 5-year/10-year/15-year timeline. And we know that we’ve likely got one or 2 years of things already produced that we’re able to refine.” Because, currently, writers and editors, or writers… they can’t engage in certain work. But editing and things that are already in process… those can be finished. And there’s already things that are done. There are movies that are going to be coming out soon that have been in the can, as we say, finished and just waiting, for a while.

I wonder. The other polarity is for leadership of these studios, how are they managing short-term gains or short-term pain for long-term wins, and, I think, what were some of the numbers? The Writers Guild is saying from the current contract that they’re asking for $429 million more a year. The studio countered with $86 million more a year. Now, you look at an organization or those studios and think about… is this worth it? Are these games of chicken or negotiation going to pay off, or are we going to see this whole industry say, “Let’s see how long we can stick it out”?

Allison:

Yeah, it’s tricky. What is the date today? Today’s May 26th. I’ve tried to keep up with the news about this. I looked this morning to see if there are any new updates. The latest and greatest says this could go on a lot longer than expected. I don’t even know what that means. It said well past summer. A game of chicken, indeed.

I think what people may or may not realize is the impact that it will have, again, on people like you and I, people who are not in the industry. It’s going to impact all of us in the economy. And where do you go from here? If you’re a company, where do you go from here? I mean, that’s a question we probably won’t answer. But you asked at the beginning of this episode if these people had the right to complain. Again, knowing what I know, which is not everything, I think yes. They’re arguing for fair standards at the workplace. I think that’s an okay thing to argue for.

What’s interesting to me, and curious to me, is that I wonder if the groups that you mentioned are relying on the fact that people will become so desperate for work that they’ll just cave eventually. Because in the economy in which we live, you have to work. You need money to work. I mean, you need money to survive, rather, is what I meant to say. So I wonder if that’s where we’re headed.

Ren:

I think leadership in these big places are absolutely relying on a culture and a society and an economic environment that requires those who can’t afford to live to work. Sure, I mean, because it’s interesting, you said earlier, the writer says, “Sell your yacht. We could squash this.” The guy’s like, “Let me sell my yacht, and I can live and feed my family for the next three generations. What are you going to do, writers?” Now, that is me being a cynic, maybe. I can only hope, and I really do hope that there’s these real conversations of what fair compensation looks like. Maybe more polarities is that ebb and flow between… Look, I understand that movie producers played a role, and still play a role, about helping creators and creatives get their word out there. It is an important polarity match. It’s got to be a symbiotic relationship.

What I’m concerned about… And I think this is where we can zoom into your experience, listener, as we review on what’s our leadership lesson, is that there has to be a natural symbiosis between you as leader or you as part of leadership and the people who are to be led. We talk about this all the time: If you’re leading and no one’s following, then you’re simply going for a walk. Now, sure, if that’s what you want to do, but I think part of what we need to be observing for what can we take away from this is, if you’re looking around at your labor force and you’re thinking about gambling with their time or their values, you might find that there’s a shift in the general environment, where more and more people are uniting behind this idea of what real fair treatment looks like, holistic treatment, and then the impact on that long-term … pleasure of the audience? I don’t know.

Allison:

Entertainment? I don’t know. I mean, it’s a cultural thing, too, in our country, at least. It’s part of our culture, like,  this movie watching and, “Hey, did you see Stranger Things?” You’re telling me I got to wait for Stranger Things now? I love that show! That’s a problem of privilege. I acknowledge that. So, it will impact us in that way and other ways.

You mentioned, too… Now, allow me to be cynical for a moment… the person who could sell their yacht and feed their family for three generations. They could give away their yacht. They don’t even have to sell it. I don’t know that people understand the difference between a couple of million and a billion dollars. The gap between millions and, B, billions is so much bigger than we can even comprehend. You’re not going to get there. You’re not going to get there. It is such a small percentage of people. These people have boundless wealth. Boundless! A million might feel like a feasible goal for some people, but actually maybe not for a lot of people. But for the people who think that a million is feasible, that’s an attainable goal. You’re not going to get to a billion. You’re not going to. You and I are not going to.

Ren:

What?

Allison:

I know. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

Ren:

Damn it.

Allison:

Elon Musk might pick you to be his buddy.

Ren:

Oh, good wealth management.

Allison:

My point is the difference there. It is when you consider leadership who’s unwilling to budge, who has the resources that are unimaginable for most people. And you think about, like you mentioned, seamstresses are involved, people who make sets. There are so many more people who are involved who probably live paycheck to paycheck. As a leader, I would consider… not that any of our billionaires are listening, but you never know. What are you doing with your leadership? Are you leading, or are you hoarding? Because there’s difference. There’s difference there.

Ren:

Well, sheesh. I don’t know if we have time for that.

Allison:

I know. I just took us —-

Ren:

But I do love it. I couldn’t agree with you more. I do. I think as we start to then approach this from what’s happening from the guild area… And then, some other lessons that we can take away as listeners is this idea of coalition building and continuing to explore that juxtaposition of that big gap between billions and millions because, A, I think you’re absolutely right. Anyone watching from the outside… It’s hard to really fathom what a billion looks like. I think you can do that. You can count to a million seconds in whatever many days, but a billion seconds takes however many years. I think that maybe gives you a tiny glimpse of just the gap in those things.

I think, then, if you even are able to conceptualize how big a billion is, you can feel so small and tiny. I feel like that’s what people who work for organizations feel like. Small and tiny. But coalition building, this idea of getting a group of people together and saying, “Hey, if enough of us can unite, we can create some influence.”

Now, when we talk about influence in the workspace, we talk about effective tactics for influence. And sometimes coalition building can be a little bit shaky. It’s like a well I don’t want to go to too often. “Hey, do this because we said,” as opposed to maybe relying on some other things. But, in this instance, when we’ve got the entire industry or the entire group, not only the writers, but then the people who would act out the writing, but not only those people but those who would dress the actors, and then the people who would build the sets for the actors to stand on, for which they’d be written for, and then the directors to organize it… All of these people are saying, “We’re going back to the table and reevaluating this.” That’s a dynamic force to be reckoned with. If you’re in a position to advocate for something, maybe think about how many people are involved with your advocacy and how many more people might be involved.

Allison:

Yeah. If I can scale this down, too, to smaller workplaces, there’s always somebody, if not a handful of people, who have their finger on the pulse of what’s going on in the organization. There’s always those people who employees just trust and they go to. And oftentimes, leaders can be out of touch for various reasons. Sometimes the reason is geographic. Sometimes it’s unintentional. A lot of times, I think, it’s unintentional.

And so, how can companies get ahead of trends? How can companies and leaders listen to their people before things get out of hand? Not every company’s going to have their employees go on strike, of course. But turnover — again, simplifying this — turnover costs companies billions of dollars. How can you create an environment at the workplace where people are free to share their experience with you, so that you, as a leader, especially if you’re geographically dispersed, you can understand and really know the unspoken things that are happening on your team and in your organization before it gets out of hand. That’s a loaded question, I suppose. Maybe we can get into it next time. But what do you think, Ren?

Ren:

Yeah. How one can be tapped into that, is the question? Well, I think it may start with just believe what you’re hearing. So often, I think leadership and organizations, they compartmentalize. They engage in cognitive dissonance. They look at something and go, “Well, no, it can’t possibly be that bad,” or, in the best of states, which I think is, really, what happens a lot, leaders look at their intent, as we all do, and it’s like, “No, that wasn’t my intent. Therefore, the impact that you’re saying is happening couldn’t possibly be happening. You all are just interpreting it the wrong way.”

I guess the fastest way to make those walls between that part of the organization and anyone lower more transparent would be to hear something, believe it, and then say, “Well, what can I do?” without feeling defensive. But let me hear something in the idea that we’re here to be better together. In service of that, if I could solve this, could this be a better place for you to work? If it is, then are you going to work harder? Yes. Research tells us this is so. That’s probably my early answer.

Allison:

Yeah. A rhetorical question that we don’t need to get into, unless you have the answer, Ren, is I’m always curious why it’s people’s first response to not believe the experience of others. That’s at the workplace and otherwise too. “Well, that probably wasn’t that bad.” Why is it people’s first response to question the lived experiences of others? I don’t really know. I’m sure that’s complicated.

What we’re talking about is creating a culture of trust, creating a culture of psychological safety, which, interestingly enough, has been in organizational research for many, many years.

And I have found that some leaders in organizations are hesitant to consider that as any part of the solution. I think because they see it as “touchy-feely,” or they see it as just too hard. I’ve had a leader say to me once, “I’m not here to be someone’s therapist.” Well, developing trust in an organization is not therapy. Maybe you should go to therapy. I don’t know. But that’s not the same thing. The interpersonal part of leadership is so crucial. Of course, back to polarities, you can’t only have that part. You have to have the tactical, of course. But I think right now, a lot of what I’m seeing is a lot of organizations are maybe over-emphasizing on the tactical part and not so much on the interpersonal.

Ren:

You know what? If you’re listening, wherever your center of gravity is, here’s a challenge for you. Just try one thing on the other end. Just once. So many leaders that I work with… I suggest them to try something that we talk about at CCL that we’ve researched for 50 years. They go, “Ren, that’s not going to work in my case.” I’m like, “Maybe. But I promise you, you won’t even find out if you don’t try.” If you’re in that tactical or in the soft space, I would just encourage someone to just pick a space and try. I think when we think about our cultures of trust, too, and maybe, too, how we can get involved or tap into what the “no” is, there is that opportunity to make sure that we’re really having open communication about what we care about and how those values align.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Yeah, go ahead.

Allison:

I was going to say I love that. The question is, is what you’re doing working? How is it working? And just trying it. I understand that sometimes it can feel like you have a brick wall. Trying something new… you just automatically feel like it’s not going to work. I understand that. And try it. Try and see. If it doesn’t work, okay. Next strategy.

Ren:

Yeah, the only thing that inaction guarantees is the status quo. That’s just a truth. I don’t care what you’re going towards. If you don’t do anything, nothing’s going to change. That’s what I wonder if these “leaders”… and I’m doing air quotes, my favorite thing, listeners.

But this guy, Zaslav… I think David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery. If you have HBO Max, you don’t anymore because it’s Max. I’ll mention what’s more of that in a minute. I think he’s an example of the values thing gone too far, like another polarities thing to manage, because at one point, early in the strike, he was saying, “I think this is going to be over early.” It’s almost like he was doing a COVID prediction. “Ah, it’ll be done in a couple of weeks.” He said, “I think the love for the business and the love for working will bring people back.”

He was like, “We came into this business because we love storytelling. We want to entertain. And when we’re at our best, we get a chance to have an impact on the culture.” You’d think, “Wow. What an inspirational guy. He’s really cycling in and challenging. That’s what we’re here to do.” I’m like, “Yeah, not if I’m a writer eating ramen on a hot plate.” You’re David Zaslav, I think, whose bonus last year was almost akin to what he’s offering the Writers Guild. You’re like, “Okay, guy, that sounds tone-deaf and manipulative.” Be wary of using values because you know… “Well, they care about that. I’ll pretend I care about it too.”

Allison:

Again, somehow find a way to put yourself in the shoes of others. Perspective-taking is everything. Maybe you can’t pay them billions of dollars. That’s actually not even what they’re asking for, frankly.

Ren:

No.

Allison:

They’re asking for a fair share. They’re asking for their work to be compensated based on all the things you already mentioned, Ren, external variables and internal variables. So, take a minute. Try to put yourself in the shoes of others. That can be very, very helpful at the workplace, especially if you are a leader too.

And, I mean, I think when organizations are struggling through major change, maybe crisis… And I’m talking about general responses to the pandemic, not necessarily what’s going on with the writers’ strike. But workplaces have changed over the past 3 years. You and I have talked about that so much. The workplaces have changed. And this requires a certain level of objectivity and a willingness to yield if you’re in a leadership position. And a letting go of, dare I say, “I am right. I’m the leader. I’m right,” that type of style of leadership.

You mentioned a key takeaway that our listeners can do already, which is try something new. What got us here is probably not going to get us there, so we need to try something new. I think another question leaders and decision-makers can ask themselves, too, is, “How can we have both?” Or what are the benefits of having both? Really, taking a hard look at, “Okay, my people are asking for X. Does that mean I have to give up Y? Can we have both?” and taking a hard look at both of those sides before you make a decision or a snap judgment.

Ren:

100%. The answer is yes. It may not be all the time or in every single instance. But the reality of it is if… I’m always cautious of way too definitive of an answer. However, I gave you an unequivocal yes, didn’t I, listener? How about that paradox?

But what I mean to say is that… really explore it. If your first reaction is, “No, it won’t work,” then I would encourage you to investigate why your first reaction is, no, it won’t work. In the very least, be able to articulate it. And I think the more often that we can come together and just articulate our points of view without animus, without anger, without fear, without rejection, but just come to the table and say, “Look, can we just surface our point of view so we can really be honest about what is potentially available to us? What is our potential?” I think there’s so much more to be elevated. And as a leader in an organization, cultivating someone’s discretionary effort is worth it.

Allison:

Absolutely.

Ren:

People want to work, and people work hard. If you give them something to work hard for, I think it’s well worth hiring someone new and training someone new to do it.

Allison:

Yes. And you make me think of the 6 most dangerous words of a leader, which are, “We’ve always done it that way.” We’ve always done it that way. Well, things have been shaken up, so you can’t lean on that anymore. Again, it’s that polarity again. It doesn’t mean you need to let go and get rid of the things that we have done that have worked, or that you have done. It might mean what can we add or shift with the traditions that we have.

I think it’s a good mindset shift to consider how can we have both. I don’t know, Ren. I think that’s probably a good place for us to end. We’ve given our listeners a couple of different things. And all of this, when you simplify it to the workplace, reveals that a mindset shift needs to occur in order to be in response to the dramatic changes that are happening in the work world now.

Thanks again for the great conversation, Ren. And thanks to our listeners for tuning in. Find us on LinkedIn. Find us on our social channels. Tell us what you think. Tell us what you want us to talk about. A big thank you to Emily and Ryan, who work very hard behind the scenes to get our podcast up and running. We look forward to tuning in next time. Thanks, everyone.