How to Earn Trust With Three Words Everyone Avoids | Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson

If you're not saying, I don't know, several times a day, you're not paying attention. And when we say, I don't know, it unlocks the room. It's refreshing. You're building trust. The most successful teams probably look the messiest during the how. The only mistake we make is thinking we shouldn't make mistakes. We would so much rather be right than wrong. And then we have this risk because of that, because of that programming. We don't celebrate sloppy work. We don't celebrate failing to put in the effort, but we We must celebrate disappointing results in new territory.

Think of the last meeting where you had something to say and didn't. Nobody noticed. Nothing changed. That small silence is what my guest has spent her life studying. Amy Edmondson is a professor at Harvard Business School, ranked the number one management thinker in the world, and the person who gave us the phrase, psychological safety. It sounds simple. It changed everything about how we understand teams. Sure. When Google discovered that it was the single most important factor in our best teams, her research landed on my desk. My work became translating it into Google's culture, from a study into something leaders actually do on a Monday morning. Some of it worked, some of it didn't, which is exactly what we talk about today, because her newest book, Right Kind of Wrong, is about failure and not the kind we usually mean. One more thing. I'm standing here in a geodesic dome in the Redwoods.

Ah, yes.

There is no single beam holding it up, so no single failure can bring it down. Amy's very first job was working for the man who made that shape famous. And I don't think that's a coincidence. Today, Amy brings the science. I bring the stories from inside Google and from some of the German national soccer— German National Soccer Association. You bring the thing you've been afraid to try as a listener. Because here is what I've learned. The future you want is one the other side of a few mistakes you haven't made yet, not the careless kind, the kind you choose. And if you want to create a better future, You have to become someone who can be wrong and keep going. This hour is about how. That is The Future Is How. Let's practice it together. Amy, welcome.

Thank you so much. What a marvelous introduction. And indeed, I am not as observant as I should be because I failed to notice that very dear, important structure, very dear in my history. And I think you're absolutely right. It's not a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence. So let's talk a little bit about that. So I built this dome 3 months before the pandemic with a couple of friends, and it's supposed to be a guest house, right? And then the world closed, and for a whole year, not a single guest arrived, right? So I worked from here instead. It turned out to be the best place I've worked from here in a little forest. So nothing about the plan survived and something better showed up anyway. I think about that a lot, and I think you have a name for it.

Intelligent failure?

Yes, absolutely right. So what is intelligent failure?

So intelligent failure is essentially being wrong in new territory. And an intelligent failure is a disappointing result where the following 4 things are true. Number 1, it's genuinely new. You couldn't have just asked a friend, how do you do this? You know, gotten the recipe. Number 2, it's in pursuit of a goal. You're trying to get better at something or trying to innovate or trying to make progress in your life. And number 3, you have good enough reason to believe it might work, right? It's a hypothesis that you've done your homework. And number 4, the failure is not devastating, right? It's no— might be emotionally devastating, but it's not financially or from a human safety point of view or reputational point of view any larger than necessary to bring the new information. Now, that might sound complicated or too many criteria, but it's essentially being wrong in new territory and nobody likes it, right? We would so much rather be right than wrong. And then we have this risk because of that, because of that programming that we're reluctant to try new things. So we're reluctant and then we don't do the things we need to do to make progress.

Let's talk about the emotional side of that later, I think, in the podcast, which is very interesting. I want to stay a little bit in that structure that Buckminster Fuller was actually creating. So what did Buckminster Fuller say to you that you still hear maybe in your head?

Well, it's funny. One of the things he used to say was, the only mistake we make is thinking we shouldn't make mistakes, which is so apropos to our conversation. But I think what I'm most left with, the sensibility I'm left with that I simply can't shake is systems thinking. He was just a perennial systems thinker. If you do this to cause that, yes, that might be true, but what are the downstream consequences and where might that come back to create unintended harm over the longer term? So he was always stepping back, stepping back and out and looking at the largest possible view of a situation, not in a way that crippled action, but in a way that made for more thoughtful action. So he was kind of the original, I mean, he wasn't the original systems thinker, but in my own career, he was the person who clued me into the need for systems thinking while describing constantly what he called design science. He said that the science of design, that our beautiful brains, he said, are to be used to design things and experiences and systems that make life better for others going forward. That's why we're here, he said. And I can't shake that mission, right? I have not done a very good job of living up to it, but it is the mission.

So what can someone who listens learn from Buckminster Fuller when, you know, he has this mission to really design things that make life better, right? I think that's such a wonderful, beautiful mission that probably everybody should have in their lives, right? Like, do something that makes your life better and other people's lives better.

And we call that purpose in companies today. And indeed, it matters. If your organization does not have a clear purpose for making things better, whether it's just the lives of customers or society or the world in some way, Get out of the way. Your purpose cannot be simply making money or eventually someone will replace you who has a sort of more compelling purpose. But the insight that I think we all know but easily forget is the whole is more than the sum of the parts. He talked a lot about synergy, synergy being the property of whole systems that can't be predicted by even the most careful dissection of the parts. It's the relationships between parts that best account for the behavior of whole systems. And in organizations, that's often the relationships between people, but also the relationships between various, you know, policies and operating systems that need to sync up, right, that need to work together for things to go as hoped.

I want to start with the reason you're actually here. I don't know if you remember, but a year and a half ago, I invited you, and you sent me the most disciplined no I've ever received. You said, Not now, I'm at capacity, even for the things that sound like fun. I just love that no, right? It was such a good one, and I showed it to my wife, and I showed it to others as well. So I waited.

Thank you.

And when I came back this summer, I asked again differently, and you said, let's make it happen. So 2 questions I have for you. Is saying no a way of failing well?

Yes, I think so. Had not put it that way before, but saying no, well, saying no is indeed a way of failing well because you're, it is a small failure, right? It was a failure on my part not to be able to do what you were wanting me to do. And yet by being willing to engage in that failure, I had at least a better hope of succeeding on the things I'd already committed to doing, which You know, nothing takes zero energy or time. So, and time is the one thing we know for sure is finite. So yes, it was a way of failing well, but it's also, and everybody knows this, saying no is part of how you say yes to the things you have decided are your priorities.

So what made this one a yes? Why did you say yes this time?

First, I'm very passionate about the question of how. And I think we don't put enough attention into the how, into the actual processes through which the results we want are built. And there's too much effort on single lever solutions that, oh, just get the purpose right and everything will be fine. Or Pay people the right amount, they'll be happy in their job, right? None of those single-item solutions never work. So I was intrigued by the notion that we really dig into the how. And I think the how is collective, right? The how is, there's no how that individuals can just execute on their own. More and more, the really important problems that we need to solve are need— they need a team, right? They need people working together to solve them. They need a diversity of experiences and expertise. To solve them. And then I think also I do have a very deep debt to Google for Project Aristotle, which I had nothing to do with, as you know. But the fact that one day, 10 years ago, I woke up and took the New York Times off the front porch and saw that it was the annual work issue in the magazine of that publication. And I always enjoy the work issue because that's what I do. I study work. And lo and And lo and behold, there's this headline that really took me aback because it said, what Google learned in its quest to build the perfect team. And it said there's sort of new insights about teams. And I just thought, oh, this is my field and now I've been scooped by Google and this is really terrible. And anyway, you know the rest of the story. It was that in fact, with such a systematic and thoughtful study led by your colleague, I guess, Julia Rozovsky, the data said, no, it's psychological safety, right? Many other factors matter too, but that was by far and away the most important, she wrote. And it was the underpinning. I loved that word that she used, the underpinning of the others, the clarity of goal and so on. And First of all, that was a stunning surprise, but second and more relevant to the saying yes is that put my research on the map of— I mean, academics were following it and citing it, but not that many practitioners. Some coaches, some wonderful people in HR, some thoughtful people around the world, many in healthcare, but suddenly everybody wanted to know more about it.

Let's dive into the how a little bit more. How do innovative, successful, effective teams actually work? And what's the number one thing people get wrong about what makes a team successful and innovative, right?

Right. I mean, I suppose the number one thing they get wrong is thinking that success looks smooth and predetermined. I think the most successful teams probably look the messiest. During the how, right? The process, the conversations are likely to have the most debate and conflict. They're likely to be reporting the most failures and problems and false starts that didn't work out. So they will look like they're in trouble, but they will be in fact doing something meaningful, important, which is discovering what works. So I think psychological safety, I think that the reason why this emerges as an attribute of successful teams is that it roughly means permission for candor, right? It roughly means you feel able to do the hard work of telling the truth about the mistakes that you've made, the wacky ideas that you want to share and worry. In many situations, you'd worry that you'd be embarrassed. You can ask for help. When you're not sure what to do, right? So it's this enormous directness and candor and speaking up, but it's also a sense of mutual ownership for the work and the goals, right? So psychological safety is like taking your foot off the brakes, the ordinary brakes that hamper effective teams. And maybe that sense of psychological ownership or the motivation or the belief that what we're doing matters, That's the fuel that's driving the car. And you need both. You need that fuel, and you need your foot off the brakes.

I love that metaphor of we need the fuel and the foot off the brakes, right? I saw this at Google over and over again. The leader understood everything and still couldn't say, I don't know, in front of the team, right? So what words would you give that leader for tomorrow's meeting? Because that's something where, in my work, I needed to help these leaders to really kind of step up and As you said, take the foot off the brakes, right?

Funniest thing about that, and I found it to be true, and we can probably recognize it in ourselves as well. It's hard to say, I don't know. There's so many cultural pressures and pressures from your upbringing and schooling that lead you to believe in a kind of a deep way that saying, I don't know, makes you look weak or stupid. Think about the people who do say it. They actually look confident and honest and likable. And especially today, you know, maybe if it was 100 years ago when most people could know just about everything, you know, but, but in today's hyper-specialized world, if you're not saying, I don't know, several times a day, you're not paying attention, right? Because Clearly you don't know. You can't possibly have heard the latest thing on this, that, or the other story or the other scientific discovery or you name it. So we should be, and when we say, I don't know, it unlocks the room. It's refreshing. You're building trust because it's so clearly honest and so clearly legitimate. Of course you don't know. And so, I mean, it's disarming. When leaders realize that they can answer a question, I don't know. Let's see what we can do to find out. And then suddenly, like, there's more energy in the room as a result of that simple response.

And so going even beyond I don't know, admitting that something didn't work out, right, I think is something not a lot of people can do, especially if you're in a leadership position. So at Google X, we created a day called the Day of the Dead, where we celebrated things that actually died in that metaphorical way of like, that didn't work out, that project, that initiative, that technology, whatever it was. And it was important to celebrate it together, like the Day of the Dead, where you let go of your ancestors, right? People that left. People stepped forward and put their business plans, their ideas on Post-it notes, their prototypes, whatever it is, into a big coffin. And then, you know, that coffin was actually burned, right? And people were in tears. Sometimes they were hugging each other. And it was a beautiful ritual that really kind of like helped to let go, right? Which is such an important thing because if you let go, you open up for the next, for the new, right? You say like, okay, I'll take what I've learned and put that to work in another project or in a new project. So how do these cultural rituals kind of like help us to Celebrate failure, right, in a way that we all don't want to make mistakes, right? That's for sure. But when they happen, right, we can together, we can come together and celebrate that.

We don't celebrate sloppy work. We don't celebrate failing to put in the effort, but we must celebrate disappointing results in new territory. We must, or else 2 bad things will happen. First, people won't take risks again. Right? Because then let's just do safe stuff. Well, that's a road to nowhere. And 2, it is emotionally hard and disappointing. So we need the sort of the social support of saying, great learning. And these rituals, I mean, I'm a fan of all of these kinds of rituals, but a ritual like the one you just described is a profound reframe. Instead of saying, oh, we failed, we stink, we're saying, we learned and we were smart enough and disciplined enough to stop it when intellectually it became clear it wasn't going to work. And because that's reducing the failure of throwing good money after bad, and most organizations don't do a good job of that, right? There's a point in the project where people start to realize, this one's not going to make it. Now, fast forward 2 months, now we're going to cancel it, right? Those 2 months were wasted resources, most painfully of human resources of people who could have been redeployed to the next great experiment.

So I want to share another ritual that I find interesting for people probably to try out in their own organization, and that is the Penguin Award. I introduced that when working with a team that showed exactly what you described. They didn't take any risks anymore, right? They wanted to play it safe because they didn't want to make any big mistakes, right? And so, um, I introduced the Penguin Award, and the Penguin Award was inspired by, um, a trip I took on a, uh, on a ship called the Entrepreneurship. That's a name I didn't come up with. That's a colleague of mine at Stanford. Oh, wow. Yeah. And, uh, So the Entrepreneurship Ship, we were taking 60 students from Stanford and 40 students from Chile to literally sail to the end of the world and teaching classes on prototyping, on entrepreneurship, and so forth. But the thing that happened is we saw penguins, right? And when you see penguins, it's just that you're in that awe, right? Like looking at that colony and like, you know, they're so cute and all these things. But we noticed something, and that is there's always one penguin jumping first into the water. It's the courageous penguin, right? And the rest of the colony, they're looking and like looking very carefully if that penguin comes back up again with either finding food or becoming food, right? Oh. And so when that happens, you know, the rest of the penguins jump into the water as well if, you know, they see like, oh, there's some food, or they stand back if there's like a predator or something like that. So we took that from nature and applied it into the organization, said like, okay, there is somebody in the team that takes a risk, right? And we need to reward that person. So we bought a $2 kind of like stuffed penguin animal, and we handed it out to the person that takes a small risk, right? Try something new. And that became kind of like a biweekly ritual where we kind of like announced the Penguin Award. We invited that person, and we mentioned like what they actually did. at the beginning of a project, right, when they took the risk. And that became a thing because we saw that more and more people wanted to have that Penguin Award. So, the risk-taking was actually increasing. And so, I think that's a little ritual that doesn't cost you anything, but that really helps people to feel recognized for taking risks, right, and getting that award.

Nice. Sorry, that's how you change the culture, right? Those little, it's, Ed Shein talked about culture as existing on 3 levels, right? Where artifacts, behaviors, and then shared basic assumptions. And the artifacts aren't the most important thing, but they are important and they help create that behavior of acknowledging a risk-taker. And then that starts to slowly reshape the shared basic assumptions about whether that's okay or not.

And I think everybody in organizations can think of those rituals, right? Think of those rituals around what is the value I want to activate, right? Like, is it risk-taking? Is it courage? Is it innovation, creativity? All of those values that sound so big, but can be translated into a small ritual and with an artifact, as you described, kind of like can be really made visible as well across the organization. The second ritual I wanna share.

Yeah, teamwork, kindness. I mean, you could imagine if there's so much emphasis nowadays on sort of individualism and everybody's trying so hard to do their own thing and get their own thing done. But if you start to reward, I mean, if you created one of these to reward sort of these These little acts of support and kindness and helping others, and, you know, it would increase the collaborative spirit, I imagine.

Absolutely, yes. Another one that we worked on with the German Soccer Association, it's the biggest association in Germany with volunteers that all are very passionate about soccer, obviously, right? And so the organization was basically using a metaphor from soccer, which is you're shooting an own goal, right? You are, you know, that happens. You know, it might be not your intention, right? Exactly. That's the oops. Oops. But we translated that into a thing in teams where whenever a mistake happens, they would actually write to their team an email, and in the subject line, it would state, own goal, right? So, they would explain like, hey, you know, sorry that happened. This is what I've learned from that failure, right? And it's such a good way of just admitting that something happened because everybody will probably eventually see that, you know, you are responsible for that. But if you admit it in the first place, I think that's a good way of building culture.

It really is. And In my typology, I would label that an own goal as a basic failure, right? Or sometimes complex failure, but it's a basic failure in that you actually do know which goal is yours, right? And it's a mistake, right? It's a classic mistake that you wish you hadn't made it, but we all do it. We all have mistakes and basic failures. And so the quicker you own it, Name it, apologize for it, and say what you learned from it, the better off not only you are, but everyone else as well.

So how can anyone bring psychological safety into maybe their own life, maybe even in their families, right? What's the smallest thing someone could try this week?

I think the smallest thing, I mean, you can set out to, we just are no longer in a world where our line of sight is long. So because of uncertainty, that means you're going to be constantly taking small risks and often being wrong. So reminding yourself that that's okay is what I call framing or reframing the reality, the situation, the work. But I think the most positive act behavior that you can engage in to change the psychological safety of others And then I think by implication, yours is get in the habit of asking good questions. Now, this is what you're doing. You know, that's what you do in a podcast. You ask good questions. And I promise you, I couldn't even begin to just sit here quietly and not answer, right? When you've asked a question, it would be so awkward. So the same is true in your life. If you just resolve to ask, one or two really good questions today of others, you will likely be surprised at the positive benefits to you and to them, that you will learn something, that you will hear something that you hadn't seen coming. You will learn something new. You know, you will show interest in someone else's thoughts, which is an incredible gift. And a good question is one that is open-ended, but not, hey, how's it going? More like, Ooh, what are you hearing from customers? Or tell me something fun you did this weekend, or whatever. It's a question that gives people space to respond and indicates that you are interested in what they have to say and indicates that you are interested in what they have to say.

Beautiful. So I keep trying my best to ask good questions. And you do.

You're succeeding.

Great. So, Amy, your book says there are 3 kinds of failures, and you described 2 already, the basic one and The intelligent one. The third one is complex. And I'm going to give you some real situations, some from my life, some that probably people can relate to. And you tell us which kind it is and what the person should do next.

Okay.

You ready?

Yes.

Great. So imagine you speak up in a meeting and it lands badly. The room goes quiet.

That's an intelligent failure. You've never been in that exact moment before. Presumably you're speaking up with, because people don't speak up, people often worry about speaking up. So if you're speaking up, you've probably decided it matters. You have a hypothesis in your head that this could add value to the conversation and oops, you were wrong. You took a small risk in new territory with a goal and wasn't comfortable, but The failure was no bigger than necessary to get you to that point. So keep it up.

Great. Imagine you start something new, a language, you learn a language, an instrument, a habit, and quit after 3 weeks. We've all been there, I guess.

At first glance, that sounds like a basic failure to me because it's pretty clear that the program requires you to keep going to get better at that instrument or that language. But there's a possibility that it's complex, Because I don't know whether maybe you got a bad diagnosis or someone in your family did, or you lost your job or something else might've come in from left field that led to this cessation of the program. So I'll keep an open mind on that one. But from what you said, if that were the whole story, then it would be a basic failure.

The next one, you take your kid on a downhill bike trail, Neither of you has ridden. One of you goes over the handlebars.

That's the end?

That's the end. That actually happened to me, yes.

Yeah. Oh, ouch. Well, let's be compassionate here and say that's a complex failure. It is new territory, so it's got the possibility that it's intelligent, but I'm going to hypothesize that there was a a rock in the path or a twig or something? Because you both knew how to ride a bike and yes, trails are new and going downhill is somewhat new, but not entirely new. We've all ridden a bike downhill. So some other contributing factors entered the story that gave rise to a failure that might not otherwise have happened.

Imagine you leave a secure job to build something of your own with no guarantee any of it works.

Possibly an intel— probably an intelligent failure, but with a caveat. The third criterion is that you've done your homework, right? That you have good reason, solid reason to believe this might work. And that would mean talking to other experts or doing market research or Ensuring that you're at least, you've got enough money in the bank to cover your rent if it doesn't go well the first time. So assuming you've passed that third criterion by doing your homework and there being good reason despite the risk that this is a valid and viable possibility in new territory, then yes, intelligent. But if you've just jumped into it, okay, I have this wonderful job, Well-paying job, eh, I don't really like it that much, and I'm just gonna leave and start something new and crazy, then we've now entered back into basic territory.

Last one. Imagine your boss says, we fail fast here, and then punishes the first person who does.

Well, that's a basic failure on the part of the boss, right? We don't know enough about the person, what they did, but, 'cause they, maybe they did something stupid, but even so, and by, I use the word stupid sloppily, so I apologize for that. But something that just the quickest question to a colleague could have prevented, then we're not happy about that. But still, the boss has to have what I call a productive response, which is, ooh, this is disappointing. Now let's take a look at it together and let's figure out how not to have it happen again, or let's figure out what we learned or what have you that makes it at least we get our money's worth from that little investment. But when a boss says, you know, it's a safe zone and fail fast, and then they punish the first failure. That's just a basic failure of leadership.

I actually saw this situation happen in an organization I don't want to name here, but we all know.

It happens.

Absolutely, it happens. Yes. So which kind of failure does a person need more of if they want a better future?

That's an easy one. We all need more intelligent failures, and that means more smart risks, more willingness to be that penguin, more willingness to try new things that are in pursuit of a goal that may or may not get us that next step forward in goals we care about. And we want to be vigilant and thoughtful so that we avoid as many basic failures as possible, and vigilant and aware so that we are anticipating and So, trying to avoid and mitigate as many complex failures as possible.

So, let's leave the teams for a moment and let's talk about how we as individuals can learn to fail well. So, what have you failed at in the last 12 months, Amy?

So many things. I guess you mentioned language learning. I've been trying to reignite French, which I studied in high school and had enough proficiency to place out of the language requirement in college, which by the way goes down as one of my basic failures. It was really kind of one of the stupidest things I've done because that's when you're young. And anyway, so the basic failure here, or not the basic failure, I think it's a complex failure. I'm not putting quite enough time into it is basic. But with age, your brain is not as plastic as it once was. So it's no longer see a word once and you remember it. It's see a word 10 times and now you remember it. So I'm struggling. I'm struggling with that. But more work relevant, I have submitted 2 papers to top journals in the last 12 months that have been have been either rejected or sent back for very serious revision to maybe then be rejected the next time. Who knows?

Thanks for sharing that.

No, it's part of life, right?

Absolutely. Let's talk a little bit about Harvard Business School, right? I think everybody's intrigued to get maybe an inside view of how maybe Harvard Business School has psychological safety. And is there a high degree of psychological safety? And is there a question you don't ask in your own faculty meetings, maybe?

Oh, yeah. Well, first, let me say, just like Google, there, I imagine for Google, there really isn't a valid answer to the question, does Harvard Business School have psychological safety? Because psychological safety is local. It doesn't mean just you and your colleague or your little team, but your department or your unit in some way. So I can tell you that my unit, the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School, has very high psychological safety. It's a particularly candid, sort of honest— there's a great willingness to sort of be wrong, make fun of ourselves and know for sure that our colleagues won't reject us for that. And maybe that's because we have a bunch of engineers and data scientists and manufacturing types. There's just a kind of a comfort, or maybe it's we've had good leadership over the years. So my unit, yes, and I can report with pretty good data on my unit, but I can't really tell you what's the psychological safety in the finance unit or the strategy unit. So Harvard Business School, like I think every other large-ish organization, is variegated in its psychological safety. And a faculty meeting is maybe 160 people in a big room, a kind of auditorium-like room, which almost— those kinds of rooms rarely have perfect psychological safety. But I think it's certainly an environment where people worry very much about how they're seen by others. And that leads to holding back. Yes, for sure.

So let's imagine you realize you were wrong in front of a room. What happens in the 10 seconds after, and what do you say to yourself?

Well, I mean, the first few of those seconds is occupied by shame and self-recrimination and this almost, this really nonsensical idea that I shouldn't have done that, right? Which, you know, only nonsensical in a purely logical sense, which was, well, the conditions were present where you did do that, so it happened. Right? It happened. And then hopefully the next 5 seconds are caught up with, take a deep breath, challenge that initial sort of— 'cause that initial reaction is along the lines of, this is the end of the world. It isn't, right? It's just maybe embarrassing or awkward, but life goes on. So it's that discipline of catching yourself, catching yourself and correcting your unhelpful thinking and trying to insert instead more helpful thinking. That's a how.

Yes. I have 3 kids and mistakes happen. Absolutely right. As in my life, in their lives too. And what I'm observing as well is like, we talk a lot about the next generation, right? We always do. And I think it goes back to Aristotle, probably. Here we have the name again. Like, you know, we always think about the next generation as something like, oh, they, we worry a lot about them, right? We worry that What they are experiencing is not the right thing. What they're doing is not the right thing and so forth. So how can we show up for our own children and for the next generation as someone who treats failure differently? What is something that you recommend us to do?

The funny thing is, going back to the very beginning of this conversation, that is what Buckminster Fuller did for me. I mean, he didn't do it for me. He did it. And it affected me. He was so willing and cheerful about saying, I don't know, or I got that wrong, or oops, this one didn't work. You know, we tried building a geodesic dome in the '30s with— I wasn't there, obviously— out of Venetian blinds. Oops, it just collapsed. And with great relish, he would tell that story. Bunch of college students around, it's like, it's, you know, it's humiliating, but it's also— Just if you can train yourself to be in that habit of this is data, right? This is not a catastrophe, this is data. And you then, I think, increase the chances that you prevent a catastrophe. So for children, for kids, for the next generation, whether they're your employees or your children, what you have to resist doing is either helicoptering or snowplowing, right? Snowplowing referring to kind of preparing the land ahead of them, the path ahead of them so carefully they don't even know they're not doing it themselves, and then taking away that opportunity for them to stumble and fall and learn and grow. And that's a terrible thing to take away. Or helicoptering, which is kind of micromanaging. And as a parent myself, I remember, I know well that instinct. You don't want your children to suffer from You know, the discomfort of failing, getting something wrong. So you're, you know, you're sort of tempted to get out ahead of that and you have to back away and realize that part of their life, you know, part of their training, part of their ability to become good, capable human beings is experiencing trial and failure learning on their own. Otherwise, they'll become so brittle. that they won't be able to do anything really of note well. So you have to kind of step back and you have to role model that cheerful attitude about being wrong in new territory, trying something, telling, sharing the stories where you failed, not just the stories where you succeeded. I tried out for the basketball team in high school, and not only did I not get picked, I was the only person who didn't get picked. Like, there were 2 lists put up on the Jim Wall, one of the people who got selected and one of the people who didn't. I'm the only name on, I mean, you can't, you know, 16 years old or 15 years old, it's just deeply painful, but it's also another door opens, of course, right? It's, that wasn't gonna be my sport.

I haven't heard about snowplowing, but I love that. Yes, just that metaphor and, you know, handing children a shuffle, right? Like to really help them to dig that own path, right? And learn that sometimes there's heavy snow right in front of you. Sometimes you already see kind of like a path ahead, but it's not that you create that path for them. I think that's a good one. Yes.

And not only create it, but pretend you didn't, right? So that then they get the false belief that the paths are there, the paths exist.

Yes.

Versus shovels exist.

So everything is moving fast right now, right? We hear that everywhere, right? AI, most of all, new models released every single day. And it's just, I think we are living in an incredible time. But let's talk about what that means for someone trying to shape their own future and how they can actually do that. You mentioned something interesting, and that is learning how to ask better questions, right? And I think we can actually use AI to help us to learn how to ask better questions, not just asking questions to AI, but like asking AI, hey, ask me some questions so that, you know, we can have a conversation about it. I think that's a good one to take away.

I think so, too.

And what would you say to a 25-year-old choosing safety right now because everything, including AI, is changing so fast?

I don't think we, you mean, what do you mean by choosing safety?

Probably choosing safety is, you know, choosing something that they're either familiar with already and not trying something new, right? Trying a new job, a new, maybe stop their studies and say like, okay, you know, I'll choose a different path right now.

Right. So I think it's, I would, I would empathize. I think it is in fact tempting, right? It's tempting to sort of stick with the tried and true and it won't work over time, right? And here's the problem you might confront, which ultimately is not what you want, which is it will look like it's working, right? It will look like it's working until it isn't. And then it's Then it's too late, right? So that by picking the safe or the tried and true, you will deprive yourself of the data you need to see the bigger picture and to anticipate what might be coming next. So the one thing we know for sure is that the pace of change is not going to slow down. So We then need to be in the learning business, right? We need to be in the risk-taking business. Again, smart risks, but that's, it's never, it's just not gonna work long-term. It might look like it's working in the short-term.

So Amy, if you would give our listeners one experiment to run before the end of the week, today's Friday, before the week ends, so before Sunday, that would count as an intelligent failure and tell them what to write down afterward.

Okay. So pick something you care about, a goal, a priority in your life. And now think of the experiment or the action or a thing you could do that's on that path that is hard and you're not sure it will work, but if it works, it will get you clearly closer to where your goal. And if it doesn't work, well, it'll be It'll be disappointing. But I think most people can think of what's a next thing you might try around some priority in your life and then commit to doing it, right? Commit to doing it sometime in the next few days and then jot down everything you notice, right? Because it's not necessarily easy to know immediately, did that work or not work? Sometimes it is, but just what do you notice? And then That's data. And what do those data then, what do those data teach you about what to try next, right? And it could be a complete about-face. It could be a small tweak. It could be a little pivot, but it's just data to help you keep going because I'm assuming that goal or that priority is important to you.

It's 10 years from now, Amy, and someone writes your biography in one paragraph. What does it say? Imagine your future self.

Well, a paragraph can go on for a very long time, as you know, but I hope it says that I have mentored some extraordinary people, people who have gone on to accomplish things in their own lives and in their own communities or organizations that I had nothing to do with, right? I mean, directly, but that the capabilities that I helped them develop serve them well in whatever roles they're in.

A couple of years ago, you wrote that my book was a collection of gems that could change your thinking about tomorrow. Today, you gave our listeners a few Thank you.

Thank you.

The future belongs to the people who can be wrong and keep going. Thank you, Amy, for what you do and who you are.

Thank you for having me.

The future doesn't start tomorrow. It starts within. So don't wait for it. Practice it. One small thing today from within.