Leo & Randy On A Shift In Mindset (Peernovation Podcast)

Welcome to Peer Innovation, the podcast with Leo Bottari and me, Randy Cantrell. Building on our previous shows, The Year of the Peer and What Anyone Can Do, we turn our attention to helping business leaders build high-performing teams. We'll talk with a diverse group of thought leaders who will share stories and insights that will help you and your teams achieve new heights. If you believe there is strength in numbers and that meeting the challenges of the future can only be achieved if we do it together, then join us for the conversation. 2021. It's our second episode, third episode, who can count, but we're trying to be really super on clockwork and regular. And, uh, we appreciate our crowd being with us. You can subscribe to the podcast by going to peerinnovation.co. He is Leo Bottari. I'm Randy Cantrell. And, uh, today, you know, the, the tagline that you came up with, Leo, for in the book that I thought, and it was before the book even, the power of we begins with me is really going to be the theme I know that you really want to focus on today. So I don't know. I'll let you get the ball rolling here.

Yeah. We've talked about this. We will have a guest this week on what will be the regular edition of our podcast. This is, I guess, a special edition, if you will, a reluctant edition in many respects, but One that I think is important, not because, you know, we're gonna dive into an area that is not part of the purview of what we're talking about, but we're actually gonna dive into something that is exactly what we're talking about. And that is, when you look at "Peer Innovation," the introduction of that book speaks to 3 things that I think really matter in the wake of what happened at the Capitol. A number of days ago, and it's really about a change in mindset. So the first thought there was in one of the things we looked at, mental models. We looked at how is it that people can actually have the same data in front of them and come to completely different conclusions about what's going on and what they're seeing. And, you know, there's a number of reasons for it, and if you get into the book and you climb the ladder of inference that Chris Ardris you know, came up with there, we get a sense of what that looks like. And it kind of explains that a bit. There are also other reasons for it as well, though. We tend to, as we know, have available to us today, news that is comfortable to watch because it kind of aligns with our general view of the world. It's easier. It's just, you know, and then the more we hear things repeated, the more they become ingrained in us. There was a terrific CEO World article, by the way, that talked about what they refer to as the illusory truth effect and cognitive fluency. And it really has to do with the way things are repeated and how they become absorbed in the human brain and why we can latch on to certain things. And of course, As we mentioned, when you consider the circumstances that are going on in this country, this has been a long time coming. We have heavily gerrymandered districts, right? Where they're set up in a way that they're either heavily Democrat to assure Democrat to win, or heavily Republican to assure the Republican wins. And we have entire states today, effectively, that are red states and blue states. You know, with that means that it's become acceptable where a politician can go to Washington 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, whatever their term happens to be, and come back and say, "Hey, we fought the good fight. We, you know, we made the speeches. We've fought for you. We did this, the other thing." And then if you ask them, "Well, how many of those fights did you win? Or what did you actually get done?" And the answer, has lately been not good. You know, back when Truman was running for president, part of his campaign was railing against what he called at the time the do-nothing Congress. Well, if you look at what the do-nothing Congress actually accomplished back then compared to what Congress does, has done in recent years, they're looking pretty good. And in large part, you know, because we've allowed for things not to get done, what happens? People's lives aren't improved when government's not working for them. Throw a pandemic on top of it, and you've just got a situation right now that is, that we've got to really start listening to how it is we serve people, and what does that look like, and how do we do that together and not be become further divided as we move on. And it really kind of speaks to a thing that I wrote in the book. It was an open letter to cable news. And this idea of a change in mindset, right, is you read the letter and you swear maybe it was written, what, 6 months ago, a year ago? It was written in 2011. And so here we are nearly a decade later, where the situation is even far worse than as bad as it sounds that I was writing about it in 2011. And here we are, more divided, more susceptible to conspiracy theories and other such things that are thrown out there on social media and everything else. And, you know, I'd heard a term, as I mentioned over the weekend, that speaks to, you know, conspiracy curiasts. If it was kind of an interesting word, a little tough to say, but as the noun, right? So it's the idea that, you know, like, I think all of us at some level are conspiracy curious, right? If someone says to you, "Hey, Randy, let me tell you what's really going on here that you're not hearing about in the national news, that you're not hearing about in mainstream media," you're like, "Yeah." I mean, you will entertain that. Now, to however it resonates with you on the crazy meter, you know, in some respects, some of it you might find actually plausible, others you dismiss, and there's other stuff in between. You know, I would only suggest with anything like that, that if you're hearing something that sounds like so out there and you're only hearing it from one source, chances are good that there's a reason for that, right? Because if you believe that media are just in this for money and ratings and everything else, then there's a lot of people be wanting to get eyeballs and ears on this story and, uh, will likely be reporting it as well. So I think it— we have to start thinking about asking ourselves questions. And this is where, in many respects— and one of the reasons, you know, as we were talking about this and why we thought the show was so important— is because if we're going to espouse this idea of the power of me begin— part of we begins with me, then I think that falls on two fronts. A, to really start asking ourselves more questions and being more curious and be really trying to get to the heart of, um, what's right and what isn't. You know, we know, for example, that, um, you know, and maybe well-deserved, as I kind of mentioned before, with, um, not much getting done. Because right now, and I remember looking at the What Anyone Can Do book where I was citing, um, some research done by the Edelman Trust Barometer in 2017, which basically said that 85% of the American people believe that government is either not working for them or they don't know what it's doing for them at all. So if it isn't helping your life, it isn't changing your life, and as things start getting, you know, at a greater level of pressure for everyone right now, that's a cause for concern, obviously. And this is kind of this is kind of where we are. So I think it's a matter of reflecting on what I'm taking in, where I'm getting it from, and then it's also a question of what do I do with it? What does that look like? What does that start to feel like? Um, and, um, so yeah, I think if it was addressed so squarely in the introduction of the book, it's just a little bit of a tough subject to avoid, you know, as we sit here right now. Um, looking to have what I think has been one of the most amazing things that we're able to do in this country, is have a peaceful transfer of power. There is no tanks in the streets, there's no, you know, it's really rather remarkable how in the most powerful country on earth, we, you know, typically have this, um, transfer of power. And, um, you know, um, so yeah, so that's, that's kind of why at least I think this is important for us to just reflect on and think about in terms of us, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, and figure out we have to have a way forward here. We have to really be thinking about, and it can't be digging our heels in and just continuing to what's essentially fighting a losing battle.

When you first mentioned that you wanted to do this show, one of the first things that popped into my mind as a business guy is the constant question that I know many business leaders ask, and that's, how can we be better? How can we do better? And a really introspective— and I think the most— I don't know what the proper adjective would be, but the wisest leaders among us in business settle that right at their desk with, how can I be better? You know, and which is another way of the tagline, you know, that we begins with me. With regard to the conspiracy thing, somebody had that conversation with me over the weekend, and I said, are you kidding me? I said, we, we can, we can put half a dozen people in a room together with some really stellar thing to accomplish. And it's, it's, it's like herding cats in so many, you know. So if you think you could pull off some big grand conspiracy, are you out of your mind? I mean, it's— I don't even know that that's humanly possible. And of course, living here in Dallas-Fort Worth, you know, we are the home, we are the home of conspiracy theorists over the assassination of John Kennedy. And, and those still prevail here and all over the globe in a major, you know, in a major, major way. I just, you know, in the conversation that you and I had before we hit record, and, and I might kind of ask you about this, so there the divide and who cares, you know, this program is not about right or left. I did see something that was rather comical but remarkably true. The left wing and the right wing are attached to the same bird.

Yes.

You know, which I thought was— you've probably seen that, being the more the political astute person of the two of us. But, you know, I, I mean, for me, that's the thing.

And America doesn't fly when— if they're not— those wings aren't working together.

Yeah, exactly. You know, and, and We're Americans. We are, you know, I mean, that trust barometer number still stands out for me. And I'd be curious what that number looks like today, but I would venture to guess it's not dramatically changed.

Well, I don't think there's any question that, you know, institutions have taken a hit. But the, you know, it used to be, and I think it's still true, of course, but When we don't trust institutions, we start looking to one another. And, but if we're gonna look to one another, then we've gotta be more open to listen to others. You know, it made me think of Craig Weber when he talks about conversational capacity. And then I think about, we can't be naive about the fact that with some people, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, there is no conversation to be had, that the level of entrenchment is so profound that there is no conversation to have there. And you wonder, you know, so I suppose the more that we try to understand why there's the level of entrenchment, I think is helpful, and to have conversations with at least the people we can have conversations with at the start. And see if we can't, you know, talk about what can the small business owner do, what can the CEO do, what can all of us do is just set a good example, you know, is just try to be that person one at a time. You know, anything that's ever great that's ever happened in this country has really been much more from the ground up than the top down, and we know that. And it may be slower, but it is more enduring for sure. And You know, it's what, you know, our democracy is all about, of course. But it's troubling when, again, you know, I look back at a letter I wrote in 2011, thinking that it was worth the time to actually write that letter back then over a decade ago, to see that the problem today is deepened so much more.

And without getting into the specifics, it certainly is proving to me the fact that people follow leadership, even if that leadership is poor, even if that leadership is less than stellar. I mean, we've got—

Well, it's about influence, right? Sure. Yeah. So you could actually— So to put this in perspective, right? So as people, the question that's always put on the table all the time, well, A, was Hitler a leader and was he a good leader? Well, yes, he was a leader. Yes, he was a good leader, but he wasn't a leader for good, right? He was a leader for, you know, evil, you know. And, um, you know, so, um, so when we, we talk about leadership, it really becomes about influence and about the ability to, um, uh, to attract and inspire and motivate followers. Um, But I think this also shows and shines a light on it isn't just about what we're fighting for, but how we fight for it matters. You know, having policy debate is one thing. Having a real passion around things that, you know, people feel strongly about, I think, is healthy and it's important, and it's why we have the you know, the party system that we have. But there's got to be a point where, again, if we want the bird to fly, we have to figure out how we work together. And this is where, and certainly I don't blame media for this entirely by any stretch, but let's face it, you know, it's not as if compromises or collaboration is heralded in any big way. It's all about who won or who lost or who caved or, you know, this, that, and the other. You know, I mentioned, you know, probably a few times in this program that— and I think in the, in the book— when I went a few times to the, um, Milken Global Conference in Los Angeles, where you've got literally heads of state and business leaders and scientists and people from all over the world, it's an extraordinary collection of people that you meet and you watch on panel discussions. And in some cases, those panelists would represent the extreme views and everybody in the middle on whatever particular issue. I don't care if it's energy policy or healthcare or how to feed the world, whatever it happened to be. And there was typically a question that was often asked at the end after the fierce debate that would go on. And they basically said, hey, if we threw you half a dozen people in a room, could you guys figure out this problem in a way that would work for everyone? And everyone's like, Sure. I mean, think about that.

Yeah.

Um, but the reality of doing that in the light of day with all of the everything that, um, it's funny how, you know, we can get in our own way, you know, in a pretty big way when we start not thinking about the fact that we're not going to typically, like anything else, get every single thing we want. But, but we can get a lot better than, than where we are. And it really does need to be a focus on how far are we progressing versus, you know, what did I get or what am I not getting? How far are we moving the needle? So I just really, when we think about what can we do in business, we set a good example. What can we do in the media? Let's start celebrating when there's compromise? What can we do, you know, as leaders? I saw a really interesting thing, by the way, and it was part of a piece that Michael Douglas had done. Now, it went off in an area in terms of what they were promoting that you could decide you liked or didn't, but what it showed was some facts around how collaboration across the aisle has changed from the late 1950s to now and how little of it, relatively speaking, there is today. Um, and that is a huge, huge problem. And I don't— I'm going to be certainly looking for leadership, not only in the Congress but in our state legislatures and in everywhere, to see, you know, who, who's really making an effort to work with one another to make things happen and get things done. Because unless that happens, we're going to continue with this cycle, because if people's lives get worse, they're only going to get angrier. They're only going to get more entrenched. I mean, it's just, you know, that's, that's what I worry about more than anything. That's why I think every one of us needs to take a breath and be thinking about, okay, I need to really assess, you know, and this is everybody, this is, you know, in terms of where am I getting all my information from? Am I really understanding what's going on in the world, not just from my one channel or my one publication I read, or my few tweets that I pay attention to, right? That we really start looking more broadly at what's going on and recognize that maybe, just maybe, we can kind of trust that by and large, we all want something good for the country. We may have a different way of going about it. We may have different ideas about how to get there, But until we're really able to work with the other side and recognize that there may be opportunities in there that none of us can see, we're in the middle of a fight. Um, but that we can be, you know, open to possibilities that I think would be, you know, could be pretty remarkable. But I think this is— this— yeah, this is—

this is where the, you know, the algorithms and and all the intelligence that as business people, kind of speaking, I guess on behalf of that sector, since that's the one that I'm most steeped in, uh, the ad platform that is Facebook is unquestionably has been the most powerful ad platform the world, the planet has ever seen because of its ability to know who you are. And yet with the more— the, the deeper that knowledge of who you are, the deeper to continue to just kind of feed into that. So no matter where you are on the political spectrum, your feed is going to reflect who you are, who you presently are, not who you may aspire to be or who you want to be. But you know, Facebook and other social platforms They know who you are, they know who I am, any of us who are on those platforms. And you, you are seeing people abandon these platforms for a variety of reasons, and the platforms are now finally abandoning, abandoning some of these people.

And I think they've been— I mean, late to the game doesn't begin to touch it. I mean, they've been complicit, um, in, in the divisiveness, no matter where, what views are being espoused and what untruths and conspiracy theories and everything else. And, and by the way, Anyway, for all of those out there who— and I'm not, you know, obviously, you know, everyone's well aware, you know, the president's Twitter account being permanently suspended and with Facebook and, you know, who else. Anyway, the idea that this is somehow a freedom of speech issue is someone needs to just recognize that that isn't what freedom of speech is. So for example, if you and I were in a restaurant, we decided to start screaming obscenities, the owner does have the right to throw us out, okay? Period. There's no freedom of speech around that. This is not public institutions. These are private businesses that can decide that if you want to use mistruths to to do harm in any way, you get to be kicked off the platform. Now, you know, people can decide whatever they want around all that, but it's hardly freedom of speech. It's not censorship. It's not any of those things. You know, we do have the right to do that, but I think also, you know, in the end, we as consumers of this information, more importantly, um, should be— whether that is the kind of information that's coming from the front of us or not, um, should be a bit discerning about what we're seeing and evaluating that.

Yeah, you know, where I was headed is that the multiple viewpoints— I grew up in the Walter Cronkite world, and I remember in journalism school We would frequently be visited by an organization called Accuracy in Media. I don't even know if this organization even still exists. And we would regularly have every month journalism students and anybody who wanted to, you know, there would be this big meeting over at the student union and someone from that organization, they would dissect the news. And there was no left, there was no right, there was just, is this accurate? You know, where's the bias here? Their whole goal was to get rid of the bias in media, which— this is back in the mid-'70s, which seemed impossible anyway then. Well, it's beyond impossible now. But the fact that there were these multiple viewpoints and there were some degree of pride in trying to access multiple viewpoints. You know, my point being, with the, with the math of who we are is now so driving our news feed, our, our everything. You know, every website has cookies. It tracks everywhere you go. I mean, if you go, if you go check out, if you go shopping for mattresses online, and then you go to your Facebook account and you wonder, why am I suddenly seeing— you know, it's like they've got this webcam on me. I can now see all these mattress ads. Well, it's because they know you've been, been over there. Well, in the same way, we're just kind of steamrollering down whatever our, whatever our viewpoints may be. No judgment on whether those viewpoints are right or wrong. but it does speak to our understanding of one another. And it does speak, I think, to our lack of curiosity, which for me ultimately goes back to humility. What's the degree of our humility? But I think an elephant in the room here is fear. Don't you?

This, it's huge. I mean, I think it's, I think it's at the epicenter of it. Um, no question about it. First of all, when you're talking about the Walter Cronkite days, they used to have a thing called the Fairness Doctrine, as you probably well know, and that doesn't exist today. So maybe reinstalling that might not be a terrible idea. The other thing is, back in the day, whether it was on television or in your newspapers, there was a clear delineation between what was news and what was opinion or editorial. And that should be more clear, because there are these programs that are on, and I don't care what you're watching, whether you're watching Fox or MSNBC or whatever, some are news programs and some are entertainment/opinion programs, period. That, that's, that's what they are and that's what they do, and they should be identified as such so everyone gets that this is what it is. And nothing wrong with it, you know, listen to that, listen to, you know, um, you know, all, all sides of that stuff to try to get informed about it, not just, you know, limit it to whatever view of the world that you find most comfortable. And I think that's the only way we're going to at least, you know, get to something. But that asks— and I'm not saying that's easy— I mean, that asks a lot, you know. I read this thing recently which talks about our brains are pretty lazy in the scheme of things, you know. We just want what's easy. We don't want to work too hard at trying to understand something. We don't want to be uncomfortable, you know. We certainly, when we're in conversation with our friends, colleagues, or whatever, we don't want to constantly going 15 rounds over whatever on whatever issue, right? We're just not built that way. It's much easier to hang out with people who agree with us, and we just kind of constantly reinforce, you know, however we see the world. But I do think we have got to— and this is not a— this is a flat-out reality that if we keep continuing down the path that we're going right now, it is only going to get worse. And I think it's a lot worse. And I don't think we've even come close to hitting the bottom, as horrific as it was. You know, I had someone say to me that they had someone cancel a meeting on them last week because they were upset by what they were seeing on television, what was going on at the Capitol. And they were kind of being dismissive about that a little bit. And I'm thinking, I'm right there with them. I was horrified by it. I was, I never thought in my lifetime I would ever see, you know, anything like that. And, um, and I hope I never do again. And I hope that, um, that is the— that is kind of the rock bottom. But I'm, I'm not sure it is. And I don't think we should suggest or assume that that could be. I think we've got to really dig deep and be thinking about— we've got to— we've got changes to make, and it starts with each of us.

Given the fact that if your end of the boat sinks, then so does mine, and that's the reality for us as citizens in this country, uh, that's the reality for anybody in our audience who has a team, is part of a team, is part of a group, is part of an organization or a business. So at our individual level, you know, I mean, if I go back to the CEO who's leading a group of people in an organization and thinks, okay, How can we be better? And then he narrows it down and thinks, okay, how can I be better? On a positive note, so that we can end this on the most positive note that we can, what are some things that people in our audience can start doing today? And I realize that number one, you have to be intentional. You're not just going to accidentally pull this off. We've got to commit to it. And to your point about ease, maybe that's Maybe that's an insurmountable hurdle for some, but it's not going to be for everybody. There are going to be people that are going to be willing to— I'm betting that our audience is filled with people that are willing to put in the work. So what work, what work could they be putting in just individually and at their, at their own level? If we go back to our tagline, the power of, of we begins with me. What can I do?

Well, like I said, I think it starts with a little bit of reflection. I think it starts with, you know, taking a breath and being good to our neighbors. And the reason I think I have— and I mean it, neighbors, both in terms of in our neighborhoods as well as in our work and our families and all of that— and the reason I have some optimism about it is even though we have somehow managed to politicize a pandemic, on the other hand, when you really look at the spirit of generosity and care and the things that people do for one another in this country each and every day. I think if we tap into that as opposed to focusing on the negative, I think that we can start, you know, kind of crawling our way out where that starts to become the more pervasive sentiment and the more pervasive thing that, you know, we call upon. You know, one of the things that I looked at from the What Anyone Can Do book is— was a scene from the movie Contact. Remember that movie Contact with Jodie Foster? So Ellie Arroway was her character, and she actually testified before Congress that day, and David Drumlin was, you know, her boss basically, who was kind of the opposition in this thing. And of course she got lit up, you know, in Congress pretty good that day. And David walks up to her and he says, I know you must think that this is all very unfair, Maybe that's an understatement. What you don't know is I agree. I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where the kind of idealism you showed at the hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. And Ellie Arroway says, funny, I've always believed that the world is what we make of it. And I think we have to start owning the fact that the world is what we make of it. So So that's where I'd start. And I think we can make a difference again with the people closest to us and around us. And, you know, and when, you know, confronted with just getting people to ask more questions and not try to give so many answers all the time, you know, would be another, I think, big question ourselves, question others, question, learn for understanding, figure out what's really going on in this world, because, you know, perpetuating, you know, untruths or making decisions or coming to opinions on things based on incomplete information isn't going to really help anybody. Um, so we just got to figure it out. We got to work together, and we got to, you know, take the, the, the power of and ability of us to do what we've always done, and we will get back to it. Um, Um, and just to, um, start trusting each other again.

Well said. We hope, uh, we hope you're putting in the work. We appreciate the fact that you're letting us into your life, into your earbuds and onto your eyeballs. If you're subscribing to us on our YouTube channel, we invite you to go to the website. You can find all kinds of ways to subscribe and all kinds of resources over there and find out more about the work that we do at peerinnovation.co. Leo Bottari, L-E-O-B-O-T-T-A-R-Y.com, will get you to the exact same place if that's easier for you. But again, the book, and I had it behind me, I gotta hawk the book. He's the author, so he doesn't like to hawk his own book as much as I do. But here is the latest greatest book. You can buy it on Amazon. It's, uh, it's super inexpensive. We're recording on Monday, January 11th, 2021, and I think it's $3.99 for the, uh, for the Kindle version, for the ebook. Peer Innovation: What Peer Advisory Groups Can Teach Us About Building High-Performing Teams. So we invite you to buy the book. Thanks again for listening. And, uh, hey, we're, we're all, uh, we're all in this and we're all We're all pulling for each other, and we're certainly, as Americans— and those of you that are listening in foreign countries, we're glad that you're here too— but, uh, this is a global community, so it's not just about America anymore. I'll give you the last word.

No, just, um, just thanks for listening. Um, I think again it was important conversation for us to have. Um, and, um, you know, look forward to, um, to our upcoming shows this month. We'll, you know, we'll get back to talking about, you know, what we can really do, how we build off today's conversation so that we can build even better and higher-performing teams wherever we are. Thanks.

Thank you for joining us. To subscribe to the podcast and learn more about how you can engage peer innovation for your organization, contact us on the website at peerinnovation.co. Till next week, remember, the power of we begins with you.