What Anyone Can Do: Leo & Randy On Perspective (1035)

Welcome to our new show, What Anyone Can Do Podcast with Leo Bottari and me, Randy Cantrell. Our new show picks up where the last show, Year of the Peer, left off, highlighting the simple truth that who you surround yourself with matters, and that if we enlist the support of others, give back to those who give to us, and pay it forward for the next generation, we can do anything. Author and keynote speaker Leo Bottari and I will interview a diverse group of thought leaders who will share stories and insights that will help you succeed in business, and in life. How? By doing the things anyone can do, but most of us never will. Welcome back to another episode of What Anyone Can Do, the podcast. My name is Randy Cantrell. I'm in Dallas. He is Leo Bottari. He is in San Diego, California. Don't let the Bruins hat fool you, but he is— yeah, yeah, he is Boston zone. And so we are recording this on May 30th, so He's smarting somewhat from last night's loss in overtime to the Blues, Game 2. So the series is tied 1-1.

Well, you know, it was the first time the Blues have ever won a game in a Stanley Cup Final. It was about time.

Ever.

I think ever. Yeah, ever. It was about time. We knew it was going to happen.

Yeah, they were due.

I think everyone's looking at this series as one that's likely to be 6 or 7 games. It was a terrific game last night. The Blues certainly came out of— came into overtime on a tear. I mean, they were just really not to be denied, I think. And, you know, so here we are.

So yeah, well, St. Louis thinks you guys have way too many championships anyway. They just need one. They're just looking for one. Yeah, it's interesting, the collective— the collective hatred or you know, just rabid fandom, you know, of Boston. And of course here in Texas, I would say there's far more hatred, you know, for— and sparked mainly because of the NFL, because of the Patriots, you know. But it's just, it's interesting. And yet it's pretty clear we love dynasties. I mean, you look at this fellow on Jeopardy, you know, who's just breaking— you know, I don't know that he's broken the record yet, but I mean, the guy's averaging 80 grand a day, you know, and he's just a machine. And, and everybody, you can see people are rooting for him to kind of keep this thing going. It's just interesting. The collective psychology is pretty interesting of how people, how people look at stuff, which is really what we want to talk about largely today, perspective.

And if you think about it, he doesn't really have all the answers, does he? He just asks good questions.

Yeah, exactly.

Right, exactly.

It's the whole purpose of the show.

That's why those Jeopardy folks are so smart.

Yeah, gotta ask the right question.

That's exactly right.

Good point.

So, um, but what interesting thing you brought up though, and you know, of course we were chatting about this earlier, which is kind of, um, I think a good follow-up to, uh, last week's guests, uh, with Jennifer Vessels. But obviously You know, just this idea that last night's hockey game, you know, Blues fans and Bruins fans see the whole thing very differently, right? Because they have a different perspective, different lens, different loyalties, different everything, you know, about it. And I thought it would be really great today as we were chatting about this to really talk about perspective and what that means. You know, last week, I think we stuck more in the formal peer group space where we were talking about, you know, peers who, and business leaders in particular, who may be part of a peer group where they are around the table with people outside of their industry sector and all, and they get a lens on things, right? They get a view of the world. And then Executive Growth Alliance kind of stands on the shoulders, if you think about it, of what the Vistages and the YPOs and the EOS have been doing for years by trying to get people from a, uh, in a similar ecosystem together to act not just in their own individual or organizational interest, but act in the broader interest in a way that doesn't penalize any of the individuals at all, but in fact truly sees, um, win-wins and sees the world in terms of abundance and not scarcity and actually can make great decisions that neither, uh, purposely or in inadvertently have a negative impact on others. So I think it's exciting stuff, but I thought it was, you know, as we were chatting this morning and we were actually going to talk about something else entirely, and I think it just makes perfect sense to, you know, dive a little deeper because we're not all members of formal peer groups, but we are surrounded by people who can help us gain perspective. And, I think there's maybe 3 important things to talk about with that, that I'd love for us to kind of have a little back and forth on today. One of them is kind of what's going on, right? I think a lot of people, the more people we talk to, the more we can get a sense of what's going on. The second part though, is you can know what's going on, but you don't really know what it means always. And it's going to mean different things to different people. Right? To, to your point about, you know, a championship in St. Louis is going to mean a lot different things to the people in St. Louis. And it'd be, forget about Boston, but anyone else for that matter. Um, and then, um, third is not just what's going on and what does it mean, but then how do we act? What actions do we take based on our understanding and our interpretation of what's going on that can help us kind of advance whatever it is we're trying to do for our lives, whether we are an individual or an organization. So, um, and, uh, you know, when we were talking of course before this, there's just a lot of, um, a lot of examples, a lot of metaphors out there, you know, uh, when we, when we think about this stuff. But, um, you know, I think for starters, let's get a little of your sense too about what, um, In terms of just finding out what's going on, I think, you know, you've, you've got your peer group that you're getting started right now. And this idea of having them help one another, um, know what's going on, I think is huge.

Yeah. You know, and we've, we've talked before, I think both on the podcast and just in our private conversations about the advantages of diversity and yet how people can view that really is a disadvantage. Birds of a feather flock together and all those kinds of monikers that no doubt are true, probably because we're largely— I don't know, we feel safer to be around people that may not challenge us, and yet it completely stymies our growth. And I think all of us deep down know that. We realize that. When I think about any of Any of these three things, uh, the word belief kind of leaps to my mind. It's, it's what we believe to be true. Whether it is or not is irrelevant. I was having a conversation the other day with somebody who was talking about being challenged by something, and I said, you know, you, you do understand that just because you're, you're challenged to defend your position doesn't mean you have to change yours. Nor does it mean that you have to change his, the person that he was talking to. I said, you know, isn't there just some value in understanding? And in this context of this conversation, isn't there value in just trying to, to gain some perspective of what is going on? I'm an intuitive person, super intuitive, and my track record, pretty good. But I knew as a young man that I couldn't lean on that, that that would be a weakness. And so I purposefully, when I was in my mid-20s, made myself an evidence-based leader. And somebody else came up with that term. I'm sure I read it, uh, meaning I was looking, I want to make sure, okay, am I getting this right? Am I seeing this correctly? Uh, because I didn't want to trust my gut and be wrong.

You know, but— and that is so true. And then we have to think about when we talk about evidence, what evidence are we looking at? What evidence are we paying most attention to? What evidence has most value or most credibility for us? One of the things that I was reminded of recently as I was getting into this was a model that Chris Argyris came up with that's called the ladder of inference. And the ladder of inference is really an unbelievable model that talks about how people can see the same situation, select very different data points from it, and then arrive to very different conclusions and actions about that. I think a great example would be that you could just take 10 people and put them in a large room, have them walk around it for 30 seconds, have them leave the room, and then interview them about what they saw. Some people will notice, oh, the, you know, the crown molding on the ceiling. Some people notice the color on the wall. Some people couldn't tell you what the color of the walls were. You know, I mean, so we select data and you'll see the ladder of inference based on feedback loops, loops that come from our beliefs. Our beliefs help us or guide us, let's say, in what data we select. And then once we select that data, we tend to build off of that data and then we have interpretations of it. What's also interesting is if you, um, even, even under the assumption that those 10 people looked at the same 3 data points, that the, those observations, I mean, were exactly the same, that they would even could still reach very vastly different conclusions about what that room was about, whether they liked it, they didn't, whatever, based on, a lot of their beliefs, a lot of their assumptions. And, uh, and what's fascinating about it is I think a lot of the ladder of inference, particularly when it's taught to, you know, students, whether, you know, business school or whatever they might get, it gives people a sense of why people see the world differently so that you can kind of square your own beliefs and hopefully have conversations that are about understanding, like what you talked about. I think we should, in the context of formal peer groups or just peer groups in general, in the circle of people we surround ourselves, we should celebrate the idea that not everyone sees the world in the same way we do. Because you can only imagine how limited our lives would be and how limited our perspective would be if we didn't have access to all of these people who, and it's such a gift and it's a beautiful thing actually, that they will select different data. They will interpret it differently. And we get the benefit of that perspective, which I think is truly remarkable and something to celebrate and really speaks to your issue of diversity. You know, when, whenever I think we're looking at the people we surround ourselves with, let's face it, they're going to be the same in some respects, like by and large, we're all human, right? So you can start there and then think about all your same and where you shared values and all, but then you're different because maybe, you know, you pointed out with us, you grew up in different parts of the country. We have completely different backgrounds. We have all these things and what informs the way we see the world is so different. And that's why it's, it's awesome. I mean, that's, that's why it's so fun to meet so many different people. And if we are more about listening and less about judging and debating and, um, you know, help a lot, right? Yeah.

Well, if you take the hockey thing, I would, except for my relationship with you and a few other people that I'm fairly close to who are from Boston, You know, and so you don't want to root against your friends, but there's a fellow on the bench for St. Louis who's not a player, who's a coach, who's got ties to the Dallas Stars, an assistant coach named Steve Ott. Steve Ott was a fan favorite, uh, trash talking and funny, funny trash talking kind of a guy. And yet it's funny. You know, the people can hate Marshawn, who does the same thing, and Steve Ott did it. Didn't have Marshawn's world-class skills, but played in the league for a long, long time. And a big part of me would like, you know, never got a chance. I don't think he ever played in the Finals, certainly never got his name on the cup, but he could as a coach. Yeah, you know, so part of me wants that, but unless you understand that, you know, then you just think somebody's rooting against you. So there's, there's, there's all this other stuff. There's all these nuances to what's going on and the way we see things and why we, you know, why we feel the way we feel. It's not that I love St. Louis, but I really love Steve Ott.

Well, and you know, Marshawn's, uh, trash talking isn't helped by the fact that a lot of the kind of trash talking is he skates by someone and tells them their kids are ugly, you know. Yeah, that's There's that. Exactly. That won't always typically endear you to— Right, right.

But you know, but those little, those little nuances of, of what people are thinking. I mean, until I told you that, and that's the first time I've told you that, you hadn't— you had no idea that Steve Ott was even on my radar, right?

Right.

You know, and it's those kinds of subtleties that I think it's a shame that we miss in just not having conversations and then not listening and not trying to say, okay, well, what really is going on here? And to your point, we fill in those gaps with the way that we want it to fit our narrative, with our assumptions.

No, I think that, um, the more we surround ourselves with different type of people the more that we can really have a broader view about what's going on. But then, you know, to your point, when it comes to the interpretation of what's going on and how people can see the exact same event very differently, we usually don't go there. What we do is we, we argue the point that's right in front of us without any questions regarding, hey, tell me, why you feel that way. Tell me where that comes from for you, how you arrived at that. Because, you know, I think a classic situation sometimes is you'll have a political argument between a Democrat and Republican about entitlement programs, for example, but it'll be about a specific entitlement program. Well, the argument isn't about the specific entitlement program. They could be any program and they would arguing the same thing. They'll argue the specifics of that thing, but the underlying assumption for one of them is that I don't think government should be doing that anyway. So, so once you get there and then you can say, well, so tell me where that comes from. I just want to understand. I may not agree with it. This is the point you brought up earlier about it. It's not about having your views challenged because you feel you have to defend or anything. But I think the more that you can understand where someone is coming from, the more you can realize that's not how I see the world, but I get how and why they see the world the way they do. And oftentimes you can come to respect that. And that's really, really helpful to have that point of view. But, um, yeah, we, we all, um, you know, most certainly can look at the same pieces of information, uh, and come up to very different conclusions. But rather than try to argue that specific point, why wouldn't we want to ask more questions that allow us to really gain a deeper sense of, you know, why you might be rooting for the St. Louis Blues, for example, right?

Yeah. Well, and why wouldn't, why wouldn't you? We all want to, we all want to be high achievers. We all want to grow. We all want to improve. Which necessarily means change, change for the better, whatever that— however we define that. And yet we don't want to change. You know, we want to be dug in, and I don't even care about your position or their position. And we rob ourselves of the opportunity to expand and to grow and yes, to change where we could You know, to improve.

People don't mind change if they're driving the change. Right. So it's not about you like hammering me and convincing me that, you know, I have to do something. But if, if we have a conversation about this and I think about it and I say, you know what, I think maybe I feel differently about that now because I have a broader understanding of it than when I did. It's not, you know, that's what kind of growing is all about. And, um, Being able to do that and think about it in that way is huge.

But just being open to trying to understand someone else's perspective certainly can help drive that. And we, in too many cases, me personally, I mean, I'm sure I rob myself of that opportunity because I see it the way I see it. It's the way I see it. And that's how I think about it. And I'm not It's not that I'm thinking about some other perspective or thinking that there could be another perspective. You know, we're living, we're living in our head 24/7, you know, largely. I mean, it's— we talked off the air, it's why, you know, eyewitness testimony is so not reliable, you know, because we can deceive ourselves.

Or you have to have the collective of of eyewitness testimony and all of a sudden to piece together what's going on. You know, think about, you know, what we chatted about with NFL, right? Instant replay. So you have referees who are challenged to determine, you know, what's a touchdown, for example, in real time, in a sport that's fast. I mean, it's really kind of remarkable how often they get it right, by the way, you know, at the speed and the vantage point they have, which is a big thing because we have the benefit You know, we're sitting at home, you know, cracking open a beer with a 75-inch TV in front of us, you know, looking at this in slow motion, right? Every camera angle possible when the challenge flag gets thrown. But there'll be that one angle that usually will give us that indisputable evidence is like, yes, you know, and when we think about it in terms of people, um, it isn't that that camera is any better than any of the other cameras or the one person smarter than anyone else, but they were, they have a particular vantage point in the situation that allows them to see what's going on. And to the extent that we recognize that vantage point and appreciate it and are willing to listen to it, even if the call is going against our team, which is another perspective on how we look at— nah, that didn't really fit. Yeah, right. Yeah. I don't think that was really a penalty or it's not enough to reverse the call made on the field. Right. So, uh, but, uh, you know, these things become, I think, really powerful. So, you know, again, you know, when we think about these 3 buckets that we started talking about, one of them is what's going on. People can certainly be hugely helpful in, expanding our worldview so that we just understand more events and, and the dynamics around those things. Then getting people's very specific and very interesting understanding of what those events mean. And, and what does that look like? What does it mean for them? What does it mean for the world? What, you know, uh, but then there is the, now what, how do, what do we do? How do we act on that? And this is where I thought it was particularly interesting in speaking with Jennifer Vessels last week in Executive Growth Alliance, because that action now starts to be based not on, you know, a specific individual point of view or self-interest or even an organization's complete self-interest. It's what's going to serve the broader ecosystem that we operate in that will make it healthy for all of us to advance our particular positions, to see the world in terms of abundance and not to do something that is going to inadvertently and unintentionally hurt someone else for no good reason.

Yeah. It's a, and it's a, it's a big lofty goal. And I think, yeah, and I really think she's, she's onto something, you know, you and I both have talked about how excited we are that, you know, to address just, just big challenges, you know, and I'm thinking of countless things and both of us, we've got plenty of background where we solved a problem and the solution of that problem created another problem that we, you know, we, we never dreamed. That, that, that would, and sometimes that problem is even bigger than the one that we, we tried to solve. And her approach to bring as many people into the room who have a vested interest in this ecosystem can really, can really work to provide the perspective to eliminate that or reduce it greatly.

It can. And, but then it'll come down to, are the people in that room, do they have a belief system that gives them the confidence that people can trust one another in that environment, truly work together without someone believing that someone else has a side agenda or something going on there that, you know, poisons that environment. And that's a big deal and it's a big hurdle, you know, for a lot of folks to overcome. You know, one of the One of the things that made me think about too, when it comes to both perspective and perception, I think a little bit, is when you hear what Jennifer talks about, and it's very lofty, and it's like you get the ecosystem together and you're preparing for the future and its long-term goals and all that. And then I think about living in a world where PE firms are buying up companies, you know, left and right. They wanna hold onto them for 3 to 5 years, maybe 3 to 7 years on the outside. And they're looking to, they want to turn, you know, they want hockey stick growth, if you will, right? As they say. And, you know, it's kind of interesting and you wonder, you know, in terms of the overall health of that organization, what does that look like? You wonder, you want to sell it and sell it to someone in time that, you know, you're not still holding on to it when the music stops playing, right?

Yeah, exactly.

But, you know, I bet that a lot of PE firms would say to me, hey, hold on now, you know, yeah, we're looking for growth, but in order for us to really sell this company, we can't turn over an unhealthy company. We can't turn over an organization to someone else that we've stripped clean, right? And just propped up the P&L without really having— that's what due diligence is all about. That's what everything happens. And I know a lot of PE firms, for example, will, whether they bring in their own CEO or they're working with the current CEO, will usually have that CEO hire a coach, or they hire a coach for the CEO. They put that together. And I think that can be really helpful. I'd almost like to see it though where these same PE firms were really basically requiring them to also be part of a peer group, to be out there with other CEOs that are outside of their industry sector and who give them that broader view of the landscape and give them different interpretations of what that landscape was all about so that they can make healthy decisions for the organization. And not to mention maybe build relationships and, um, you know, recognize opportunities for new income streams for the company that may not be part of its current core business. And I think, you know, getting outside is the only way you can make that happen. But I would almost love, maybe at some point, it would be great to have a guest who's on who would be from a PE firm. And we could talk about that very thing in terms of long-term, short-term growth, transactional versus relationships to all of the things that I think in some respects can give PE firms, again, from a perception standpoint for people outside that industry, you know, a bad name. And like anything else, I suppose there are really good PE firms out there and there are others that, um, you know, have a different approach, but, um, maybe kind of an interesting idea for a future guest sometime, because maybe for us, it becomes a real learning moment in terms of how they really work. And a lot of what, um, their priorities really are, and maybe for our, uh, our audience as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You know, to illustrate the perspective thing, I remember I was invited, many years ago, back in the '90s, Jack Welch was heading up General Electric. They, of course, they had a large locomotive business, I assume still do. And, uh, he made a comment about the Japanese bullet train and he said, you know, so different. And of course here's a guy that was, you know, trained in chemical engineering and, you know, he, he had the hard, hard science background. But he said, you know, just the approach is different. I mean, when you think about, okay, we need a passenger train that'll travel in excess of 200 miles an hour, you know, here our North American sensibilities are going to be, you know, what kind of an engine would that take? I mean, what kind of power do we have to have to generate that kind of speed? And he said, but in Japan, it's like, okay, forget the track that this thing has to be on. What bed, what foundation would the track have to be resting on that could safely sustain a 200-mile-an-hour passenger train? You know, so you're not even thinking about the rail, you're thinking about the bed that the rail sits on, which he said would be completely counter to the American approach to it, which I thought was interesting.

So Here's a third approach because a couple of days ago I was reading about the Chinese maglev trains.

Yeah.

So it's basically, it's not touching anything basically.

Yeah, exactly.

Well, this was in the '90s when you all said this, but here we are, right? With the train that they're talking about doing at 600 kilometers an hour, basically bridging the gap between the bullet train and air travel. And of course, between many destinations, when you want to start factoring in how long it takes you to get to the airport and get through security and do all the things you've got to do, um, that is very different from this. And obviously anyone who's traveled even between Philadelphia and New York or New York and Washington realizes that it's much better to take the train than to fly. I mean, you can take the Acela and, and, you know, when you're going from DC into New York, it drops you right into Penn Station. You are right there. You're not having to get off at LaGuardia or Newark or something. And, you know, I mean, make your way into the city, you know, it's just night and day better. So, but the speed of those trains, and again, the way they think about how you move people across land where there's no wheels involved, and pretty cool.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, very cool.

This is not something that I, you know, again, this is what makes the world go round, right? I mean, we'll be rubbing sticks together trying to create fire if I even ever were to even think about that. Um, and it's because we have people with different kinds of brains and minds and curiosity and talents that we have a world as advanced as it is. And, uh, everybody contributes to it in their own way, but we could never— no one person could ever have done it by themselves.

Well, the power of the global economy. I mean, you know, so you've got, you've got all these multi- cultural perspectives as well. Forget the fact that I'm in Texas, you're in California, and you're from Boston, and I'm from, I'm from Oklahoma. I mean, you know, now we've got, we've got global perspective, which is also a big game changer.

Speaking of that, I think there was, um, it was the former, um, premier of China that they asked one time what he thought about the American revolution? And he said, it's too soon to tell.

Right.

So exactly. So again, you start thinking about the longer view that those cultures take on things versus the very different, more near-term view that we look at as Americans. It's pretty different, which makes, negotiation's a challenge, obviously, for us around the world. We're looking, we've got a next election coming up. We have all these things and these guys are sitting there and they're not going anywhere. They get all day. Exactly. They're in no hurry. No. And it, that's right. Fascinating thing.

So when our individual listeners are thinking about, you know, their ability to see more clearly what's going on or to gain perspective from other people to try to figure out what does that mean? What does that mean to them? What does it mean in a bigger picture? And then, okay, now what? Now what am I going to do about it? I mean, what are some takeaways that come to your mind that an individual leader in whatever capacity they may be, that they could improve that in their lives?

I think this is where talking to one another and putting ourselves in a position to act is helpful. Now, I read a thing recently. They talked about the fact that if you and I were to sit down with any kind of material, it could be a book or whatever it happens to be, I think the percentage was that we've got about a 26% chance of remembering that for a 2-day period. If we repeat that act, it goes up into the high 40s. If we actually work with that material and talk to other people about it, it's at 69%. So when we think about what we do— and this is part of what's talked about in the whole learning achieving cycle from The Power of Peers, right? It's when we learn together and we can help one another, we not only embed that learning, but we give one another the courage to act on that learning because now we have a true understanding of not only what's going on, but where it comes from and the why. And so I think to the extent that we continue to pressure test our ideas and our thoughts and listen for understanding with people, as you suggested really at the top of the show, that that's what's going to put us in a position to act. And I think act in a way that has the best chances for a positive outcome. So, um, I think that, um, I think, you know, as we're kind of wrapping up today, that's probably kind of a good thought, um, to leave with, and that, you know, make sure that we invite people into our circle that, you know, they may have shared values, they may have some shared understanding, the things that unite us, but also the fact that they see the world differently is something we should celebrate and we should appreciate and enjoy and continue to learn And when we do that, uh, we've got a chance to really do some great things.

We'll put links in the, uh, in the show notes to this ladder of inference that Leo, uh, talked about and, and maybe some other useful links. You can find that at leobottary.com. That's L-E-O-B-O-T-T-A-R-Y.com. And we haven't talked about it, but we are on C-Suite Network and there are links over at the website to that. There are a lot of great shows over at C-Suite. and, uh, we're, we're pretty pleased to be part of that network. So give kudos and shout out to those guys as well.

Jeffrey Hayslett and his whole group over in C-Suite Network are amazing. Uh, um, you know, I actually just published a third piece, uh, in CEO World now that I'm kind of a newer opinion columnist, if you will, uh, over there and really enjoying that, talking a lot about things like work we're talking about today, but talking about just the relationships that we have both formally and informally with those around us and how they can inform, you know, our success and how we can help others be successful as well. So anyway, with that, we got game 3 coming up and, you know, we will see how we, see how we do in St. Louis.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, good luck to the Bruins.

You're right. Have a good, have a good weekend.

You too. To learn more about our show and what we we do, to submit questions to us, and to subscribe to What Anyone Can Do Podcast, please visit our website, whatanyonecandodo.com. What Anyone Can Do Podcast is hosted by Leo Battari and me, Randy Cantrell. Music provided by Kevin MacLeod is Vibe Ace, licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0 license. Thanks for watching or listening. We hope you'll share the podcast.