Ep.30 A (genuinely) interesting conversation about Leadership Development.

Speaker A: Welcome to the Product Design for Learning podcast. Uh, we have Kenny tomorrow on with us and our topic is fairly broad, as in, I just said to Kenny it's about leadership development and left it as kind of vague as that. Um, and anyone that's listened to maybe more than one episode will know, uh, I have a. Not a hatred for leaders. Just to clarify. They're all. I've worked with some really lovely leaders. Um, but I think the industry of leadership development, I've got a marginal love hate relationship. It's not that strong. As in, I think there's some areas where people are doing incredible things and there's some areas where I feel like I've seen it 10,000 times before and it is just the same thing. Rinse and repeat. Um, I think we've got someone different in Kenny here, so who is not the rinse and repeat type person. So keen to see where we get to with that. And Kenny, would you like to introduce yourself as well?

Speaker B: Yeah, thanks Greg. No, absolutely. Thanks Greg. Thanks for having me on the podcast. So, yeah, I'm Kenny Temewal and I'm, um, currently, uh, in a role of head of people enablement at a AI infrastructure company. And um, we can talk some more about my background in the past, but I've been in the leadership, talent, um, management, whatever you want to call it, culture space for a few years. Prior to this I was at a, I was in a consulting firm, worked at organizations like Netflix, um, improbable games company, um, working in the metaverse, uh, but started out my career in um, in music. Um, people who follow me on LinkedIn May Know. I, My degree was in music. I was a singer for a number of years, freelance artist. Um, I had the joy of working with singers in the UK like Leon Lewis and bands like Westlife. And this was back in the day. I always say they wouldn't have a clue who I was today because I was just a freelance freelancer, um, on stage with part of an ensemble. So yeah, that's been my trajectory as a, um, that's kind of the radio version.

Speaker A: Nice, nice. Uh, you might see anyone's watching like the little clips of this. Uh, there was a little piano behind me, um, and that is partly my, uh, maybe my late teens, early 20s, trying to make it with a band. Uh, that didn't really work out obviously. And then just years and years and years of saying to my wife every time we saw a piano, like, I wish I could play piano. And then I got that and I still can't. Play piano. So, um, yeah, that's my short version of how music is going for me right now.

Speaker B: Well, I mean, at least that's fair. That's fair. Ah. Uh, but at least you've done something about it. You've gotten a keyboard. I always say this to my. I often say this to my daughter who, um, she's a piano player and currently working on grade six, which is for her age is not bad at all. And I, um, often say to her that when I was younger, I would often have people come up to me and say, oh, I wish they'd see me carrying a guitar. And they'd say, I wish I continued to play. But it remained a wish for them and it hasn't remained a wish for you. You're doing something about it. So that's. That's. That's decent. This is it.

Speaker A: It feels like. It feels like, um. Yeah, like playing guitar. Like. And we'll get onto leadership in a second. Like the, the finger style and like the shapes that. I remember my guitar teacher was saying to me, like, you're basically making your hand perform or contort itself into shapes that are completely foreign to what you've been doing.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: If you grab a cup, it's this. If you hold a, you know, a, A knife or a fork, you holding, like this. Um, whereas we're asking you to do this and this and this and this and all these kind of things and then scales and. It took me a couple months and then just kind of clicked. Whereas with piano, it's still shapes that maybe aren't even as weird as playing guitar, but I somehow have just gone, you know, I can pick up a guitar even if I haven't played for six months and out. You know, hopefully something pretty useful. Uh, I sit at piano and just, Just, uh, yeah, little finger and thumb, I can get those down.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: If they try and separate too far, it gets a bit weird if these middle guys come in making a horrible noise. Um. But, yeah, anyway, that's a whole. Probably a whole other podcast about my. My foray into a piano playing, um, but leadership. So like I said, I've got a kind of a. Like I said, maybe it's love, hate. Maybe it's kind of like an intrigue or a, you know, what is really going on. But you have, as you mentioned, worked at places like Netflix, which, I'll be honest, I was incredibly jealous when I saw your phones on LinkedIn of like, oh, I'm the, uh, the Netflix office. And I was like, I bet that's Pretty cool. And um, you know, they've, They've uh, you know, and other places like Netflix will say, um, that have rejected conventional leadership development, which I guess is why you were there and you were doing what you do best. But how do you, how do you reconcile, I guess either the organization, because it is a gigantic organization, or the people that are in that organization that have obviously been elsewhere that have seen maybe the rinse and repeat versions of leadership development elsewhere. Um, how do you, how do you reconcile those kind of more traditional. Is probably the best way of saying it. More traditional versions of what they're expecting, what they would like to see, what they are maybe demanding versus how you take about, Take uh up, you know, thinking about leadership and what you explain to people, that is. And how you deal with it.

Speaker B: Yeah. So, so with the, I mean with the Netflix of it all, the thing for people, the thing I, people ought to understand at least is or would be helpful for people to understand is the radical approach that Netflix took originally came from Reed Hastings, the now chairman and former, um, former CEO. Um, I've got a, I don't want to plug my own podcast but at some point I'll, I'll do an episode on this and uh, around um, on my podcast that the half has not been told. But the. Let me say a few things that will set the context for how Netflix came to think about leadership or at least do leadership and just interrupt me at any time. But people have got to remember that with Reed Hastings had his own company, um, pure. I think it was pure software. I can't remember the name of it, but he had his own company, made a ton of mistakes there, the story goes, and then started Netflix and there was a bunch of things that he didn't want to do there. So just even at that point, if you stop there, this is. He was very intentional about wanting to do things differently in, in the new, in the new, um, in the new world of Netflix. The next thing I think the other thing to say is that um, where Netflix landed with its culture memo. And I will tie this back to your point around, you know, how do I reconcile how organizations operate compared to what certainly what I believe in and why I came to see at Netflix, um, which isn't and wasn't perfect of course that Netflix ended up with a way of working, you can call it a culture, um, a ah, belief system about what it means to work in an organization where that was very intentional. So things like not recording, um, holidays is a famous one, ah, average performance, getting you know, a generous severance package is another one. But there were things there that people don't talk about today. So Reed Hastings very much wanted to people just to be treated as adults and as human beings and um, and in fact, to be honest, Reid at the time had a very, quite a dislike for the, the, the HR or the people and talent world. Um, and so, so much of the way of working was led by Reid. And so, so how Netflix came to do leadership ironically was um, stemmed from the fact that they didn't have a chief HR officer, they didn't have a chief talent officer. So they weren't, they weren't necessarily doing it. I mean they had teams there and they, there were different pockets of teams doing some traditional things. But as far as the kind of broader vision and the direction, um, that was coming from someone who is, um, certainly at the time quite a genuinely innovative thinker in the people and talent space, which meant that they didn't get Netflix, didn't get stuck in that sort of traditional, a lot of the traditional ways of doing things. Again, not without fault, but yeah, just

Speaker A: to interject there, is that also, I mean I could be way off the market, but is that also a link to the fact that they were uh, like a disruptor in their, in their industry? So whilst their product isn't, I guess I don't say it's groundbreaking because it kind of was at the time, but like it's a streaming service, like it's still basically you're watching TV at home but you just get to choose what you watch. Rather than saying BBC1 on a Wednesday at 7, we're going to shoot this and that's it? Um, was it that kind of, was it in line with them saying, we're kind of leading a charge in a, in a newer, uh, but very competitive market and so we kind of will kind of do everything else internally in a similar fashion as in, let's just, let's just kind of try and be a bit more grown up and a bit more, I was going to say 2026, but whatever it was then, like whatever year it was, rather than kind of being more 1996 about it.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, well, remember I wasn't there at the time, but from the relationships I have and the people I've spoken to, um, the first thing is that it was an experiment. So coming from pure software, what people later came to read in the culture deck, um, all of that was an experiment. There was no guarantee, no one really knew. And so much of business is ultimately an experiment. Right. As far as what we end up deciding to do, um, and which direction we end up going in. Uh, so that's the first thing. Then the second thing to your point, around disruptors, Reid and the team wouldn't use the word disruptors. Now. In fact, I know that, um, when I was there, they were actively avoiding that kind of language. The thing to remember is, whereas for many tech companies, the heart of the sort of function that is at the heart of the work ultimately, are the engineering, the engineers. Whereas Netflix was and is a merger of both technology, so the engineers and content and story, so the commissioners, the content leaders. Um, and so where the direction that the team went in and the philosophy of Reed Hastings was to say, if your organization is. If the kind of, uh, prime currency of your company is the stories you tell and your ability to choose and select the best stories that will entertain the world, what kind of environment, what kind of organizational culture. I don't like to use that word, but do you need to foster that? And where Netflix landed was this idea of freedom and responsibility. So needing a system, a internal organization that, um, values freedom and responsibility, operating at the edge of chaos, as opposed to the stringent processes and procedures that were made for quite an antiquated, you know, industrial, um, era of the 1950s, and the sort of Taylorism that your audience would be familiar with. Um, and so Reid and the team, again, this was the philosophy, at least, um, were clear that for Netflix to do the kind of work that it does, you need a different kind of environment, and you have to then rethink. Um. So there was this whole idea around first principles thinking that came up quite a lot, which is to say, um, let's not do everything like everybody else has done it. If you were to take a blank sheet of paper, what would you do in a particular area that applies just as much to content strategy and, uh, marketing as it does to the people and talent arena? And that was what helped the people organization, therefore. Well, I should say it this way, the people organization couldn't get away with doing things traditionally. Yes, because if the environment you're in is one of, hey, we don't want to just, um, plug and play what everyone else has done. But to be clear, not every company can do that. And so for people listening, you might be in a startup or in a regulatory, Heavily regulatory or regulated environment. Um, and so it's worth just caveating that what Netflix did worked for Netflix at the time. Um, and you can't just sort of lift and shift it because it just depends on your internal, Just your entire company context.

Speaker A: And how does, how does that, or how did that, uh, kind of play with people that. Because you working in Netflix wasn't everyone's first job. Like, there was people, obviously, that have been other places they've been more experienced with or more kind of exposure, uh, to traditional things. So coming into those kind of environments where it's a bit more free, whilst it's like, I'll try and rephrase this a little bit. So, like, I've seen with, with people when you're talking about things like something really simple, like a technology implementation.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And, um, you know, we, we all have supercomputers in our pockets. We all have access to, you know, an infinite amount of things externally, and we're exposed to things, uh, you know, every second of the day, even down to smart devices in your home and everywhere else as well. But weirdly, when it comes to something brand new that is not groundbreaking internally, people somehow seem to go, I need, I need a training on that. Or I need, like, dude, it's like three buttons. Just click three buttons and it's done. Um, so it's kind of weird. External and internal work person, even though they're the same person, seems to really struggle with things like that internally. But that's literally something really basic, like a platform or a system. When it comes to something like, gigantic. I was going to say culture shift. Um, but all just different. Different, uh, approaches to things like leadership development. How does that play with people that are much more comfortable or used to. We all turn up for a couple of days, we all sit down, we do a trust exercise, and then we take our photo for LinkedIn or putting our arms around each other and like, how does that, how does that fit with or how does that play with those people?

Speaker B: I'm not sure I'm following. Do you mean, um, yeah. Could you say that again? I'm not sure I'm following.

Speaker A: So the people that are more used to, like, a more traditional leadership program, if you disemploys, that kind of thing, then they, they join Netflix and they. Yeah, and then they kind of. They don't have that. They have something completely different.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, got it. Yeah. I don't know, to be honest. Um, because I don't remember having. I may have had some conversations around this. Um, what I will say is that you did have. So Netflix is truly unique in a lot of ways because of some of the reasons we just mentioned. Culturally. If you think about where people would have come from. So people would have come in the UK from well across the UK and Europe from um, public broadcasters. So the BBCs of this world, the ITDs and then their equivalents in the local countries in Europe and then in the US they would have come from the Disney's, from the other networks and studios who didn't operate in the same way, the sort of legacy studios and networks who didn't operate in the same way Netflix did. Um, and so I think you're right. I do remember conversations with um, content leaders who would say hey, look at the BBC we had this kind of mentoring program or we had this kind of um, job share or um, stretch assignments and things like that. And yeah, Netflix just didn't do a lot of those things. Um, so, but, but what Netflix did offer was um, a very deep and rich um, uh, seminar program which I trained in with which was headed up by a chap called Peter Riling. I don't know if he'd ever listen to this but hello Peter, if you are listening. Um, and that was based on the Aspen Institute's seminar approach. So and that was a very. People use this word a lot but it was generally quite an immersive, um, memorable um, deep experience. And so whilst Netflix lacked a lot of those um, off the shelf and very conventional programs, the existence of the seminar was powerful enough that people actually, I don't think people, um, I don't think people minded that much. Of course I can't speak for it, speak for everybody. Um, I'm sure there was a good number of people who wish there were more. In fact what I will say is over time Netflix came to realize that they hadn't invested enough in growth. And what I mean by that is um, the philosophy of Netflix was hire fully formed adults was the phrase, um, who didn't, who were experts in their role, who didn't need a lot of development investment and you paid top dollar to take them out of the market and to get the very best talent. And over time the way I describe it is you can bring in Celine Dion, but Celine Dion doesn't need more Celine Dion's as her backing vocalist or in her band. Um, they don't all have to be as good as Celine Dion. Whereas what, uh, Celine Dion. I'm pretty dated now if I'm giving Celine as an example, that I mean love Celine Dion, um, Taylor, whoever you want to give as your, as your example. My daughters keep telling me that I, that I, I need to listen to more Freya sky, but I think she's the kind of, uh, she's all the rage right now.

Speaker A: So come show my age. I don't know who that is.

Speaker B: Yeah, my daughters would go crazy if they heard you say that. So. So a teen doesn't. An organization doesn't need multiple various guys or whoever you want to, um, uh, and over time, Netflix began to realize that this idea of trying to get in a star talent who don't need as much development, that just wasn't sustainable. Um, and over time they had to begin investing in, um, programs and things that would help people developing their roles. Um, they still very much took a learning on the job type approach. But, um. But yeah, there was a bit of a shift, I think, in strategy over time.

Speaker A: Yeah, and that's the thing. And I think with, um. Like I said, it was one of the things I kind of was thinking about was, uh, not just Netflix, but like any company that's doing something a little bit different, either massively different or just a little bit different. The amount of different roles I'd worked in when I was kind of in a corporate role or companies, I'm seeing now as, uh, running my own company that are still doing those kind of more traditional leadership programs. And you kind of ask them about it and say, well, what, what are you trying to change or develop or what opportunities you're trying to look for from people or with people? Um, and then, and then what are you hoping to achieve? Like what. How will you know this was worth everyone's time, the actual event, and then whatever you've asked them to do afterwards. Like, or is it just to say we've got some leadership development? No one seems to answer. Or if they do answer, it's a very guarded. It's really good. Like, we get some really good. We get some really good feedback. People really love it. It's like, okay, well, I love a lot of things, but they're probably not all good for me. Like. M. I just like sitting down all day, like just watching films, like, right. M. If I did that every day, I wouldn't get anything done. I wouldn't even have a job. And uh, yeah. And I wouldn't be very productive.

Speaker B: Um, well, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker A: So I was gonna say, but what is the disconnect when companies know that that's not the. They know that that's not really helpful or it's not really achieving anything, but then they still kind of cling to it. Like, what. What is stopping them? What is their.

Speaker B: What is the.

Speaker A: What is the. You know, basically what's stopping them shifting. It doesn't like, it doesn't have to be, you know, groundbreaking doing something different like it is happening.

Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Well, the pain, it doesn't hurt enough I guess is the short answer, I imagine. Um, it's not painful enough to the leadership team, to the business. And so unless it becomes a pain point either to the bottom line or some other thing that the business cares about, then uh, then it's really harder to make a shift because uh, what you're talking about. Like again let's remember organizations are inherently messy as you know, they're inherently political, in many cases non rational m and ultimately filled with compromises. And if you think about that kind of a context to do the, the real organization organizational change that you're talking about uh, involves real change from individuals in the, in the business.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And, and actually it's just far, it's far easier, it's much easier to do the things that um, that they've done before, uh, in our space. Especially because you know, when we're not a science. And um, and I was talking about this recently with a friend. It's the age old argument around how you can demonstrate measurable impact and change and all of that. We really can't do that as effectively as we'd like to in our space. And that's not something that I think we should be spending a lot of time on anyway. That's another discussion. Um, and so because of that, um, because there is no real agreed upon answer around how people change and how organizations change. Um, it's not a mathematical formula. People end up doing what they know and what feels convenient. So it's that sort of conspiracy of convenience. And uh, our area, the sort of people and talent world just becomes the sort of hey look, just go and figure it out. Just go and do. When you're in board meetings or you know, exec reviews, they're not going into depth around the leadership development program that was rolled out. They're just not right. They're having conversations about the you know, um, maybe time to hire or they're having conversations around headcount and how that's affecting the business. They're having conversations um, with marketing, they have around and sales, um, around the products. They're having conversations around new features in the roadmap and supply chain and all of those sorts of things.

Speaker A: So,

Speaker B: so, so in that context the people team and the leadership development practitioners aren't really incentivized to do a lot different. Um, uh, they are incentivized to Sort of just keep going on and keep, keep people happy. Or at least um, as someone once said to me, look, if I don't hear anything then no news is good news. Um, so to sort of quietly beaver away and just sor. Doing what you're doing, um, and maybe try and have some fun with it. Now that's not something I deeply believe or I think ought to be. The way I'm just speaking to the reality. And so to your question around how organizations hold on to the things that they've always done, I think it's part of this um, compromise that is um, at the heart of how organizations operate.

Speaker A: I think. Yeah, I agree that it's, it's an org, it's an organism rather than an organization. As in when people say like uh, you know, the business, like yeah, I almost feel like people, it's the same way people say I'm just going to AI that like it's AI a business. It's all multiple, multiple things that make it up. It's not one business is not one person. And this is just a one man company. Um, but then it's um, but it's trying to, to almost take them back. So when you're talking about just then about what they're talking about in board meetings as an example, all of those decisions that are being made are based on someone's, you know, somehow it's got to that point that they're making a decision because of leadership decisions before them where it's got to the point where a feature has been created or killed or fast tracked or sales are doing really well because of a particular leadership style or maybe not because of a particular leadership style. Um, I'm just wondering if, if um, if that's different for a couple of questions here. I guess. So is that different for different industries? Is it different for company size and does it matter, ah, if someone is, is doing kind of traditional leadership development or at all? Because I, I found it interesting when you're saying that Netflix were originally looking at um, fully formed adults. It's like yes, they are. But yeah, if even a 10 interview process, um, you still only getting like 1% of that person until they physically turn up and start doing things and start making decisions and giving you what they've got. Don't really know them, um, you know, they're a real life person I hope. But um, other than that it's a real gamble.

Speaker B: Yeah. So is your question whether it matters if people do traditional or conventional programs in their own context?

Speaker A: Yeah, I'm Just wondering, like if it's a case of if those. I guess the point I'm trying to get to is if those more traditional programs don't really matter, they don't really move a needle. Why would. First of all, why would companies still go for them, especially when they're talking about things like pushing a feature, uh, uh, sales, marketing. Because those things obviously do move and that's in every business. You know, if your sales are down, then companies aren't doing as well. You have to what you're up to. So why would you spend money on say for example, a great big summer party, um, and he's not doing very well because that's money you don't really need to spend. Whereas with the same token, why would you spend money on a leadership development program that doesn't really do anything, regardless if your company's doing well? Because you could spend that money making a company that's doing really well even better, or your company that's failing trying to bring it back to.

Speaker B: Yeah, I'd love to see the data across different sectors and different industries. Um, my assumption is that there's far more scrutiny over how budget is being spent nowadays. Post Covid, I'd, um, be surprised if the kinds of flagship um, programs that were being um, expensed and funded five, seven, eight years ago are still being funded today. I'd be very surprised, um, uh, especially in the world of AI that we're in today. From my experience in what I've seen, we've definitely had more robust conversations about whether a particular program was needed or not. Um, the other answer to your question is that, well, where it is happening is, you know, it's again, it's that sort of um, that compromise, that sort of pragmatism, which is often you've got execs who have, as part of their package maybe, and I'm not. And this is generalized. It's not any particular company that I've worked at necessarily, but just generally you have execs who've um, negotiated within their package a particular coaching package or mentoring. Um, and hence, you know, you end up, you might continue a program because you know, there's a bunch of execs for whom that, that program is important. Um, and uh. And then also there is the, there's probably the treadmill syndrome of well, we've always done it. If we remove this and take this away as an offering to, to people, then what are we going to do? Or um, what will be the reaction? What will be the response? Um, and there are many people in our industry who talks a lot about order takers and um, and it probably is probably connected to that. Um, whereas what, what. What we need is a little bit of courage to be able to step back and ask those questions of what if we, what if we tried something different? Um, what would happen if we stopped doing this? Um, would there be. Would nothing change? Um. Uh. I remember someone once saying, um, you know, if you, you uh, don't. You don't. I think it was Nick, um, uh, Nick Shackton Jones. I think he said something like, uh, there was complaints around measuring, um, behavior and measuring programs.

Speaker A: Ah.

Speaker B: And someone might say, well, you don't fatten a pig by weighing the pig. But the counterargument is, well, fair. But if you were feeding it the right kind of food, but it wasn't improving and it wasn't getting heavier or stronger, then you'd have some questions. Um, and so I think there is, um, I think there's some value in, in um, in kind of pausing and looking at what we're doing to try and understand what impact is it actually driving if we, if we stopped doing something. Um, would that make a difference? And just all of the usual kind of, I guess, semi scientific questions that you might want to ask about things. But what I loved about my, what I've taken from my time at Netflix was that there was just this, there was this. They led, I guess with this. Well, let me say it this way. I remember Reed Hastings was being asked a question around, um, programs and return on investment and measurement. And I recall, and many of this is apocryphal. Ah. But I recall him saying something like, we know this thing works. We know this. Or we know this thing is useful and is impactful, so let's continue to do it because we know this is a meaningful thing. Um, and I think where he was coming from on this, and this was related to a leadership program, I think where it was coming from was if you spent all the time and money, to your point, actually. But on the inverse, if you spent all your time and money to analyze whether that program was effective, I mean, what could you spend that money on? Yeah, um. If you already know deep down that this is an impactful thing, do you need the kind of, uh, what's the. Called. What's the sort of, um. Uh, scientific, uh, internal research? I forget the name of it, but it's the sort of, um, kind of gold standard of, um. Uh. I forget what it's called. Um. Anyway, it's a form of um, testing. What will happen is we'll move on and it will come, it will come back to me. But you don't need the level of scientific rigor. Right. And apply that internally to um, sort of these programs. And I quite appreciated that because it gave us a freedom to just do things and to use our own judgment about whether we thought things were impactful with this.

Speaker A: This is something. So I did a talk at World of Learning in whenever the Birmingham was randomized control trial.

Speaker B: Sorry, that was what I was thinking.

Speaker A: There you go. There you go. Um, and I basically said to them, I gave them the phrase like realized benefits and I think about everything kind of outside of learning. And they said that. So we were talking about ROI and these kind of things.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Um, and interesting this couple LinkedIn last few days as well. Um, and I said to me, your, we as a society are uh, buying into product services companies, those kind of things, because they're telling us it does something or it will give us something or it will take away something like a pain point. And then uh, online banking is a good example. Like there are way more than there used to be. But we've all chosen our uh, particular home for our online banking. Um, but then we don't sit and measure it data. Uh, maybe someone does, but we don't measure it going, what's the return on investment I'm getting from my Onzo account or from my whatever account. M. You just kind of go, yeah, it does, it does what I want it to do or I'm happy with it and until I'm not or sorry or when I'm not, then I will move. And getting that realized benefit, you don't need it screamed at you every single second of the day. This is great because like, so it's that point around, like you were saying about the Netflix thing around. You could sit and measure it, but you probably come to the same answer. You've just maybe got some numbers to put around it.

Speaker B: But yeah, and, and, and I know we probably want to move on, but I agree. And it's ah, the, if I'm completely frank, the ROI conversation and debate, um, is a boring one to me. That said, we're having this because I think, um, I'm interested in your perspective and I'm glad, grateful for the chance to share mine on it. But outside of this kind of space, just in the everyday, um, I think it's become a tired one in our industry. Um, you gave the washing machine example or the sort of home example. And similarly, imagine being uh, In Washington. You know the Washington march that Martin Luther King, um, spoke at. I sometimes imagine Greg being at the Washington march, being sat there as they're singing We Shall Overcome. We Shall Overcome. I imagine sitting there and listening and being moved by the entire affair and Martin Luther King turning around and saying, um, one day I can imagine black boys and white girls and everything sitting together and um, everybody's clapping, everybody's kind of caught up in the moment of it all.

Speaker A: Mhm.

Speaker B: Imagine going down the steps, someone turning around and saying to you, could you fill out this survey? Just let me know what the experience was like, could you tell me what the impact was? Similarly, Jesus has these famous sermons on the mount know, that have stood the test of time, um, that have had quite an impact on people. Or you know, you choose your favorite teacher and um, you know, turn your other cheek or um, about anger and all those things and you imagine someone just turning around and giving you a, again, giving you another survey and say, what was the impact of that? What was the return on investment? And so, uh, I say all of that to say I'm just much more interested in the conversation which is about how do we impact, how do we change, how do we shift people, how do we make a difference to people's lives? I'm less interested in the conversation about um, how we measure what we're doing. Because if what you're doing isn't, has no agency, has no um, power to transform or change or impact or whatever adjective you want to use, then it's a waste of time anyway. So that's kind of where I, where I stand.

Speaker A: So this is interesting. So we've literally today, just so everyone knows when we're recording this, we've literally released an episode today on ROI because we did a poll and said what are the things that are most bothering people in ND and with the AI didn't come top. I think it was a close, but ROI was the main one. So we kind of got into it. And uh, one of the points that I've kind of mentioned a number of times to people about product design, um, learning is largely, I don't feel like it should be a conversation that's gone on this long or should be that deep and meaningful. If someone says I need something done, um, it's because something's happening right now. People aren't very good, they're not very quick, they're having a struggle, they're having a pain point and go, great. How do you know that's a problem then? And then what not having that problem look like you go, okay, great, then you've got your before and you're after. In the middle is something you have done or you have intervened with something. Yeah, intervened with something and you've still got that problem. Then your thing hasn't worked. If you've intervened with your thing and it has worked, great, move on, carry on with your day. Next problem. Like, I really don't feel like it should be that difficult for people to kind of um, just get it.

Speaker B: Well, agreed. And we have to ask the question, uh, who is asking for the roi? Who's asking the question? Is it your cfo? Is it your CEO? Is it the chief, the chro or chief people officer themselves? Um, is it the board? Um, and in most cases maybe it's a mixture of some of those different players. Um, but we're not the only ones facing that. Marketing has faced that for various long, a very long time. Um, and it's the, I guess it's, you could say it's the plague of our kind of management philosophy in, in today's world that has just kind of been a hungover from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And again, the organizations um, that are bucking the train, the organizations that are um, trying to do something different are also looking at, looking at everything and saying, how could we do this differently? Um, where I'm at an AI startup and we were saying before the show started that what I'm enjoying about it is the chance to say how could we do this in a way that on everybody else is doing it? Um, how can we avoid, um, simply trotting out the same old, um, the same old solutions. Especially in, you know, we're in a day and age where uh, the revolution around AI is, is kind of incomparable. There's, there's nothing that I think you and I in our lifetime have ever faced, no, God, no, ever, you know, ever experienced that is remotely like what we're experiencing now in this just transformation around technology and AI. And so how on earth can we expect to continue the same kinds of philosophies and strategies that we have in our arena? Um, I mean there's one thing to try and do it during COVID because we were scrambling, trying to change things like our work from home, our location of work strategies and all sorts of things. Now AI comes ah, and it's almost like to your point, we sort of still hope these things hold up and remain resilient in the face and maybe some of these things will somehow still be. It's like the tidal wave comes in. It's like, gosh, you're resilient sapper, you've been here for quite a few decades and we're still, we're still doing the same old, same old thing. So I do hope that um, the, the kind of spin off benefit of where we are um, will be that a number of these things, um, uh, get dismantled and we find, we do find new ways and new approaches.

Speaker A: I hope so. I really hope so. And interestingly, you mentioned about AI and startups and doing something differently and literally AI has been maybe the one thing I've been talking about for the last month with lots of people. It just seems to be coming up everywhere but in multiple different facets of conversation. Um, obviously because it's the biggest thing that's happening to us. But when it comes to things like you talked before about, um, marketing people ask about return on investment to go back on that for two seconds. So things like, uh, so I'd never really heard the term roas until I started running my own company and then realized about what does that mean?

Speaker B: Roas?

Speaker A: It's a, it's return on ad spend. Um, oh, okay. And is anyone else got into the murky world. I did my toe in and then realized that I don't have a toe anymore. So I took it straight out LinkedIn advertising M& someone stole what's your. What's your roas? And I was like, I don't know what that means, um, and then found out that I need to know way more than I did. So, um, that's transactional. So like you spend I know a hundred dollars on trying to tell people about a thing you do or a thing you're selling and then ideally you want to see $300 in sales. Like so you can go, oh great, I've got a one to three return. Like maybe that's what you're looking for. So understand with, with uh, kind of your heads of. And those kind of things going well, we need to know that if we're funneling money into something like that, that we are getting a return. I get that it's a transaction. There is obviously a massive creative element to it. Then it ultimately comes down to what you're spending on those kind of things. Whereas when it comes to things like measuring leadership, um, it isn't a transaction. It's not a case of well, somebody went on a call so they must be good. It's just a case of well, they went on a course transaction is that they turned up everything else after that is, is up to them as an individual, as a human being. But interestingly, with the uh, massive insurgents of AI into our life, to our uh, jobs and our working lives, that kind of blur between, you know, the same person, their kind of in work identity and their outer work identity being blurred by technology anyway. And now with AI again, some people are saying that they don't even really think about certain things as much anymore because they automate it or they kind of ask AI a question and I'm doing it now, they ask an LLM a question, um, but then they don't really challenge it. Let's go. Oh great. It told me, I'm like, you wouldn't, you wouldn't walk up to a stranger and say, I've heard you're the guy to talk to about, you know, whatever this topic is, I've got a problem. What do you think? And they just say the first thing that they think of and you go, great. Gotcha. So like, it's interesting how AI is going to shift leadership development in what I think should have been a completely non transactional area before, but we never really figured out if we can, could or should measure it. Whereas now we're bringing AI in, uh, or it's coming in. Side note, I'm not entirely sure where I sit with AI coaches. Um, but like people spending their time talking to these tools or using these tools for things, are we then literally falling into very much a transactional area with AI in leadership and just going, well, this is the new way. Like, I don't really know, I don't really know what the future looks like for that. It feels exciting and

Speaker B: yeah, I understand, I understand what you're saying and um, I suspect most of your listeners do too as well. Like what you've described the mixed feeling of both excitement and strangeness. I think a lot of us share and on the piece around AI and leadership development and um, I will say, I'll say this for a long time, quote, unquote, leadership, open quote, leadership development, closed quote, if I can, if I can get it out, um, this has needed to be rethought for a long time. Um, and in the end, where you have CEOs and leaders who themselves have had great coaches or great mentors or who've gone through great, um, kind of programs, opportunities, they, they tend to get it and they tend to be the ones who aren't asking for, um, uh, you know, um, randomized control trial type.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Um, bar standards of, of kind of evidence, um, so in some cases you've got that kind of a leader, then you're in such a fortunate, fortunate place. But I'm pretty confident that there's still going to be a need um for the kinds of opportunities and spaces that allow people um to think, to make sense, to experience challenges, um, to be challenged, um, and to feel like they are making progress. And if you think about human beings, human beings are ultimately meaning making goal orientated social beings who I believe are deeply spiritual. That means there's a, that ties back to the thing of um, desiring uh, a sense of making a difference, of really uh, a sense of agency, a sense of um, of being part of something that is meaningful. And all of those things can't be uh, can only be um, fulfilled or serviced to via AI to a, to some small degree. Um. And yes there will be people who have very romantic relationships with AI eventually, you know, probably. And then when they, you know, they have the droids and all of that, um, it will just. I mean this is already going on so I know that this is a thing. But in the context of business and the context of how we help leaders um, in their roles, um, I do think you're still going to need the kinds of spaces that we've created at not just Netflix but in my current organization, um, N scale, um, but it's broader than that and I'm at risk at saying too much. But I just want to say if people listening are thinking, well okay, you're having this interesting conversation but practically what are you talking about? Well if you look at how we do performance management. Right, and what does that look like? Well that, that will need to change in the context of ah, um, a organization that um, is just operating very differently. Um, uh. This is a question that we are debating internally. Um where I am and I suspect lots of other organizations will continue to do so. Um, culture, how we talk about it, how we codify it, how we make it something that is real. And culture is a fuzzy word but ultimately that for me is um, about how we behave, how we act, how we show up, um, what. How we guide the choices we want people to make operationally on the ground. Um, and in an age of AI, um and in a world where geopolitically things are uh, let's just say um, pretty intense at the moment. Um, how organizations talk about these things um, are just going to become increasingly important and people joining organizations are going to want to know yeah how, how we're doing it and, and how we're doing it In a way that's sort of different. So it was a bit of a ramble.

Speaker A: But no, no.

Speaker B: As much as technology is changing people, people haven't really changed. People still want to be part of something that's different. Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker A: And this is it. No, and I was, I was very much agreeing with you on that. In that. Yes. And I again, I always try and bowl back any kind of technology, kind of based discussion around learning or anything like that or even around product design is ultimately, whether you are, you know, the biggest tech company in the world or a one man band trying to work with a company, ultimately it's people trying to help other people. Yeah, you're just a person that is not in the situation who's coming at it with fresh eyes, trying to say, yeah, what's happening? Can I help you do something? Or can I help really do something for you so you can carry on doing your job better, happier, safer, faster, whatever it needs to be. Um, and then you kind of. And then you start to add on all the layers of complexity and technology and geopolitical and everything else that's going on around the world. But then with that comes, and I don't know why, but maybe triggering is a bit of a, uh, an exaggeration but like uh, or an overblowing it. Find it a bit, I find the word authentic a bit triggering when it comes to like leadership chit chat. Um, maybe because I've seen it 9,000 times in you know, company value decks or in people talking about which have authentic leadership. You're like, surely that's like saying you should always breathe in and then breathe out and do that over and over again or you'll die. Like, it just feels like it's the most obvious thing. Um, yeah, because what's the opposite, like fake leadership? Like, I don't really understand why people talk about that. But then the only thing I was gonna say is when you bring in AI leadership, uh, either development or how people are leading or operating, does that then genuinely raise the question of authenticity, as in people are being augmented or supported by it?

Speaker B: Yeah, here's my take. The, The introduction of large language models, agents, um, and everything else that's come along with it. Um, as we said, it means that as a society and as a human race where we're a bit of an inflection point, we're a bit of a crossroads and that's an opportunity to rethink lots of things. So, so I think we should piggyback on that. That technology is forcing us As a society to rethink lots of things, our place in the world and um. And what I think we should also be rethinking a lot of these terms that we use as well. Um, leadership being one of them, authentic leadership being another culture, all of these things great that we've, we've thrown around. I mean I've worked in organizations and work in organizations where actually I'm quite far from that because I couldn't get away with using that kind of language because one I wanted that they would just turn around and business folk would just say what on earth are you talking about? And so I get that in more legacy organizations, in larger uh, more traditional sort of spaces, this is um, you know, ways of speaking and communicating have kind of congealed into this kind of um, Orwellian uh just double speak or sort of just this strange way of talking that we've all sort of developed and I just think we need to stop in my view just stop. And um. I don't want to say blow the whole thing up because given the context we're in that would be inappropriate as a, As a kind of um, uh visual language. But um, certainly discard it um, and be willing to say hey look, can you gain permission internally to do something different? Because in many ways you could argue look, it doesn't matter what we describe when we talk about it, but just get to the heart of what do you mean? And to your point that you mentioned Greg, what are you trying to change? What do you want to be different? Um, what's your goal here? And just let's get to the basic conversations of what is it we're trying to do do in organizations and um. Can, can we have those conversations without the usual labels of so called authentic leadership, so called um. Whatever the, whatever the list. I'm very tired of those things. As things as you are and as many, many people are. So. But what people are hungry for uh, and very awake for is um. Are the sort of the real conversations that will um, will make a difference. Um. Maybe the last thing I will say though is if we're honest with ourselves, um. I'll uh. Go back to something I mentioned earlier. Organizations are uh. Almost definitionally places, spaces of compromise. M. And. And there's something about the HR world um, that I think wants to. That. That likes sort of very nice sounding pleasant theoretically, um, sound um practices and interventions. Um. Whereas actually you're wanting to do this work in mostly capitalist environments that are um.

Speaker A: Um.

Speaker B: Are far from perfect and uh, you know, very Messy. Um, and actually if we're honest, most of what keeps the lights on for a lot of these organizations um, aren't what we're doing in the. In the people team. Um, there are probably a handful of really important priorities for companies. Um and in some cases we also ought to accept that whilst trying to do great things, whilst trying to make a difference. Um. So I'm still formulating I guess some of my thoughts there but I just think there's a principle kind of pragmatism um that I think is needed. Um which as I think about means that um. Uh there may be certain things that we may not be able to change.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And it's not. And it's not about having the latest system or the latest program or the latest way of doing it. But there is an acceptance that actually some things are not within our scope to change or influence um and we are therefore in a position of um, trying to do the best we can. Have some fun hopefully whilst doing it. Um. And um. And trust that um at uh. Least there'll be some people that will be um, positively impacted along the way.

Speaker A: Yeah, no, that's great. And one. One thing maybe a side note on this as well is I think in terms of people collectively trying to escape that um, that vernacular and just this kind of weird sub language of corporate speak and just. And just the roles and rhythms and that people are kind of just falling into. So. And I. It's only been this uh, is the third year I've been running my company. I've m not run a company before. Kind of assumed it would just be the same as having a job and then you just kind of.

Speaker B: Congrats man. Big up to three years generally. That's impressive. I mean.

Speaker A: Yeah, it is, it is exciting. Is genuinely exciting and massively terrifying. And everyone else I've spoke to that's in the same boat has said yeah, they've just kind of gone. Yeah, that's, that's how I feel every single day. Yeah.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Which is good to know. I'm not my own but interestingly I spoke to a number of people that are in similar situations. So sort of between one and five people in their company and they've all kind of shared the same view. We kind of all kind of spoke to different people about this. But it ties into what you're saying rent this shift in how we're doing things. I think everyone at ah, some point in their career take a step out of um, the kind of safety net of a, Of a corporate company. Or a stable job and try and do something on your own even for like six months.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Because you will learn so much about uh, largely yourself but also like uh, all these things that we kind of fuss over and spend way too long in meetings talking about. Just go. I've literally got four minutes to make a decision on something or I'm about to spend for, at least for me as a one man company, quite a lot of money on something. So I need to know if it's a good idea or a bad idea. There's nothing to check in with to say. Have you used this before? Is it good? You just kind of go, I've got the information I've got and I'm gonna do it. And you, you, yeah, you become almost a different person and you don't have the luxury of, of corporate speak to kind of go, I'm gonna have it um, with you know, 17 other people. We talk about blue sky, this, that and the other and just go, I've got three minutes and I've gotta do it. Okay, great. I'm gonna do this. The worst thing that will happen if it goes wrong. This is how it will hopefully go. Let's find out. And you just get on with stuff. Um, yeah, uh, rather than this kind of banal, I don't know again the more traditional side of like corporate life where it's just very easy to kind of just float on by. Um, and I do wonder if AI in not just leadership but in general will kind of massively attack that. Uh, and people will be forced to, to think more in your way of thinking around. You don't get the luxury of really digging into your data. You kind of just get a feeling of should we do this or not like thinking like a startup but maybe as a larger uh, lumbering corporate kind of thing, maybe it's that kind of route, uh, that will happen. But I don't know. I'm keen to see what happens.

Speaker B: Yeah, me too. Yeah, me too. I do, I do like your um, your challenge that just individuals like we should all be great if we could all take some time to do something that's pretty stretching. And um, like you've, you're running your own business right. And that, that, that's pretty tough and that's, that's not an easy thing to do. Um, and for some people they are, you know, parents, they've, they've got a full time job and they're parenting. That, that's pretty stretching. Or they're caring for a um, a poorly, a poor relative or an elderly parent. Um, so no doubt we've all got parts of our lives that stretch us. Um, I actually, I think that I'm wondering whether the. What's happening in society. We've got growing, particularly here in the uk, but certainly in the US and in the west generally growing wealth inequalities, um, and uh, uh, what feels like a sizable and meaningful gulf in like political alignment and um, views. You look at that, you look at a large amount of layoffs that we've had in certain industries, um, many people that are still looking for work, people that I know, I'm sure you know, um, and then on top of that, what can feel like a very important, powerful, helpful technology, but what also can feel like a very scary one at the same time, especially when you listen to um, the leaders of the uh, platforms, whether that's anthropic or OpenAI, whatever. And so I say that to say, and I wonder if your listeners feel a similar way. I can see a world where um, we do go back to certain questions around meaning and we go back to certain questions of um, what am I doing in this corporate environment or what am I doing in this job, um, what feels really meaningful to do. Um, and I think those are really healthy questions. Um, and hopefully there'll be someone internally that will be helping the business think about um, uh, what an answer might be from a corporate organizational perspective. Um, and then maybe podcasts like this and others where people can seek out their own kind of individual answers. But I think there's a. In short, I think we have a crisis in meaning, um, and that I can imagine will trump a lot of the other things we've been talking about for decades. And until we're able to um, address that crisis in meaning, then um, yeah, I don't know what will meaningfully change.

Speaker A: And this, this, we'll close on this as well because um, I appreciate we're at time, but um, I think there's definitely. So people have been talking about things like an identity crisis in learning or in people space at least um, for a little while. And it does feel like the growing number of little green banner open to works on LinkedIn. The uh, the influx of AI people, um, largely talking about AI is going to take my job. I don't know if it has yet, not from the anthropic report I read, but it's going to um, or roles will change, society will change. Um, but if we go back to that, you refer to it as a meaning problem and I've heard other people talk about as an identity crisis. And, um, for me, it hasn't. It shouldn't. Again, it shouldn't be a problem. It should just be. It's people helping other people to do whatever it is they're doing. Better, easier, uh, faster, safer, whatever it needs to be.

Speaker B: But what about when people are questioning those things that they were doing? Isn't that the thing. People are coming to question those things that they were doing in the context of what we were just talking about. You take running a leadership program, um, or you take coming up with a strategy around. We mentioned performance. Uh, but it could be something else around. Ah, you know, integrating AI into. Everyone's talking about AI transformation, all these sorts of things. Um, we're moving so fast. Um, but there are very fundamental questions. I think it's. I think Sam Altman is just. I think OpenAI have created the OpenAI foundation or something like that.

Speaker A: Yeah, something like that.

Speaker B: Yeah. Tackle whatever you make of it. But to tackle. Or whatever anyone, you know, listener makes of it, tackle some of these questions. So, um, I understand what you're saying that, like, ultimately it's about help people to do what they're doing. I don't. I don't know that that's enough. I think we're, um. Um. There are lots of things that are up in. Up in the air now. And, um, I don't think we could just keep doing things where we've always been doing it.

Speaker A: Absolutely. And that's one of the things that I think people do need to. So I think the. I think the purpose of. Sorry, that's how I should have phrased it. The purpose of what we're doing, for me, hasn't changed.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: How we do it. Yeah, we've been doing it wrong for years, or most people have been doing it wrong for years. And maybe that's a bit of a broad statement, but I do feel like people are.

Speaker B: Yeah, I'm sure there are lots of great teams that are doing, uh, absolutely brilliant things. And so if you're listening and you think, well, that's not you, then great. That's not. Yeah, but it's.

Speaker A: But it goes back to those things about people doing traditional things or the ones that just say people really like it. So this is not a popularity contest. This is. Are you. Are you shifting the hearts and minds of people to. And then their capability? Because if you're not. But they're still going, well, that was great. Like, you know, that was great. Isn't going to pay bills or isn't Going to keep the lights on in your office. Like people making more sales, people making better products, people achieving company goals and personal goals. Um, and you know, those kind of things are going to help drive society on rather than people going, well I did it because if it just comes down to, well I did it, that's when AI is going to take your job. Because it'd be like if you don't care what it is, you just want it done, automate it. That's, that's how I maybe the, the more kind of blunt version of how I see it going to be going.

Speaker B: Yeah. And it, and if I, if I may just connected to that, um, I'm speaking at the Learning Tech Conference. So right now it's March for people listening and the tech conference. Well, I don't know when this will go out. This may go out in.

Speaker A: We can get this out. But yeah, absolutely.

Speaker B: Yeah. Uh, yeah, I'll be speaking at the Learning Tech Conference and I didn't mean to plant this but one of the. So the topic is around um, L and D as a problem solving, um, function. Um, or at least thinking about the people space as a problem solving function. Um, my team, when I joined um, I very quickly branded the team as people enablement because I knew straight away that we would be doing far more than um, just traditional learning and development. But also I did that because for the very reasons we've been talking about, I wanted this to feel different. I wanted what we were doing to be experienced and perceived differently. And so I. One way is to, is to um, is to rebrand. Now of course you can change the wrappers of something and the suite still be the same. Um, so it matters what you're actually doing. And if people want to know some of the thinking and some of the things around that, then um, come along to the uh, to the conference in April.

Speaker A: Amazing. Amazing. We'll end it there because that was a nice little, uh, a nice little end. And um, yeah, I would highly recommend people go in, uh, and check out the conference and check out your talk. Are you on day one or day two?

Speaker B: That's a good point actually. Oh, I think I'm on day two. I think I'm on day two. I can't remember but have a look online and of course regardless, but thank you for that. But of course there'll be lots of other, you know, wonderful, wonderful people to go along and see. No doubt. So. But I, I think I'm there too.

Speaker A: Awesome. Uh, uh, and interestingly, uh, and we will finish on This. I did have a quick look at the. We're not sponsored by Learntake, by the way, but I did have a, weirdly have a look at this conference speakers earlier and uh, it's a pretty good list.

Speaker B: Oh yeah, okay, great.

Speaker A: So, yeah, you haven't gone for a couple of years.

Speaker B: I don't normally. I. Yeah, to your point, I don't normally get to these at all. I think the last time I went was a very long time ago. Um, um. So, um, yeah, I'd be interested to see how it's, how it's changed.

Speaker A: Nice one, nice one. Well, thank you very much, Kenny. Really, really. I know we didn't cover half the things I sent you that we were going to talk about, but I think it was a much more interesting conversation. Um, brilliant. Well, this will go out, uh, in time for you to be plugged for Learn Tech and hopefully everyone can listen to this as a little bit of a, uh, warm up for uh, seeing you there.

Speaker B: But thanks for having me, I've enjoyed it. And um, these things are helpful to help me clarify my thinking because often these have these thoughts internally, but I just haven't had a space to distill it. So thanks.

Speaker A: No, amazing, amazing. And if anyone's got any comments, questions, you disagree with us or anything we said, uh, pop in the comments, drop us an email, find either one of us or both of us on LinkedIn and um, yeah, come at us. Well, we'll respond as and when. Amazing. Thank you so much.

Speaker B: Thanks, Craig.

Speaker A: Cheers. Bye.

Speaker B: Bye.