314. Why do we all love an underdog? PLUS! Responsible A.I., Ford's human rehiring spree AND the psychology of disagreements.

Speaker A: Coming up this week in work, I

Speaker B: know you've heard of companies prioritizing AI but have you heard of any prioritizing responsible AI?

Speaker A: Uh, what the hell are you talking about?

Speaker B: Well, apparently, according to Jake Tuber last week, that's what I sound like.

Speaker A: Yeah, but don't forget you did a slightly cockney brummy accent as well.

Speaker B: Yeah, it was. It was kind of giving somewhere between Dick van Dyke and, um, I don't know, Emily Blunt.

Speaker A: Yes, that's a really good Dick van Blunt. Yes. Anyway, we're doing the intro. Leanne.

Speaker B: Sorry. As I was saying, I know you've heard of companies prioritizing AI but have you heard of any prioritizing responsible AI? Well, NatWest bank are on a mission to equip their employees with the skills and confidence to use AI responsibly. All 60,000 of them. Is this just a PR piece, or is it a step towards a more human approach to AI well, also this

Speaker A: week, talking of AI, Yesterday Ford backtracked on their AI Rollout and have gone on a hiring spree for humans. Who would have thought it? I'll explain exactly what happened and why their AI AI Fear. Aification. Is that a word? Why the AI Rollout didn't work.

Speaker B: And in truth or lie, we all love an underdog. Or do we? Since a certain U. S. Reporter had a pop at Bosnian hertz governor, it feels like the rest of the world are rooting for them. Come on, Bozzy. So I'll be walking you through the science of why you're feeling this way very shortly.

Speaker A: And in the workplace surger listener asks, what do you wish someone had told you before you became a manager? They've been promoted without any training. Are asking us for some words of wisdom.

Speaker B: Um, this is true Thighs and work, the award winning podcast where behavioral science meets workplace culture, brought to you by the HubSpot podcast network, the audio destination for business professionals.

Speaker A: My name is Al. I'm a business owner and I'm here to ask the questions you might be afraid to.

Speaker B: And, um, my name is Leanne. I'm a charter occupational psychologist and I'm here to answer them. And together we'll help you simplify the science of work and build amazing workplace cultures.

Speaker A: Well, we've got a new intro, Sean. We will be talking about oblong next week because Sean o' Shea said, what the hell is oblong? That's our company. We should be. We should be promoting it. Anyway, we'll be right back after a quick word from our talking promotion. Nice link. After A quick word from.

Speaker B: You all heard HubSpot though, haven't you?

Speaker A: See the second? Does your experience with AI sound a little like this? You prompt for 20 minutes, the output is polished, is confident, and is completely flipping useless. Well, that's what happens when AI doesn't know anything about your business.

Speaker B: Mhm. But you know what does know something about your business?

Speaker A: HubSpot.

Speaker B: HubSpot's AI. It works with your actual customer data. Every interaction, every signal your team has generated over time. So instead of prompting and hoping, you ask once and ship it.

Speaker A: Check out HubSpot.com, the agentic customer platform for growing businesses. Hello. Hello. Welcome back. Lee Al. I saw something today. Now, those people who are regular listeners know that we live in Bosnia in Herzegovina. Um, we specifically live in Herzegovina.

Speaker B: We do.

Speaker A: Um, and I saw a great post. Now, I don't know. It was a parody. I hope it wasn't an American who tweeted.

Speaker B: I think, oh, it won't be. It won't be.

Speaker A: I said, I said basically. What? It's not fair. Why does the USA have to play two countries when everyone else only has to play one? Why are we playing Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Speaker B: Outrageous.

Speaker A: What I love is that, um, someone, Someone replied and said, um, Bosnian. Here, let me just explain what happens. Bosnia plays the first half. Then we saw being hurts the governor

Speaker B: for the second half.

Speaker A: Obviously hilarity ensued. Uh, this person got even more indignant. Go we. Usa. Usa. Usa. Yeah. So anyway, what else do you think?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, the Americans aren't doing themselves many favors at the World cup at the minute, are they? I mean, is it true that they basically deported around the minute they got knocked out?

Speaker A: Did they?

Speaker B: I don't know. I feel like I heard this. I don't know if it's true.

Speaker A: Let's pretend it's true. This is an official. We're a proper podcast. We can.

Speaker B: It's true. Um, and of course, Abigail Velez. Was that a name? The, um, the reporter, uh, who was like, I don't even know where Bosnia is. I couldn't point out a map. It's like, that says so much more about you than it does about Bosnia. Hertz Governor. Um, yeah, I did have a good bit of banter with Jake about that, actually. I'm not sure if you saw the map that he created for me. No, he put it in the comments section of my post yesterday. Basically with the. In the middle of the world map, um, and explaining who everybody else is. Um, so basically, the UK is like, where it rains. Canada Is where it's cold. And they say a. A lot. Um, Australia. Interesting. But very far away. Yes.

Speaker A: Anyway, sounds like a lot of fun there.

Speaker B: It's a lot of fun. I think it's a visual. You need to probably go see it, really. Um, but the World Cup, Al didn't understand why I was forcing him to watch football since Sunday. Cause it's the knockouts now.

Speaker A: Now I enjoy watching football. I just know nothing about it.

Speaker B: But usually once he gets into knockouts, you' like, locked in.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker B: So on Sunday, m. I was like, should we watch a football? You were like, yeah, if you want. I was like, oh, no.

Speaker A: Japan, Brazil or something. You were like, last night?

Speaker B: Yeah. And you were like, first.

Speaker A: And then. I only realized this morning that I'd been reading the. The Google tables wrong. So, uh, so Japan's out, Germany out.

Speaker B: Germany's out. Shock, shock, shock. And, um, the Netherlands. I watched both penalty shoots out this morning, and they were really bad. Both. They were really bad. Like, they might as well have just flipped a coin because no one did. Nobody could put the ball in that. Um, yeah, but interesting. I did feel for Japan, though. I thought that they played really well against Brazil, and Brazil just nicked it in the last minute, didn't they?

Speaker A: Sorry. Sorry. Us listeners, it's not necessarily that we're like, we don't. We do like usa. We like America. A lot of Americans. Usa. It's just that. Yeah, no, we do. Of course. It's a proper Goliath, you know.

Speaker B: Well, this is where we live as well. It's not just a random team we decided to support over America. Um, it's where we live and where we call home. So, of course, we are supporting Bosnia. Hetz governor. Um, and if the USA beats them, well, we wish you well.

Speaker A: We wish you well.

Speaker B: We wish you well.

Speaker A: Yes. So, Lee, you have time for your favourite time of the week?

Speaker B: Yeah, let's do it.

Speaker A: Cue the jingle.

Speaker B: It's my line. Honestly. I'm away in one week.

Speaker A: Son of a bitch stole my line.

Speaker B: Apparently that's not improvised.

Speaker A: I was just gonna say that. It totally improvised.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Yeah. Brilliant. Oh, uh, we miss him. We miss him.

Speaker B: We do. Robin Williams.

Speaker A: Okay, so, Leigh, what have you seen?

Speaker B: Yeah, so I saw this from NatWest. How long do you reckon it would take to train every single person in your business about how to use AI responsibly? And apparently NatWest reckon that they're going to train 60,000 of their staff, put through this mandatory AI and data training in about two to three months.

Speaker A: Right. Okay. Good luck. Good luck.

Speaker B: It's ambitious, but I admire it. Um, so, yeah, this builds on something NatWest Group published a bit, uh, earlier, before it hit the news. It was actually in Ivy's newsletter that I saw this. If you are interested in AI but find it massively intimidating, definitely go and follow Ivy Jobs. They are AI trainers and they're both founders, have been on the show before. They're now funded by Stephen Bartlett, but don't let that put you off. Um, they're incredible at what they do. So go and go and have a look at their website. They do lots of free courses and sign up for their newsletter. Yes, a case study was done. Um, a bespoke AI and data ethics program that NatWest ran for their leaders in partnership with the University of Edinburgh. That one was multi day on campus led by Professor Shannon Valor, with academics from philosophy, informatics and the law school all teaching the same room of people. So leadership layer kind of got a deep version and now they're rolling out the principles to everybody. So NatWest's head of responsible AI. That's a job title I'd not heard of before. Dr. Paul Donger. How do you pronounce that?

Speaker A: Donga.

Speaker B: D O, N, G, H A.

Speaker A: Try hard.

Speaker B: Donner.

Speaker A: Puerile and stupid here. So, yes. So Dr. Donger.

Speaker B: Donga says the goal is to equip colleagues with the skills and confidence to use AI responsibly, um, as it becomes embedded in how the bank runs day to day. And this is a stat that actually I thought was quite interesting. Beyond the mandatory modules, over 50% of staff have opted into extra training.

Speaker A: Oh, that's.

Speaker B: I'm sure lnd practitioners listening will go, what? Oh, really? Wow. Yeah. What do we think? Thoughts?

Speaker A: Yeah, that makes sense. Uh, I think obviously when you're talking about dealing with something as important as money, then you do need responsibility. Um, if you are like a building firm using AI just to make things a bit easier, you probably don't need to worry too much about the responsibility side of it because that's probably managed by a human. But, uh, this makes total sense. I am surprised at this 50% opt in. I'm wondering if, wonder if that's been massaged a little bit. We don't have all of the figures. Like, maybe it's like, oh, you get a bonus. Because I think a lot of people, generally more people are skeptical about companies rolling out AI. So I'd be surprised if it's just like 50% of people just went, yeah, cool. That sounds Amazing. But maybe it is. Hopefully it is. Well done.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's how they presented it. And on the flip side of that, you could say that people are afraid of AI. So actually the more I learn about it and the more I engage in this training, maybe I'll be more skilled. And if there is a round of layoffs, I've done some training that other people haven't.

Speaker A: But Sun Tzu, where you know your enemy.

Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. Enemy. Close friends, close. When he's closer and all that.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Yes. I thought it was interesting because there isn't really any regulation around this right now, even in the financial services sector. And we did see this, um, at the beginning of the year, didn't we? We was reported that there's going to be lots of behavioral scientists and psychologists being recruited into financial institutions to talk about ethical and responsible AI. So I think choosing to train the entire workforce, making it mandatory and just in a few months, I think that's a really good sign from Nat west, kind of saying this is how seriously we're taking it and um, most importantly, how serious we're taking ethical AI and M. Responsible AI. You had a story about NatWest about this time last year that we both liked. Was that something about how they were hiring people? I can't remember now.

Speaker A: I had no clue.

Speaker B: No.

Speaker A: Genuinely no clue.

Speaker B: I think my point is this isn't the first positive story like this we've seen from NatWest. So, yeah, I think it's really, really interesting. So they're going to be looking at how people actually use AI day to day, what they trust it with, what they double check, what they assume it's got. Right. And it kind of goes beyond that technology question, doesn't it? It's that behavior question. As much as you say if you're a builder using it, it might not be as relevant, I think in terms of accuracy is the real question, isn't it? Um, because we all over rely on it a little bit and just assume it's right. I'm gonna hold my hand up on that as well sometimes. Um, so, yeah, I thought it was interesting. I like it. I will leave a link in the show. Notes our thoughts. No, done that. What do you see?

Speaker A: It's going so well. Well, talking of AI and just so you know, I don't see what Lian's gonna say before and she doesn't see what I'm gonna say before. So we make our notes separately. Uh, so I saw an article on AI, um, about Ford. So basically this is. Ford is as you know, Ford Cars, it's, uh, a major employee who for the first time are admitting on the record that AI didn't work the way they hoped. So here's what happened. So Ford have just confirmed they rehired more than 300 veteran quality inspectors rehired. So this happened after its AI driven quality checks, I'm reading from this, failed to match what those human engineers were actually doing. This came out in Bloomberg, but I saw on BBC. And the, uh, Ford's VP of vehicle hardware engineering is a guy called Charles Poon, which, again, I've got to stop being so childish. So basically, this is what he said. Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it's only as good as the information you use to train it. Well, we all know that. However, what happened was we said, then let me just double check because it was, it was about this time last year, year Jim Farley, uh, said AI will leave a lot of white collar. Jim Farley is the CEO. Will leave a lot of white collar people behind. And then in October, ah, then, uh, Kumar Golotra, um, who is the coo, was boasting about deploying AI across the entire industrial system. However, and this is what they did. They did 900 AI cameras. So they catch quality issues. Um, uh, they did all kinds of AI stuff. And today they're like, shit, didn't really work. I have to go and get those knowledge workers back. And I think they've rehired them. And I'm hoping they rehired them on a bit of a salary bump. What are your thoughts?

Speaker B: I enjoyed how you said C, O, O. Thought you were surprised by that second O. C, O, O. I was.

Speaker A: I was thinking C, F, O, C, O, O. That's a great C suite. C, O. Oh, he's the chief officer of realization. Oh, oh, oh, I see. Now, Uh, I'm gonna be thinking while you're talking about all this sea speed, Pull it together. Uh, about once every 90 days, I make Leanne laugh so hard that she cries. And honestly, it is my proudest, proudest moment of the year. And we've hit number one in management. We've hit number two in business.

Speaker B: Realization. This is some of your best work.

Speaker A: I'm trying to party. What you. Pull it together, love.

Speaker B: I enjoy that Ford have taken accountability for their mistake and been transparent, embarrassed. I hope those people they rehired got a nice little pay bump and lots of other benefits they didn't have before. Um, I think it's just a good lesson, isn't it? If you Rush this stuff, then it's probably not going to work out very well. So. Yeah, good. Good for you, Ford. I guess in the end.

Speaker A: Yeah, I guess. I think the. The key thing, which. That what Ford have done is they got rid of all of their knowledge, basically. So they said, right, we're getting all these veteran engineers, we'll get rid of them. Replacement with AI. But they forgot to ask the knowledge engineer and the knowledge workers what they knew. And so. And that's what they should have done. Now, what we might be reporting in a year's time, saying they've just got rid of 300 of the new rehires

Speaker B: because they've rehired them to retrain their AI.

Speaker A: Yeah. So if I was going back, I'd be a bit like, hmm, uh, I'm not sure you're.

Speaker B: Don't be suspicious.

Speaker A: Don't be suspicious. If you haven't seen Parks and Recreation. That's one of the best. One of the best lines. Leanne said that to me when I was buying her a birthday present in the supermarket. And, uh, she was shopping one side and I found her, uh, Hendrix gin, which you don't often get in this country. I found it and I'm like, oh, my God, this is gonna make a perfect birthday present. So I started to walk past her and she came out of an aisle. So I just basically put my head, looked the other way, popped it under my coat and walked away in the end. You should walk. You ran at the end, like, don't be suspicious. Don't be suspicious. Anyway, Leigh, what else you see this

Speaker B: week, my love, when you disagree with somebody at work, do you think it's better to say it out loud or type it out?

Speaker A: Oh, oh, I can see pros and cons for each.

Speaker B: Which one would you go for? Just would feel more comfortable for you.

Speaker A: I think I would rather type it out, send a message. However, I'd be worried that be received as someone who as me not having the balls to look you in the eye and say, you laugh too much in the pod.

Speaker B: Yeah. I think most of us would feel more comfortable typing it out, but according to new research I saw this week in the BPS Research Digest, that is the wrong call. Oh, yeah. So it's written up by a wonderful person called Emily Reynolds, covering a study published in Nature Communications.

Speaker A: M. What are my favourite periodicals there?

Speaker B: Me too. Uh, this was from, um, a group of researchers at Imperial College London and UC Berkeley. Have you ever noticed how Berkeley's spelt, I wonder, that Americans let that aloud

Speaker A: that we would call it Berkeley.

Speaker B: Um, well, I don't know if we'd call it Berkeley. It's more that. It's like. It's Berkeley. Oh. Um, but they say Berkeley. Whereas usually they're quite particular, aren't they, about too many. Like. Anyway.

Speaker A: Flashy American aluminum.

Speaker B: Jake's not here. Sorry. Habits.

Speaker A: We look forward to your letters.

Speaker B: So, anyway. Yes. The researchers wanted to know whether talking versus typing actually changes how an argument goes. So they ran a series of experiments with more than 1500 people. Over 1800 conversations, each person disagreed with a stranger about a hot political topic. Some out loud, some in writing. And afterwards, everyone said how well they understood the other person, how much conflict they felt and what they thought of that person. And the result held up every single time. So the people who talked out understood each other better. They felt less conflict, they liked the other person more, and were, uh, more likely to end up seeing things the same way compared to the people who wrote it down. So the researchers found that talking naturally brings out more I hear you language and more those kind of little signals that you're listening and you're open to that person's point of view and you're not kind of just talking and waiting for your term. Your turn. Now, oddly, when people did use that type of language in writing, it did work. And it did work actually better than speak or speech. But they just didn't really use it very much. Nobody kind of bothered to type because it felt so forced. I hear you. I'm listening. Type things. But the thing that was really interesting, in the final study, the researchers asked people how they choose to handle a disagreement, so decided to despite speaking, producing the better outcome every time. 84% said they'd choose to write.

Speaker A: Ooh.

Speaker B: And only 7% said they'd speak. And 9% said video call. So people think writing is safer because it gives you time to craft the perfect response. But the evidence basically says that instinct is largely wrong. Thoughts.

Speaker A: Yeah. Do you know what it's down to? The whole fear of public speaking. People would rather die than go on stage, literally. Um, and so I think it's almost like the fear of conflict. It is. If you write it, you can spend 40 minutes like I'm typing you. I don't know why I'm doing that. If you write it, you spend 40 minutes moving it around, rereading it. I get someone else to read it. I do this quite often with you. I'll like. I've written this email. It's a little bit of a contentious issue can you reread it? Whereas when you're saying it, you're just saying it. So I can totally see how your preference would be to write it. But actually I can also see why saying it will make much more sense because you get like, you know, words are like 8% and 92% is non verbal, that kind of thing. So yeah, I can definitely see that.

Speaker B: I think you get that immediate feedback when you talk to somebody as well, don't you? So if you are being a bit blunt, you might see that eyes of the ray, the rays of the eyebrows or the eyes widen and might make you rein it back a little bit because you say people typically just want that m level of confrontation just for the sake of it. I mean, yeah, I thought it was really interesting. I mean, it is of course worth saying there are some limitations. These were strangers, they were disagreeing about politics. It was relatively low stakes. So if it was kind of a heated disagreement with a colleague, we might see very different results. Um, what I thought was very interesting is a gap between what people choose and what actually works. So if you are a business owner, I think that's a takeaway. Next time you're kind of tempted to, to kind of send off a carefully worded email or a slack message to try and resolve a disagreement, might be better to just pick up the phone or jump on a zoom call and, and have that conversation face to face.

Speaker A: Interesting. Interesting. So if you are interested in this kind of thing, then we've got a workshop coming up in, um, August, no, September time, with the right honorable Steve Baker mp, the guy who pushed through Brexit which ruined our lives. And I told him this. But what's interesting is he now has an agency with a guy called Paul and their sole thing is how to have disagreements at work. Um, so we will definitely put it in this research to see what he says. Um, and also we can have a real life argument about Brexit. That would be interesting because I'm not, am I? No, I am. No, you're gonna. It'll escalate with you. Anyway, all the links are in there.

Speaker B: I don't know the thing.

Speaker A: All the links are in the show notes. As ever, we will take a short break and then after we come back with our truth or lie, we'll see in a second.

Speaker B: School might soon be out for summer, but marketing school is here to stay. And it is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.

Speaker A: Genuine marketing legends Neil Patel and Eric sue bring you daily Actionable digital marketing lessons learned from years in the trenches. With nearly 100 million million downloads, probably a million of those are from me, actually. And over two and a half thousand episodes, Marketing School delivers bite sized marketing wisdom you could implement immediately. Whether you've got a new website, your established business, you're going to learn the latest in SEO, content marketing, social media, email marketing, conversion optimization and genuine online marketing strategies that work today.

Speaker B: So if you want real world marketing tactics from practitioners who are still in the arena building and scaling business businesses, this show is perfect for you.

Speaker A: And if you're considering using AI, which I think you should, then the latest episode looks into why AI often costs companies more than the employees he replaced. It's. Yeah, definitely go and check that one out.

Speaker B: Listen to Marketing School wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker A: Welcome back. Welcome back. It is time for a truth or lie. This is the time of the week where we take a popular workplace idea and ask if the research actually backs it up. Today's question, do we all love an underdog? Now, there's something about a person or a team or someone like the David and Goliath. If you're facing impossible odds, we root for them. We want them to win. But is it actually true? Is rooting for the underdog a universal human impulse? Or is it a story we tell ourselves that doesn't quite hold up? Leanne has done the research and she's here to tell you what happens. No, what happened.

Speaker B: I love an underg. Unless they're playing against Liverpool Fair, which I think maybe gives you a hint as to where this is going. Of course, I need to start with what we mean by an underdog. So in the research it does have a pretty specific definition. Um, it's somebody who's, um, who's got more chance of losing or the odds are stacked against them to begin with because there is less money, lower expectations. It's not their fault. M So I think kind of the. The usa Bosnia is a good example here. Bosnia and Herzegovina most certainly the underdogs. So do we root for the underdog? This is the evidence for. And the short answer is basically yes.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: It shows up in a lot of places. So the most direct evidence comes from Vandello, Goldschmied and Richards, who ran four studies in 2007. In one, 71 people were shown Olympic swimming matchups between countries with very different medal histories. And they consistently backed the nation with fewer medals. And the same country gained a lost support depending purely on who they were up against. So when Belgium was playing Sweden. Belgium was popular because Sweden has won more medals in the past. But when Belgium was against Slovenia, because Slovenia had won last medals, they were the favorite to the same country, gained a lot of support, depending purely on who was up against. So Belgium was popular when facing Sweden, but lost support when facing Slovenia. In another study, 60 people read about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but were shown different maps. So one made Israel look large on the page, the other showed the whole Middle east, making Israel look tiny. When Israel looked large, 70% of people called Palestinians the underdog and sympathized with them. When the map zoomed out and Israel looked small, 62% switched. They called Israelis the underdog instead. So the same conflict, same facts, different map was the only thing. So that visualization of an underdog made people switch. Then we have a 20, 21 study, which is a bit more recent, uh, that tested feelings people naturally tune into when they watch two people interact. One powerful, one not. And across six experiments with around 800 non participants, people consistently focused on the emotions of the less powerful. So in one experiment, 84% of, uh, participants tuned into the powerless person's feelings and only 13% focused on the powerful one. Interesting. And it crosses cultures. Um, so Goldschmidt, Gailey and Keith tested underdog support across Israel, Japan and China. This is in 2018. And all three countries, of course, have very different values, different political systems. But in all three people backed the underdog over the favourite. The size of the effect was almost identical, regardless of where participants were from.

Speaker A: Interesting.

Speaker B: It is interesting. So the obvious question is, well, why? Why do we do it? Well, Verdelo's team got to this in one of their studies. They had 57 people watch the exact same basketball game, but told half of them one team was the heavy favorite. And the people who thought they were watching the underdog rated them as trying harder, even though they were watching identical footage. So it's that perception of effort, not talent, that made people like them more. And that connects with something that psychologists called effort heuristic. So it's basically a tendency for us to value things more when we think it produces, uh, it's required greater effort to produce.

Speaker A: Yeah, Phil from Nudge has talked about this a lot. Um, Open Kitchens is another example, um, piece of art that someone said, AI made this. And everyone said, that's a bit shit. And then someone else said, someone took 10,000 hours to make it and they said, that's brilliant.

Speaker B: Exactly. Yeah. So it's not just a case of admiring the underdog. We just instinctively read that struggle as proof that they're giving more effort and that makes us value them more cool.

Speaker A: So that sounds to me like as far as I'm concerned, I'm like, right, the underdog exists, that the underdog syndrome exists.

Speaker B: Yeah. It's never quite that simple though, is it? It's never quite that straightforward. There's nuance. So because the research. Yes. Shows we root for the underdog, it does also show that support has pretty clear limits. So it's not just always the underdog. So there was a researcher, uh, called Kim who ran a study in 2008 where they asked people to choose between a large established water testing company and a small two year old startup. When the stakes were low, for example, testing water for hardness, people backed the underdog startup. But when the stakes were high and they were testing for mercury toxicity, they abandoned the underdog and chose the big company. Same underdog, same disadvantage, but there was higher personal consequences. So when it really mattered, the emotional pull of the underdog wasn't enough.

Speaker A: That makes sense.

Speaker B: Yeah. I mean the same study also found something interesting about art. Uh, so people rooted for the underdog artist, but when they looked at the exact same painting, they rated it as lower quality when they thought it was made by the underdog than when they thought it was made by an established artist. So we want the underdog to win, but we don't fully trust their output.

Speaker A: Yeah, I suppose. Right. So it would be like self taught plasterer, for example, against a huge plastering conglomerate. Then you'd be like, oh, you know, I want the, I'm gonna choose Bill because he's self taught. He's just taught himself from the, from the very beginning. Self Taugh taught brain surgeon. Not so much, not so much.

Speaker B: Higher stakes. Yes, higher stakes, exactly. The same team also tested how automatic this response is, which I thought was interesting. So they showed 60 people a, ah, 15 second animation of gray circles moving across a screen. One circle struggled to climb a hill, another move very freely. Participants consistently rooted for the struggling circle despite a basic just, it's being a.it's got no backstory, it's got no face, no context, no consequences. The underdog instinct kicked in anyway, which I think tells us something quite important, that it isn't a, ah, considered moral judgment that's supporting the underdog. It's fast, it's automatic, and automatic reactions tend to be fairly shallow. So the research I thought described this in a really beautiful way. It's a mile wide, an inch deep, uh, so that shallowness shows up In a number of different studies as well. So a study from 2020, underdog support was real, but the gap between the underdog and top dog support only widened significantly when the financial disparity between the two sides was made very, very visible. So when the resource gap was smaller, um, it was still unfair, it was just less obvious and support for the underdog drop. So if, for example, you're looking, you're watching Manchester City playing Chester, right? You're gonna go, oh, well, Chester, come on. You know, massive disparity here. If you're watching City play United, that's probably a bad example because there's different reasons for that, isn't it? City versus Bournemouth.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Then it's not, maybe they're both Premier League sizes, not quite as much of an underdog, et cetera, et cetera. Does that make sense?

Speaker A: Makes sense, yeah.

Speaker B: And finally, a cross cultural study, uh, found that support isn't unconditional. So when a team had low expectations, but it turned out they also had more money than their opponent, people withdrew their support entirely. So the underdog effect depends basically on the disadvantage of being genuine and undeserved. So once people sense that disadvantage isn't real, then the sympathy kind of goes with it.

Speaker A: That's a bit like, you know, when, when a struggling artist and it gets a big, um, a big record deal and then some people go, oh, sell out, sell out.

Speaker B: Yeah, they were totally, yeah, totally, exactly. Great example, Great example.

Speaker A: Thank you very much.

Speaker B: Great example. So what, what are these studies telling us? Why is underdog, you know, come with all these conditions? Well, the research has basically offered two explanations. The first is that underdog, Underdog support isn't really about the underdog at all. It's about fairness. So as humans, we back the disadvantaged party because it feels like the right way to restore balance. And the moment the disadvantage stops feeling undeserved, the mo. The kind of motivation goes with it. It was never really about them. It was about us trying to correct unfairness. Um, the second explanation is that this is a shallow preference, not a deep one. So it was described by Kim and colleagues as a moral patina. So a surface level feeling that we're doing the right thing as easy to hold when nothing is at stake. So your example about brain surgeons, perfect

Speaker A: patina, is that what you said?

Speaker B: Is that how you say it?

Speaker A: I don't know. Never heard that word. I'm gonna write that down and use it later on.

Speaker B: Um, so, yeah, there you go. Is it truth or is it a lie? What's what what's your conclusion, Al?

Speaker A: I think, basically the rough rule of thumb for me, I think, is when the stakes are low, then people will back the underdog. When the stakes are high, they won't. And there's nuance, like you said there. Like, if you find out, discover that the underdog is funded secretly by mosque, then you might go, oh, no, no, no. I remember back in the day, me going, God, Elon Musk is quite a cool guy, isn't he? Because he. He was. He, uh, was. There was a rich list maybe about 10 years ago, and he came out as the richest person in the world or something. And he. And his tweeted was like, well, that's interesting. Okay, back to work. And I was like, oh, I like you because. But now. Totally changed. Totally changed.

Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah, he nailed it. Um, you nailed it. Is it true? Is it a lie? Yeah, it's true, but it's not. It's not a blind one. It's nuanced one. It is a bit of it depends on. So, basically, we love an underdog, but we need to believe they've actually earned that status.

Speaker A: Oh, that's a great summary of it. I love that. I love that. So, so what we should be doing with your map example there, we should be taking the map of Bosnia and Herzegovina and just putting the exact size of it into the United States. So, for example, I think there are m. Uh, if anyone's from the. From the UK Then, uh, Bosnia's governor, I think, is half the size of Wales with. With. No, twice the size of Wales with half as many people.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And then you suddenly go, okay, I get an idea. And then if you take that. I bet. I bet there are. I bet there's no state in the United States that has got fewer, uh, occupants than Bosnia's governor.

Speaker B: I think you might be right.

Speaker A: Yeah. I shall do some research for next week. Lee, thank you so, so much talking next week. Oh, exciting. Next week got another guest host. Not sure whether we should disclose who it is right now, but it's going to be a very, very, very spicy and good one.

Speaker B: A brand new guest host.

Speaker A: Brand new guest host. Anyway, so it is time for my favorite time of the week. It's time for the World Famous Weekly. Okay, so question. Just because anyone's. Anyone's first time listening. It's a workplace surgery where I put your questions to Leanne, but every week, I try and say it faster and faster. Question number one. What do you wish someone had told you before you came and became a manager? Lee, this is interesting because you've been a manager and you study managers and you work with manage. I was a manager once and I was terrible at it.

Speaker B: Okay, you weren't at all. You're a brilliant manager.

Speaker A: You're very cute. Nobody prepared. This is what person writes. Nobody prepared me for management. I got promoted because I was good at my job. Classic story. It turns out that it's a completely different skill to manage people than just be an I.C. i see. I think is independent contributor. Is that the word?

Speaker B: Individual?

Speaker A: Individual. What's the one thing, Leanne, you wish someone had taught you before you got the role?

Speaker B: So I will, I will answer your question, reader. I promise. My. Not my first management job, but for my first chunky management job. I met m the HR manager of our organization, which I recently got back in touch with. We kind of exchange a few comments on LinkedIn. Um, sat me down at a hotel on Inconnel Street, Manchester, and I had a cup of coffee and he went. Just to be clear about the first thing he said to me. Just to be clear, just because you're now a manager doesn't make you indispensable.

Speaker A: Oh.

Speaker B: And I was like, okay, is that. Don't think that makes you safe. Don't think that makes you untouchable. You are only as good as your last day in management. And this is a target driven, fast paced role. If you don't cut it, you don't cut it.

Speaker A: That's brutal, man.

Speaker B: Yeah, it is. But then equally clear expectations set from day one. So, you know, and actually this, this, this HR manager was fantastic and very, very supportive to me and, and lots of other people in the business. So, y. So I think that's probably one thing that I'm glad I was told, you know, that you're not safe just because you're now in this kind of position of hierarchy. But I guess the one thing I wish I'd been told was you don't have to have all the answers and it's okay to ask for help because I think the challenge I experienced in this role came down to that. Me thinking I had to do it all myself. I had to have all the answers and I couldn't lean on anybody or admit I didn't know. And as a manager, that is not your job. Your only job, if you want to boil it down, is to make the people in your team's job easier every single day, just that little bit easier to help them then perform. Um, if they look good, you look good.

Speaker A: Can I ask you, how does that fit in with another management technique by, uh, your ex favorite manager, John. Sadly, uh, no longer with us, but incredible guy and his legacy lives on. On this podcast, he said, hide the wires. So if I'm hearing those two things, I'm thinking, hide the wires and, but also say, you don't know, how does that fit together?

Speaker B: So hide the wires. What John was basically talking about was emotional regulation. So if I'm stressed and having a really bad time and feeling under pressure, I shouldn't be putting that onto my team because that, uh, that negative emotion stress will, will spread. It's, you know, it's contagious. Yes, go talk to him about these things when I'm frustrated. But hide the wires in terms of, Hide the stress of in the moment talking to your team. So if, for example, corporate were asking us to do something that I thought was absolutely ridiculous, then I'm not going to go into my team and go, oh, my gosh, you will not believe what they're asking us to do now. They do this. It's ridiculous how expect to do that? Because I'm putting my thoughts and feelings onto the team in a situation that is not helpful because a change has to happen. It also is putting an expectation on them to agree with me. They have to go, oh, yeah, it is terrible. And then you've got a whole team that is against the change that needs to happen or decision that's been made. You don't know. So if you go to your people and go, so we've been asked to do this and I'm curious to get your thoughts on it and see how the team reacts. And it might be. They go, do you know what? That's not a bad idea, actually. But you know what would be better is if we just tweaked it here. It would make it easier in implementation. Okay, cool, I'll go back and see if we can do that. I didn't know the answer to that. I wasn't able, in my kind of my position, not as close to the front line and in my emotional state to go to corporate or this might work, but we just need to tweak this implementation. I've gone to my team, gone. I don't have the answer. What do we think? And they've given me the answers take back to make it work. Excellent.

Speaker A: That makes perfect sense. Thank you very much. Okay, so that's.

Speaker B: What about you? What's yours?

Speaker A: Listen, uh, to Leanne.

Speaker B: No, come on.

Speaker A: Um, one of the things I did, and I think I mentioned it in a Couple of, um, episodes ago, one of the things we did in the, uh, beer business, right about, just for context, at about 25 part time staff, uh, one full time and 25 part time. Um, and what we did was something called the board monkey. So there was a job where you had, this is way before AI and spreadsheets and stuff. Well, not before spreadsheets, but. So every order for beer came out and was printed out and there was three copies. One went to the customer, one where they went to the driver, and one stayed in the office. And so we had a board where we'd peg these. It was horrible. Health and safety. I just nailed a load of nails out, sticking out from the board. So if someone tripped, it would have been terrible. But you'd go and take the, take the, uh, order, and then you'd sort of track it through until it was delivered. Everybody had to go on that. So everybody knew what it was like to manage the orders, including the drivers, including me, including, like the backup back office staff. Everyone had a go at that. And that really helped, I think, because everyone knew how difficult it was to manage m order, what the moving parts were for the entire process. The second thing we did was, uh, people would shadow. So a person who was on the phones would go out and go out one night with the drivers and see what it's like to actually go and deliver these things. A driver would come and listen in on their phones and listen and hear how people dealt with the orders. And then, oops, sorry, that's my phone, that's my alarm. Just to turn off the water for watering the plant. Um, uh, and then what really happened there was that when the driver, if the driver saw a mistake on the order, they would know. Oh, well, actually, it's not as easy as I thought. Just sitting on your backside, taking that, you know, taking these. They'd be like, fair enough. A little bit more like ringing up and going, um, board monkey. There seems to mistake on this. I can't find this address. So that really worked. And it was the other way around, I think.

Speaker B: Nice. Breeding, teamwork, empathy, understanding. Lovely.

Speaker A: This is 2002, 2003. I was like, 25. I had no idea what I was doing.

Speaker B: But you did. Al. Uh, I hate it when you still say stuff like that.

Speaker A: Sorry.

Speaker B: And I believe some of our listeners do as well.

Speaker A: Okay, okay.

Speaker B: Multiple feedback saying that you need to. You need to stop pretending to be the fool because you're clearly not.

Speaker A: Well, let's find out. See if I can read our question 2 without making a fool of myself. So, uh, the title of this is, have you ever watched work beat the happiness out of someone? Jesus Christ, man. Right, so, uh, this person writes in and said someone who used to light up a room was always sunny, always positive, was slowly losing it month by month. I watched it see them, watched it drain out of them. I'm pretty sure it's their line manager that's at fault, but it's not my department, so I feel like there's nothing I can do. Is this just what some workplaces do to people? Is it my responsibility to step in? So, just so I understand this, Leanne, I think what they're saying is they have a colleague, perhaps in a different department, perhaps a different manager. You've seen them a year ago, they were brilliant, they were lovely. And now you're just seeing them just have the work beaten out of them. Do they do anything? Can they do anything?

Speaker B: I mean, there is. There's. There's layers to this, isn't there? Is it just a case that some workplaces, uh, push people to burnout? That's what you're describing. Somebody being sunny and always positive to being cynical, somebody who loved their job to being completely detached from it, somebody who lit up the room to being completely exhausted. You're describing the sympathetic symptoms of burnout. And yes, workplaces do that to people. And there can be a variety of reasons, including the line manager. If you're not in their department, if you're not a, uh, direct member of their team or their management line, then it's not your responsibility to stop it. It's not. And it's really hard to watch somebody who has been so. Such a brightness start to dim that way. It's really, really hard. But it's not your responsibility. I remember talking to Sonia Shellard, you know, off of Ride the Wave, um, and she said to me that her. Her mantra in things like this is not my circus, not my monkeys. Apparently, it's an old Polish proverb or something, and I use that so much as, well. Cause, like, there's a. Especially if you're an empathetic person and you want to make the workplaces great, you can feel the need to want to interfere. And really, you just have to kind of take a step back, take a bre. Say, not my circus, not my monkeys. It's not your responsibility to do so. That's not to say you can't have a conversation with this person as a colleague, as a friend, as a work, you know, work colleague. I, um, may just have a Chat with them, see, see how they're doing, ask them some very open questions, how's it going? How have you been? And just see what, what they say it might be. It's got nothing to do with the manager at all. It could be something that's happening in their personal lives, it could be a colleague that's causing them, it could be a client that's given them a headache. There could be lots of reasons and in all likelihood a combination of all of them. So I think the really, the only thing you can do in this scenario is to have a conversation with them as a friend and colleague. And just often that conversation, as we've talked about before, listening to somebody helping them talk through how they're feeling can bring a lightness to them. Uh, but I think really that's the only thing that, that might be within your realm of responsibility, if that's the word that you want to use. Uh, but beyond that, no, it's not. It's not your circus.

Speaker A: When you do sit down with someone, your job is not going to be to fix them.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker A: Your job is not going to be to cheer them up.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker A: And your job is not going to be to fire them up, to go and do something else necessarily. Might be later on, but your job is to sit there and go, if it was Leanne, this is how I'd start the conversation and go, you got time for a coffee after, you know, after your meeting or something? Yeah, yeah, we're going, have a coffee. So you sit down, coffee and go, how's things? And if you're British, you'll go, yeah, uh, yeah, not bad, not bad, not bad. And then this is how I'd approach it. Say this is, maybe I'm wrong, but I have noticed over the last period of time, last 12 months, you seem to, to me to have lost your spark, a little bit of work. Am I just seeing something differently or has something changed now? Lee, can you give me some feedback on that? Is that a non judgmental question, a good way to start, or would you do something differently?

Speaker B: No, I think that's a really good question. I'm slightly triggered by that because I once had a conversation with Manager M who told me I'd lost my mojo. Um, and I hadn't lost my mojo, it's just they were doing a really shitty job, um, which I proved when I got promoted out of that job into another one. Um, sorry, all about me. See, triggered. Um, no, I don't think so. I think you don't. I, I Think it's keeping the language neutral, isn't it? I think telling somebody they've lost their sparkle could be, could hit a nerve if they know this is when they're feeling exhausted and they're trying to spin a million plates in the air and now you're telling me I've lost my sparkle. Whereas I think he said, I've just noticed something, something's changed. You don't seem yourself. Is everything okay? Do you know what I mean? Something like that. That is a bit more neutral. But that might be a, that might be a gender thing. It could be a Leanne thing. But I think the best coaching questions is. Exactly. You said there are just very open and, and as you, you know, you give yourself a get out. I love that. Like, maybe it's just me. I like that.

Speaker A: Okay, brilliant. Well, there you go. You got the benefit of me getting 90 of the way there. And Leanne just adding that little 10% of psycho psychology sprinkle on the top, which is great. Anyway, so. Well, I hope this person who's writing in the other person is okay. Um, that's a bit, um, That's a bit, Bit, yeah. Anyway, okay, so let's brighten things up a little bit. Uh, so the third one is, uh, about pre meeting chit chat. Is that a British word or is that just an, like an English language?

Speaker B: Does seem quite British, doesn't it?

Speaker A: We do like alliteration, don't we? Chit chat. Chit chat. So this person says, every meeting, my team spend the first five or ten minutes just chatting. Nothing to do with work. It's just about weekends or Netflix or dogs or whatever. Usually I just sit there waiting for it to die down so we can get started. My partner says I need to lighten up and maybe she's right, but we are busy and we always seem to run over. Am I just being a miserable sod here, Leanne?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Now, I, I, I think there's potentially something here which you're going to talk about.

Speaker B: Come on.

Speaker A: And I think you're going to talk about something, um, on the, uh, neurodiversity spectrum, where some people don't understand the purpose of chit chat.

Speaker B: Right, yeah. From the, from the manager's perspective, yes. Yeah, fair thought.

Speaker A: But, but you, Sorry, I'm not here to answer you. You, you crack on.

Speaker B: No, I think, I think you're right. That could be one of the reasons you find this frustrating. If you are neurodiverse, that, that's probably why you find it frustrating. There's Also just that, I guess as a manager, you can feel pressure. You've got loads to do, you need to get on, you've got a tight day. There can be a. Just this drive to just get stuff done, um, and not be as patient for the kind of social aspects of work. Um, but I think that's exactly it. These are social aspects of work that help with team cohesion and collaboration and communication and building these relationships that are so important to every aspect of work. And these are the things that, you know, have been kind of used to justify the really harsh RTO mandates. They've returned to Office Medic because it's about collaboration, relationships. Well, how do you think that happens? Yes, it happens on work tasks, but it also happens talking about the latest thing on Netflix that you watched or how your weekend was, or showing the picture of your new puppy. So I think this is really on you to think about meeting management. If you accept that the first five minutes is going to be this chatter and you encourage this chatter, then you manage it in a way that's like, say it's a zoom meeting, for example. It might be, you know, different if it's face to face, but say it's a. Or maybe about the same. Say the meeting starts at 11. People are joining, people are chatting. You go, hi, guys. Yeah, welcome, welcome. Grab yourself, make yourself comfortable. Grab a drink if you need to get a drink. Now, we're gonna start about. About five minutes. Yeah, and just set that boundary of how long this chitter chatter is going to go on. 4th and at 5 past 11, you go, right, guys. Um. Oh, love that Netflix series as well, by the way. What a show. I'm gonna add that to my. Let's crack on a bit to get through here and then go on. If it is one of those things where you really just have to crack on, then communicate that before the meeting. Just go, guys, I'm sorry, I've got a really tight 15 minutes to. To have this conversation with you. Um, you know, I love our chit chat at the beginning, but I'm not sure we're gonna have time for that today. I'm gonna jump straight in. But then obviously we finish earlier. Then you can have, you know, that. That little coffee chat at the end. We did a great episode with Marmee, didn't we, on, um, meetings and meeting etiquette and how to run them. Go and listen to that. She's written an entire book on how to do meetings, and she has phenomenal advice, which is basically that it's all about meeting management. So if you're finding this frustrating, this is on your shoulders to solve and within your kind of control and responsibility to solve.

Speaker A: Makes a lot of sense. And I think from a manager's point of view, you might be thinking, okay, there's probably only two reasons why people chit chat at the beginning is either because they want to have the connection.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker A: And this is probably one of the only times they might be able to get the connection, or they're trying to avoid the actual work. And that's possibly. That is a possibility. So it might be there. Well, if we chat long enough, then Lionel won't have time to give us little jobs. Uh, so either one of those, that's just the symptom. There might be a root cause. So perhaps have a think about that. So if the neurodiversity thing is not applicable to you, then obviously listen very, very carefully to what Leanne just said there. And also just consider why are they doing it? Is it to avoid work or is it to get. To establish a connection?

Speaker B: Excellent point.

Speaker A: Thank you very much. Okay, so this Thursday we are joined by a lovely guy called Andrew. Andrew is an expert at crisis. Crises, I think crises. Um, and, um, he's gonna tell us how to deal with crises at work. Now, he's not just some guy who's learned how to deal with things. He was, remember Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. He was the guy who dealt with that crisis. Now, for obvious reasons, we can't get into the ins and outs of that specific thing, but he definitely does talk much more generally about how to manage it.

Speaker B: I pushed where I could. I pushed where I could.

Speaker A: You did. And I, uh, was very professional, went, I'm sorry, we're gonna have to move on.

Speaker B: Yeah. Unsurprisingly, very well media trained.

Speaker A: But he's, uh. Yes. So this is gonna be definitely an episode that you really, really want to listen to even if you've not had a crush. Crisis. Because let's be honest, it's probably going to come down the road at some point, isn't it? Everyone has a crisis.

Speaker B: We talk about a lot of change as well, and how to, how to manage change in an organization. He gives lots of brilliant advice for leaders, um, for small business as well, not just large organizations. So definitely tune in.

Speaker A: Brilliant. So go and follow Leanne on LinkedIn, because that's where the conversation continues. Uh, you can follow the page. Truth lies in work. But Leanne's really. Go follow Leanne on Leon on LinkedIn. She is awesome.

Speaker B: We've had a little flurry in people joining Truth Lies and Work podcast page, actually. Yeah, I think it's because we're posting a bit more on there, a few more clips, some from the archives as well. I've got some, uh, nice ones shared this week from last summer.

Speaker A: Beautiful.

Speaker B: But, yeah, I think we've had about 200 new followers over the past couple of weeks.

Speaker A: Nice.

Speaker B: Yeah, thanks for that.

Speaker A: And then, um, just to give you an idea, July, normal scheduling. August, light scheduling.

Speaker B: Oh, so excited.

Speaker A: It's all gonna be really, really light in August. Then September, we're coming back, and we think we're gonna move to workshops on a Thursday. So it's actually rather an interview, a practical thing of how to do it, which will be on video as well. So that's all I've got to say. Leanne, anything to add before these lovely people go and make a cup of tea or a glass of wine or.

Speaker B: Come on, bounce, Governor. And England, of course, when we play on Wednesday.

Speaker A: And Croatia.

Speaker B: So we've got Croatia. Yay.

Speaker A: We've got three bites. And if all that goes to. Then we'll just go, oh, no, because we just lived in Spain. We follow Spain now. We're Spain's Spanish supporters.

Speaker B: We did say. We did say a couple of weeks ago, actually, that Spain was on our radar of people to. To support as well.

Speaker A: So, so broad.

Speaker B: And that you've been a big fan of Morocco for a long time.

Speaker A: Oh, yes. For. For at least four years. Not a big fan of going there. We didn't. We didn't enjoy our trip, guys. We went to the wrong place.

Speaker B: Wrong place.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Right, we'll see you next week.

Speaker B: Bye.

Speaker A: Bye.