Interview Transcript

Intro:

And welcome back to CCL’s podcast, Lead With That, where we talk current events and pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

This week we turn our attention to an extraordinary chapter in modern leadership: The life, papacy, and recent passing of Pope Francis, and what it means for the future of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis redefined papal leadership with humility, authenticity, and an unwavering commitment to service. He was known for his simplicity, choosing modest accommodations over the grand papal apartments, and for his relentless focus on marginalized communities.

Francis led with a powerful combination of moral courage and pastoral care, challenging the church to confront uncomfortable truths while emphasizing mercy over judgment. His leadership model wasn’t about authority alone, it was about trust, inclusion, and the sometimes radical act of listening.

Now, as the church faces the profound moment of electing a new pope, leadership dynamics once again come into sharp focus. The conclave of cardinals gathering behind closed doors in the Sistine Chapel will weigh not only theological direction, but also the character and the vision of the next pontiff. They must choose someone capable of uniting a global and often divided church. Someone who can build on or depart from the legacy Pope Francis leaves behind.

Today we’ll not only explore the leadership qualities the next pope will need in a world of political polarization, humanitarian crisis, and dwindling religious affiliation, but we’ll also unpack how the secretive, centuries-old process of papal election reflects both tradition and urgent modern realities. And you’ll stay with us, hopefully, as we reflect on the leadership life of Pope Francis, the lessons we can draw from his example, and the crucial leadership crossroads now facing one of the world’s oldest and most influential institutions.

Ren:

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington, as usual, joined with Allison Barr. Allison, how long has it been since your last confession? I’m just kidding. Have you ever seen a pope, whether it be Pope Francis or anyone other? Have you ever met anyone who’s witnessed the pope drive by in his pope —

Allison:

Did you say in his popemobile?

Ren:

That’s what it’s called.

Allison:

I’m still just laughing because I didn’t expect you to ask me about my true confessions, but no, I have never seen —

Ren:

Yes, I know I snuck that one in there.

Allison:

I know, well done. I’ve never seen the pope in person, have you?

Ren:

No, no. I have never seen the pope in person. I guess John Paul was … I had the most understanding of the pope when John Paul was around, him and his red like Gucci slippers.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

And then I think when Francis came into style, I was like, “Cool. Pretty chill.” But no, I’ve never even met anyone who’s seen the pope.

Allison:

No, I don’t think I have either. But now I’m sort of questioning myself. I have to ask my dad, because I believe that my dad had visited Vatican City and now I’m having … Memory’s a funny thing. I was very young, so I’ll have to ask him. So there’s a possibility that Ed Barr might’ve seen the pope. To be continued.

Ren:

Seen the pope in the mobile. Well, I think today, regardless of if we’ve met the pope or people who have, I kind of wanted to take it in 2, I think part of our time reasonably can look to investigate kind of Francis’s policies, his life, some of the things he was known for. But I also think it’s interesting to kind of take a glimpse behind the doors and look at the conclave itself.

And by the time this recording goes out, there’s a chance someone may have chosen a new pope. The Cardinals are going to decide starting on May 7th. And the way that the ballot structure works, I think Francis was actually the fastest one selected. It took him 5 ballots and we can talk more about the process, but 24 hours to be selected. I think the longest time it took to select the pope was in the late 1200s, took 3 years to choose a pope.

So who knows where we’re going to be, but that’s sort what I’m thinking. A little bit of Pope Francis and a little bit of the conclave. How’s that sound?

Allison:

We can check back in a year. We might be undecided still. We’ll see.

Ren:

That’s funny. That’s really interesting.

Allison:

We’ll see.

Ren:

All right. So what do you want to start? You want to start with the system, or do you want to start with the man?

Allison:

Let’s start —

Ren:

Or is there a difference? No, I think there is.

Allison:

Let’s start with the man. Let’s start with the pope himself, which I think when we were talking about what to talk about today, I was thinking, “Well, the pope has a much different tactical job than most of our leaders, I would think, and a specific role to lead the worldwide Catholic Church.” And there are definitely some leadership highlights that we can take away. But upon initial thought, I was wondering where this conversation might go. But after reading about him a little bit deeper, I’ve found some really interesting qualities of him.

And I’m stuck a little bit by the comment that you made in the intro about listening being a radical act and just wondered if that was relevant, how that was relevant, and what your thoughts are there.

Ren:

Well it’s really interesting. There’s this idea of, and forgive me, I know the pronunciation is really interesting, synodality, which is promoting this idea of a culture of listening within the church and around it. Francis would hold these synods. And so it’s interesting that you talk about his role as a leader because globally, sure, he is the right hand of God in every literal sense for this religion and is kind of responsible for charting the path for one of the most globally dominated religion forces. And though, still, he’s kind of a president of a governing body, and he’s got to help manage the cardinals, I think dozens of the cardinals who are going to be voting on the next one were appointed by Francis.

And he really believed this idea that the church must walk together, listening to all voices and not just this top-down decision-making. So he would have these synods where bishops, laypeople, women, young people, would be able to contribute their thoughts and input on key issues like family life and youth engagement. And so the synodality, this posture of listening, I think from an organizational standpoint, it was like an innovation. He said, “I’m going to do this.” It wasn’t a standard practice, but what I think was really groundbreaking, or the part of listening, was as it related to some of the assault conversations that have happened with and around the church.

Francis took a posture of listening before being defensive. And maybe he was the only pope in modern history that anyone who’d ever been victimized by the structure or the system, he gave an ear to as opposed to try to silence them. So I’d say that radical listening for Francis, I think he changed the organization and he changed the informal posture of Catholicism, or the church rather.

Allison:

That’s so interesting. And along similar lines, have you heard of … there was a catchphrase that he used frequently, related to servant leadership, that had to do with sheep. Had you heard this at all?

Ren:

No, I am thinking of a different phrase. So what do you got?

Allison:

He often said that pastors should “smell like the sheep,” meaning that leaders should stay connected to the struggles of “real people” and their hopes. And that leadership requires a presence and not a distance, which goes along the same lines of what you’re saying, in a way, and that servant leadership commitment that he had. And he’s also known for leading by example and not command, which ties into what you were saying too.

He was really inspiring to a lot of people by living the values that he preached and being more of a bridge builder, or attempted to be a bridge builder, more so than dividing groups, and working to foster dialogue, rather than deepening divisions, which I think is really interesting. And it’s not always the position of a leader necessarily. And again, it’s a unique environment, the Catholic Church, but it is leadership, right? So I’m curious what your thoughts are on that, and how you might tie that to leaders in the work world.

Ren:

Well, it’s so cool that you highlight that posture for him because I think … At least for me, I had this interpretation that he was the closest to the peril of humanity than I was ever familiar. Granted, I mean, kind of the pope and selection is outside of my general experience. I don’t identify as Catholic, I’ve never mourned the loss of a pope, but there is this idea of humility and service. And as far as I could tell, he set a new standard for it. And anyone who’s listening, as we start to think about how does this global leader relate to me, it relates to how humble and how service-oriented are you in the teaming and conversations and leadership discussions that you’re having.

Even his name, Francis after St. Francis of Assisi, symbolizing a commitment to the poor and the marginalized. And I think there’s something around can you leverage your own humility, like this idea of leadership humility, this idea of human, the humanity and that humility, can you leverage that to impact your team, to change the vision or brand of a group? I think his visible humility really helped rebuild some of the credibility of the church that had often and continues to be shaken by scandal.

And so I think there is something around, as a leader, how close are you to the people doing the work? And can you be humble enough to recognize that you don’t have all the answers — and secret, leaders, you don’t have to have all the answers. But it’s like, can you be humble enough not to, and then find the place where the answers exist, and be close to the people that you work with. I think that’s like, I hadn’t heard that phrase, but I think it’s really cool.

Allison:

And I think underlining what you said too, and tying 2 things you said together, which was one around the listening and being close. And the closeness, I think it’s an important distinction because it doesn’t mean high oversight, it doesn’t mean micromanaging, if you will. It does mean listening, understanding, seeing the environment for how it is for folks on the ground, if you will. And another favorite message of his for me was, and I’m quoting him again, that “peacemaking calls for courage much more than warfare does.” And we don’t need to get into war. I’m just going to make the direct tie to the workplace and translate it there.

But I think it does take a lot more courage, a lot more nuance, vulnerability, listening, honesty to make attempts to resolve conflict than it does to not. I think it can be easier in a lot of ways for most people to avoid it. And I think you and I probably hear those stories a lot from our clients about the avoidance of conflict resolution or how hard it is, and how that can really lead to team and sometimes organization dysfunction as well.

Ren:

There’s something about the courage to be humble. I think we’re talking about leadership courage in that space too, and I think that kind of courageousness to … One of his other phrases is this idea, who am I to judge? What an empowering posture when in conflict. Because I think it’s so interesting when we talk about conflict in the workspace, so much conflict is value driven, but also I think we often talk about in the program here, systems thinking. You and I think we have conflict because of the walls that exist between us, but we don’t really see it.

And if we started from a place of understanding and listening, the more I learn about your experience, the greater I can ease it, as we often say. And so this idea of who am I to judge any of you as I explore the idea of conflict? Because then I can liberate myself from this idea of a binary right or wrong, and just start to learn what are everyone’s opinions, and really then ideally informing the polarities that we have to manage. Versus, Allison, you’re going to be right today, and well, how do we help you be right and me be right? So I think there’s something swirling around there.

And too, there’s something actionable for you, people who are listening, it’s like how courageous are you being, to being vulnerable? Which I think connects to the idea of service, that connects the idea of humility. Do you have the courage not to lead, to follow? Because as a leader, if you engage in followership, it doesn’t make you less important, it doesn’t remove your title, but it does take courage and it’s not always easy to do.

Allison:

And I think, too, that you’re underlining that it might not ever be a leader’s job to force agreement, but it definitely is often a leader’s job to open spaces where that trust can begin to grow, which is what you’re alluding to. And I’m hoping you can elaborate on something that you just said that really struck me, which was that it takes courage to be humble. Can you say more about that?

Ren:

Well, I think I highlighted it a little bit earlier. There is something around … For me, I think the leader’s role of being willing to embrace the idea of, I don’t have the answer. I was reading a post, I think on LinkedIn or something like that. It said, “When’s the last time you heard your boss say I don’t know?” It’s such an interesting kind of thought prompt, because the courageousness it takes to dismantle probably decades or just this conditioning of you’re the leader, you’re the one in charge, you’re the one calling the shots, you’re the one who has to have the answers. To just be brave enough to recognize that you don’t know everything — that’s wisdom in play.

Intelligence is knowing things. Wisdom is knowing that you don’t know everything. And so I think just cultivating that strong … Cultivating strength in that area, versus someone looking at you and then you have, “Hey, what’s the answer, Ren?” And you’re looking at you, you’re looking at your role, and you’re looking at your bank account, and you’re looking at how much you’re getting paid, and you’re like, “I should have an answer.” But maybe just being brave and being like, “You know what? Even though I’m the boss, I don’t have the answer to this.”

So that’s probably the courageousness I’m talking around and the humility. Boasting can be easy, but often untrue. I think being humble is really challenging, but often really honest.

Allison:

Yes, challenging and honest. And I’m wanting to dig into this a little bit more because we talked, when we started, about getting to the system level too. So I’m going to dip my feet in for a minute.

I was speaking with clients just last week around workplaces and their systems of reward, what you’re rewarded for at the workplace, versus what Pope Francis may have been “rewarded for” is different. And so I’m not insinuating that you shouldn’t be humble, and that’s not what I’m saying, but there is something to consider, right? There are certain environments where being brave enough to say, “I don’t know the answer to that” can be frowned upon, and it causes … just stay with me here.

It can cause some inauthentic behavior at the workplace, because leaders feel like they have to pretend and deflect, or say something like, “It’s a great question, Ren, let me find out the most recent information for you.” Versus just saying, “I don’t know.” And how powerful it can be to say I don’t know. However, sometimes the greater system does not appreciate that very much. And so it can be a bit of a dance for leaders.

Ren:

Thinking about reward and incentive. And I think that’s what you’re talking about. “Hey, how will the environment react to me if I’m honest, if I admit a fault?” And there are … I think you’re right. We work with clients in certain environments where failure is not an option, which is an irony, because then I think we both work in clients who are some of the most innovative in the world. And failure is a requirement. It’s a mandate to move the project forward. We always talk about failing fast, failing forward. Losing is not the problem. Failing to learn from your losses is the problem.

And so it seems like, in an environment where I have to pretend like I don’t know, and we just perpetuate this facade of unknowing — or no, we perpetuate a facade of knowing, but we don’t have the knowledge that could actually move the project forward. Where, in an environment where we’re all being courageous enough — and it starts with you, leaders, you get to set the tone for your team — it all starts when we’re humble enough to be like, “I failed, or I messed up.” And then, “Okay, let’s learn from it. Let’s keep going.” That team is going to win, 9 times out of 10, over the team that says, “We know every answer here, we never fail.” And I think only the reason the other team doesn’t win the 10th time is just luck.

So it is hard, especially if you’re listening out there and you’re like, “Please Ren, give me a break. I can’t tell someone I don’t know the answer.” It’s like, yeah, and maybe there are spaces where you could try to turn up the volume. Maybe you don’t say it all the time, but is there a safer team where you could admit your failure, where you could start to create an environment where you fail fast, or you move to create minimally viable products and therefore are always testing and retesting. That, too, takes courage. A courageousness to be like, “Our process isn’t locked in yet, but we’re going to find the answer.”

Allison:

I love that. And there’s something really unifying and trust building to say to somebody as well, “You know what, Ren, I actually don’t know the answer, but let’s figure it out together. Or do you have any immediate thoughts? I’d love to hear your perspective.” And it’s not to displace ownership, rather to invite ideas and to invite that collaboration that really can be trust building.

And you also said something too, you’ve got a couple of one-liners today that are really sticking with me, I mean you always do, but especially today. You also said that, I’m paraphrasing, conflict can sometimes be a result of a values, I think you said a mismatch or something like that. Can you elaborate there?

Ren:

I mean, I’d ask any of us to think about the conflicts that are the heaviest for us to manage, or those environments where we kind of shrug our shoulders like, “That’s not a big deal.” And for me, it always boils down to the values. If we have a values conflict where I value one thing, and then you value something that’s opposite and might even challenge my values, then you and I have a conflict conversation, not about the issue, but we really start to get issues about ourselves and how we identify with our values, or really how we identify with what’s right and wrong.

And so I think a lot of times, and especially in personal relationships, conflict, I think, stems from these things that we identify with that we hold true as real values. And then I think that can be extrapolated into the workspace, where you’re on a team and you value your team, or you value the work that they put in, or you value the principles that they’ve presented, and another team presents as if they don’t value those things. And then all of a sudden there’s conflict, and conflict that we can’t move past. And so I think some of it is recognizing that we probably share more values than we don’t.

And when conflict is really hard to move through, it’s likely because we don’t know what we value and we don’t know what we need from one another, or we don’t tell people what we need from them, and then our conflict persists. I don’t know. Is that —

Allison:

That’s interesting. That’s interesting. And I think, too, a reminder that 2 people can have differing values and still be okay and accepted / respected. And I think about organizational values as well, and how those can come into play. And this isn’t really … this is just sort of a statement unless you have something to add to it, Ren, is like, I’m just noodling a bit on if your personal values as a leader conflict with the organization’s values, how that might work and if it can work. I don’t really know, but I would think for somebody like a pope, your values would have to align pretty tightly to the “organization,” I would think.

However, Pope Francis sometimes veered — I can see you, I think we’re on the same page here — sometimes veered. What are your thoughts?

Ren:

It’s really interesting when you present the idea of the pope, maybe the expectation of being aligned with, I guess, Catholicism’s values is really important. I mean, Francis is considered the most progressive pope we’ve had in recent memory for multiple generations. And he still really held the line. I mean, he’s been in the Catholic Church for nearly his whole life, ordained in ’63 or something like that, Jesuit priest on the real front lines in Argentina when they had a government that was violent and had a military dictatorship. And ironically, too, kind of got ousted from his first posts in the system because he had this command-and-control style of government where he didn’t have a lot of involvement from the people.

So I think the question around do I, as a leader, need to have the same values as my organization? I think we’ve surfaced this in a lot of conversations we’ve had. And again, for me, that’s not a problem to solve. No, I don’t need to fix you, Allison. I need to get you in the team to do your best work. So how do we meet your values, and how do we meet my values as the organization or something?

And how do we have real conversations with each other? Just talking to a group of leaders last week around this, it’s being honest. “Hey, these are what we value. This is what you value. I want to do my best to meet your values, and sometimes I won’t be able to.” And we’re going to have to do that ebb and flow.

So I think probably as a leader, someone who’s listening, you don’t need to have the same values as your organization. I think you need to be honest if your values are being met, and then find a way to do that “both / and.” And maybe, though, if your organization represents values, then you’ve got a little bit of a different challenge. If you are like, “No, I don’t value this thing that we valued for millennia.” So probably easier, maybe attainable without the badge of Catholicism. That’s interesting though.

Allison:

And again, we don’t need to deep dive, or maybe we do, I don’t know. There’s interpretation too. There’s interpretation of values too, and we don’t need to get too philosophical about it, but what courage means to me might be different to you and so on.

But I like what you’re saying too about the ability to hold 2 truths or more than that. You can hold several things to be true at the same time. And that’s especially important at the workplace and at the organizational level for a leader right now, given just some of the challenges that workplaces are facing. There’s often what we hear from our clients and participants in program is that there’s not one straight answer to this.

And I was working with some scientists last week who like an answer, it’s their job to find the answer, the best answer at least. And when it extends outside of that practice of science, just to the organizational level and how do we navigate complexity, it can be very important to live in the gray there. And that can occur when you have a mismatch in values too, and it occurs at the workplace every single day.

Ren:

I mean just exploring the idea of the subjective of the objective. It’s like this idea of we’re subjective humans trying to define objective truths that are going to be interpreted subjectively. I mean, as an example, there are 22 cardinals who, at least one area called the College of Cardinals Report — it’s a “dot com,” so take that as what you will — but it’s identified 22 cardinals who believe are the “papabile,” I think. That’s my best Latin. You’re all welcome. Would it just be people who are most likely to be elected. I saw a shorter list of 9 individuals, but then I was reminded, too, that for Francis, he was not on many papabile lists in 2013.

And so there is this thing, like, the conclave will have to decide. This group of cardinals, all under 80, and anyone who can execute their orders … Before the voting begins, they hold sessions where they talk about the viability of who would replace the pope. And in doing so, they naturally are going to be talking about their perspectives of “objective truths.” ‘This is what Catholicism looks like, therefore this guy should be it, right?’ And other people are going to be like, “I don’t know. I think it looks like this.”

I think one of Francis’s claim to fame was he’s the first Latin American pope. There’s a couple of new cardinals on the docket who are kind of front-runners. There’s a couple of guys from the US, which is really interesting. I cannot imagine there’ll be a US pope. That would be mind-boggling. There’s a guy, a younger guy, kind of this dark horse from Africa made a cardinal by Francis. But there’s a lot of these deeply rooted European folks who are going to be positioning themselves. Parisians, and Italians, and other things that are the seat of the Holy Roman Empire. They seem to be a better position. And for me, that doesn’t seem like an objective truth so much as a subjective preference.

Allison:

And it makes me wonder about, I’m going to change my language, of course, because I don’t sit in those meetings. So I’m not sure how they would phrase it necessarily, but it makes me think of bylaws almost, like when organizations and groups or teams have bylaws that they need to align on before appointing said leader, or hiring even. And it doesn’t even have to be that written in stone, if you will, but the alignment of, again, translating it to the workplace, where are we now? What is it that we need as an organization? What do our teams need? What’s coming down the pipe? What do we see in the future? There’s a lot. There’s a lot to talk about there.

And I often wonder how frequently organizations consider those things. And when we talk about DAC, our Direction – Alignment – Commitment model, it just brings me right to that place. And it helps to understand, if you are a leader, that alignment piece is so crucial and often is the piece that takes the longest, is the most likely to be revisited. And again, not to simplify what it takes to elect a new pope, but I would imagine some of the types of conversations are similar. I would imagine.

Ren:

I just think it’s a brilliant mirror, because we talk Direction – Alignment – Commitment all the time. And I think it’s pretty standard, Allison, you can keep me honest, but when we have groups score themselves, score their teams, score their organizations, alignment typically is the lowest one. And direction is this idea of, what are we trying to achieve? And I think the conclave knows, we’re trying to elect a new pope. Commitment. Are we committed to our shared success? Yes, the conclave has to be committed to selecting a pope because everyone’s eternal salvation is based on this selection, but the alignment of it all is the struggle. How are they going to align on the agreement of who the pope is, in service of what they’re committed to?

And a lot of these guys, the progressive nature of Francis, I think, has empowered some progressive front-runners. And the ebb and flow of societies and cultures, I mean, there’s going to be 135 cardinals who are electors, who are going to convene and talk. And there’s not 135 progressives, just like there’s not 135 … just like when we look at the statistical distribution of any group of people, there’s so many varied positions. And so I think, their challenge will be, how do we get to where we’re going? And I just wish I could see behind the doors.

I think everyone’s got to revisit the movie Conclave as we talked about in our Oscars video, because what a timely thing, and just how people are voting, and the conversations. I think you even alluded to Francis’s savvy, though maybe like an interpersonal savvy, the way he was able to manage people, be close to the flock as it were. But there is loads of political savvy happening, conversations around what the environment is, who’s the front-runner, how can I put my support behind your candidate? If we can assure that what I would consider a Catholic objective truth is indeed part of the pope’s new plan or something. The alignment is going to be super hard.

Allison:

You’re exactly right. And even if you and I share some similar values, we still might not agree. Even if on paper, yes, we have X amount of values that are similar, you and I, it doesn’t mean we’re going to be on the same page either. And there’s probably a lot of other things that play there, too.

Well, I’ll transition that to the workplace. If we were at the workplace, there might be some ego involved, too. There might be some other things that come into play. And I have to share, last week, a participant, we protect our client names of course, but this woman asked a brilliant question in a group of 20-some leaders, and she said, “Have we defined as an organization what it means to be a leader?”

And there was sort of a quiet in the group, and I asked her to clarify. I said, “If you knew that, what would the outcome be for you?” So if you knew the answer to that, if you had a list or definition or whatever, what would the outcome be? And that generated a really, really important discussion for them specifically as this group of leaders.

And so I wonder, too, what kinds of conversations are framed. Again, we’re talking about the pope here, but I wonder if they align on that, too. What does it mean? What are the behaviors? What does it look like? Almost building out the non-negotiables of this person. And if they are, given what you said, how long it could take to get to that agreement where it’s good enough, not perfect, but good enough.

Ren:

That’s interesting. I love your follow-up question. I mean, what would that give you if you could define it? And it’d be interesting to explore, and I don’t know how the conclave … I imagine they have some definitions of what a pope must do, or who the pope is, rather. They understand that the pope does have this position higher than any other in this religious structure. But it’s really interesting.

The idea of it makes me think, and I say this to folks all the time, you probably said it in the podcast. How do we make explicit what’s thought to be implicit? And often leaders walk around and they’re like, always incredulous, “How could you not know this is how we operate and and XYZ?” And I’m like, “Well, we never talk about this thing, so why don’t you, instead of assuming that I know what you know, why don’t you tell me what you know.”

Now, it’d be interesting, because I actually think that this is some of what the conversations are going to be in the conclave, not only in the general congregations when people talk about the merits of each papal prospect, but during the voting, it’s going to be refining on, “Well, we know that these are some of the non-negotiables, and now we’re going to see how our candidates match up to it.” And I just kind of bristle at the idea of this idea of non-negotiables in leadership.

I mean, I might even say the only non-negotiable you should have in leadership is maybe not having any non-negotiables, because your job as a leader is to fit what your people need from you and what the organization needs from you, not to be like, “No, this is who I am as leader, therefore everything must shift around me.” That does happen sometimes. I don’t know if it works all the time, and it’s certainly not sustainable.

Allison:

I love that you just said that because it’s another … maybe it’s a polarity, I’m not sure yet. But yes, have some intrinsic values, have a compass from which you operate. Definitely. And, to your point, Ren, being able to adapt to what the organization needs, to see, to listen, to create some openness around challenges and needs, needs of the organization is, I don’t want to say more important, but just as important. You have to be able to shift as needed, especially when there’s volatility, uncertainty, et cetera. Leadership can be a lot easier when the conditions are easy. It’s when you experience challenges that you might have to shift those things a little bit.

And it doesn’t mean that you’re changing who you are as a human being. It is that you are being leaderly in your actions to support the greater good, which comes back to direction, alignment, commitment too, right? Are you committed to the greater good of the organization?

Ren:

And have you defined the greater good of the organization? And then do people agree with the definition?

Allison:

That’s an interesting point.

Ren:

I think you called it, right? It’s like this idea of … or the woman in the program did. She’s like, “Have we defined this term?” And then we go, “Well, what would it give us?” And I think, too, we just really quickly fall into these habits of “this is what it looks like,” or I always joke with participants … One of the scariest things I hear is from leaders is the phrase, “But this is how we do it here.”

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

And yeah, and is there more to that? Because if this is how you’ve been doing it your whole life, I can show you a whole bunch of organizations who are like, “Netflix is stupid, digital cameras are dumb.” And they don’t exist anymore. And so I was like, “I don’t know if that’s enough, ‘that’s just how it works here.'” And so there’s something around … If you’re listening right now, and you’re working on a project and you’re having issues, or you’re working with your team and you’re just trying to help each other succeed more … just ask where your shared definitions are and see if you can do it.

That’s why I love the DAC assessment, because a leader will be like, “Oh, the direction is super clear.” And then they give it to their team and everyone said, “No, there’s 5 people on the team. They have 5 views of the direction.” So there’s something around that. You have the abundance of flexibility, and then again, maybe back to the beginning, be humble enough to recognize that the answer doesn’t lie with you, because it can’t. It lies with the people who are going to be executing your plan. So make sure they are aligned.

Allison:

And everything’s up to interpretation, like you just said, right? Using that DAC assessment, which you can Google by the way, that’s available to the public, to our listeners, and strongly recommend that you do use that. Because you can be as clear as day to yourself — the sky is blue, period — but 6 people heard you say something completely different.

I also like what you said about, this is how we’ve always done it, or this is just the way we do things around here. Those are 2 catchphrases that can be dangerous, and dig into that, right? Dig into that if you feel that way, or if folks say it on your team, there’s usually more to that statement. Often it has to do with a resistance to change and a fear that we don’t have the skillsets to do it. There’s usually a lot more to that statement than just that statement, right? I always want to ask people to like, “Keep going with that sentence. Fill in some more blanks.”

Ren:

That’s not how we do it here, because … I built my career around these behaviors, I’ve done it for 20 years, if we change it, what does that mean for me?

Allison:

Right?

Ren:

And that’s interesting. Because I think that zooming back in on the pope and the process, they’ve got thousands of years talking about “This is how it’s done here. This is what it means.”

And Francis, he changed some things. He kind of loosened up some of the structures around what divorce looks like inside Catholicism, enabled remarried Catholics to receive communion, which is really interesting. As I say, really interesting, I think the idea of communion is welcome into this spiritual space with Jesus and you are loved, and Catholicism has a lot of rules that says, “Well, you’re loved under these circumstances.”

And so it’ll be interesting to see how the borders are defined, or maybe the borders are clear; they’re behind the Vatican City walls. But the amoeba of how far do we flex inside those boundaries? It’s an interesting metaphor for leadership. A part of your job as a leader is to define some boundaries and then let people fluidly move inside of it to kind of fill what works. And maybe it shifts. Likely it does shift depending on the day, depending on the project, depending on the market.

Allison:

I mean, I think you highlight, too, that a foundation of an organization can remain the same while things inside of it shift a little. Again, Catholicism and the Catholic Church has a different foundation than most workplaces. And if you find yourself resistant to that shifting and the adapting and changing how you do things, again, I think it’s just worth some investigating.

And I know we’re probably coming up on time here soon … but I think that the last thing that I want to say that really stuck out to me, that is a direct translation to leaders, that Pope Francis did not pretend that obstacles and problems don’t exist. He did not pretend that. However, he consistently offered a message of resilience and hope, which can be really important if you’re navigating difficulty or shakeup at your workplace.

Being honest about challenges and also painting a clear picture and a clear vision of how the team can move forward is a really important takeaway. I think people can usually handle tougher news better if they know where they’re going. It’s that uncertainty that can be very disruptive.

Ren:

It makes me think, too, when we were talking about the idea of the person who says, “This is how we do it here,” and then they link their whole identity or career to it. Now, some of what you’re talking about is what we tell leaders to lead change. It’s recognizing that someone’s kind of having to let go of something, and that’s changing their environment, their experience, and so help understand that, give people a sense of where they’re headed, but also space to recognize that you’re experiencing a loss.

Change happens the moment the pope dies. The transition happens as we select a new pope, as we talk about what the future of Catholicism looked like. Change happened in an instant. Transition is going to be the hard part in helping people in and out of the conclave. I imagine the most influential players balance the line between that mourning of what’s lost, the recognition of all that had been, and a clarity on where we’re headed.

And there has to be some visioning from these leaders too. I don’t know. I don’t think people are standing on a dais or giving a podium speech about things. I think that happens in large group discussion and likely has been happening for years. It’s not like all of a sudden now we’re trying to select the pope. I think the papacy, they’re always looking at who’s going to be filling the shoes.

I mean, Francis wasn’t on any lists because he was considered to be too old to be the pope, whatever that means. Now he’s been rocking for, I think his papacy was 12 years long, nominated in 2013 or chosen in 2013. And so, it’s really interesting. I think in that space, helping people identify the transition, identify the loss, see where they’re going … that tends to help people be a lot more effective. In the very least, it helps you lead the people that you’re around.

Allison:

Indeed. And as I consider, in this conversation, the future of leadership as well, it will mean utilizing some of those more human-centered behaviors that we both spoke about today. And we saw this frequently from Pope Francis, of course, anchoring in core values, leading through service and not necessarily status, communicating with hope and honesty, and utilizing some emotional intelligence in the process.

So I think if I could leave our listeners with anything, it would be that, and also to Google the DAC assessment, D-A-C DAC assessment, that would be a great tool for you. What’s one thing that you would like to leave our listeners with today, Ren?

Ren:

Let me ponder on that. But one thing I think I alluded to at the top, and I highlighted some of how the conclave works, but I want to help you because you might be listening to this while people are behind the doors in the Sistine Chapel. And I think it is this kind of mystical thing around what do they do, how do they do it? And so I’ll answer that maybe takeaway as we set the stage for the conclave.

I think there’s some rule after the pope dies, you have 21 days to start the voting. And as the Vatican confirmed, the conclave will begin on May 7th, but leading up to May 7th, there are all these general congregations, as I mentioned, where we look at the merits of who might be the next papal prospect.

There’s 5 rounds of ballots before we take a break. “We” and “break.” So the first ballot is held on the first afternoon of May 7th, and the ballots are placed into one of 2 small ovens, depending on how it goes. And the idea is that in order for people to select a new pope, there needs to be a 2/3 plus 1 majority in the conclave. So I guess, 135 … let’s do some math real quick. Half of that is … we’re going to do it together. So 90, maybe a hundred people need to say yes to who’s going to be the pope. And that happens not … and I don’t think it’s ever happened in the first ballot.

Then the next day begins, they do 2 ballots in the morning, 2 ballots in the afternoon. If the voting process continues and they haven’t found someone, they take a break on that third day for prayer, for brief spiritual exhortation as it’s called, just to think a little bit more about what’s going on. And then they have to sit in that room and decide, and that goes on until they make a decision.

And it’s interesting. I wonder, when we think about the structures, when we think about the nature of how to create the buy-in from people … 135 individuals, you got to get a 2/3 plus 1 majority … I think one of the things that we think about when we are building coalitions as leaders, when we’re trying to lead effectively, I think there’s got to be something about helping people, putting people first.

I think, like you said, with Francis, the shepherd should smell like the flock. And this idea that maybe, as people are lobbying for their best choices, maybe the Pollyanna-ish part of me thinks that if you can recognize, you can speak to people’s feelings or values, what they care about, you can communicate that to them in a way that they feel seen and heard, then I think that’s mostly what people want. “I’m going to choose my candidate because I want to be seen and heard. They’re going to see me and hear me.” What if other people see me and hear me? Maybe that loosens my rigidity around how I am seen and valued.

And so when I think about leaders, your takeaway for this is, as you’re working with teams, as you’re working with people, do you know what your people need? Do you know what they value? Do you know what they care about? And have you had a conversation with them about how you’re working to either achieve those goals, and are being honest with them about when you can’t? And so I think those are some really practical things that you could likely do. I don’t know if it’ll make you the next pope, everybody, but I think it could very well make you a leader that people want to work with and a leader that people want to work by.

Allison:

I mean, we’ll see. Today is the 28th of April. We’ll see how long this takes. I mean, your guess is as good as mine, Ren, because … thank you for explaining that process. I wasn’t clear on it either. And now I understand why it could take so long. So we will find out.

And again, to all of our listeners, another question you could ask yourself is, who needs me to be a bridge today? And how can I step into that role? That’s one thing that Pope Francis did quite well. And we know that your jobs are difficult and often quite nuanced. And one of the best things that you can do is ask yourself, what does my team need?

So thanks for the conversation, Ren. I wasn’t sure where it was going to take us, given that you asked me about my confessions. Maybe we’ll talk about that. Maybe we’ll talk about that in a later episode. But to our listeners, thank you for joining us. Find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you thought about this episode. Let us know what you’d like us to talk about next. And to all of our CCL teammates who help this podcast to get off the ground. Thank you, and we will look forward to tuning in next time. Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks Allison. Thanks everybody. See you next time. Find Allison on the holiest of TikToks.

Interview Transcript

Ren:

Welcome back to CCL’s podcast Lead With That, where we talk current events in pop culture to look at the way leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

It’s the Oscars, baby! The 2025 Oscar race isn’t just about dazzling performances and jaw-dropping cinematography. It’s also a masterclass in leadership sometimes. Whether it be Paul Atreides navigating the treacherous sands of Arrakis, or Eunice Paiva’s relentless pursuit of justice in I’m Still Here, this year’s top films showcase characters who command, inspire, and challenge the very notion of power.

By the time you’re listening to this, you’ll know if Adrian Brody won again, if cardinals reign supreme, or if a sci-fi movie based on a 60-year-old book finally takes home the gold. In this episode, though, we’re breaking down the standout leaders on the silver screen. Visionaries, revolutionaries, and those who led not by choice sometimes, but by necessity. Whether it’s the quiet resilience of Sing Sing’s Divine G or the political maneuvering of the Conclave’s Cardinal Lomeli, these stories give us real insight into what it takes to lead in the face of adversity. Today we’re looking beyond the awards to explore the leadership lessons hidden in Hollywood’s biggest films of 2024.

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington. As usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, favorite movie this year, or favorite character?

Allison:

Well, full transparency, I mentioned to you already that I haven’t seen most of the films that are nominated. But I am, gosh, excited to talk about my favorite character, who is Elphaba from Wicked. I am most excited, honestly, to see all of the films that have been nominated, but The Substance with Demi Moore really stands out to me and interests me. I believe she was nominated, this is her first nomination, I believe, as Best Actress. I think, given her tenure in the acting world, I’m eager to see her in this film.

What about you?

Ren:

Yeah. The Substance looks spooky, and weird, and strange, and interesting.

Well, my favorite films of this year are not even nominated. Or I would say, some of my favorite films are Monkey Man, Dev Patel’s Monkey Man, great. Mad Max, The Furiosa Saga, that’s fantastic. Civil War, Alex Garland, my favorite author, my favorite director. All of my movies that I really like to see are like, okay, the Academy says I have no taste. None of them were elected or selected.

I did see Dune 2, though. So I hear you. You didn’t watch all of these. I feel like that’s a running joke with the Oscars. You have to have watch parties to watch all the best movies. Shouldn’t you have watched them up to this time? But either way, I did a little bit of research, so I’m excited to poke and prod, and look into some of these characters. Because I think what got me started on this is, I was reading a few articles as they’re generally posted about who the best actors are or what the best movies are. It just seemed, I don’t know if it’s just this year, but so many years it’s like, okay, a central figure, this catalyzing idea, and some of them, in a lot of them, in leadership positions. I was like, “Well, let’s talk about some of these things.” Then maybe, as we’re listening, people can hear it and be like, “Oh, I saw that.” Or as we watch the awards we can be like, “Hmm, the award went to the best leader.”

But I don’t know, let’s start maybe with something that you have seen, and we can look at Wicked. We can talk about some of the characters in there. But specifically, I think maybe some of our charge this episode is, what are we seeing in these characters that we see either work or don’t work in leaders and leadership.

What’s the one’s name that we were just talking about from … ? 

Allison:

Elphaba.

Ren:

… Wicked … Elphaba.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

I’m going to say that name, one time, the correct way, I promise.

Allison:

Me and you both, yeah. I think there’s a lot to talk about with her. And what immediately comes to mind is that she challenges the status quo. I am a sucker for that type of character, though. She questions authority. Her character has several ties, I think, to leadership, but specifically she feels the need to challenge or investigate broken systems, things that aren’t working, and really push for change that is meaningful and sustainable. And so that’s one thing.

I also really appreciate … Well, I should say there’s going to be a spoiler in what I’m about to say, so if you don’t want a Wicked spoiler, maybe fast-forward. But I also appreciate the friendship that is developed between Galinda, “Glinda the Good Witch,” and Elphaba. It’s tested but it remains meaningful in that film. I think you and I talk a lot here on the podcast, and at CCL, about building genuine relationships even with those who have differing perspectives, and how valuable it can be in business and the workplace to connect with people with differing perspectives. And I think therein lies some of the power of collective leadership, and collaboration, and innovation, et cetera. I think their friendship also highlights some relational leadership skills as well.

Ren:

Yeah. Admittedly, I think I only know the periphery of any of these characters. I don’t know, it’s been a long time since I’ve dipped my toes into The Wizard of Oz universe. I did see the Ariana Grande grabbing that woman’s finger …

Allison:

Yes!

Ren:

… who plays Elphaba. I think there’s something there about the relationships. Yeah, Cynthia Erivo is her name. I think it’s interesting — and we’re going to try not to dither into a space that’s going to be too electric or incendiary — but in times when we’re looking out around us for difference and maybe looking more for difference than those that unite, it does seem interesting that this character who seems to be misunderstood, ostracized, due to her appearance and some of her abilities, we really get to see that unwavering commitment to maybe some equality. Or like you said, some of the systemic ills. And then the ability for, I think, the partnership, the friendship, the collaboration to form in those spaces. Those are the areas where I think, “Oh, leadership lesson right away.” What are you doing to make bridges versus cut down bridges?

Allison:

Yeah, absolutely. I think, too, there’s some leadership lessons in that film around facing adversity, which I sort of  imagine are in some of the films that you’ve referenced as well. I’d be curious to hear from you on that note.

She, Elphaba, she remains committed to her cause, so it’s a testament to a few things, again, that we talk about a lot here. Like adversity, growth mindset, navigating challenge and disruption. It is the hard work of a leader, it really is. Who you are in those times of disruption and difficulty can really show, actually, your true character as a leader. That was another connection point that I made.

Curious for you, if there’s anything in the films that you mentioned that tie in to what we’re starting to talk about?

Ren:

I hadn’t highlighted a theme, so much as what I could call this magnetic focus on these singular characters. And as I say this out loud I’m like, well, is that different from any movie?

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

I guess some ensembles are different. But you saying the word adversity, it was like, oh, oh, wait a minute. I think that we know, too, in film or story, it’s not interesting unless our heroes or our characters face some adversity. But when I tell leaders, I’m like, “The only thing I can guarantee you is change is coming for you and adversity is at the door.”

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

That’s a really interesting thing. Maybe part of this conversation is coming up for us, or that will naturally, is as a leader, what can you do to forge through adversity? I would say already with Elphaba and Galinda, the idea of collaboration, partnership, relationship building, those are some of the foundational pieces I think you can do to push through adversity.

Allison:

Yeah, for sure. And I don’t want our whole episode to be on Wicked. I mean, it can be. But I’ll also say that her character, both of their characters rather, her and Galinda, really show that authenticity, integrity matter as well. There’s something in their storyline too, around how easy it is to misunderstand one another and how quickly that can happen, too.

If I were to tie it back to business and the workplace, it would be around encouraging leaders to check in on their core values and align their decisions as best you can. Align your business decisions or your leadership decisions as best you can with your core values. And checking in with them, especially when times are tough and things are very much disrupted.

Ren:

Yeah, the misunderstanding. It’s like on our Better Conversations framework, the Better Conversations isn’t just you and I having a better conversation for our sake. But if we have a misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding starts to trickle through the organization and our teams, all of a sudden then it’s got this echo of missed opportunities. As opposed to those spaces where we’re really going to try to have to connect and make sure that we’re abundantly clear. It’s like over-communication. I always say I’ve never had a client tell me, “Ren, we talk too much.” They say it like they talk too much about things that don’t matter. But no one’s ever like, “Hey, stop. We have too many meetings where we’re clear about our intent and we know what we’re working towards together. How do we stop doing that?” No one ever asks me about that.

Then I’m wondering, too, I’m combing through my list going, “What other instances are we seeing here where either communication is misplaced or communication is critical?” I think a little bit about Conclave, which I think is a really interesting idea: this fictionalized look behind the curtain for the papacy. How does the pope get chosen? This is the one where Ralph Fiennes, or “Ralph” as I call him at family dinners. Ralph Fiennes, he plays this cardinal as the dean of the College of Cardinals. Conclave looks at the secretive process of electing a new pope and highlighting some of those political and spiritual tensions within the Catholic Church. Okay, communication. Or what I think, too, is political savvy.

How do I communicate effectively with awareness of my environment? I think that’s what Conclave is about. Who are the players? Who do we have to navigate? How do I make sure our pope gets picked? Or really, the thing we want to happen, how do we make sure that happens? Maybe that’s something that’s interesting in that space around communication or savvy. I don’t know. I don’t know, what do you think?

Allison:

Oh, definitely. I hear a lot from clients, and just commonplace conversation with folks, around this notion that, “Ah, I don’t want to have to be politically savvy at the workplace.” It has this negative connotation, when it’s really neutral.

Maybe you could talk a little bit about that. Because actually, Ren, I don’t know if you’ll remember this, this was so long ago. I’ve been with CCL for what, almost 8 years now, and you have longer than I. You trained me on some of our content, our Lead 4 Success content around political savvy. I remember that, and I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about it being a neutral concept?

Ren:

Yeah, Allison. What you say right there, that idea of the neutrality of politics. I think because of just, geez, the way politics is experienced in America, or just as people, politics is so charged. And politics means something.

But when I think about political savvy in its neutral nature, I think about the root word: polis — people engaging in communication. Politics is, when we say political savvy, we just mean the awareness of your environment. And because in work, people have authority, people have connections, there’s formal and informal power, political savvy speaks to the idea of awareness of my environment and the power structures at play. There’s nothing inherently villainous, I think, about this idea of political savvy. But instead, it’s how can you approach your environment with cleverness, with intent, with honesty and transparency?

I think that’s some of the things that characterize Ralph Fiennes’ character is this idea … Apparently, he navigates all these complexities with transparency, pushing for unity, trying to be humble, honoring his position in the history of it. That’s some kind of awareness that, if I could stay neutral myself in this crazy system, then I have some savvy.

It’s funny, too. The word savvy is coming up for me recently. Because I don’t know how often you use it or we use it in conversation, but it’s such an interesting word. What does savvy even mean? I said the word “clever.” It’s like this adeptness. It’s like this really smart adeptness of reading the terrain and moving through it. Again, there’s nothing, “aneutral” about reading the terrain and moving through it. There’s nothing necessarily polarizing about that idea. It’s what we do as we navigate those things. Now, that might be polarizing.

I think that’s what I would say for political savvy. It’s just your general awareness with some skill and some intent of moving through your environment.

Allison:

Yeah, that’s great. I love how you frame it, because it really is more about awareness of, not realities, that sounds a little heavy, but just the context of your environment. One thing that we’ve done with clients before — I’m sure you’ve done too — is think about the informal and the formal policies, if you will, behaviors. There are formal policies of course, in every single organization, but there are also informal. If you can be aware of those informal nuances … A really benign example would be don’t cook your fish in the microwave when you’re in a shared space. That’s an informal taboo thing to do.

Ren:

Yeah.

Allison:

But each organization has their informal nuances, and I think that can help you to be aware of the environment that you’re in.

But back to the film that you were mentioning. Are there any examples that you could share, or anything else you want to say about that?

Ren:

Well, when I think about adversity, it’s interesting, I think, when stuff gets worse. There’s this old adage in football and in sport, I think you’ve probably heard it, where it’s like, “Adversity reveals character.” But the adage in football goes. … “Adversity creates character,” or something, I think is the traditional adage.

Allison:

Okay.

Ren:

In football, it’s like, “Adversity reveals character.” Where even though hard times help build who you are, but when you hit hard times, it’s easy to get into your reflexive postures, to get defensive and protective. And when I think about this neutral navigating through it, it seems to say, as this cardinal leverages his relationships around the papacy, but also staying true to his relationship with himself. The ethical steadfastness, I think that’s an aspect of, A, moving through adversity, and also being politically savvy. It’s who am I? And despite what’s happening around me, can I maintain my position and my posture?

That’s a really interesting segue, I think if we move to Dune 2, and we look at Paul Atreides. Have you seen any of the Dunes?

Allison:

I’ve seen none of the Dunes, but that’s okay.

Ren:

None of the Dunes. Well, we have some of the best dunes in the world here in Colorado, so we’ll take a trip to Alamosa. Yes, I think this Dune and our little Timothée Chalamet, who is actually being nominated a couple times this year. He played Bob Dylan. I think he’s pretty awesome. I think he’s a fun young talent. But he’s the head of this House Atreides that was betrayed by these other royal houses. It really explores, I think, this person’s journey through a lot of different spaces. But one of the spaces I think it really explores is this idea of how I can stay true to myself. And what does that even mean?

There’s even an exchange between 2 of the main characters where it’s … one of them commits to … they’re in love with each other. It’s like, “I’ll love you forever. Yeah, as long as you stay who you are.” It’s an interesting idea about how maybe easier said than done it is to stay who you are.

How might we as leaders either corral or maintain our identities of who we are to move through adversity or anything else?

Allison:

Well, you know I’m going into a philosophical rabbit hole in my head as I’m listening to you.

Ren:

Let’s do it.

Allison:

I’m like, “Oh, what an intense question.” Because, is there a correlation between what you’re saying and adaptability? Because sometimes we do have to adapt. And does that mean we’re being inauthentic? I’m not really sure. But what does it mean to stay true to yourself? What does that mean?

Ren:

Yeah. Yeah, right. You’d have to determine a few things. What is self, and how much does self move from what self has to be? I thought what you were saying there is probably some polarity management.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

There’s parts of my character that have been the foundation of my life, that have contributed to a lot of my success. That it’d probably be irresponsible for me to ignore. And there’s other parts of my personality that, if I just stayed in them forever, I would not be better, I would not progress in my life. I might even be worse for it. There’s probably some conversation as a leader to say, “Okay, these are the things that I stand for.” I think that’s some of what Paul Atreides had to define for himself. It’s like, “What matters to me? Regardless of what the world wants from me, how do I want to show up, and for whom am I showing up that way?”

I think some of Paul’s experience is less heroic when you think about the books and how the movies are going to play out. He’s not this unfettered, “all-that-glitters-is-gold” kind of hero. There’s some decisions that he has made and has to make that are going to put some people in harm’s way. And maybe that’s a different leadership conversation. But the struggle he’s going through around what is my identity? Who am I? How is that going to impact not just me, but everyone around me?

Whether or not you can define what your self is, I think we as leaders have to ask ourselves who is around me? What do I know about them? And what do I know about the decisions that I might make that could either positively or negatively impact them?

Allison:

Right. And then what happens if you are forced with making a decision that negatively impacts people. Again, I know I’m taking us down some weird rabbit holes. But it’s true, at the workplace, you cannot please everybody. There are going to be decisions that you make that negatively impact people. How do you navigate that?

Ren:

Yeah. Something about expectation setting, I think.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

That’s another thing that comes up for me with Dune is there are so many expectations levied on this character. And so many places where he either has to set some expectations, put his foot down. Or just generally, if none of us are Paul Atreides and we’re trying to ride sand worms, but instead you’re at a team and you have to facilitate bad information, or hold space for your colleagues, I think you’ve got to be critically aware of just it’s more than me.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Not even it’s not just about me, but it’s more than me. The things that I do echo around, and in and around. I think as we think about all of our leadership today in adversity or in times of turmoil, sometimes we react. We’re like, “Look, I’m only putting out the fire. I’m not thinking 2 or 3 steps down the road.” But I think the very best leaders keep that in mind, and they do think 2 or 3 steps down the road.

Then they might make a bad decision that might harm someone, but maybe in the expectation setting with people you’d say, “Hey, sometimes I’m not going to make a decision that you like. But I am thinking down the road and this is why I made it.” Probably some transparency in there too, might help ease the tough decision.

Allison:

Yeah. And you mentioned polarity management, which we’ve talked about on the podcast a few times in the past. But you’re making me think of that right now too, in practicing, I guess you could say, empathy with a bit of directness too, on top of what you were just saying. The ability to take some more bold actions and prepare for opposition, if you will, in the workplace, even criticism. I think the ability to practice those 2 things, that transparency, directness, empathy. That’s 3, I suppose. But it can really serve you in staying true to who you are, and the decisions that you’ve made and why. And sharing your reasoning, if appropriate, behind the decisions.

Ren:

Yeah. I’m trying to think about a bridge here, because something that you said really, I think, got me thinking about Substance. Maybe it’s just this bridge of who I am, or managing my identities, or doing that polarity management. Because in Substance, there are 2 polarities. There is Elizabeth and then there’s Sue. There’s Demi Moore’s character, and then there’s Sue, her younger alter ego played by Margaret Qualley I think. That’s what happens, she takes a substance, she becomes this person. It’s this interesting dichotomy that you can have around what it looks like to navigate one’s self-acceptance in the face of all of these standards. And then the shadow side of ambition, and unrestrained pursuit of self-gratification, it seems like a really interesting exploration of a very obvious allegory maybe of our society today.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

I don’t know if there’s a direct connection to where we just were, but I’m trying to make one.

Allison:

Well, I think there probably is. Everything that we’re talking about is all relative. We could even talk about Demi Moore and her reinvention of herself many times. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I am excited to. It looks eerie, and interesting, and complex. Demi Moore though, she’s still who she is, I presume. Her legacy has shown how adaptable she also is / can be. If we think about her in the ’80s, I remember my mom, I can’t even name any films, but I remember her being in some romantic comedies. Then in some more dramatic roles. Do you remember the film GI Jane? Do you remember that movie?

Ren:

It’s one of my absolute favorite movies. Yes, I 100% remember it.

Allison:

It is?

Ren:

Yeah.

Allison:

Why do you love it?

Ren:

GI Jane is amazing. I like the training parts of that movie the best.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

It’s a fun and interesting character. It’s a girl sticking it to the boys, facing adversity. But there’s just something really charming about that story. Yeah, I know it well.

Allison:

Well, at the time, that was considered a controversial movie. I don’t know, was she thinking ahead of her time? I’m not sure. Did she just decide to do it because the role suited her? Who knows? But she was fully committed to that role. If you’ve seen it, you’ll probably remember that classic scene of her shaving her head, I remember that. To your point, she underwent some pretty intense physical military training that was fun to watch.

Again, I’m not suggesting that leaders need to shave their heads or do anything drastic like that, but I do think her risk-taking, if you will, as an actor, is a really nice correlation to some of the things we were just talking about. When you do feel the need to make a bold choice here and there, and you are faced with criticism. I don’t know that her decision to take that role hurt anybody necessarily, but she did face a lot of very harsh criticism after movies like that. There was another film she was in shortly after called Striptease. It’s just a reminder that sometimes you have to have a thick skin as a leader, and that resilience piece is so important.

Ren:

Yeah. I think resilience, it’s interesting, I think it shows up in Substance, but it also shows up in the stick-to-itive-ness of Demi Moore. How old did we say she was when we were looking earlier?

Allison:

According to Google, she’s 62.

Ren:

All right. Well, you know Google, a big source. No, I’m sure that you’re right. It’s wild just to think of someone who’s committed to their craft, who wants to keep on working, who just at this phase in their life is getting recognized on the brightest and biggest stage. And I think too, for exploring some of the concepts you mentioned. This character, Elizabeth, this aging star, has to maintain some thick skin and maybe doesn’t do it so well. And why, then, makes the decision to take this magical substance that might help me feel more like I should.

I think for a leader too, it’s interesting, the shoulds, and the oughts, and all of those things. Let’s just leave that stuff at bay. Instead of talking about what you should do, it’s what do you think you want to do? What do the people around you want you to do?

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

As opposed to an idea on Forbes, or X, or Twitter that tells you, “This is what good leadership looks like.” Well, maybe for a person or an environment.

I think there’s something about being resilient, especially in adversity. Sticking to it. Keeping on in the working. But then also, steeling yourself as a leader and being like, “Well, just because they do it like that over there doesn’t mean that I have to do it like it over here. Or that it would be as effective.”

Allison:

Yeah. I want to back up to something that you said just a moment prior to that statement you just made. Which is, I’m going to paraphrase what you said, but an element of decisiveness, and maybe even confidence, that I think sometimes newer leaders can struggle with standing firm in their decisions or being confident in making them.

I’m going to put you on the spot. Do you have any advice for folks who maybe are newer to a leadership role who struggle with that?

Ren:

Just so I answer the question right, new in a leadership role and struggle with what specifically?

Allison:

That decisiveness and this is what we’re doing moving forward kind of mentality.

Ren:

For me, recently it’s been coming down to the mindsets that we hold, especially around abundance or scarcity. When I think when we’re in a scarcity mindset — which is to say there’s not that many chances, there’s not that many opportunities, I can only make one mistake, or I can’t afford to make any mistakes — that mindset is a really tight mindset. It’s like you’re white-knuckling life and decisions. And because of that, the experience you have with risk, or defensiveness, or reactivity, I think when people are in a scarcity mindset, all that stuff is heightened. Especially in adversity, I don’t know if that’s really good.

But living in abundance, this idea that there are many opportunities, that this isn’t the end-all-be-all, that, I think, is an effective space to be in. When we think about innovative organizations or leaders, what they’re good at is failing fast. An abundance mindset helps you think, “Hey, I have one failure, because I have 10,000 more failures,” I think as Thomas Edison said. …

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

… Or “10,000 ways to learn not how to do it.” That’s an abundance mindset.

I think for anyone’s whose listening, you’re like, “I don’t really get it, Ren.” Think of any time you’ve ever interviewed for a job when you had a job.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Think about a time when you were ever romantically engaged with someone, you’re like, “Wow, it’s so much easier to talk to the people I used to be attracted to.” Because you’re playing with house money, man. There’s no risk on you. That’s the abundance mindset. What if you don’t hold onto stuff so tightly?

What if that decision for a new leader … You’re like, “Oh, God, I’m a new leader. I’ve got to knock this one out of the park.” Maybe. Or this would be one of thousands of decisions that you have to make. If we have a real growth mindset, where even if a failure is truly an opportunity to learn, then you can’t make a bad decision. I think it’s the rip-the-Band-Aid-off, new leader. Just make that call. Test and retest.

And it might loop back, Allison, to what we were saying about expectation setting. If I’m with a team and I’m with a new leader, I’d be like, “Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to help to do X, Y, Z. But sometimes I’m going to make calls and they’re not going to work. Then we’re going to get back in a room together and talk about why they didn’t work. I won’t be sad, I won’t be upset, I hope you’re not either. We’re just going to use it and go.” I think that’s really interesting. That’s probably what I would say. A long-winded answer to your question.

Allison:

Yeah. In which, do you think that organizations have, can have rather, a culture of scarcity or a culture of abundance? Do you think that happens?

Ren:

Yes. Absolutely I think it happens. When we think of a typical S-curve in a business, where they grow and they shrink, and then they grow. Or you think about organizations that are missing budget or are going to fall short of their targets. Especially too, from an innovative standpoint. If you’re a company in innovation, and innovation often comes with spending money, but you’re not doing so well this year, and then there’s scarcity. “Hey, we don’t have that money. You can’t take this risk.” Or, “If we do give you money to take this risk, it better freaking work.” Those things, I think, that increases the scarcity mindset. 

The trickiest part, and maybe the true magic of scarcity and abundance, is regardless of your environment, can you internally cultivate abundance? And recognizing that someone might be knocking on your door and saying, “You better not mess this up.” And you’ll be like … “Okay.”

Allison:

All right.

Ren:

You give them a little shrug. You’ll be like, “But I still got to make a decision.”

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

“So I’m going to make this decision and we’re going to see how it goes.”

Allison:

Yeah. I think there’s a handy tool that we show in the classroom around the Sphere of Control. Can you picture that, those 3 circles?

Ren:

Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Allison:

To our listeners, if you can imagine 3 circles. A small, then a middle-sized, and then a larger-sized circle. The Sphere of Control is considering, in that smaller one, what am I responsible for? What are my responsibilities? The next one is what can we influence? What can you influence, rather. Then the last one, what is it that I need to accept?

I like to correlate some of the things you’re saying to that, too. It might not lead you directly to an abundance mindset, but the ability to focus on what you are responsible for and what you can influence will be energy well spent and will yield dividends. Versus you focusing on things that you simply need to accept about the organization, or the systems, or things that are not inherently going to change immediately, that you cannot influence at all.

Ren:

Yeah, I love that circle of influence, and the idea of what I can control, what I can influence, and what I have to accept. I think we work in some spaces where I have to tell people, “Acceptance isn’t that you have to accept that stuff sucks and it’s never going to change.”

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

Acceptance is more like you have to accept that in this moment, you can’t manage that ring. You’ve got to focus on your circle of control.

I think that’s such an interesting bridge to this movie that I think, of all of the movies, I think this one is maybe most heart-wrenching and that I want to see, but I also don’t want to see. It’s the movie I’m Still Here.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

The one set during Brazil’s military dictatorship in the ’70s. It tells the story of Eunice Paiva. Her husband, Rubens the congressman, is kidnapped and then murdered by the regime. Then it follows her 4-decade-long quest to try to find truth, to fight for justice amidst all this oppression.

But I think what’s interesting is her transformation from a grieving wife, who is like, what could you do? The whole government took something from you. It could be easy to get stuck in that ring of I’ve got to influence the government today. Or she then went to, “How do I fight for human rights?” I think about expanding your circle of control. If you want to get up to that point where you can’t accept, make your circle that big. Start to stretch out.

I think hers is an interesting story of so many people, of leaders or people who are thrust into positions when you’re in adversity. To say, “Well, what can I do about this today? Well, I can share my story with people who are hurt. We can unite, we can work together to fight for human rights. All of this stuff is in my control.” Versus being so paralyzed by the lack of control I have of the state system, or the economic system, or what your organization’s policies are, leader. It’s these things where there’s so many things that happen outside of your control that can be debilitating. But what’s empowering is saying, “What can I control?” Yeah, I think that’s such a good highlight.

Allison:

Yeah. What you’re saying can come back to what we were talking about earlier, even with political savvy and relationship building. Because how do you expand that circle of influence and the things that you can influence? One way that you can do it is by building those bridges and building relationships. You mentioned unity. Getting to know the folks that, at the workplace at least, that you work with in different functions. It does help you to expand that Sphere of Influence. And it helps you to understand different functions, which inherently would then give you more political savvy.

It’s so interesting how the things that we’re talking about really are tying into one another in ways that I didn’t expect.

Ren:

Yeah. It’s such a good lesson to know, and we talked about this earlier when I was alluding to the idea of it’s more than just you. All of this leadership stuff, none of it happens in a vacuum. We’ve got to know that one lever is connected to another. If I do one thing over here, it might very well impact something over here. And, too, I think just keeping that holistic perspective in the web of things …

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

… is also a way to recognize in the control realm. It’s like, “Hey, I have control over this.” Maybe it’ll trigger a domino for influence over here. And maybe it’ll start to shift some of the things that I’m forced to accept.

Yeah. All of it, I think, it’s an interesting reminder for you, listener, as leader or even a team member, it’s how can you keep the big picture in front of you as much as possible. That can give you perspective, but also help you see connections that, maybe when you’re right up against it, you can’t see.

Allison:

Yeah, I agree with you. A client recently made a somewhat joking and light statement to me. She said, “I’m so sick of people telling me to assume positive intent.” Then we had a nice conversation around why that might be. But to add to what you said, I think it’s assuming positive intent as well. Because if you are able to zoom out, see the big picture, you might start to understand and take less personally some of the decisions that had to be made, maybe by your senior team, or what have you. Things that feel very personal to you often times are not, even though it can feel that way. How does that tie into Sphere of Influence? It can really help you to tighten and develop those relationships in ways that you maybe didn’t have before, which again, adds to that collective process of leadership as it stands in general.

Ren:

And kind of where we started, with Wicked.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

It’s the relationship. I think we’ve very adeptly woven all this stuff together. That’s really interesting how … Yeah, I didn’t think that we had any intentional tethers like this.

Allison:

No.

Ren:

I thought there was something. There’s a lot of things connecting these characters and these ideas in these movies. Not just people moving through adversity, but people managing their own energy, managing their environment, helping understand what they can or cannot do.

I think something maybe that is solid here, and maybe something that we find interesting, and maybe a takeaway for me, is that even though it’s not all about you, it starts with you, listener. That’s maybe a polarity. How do I help you and me? How do I help us? Us is in the center. If I don’t do something though, if I don’t lean into my circle of control, if I don’t intentionally build relationships or diagnose my environment, then it’s unlikely something will change.

I tell leaders all the time, “If you don’t change your behavior, I can pretty safely tell you that nothing is going to change in your environment.” Sometimes things change that we can’t help. But for the most part, in the true sense of what we do have control over, if you keep doing the same things, you’re likely to get the same outputs. This empowerment in self …

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

… I think is a theme in some of these movies, too. It’s how does an individual push through these challenges? What can you do to maintain energy?

Allison:

Yeah. I think, gosh, lots of takeaways for me. Considering all of the actors and characters that we’ve talked about so far, I agree with everything that you just said, Ren, so I won’t be repetitive, and I’ll add to it.

Around controlling what you can control, how can you own your own narrative and your legacy as a leader? I think that’s an important thing to think about, too. And be intentional about shaping your professional and both personal legacy. And knowing that a lot of that is within your control.

Back to you, Ren. It does start with you: Who is it that you want to be as a leader, and how can you intentionally shape that?

Ren:

Maybe just one more tack-on to your note, and something I tell people all the time and I believe it. If you’re not telling your story, someone else is.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

Your story is being told today, right now, in this moment.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Are you playing an active role in that? Are you helping create that legacy, helping shape that narrative? Or are you, because it’s not starting with you, just looking at it and saying, “Oh, well, I’ll let my work speak for itself?” Or, “I hope that this will go this way.” Again, maybe. But get in the game. Get active.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Help tell your story so you can help other people tell theirs, I think.

Allison:

Yeah. That’s well said. You’re just making me think of … legacy starts now, it starts in every moment. It starts in every single moment, in every interaction that you have. Being intentional about that and thoughtful will serve you in the long run as a leader, and really as a human being, too.

Well, Ren, what’s the first movie you’re going to watch?

Ren:

Probably The Gorge with Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy. I don’t know. I’m trying think. What should I watch from this list? I guess The Brutalist, which we didn’t talk about. It’s supposed to be really fantastic.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

Another Adrian Brody post–World War II film. Sing Sing looks super interesting to me — that story about the theater program inside of New York’s Sing Sing Correctional Facility. But, something about Oscar movies and the general weight of them. I’m carrying enough these days.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

I think I want to see 2 pseudo-young, sexy actors protect the gorge of hell from demons or something. I think I’m going with those 2.

Allison:

Okay. Well, I’m usually very late to the movies, but we’ll see. I have an interest in all of them. We’ll see what happens. Maybe we’ll come back to it in a few months after I catch up to the movie scene. Thanks for the conversation.

To our listeners, let us know what you think about the leadership in some of the movies that we’ve talked about, or previous movies that you’ve seen, previous films that have made an impact on you. To our listeners, you can find all of our show notes and podcast episodes on ccl.org. To our CCL team who works behind the scenes to get our podcast up and running, a big thank you to you.

Ren, I’ll look forward to hearing more about your movie Gorge …

Ren:

Yeah. Yeah, you’ll have to.

Allison:

… in the near future.

Ren:

I’ll likely tell you about it. It looks fun.

Allison:

Okay, great. Looking forward to it.

Ren:

Thanks, Allison.

Allison:

Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks, everybody. See you next time.

You can find Allison on TikTok again, right?

Allison:

For now.

Ren:

Yeah! Do it.

Interview Transcript

Intro:

And welcome back to CCL’s podcast Lead With That, where we talk current events and pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

Ren:

Today, we’re diving into the world of direct-to-consumer DNA analysis. Companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com have revolutionized personal genomics, empowering millions to uncover their ancestry and even get a glimpse into their health risks. And some of these pioneers now in genetics who soared to billion-dollar valuations now face some staggering challenges.

Specifically, with the stock value plummeting by 99% and a recent mass board resignation, 23andMe, the one-time genetic giant, is on the precipice of disaster. As 23andMe teeters on the brink of collapse, we’ll explore the implications for the millions of people who entrusted them with their most personal asset, their DNA.

The collection and use of massive genetic data raises urgent questions about privacy, leadership and ethical business practices, and how to navigate the fallout when business models fail. And as the future of these businesses becomes murky, we have to ask, what happens to all that sensitive genetic data of over 15 million customers? What happens to your genetic legacy when a company’s business and leadership falter?

While 23andMe’s product was groundbreaking, a combination of market saturation, privacy concerns, leadership struggles, and an unsustainable business model have led us where we are today. So, stick with us as we unpack the lessons on leadership from this unfolding story, how visionaries in the genetic space revolutionized an industry, and where they may have gone wrong in managing the responsibility that comes with it. Let’s get to it.

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, joined with Allison Barr. Allison, have you ever used a genetic testing service?

Allison:

I’ve only used it for my dog. And I’m going to guess we’re talking about humans here, but I did use it for my dog. And if you had seen my first dog, you would have thought that he was a German shepherd, but we knew he was a mutt. And it came back that he was part Dalmatian, which made me very skeptical of the results. But hey, you never know. So I’ve used it for my dog, but not for myself. What about you?

Ren:

Were you satisfied with the results? You said you were skeptical, but did it work?

Allison:

Yes. Well, it worked because, and don’t judge me, I was much younger, I had to submit proof to the apartment complex that I was applying to live in that I didn’t have —

Ren:

Sure.

Allison:

… a German shepherd or “bully breed.” And I said, “Here you go, he’s part Dalmatian,” which … So yes, I was satisfied for that from that perspective.

Ren:

Well, see, now we’re starting to already get into the scary parts about genetics, like access. Every time I talk about this kind of discussion, I think about the movie Gattaca. Have you seen the movie Gattaca?

Allison:

No, I’ve never seen it.

Ren:

Yeah, see it. Young Ethan Hawke, young Uma Thurman. It’s really just a story about overcoming the limitations that society puts on us, Allison.

Allison:

Okay.

Ren:

But do you know anyone who’s ever done one of these genetic testing things?

Allison:

Yes, my sister. Uh, now I’m questioning if it was my sister. Somebody in my family did it many years ago. So I suppose what we’re getting at, part of what we’re getting at is, by proxy, I guess my data is out there.

Ren:

Oh that’s interesting. Some of your genetic data, because you’re related to the people, is out there.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

Yeah. I’ve never used one of these, but when I brought this topic up to Heather — my wife, for those of you who are listening, and I’m trying to make a concerted effort just to call her Heather instead of my wife, because she’s a multifaceted, complex human being — but when I told her about this topic, or we’re talking about 23andMe, and she’s like, “Oh, what about it?” I said, “They’re about to be bankrupt.” And before I could even talk about the topic, she looks at me and it’s like, “What’s going to happen with all that data?” Because it’s like, her, and I think her parents have done it.

And so yeah, I have personally never found the desire, like 23andMe or Ancestry.com, I actually don’t even know what their value propositions are or how they differ, but I think maybe that’s sort of one of the things we’re starting to talk about today.

I think some of this story is rooted in the product and the business. I can’t help but think about Shark Tank, where they always talk about, do you have a product or do you have a business? Even for people who use the service once, I don’t know, if you map my genes, haven’t we won? You’ve mapped my DNA, so we’re finished, aren’t we?

Allison:

Then what? Then what? In theory, as I understand it though, some people have used it to find family members that they’ve lost or didn’t know existed. There are some who say it’s helped them to understand their potential health risks. But to your point, what’s next after that, in terms of what the company offers? I’m not really sure. There’s a lot of different ways that we could take this, I suppose. And I think one thing that you just raised was business or product, and I don’t know how long we want to talk about the CEO of 23andMe, but one of the reasons that the board eventually left the company was because she couldn’t provide a business plan that was either sensical or sustainable. So that’s an interesting question that you raise.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, so Anne Wojcicki, the CEO, facing a lot of criticism over kind of the company’s financial struggles, but her approach. So when 23andMe went public in 2021, its opening price was like $13.32. Then it started to raise by 20% before it dropped down to where it was trading yesterday at 29 cents. I guess I could look. But that’s where that 99% drop comes folks. It’s not hyperbole. It went from 13 —

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

… and plus to less than a dollar. And so her pitch to the board was, “Let me buy you all out. I’m going to make it private. I’ll give you 40 cents a share.” So it opened at 13. While she’s not offering them 30 cents, she’s not offering them much, so people were pretty pissed about that. And I think the board cited concerns about the lack of premium, of course, but also the overall insufficient way to protect the shareholder value. And they don’t know what she’s going to do with the business. So I don’t know. It’s interesting to explore how much of her … Could any CEO save them?

Allison:

I don’t know. I guarantee you there are probably people out there who are incredibly innovative also in that industry who could think of many different ways to sustain customers or have client retention or … It just to me, from the outside looking in, does not look like you’d have any sort of retention or any incentive really for one consumer to come back, right? Even further, your family then doesn’t need to. There’s no incentive for your family, either. So I don’t know. Again, I’m sure there are probably some innovative people out there who could think of many ways that they could add to their product line, so to speak, but I’m not in that business. What do you think?

Ren:

Yeah. As I asked, and I am listening to you talk, I was thinking about that discussion we had once with the grocery stores, like merging, and then cutting off and selling parts of the business. I guess what you just alluded to was that there may not be a family need. Because if you get ancestry in me and I’m your sister, and then I find out where your history’s from, then I now know where mine is, presumably. I don’t need to get it also to know that we have French ancestry. So maybe that’s something like your diversification there. I guess there might be some additional add-ons for the genetic testing and some of the, “Hey, we’re continuing to map XYZ DNA. We’ll update you. Get a subscription service.”

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

But yeah, I guess there might be a CEO who could innovate the business model, but I don’t know if the product, what can change. And that’s what happened with 23andMe, and all of them. At one point, I think … Who knows who got there first? Remember? I think it was just a show on TV where they brought celebrities and they told them where they’re from, and then that kind of evolved into this business model.

But as soon as there were major players in this space, there were many players in this space. You can spit into a tube today for almost any company, and they’ll tell you and what your dog are supposed to be. And so I think maybe the innovation doesn’t come in the product, but the innovation comes in the relationship with the client. And maybe even then, the relationship with other businesses. They’re going to have to have an inorganic growth strategy to make this happen,

Allison:

Sure.

Ren:

… which is to say some of them are going to have to merge and acquire one another, I think.

Allison:

Sure. And I could think of it, too, going many ways. Part of my family is Italian and part of my family is Irish. I could almost see there being some tie to travel. Okay, now that you’ve done this, now you can partner with whoever agency to get a trip to wherever to visit your homeland, so to speak. So yeah, I think to your point, they’re going to have to do something. And there were so many other things that came up for me with this story, too. And I don’t want to take us too far down like a philosophical rabbit hole, so humor me for a minute.

Ren:

No, those are my favorite. Please, let’s dive in.

Allison:

Okay, good. Humor me for a minute. So on the one hand, technology and AI as we know it are moving very quickly, almost to the point where humans can’t keep up with as fast as they’re moving. So on the one hand, I think about data breaches, which happen to any company. So any company is at risk of a data breach. But when you’re talking about genetic information, that’s unchanging. That’s people’s very personal information. It’s not like I could just change my password, and then all of a sudden, the person who hacked no longer has access to my DNA. It’s such a much bigger risk, to me. It’s just interesting. I’ll pause before I take us down the other rabbit hole.

Ren:

Well, I’m just grateful that, I think you alluded to a little bit of it, maybe the world is so far advanced. I don’t know if anyone on the dark web, for instance right now, someone has your, Allison, your Social Security number. I’m convinced of it because they have mine.

Allison:

Oh, sure.

Ren:

Because I am attached to Sony. I’m attached to Experian. They’ve had massive data breaches that have my personal information on it. They’re like, “Change your password so someone can’t use it,” but that stuff exists and is being peddled in a massive file of tens of thousands of other people’s data. So I guess I’m probably glad that, right now, no one can take my genetic information and synthesize a new version of me and make me better and stronger.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

Thank God there’s not a black market for cloning science. Though who knows? There might be. But I think I’m grateful that there’s nothing to be done with that. But maybe as we ponder this, it is like, someone has it. Someone’s going to hold onto that database, and I guess leverage the information until we’re societally advanced enough for it to be used. And so I guess maybe … I don’t know if you had a question necessarily so much as, I guess some of the advantage of the fact that we are leaping ahead, technologically, we can collect this data, but what is someone going to do with it? Is a hacker going to … like they would hold my computer hostage? “Hey, if you don’t pay me, I’m going to email your genetic code to your workers.” It’s not like NSFW stuff. It’s like —

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

“I’m going to email this guilty picture of you to your coworkers. I’m going to let everyone know that you have an ABG genetic coding.” They’re like, “Don’t do that to me.”

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

So I don’t know. I guess what are they going to do with it?

Allison:

I don’t know. Right? That’s the question. And I fall in suit with you, where I’m kind of like, okay, well, I already got hacked once and somebody has my social already, and that’s not changing either. My Social Security number is not changing. You do all of the things to protect yourself so that people can’t buy a house or whatever with your social.

So part of me also has a high level of trust that we will catch up to it. And whatever folks are thinking they’re going to do with people’s genetic information, I have a certain level of trust in me that policyholders or whomever will catch up to that so that there is a solution, but I do know that’s one worry that folks have.

So no, I didn’t necessarily have a question, just something to ponder. But the other thing that was top of mind for me just got me thinking about the future of leadership in general and how complex challenges are now and will probably continue to be.

So I’m getting way broader right now, so you can rein me in if you want, but even consumers, too, are going to face challenges that are new that we almost can’t predict necessarily. And I know you and I have talked a little bit about this before, but I do think the degree of complexity for leaders right now is dialed up, and will continue to probably be dialed up, again because technology is just moving faster than our understanding. So what are your thoughts?

Ren:

Well, you used a really important word, trust, and then a couple of things are spinning around in my head right now, especially as a leader and a consumer. I think … And I was about to say, never more in history has your education been more important about what you consume or what you lead, but I don’t know if that’s true. If you were in the horse industry and the cars were coming along, you needed to be pretty freaking aware of how your industry was going to die.

And so I wonder too, some of what I was about to say previously was, I think for some of these genetic companies, they’re almost like Kodak or Blockbuster. They were swimming in the money. They couldn’t see past their own success to the inevitable evolution or the desire of it. And so I think, too, leaders are going to have to be aware of what can happen with this information, how to navigate it. When I think about 23andMe, I think about being informed.

Allison:

That’s it.

Ren:

As we think about information that’s either being given away or being taken away. A leader has to know … No one can point their finger and talk about, “Oh, well, you knew the risks here, and now your private information or your genetic data is in the hands of so-and-so.” Someone will try that, but it’s not working for Anne. And so there’s something coming up for me, this idea of accountability, of curiosity, of balancing between …

[Sneezes.] Excuse me. Keep that sneeze in. It’s human.

Allison:

Bless you.

Ren:

Thank you.

… of balancing that nature between how much can I delegate? I need someone else. I need an expert who’s going to manage this stuff. And then how much should I really, really know? And so there’s something in there for me around, like, I’ve got to trust the people I work with, and I cannot put some of these decisions in the hands of someone I don’t trust. Moreover, I’ve got to trust that this person knows what they’re doing because when we’re in the forefront of this information, someone’s going to know. Someone knows more about AI right now than me. They could use that for nefarious means, or they could use that for positive means. And so, as someone who’s driving the ship, I’ve got to know who I’m putting my trust in.

Allison:

Absolutely. So how do you know?

Ren:

How do you know who to trust?

Allison:

Yeah, I know that’s a really big question I just asked you. We can narrow it down. Let me get very specific. Who are you going to trust to know and foreshadow AI conditions that will potentially impact your job and your work? Put yourself in the shoes of a CEO even. How do we know? Sure, you can hire a CTO. You can hire people who have advanced degrees in technology. Is that enough? I don’t know.

Ren:

Yeah, I think you’ve got to trust what you’re trying to accomplish. And that’s an interesting idea, because is that what 23andMe did? It’d be interesting to talk about, what were they trying to accomplish? Did they ever have a conversation about the evolution of their business?

But I guess for now, when we start to carve into these frontiers, I have to trust some expertise. I have to trust someone whose character is reliable, but also willing to flex. I got to trust my competitors, too. There’s something about … if you can run a 4-minute mile, then I can liberate my thinking to run a 4-minute mile. Sometimes all of our success is my success. And that’s not too far away from some of our frame of reference on leadership.

But I think, starting to comb out who you might want to rely on, but also asking yourself, well, what am I trying to do? And then make sure that I can cultivate trust in the idea and then cultivate someone’s trust in the connection in that idea.

But I don’t know. Especially when we talk about 23andMe, and we talk about, just, the way they try to keep their business alive will sell genetic data. And now, albeit it’s anonymous, but they’re like, “Hey, we’ll sell information to pharmaceutical companies for drug discovery.” And so I don’t know, is that … I guess I can trust them to do what they need to do, what they’re rewarded, incentivized to do. So, how do you answer that question though?

Allison:

Oh gosh. I should have known better than to ask you, because you’re going to ask me back.

Ren:

Yeah. Yeah. You know I’m coming for you.

Allison:

I don’t know. I’m not sure I have the answer right now. But you mentioned something about having people around you who can consider, or start to investigate, the evolution of your business and how you need to evolve. And I thought that was a really interesting thing to say, and an accurate one, even more so than ever, having folks on your team or within your business who can think about now, right now, how you might need to evolve your business. And I would think that’s relevant to any industry. Can you convince me that’s not relevant to any industry?

Ren:

Well, I don’t know. Probably not. I guess the sentiment of your question is no. Everyone needs to innovate, but think about some things that don’t change. When’s the last time a table changed?

Allison:

There are all kinds of tables out there, Ren.

Ren:

Yeah. When was the last table invented? I hear you. I guess some of the principles might remain because actually I’m thinking of … I just saw this clip of these new compact furniture that … a table turns into a shelving unit, like 4 shelves, and then flattens out and turns into a table.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

Yeah. I guess all things need to innovate. I guess you’ve got to trust someone to be honest with you, trust not to have a bunch of yes people around you, and then trust to learn the balance between that innovation and that steadiness.

Because it is an interesting tension that 23andMe, or all this DNA mapping, is maps like innovations in science. But then if it hangs its hat solely on the innovation of science, then it’s hanging its hat on something that happens every 30 or 40 years, maybe faster, but still it’s like, all right, when’s the next big genetic wave of materials, products, I don’t know, coming along? Who knows? They’re waiting too long.

So it’s like, yeah, innovate your product and then innovate your business model. Hold on to what made you unique, which is selling DNA mapping. But then maybe like you said, how do I evolve? Do I look for partnerships? Find out where you’re from, and then we will link you to Expedia or something where you can freaking —

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

… get a ticket. Yeah, broadening your mind, not getting too stuck on your own idea. Like authors, be willing to kill your darlings. It’d be interesting to explore what things they tested in the market, but it just seems like they doubled down on the idea of selling DNA kits for the past 2 years.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

And it has not worked.

Allison:

Yeah, understandably. And if it’s okay, I want to broaden us again so that for those folks who are listening who are not in the industry, have also just some things to think about.

I was speaking with one of our brilliant colleagues, Renita September, who also has the best name, Renita September, who was sharing some research with me around the future of leadership and future of the future of work, future trends, and some of the research that we found was that economic pessimism, as she called it, will dramatically impact how leaders lead and how workplaces operate.

And I know this is kind of a bit of a turn for us, but I’m just wondering if we can talk about that a little bit, because part of what we’ve already mentioned, part of what will impact these industries as well, is if their consumers trust them. And part of economic pessimism has to do with lack of trust. And so, how can organizations continue to gain their, not only their consumers’, but their employees’ trust, given some of the obstacles that the world is facing right now?

And I’ll say one more thing about that before I let you answer, is that she and I also talked about how things that occur across the globe from you, no matter where you are, will impact your business in new ways now that leaders didn’t necessarily have to consider maybe 15 years ago. So, any thoughts, reactions?

Ren:

Yeah. What was the term? Economic what?

Allison:

Pessimism.

Ren:

Economic pessimism. God. Well, coming from a pessimist, this’ll be fun. Well, I have this idea, thinking about, gosh I think about structures of economics and governance. The stock market’s an interesting animal, and so too is crypto. If you believe in the idea of cryptocurrency, that it’s not going anywhere, then it’s a good investment. And … a no duh, Ren. Wow, you’re saying something novel. But so, too, goes the stock market. If you believe in the US economic system, or rather the global economic system, the stock market is a good bet because what you’re doing is you’re betting that people who are incentivized to keep that economy alive will keep it alive.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

It’s ultimately what you’re saying to yourself. And so I guess when I think about some of my reactions to this idea of trust, it’s how can you as a leader or an organization, or me as your customer, how can you incentivize or demonstrate to me that your idea is tried and true? And maybe it’s just like, do I have to believe in your product, or can I believe in you? And there’s something about the sustainability, too, to believe in us. Not just believe in the product that I bring, but believe in the industry that we are creating.

That was sort of what solar’s early pitch was. And granted, solar got … I think they got flushed into a public market too soon, and a lot of people paid for that. And solar could be further along, I think, in human adoption than it is right now, but a lot of solar is not just betting on me as your purveyor, but betting on us as the industry. Our competition helps us give you a better product.

And so maybe there’s something in there. As an organization or a leader, how can you use competition to your advantage, and then tell people, “Hey, this isn’t just for our betterment, it’s for your betterment?” I don’t know. That’s sort of what’s cooking for me.

Allison:

Yeah, that’s interesting, and I think there’s probably a lot to say there. And I want to go back to something that you mentioned a few minutes ago, which was around … you mentioned something around accountability, too. And something that another researcher of ours, Marcia Dawkins, who’s a brilliant, brilliant author, she asked me this question once, rhetorically, of course, but I’m curious, what we can dig into here is, how can an organization balance the need for strategy and public accountability to sustain a business? That was a very interesting question. And then she simplified it to the question of, what does it mean to be a trusted partner or a trustworthy brand?

Ren:

Public accountability.

Allison:

What’s that?

Ren:

Public accountability for what though?

Allison:

Well, I think there’s probably a lot of things that we could say. I’m cautious because I don’t want to take us down a rabbit hole that will turn into sound bites. I think trusting information, trusting sources, sharing sources that are “trustworthy.”

Ren:

Frankly, we don’t live or operate in an economic system where many people have enough buying power to hold organizations accountable. Moreover, the regulations and governance they experience don’t require them to be accountable.

I think conscious capitalism is, whatever, increasing in some vogue, and new generations want new things from their consumers, but not when you dig into supply chain. Anyone who’s talking about global warming and also is wearing clothes is engaging in some kind of cognitive dissonance. Unless you out there had made your own clothes, or you’re one of those really, really serious people, and I know a few of them, who look at the supply chain of their clothing. And I’m not blaming any of you or any of us. Frankly, I’m wearing clothes right now that I know were not made in the best human or environmental conditions.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

And there’s got to be some kind of withholding of your own culpability. So how do you become a trusted brand? There’s probably a few ways. You could engage in the illusion that people are buying into, helping them not feel too badly about their decisions. I think consistency is something. Offering somebody a unique product, but then continuing to offer more.

And so maybe that’s where 23andMe came. Do I trust 23andMe to do genetic coding? Yes. Do I trust them to do anything else for me? No.

And so maybe there’s something about the variability of your business. I cultivate trust in Apple, for instance, because it’s pretty, it’s fast, it’s smart. They have great customer service. They have a built-in ecosystem for blah, blah, blah, or blah.

I think maybe once you start to unpack your brands, you start to realize that they aren’t a one-trick pony, to say. And maybe this is a full circle for us here around 23andMe is, as a leader, part of your job is to make sure that you’re reveling in your success and you’re looking for the next one.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

So a long answer to your question, as is my way.

Allison:

Yeah, that’s all right. Yeah. I think too, what’s interesting, and this is a me thought, not a CCL research thought, a me thought, is that as sustainability becomes more of a conversation in the masses, I have a curiosity around some of the brands, like Apple and some of the larger brands. I’m an Apple user, by the way, because let’s all knock on wood before I say this, but their products last, and so I’m not having to replace it every 6 months or so. I believe in their product. It’s user-friendly. It’s easy for me to use as well.

And as we learn more information about sustainability, now I’m not talking about Apple, I’m just talking broadly about a lot of different organizations … Like you said, do consumers have the “power” to change the way major companies operate and their contribution to things like global warming and the environment?

Ren:

Coordinated, yes. But some of what you said earlier, trust too, it’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, just basic human psychology, that if you’re worried about where your next meal is coming from, you’re not elevating your conversation to what brands I trust or what their supply chain looks like.

Allison:

Sure.

Ren:

And so, when we think about most Americans, or most people involving in modern Western economic systems, most of us fall in the middle to lower range of what we can or cannot do in that space. And so we’re probably having different conversations about trust because we’re too worried. Like, I don’t have the time to do the research, nor do I have the money to get the goods that are like this. We talked about with Bryan Johnson and his blueprint protocol, it’s like the things that are good for you and potentially good for the environment are not accessible by most people.

So it’s like, consumers … don’t get me wrong, I think consumers can change the world. They do change the world … coordinated consumption. And then, too, enough when … I have to address some other people’s needs before I start pushing them to think maybe differently about where they buy their cotton T-shirts from.

Allison:

Sure. Yeah. I realize that just took us a huge left turn, so thanks for humoring me.

Ren:

Well, I don’t know if that is a huge left turn. I mean, I can see a few anchors into this idea of the business, and leading in this business, and some of this idea of … How many people listening actually give a crap? Who’s invested in 23andMe right now? Would it matter if they shut their doors? Is this a relevant and useful conversation? Now, that’s … I think there’s plenty of connection.

Allison:

Yeah. Yeah. When I read about 23andMe, it just took me — and it still continues, in this conversation, to take me — broader, and what does that mean for organizations that are not in that industry? What does it mean for the future of work as we consider not only just people’s data, but again, the advances of technology? You mentioned … You didn’t say these words, but what you were alluding to is things that are systemic that one consumer likely isn’t going to be able to change by themselves, right?

And so again, when I think about trust and I think about the future of leadership and the future of work, I can’t help but think people just have to collaborate in new ways and in different ways. And what does that look like? I’m not really sure yet. But brain power, bringing different minds together that you wouldn’t necessarily bring together, today, right now, is going to be a necessity for organizations to stay ahead of those trends.

Ren:

And transparency.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

We talk this idea of leadership disclosure. Ask for more feedback. Share more about why you make the decisions you do. And when I think about Anne’s relationship with the board at 23andMe, I wonder how much Johari window she’s doing. That’s inside speak, folks, for what I just said. It’s like, is she getting enough feedback? What’s working? What’s not working about the business? Is she asking those questions? Is she telling people about why she wants to give a 40 cent valuation on the shares?

And so, I think, transparency is critically important for these things. Especially once we start playing around in the idea of digital information. I don’t know. I mentioned this to you, and I don’t know how many of you saw this, but in California, they finally made legislation that  anyone purveying in digital media has to let the consumer know that the consumer actually doesn’t own that digital media.

For instance, if you buy anything on Prime Video, people, if you buy any video on Netflix or something, you don’t have a physical copy of that medium. That data exists in their cloud, and that data only exists in their cloud because of a licensing agreement they have with the studio. So if they lose that agreement, you lose your movie.

And it’s kind of the same deal. It’s like, what happens when I give my data to an organization and they close their doors? I lose that information. And that’s some of what’s happening with 23andMe and their partnership with some of these pharma companies, is that their data’s anonymized. So even if you went to the pharma and said, “I want my data back, I want my DNA back,” they’d be like, “I’m not going to ‘unanonymize’ this. There’s no way for us to find it out anyway.”

So I think, as these things evolve, there’s got to be real transparency of decision making and implications on the consumer, and likely some stopgaps, like … Yeah, you can’t give 15 million people’s information to something, and then not give me, as your consumer, recourse.

And so maybe that’s more of that trust. And so, leaders, maybe that’s a method. It’s like, how transparent are you being, and how much recourse are you giving people when faced with decisions you’ve made? Even if you can’t change the decision, can you give them some agency in altering their experience?

Allison:

As you were talking about if I download a movie from Prime, and then I don’t know, Netflix or somebody else takes over the rights, and the communication there and the transparency, one other thing that I can’t help but think about that came up when I was reading the 23andMe story are privacy policies, which … Do you ever read privacy policies?

Ren:

Nope.

Allison:

Neither do I. I don’t read those. Yep, you don’t either, and my guess is that most people don’t. However, even if you did read them, a company very well might have a privacy policy right now, today, that they’re not going to share with third parties, for example. They’re not going to share your data, for example. And in a month, they could change that privacy policy. Now, are they legally required to communicate that with their consumers? That’s up for debate. There’s a little bit of a gray area.

Are consumers going to read it anyway? Does it matter? Yes, it still matters. To your point, you should still be transparent. All of that to say is that I do think consumers are going to have to pay a bit more attention to these little things, like the privacy policy, like the legislation that you just mentioned. And, at the same time, I also can’t help but think that humans are going to human. Am I going to read privacy policies? No, I’m not going to. I probably won’t.

Ren:

The privacy policy thing was the biggest, the most hilarious sense of “Involve me, but I don’t want to be involved.”

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

Because now, every website I go to is like, “Hey, we have cookies.” I’m like, I freaking know you have cookies.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

And now I have to accept or deny. I got to go through this whole new process. And then I see so many people who are like, “Okay, we raise our fist together.” Consumers, together, we shook our collective fist. We hate these user agreements. You’ve been selling your information. So now everyone just puts these cookie notices. And you know what people do? They just accept all the cookies anyway.

Allison:

Yes. Yes, I do.

Ren:

Yeah. You were talking, too, about reading the little things in the user agreements, but it’s like American legislation. They’re so onerous. User agreements are like hundreds of pages long. Who’s going to read through all of that legalese? And again, so it reminds me, so it’s not only being transparent, it’s like, are you being candid? Are you being honestly transparent? It’s not like, here, I’m transparent. You can find this needle as long as you look through this haystack.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

Is that real transparency? And so I think, again, maybe that’s where this is all swirling around, is as these businesses evolve, as you evolve, leaders and people, being honest with yourself about what you actually have an appetite to do, and then sort of being honest as a leader about what you’re expecting from your clients or the people that work there.

Yeah, I’m not going to be … It’s okay for you to just click yes on my user agreement because I’m not peddling your information to a company. Oh wait, I am. So maybe there’s some spookiness happening there, but I don’t know. Do people care? Yeah, humans are going to human. Because do I have time to care? And if I do, shouldn’t that be —

Allison:

Are you going to spend it reading privacy policies?

Ren:

Yes. Maybe I should be doing something else.

Allison:

… that are in font size 3 and a half by the way, 25 pages?

Ren:

Yeah, exactly.

Allison:

Yeah.

Ren:

They’re hiding all that stuff.

Allison:

But I think where you’re getting me to consider, or what you’re getting me to consider, is something that we might say around change leadership that is maybe applicable across the board, is just to communicate. There will be people who skim your email. There will be people who get onto the all-staff meeting and they’re sort of paying attention. But the people who really do have a valid investment or want the fine print or want the details, they’ll be very grateful, right? They will be very grateful. So I think there’s no harm in communicating. I think there’s no harm in being transparent to the point where you’re being helpful, right? Well, we could have a whole other podcast around can you be too transparent.

Ren:

Helpful transparency, yeah.

Allison:

Right? So I won’t even take us down that rabbit hole, knowing that it’s been 37 minutes. So yeah, I think if I were going to offer a takeaway, I’m not going to steal yours. But if I was going to offer a takeaway for leaders and what they can take away from this episode is silo reduction and starting to think about, who else can I involve in this conversation? And it sounds very simple in concept.

And what I know from lots of research, not just CCL, is that people are meeting heavy. They spend 60 to 75% of their time in meetings. We’re on autopilot. Some people are working on the weekends to get their work done. A lot of organizations are slim right now, so the last thing people want to do is take the time to invite Joe from accounting into an R&D conversation. But I’m telling you, take the time to do it. You just might have a new perspective that could help evolve your business. What are your thoughts?

Ren:

There’s a few things in there for me. Again, our classic CCL thing. I was talking to a client about this the other day. So, I’m going to get to the classic CCL thing. And I was telling them one of the scary … The most powerful lies have a little bit of truth in them.

And one of the hardest false paradigms that I think I work with leaders, and you probably do too, is they tell me they don’t have time. And I get it. They’ve got families, they’ve got jobs, they’ve got kids, they have a life. They don’t have kids, whatever. People are so busy. And I understand the feeling of they don’t have time, but that’s not really a true statement. It’s more like, I make time for what I want, some things I don’t want to make time for, is really what that sentence is.

But “I don’t have time” stops people from doing some of that, and I think doing some of any of the good work, some of what you’re talking about or anything else.

And I think some of the “slow down to power up,” that’s the CCL gem that we always say, is time spent on the front end is time saved on the back end. People are like, “I don’t have time to get so-and-so involved,” or “I don’t have time to break down the silos, Allison. What are you talking about?” I’m like, “Well, you don’t have time not to. You can’t afford not to do that, because then you’re spending all this time on the back end.” And so I think something, too, around the silos in this 23andMe story is this idea of the way information gets stuck in tubes.

I have this one client, and they’re starting to roll out their 2025 planning, which was finished in 2020, and now they’re beginning their 2030 planning. Now too, I think we understand the nature of strategic planning is that you should be reevaluating your 5-year plan every year, but people look at me sometimes and go, “Who’s doing 5-year plans?” I’m like, “You know who needed to? 23andMe needed to do a 5-year plan.”

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

Because if you’re not thinking about how you’re going to evolve your business or your product, or you as a person, my takeaway here is, and as you were talking, I think I got, is get uncomfortable. I think 23andMe is like, “We don’t want to change the model. We don’t want to do so too much different. We don’t want to move from our true north.” And I understand that, but then now they’re looking at closing their doors.

Allison:

Right.

Ren:

So the idea of getting uncomfortable is “try something new.” As a person, get uncomfortable every once in a while. Because if you’re never uncomfortable, you’re just doing the same things. And are the same things going to serve you 5 years from now? Maybe. Tables don’t look too different, even though they are augmented. But are we all in a table situation, or do we need to innovate?

And so always be keeping your eyes on that moving target, I think, being flexing. And revel in the successes, hold on to what makes you good, and add new things. Get uncomfortable.

Allison:

Get uncomfortable. Yeah. I will resist the temptation to dig in with you about the “every lie having some truth to it,” although I want to. I want to.

Ren:

Well, the most effective lies, I think it is, have a little bit of truth.

Allison:

Did you say the most effective?

Ren:

That’s what make them so good.

Allison:

The most effective lies.

Ren:

The most effective lies have a little bit of truth. And that’s where that scary paradigm is like, “I don’t have time, Ren.” And I look at someone, and I’m like, “I get it. You work 50 hours a week. You have 2 kids.” And I hate saying that. Remember, kids aren’t a validation of you being busy.

You work 50 hours a week, and then you serve your community, and then you come home, and you’ve got to take care of your whatevers, right? But it’s that idea there is some truth to it, but it validates the lie, and that’s why some of the best lies just have a little inkling of truth.

Allison:

Okay. Well, we can leave it at that, because I want to take that and run, but maybe next time.

Ren:

Yeah, no, that’s for us … and our therapists!

Allison:

Yes. Really. Okay. Anyway, well, perhaps we can leave it at that, right? So get uncomfortable. Point 1, get uncomfortable. Point 2, do your best to reduce silos, because the future of leadership is going to require you to think and work with folks in new ways. And perhaps we can just leave it that for today.

Ren:

I think so.

Allison:

Great. Well, thanks, Ren. Thanks for the interesting conversation, and thanks to —

Ren:

Yeah, for sure.

Allison:

… our CCL team who works behind the scenes to make our podcasts happen. To our listeners, you can find all of our podcasts and show notes on ccl.org. Find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you thought about this episode, and let us know what you want us to talk about next. And we’ll look forward to tuning in next time. Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks, Allison. Thanks everybody. See you next time. Find Allison’s DNA on TikTok. I hope not.