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

Intro:

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

Ren:

So, what does leadership look like when you’re 250 miles above Earth, facing an unexpected 9-month extension to your work trip? NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams didn’t plan to spend nearly a year aboard the International Space Station, but when technical failures grounded their return vehicle, they adapted, preserved, and led with resilience. This episode, we’re diving into their experience — not the spacecraft, not the mission logistics, but the astronauts themselves. How do they cope?

How do they lead, and what can we learn from their ability to stay focused, motivated, and mission-driven in the face of uncertainty? Both Wilmore and Williams demonstrated what leadership under pressure truly looks like. Rather than frustration, they chose optimism. Rather than isolation, they leaned on teamwork.

Williams put it best when she said, “We don’t feel abandoned or stuck up here” during her interview last year. They tackled scientific research, station maintenance, and the psychological demands of an extended mission with unwavering commitment. It’s truly a masterclass in adaptability, trust, and the kind of leadership that transcends gravity. So, what can we leaders learn on Earth from their experience?

Today, we’re breaking down some lessons around the high-stakes problem-solving, mental endurance, and teamwork under extreme circumstances. So, whether you’re leading in an office or orbiting the planet, Wilmore and Williams’s story proves that the best leaders are steady, and stay steady, no matter how long the mission lasts.

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, what’s the longest you’ve had to work with someone on a job, like a single person stuck on one gig?

Allison:

Single person stuck on one gig? Well, we run 5-day programs all the time, but I suppose we leave at the end of the day, so maybe that doesn’t count.

Ren:

You get to go home.

Allison:

So prior to CCL, in my past life, I was in charge of getting retail stores open from both a training perspective and an ops perspective. There was one occasion in which I had to open a very small store in a very, very small space that me and another teammate spent all hours of the night working. So, that was probably 7 am or earlier, to about 3 or 4 am, give or take. What about you?

Ren:

I don’t know. Yeah, maybe like a 12-hour stint, 7 to 7 in some of our programming, maybe on a work trip internationally, spending more time with someone. I was always able to clock out and go home. Considering that long stretch, how did you manage your space with each other? What were ways that you were able to work better together? What were some of the things that you took away from a “leading yourself and leading the situation” experience?

Allison:

Well, I think, gosh, there’s so much to say there. The root of our success was that she and I had, and still have, a very good relationship and were able to communicate transparently and effectively with one another. So, just to be clear, there were no windows. It had to be private, for some reason that I’m still unsure of. So, they didn’t want anybody looking in the window, so they barricaded everything. So, there were no windows, which you would think wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but it does have an impact on you.

I think we were just able to communicate and had lots of caffeine, and we knew what we were getting into. We knew what we were getting into, which is actually something that these 2 astronauts said, too. We knew it was going to be a trek. We knew that in advance. So, I’d say that, and the communication, and us having a very solid relationship was helpful.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I think you highlight some of those things that maybe Suni and Butch have to lean onto, or Wilmore and Williams. I’m going to call them all sorts of names, hopefully the polite names, but let’s run it back because I think it’s such a wild story.

I didn’t really pay attention until the astronauts were coming home, and then I saw a meme. Imagine you were told that you’re stuck up there, and then they were like, “Hey, actually, let’s wait a day” because the return ship was delayed for a day once it was planned. So let’s first look at who they are.

Butch and Suni, both Navy test pilots, they’d served as Navy pilots and they both were astronauts. They’ve been up multiple times. You’ve probably seen Butch on all those NASA clips. He’s one of those faces that they put on TV when they talked to the astronauts. So, they’ve both done a lot of work in planes and in space.

And, as they’re test pilots, this was Boeing’s Starliner. That was the space shuttle that they took up to the space station. That was Boeing’s first pass at taking astronauts. NASA, for the past decade, has been using this commercial flight program where they rely on private industry, or private companies, to take their astronauts up there. That’s why SpaceX has been involved, and we’ll talk a little bit around the return capsule. So, we got these Navy test pilots who are astronauts who were asked to fly the Boeing Starliner up to space for the first time ever. It’s the first manned flight for this pod.

So, they go up, and as they’re going, there’s some hydrogen leakage issues in some of the thruster engines, especially as they’re getting close to the ISS, and they were able to stop the leakage. But as they began to dock with the ISS, some of the thrusters failed. So much so, that both Butch and Suni had to re-engineer, get this stuff back online, get the computer activated, and for them to safely dock. But it’s just such a wild thing to think of. They finally can see it, and then they have these issues. It reminds me … Was it Apollo 11 or Apollo 13? Which one is a Tom Hanks movie?

Allison:

Oh, I think it’s 11, right? Oh no, I don’t know now. I’m questioning myself.

Ren:

Oh, did I ruin it?

Allison:

I think it’s 11.

Ren:

People are yelling into their microphones. They’re like, “Idiots, it’s Tom Hanks.” But anyway, so they get up there and so they’re the only 2. I think the plan was supposed to be 8 days, and they were going to fly up to the space station just to see how it went and then come home. But after the thruster issues … it was June 2024 when they flew up there. After the thruster issues, NASA and them said, “Okay, we’re going to try to figure it out.” And for 3 months, they waited for a plan. So, it was June, and then in August, NASA was like, “We’re not sending you home” and that “We’re going to bring it home unmanned. Also, we’re just going to keep you on board until the next crew arrives,” which was going to be in September.

But after more and more conversation happened, they say, “Well, you know what, what we’re going to do is …” And the crew that usually come up, they come up in groups of 4. So, the crew, instead, they dropped 2 people off of the September crew, and then they brought up those 2 other people, a cosmonaut and the other US astronaut. His name was Nick Hague. So, those 2 arrive at the space station in September, and then they all stay and work together until March, when they were finally able to go home. So, it’s a wild day. Wilmore and Williams ended up spending 286 days in space, 278 days longer than anticipated. They circled the Earth 4,576 times. They traveled 121 million miles by the time they splashed down.

And Williams and Wilmore quickly transitioned from being guests to full-fledged station crew members. In fact, Suni Williams became the station commander once they decided that she was going to be up there, and, wildly, they did 62 hours over 9 spacewalks. Williams specifically set a record for the most time spent spacewalking over a career among female astronauts. So, it’s like this super-duper wild story. They get up there and there’s a lot of things to unpack too around, “Were they stranded, were they left?” NASA and the astronauts both made a conscious decision, and probably a financial decision, that they’re just going to roll them into the squad.

But the thing that got me really thinking about this is you got an 8-day trip and it turns into a 286-day trip. And I asked you, like, “Should we talk about this?” Maybe just how they didn’t freaking kill each other. So, I think I want to dig into some of the tension that could have happened, some of the characteristics that they leaned into in themselves, some things that came out as they talked about it when they arrived home, But it’s just this wild trip with so many factors at play. So, I wonder, as you observe the story, listen to the astronauts, hear about the details, what sticks out to you about any of this?

Allison:

A lot. I think 2 things. One was just interesting to read about some of the health ramifications about being up there for such a long duration, that I thought about, but didn’t really consider deeply until I really started reading about it. Even on just a typical engagement — we can probably agree this is atypical, but — astronauts in general usually experience, or can experience, bone and muscle loss, vision impairment, shifts in brain structure — I just want that to land, a shift in your brain structure — immune dysfunction, and others. So, again, you and I are not in the medical business, but I would be really curious to just know how they’re doing. They both said they had experienced a lot of dizziness, a lot of balance obstacles as you might imagine.

But I think from more of an organizational perspective, there was a quote that stood out to me that I want to read as a direct quote from Wilmore. That quote is, “The plan went way off from what we had planned. We prepare for any number of contingencies, and you cannot do this business without trust. You just can’t. You have to have ultimate trust and for someone to step forward in these different organizations and say, ‘Hey, I’m culpable for part of that issue.'” He’s referencing the obstacles that they faced and the major delay in their return. So, for someone to say, “I’m culpable for part of that issue,” that goes a long way to maintaining trust.

“And if I was given another opportunity to fly,” Wilmore said, “We’re going to fix it. We’ll make it work. Boeing is completely committed, and NASA is completely committed. With that, I would get on in a heartbeat.” That was really telling to me. What do you make of that, given everything that you just said, plus the health issues, and they’re saying, “Yeah, we would do it again”?

Ren:

Yeah. Well, it made me think, too, about, so the only way this works is because they have 2 of the hardest-nosed, hard-skinned Navy test pilots who just get into planes to test them. They’re just the biggest risk-takers. And I’m thinking, “Could it work with a normal human?” So part of me goes, okay, but yeah, that makes sense because that’s what you do. Your identity, I wonder how wrapped up it is in being a pilot and doing really tough stuff.

But I think there’s a couple of things. One, it reminds me of the nature and nurture conversation around human development, but also around leadership. At CCL, we firmly believe and have for decades that leadership can be developed. And I think there’s some truth that some people are naturally born into it.

So, it’s interesting. Butch said something, too. He’s like, “We plan and we prepare.” What an interesting sentence. And Suni says, “This is in our hearts, it’s in our heart.” I’m not surprised to hear … yeah, sign me up. I don’t know if Suni’s going back. I mean she’s done almost anything you could possibly imagine for an astronaut. I think this is her 5th or 4th time, maybe. And for prolonged amounts of time; she’s had long stays at the ISS before. So, it’s like I don’t know if they would go back. Some of it makes me wonder, are you just being a good soldier, you’re not trying to blast Boeing?

But it is interesting to say, from an organizational standpoint, someone in Boeing’s got to say, “I know what the problem is, and we were attached to it.” Because if they’re not honest about it, then they have a much bigger headline about the thrusters not working and the thing crashing into the ISS. So, I did think it was interesting. Like, “We trust Boeing, they’re going to get it right.”

It reminds me, too, mistakes happen. Even with SpaceX, I mean, the SpaceX Dragon brought everyone back. SpaceX has been, I think, flying up there for 10 years or something, but even they recently had a pretty large explosion across the sky.

So, these things happen, but there’s something around the trust, trust that you planned, trust that you prepared, trust in yourself, that you were made for it, or trust in yourself that you could hack it. So, that’s probably I think the thing that you’re talking about right there is one of those things too that they had to rely on, which was that notion of trust.

Allison:

And the knowing: “We plan for this.” Now I’m not quoting either one of them, but loosely paraphrasing what they both have said, which is, “We know there are risks to doing this, major risks. We know that. We’re aware of that. Yes, we’ll do it again.” So, you’re right. I think it takes, well, a specially trained person to do what they do, of course, but also a special type of human to be in literal outer space for that long and then to come back and say what they said.

And I’m just going to take them in good faith, although you’re probably right, there’s probably a little bit of being a good corporate citizen, so to speak, and not blasting their partners. But I just wonder what kind of adrenaline junkies either one of them might be, to want to do something like that again. But it did get me thinking about contingency planning and risk taking, calculated risk, and how all of that also partners with trust and plays out at the workplace too.

Ren:

It’s interesting when we look at our organizational culture, sometimes at CCL, we use a lens where we look at … There’s 4 dynamics about risk taking, decision making, conflict, and feedback. We often get leaders into a room and talk about, “Hey, where is your organization today, and where does it need to be? Where are you in this room, as a team or executives, and where do you need to be?” So it’s an interesting lens to look at for these folks around how do these things play out? I think some of what I’m thinking too is, “Well, would a normal person have been okay? How quickly would’ve a normal person reacted or rebounded?”

We know too, there’s so many personality assessments that … some of us take a longer time to rebound. Some of us are really, really stressed out when something doesn’t go to plan. So, I think there’s something about that cultivated skill, or something that really stuck out with me is a growth mindset. There’s more than a few times that there was no time to do “Woe is me.” There was no time to be like, “Well, crap.”

I mean, even like Suni said, “Did I think I was going to not be there for my daughter’s high school year?” Oh no, sorry, that was Wilmore. That was Butch. Butch missed his high school year. But even through that lens, when he was in the Navy, he was saying, “When I was in the Navy, they never got to experience me being away or me being at missions that were risky.” So he was actually kind of glad because, he said, “My daughters, my family, they got a chance to build resilience too.”

Yeah, it sucked, but also think about the resilience they’ve cultivated. Think about the story that they have now. Think about when something shocks them in their world again, they’ll be able to say, “Well, my dad was up in space for 200 days when he was supposed to be there for 8.” So there’s something, too, around the idea of that growth mindset, that preparation, and then too, can a normal person inhabit that space and succeed? I think there’s a couple lessons here for normal people, too.

Allison:

Yes. And I think, too, that the story highlights the complexities they faced and, really, the collaborative efforts that you alluded to earlier that were taken to ensure their safety. We probably could call this a crisis situation, and success in crisis can often depend on collaboration and trust, as you already mentioned or we both mentioned. Really among those who are in the field, so to speak, and those who provide the support, like you mentioned earlier, I think it’s a good reminder too that, when hardship or crisis falls on a team or an organization, that cross-functional efforts and cross-functional teams really need to work together to solve the problem rather than become siloed.

I think it’s human nature sometimes that when crisis occurs, some of us can go into silo mode, and it’s almost just a protective reaction. Hopefully, most of our listeners won’t go through anything like this at the workplace. But crisis can be defined in a lot of different ways, which we call it hardship. Anytime there’s hardship, which a lot of organizations are facing right now, it’s really important to have that cross-functional collaboration to work to solve problems together.

Ren:

That always makes me think too, because I think sometimes silos, and for those of you who maybe don’t use that language a lot, I feel like sometimes I take for granted that corporate speech, but it’s like if you are working in an organization or a funnel or a team and all the communication or all the conversation just stays in your little vertical, like a tube, like a grain silo is what the image looks [like]. There’s all these grain silos around the organization. And the goal is to not just have that work happening behind walls, undercover, where we don’t see or know what’s happening there.

I remember I was doing this work with this team, and they worked in the energy space, and they were saying, “I don’t know if silos are bad. For us, we are all on top of each other because of the emergent nature of the work. Sometimes we have to know whose sandbox is whose.” They’re like, “Sometimes we have to draw borders.”

It made me think, I was like, I don’t know if there’s an implicit issue with silos, so much as when we put a lid on the silo, that’s the problem, when information can’t get out or is not openly communicated. It’s like, how do I then build bridges between my silos? Because NASA is an interesting point of view. I love the movies or the shows, where they’re about to take off, and they go through the final check, and the whole room — subject matter experts, flight engineering, temperature — go for launch, go for launch, go for launch.

These people have to have boundaries in their work. The jet propulsion team doesn’t really need to engage, frankly doesn’t have time to engage, with the weight dispersal team. They have to do some collaboration around thrust and velocity.

I love that you brought in accountability on the front end, and that’s one of the words that’s shouted out of the silo. It’s like, “My bad, this is what happened.” So we can fix it. So, it’s really interesting, even if you’re in an environment where you’re saying, “Ren and Allison, you don’t understand, we have to have boundaries.” I would say, “Great, just make sure that you’re communicating outside of your boundaries.” Because it was Apollo 13, I think, the film, and I was thinking —

Allison:

Yes, I was going to say that it is 13. So, for my movie buffs, I’m sorry. It’s Apollo 13.

Ren:

Well, I mean I failed us too. But I think there’s such an interesting sign, because they have an air filtration issue wrong, and then there’s a scene down on Earth where they got the engineers in a room and it’s like, “We’ve got to make this circle thing fit into this square filter with only these parts,” because they can’t mail them parts. That’s that collaborative conversation, where a group of subject matter experts get together into a room, bring their subject matter expertise to bear. Sometimes I think that’s your job as a leader, if you’re listening, formally or informally, it’s how do I get all the right people in the room so we can have a conversation about solutions?

Allison:

Yeah, exactly. You’re making me think about boundary spanning too. Me and a colleague, we’re working with a senior team of a tech company a few weeks ago, and they’re integrating new top leadership to the organization. It’s one of those scenarios where half of the group has a very long tenure with the company and half is “brand new.” So, there’s the old and the new. How are we going to work together? What does culture look like? There’s all of that.

And when we talk about boundary spanning leadership at the Center, one of the most important things to do is something that you alluded to, Ren, which is clarify who’s responsible for what. You can call it creating boundaries if you want, but it’s really about clarity, so that when there is a crisis, you can go from one end of the spectrum to the other pretty quickly and how people respond to it, from chaotic to being underreactive. And one of the ways you can navigate that spectrum is to be very clear on who’s responsible for what.

It doesn’t mean that they don’t have a say or input in other parts of the project or the “crisis,” but it’s a really good idea to know, okay, Ren’s been doing X, Y, Z for 10 years, so I know I can come to Ren about whatever that is. I think a really interesting way to look at spanning boundaries, too, is to put the container off of it so that you’re not completely isolating people, but to also keep it contained so that you know who, in essence, is responsible for what.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, that’s why I like the sandbox metaphor, because what I love about boundary spanning is the first step of boundary spanning is qualify your own boundaries. Tell someone about your boundaries or your team’s boundaries or whatever, so that they know.

And then it makes me think about systems thinking, right, Allison? It’s like the more I know about your experience, the better I can ease the condition of your experience. So, I like the sandbox because you can see a border, but there’s no walls. I can talk to you, you can talk to me. You’re like, “Look at my sandcastle.” You’ll be like, “Cool, look at my truck over here.”

I think that’s a fun metaphor because, again, borders aren’t the problem. It’s opaque borders that are a problem; things that we can’t see through or get through are an issue. But if borders are just existent in a flexible, fluid space where the border is like my sandbox, but you could walk through it, you could speak to me through it, you could see what I’m doing in it …

I think that’s a really interesting idea around when we span boundaries, again, we’re talking about opening options as opposed to restricting them. Part of that, too, starts with a recognition that these are areas that I operate and play in, and these are areas that you operate and play in.

Allison:

Yeah, definitely. I think it might be helpful for our listeners to know, who might be new to this type of language around boundary spanning, is that traditionally within any organization, there are 5 different kinds of boundaries that exist. So, there’s horizontal, which is between functions of the organization; vertical, which can be hierarchical; stakeholder, external groups; demographic, so gender, generation, etc., and geographic. So, depending on the company, different regions, different markets, and different distances.

I would say when it comes to being effective at the organization, it’s important to be able to navigate all of those boundaries, but especially when there’s a crisis or a major hardship, you are going to need to get a lot of those players involved. The ability to span those boundaries, by the way, was cited by senior executives as, 71% said that it was absolutely crucial to their success for the organization, not just for them as individuals.

Ren:

I think boundary spanning, too, helps us navigate those crisis spaces, because when I think about the best people who deal with the crisis in the moment, they’ve prepared for crisis. Organizational resilience, there’s all this narrative where they were stuck or they were abandoned.

Pretty quickly, NASA and the astronauts and all of the space community, they made decisions, functional decisions about what they were going to do and why they were going to do it. Every time, there’s always a lifeboat on the ISS. So, had something traumatic or dangerous happened, they could have left. But they decided, “Hey, for a variety of reasons, we’re going to ask you and rely on your service to stay up there and rotate into the next crew and then finish that part of it.”

So it was all really intentional, but I have to imagine, when Butch and Suni talk about planning, there is probably some page in their pamphlet that’s like, “If you’re marooned on there, you’re going to work on the station for us. That’s just the way it’s going to be and we’re going to appreciate your help and then we’re going to bring you home.”

Allison:

Sure.

Ren:

So there’s this being ready for everything. That’s what makes a resilient organization and might cultivate some personal resilience when you anticipate things that could go wrong. And then you start to say, “Well, I’m here now. What can I focus on?”

Allison:

How do you get from point A to point B, right? A lot of organizations have risk mitigation, but not all of them do. This is rhetorical, Ren, unless you have an answer, but how does a leader know when to focus on one or the other, and how to plan for contingency based on situation A, B, or C?

It’s tricky, right? But I do think what we were talking about a few moments ago is that first step in boundary spanning is to create and actually strengthen an understanding of skillsets, expectations, values, etc., so that you do know how to do collaborative work, period.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I think I do have an answer for you. How does one or an organization manage that crisis preparation and preparedness? It reminds me of that phrase that we talk a lot bit here, polarity management. How do I do both things?

I think at any one plan, or if any of you are working on major projects or there’s real risk out there, you’ve got to do the work. You can’t just prepare for the risk. But if you never prepare for the risk and something goes wrong, you’re stuck holding the bag. I think this is a great polarity that they manage. It’s like a both/and. We have our mission preparedness, which is an 8-day test flight, but we’re also deeply prepared pilots and astronauts. So, we know, too, that we got a valuable skillset that we need to keep cultivating and then ready to deploy.

So, I’m thinking, if you’re listening out there, how do you plan and do the work that you need to do, and how can you carve out time in your project plan to talk about worst case scenarios? Now, maybe not for every job or for everything, it makes sense, but I think there’s certain spaces, especially when the stakes are really high, having someone say, “Okay, so what do we do when things go wrong?”

So making sure that there’s time for both, I think, is how someone would functionally balance crisis preparedness versus analysis paralysis, where if you think about crisis too long, everything looks really horrifying and then you don’t do anything. So, yeah, we don’t want that, but we also don’t want complete ignoring of it, but instead being ready for it.

Allison:

I would imagine, for some people, when you get to that point of over-planning, could almost generate a freeze response. But I want to come back to something that we both mentioned earlier, which was this trust, this concept of trust. And I want to tie it to boundary spanning here in a moment.

But when I think just as a human being, just as a human, regardless of title, job, etc., being stuck in a small space with somebody for that long, I would imagine they had to have had some trying moments. I would imagine. I think about my sister, who’s probably the closest person to me in my life. If you put my sister and I in a small space for that long, we would probably be at each other at least a few times, if not more than that. Don’t you think, Ren, for you, for most people?

Ren:

Yeah, 100%. I think that’s why I asked you, how do they come back alive, not fly back, but how do they end up not beating each other up? So yeah, I think that’s completely reasonable.

Allison:

But to bring it back to the workplace, hopefully none of us are going to be sent out into space unexpectedly for that long. But another part of the ability to span boundaries, especially in a crisis, and something that people can think about now before crisis happens or hardship, is really about cultivating and nurturing relationships.

And I don’t know the history of those 2. I’m not sure how long or how often they had worked together in the past. Regardless, something that leaders who are listening can take away from this is, when you’re able to connect on a personal level with folks, I’m not saying you need to share diaries or anything like that, but just simple, “How are you, Ren? What’s going on in your world?” Those types of things, basic human decency, right? Connecting at a personal level does help to build trust and enable more candid communication.

So, you’d ask me earlier how me and my prior coworker were able to navigate that. Part of it was because we had connected on, not on a deeply personal level, but enough to have trust established so that we could talk about obstacles, we could identify priorities, we could identify challenges, and collectively build and almost mobilize towards a new strategy or a different direction based on some of the unexpected turns that happened.

Ren:

I’m going to say one word, so we come back to it, so I don’t forget, but then I want to talk about some of what you said. So, one words can be compartmentalized or compartmentalization, but maybe another side of that polarity is what I’m thinking and you’re talking about is this idea of leadership disclosure.

As we are famed at the use of Johari window — classic American psychologists Joe and Harry getting together writing a 4 by 4 or 2 by 2. Folks, when we talk about leadership disclosure, it’s like you’ve got an opportunity, when working with people, to expand how you work together. One of those ways is asking feedback, how am I impacting you, so I can identify some blind spots for me, so I can treat you differently, that works?

The other one is sharing some more of that hidden information about you, things that I would keep private. Again, like Allison saying, it’s not like your diary, but hey, why am I making that decision, or what of my experiences have made me act the way that I do, or why do I look at challenges the way that I do? So often we make decisions, especially if you’re in a close, personal dynamic with someone, you’re stuck in a piece of metal above space.

It’s easy to see someone’s behavior and then make up a story about it. “Oh, why didn’t Suni say hi to me today? We’re stuck in this tin. We ran into each other.” When it could be like, “Oh, I know that, in the beginning of Suni’s day, she stay super focused. She doesn’t engage with anyone. She’s head down, works on her tasks.” The moment I know about someone’s experience or their personal mechanisms for operation, the easier it is for me not to take their behaviors personally.

So you, as a leader, if you’re listening, you’ve got to model that behavior. It’s like, what’s some information that you don’t tell your team that maybe they could learn? And then definitely be asking for feedback about how you’re impacting people to determine how you can operate better.

Allison:

I love that. I love that so much. It does start with the individual level. It almost always will. I was just talking to some clients yesterday about this. We went orienteering and we’re out in the Colorado Rockies. It’s a no-risk environment; at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. We’re not playing with real money, but they’re achievers and they want to achieve their target. One of the things that we talked about was this notion of disclosure, too, around, “Where do you go when you’re under stress?” So we did a power pause, if you will, right in the middle of the session to talk about, “What’s going well? What do we need to do differently?”

And one of the leaders said, “I am really much aware when I get into high achiever mode, I get very granular and honed in on a singular task, and I stop listening. I just want the 2 of you and my group to call me out on that. Feel free to be like, ‘Hey, you’re doing that thing. You’re doing that thing. With love, come back to us. Stop doing that thing. You’re not listening. Come back to us.'”

So then, one by one, the 3 of them just shared where they go under stress, and they were all different. So, we might make assumptions, like you were just saying, in the way that you shared and also in a different way, of okay, I can stop listening, so I might assume that everybody does the same thing.

But another group member said, “I just check out. I just assume my opinion’s not valued. So, I don’t share at all, and I just check out. And people might read me as being calm and cool, but I’m boiling inside because nobody’s listening to me.”

So, again, I’m just underlining that, in partnership with what you just said, in that disclosure can be so helpful, especially when it’s high stress. And you really do want to be collaborative together. It’s knowing yourself and knowing where you go under stress, and having the courage to share that and ask people to hold you accountable.

Ren:

I think it’s like you said, it starts with the individual, but then it’s about us very quickly. Because I always tell people, involve people in your development. If you’re working on something, tell someone you’re working on it. If you’re trying to shift the behavior for the benefit of the team, tell them that you’re doing that. Not so you have more people busting your chops about it not working, but so you have a community of people that are helping you try to be your best. Because I know a leader who’s willing to say, “Hey, I know when I go to stress, I do X, Y, or Z. Please, you have permission to say, ‘Hey, Ren, snap out of it.'”

That’s, I think, a generative, positive experience. When someone’s like, “Hey, you’re doing that thing you said you didn’t want to do,” I’m not going to be mad at them. I’m not going to hold it against them. I’m going to be like, “Hey, thanks for calling it out,” because I know I want to work on it.

And so, there’s something about that recognition of what I need, and then involving people in it. It’s like, “Hey, I’m trying to accomplish this,” or “I know that we spoke about this is how we’re going to interact, but this is how I’m feeling now.” I think, too, leaving space for that flexibility, but always leaving those lines of communication open … really, really critical.

Allison:

Yeah, indeed, indeed. Well, there’s probably so much we could talk about in this story, but I’m wondering, too, Ren, we just gave a bunch of tools, but if there was one standout from this story that you wanted leaders to take away, just one, what would it be?

Ren:

Yeah, I’m going to cheat. I can’t, because I’m going back to the word compartmentalize, and then it attaches to something else.

Allison:

Oh, yeah, please elaborate on that.

Ren:

No, I think it’s a good segue into some of what we’re talking about, because what I thought was interesting, and Butch said this in an interview too, is like, “Hey, sometimes we have to compartmentalize. It’s like, I can’t let my life at home or our experiences interfere with what I’m called to do at that moment.” He said, “It’s not about me. It’s not about my feelings. It’s about what the human space flight program is about. It’s our national goals.”

Now it sounds totally great, like a person who served the US, our national goals, but also it’s not about me, it’s not about my feelings. There’s something there, too, like you were saying when you get into a room with someone, even your sister, the closest person in the world, you’re going to get into fisticuffs maybe sometimes.

I think the perspective-taking of being like, “Oh, wait, this isn’t about me. It’s not about you. It’s not about our feelings.” And 2, I love the psychology and philosophy around like, “Are you your feelings, or are feelings just a symptom of whatever?” So there’s something about the ability to recognize that part of yourself and then put it in a tiny little box and say, “Cool, that goes over there. We’re in space. I need to do station maintenance.”

So I think the biggest thing, then, that connects for me for leaders, and something that was really clear, and maybe I don’t think it’s just reserved for Navy test pilots, is this idea there was no abandonment narrative. We often talk about, like we were just talking about here, it’s easy to fill in the gaps for storytelling. When you don’t have information, it’s easy to feel like you’re the victim or make yourself the hero.

One of the biggest derailers I [see in] people in their relationships is victimization, where they feel victimized or they take on a victim narrative, especially when they don’t know what’s happening behind someone else’s wall. Some project gets thrown on them, or they’re stuck here, and it’s like, “It’s X, Y, Z’s fault,” or “I wouldn’t be here if not for those people,” or “I can’t believe this is happening to me.” And I imagine there were moments of that for these folks. And hear me, Allison and everyone else — there are moments where people are legitimately victimized.

I’m talking about when we create a story of victimization in our own head, where I don’t know what’s happening, someone’s just like, “Hey, Ren, you got to do this new project.” I’m like, “Oh, no, these people, they’re torturing me on purpose.” I might just ask like, “Hey, Allison, is there a reason that you gave me this project?” And like, “Oh, you said you wanted to go to Cabo and it’s in Cabo.” I’m like, “Oh, yeah, I’m not a victim here. Actually, this is a benefit.”

So there’s something around they just didn’t say, “Oh, I’m stuck here. I’m abandoned.” They were like, “This is the mission. This is the job. We’ve been trained for this,” and they got to work. So something about your circle of control, stemming the narrative, and too, because they’re not the only heroes, they needed to rely on a whole bunch of people on Earth. So, it’s like, we all have to work together, we’re not abandoned here, stuff happens. I mean, even the SpaceX Dragon, like I said, they were delayed almost a month from coming home because it messed up a little bit. So, there’s these things where we just have to go, “Okay, nothing’s functionally happening to me. No one woke up today and said, ‘Butch, Suni, you’re stuck in space. Ha-ha.'”

So I think that’s probably like, all of those things are likely their takeaway, but the interesting thing is how do we cultivate that strength to leave the abandonment or victim narrative alone and find out the real information? Really find out if you are being victimized before you embrace that, because it might be disempowering.

Allison:

We always do this. There’s so much to talk about in what you just said, and we’re nearing the end. So, 2 things that immediately came up for me. One is the sphere of control, which is something that we talk to our leaders a lot about, which is … if you can imagine 3 circles, one is what can you control as a leader? What can you influence, would be the next circle. And what do you need to accept?

In a situation like that, I would imagine, it sounds like, too, those 2 leaders got to, “I need to accept that this is happening. This is the reality right now, and work on or focus on what I can control, which is probably not a lot.” But the ability to get to that quickly, I think, underscores the importance of that awareness, and what you’re referring to, in a crisis or hardship situation. I was going to say at the workplace, but probably in life too. But I suppose we’re not here to be therapists, but same, same.

I think the situation that we’re talking about really underlines that leadership is not just about command. Sometimes it is, but it’s not holistically about command. It’s about adaptability. It’s about trust. It’s about teamwork in the face of uncertainty, which can be really hard for people. Again, these folks are probably used to some level of uncertainty, and most of us are not going to be sent into space like I mentioned, but uncertainty is a reality for some people right now. Again, that adaptability, the trust and the working with your team and your people, can be so important in handling hardship thoughtfully.

And I would also state that it can help protect company morale, too. And how an organization handles hardship can also really indicate what their long-term reputation might be — as you and I have talked about in prior podcasts, different stories — but just as NASA didn’t abandon or try to avoid or evade responsibility, leaders also have to guide their people through turbulence with, I would say, clarity, compassion, and sometimes a little bit of creativity.

So, perhaps we can leave it at that for today. Again, I feel like based off of where we just went, there’s lots of other things to talk about, but perhaps in the next episode.

Ren:

We could stay in orbit, but I don’t think we have to. Let’s go home.

Allison:

Well played. It’s your dad joke for the day.

Ren:

It sounds like it really worked for you. Yeah, I killed it. I crushed it. You’re welcome. You’re welcome, everybody.

Allison:

Well, Ren, thanks for the conversation, and to our CCL team who works behind the scenes to make our podcasts happen, we thank you. To our listeners, you can find all of our podcast episodes and show notes on ccl.org and find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you think about this story, and let us know what you’d like us to talk about next. We look forward to chiming in with you next time. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks, Allison. Thanks, everybody. See you next time. Find Allison on Amazon’s TikTok.

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.