Betsy Jordyn (00:00.43)
Have you ever wondered why leaders say, yes, I want to be more collaborative. I want to create more of a people-centered culture and then turn around and go ahead and manage with more command and control. The reality is they're not exactly lying, but find out why this actually is and why it's bound to happen all the time on today's episode of the Consulting Matters podcast.
Betsy Jordyn (00:31.67)
And welcome to the Consulting Matters podcast. This is the show for purpose-driven consultants and coaches who are ready to own the power of what they do and position themselves for greater impact and income. I'm your host, Betsy Jordyn, and I am both a business mentor and a brand messaging and positioning strategist. You can find out about all the things that I do to help my clients turn the best of their careers and their strengths and their passions into a thriving purpose-driven
business that they and their clients absolutely love. You can learn about it on my website at www.BetsyJordyn.com. Okay, real quick before we get started on this episode, I wanna give you a personal update on my whole skin cancer issue or lack thereof of skin cancer. I'm excited to let you know it is all gone. This experience on the whole has been a positive one. So even though I have a scar that you will see if you're watching this on YouTube or on my blog, and this scar will take some time to heal,
But the experience on the whole was really positive because I found the right surgeon, because this dermatology practice had exceptional branding. This experience has made me even more passionate about what I do as a brand builder for purpose-driven consultants and coaches and why making your expertise clear is not for you, it's for the people that you serve. So.
That is why I do what I do. So if you are a consultant or coach and you wanna get out there and get the clients who are meant for you, let's make that happen. So that's it for me on my update. I could go on and on about how excited I am that I got this cancer taken care of by an expert that I trusted and how it relates to branding, but that's not what this episode is about. I wanna get into what today's episode specifically is on.
So last week I shared with you what I personally learned about the differences between stakeholder and shareholder capitalism from my own personal research. This week I wanted to bring on an expert who has studied this a lot more than I have. So my guest is Bob Emiliani and he is an educator and author of 28 books, a trainer in leadership development, management and continuous improvement. And so I wanted to have him on the show.
Betsy Jordyn (02:45.922)
to talk about a lot of his findings, particularly around his deep dive research on the differences between classical and progressive management. And I wanna get into it because I wanna share more of the implications it has on our ability to influence leaders and help them make the shift from command and control leadership to something that is more servant leadership oriented. So my goal with this episode, like last week, is not to bum you out. I really don't wanna bum you out, but I wanna offer you insight into what you're really up against when you're trying to help leaders
adopt more people-centered practices. So that's what we're doing. So without further ado, welcome to the show, Bob.
Thank you very much, Betsy. I'm really happy to be with you today.
So I've been wanting to have you on the show, I think for like three months since I met you. So you and I got connected because I think it was like a post that about some kind of conversation that Katie and I did. And then you and I had a really good conversation on so many different things. But what really piqued my interest is a lot of your research on progressive versus classical management and all of your history background on so much. So I'm so excited to get into all of that.
Before we get into all of this great content, I want you to just paint a picture about your background and how you became interested in the historical realities that really see another way people-centered type of culture and leadership practices.
Bob Emiliani (04:07.438)
Yeah, so my background is all a bunch of engineering degrees and I was in the engineering world for a number of years and then I switched over to the real world of manufacturing and I was in there for a while as a business unit manager and then I was in the real world of supply chain management, you know, with our team providing parts to an assembly floor for, know, multi-million dollar aerospace jet engines. And, you know, I could see there were certain dysfunctionalities that piqued my interest.
in the organization and it had to do with my involvement on a very large government funded project in the engineering world. And so I started to study leadership, organizational development, organizational behavior, organizational learning, and that started around, these were self studies, basically starting around 1991. And I'd finished my doctorate in engineering in 88.
And I realized once I was in industry that I was woefully unequipped to really understand teamwork, leadership, team leadership, and so on as I went up the ladder. And so I was continuously educating myself. So I spent four and a half years on a doctoral dissertation. I've spent the last, I don't know, what is it, 25, 30 years on sociology, economics, political science, all these other fields, because they're very informative.
and they help you understand what's going on. And so I'm just very curious to understand my own situation in industry and how that has affected me and other people, and specifically in relationship to types of management that are more human-centered and types of management and leadership that are less human-centered or not human-centered.
Betsy Jordyn
So it seems like you were the kind of kid who always asked why, why, why? Like you're, it's like, I need to understand why this function. So it sounds like you started off in your technical job as an engineer. It's like, well, why does this technical thing kind of function? Then moved to the supply chain. Like, well, why does this not work? And then it seems like as you continue to dig, there was like a bigger bucket of like, well, there's a bigger reason why this whole thing's not working. I need to understand what it is. Am I getting that correct?
Bob Emiliani (06:21.58)
You got it exactly right.
So what was it about progressive management versus classical management? Because you have like, well, you have 28 books. I don't know if that's like just the one that I got connected to or what was what is that the theme of your 28 books?
books were the exploration. So when I left industry and went into academia, I was in industry 15 years, then I went into academia, retired a few years ago after 23 years. But when I went into academia, my two research agendas were one was what's called lean leadership. So you could just call it human centered leadership. And then the other one was a research agenda and supply chain management. I carried two research agendas forward as a professor.
for about seven years and then I got rid of the supply chain management because it was just too much to do. And there was also too much to do in the one research area of human centered management, human centered leadership. And so I really dug into that over the years as a research agenda with a specific focus. At the time it was called lean leadership and people didn't know anything about it. So I was original in that.
declaring that as my research agenda. And I had noticed when I was in industry and participating in improvement activities that some of my peer managers were learning the lessons and leading differently. I was one of them and others were not. And that sparked my curiosity. Why if we were exposed to the same type of improvement activity led by the same type of improvement experts to improve not just the technical processes of our organization, but the
Bob Emiliani (08:00.728)
human and leadership processes, why some people just kept leading the same way as always. And so that's, and I started writing my first academic papers, actually while I was still in industry and writing about this phenomenon. Well, I I developed some sort of tool-based ways of thinking that I applied to my own leadership to improve my own leadership skills and capabilities. And my focus was very much on behaviors.
to the consumer.
Bob Emiliani (08:28.428)
And I've come to learn that the focus on leadership behaviors has existed since the early 1920s, some of the earliest books on that. Outside of the realm of, say, of Asian philosophy, which I studied deeply for a number of years, probably 1991 through 1996 or seven, but outside of that realm, just making sure I was...
learning and understanding this stuff so I could function better within that environment. But anyway, so you know, this whole trip down this road has been hugely informative and led me to understand contrasting styles. Now the world is not necessarily a dichotomy, but you have human-centered leadership and then on the other side, less human-centered leadership. And it's really a spectrum, of course, because you can have businesses that are managed the old style, but are pretty
benevolent and then you can have business managers manage a new style which are benevolent in different ways, more all-encompassing ways. Anyway, the experts who are teaching this stuff, again, it was interesting why some people got it and others didn't.
So I was always wondering in our conversations beforehand and then getting ready for this interview, I'm like, how does someone wind up writing 28 books? Like that's a lot. Like I'm trying to write my first book and it's challenging enough, but to do 28, but it seems like I'm getting to the sense is that you start off with, I have a question that is really pressing to me and I wanna get answers to it. So I'm gonna go do a deep dive research and by the end of your quest for an answer, it's like, well, there's a book.
yes, yes and no. mean, some books are like that and other books are like, you know, essays exploring various questions. So some books are collections of essays and they're all, you know, I, I use my, what I learned in my formal education of a bachelor's, master's and PhD thesis to, know, cite sources in the work that you write about. So they all include that, which unfortunately some people go, it's theory because it's site sources. But I like to keep track of where I got my information from and other people like to know that too.
Bob Emiliani (10:42.51)
So anyway, so yeah, it was just basically I got all these questions, you know, why is the world so strange? It's the overarching que you know business world so strange and then that leaks out into the world in general at times for certain at types of activities So, yeah, I mean just endless curiosity
Yeah, so that seems like a big part of what the lean world that I just recently discovered in the past few years of working with people like Katie Anderson and Tom Weston, Mark Ryan, who've also been on my show. you haven't heard those podcasts, definitely go back and listen. But it seems like a heart of that industry is all about like that curiosity. And you can't be using the word like lean leadership versus human-centric leadership.
And it seems like this curiosity and this human centered is a very different word than lean. So before we get into the differences between classical and progressive, I just really wanna unpack a little bit more of like, why is it even called lean? That doesn't convey human centric and curiosity continuous improvement. It doesn't convey any of those things. And it's just as a brand messaging person, I'm like, I don't understand why this field is like using this word. This doesn't make sense to me. So just satisfy that for me then we can get into the main topic.
So the US government funded a multi-million dollar study at Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study Japanese automotive production systems to answer the question of why the US automotive production systems were so poor in terms of a productivity and quality and so forth. And so in doing that work, they noticed that the Japanese companies typically, but Toyota specifically, used a lot less resources for the same output as other companies. So there were, you know,
Fewer employees were needed because they had different methods and processes for producing vehicles. Less space was needed. Whatever resource you can think of, less of was needed. so they looked at this and they said, well, it looks like it's very lean. This system of working looks very lean. Doesn't require as much as other people. And they debated that versus the word fragile because if you're familiar
Bob Emiliani (12:53.87)
with just in time they were thinking about calling it a fragile system, but nobody would like that. And actually just in time is not fragile in the way you think. That's another story. But anyway, so they gave it this name lean and it's, over the years it's become a pejorative term as well as a term to mean a generic description of Toyota's production system and later in decades gone by Toyota's overall management system. And so,
But it is nevertheless a Western derivative interpretation, so it's not exactly the same thing. And if you want to look for a good example of human-centered leadership that continues to reside within Toyota, how they think and do things is fascinating, which is why a lot of people like to try to understand and study it. And it's not an easy thing to understand and study because there's a lot that's lost in translation.
I think that's like such a, one of the reasons why Katie's Japan Leadership Immersion programs are so transformational is it sounds like what happened is like Lean got pulled out of its context, shoved over here into the Western way of thinking. Now it's taught as Lean, nobody else understands it as human-centric and respect for people and all that kind of stuff. And it seems like the only way that you ever would be able to understand what this actually means is to go back somewhere.
where it actually is, but it just seems like there's an extraction, which goes to a lot of the reasons why I want to have this cross-functional group that I've been talking about. If you haven't heard on the show me talking about the common good consortium that I want to bring together, consultants and coaches of all kind, is there's so much misunderstanding we have about our different fields and where we come from. And this is a perfect example is whatever this origin story is, the heart is being ripped out and it's
getting branded over here is something different. And I think we need to unpack that. But anyway, thank you for answering that question for me.
Bob Emiliani (14:51.278)
like to say briefly, the Lean World is kind of the Johnny-come-lately for respect for people. Because in Lean World, this wasn't a topic of discussion until December 2007, and I can pinpoint the date exactly because a certain thing happened. But if you are familiar with the history of Toyota and you read the books by the old timers and so forth, you would have learned a long time ago that
principle was in play in how they were leading and managing people. And they also picked up on that from earlier examples of progressive management from early 1900s and so forth. this isn't, it's new to lean world relatively, but in the history of progressive management, it's always been around.
What happened in 2007? I'm sorry, I really do want to get into the conversation, but you keep giving me too many things that are interesting that I want to follow.
Well, one of the main lean luminaries started to write about it publicly. So the public discussion began with one of the, when the top lean luminary started to write about it, but they only wrote about it in the context of the manager worker, supervisor worker dyad. When Toyota's conception of this was employees, customers, suppliers, investors, and communities. Did I get them all? Employees, customers, I may have left one out, but anyway, competitors, six stakeholders.
So their understanding of respect for people is in relation to six stakeholders, not just the supervisor employee dyad.
Betsy Jordyn (16:25.172)
So they actually operate from the shareholder, I mean, the stakeholder capitalism mindset rather than where we are in our world right now.
Correct, with no loss of focus on the fact that they need to be profitable to survive in a tough industry. And that's an industry that's changing and has a lot of competitive pressure these days from emerging technology.
So I want to center back on the conversation that I really want to have with you that I thought was fascinating was your research on the classical versus progressive management. And I think this is something that everybody here who's listening, who's a people-centered type of person in HR, OD, in executive coaching, as well as Lean, we need to understand this information because we are trying to influence our leaders to operate in a much more personal way, more empowering.
but they're really set up in a different way. So you have a lot of research that you've done. I think this comes out of your triumph of classical management book. Is that their correct name?
of Triumph of Plastico Management over Lean Management, perhaps poorly titled because everybody reads it says, this could apply to our digital initiative, this could apply to our ERP initiative, this could apply to anything that we've, major thing we've tried to do that has hit a lot of roadblocks because people didn't wanna see change.
Betsy Jordyn (17:43.04)
So what is the difference between these two? So tell us about the research question that you got on for that one and then what your discovery was about the differences between these two.
So I wanted to understand how come with this from here, from earth to the moon mountain of trade books, academic research done over the last hundred years in OBOD, learning and development, you you name it, leadership, everything management, why most companies are still leading in some fundamentally old ways. And the simplest example is when there's a problem, people get blamed for a problem just like...
the Pharaoh blamed the engineer and the builder for a lousy pyramid. So this has been with us for more than 5,000 years. Why are we still doing this stuff? Why haven't humans learned some basic things about leadership? And so I wanted to try to figure that out. And specifically with the case of progressive management, when I say progressive management, I don't mean it in a political sense. It's strictly in the sense of doing something different, better.
than the old way of leading. The old way of leading I call classical management, which has features that go way back in time. And it's important for people to realize that ancient Egypt sounds like a long time ago, but that's 150 or so generations, which ain't that long. 17 generations to Henry VIII. So we still carry the thinking forward then as now.
And so anyway, so the book explores the phenomenon of the importance of leaders to maintain their status, privileges, and protections over the interests of, you know, workers, know, salaried staff, stuff like that. And so I just created this contrast. And again, it's a spectrum between, you know, classical management, the old way of doing things, and then progressive management, which is on, you know, human centered.
Bob Emiliani (19:43.008)
type of leadership and it has nothing to do you know some people in their mind extend it to socialism and this is nothing not at all what I mean the context is you know for-profit business you know generating wealth not just for certain people but for for you know workers and suppliers and the community and so on so yeah
Is this the difference between theory X and theory Y? Theory X meaning I believe that people are lazy as a management philosophy and they need to be controlled versus theory Y is I think that people basically want to do a good job and it's my job to empower them. Is it that type of dichotomy or is it different that you're talking about?
That's part of it, but that's a great oversimplification because what undergirds theory X and Y is a whole network of interconnected preconceptions in the categories of economic, social, political, historical, technological, aesthetic, legal, business, spiritual, and so on that keeps the ball rolling forward for classical management or more simply just the old way of doing things, which is why
us people in the realm of wanting to help leadership improve, develop people and so on, often face the difficulty of, well, geez, nothing's really changing. I've been at this a while and yeah, some people had real positive impact and big smiles on their face and it really changed them. But on a group basis, on a larger basis, not seeing much difference in what's going on.
And I know I benefited from the corporate training. I mean, I have a huge list of corporate training. My former employer was very good to offer me a lot of corporate training. Some of it was really expensive at the time in the 90s, $7,000, $10,000 a week per person with OB consultants. And I learned a lot and so forth. But I also learned the limitations of that. One of the things we were taught was the
Bob Emiliani (21:53.966)
behavior's competency track, competency models is what it was called at the time. I learned the benefits of that, but also the stunning limitations of that as I continued to ask why and intervening 30 years.
What's the limitations of it?
doesn't go back far enough. So it starts from the premise of behavior, you know, different behavior leads to different competency, but not everybody has the same beliefs that inform the behaviors that lead to the competencies. And not everybody has the same preconceptions that inform the beliefs that lead to the behaviors. So the basis of it is starting at belief when not everybody shares the same beliefs, excuse me, the behaviors when not everybody shares the same beliefs.
So is the difference between the classical versus progressive at the core is I have, there's two set of competing beliefs that translate to the behaviors.
competing sets of preconceptions.
Betsy Jordyn (22:52.024)
So what are the differences of the preconceptions between the two?
So the big difference between classical management and progressive management is the preconceptions that people have. So some examples of classical management preconceptions would be things like people have limitations. They're just limited in their abilities, they're limited in their creativity. For example, if the preconception would be only visual art, dance, or writing a novel is creative, so anything you can bring to the business therefore is not creative because you're not doing those things.
A preconception would be you should support and defend the status quo. And why should you do that? Well, because things work just fine as it is and we should be happy with what we've got and so forth. So therefore you should respect traditions. That's another preconception. Avoid abstract schemes such as what some might consider the very soft OBOD stuff.
How am I going to get better? How am I going to do better? I just need to think differently and somehow it'll all magically happen. So the preconception is to avoid abstract schemes. The viewpoint that things cannot be perfected. So why should you try? Good enough is well enough is good enough and so on. And fundamentally, the thinking is whatever is, is right. So whatever we see and experience today is right because it's built on over time.
And that is the fundamental preconception, whatever is right. And in progressive management, it has a different view and says, humans don't have limitations. They can be very creative at work and come up with new ideas. And they can think more scientifically rather than just by the gut. And they can function with abstract schemes that actually yield results, schemes that seem abstract but actually are not.
Bob Emiliani (24:50.282)
know, things can be perfected, maybe not forever, but for some period of time they can be. So fundamentally, a fundamental preconception in progressive management is whatever is is wrong. And of course that doesn't mean a hundred percent of everything is entirely wrong, but a lot of it is. And we can improve it. It's question of, we understand what the problem is? Do we understand what the need is? Do we have the mechanisms to improve, which might involve creativity on problem solving that we haven't yet?
figured out and then we have the willpower to do it.
So are we talking about the, you know, like the leadership philosophy of saying, if it's not broke, don't fix it, you know, like just leave it as it is versus like everything's broken, let's just like continue to, we can fix everything, everything should be different. Is that, is it fundamentally about that or is it, you know, like I wanna, like if I come from this background of, you know, this is a tradition and that type of thing, you should just fall on the line versus like more empowering. Is it that type of, or is it a little bit of both of?
Both of those things are between the differences.
Yeah, well, a little bit about, I mean, we've all seen people in companies that, you know, rocket to the top by just following orders, right? And so they're just, you know, do whatever the boss says, which is going to be to follow some type of tradition that the boss learned from their boss and so forth. And then the heterodox peoples come in and say, well, that looks weird. Why would we do it that way? Can we do it better? Can we do it different? Oftentimes these people, you know, don't rocket to the top. And so,
Bob Emiliani (26:20.396)
So it's just these kinds of differences that are obvious. They're apparent. The question is, why are they like that? And it revolves back to leaders wanting to preserve their status, rights, and privileges. I think it was Mel Brooks in one of his comedy movies who said it's good to be the king or queen. is. It is, right? Why? Because you have a lot of advantages over everybody else and all the material and other resources are yours for the having. And that's nice, right?
You know his history the world
Bob Emiliani (26:49.954)
very nice. There's a tendency to not want to share that stuff and and or to share as little as possible and in the old days it was enough for sustenance of the workers to keep working right you know you go grow grain I get most of it you get a little bit of it just to stay alive to grow me more.
So are you talking about like within an organization of saying, okay, so if I'm trying to influence a leader to operate in a more empowering, like let's share power with everybody and let's make decisions together, that it's like maybe one of the issues that would keep a leader from making that shift is like, well, I like having the control over these things. I might say I wanna empower everybody, but I really kind of want it to be my way because I kind of like having this, having all of this in my power and control.
Yeah, that, but I also like the benefits of this. You know, the money, the office, the car, the whatever comes with it, the prestige, the status, the ego, you know, there's all of a social science aspect related to this. And then the political realm of how do I look in front of my peers and so on is very important once you're in that realm. And so if we're trying to help a leader who's been
Basically somebody in a management position for 20 years or so or 30 years, they don't, and that's why, you know, the OBOD industry exists is to train them, but they have zero of the skill to be able to do that. If that hasn't been something that they've wanted to learn and do on their own accord in those 20 years, you have to start from zero essentially and explain the logic to them of this. And they may not see it ever.
So we're not necessarily just going against the command and control leader. Like in my experience as an OD consultant, like I would have, there might be some of like, okay, this is the way I've always done things and I think that this will get ahead. But like my experience when I was at Walt Disney World, for example, you know, the leaders who did move ahead, you know, were much more of the empowering leaders because we had, you know, cast excellence surveys where they, you know, with leadership surveys where they got the feedback and that was tied to their.
Betsy Jordyn (28:57.922)
tied to the rewards, so they were intrinsically sort of motivated because that was what got rewarded. Are you saying, so is it just on where they're at or is there something about the system that would matter to creating the change?
it's, that's one of the things we're trying to change individuals, but when we have larger system level problems and the system can be existing, of course, within a company can be much larger than that. But, you know, we've all been involved in trying to change people with limited success because they're embedded in a system that says don't change. And, and there, there is, I mean, I sought to change and ignore, you know, my business metrics, you know, I focus on doing what's right.
as one of my key points or key anchors for change. But that gets you in trouble and most people aren't willing to do that. And so they'd rather go along to get along. And it's understandable, but it also leaves the frustration that so many people feel. If I may just for one second say that, you know, if you look at who's interested in progressive management, it's people, you know, the hourly, the supervisors, the salaried people and the managers. And then it starts to drop way off once you go from, you know,
general manager, vice president, president, CEO, board of directors. And yet those people that I mentioned at the end, general manager, VP, those are the most able to deliver progressive management, but have the least interest in doing so. the poll is really all is coming from the bottom. And this has been throughout the history of progressive management. But the leaders, of course, can easily ignore the demands of lower level people.
So it's interesting, because that would explain, like lot of times, if like in my career trajectory, when I was a newer OD consultant or leadership consultant, you work with the manager levels and everybody's like super open and receptive, you know, and then when you get to the C suite, very hard to, they're very hard to engage in these types of things. And I always thought, well, it's like, well, maybe they've been there, done that, but I think you're bringing up another point is they're not as interested because they don't really need to be like, they're at the top, have the office. And so why would they?
Betsy Jordyn (31:08.812)
Why would they have that time? So I think you're talking about the difference in some ways of like executive leadership and management philosophies.
Yeah, exactly. Where's the need for, you know, for the, for the general manager on up. mean, these people are charged with running the business very explicitly. So they're officers of the company, right? A mid-level manager is not an officer of the company. would typically start a general manager, a director level. And so unless they see the need for progressive management, it doesn't matter if people, lower level or human centered management or whatever.
You know, their job is to satisfy business interests, not to satisfy the interests of people who are lower in the organization, low in status, et cetera, who care about human centered management. they, know, these leaders, they smile and they nod their head and so forth, but they have their own constraints too, you know? And if they're dealing with a board of directors that thinks the soft stuff is nonsense and you've got to be hard nosed to get results.
They put themselves at risk.
I remember I was doing a project for a client on an org design project. And I was doing an interview with all the stakeholders and I was interviewing the CFO and he was talking about like, I was asking about like the sales, you know, there are just the priorities of the business and he was like, well, we need to increase sales. Like we need to improve our sales of our frontline, you know, or at the sales level. So I'm like, okay, so that will be one of our objectives for the org design is we need to be able to position the salespeople to be able to increase sales. Cause that's part of your goals.
Betsy Jordyn (32:49.784)
And he's like, no, what does your org design have to do with, what does that have to do with any of it? We just need to do sales. I'm like, well, that is really interesting. So you don't think how organizations are structured and how people, the leadership and all of that has anything to do with it. And I think that's what you're talking about there is it's like, no, we'll just keep giving the sales team more quotas and more expectations, but we're not going to look at the rest of it. And I think that that seems to be, as I'm reflecting on aspects of my career in different consulting that I used to do,
that's like, well that was what was going on. Why would the CFO have any appreciation of all of the dynamics of what it's taking to get that? Is that an example or am I completely-
That's an example and and they don't tend to think in system they tend to think in terms of sort of So-and-so needs to do this so-and-so needs to do that and they can be completely opposite You the classic example is purchasing these to lower prices and quality needs to improve quality Well, sometimes lower prices results in poor quality of whatever your inputs are But they don't see the connection between the two and they're not Incentivized to because they're purchasing VP gets an incentive based upon their metrics not the quality metric
And so one of the things you have to do is the metrics have to be shared across the entire executive team for their whatever their bonuses, but it's usually not.
So what do you do? And so it seems like a lot of what you're talking about with the classical versus the progressive is really a lot more connected to the differences between the stakeholder and the shareholder capitalism that I talked about in the last episode is that there's some of it is around like the executives and what they're legally required and expected to do is they are not there. The executive expectations are specific to the shareholder type of outcomes rather than the system.
Betsy Jordyn (34:39.478)
So why would they even invest in a transformation?
specific to the current preconceptions that form the system. So around the 1970s, the preconceptions start to get laid by Milton Friedman that the social thing that companies should do is to maximize profits. And so that led to the viewpoint that leaders should maximize shareholder profits. But yet that is a artificial, it's nowhere in law.
that is a choice. so the company and the board directors could do different things with profits and distribute them differently than they currently under the current preconceptions are prone to do. you know, I mean, there are certain responsibilities obviously that officers of the companies have, but to maximize shareholder value is not one of them.
They do that because people accept that preconception. They didn't reject it. People being society at large. And then when you are able to do that, you enrich people to the point where they're able to have greater control over society in different ways.
So there's a connection between that and of course, it connects back to how people live or don't live.
Betsy Jordyn (36:10.594)
So talk to the people who are listening, who are consultants and coaches, who have a heart for organizations that serve people, know, the people on the planet, the communities and all of that, and they are trying to consult and coach leaders in this system. What advice do you give them around how to understand what they're up against and how to be more effective?
Yeah, so I think the main thing is to understand what you're up against. I think people have a very poor understanding of that generally. And so, you know, it's get educated on what you're up against and then you got to think either individually or preferably with a group of people of how do you deal with what you're up against. And I say with a group of people because, you know, two heads are better than one, crowdsourcing, know, a hundred thousand heads are better than one, you know, and so on. So we really have to understand
what are the, what we're up against and within that framework, what are the points of leverage? Because one of the things people high in status understand clearly is leverage.
What does that mean?
They want it. Well, this is, for example, why most company leaders dislike unions because they don't want labor to have leverage over them personally, the CEO or the company in terms of wages and benefits and working conditions and so on. Leaders historically, going back to monarchs way back in time, ancient Egypt, they like the freedom to say and do whatever they want and get whatever they want.
Bob Emiliani (37:49.976)
So this is deeply rooted in history and it gets carried forward to today.
So when you say leverage, you're really saying control. They like to have control.
Yes, but I think leverage is a more descriptive and meaningful understanding of what they're looking for, looking to get and maintain, to get, maintain and expand.
Now, know, when people talk about control, they don't talk about getting it, maintaining it and expanding it. They just talk about control flat like that. There's more going on to it than just that.
It seems like though, if I think about it in the context of resistance, resistance is a mass expression of a loss of control, vulnerability, or self-esteem. And if I understand what my suggestions are going to trigger in terms of the control issues that you mentioned, these leaders like control, and so what's gonna make them feel out of control, they will automatically resist. So it seems like in terms of like,
Betsy Jordyn (38:55.33)
getting smarter and savvier is like, how do I get more aware of like, what will trigger that loss of control and vulnerability and self-esteem so that I could be more effective in that scenario? Or is it that I give them a sense of control over whatever it is? Like, how do I influence them towards this people-centered idea if they're not necessarily invested in it?
Well, let me say first of all, that when people think of control, leaders wanting control, they think internally in the company, but they want control externally with suppliers. They want control externally to customers. They want control externally to communities because that's why they tell them, we need a tax break. Otherwise we'll move out of town. We'll only hire people if you give us a tax break. They want leverage over the community. They want leverage over investors. So control is
far too narrow a focus to understand what you're up against.
So how could you, so given, all right, so let's talk about the context of what they want leveraged then. What, like specifically, like if you were gonna talk to, you know, all the consultants and coaches who really do wanna help these leaders go through the transformation like you went through, where you changed your leadership approach, they wanna see that, and they also wanna see their cultures accept like a culture change. Like they wanna see these organizations become more people-centered.
how do they use this awareness of how you're defining leverage to enhance their effectiveness in creating that outcome?
Bob Emiliani (40:26.456)
That's a difficult problem because they have the sense that if I give up leverage now, I won't be able to regain it. But they can. We saw that with the work at home phenomenon with COVID. And then in the last year, year and a half, CEO saying, get back to work. They lost leverage with employees in terms of where they work and how much they get paid. And they've reclaimed that in the interim. But generally speaking, they don't like the idea of losing leverage at all. So this is a very difficult.
challenge to say, hey boss, we're trying to teach you and train you this and that, and you might lose a little leverage with such and such a stakeholder, but you'll gain so much more. But how do you prove the upside?
And then when you try to prove it like, look at this company, they'll say that's an anomaly. We're not in that industry. That's an anomaly. That won't work here and so forth. So they tend to be very insistent on continuing with the current set of preconceptions. And Betsy, what you talked about earlier with some of the folks at Disney who were receptive and so forth, they probably had a more natural inclination towards that, probably had an understanding that
You know, the way things are done are really not that good. mean, I've gone along with it, but it's really not a good way to do things. And I'm a little uncomfortable and Betsy comes along and teaches us better ways. And well, it's, I'm enlightened and we have the ability to do it.
Well, I don't want to overstate that because there is a dichotomy of my experience at Disney. Disney was a very collaborative organization, know, so in an innovative organization in terms of like being very strategic. Like people think at Disney, the creativity is just like at the Imagineers, but they're not. Like operations was very creative, thinking outside the box on pricing or how to do digital and all that kind of stuff. But we were expected to partner was a given. know, so collaboration was a given.
Betsy Jordyn (42:21.154)
But there was also this other side at Disney is that I remember like getting taught by my cultural mentor, because the Disney had a very strong culture. And I was told very clearly the best way to fit in at Disney or the best way to stand out at Disney is to fit in. So, you if you were in HR at the time, like I was like all the women had like, you know, I wore scarves and we all had like our French nails and you know, like we all fit in.
you know, and that's how you stand out. So like we had that dichotomy. wasn't like, let's be super progressive, but there was a collaborative element. So I wonder if there's just like some hard, some like leverage point in around like, what would be the leverage point? Like, cause at least at the time there was the expectation that leaders were going to be more empowering and the command and controls were more of the outliers. So there was a little bit of a difference between like the empowering versus command and control. did not experience.
tons of commands and control type of like, this is the way I am at Disney because collaboration, we all had to collaborate. It was a given. So is it really just like, I don't wanna change versus I wanna change or is it like, I want everything my way versus I wanna involve people?
the empowerment type of leader, they want to see other people flourish, other people improve and flourish and so on. And while they like whatever benefits come from their position, they're not hung up on that. And they're not looking for self-aggrandizement. And everybody will notice in the world today for the last 40 years, there's been lots of mergers and acquisition activity and partly that's to dodge some shareholder bullets, but it's also for self-aggrandizement as well. so
The leverage point is finding the leaders that are not interested in the kind of things that classical management leaders are interested in. And how do you do that? Well, traditionally it'd be some kind of survey or test or Harris, the professor Harris test for psychopathy, which would suggest some type of desire to dominate over others, exist in a dominance hierarchy and some self-angradization through blaming others and doing
Bob Emiliani (44:30.478)
big business things to get you in the newspaper. So the selection process is, think, I would characterize it as poor given the overall needs of the different stakeholders.
So, sir, you seem like just like find your early adopters, like find the people who are kind of open, work with them and not try too hard on the ones who are like, don't try to go for the people who are open, do the best you can. And for the people who are not open, it's almost like be warm, be filled. it's fine. Like there's like, it's fine. You do you. I'm just gonna go work with these people who are open.
That's everybody's strategy. so everybody's competing for that small group of people who are open. And I don't think that's a very good strategy. You have to understand much more what you're up against. And it's going to involve some system level changes that will start in company or perhaps at a state level to get the ball rolling. But it's going to require a bigger vision than just let's work with. I mean, that happens in Lean World all the time. Don't worry about these people.
know, lean world is professing this. should all be great problem solvers and, know, develop our problem solving skills. But on the other hand, they'll tell you just work with these people who want to work with you and forget about the ones that don't. Well, the ones that don't are a huge problem. Why don't they work with us? Why don't we, don't we want to know why they don't want to work with us? And in lean world, the answer is no. And in my world, the answer is yes. And that's why I wrote six books specifically on this topic.
of why they're not interested in progressive management. And there six short books, by the way. One is 300, the other is like 150 pages or so, 200 pages. I want the answer to that question. So Lean World has their own hypocrisies. That's one example. There's many others, but not to criticize them specifically. I'm sure in OB world, OD leadership world, there's lots of hypocrisies there as well.
Bob Emiliani (46:35.318)
or some anyway that people struggle with. But anyway, this is the question I wanted to answer. took me 15 years to answer it. It gets mostly answered.
So if you were going to bottom line the answers, so let's distill this down for the listeners around why is it that our efforts around helping leaders become more people-centered leaders, more empowering type of leaders, why are they not interested? If you were going to just bottom line it for listeners and say, if I want you to understand one thing, this is why. This is what you're really up against.
It infringes the pod leader's privileges, and protection.
And what is one countermeasure that they can use or one perspective or something that they can, if they are working with that type of leader, what would you suggest, like how they show up with that leader, what their influence strategy should be?
That's a good question. I don't know. Maybe we can get together and figure that out. But I would also mention to you that the leaders, top leaders of a business, there's a lot of ways to make the numbers without human-centered leadership. And I think that people need to understand that. It's part of understanding the lay of the land and what you're dealing with. And when business leaders want to improve the numbers,
Bob Emiliani (48:07.374)
There's 50 ways to do it. human centered leadership is one of 50 and it's probably the hardest one of 50. So I have to take it from their perspective of why do I want to do this? I'm late in my career. And by the way, if you start with the early career people, they usually get flushed out. You know, they're not promoted. They usually don't make it to the top. The people who are early career buy-ins on human centered leadership. Some do of course.
And there's other late career people who buy into it, of course. But generally it's not a path to the top.
So I think this goes back to why I have this vision for this Common Good Consulting and Coaching Consortium is I think the problem that we're facing is bigger than any one of us could even influence or figure out because there is something that's bigger. One thing I discovered through I don't know what research I was doing is even just like how compensation is captured. So employees' wages are connected to cost of goods sold.
manages our overhead and executives compensation is tied to shareholder, you know, and, the profits. Like, so we're like, we're looking at where that is. So if you're talking about like where all the options are like, well, of course they're going to cut employees or do something on the front lines because it's connected to the cost of goods. Like it's part of like, this is how I'm going to make my numbers from that standpoint. Like those are some things that are in the system.
that we all need to become much more aware of. We need to become more aware of what you're talking about here. We need to become more aware of what the incentive structures are so that we can be more effective in even figuring out what these countermeasures should be. And I don't know if we can handle this on our own. I don't think that any individual lean OD consultant in your own client system can ever influence it. But you could influence it maybe if you cut across the disciplines and
Betsy Jordyn (50:10.718)
connected with your partners that maybe together you can. But even if you did it at your individual organizational level, know, what can, we need to do something to the system.
Betsy, there's two problems. The first problem is, you what is the lay of the land? Why do we have this problem to begin with? And that's one that I've quite well captured in the six books, quite well answered in the six books that I've written. The second problem is, what do you do about it? And the Lean World, OD, OB, all this world has been working on a second problem. What do you do about it without understanding the first problem? And so that's why we have had
Yeah.
Bob Emiliani (50:51.584)
some successes that we can surely be proud of and great examples for us to learn from and do further consulting and do further reading in books and other resources, video. But we still reach these limits that frustrate us all and that we at some point should come together and say, let's try it now that the first problem is solved.
Let's work on the second problem with greater base of knowledge
Yeah, so it seems like the foundational is we can't fix a problem that we don't really fully have framed out correctly. So that's the first order of forpids is we need to, I think that that's what you're saying is that we're trying to solve the second problem without framing up the, actually we're trying to solve a problem to a question that we haven't properly framed.
Right. And then once you figure out problem two, there's problem three is how do you show that there's a need for this? So you may end up coming with ways to convince leaders you should be doing this that are more effective than in the past, but then how do you present this as this is a need of theirs that gets satisfied? And remember, the focus is obtaining, maintaining, and expanding
my status, privileges, and protections.
Betsy Jordyn (52:18.754)
And I know somebody is gonna be listening and say, that's not the leaders I work with. Like that could be some of them, but I experience it differently. What would you say to that?
There are definitely some like that I do too. But in a group, overall, that's the focus.
Well, we need to end this on a more uplifting note. So how do we get to the uplifting note? Help me get to something more actionable and positive.
We join Betsy and focus on problem two.
We work together. So you agreed to advise me based on your expert knowledge of all the history here. Why do you think that the Common Good Consulting and Coaching Consortium could be a good idea? We don't know for sure. I don't even know. I want to get an interest list together and get us on a call. But why do you think that would be a good idea to bring consultants and coaches who share the values together?
Bob Emiliani (53:12.854)
I think we have to try different things, different paths towards solutions. We're all working on our own, which has merit for different reasons. But at some point, we're dealing with a problem that affects us all, and we have to bring our heads together to understand the problem so we can identify other pathways to try.
And what's at stake though? Like if we don't really, so let's just say for the sake of argument, know, a leader's on there like, well, I'm making the short-term numbers. Like, why do we care about having a human-centric organization? Like, what's the impact to society, to the world, to lifestyles? why do we even care? Why is it worth, why is people-centered better? And what difference does it make? Like, why should we even care and organize around this?
Under the current preconceptions that are widely accepted, the answer is you don't have to care about it.
Bob Emiliani (54:16.95)
Now, what we seek to affect is a change in preconceptions that say it is important to care about that. And so what I say that, if the focus is on behaviors and competencies, that doesn't take us far back into the development of behaviors. We had to look at beliefs. We got to look at preconceptions. Preconceptions are foundational.
So let's go back to bigger things though, is like, as you had said earlier, before we hit record, we were chit chatting about like the value of this. And you were talking about like businesses and their role in society, you know, like the role of their community, like that business has an impact on community. if they just like lay off a whole bunch of people, it could affect an entire community, healthcare and all these other things. Like there is a bigger thing at stake that I think that we can...
we can all rally around and say, you know, like no matter where you fit on the political spectrum, I think we could all agree that an organization that exists to serve the people on the planet, not just profits is better. You know, that a leader who's not a, not a jerk, you know, come into control, who just tells people what to do, but actually listens and takes employees at consideration. That's a better thing, you know, and that it's a better world, I think, don't you?
I do, but leaders tend not to believe that they should listen to employees to avoid problems. Look at Boeing, look at General Motors with the ignition switch problem, blah, blah, blah. There's a huge list. I used to teach a course in leadership failure analysis and they were always ignoring employees and they don't worry. know, because I'll say GM, GM, I'm in the food business. I agree with you. And the, and the, and the point of it is, is, we have to really understand why they ignore all this.
empirical evidence that surrounds them that says there's a better way.
Betsy Jordyn (56:11.116)
Yes, and I think that that is what I want to leave on a conversation is like there is a better way. Like it doesn't have to be this way. It is this way because just because historically it's been this way, just because people have these presuppositions, like you use the word kind of measures and other conversations. So that tells me like if a pendulum is swung from here to here, then there must be things that we could put in place to swing from back over here. Like that we can move this, but I don't think we can move this individually. I'm like, I'm convinced at this moment
that literally no OD consultant, no L &D consultant, no HR consultant sitting on their own can ever move this. Or what discipline?
There's three parts of the puzzle. What's the problem? We have that part in hand. Where do we want to be? What the future state looks like, we understand that. It's the middle state. How do you get there? The middle piece of the puzzle. How do you get there that's missing in a way that's more impactful than everybody going at it on their own using very similar methods?
in conflict with one another, competing against one another.
Yes, you would. Yes, that's true. Yes.
Betsy Jordyn (57:22.2)
So how can people get your books? know you're like, can you give your website and then can you point out some of the specific books that you think that people would benefit from to get more of that clarity on the lay of the land?
Yeah, there's two that would probably be most interesting to this audience. There's six of them, but one is, well, maybe three. One is called The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management, which really looks at the socioeconomic political realm. Then there is one that looks at the preconception realm, which is called a change in perspective. And the third one is called The Aesthetic Compass to show you how aesthetics impacts
how leaders lead, which is very interesting because nobody writes about leadership or management from the perspective of aesthetics. just is not out there. That's right. Yeah, it is. It was I had one. Some people have said that's my best book and it's not kind of interesting that they would say that.
and your website is...
My last name, BobEmiliani.com. So E-M-I-L-I-A-N-I, BobEmiliani.com.
Betsy Jordyn (58:39.118)
So is there anything else that you would want to share about the differences between progressive and classical management or anything about what it means to create a lean organization or people-centered organization, a human-centered organization, like whatever deaf discipline you come from, and I'm just not asking you the right questions.
Now you've asked the right questions. think this has been a great podcast and I've really, you know, always enjoy speaking with you. And I think you bring out the best in me, by the way, in terms of speaking and ideas and so forth. So I really appreciate it. But I think we've, I think we've captured enough to get people's heads spinning a little bit. I just want to see this go the step further to getting the group together. And I hope people are interested in that.
Awesome. Well, thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you for sharing your expert knowledge and your academic background. I think for a lot of us, like we learn about what we do, but we don't always look at why we're doing what we do or where the context is. And I think that there is value of like really framing out problems really well, and then just coming up with a solution. So thank you for all of the 30 years or so that you've been framing out problems for us so that we can go off and.
Go solve them. So thank you so much for being on the show.
My pleasure. You're welcome. See you soon.
Betsy Jordyn (59:58.478)
So here's my big takeaway from this conversation with Bob, just like my takeaway was last week. The change that we wanna create in our organizations, the people that we work with and in society in the whole, is much bigger than any single practitioner can accomplish on their own or any single discipline. I truly believe in my heart of hearts, it's gonna take us all. And we need to partner together, within the client systems that we support and more broadly. So if you wanna be a part of this change,
or maybe even just like meet and build relationships with your peers in other disciplines who share your vision, your values, consider signing up for the interest list for my Common Good Consulting or Coaching Consortium. You just head over to www.bettsyJordyn.com forward slash common hyphen good and just get on the interest list. When you get on the interest list, you will also get an invitation to when we are organizing our first Zoom call.
And on the Zoom call, we are gonna co-create together what this group can actually be and become. I don't know if this idea has any legs. I don't know if this could be the group that changes the world. I have no idea. But I know I'm not gonna figure it out on my own. I'm not gonna sit in my office and strategize exactly what it should be. We wanna have a conversation or I wanna have a conversation with you and get your input and get your involvement. So if this is something that you're interested in, please sign up. I hope this is at least
bare minimum, a unique cross-functional alliance of people who really want to make a difference together. So head on over to my website and let's do that. So that's it for today's episode. Please be sure to hit subscribe wherever you're listening. Go ahead and rate and review so other people can find the show. And until next time, thanks so much for listening.
