July 28, 2025 • 12 mins
Marshall McLuhan's assertion, "The medium is the message," emphasizes that the medium's influence outweighs the message itself. In the post-truth era, democracy struggles as truth becomes subjective, fostering populist leadership. Authentic leadership, rooted in self-awareness and honesty, becomes vital, fostering genuine connections and collaboration, contrasting with the dangers of false certainty.
#MarshallMcLuhan, #TheMediumIsTheMessage, #PostTruthEra, #AuthenticLeadership, #Democracy, #Populism, #Truth
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to this episode of The Colig Experience.
(00:07):
Today, we're diving headfirst into the world of bold insights,
daring experimentation, and groundbreaking leadership strategies.
We'll explore how the medium of communication shapes society
and why authentic leadership is more crucial than ever in our post-truth era.
Get ready for an engaging discussion that will challenge your perspective
(00:28):
on leadership and connection in today's rapidly changing world.
Let's dive in.
In 1964, American philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase,
the medium is the message.
McLuhan, who later wrote a book with this title,
identified the impact of the television revolution on Western society,
(00:49):
an impact he distilled with remarkable wisdom
into this brilliant sentence he formulated.
The medium is the message means that the framework through which a message passes
influences us far more than the content of the message itself.
60 years later, we can see how accurate his prophecy was.
This article is written as we likely enter an election year in Israel,
(01:14):
with all the necessary caution that comes with any attempt to predict the future
in the reality of Israel 2025.
These elections will be told from every hilltop and under every green tree
are truly fateful elections.
Truth is, that's what politicians tell us in every election cycle,
and it's true.
(01:36):
They are very fateful, especially for the politicians trying to get elected,
but seriously, despite our natural tendency to blame public officials for cynicism,
a tendency they've earned with great integrity,
we're not sure politicians are the heart of the problem.
There's a chance they're just the symptom.
The core problem in this case, in our view,
(01:59):
is that democracy as a social system for running a country
is increasingly losing its relevance in the post-truth era.
We live in a reality where there's nothing you can't say isn't true.
We've lost the ability to reach agreement on the most basic facts.
What determines what's right or wrong, what's truth or lies,
(02:22):
what's good or bad is the amount of echoes in the networks.
Democracies weren't designed to deal with such a situation,
and they're unable to defend themselves in such circumstances.
By the way, there are studies showing that somewhere in the second decade of the millennium,
the trend of expanding democracy in the world stopped,
(02:45):
and a process of retreat began where there are fewer democratic countries
and less democracy in countries that are still democratic.
Is there a connection between this phenomenon
and the rapid development of social networks in exactly the same time period?
That's a point worth exploring.
So what will happen?
(03:07):
Apparently in the near future, we'll see more and more countries
where there's struggle and division around the question of
what is democracy and who is more democratic.
In the more distant future, maybe we'll see attempts to develop new democratic models
different from those we've known until today.
We hope this succeeds and things turn out well in the end,
(03:29):
but apparently first it will get much worse.
Either way, the question we want to explore today is
what does authenticity mean in an era of post-truth,
and what is the place of authenticity within this thing we call leadership?
In our view, in an era of post-truth, people will yearn for two types of leadership.
(03:50):
Leadership that knows the truth.
These are leaders who know what to do and how to do it,
and especially how to guarantee that if we do this, things will be better.
Leadership that can be described using the familiar saying,
yes right, no right, the main thing is say it with confidence,
or in the updated version.
(04:11):
I don't know what you saw, what you didn't see, I left at five.
In this case, the phrase, the medium is the message,
comes to expression in that it doesn't matter what the content of the leader's words is.
The message is, we know.
If you think this is only about political leadership,
well, it's not.
(04:34):
No systems are immune to populism.
We're seeing more and more of this leadership style in organizations too.
Managers whose leadership is based on their position as those who know what's good
and how to get there correctly.
This is leadership that might be suitable for very dramatic crisis moments
and for a very short period of time.
(04:55):
The thing is, it rarely restrains itself.
Usually it stays and intensifies.
We don't have much to say about this except that it's dangerous and toxic leadership.
We worked with a biotech startup where the founding CEO embodied this
knowing the truth style perfectly.
During the early funding rounds when investors demanded certainty about regulatory pathways,
(05:19):
this leader would speak with absolute conviction about timelines
and approval processes that were inherently unpredictable.
The message wasn't about the actual regulatory strategy,
it was about projecting unwavering confidence.
While this initially attracted investors and talent,
it created a culture where questioning became impossible
(05:42):
and when inevitable setbacks occurred,
the organization had no tools for adaptive thinking.
The medium of absolute certainty had become more important
than the actual message of navigating uncertainty.
Leadership connected to its truth.
In contrast to leadership that always knows the truth,
the power of attraction of leadership connected to its truth is its authenticity.
(06:08):
The appeal of leaders of this type is their ability to maintain authenticity
even in situations of high uncertainty and complexity.
In parentheses, let's say it's important not to confuse authenticity with directness.
Many times we think that someone who speaks straight,
what you see is what you get, is authentic.
(06:29):
But the truth is that many times directness and straight talk
and all the truth upfront is an image behind which there's a completely different character.
And when the person themselves already believes the image,
then they might be direct, but they're definitely not authentic.
Directness doesn't attract. Authenticity does.
(06:50):
How can you distinguish between them?
Most of us have pretty good sensors that reveal to us what's real and what's fake.
We just need to listen to them.
Close parentheses.
Why is authenticity so attractive?
We think at least part of the answer is related to the fact that authenticity
allows contact with a person's inner self.
(07:12):
Authenticity seemingly peels away the protective layers we have
and gives our environment access to our most personal places.
This evokes empathy and a desire for connection.
But, and this is an important but, for this connection not to be destructive,
the leader needs to have an authentic connection with themselves.
(07:37):
Psychology calls this true self as opposed to false self,
which is the person's alienation and disconnection from themselves.
What does authentic connection with oneself mean?
It means several things.
We'll address two.
First, it means a high level of self-awareness,
understanding what is ours and what isn't.
(08:01):
It means we recognize the projections we make
and we're willing to take back ownership of our less good parts.
Projection is a primitive defense mechanism
designed to protect us from coming into contact
with parts that are difficult for us to feel or see.
It works quite simply.
When there's something we can't stand in ourselves,
(08:22):
we'll find someone in our environment with a similar characteristic
and then project that unbearable thing onto them,
so that for us, they'll be the ones identified with it.
This way, we build a new home for the trait or characteristic
we don't want to see in ourselves
and we're freed from having to come into contact with it.
(08:43):
We said defense mechanism, meaning a mechanism that comes to protect us,
but it also has a downside.
If we use it too much, we might lose contact with who we really are.
Second, it means we dare to express clear truth
without putting in too many voices that push us to give up
because of various reasons and excuses.
(09:04):
There are cases where considerations of the type
I don't want to hurt anyone.
It's important to me that they like me.
I'm not comfortable confronting
or other fill-in-the-blank concerns enter our decision making.
It's not that these considerations lack importance,
but if they appear too often,
it means we're distancing ourselves from our center,
(09:26):
from our true position,
and the authenticity sensors of those around us will sense this immediately.
Take a little test with yourselves.
Think how many things you don't tell your employees
and it doesn't matter if it's to protect them or you.
The bigger the gap between what's in the heart and what's in the mouth,
the more leadership and its power of attraction erode.
(09:49):
Too many times we see
managements and managers deliberating and agonizing
around the question of what to tell employees and what not to,
and if so, how to say it?
Out of an attempt to control the message that will be absorbed.
It's right and important to think about
what message will be absorbed on the other side,
but if you do too much editing to the message,
(10:11):
then it usually comes out crooked,
and that itself distances people.
Our position on this matter is radical honesty.
Organizational secrets are poison.
In the end, truth comes out,
and then the experience of those from whom things were hidden
is that hiding is always an option,
so at no moment can they not think about the fact
(10:33):
that something important is happening and they don't know about it.
By the way, in most cases we're told that the hiding
was intended to protect employees from the noise,
and we say, let go of that.
Employees aren't children who need protection.
They're capable of dealing with difficult truth,
and if your concern is that they'll run away from you
(10:55):
because they'll discover the truth,
then what does that say about you?
What does that say about your relationships with employees?
In our work with a traditional manufacturing company
facing market disruption,
we encountered the opposite of the biotech CEO's false certainty.
The leadership team had been withholding information
(11:16):
about potential plant closures for months,
believing they were protecting their workforce from anxiety.
When we facilitated sessions where leadership
practiced radical honesty about the uncertainties they faced,
something remarkable happened.
Rather than panic, employees began contributing innovative solutions
they'd been hesitant to share,
(11:37):
the authenticity of we don't know exactly what's coming.
But here's what we're thinking and we need your help
proved far more powerful than any manufactured confidence.
The medium of genuine uncertainty and invitation to collaborate
became a message of respect and partnership
that transformed the organization's ability to navigate change.
We believe that the more confused the reality around us becomes,
(12:01):
the harder it becomes to distinguish between what's right and what's wrong,
and the more populous leadership is present in our lives,
the more the power of attraction of authentic leadership will grow,
of leaders who will be more connected to themselves
and whom others will want to connect with.
(12:24):
And that's a wrap for today's podcast.
We explored how Marshall McLuhan's idea that the medium is the message
remains relevant in our digital age
and the importance of authentic leadership in fostering trust and collaboration.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
(12:48):
Stay tuned for more updates.
.
Welcome to this episode of The Colig Experience.
(00:07):
Today, we're diving headfirst into the world of bold insights,
daring experimentation, and groundbreaking leadership strategies.
We'll explore how the medium of communication shapes society
and why authentic leadership is more crucial than ever in our post-truth era.
Get ready for an engaging discussion that will challenge your perspective
(00:28):
on leadership and connection in today's rapidly changing world.
Let's dive in.
In 1964, American philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase,
the medium is the message.
McLuhan, who later wrote a book with this title,
identified the impact of the television revolution on Western society,
(00:49):
an impact he distilled with remarkable wisdom
into this brilliant sentence he formulated.
The medium is the message means that the framework through which a message passes
influences us far more than the content of the message itself.
60 years later, we can see how accurate his prophecy was.
This article is written as we likely enter an election year in Israel,
(01:14):
with all the necessary caution that comes with any attempt to predict the future
in the reality of Israel 2025.
These elections will be told from every hilltop and under every green tree
are truly fateful elections.
Truth is, that's what politicians tell us in every election cycle,
and it's true.
(01:36):
They are very fateful, especially for the politicians trying to get elected,
but seriously, despite our natural tendency to blame public officials for cynicism,
a tendency they've earned with great integrity,
we're not sure politicians are the heart of the problem.
There's a chance they're just the symptom.
The core problem in this case, in our view,
(01:59):
is that democracy as a social system for running a country
is increasingly losing its relevance in the post-truth era.
We live in a reality where there's nothing you can't say isn't true.
We've lost the ability to reach agreement on the most basic facts.
What determines what's right or wrong, what's truth or lies,
(02:22):
what's good or bad is the amount of echoes in the networks.
Democracies weren't designed to deal with such a situation,
and they're unable to defend themselves in such circumstances.
By the way, there are studies showing that somewhere in the second decade of the millennium,
the trend of expanding democracy in the world stopped,
(02:45):
and a process of retreat began where there are fewer democratic countries
and less democracy in countries that are still democratic.
Is there a connection between this phenomenon
and the rapid development of social networks in exactly the same time period?
That's a point worth exploring.
So what will happen?
(03:07):
Apparently in the near future, we'll see more and more countries
where there's struggle and division around the question of
what is democracy and who is more democratic.
In the more distant future, maybe we'll see attempts to develop new democratic models
different from those we've known until today.
We hope this succeeds and things turn out well in the end,
(03:29):
but apparently first it will get much worse.
Either way, the question we want to explore today is
what does authenticity mean in an era of post-truth,
and what is the place of authenticity within this thing we call leadership?
In our view, in an era of post-truth, people will yearn for two types of leadership.
(03:50):
Leadership that knows the truth.
These are leaders who know what to do and how to do it,
and especially how to guarantee that if we do this, things will be better.
Leadership that can be described using the familiar saying,
yes right, no right, the main thing is say it with confidence,
or in the updated version.
(04:11):
I don't know what you saw, what you didn't see, I left at five.
In this case, the phrase, the medium is the message,
comes to expression in that it doesn't matter what the content of the leader's words is.
The message is, we know.
If you think this is only about political leadership,
well, it's not.
(04:34):
No systems are immune to populism.
We're seeing more and more of this leadership style in organizations too.
Managers whose leadership is based on their position as those who know what's good
and how to get there correctly.
This is leadership that might be suitable for very dramatic crisis moments
and for a very short period of time.
(04:55):
The thing is, it rarely restrains itself.
Usually it stays and intensifies.
We don't have much to say about this except that it's dangerous and toxic leadership.
We worked with a biotech startup where the founding CEO embodied this
knowing the truth style perfectly.
During the early funding rounds when investors demanded certainty about regulatory pathways,
(05:19):
this leader would speak with absolute conviction about timelines
and approval processes that were inherently unpredictable.
The message wasn't about the actual regulatory strategy,
it was about projecting unwavering confidence.
While this initially attracted investors and talent,
it created a culture where questioning became impossible
(05:42):
and when inevitable setbacks occurred,
the organization had no tools for adaptive thinking.
The medium of absolute certainty had become more important
than the actual message of navigating uncertainty.
Leadership connected to its truth.
In contrast to leadership that always knows the truth,
the power of attraction of leadership connected to its truth is its authenticity.
(06:08):
The appeal of leaders of this type is their ability to maintain authenticity
even in situations of high uncertainty and complexity.
In parentheses, let's say it's important not to confuse authenticity with directness.
Many times we think that someone who speaks straight,
what you see is what you get, is authentic.
(06:29):
But the truth is that many times directness and straight talk
and all the truth upfront is an image behind which there's a completely different character.
And when the person themselves already believes the image,
then they might be direct, but they're definitely not authentic.
Directness doesn't attract. Authenticity does.
(06:50):
How can you distinguish between them?
Most of us have pretty good sensors that reveal to us what's real and what's fake.
We just need to listen to them.
Close parentheses.
Why is authenticity so attractive?
We think at least part of the answer is related to the fact that authenticity
allows contact with a person's inner self.
(07:12):
Authenticity seemingly peels away the protective layers we have
and gives our environment access to our most personal places.
This evokes empathy and a desire for connection.
But, and this is an important but, for this connection not to be destructive,
the leader needs to have an authentic connection with themselves.
(07:37):
Psychology calls this true self as opposed to false self,
which is the person's alienation and disconnection from themselves.
What does authentic connection with oneself mean?
It means several things.
We'll address two.
First, it means a high level of self-awareness,
understanding what is ours and what isn't.
(08:01):
It means we recognize the projections we make
and we're willing to take back ownership of our less good parts.
Projection is a primitive defense mechanism
designed to protect us from coming into contact
with parts that are difficult for us to feel or see.
It works quite simply.
When there's something we can't stand in ourselves,
(08:22):
we'll find someone in our environment with a similar characteristic
and then project that unbearable thing onto them,
so that for us, they'll be the ones identified with it.
This way, we build a new home for the trait or characteristic
we don't want to see in ourselves
and we're freed from having to come into contact with it.
(08:43):
We said defense mechanism, meaning a mechanism that comes to protect us,
but it also has a downside.
If we use it too much, we might lose contact with who we really are.
Second, it means we dare to express clear truth
without putting in too many voices that push us to give up
because of various reasons and excuses.
(09:04):
There are cases where considerations of the type
I don't want to hurt anyone.
It's important to me that they like me.
I'm not comfortable confronting
or other fill-in-the-blank concerns enter our decision making.
It's not that these considerations lack importance,
but if they appear too often,
it means we're distancing ourselves from our center,
(09:26):
from our true position,
and the authenticity sensors of those around us will sense this immediately.
Take a little test with yourselves.
Think how many things you don't tell your employees
and it doesn't matter if it's to protect them or you.
The bigger the gap between what's in the heart and what's in the mouth,
the more leadership and its power of attraction erode.
(09:49):
Too many times we see
managements and managers deliberating and agonizing
around the question of what to tell employees and what not to,
and if so, how to say it?
Out of an attempt to control the message that will be absorbed.
It's right and important to think about
what message will be absorbed on the other side,
but if you do too much editing to the message,
(10:11):
then it usually comes out crooked,
and that itself distances people.
Our position on this matter is radical honesty.
Organizational secrets are poison.
In the end, truth comes out,
and then the experience of those from whom things were hidden
is that hiding is always an option,
so at no moment can they not think about the fact
(10:33):
that something important is happening and they don't know about it.
By the way, in most cases we're told that the hiding
was intended to protect employees from the noise,
and we say, let go of that.
Employees aren't children who need protection.
They're capable of dealing with difficult truth,
and if your concern is that they'll run away from you
(10:55):
because they'll discover the truth,
then what does that say about you?
What does that say about your relationships with employees?
In our work with a traditional manufacturing company
facing market disruption,
we encountered the opposite of the biotech CEO's false certainty.
The leadership team had been withholding information
(11:16):
about potential plant closures for months,
believing they were protecting their workforce from anxiety.
When we facilitated sessions where leadership
practiced radical honesty about the uncertainties they faced,
something remarkable happened.
Rather than panic, employees began contributing innovative solutions
they'd been hesitant to share,
(11:37):
the authenticity of we don't know exactly what's coming.
But here's what we're thinking and we need your help
proved far more powerful than any manufactured confidence.
The medium of genuine uncertainty and invitation to collaborate
became a message of respect and partnership
that transformed the organization's ability to navigate change.
We believe that the more confused the reality around us becomes,
(12:01):
the harder it becomes to distinguish between what's right and what's wrong,
and the more populous leadership is present in our lives,
the more the power of attraction of authentic leadership will grow,
of leaders who will be more connected to themselves
and whom others will want to connect with.
(12:24):
And that's a wrap for today's podcast.
We explored how Marshall McLuhan's idea that the medium is the message
remains relevant in our digital age
and the importance of authentic leadership in fostering trust and collaboration.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
(12:48):
Stay tuned for more updates.
.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.