What if leadership isn't primarily about influence, but about becoming the kind of person who helps others flourish?
In this thought-provoking episode of the Flourishing Leaders Podcast, Dr. Scott Parsons and Jason Viyar welcome Professor Garrett W. Potts for a rich conversation exploring virtue ethics, meaningful work, moral injury, and what it truly means to flourish.
Drawing on the philosophy of Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntyre, Garrett challenges many of today's assumptions about leadership and success. Rather than viewing work simply as a means to achievement or personal fulfillment, he argues that our professions can become powerful practices of character formation; Places where we learn to pursue excellence while serving the common good.
Together, Garrett, Jason, and Scott explore why flourishing is fundamentally relational, how empathy differs from compassion, why leadership requires care for the whole person, and how communities shape both our character and our capacity for wise leadership.
Whether you're leading a business, serving in education, healthcare, government, the military, or simply striving to become a better human being, this conversation offers timeless wisdom for navigating today's complex world.
In this episode you'll discover:
• Why flourishing is always relational, not merely individual
• How work can become a practice of character formation
• What Alasdair MacIntyre teaches us about excellence and virtue
• The relationship between empathy, compassion, and honest care
• Why leaders must care for the whole person: body, mind, and spirit
• How moral injury extends beyond the battlefield into everyday organizations
• Why community is essential for developing character
• How vocation differs from career and why purpose matters
• Practical wisdom for becoming the kind of leader who helps others flourish
If you've enjoyed conversations with Tom Morris, Michael Lamb, Marvin Berkowitz, Nancy Sherman, Donna Hicks, or Stephen M. R. Covey, you'll love this inspiring discussion with Professor Garrett Potts.
Thank you for listening to the Flourishing Leaders Podcast!
Hosted by Dr. Scott Parsons, this podcast explores how character, virtue, wisdom, and purpose can shape a more flourishing life and leadership journey.
Learn more at: Flourishing Leaders Academy
Subscribe & Follow: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google | YouTube
Share this episode with someone who’s ready to lead with integrity and flourish in every domain of life.
Connect with Scott: LinkedIn | Scott@FlourishingLeaders.us
Flourish with us—because leadership rooted in character changes everything.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:20):
Welcome to the Flourishing Leaders podcast.
In each episode, we bring youengaging conversations with
people who share their insights,strategies, and stories to
inspire and empower leaders atall levels to live flourishing
lives and be the best versionsof themselves.
Now, let's dive into the episodewith your host, Scott Parsons.
SPEAKER_02 (00:48):
Welcome to the Flourishing Leaders Podcast,
where stories become lessons andlessons become lives of meaning.
Together, we explore the virtuesand practices that help leaders
and communities flourish.
I'm your host, Scott Parsons,and I'm joined by my co-host,
the Polymath, Jason VR.
Today we have the privilege ofwelcoming Professor Garrett W.
Potts.
Garrett serves as professor ofleadership and ethics and is a
(01:10):
scholar whose work sits at theintersection of virtue ethics,
leadership, vocation, moralinjury, and organizational
flourishing.
Drawing deeply from philosophy,particularly the work of
Alistair McIntyre, Garrettchallenges many of our
assumptions about success, work,and leadership.
Rather than asking howorganizations can perform
better, he asks a far moreimportant question.
(01:32):
How can our work help us becomebetter human beings?
Our conversation explores whyflourishing is fundamentally
relational, why excellence andcharacter cannot be separated,
how empathy differs fromcompassion, and why leadership
requires us to care for thewhole person, body, mind, and
spirit.
We also discuss moral injurybeyond the military, the
importance of community inshaping character, and why
(01:54):
vocation is ultimately aboutserving something larger than
ourselves.
This is one of thoseconversations that invites
reflection long after therecording ends.
So whether you're leading abusiness, serving in education,
healthcare, government, themilitary, a nonprofit, or simply
striving to become a betterleader in your own family and
community, I think you'll findGarrett's insight both
challenging and deeplyencouraging.
(02:16):
Without further ado, here's ourconversation with Professor
Garrett Potts.
Garrett, thank you for joiningJason and me on the Flourishing
Leaders Podcast.
SPEAKER_04 (02:24):
Scott, Jason, it is an honor and a pleasure.
I'm so glad to be uh on thispodcast with you, especially
after uh so many other wonderfulguests uh prior to me.
It's truly an honor.
So thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_02 (02:37):
That's really kind of you to say.
And you know, Garrett, before wejump into the first question, I
just want to say how much Jasonand I have been looking forward
to this conversation.
We have been talking about itfor weeks.
Uh, this pops up at the weirdesttimes.
We have this conversation, youcome up.
And I think it's because we haveso many similar interests and
academically and otherwise.
And your work sits at a reallypowerful intersection: virtue
(02:59):
ethics, calling, moral injury,leadership, and it resonates
deeply with both Jason and me.
As someone who has spent much ofmy life in the military and
having six combat deploymentsbetween the pair of us, the idea
of moral injury is not just anacademic concept for us.
It's something we've seen,something we felt, and something
we continue to reflect on.
And what I appreciate so muchabout your work is that you
(03:20):
don't treat these topics inisolation.
You're asking deeper questionsabout what it means to be a good
person, what it means to pursueexcellence and practices, what
happens when institutions failus, and how we make sense of
work, purpose, and evensuffering in the midst of all
that.
It feels like your work isinviting us into a more
integrated vision of leadership,one that takes seriously the
body, the mind, and the spirit.
(03:42):
I'm really looking forward totalking to you about Spirit
Leader, and one that recognizesthat flourishing isn't just
about performance, but aboutbecoming a certain kind of
person in the world.
So, Jason and I are reallygrateful for your work, and
we're grateful for the chance toexplore these ideas together
today.
And with that, let me ask youour opening question.
What does the phrase flourishingleader mean to you?
SPEAKER_04 (04:02):
Yeah, absolutely.
It's a great question.
Let me just back up for onemoment and say thank you both
for your service across your sixcombat deployments.
Because as I have sat withmilitary veterans over the last
10 years, and as I've studiedmoral injury, I recognize that
freedom, you know, we often saythis, but I really, really do
(04:25):
understand this now through thisresearch.
Freedom comes at a cost.
It is not free.
And I am tremendously gratefulfor the sacrifices that you've
made for us and uh that yourfamilies bore with you.
I'm grateful for them too.
You know, for me, I think thatnaturally segues into my
understanding of flourishing aswell, because flourishing is
(04:46):
inherently relational.
I really think of flourishing ashaving four macronutrients.
Let's start with the relationalcomponent, since I mentioned
that first.
The relational component is allabout how my life is connected
to others beyond myself.
You're flourishing, Scott,you're flourishing, Jason.
My flourishing is connected toall of the lives within my span
(05:10):
of care across all of the socialroles that I occupy.
Relational well-being is anabsolute necessity for human
flourishing.
Beyond that, though, I'm goingto borrow a little bit from my
friends, the Yale Center forFaith and Culture.
I had the honor and theprivilege of participating in
(05:30):
some of their programming forthe Joy in Human Flourishing
Project when I was in graduateschool.
Some friends like Mirzlav Wolfand Matt Crossman and Ryan
McNally Lenz as well.
Also articulate some otherelements of flourishing that's
really important.
So the relational aspect, you'vealso got the effective aspect.
Now that's a fancy word forsaying our feelings or our
(05:54):
emotions.
In our culture today, we reallytend to harp on that, don't we?
Because so much of our livedexperience has been internalized
as with respect to what ourculture is paying attention to.
Beyond the effective, you alsohave the agential component.
So the agential component is,you know, what kind of person am
I becoming?
(06:14):
How is my character developing?
And then finally, you have thecircumstantial component.
And that's, you know, how's mylife going?
What's happening in my sphere ofinfluence?
So the effective, the agential,the circumstantial, and the
relational.
These are the fourmacronutrients of human
(06:34):
flourishing as I see it.
SPEAKER_02 (06:36):
That's beautiful.
SPEAKER_01 (06:37):
Yeah, I love that, Garrett.
And I love this circumstantialat the end and realizing that we
are all living in a moment.
All of our actions are containedin a moment and they're all
situated within a largerenvironment.
SPEAKER_04 (06:51):
That's right, Jason.
And you know, some of my broaderwork outside of my role at the
University of South Florida,also in partnership with Eckert
College and the LeadershipDevelopment Institute, is really
looking at ways in which we canunderstand flourishing and we
can kind of focus on the thingsthat are within our ability to
control and also the things thatwe have to accept sometimes.
(07:13):
And the reality about humanflourishing is that there are
some elements of humanflourishing that go to some
extent beyond our control.
And the circumstantial componentis one of those components.
But there is so much, so muchwithin the realm of control that
we can do to grow in our questfor the good life, to pursue
(07:35):
good work, to become aflourishing leader.
SPEAKER_01 (07:39):
I love it, Garrett.
And let's go right to it.
Pursuing good work.
Your book, Work is a Callingfrom Meaningful Work to Good
Work.
In your book, you push back onoverly individualistic notions
of finding meaning.
What do you think most peoplemisunderstand about calling?
SPEAKER_04 (07:58):
Yeah, that's a great question, Jason.
And I can tell you've engagedwith my work because you really
hit the nail in the head as faras the thesis goes.
And we've actually kind of beendoing some empirical work
recently to back up thattheoretical project, which I'm
really excited to share withyou.
It's not even published yet, sothis is very fresh.
But essentially, I would saythis when the end of someone's
(08:21):
calling becomes self-focused,callings become self-defeating.
Victor Frankel said it best whenhe said happiness and success
are not things you can arrive atdirectly.
They ensue as a result of younot paying attention to them
because you're caring about morenoble causes.
(08:42):
Maybe it's relationships.
Maybe it's that noble cause thatyou care about in the workplace.
Hey, maybe it's just awillingness to courageously
stand up for something that youare convicted about, even if
you're going to get persecutedfor it.
I've experienced that.
It sucks.
But you know what?
There's deep meaning to be foundthere.
(09:03):
I'm sure you guys haveexperienced that too.
Here's what's really, reallyinteresting.
As I've started to move in thedirection of empiricism and
social science, we've justrecently pulled 500 workers.
And what we found wasindividuals whose work is
self-focused, individuals whosesense of calling is
(09:26):
self-focused, have a strongcorrelation with what the world
of psychology calls the darktriad.
And the name is a disclaimer,you don't want to have these
character traits.
We're talking narcissism, we'retalking Machiavellianism, we're
talking psychopathic behaviors,right?
(09:47):
So what's really, reallyinteresting about this is, you
know, the person whose work isoriented toward others, this is
also what the research shows, isdramatically less likely to be
the kind of leader whomanipulates, who exploits, or
who steamrolls people aroundthem.
But here's the issue as I seeit.
(10:09):
Without intending to do so, alot of the contemporary
literature on work as a callingis so internally focused on that
effective component of humanflourishing that it's leading
people to pursue self-focusedcallings in ways that are not
personally fulfilling, as welearned from Frankel.
And as we also learn from thisrecent empirical research from
(10:31):
some good friends in my collegeof business, Mukta and Russell
Clayton, you know, psychopathicbehaviors like thrill-seeking,
impulsivity, shallow emotionalresponses, no remorse or
empathy, uh, manipulation andservice of self-interest, that's
Machiavellianism, right?
Narcissism.
I mean, these are not thingsthat we celebrate in the
(10:53):
workplace.
We want to ward those off likethe plague.
And what I'm suggesting to youis exactly what we found in the
research.
Other focused callings are thestrongest predictor for warding
off that dark triad ofnarcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathic behaviors.
SPEAKER_02 (11:11):
That is fascinating.
And I have to say that on onehand, I'm super glad that folks,
you heard this first here on theFlourishing Leaders podcast.
That's right.
But I'm a little sad that Ican't read the report.
I'll get it to you ahead oftime.
I love that.
That's fascinating.
You know, and we often talkedabout that dark triad and talked
about, you know, leaders who areself-focused, and you you find
(11:34):
yourself in these situationswhere it's a service to help
other people, and you findyourself in these situations
where you have these leadersthat are there, and you're like,
why are they here?
They don't really fit, but theybehave in the way you said.
And I, you know, I have to saythat, and I know you've been
affiliated with them in the pasttoo.
I teaching currently a level onecourse of the humanistic
leadership academy.
And we were talking this morningabout the same idea about uh
(11:57):
self-focus and other focus, andit was just it was an echo
chamber.
Let's be honest.
It was just a beautiful thing tobe around a bunch of people that
all they want to do is helppeople.
That's great.
But what do you do in thosemoments when you find yourself
in situations, you know,standing courageously, you
talked about that earlier.
Sometimes I've been able to dothat, and sometimes I haven't.
I haven't been able to do that.
(12:17):
And you have to hold on to thatfor a long time.
And we we'll probably get tothat idea when we talk about
moral injury later.
SPEAKER_04 (12:23):
But I'm just definitely connected,
absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (12:26):
Yeah.
You know, I just want to saythat in your book, you
distinguish between meaningfulwork and good work.
What is the difference?
Maybe I can ask, what's thedifference between meaningful
work and good work?
And why does that distinctionmatter for leaders and
organizations?
SPEAKER_04 (12:40):
Such a great question, Scott.
And I really appreciate youasking it.
So my understanding ofmeaningful work is uh much like
the understanding ofself-focused calling.
Meaningful work leads to alionization of the ego.
Meaningful work is about me,it's about my personal feelings
and preferences in theworkplace.
(13:01):
And the buck really kind ofstops there, right?
It doesn't have to, but it oftendoes in the way that workplace
meaningfulness is defined andthe way that workplace
meaningfulness is tested.
Sometimes the language of thecommon good is referenced as a
(13:22):
part of meaning in theworkplace, but this is kind of
an empty phrase without moresubstance behind it.
And the language of goodnessinvites in that substance, which
really brings us back to what Icall a kind of three-legged
stool of good work or work as acalling.
(13:45):
And the focus is really oncraft, it's on character, and
it's on community.
So if we break down anunderstanding of good work as a
way of trying to push beyondpersonal experiences of
meaningfulness, because afterall, like the goal here is to
actually deliver this for peopleso that we can ensure that
(14:06):
people are flourishing in theworkplace and people's lives are
touched by the products thatwe're producing, right?
Frankel tells us thatself-focused work is
self-defeating.
This three-legged stool approachis really prioritizing
excellence in the workplace,which is the notion of craft,
right?
To do something with excellence.
(14:29):
So you think about, you know, uha woodworker and the attention
to detail in constructing abeautiful dining room table, all
of the practical wisdom, thelearning from success and
failure that goes into that.
This woodworker cares so muchabout his craft.
(14:50):
He's learned from the past.
He wants to build somethingthat's gonna last.
He wants to build somethingthat's going to stand the test
of time in terms of, you know,I'm a Floridian, so uh the
expansion and contrast of woodbecause of the humidity down
here.
So excellence is the first ofthat three-legged stool, this
craft notion of excellence.
(15:11):
But then we get into character.
When you commit to doingsomething with that standard of
excellence in mind, that ismorally formative, both
intellectually and morally,right?
So, what I mean by that is I'vereferenced the virtue of
practical wisdom already.
Think about the first thing, ifyou've ever built something
(15:33):
before, or you know, the firstthing that you've ever built,
and then think about somethingmaybe 10 years later that you
worked on.
I mean, for me, I'm I'm obsessedwith garage projects.
I have a four-year-old son namedOliver, and we've done lots of
fun projects together, but youcan see how my work has gotten
less sloppy over time as I'vecontinued to learn from my
(15:57):
successes and failures inpractice.
I've been known to break acouple of engines in my day as I
was learning how to work on uh,you know, gas and diesel-powered
engines, for example.
You know, when you're tested inthese ways in pursuit of
excellence, it's not about yourpreferences.
(16:18):
And that's what the meaningfulwork discourse misses.
It's not about my preferences.
No, I have to surrender myimmediate desires and instincts
to standards of excellence thatare a part of this long-standing
tradition in order for me to dosomething well.
My character is being formedthrough that.
I'm becoming more patientbecause I realize what's at
(16:39):
stake.
I realize how costly trying torush something, you know, can be
in the long term.
Uh, I'm becoming moretechnically wise, more
technically proficient in thework that I'm doing.
We've talked about the craftcomponent as one leg of the
stool.
We've talked about the charactercomponent as another leg of the
(17:00):
stool.
We've seen how these things aremutually reinforcing.
By pursuing excellence in mycraft, I'm growing in my agency,
both intellectually and morally.
My character is being shapedthrough submitting my desires to
a standard of excellence inpractice.
Now, how does that impact thelives that are touched by my
(17:24):
work?
Well, that's the third componentof good work.
That's a third component of another focused calling.
We're talking about communityhere.
That's the third leg.
And without that third leg, thisstool cannot stand.
And there is a lot of researchout there which focuses so much
(17:45):
on meaning that it misses thecommunal leg of the stool.
The communal leg of the stool isabsolutely imperative because
without that, we aredisconnected from the lives that
our organizations are touching,and we must be connected to them
(18:08):
so that we know how ourexcellent work is making a
difference, is touching thelives of other people.
I mean, isn't that what goodwork is all about?
Every work that you couldimagine, every kind of work that
you could imagine has someunique end that it can deliver.
And it's not money, that's ameans to an end.
(18:30):
Right.
You know, we have to be focusedon the community to understand
what it is that they need, whattheir pain points are, and how
our excellent work can servethem.
And here's the really excitingpart when you put all three of
these legs together, craft,character, and community, you
(18:50):
have a self-transcendent visionof work as a calling, which
broadens your horizon andconnects you to so many more
people beyond yourself than aself-focused calling ever could,
ever would.
It requires humility, itrequires vulnerability, it
requires courage, requirespatience, requires
(19:14):
self-discipline, the willingnessto be tutored for a long time.
You know?
And I think sometimes we want tokind of shortcut that whole
process.
But it's absolutely imperativethat we we learn from others
within the same tradition as us,who have excelled in the work
that we wish to do well, that weidentify the character traits
(19:38):
that allow them to do that withexcellence.
And we see how those charactertraits both cultivate excellence
by and impact the community, butalso spill over into other areas
of their lives.
And that's what's so excitingabout work as a calling to me.
I love the ways that I get to,you know, work with students and
(20:00):
uh executives all around theworld to help them think through
their pain points.
But for me, as I'm exercising,you know, my mind in that
practice, I'm also growing inways that spill over into other
areas of my life.
And you know, Scott Jason, thisis what uh our mutual friend Bob
(20:21):
Chapman knew so well.
He knew that if you couldcultivate character in the
workplace, that's gonna makesomeone a better father.
That's gonna make someone abetter husband, that's gonna
make someone a better friend.
Because these virtues that arerequired to do work well are
(20:42):
also required to do any othernon-paid form of work well, such
as caring for children or justbeing a good friend.
SPEAKER_02 (20:55):
I love that.
That's beautiful.
SPEAKER_01 (20:57):
Yeah, Garrett, that vision of transcendence, the
three legs of the stool, youhave your intellectual going for
the excellence, your moral,going for the formative, and
then the community, otherfocused calling is so powerful.
And I can see how one with thatmindset would commit many more
(21:17):
pro-social acts, and many actsthat would benefit one's
neighbor, one's neighborhood,one's entire community and our
entire planet.
SPEAKER_04 (21:28):
Well said, Jason.
SPEAKER_01 (21:30):
And Garrett, you mentioned our friend Bob
Chapman, and I've been thinkinga lot about him lately, and I
love that your work also deeplyemphasizes empathy and active
listening.
It's one of those concepts thatwe don't talk about enough,
especially across religious andcultural differences.
(21:51):
So I would love to know how doesdeep empathy actually require a
leader to intellectually andMorally listen in a way to
understand this proof.
SPEAKER_04 (22:05):
Really, really great question, Jason.
I'm I'm so glad you asked it.
And I'm struck by the timelinessof your question because my
friend David Pickersgill, whoyou just had on on episode 48, I
think it was, of your podcast,uh conducted a listening like a
leader session for myresponsible leadership in the
good life students here at USFabout two hours ago.
(22:26):
And what we talked about in thatclass was Brene Brown's concept
of empathy, which I think is sorelevant here.
For Brown, you know, she talksabout really kind of four
elements of empathy in order topromote what you're emphasizing
here, Jason.
And the first is perspectivetaking.
We have to be able to take onsomeone else's story.
(22:50):
We are ultimately storytellingbeings.
We understand our lives throughstory.
And without being able to takeon someone else's story, we have
no shot of being empathetic orproviding a sense that someone
within our span of care isempathetically cared for.
(23:11):
So that's priority number one.
Number two, Jason, you reallyhit the nail on the head here
when you say, you know, look, wefind ourselves in these rich,
diverse, pluralistic culturalcontexts.
And oftentimes we miss the redthread of our humanity that ties
us all together in that.
(23:33):
So the second fundamentalcomponent of empathy, according
to Brene Brown, is thewithholding of judgment.
We have to be able to withholdjudgment in order to empathize
well with others.
Well, what do we do then?
If we're withholding judgment,what do we offer?
We offer an engagement withtheir feelings.
(23:55):
And this is something I'velearned through my work uh at
the Leadership DevelopmentInstitute at Eckert College.
And I'll credit them as well asthe Center for Creative
Leadership that we're inpartnership with for this.
There are different things thatwe can listen for.
And when we just engage withpeople's facts, you know,
(24:16):
sometimes that feels more likesympathy than empathy.
But we can also listen forfeelings and we can also listen
for values.
And that's a radical differencethere when you start listening
for feelings and values as well,and you start calling those
feelings out.
It's a difference between, asBrene Brown says, you know,
(24:38):
beginning a statement with, oh,at least or or not.
So, you know, Brene Brown says,generally speaking, rarely does
an empathetic response beginwith at least, hey, you know, I
just lost my mom.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Well, at least your dad's stillalive.
You know, yikes.
That's that's a wrong turn.
(24:59):
How can we focus on engagingwith feelings and not just
facts?
How can we call those feelingsout so that someone feels seen,
recognized, heard?
I mean, isn't the goal oflistening like a leader at the
end of the day to make someonefeel seen, to make someone feel
recognized, to make someone feelheard?
(25:19):
Isn't so much of a crisis ofleadership today a lack of
recognition?
Isn't the very problem of moralinjury even uh rooted in that to
some extent, actually?
SPEAKER_02 (25:30):
Yeah, absolutely.
I love that.
And I love I love that you usedBrene Brown and and her four
qualities.
I think those are important.
And I think if anyone were, ifthey're curious, would just take
the time to put that intopractice and just test it out.
Just, you know, you talked aboutempirical evidence earlier.
Go out and just test it and setaside your emotion,
compartmentalize things, andjust take an example, maybe
(25:53):
something that you're notparticularly interested or
vested in, and do that, right?
And if you do that, you're ableto take away judgment because
you kind of don't care, right?
And then you can bring incuriosity, you know, if we want
to cite my favorite philosopher,Ted Lasso, uh be curious, not
judgmental, right?
But but I love the idea of justtaking a test, take something
(26:13):
that where you're not, you haveno vested interests, and try to
apply these principles and thinkthrough it, and you'll see that
it works.
What she says works.
SPEAKER_04 (26:22):
Absolutely.
I'll give you one more BreneBrown nugget, and this one's
mostly just for my wife, Ashley,because she loves Brene Brown.
She says this when she's talkingabout empathy, she says, you
know, remember, it's not yourwords, it's the connection that
you make that counts.
It reminds me of uh, you know,Mile Angelo's quote uh people
(26:43):
will forget what you said,people will forget what you did.
Nobody will ever forget how youmade them feel.
SPEAKER_02 (26:50):
It's absolutely true.
I love that.
You know, Garrett, at theInstitute for Character and
Leadership, Fairley DickinsonUniversity, where I work, my
colleagues and co-founders ofthe Empathy Center, Dr.
Ben Freer and Dr.
Steve Dranoff, are doing a lotof work around empathy, both on
campus as well as acrosshealthcare, education, and
business.
Where do you see empathy goingwrong in leadership and how do
we cultivate empathy that isboth compassionate and grounded
(27:13):
in truth?
SPEAKER_04 (27:14):
It's such a good question, Scott.
You know, because empathy issomething we really have raised
up to be something like a virtuethat we celebrate, and for good
reason today.
But the reality is it cancollapse into just mere
emotional mirroring, which is tosay that, you know, we're just
feeling what the other personfeels.
And we're feeling all the feelsso strongly that maybe we're
(27:37):
even losing our own moralfooting, such that we're just
simply ratifying theirexperience rather than actually
serving their good.
SPEAKER_02 (27:46):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (27:47):
That's the danger of empathy.
That's the empathy trap.
What I would say uh the virtueof empathy requires is both the
intellectual and the moraldiscipline to understand another
person's framework deeply whileretaining the capacity to tell
(28:07):
them the truth.
So that's the combination.
Like deep understanding plushonest care.
That honest care component iswhat gets us out of the empathy
trap where it's just mirroringof emotional feelings.
So when we can combine deepunderstanding plus honest care,
you know, that's actually a lotcloser to what scholars like
(28:28):
Arthur Brooks would callcompassion than what
contemporary culture sometimesreduces empathy to.
So, Scott, that's why I was soexcited to see that even in your
definition of empathy, you usethe language of compassion.
SPEAKER_02 (28:44):
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's interestingbecause I've had this
conversation with a lot ofpeople.
A lot of people want to promoteempathy, but they don't
understand it within the contextthat it's a virtue.
Well, it can be, and it also canbe, as you broke it down.
And there's a lot of old schoolvirtue ethicists and character
people that are like, no, no,no, use compassion, not empathy.
But I'm seeing now, especiallywith the work of Ben Freer, my
(29:06):
colleague and dear friend, thatempathy can be used as a virtue.
It can actually be a virtue.
And let's be honest, if you takeany character strength and you
use too much of it or not enoughof it, it's a vice of excess or
deficiency.
It's not a virtue.
So if you're using empathy inthe right way, as you described,
I think it is a virtue.
SPEAKER_04 (29:24):
I couldn't agree with you more, Scott.
SPEAKER_01 (29:27):
And I love this idea of the intellectual and the
moral understanding mixed withthe honest care.
And I think when you add thathonest care component, you can
really focus not only on theemotion, not only on that
moment, but on the whole person.
And Scott and I are retired armyofficers, and we found your
(29:48):
chapter on caring for the wholesoldier after COVID-19
fascinating.
In your chapter, you describethe body, mind, spirit model.
What does it look like inpractice to care for the whole
person in a high-performanceenvironment like the military or
even in some corporate settings?
SPEAKER_04 (30:06):
Yeah, it's a really great question, Jason.
And I appreciate you engagingwith my research.
That was a really fun project Igot to do uh with SINTCOM and uh
some other folks within theUnited States military and some
colleagues in my department hereas part of a great power
competition series that we'redoing at the University of South
(30:27):
Florida, which is looking atthis kind of tension between
China, Russia, and the UnitedStates and is asking these
important questions.
And one of the things werealized is that unfortunately,
I had the awkward sort ofexperience of saying this to
military leaders, I don't knowif we're prepared enough when it
(30:47):
comes to the spiritualcomponent.
Because what has happened iswe've focused so much on, you
know, time in the gym andmindfulness apps for the mind.
But where's the spiritualcomponent?
So if you look at total forcefitness, which is something that
was released by the JointChiefs, uh, it entails multiple
(31:09):
dimensions to promote soldiers'bodily health and their mental
health.
Some of the things that they'repaying attention to are things
like our physical well-being,our nutritional well-being, our
medical well-being, ourenvironmental well-being.
Those are all elements of ourbodily health, right?
And then they turn to mentalhealth and they say, well, this
(31:29):
is about psychologicalwell-being.
We recognize that something thatcan be disruptive to
psychological well-being can beyour financial state.
So that's a part of it as well.
So too is your relationships,the social dimension.
And then they kind of just putthe word spiritual in there with
soldiers' mental health.
(31:50):
So spirituality gets collapsedinto the mind of the soldier.
And what I've argued for israther than a two-dimensional
model of soldiers, let'sacknowledge the
three-dimensional model of ourhumanity, which entails a
recognition of our bodilyhealth, our mental health, and
(32:12):
our spiritual well-being.
Let's call out the specificelements of spirituality rather
than just collapsing spirituallysignificant things into our
mental well-being.
What are the important spiritualelements that we need to
consider?
As a soldier, as an employee ora team member, or even as a
(32:37):
parent or a husband, I thinkthey're all the same.
If we want to promote someone'sspiritual well-being, there are
really four things that we needto attend to.
And this is what I really callthe joint chiefs to do.
Help soldiers understand howtheir lives are connected to
others beyond themselves.
And I don't just mean horizontalrelationships with other human
(33:01):
beings.
I also include the verticaldimension in that, a relation to
the divine.
The second component is oursense of meaning and purpose.
It is a morally injuriousexperience for someone to face a
combat situation or a boardroomsituation that conflicts with
(33:23):
their ultimate sense of whatthey believe is good and
beautiful and true.
So we also have to reallyconsider their values and
beliefs as well.
What are their values andbeliefs?
And also, what are the practicesthat reinforce those behaviors?
Remember how we were talkingabout good work and this notion
(33:44):
of craftsmanship, the pursuit ofexcellence within a specific
practice, whether it'swoodworking or diesel mechanics
or uh some other practice.
There are spiritual disciplinesas well.
There's spiritual practices thatpeople require for human
flourishing.
And these spiritual practicesare diverse and they're not all
(34:05):
universally shared, but some ofthem include things like prayer,
meditation, yoga, other forms ofmindfulness, and the
possibilities that open up forsoldiers and for team members of
workplace environments, or evenbetween spouses, when you can
start to take seriouslysomeone's need for transcendent
(34:27):
connection, when you can startto engage with someone's
narrated sense of purpose, theirquest for the good life, when
you can start to engage them inconversation about what they
believe and how their beliefsshape the way that they see and
understand good work in thiscontext.
(34:49):
And if you can provide them withscriptures from their tradition,
time for reflection or prayer ormeditation or something like
this, I'm suggesting to you,because the data suggests it to
me, this is just as important asprioritizing the mind and the
body.
And there's so much to thespiritual dimension as evidenced
by the fact we've been talkingabout this for a few minutes,
(35:09):
that I just don't think that youcan capture it under the
category of a soldier's mentalhealth or a team member's mental
health.
I think it deserves its owndimension.
And that's why I push for atri-dimensional account of the
soldier in that piece.
SPEAKER_01 (35:32):
It is deeply needed and extremely relevant.
And thank you for expanding thisthree-dimensional model of
humanity and transcendence forall.
SPEAKER_04 (35:42):
I really appreciate that, Jason, especially coming
from you and your service.
That means a lot.
SPEAKER_02 (35:47):
You know, what I thought about it was that Greek
phrase of tokolon or the thenoble and the beautiful, right?
And that's what I think aboutwhen I think about those times
that you know I was deployed andthink about those moments.
And we're gonna, in a fewquestions, we're gonna get more
in depth of moral injury.
I don't want to go there now,but I just want to alert us and
the listener that we're gonnacircle back to this, what what
you've been talking about.
(36:08):
Garrett, I want to return tosomething that I referenced at
the beginning of the episode.
As I mentioned, the idea ofmoral injury isn't abstract for
Jason and me.
You've done important workdistinguishing between acute
moral injury and chronic moralinjury.
Can you help our listenersunderstand that distinction and
why that matters?
SPEAKER_04 (36:24):
Absolutely, Scott.
So this is something that Iworked on with uh a colleague
and a very close friend of mine.
Her name's Lily Abaddal.
When we started looking into themoral injury literature
together, one of the things thatLily helped me to see is so many
experiences of moral injury arearticulated in these acute
moments.
Jason Scott, you know this well.
(36:45):
I mean, moral injury began in amilitary context.
This emerged from the militaryliterature.
Think about the conviction-basedreality of a child caught in the
crossfire.
Think about the conviction-basedreality of uh someone commanding
(37:07):
you to do something thatviolates or transgresses your
deeply held values orconvictions.
Think about it in terms of aone-off event, right?
Uh perhaps someone says, hey,cover for me.
I'm gonna go out with this girland give her too many drinks,
and uh I need you to make itseem like everything's okay.
(37:30):
That is a moment of acute moralinjury, potentially, because any
moment of moral injury ispreceded by what we call a
potentially morally injuriousexperience.
So, what I mean by that is whenyour superior says, cover for
(37:51):
me, that is a potentiallymorally injurious experience.
It's my job to narrate that andto understand that and to
determine whether it violates myconvictions about human dignity,
which it does very much, by theway.
An acute moment of moral injury,such as sexual abuse or a child
(38:12):
caught in crossfire, is verydifferent from the slow churn of
an organization or aninstitution or a leader who
repeatedly dehumanizes others bywhat they pursue and prioritize.
So let me give you one examplefrom the case study that Lily
(38:35):
and I conducted as co-authors inthis development of the idea of
chronic moral injury.
You have this woman, her name'sElizabeth Holmes, uh, and she
started this company, Theranos,right?
And Elizabeth Holmes is uh avery Machivelian personality who
essentially described herself toothers as the female version of
(38:57):
Steve Jobs, and she reallydressed the part.
She was able to get a ton ofmoney from large, large
investors to create a newtechnology that with a single
prick, a single drop of bloodcould test for a whole host of
all these different diseases.
(39:18):
We'll come to find out what'sactually happening in the back
of Walgreens and these otherplaces where Theranosis
technology is delivered, isvials and vials of blood are
being taken.
Elizabeth Holmes has this leadchemist, his name is Ian
Gibbons, and Ian Gibbons has toput up with the reality of where
(39:39):
the science is not yet, and themessaging of Elizabeth Holmes to
the investors, which suggeststhat we're already doing this.
There's not just one particularmoment or instance in this
leadership crisis that'shappening.
(39:59):
Here you have the practice ofchemistry being corrupted
deliberately by a leader.
And Ian Gibbons is someone whoprioritizes excellence in his
craft.
He's feeling the inner conflictof this, but he's also dying of
cancer at the same time.
And he needs a healthcare policythat Elizabeth Holmes'
(40:22):
organization is providing him.
Ian Gibbons ultimatelyterminates his own life before
going to trial to testify aboutwhat happened at Theranos.
That is a case of chronic moralinjury.
That is a case of a slow churnwithin an organizational leader
context where you have someoneat the top prioritizing
(40:45):
something other than excellencein practice, the cultivation of
character and contributing tothe flourishing of communities
that our organization reaches.
And as a result, people get hurtin the process.
So we felt like it was reallyimportant to make that
distinction between acute andchronic moments.
And especially when you startthinking about workplace
(41:06):
contexts, you know, you mightbegin to ask this question how
does the language that ourleaders use contribute to
dehumanization?
You know, when we use languagelike span of control or
supervisor, there's a kind ofscience of management approach
(41:26):
that is reducing people tofunctions.
And that experience isinherently dehumanizing.
That can be a morally injuriousexperience.
So we think there's a lot ofinstitutional contexts where
this account of chronic moralinjury applies.
SPEAKER_02 (41:42):
That's fascinating.
And yeah, it you know, you haveboth chronic and you have acute
cases of moral injury.
In my experience, you have bothin the military and you have
both in the workplace.
Just in my view, it's shockinghow much more uh of the slow
turn that you described is inbusiness more so than in war.
(42:04):
You would think that's where youwould see that, right?
Yeah.
And and it's shocking uh assomeone who's experienced both
environments.
It's shocking to see thatactually in my experience.
It's not everyone's experience,but my experience seems to
happen more often in business,which kind of blows my mind.
SPEAKER_04 (42:20):
It does.
It does, Scott.
I'd I'd love to share one moreexample of chronic moral injury
uh moving in the direction ofempirical research, actually,
that we've been conducting.
SPEAKER_02 (42:30):
We love that.
SPEAKER_04 (42:30):
That same reference to the calling research that I
mentioned earlier with those500, technically 497 after a bit
of uh, you know, data cleanupwork.
In any case, what we found inthat research was really
striking within a healthcarecontext.
Since the COVID pandemic, loadsof healthcare practitioners have
(42:54):
been experiencing moral injury.
Did you know, according to thisresearch that we just conducted,
62.3% of healthcareprofessionals haven't lost their
desire to help people, but theybelieve that their ability to
pursue their work as a callingis structurally blocked by their
(43:15):
healthcare institution, which isprioritizing efficiency and by
virtue of that, reduce timespent with patients to get
there.
I think alarm bells should beringing when we realize that
private equity companies arebuying up healthcare
organizations by the drovesbecause they realize that they
can be run more efficiently.
(43:36):
It's a sad reality to mewhenever someone has to make a
decision.
Am I going to be a good employeeand play by the rules of my
institution that's prioritizingefficiency?
Or am I going to resist thepotential experience of chronic
moral injury and pursue myHippocratic oath to spend the
(43:58):
time that I need to spend withmy patients?
Patients in order to contributeto their flourishing.
And a lot of healthcarepractitioners realize that the
cost is too high.
You know, burnout naturally is,I think, a companion of moral
injury.
When we feel like ourinstitutions structurally block
us from being able to do theexcellent work that our callings
(44:21):
require of us, then of coursewe're going to feel burnt out.
We're not just going to feellike our values and convictions
have been transgressed, butwe're going to even lose a sense
of hope.
And as moral injury becomes morecomplex, which it often does in
these chronic cases, you know,one acute moment of moral injury
(44:42):
can be extremely traumatic forsomeone.
But I would suggest to you moreoften than not, the chronic
cases are the more complexcases.
There's a lot more that someonehas to process there.
There's a lot more they have towork through.
And when that happens, a senseof hope, a sense of meaning,
even a sense of identity beginsto break down for them.
(45:04):
When their moral assumptions areshattered, to borrow a phrase
from my friend Wes Fleming, amilitary moral injury researcher
that I think you guys shouldhave on the podcast.
When our worlds are shattered inthis way, we may even lose a
sense that there is meaningbeyond this world and beyond
(45:24):
these feelings that are insideof us.
We could even abandon our beliefin God because it's just too
hard to hold on to that hopeamidst all of the evils and the
atrocities that we're exposedto.
It's a very serious problem.
SPEAKER_02 (45:40):
That's John Rawls, right?
John Rawls finished his PhD.
He gets sent at the very end ofWorld War II to Japan.
And he's one, he's amongst thefirst to see what had happened
after we dropped the bombs andthe firebombing.
And he was a religious manbefore that.
And there's no way God there canbe a God with this happening.
SPEAKER_04 (45:57):
You know, Scott, I'd never made that connection
before.
That's an excellent point.
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (46:02):
You know, you mentioned private equity firms,
and I think also when I talk to,you know, I have a child that's
a medical student and a childthat uh recently graduated from
PA school.
And we hear it's it's not justprivate equity, it into the
schools where we're finding outabout the insurance companies
that are saying, hey, you'regiving out the wrong kind of
medicine, give this cheapermedicine out, or you're spending
way too long with patients.
We've got to get more in andout, in and out, bring that time
(46:24):
down.
And so experiencing this in sometype of medical professional
school, you're already gettingexposed to they're prepping you
for that.
But the other thing they'redoing, the beautiful thing that
they're doing in, you know,whether we're talking about
nursing school, PA school,medical school, uh, osteopathic
medicine, they're talking aboutyou need to connect with the
patient.
You know, I'm a person of acertain age, and I know that
(46:44):
every time, whether we'retalking about a military medical
doctor or we're talking about aprivate one, I would have to
rehearse what I wanted to say tomake sure I could get it out in
one breath.
Because when you're done,they're done.
You got to get that down, right?
But they're talking, you need tomake connection.
Look them in the eye, show thatyou have empathy, talking about
empathy and compassion.
But we're so used to accustomedtoday, don't touch people.
(47:06):
That's inappropriate.
But that touching the shoulderof the patient, showing you
care, you're looking them in theeye.
They're doing that in thesemedical professional schools
now.
And they're trying to encouragethem to increase the amount of
time they spend with a patient.
But the problem is then they getinto the real world, they get
accredited, and they go out andpractice, and that whole thing
starts all over again.
And you can see why, if this isa deeply held belief you have
(47:29):
about caring for people, andyou're being forced to hurry up
or not give them the right care,the right medicine, you could
see just like the example yougave in the case study, why
someone might do somethingdrastic like take their life.
SPEAKER_04 (47:40):
Yeah, absolutely, Scott.
I mean, what you're suggestingis that institutions are morally
formative.
And I think that's somethingthat we really need to sit with
as a society.
You know, I think a lot of timesin our culture of individualism
in America, we tend to thinkthat we're resilient enough to
(48:02):
not be formed by the sort ofdarker, shadowy side of our
social roles, that we can kindof compartmentalize that, and
it's not going to impact how Itreat my kids.
It's not going to impact how Itreat my spouse.
But anybody who's you knowexperienced uh a military
(48:26):
deployment or anyone who'sexperienced difficult tense work
situations realizes these thingsfollow you home.
There's no compartmentalizingthose realities.
And ultimately that suggeststhat the darker, shadowy side of
every social role that we occupyis significantly inhibiting our
(48:52):
flourishing, potentially.
Um I think we need to take thatvery seriously.
SPEAKER_02 (48:57):
You know, I I mentioned earlier we were going
to circle back to this, andthat's that time.
I want to talk about again theimportance of that you've
written about, the importance ofspiritual dimension and both the
causation and the healing ofmoral injury.
What is meaning, purpose, oreven transcendence play in
healing moral injury?
SPEAKER_04 (49:16):
Yeah, it's a great question.
So, you know, one of the thingsthat has happened recently in
the moral injury research is apush for what has been called
spiritually integrated cognitiveprocessing therapy.
And this is conducted by folkslike Harold Koenig and others at
(49:37):
Duke University.
What's going on here is thissuggestion that in order to
process this traumatic event, wefundamentally need the language
that only spirituality canprovide.
The language of forgiveness, thelanguage of sin, the language of
(49:58):
good, the language of evil, thelanguage of suffering, of hope,
making amends.
These are spiritual conceptsthat are deployed through
spiritual practices.
And spiritually integratedcognitive processing therapy is
(50:20):
a fancy way of essentially justusing spiritual practices to
restore hope, to help peoplemove through their anger and
reach a place of forgiveness.
SPEAKER_01 (50:39):
But I have one final question before we bring our
conversation to a close.
We've talked about philosophy,theology, and leadership today.
As you step back and look atyour work as a whole, what do
you hope leaders come to seedifferently about work, people,
and purpose?
SPEAKER_04 (50:57):
That's such a great question, Jason, and I
appreciate you concluding theconversation there.
You know, I recently lost a veryclose friend who is a mutual
friend to all of us on thispodcast today, and his name's
Bob Chapman.
In fact, the last podcastepisode that I recorded was with
Bob Chapman, and it it'sinteresting.
(51:20):
The concept that we were talkingabout was why you should think
about your eulogy.
In the spirit of carrying Bob'slegacy forward, I would say I
would hope that every leaderrecognizes that everyone under
their span of care is someone'sprecious child.
(51:42):
Whose responsibility is it tocare for those people as
someone's precious child?
Every leader's responsibility,because every leader shapes the
microculture that eithercultivates or crushes a person's
spirit.
Bob lived that message.
I can tell you that because Ispoke with him almost every
(52:04):
single week, trading notes insome way, shape, or form for the
last three and a half years orso of his life.
He lived every day thinkingabout his eulogy, thinking about
the kind of person that he wouldwant to be remembered as,
because he knew that it was waytoo easy to fall into the trap
(52:28):
of prioritizing success andachievement, just like we
started this conversation, youknow, talking about with Victor
Frankel, and how we miss thevery things that we're aiming
for when the focus is all aboutourselves.
So one of the exercises that Boband I have had the chance to do
all around the world indifferent contexts is help
(52:50):
people see the gap between whatthey're striving for and how
they want to be remembered, andto narrow that gap.
You know, when I ask mystudents, what are you striving
for?
It's usually, I'd love to have agreat job, I'd love to start a
family, I'd love to have a nicehouse.
I mean, it's the American dream.
Materialistic, consumeristic,these are inherent goods that we
(53:12):
need.
There's a big gap between whatwe're focusing on and what we're
striving for, and how we want tobe remembered.
When I ask that second question,how do you want to be
remembered?
the tone in the room shifts.
What do you think people say?
I'm curious.
What do you think people saywhen I ask, how do you want to
be remembered?
SPEAKER_02 (53:32):
Honest, courageous, kind, compassionate.
SPEAKER_04 (53:34):
Yeah.
Totally.
What about you, Jason?
SPEAKER_01 (53:37):
I think virtue.
There's a a lens through which Ithink most people want to be
remembered through the virtuesthat they embody.
SPEAKER_04 (53:46):
Yeah.
I carry mine with me.
It's in my backpack.
Now these are mine.
I want to be known as a man ofconviction.
I want to be known as someonewho's giving my life in service
of others.
I want to be known as somebodywho encourages other people.
I want to be known as a personof integrity.
I want to be known as someonewho's generous.
(54:08):
Bob helped me realize that.
I think if we live our livesthinking with the end in mind,
then we will be well equipped totreat everyone within our span
of care as someone's preciouschild.
SPEAKER_02 (54:24):
You know, I want to say, Gareth, that I'm incredibly
sorry for your loss.
I can't imagine what you'regoing through.
Uh, but what I can say is I'mgrateful that Bob was who he was
because he's left a legacy.
He's left people like you.
Uh, and that's so meaningful tohear you say those things.
And it just means that Bob maynot be physically here anymore,
(54:45):
but all the stuff he talkedabout, all the stuff he shared,
all the things he communicated,is still happening for people
like you and David and Brian andall the other people that remain
nameless that are listening thatknow him personally and knew him
personally.
So let's just I just want to endthis with saying I'm so grateful
for you.
I'm so grateful to know you andhave you on the podcast.
(55:06):
And thank you so much.
SPEAKER_04 (55:08):
Well, Scott, Jason, it is truly a pleasure, and I
hope this is the the first ofmany conversations to follow.
Uh and I'm grateful for yourtime and for your interest in my
work and just for allowing me toshare a little bit about the
things that have been convictingand uh the the burden that's
been on my heart for the lastten years.
(55:29):
So thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02 (55:31):
Grateful for you, Garrett.
SPEAKER_04 (55:33):
Yeah, man, same to you.
SPEAKER_02 (55:35):
What an extraordinary conversation with
Professor Garrett Potts.
One of the ideas that continuesto stay with me is Garrett's
reminder that flourishing isnever merely an individual
achievement.
It is something we cultivatetogether through our
relationships, our work, and ourshared pursuit of excellence.
I also loved his distinctionbetween empathy and compassion.
(55:55):
Empathy may begin withunderstanding another person's
experience, but compassion movesus toward caring action.
As Garrett beautifully put it,leadership calls us to combine
deep understanding with honestcare.
Throughout our conversation,Garrett challenged us to rethink
leadership itself, not as apursuit of influence or personal
success, but as a lifelongpractice of becoming the kind of
(56:17):
person whose character enablesothers to flourish.
That's exactly why I believeconversations like this matter.
If you enjoyed today's episode,I'd be grateful if you would
subscribe, leave a review, andshare this conversation with a
friend or colleague.
Every share helps us reach moreleaders who are committed to
building organizations andcommunities rooted in character,
(56:37):
wisdom, and human flourishing.
Thank you for spending part ofyour day with us.
And as always, lead withcharacter, live with purpose,
strive to flourish.
See you next time.
SPEAKER_00 (57:00):
Our narrator is Maggie Landsturd.
Our graphic designer is MaryEllen Miranda.
Our team music was composed byJeff D.
Doll and performed by TV.
Welcome to the Flourishing Leaders podcast.
In each episode, we bring youengaging conversations with
people who share their insights,strategies, and stories to
inspire and empower leaders atall levels to live flourishing
lives and be the best versionsof themselves.
Now, let's dive into the episodewith your host, Scott Parsons.
SPEAKER_02 (00:48):
Welcome to the Flourishing Leaders Podcast,
where stories become lessons andlessons become lives of meaning.
Together, we explore the virtuesand practices that help leaders
and communities flourish.
I'm your host, Scott Parsons,and I'm joined by my co-host,
the Polymath, Jason VR.
Today we have the privilege ofwelcoming Professor Garrett W.
Potts.
Garrett serves as professor ofleadership and ethics and is a
(01:10):
scholar whose work sits at theintersection of virtue ethics,
leadership, vocation, moralinjury, and organizational
flourishing.
Drawing deeply from philosophy,particularly the work of
Alistair McIntyre, Garrettchallenges many of our
assumptions about success, work,and leadership.
Rather than asking howorganizations can perform
better, he asks a far moreimportant question.
(01:32):
How can our work help us becomebetter human beings?
Our conversation explores whyflourishing is fundamentally
relational, why excellence andcharacter cannot be separated,
how empathy differs fromcompassion, and why leadership
requires us to care for thewhole person, body, mind, and
spirit.
We also discuss moral injurybeyond the military, the
importance of community inshaping character, and why
(01:54):
vocation is ultimately aboutserving something larger than
ourselves.
This is one of thoseconversations that invites
reflection long after therecording ends.
So whether you're leading abusiness, serving in education,
healthcare, government, themilitary, a nonprofit, or simply
striving to become a betterleader in your own family and
community, I think you'll findGarrett's insight both
challenging and deeplyencouraging.
(02:16):
Without further ado, here's ourconversation with Professor
Garrett Potts.
Garrett, thank you for joiningJason and me on the Flourishing
Leaders Podcast.
SPEAKER_04 (02:24):
Scott, Jason, it is an honor and a pleasure.
I'm so glad to be uh on thispodcast with you, especially
after uh so many other wonderfulguests uh prior to me.
It's truly an honor.
So thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_02 (02:37):
That's really kind of you to say.
And you know, Garrett, before wejump into the first question, I
just want to say how much Jasonand I have been looking forward
to this conversation.
We have been talking about itfor weeks.
Uh, this pops up at the weirdesttimes.
We have this conversation, youcome up.
And I think it's because we haveso many similar interests and
academically and otherwise.
And your work sits at a reallypowerful intersection: virtue
(02:59):
ethics, calling, moral injury,leadership, and it resonates
deeply with both Jason and me.
As someone who has spent much ofmy life in the military and
having six combat deploymentsbetween the pair of us, the idea
of moral injury is not just anacademic concept for us.
It's something we've seen,something we felt, and something
we continue to reflect on.
And what I appreciate so muchabout your work is that you
(03:20):
don't treat these topics inisolation.
You're asking deeper questionsabout what it means to be a good
person, what it means to pursueexcellence and practices, what
happens when institutions failus, and how we make sense of
work, purpose, and evensuffering in the midst of all
that.
It feels like your work isinviting us into a more
integrated vision of leadership,one that takes seriously the
body, the mind, and the spirit.
(03:42):
I'm really looking forward totalking to you about Spirit
Leader, and one that recognizesthat flourishing isn't just
about performance, but aboutbecoming a certain kind of
person in the world.
So, Jason and I are reallygrateful for your work, and
we're grateful for the chance toexplore these ideas together
today.
And with that, let me ask youour opening question.
What does the phrase flourishingleader mean to you?
SPEAKER_04 (04:02):
Yeah, absolutely.
It's a great question.
Let me just back up for onemoment and say thank you both
for your service across your sixcombat deployments.
Because as I have sat withmilitary veterans over the last
10 years, and as I've studiedmoral injury, I recognize that
freedom, you know, we often saythis, but I really, really do
(04:25):
understand this now through thisresearch.
Freedom comes at a cost.
It is not free.
And I am tremendously gratefulfor the sacrifices that you've
made for us and uh that yourfamilies bore with you.
I'm grateful for them too.
You know, for me, I think thatnaturally segues into my
understanding of flourishing aswell, because flourishing is
(04:46):
inherently relational.
I really think of flourishing ashaving four macronutrients.
Let's start with the relationalcomponent, since I mentioned
that first.
The relational component is allabout how my life is connected
to others beyond myself.
You're flourishing, Scott,you're flourishing, Jason.
My flourishing is connected toall of the lives within my span
(05:10):
of care across all of the socialroles that I occupy.
Relational well-being is anabsolute necessity for human
flourishing.
Beyond that, though, I'm goingto borrow a little bit from my
friends, the Yale Center forFaith and Culture.
I had the honor and theprivilege of participating in
(05:30):
some of their programming forthe Joy in Human Flourishing
Project when I was in graduateschool.
Some friends like Mirzlav Wolfand Matt Crossman and Ryan
McNally Lenz as well.
Also articulate some otherelements of flourishing that's
really important.
So the relational aspect, you'vealso got the effective aspect.
Now that's a fancy word forsaying our feelings or our
(05:54):
emotions.
In our culture today, we reallytend to harp on that, don't we?
Because so much of our livedexperience has been internalized
as with respect to what ourculture is paying attention to.
Beyond the effective, you alsohave the agential component.
So the agential component is,you know, what kind of person am
I becoming?
(06:14):
How is my character developing?
And then finally, you have thecircumstantial component.
And that's, you know, how's mylife going?
What's happening in my sphere ofinfluence?
So the effective, the agential,the circumstantial, and the
relational.
These are the fourmacronutrients of human
(06:34):
flourishing as I see it.
SPEAKER_02 (06:36):
That's beautiful.
SPEAKER_01 (06:37):
Yeah, I love that, Garrett.
And I love this circumstantialat the end and realizing that we
are all living in a moment.
All of our actions are containedin a moment and they're all
situated within a largerenvironment.
SPEAKER_04 (06:51):
That's right, Jason.
And you know, some of my broaderwork outside of my role at the
University of South Florida,also in partnership with Eckert
College and the LeadershipDevelopment Institute, is really
looking at ways in which we canunderstand flourishing and we
can kind of focus on the thingsthat are within our ability to
control and also the things thatwe have to accept sometimes.
(07:13):
And the reality about humanflourishing is that there are
some elements of humanflourishing that go to some
extent beyond our control.
And the circumstantial componentis one of those components.
But there is so much, so muchwithin the realm of control that
we can do to grow in our questfor the good life, to pursue
(07:35):
good work, to become aflourishing leader.
SPEAKER_01 (07:39):
I love it, Garrett.
And let's go right to it.
Pursuing good work.
Your book, Work is a Callingfrom Meaningful Work to Good
Work.
In your book, you push back onoverly individualistic notions
of finding meaning.
What do you think most peoplemisunderstand about calling?
SPEAKER_04 (07:58):
Yeah, that's a great question, Jason.
And I can tell you've engagedwith my work because you really
hit the nail in the head as faras the thesis goes.
And we've actually kind of beendoing some empirical work
recently to back up thattheoretical project, which I'm
really excited to share withyou.
It's not even published yet, sothis is very fresh.
But essentially, I would saythis when the end of someone's
(08:21):
calling becomes self-focused,callings become self-defeating.
Victor Frankel said it best whenhe said happiness and success
are not things you can arrive atdirectly.
They ensue as a result of younot paying attention to them
because you're caring about morenoble causes.
(08:42):
Maybe it's relationships.
Maybe it's that noble cause thatyou care about in the workplace.
Hey, maybe it's just awillingness to courageously
stand up for something that youare convicted about, even if
you're going to get persecutedfor it.
I've experienced that.
It sucks.
But you know what?
There's deep meaning to be foundthere.
(09:03):
I'm sure you guys haveexperienced that too.
Here's what's really, reallyinteresting.
As I've started to move in thedirection of empiricism and
social science, we've justrecently pulled 500 workers.
And what we found wasindividuals whose work is
self-focused, individuals whosesense of calling is
(09:26):
self-focused, have a strongcorrelation with what the world
of psychology calls the darktriad.
And the name is a disclaimer,you don't want to have these
character traits.
We're talking narcissism, we'retalking Machiavellianism, we're
talking psychopathic behaviors,right?
(09:47):
So what's really, reallyinteresting about this is, you
know, the person whose work isoriented toward others, this is
also what the research shows, isdramatically less likely to be
the kind of leader whomanipulates, who exploits, or
who steamrolls people aroundthem.
But here's the issue as I seeit.
(10:09):
Without intending to do so, alot of the contemporary
literature on work as a callingis so internally focused on that
effective component of humanflourishing that it's leading
people to pursue self-focusedcallings in ways that are not
personally fulfilling, as welearned from Frankel.
And as we also learn from thisrecent empirical research from
(10:31):
some good friends in my collegeof business, Mukta and Russell
Clayton, you know, psychopathicbehaviors like thrill-seeking,
impulsivity, shallow emotionalresponses, no remorse or
empathy, uh, manipulation andservice of self-interest, that's
Machiavellianism, right?
Narcissism.
I mean, these are not thingsthat we celebrate in the
(10:53):
workplace.
We want to ward those off likethe plague.
And what I'm suggesting to youis exactly what we found in the
research.
Other focused callings are thestrongest predictor for warding
off that dark triad ofnarcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathic behaviors.
SPEAKER_02 (11:11):
That is fascinating.
And I have to say that on onehand, I'm super glad that folks,
you heard this first here on theFlourishing Leaders podcast.
That's right.
But I'm a little sad that Ican't read the report.
I'll get it to you ahead oftime.
I love that.
That's fascinating.
You know, and we often talkedabout that dark triad and talked
about, you know, leaders who areself-focused, and you you find
(11:34):
yourself in these situationswhere it's a service to help
other people, and you findyourself in these situations
where you have these leadersthat are there, and you're like,
why are they here?
They don't really fit, but theybehave in the way you said.
And I, you know, I have to saythat, and I know you've been
affiliated with them in the pasttoo.
I teaching currently a level onecourse of the humanistic
leadership academy.
And we were talking this morningabout the same idea about uh
(11:57):
self-focus and other focus, andit was just it was an echo
chamber.
Let's be honest.
It was just a beautiful thing tobe around a bunch of people that
all they want to do is helppeople.
That's great.
But what do you do in thosemoments when you find yourself
in situations, you know,standing courageously, you
talked about that earlier.
Sometimes I've been able to dothat, and sometimes I haven't.
I haven't been able to do that.
(12:17):
And you have to hold on to thatfor a long time.
And we we'll probably get tothat idea when we talk about
moral injury later.
SPEAKER_04 (12:23):
But I'm just definitely connected,
absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (12:26):
Yeah.
You know, I just want to saythat in your book, you
distinguish between meaningfulwork and good work.
What is the difference?
Maybe I can ask, what's thedifference between meaningful
work and good work?
And why does that distinctionmatter for leaders and
organizations?
SPEAKER_04 (12:40):
Such a great question, Scott.
And I really appreciate youasking it.
So my understanding ofmeaningful work is uh much like
the understanding ofself-focused calling.
Meaningful work leads to alionization of the ego.
Meaningful work is about me,it's about my personal feelings
and preferences in theworkplace.
(13:01):
And the buck really kind ofstops there, right?
It doesn't have to, but it oftendoes in the way that workplace
meaningfulness is defined andthe way that workplace
meaningfulness is tested.
Sometimes the language of thecommon good is referenced as a
(13:22):
part of meaning in theworkplace, but this is kind of
an empty phrase without moresubstance behind it.
And the language of goodnessinvites in that substance, which
really brings us back to what Icall a kind of three-legged
stool of good work or work as acalling.
(13:45):
And the focus is really oncraft, it's on character, and
it's on community.
So if we break down anunderstanding of good work as a
way of trying to push beyondpersonal experiences of
meaningfulness, because afterall, like the goal here is to
actually deliver this for peopleso that we can ensure that
(14:06):
people are flourishing in theworkplace and people's lives are
touched by the products thatwe're producing, right?
Frankel tells us thatself-focused work is
self-defeating.
This three-legged stool approachis really prioritizing
excellence in the workplace,which is the notion of craft,
right?
To do something with excellence.
(14:29):
So you think about, you know, uha woodworker and the attention
to detail in constructing abeautiful dining room table, all
of the practical wisdom, thelearning from success and
failure that goes into that.
This woodworker cares so muchabout his craft.
(14:50):
He's learned from the past.
He wants to build somethingthat's gonna last.
He wants to build somethingthat's going to stand the test
of time in terms of, you know,I'm a Floridian, so uh the
expansion and contrast of woodbecause of the humidity down
here.
So excellence is the first ofthat three-legged stool, this
craft notion of excellence.
(15:11):
But then we get into character.
When you commit to doingsomething with that standard of
excellence in mind, that ismorally formative, both
intellectually and morally,right?
So, what I mean by that is I'vereferenced the virtue of
practical wisdom already.
Think about the first thing, ifyou've ever built something
(15:33):
before, or you know, the firstthing that you've ever built,
and then think about somethingmaybe 10 years later that you
worked on.
I mean, for me, I'm I'm obsessedwith garage projects.
I have a four-year-old son namedOliver, and we've done lots of
fun projects together, but youcan see how my work has gotten
less sloppy over time as I'vecontinued to learn from my
(15:57):
successes and failures inpractice.
I've been known to break acouple of engines in my day as I
was learning how to work on uh,you know, gas and diesel-powered
engines, for example.
You know, when you're tested inthese ways in pursuit of
excellence, it's not about yourpreferences.
(16:18):
And that's what the meaningfulwork discourse misses.
It's not about my preferences.
No, I have to surrender myimmediate desires and instincts
to standards of excellence thatare a part of this long-standing
tradition in order for me to dosomething well.
My character is being formedthrough that.
I'm becoming more patientbecause I realize what's at
(16:39):
stake.
I realize how costly trying torush something, you know, can be
in the long term.
Uh, I'm becoming moretechnically wise, more
technically proficient in thework that I'm doing.
We've talked about the craftcomponent as one leg of the
stool.
We've talked about the charactercomponent as another leg of the
(17:00):
stool.
We've seen how these things aremutually reinforcing.
By pursuing excellence in mycraft, I'm growing in my agency,
both intellectually and morally.
My character is being shapedthrough submitting my desires to
a standard of excellence inpractice.
Now, how does that impact thelives that are touched by my
(17:24):
work?
Well, that's the third componentof good work.
That's a third component of another focused calling.
We're talking about communityhere.
That's the third leg.
And without that third leg, thisstool cannot stand.
And there is a lot of researchout there which focuses so much
(17:45):
on meaning that it misses thecommunal leg of the stool.
The communal leg of the stool isabsolutely imperative because
without that, we aredisconnected from the lives that
our organizations are touching,and we must be connected to them
(18:08):
so that we know how ourexcellent work is making a
difference, is touching thelives of other people.
I mean, isn't that what goodwork is all about?
Every work that you couldimagine, every kind of work that
you could imagine has someunique end that it can deliver.
And it's not money, that's ameans to an end.
(18:30):
Right.
You know, we have to be focusedon the community to understand
what it is that they need, whattheir pain points are, and how
our excellent work can servethem.
And here's the really excitingpart when you put all three of
these legs together, craft,character, and community, you
(18:50):
have a self-transcendent visionof work as a calling, which
broadens your horizon andconnects you to so many more
people beyond yourself than aself-focused calling ever could,
ever would.
It requires humility, itrequires vulnerability, it
requires courage, requirespatience, requires
(19:14):
self-discipline, the willingnessto be tutored for a long time.
You know?
And I think sometimes we want tokind of shortcut that whole
process.
But it's absolutely imperativethat we we learn from others
within the same tradition as us,who have excelled in the work
that we wish to do well, that weidentify the character traits
(19:38):
that allow them to do that withexcellence.
And we see how those charactertraits both cultivate excellence
by and impact the community, butalso spill over into other areas
of their lives.
And that's what's so excitingabout work as a calling to me.
I love the ways that I get to,you know, work with students and
(20:00):
uh executives all around theworld to help them think through
their pain points.
But for me, as I'm exercising,you know, my mind in that
practice, I'm also growing inways that spill over into other
areas of my life.
And you know, Scott Jason, thisis what uh our mutual friend Bob
(20:21):
Chapman knew so well.
He knew that if you couldcultivate character in the
workplace, that's gonna makesomeone a better father.
That's gonna make someone abetter husband, that's gonna
make someone a better friend.
Because these virtues that arerequired to do work well are
(20:42):
also required to do any othernon-paid form of work well, such
as caring for children or justbeing a good friend.
SPEAKER_02 (20:55):
I love that.
That's beautiful.
SPEAKER_01 (20:57):
Yeah, Garrett, that vision of transcendence, the
three legs of the stool, youhave your intellectual going for
the excellence, your moral,going for the formative, and
then the community, otherfocused calling is so powerful.
And I can see how one with thatmindset would commit many more
(21:17):
pro-social acts, and many actsthat would benefit one's
neighbor, one's neighborhood,one's entire community and our
entire planet.
SPEAKER_04 (21:28):
Well said, Jason.
SPEAKER_01 (21:30):
And Garrett, you mentioned our friend Bob
Chapman, and I've been thinkinga lot about him lately, and I
love that your work also deeplyemphasizes empathy and active
listening.
It's one of those concepts thatwe don't talk about enough,
especially across religious andcultural differences.
(21:51):
So I would love to know how doesdeep empathy actually require a
leader to intellectually andMorally listen in a way to
understand this proof.
SPEAKER_04 (22:05):
Really, really great question, Jason.
I'm I'm so glad you asked it.
And I'm struck by the timelinessof your question because my
friend David Pickersgill, whoyou just had on on episode 48, I
think it was, of your podcast,uh conducted a listening like a
leader session for myresponsible leadership in the
good life students here at USFabout two hours ago.
(22:26):
And what we talked about in thatclass was Brene Brown's concept
of empathy, which I think is sorelevant here.
For Brown, you know, she talksabout really kind of four
elements of empathy in order topromote what you're emphasizing
here, Jason.
And the first is perspectivetaking.
We have to be able to take onsomeone else's story.
(22:50):
We are ultimately storytellingbeings.
We understand our lives throughstory.
And without being able to takeon someone else's story, we have
no shot of being empathetic orproviding a sense that someone
within our span of care isempathetically cared for.
(23:11):
So that's priority number one.
Number two, Jason, you reallyhit the nail on the head here
when you say, you know, look, wefind ourselves in these rich,
diverse, pluralistic culturalcontexts.
And oftentimes we miss the redthread of our humanity that ties
us all together in that.
(23:33):
So the second fundamentalcomponent of empathy, according
to Brene Brown, is thewithholding of judgment.
We have to be able to withholdjudgment in order to empathize
well with others.
Well, what do we do then?
If we're withholding judgment,what do we offer?
We offer an engagement withtheir feelings.
(23:55):
And this is something I'velearned through my work uh at
the Leadership DevelopmentInstitute at Eckert College.
And I'll credit them as well asthe Center for Creative
Leadership that we're inpartnership with for this.
There are different things thatwe can listen for.
And when we just engage withpeople's facts, you know,
(24:16):
sometimes that feels more likesympathy than empathy.
But we can also listen forfeelings and we can also listen
for values.
And that's a radical differencethere when you start listening
for feelings and values as well,and you start calling those
feelings out.
It's a difference between, asBrene Brown says, you know,
(24:38):
beginning a statement with, oh,at least or or not.
So, you know, Brene Brown says,generally speaking, rarely does
an empathetic response beginwith at least, hey, you know, I
just lost my mom.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Well, at least your dad's stillalive.
You know, yikes.
That's that's a wrong turn.
(24:59):
How can we focus on engagingwith feelings and not just
facts?
How can we call those feelingsout so that someone feels seen,
recognized, heard?
I mean, isn't the goal oflistening like a leader at the
end of the day to make someonefeel seen, to make someone feel
recognized, to make someone feelheard?
(25:19):
Isn't so much of a crisis ofleadership today a lack of
recognition?
Isn't the very problem of moralinjury even uh rooted in that to
some extent, actually?
SPEAKER_02 (25:30):
Yeah, absolutely.
I love that.
And I love I love that you usedBrene Brown and and her four
qualities.
I think those are important.
And I think if anyone were, ifthey're curious, would just take
the time to put that intopractice and just test it out.
Just, you know, you talked aboutempirical evidence earlier.
Go out and just test it and setaside your emotion,
compartmentalize things, andjust take an example, maybe
(25:53):
something that you're notparticularly interested or
vested in, and do that, right?
And if you do that, you're ableto take away judgment because
you kind of don't care, right?
And then you can bring incuriosity, you know, if we want
to cite my favorite philosopher,Ted Lasso, uh be curious, not
judgmental, right?
But but I love the idea of justtaking a test, take something
(26:13):
that where you're not, you haveno vested interests, and try to
apply these principles and thinkthrough it, and you'll see that
it works.
What she says works.
SPEAKER_04 (26:22):
Absolutely.
I'll give you one more BreneBrown nugget, and this one's
mostly just for my wife, Ashley,because she loves Brene Brown.
She says this when she's talkingabout empathy, she says, you
know, remember, it's not yourwords, it's the connection that
you make that counts.
It reminds me of uh, you know,Mile Angelo's quote uh people
(26:43):
will forget what you said,people will forget what you did.
Nobody will ever forget how youmade them feel.
SPEAKER_02 (26:50):
It's absolutely true.
I love that.
You know, Garrett, at theInstitute for Character and
Leadership, Fairley DickinsonUniversity, where I work, my
colleagues and co-founders ofthe Empathy Center, Dr.
Ben Freer and Dr.
Steve Dranoff, are doing a lotof work around empathy, both on
campus as well as acrosshealthcare, education, and
business.
Where do you see empathy goingwrong in leadership and how do
we cultivate empathy that isboth compassionate and grounded
(27:13):
in truth?
SPEAKER_04 (27:14):
It's such a good question, Scott.
You know, because empathy issomething we really have raised
up to be something like a virtuethat we celebrate, and for good
reason today.
But the reality is it cancollapse into just mere
emotional mirroring, which is tosay that, you know, we're just
feeling what the other personfeels.
And we're feeling all the feelsso strongly that maybe we're
(27:37):
even losing our own moralfooting, such that we're just
simply ratifying theirexperience rather than actually
serving their good.
SPEAKER_02 (27:46):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (27:47):
That's the danger of empathy.
That's the empathy trap.
What I would say uh the virtueof empathy requires is both the
intellectual and the moraldiscipline to understand another
person's framework deeply whileretaining the capacity to tell
(28:07):
them the truth.
So that's the combination.
Like deep understanding plushonest care.
That honest care component iswhat gets us out of the empathy
trap where it's just mirroringof emotional feelings.
So when we can combine deepunderstanding plus honest care,
you know, that's actually a lotcloser to what scholars like
(28:28):
Arthur Brooks would callcompassion than what
contemporary culture sometimesreduces empathy to.
So, Scott, that's why I was soexcited to see that even in your
definition of empathy, you usethe language of compassion.
SPEAKER_02 (28:44):
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's interestingbecause I've had this
conversation with a lot ofpeople.
A lot of people want to promoteempathy, but they don't
understand it within the contextthat it's a virtue.
Well, it can be, and it also canbe, as you broke it down.
And there's a lot of old schoolvirtue ethicists and character
people that are like, no, no,no, use compassion, not empathy.
But I'm seeing now, especiallywith the work of Ben Freer, my
(29:06):
colleague and dear friend, thatempathy can be used as a virtue.
It can actually be a virtue.
And let's be honest, if you takeany character strength and you
use too much of it or not enoughof it, it's a vice of excess or
deficiency.
It's not a virtue.
So if you're using empathy inthe right way, as you described,
I think it is a virtue.
SPEAKER_04 (29:24):
I couldn't agree with you more, Scott.
SPEAKER_01 (29:27):
And I love this idea of the intellectual and the
moral understanding mixed withthe honest care.
And I think when you add thathonest care component, you can
really focus not only on theemotion, not only on that
moment, but on the whole person.
And Scott and I are retired armyofficers, and we found your
(29:48):
chapter on caring for the wholesoldier after COVID-19
fascinating.
In your chapter, you describethe body, mind, spirit model.
What does it look like inpractice to care for the whole
person in a high-performanceenvironment like the military or
even in some corporate settings?
SPEAKER_04 (30:06):
Yeah, it's a really great question, Jason.
And I appreciate you engagingwith my research.
That was a really fun project Igot to do uh with SINTCOM and uh
some other folks within theUnited States military and some
colleagues in my department hereas part of a great power
competition series that we'redoing at the University of South
(30:27):
Florida, which is looking atthis kind of tension between
China, Russia, and the UnitedStates and is asking these
important questions.
And one of the things werealized is that unfortunately,
I had the awkward sort ofexperience of saying this to
military leaders, I don't knowif we're prepared enough when it
(30:47):
comes to the spiritualcomponent.
Because what has happened iswe've focused so much on, you
know, time in the gym andmindfulness apps for the mind.
But where's the spiritualcomponent?
So if you look at total forcefitness, which is something that
was released by the JointChiefs, uh, it entails multiple
(31:09):
dimensions to promote soldiers'bodily health and their mental
health.
Some of the things that they'repaying attention to are things
like our physical well-being,our nutritional well-being, our
medical well-being, ourenvironmental well-being.
Those are all elements of ourbodily health, right?
And then they turn to mentalhealth and they say, well, this
(31:29):
is about psychologicalwell-being.
We recognize that something thatcan be disruptive to
psychological well-being can beyour financial state.
So that's a part of it as well.
So too is your relationships,the social dimension.
And then they kind of just putthe word spiritual in there with
soldiers' mental health.
(31:50):
So spirituality gets collapsedinto the mind of the soldier.
And what I've argued for israther than a two-dimensional
model of soldiers, let'sacknowledge the
three-dimensional model of ourhumanity, which entails a
recognition of our bodilyhealth, our mental health, and
(32:12):
our spiritual well-being.
Let's call out the specificelements of spirituality rather
than just collapsing spirituallysignificant things into our
mental well-being.
What are the important spiritualelements that we need to
consider?
As a soldier, as an employee ora team member, or even as a
(32:37):
parent or a husband, I thinkthey're all the same.
If we want to promote someone'sspiritual well-being, there are
really four things that we needto attend to.
And this is what I really callthe joint chiefs to do.
Help soldiers understand howtheir lives are connected to
others beyond themselves.
And I don't just mean horizontalrelationships with other human
(33:01):
beings.
I also include the verticaldimension in that, a relation to
the divine.
The second component is oursense of meaning and purpose.
It is a morally injuriousexperience for someone to face a
combat situation or a boardroomsituation that conflicts with
(33:23):
their ultimate sense of whatthey believe is good and
beautiful and true.
So we also have to reallyconsider their values and
beliefs as well.
What are their values andbeliefs?
And also, what are the practicesthat reinforce those behaviors?
Remember how we were talkingabout good work and this notion
(33:44):
of craftsmanship, the pursuit ofexcellence within a specific
practice, whether it'swoodworking or diesel mechanics
or uh some other practice.
There are spiritual disciplinesas well.
There's spiritual practices thatpeople require for human
flourishing.
And these spiritual practicesare diverse and they're not all
(34:05):
universally shared, but some ofthem include things like prayer,
meditation, yoga, other forms ofmindfulness, and the
possibilities that open up forsoldiers and for team members of
workplace environments, or evenbetween spouses, when you can
start to take seriouslysomeone's need for transcendent
(34:27):
connection, when you can startto engage with someone's
narrated sense of purpose, theirquest for the good life, when
you can start to engage them inconversation about what they
believe and how their beliefsshape the way that they see and
understand good work in thiscontext.
(34:49):
And if you can provide them withscriptures from their tradition,
time for reflection or prayer ormeditation or something like
this, I'm suggesting to you,because the data suggests it to
me, this is just as important asprioritizing the mind and the
body.
And there's so much to thespiritual dimension as evidenced
by the fact we've been talkingabout this for a few minutes,
(35:09):
that I just don't think that youcan capture it under the
category of a soldier's mentalhealth or a team member's mental
health.
I think it deserves its owndimension.
And that's why I push for atri-dimensional account of the
soldier in that piece.
SPEAKER_01 (35:32):
It is deeply needed and extremely relevant.
And thank you for expanding thisthree-dimensional model of
humanity and transcendence forall.
SPEAKER_04 (35:42):
I really appreciate that, Jason, especially coming
from you and your service.
That means a lot.
SPEAKER_02 (35:47):
You know, what I thought about it was that Greek
phrase of tokolon or the thenoble and the beautiful, right?
And that's what I think aboutwhen I think about those times
that you know I was deployed andthink about those moments.
And we're gonna, in a fewquestions, we're gonna get more
in depth of moral injury.
I don't want to go there now,but I just want to alert us and
the listener that we're gonnacircle back to this, what what
you've been talking about.
(36:08):
Garrett, I want to return tosomething that I referenced at
the beginning of the episode.
As I mentioned, the idea ofmoral injury isn't abstract for
Jason and me.
You've done important workdistinguishing between acute
moral injury and chronic moralinjury.
Can you help our listenersunderstand that distinction and
why that matters?
SPEAKER_04 (36:24):
Absolutely, Scott.
So this is something that Iworked on with uh a colleague
and a very close friend of mine.
Her name's Lily Abaddal.
When we started looking into themoral injury literature
together, one of the things thatLily helped me to see is so many
experiences of moral injury arearticulated in these acute
moments.
Jason Scott, you know this well.
(36:45):
I mean, moral injury began in amilitary context.
This emerged from the militaryliterature.
Think about the conviction-basedreality of a child caught in the
crossfire.
Think about the conviction-basedreality of uh someone commanding
(37:07):
you to do something thatviolates or transgresses your
deeply held values orconvictions.
Think about it in terms of aone-off event, right?
Uh perhaps someone says, hey,cover for me.
I'm gonna go out with this girland give her too many drinks,
and uh I need you to make itseem like everything's okay.
(37:30):
That is a moment of acute moralinjury, potentially, because any
moment of moral injury ispreceded by what we call a
potentially morally injuriousexperience.
So, what I mean by that is whenyour superior says, cover for
(37:51):
me, that is a potentiallymorally injurious experience.
It's my job to narrate that andto understand that and to
determine whether it violates myconvictions about human dignity,
which it does very much, by theway.
An acute moment of moral injury,such as sexual abuse or a child
(38:12):
caught in crossfire, is verydifferent from the slow churn of
an organization or aninstitution or a leader who
repeatedly dehumanizes others bywhat they pursue and prioritize.
So let me give you one examplefrom the case study that Lily
(38:35):
and I conducted as co-authors inthis development of the idea of
chronic moral injury.
You have this woman, her name'sElizabeth Holmes, uh, and she
started this company, Theranos,right?
And Elizabeth Holmes is uh avery Machivelian personality who
essentially described herself toothers as the female version of
(38:57):
Steve Jobs, and she reallydressed the part.
She was able to get a ton ofmoney from large, large
investors to create a newtechnology that with a single
prick, a single drop of bloodcould test for a whole host of
all these different diseases.
(39:18):
We'll come to find out what'sactually happening in the back
of Walgreens and these otherplaces where Theranosis
technology is delivered, isvials and vials of blood are
being taken.
Elizabeth Holmes has this leadchemist, his name is Ian
Gibbons, and Ian Gibbons has toput up with the reality of where
(39:39):
the science is not yet, and themessaging of Elizabeth Holmes to
the investors, which suggeststhat we're already doing this.
There's not just one particularmoment or instance in this
leadership crisis that'shappening.
(39:59):
Here you have the practice ofchemistry being corrupted
deliberately by a leader.
And Ian Gibbons is someone whoprioritizes excellence in his
craft.
He's feeling the inner conflictof this, but he's also dying of
cancer at the same time.
And he needs a healthcare policythat Elizabeth Holmes'
(40:22):
organization is providing him.
Ian Gibbons ultimatelyterminates his own life before
going to trial to testify aboutwhat happened at Theranos.
That is a case of chronic moralinjury.
That is a case of a slow churnwithin an organizational leader
context where you have someoneat the top prioritizing
(40:45):
something other than excellencein practice, the cultivation of
character and contributing tothe flourishing of communities
that our organization reaches.
And as a result, people get hurtin the process.
So we felt like it was reallyimportant to make that
distinction between acute andchronic moments.
And especially when you startthinking about workplace
(41:06):
contexts, you know, you mightbegin to ask this question how
does the language that ourleaders use contribute to
dehumanization?
You know, when we use languagelike span of control or
supervisor, there's a kind ofscience of management approach
(41:26):
that is reducing people tofunctions.
And that experience isinherently dehumanizing.
That can be a morally injuriousexperience.
So we think there's a lot ofinstitutional contexts where
this account of chronic moralinjury applies.
SPEAKER_02 (41:42):
That's fascinating.
And yeah, it you know, you haveboth chronic and you have acute
cases of moral injury.
In my experience, you have bothin the military and you have
both in the workplace.
Just in my view, it's shockinghow much more uh of the slow
turn that you described is inbusiness more so than in war.
(42:04):
You would think that's where youwould see that, right?
Yeah.
And and it's shocking uh assomeone who's experienced both
environments.
It's shocking to see thatactually in my experience.
It's not everyone's experience,but my experience seems to
happen more often in business,which kind of blows my mind.
SPEAKER_04 (42:20):
It does.
It does, Scott.
I'd I'd love to share one moreexample of chronic moral injury
uh moving in the direction ofempirical research, actually,
that we've been conducting.
SPEAKER_02 (42:30):
We love that.
SPEAKER_04 (42:30):
That same reference to the calling research that I
mentioned earlier with those500, technically 497 after a bit
of uh, you know, data cleanupwork.
In any case, what we found inthat research was really
striking within a healthcarecontext.
Since the COVID pandemic, loadsof healthcare practitioners have
(42:54):
been experiencing moral injury.
Did you know, according to thisresearch that we just conducted,
62.3% of healthcareprofessionals haven't lost their
desire to help people, but theybelieve that their ability to
pursue their work as a callingis structurally blocked by their
(43:15):
healthcare institution, which isprioritizing efficiency and by
virtue of that, reduce timespent with patients to get
there.
I think alarm bells should beringing when we realize that
private equity companies arebuying up healthcare
organizations by the drovesbecause they realize that they
can be run more efficiently.
(43:36):
It's a sad reality to mewhenever someone has to make a
decision.
Am I going to be a good employeeand play by the rules of my
institution that's prioritizingefficiency?
Or am I going to resist thepotential experience of chronic
moral injury and pursue myHippocratic oath to spend the
(43:58):
time that I need to spend withmy patients?
Patients in order to contributeto their flourishing.
And a lot of healthcarepractitioners realize that the
cost is too high.
You know, burnout naturally is,I think, a companion of moral
injury.
When we feel like ourinstitutions structurally block
us from being able to do theexcellent work that our callings
(44:21):
require of us, then of coursewe're going to feel burnt out.
We're not just going to feellike our values and convictions
have been transgressed, butwe're going to even lose a sense
of hope.
And as moral injury becomes morecomplex, which it often does in
these chronic cases, you know,one acute moment of moral injury
(44:42):
can be extremely traumatic forsomeone.
But I would suggest to you moreoften than not, the chronic
cases are the more complexcases.
There's a lot more that someonehas to process there.
There's a lot more they have towork through.
And when that happens, a senseof hope, a sense of meaning,
even a sense of identity beginsto break down for them.
(45:04):
When their moral assumptions areshattered, to borrow a phrase
from my friend Wes Fleming, amilitary moral injury researcher
that I think you guys shouldhave on the podcast.
When our worlds are shattered inthis way, we may even lose a
sense that there is meaningbeyond this world and beyond
(45:24):
these feelings that are insideof us.
We could even abandon our beliefin God because it's just too
hard to hold on to that hopeamidst all of the evils and the
atrocities that we're exposedto.
It's a very serious problem.
SPEAKER_02 (45:40):
That's John Rawls, right?
John Rawls finished his PhD.
He gets sent at the very end ofWorld War II to Japan.
And he's one, he's amongst thefirst to see what had happened
after we dropped the bombs andthe firebombing.
And he was a religious manbefore that.
And there's no way God there canbe a God with this happening.
SPEAKER_04 (45:57):
You know, Scott, I'd never made that connection
before.
That's an excellent point.
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (46:02):
You know, you mentioned private equity firms,
and I think also when I talk to,you know, I have a child that's
a medical student and a childthat uh recently graduated from
PA school.
And we hear it's it's not justprivate equity, it into the
schools where we're finding outabout the insurance companies
that are saying, hey, you'regiving out the wrong kind of
medicine, give this cheapermedicine out, or you're spending
way too long with patients.
We've got to get more in andout, in and out, bring that time
(46:24):
down.
And so experiencing this in sometype of medical professional
school, you're already gettingexposed to they're prepping you
for that.
But the other thing they'redoing, the beautiful thing that
they're doing in, you know,whether we're talking about
nursing school, PA school,medical school, uh, osteopathic
medicine, they're talking aboutyou need to connect with the
patient.
You know, I'm a person of acertain age, and I know that
(46:44):
every time, whether we'retalking about a military medical
doctor or we're talking about aprivate one, I would have to
rehearse what I wanted to say tomake sure I could get it out in
one breath.
Because when you're done,they're done.
You got to get that down, right?
But they're talking, you need tomake connection.
Look them in the eye, show thatyou have empathy, talking about
empathy and compassion.
But we're so used to accustomedtoday, don't touch people.
(47:06):
That's inappropriate.
But that touching the shoulderof the patient, showing you
care, you're looking them in theeye.
They're doing that in thesemedical professional schools
now.
And they're trying to encouragethem to increase the amount of
time they spend with a patient.
But the problem is then they getinto the real world, they get
accredited, and they go out andpractice, and that whole thing
starts all over again.
And you can see why, if this isa deeply held belief you have
(47:29):
about caring for people, andyou're being forced to hurry up
or not give them the right care,the right medicine, you could
see just like the example yougave in the case study, why
someone might do somethingdrastic like take their life.
SPEAKER_04 (47:40):
Yeah, absolutely, Scott.
I mean, what you're suggestingis that institutions are morally
formative.
And I think that's somethingthat we really need to sit with
as a society.
You know, I think a lot of timesin our culture of individualism
in America, we tend to thinkthat we're resilient enough to
(48:02):
not be formed by the sort ofdarker, shadowy side of our
social roles, that we can kindof compartmentalize that, and
it's not going to impact how Itreat my kids.
It's not going to impact how Itreat my spouse.
But anybody who's you knowexperienced uh a military
(48:26):
deployment or anyone who'sexperienced difficult tense work
situations realizes these thingsfollow you home.
There's no compartmentalizingthose realities.
And ultimately that suggeststhat the darker, shadowy side of
every social role that we occupyis significantly inhibiting our
(48:52):
flourishing, potentially.
Um I think we need to take thatvery seriously.
SPEAKER_02 (48:57):
You know, I I mentioned earlier we were going
to circle back to this, andthat's that time.
I want to talk about again theimportance of that you've
written about, the importance ofspiritual dimension and both the
causation and the healing ofmoral injury.
What is meaning, purpose, oreven transcendence play in
healing moral injury?
SPEAKER_04 (49:16):
Yeah, it's a great question.
So, you know, one of the thingsthat has happened recently in
the moral injury research is apush for what has been called
spiritually integrated cognitiveprocessing therapy.
And this is conducted by folkslike Harold Koenig and others at
(49:37):
Duke University.
What's going on here is thissuggestion that in order to
process this traumatic event, wefundamentally need the language
that only spirituality canprovide.
The language of forgiveness, thelanguage of sin, the language of
(49:58):
good, the language of evil, thelanguage of suffering, of hope,
making amends.
These are spiritual conceptsthat are deployed through
spiritual practices.
And spiritually integratedcognitive processing therapy is
(50:20):
a fancy way of essentially justusing spiritual practices to
restore hope, to help peoplemove through their anger and
reach a place of forgiveness.
SPEAKER_01 (50:39):
But I have one final question before we bring our
conversation to a close.
We've talked about philosophy,theology, and leadership today.
As you step back and look atyour work as a whole, what do
you hope leaders come to seedifferently about work, people,
and purpose?
SPEAKER_04 (50:57):
That's such a great question, Jason, and I
appreciate you concluding theconversation there.
You know, I recently lost a veryclose friend who is a mutual
friend to all of us on thispodcast today, and his name's
Bob Chapman.
In fact, the last podcastepisode that I recorded was with
Bob Chapman, and it it'sinteresting.
(51:20):
The concept that we were talkingabout was why you should think
about your eulogy.
In the spirit of carrying Bob'slegacy forward, I would say I
would hope that every leaderrecognizes that everyone under
their span of care is someone'sprecious child.
(51:42):
Whose responsibility is it tocare for those people as
someone's precious child?
Every leader's responsibility,because every leader shapes the
microculture that eithercultivates or crushes a person's
spirit.
Bob lived that message.
I can tell you that because Ispoke with him almost every
(52:04):
single week, trading notes insome way, shape, or form for the
last three and a half years orso of his life.
He lived every day thinkingabout his eulogy, thinking about
the kind of person that he wouldwant to be remembered as,
because he knew that it was waytoo easy to fall into the trap
(52:28):
of prioritizing success andachievement, just like we
started this conversation, youknow, talking about with Victor
Frankel, and how we miss thevery things that we're aiming
for when the focus is all aboutourselves.
So one of the exercises that Boband I have had the chance to do
all around the world indifferent contexts is help
(52:50):
people see the gap between whatthey're striving for and how
they want to be remembered, andto narrow that gap.
You know, when I ask mystudents, what are you striving
for?
It's usually, I'd love to have agreat job, I'd love to start a
family, I'd love to have a nicehouse.
I mean, it's the American dream.
Materialistic, consumeristic,these are inherent goods that we
(53:12):
need.
There's a big gap between whatwe're focusing on and what we're
striving for, and how we want tobe remembered.
When I ask that second question,how do you want to be
remembered?
the tone in the room shifts.
What do you think people say?
I'm curious.
What do you think people saywhen I ask, how do you want to
be remembered?
SPEAKER_02 (53:32):
Honest, courageous, kind, compassionate.
SPEAKER_04 (53:34):
Yeah.
Totally.
What about you, Jason?
SPEAKER_01 (53:37):
I think virtue.
There's a a lens through which Ithink most people want to be
remembered through the virtuesthat they embody.
SPEAKER_04 (53:46):
Yeah.
I carry mine with me.
It's in my backpack.
Now these are mine.
I want to be known as a man ofconviction.
I want to be known as someonewho's giving my life in service
of others.
I want to be known as somebodywho encourages other people.
I want to be known as a personof integrity.
I want to be known as someonewho's generous.
(54:08):
Bob helped me realize that.
I think if we live our livesthinking with the end in mind,
then we will be well equipped totreat everyone within our span
of care as someone's preciouschild.
SPEAKER_02 (54:24):
You know, I want to say, Gareth, that I'm incredibly
sorry for your loss.
I can't imagine what you'regoing through.
Uh, but what I can say is I'mgrateful that Bob was who he was
because he's left a legacy.
He's left people like you.
Uh, and that's so meaningful tohear you say those things.
And it just means that Bob maynot be physically here anymore,
(54:45):
but all the stuff he talkedabout, all the stuff he shared,
all the things he communicated,is still happening for people
like you and David and Brian andall the other people that remain
nameless that are listening thatknow him personally and knew him
personally.
So let's just I just want to endthis with saying I'm so grateful
for you.
I'm so grateful to know you andhave you on the podcast.
(55:06):
And thank you so much.
SPEAKER_04 (55:08):
Well, Scott, Jason, it is truly a pleasure, and I
hope this is the the first ofmany conversations to follow.
Uh and I'm grateful for yourtime and for your interest in my
work and just for allowing me toshare a little bit about the
things that have been convictingand uh the the burden that's
been on my heart for the lastten years.
(55:29):
So thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02 (55:31):
Grateful for you, Garrett.
SPEAKER_04 (55:33):
Yeah, man, same to you.
SPEAKER_02 (55:35):
What an extraordinary conversation with
Professor Garrett Potts.
One of the ideas that continuesto stay with me is Garrett's
reminder that flourishing isnever merely an individual
achievement.
It is something we cultivatetogether through our
relationships, our work, and ourshared pursuit of excellence.
I also loved his distinctionbetween empathy and compassion.
(55:55):
Empathy may begin withunderstanding another person's
experience, but compassion movesus toward caring action.
As Garrett beautifully put it,leadership calls us to combine
deep understanding with honestcare.
Throughout our conversation,Garrett challenged us to rethink
leadership itself, not as apursuit of influence or personal
success, but as a lifelongpractice of becoming the kind of
(56:17):
person whose character enablesothers to flourish.
That's exactly why I believeconversations like this matter.
If you enjoyed today's episode,I'd be grateful if you would
subscribe, leave a review, andshare this conversation with a
friend or colleague.
Every share helps us reach moreleaders who are committed to
building organizations andcommunities rooted in character,
(56:37):
wisdom, and human flourishing.
Thank you for spending part ofyour day with us.
And as always, lead withcharacter, live with purpose,
strive to flourish.
See you next time.
SPEAKER_00 (57:00):
Our narrator is Maggie Landsturd.
Our graphic designer is MaryEllen Miranda.
Our team music was composed byJeff D.
Doll and performed by TV.
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.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com