March 23, 2025 • 59 mins
In this episode…
Margaret Heffernan joins the Leading People podcast to challenge our dangerous addiction to certainty and predictability. Drawing from her latest book "Embracing Uncertainty," she reveals why the traditional management approach - forecast, plan, execute - is fundamentally broken in today's volatile world. When the first leg of this three-legged stool collapses, everything else follows.
What makes this conversation so compelling is Margaret's unique perspective, bridging her experience as a CEO with deep research into how creative professionals - writers, musicians, filmmakers, artists - naturally thrive in uncertainty. These creators don't just tolerate the unknown; they actively seek it out as the fertile ground where breakthroughs happen. The stark contrast with today's corporate environments is telling: we're producing highly credentialed professionals who excel at following instructions but freeze when asked to navigate ambiguity.
Margaret offers practical wisdom for leaders wanting to break free from this trap. She examines how WL Gore's elegant three-question innovation framework makes idea development accessible to everyone, why performance management systems often strangle creativity, and how companies can build innovation into their everyday operations rather than relegating it to specialized departments. Her insights on efficiency are particularly provocative.
The conversation takes a fascinating turn when discussing technology and AI.
Margaret cuts through the hype with characteristic clarity, questioning whether these tools will deliver the promised benefits and examining the often-overlooked costs. Her perspective isn't anti-technology but rather a call for technology that genuinely serves human flourishing rather than diminishing it.
Curious?
Whether you're facing uncertainty in your leadership role, struggling with innovation challenges, or simply curious about how to thrive in an unpredictable world, this episode offers both inspiration and practical guidance.
Subscribe to Leading People and join our LinkedIn community to continue the conversation about embracing uncertainty as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Connect with Margaret on LinkedIn
Visit Margaret's Website
Check out Margaret's Substack: On the Level
Follow
Leading People on LinkedIn
Leading People on FaceBook
Connect with Gerry
Website
LinkedIn
Wide Circle
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Leading People with me, Gerry Marais.
This is the podcast for leadersand HR decision makers who want
to bring out the best inthemselves and others.
Every other week, I sit downwith leading authors,
researchers and practitionersfor deep dive conversations
(00:22):
about the strategies, insightsand tools that drive personal
and organizational success.
And in between, I bring you onesimple thing short episodes
that deliver practical insightsand tips for immediate use.
Whether you're here for usefultools or thought
thought-provoking ideas, LeadingPeople is your guide to better
(00:44):
leadership.
Is your desire for certaintyholding you and your teams back?
Can creative disciplines teachbusiness leaders how to thrive
in the unknown, and what ifuncertainty was the key to your
next breakthrough?
(01:12):
In this episode of LeadingPeople, renowned author, thinker
and former CEO, MargaretHeffernan, joins me to talk
about her latest book EmbracingUncertainty.
She makes the bold claim thatour collective obsession with
predictability is not onlyfutile but limiting.
Drawing on powerful examplesfrom artists, writers,
filmmakers, musicians andeducators, Margaret shows how
(01:34):
creative disciplines are aheadof the curve when it comes to
leading in uncertainty and whyit's time for business and HR
leaders to catch up.
And why it's time for businessand HR leaders to catch up.
In this episode, you'lldiscover why the pursuit of
certainty is a dangerousillusion and how to break free
from it, what leaders can learnfrom the way artists and
(01:56):
creators navigate ambiguity, andhow to build resilience and
confidence in the face of notknowing.
If you've ever struggled withuncertainty or ambiguity, or
felt pressure to always have theanswers, then this episode is
for you.
Margaret Heffernan, welcome toLeading People.
(02:18):
Thank you very much for invitingme, Gerry so we were just
having some chat before westarted and I was just
reflecting on.
I first met you at an event inBrussels somewhere around 2018,
2019.
And I've been following yourwork ever since.
In fact, I watched your 2019TED Talk last night with my wife
and we thought how prescientthat was.
(02:39):
Some of the stuff you talkedabout.
In that Little did we know whatwas coming around the corner
and you've published is it sixor seven books, margaret?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I published six, and my seventh is due out at the end
of march okay, and so we'reactually here to talk about your
uh, your latest book.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
But before we get to that, just so our listeners can
get to know you a little bitbetter, how did you get to being
this leading thinker, author,author, speaker and mentor to
CEOs, and what people, places orevents stand out in your
journey to where you are today,and were there any epiphany
moments?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah Well, I'll try and keep this as brief as I can,
otherwise we might be here allday and all night, which
wouldn't be unpleasant, butprobably people have better
things to do.
So I was born in Texas.
We moved to the Netherlandswhen my dad, who's an engineer,
started working in the North Sea.
We then left and moved to theUK when North Sea oil on the UK
(03:35):
side was being developed, and bythe time I'd finished American
high school in London I'd beenout of America longer than I'd
been in it.
So I stayed in the U UK, went touniversity at Cambridge, came
out not knowing what I was goingto do with my life, like I
think most people do, and workedfor the BBC as a dictation
(03:57):
typist and thought well, it's ahorrible job, but I really like
the people.
And so I, you know, applied forvarious jobs and kind of climbed
the height up the hierarchyfrom from that to being a radio
and drama producer, to being acommissioner of programs for
radio four, to then moving totelevision where I produced
(04:17):
drama and documentary for BBCone and BBC two and um.
And then I thought everybodyI'm meeting with is at least 10
years older than I am, so thatmeans I'm going to be sitting
here just kind of waiting forpeople to retire, and I'm not
the most patient person in theworld and I also felt I didn't
(04:38):
that there wasn't a lot more forme to learn.
Um, and so I left and ran thetrade association for
independent program andfilmmakers and um, and by then I
guess this was about 1992 inthe uk in the uk things were
(04:59):
very miserable.
I it was hard to see othercountry would recover.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I lived in the UK at that time.
Yeah, it was miserable.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
People forget, but some of us don't forget.
Anyway, because I had anAmerican passport, I said to my
husband you know, we're tooyoung to die, let's get out of
here.
And he is a research scientist.
So he got a position at Harvard.
We moved to Boston.
(05:34):
I dabbled in PBS in Boston andthought it was too slow, too
bureaucratic.
But what was really going onthat excited me was tech in
Boston, and I started gettinginvolved in kind of what the
relationship between multimediaand tech would be or could be.
And I was then hired by someventure capitalists to run a
company based on a biginvestment of software that they
had bought from BBN, which waspretty much the research
(05:57):
organization that had built theinternet originally.
And from then on I continued torun tech startups until 2002,
and I had a fantastic time.
I mean, I thought America washands down the best place to
work I'd ever been.
But I also felt I really wantedmy kids to grow up in Europe
(06:22):
and that if we didn't go backpretty soon, we'd be in America
for the rest of our lives.
So we moved back to the UK.
I was pretty burned out by then,it's fair to say, and I thought
well, now what am I going to do?
I want a job that has noemployees.
I have now hired, fired,promoted, demoted, managed so
(06:42):
many people and I have quitestrong opinions about how to do
that.
So, um, I was, I pitched and,uh, wrote an article for false
company magazine about the factthat, in all the time I worked
in tech, I met only one otherfemale ceo, and that caused a
(07:03):
bit of a rumpus, on the back ofwhich my first book was
published, and I just went onfrom there to write more and
more and more books, which are akind of blend of my own
firsthand experience, a lot ofresearch and a lot of
interviewing of people indifferent countries, different
(07:24):
companies all over the world,and along the way, I became an
advisor to chief executives,primarily in large global
businesses, and what I like tosay is that I think that the
combination of my experience,plus my research, plus what I'm
(07:44):
hearing from people live, as itwere, in large corporations,
gives me a pretty good sense ofwhat's going on, what are the
issues we're tackling, what arethe issues we're not tackling
and what needs to be said thateverybody isn't saying.
And I would say, roughlyspeaking, that's kind of what I
do now.
Along the way, I wrote sixplays, I think, which the BBC
(08:08):
broadcast, and a whole, you knowscad of articles here, there
and everywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I'm sure there's lots of people out there wondering
how Margaret makes time to doall this.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Margaret wonders that too.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
So the new book is, you can announce it.
The new book is called.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
The new book is called Embracing Uncertainty how
Writers, artists and MusiciansThrive in an Unpredictable World
.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So I was particularly intrigued by your book because,
in addition to my own personalwork and experience in
leadership and talentdevelopment, I've also spent
many years as a professionalmusician composing, arranging,
recording and performing infront of thousands of people.
So one thing I know from thatexperience is that uncertainty
is a constant companion in liveperformance and the entire
(09:01):
creative process.
You never really know what'sgoing to work until you start
looking on it, and so how doesthis resonate with what you
found in your research forembracing uncertainty?
On Leading People, the goal isto bring you cutting edge
thought leadership from many ofthe leading thinkers and
practitioners in leadershiptoday.
(09:23):
Each guest shares theirinsights, wisdom and practical
advice so we can all get betterat bringing out the best in
ourselves and others.
Please subscribe wherever youget your podcasts and share a
link with friends, family andcolleagues, and stay informed by
joining our Leading PeopleLinkedIn community of HR leaders
(09:45):
and talent professionals.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Well, I think I mean.
First of all, I would agreeabsolutely with what you've just
said about the nature ofcreative production and working
in the arts.
I think there are a couple ofthings that led to this path.
The first was when I wrote myprevious book, uncharted.
You know that was very much anattack on the notion that
(10:12):
everything had becomepredictable.
That, you know, we're so smartand the technology is so smart
and now we have data oneverything, we can predict
everything, so everything can becertain.
So kiss uncertainty goodbye.
I thought, you know,intellectually, that was false.
And when I went out and startedtalking to people who
researched a very, very fine artof forecasting, they definitely
(10:36):
didn't believe it.
And the world kept conspiringto agree with me, you know, not
least with COVID.
And the more I thought aboutthis, the more I thought that
our traditional ways of managingcould not work in this context.
Because, to put it simply andthe way we've taught management
(10:56):
you know pretty much since theindustrial revolution is it's a
three-legged stool forecast plan, execute Well, once the first
leg breaks, you're going to havea very uncomfortable seat right
.
And so I thought, okay, if youcan accept and I think I made a
very strong argument thatforecasting has lots of flaws
(11:18):
and certainly does not misdosecertainty, then you have to
start thinking about managementand leadership differently and
you have to start thinking.
Instead of waiting for thefuture to come and run you over,
you have to start thinkingabout okay, how do we start to
get ahead of the game?
And that means that the wholenotion of innovation just races
(11:40):
to the top of the leadershipagenda in my book.
And if that's the case, thenhow well suited are our
organizations or our leaders forthat new way of dealing with
uncertainty?
And what I found and continueto find all around me is they
(12:01):
are very, very, very poorlyequipped to do so.
We are still hanging on to thenotion that forecasts can be
reliable.
We still imagine that we canplan three, five years ahead and
in many, many areas we're stillextremely poor at innovating or
(12:24):
innovation as a continuousprocess within any kind of
organization.
And I launched this argument inUncharted.
Interestingly, the Americaneditor of my book suggested we
dump that chapter, which Ithought was kind of hilarious.
But the more I thought about itand the more time I spent with
(12:45):
companies, the more I thoughtwas kind of hilarious, but the
more I thought about it and themore time I spent with companies
, the more I thought this isbecoming a very, very serious
problem.
And the chief executive know it.
And what they're telling meover and over and over again is
that they're hiring really great, very well-educated, highly
credentialed people.
They turn to them for creativeideas and they can't find them,
(13:08):
that what we're producing fromour educational system is a
whole bunch of people who areextremely good at following
instructions, extremely goodsometimes in writing
instructions and enforcinginstructions, but because they
are so used to knowing how tosucceed in doing exactly what
they're told, they have becomethe opposite of what we need
(13:32):
right now.
Now, in a more predictableenvironment, let's say, you know
manufacturing in the 1970s,this was not a fundamental
strategic problem, I would say.
Today, with everything volatileand on the move, it is the
(13:52):
critical discussion to havetoday, and what everyone I'm
hearing from in all sectorsaround the world is that we
don't have the creative andcritical capacities we need to
lead the way that is nowrelevant.
So I thought, okay, so if thesepeople who are being recruited
(14:16):
and hired don't have it, whodoes have it?
Because somebody must, I meaneither the human being isn't
capable, which I don't believe,but some people are definitely
better at this than others.
And having spent a good half ofmy career working in film,
television and music, I thoughtthe people I worked with there
(14:41):
did this all the time.
They had ideas all the time.
They started things withoutbeing asked.
They weren't particularlyfussed about what the brief was,
they explored all the time.
They had a high capacity forrisk, high tolerance for risk.
They were very patient.
(15:02):
They were excellent editors oftheir own ideas, knowing that if
you're truly creative, you have100 ideas a week and most of
them have to be thrown out.
And they're very good at changebefore change is required.
And then I also found, when Italked to historians, that they
(15:25):
said oh well, if you want to seewhere a moment of change begins
sort of step zero you always goto the artists.
They're always there.
They are the first people tonotice, the first people to
respond.
You know, it's why we think ofavant-garde, because it's in
front, literally.
(15:45):
And so I thought so.
There is a way of being and away of working and a way of
living that artists embody andlive with that we have a great
deal to learn from.
And at the same time, I was veryaware that people who only
(16:06):
consume the arts have an idea, akind of stereotype, of artists
as kind of flaky, childlike,undisciplined, erratic, chaotic.
And the reality is completelydifferent.
You know these are people witha deep sense of initiative drive
(16:28):
and motivation.
You know their TV people with adeep sense of initiative, drive
and motivation.
You know their TV shows getshown on time.
Their exhibitions, you know,are full of objects that they
created and insured andcompleted and so on that end up
opening on time.
Musicians are some of the mostadventurous users of technology.
(16:49):
You will know this.
And even so, you know they doshows where, incredibly,
everything actually works, eventhough they're always kind of
pushing the boundaries of thetechnology which they've got.
And I thought, who would notwant these people in their
workforce, who would not wantthese characteristics in their
(17:10):
workforce?
This is exactly what I'mhearing people cry out for, but
the stereotype of art and theartist is so entrenched it
doesn't really occur to peoplethat maybe those graduates with
you know English degrees andarts degrees and music degrees
(17:31):
and painting degrees.
Maybe they have a lot of whatyou're looking for.
And so we need really quitedesperately, I think A to get
rid of the stereotype and B tounderstand on a much deeper
level, not just the skills butalso the attitudes that will
(17:55):
equip us to deal with a very,very uncertain future.
And the good girls and boys whoare obedient, waiting for
orders, um, we're going to haveto change their education system
so that they have a broaderrange of capacities than they
are currently graduating with.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Yeah, and I hear echoes of the late Ken Robinson
coming through.
He was trying to convincepeople that they needed to start
to embrace the arts in adifferent way, needed to start
to to embrace the arts in adifferent way.
My own personal experience ofthis is um, yeah, everything you
say resonates.
Um, during covid, some of myfriends who make a living out of
(18:38):
music became so creative andinventive.
But they were doing the paypaljar, for example, which was
literally you can't put money inmy thing, but you can put money
in my paypal.
Every little thing they werethey they became live performers
, they were doing concerts forfree over the internet.
They were doing whatever ittook, but the degree of
(19:00):
ingenuity they had just to beable to survive was impressive,
I mean.
And they were creating on speedat that stage because they were
literally doing stuff.
And then, if we look at,juxtapose that with just to
mention the Taylor Swift's ofthis world, who have shown also
how you can, I mean, in someways, her success is an example
(19:22):
of how a young woman goes outthere, takes her craft and
pushes it to the boundaries and,of course, becomes phenomenally
wealthy as a result, right,right.
So yeah, also, there's so manythings echoing there.
Harold Wexworth work on fixedminds yes, absolutely.
I mean waiting for orders is Idon't want to get it wrong, you
(19:44):
know, and that type of thing.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I see this very early sometimes in my mba
students, which is they'll saywell, how many words does the
essay have to have, and do youwant it single spaced or double
spaced?
And do you want me to indentparagraphs, and does that
include footnotes?
And how many references do youwant?
And all this sort of stuff.
And increasingly, with theassignments that I hand out, I
(20:10):
just say I don't care, I want itto be excellent, but it needs
to be your concept of excellence.
I want you to take an idea anddevelop it, and I'm as
interested in how you do it asin what you do.
And, of course, for some peoplethis is just totally ambiguous
(20:31):
and they're frozen and paralyzed.
And for some I mean the look ontheir faces they're so happy,
it's like at last.
Here I am, you know, in themaster's program, and I'm being
treated like an adult and I havesome freedom at long last yeah,
go, go do it and show us whatyou can do.
Yeah, show me what you're madeof.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, my kids go to a secondary school where they
basically just tell them intheir last two years they have a
project to do Fantastic, that'sit.
Yeah.
And at the beginning theystruggle because they go well,
couldn't you give us like threeor four subjects or topics?
And they say, no, go dosomething that interests you.
Maybe it's something you wantto study afterwards, maybe
(21:13):
you're going to find that youwant to study it, maybe you're
going to find you don't want tostudy it.
And basically it's this notionof the discipline you're
bringing all subjects togetherand they do the most amazing
things.
It's, yeah, it's unbelievable.
They struggle really stretchesthem.
But you see, these young peopleemerge in their graduation,
when they're coming up to 18years old.
(21:34):
They're like flowers havebloomed, you know.
They just blossom.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
And you just see this emergence of that person who's
now ready for adulthood.
They've just grown throughsomething.
But let's get down to the so.
Artists seem to be able toembrace uncertainty as part of
their day-to-day creativeprocess.
So what can leaders andorganizations start to learn
from this, apart from employinglots of them, perhaps?
(22:01):
But, um, what can they start toto learn, and what have you
gleaned from your conversations?
Are there some importantprinciples or things that you
could say?
You could transpose this intoan organization and it'll work,
because it works for theseartists.
It's going.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
It would work for you yeah, well, I think there are a
couple things I'd say, um.
The first is, I think allorganizations need need to take
a hard look at their performancemanagement system, because if
there's a big culprit beyondeducation, I think it's there.
You know this very elaboratebureaucracy that most companies
(22:40):
have developed, which is a jobdescription and KPIs and targets
, and all of this really heavylifting bureaucracy, and all of
this really heavy liftingbureaucracy that wasn't intended
to, but it fundamentallystifles creative thinking.
People are so busy hittingthese targets and measuring
their KPIs or working aroundthem that it leaves very little
(23:04):
time for any creative thinkingwhatsoever.
So I think of this a little bitas a game of Jenga, which is
how much of this stuff can youthrow out?
Because, for one thing, it'ssuper costly to craft all of
these things you know, withpages and pages and pages of
detail, and then monitor it alland then you know, estimate its
(23:28):
worth.
I would think how much of it canyou get rid of?
I think you then need to thinkabout innovation as a constant
process, not just somethingthat's inside an R&D department.
I think that has to be part ofthe annual budget or whatever
the budget cycle is, and I lookat some companies that do this
(23:51):
very well.
So most of them, what they'lldo is they'll do a forecast with
all the caveats required, andthen they'll say, okay, so if
we're estimating a profit of X,we will take 15% of that and put
that towards new initiatives,and that money and those
(24:14):
resources will be devoted topeople who come up with ideas of
what we need to be doing tosecure our longer-term future.
I would then look at some of thevery good processes that
companies like WL Gore have,which make it really simple to
(24:35):
pitch new ideas.
They have a really beautifulheuristic, which is if you've
got an idea, you need to be ableto answer three questions,
which is, first of all, is itreal?
Do you have some evidence thatit could work?
Secondly, does it matter?
Is the market for this thingimportant enough financially?
(24:57):
And the third is can we win?
In other words, are there suchhuge barriers to entry that we
have no chance, or is it verydisaggregated or untapped?
In which case, let's go right,and what I love about the way
that Gore does this is thatthose are three rules that are
(25:19):
super easy to remember.
This is not a 57-pageapplication form, right, and
everybody kind of carries it intheir head, so when they have an
idea they can quickly runthrough and say, yeah, it's a
great idea, it probably wouldwork, we probably could do it.
But you know, after we've doneit we've made 10 and sixpence.
So it's a kind of cool idea butit's not worth it.
(25:40):
It's just not worth the effort.
On the other hand, you can gothrough it and say, hey,
actually, actually this is areally disaggregated market.
We really can make a hugeimprovement and there's a lot of
money in this market.
Now let's go for it.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
You've given them simple criteria against, as you
say, you know you haven'tstacked it with 25 variables or
anything.
You just said these three.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
If you can answer these questions well, then let's
think about it seriously.
If you can answer thesequestions well, then let's think
about it seriously.
So I think that has to become aprocess that anybody in the
(26:26):
company can go through.
Frankly, is to do with, I mean,leaving more time for
reflection.
I remember working with onecompany where a one-hour meeting
was a 50-minute meeting, andthe last 10 minutes people just
sat there and thought about whatthey heard, what they discussed
(26:46):
.
Were there reasons not to do it?
Were there reasons not to do it?
Were there better reasons to doit?
But they scheduled inreflection time.
I write in my book about twohabits that Andy Haldane, who
was the chief economist at theBank of England, used to adopt.
One was to go for a lot ofwalks to get a sense of what's
(27:12):
going on out there in the realworld.
Right, chief economists spendtheir time with models, right,
and he was really interested inreality, thank God.
And so it's not just that hewould walk around, but he would
also, you know, go and talk togroups that economists don't
typically talk to.
You know, whether it wascharities, whether it was
homeless associations, whetherit was entrepreneurs to get a
(27:35):
sense of outside of my bubble,what is on people's minds.
I can look at the research intoit, but I want to hear the
quality of their lives as it'sexpressed through people
directly.
And the other thing he did, forwhich he was initially quite
widely derided, was he wouldinvite artists into the bank to
(27:57):
come and talk about whateverthey wanted to.
Because he said you know, it'sso easy in any kind of
organization to get highlyinstitutionalized, become very
rigid, very, very narrow.
Highly institutionalized becomevery rigid, very, very narrow.
And these are people who, justyou know, allowed everybody to
(28:19):
lift their heads up and thinkmore broadly and have very
different kinds of conversations.
I'm also seeing companies thatare using the arts specifically
to enable different kinds ofconversations, higher levels of
collaboration, just to provoke adifferent discussion about
what's going on in the world andwhat do we need to be doing.
(28:42):
I remember taking a whole bunchof CEOs this was not my idea, I
have to say, this was not myidea, I have to say who were on
a sort of you know, two-dayexecutive away day and they
kicked that off in a museum inTexas where there was an
exhibition of Jackson Pollock'sblack painting, and in groups of
(29:10):
two or three.
They would sit in one of thepaintings and simply talk about
what they saw in the painting.
It's a very different kind ofconversation, really trying to
free the mind up, relax it alittle bit.
And it's very interestingbecause you know what the
neurobiology will say is thatwhile you might feel your brain
is relaxing, the reality is it'sstill very busy, but in a
different way.
(29:30):
Different parts of the brainare being recruited and in this
mode you're capable of seeingconnections between ideas in
ways that when you're super busyor web surfing or glue to
netflix, your brain's working,but it's not wandering around
and thinking that's right.
(29:51):
So we need to have a bigrethink about what's the
valuable work, what's thenecessary work and how do we get
those into a better kind ofproportion.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You're listening to Leading People with me, gerry
Murray.
My guest this week is renownedthinker and author, margaret
Heffernan, whose TED Talks havegarnered millions of views.
Coming up next, margaretexplores how artists, composers
and even actors prepare toembrace the unknown, how they
(30:35):
deal with risk and how theyachieve breakthroughs.
You'll hear why she believesthe creative world offers the
most useful models forfuture-ready leadership and what
you can do to start learningfrom them today.
And it seems that we can alsolearn a lot from chickens.
So let's get back to ourconversation.
(30:57):
So I'm going to.
There's a huge amount in there,margaret, I guess.
I guess.
I guess that just means, ladiesand gentlemen, you're just
going to have to buy the book,get the rest of it, but I, I,
there's one thing you talkedabout which artists are really,
um, good at tolerating, and if Icould just reflect back a
little bit what you just talkedabout there, you used WL Gore,
(31:20):
right?
Well, tom Peters wrote aboutthat in In Search of Excellence,
if I'm not mistaken.
So that company's been doingthis stuff for for a long time
and you know, I, I've also hungout with people and you know
we've got big AI stuff.
Maybe we'll come to a bit oftechnology in a few minutes and
that, and there's this wholeview that this is just going to
sweep the world.
But I worked in finance for awhile and financial people can
(31:42):
be very cautious and you talkabout this way in which artists
embrace risk, about this way inwhich artists embrace risk.
So it strikes me sometimes thatit's not an understanding of
what needs or could be done.
It's this inability to take therisk, that that, because a lot
of ceos are saying, well, if itgoes horribly wrong, then I'm,
(32:05):
I'm dead meat right, which isfixed mindset again, it's like
it has to be right or wrong.
So what could you say to peopleout there who are saying, ah,
it's just too risky, I get it, Iget it, but it's just too risky
.
What can artists in?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
that world.
Teach a CEO who's afraid oftaking the risk.
Well, I mean, I think what Iwould say is there's an
asymmetry of visibility right,which is kind of a horrible
phrase, but by which I mean youcan see the risk of doing
something you can't see the riskof not doing something that I
(32:47):
read about or know wellfirsthand.
The biggest risk they are alltaking is their refusal to
change or adapt, their refusalto invent.
I think this is hands down themost dangerous thing they could
possibly do, but because they'reused to it, it doesn't feel
dangerous.
Yes, right, it's like, well, ifI've been doing this every day,
(33:11):
it'll be fine.
And that kind of takes me backto one of my, you know, favorite
lessons in philosophy, whichwas Bertrand Russell talking
about, um, chickens.
You know I can become a bitobsessed by chickens if you know
my work, but, but you know heused to talk about, you know,
the chicken gets up everymorning when the sun rises and
does his cock-a-doodle-doo, andthe corn gets thrown in front of
him and he has his breakfastand that's great.
(33:33):
And he does that day after dayafter day, thinking that's going
to go on forever.
And one day the sun rises andhe steps outside and the farmer
comes over and breaks his neckRight.
So this is the fallacy ofRussell's Chicken.
Russell's chicken thinks well,if it worked before, it'll work
today.
You know, it's the classic ifit ain't broke, don't fix it.
(33:55):
Well, I think the environmentwe're in right now is one where,
if it ain't broke, break it now, break it yourself.
Do you know?
Think ahead and think aboutwhat do we need to be five years
from now?
And how do we start yesterday?
Because sitting around and justimagining that someday things
(34:20):
will settle down and in themeantime I have all this data
which gives me a deep level ofdeceptive comfort is not
leadership.
You know?
Can we just say this?
You know, leadership is aboutbeing ahead.
It isn't sitting on thesidelines waiting to see what
happens next.
And although there is agigantic library of books on
(34:47):
leadership, there is ashockingly small supply of it in
real life.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot of people who've done
statistics on this and said,like most of the money is wasted
.
They said if you took the sameapproach to medicine as you took
to leadership, you know, thendoctors would be dysfunctional
because nobody would ever getkid.
There will be no standards,there would be no common
practice, etc.
(35:14):
And so there's a.
It's a big industry, but anindustry that perhaps doesn't
produce a lot of quality outputin the end of the day and and
we're surrounded byincrementalism, you know, which
is okay.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
We manufacture a chocolate biscuit, let's make
one a bit smaller.
Let's make one with whitechocolate, let's make one with
darker chocolate, you know,let's make one that's square,
and they call this innovation,but it isn't, and it's not
thinking much more deeply about,well, what could be possible.
(35:49):
The other thing I'd say is Ithink it's quite interesting
this notion that people have,which is, you know, the arts are
very soft and squishy andscience is very kind of hardcore
, and real Scientists definitelydon't recognize that in the
slightest.
And one of the things that waskind of interesting for me,
(36:09):
especially as I'm married to ascientist, you know, talking to
scientists about much, aboutactually how creative that you
were thinking has to be to makeany kind of breakthrough, and
that actually and Carlo Rovelliwrites about this absolutely
brilliantly he says artists aredrawn to uncertainty because
that's where the breakthroughsoccur.
(36:30):
If you cling to certainty,you're never going to discover
anything right.
So you have to move towards theunknown with the creative
confidence that you can findsomething.
But if you just hunker downwith certainty, all you're going
to do is repeat yourself, andthat's what a large number of
(36:51):
organizations do.
It's also the case that youknow we're fixated on efficiency
, and have been ever since theIndustrial Revolution.
And if you want to be reallyefficient, then what you take is
a process you already know andyou just tighten it up a bit a
bit less money, a bit less time,a bit fewer resources it
(37:13):
becomes more efficient.
Fantastic if you're justrepeating something, but it's
exactly the wrong mindset forsomething new.
Innovation is not efficient, isnot efficient.
There's a huge amount of wasteof time, of ideas, but actually,
if you try to apply efficiencyto innovation, you guarantee
(37:38):
failure, because you know, afterabout two failed ideas,
everybody's going to jump to thesure thing.
Well, guess what?
The sure thing is an old thingin new clothes, yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, your TED talk in 2019 really
brings that out very strongly.
I have a friend who's aprofessor at the Calwell
University here in Leuven andhe's a professor of customer
experience and he's banging onconstantly about how
over-efficient orover-engineered the customer
(38:12):
service experience has become,to the point where customers are
just totally frustrated by thelack of customer experience
they're getting.
And he's he's very vocal.
He was on this program, I thinka year or two ago as well,
talking about this.
But uh, it's true, and and youreminded me when you're talking
about the different colors ofchocolate and making them
(38:33):
smaller I had a professor when Iwas at Manchester Business
School and he he used to talkabout fiddling at the margin and
he said, don't, like anybodycan fiddle at the margin and say
, but if you and we were doingadvanced market strategies, so
we were looking at what wascalled the PIMS database and all
that stuff in those days and itwas like he was saying, no, you
have to really go way beyondthat you.
(38:57):
He was saying, no, you have toreally go way beyond that.
You have to really look forsomething new.
You have to be prepared toexplore and to to really try and
find those things, otherwiseyou are just fiddling at the
margins.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yeah, and and eventually that will kill you
because it's not interestingenough.
It's not interesting enough toconsumers.
And to go back to your exampleof customer service, customers
learn to hate companies withpoor customer service.
You know it's super fast, it'ssuper cheap, it's run by bots.
You can't talk to a human.
(39:24):
The data probably looks great.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
What's not being measured is the degree to which
people hate your business nowit's a bit like what you were
saying earlier about the thingsyou don't do.
You don't know what you're notknowing about what you're not
doing.
You don't know about all thosepeople who aren't coming back
Right, there used to be I mean,I wrote my master's thesis on
customer service and theimportance of people to that and
(39:49):
there used to be anorganization at the time called
TARP and they used to look atnot just the amount of people
who were unhappy with yourservice, but who who came back.
If you solve their problem andand the statistics were
mind-blowing they like if you,somebody could be really pissed
off with you, but if you, if youtreated them and there's
respect and listen to them anddid something to try and help
(40:10):
them, they became loyalcustomers.
Not only that, they becameadvocates and they promoted you
by saying actually you know what.
They got it wrong a few times,but actually they sorted it for
me and I was pretty happy.
Speaker 2 (40:21):
Yeah, now you can turn complainers into
evangelists for you.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
So you speak a lot about innovation.
I'm just looking at my noteshere and I'm looking at the time
and I'm thinking, you know, Isuppose something that might be
on the listener's mind out thereis, when they think of
innovation, they think oftechnology, and you know we've
got a lot of that stuff going onat the moment and you've
written a lot about, I think,this idea that technology should
(40:50):
be in service of people and notthe other way around.
Technology should be in serviceof people and not the other way
around.
What would you say about the?
You know, is there anincreasing risk of leaders
losing their ability to thinkcreatively and deal with
uncertainty because they thinktechnology is going to do it for
them, like chat GPT is going tojump up in the morning and
answer all their questions, forexample.
So what are your thoughts onthat?
(41:12):
Because the last time as I said, 2019, you were doing the TED
thing and you were alreadyseeing things that have started
to come to.
What are you seeing today?
Now, in the last two years, hasbeen accelerated quite a bit,
because now it wasn't that AIwasn't there, it's just that AI
became more accessible to theordinary person through an app,
(41:32):
for example.
So what are you seeing now andwhat leaders need to be wary of?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
I'm certainly seeing a classic hype cycle coming out
of Silly Valley, which is, no,it's not new, but it's much more
vicious and aggressive now thanit's ever been before.
I'm seeing a lot of seniorexecutives not really
understanding what AI is, how itworks, what it can do, what it
(42:02):
can't do.
I'm seeing an under coverage ofits costs, both environmental
and financial and certainly interms of capital investment, and
, as a consequence, I'm seeingkind of chaos Like, oh, we've
(42:23):
got to do AI, we've got to do AI.
We don't really know what it is, don't really know where it is
or when it is, but we have to dosomething.
And not very much very clearstrategic thinking.
I'm seeing very little in termsof understanding where does it
genuinely add value and not?
And I think the most interestingthing I saw recently was an
(42:48):
analysis and I think, to be fairto him, it was a sort of
slightly back of the envelopeanalysis by Paul Krugman about
you know, when the dust hassettled, what will the
contribution of AI be to theeconomy?
And his back of the envelopecalculation was approximately 1%
(43:11):
of GDP.
Now, why is it so low?
Well, one reason it's so low isbecause of how much value it's
going to destroy.
So that should give everybodysome pause in terms of thinking
(43:32):
okay, is this what we want to do?
And if we do want to do it, howdo we reduce the cost of it?
Because you know, if you toldme I was going to invest
billions and billions andbillions and billions in
something for a 1% return, Imight at least slow down and do
(43:54):
some better thinking yeah, thereis a, I suppose, but you lived
through this echoes of thedot-com yes, I've been there.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
I've been there, yes well, I mean, I knew people who
did this craziest of things andstarted businesses and you know,
we're coming back to my oldalma mater maybe six months or
12 months later asking for theirold jobs back, because
everybody thought that it's justa question of the Internet will
do everything for us and didn'tlook at.
Perhaps what you're referringto now is what the net impact of
(44:26):
all of this is.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
And what Krugman estimates, the net impact of the
Internet was is a half to onepercent.
Impact of the internet was is ahalf to one percent.
Um, ai it may well be less thanthat, because ai is formidably
more expensive.
And so you know the people whomade out like like bandits, so
(44:51):
to speak, in the internettransition, with the people
building the infrastructure.
So the telcos you know certainlythe data center people are
going to do very well, as arethe energy companies, but this
is always painted as though it'sfree money.
(45:14):
You know that we're going tohave AI and it's all going to be
fabulous and there's going tobe tons of money rolling around.
There's going to be tons ofdebt rolling around and, yes,
some companies will do very well, many will be destroyed, and we
should be thinking not justabout the upsides, which is, of
(45:34):
course, what Silly Valley wantsus to think about, but the
downsides in terms of cost, notjust cost to businesses, which
are ginormous, but cost togovernments who are somehow
going to have to deal with theunemployment consequences of
taking millions of jobs off thetable.
Yeah, and who is going to payfor that?
(45:58):
Because those people aren'tgoing to be customers if they
have no income, no right.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
So could we all just slow down and start thinking
about this in 3d instead of youknow, just some kids game yeah,
and that whole discussion aroundthe, where Altman was coming
out more or less saying thatit's not scaling like normal
tech and then DeepSeek comes outand sort of puts a blip on it
(46:24):
and says look what we did forless money.
And so it is a very, at themoment, a very unknown world.
And at the same time then, ifwe cycle back to embracing
uncertainty, how does how dowhat you learned in that, in
that research, apply to peoplewho are looking at this, this
whole technology ai thing?
(46:45):
What are the things that anartist would do?
Um, with something like this?
Speaker 2 (46:50):
yeah, well, it's interesting because I talk to
artists and, of course course,some of them think it's the
worst thing that's ever happened.
Many of them are simply playingwith it to see, ok, what can I
do with this technology that Icouldn't do before?
And so musicians, for example,are using it to get a quick
(47:10):
sketch of you know, if I putthese things together and add
this and take this away, roughlyspeaking, what do I get?
And they're doing that becausewhat it means for them is that
something that maybe it wouldhave taken three or four hours
to write to here and decideactually, no, I don't want to go
down that road.
They can do more quickly nowand say, okay, well, that recipe
(47:32):
doesn't work, so let me trysomething different.
So the trial and error process,which is fundamental to most art
, is accelerated.
Now, in many cases, that'sgreat.
In many cases, it might not begreat, because actually the
thinking time between trial anderror is really important.
(47:52):
So you don't just want to beable to make music faster, but
certainly that's what I've seenartists using for it for a lot.
In terms of writers, I've seenpeople using AI for research
warily, because the research isnot always very reliable, and
(48:13):
the pretty fundamental problemwith it is it tends to rely on
the most cited sources, whichmeans it's very generic, and if
you, as a researcher, arelooking for something uniquely
interesting, it's probably notgoing to do that for you, no.
(48:35):
So I think we have tounderstand better how it works
and where it delivers realrewards, and certainly many of
the early examples.
It's not just that they're notdelivering anything at all
useful to me, they're wasting mytime.
(48:56):
The summaries I get fromMicrosoft Outlook are a total
waste of my time.
I mean, I didn't ask for them.
They're absolutely valueless tome and all they make me do is
hate Microsoft.
You know this may be theirexperiment.
Don't experiment on my time.
You know this may be theirexperiment.
(49:16):
Don't experiment on my time.
You know it's just tooaggressive, it's too invasive.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Yeah, and actually breaking news.
This afternoon I noticed that anews story that a very, very
large amount of prominentartists have brought out a
silent album of musicians, asilent album in protest at the
ai copyright potential toinfringe.
And these are serious big names, from kate bush to paul
(49:43):
mccartney to name it.
So who's who basically, ofsaying enough is enough, you
know, yeah and they're, andthey're right to do that.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
And I've written this on this in my sub stack, as you
probably know, which is um it's.
It's an extraordinary idea thatI create a piece of
intellectual property and it canbe ripped off by every tom,
dick and harry using ai.
I didn't allow that.
(50:10):
I don't get any upside ofwhatever it goes on to produce.
I mean, this is just automatingshoplifting essentially.
And of course thecounterargument, certainly here
in the UK, is but if we don't doAI, you know we won't be a
leader in the world and webetter just never mind the cost
to everybody else.
(50:30):
We have to go forward.
It's like no hang on a second.
You know the Financial Timeshas a deal with ChatGPT.
They are remunerated for theintellectual property that they
allowed ChatGPT to scrape.
So there is an intrinsiccontract that says we get some
(50:55):
of the upside.
I don't understand why a bigpublisher I mean I understand
politically, of course, but froma legal or justice perspective,
why that can be true of anarticle I write for the FT but
not for an article I write on mysubstat.
(51:15):
Yeah, you know, it should be upto me to decide whether I want
AI to scrape it.
And you know, one of theproposed compromises in this
space is okay, well, you shouldbe able to flip a switch to say
don't scrape.
Well, that's a very nice idea,but there are two problems with
(51:36):
it.
The first is nobody anywherehas shown that that's doable.
And secondly, you know theelegance, the sheer elegance of
copyright law is the minute Iwrite a sentence, it's my
sentence and it's covered.
I don't have to do anything.
It just is the minute a painterdoes, a visual artist does a
(51:58):
scribble.
It is their work.
So this is turning copyright onits head, saying, no, every
single thing you create, whetherit's a calendar entry, you know
, or the entire, I don't know,lord of the Rings you have to
copyright it every time you adda sentence to it.
(52:18):
This is lugubrious, it'sexpensive, it's not workable.
The AI companies know it.
They think for them, of course,it would look like fairness and
it would actually be theft.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
Right, there's a lot, a lot of great stuff there.
Margaret is there.
Is there anything I should haveasked you about your book that
I haven't asked you, that you'dlike to share with our listeners
?
Speaker 2 (52:42):
um, I don't know.
I mean, I think I think there'sa lot in it for for people a
who love the arts and want tounderstand better how artists
work.
I think there's a great deal init about how to make oneself
more creative, which was partlya kind of part of what propelled
(53:06):
me to write the book, because Ithought I was getting very dull
and boring and I wanted tospend some time talking to
different kinds of people.
And so I think there is as muchas I'm interested in
organizations because they havea lot of power and influence in
the world.
I think there's a great dealabout the way we live today
(53:26):
which makes us much lesscreative than we innately are.
And I guess, in this context,the thing I'm thinking about is,
you know, we've become veryaddicted to the promise of
certainty.
So I've noticed this withfriends of mine who booked a
city break, you know, going toBarcelona, and of course, they
found the best restaurants andbooked them, the best hotel and
(53:46):
booked it, you know, a guidedtour and booked it, you know,
before they got on the plane.
The whole thing was scheduledand planned, and I looked at
that and thought I don't evenknow why you need to go now.
You have allowed you allownothing serendipitous,
accidental to happen.
(54:06):
You're not going to explore,you're just going where
everybody else has been.
What is what is going to be newfor you in this?
And what you know is that whenpeople come back from their
holidays, you know what do theyremember most?
The unexpected conversation,the shop they found when they
made a wrong turn and foundthemselves in this little
(54:28):
alleyway that somebody made youknow really cool bags.
It's the unexpected, and Ithink our apps and all of our
technology have really shrunkenour capacity to regard
uncertainty as opportunity,which is I get a chance to
(54:49):
explore.
I get a chance to think formyself, to do for myself.
I am free if I allow myself tobe, but the more I fall into the
hands of the peddlers ofcertainty, the less free I
become.
Of course, I'm also generatingvast amounts of data for them,
(55:09):
not for me, and I'll never knowwhat I missed.
Speaker 1 (55:15):
Yeah, I met my wife on an airplane and it was the
greatest unexpected gift I everhad.
It's.
You know, these things canhappen.
You never know what's going tohappen.
Speaker 2 (55:24):
But they don't happen if you don't leave time and
looseness for them.
Speaker 1 (55:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (55:32):
In the same way that if you walk to work every day
the exact same way, you will seenothing by the second week.
So you know it's also thatthese addictions and habits
really limit what we experienceand ultimately who we are.
Yeah, and ultimately who we are, unless we're able and curious
(55:57):
enough to change them.
Speaker 1 (56:01):
Yeah, so coming to the end as a final reflection,
so looking back on not just thework and research you did for
this book, but all the workyou've done, if you could leave
leaders with just one keyinsight about uncertainty, what
would that be?
Speaker 2 (56:20):
I think it would be that, if you truly want to lead,
and be skeptical of efficiencyand don't hire a single person
without an overweening sense ofcuriosity.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
Okay.
So, margaret, how do people getin touch with you?
And I believe you may even havea special offer for a few lucky
listeners who reach out to you.
Speaker 2 (56:47):
Yeah, so I have a website which is just
wwwmheffernancom, or one word.
It's just wwwmheffernancom, orone word and I would say that if
they want to write to me eitherthrough that website or via
LinkedIn the first 10 people Iwill sign up with free
subscriptions for my sub stack,which I started about a month
(57:09):
ago now.
Speaker 1 (57:10):
Great, and then they'll get regular updates from
you on your thinking andeverything else.
Speaker 2 (57:15):
Yeah, and some of the interviews with artists that
are in my book will be willappear on the within the sub
stack as longer form interviews,because they're phenomenal,
phenomenal people.
Speaker 1 (57:25):
Yeah, and I'll put links in the show notes so
anybody who wants to referencethem.
As ever, thanks, margaret forsharing your insights, tips and
wisdom with my listeners heretoday.
Speaker 2 (57:36):
Super Well, thank you for inviting me and thank you
for your great questions.
Speaker 1 (57:43):
Coming up on Leading People.
In our upcoming episodes, we'lldelve into groundbreaking
research that reveals some ofthe universal traits shared by
the world's most effectiveleaders and how you can
cultivate them in your ownleadership journey.
We'll also explore thestrategies and practices that
set top employers apart,offering practical insights into
(58:07):
how organizations can createenvironments where people truly
thrive.
And we'll investigate how AI isreshaping organizational
dynamics from who gets recruitedto who gets promoted, to how
employees are monitored, raisingnew ethical questions for
leaders about stress, well-beingand the future of work.
(58:30):
If you haven't done so already,be sure to subscribe to Leading
People on your favorite podcastchannel to stay ahead of the
curve with fresh insights onleadership and organizational
excellence.
And remember, before our nextfull episode, there's another
One Simple Thing episode waitingfor you A quick and actionable
(58:54):
tip to help you lead and livebetter.
Keep an eye out for it whereveryou listen to this podcast
Until next time.
Welcome to Leading People with me, Gerry Marais.
This is the podcast for leadersand HR decision makers who want
to bring out the best inthemselves and others.
Every other week, I sit downwith leading authors,
researchers and practitionersfor deep dive conversations
(00:22):
about the strategies, insightsand tools that drive personal
and organizational success.
And in between, I bring you onesimple thing short episodes
that deliver practical insightsand tips for immediate use.
Whether you're here for usefultools or thought
thought-provoking ideas, LeadingPeople is your guide to better
(00:44):
leadership.
Is your desire for certaintyholding you and your teams back?
Can creative disciplines teachbusiness leaders how to thrive
in the unknown, and what ifuncertainty was the key to your
next breakthrough?
(01:12):
In this episode of LeadingPeople, renowned author, thinker
and former CEO, MargaretHeffernan, joins me to talk
about her latest book EmbracingUncertainty.
She makes the bold claim thatour collective obsession with
predictability is not onlyfutile but limiting.
Drawing on powerful examplesfrom artists, writers,
filmmakers, musicians andeducators, Margaret shows how
(01:34):
creative disciplines are aheadof the curve when it comes to
leading in uncertainty and whyit's time for business and HR
leaders to catch up.
And why it's time for businessand HR leaders to catch up.
In this episode, you'lldiscover why the pursuit of
certainty is a dangerousillusion and how to break free
from it, what leaders can learnfrom the way artists and
(01:56):
creators navigate ambiguity, andhow to build resilience and
confidence in the face of notknowing.
If you've ever struggled withuncertainty or ambiguity, or
felt pressure to always have theanswers, then this episode is
for you.
Margaret Heffernan, welcome toLeading People.
(02:18):
Thank you very much for invitingme, Gerry so we were just
having some chat before westarted and I was just
reflecting on.
I first met you at an event inBrussels somewhere around 2018,
2019.
And I've been following yourwork ever since.
In fact, I watched your 2019TED Talk last night with my wife
and we thought how prescientthat was.
(02:39):
Some of the stuff you talkedabout.
In that Little did we know whatwas coming around the corner
and you've published is it sixor seven books, margaret?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I published six, and my seventh is due out at the end
of march okay, and so we'reactually here to talk about your
uh, your latest book.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
But before we get to that, just so our listeners can
get to know you a little bitbetter, how did you get to being
this leading thinker, author,author, speaker and mentor to
CEOs, and what people, places orevents stand out in your
journey to where you are today,and were there any epiphany
moments?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah Well, I'll try and keep this as brief as I can,
otherwise we might be here allday and all night, which
wouldn't be unpleasant, butprobably people have better
things to do.
So I was born in Texas.
We moved to the Netherlandswhen my dad, who's an engineer,
started working in the North Sea.
We then left and moved to theUK when North Sea oil on the UK
(03:35):
side was being developed, and bythe time I'd finished American
high school in London I'd beenout of America longer than I'd
been in it.
So I stayed in the U UK, went touniversity at Cambridge, came
out not knowing what I was goingto do with my life, like I
think most people do, and workedfor the BBC as a dictation
(03:57):
typist and thought well, it's ahorrible job, but I really like
the people.
And so I, you know, applied forvarious jobs and kind of climbed
the height up the hierarchyfrom from that to being a radio
and drama producer, to being acommissioner of programs for
radio four, to then moving totelevision where I produced
(04:17):
drama and documentary for BBCone and BBC two and um.
And then I thought everybodyI'm meeting with is at least 10
years older than I am, so thatmeans I'm going to be sitting
here just kind of waiting forpeople to retire, and I'm not
the most patient person in theworld and I also felt I didn't
(04:38):
that there wasn't a lot more forme to learn.
Um, and so I left and ran thetrade association for
independent program andfilmmakers and um, and by then I
guess this was about 1992 inthe uk in the uk things were
(04:59):
very miserable.
I it was hard to see othercountry would recover.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I lived in the UK at that time.
Yeah, it was miserable.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
People forget, but some of us don't forget.
Anyway, because I had anAmerican passport, I said to my
husband you know, we're tooyoung to die, let's get out of
here.
And he is a research scientist.
So he got a position at Harvard.
We moved to Boston.
(05:34):
I dabbled in PBS in Boston andthought it was too slow, too
bureaucratic.
But what was really going onthat excited me was tech in
Boston, and I started gettinginvolved in kind of what the
relationship between multimediaand tech would be or could be.
And I was then hired by someventure capitalists to run a
company based on a biginvestment of software that they
had bought from BBN, which waspretty much the research
(05:57):
organization that had built theinternet originally.
And from then on I continued torun tech startups until 2002,
and I had a fantastic time.
I mean, I thought America washands down the best place to
work I'd ever been.
But I also felt I really wantedmy kids to grow up in Europe
(06:22):
and that if we didn't go backpretty soon, we'd be in America
for the rest of our lives.
So we moved back to the UK.
I was pretty burned out by then,it's fair to say, and I thought
well, now what am I going to do?
I want a job that has noemployees.
I have now hired, fired,promoted, demoted, managed so
(06:42):
many people and I have quitestrong opinions about how to do
that.
So, um, I was, I pitched and,uh, wrote an article for false
company magazine about the factthat, in all the time I worked
in tech, I met only one otherfemale ceo, and that caused a
(07:03):
bit of a rumpus, on the back ofwhich my first book was
published, and I just went onfrom there to write more and
more and more books, which are akind of blend of my own
firsthand experience, a lot ofresearch and a lot of
interviewing of people indifferent countries, different
(07:24):
companies all over the world,and along the way, I became an
advisor to chief executives,primarily in large global
businesses, and what I like tosay is that I think that the
combination of my experience,plus my research, plus what I'm
(07:44):
hearing from people live, as itwere, in large corporations,
gives me a pretty good sense ofwhat's going on, what are the
issues we're tackling, what arethe issues we're not tackling
and what needs to be said thateverybody isn't saying.
And I would say, roughlyspeaking, that's kind of what I
do now.
Along the way, I wrote sixplays, I think, which the BBC
(08:08):
broadcast, and a whole, you knowscad of articles here, there
and everywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I'm sure there's lots of people out there wondering
how Margaret makes time to doall this.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Margaret wonders that too.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
So the new book is, you can announce it.
The new book is called.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
The new book is called Embracing Uncertainty how
Writers, artists and MusiciansThrive in an Unpredictable World
.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So I was particularly intrigued by your book because,
in addition to my own personalwork and experience in
leadership and talentdevelopment, I've also spent
many years as a professionalmusician composing, arranging,
recording and performing infront of thousands of people.
So one thing I know from thatexperience is that uncertainty
is a constant companion in liveperformance and the entire
(09:01):
creative process.
You never really know what'sgoing to work until you start
looking on it, and so how doesthis resonate with what you
found in your research forembracing uncertainty?
On Leading People, the goal isto bring you cutting edge
thought leadership from many ofthe leading thinkers and
practitioners in leadershiptoday.
(09:23):
Each guest shares theirinsights, wisdom and practical
advice so we can all get betterat bringing out the best in
ourselves and others.
Please subscribe wherever youget your podcasts and share a
link with friends, family andcolleagues, and stay informed by
joining our Leading PeopleLinkedIn community of HR leaders
(09:45):
and talent professionals.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Well, I think I mean.
First of all, I would agreeabsolutely with what you've just
said about the nature ofcreative production and working
in the arts.
I think there are a couple ofthings that led to this path.
The first was when I wrote myprevious book, uncharted.
You know that was very much anattack on the notion that
(10:12):
everything had becomepredictable.
That, you know, we're so smartand the technology is so smart
and now we have data oneverything, we can predict
everything, so everything can becertain.
So kiss uncertainty goodbye.
I thought, you know,intellectually, that was false.
And when I went out and startedtalking to people who
researched a very, very fine artof forecasting, they definitely
(10:36):
didn't believe it.
And the world kept conspiringto agree with me, you know, not
least with COVID.
And the more I thought aboutthis, the more I thought that
our traditional ways of managingcould not work in this context.
Because, to put it simply andthe way we've taught management
(10:56):
you know pretty much since theindustrial revolution is it's a
three-legged stool forecast plan, execute Well, once the first
leg breaks, you're going to havea very uncomfortable seat right
.
And so I thought, okay, if youcan accept and I think I made a
very strong argument thatforecasting has lots of flaws
(11:18):
and certainly does not misdosecertainty, then you have to
start thinking about managementand leadership differently and
you have to start thinking.
Instead of waiting for thefuture to come and run you over,
you have to start thinkingabout okay, how do we start to
get ahead of the game?
And that means that the wholenotion of innovation just races
(11:40):
to the top of the leadershipagenda in my book.
And if that's the case, thenhow well suited are our
organizations or our leaders forthat new way of dealing with
uncertainty?
And what I found and continueto find all around me is they
(12:01):
are very, very, very poorlyequipped to do so.
We are still hanging on to thenotion that forecasts can be
reliable.
We still imagine that we canplan three, five years ahead and
in many, many areas we're stillextremely poor at innovating or
(12:24):
innovation as a continuousprocess within any kind of
organization.
And I launched this argument inUncharted.
Interestingly, the Americaneditor of my book suggested we
dump that chapter, which Ithought was kind of hilarious.
But the more I thought about itand the more time I spent with
(12:45):
companies, the more I thoughtwas kind of hilarious, but the
more I thought about it and themore time I spent with companies
, the more I thought this isbecoming a very, very serious
problem.
And the chief executive know it.
And what they're telling meover and over and over again is
that they're hiring really great, very well-educated, highly
credentialed people.
They turn to them for creativeideas and they can't find them,
(13:08):
that what we're producing fromour educational system is a
whole bunch of people who areextremely good at following
instructions, extremely goodsometimes in writing
instructions and enforcinginstructions, but because they
are so used to knowing how tosucceed in doing exactly what
they're told, they have becomethe opposite of what we need
(13:32):
right now.
Now, in a more predictableenvironment, let's say, you know
manufacturing in the 1970s,this was not a fundamental
strategic problem, I would say.
Today, with everything volatileand on the move, it is the
(13:52):
critical discussion to havetoday, and what everyone I'm
hearing from in all sectorsaround the world is that we
don't have the creative andcritical capacities we need to
lead the way that is nowrelevant.
So I thought, okay, so if thesepeople who are being recruited
(14:16):
and hired don't have it, whodoes have it?
Because somebody must, I meaneither the human being isn't
capable, which I don't believe,but some people are definitely
better at this than others.
And having spent a good half ofmy career working in film,
television and music, I thoughtthe people I worked with there
(14:41):
did this all the time.
They had ideas all the time.
They started things withoutbeing asked.
They weren't particularlyfussed about what the brief was,
they explored all the time.
They had a high capacity forrisk, high tolerance for risk.
They were very patient.
(15:02):
They were excellent editors oftheir own ideas, knowing that if
you're truly creative, you have100 ideas a week and most of
them have to be thrown out.
And they're very good at changebefore change is required.
And then I also found, when Italked to historians, that they
(15:25):
said oh well, if you want to seewhere a moment of change begins
sort of step zero you always goto the artists.
They're always there.
They are the first people tonotice, the first people to
respond.
You know, it's why we think ofavant-garde, because it's in
front, literally.
(15:45):
And so I thought so.
There is a way of being and away of working and a way of
living that artists embody andlive with that we have a great
deal to learn from.
And at the same time, I was veryaware that people who only
(16:06):
consume the arts have an idea, akind of stereotype, of artists
as kind of flaky, childlike,undisciplined, erratic, chaotic.
And the reality is completelydifferent.
You know these are people witha deep sense of initiative drive
(16:28):
and motivation.
You know their TV people with adeep sense of initiative, drive
and motivation.
You know their TV shows getshown on time.
Their exhibitions, you know,are full of objects that they
created and insured andcompleted and so on that end up
opening on time.
Musicians are some of the mostadventurous users of technology.
(16:49):
You will know this.
And even so, you know they doshows where, incredibly,
everything actually works, eventhough they're always kind of
pushing the boundaries of thetechnology which they've got.
And I thought, who would notwant these people in their
workforce, who would not wantthese characteristics in their
(17:10):
workforce?
This is exactly what I'mhearing people cry out for, but
the stereotype of art and theartist is so entrenched it
doesn't really occur to peoplethat maybe those graduates with
you know English degrees andarts degrees and music degrees
(17:31):
and painting degrees.
Maybe they have a lot of whatyou're looking for.
And so we need really quitedesperately, I think A to get
rid of the stereotype and B tounderstand on a much deeper
level, not just the skills butalso the attitudes that will
(17:55):
equip us to deal with a very,very uncertain future.
And the good girls and boys whoare obedient, waiting for
orders, um, we're going to haveto change their education system
so that they have a broaderrange of capacities than they
are currently graduating with.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Yeah, and I hear echoes of the late Ken Robinson
coming through.
He was trying to convincepeople that they needed to start
to embrace the arts in adifferent way, needed to start
to to embrace the arts in adifferent way.
My own personal experience ofthis is um, yeah, everything you
say resonates.
Um, during covid, some of myfriends who make a living out of
(18:38):
music became so creative andinventive.
But they were doing the paypaljar, for example, which was
literally you can't put money inmy thing, but you can put money
in my paypal.
Every little thing they werethey they became live performers
, they were doing concerts forfree over the internet.
They were doing whatever ittook, but the degree of
(19:00):
ingenuity they had just to beable to survive was impressive,
I mean.
And they were creating on speedat that stage because they were
literally doing stuff.
And then, if we look at,juxtapose that with just to
mention the Taylor Swift's ofthis world, who have shown also
how you can, I mean, in someways, her success is an example
(19:22):
of how a young woman goes outthere, takes her craft and
pushes it to the boundaries and,of course, becomes phenomenally
wealthy as a result, right,right.
So yeah, also, there's so manythings echoing there.
Harold Wexworth work on fixedminds yes, absolutely.
I mean waiting for orders is Idon't want to get it wrong, you
(19:44):
know, and that type of thing.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I see this very early sometimes in my mba
students, which is they'll saywell, how many words does the
essay have to have, and do youwant it single spaced or double
spaced?
And do you want me to indentparagraphs, and does that
include footnotes?
And how many references do youwant?
And all this sort of stuff.
And increasingly, with theassignments that I hand out, I
(20:10):
just say I don't care, I want itto be excellent, but it needs
to be your concept of excellence.
I want you to take an idea anddevelop it, and I'm as
interested in how you do it asin what you do.
And, of course, for some peoplethis is just totally ambiguous
(20:31):
and they're frozen and paralyzed.
And for some I mean the look ontheir faces they're so happy,
it's like at last.
Here I am, you know, in themaster's program, and I'm being
treated like an adult and I havesome freedom at long last yeah,
go, go do it and show us whatyou can do.
Yeah, show me what you're madeof.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, my kids go to a secondary school where they
basically just tell them intheir last two years they have a
project to do Fantastic, that'sit.
Yeah.
And at the beginning theystruggle because they go well,
couldn't you give us like threeor four subjects or topics?
And they say, no, go dosomething that interests you.
Maybe it's something you wantto study afterwards, maybe
(21:13):
you're going to find that youwant to study it, maybe you're
going to find you don't want tostudy it.
And basically it's this notionof the discipline you're
bringing all subjects togetherand they do the most amazing
things.
It's, yeah, it's unbelievable.
They struggle really stretchesthem.
But you see, these young peopleemerge in their graduation,
when they're coming up to 18years old.
(21:34):
They're like flowers havebloomed, you know.
They just blossom.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
And you just see this emergence of that person who's
now ready for adulthood.
They've just grown throughsomething.
But let's get down to the so.
Artists seem to be able toembrace uncertainty as part of
their day-to-day creativeprocess.
So what can leaders andorganizations start to learn
from this, apart from employinglots of them, perhaps?
(22:01):
But, um, what can they start toto learn, and what have you
gleaned from your conversations?
Are there some importantprinciples or things that you
could say?
You could transpose this intoan organization and it'll work,
because it works for theseartists.
It's going.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
It would work for you yeah, well, I think there are a
couple things I'd say, um.
The first is, I think allorganizations need need to take
a hard look at their performancemanagement system, because if
there's a big culprit beyondeducation, I think it's there.
You know this very elaboratebureaucracy that most companies
(22:40):
have developed, which is a jobdescription and KPIs and targets
, and all of this really heavylifting bureaucracy, and all of
this really heavy liftingbureaucracy that wasn't intended
to, but it fundamentallystifles creative thinking.
People are so busy hittingthese targets and measuring
their KPIs or working aroundthem that it leaves very little
(23:04):
time for any creative thinkingwhatsoever.
So I think of this a little bitas a game of Jenga, which is
how much of this stuff can youthrow out?
Because, for one thing, it'ssuper costly to craft all of
these things you know, withpages and pages and pages of
detail, and then monitor it alland then you know, estimate its
(23:28):
worth.
I would think how much of it canyou get rid of?
I think you then need to thinkabout innovation as a constant
process, not just somethingthat's inside an R&D department.
I think that has to be part ofthe annual budget or whatever
the budget cycle is, and I lookat some companies that do this
(23:51):
very well.
So most of them, what they'lldo is they'll do a forecast with
all the caveats required, andthen they'll say, okay, so if
we're estimating a profit of X,we will take 15% of that and put
that towards new initiatives,and that money and those
(24:14):
resources will be devoted topeople who come up with ideas of
what we need to be doing tosecure our longer-term future.
I would then look at some of thevery good processes that
companies like WL Gore have,which make it really simple to
(24:35):
pitch new ideas.
They have a really beautifulheuristic, which is if you've
got an idea, you need to be ableto answer three questions,
which is, first of all, is itreal?
Do you have some evidence thatit could work?
Secondly, does it matter?
Is the market for this thingimportant enough financially?
(24:57):
And the third is can we win?
In other words, are there suchhuge barriers to entry that we
have no chance, or is it verydisaggregated or untapped?
In which case, let's go right,and what I love about the way
that Gore does this is thatthose are three rules that are
(25:19):
super easy to remember.
This is not a 57-pageapplication form, right, and
everybody kind of carries it intheir head, so when they have an
idea they can quickly runthrough and say, yeah, it's a
great idea, it probably wouldwork, we probably could do it.
But you know, after we've doneit we've made 10 and sixpence.
So it's a kind of cool idea butit's not worth it.
(25:40):
It's just not worth the effort.
On the other hand, you can gothrough it and say, hey,
actually, actually this is areally disaggregated market.
We really can make a hugeimprovement and there's a lot of
money in this market.
Now let's go for it.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
You've given them simple criteria against, as you
say, you know you haven'tstacked it with 25 variables or
anything.
You just said these three.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
If you can answer these questions well, then let's
think about it seriously.
If you can answer thesequestions well, then let's think
about it seriously.
So I think that has to become aprocess that anybody in the
(26:26):
company can go through.
Frankly, is to do with, I mean,leaving more time for
reflection.
I remember working with onecompany where a one-hour meeting
was a 50-minute meeting, andthe last 10 minutes people just
sat there and thought about whatthey heard, what they discussed
(26:46):
.
Were there reasons not to do it?
Were there reasons not to do it?
Were there better reasons to doit?
But they scheduled inreflection time.
I write in my book about twohabits that Andy Haldane, who
was the chief economist at theBank of England, used to adopt.
One was to go for a lot ofwalks to get a sense of what's
(27:12):
going on out there in the realworld.
Right, chief economists spendtheir time with models, right,
and he was really interested inreality, thank God.
And so it's not just that hewould walk around, but he would
also, you know, go and talk togroups that economists don't
typically talk to.
You know, whether it wascharities, whether it was
homeless associations, whetherit was entrepreneurs to get a
(27:35):
sense of outside of my bubble,what is on people's minds.
I can look at the research intoit, but I want to hear the
quality of their lives as it'sexpressed through people
directly.
And the other thing he did, forwhich he was initially quite
widely derided, was he wouldinvite artists into the bank to
(27:57):
come and talk about whateverthey wanted to.
Because he said you know, it'sso easy in any kind of
organization to get highlyinstitutionalized, become very
rigid, very, very narrow.
Highly institutionalized becomevery rigid, very, very narrow.
And these are people who, justyou know, allowed everybody to
(28:19):
lift their heads up and thinkmore broadly and have very
different kinds of conversations.
I'm also seeing companies thatare using the arts specifically
to enable different kinds ofconversations, higher levels of
collaboration, just to provoke adifferent discussion about
what's going on in the world andwhat do we need to be doing.
(28:42):
I remember taking a whole bunchof CEOs this was not my idea, I
have to say, this was not myidea, I have to say who were on
a sort of you know, two-dayexecutive away day and they
kicked that off in a museum inTexas where there was an
exhibition of Jackson Pollock'sblack painting, and in groups of
(29:10):
two or three.
They would sit in one of thepaintings and simply talk about
what they saw in the painting.
It's a very different kind ofconversation, really trying to
free the mind up, relax it alittle bit.
And it's very interestingbecause you know what the
neurobiology will say is thatwhile you might feel your brain
is relaxing, the reality is it'sstill very busy, but in a
different way.
(29:30):
Different parts of the brainare being recruited and in this
mode you're capable of seeingconnections between ideas in
ways that when you're super busyor web surfing or glue to
netflix, your brain's working,but it's not wandering around
and thinking that's right.
(29:51):
So we need to have a bigrethink about what's the
valuable work, what's thenecessary work and how do we get
those into a better kind ofproportion.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You're listening to Leading People with me, gerry
Murray.
My guest this week is renownedthinker and author, margaret
Heffernan, whose TED Talks havegarnered millions of views.
Coming up next, margaretexplores how artists, composers
and even actors prepare toembrace the unknown, how they
(30:35):
deal with risk and how theyachieve breakthroughs.
You'll hear why she believesthe creative world offers the
most useful models forfuture-ready leadership and what
you can do to start learningfrom them today.
And it seems that we can alsolearn a lot from chickens.
So let's get back to ourconversation.
(30:57):
So I'm going to.
There's a huge amount in there,margaret, I guess.
I guess.
I guess that just means, ladiesand gentlemen, you're just
going to have to buy the book,get the rest of it, but I, I,
there's one thing you talkedabout which artists are really,
um, good at tolerating, and if Icould just reflect back a
little bit what you just talkedabout there, you used WL Gore,
(31:20):
right?
Well, tom Peters wrote aboutthat in In Search of Excellence,
if I'm not mistaken.
So that company's been doingthis stuff for for a long time
and you know, I, I've also hungout with people and you know
we've got big AI stuff.
Maybe we'll come to a bit oftechnology in a few minutes and
that, and there's this wholeview that this is just going to
sweep the world.
But I worked in finance for awhile and financial people can
(31:42):
be very cautious and you talkabout this way in which artists
embrace risk, about this way inwhich artists embrace risk.
So it strikes me sometimes thatit's not an understanding of
what needs or could be done.
It's this inability to take therisk, that that, because a lot
of ceos are saying, well, if itgoes horribly wrong, then I'm,
(32:05):
I'm dead meat right, which isfixed mindset again, it's like
it has to be right or wrong.
So what could you say to peopleout there who are saying, ah,
it's just too risky, I get it, Iget it, but it's just too risky
.
What can artists in?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
that world.
Teach a CEO who's afraid oftaking the risk.
Well, I mean, I think what Iwould say is there's an
asymmetry of visibility right,which is kind of a horrible
phrase, but by which I mean youcan see the risk of doing
something you can't see the riskof not doing something that I
(32:47):
read about or know wellfirsthand.
The biggest risk they are alltaking is their refusal to
change or adapt, their refusalto invent.
I think this is hands down themost dangerous thing they could
possibly do, but because they'reused to it, it doesn't feel
dangerous.
Yes, right, it's like, well, ifI've been doing this every day,
(33:11):
it'll be fine.
And that kind of takes me backto one of my, you know, favorite
lessons in philosophy, whichwas Bertrand Russell talking
about, um, chickens.
You know I can become a bitobsessed by chickens if you know
my work, but, but you know heused to talk about, you know,
the chicken gets up everymorning when the sun rises and
does his cock-a-doodle-doo, andthe corn gets thrown in front of
him and he has his breakfastand that's great.
(33:33):
And he does that day after dayafter day, thinking that's going
to go on forever.
And one day the sun rises andhe steps outside and the farmer
comes over and breaks his neckRight.
So this is the fallacy ofRussell's Chicken.
Russell's chicken thinks well,if it worked before, it'll work
today.
You know, it's the classic ifit ain't broke, don't fix it.
(33:55):
Well, I think the environmentwe're in right now is one where,
if it ain't broke, break it now, break it yourself.
Do you know?
Think ahead and think aboutwhat do we need to be five years
from now?
And how do we start yesterday?
Because sitting around and justimagining that someday things
(34:20):
will settle down and in themeantime I have all this data
which gives me a deep level ofdeceptive comfort is not
leadership.
You know?
Can we just say this?
You know, leadership is aboutbeing ahead.
It isn't sitting on thesidelines waiting to see what
happens next.
And although there is agigantic library of books on
(34:47):
leadership, there is ashockingly small supply of it in
real life.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot of people who've done
statistics on this and said,like most of the money is wasted
.
They said if you took the sameapproach to medicine as you took
to leadership, you know, thendoctors would be dysfunctional
because nobody would ever getkid.
There will be no standards,there would be no common
practice, etc.
(35:14):
And so there's a.
It's a big industry, but anindustry that perhaps doesn't
produce a lot of quality outputin the end of the day and and
we're surrounded byincrementalism, you know, which
is okay.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
We manufacture a chocolate biscuit, let's make
one a bit smaller.
Let's make one with whitechocolate, let's make one with
darker chocolate, you know,let's make one that's square,
and they call this innovation,but it isn't, and it's not
thinking much more deeply about,well, what could be possible.
(35:49):
The other thing I'd say is Ithink it's quite interesting
this notion that people have,which is, you know, the arts are
very soft and squishy andscience is very kind of hardcore
, and real Scientists definitelydon't recognize that in the
slightest.
And one of the things that waskind of interesting for me,
(36:09):
especially as I'm married to ascientist, you know, talking to
scientists about much, aboutactually how creative that you
were thinking has to be to makeany kind of breakthrough, and
that actually and Carlo Rovelliwrites about this absolutely
brilliantly he says artists aredrawn to uncertainty because
that's where the breakthroughsoccur.
(36:30):
If you cling to certainty,you're never going to discover
anything right.
So you have to move towards theunknown with the creative
confidence that you can findsomething.
But if you just hunker downwith certainty, all you're going
to do is repeat yourself, andthat's what a large number of
(36:51):
organizations do.
It's also the case that youknow we're fixated on efficiency
, and have been ever since theIndustrial Revolution.
And if you want to be reallyefficient, then what you take is
a process you already know andyou just tighten it up a bit a
bit less money, a bit less time,a bit fewer resources it
(37:13):
becomes more efficient.
Fantastic if you're justrepeating something, but it's
exactly the wrong mindset forsomething new.
Innovation is not efficient, isnot efficient.
There's a huge amount of wasteof time, of ideas, but actually,
if you try to apply efficiencyto innovation, you guarantee
(37:38):
failure, because you know, afterabout two failed ideas,
everybody's going to jump to thesure thing.
Well, guess what?
The sure thing is an old thingin new clothes, yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, your TED talk in 2019 really
brings that out very strongly.
I have a friend who's aprofessor at the Calwell
University here in Leuven andhe's a professor of customer
experience and he's banging onconstantly about how
over-efficient orover-engineered the customer
(38:12):
service experience has become,to the point where customers are
just totally frustrated by thelack of customer experience
they're getting.
And he's he's very vocal.
He was on this program, I thinka year or two ago as well,
talking about this.
But uh, it's true, and and youreminded me when you're talking
about the different colors ofchocolate and making them
(38:33):
smaller I had a professor when Iwas at Manchester Business
School and he he used to talkabout fiddling at the margin and
he said, don't, like anybodycan fiddle at the margin and say
, but if you and we were doingadvanced market strategies, so
we were looking at what wascalled the PIMS database and all
that stuff in those days and itwas like he was saying, no, you
have to really go way beyondthat you.
(38:57):
He was saying, no, you have toreally go way beyond that.
You have to really look forsomething new.
You have to be prepared toexplore and to to really try and
find those things, otherwiseyou are just fiddling at the
margins.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yeah, and and eventually that will kill you
because it's not interestingenough.
It's not interesting enough toconsumers.
And to go back to your exampleof customer service, customers
learn to hate companies withpoor customer service.
You know it's super fast, it'ssuper cheap, it's run by bots.
You can't talk to a human.
(39:24):
The data probably looks great.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
What's not being measured is the degree to which
people hate your business nowit's a bit like what you were
saying earlier about the thingsyou don't do.
You don't know what you're notknowing about what you're not
doing.
You don't know about all thosepeople who aren't coming back
Right, there used to be I mean,I wrote my master's thesis on
customer service and theimportance of people to that and
(39:49):
there used to be anorganization at the time called
TARP and they used to look atnot just the amount of people
who were unhappy with yourservice, but who who came back.
If you solve their problem andand the statistics were
mind-blowing they like if you,somebody could be really pissed
off with you, but if you, if youtreated them and there's
respect and listen to them anddid something to try and help
(40:10):
them, they became loyalcustomers.
Not only that, they becameadvocates and they promoted you
by saying actually you know what.
They got it wrong a few times,but actually they sorted it for
me and I was pretty happy.
Speaker 2 (40:21):
Yeah, now you can turn complainers into
evangelists for you.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
So you speak a lot about innovation.
I'm just looking at my noteshere and I'm looking at the time
and I'm thinking, you know, Isuppose something that might be
on the listener's mind out thereis, when they think of
innovation, they think oftechnology, and you know we've
got a lot of that stuff going onat the moment and you've
written a lot about, I think,this idea that technology should
(40:50):
be in service of people and notthe other way around.
Technology should be in serviceof people and not the other way
around.
What would you say about the?
You know, is there anincreasing risk of leaders
losing their ability to thinkcreatively and deal with
uncertainty because they thinktechnology is going to do it for
them, like chat GPT is going tojump up in the morning and
answer all their questions, forexample.
So what are your thoughts onthat?
(41:12):
Because the last time as I said, 2019, you were doing the TED
thing and you were alreadyseeing things that have started
to come to.
What are you seeing today?
Now, in the last two years, hasbeen accelerated quite a bit,
because now it wasn't that AIwasn't there, it's just that AI
became more accessible to theordinary person through an app,
(41:32):
for example.
So what are you seeing now andwhat leaders need to be wary of?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
I'm certainly seeing a classic hype cycle coming out
of Silly Valley, which is, no,it's not new, but it's much more
vicious and aggressive now thanit's ever been before.
I'm seeing a lot of seniorexecutives not really
understanding what AI is, how itworks, what it can do, what it
(42:02):
can't do.
I'm seeing an under coverage ofits costs, both environmental
and financial and certainly interms of capital investment, and
, as a consequence, I'm seeingkind of chaos Like, oh, we've
(42:23):
got to do AI, we've got to do AI.
We don't really know what it is, don't really know where it is
or when it is, but we have to dosomething.
And not very much very clearstrategic thinking.
I'm seeing very little in termsof understanding where does it
genuinely add value and not?
And I think the most interestingthing I saw recently was an
(42:48):
analysis and I think, to be fairto him, it was a sort of
slightly back of the envelopeanalysis by Paul Krugman about
you know, when the dust hassettled, what will the
contribution of AI be to theeconomy?
And his back of the envelopecalculation was approximately 1%
(43:11):
of GDP.
Now, why is it so low?
Well, one reason it's so low isbecause of how much value it's
going to destroy.
So that should give everybodysome pause in terms of thinking
(43:32):
okay, is this what we want to do?
And if we do want to do it, howdo we reduce the cost of it?
Because you know, if you toldme I was going to invest
billions and billions andbillions and billions in
something for a 1% return, Imight at least slow down and do
(43:54):
some better thinking yeah, thereis a, I suppose, but you lived
through this echoes of thedot-com yes, I've been there.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
I've been there, yes well, I mean, I knew people who
did this craziest of things andstarted businesses and you know,
we're coming back to my oldalma mater maybe six months or
12 months later asking for theirold jobs back, because
everybody thought that it's justa question of the Internet will
do everything for us and didn'tlook at.
Perhaps what you're referringto now is what the net impact of
(44:26):
all of this is.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
And what Krugman estimates, the net impact of the
Internet was is a half to onepercent.
Impact of the internet was is ahalf to one percent.
Um, ai it may well be less thanthat, because ai is formidably
more expensive.
And so you know the people whomade out like like bandits, so
(44:51):
to speak, in the internettransition, with the people
building the infrastructure.
So the telcos you know certainlythe data center people are
going to do very well, as arethe energy companies, but this
is always painted as though it'sfree money.
(45:14):
You know that we're going tohave AI and it's all going to be
fabulous and there's going tobe tons of money rolling around.
There's going to be tons ofdebt rolling around and, yes,
some companies will do very well, many will be destroyed, and we
should be thinking not justabout the upsides, which is, of
(45:34):
course, what Silly Valley wantsus to think about, but the
downsides in terms of cost, notjust cost to businesses, which
are ginormous, but cost togovernments who are somehow
going to have to deal with theunemployment consequences of
taking millions of jobs off thetable.
Yeah, and who is going to payfor that?
(45:58):
Because those people aren'tgoing to be customers if they
have no income, no right.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
So could we all just slow down and start thinking
about this in 3d instead of youknow, just some kids game yeah,
and that whole discussion aroundthe, where Altman was coming
out more or less saying thatit's not scaling like normal
tech and then DeepSeek comes outand sort of puts a blip on it
(46:24):
and says look what we did forless money.
And so it is a very, at themoment, a very unknown world.
And at the same time then, ifwe cycle back to embracing
uncertainty, how does how dowhat you learned in that, in
that research, apply to peoplewho are looking at this, this
whole technology ai thing?
(46:45):
What are the things that anartist would do?
Um, with something like this?
Speaker 2 (46:50):
yeah, well, it's interesting because I talk to
artists and, of course course,some of them think it's the
worst thing that's ever happened.
Many of them are simply playingwith it to see, ok, what can I
do with this technology that Icouldn't do before?
And so musicians, for example,are using it to get a quick
(47:10):
sketch of you know, if I putthese things together and add
this and take this away, roughlyspeaking, what do I get?
And they're doing that becausewhat it means for them is that
something that maybe it wouldhave taken three or four hours
to write to here and decideactually, no, I don't want to go
down that road.
They can do more quickly nowand say, okay, well, that recipe
(47:32):
doesn't work, so let me trysomething different.
So the trial and error process,which is fundamental to most art
, is accelerated.
Now, in many cases, that'sgreat.
In many cases, it might not begreat, because actually the
thinking time between trial anderror is really important.
(47:52):
So you don't just want to beable to make music faster, but
certainly that's what I've seenartists using for it for a lot.
In terms of writers, I've seenpeople using AI for research
warily, because the research isnot always very reliable, and
(48:13):
the pretty fundamental problemwith it is it tends to rely on
the most cited sources, whichmeans it's very generic, and if
you, as a researcher, arelooking for something uniquely
interesting, it's probably notgoing to do that for you, no.
(48:35):
So I think we have tounderstand better how it works
and where it delivers realrewards, and certainly many of
the early examples.
It's not just that they're notdelivering anything at all
useful to me, they're wasting mytime.
(48:56):
The summaries I get fromMicrosoft Outlook are a total
waste of my time.
I mean, I didn't ask for them.
They're absolutely valueless tome and all they make me do is
hate Microsoft.
You know this may be theirexperiment.
Don't experiment on my time.
You know this may be theirexperiment.
(49:16):
Don't experiment on my time.
You know it's just tooaggressive, it's too invasive.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Yeah, and actually breaking news.
This afternoon I noticed that anews story that a very, very
large amount of prominentartists have brought out a
silent album of musicians, asilent album in protest at the
ai copyright potential toinfringe.
And these are serious big names, from kate bush to paul
(49:43):
mccartney to name it.
So who's who basically, ofsaying enough is enough, you
know, yeah and they're, andthey're right to do that.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
And I've written this on this in my sub stack, as you
probably know, which is um it's.
It's an extraordinary idea thatI create a piece of
intellectual property and it canbe ripped off by every tom,
dick and harry using ai.
I didn't allow that.
(50:10):
I don't get any upside ofwhatever it goes on to produce.
I mean, this is just automatingshoplifting essentially.
And of course thecounterargument, certainly here
in the UK, is but if we don't doAI, you know we won't be a
leader in the world and webetter just never mind the cost
to everybody else.
(50:30):
We have to go forward.
It's like no hang on a second.
You know the Financial Timeshas a deal with ChatGPT.
They are remunerated for theintellectual property that they
allowed ChatGPT to scrape.
So there is an intrinsiccontract that says we get some
(50:55):
of the upside.
I don't understand why a bigpublisher I mean I understand
politically, of course, but froma legal or justice perspective,
why that can be true of anarticle I write for the FT but
not for an article I write on mysubstat.
(51:15):
Yeah, you know, it should be upto me to decide whether I want
AI to scrape it.
And you know, one of theproposed compromises in this
space is okay, well, you shouldbe able to flip a switch to say
don't scrape.
Well, that's a very nice idea,but there are two problems with
(51:36):
it.
The first is nobody anywherehas shown that that's doable.
And secondly, you know theelegance, the sheer elegance of
copyright law is the minute Iwrite a sentence, it's my
sentence and it's covered.
I don't have to do anything.
It just is the minute a painterdoes, a visual artist does a
(51:58):
scribble.
It is their work.
So this is turning copyright onits head, saying, no, every
single thing you create, whetherit's a calendar entry, you know
, or the entire, I don't know,lord of the Rings you have to
copyright it every time you adda sentence to it.
(52:18):
This is lugubrious, it'sexpensive, it's not workable.
The AI companies know it.
They think for them, of course,it would look like fairness and
it would actually be theft.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
Right, there's a lot, a lot of great stuff there.
Margaret is there.
Is there anything I should haveasked you about your book that
I haven't asked you, that you'dlike to share with our listeners
?
Speaker 2 (52:42):
um, I don't know.
I mean, I think I think there'sa lot in it for for people a
who love the arts and want tounderstand better how artists
work.
I think there's a great deal init about how to make oneself
more creative, which was partlya kind of part of what propelled
(53:06):
me to write the book, because Ithought I was getting very dull
and boring and I wanted tospend some time talking to
different kinds of people.
And so I think there is as muchas I'm interested in
organizations because they havea lot of power and influence in
the world.
I think there's a great dealabout the way we live today
(53:26):
which makes us much lesscreative than we innately are.
And I guess, in this context,the thing I'm thinking about is,
you know, we've become veryaddicted to the promise of
certainty.
So I've noticed this withfriends of mine who booked a
city break, you know, going toBarcelona, and of course, they
found the best restaurants andbooked them, the best hotel and
(53:46):
booked it, you know, a guidedtour and booked it, you know,
before they got on the plane.
The whole thing was scheduledand planned, and I looked at
that and thought I don't evenknow why you need to go now.
You have allowed you allownothing serendipitous,
accidental to happen.
(54:06):
You're not going to explore,you're just going where
everybody else has been.
What is what is going to be newfor you in this?
And what you know is that whenpeople come back from their
holidays, you know what do theyremember most?
The unexpected conversation,the shop they found when they
made a wrong turn and foundthemselves in this little
(54:28):
alleyway that somebody made youknow really cool bags.
It's the unexpected, and Ithink our apps and all of our
technology have really shrunkenour capacity to regard
uncertainty as opportunity,which is I get a chance to
(54:49):
explore.
I get a chance to think formyself, to do for myself.
I am free if I allow myself tobe, but the more I fall into the
hands of the peddlers ofcertainty, the less free I
become.
Of course, I'm also generatingvast amounts of data for them,
(55:09):
not for me, and I'll never knowwhat I missed.
Speaker 1 (55:15):
Yeah, I met my wife on an airplane and it was the
greatest unexpected gift I everhad.
It's.
You know, these things canhappen.
You never know what's going tohappen.
Speaker 2 (55:24):
But they don't happen if you don't leave time and
looseness for them.
Speaker 1 (55:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (55:32):
In the same way that if you walk to work every day
the exact same way, you will seenothing by the second week.
So you know it's also thatthese addictions and habits
really limit what we experienceand ultimately who we are.
Yeah, and ultimately who we are, unless we're able and curious
(55:57):
enough to change them.
Speaker 1 (56:01):
Yeah, so coming to the end as a final reflection,
so looking back on not just thework and research you did for
this book, but all the workyou've done, if you could leave
leaders with just one keyinsight about uncertainty, what
would that be?
Speaker 2 (56:20):
I think it would be that, if you truly want to lead,
and be skeptical of efficiencyand don't hire a single person
without an overweening sense ofcuriosity.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
Okay.
So, margaret, how do people getin touch with you?
And I believe you may even havea special offer for a few lucky
listeners who reach out to you.
Speaker 2 (56:47):
Yeah, so I have a website which is just
wwwmheffernancom, or one word.
It's just wwwmheffernancom, orone word and I would say that if
they want to write to me eitherthrough that website or via
LinkedIn the first 10 people Iwill sign up with free
subscriptions for my sub stack,which I started about a month
(57:09):
ago now.
Speaker 1 (57:10):
Great, and then they'll get regular updates from
you on your thinking andeverything else.
Speaker 2 (57:15):
Yeah, and some of the interviews with artists that
are in my book will be willappear on the within the sub
stack as longer form interviews,because they're phenomenal,
phenomenal people.
Speaker 1 (57:25):
Yeah, and I'll put links in the show notes so
anybody who wants to referencethem.
As ever, thanks, margaret forsharing your insights, tips and
wisdom with my listeners heretoday.
Speaker 2 (57:36):
Super Well, thank you for inviting me and thank you
for your great questions.
Speaker 1 (57:43):
Coming up on Leading People.
In our upcoming episodes, we'lldelve into groundbreaking
research that reveals some ofthe universal traits shared by
the world's most effectiveleaders and how you can
cultivate them in your ownleadership journey.
We'll also explore thestrategies and practices that
set top employers apart,offering practical insights into
(58:07):
how organizations can createenvironments where people truly
thrive.
And we'll investigate how AI isreshaping organizational
dynamics from who gets recruitedto who gets promoted, to how
employees are monitored, raisingnew ethical questions for
leaders about stress, well-beingand the future of work.
(58:30):
If you haven't done so already,be sure to subscribe to Leading
People on your favorite podcastchannel to stay ahead of the
curve with fresh insights onleadership and organizational
excellence.
And remember, before our nextfull episode, there's another
One Simple Thing episode waitingfor you A quick and actionable
(58:54):
tip to help you lead and livebetter.
Keep an eye out for it whereveryou listen to this podcast
Until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.