November 13, 2024 • 40 mins
Tamsen is back again for another episode with Jason! They delve into the intricate dance of driving and adapting to change. . Together, they explore the depths of handling change — from personal upheavals to organizational shifts, emphasizing strategies that foster lasting transformations without coercion.
"If you act from a presumption that your audience is smart, capable, and good, you open up pathways for understanding and acceptance that are otherwise closed."
With over 25 years of experience in persuasive message design, Tamsen Webster is known for her unique approach to creating transformational change. Her work focuses on helping others learn the simplest, strongest ways to build the stories that partners, investors, clients, and customers will tell themselves—and others. It has also helped leaders at major purpose-driven organizations such as Johnson & Johnson and Harvard Medical School drive action from new and novel ideas.
As the Idea Strategist for TEDxCambridge (now TEDxNewEngland), Tamsen has honed her expertise in crafting messages that resonate quickly and deeply. She’s been the principal of the boutique message design practice she founded in 2016, helping hundreds of clients and audiences connect with the stakeholders that propel new ideas forward.
In 2023, she founded the Message Design Institute, an online learning and development hub that equips leaders and organizations with the knowledge and practical tools they need to craft persuasive messages on their own.
She is the author of the critically acclaimed Find Your Red Thread: Make Your Big Ideas Irresistible and the forthcoming Say What They Can't Unhear: The 9 Principles of Lasting Change, which offers a new, principles-first approach to persuasion.
http://messagedesigninstitute.com
http://TamsenWebster.com
Free Resource
Get better-quality, faster results from your teams with these coaching methodologies here.
Connect with Jason
If you enjoyed listening, then please take a second to rate the show on iTunes. Every podcaster will tell you that iTunes reviews drive listeners to our shows, so please let me know what you think and make sure you subscribe using your favorite podcast player. It means a lot to me and the guests.
https://www.jasonfrazell.com
https://www.jasonfrazell.com/podcasts
https://www.instagram.com/jasontfrazell
https://www.https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonfrazell/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jason Frazell (00:13):
Hey everybody, thanks for being on the show
today.
This is a real treat.
I have a returning guest,Tamsen.
You are two fifths of the way toyour jacket, you know, on
Saturday Night Live.
Oh my gosh, I hope
Tamsen Webster (00:25):
so.
Yes, I have
Jason Frazell (00:26):
somebody who's like, they're like, I want a
jacket.
I'm like, it's going to be areally cool jacket.
So you're on number two, you'renot, you're not Justin
Timberlake, not JustinTimberlake quite yet, but you're
moving, you're moving that wayout there.
So Tamsyn Webster is a secondtime guest.
You're on a couple of years agowhen we talked about the red
thread and some of the workyou're doing around that and got
to know you.
We are back talking to youbecause you have a book coming
(00:47):
out and it is all aroundsomething that every single one
of us has to deal with everysingle day.
And it's change.
Tamsen Webster (00:55):
Yes.
Jason Frazell (00:57):
And we are here in September of 2024 in the
United States.
And there's a lot of changegoing on and there will be
change going on.
Constant change all the time.
For those of us who havechildren in school, we just have
changed.
Kids went off to school.
We have politics.
We have the country's changing.
We have all sorts of thingschanging.
And businesses everywhere arealso having to change due to
(01:18):
technology.
I just going to bring this up inreal time.
We're literally recording thisright after the fed announced a
rate, a half point ratereduction, which has a massive
impact on businesses.
So there will be changes tostrategies and such, and what
they're going to do aroundhiring and buying and stuff.
So we're going to talk aboutchange today.
And before we do that, Timpson,I'd love if you just give us
(01:39):
just to get a real briefoverview of who you are, what
you do, where you're based, andthen we're going to have a.
Super cool conversation aboutsome of the, some of these
concepts.
Tamsen Webster (01:47):
Sure.
So I'm Tamsyn Webster.
I am a message designer.
And what that means is that Ihelp leaders build buy in for
large scale and transformationalchange.
So I spent a lot of time doingthat.
Actually all my time doing that.
I love it.
I've been doing it for, in oneway or another for 25 plus
years.
It's embarrassing.
(02:07):
So, or, or, or.
I just started as a child.
I wish I could tell you that.
Either way.
Either way.
It's good.
I'm based in Boston,Massachusetts.
I was not born there, but I havelived here long enough to
develop a Bostonian alter egonamed Karen O'Sullivan.
Jason Frazell (02:25):
Karen O'Sullivan.
OK.
Yes.
Yes.
You go Red
Tamsen Webster (02:28):
Sox, hot dogs.
Jason Frazell (02:30):
Go to
Tamsen Webster (02:31):
Fenway Park.
Jason Frazell (02:32):
Fenway back change
Tamsen Webster (02:34):
back, we talk about change
Jason Frazell (02:35):
in sports.
That would be an interesting.
Tamsen Webster (02:37):
Oh, my gosh.
Yeah, it's been it's been up anddown here.
I mean, it's been it's been afun couple of decades to live in
Boston because it definitely hasbeen like title town here.
So that's that has been I'vebeen here since well before.
The Red Sox broke the curse.
So I was definitely like adiehard, like long suffering Red
(02:59):
Sox fan until 2004.
But yeah, I, it's a great place.
I love Boston and I love thework that I do.
Jason Frazell (03:05):
Yeah.
Well, I'm, I'm glad we're goingto come back on and have another
really fun conversation about atopic that is serious, but also
Bring some levity to it as well,because it's inevitable.
Tamsen Webster (03:15):
It is.
Jason Frazell (03:17):
So let's kick
Tamsen Webster (03:17):
off.
Yeah, let's do
Jason Frazell (03:19):
it.
Tamsen Webster (03:19):
No, no.
And, and, and none of it happenswithout talking about it most of
the time.
And that is really what the bookis all about.
Like, how do we, how do, how dowe talk about change in order to
make it.
Less painful, less stressful,more likely to happen and more
likely to last.
That's really what I was tryingto help people do.
Jason Frazell (03:40):
What's the genesis of this book or the
inspiration?
Like what has you, you are, youdo a lot of different things
really well.
You have a lot of topics youcould write about.
Why change?
Tamsen Webster (03:52):
It is, it is you mentioned the red thread change
and how to help people helpother people make it happen,
which I know sounds a littleredundant, but that's, that
actually is the role that Iplayed is, is, is the red thread
of my life.
I, I first became interested inwhat it takes to create a
(04:13):
lasting change starting when Iwas 17 and I had my first panic
attack, but my role inorganizations from both
education, undergrad, gradschool you know, focusing on
managerial communications.
I was a change managementconsultant for a little while.
All of that has been abouthelping organizations.
(04:33):
either create change internallyand or through the work that
they're doing, create change intheir clients and customers
lives.
You know, with a lot of thestartups I work with, they're
trying to create planetarychange.
And it has just been the thingthat I have, that I know, I know
better than anything else.
I'm not saying I know it betterthan anyone else, but it is the
(04:55):
thing that I know deeply and tomy core.
Because I've been so focused onit, from so many different
perspectives, in so manydifferent ways, for so long, I
couldn't help but notice thatsome of the, the things that I,
My go to approaches and theprinciples behind those
approaches were actually quitedifferent than a lot of what at
(05:18):
least from a businesscommunication standpoint, an
official quote unquote changecommunication standpoint teaches
or if they teach it at all,which they don't.
And.
And so the more that I kepttalking to people and the more
that I talked to people aboutthe red thread and what that
approach was based on and, andother pieces like that, the more
I just, I realized people werelike, well, nobody else is
talking about change this way.
(05:40):
And I was like, oh, well.
if nobody else is, then let mejust take these principles I've
been working from for a longtime and testing and honing and
let me put them down into a bookand so that I can help that
other, that process with otherpeople work better because, you
know, I, I've done the hard workon these.
So hopefully they're a loteasier for people to go, Oh, all
(06:03):
right.
Jason Frazell (06:03):
Yeah.
Help, help.
We're going to talk about painin a little bit, but I'm hearing
that potentially Helpingbusinesses and individuals
remove some of the, thechallenges that you've had to go
through as you've had to dealwith change in your own life.
Oh,
Tamsen Webster (06:16):
absolutely.
I mean, because I think all ofus, whether it's an individual
organizational, everybody's hadthat, that experience of a
change that failed.
Right.
You were trying to do somethingand maybe you, it started out
great.
And then eventually it, itdidn't go so well, or, you know,
you were successful and then itwent back or you were able to
get something to happen, but itdidn't like the approach to it
(06:38):
didn't feel good.
And that, I will say that themost immediate Genesis of this
book was, I really just gottired of hearing a persuasion
and influence advice that wasfundamentally.
What I perceive to bemanipulative, coercive,
Jason Frazell (06:58):
even
Tamsen Webster (06:58):
authoritarian.
And there are times and places,maybe for some of that.
I don't know.
As I say in the book, there aresome times when you don't, you
can't stop to make sureeverybody's on board for reasons
of safety or emergency orwhatever.
But that's usually not where weare most of the time.
And so I just, yeah, it is, Ijust wanted to find, I wanted to
(07:21):
be able to articulate for otherpeople the way that I have found
and that I have seen workreliably for creating a lasting
change, change that stayschanged transformational change,
large scale change in a way thatdoesn't rely on either, as I
like to call it, the stick orthe ick, right?
It doesn't rely on.
(07:42):
You know, kind of rewards or, orconsequences, or it just doesn't
feel good because it doesn'tfeel principled.
It may work, but I'm, you know,there's just certain things
where it's like, Ooh, one of thetip tip off phrases for me is
when, when people say, well, ifyou do this, you can get someone
to do X, Y, or Z.
(08:02):
And I'm like, just not ascomfortable with that.
Because that doesn't imply thatperson's acting on their own,
which is, a better foundationfor long term change is that
they're doing it because theywant to.
I
Jason Frazell (08:14):
think let's, let's kind of kick off as we
move into a couple of thesepoints.
Let's normalize the contextaround change.
Let's talk about organization,organizational change.
Yeah.
Now, you know, and let's, we'll,we'll be doing some
generalizations here, but inyour experience, we'll be doing
some generalizations.
Everybody has their ownrelationship to change.
(08:34):
Some people can't do without it.
It's like a drug and otherpeople are like, nope, any
change is not good for me.
Well, like what, what would yousay is the general context?
In I don't know in the businessworld around the announcement of
we're going to change and I'mtalking about something that's
gonna that will is enterprisewide right so we're not talking
about like we're changing aproduct or changing our pricing
we're talking about we'refundamentally like a like a
(08:57):
restructure or a strategy changelike a market strategy change
what do you generally see is thecontext around around the idea
then the CEO stands up and sayshey I'm going to do some things.
He or she's going to say we'regoing to do some things
differently.
Yeah.
What's the, what's the generalmindset that you would say
people have?
Tamsen Webster (09:14):
So I talk about this right in the, in the
introduction to the book, Iwould say that there's four
mindsets that people have thatI, that I've seen.
And I call them the, theactives, the ambivalence, the
indifference and theantagonists.
So let's start with theantagonists.
Those are the people who arelike, Oh, heck no.
(09:35):
Right.
Like just from the get go, likeit's because they don't, they
don't want the change or theydon't want the outcome or they
don't want how it's going tohappen or just nothing.
And, and they're not onlyagainst the change, but they
are.
actively, they can actually goeven further and be actively
against it.
They can be, be like protestersagainst it.
(09:57):
Those aren't, that's, you know,that's, that's dangerous,
obviously, because depending onhow well they can make the case
against you and what you're,what you're focused on they,
they can do damage to that, tothat change.
The antagonist though aren'thopeless.
You do have an opportunity, ifyou can make a strong case that
(10:20):
resonates with them, to get themto at least neutralize or even
potentially to swing over tobeing inactive.
So let's talk about that.
And they're at the other end ofthe continuum.
The actives, a lot of times you,they're the ones that just go,
yep.
All right.
I am down for this.
I love this idea.
(10:40):
I've been asking for thisforever.
This is, or it's my idea.
So of course I love it.
You know, and those are thefolks that, that are actively
supporting.
They may even become advocatesfor the change.
So, you know, the best thing todo there is not spend a huge
amount of time.
Don't tick them off, but whatyou can do is equip them with
the to be advocates.
(11:02):
So help them understand a littlebit more about the
rationalization of the change,the rationale behind the change,
so that even though they don'tneed to be convinced, they can
be your stewards, they can takethe message out there for you.
So that leaves the two in themiddle.
And this was fun because I hadmultiple people as peer
(11:22):
reviewers or whatever, you know,and early readers, peer
reviewers and early readers.
Take a look and they're like,are there really two in the
middle?
And I was like, yeah, actuallythere are.
And the difference is whether ornot they actually care.
Jason Frazell (11:39):
This resonates for me already.
Yeah,
Tamsen Webster (11:41):
exactly.
So the indifference don't.
They, the way that it, howeverit's been presented to them
right now, they actually reallydon't care, legitimately don't
care one way or the other.
So they'll probably go along toget along.
But they're also not going todrag their feet.
They're just saying, I don't,it's fine.
It's these are the, it's finepeople.
(12:02):
Now you can get them moreactive.
If for instance, you can find away to attach it to something
that they actively want.
And I'm not talking aboutexternal reward.
I'm talking about something thatthey value and they've been
working towards and you can say,Oh, Hey, this actually helps you
do that.
Then they may even become moreactively engaged, but that's
(12:25):
that lack of caring is whatseparates them from the
ambivalence.
Jason Frazell (12:30):
I
Tamsen Webster (12:30):
think the ambivalence don't get nearly
enough attention when we'rethinking about how to steward or
inspire a change in anorganization.
Because it's not that theambivalence don't care.
They do.
The issue is they care aboutsomething else just as much.
Jason Frazell (12:47):
Yeah.
Tamsen Webster (12:48):
And so what's happening is they're really
sitting in this tension betweentwo things that are pretty much
equally strong and are pullingthem in opposite directions.
This change, but I also want tomake sure that this other thing
doesn't change, for instance, orI want to be able to support the
(13:09):
organization's mission, but Ialso want the flexibility to
support my spouse in flexiblechild pickup or whatever it
might
Jason Frazell (13:17):
be.
Tamsen Webster (13:19):
So those, these folks are important because it,
that they are actively lookingfor information that will help
tip them one way or another,right?
Tip them into going yeah, okay,this actually is good.
I'm going to figure this out.
Or.
You know, I always thought thiswas a bad idea, and then now I'm
sure of it.
(13:39):
So, those are folks that reallyare actively open to
information, and so they arepeople to pay very close
attention to, and to be verythoughtful about how is this
change presented.
What is the, you know, how areyou talking about, again, the
(13:59):
rationale behind the change, thecase for the change the point of
view that led to the change orthat's leading to the change.
Those are the folks that reallyhave, that in, I say in the
book, those are the folks thatcan really make or break the
change for you based on how manyof them exist to start with and
how many of them end up flippingtowards, towards the change
(14:23):
rather than away from it.
Jason Frazell (14:24):
There's no there's no covert parallel here
between what we're talking aboutand the hundreds of millions of
dollars that get spent on thoseambivalent people in election
cycles.
Tamsen Webster (14:33):
That.
Yeah.
Oh no.
None at all.
I mean, none at all.
Oh gosh.
Yes.
I mean, my story, I'd idealisthope for this book is that it
does in fact paint a differentpath forward for all kinds of
messaging, persuasion, thosekinds of things.
approaches that are lesspolarizing as well.
(14:56):
Yeah.
And yes, I mean, that's thething.
And I think what happens is thatwe talk to ambivalence, like
they're antagonists, right?
Like, like they're against us orwe talk to them as if they don't
care.
And we're like, you should care.
And a lot of times some of themare going to be some swing
voters literally don't care.
And then some of them are.
(15:18):
So, really looking at a choiceis like, well, I don't really
like either one of them.
And that, you know, given otherwork that I do so I, I'm also
the idea strategist for TEDx NewEngland, where we work with
scientists and researchers, oneof whom this time around is a
decision scientist.
And he explained.
(15:38):
This is relevant.
I promise.
That when it comes to a choicebetween two bad options, which
is an ambivalent situation,right?
Where you are, you know, it'sneither is great, but the choice
is necessary.
Or the issue will be that ifthey, if it doesn't, if you
don't have to make a choice,those people just probably
(16:00):
won't.
But what he found is, is that alot of times what we try to do
is to say, which is better ofthese two bad things, but that's
actually, it's almost it's likeusing the wrong standard or
using a standard that's not aseffective.
What he found was in thatsituation, keep like with like
meaning.
Which one is worse rather thanasking which one is better than
(16:24):
by focusing on which one isworse, like which one gets you
to worst faster.
Then that's actually an easierchoice.
You're not saying that youactually like them, but you are
saying, yeah, but that wasworse.
And because that one's worse,I'm going to act against that
one because again, I may notlike the other one, but I don't
(16:46):
like what's going to happen withthat one.
So all of that though, to comeback to messaging is
understanding those kinds ofnuances is what can help you
frame a narrative, whether it'saround a political stance or
around a new compliance policyinternally or around a new
(17:08):
product or initiative.
That's the kind of thing thatcan really make or break.
And I don't mean.
Set it up of like, this is theworst option that gets back to
the pain, you know, as we haveseen in previous elections, a
lot of times the strongestnarrative wins, meaning the
strongest story that people cantell themselves about why a
(17:32):
particular choice makes sense.
Whatever organization, person,political party, candidate is
able to supply that story.
That, that, that really feelsimmediately aligned with how
somebody already sees the world.
Whoever can do that bestgenerally wins.
(17:52):
And so this book, while notspecific to politicians, is
about doing that, but from a,from a principle of integrity
and, and, and congruence withyour beliefs.
So it's not about, again,getting someone to do something.
It's saying, I believe in this.
(18:14):
position, this stance, thispolicy, because I believe that
it will accomplish this outcome,because I believe these things
are true about, you know, howthe world works, how people
works, what this organizationstands for, etc.
And so, And that way, the reasonwhy it avoids this trap of
(18:38):
manipulation is because you'renot actually trying to
manipulate people at all.
You're basically just saying,this is my point of view.
I am going to take the risk thatyou don't agree.
I am of the opinion that fewenough people articulate that
clear enough, like just yourability to articulate that is
probably going to win nine timesout of ten because most people
(19:00):
don't.
So yeah.
Anyway, that was a lot, but no,that's fantastic, Tamsen.
Jason Frazell (19:06):
So they, I think this is a perfect segue into one
of the principles in your book,which is that the primary enemy
of longterm change in anycontext is pain.
Pain.
Or if I could define that evenfurther.
is pain avoidance.
Well,
Tamsen Webster (19:26):
yeah, yes, exactly right.
The perception or theanticipation of enduring pain is
in fact your biggest enemy to achange that lasts.
Jason Frazell (19:38):
So let's talk about that.
So my, I have a belief I'm goingto, I'm going to share a belief
that I have about the businessworld is that high, high level
folks should have a highertolerance for pain.
(19:58):
I'm not talking about board orinvestors thing on the other
side.
I'm talking about people that,that have to make big decisions
for the good of a companyarguably should, or maybe like
should is a bad word, but Ibelieve that they should have a
high level of, it's going to bepainful, but I know it's the
right thing and I'm going tostand in those values and in my
(20:18):
integrity, we're going to do itanyway.
And, that's my belief, it'sbiased, but I also see just the
opposite happens all of thetime.
Tamsen Webster (20:28):
Yeah.
Couple thoughts on that.
One is, if.
I am interpreting what you'resaying correctly.
I also agree, but I would callit something different.
Yeah.
Meaning that someone who is ableto say, this is going to be
difficult.
(20:49):
This is going to be hard.
There's going to be a higheffort involved in here.
But this is worth it because Iam clear.
On how this is not only good forthe organization and what the
organization is trying to do,but it's also good for the
people that actually make thisorganization work.
I do believe this.
And it's because I wish thatmore people did that, that I
(21:11):
believe that those who want tobe that kind of leader are
willing to do the work to makesure that the messaging around
that change.
articulates that belief from thebeginning.
Jason Frazell (21:22):
And I
Tamsen Webster (21:22):
also agree a lot of people don't do that.
So when I'm talking about pain,I mean the kind of
psychological, emotional, mentalpain that we humans will not
stand any length of time withouteither stopping that pain,
stopping the source of the pain,or reframing something in our
(21:45):
minds in order to reduce it.
Ourselves.
Yeah.
Now, so the way that this comesinto play though, is that some
people are like, well, that,that's absolutely not what I was
taught.
I mean, my sales training wasabout making the pain of the
status quo equal the pain ofchange.
And if someone's not in pain,they're not going to move.
(22:06):
Yeah.
Okay.
And they're like, but Kahneman,I'm like, I read Kahneman.
I all about prospect theory andloss of loss aversion.
I get it.
And And the thing is, is yes,that's true.
Yes.
That pain, anxiety, fear willget someone to move quickly in,
in, in the short term, right?
Because if you touch a hotstove, you don't even think
(22:28):
about it.
That's the problem is that ifyou are operating from, from
pain, that you are increasing,accelerating.
inducing mental pain in order toget someone to act in favor of a
decision or something like that.
(22:49):
You are operating with someonewho is not thinking about it.
Jason Frazell (22:54):
You are
Tamsen Webster (22:54):
operating with someone who is operating, back
to Kahneman, from system one,from fast brain, from anxious
brain, from a fear.
Faces.
Jason Frazell (23:05):
Yeah.
Tamsen Webster (23:05):
An anxious brain cannot learn.
It cannot fully understand.
It cannot think throughconsequences.
It cannot be open to new ideas.
It's going to take the firstavailable option to reduce pain.
This, in my view, is where, Idon't know, somewhere between 99
(23:26):
and 99.
9 percent of buyer's remorsecomes from, right?
Because you've done something inthe moment, you're like, like
something was, you know, made adecision at a high stimulation,
and then late, or because.
You were talking to asalesperson that made the pain
of the status quo exceed thepain of change.
And then once you had a momentto breathe, once you had a
(23:49):
moment to sit down, once you hada moment for system two to take
over, for your rational brain togo back, some part of your brain
went, wait a minute.
No.
Right.
Yeah.
And that's where, because a lotof times what happens is that we
realize that we were coerced ormanipulated into that change.
(24:12):
We can't tolerate that we made,might've made that mistake.
So we're going to turn it onwhoever made or drove that
decision in the first place.
We shoot the messengermetaphorically.
Yeah.
We turn on.
Are, you know, the salespersonwe turn on the brand, we turn on
the company that we felt didthat to us.
And so again, it may work in theshort term.
(24:34):
And I say in the book, pain isin fact, the ally of quick
action.
Jason Frazell (24:37):
But
Tamsen Webster (24:39):
if somebody anticipates that they have to
live with that decision andliving with that decision means
some kind of mental, physical,or emotional pain, not just
discomfort, but pain, theywon't.
Do it because humans won't doit.
We will not continue to dosomething that we find
(25:01):
emotionally, mentally,physically painful to do.
And so this is why.
I, you know, the flip, if you'rereally looking for change,
change that where, you know,yes, you're getting a yes, but
it's a, it's a yes, you're morelikely to retain, right?
And that you're not going tohave to go back and go over
again.
(25:21):
If you're getting a yes, that isgoing to create advocates where
they can, they've got a storythey can tell themselves to
themselves about this and astory they can tell to other
people, which is another placewhere a.
decision made out of pain oranxiety breaks down, right?
Because all of a sudden we tryto explain why we did it to
(25:42):
somebody else and, and all of asudden we're like I don't have
the same values as I do.
Yeah, well, yeah, exactly.
Well, when they explained it, itseemed really important, but now
I can't, you know, and that'show we can lose it too.
When you're trying to get theWhen you're trying to do the
opposite of that, when you'retrying to get a yes that lasts,
then the mantra to yourself isdon't introduce pain, reduce it,
(26:08):
right?
We are trying to figure out inhow we present the change in, in
the, in the, in what we'reasking people to do as part of
that change.
We're trying to figure out howto frame it, how to stage it in
every possible way.
So we're, we are taking, makingthe biggest change that we can.
out crossing that painthreshold.
(26:31):
So, you know, so instead ofasking someone to go from zero
to 60, it might mean go zero to10 for a little while, get them,
get them used to that.
Then we go, then we go, then wego.
And does that mean that youmight take longer to introduce
the full change?
Yes.
Does it mean that you are alsomuch more likely to never have
(26:53):
to do that work again?
Also, yes.
Jason Frazell (26:56):
Yes.
Tamsen Webster (26:58):
And it's redoing it that is more expensive, more
traumatic, less likely to workbecause now people have
developed essentially scartissue against that effort.
And so it's really about how canwe do this in a way that works?
forward for us, not just in themoment, but also works over
(27:20):
time.
Jason Frazell (27:20):
Yeah.
Brilliant.
I want to now move into aframework that you, that you use
as a way for folks in your work.
And you talk a little bit aboutthis in the book, about a way
that you can look at a change indecision making.
And I want to frame this up forthe audience here.
And It's like, how in the worldcould somebody make that
(27:42):
decision?
Like from our perspective, like,how is that, man, how can I vote
for that person?
What
Tamsen Webster (27:48):
are you thinking?
What are
Jason Frazell (27:50):
you thinking?
Tamsen Webster (27:51):
Yeah.
And
Jason Frazell (27:51):
then my generally thing is, well, obviously
they're not, but it's from myown perspective.
Tamsen Webster (27:56):
Of course.
Yeah.
Jason Frazell (27:58):
And, and so that, that is a normal, very,
obviously everybody listens,that is a very normal reaction.
Yes.
And.
Your hypothesis.
I don't even know if it's ahypothesis.
I would say it's not it's veryevidence
Tamsen Webster (28:09):
based.
Yes.
It's an evidence based
Jason Frazell (28:10):
It's a truth that can be deadly to creating
change.
Tamsen Webster (28:13):
Oh
Jason Frazell (28:14):
idea.
So you have a so you have aframework I'd love to wrap up
for today and talk a little bitabout some Tangible ways that
people as they're introducingchange or suggesting change ways
you can Yeah, from a decisionmaking matrix go, Hey, this is a
good idea or not as opposed tolike, it feels good or the
consultant told me,
Tamsen Webster (28:33):
right?
So building actually on one, oneof the things we were just
talking about that painting isthe enemy of longterm change.
One of the most enduringemotionally painful sources of
pain for all humans.
So therefore it is.
A thing to always keep in mindwhen you are framing a change
coming up with one in the firstplace is that that source of the
(28:55):
greatest pain is a violation ofthe law.
of somebody's desired selfconcept.
And what I mean by that is howthey want to be seen
Jason Frazell (29:04):
by
Tamsen Webster (29:04):
themselves, by other people, by other people is
particularly important becauseone thing we can rely on is that
I think it's fair to say allhumans, I need to find if that
there's evidence to supportthis, but I would say that most
functional humans operate from adesire, deep seated desire to be
(29:27):
seen as smart.
capable and good.
So that's how I frame it assmart, capable, and good.
And even if they don't believe,and plenty of people believe
they are smart, capable, andgood, but the reason why I like
to frame it is they want to beseen as smart, capable, and
good.
It's because some people, youknow, aren't so sure, but they
really want to be seen as smart,capable, and good.
And so because that is such auniversal desire, motivation,
(29:50):
element of our identity, we canuse that as a check on A, how
we're approaching change fromour own standpoint, how we're
approaching other people, and B,a check on how we are framing
it.
And here's what I mean.
They want to be seen as smart,capable, and good.
And so what we want to do is wewant to act as if they are, and
(30:17):
I know that sounds like obvious,but it isn't actually what we do
most of the time.
A lot of times in how we'reframing messaging and change
communications is really, if youboil it down, is you will be
smart, capable, and good if youdo this.
Ah, yeah.
We say it's con, we make itconditional.
Sure.
That a smart, capable, a goodperson would do this.
(30:40):
Alright.
No, that means you are tellingthem directly.
It are indirectly that they arenot smart, capable and good now.
So again, they may act in themoment because it's painful that
you don't see them that wayright now, but their larger self
concept is like, wait a minute,that person must think I'm
stupid.
(31:00):
Right.
Yeah.
And then to have said that, andthen they're going to go like,
well, I'm not.
I mean, we just, most of uswon't tolerate that long term.
And so I have found, and I'veseen that it saves so much time
and effort and ill will to startfrom the perspective that
somebody already is smart,capable and good.
(31:20):
And so when you say to yourself,what were they thinking?
Then the thing to add to thatis.
What were they thinking as asmart, capable, good person
would, right?
Because a smart, capable andgood person is doing this.
is thinking this way.
So there must be something aboutit that makes sense to them.
(31:43):
And it's not because they're notsmart or not capable or not
good.
It's because there is somethingof value in whatever they don't
want to let go of or whatever itis that they're doing.
And back to Kahneman and lossaversion.
That's really critical tounderstand because you either
need to acknowledge that thatthing may or may not go away.
(32:07):
It may go away depending on whatyour, your, your thing is and
account for it, right?
Nature of hurt or pores ofvacuum.
You can't take away somethingthat somebody values without
supplying something else.
Or once you understand what theyare truly valuing in there, show
the change as an.
Alternative path to gettingthere.
(32:27):
So they're not going to lose itat all.
They still get to have thatthing that they want.
So the practical tactical thingthat I present in the book to
help with this is something Icall the smart capable good test
or the SCG test.
And, and what it.
What it is, is simply this.
You're looking through everyelement of how you are
interacting with someone.
(32:49):
You can think of this from amarketing standpoint or business
standpoint or leadershipstandpoint and saying, is every
aspect of this message of thisinteraction, helping that person
feel and reinforce theiridentity?
re existing smart, capablegoodness.
Yeah.
Right.
And you know, one of the, youknow, thanks to one of my
(33:11):
colleagues in the messagestrategy space Shepard Smith for
this example, but you can see, Iwould say that the following
fails this test.
Think about you are, you get apop up for a special offer.
of something.
Let's say that you've alreadylike closed out of something.
You get that pop up as a specialoffer and on the button it says,
(33:32):
no thanks.
I like spending more money.
Yeah.
Does not make someone feelsmart, capable and good.
Jason Frazell (33:41):
No.
Tamsen Webster (33:42):
In fact, it makes you go, you're a jerk.
Like, I mean, you know, andmaybe it gets someone to go, Oh
wait, I'm spending more money.
Ah, I think maybe I'm wronghere, but At the very least, put
it this way, you're losingeverybody as a customer who that
is distasteful.
(34:02):
When it's such an easy fix tosay, I'm not ready right now,
not yet, maybe later.
No, thanks.
Not for me.
That's all you have to do.
Right.
That's all you have to do.
And so it really does start fromsaying kind of just that, that
presumption start from thispresumption that somebody is
already smart, capable, andgood, because it will help you
(34:25):
understand so much more.
about why and how they see theworld that they do, that they
do.
And even better, this is wheremy starry eyed idealist comes
in, but it's actually reallypractical because I've seen it
work over and over again inbusiness.
You can start to find the pathto shared principles and shared
values that allow you to moveforward, even though your
(34:48):
initial perspective was reallyquite far apart.
Jason Frazell (34:52):
Can you imagine if we Well, I'm speaking to
somebody that you just calledyourself a star eyed idealist,
so I'm sure you can imaginethis.
You probably dream about thisall the time.
I'm also a
Tamsen Webster (35:02):
skeptic, so I'm a starry eyed skeptic.
Let's put it that way.
Yeah, starry eyed skeptic.
I'm a starry eyed skeptic.
Jason Frazell (35:07):
Yeah.
Where, imagine if we related toeverybody else around us as
smart, capable, and good.
versus the us versus them.
Tamsen Webster (35:18):
I mean, here's the thing.
The reason why I have hope forthis is that there is some
version of the principle that inthe Christian world, in the
Judeo Christian world, we, weembody in due unto others as
they would have due unto you.
But just about, I mean, trulyevery religion, every philosophy
(35:40):
has some version of that, whichmeans there is something that We
believe as humans living in thisworld with other humans that
there is something useful to usin one way or another.
Maybe that's altruistic, maybeit's practical, maybe it's
mercenary, whatever.
There's something useful to usin extending to others the kind
(36:03):
of treatment that we ourselveswould value.
Yeah.
Or, to put a negative frame onit, not doing to others what we
would not want to have done backto us.
That gives, that's what gives mehope.
Right?
I like that.
Because it says that no matterwhat, there are these beliefs
that are deeper than identity,are deeper than culture, are
(36:28):
deeper than Politics that arethat are that for whatever
motivation.
We have them.
We share them.
And that is where I think thateven if you just, you know, you
say, well, imagine it.
What would that would be?
Try it for a day.
(36:48):
Does in fact.
Make you start to go, becausetreat it like a puzzle.
Treat it like a puzzle.
Like, you know, and this may behard, particularly if this is
like a family member that you'relike, what the heck is
Jason Frazell (37:03):
this thing?
Tamsen Webster (37:04):
You know, and you can tell yourself they don't
have good information, or theirinformation sources are biased,
or what, fine.
They don't think so.
Yeah.
What is of value?
What is of value?
Because there is, if they are asmart, capable, good person, and
I, and let's presume that theyare, there is a very good reason
why are they are thinking oracting the way they are.
(37:26):
And if you care enough about thechange, about the idea, about
whatever it is, then I wouldsuggest that.
that it's worth the work tofigure out what that thing is
that they care about.
So that you can find and startto like spot where the opening
(37:48):
is between where you are going,like where, where you each are
to where you both want to go.
Jason Frazell (37:55):
Tamsin, that's all brilliant.
I'm gonna, we'll wrap for todayand talk about Your book, which
comes out October 8th, October8th.
We will, by the time we releasethis episode, it will be out and
it's available at all majorbookstores online.
Very excited for you.
Book number, I believe this isbook number two, book number
(38:16):
two,
Tamsen Webster (38:16):
number
Jason Frazell (38:17):
two.
You have another book in youafter this.
And I know you just, I do.
Tamsen Webster (38:20):
Yeah.
Well, I also started a doctorateprogram this summer, so there's
no big deal.
Just throw that on.
You're
Jason Frazell (38:25):
writing, you're writing a thesis, which is its
own version of a book, but
Tamsen Webster (38:28):
it is, yes.
So we
Jason Frazell (38:29):
wanted to give you, Temps and I just wanted to
give you a sneak preview ofChalk full of both concepts, but
also practical ways to addresschange.
Yes.
I know that's important to youas people.
Insights without action.
Who cares?
It's just a fun conversation.
That's what I would say.
So I want to thank you forcoming back on again and excited
to read the book.
(38:49):
This is a near and dear to myheart as well.
I work with clients on this allthe time and it is not easy.
And I want to thank you forputting out your good work in
the world.
And we will have you back onagain, three more times for the
jacket.
Three more times to the jacket.
We won't wait.
We won't, we won't wait untilnext time you have a book coming
out.
We'll have you come on sooner.
And we'll continue thisconversation because I know the
(39:10):
audience is going to love thisbecause we all need to address
this in some way.
Tamsen Webster (39:15):
We do.
We do.
We do.
All right.
I want to give,
Jason Frazell (39:18):
I want to give everybody a practice in real
time here as we wrap up.
Relate to the next few peoplethat you immediately think, Oh,
why?
Why are they doing that?
Or what's wrong with them?
Relate to them as smart,capable, and good, and maybe ask
them a question.
Or questions about theirmotivations.
And I think you'll, you'll learna lot.
I'm going to, I'm taking thatfor myself from here.
Tamsen Webster (39:38):
Excellent.
Jason Frazell (39:39):
Thank you so much.
I love
Tamsen Webster (39:40):
that.
Thank you so much.
Jason Frazell (39:41):
Thank you.
So good to see you again.
Tamsen Webster (39:42):
Good to see you as well.
Bye.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of Talking to Cool
People with Jason Frizzell.
If you enjoyed today's episode,please tell your friends, follow
us on Instagram and Facebook,and give us a shout out, or take
a moment to leave a review oniTunes.
If something from today'sepisode piqued your interest and
you'd like to connect, email usat podcast at jasonfrizzell.
(40:07):
com.
We love hearing from ourlisteners because you're cool
people too.
Hey everybody, thanks for being on the show
today.
This is a real treat.
I have a returning guest,Tamsen.
You are two fifths of the way toyour jacket, you know, on
Saturday Night Live.
Oh my gosh, I hope
Tamsen Webster (00:25):
so.
Yes, I have
Jason Frazell (00:26):
somebody who's like, they're like, I want a
jacket.
I'm like, it's going to be areally cool jacket.
So you're on number two, you'renot, you're not Justin
Timberlake, not JustinTimberlake quite yet, but you're
moving, you're moving that wayout there.
So Tamsyn Webster is a secondtime guest.
You're on a couple of years agowhen we talked about the red
thread and some of the workyou're doing around that and got
to know you.
We are back talking to youbecause you have a book coming
(00:47):
out and it is all aroundsomething that every single one
of us has to deal with everysingle day.
And it's change.
Tamsen Webster (00:55):
Yes.
Jason Frazell (00:57):
And we are here in September of 2024 in the
United States.
And there's a lot of changegoing on and there will be
change going on.
Constant change all the time.
For those of us who havechildren in school, we just have
changed.
Kids went off to school.
We have politics.
We have the country's changing.
We have all sorts of thingschanging.
And businesses everywhere arealso having to change due to
(01:18):
technology.
I just going to bring this up inreal time.
We're literally recording thisright after the fed announced a
rate, a half point ratereduction, which has a massive
impact on businesses.
So there will be changes tostrategies and such, and what
they're going to do aroundhiring and buying and stuff.
So we're going to talk aboutchange today.
And before we do that, Timpson,I'd love if you just give us
(01:39):
just to get a real briefoverview of who you are, what
you do, where you're based, andthen we're going to have a.
Super cool conversation aboutsome of the, some of these
concepts.
Tamsen Webster (01:47):
Sure.
So I'm Tamsyn Webster.
I am a message designer.
And what that means is that Ihelp leaders build buy in for
large scale and transformationalchange.
So I spent a lot of time doingthat.
Actually all my time doing that.
I love it.
I've been doing it for, in oneway or another for 25 plus
years.
It's embarrassing.
(02:07):
So, or, or, or.
I just started as a child.
I wish I could tell you that.
Either way.
Either way.
It's good.
I'm based in Boston,Massachusetts.
I was not born there, but I havelived here long enough to
develop a Bostonian alter egonamed Karen O'Sullivan.
Jason Frazell (02:25):
Karen O'Sullivan.
OK.
Yes.
Yes.
You go Red
Tamsen Webster (02:28):
Sox, hot dogs.
Jason Frazell (02:30):
Go to
Tamsen Webster (02:31):
Fenway Park.
Jason Frazell (02:32):
Fenway back change
Tamsen Webster (02:34):
back, we talk about change
Jason Frazell (02:35):
in sports.
That would be an interesting.
Tamsen Webster (02:37):
Oh, my gosh.
Yeah, it's been it's been up anddown here.
I mean, it's been it's been afun couple of decades to live in
Boston because it definitely hasbeen like title town here.
So that's that has been I'vebeen here since well before.
The Red Sox broke the curse.
So I was definitely like adiehard, like long suffering Red
(02:59):
Sox fan until 2004.
But yeah, I, it's a great place.
I love Boston and I love thework that I do.
Jason Frazell (03:05):
Yeah.
Well, I'm, I'm glad we're goingto come back on and have another
really fun conversation about atopic that is serious, but also
Bring some levity to it as well,because it's inevitable.
Tamsen Webster (03:15):
It is.
Jason Frazell (03:17):
So let's kick
Tamsen Webster (03:17):
off.
Yeah, let's do
Jason Frazell (03:19):
it.
Tamsen Webster (03:19):
No, no.
And, and, and none of it happenswithout talking about it most of
the time.
And that is really what the bookis all about.
Like, how do we, how do, how dowe talk about change in order to
make it.
Less painful, less stressful,more likely to happen and more
likely to last.
That's really what I was tryingto help people do.
Jason Frazell (03:40):
What's the genesis of this book or the
inspiration?
Like what has you, you are, youdo a lot of different things
really well.
You have a lot of topics youcould write about.
Why change?
Tamsen Webster (03:52):
It is, it is you mentioned the red thread change
and how to help people helpother people make it happen,
which I know sounds a littleredundant, but that's, that
actually is the role that Iplayed is, is, is the red thread
of my life.
I, I first became interested inwhat it takes to create a
(04:13):
lasting change starting when Iwas 17 and I had my first panic
attack, but my role inorganizations from both
education, undergrad, gradschool you know, focusing on
managerial communications.
I was a change managementconsultant for a little while.
All of that has been abouthelping organizations.
(04:33):
either create change internallyand or through the work that
they're doing, create change intheir clients and customers
lives.
You know, with a lot of thestartups I work with, they're
trying to create planetarychange.
And it has just been the thingthat I have, that I know, I know
better than anything else.
I'm not saying I know it betterthan anyone else, but it is the
(04:55):
thing that I know deeply and tomy core.
Because I've been so focused onit, from so many different
perspectives, in so manydifferent ways, for so long, I
couldn't help but notice thatsome of the, the things that I,
My go to approaches and theprinciples behind those
approaches were actually quitedifferent than a lot of what at
(05:18):
least from a businesscommunication standpoint, an
official quote unquote changecommunication standpoint teaches
or if they teach it at all,which they don't.
And.
And so the more that I kepttalking to people and the more
that I talked to people aboutthe red thread and what that
approach was based on and, andother pieces like that, the more
I just, I realized people werelike, well, nobody else is
talking about change this way.
(05:40):
And I was like, oh, well.
if nobody else is, then let mejust take these principles I've
been working from for a longtime and testing and honing and
let me put them down into a bookand so that I can help that
other, that process with otherpeople work better because, you
know, I, I've done the hard workon these.
So hopefully they're a loteasier for people to go, Oh, all
(06:03):
right.
Jason Frazell (06:03):
Yeah.
Help, help.
We're going to talk about painin a little bit, but I'm hearing
that potentially Helpingbusinesses and individuals
remove some of the, thechallenges that you've had to go
through as you've had to dealwith change in your own life.
Oh,
Tamsen Webster (06:16):
absolutely.
I mean, because I think all ofus, whether it's an individual
organizational, everybody's hadthat, that experience of a
change that failed.
Right.
You were trying to do somethingand maybe you, it started out
great.
And then eventually it, itdidn't go so well, or, you know,
you were successful and then itwent back or you were able to
get something to happen, but itdidn't like the approach to it
(06:38):
didn't feel good.
And that, I will say that themost immediate Genesis of this
book was, I really just gottired of hearing a persuasion
and influence advice that wasfundamentally.
What I perceive to bemanipulative, coercive,
Jason Frazell (06:58):
even
Tamsen Webster (06:58):
authoritarian.
And there are times and places,maybe for some of that.
I don't know.
As I say in the book, there aresome times when you don't, you
can't stop to make sureeverybody's on board for reasons
of safety or emergency orwhatever.
But that's usually not where weare most of the time.
And so I just, yeah, it is, Ijust wanted to find, I wanted to
(07:21):
be able to articulate for otherpeople the way that I have found
and that I have seen workreliably for creating a lasting
change, change that stayschanged transformational change,
large scale change in a way thatdoesn't rely on either, as I
like to call it, the stick orthe ick, right?
It doesn't rely on.
(07:42):
You know, kind of rewards or, orconsequences, or it just doesn't
feel good because it doesn'tfeel principled.
It may work, but I'm, you know,there's just certain things
where it's like, Ooh, one of thetip tip off phrases for me is
when, when people say, well, ifyou do this, you can get someone
to do X, Y, or Z.
(08:02):
And I'm like, just not ascomfortable with that.
Because that doesn't imply thatperson's acting on their own,
which is, a better foundationfor long term change is that
they're doing it because theywant to.
I
Jason Frazell (08:14):
think let's, let's kind of kick off as we
move into a couple of thesepoints.
Let's normalize the contextaround change.
Let's talk about organization,organizational change.
Yeah.
Now, you know, and let's, we'll,we'll be doing some
generalizations here, but inyour experience, we'll be doing
some generalizations.
Everybody has their ownrelationship to change.
(08:34):
Some people can't do without it.
It's like a drug and otherpeople are like, nope, any
change is not good for me.
Well, like what, what would yousay is the general context?
In I don't know in the businessworld around the announcement of
we're going to change and I'mtalking about something that's
gonna that will is enterprisewide right so we're not talking
about like we're changing aproduct or changing our pricing
we're talking about we'refundamentally like a like a
(08:57):
restructure or a strategy changelike a market strategy change
what do you generally see is thecontext around around the idea
then the CEO stands up and sayshey I'm going to do some things.
He or she's going to say we'regoing to do some things
differently.
Yeah.
What's the, what's the generalmindset that you would say
people have?
Tamsen Webster (09:14):
So I talk about this right in the, in the
introduction to the book, Iwould say that there's four
mindsets that people have thatI, that I've seen.
And I call them the, theactives, the ambivalence, the
indifference and theantagonists.
So let's start with theantagonists.
Those are the people who arelike, Oh, heck no.
(09:35):
Right.
Like just from the get go, likeit's because they don't, they
don't want the change or theydon't want the outcome or they
don't want how it's going tohappen or just nothing.
And, and they're not onlyagainst the change, but they
are.
actively, they can actually goeven further and be actively
against it.
They can be, be like protestersagainst it.
(09:57):
Those aren't, that's, you know,that's, that's dangerous,
obviously, because depending onhow well they can make the case
against you and what you're,what you're focused on they,
they can do damage to that, tothat change.
The antagonist though aren'thopeless.
You do have an opportunity, ifyou can make a strong case that
(10:20):
resonates with them, to get themto at least neutralize or even
potentially to swing over tobeing inactive.
So let's talk about that.
And they're at the other end ofthe continuum.
The actives, a lot of times you,they're the ones that just go,
yep.
All right.
I am down for this.
I love this idea.
(10:40):
I've been asking for thisforever.
This is, or it's my idea.
So of course I love it.
You know, and those are thefolks that, that are actively
supporting.
They may even become advocatesfor the change.
So, you know, the best thing todo there is not spend a huge
amount of time.
Don't tick them off, but whatyou can do is equip them with
the to be advocates.
(11:02):
So help them understand a littlebit more about the
rationalization of the change,the rationale behind the change,
so that even though they don'tneed to be convinced, they can
be your stewards, they can takethe message out there for you.
So that leaves the two in themiddle.
And this was fun because I hadmultiple people as peer
(11:22):
reviewers or whatever, you know,and early readers, peer
reviewers and early readers.
Take a look and they're like,are there really two in the
middle?
And I was like, yeah, actuallythere are.
And the difference is whether ornot they actually care.
Jason Frazell (11:39):
This resonates for me already.
Yeah,
Tamsen Webster (11:41):
exactly.
So the indifference don't.
They, the way that it, howeverit's been presented to them
right now, they actually reallydon't care, legitimately don't
care one way or the other.
So they'll probably go along toget along.
But they're also not going todrag their feet.
They're just saying, I don't,it's fine.
It's these are the, it's finepeople.
(12:02):
Now you can get them moreactive.
If for instance, you can find away to attach it to something
that they actively want.
And I'm not talking aboutexternal reward.
I'm talking about something thatthey value and they've been
working towards and you can say,Oh, Hey, this actually helps you
do that.
Then they may even become moreactively engaged, but that's
(12:25):
that lack of caring is whatseparates them from the
ambivalence.
Jason Frazell (12:30):
I
Tamsen Webster (12:30):
think the ambivalence don't get nearly
enough attention when we'rethinking about how to steward or
inspire a change in anorganization.
Because it's not that theambivalence don't care.
They do.
The issue is they care aboutsomething else just as much.
Jason Frazell (12:47):
Yeah.
Tamsen Webster (12:48):
And so what's happening is they're really
sitting in this tension betweentwo things that are pretty much
equally strong and are pullingthem in opposite directions.
This change, but I also want tomake sure that this other thing
doesn't change, for instance, orI want to be able to support the
(13:09):
organization's mission, but Ialso want the flexibility to
support my spouse in flexiblechild pickup or whatever it
might
Jason Frazell (13:17):
be.
Tamsen Webster (13:19):
So those, these folks are important because it,
that they are actively lookingfor information that will help
tip them one way or another,right?
Tip them into going yeah, okay,this actually is good.
I'm going to figure this out.
Or.
You know, I always thought thiswas a bad idea, and then now I'm
sure of it.
(13:39):
So, those are folks that reallyare actively open to
information, and so they arepeople to pay very close
attention to, and to be verythoughtful about how is this
change presented.
What is the, you know, how areyou talking about, again, the
(13:59):
rationale behind the change, thecase for the change the point of
view that led to the change orthat's leading to the change.
Those are the folks that reallyhave, that in, I say in the
book, those are the folks thatcan really make or break the
change for you based on how manyof them exist to start with and
how many of them end up flippingtowards, towards the change
(14:23):
rather than away from it.
Jason Frazell (14:24):
There's no there's no covert parallel here
between what we're talking aboutand the hundreds of millions of
dollars that get spent on thoseambivalent people in election
cycles.
Tamsen Webster (14:33):
That.
Yeah.
Oh no.
None at all.
I mean, none at all.
Oh gosh.
Yes.
I mean, my story, I'd idealisthope for this book is that it
does in fact paint a differentpath forward for all kinds of
messaging, persuasion, thosekinds of things.
approaches that are lesspolarizing as well.
(14:56):
Yeah.
And yes, I mean, that's thething.
And I think what happens is thatwe talk to ambivalence, like
they're antagonists, right?
Like, like they're against us orwe talk to them as if they don't
care.
And we're like, you should care.
And a lot of times some of themare going to be some swing
voters literally don't care.
And then some of them are.
(15:18):
So, really looking at a choiceis like, well, I don't really
like either one of them.
And that, you know, given otherwork that I do so I, I'm also
the idea strategist for TEDx NewEngland, where we work with
scientists and researchers, oneof whom this time around is a
decision scientist.
And he explained.
(15:38):
This is relevant.
I promise.
That when it comes to a choicebetween two bad options, which
is an ambivalent situation,right?
Where you are, you know, it'sneither is great, but the choice
is necessary.
Or the issue will be that ifthey, if it doesn't, if you
don't have to make a choice,those people just probably
(16:00):
won't.
But what he found is, is that alot of times what we try to do
is to say, which is better ofthese two bad things, but that's
actually, it's almost it's likeusing the wrong standard or
using a standard that's not aseffective.
What he found was in thatsituation, keep like with like
meaning.
Which one is worse rather thanasking which one is better than
(16:24):
by focusing on which one isworse, like which one gets you
to worst faster.
Then that's actually an easierchoice.
You're not saying that youactually like them, but you are
saying, yeah, but that wasworse.
And because that one's worse,I'm going to act against that
one because again, I may notlike the other one, but I don't
(16:46):
like what's going to happen withthat one.
So all of that though, to comeback to messaging is
understanding those kinds ofnuances is what can help you
frame a narrative, whether it'saround a political stance or
around a new compliance policyinternally or around a new
(17:08):
product or initiative.
That's the kind of thing thatcan really make or break.
And I don't mean.
Set it up of like, this is theworst option that gets back to
the pain, you know, as we haveseen in previous elections, a
lot of times the strongestnarrative wins, meaning the
strongest story that people cantell themselves about why a
(17:32):
particular choice makes sense.
Whatever organization, person,political party, candidate is
able to supply that story.
That, that, that really feelsimmediately aligned with how
somebody already sees the world.
Whoever can do that bestgenerally wins.
(17:52):
And so this book, while notspecific to politicians, is
about doing that, but from a,from a principle of integrity
and, and, and congruence withyour beliefs.
So it's not about, again,getting someone to do something.
It's saying, I believe in this.
(18:14):
position, this stance, thispolicy, because I believe that
it will accomplish this outcome,because I believe these things
are true about, you know, howthe world works, how people
works, what this organizationstands for, etc.
And so, And that way, the reasonwhy it avoids this trap of
(18:38):
manipulation is because you'renot actually trying to
manipulate people at all.
You're basically just saying,this is my point of view.
I am going to take the risk thatyou don't agree.
I am of the opinion that fewenough people articulate that
clear enough, like just yourability to articulate that is
probably going to win nine timesout of ten because most people
(19:00):
don't.
So yeah.
Anyway, that was a lot, but no,that's fantastic, Tamsen.
Jason Frazell (19:06):
So they, I think this is a perfect segue into one
of the principles in your book,which is that the primary enemy
of longterm change in anycontext is pain.
Pain.
Or if I could define that evenfurther.
is pain avoidance.
Well,
Tamsen Webster (19:26):
yeah, yes, exactly right.
The perception or theanticipation of enduring pain is
in fact your biggest enemy to achange that lasts.
Jason Frazell (19:38):
So let's talk about that.
So my, I have a belief I'm goingto, I'm going to share a belief
that I have about the businessworld is that high, high level
folks should have a highertolerance for pain.
(19:58):
I'm not talking about board orinvestors thing on the other
side.
I'm talking about people that,that have to make big decisions
for the good of a companyarguably should, or maybe like
should is a bad word, but Ibelieve that they should have a
high level of, it's going to bepainful, but I know it's the
right thing and I'm going tostand in those values and in my
(20:18):
integrity, we're going to do itanyway.
And, that's my belief, it'sbiased, but I also see just the
opposite happens all of thetime.
Tamsen Webster (20:28):
Yeah.
Couple thoughts on that.
One is, if.
I am interpreting what you'resaying correctly.
I also agree, but I would callit something different.
Yeah.
Meaning that someone who is ableto say, this is going to be
difficult.
(20:49):
This is going to be hard.
There's going to be a higheffort involved in here.
But this is worth it because Iam clear.
On how this is not only good forthe organization and what the
organization is trying to do,but it's also good for the
people that actually make thisorganization work.
I do believe this.
And it's because I wish thatmore people did that, that I
(21:11):
believe that those who want tobe that kind of leader are
willing to do the work to makesure that the messaging around
that change.
articulates that belief from thebeginning.
Jason Frazell (21:22):
And I
Tamsen Webster (21:22):
also agree a lot of people don't do that.
So when I'm talking about pain,I mean the kind of
psychological, emotional, mentalpain that we humans will not
stand any length of time withouteither stopping that pain,
stopping the source of the pain,or reframing something in our
(21:45):
minds in order to reduce it.
Ourselves.
Yeah.
Now, so the way that this comesinto play though, is that some
people are like, well, that,that's absolutely not what I was
taught.
I mean, my sales training wasabout making the pain of the
status quo equal the pain ofchange.
And if someone's not in pain,they're not going to move.
(22:06):
Yeah.
Okay.
And they're like, but Kahneman,I'm like, I read Kahneman.
I all about prospect theory andloss of loss aversion.
I get it.
And And the thing is, is yes,that's true.
Yes.
That pain, anxiety, fear willget someone to move quickly in,
in, in the short term, right?
Because if you touch a hotstove, you don't even think
(22:28):
about it.
That's the problem is that ifyou are operating from, from
pain, that you are increasing,accelerating.
inducing mental pain in order toget someone to act in favor of a
decision or something like that.
(22:49):
You are operating with someonewho is not thinking about it.
Jason Frazell (22:54):
You are
Tamsen Webster (22:54):
operating with someone who is operating, back
to Kahneman, from system one,from fast brain, from anxious
brain, from a fear.
Faces.
Jason Frazell (23:05):
Yeah.
Tamsen Webster (23:05):
An anxious brain cannot learn.
It cannot fully understand.
It cannot think throughconsequences.
It cannot be open to new ideas.
It's going to take the firstavailable option to reduce pain.
This, in my view, is where, Idon't know, somewhere between 99
(23:26):
and 99.
9 percent of buyer's remorsecomes from, right?
Because you've done something inthe moment, you're like, like
something was, you know, made adecision at a high stimulation,
and then late, or because.
You were talking to asalesperson that made the pain
of the status quo exceed thepain of change.
And then once you had a momentto breathe, once you had a
(23:49):
moment to sit down, once you hada moment for system two to take
over, for your rational brain togo back, some part of your brain
went, wait a minute.
No.
Right.
Yeah.
And that's where, because a lotof times what happens is that we
realize that we were coerced ormanipulated into that change.
(24:12):
We can't tolerate that we made,might've made that mistake.
So we're going to turn it onwhoever made or drove that
decision in the first place.
We shoot the messengermetaphorically.
Yeah.
We turn on.
Are, you know, the salespersonwe turn on the brand, we turn on
the company that we felt didthat to us.
And so again, it may work in theshort term.
(24:34):
And I say in the book, pain isin fact, the ally of quick
action.
Jason Frazell (24:37):
But
Tamsen Webster (24:39):
if somebody anticipates that they have to
live with that decision andliving with that decision means
some kind of mental, physical,or emotional pain, not just
discomfort, but pain, theywon't.
Do it because humans won't doit.
We will not continue to dosomething that we find
(25:01):
emotionally, mentally,physically painful to do.
And so this is why.
I, you know, the flip, if you'rereally looking for change,
change that where, you know,yes, you're getting a yes, but
it's a, it's a yes, you're morelikely to retain, right?
And that you're not going tohave to go back and go over
again.
(25:21):
If you're getting a yes, that isgoing to create advocates where
they can, they've got a storythey can tell themselves to
themselves about this and astory they can tell to other
people, which is another placewhere a.
decision made out of pain oranxiety breaks down, right?
Because all of a sudden we tryto explain why we did it to
(25:42):
somebody else and, and all of asudden we're like I don't have
the same values as I do.
Yeah, well, yeah, exactly.
Well, when they explained it, itseemed really important, but now
I can't, you know, and that'show we can lose it too.
When you're trying to get theWhen you're trying to do the
opposite of that, when you'retrying to get a yes that lasts,
then the mantra to yourself isdon't introduce pain, reduce it,
(26:08):
right?
We are trying to figure out inhow we present the change in, in
the, in the, in what we'reasking people to do as part of
that change.
We're trying to figure out howto frame it, how to stage it in
every possible way.
So we're, we are taking, makingthe biggest change that we can.
out crossing that painthreshold.
(26:31):
So, you know, so instead ofasking someone to go from zero
to 60, it might mean go zero to10 for a little while, get them,
get them used to that.
Then we go, then we go, then wego.
And does that mean that youmight take longer to introduce
the full change?
Yes.
Does it mean that you are alsomuch more likely to never have
(26:53):
to do that work again?
Also, yes.
Jason Frazell (26:56):
Yes.
Tamsen Webster (26:58):
And it's redoing it that is more expensive, more
traumatic, less likely to workbecause now people have
developed essentially scartissue against that effort.
And so it's really about how canwe do this in a way that works?
forward for us, not just in themoment, but also works over
(27:20):
time.
Jason Frazell (27:20):
Yeah.
Brilliant.
I want to now move into aframework that you, that you use
as a way for folks in your work.
And you talk a little bit aboutthis in the book, about a way
that you can look at a change indecision making.
And I want to frame this up forthe audience here.
And It's like, how in the worldcould somebody make that
(27:42):
decision?
Like from our perspective, like,how is that, man, how can I vote
for that person?
What
Tamsen Webster (27:48):
are you thinking?
What are
Jason Frazell (27:50):
you thinking?
Tamsen Webster (27:51):
Yeah.
And
Jason Frazell (27:51):
then my generally thing is, well, obviously
they're not, but it's from myown perspective.
Tamsen Webster (27:56):
Of course.
Yeah.
Jason Frazell (27:58):
And, and so that, that is a normal, very,
obviously everybody listens,that is a very normal reaction.
Yes.
And.
Your hypothesis.
I don't even know if it's ahypothesis.
I would say it's not it's veryevidence
Tamsen Webster (28:09):
based.
Yes.
It's an evidence based
Jason Frazell (28:10):
It's a truth that can be deadly to creating
change.
Tamsen Webster (28:13):
Oh
Jason Frazell (28:14):
idea.
So you have a so you have aframework I'd love to wrap up
for today and talk a little bitabout some Tangible ways that
people as they're introducingchange or suggesting change ways
you can Yeah, from a decisionmaking matrix go, Hey, this is a
good idea or not as opposed tolike, it feels good or the
consultant told me,
Tamsen Webster (28:33):
right?
So building actually on one, oneof the things we were just
talking about that painting isthe enemy of longterm change.
One of the most enduringemotionally painful sources of
pain for all humans.
So therefore it is.
A thing to always keep in mindwhen you are framing a change
coming up with one in the firstplace is that that source of the
(28:55):
greatest pain is a violation ofthe law.
of somebody's desired selfconcept.
And what I mean by that is howthey want to be seen
Jason Frazell (29:04):
by
Tamsen Webster (29:04):
themselves, by other people, by other people is
particularly important becauseone thing we can rely on is that
I think it's fair to say allhumans, I need to find if that
there's evidence to supportthis, but I would say that most
functional humans operate from adesire, deep seated desire to be
(29:27):
seen as smart.
capable and good.
So that's how I frame it assmart, capable, and good.
And even if they don't believe,and plenty of people believe
they are smart, capable, andgood, but the reason why I like
to frame it is they want to beseen as smart, capable, and
good.
It's because some people, youknow, aren't so sure, but they
really want to be seen as smart,capable, and good.
And so because that is such auniversal desire, motivation,
(29:50):
element of our identity, we canuse that as a check on A, how
we're approaching change fromour own standpoint, how we're
approaching other people, and B,a check on how we are framing
it.
And here's what I mean.
They want to be seen as smart,capable, and good.
And so what we want to do is wewant to act as if they are, and
(30:17):
I know that sounds like obvious,but it isn't actually what we do
most of the time.
A lot of times in how we'reframing messaging and change
communications is really, if youboil it down, is you will be
smart, capable, and good if youdo this.
Ah, yeah.
We say it's con, we make itconditional.
Sure.
That a smart, capable, a goodperson would do this.
(30:40):
Alright.
No, that means you are tellingthem directly.
It are indirectly that they arenot smart, capable and good now.
So again, they may act in themoment because it's painful that
you don't see them that wayright now, but their larger self
concept is like, wait a minute,that person must think I'm
stupid.
(31:00):
Right.
Yeah.
And then to have said that, andthen they're going to go like,
well, I'm not.
I mean, we just, most of uswon't tolerate that long term.
And so I have found, and I'veseen that it saves so much time
and effort and ill will to startfrom the perspective that
somebody already is smart,capable and good.
(31:20):
And so when you say to yourself,what were they thinking?
Then the thing to add to thatis.
What were they thinking as asmart, capable, good person
would, right?
Because a smart, capable andgood person is doing this.
is thinking this way.
So there must be something aboutit that makes sense to them.
(31:43):
And it's not because they're notsmart or not capable or not
good.
It's because there is somethingof value in whatever they don't
want to let go of or whatever itis that they're doing.
And back to Kahneman and lossaversion.
That's really critical tounderstand because you either
need to acknowledge that thatthing may or may not go away.
(32:07):
It may go away depending on whatyour, your, your thing is and
account for it, right?
Nature of hurt or pores ofvacuum.
You can't take away somethingthat somebody values without
supplying something else.
Or once you understand what theyare truly valuing in there, show
the change as an.
Alternative path to gettingthere.
(32:27):
So they're not going to lose itat all.
They still get to have thatthing that they want.
So the practical tactical thingthat I present in the book to
help with this is something Icall the smart capable good test
or the SCG test.
And, and what it.
What it is, is simply this.
You're looking through everyelement of how you are
interacting with someone.
(32:49):
You can think of this from amarketing standpoint or business
standpoint or leadershipstandpoint and saying, is every
aspect of this message of thisinteraction, helping that person
feel and reinforce theiridentity?
re existing smart, capablegoodness.
Yeah.
Right.
And you know, one of the, youknow, thanks to one of my
(33:11):
colleagues in the messagestrategy space Shepard Smith for
this example, but you can see, Iwould say that the following
fails this test.
Think about you are, you get apop up for a special offer.
of something.
Let's say that you've alreadylike closed out of something.
You get that pop up as a specialoffer and on the button it says,
(33:32):
no thanks.
I like spending more money.
Yeah.
Does not make someone feelsmart, capable and good.
Jason Frazell (33:41):
No.
Tamsen Webster (33:42):
In fact, it makes you go, you're a jerk.
Like, I mean, you know, andmaybe it gets someone to go, Oh
wait, I'm spending more money.
Ah, I think maybe I'm wronghere, but At the very least, put
it this way, you're losingeverybody as a customer who that
is distasteful.
(34:02):
When it's such an easy fix tosay, I'm not ready right now,
not yet, maybe later.
No, thanks.
Not for me.
That's all you have to do.
Right.
That's all you have to do.
And so it really does start fromsaying kind of just that, that
presumption start from thispresumption that somebody is
already smart, capable, andgood, because it will help you
(34:25):
understand so much more.
about why and how they see theworld that they do, that they
do.
And even better, this is wheremy starry eyed idealist comes
in, but it's actually reallypractical because I've seen it
work over and over again inbusiness.
You can start to find the pathto shared principles and shared
values that allow you to moveforward, even though your
(34:48):
initial perspective was reallyquite far apart.
Jason Frazell (34:52):
Can you imagine if we Well, I'm speaking to
somebody that you just calledyourself a star eyed idealist,
so I'm sure you can imaginethis.
You probably dream about thisall the time.
I'm also a
Tamsen Webster (35:02):
skeptic, so I'm a starry eyed skeptic.
Let's put it that way.
Yeah, starry eyed skeptic.
I'm a starry eyed skeptic.
Jason Frazell (35:07):
Yeah.
Where, imagine if we related toeverybody else around us as
smart, capable, and good.
versus the us versus them.
Tamsen Webster (35:18):
I mean, here's the thing.
The reason why I have hope forthis is that there is some
version of the principle that inthe Christian world, in the
Judeo Christian world, we, weembody in due unto others as
they would have due unto you.
But just about, I mean, trulyevery religion, every philosophy
(35:40):
has some version of that, whichmeans there is something that We
believe as humans living in thisworld with other humans that
there is something useful to usin one way or another.
Maybe that's altruistic, maybeit's practical, maybe it's
mercenary, whatever.
There's something useful to usin extending to others the kind
(36:03):
of treatment that we ourselveswould value.
Yeah.
Or, to put a negative frame onit, not doing to others what we
would not want to have done backto us.
That gives, that's what gives mehope.
Right?
I like that.
Because it says that no matterwhat, there are these beliefs
that are deeper than identity,are deeper than culture, are
(36:28):
deeper than Politics that arethat are that for whatever
motivation.
We have them.
We share them.
And that is where I think thateven if you just, you know, you
say, well, imagine it.
What would that would be?
Try it for a day.
(36:48):
Does in fact.
Make you start to go, becausetreat it like a puzzle.
Treat it like a puzzle.
Like, you know, and this may behard, particularly if this is
like a family member that you'relike, what the heck is
Jason Frazell (37:03):
this thing?
Tamsen Webster (37:04):
You know, and you can tell yourself they don't
have good information, or theirinformation sources are biased,
or what, fine.
They don't think so.
Yeah.
What is of value?
What is of value?
Because there is, if they are asmart, capable, good person, and
I, and let's presume that theyare, there is a very good reason
why are they are thinking oracting the way they are.
(37:26):
And if you care enough about thechange, about the idea, about
whatever it is, then I wouldsuggest that.
that it's worth the work tofigure out what that thing is
that they care about.
So that you can find and startto like spot where the opening
(37:48):
is between where you are going,like where, where you each are
to where you both want to go.
Jason Frazell (37:55):
Tamsin, that's all brilliant.
I'm gonna, we'll wrap for todayand talk about Your book, which
comes out October 8th, October8th.
We will, by the time we releasethis episode, it will be out and
it's available at all majorbookstores online.
Very excited for you.
Book number, I believe this isbook number two, book number
(38:16):
two,
Tamsen Webster (38:16):
number
Jason Frazell (38:17):
two.
You have another book in youafter this.
And I know you just, I do.
Tamsen Webster (38:20):
Yeah.
Well, I also started a doctorateprogram this summer, so there's
no big deal.
Just throw that on.
You're
Jason Frazell (38:25):
writing, you're writing a thesis, which is its
own version of a book, but
Tamsen Webster (38:28):
it is, yes.
So we
Jason Frazell (38:29):
wanted to give you, Temps and I just wanted to
give you a sneak preview ofChalk full of both concepts, but
also practical ways to addresschange.
Yes.
I know that's important to youas people.
Insights without action.
Who cares?
It's just a fun conversation.
That's what I would say.
So I want to thank you forcoming back on again and excited
to read the book.
(38:49):
This is a near and dear to myheart as well.
I work with clients on this allthe time and it is not easy.
And I want to thank you forputting out your good work in
the world.
And we will have you back onagain, three more times for the
jacket.
Three more times to the jacket.
We won't wait.
We won't, we won't wait untilnext time you have a book coming
out.
We'll have you come on sooner.
And we'll continue thisconversation because I know the
(39:10):
audience is going to love thisbecause we all need to address
this in some way.
Tamsen Webster (39:15):
We do.
We do.
We do.
All right.
I want to give,
Jason Frazell (39:18):
I want to give everybody a practice in real
time here as we wrap up.
Relate to the next few peoplethat you immediately think, Oh,
why?
Why are they doing that?
Or what's wrong with them?
Relate to them as smart,capable, and good, and maybe ask
them a question.
Or questions about theirmotivations.
And I think you'll, you'll learna lot.
I'm going to, I'm taking thatfor myself from here.
Tamsen Webster (39:38):
Excellent.
Jason Frazell (39:39):
Thank you so much.
I love
Tamsen Webster (39:40):
that.
Thank you so much.
Jason Frazell (39:41):
Thank you.
So good to see you again.
Tamsen Webster (39:42):
Good to see you as well.
Bye.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of Talking to Cool
People with Jason Frizzell.
If you enjoyed today's episode,please tell your friends, follow
us on Instagram and Facebook,and give us a shout out, or take
a moment to leave a review oniTunes.
If something from today'sepisode piqued your interest and
you'd like to connect, email usat podcast at jasonfrizzell.
(40:07):
com.
We love hearing from ourlisteners because you're cool
people too.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.