Building Escalators

In this episode, we're thrilled to have Alan Soucier, a Senior Technology Leader and Founder of Offline Coaching LLC, share his insights on what he calls "People Architecture" and its vital role in team dynamics and building escalators to success for people and teams. 🤝

Discover how Alan's unique approach helps organizations thrive by focusing on:

• Leveraging individual strengths to build cohesive teams 🎯
• Navigating the complexities of middle management and upskilling 🔄
• Aligning leadership strategies with organizational goals 📈

"Organizations in typical corporate America are very focused on treating companies like machinery. The problem is, it's full of people, and people are kind of messy." - Alan Soucier

Episode Transcript

Josh Smith (00:11):
You're listening to The Hidden Chasm, a podcast
where we speak with leaders ofsoftware enterprise companies to
investigate the impact thatlegacy
we help companies break freefrom legacy tech, improve
retention, and empower M&Agrowth. Learn more
at unitedeffects.com.

Bo Motlagh (00:31):
Alright, Josh. Go ahead. You were saying
something.

Josh Smith (00:33):
If you could choose between the bear and the man in
the woods, which one would itbe?

Alan Soucier (00:40):
Bear.

Josh Smith (00:40):
Me too. Good choice.

Bo Motlagh (00:44):
On that note, here we are. Another episode of the
hidden chasm. How are you doing,Josh?

Josh Smith (00:50):
Hey. It's Friday.

Bo Motlagh (00:53):
It is Friday.

Josh Smith (00:54):
Getting down on Friday.

Bo Motlagh (00:57):
Well, we have a a treat this Friday. A good friend
of ours, mister Alan Souciere.Alan is a seasoned sorry. Yeah.
Seasoned senior technologyleader and coach.
He's the founder and CEO ofOffline Coaching LLC and has
worked with some of the biggestenterprises in the US. With over
25 years of experience, Alan hasbeen a driving force in global

(01:17):
engineering and professionaldevelopment. Alan's servant
leadership style has helped manyprofessionals reach their full
potential including me. And I'msuper excited to have Alan here.
He's been a friend for 20 yearsand a mentor.
Welcome, Alan. How are you, man?

Alan Soucier (01:30):
Thank you. This should be fun. Glad to be here.

Bo Motlagh (01:33):
Yeah. And so I I met Alan way back, I guess, when
right out of school about 20years ago when he hired me, at a
small company called QAAssociates. And you guys met in
2014, I wanna say, Josh? Yes.Frontline Education.

(01:53):
So Alan, I mean, love to hear alittle bit. I mean, obviously
know a lot about you. But forthe audience here, tell us about
your background. You know, whatled you to technology and then
coaching? Just tell us a littlebit about

Josh Smith (02:05):
Your biggest regrets.

Alan Soucier (02:07):
Yeah.

Bo Motlagh (02:08):
Yeah. I mean, you could just start with, like, the
background.

Alan Soucier (02:10):
Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. I mean, I I started off at
a whole different field. I wasdoing clinical work in Boston,
social services, that kind ofstuff.
So moved to Philadelphia doingthat. And then within a year or
2, I found myself having adifferent opportunity to kinda
switch gears, so I got intotechnology. I had an aptitude

(02:32):
for it. So got into some, like,I don't wanna date myself, but y
two k testing. Nice.
So, you know, early Internet.And so this whole thing makes me
feel very old. But, so thatevolved and but it didn't take
long for my inclination to workwith people to kinda come back

(02:52):
to converge with that. So I'vekinda lived at this intersection
of technologists and peopledevelopment, and a lot of it's
really just advocating for forsuccess for people. So it just
happens I landed in thetechnology field and met guys
like you and a bunch of others.
So it's been fun. Not a plannedride, but it's been actually,
it's been a great thing. So,still continuing to explore and

(03:16):
and things continue to evolve,but that's kinda where I got my
start.

Bo Motlagh (03:19):
Very cool. One thing I didn't mention at the
beginning here and one of thereasons we're so excited to chat
with Alan is, you know, we aswe've been exploring the the
concept of the hidden chasm fromdifferent perspectives like
technology, product, investmentbanking, and, and m and a, We've
sort of been talking around whatI think is probably the most
important element because it'snot always an easy conversation,

(03:43):
and and that's the human elementand the culture element and the
specific nuances of that. And Alhas really been, you know, a a
people guru, I think, throughouthis career. Certainly, it has
helped me a lot in that regard.I'm gonna put you on the spot a
little bit here because there'sthis this term, relative to that
concept that you you and I havebeen sort of thrown around now

(04:05):
for, what, 15 years.
Yeah. And it's people architect.And I'm kinda curious all these
years later, what what do youwhat do you think that means?

Josh Smith (04:13):
Are you the are you the Frank Lloyd Wright of People
Architecture?

Alan Soucier (04:17):
Maybe. I don't know. I am still I think it's a
work in progress, but it doesseem to be a thing. It's
interesting when you dosomething kind of by instinct or
innately then try to externalizeit. So I actually spent through
a lot of feedback throughthrough friends like you and and
others that have helped mediscover what I'm actually kinda

(04:37):
doing.
So I've been in this process.So, you know, I think that
people architecture conceptuallyis really a combination of
things. It's it's part,organizational development, part
social architecture. And I thinkfor me, it's a it's a mix of
working at an individual level,but also looking inside
organizational systems and whatcan make the people piece of

(05:00):
that work well. Organizations intypical corporate America are
very focused on treatingcompanies kinda like machinery.
That's what the problem is. It'sfull of people and people are
kinda messy. So, you know,leadership struggles to
basically know how to deal with,like, what they call people
problems, and they do all kindsof crazy stuff to try to fix it.

(05:20):
But people are prettyunpredictable, and there there's
a lot of behaviors around thatthat kind of, at every level,
leaders down through. That canmake it challenging.
And so I found somehow a placewhere I'm in the middle of
organizations often usuallygrowing or fast growth. How do
they kinda travel through thatgauntlet of of challenges?
Oftentimes, not even sure whatwhat it is they're tripping

(05:42):
over.

Bo Motlagh (05:43):
I think when we first met, you introduced me to
a team of, I guess, includingmyself, big personalities is
maybe the way to put that.

Alan Soucier (05:53):
It's been fine for me, but yeah. But it was a
beautiful group of misfits.

Bo Motlagh (05:57):
It was I like that. A beautiful group of misfits.
That's good. And, you know, sowe we were sort of high end
consultants, and we were beingled by you. And, I mean, amazing
fun years.
I think it was probably very I'massuming it was formative to
some of these ideas. I'm kind ofcurious, you know, what about
that work, maybe without anydetails about me, Oh. What's

(06:20):
formative, to your approach,during the time?

Alan Soucier (06:23):
You know, one of the points of feedback I got
during that period was, amanager I was working with who
was like, you know, you're doinga really good thing here. And I
was like, what do you mean? Ibelieved. And and but he'd come
and he'd look at the team, andeverybody was some diversity,
different levels of experience.Yeah.
There was kind of a layer offolks right out of school that
hardly knew what it meant toshow up to work every day at 9

(06:44):
AM, but it was kind of fun to,like, figure out, dial in all
these different no. It wasn'tjust you, but how to dial in all
these different pieces. So, youknow, it was it was some kind of
rebalancing I was doing. Iwasn't insisting that everybody
be cookie cutter in terms of howthey did the work or how they
behaved, really look to see whatpeople's individual strengths

(07:06):
were and amplify them. And ifpeople had, you know, flat
sides, things that weren't allthat positive to just help them
avoid that.
It wasn't a lot of correctingbad behaviors or negative
things, deficits in people, itwas really accentuating what
they brought to the table. Andwhen you have a different team,
a mix of folks, you've got arich buffet of things to bring

(07:28):
to bear. And I think a lot ofpeople architecture is really an
orchestration exercise of of alot of varying things. Just like
an orchestra would havedifferent instruments that do
different things at differenttimes with different
intensities. I think that'skinda I try to people
architecture to me is creatingan environment to do kinda what
we did back in those days.

Josh Smith (07:45):
Gotcha. So focusing on identifying different
strengths that can work welltogether. Harmonize or
syncopate, I guess, in in theusing an orchestra term.

Alan Soucier (07:58):
Depending what dance party you're throwing.

Josh Smith (08:01):
And and help them identify the I'm assuming the
connection between where theirstrengths are and where they
thrive.

Alan Soucier (08:09):
And often people don't know what that is for
themselves.

Josh Smith (08:12):
Gotcha. And you believe that one key
responsibility of, a manager orleader is to be able to identify
those things in people or helpthem identify those things in
people that are meaningful tothem, that help them thrive, and
that and that they'reparticularly good at that can
also help the business in thatmoment.

Alan Soucier (08:35):
Yes. And and there's a lot of onus on
managers and leaders workingwith teams of people, but
oftentimes, especially in thetechnology space, those aren't
the strongest skill sets. Sosometimes it's working at a T
Mobile, but sometimes it'sworking at folks that are trying
to that own those those kind ofpeople environments, the teams
that you have, the larger setsof teams that may be operating

(08:57):
together. So it's it's there'sdifferent layers, I think. And
the organization sometimes isn'tclear on how to work in that
space at all.
They just things come top down.Need certain things done. So
they're looking at outcomes, butnot necessarily the impact of a
team or what they're providing.Anybody can have a project
deliver x, y, and z, but thereality is those things were

(09:20):
supposed to be meaningful insome way. And sometimes I find
in teams, the teams don't knowwhy they're doing what they're
doing.
They're just kinda followingmarching orders. But it's a
different energy and a differentperformance level I think you
get with teams when you canconnect them to that larger
context. And that's where itkinda I think you get more of a
harmonic homegoingorganizationally and within
Teams if you can do that. So So

Bo Motlagh (09:41):
is that more, like, aligning them to a vision or a
mission?

Alan Soucier (09:46):
Yeah. It can be. And sometimes there's a lot of
vision, mission speakingorganizations that does that's
kinda soulless sometimes. The40. You know, I I think the more
I've gone through theseexperiences over the years, I'm
really more and more convincedthat what we do in professional
settings, especially intechnology, isn't about just
kind of getting to the casestudy.
It's about creating a story. Andtechnologists often aren't

(10:10):
really attuned to knowing how todo that. I don't truly consider
myself a good storyteller, butit's something I aspire to do
and I'm finding myself doing alot of coaching even in in
recent years around helpingorganizations or teams
particularly communicate,especially in in consulting
businesses when you're beingpaid to do something for a
customer. They often don'treally know why you're there

(10:30):
exactly other than someone saidyou should show up and do this
thing. So that's true.
Storytelling school would begood. Maybe someday we'll build
that.

Josh Smith (10:38):
That's in my lane. Definitely. Because, you know, I
went to school for I paid a lotof money at Drexel University to
learn how to tell stories. Filmproduction. So when when when I
met you in Frontline, I think wehad a lot of conversations,
wonderful conversations.
Around that time, Gallupreleased it released their whole

(10:59):
global study on the future ofwork. And they they made this
claim that I I believe in, whichis, like, the single biggest
factor in an organization's longterm success is the quality of
managers. And you were mymanager for a time there as
well. How does that ring truefrom your experience in in
relation to people architecture?

Alan Soucier (11:21):
I think it's been absolutely true. I think the
challenge with middlemanagement, as I say, is that
you're in a larger system thatis got pressure business
economic wise or other that ispushing to get some things done.
Orders come down. As a middlemanager, your job is to take
that information and get a bunchof people to do some stuff to

(11:42):
that end. So you're in themiddle.
The mandates or the theobjectives or goals are coming
down without a lot of granularview of the challenges might be
on the field to get certainthings done. And then you've got
a whole assortment ofpersonalities and skill levels
and whatever. And then on top ofthat, in organizations that are
growing, there's a lot of changegoing on, and people have to

(12:04):
figure out how to navigate that.In in organizations that and
some of which we've workedtogether in, one of the biggest
things was really just helpingpeople navigate that adjustment
in the middle of all this normalstuff. So managers in the middle
of that are really deserve somuch more support and credit
than they that typically get,And they need to be equipped.
Sometimes you'll see someone whostruggles as a manager, and the

(12:25):
reaction organization will bethat guy, maybe we need to
replace him. Maybe he needs togo. Maybe this isn't where he
can be successful. We oftentreat individuals as the
problem, not recognizing they'reon a whole system that has a big
part to play in how they'reperforming well or poorly. And
it's just a more of a systemicview that oftentimes isn't

(12:45):
always kind of in view.

Bo Motlagh (12:48):
It's interesting because I think as I'm I'm
hearing, you know, your yourperspective on this, there
especially in techno and you'vedefinitely heard this. I think
you've probably heard me askthis over the years once or
twice. Like, in in technologywith dev team and, like, the
whole principle of, like, agilesoftware development, things
like that, There's this notionthat a a team that's that has

(13:11):
the right processes and goodtechnical skill sets knows
exactly what they're building,doesn't need a manager. And you
see there there's a lot oforganizations that sort of
struggle with that because they,they buy into it. And I've, you
know, we've all been atcompanies where they, you see
this sort of up and down, likeall of a sudden managers are

(13:33):
being called out And then all ofa sudden they're like, oh, we
need some management.
Let's bring them back. Right.And it's this weird up and down.
And part of what I think is theissue with that, I'm very
curious about your perspectiveon this, but is that what is a
manager? You know?
Or a director for them atleader. Right? Like

Alan Soucier (13:50):
Right.

Bo Motlagh (13:50):
What what are what are we saying these things are?
Because what you're describingso far, I would I would go as
far as to say you haven't reallyspoken to what I think the
corporate essence of ofmanagement is yet, which
probably needs to be balancedinto that somewhere.

Josh Smith (14:06):
Performance reviews. The answer to performance
reviews.

Bo Motlagh (14:10):
Performance reviews, but also, like, project
management effectively. Right?And then and knowing when to
hire or fire somebody. And thencoupling that with this very
real, like, get the most out ofsomebody perspective out of a
team, out of an organization.And you've managed teams, small
teams all the way up to largeorganizational groups.
And, you know, the thedistinction, the difference,

(14:31):
that balance between what you'retalking about and sort of the,
you know, disconnect of of ofleadership in terms of what it
is that managers and directorsreally are doing. Curious what
your thoughts are there.

Alan Soucier (14:44):
Yeah. I think, you know, the the management models
that we have largely in ourculture now, especially western
culture, are from industrialrevolution. We've seen more and
more literature come out andresearch around how this is
changing, probably needs tochange. But these things are
really systemically rooted, andthey take a long time to kinda
churn out. So if I go into anyorganization looking to, like,

(15:08):
significantly overhaul that, I'mgonna have a lot of frustration
and a lot of resistance.
So a lot of it is looking foropportunities to push the
envelope a little bit to tomature and evolve. But I have
some advantage maybe in that. Ididn't start my career in
typical corporate America. Itwas in a very people centric
space where I was trying tofigure out assessing where

(15:30):
things were at, what wasimpacting negative and
positively, how to move to apositive place. Mhmm.
And so I wasn't reallypreoccupied in my early career
with being in charge or incontrol. I was usually, what's
the environment? What's thelandscape? What's in play? And
so I would have a broader view,and I would think more
systemically.

(15:50):
There's not a large not a largeleap in my mind from, family
systems theory that I might havehad when I was in grad school to
organizational development andand looking at how organizations
function because there's a lotof similarities. But, again,
it's pea it's people no matterin either context. So I think
there are folks that subscribeto the management model of being

(16:11):
in control, and someorganizations are really firm
about that's the job. I thinkI'm a fan of seeing how far we
can get a team of people tobeing kind of self managing, so
to speak. Meaning, they can beclear on what they need to get
done.
They can be effective in gettingthose things done. They can work
well together and actually helpeach other improve and grow and

(16:33):
and back each other up. So theperformance actually goes up and
often can exceed the initialtask or job at hand and and go
beyond that. Oftentimes, if youhave really, I think, high
control environments withmanagers, it's if it's a little
more factory floor oriented,like, your job is to put 20
widgets on a pallet every day,and you do that. And then maybe

(16:54):
you optimize and you get 21 on apallet the next day.
But that's stationary. It's notvery adaptive. It's just kind of
mechanical. Some people lovethose jobs. Some people are
built for those jobs and itcomes from the manufacturing
models that heavily influencedour our world in organizations.
But as companies become moreinto knowledge working spaces,

(17:17):
and people aren't literallypacking pallets, they're doing
stuff in their heads. So it'shard to track that, which
creates some ambiguity. So Ithink when there's change in
organization and people are aredoing knowledge work, there's
higher level of anxiety withleadership about what's going
on, what's effective, and Ithink that triggers a whole
bunch of other behaviors thattranslate sometimes into really

(17:38):
not effective managementexpectations. And one of the
things that I've felt moststrongly about is I've watched
organizations struggle in theirgrowth and struggle with
figuring how to, especially inthe technology side, get
technologists into managementroles they may or may not even
want. Yeah.
Part of me is like, who do theylook to for the right model?
Because the old models arestarting to kinda decay and fail

(18:00):
and new models need to replacethem, and that will take time.
But what are those new models?That's a space that's always
kind of fascinated me. And Ithink I've had and it has its
pros and cons, but I've had theopportunity to live in a less
somewhat of a open, not superstructured experience base with
some of the consulting we'vedone in the organizations we've
been in where certain leaderswould look at my approach and

(18:22):
really value it.
Others will look at it and betotally confused because I
wasn't following the typicalhard nose manager 101 rule book.
And sometimes there was kind ofa autoimmune response to that
when I when I wasn't doing thosethings. But I think that's it's
kind of the, I don't know, theprice you pay for being on the
on the edge of of advancing andevolving people and

(18:42):
organizations. Long answer.

Bo Motlagh (18:44):
It's a good answer. I I I also think so something I
heard you say in there that Ithink is really important is
there's probably an inherentlogical fallacy in a lot of
organizations as a result ofwhat you're describing where
because a manager may beperceived as not being in
control or in charge thatthey're redundant and not

(19:05):
necessary. And what wasinteresting about what you were
describing is that you'rebasically saying, well, no. I
mean, a good manager's goal isthat they aren't necessary, that
they're basically giving theteam the ability to run without
them having to, like, manageevery element of that. And
that's a sign of success.
And it's all of these otherthings that then the manager
should also be doing, you know,that's guiding the team, making

(19:25):
sure that they stay in thatmode, keeping them moving
forward. And I think the fallacyis that if somebody doesn't
understand the full picture, thefull spectrum of what you're
describing, that little piece ofcontrol is is all they really
have a handle on. The loss ofthat controller or the the
perception that that control isno longer dependent on that
person may make that person feellike that they're not necessary

(19:46):
to the organization. And that'sthe furthest thing from the
truth. And that's, that's areally fascinating way to think
about it.
And I saw you grab a book, Josh,and I I suspect you're thinking
because I I had a book in mindas well. I'm curious if you were
if you were thinking aboutsomething as well.

Josh Smith (20:00):
No. I was, I was just thinking about the research
done by Frederic Laloux onaround reinventing organizations
and his study of the industrialera and the processes and
principles that led to beliefsthat are now causing a lot of

(20:20):
problems and challenges withinorganizations today, whether or
not they realize it. And wethink about, like, the hidden
chasm. Like, what what are thethings that are hidden that are
contributing to that to tosuddenly hitting the wall? But
on the people side, some ofthose beliefs, and I think you
spoke to a couple of them, Alan,were things like, you know,

(20:45):
people are inherently lazy, andthey need reward or punishment
in order to ensure performance.
And these are, like, beliefsabout humanity, like, that are,
like, still deep seated in manypeople. Like, that people only
care about money, and they'll dowhatever to make as much of it
as possible. And they'reinherently selfish. They'll

(21:06):
always put their interests aheadof the organization, or they
always need to be told what todo and how to do it. And that
the leaders are there becausethey're the ones who are most
capable of making good decisionsthat affect the company.
And some the some people don'teven realize, like, they haven't
even processed that they havethese beliefs, but they're

(21:27):
operating under them. And theyhaven't even processed that they
are they have potentiallyevolved into them from the
industrial era. And I'm certainyou've, like, run into these in
your journey.

Alan Soucier (21:42):
Yeah. What's funny in organizations too, those
ideas are actually incentivized.So Yeah. You take your
performance review process. Imean, we've all seen this where
you're actually told, like,basically dumb down someone's
performance score because itdoesn't fit the bell curve.
Like, that is socounterintuitive and also gets
so far away from what actually Ithink is the secret sauce for

(22:03):
getting the best out of people,which is connecting their
abilities to how they can bestcontribute. Money aside, but
when people contribute somethingthat is feels is really deeply
connected internally to them,what they do well, what they
enjoy, what validates theirsense of mission in life. When
you can let that loosen anorganization to something that

(22:25):
it benefits the external world,then you you tend to see a whole
different thing take place. Buta lot of systems are oriented
towards stay in your box. Youhave to be this way.
You do these 5 things every day.And and sometimes that's
appropriate, but sometimesthat's very limiting. And in
organizations, especially,they're growing and trying to
trying to be innovative,although a lot of their

(22:45):
behaviors are not antiinnovation. But they, you know,
they really limit themselves. Sopeople want they said companies
want they say they want growth.
They want x, y, and z. They wantinnovation. But oftentimes,
moment those things start topeak above the waterline,
there's reactions and there's alot of anxiety around it because
it's maybe not so controllable.It's not well defined. And I

(23:08):
think in terms of, like,management development and
people climbing professionallyin an organization, If you're in
the mindset or the model whereyou're trying to enable an
ecosystem where talent can bemore self maintaining and have a
high agency and autonomy, thenyou're not gonna look at the
kind of manager that's incontrol of a bunch of stuff, and
you may not even get promotedbecause there's a perception

(23:30):
about what that role should looklike.
And I think there's just there'schallenges around the the
incentives with with thosepieces. So most people aren't
willing to give up, like, kindof work themselves out of an
opportunity. But I think I thinkorganizations are full of
certain pathologies, and that'sone of them, that are just bred

(23:50):
by a lot of pressures. And Ithink when especially when
companies are growing andthey're kinda maybe heading to
the chasm, they're gettingpressure tested by expectations
and demands, and then thingsstart to leak and often that
happens around the peoplestructures. And and quite
honestly, HR and people andculture groups are important,
but oftentimes, they're notequipped to deal with some of

(24:11):
these types of things.
They're focused on executingother smaller pieces, and I
think organizations do one ofthe other patterns is that
there's there's just a biastowards activity, not always the
most meaningful or beneficial.So a lot of people, managers,
teams are consumed to do a bunchof things because doing and
checking things off feels goodand it feels like it's certain.

(24:32):
A lot of organizations wouldactually be served by doing less
in certain fronts, but thatsounds really counterintuitive.
The most CEOs are like, dude,last. What?
That's what they're doing theright thing and being way more
strategic. And true long termthinking strategically, most
organizations are still verymuch about near term activity.

Bo Motlagh (24:51):
I mean, that's a great segue to the chasm itself.
You've been, I mean, we'vechatted with you about it. So
you're familiar with the conceptof the hidden chasm. Mhmm. Do
you wanna take a swing in yourown words or from your
perspective how you Yeah.

Alan Soucier (25:03):
So my view on this distinction is I immediately
think about the people componentand, like, an organization might
be thinking about technical debtor architectural debt when
they're kind of racing towardsthe chasm. I'm thinking about
people debt, which, you know andin things like somewhere I've
got a long list of corollarieshere, but for an example,
organizationally from atechnical perspective, you might
be taking shortcuts. You're notworking the code through in a

(25:27):
more mature way, and you'regonna come back and fix that
later. Sometimes we do the samething with people where we need
to upscale, but we're runningtoo fast. Like, we just gotta
get a different person in here.
So you just start shortcircuiting for near term
expectations and demands. So Ithink for a lot of pieces that
are are part of what we wouldsee as technical architectural
deck conversations, I thinkthere's a very human

(25:47):
counterpart. And then how yousolve that, I think, is a is a
mix of things. But there'sdefinitely a piece, and I think
at the end of the day, I thinkpeople forget that organizations
are they're just run by people.Like, I think people are the
active agents in organizations.
There's this there's a scene inthis corny movie. I like the,

(26:09):
the Nicholas Cage movie with thethe in the, what do you call it?

Josh Smith (26:14):
The the wicker man? The

Alan Soucier (26:17):
no. The, what is it? Independence stuff. It it
the declaration of independencewhere he steals Oh, yeah.

Bo Motlagh (26:25):
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Josh Smith (26:26):
Yeah. National treasure.

Alan Soucier (26:29):
National treasure. Yeah. So, Greg, they steal the
they steal the document, andthey're looking for a secret
message. So they put some lemonjuice and a blow dryer on it to
heat it up to bring the secretmessage forward. And I think
people are like that.
They're an active agent thatbrings, can bring out the
success of what you're trying todo. A lot of organizations just

(26:49):
see people as a commodityresource. Like, they're gonna,
you know they've got electricityand plumbing. People just are in
there to do stuff. And I thinkthat's a real miss for
organizations.
I think small organizations,especially start ups, they
thrive and, actually, thesuccess are more successful off
a very high people quotient. Butas they get bigger and they

(27:10):
scale out, you mechanize and youoperationalize, which makes
sense. I mean, scaling requiressome process and different
structures. But what you needstructurally and even from your
people is different when you'rea $1,000,000 company versus a
$5,000,000 company versus a$15,000,000 company. So those
need to change.
And I think one of the thingsthat organizations need to do,

(27:30):
especially leadership, is yougotta be in a learning posture
all the time and you gotta befocused on realizing the the
people are what make yourbusiness work. One small
anecdote related to this comesto mind. I've been taking my
cars to a particular automotiveshop for really over 20 years.
The guy it was great for allkinds of reasons I won't get
into here, but he sold it toanother local business guy who

(27:54):
had he had, like, a 2 baygarage. When he purchased, he
had, like, 23 bays and all kindsof people.
He had, like, 25 mechanics. Andwhat I noticed over 12 month
period of time is prices wentup, quality went down, service
went down, wait times wentlonger, and you could hear and
see even the look on theemployees' faces when I would

(28:15):
talk to them periodically orjust the customer base. But out
of, like, those 20 somethingguys he had working there for
them, he now has one. They allleft. They couldn't handle the
transition, and part of it wasbecause the guy did not realize
he wasn't buying bays withequipment and parts.
He was buying people. Right. Itwas a relationship service

(28:37):
driven business. Yes. They fixyour tires and your brakes and
all of that.
But he and what's what'sheartbreaking is that he's a
really good guy and deserves tobe successful. But I honestly
not to bash on consultants toomuch, but he hired an automotive
business consultant. Theyinstalled new software, and they
pretty much programmed him rightinto a corner. And I, actually,

(28:59):
I saw him locally eating lunchwith his wife a couple weeks
ago, and the guy looked likehe'd been run by run over by a
truck. Like, he was he's nothaving success because I think
there was an undervaluing of thefact that the people were really
the core of what he's doing inhis work.
And and you just use differentexamples, but that's just one
that has kind of struck me inrecent months.

Bo Motlagh (29:19):
I really like the notion of people debt because I
think I think we speak aboutthat from different perspectives
a lot. And you're right. I mean,even even we as we've sort of
been exploring this concept, weapproach we've been approaching
that element of the conversationas skills gaps and, you know,
strategic misalignments and andorganizational issues, which, I

(29:41):
mean, to your point, sort ofobfuscates the core of that,
which is you're talking aboutpeople. It's not some ethereal
organizational thing. It'speople.
And I like that you're pullingit back. I think that makes a
lot of sense because it's it'sit's more than just a skills
gap. It's it could be that theyhave the right skill, but
they're still not the rightperson for any number of

(30:02):
reasons. It's not necessarily abad thing about that person. So
anyway, I think that makes a lotof sense.

Alan Soucier (30:08):
Yeah. I think we get caught up in our language a
lot, and there's certainlybusiness jargon. I heard a term
last week. A guy named BobSutton, I think, out of Stanford
is writing a new book called TheFriction Project that's kinda
fascinating, but I was watchinghim be interviewed, and I think
they what was the term they wereusing on language? It was the

(30:29):
idea of jargon monoxide.
Like, you just kinda pollute theair you're breathing with how
we're talking about things. ButI I think a lot of what some of
this speaks to is something Ifeel like I've kinda at my core,
I do a lot, but it probably hasnever been in the job
description or contract, whichis I'm helping to make
connections between an externalenvironment of the business and
what they need to get done withpeople's internal stuff. So

(30:51):
whether I'm working with a newmanager or a mid level or senior
technologist, there's sometimesit's just difficult connecting
their performance. Maybe you'revery much affected because, you
know, they're lost in a bunch ofchaos. They can't make sense of
what their roles are, whythey're there.

Josh Smith (31:07):
Something you said too about people debt. Something
that makes me incredibly angryin organizations when I see it
is ignoring the something yousaid about ignoring the
upskilling or not allocating andfocusing on the necessity of

(31:30):
that throughout the year,allocating some sort of capacity
of their utilization over theover the week or over the months
to say, let's talk about what'sgoing on in the space that we're
in, in the industry. Let's talkabout how it's evolving and

(31:51):
where it's going. Even thoughwe're here, even though even
though we're not moving, we maynot be moving with it. We need
to know where it is, and we needto understand how to adapt.
Because I see it over and overagain where I get to
organizations, and they hit theyhit the hidden chasm. And they

(32:12):
go, we'll just have our peoplesolve it, and their people are
not equipped. And theconversation is no longer about
how do we get our people tosolve it. It's about how do we
how do we fire 30%, 40% of ourstaff because they are not
skilled. They don't know how tomerge newly acquired products.

(32:36):
They don't know the newtechnologies that are required
to fix their technical debtissues, they have no clue. And
the saddest part is to say, oh,well, the solution is to get rid
of them is like saying, wescrewed up. These people are now

(32:57):
the victims of that. Of course,we say, well, they're also
responsible for it. But come on.
Don't they have they don't havethe time nor were they
incentivized. Right. They'vesuffered. And now what do they
do? Even if they leave, how manyyears behind are they?
They gotta catch up. And somepeople will meant, like, oh, why
are why is these youngergenerations leaving their
business leaving businessesevery couple years? It's because

(33:21):
they know that if they don't,they're not gonna keep up with
the ever changing technologies.Because if they go to a place
where they recognize thatthey're not growing as they need
to, they'll find a place wherethey can because, otherwise,
they will go stale, and theycan't afford to. So anyway,
how's There's

Alan Soucier (33:38):
a lot of dysfunction around that because
not only are they gonna findthemselves out of opportunity
with no chance to betterthemselves. The kind of the the
scar tissue left behind fromthose experiences are not
confidence building. They createless clarity on their own skill
set and where they could besuccessful. Not if they're
doing, but the companyenvironment is just kinda

(33:59):
creating all kinds of damagearound that. And to make it
worse, I've seen situationswhere in organizations that are
kind of in that mode, you've gotleadership involved where
actually even the upskillingwhere people have had
opportunity to do it.
I've seen things where there aremanagers actually undermining it
more because of their ownincompetence, not because they
were doing it to be malicious,but they were actually taking

(34:22):
people further away from thatsuccess direction, and they're
becoming less enabled to, like,become more technically, you
know, sharp in a particulararea. And then they would turn
around and critique them at aperformance time or want them
put on a performance planbecause they weren't x, y, and
z. But I'm like, this thismanager was person who actually
kept blocking that 3 or 4 timesin the row for over a couple of

(34:45):
years in one case. So you've gotit's just all working the wrong
direction and putting the rootcause at the wrong place. And I
think, you know, it seems to bedifficult for organizations to
think holistically sometimes.
And I think in technologyorganizations, even though
someone becomes a VP ofsomething, they started out
coding, and they're proud of it.They were great at it, but

(35:06):
they've never figured out how toreally is a very different skill
set inside a real leadershipplace space where it's not about
the technology most of the time.And most organizations and their
challenges, it's not atechnology problem. It's almost
always a people problem,Leadership or wherever else.

Bo Motlagh (35:24):
I think it's an important point because if an
organization is people andstructures are people and even
the uplift opportunities thatwe're talking about, The
leadership, the founders, andthe board are also people. And
all of these things haveincentives. And I think, you
know, my thought on this is thata company has certain realities,
which is it's going to havegoals. It's gonna have it's

(35:47):
going to need to make, least inthis country, in a capitalist
society, it's going to need tomake money. And there's going to
be hires and there's going to bechurn.
And those are the realities ofthe company. Now I think one of
the things I've learned fromyou, Alan, over the years is
that there are ways to do thatand to deal with those realities
in a way that doesn't dehumanizeand doesn't take away from the

(36:10):
opportunities of the peopleinvolved beyond this
opportunity. And I think that'svalid and important, but it is a
reality. And kind of bringingthis back to the chasm itself, I
mean, the notion of the chasmand why the chasm becomes
important is that we, you know,we see this happen with
companies where the desires andthe path that at the top, you

(36:33):
know, the founders or the or theseal suite or the board have
sort of established for thecompany Mhmm. Includes now some
milestone.
They're now heading toward m anda or, you know, growth
strategies. They've brought oninvestment or they're looking
for an IPO or some sort of exit,and then they get slammed with
this. And it's a surprise, youknow, and that's the hidden
part. And I'm curious, how doyou perceive so, you know, have

(36:58):
you thought about their sort ofmindset about this relative to
people architecture? And becauseit's interesting to us because I
think what we've learned throughthese conversations is that
there are indicators Businessindicators that can lead to
this.
But it feels like they haveblinders on. I'm curious what
you think of that because it cango on for years, a decade.

Alan Soucier (37:18):
The leadership in organizations, especially as
they grow and they kinda getmore vertical and there's more
layers of org charts, there aremore and more blind spots, and
that's kinda natural. I mean,you know, in scaling
organizations, some companiesdon't do this well. We need to
be very intentional about thecommunication architecture. And
that isn't about moving code.That's about moving
communications between peoplebecause you're really trying to

(37:39):
maintain keep and maintain andactually continue to develop
connectivity with people so thatyou know, when I think I've
recently read an article thatbasically was like the the more
senior you are an organization,the less you know.
And it wasn't being pejorativeabout it, but it was just saying
they're just so far removedYeah. From understanding what
this technical problem is andwhat needs to be deployed and at

(38:00):
what timetable. And not thatthey should be spending a lot of
time understanding all thosenuances. The last thing most
organizations want is, like,some senior guy in the middle of
your project work. But therebecomes some pretty big
disconnects, creates blindspots, and the awareness
disappears.
And the leader will just assumesomeone's taking care of that.
And in some ways, they need goodpeople around them so they kinda

(38:22):
can take that posture. So asorganizations kinda get more
hierarchical, it can bechallenging to kind of to to
keep and maintain the rightbalance around communication,
visibility. Because nothing isworse than an organization when
senior leadership is confusedand anxious. Then all kinds of
weird behaviors start to happen.
Sure. And then peopleunderneath, like, it it's just

(38:43):
kind of a crazy dynamic. Butit's a a word that I I've been
finding myself wanting to use,but I use it sparingly in
business environments is theterm community. Because a lot of
what I end up doing, now Iwasn't always using the word,
was building community. There'sa thing you were coalesce
around.
You have a a vision or purposeor there's a reason you're a
community, a group of people.And there's certain things that

(39:03):
happen inside that space, anddifferent people are doing
playing different parts of that.And sometimes businesses become
more transactional, and they arebusiness operations is very
transactional. You've gotcustomers. You've got product or
services.
But even in the business side,I'm finding that the customers
who have a positive customerexperience and trust is going

(39:26):
up, not down, and transparencyis high, that those things
become more important in a lotof business environments where
there's just a a trust in acollaboration that you you need
to kinda transcend thetransactional layer. So, of
course, if I go put a newbattery in my car, I want one
that works, and I want themechanic to put it in correctly.

(39:49):
But when I interact with the guyat the service counter who I
connect with and I know I couldgo with him with any issue,
elevates how I might interactwith them. I'm gonna come back.
I find in IT consulting space,any customer that I've even
proactively tried to addressissues with, like, if I see
there's a performance issue on ateam and I don't wait for them

(40:12):
to complain about it, I make thechange.
I've had them thank me. And thennext thing you know, they're
calling me when they wantanother team built because
they're like, this guyunderstands what I need, and I
can trust him. And he's not justhere to, like, kinda get out of
this whatever he wants to getout of it. He's here to help me
be successful. When you cancommunicate that message and I

(40:33):
think that's where it'svaluable.
And I think sometimes leadershipin organizations, it's tough to
maintain the connectivitybetween there's a lot of varying
demands and appetites for thesethings. But, anyway, that's just
some plots on that.

Bo Motlagh (40:45):
From your perspective, are there bottom up
signs from that that anexecutive should be looking at?
You know, so we've identifiedfrom, like, a technical
perspective that, you know,things that leaders should
probably be listening for andlooking at technical and
financial. So things like, youknow, if retention is not going
well despite, you know, growthor if your dev teams keep saying

(41:08):
the word tech debt and freakingout at you. Those are some
things to pay attention to. Froma people and culture
perspective, are there bottom upsigns that a company could be
paying attention to to let themknow that you might be
approaching an issue?

Alan Soucier (41:23):
I think that if you're paying attention to to
various pieces of just teamhealth, and it's a little more
interesting now because peopleare mostly remote. But when
we're physically in the space,are people smiling? Are they
talking to each other? Are theylaughing occasionally? Are they
are they being human?
And it's funny. Wow. They'resharing a lot of personal
stories, but, man, this team'sreally produced this week. Like,

(41:43):
there's a correlation there thatthat gives you a sign of. You've
got that and it starts to goaway.
It should be asking questions.Are our managers facilitating
those types of environments? Andif you're finding teams in
defensive postures, notcommunicating, deflecting,
pointing to other issues, I Ihate the word accountability
sometimes, but they you know,healthy teams will take

(42:04):
responsibility without sayingthey need to be accountable.
They're just gonna take care ofbusiness. And when I start in
some cultures, when I startpeople harping, especially the
managers on accountabilityaccountability, I know it's an
environment where now it'sbasically, it's operating out of
leverage, force, fear, or somekind of thing like that versus
it being driven where teams thatare it's important to them
internally to be successfulbecause they're proud of what

(42:25):
they do.
They're gonna be a moreperformant team that's a
healthier model. They just needto be clear on what needs to
happen next for theorganization. And so that's
where the next layer up. Ifcommunication isn't cascading
correctly, it'll actually startto uncover a lot of crazy
behaviors. I I remember I wasworking with 1 team.
There was a capacity with 1person that had the skill set to

(42:45):
help another team, and we just,for the time being, didn't
formally move anybody, but wejust said just go help them be
successful. There was such areaction from senior leadership.
Why do we move that guy? Whosaid we could do that? And I'm
like, if we have a probleminternally taking skill sets
from one place to help anotherteam be successful, then we have

(43:06):
to have a differentconversation.
And then that quieted everyonedown. And these things take hold
and people don't realize. Theybecome actually just this is how
we do things. But it often isn'treally in good service to the
organizational mission, theirgoals, or the customers in the
end. And we waste a lot ofenergy in some of these cycles.
And and I think the larger theorganization, the trickier it

(43:28):
gets. And I think one of thethings that contributes to this
is when a company has beensuccessful doing a thing a
certain way for 20, 30, 40years, and the environment
changes into the point of thechasm, it's time to be in a
different place here, but you'recaught short. It is tough for
them to see their way to that.To me, a lot of people movement,
organizational movement is like,know where you are, you're at

(43:50):
point a. You need to get topoint b, that's your vision.
That's where you wanna betomorrow. Here are the things
that need to happen in between.And technology wise, there's a
bunch of stuff that's usuallyeasier to articulate. Executing
it can be challenging. Peopleoften don't ask, what do I need
from a people perspective tomake

Josh Smith (44:06):
that happen?

Alan Soucier (44:07):
And then it's reactive behavior So after that.

Josh Smith (44:10):
I'm a peacetime person. I'm very diplomatic, but
I was raised by a emergency roomtrauma nurse who was also a
coroner. So my father, his mode,default mode is emergency
response. It's where he's inwar. So even though my default
is peacetime, I grew up knowingthat you had to shift.

(44:35):
You had to, like, shift abruptlywhen you are in a time of crisis
because every second counts. Andyou're the model of how you
operate with a team, the thebuildup of safety and competency
over long periods of time paysoff when effective team needs to

(44:59):
go from everything is fine tothe house is on fire.

Bo Motlagh (45:03):
Right.

Josh Smith (45:03):
And the idea of emergency response preparation
and how do you prepare teams forwhen they have to shift. Because
in my own personal experiences,and you've had them too, when
companies have hit the chasm,have hit the wall, and they've
realized it, would you say thatthe and I'm trying to, like,

(45:24):
just say in another way whatyou've been saying and see if
it's accurate. That that shiftfrom everything is peacetime to
we need to shift to crisis mode,and big changes needs to happen.
And some of them are gonna bepainful. That that's a very
difficult shift to make.

Alan Soucier (45:45):
Yeah. It's hard. In some ways, I think it's a
it's because you started laterthan you could have or should
have. And leadership needs tohave part of, I think, looking
forward is anticipating a lot ofthings in in IT particularly,
but a lot of things in otherspaces too. But a lot of the job
is anticipating.
And if people in a mode wherethey're, like, just taking their

(46:07):
orders and executing week byweek, they're not they're not
thinking and they're not lookingat the long range radar.
Leadership managers and leadersparticularly, they really need
to because especiallyorganizationally, if you're kind
of in a business or market spaceand the thing's working and
sometimes there's this, yeah, weknow we need to make these
adjustments, but they undervaluethe effort required. And one of

(46:28):
the reasons changes how anorganization start making those
changes earlier is because itmeans people gotta give up as to
some level what they built theirsuccess on, especially if
someone's better than anorganization for a long period
of time. And that's fair. Thatcan be hard.
But leadership is gonna startrecognizing that's a dynamic in
play, and you've gotta startfiguring out how to help them

(46:49):
shift. And that's kind of whereyou're really talking about
internal work with people,leaders, individuals, or big,
like, stakeholders and pieces oforganizations and functional
areas because you got to preparethem for a different future. But
you need to be able to say,here's how you can be
successful. This is gonna begood for you because new
opportunity, new abilities,different type or new type of
success for you. And sometimespeople aren't that interested if

(47:11):
they're really late in theircareer.
But most people are really youknow, if they have a curiosity
and any sense of adventure, ifthey feel like it's safe to do
so and doesn't put them injeopardy, they will do that. So
I think a leader's job and partof what I think community
building is for leaders iscreating safety for change. And
not just the vision and not justforcing it to happen, but,

(47:32):
ideally, you wanna put a visionout there. You are actually
creating the the runway wherethe people you need to make that
change happen start movingsomewhat on their own with some
direction from you. Where whenpeople are late in this and the
chasm's coming and they justgotta make a hard left, it's
just bodies start flying out ofthe car, and there's just
consequences.
And leaders would get sometimespeople do this, especially

(47:54):
senior leaders. They will gettheir next promotion because
they got the job done, butnobody's taken a body count.
Right. I think about thosepeople would have been so great
to have in your future, but nowthey're just collateral damage.
And that's where sometimesbusiness can take a very, I
don't know, transactionalmindset around people.

(48:15):
They're just it's it's expense.It's a cost center. It's
whatever, and we're gonna makethis look better. I mean,
different type of people. So Idon't wanna take 3 years to
train some guy.
Let's just go hire a guy. Butthere's problems with just
taking people off the streeteven if they're smart,
especially if you get a designedand healthy culture. It takes
time to assimilate becausethey're humans, and nobody joins

(48:35):
a new tribe and becomes chiefthe next day. There's pieces to
it that don't often get attendedto in a lot of business
practice.

Josh Smith (48:41):
You've talked about hero culture, Beau, before. So

Bo Motlagh (48:44):
People bubble up as a result of that. I like that
term, by the way. Nobody joins,a new tribe and becomes cheap
the next day. I like that a lot.Euro culture is, I think, an
important point, actually.
Curious because I think it's aninevitable sort of reality in an
environment where things aren'thappening. A few personalities
will bubble up. Yep. Curiouswhat your thoughts are there.

Alan Soucier (49:07):
Well, I think the chaos environment when they're
in crisis and half on fire,those heroes show up because you
need one of those. You need aproblem for a hero. So it's not
always and they will getelevated, and they'll become the
example. And not that there aregreat things that can happen
with heroes that show up to fixthings, but oftentimes heroes
aren't looking to deescalate andnow share the glory and get

(49:28):
other people enabled. They'reoften, like, looking for the
next the next fire.
And I was in a situation oncewhere someone was looking for
promotion, and I was asked myopinion. And I kinda gave it,
and I was like, great guy, greatskills, but they kinda wanna be
the guy all the time. And itmight have been great for
solving a problem, and not thathe shouldn't have been part of

(49:48):
the thing, but the team play wasnot high. And, of course, they
get promoted, problems ensued,and I was kinda like, told you.
I didn't literally say it, but Iwas thinking it.
And, you know, part of it isbeing sensitive to not stop
thinking just about a person andwhat they can do around a
specific thing because you're ina system. Everybody in that
system is being influenced byeverything around them. And so

(50:11):
when you put people in play likethat, you you gotta kinda decide
what you what you want a resultto be. I mean, in some
situations, you just want thatguy. You need you need to pull
somebody out of a fire, and andthat's what you do.
But you need to not just just tothink, oh, that's success and
move on. Let's do that again.That's not the right pattern for
long term sustainability. And Ithink sustainability is another

(50:33):
thing I've been latching ontolately because a lot of what we
do in organizations isn't reallyvery sustainable, whether it be
team operations or or whatever.But it's we often we are very
outcome focused, notsustainability focused.
And sometimes that's an okaydecision and a trade off. That's
okay. But if that becomes youroperating rhythm where

(50:54):
sustainability is neverconsidered, I think you end up
with problems. Yeah. So

Bo Motlagh (51:01):
what would you recommend to you know, what are
the key leadership strategiesthat you would recommend to
leaders in who are potentiallyin the chasm in dealing with
these issues and or at leastbecoming aware of them?

Alan Soucier (51:13):
I think things that help. One is I think
leaders need to continually belearning. And I think that's a
challenge sometimes for leadersbecause they're in a spot where
they feel like I'm supposed toalready know everything I need
to know. So maintaining alearning posture to help you
continue to create awareness andlimit your blind spots is
important. I also think there'san issue in most leadership

(51:34):
positions.
There's just a lot of isolation,And I think finding other people
to connect to that can relate toyour particular set of issues
and challenges, emotionally andotherwise, is important. But
often and and some people are ofthe mindset, you know, that's
just kind of the school of hardknocks you get through and if
you survive it. I I was actuallylistening to a podcast this week

(51:55):
where there was a movement bysome leaders, like, once they've
achieved success, they pull thethis is what the guy described
as they pull the ladder upbehind them. They were not gonna
share what they've learned, thesuccess they had versus building
escalators, which was the otherside of the the metaphor. And I
thought that was kind ofinteresting.
So I think leadership's havingthe ability to think about

(52:18):
taking what they're learning andgoing through and making it
beneficial to a larger group isan interesting concept. But
that's not usually the firstword of business when you get a
board breathing down your neckor shareholders. But I think
people that can have thecapacity to widen their
interpretation of that role alittle bit will actually find
those skills will benefit themin the day to day demands, but

(52:40):
also I think in being betterprepared so they're not caught
off guard. Once you're over thechasm, you're, you know, you're
just gonna have to deal with it.But I think preventative
medicine is good in this thistopic.

Bo Motlagh (52:55):
So inherent in in some of what you're saying, and
tell me if you disagree, but Ithink a piece of what I'm
hearing is coming back to thatnotion of control and how much
of that, especially if you're,you know, an executive, can it
feels good to talk about and tryto maintain control, but a lot

(53:17):
of it feels almost like anillusion.

Alan Soucier (53:19):
Yeah. I mean, the reality is we we all live every
day with some form of illusion.Like, I'm gonna trust. I'm gonna
get my car, drive home, and thenI'll make it. Mhmm.
No benefit to me assuming Iwon't. But there's and I think
in organizations, it can be kindof just I don't know. Sometimes
it's just myopic issue, but or akind of believing your own

(53:40):
marketing sometimes. And andit's not that it's bad. You need
to have a vision.
You need to believe in whatyou're doing. You need to
communicate that to yourorganization. So but I think
sometimes it gets to the pointwhere people don't leave this as
open to the idea that I'm gonnalearn some new things too. I'm
not gonna have all this figuredout. And actually, you know,
when you especially I think whenleaders put out a plan, they
wanna execute it.

(54:01):
There's the the ability to kindof fail and learn and adapt is
they're not given a lot ofpermission to do that and even
inside organizations. When we doplanning for an an annual
operating plan or if you're in asafe or agile environment and
you're you're making commitmentsfor program increments or or
whatever and teams theexpectation is you just hit all
your marks. Mhmm. But thereality is there's emergent

(54:23):
stuff that comes up. Technologywise, there's emergent work that
pops up.
We've all seen it. I thinkpeople wise, there's emergent
work. But we often don't wedon't allow for that. I've never
been in a management meetingwhere someone said, hey. I had
some changes come up this week,some emergent emotional needs
with my team.
Nobody says that. Like, it'sjust not in yet now. So and I

(54:45):
wouldn't probably put that onthe agenda that way. But as a
leader, I'd wanna be sensitiveto there's something up with
that person. I need to have afollow-up conversation.
Make sure that they're good tostick with what their role is
and their responsibilities areto the team and and see if they
need something. And and that'sjust taking care of people so
that they can perform well inthe job you're needing them to
do. It's just a two sidedequation. There was a Mark Cuban

(55:08):
quote I came across recentlythat was he basically was like
leadership for him was 2 parts.1 is you've gotta have the
vision.
The second part is you gotta getto know your people and what's
important to them so that youcan integrate it. And I thought
that was a great Yeah.Definition of of that. And
sometimes we're weak on thesecond. And Mark Cuban is not a
soft teddy bear.
He's you know? So for the factthat, you know, he recognized

(55:30):
it. I was like, okay. He getsthat. That's probably partly why
it works for him.
You've had

Bo Motlagh (55:35):
what you described as an interesting career that
has sort of instilled theselessons for you so that you can
see these patterns and helporganizations. How short of
first becoming, you know,getting a master's in counseling
and doing what you did, how canleaders, new and experienced and
executives, what are steps theycan take to sort of learn more

(55:57):
about this way of thinking inorder to be more effective?

Alan Soucier (56:00):
That's why I gotta write this book that I don't
know how to write. Okay. Yeah.How can they? I don't know.

Bo Motlagh (56:08):
It's You're listening. Alan's interested in
a ghostwriter.

Alan Soucier (56:15):
You know, where do they go? I don't think there is
a great place that's focused onthis. Some materials coming out,
I think, that that's speaking tosome more of the human side of
of leadership, but businessbooks are kind of business
books. I think there is a a bitof a void in some of this. And,
actually, in in some authors whowrite content that pick at some
of these issues in organizationswhere from a people perspective

(56:39):
is not really working.
They can write some prettyquippy books, but they don't
they're not accepted. You know,you're probably not gonna have
that in reading most MBAprograms. I think that people
don't know where to consume it.I think it's somewhat list of
different concepts that justdon't don't know where it fits
in the models. I do think someof this is changing.
I think generationally withmillennials and Gen z, they're

(57:02):
kind of in a very differentplace, and they take a lot of
flack for different reasons, andand we're very fascinated now
with categorizing everybody. Butthey're really just an younger
version of humans, and they'vehad certain experiences. But
they're kinda demanding adifferent approach, which is
kind of interesting to watch. Soorganizations are gonna continue
to kinda thrash against thatthat friction, but here's also

(57:26):
about friction. Sometimes I talkabout lubrication, like, let's
reduce the friction.
Then sometimes I realizefriction is part of how you get
around the track. So you thinkabout I recently heard this
analogy about a race car. Youwant your tires to have a high
friction point so you can go 200miles an hour and make that
corner. But you also want yourbrakes to work, which is
intentional friction to a goodbenefit. And I think in this

(57:48):
business of change andorganizations trying to figure
out how to to migrate thechanges in culture and the
nature of business, there's alot of opportunity in work that
that could be done aroundenabling folks.
I think one layer is seniorleadership in organizations. A
lot of them, if they'reexperienced, they've been
rewarded and are kind of steepedin a certain model that and the
new thing is not that familiarto them, and it can actually

(58:10):
it's kind of a scary business.Nobody trades in what's been
printing money for them orprinting success for them for
20, 30 years for something thatthey don't understand. Nobody's
gonna do it. So there's somechanges gonna happen as people
age out and new talent comes in,new leaders are developed.
My concern is developing thosenew leaders. That's, I think, a

(58:31):
a high value and, kindainflection point or zone to work
on. Now if there's peoplealready in maybe someone still
got 15, 20 years left to theirprofessional career, they're a
senior leader. I think thosefolks need a different kind of
community where they can explorethese things safely. Because
some of them work inenvironments where bringing
these things up is not gonna gowell.
It's not gonna fly. When you'reand, you know, if you're

(58:52):
founding a company or if you'reCEO, confidence is a big piece
of the equation. If you walkinto a meeting and say, you
know, I'm not so sure about thisthing. I'm kind of feeling
unsure about whatever. That isnot gonna play well.
So there needs to be a differentplace where people can kinda be
vulnerable, be safe, and andsometimes that is with peers.
Sometimes it might be atherapist. I don't know. But

(59:13):
it's, you know, different kindsof things. So I I think there's
opportunity there.
And then I'm not sure which allshould look like, but I think
some of the stuff we've talkedabout would be would be some
good fodder for it.

Bo Motlagh (59:24):
Makes sense. We have been talking for over an hour,
and I think we could probablytalk for a whole other hour
here, but I think this has beenawesome. Thank you so much,
Alan.

Alan Soucier (59:35):
There's so

Bo Motlagh (59:36):
much here. I mean, there are so many threads we
could have pulled between thenotions of, like, what one thing
that came up, which we're notgonna dig into but I kept
thinking about, was, like, whateven is a role? You know, like,
when we talk about these widgetsand people and things like that.
But lots of opportunity to chatmore. Allan, I wanna get kinda
give you an opportunity here.
If you'd like to plug anythingyou'd like to plug, the stage is

(59:58):
yours.

Alan Soucier (01:00:00):
I appreciate the chance to to talk this out. It's
cool to have a space for this.Even just prepping some thoughts
for this, I was like, this mightbe part of the book I need to
write. So for some organizationof some of my thoughts, I'm kind
of in deep deep research mode onhow do I write a book about some
of this stuff. I kinda don'treally want to, but I think
that's why it might be a goodthing to do it.
Some people just wanna write abook to be the guy who wrote a

(01:00:20):
book. I'm like, I really don'tcare about that. But I do care
about helping people. And toyour point, if I could find a
way to put some answers, so tospeak, or some helpful
information into somethingpeople can consume, I think
that's worth doing. I'm not surehow to do that exactly, but
we'll see.
But, you know, other than that,I think, you know, I'm I don't
know if I wanna date myself, butI know. I'm 56, and I still have

(01:00:42):
some career left. And what'scool is I have more things I
wanna do around this stuff. AndI'm trying to find ways to get
less and less limited by typicalmodels and and do some new
things. So I'm totally open.
People that love this space, Iwanna hear from them. If there's
leaders or managers or anybodythat's some of the stuff
resonated with, you know, let'slet's chat. It'd be cool to to
help you out. So, anyway, it'sbeen fun with you guys too. You

(01:01:05):
know, we've had a lot ofhistory, so we can talk about
these things, and we have a lotof stories to share.
And we can always do part 2.

Josh Smith (01:01:11):
Yeah. And you're, offlinecoaching.io?

Alan Soucier (01:01:14):
Yes. offlinecoaching.io.

Bo Motlagh (01:01:16):
If you've loved this conversation like we have,
definitely reach out to Alan atofflinecoaching.io. And you're
on LinkedIn as well? Yes. We canfind you there. Awesome
conversation.
I think the people element ofthe hidden chasm is something
we're just starting to scratchthe surface of. And it's just as
important as the financials andtechnical debt and all of these
other elements that I thinkwe've been chatting about. So

(01:01:37):
thank you, Alan. You're good.Tune in again for another
episode soon.
Thanks so much.

Alan Soucier (01:01:42):
Great. Thank you.

Josh Smith (01:01:44):
Thanks for listening to the Hidden Chasm podcast with
your hosts, Bo Motlagh and JoshSmith. It's sponsored by United
Effects. We hope you enjoyed ourdeep dive exploring the impact
of legacy technology onenterprise agility. Follow along
as we explore this further bysubscribing to the podcast at
thehiddenchasm.com.