January 17, 2024 • 28 mins
Experience the transformation of leadership and management with us as we trace the lineage of these concepts from the divine right of kings to the nuanced interplay of today’s corporate strategies. With the guidance of time-traveler George and insights from Dr. Harold Langlois, we dissect the evolution of command and control, scrutinizing the legacy of figures like Frederick Taylor and the impact of scientific management on our modern workplace. Delve into the fabric of management theory and unearth the significance of adapting to the living organisms that are our organizations, beyond just solving problems with pre-packaged solutions.
We challenge the very notion of control, and question if the traditional hierarchy still serves us in a world that resembles a jazz ensemble more than a rigid orchestra. The shift from certainty to adaptability is at the core of our discussion, encouraging leaders to embrace the unexpected with the same finesse as improvisational musicians. Join us as we reimagine leadership not as a solitary command but as a collective symphony, where every member plays a critical role in harmonizing the complexities of today's dynamic business environment.
Harold Langlois [Guest] has been working with decision makers in the financial sector for 25 years. As a professor teaching management at Harvard University, Division of Continuing Education, Harold continues to inspire graduate students in the areas of Change, Leadership, and Team Challenges, and in 2002 was the recipient of the Joanne Fussa Award for Outstanding Teaching. Known for his dynamic and motivating presentations, Harold has been a featured speaker at national and international conferences, and is recognized as a thought leader utilizing research on neurobiology, leadership, and communication to enhance skill sets for today’s decision makers.
Travis C. Mallett [Host], is a Masters of Liberal Arts (ALM) candidate at Harvard University Extension School, where he has also earned Professional Graduate Certificates in both Organizational Behavior and Strategic Management. Travis previously received undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering, General Mathematics, and Music from Washington State University. He also served as an Engineering Manager at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, where he led a team responsible for developing and maintaining SEL's highest-selling product line. An innovative force in engineering, Travis holds numerous patents and has authored papers and books across diverse subjects. His passion for continuous learning and organizational excellence propels him to explore and illuminate the intricacies of management theories. Through his podcast, "The Management Theory Toolbox", he offers valuable insights on effective leadership, business innovation, and strategic methodologies.
Want to dive in even deeper? Visit the full show notes for this episode.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Harold Langlois (00:00):
But we've really not prepared our
leadership in very sound ways.
Unless we're aware of thecomplexity of things, then we're
not ready to make theadjustments we need.
Travis Mallett (00:10):
Welcome back to the Management Theory Toolbox,
your top destination foruncovering the wide behind
management and business concepts.
If you're an executive manager,consultant or business student
and you want to dive deep into ascientifically rooted
discussion of management theory,then you're in the right place.
In our last two episodes, westarted exploring organizations.
(00:33):
We found that we shouldn't bethinking about organizations as
machines.
Instead, we should be thinkingabout them as living systems,
and that opens a whole newavenue to explore, one which is
remarkably complex, as wediscussed with Dr Warner Van Zyl
in the previous episode, andit's that complexity that we
(00:53):
want to focus on today.
But if you're expecting threeeasy tricks to navigate
complexity, the secret tomanaging in a complex world or
five ways to get control of yourbusiness, then you're going to
have to look somewhere else,because here at the Management
Theory Toolbox, we know there'sa lot more under the surface
than can be captured in a couplequick tips.
(01:16):
Before we dive into thecomplexity of it all, I think
it's valuable to understand thehistory of management theory
that got us here.
Were thoughts about managementand leadership always centered
on complexity.
Understanding this history notonly gives us a sense of where
we came from and the trajectoryof where we're going, but we
might even recognize inourselves some past ways of
(01:38):
thinking that are perhaps lessuseful.
But the history oforganizational behavior spans a
long time, so we're going toneed some help from our time
travel guide, george.
Hi, george, are you up forhelping us today?
George the Time Travel Guide (01:52):
My dear friend, where might we
venture today?
Or, to be more precise, towhich moment in time shall we
journey?
Travis Mallett (02:02):
We want to explore the history of
organizational behavior.
Do you happen to know where weshould start?
George the Time Travel Guide (02:08):
Ah , a quest of profound intrigue.
Let us travel to the 1600s, atime when kings claimed divine
authority, when the notion ofthe divine right of kings
reached its most mature form.
Come now, let us take a seat.
(02:35):
Who?
Travis Mallett (02:37):
are all these people?
This looks like the English.
Parliament.
All hail King James I.
George the Time Travel G (02:43):
Indeed , but let silence fall upon us
for the king is about to speak.
Parliament Announcer (16 (02:48):
France and Ireland.
Defender of the faith sovereignof the British Isles.
Esteemed lords, ladies andgentlemen of the parliament,
attend now to King James, whoseguidance is both our duty and
our honor to follow.
King James I Speech to Parl (03:06):
The state of monarchy is the
supremest thing upon earth, forkings are not only gods'
lieutenants upon earth and situpon gods throne, but even by
God himself are called gods.
If you will consider theattributes of God, you shall see
how they agree in the person ofa king.
(03:29):
They make and unmake theirsubjects.
They have power of raising andcasting down, of life and of
death, and yet accountable tonone but God only.
To dispute what God may do isblasphemy.
So is it sedition in subjectsto dispute what a king may do?
(03:52):
I will not be content that mypower be disputed upon.
Did you get that?
George the Time Travel Gui (03:59):
Here we witness that infamous moment
.
King James I declared himself agod, reinforcing a rigid
paradigm of command and controlwhich had profound influence on
the theories of leadership andmanagement in all organizations.
Echoes of this stillreverberate in our modern
(04:21):
organizations today.
Now let us leap across fourcenturies, to the heart of the
Industrial Revolution, andwitness how management theory
changed.
Travis Mallett (04:45):
Oh, this looks like an early 20th century
factory.
George the Time Travel Guide (04:49):
Ah , there he is at the other end.
Our next encounter awaits.
Let us hasten.
I shall introduce you toFrederick Taylor, the father of
scientific management.
Come swiftly, oh good day,frederick.
Allow me to introduce Travis, aseeker of wisdom, in the annals
(05:12):
of management theory.
Frederick Winslow Taylor ( (05:14):
Nice to meet you, Travis.
How can I assist?
Travis Mallett (05:18):
I'm wondering about your views on management.
I understand that in the past,leadership was thought to stem
from divine authority, but whatdo you think?
Frederick Winslow Taylor (18 (05:28):
We are much more scientific these
days.
In fact, my theory ofscientific management is all
about using scientific methodsto determine the most efficient
way of doing work.
I believe that there is onescientifically verifiable best
way to organize our work andmanage workers, but to make that
(05:50):
happen, we need our managers todo all the thinking, while the
workers just do implementation.
See this worker I don't evenknow his name and I don't need
to, as long as he keeps grindingthese pieces for the assembly
line.
My theory is that we can seeand control the scientific
(06:12):
processes more clearly when weignore the human messiness.
Travis Mallett (06:17):
That sounds really interesting, but how is
it working for you?
Frederick Winslow Taylor ( (06:21):
Just look at this factory.
Our production has never beenhigher, and my theories about
management are at the heart ofthe industrial revolution.
George the Time Travel Guid (06:32):
Our gratitude, Frederick.
Come Travis, there is more toglean.
Travis Mallett (06:38):
I think I recognize the scientific
management approach.
It still plays a large role intoday's organizations right.
George the Time Travel G (06:47):
Indeed , scientific management persists
as the bedrock of industrytoday.
Yet its greatest strength isalso its Achilles heel it
reduces the worker to a mere cogin the grand machine,
overlooking the potential ofemployees.
Such impersonal methods, whilesometimes valuable for
(07:11):
streamlining processes, oftenfail to harness the true
potential of human capital.
Alas, I'm late for my nextappointment and I don't have
time to travel again.
What do you mean?
We don't have time?
A quaint irony, isn't it?
A guide through time.
Constrained by time, let mebriefly illuminate the path
(07:34):
ahead.
In the wake of scientificmanagement's rise, a revelation
dawned, observing that sometimesa team's motivation can triumph
over systematic optimization.
As a result, managementtheories erbed and flowed, now
probing the depths of motivation, now championing the welfare of
(07:56):
the employee.
And thus we arrive at thepresent time, an era marked by
complexity theory.
Here, in recent decades, theconcept of complex adaptive
systems and organizationaldynamics matured and came to the
forefront.
Travis Mallett (08:14):
Does that mean that all those other elements of
organizational behavior don'tmatter?
O?
George the Time Trave (08:19):
contraire .
Every piece of this intricatepuzzle is vital, such is the
complexity that enmeshes us all.
I suggest you speak withsomeone more familiar with the
field of contemporaryorganizational behavior.
Fare thee well in yourendeavors and remember the
chronicles of yesteryear are butprologues to the stories yet to
(08:44):
unfold.
Travis Mallett (08:45):
Thank you, I think I know just who to talk to
.
That was very interesting howorganizational theory has
changed over the centuries, fromstructured authority to dynamic
leadership.
We are now in a worldcharacterized by complexity,
which is the focus of thisepisode.
(09:06):
I first heard a presentation ofthis history of management
theory in a class called LeadingThrough Change with Dr Harold
Langlois at the HarvardExtension School, and we're
fortunate enough to have himhere to help explore the
complexity of modern management.
Hi, harold, and welcome to theshow.
Thank you, travis, it's nice tobe here.
(09:27):
So before we get started, goahead and introduce yourself and
tell us a bit about yourbackground and your work.
Harold Langlois (09:33):
Well, my name is Harold Langlois and I'm the
founder and president CMSAssociates.
I'm a consulting group workingin the financial industry and I
received my PhD from theUniversity of Connecticut in
organizational development andhave more than 30 years of
consultant experience focused onbehavioral finance,
organizational restructural,performance improvement, program
(09:55):
integration and teamdevelopment.
I continue to teach graduatecourses at Harvard University
the division of ContinuingEducation.
Those courses are inorganizational development and
team dynamics.
Travis Mallett (10:08):
Excellent and thank you for joining us.
So in today's episode we'rereally wanting to focus in on
complexity, the complexity ofmanagement and leadership.
Can you tell us a bit aboutsome of the tools that you find
useful for navigating thecomplexity?
Harold Langlois (10:24):
Well, that's an interesting question in terms
of having an answer to somethingthat is, in fact, complex.
So if I were to be testingsomebody for something, the
easiest type of testing would betrue and false, or none of the
above.
But complexity has evolved overthe centuries out of
organizational theory.
So what you've got is thisnotion of things.
(10:45):
Being complex means you can'tpredict completely what's going
to happen.
There's a dynamic quality to it, an organic, dynamic quality
that evolves as it goes.
So if you're going from NewYork to Boston, best thing to
use is a map or some guidancesystem, so you can pretty much
calculate what that's going totake.
If you're going from New York to, you don't know where, now
(11:06):
you're in a complex situationBecause you're going to say why
am I doing this?
Where is it going?
The questions are totallydifferent than how do I navigate
from A to B, but when we're ina complex situation, we're
really looking at what isdriving the overall process.
What am I intending to do?
What can I learn in gettingthere?
How do I manage the process ina way which is as efficient as
(11:27):
possible?
Not having a map, because youdon't want to get lost in the
process, and it's very easytoday to get lost when you're
dealing with a lot of complexissues.
Travis Mallett (11:38):
So, in an organizational context,
especially a for-profit business, where we're talking about
strategies and we've got ourstrategic plan, we're going to
be producing this product.
Here's our roadmap, here'swhere we want to go.
Now, of course, there's allthese uncertainties in the
business environment.
Of course, that's never goingto go away.
We don't actually know wherewe're going and where we're
(11:58):
going to end up, but we aretrying to carve out some sort of
a path in this messy, complexweb of a world.
And how do we do that withoutgetting tunnel vision?
Harold Langlois (12:09):
Well, I mean, you're doing something even more
than tunnel vision.
Your question is part of theproblem.
When you get caught in thequestion, your assumptions are
being driven by the question,and so I'm sitting back and
saying you say you know this andknow that, and so those are
stabilizing events, right, andI'm simply suggesting that in my
mind, that doesn't exist.
(12:31):
It exists in your head as adesire to calm your intensity
and to calm yourself down, to beable to recognize the ability
to have to maneuver.
I mean, our brain's been arounda lot longer than the theories
that we've got today.
In order to crawl out of theSerengeti, we had to have
certain certainties in mindwho's going to attack us, who's
going to procreate with me?
Where are we going to live?
(12:51):
Those were all things that hadto be stabilized in order to
evolve.
Now what's happened is that theworld hasn't just changed
technically, it's changed incomplexity, and with all the
complexity piled on one another,you don't have the same level
of predictability, though yourbrain wants it.
Travis Mallett (13:08):
That brings up an interesting question for me,
which is as a leader, we mightunderstand or recognize or be
aware of this complexity that'sgoing on, but from a group
psychology level, do you thinkthat most people can handle that
amount of uncertainty when it'sthrust upon them?
Is the organization as a wholegoing to become too unstabilized
, or should it just be?
(13:30):
Well?
Leaders really need to betrained in this.
I don't want to create somesort of a class difference in
intellectual capability here,though, but there is.
Harold Langlois (13:40):
I mean, that's the problem we've got.
I'm not going to get tooengaged with politics, but when
you don't have a lot ofcomplexity in people running
from office, you'll end up in aterrible situation because
you're arguing things which arenot relevant, and so if you
can't frame it correctly andrecognize that the complexity is
in there and that you have toadapt to the complexity as well
(14:02):
as to the direction that youwant to take it, then you're
stuck.
You're like in a position wherethe steering wheel can't move
because you're too confusedabout what's going on.
Which way do I turn?
Do I stop?
Do I go left right?
Do I back up?
We don't know that.
We don't know the answers aheadof time anymore, and so because
of that, we live in a much morecomplex world now than it was
(14:23):
50 years ago.
Travis Mallett (14:24):
I wonder if it's useful to recognize the bigger
history of organizationalbehavior as it's mirrored in
different leaders in terms ofleadership development levels,
like situational leadership, forexample, and saying this leader
is stuck and I think you dothis with your class too you
call us out and say you arestuck in a modernist mindset on
this question.
Harold Langlois (14:43):
Right, that's exactly right.
And the longer we stay there,the worse it gets.
We're not solving a problem bystaying there, because most of
the time the problem is us mostof it, and once we recognize
that there is genuine problems,then we can address it.
We're constantly in the processof defending ourselves through
the way in which we'reapproaching and we attack to the
problem and the worse it gets.
Travis Mallett (15:05):
I think it was Descartes who said that the only
thing that we have control ofand of course this makes sense
with his meditations is our ownthoughts.
Harold Langlois (15:13):
And we don't always control those.
Yes, because you're not awareof your thoughts and your brain
will actually be select.
Reject, because you're notready to handle the fact that
you don't know when you're going.
Travis Mallett (15:24):
That's part of what I think our listeners might
be struggling with Gettingthrown into this sea of
complexity but still having theexpectation or the job
description that tells them theymust still steer something.
We still have to stop on thebrake or press on the gas or
turn left or right, and that'swhat I was getting to earlier
when talking about carving outsome sort of a path through this
(15:46):
.
But you were saying that eventhe assumptions underlying that
is incorrect.
Harold Langlois (15:51):
What I'm suggesting is that unless we're
aware of the complexity ofthings, then we're not ready to
make the adjustments we need.
The more certainty we require,the less aware we are of the
complexities because they haveto be blocked out.
So what I'm suggesting is thatwe get used to complexity as a
reality, versus used to adaptingit by taking an old model which
(16:13):
is certainty.
So I know where I'm going andI'm going to get there the most
efficient way possible.
It's just as it exists in mostcases and what we just saw at
Harvard, with all itsassumptions, with all its tariff
and all its pomp andcircumstance.
Here we are fighting a racialissue.
Travis Mallett (16:29):
Speaking of the organization, that these
complexities can hitorganizations.
I think sometimes we mightfocus a lot on how us as
individuals might handle thecomplexity and this is a little
bit of speculation on my part,but I wonder if the complexity
of the world is too much for usas individuals.
Even the complexity of our jobsis too much, and should we
(16:51):
spend some time focusing on notjust how us as individuals
navigate the world, but shouldwe be focusing on how our teams
or our organizations are set up?
Are there structural thingsthat will handle complexity
better?
Harold Langlois (17:07):
That was a very good question.
We're looking for ways ofdealing with teams in a more
complex way.
Instead of here's what I wantyou to do, here's the list Sit
down and say what could get inour way.
What's out there that wehaven't thought about because
we're in denial of, or we'veavoided it or unaware of it.
So we've really not preparedour leadership in very sound
(17:29):
ways.
The leaders at the top tellingeverybody what to do.
Bad model Leaders should be atthe top telling everybody around
them how to behave.
I thought I would read thisepitaph of a tyrant.
This is WHOU Bon.
He signed this book for me andI had it bound, so it's a very
special book for me.
So this is the epitaph of atyrant.
(17:50):
Perfection of a kind was whathe was after, and the poetry he
invented was easy to understand.
He knew human folly like theback of his hand and was greatly
interested in armies and fleets.
When he laughed, respectablesenators burst out with laughter
, and when he cried, littlechildren died in the streets.
(18:12):
Now that, to me, has the sameimplication of what we were
talking about a moment ago.
So instead of the person at thetop knowing where they're going
and controlling the directionand all of everything else going
on.
Everybody ought to be feedingback what is actually happening
instead of where we're going,and so the more organic it
becomes, the more positive it is.
What you're trying to do andwhat I'm suggesting is you're
(18:34):
trying to build the capacity totolerate more uncertainty
because you're trying to buildpeople's capacity to understand
what's necessary in a complexworld, and so you feel less and
less and less like an authorityfigure and more and more like a
scientist looking at a problem.
What are the options you willget?
Reduces.
The authority issues and who'sin charge and who's running it.
(18:54):
They're not treating it well,like an orchestra or everybody's
playing their own instrument,but they have a script, and if
we can follow the script, witheverybody contributing their
expertise to that script, thenwe get a fine piece of music.
Otherwise, we get noise.
Travis Mallett (19:09):
It's an orchestra just to change the
analogy a tiny bit has a lotmore of that authority that
conductors up there directingeverybody and everybody is
following perfectly.
But in jazz setting the leaderis not facing the group and
giving these orders but is sideby side with all the other
performers, helping facilitatethese interactions.
Harold Langlois (19:30):
Yes, that's a very good analogy.
Well, I'm also assuming thatthe thing I was talking about
equally applies, because ifpeople don't know what other
people are doing with theirmusic, then they're out of sync.
I don't assume that you'restatic, since I've had you in
class and I know how you thinkand I know what you're capable
of.
That could be very differentthan this person sitting next to
you.
So when I'm orchestrating theclass, I'm trying to have
(19:53):
everybody contribute to it, in away that's meeting with person
sitting next to you who's kindof rigid and looking for the
right answers and all instead ofme confronting them, I'm going
to have you end up with aconversation with that person.
Travis Mallett (20:05):
This is a complete aside.
The way your class isstructured in some ways mirrors
the complexity that you'retrying to eliminate.
Yes, and the sense that I gotwas recognizing flat out that
none of us can handle thatcomplexity.
We have all these frameworks,but every framework simplifies,
every framework is anabstraction, and so we take a
framework, that's asimplification.
(20:26):
So let's add another frameworkon top.
That's a simplification.
Let's add another one.
We get this kaleidoscope of 20different frameworks.
Harold Langlois (20:35):
It's like what's going on here?
What's going on here?
What's going on is movement andintentional lack of direction,
because as soon as you providedirection now, you're going from
New York to Boston.
So really, what you're askingpeople to do is intuitively know
they can't do that.
Today.
There's too many unknownvariables at play at any one
time, and those variables areshifting because they're all
(20:55):
controllable.
So what you have to do is buildthe capacity to build tolerance
for the complexity.
Travis Mallett (21:02):
At the same time , if you have a goal in mind,
recognizing that complexity,looking through that
kaleidoscope, you'll start tosee some of the variables that
are going to have the biggestimpact in making strides towards
your goal.
In that sense it does give asense.
Going through all that exercisedoes give a sense of clarity,
Momentary clarity.
(21:23):
I'll give you that Right.
Harold Langlois (21:25):
Look, when you're tolerating being right,
all the time, your brain isselecting out information that
says you're on it.
So that's going on over abridge.
It may not be connected to theother side, but every time you
take a step, you're more certainto get in closer to the other
side and all of a sudden andthat's what I'm trying to have
people in my classes understandthat there's nothing wrong with
(21:46):
identifying an objective, butthat is a very, very transient
activity, and so what we'removing toward is the ability to
be more fluid in being certain.
We're dealing with fluidityversus certainty.
Think about it surgically right.
If you have to go under theknife and you've chosen somebody
who's done also a lot of work,taking out an appendix, and
(22:08):
that's the only person presentwho knows how to be a surgeon,
and they go in and there'snothing wrong with appendix,
there's other complexities ofhandling that you've never seen
before.
Now I don't want that personalone staring at me, and so what
you're looking to do is to hiresomebody a surgeon who's open
to seeing what's going on.
(22:29):
Instead, I'm here to take yourappendix out.
Travis Mallett (22:32):
Yeah, and that gets sent to team diversity and
the value that that adds, buteven aside from that, to
diversity of thought frameworksthat we were just talking about.
Harold Langlois (22:41):
Right, and it's how you take any information
from the people you're workingwith versus giving instructions,
because I'm an authority figure.
Those things just are embeddedin the systems.
Well, that's the biggestproblem with medicine today is
you don't know, and so you wantto have the surgeon and his or
her staff be aware that we'retrying to find out what's going
wrong versus what are wesupposed to do.
(23:04):
Different question I'm dealingwith adaptability versus being
right.
Travis Mallett (23:11):
That makes a lot of sense.
Well, thank you very much forjoining us and teaching us about
complexity.
I feel like I learned a lot.
Before we sign off, can youtell our listeners how they can
find you and your work?
Harold Langlois (23:23):
You can find me on coachingmindfulsystemscom,
as well as on the HarvardUniversity Faculty Directory.
Thanks for listening and,travis, thank you for having me
on.
Thank you.
Travis Mallett (23:36):
Before we wrap up, I want to talk a bit about
that kaleidoscope I mentionedbecause it made such a big
impact on me.
In Dr Langley's class, wediscussed a ton of different
frameworks or ways of looking atcomplex problems, each
highlighting a different part ofthe problem.
Some frameworks focused onevaluating the perceptions,
(23:56):
beliefs and ways of thinking ofpeople involved in the situation
, including ourselves.
Other frameworks categorizedthe type of complexity or
determined whether we shouldtake an emergent or planned
approach, and still othersfocused on fundamental
philosophies regarding how weview the world, such as through
the lenses of modernism orpostmodernism.
(24:16):
The method of dealing withcomplexity used in that class is
to take a problem maybe amanagement problem or a personal
issue and analyze it usingmultiple frameworks.
And what I found for myself wasthat looking at the same
problem through multiple lenseshelps clarify some of the
interdependencies which were notobvious at first glance.
(24:37):
And what I thought was evenmore interesting was that
multiple frameworks would oftenhighlight clusters of closely
related variables, allowing usto focus in on those elements
that are most problematic, andthat's partially what this
podcast is all about.
At the Management TheoryToolbox, we'll be going through
(24:58):
a lot of topics related tomanagement, organizational
behavior, strategy and more.
And you can think of eachepisode as a lens through which
we can view our problems.
One episode might discussemployee emotions, another may
look at organizational structure.
And what, if you analyze yourmanagement issues through a
(25:19):
plurality of lenses, even somewhich may seem less applicable
at first, you may just find thata key to your business success
lies not in the specificfeatures of your next product,
but perhaps in a less obviousfacet of organizational behavior
.
So just to recap, the historyof management theory has
(25:39):
undergone massivetransformations over the
centuries.
From the idea that managerialauthority was a God-given right,
to attempting to scientificallyoptimize efficiency, to
focusing on employee well-being,the theories have culminated in
the present-day focus oncomplexity.
This recognizes that theobjects which we study the
(26:01):
people, the organizations andtheir environments are
ever-changing, ever-influencingand being influenced by each
other.
And why is this important?
Because if we understand thedynamic and complex nature of
organizations and theirenvironments, we can better
prepare for the unpredictable.
(26:21):
While there are many voices outthere calling for simplicity,
here we flirt with the idea ofembracing complexity.
Why?
Because we can't expect theworld to just bow down to our
simplistic models.
This shift in perspectiveenables a more holistic approach
to management, whereuncertainty is not seen as a
(26:42):
threat but as an opportunity forgrowth and innovation.
In this environment, leadersare encouraged to foster a
culture of learning andexperimentation, where failure
is viewed as a stepping stone tosuccess.
This approach also emphasizesthe importance of diversity and
inclusion, recognizing that avariety of perspectives and
(27:03):
experiences enrichdecision-making processes and
enhance creativity.
Ultimately, the evolution ofmanagement theory towards
embracing complexity equipstoday's leaders with the tools
and mindset necessary tonavigate the ever-evolving
business landscape, ensuringthat organizations are not only
efficient and productive, butalso adaptable, sustainable and
(27:27):
capable of thriving in anincreasingly interconnected and
rapidly changing world.
So, with that, thank you fortuning in to the Management
Theory Toolbox.
Together, let's embrace thecomplexity of management, equip
ourselves with a diverse rangeof tools and thrive amidst the
(27:48):
complexities of the manageriallandscape.
Stay tuned for our next episode.
Until then, keep exploring,keep learning and keep building
your Management Theory Toolbox.
But we've really not prepared our
leadership in very sound ways.
Unless we're aware of thecomplexity of things, then we're
not ready to make theadjustments we need.
Travis Mallett (00:10):
Welcome back to the Management Theory Toolbox,
your top destination foruncovering the wide behind
management and business concepts.
If you're an executive manager,consultant or business student
and you want to dive deep into ascientifically rooted
discussion of management theory,then you're in the right place.
In our last two episodes, westarted exploring organizations.
(00:33):
We found that we shouldn't bethinking about organizations as
machines.
Instead, we should be thinkingabout them as living systems,
and that opens a whole newavenue to explore, one which is
remarkably complex, as wediscussed with Dr Warner Van Zyl
in the previous episode, andit's that complexity that we
(00:53):
want to focus on today.
But if you're expecting threeeasy tricks to navigate
complexity, the secret tomanaging in a complex world or
five ways to get control of yourbusiness, then you're going to
have to look somewhere else,because here at the Management
Theory Toolbox, we know there'sa lot more under the surface
than can be captured in a couplequick tips.
(01:16):
Before we dive into thecomplexity of it all, I think
it's valuable to understand thehistory of management theory
that got us here.
Were thoughts about managementand leadership always centered
on complexity.
Understanding this history notonly gives us a sense of where
we came from and the trajectoryof where we're going, but we
might even recognize inourselves some past ways of
(01:38):
thinking that are perhaps lessuseful.
But the history oforganizational behavior spans a
long time, so we're going toneed some help from our time
travel guide, george.
Hi, george, are you up forhelping us today?
George the Time Travel Guide (01:52):
My dear friend, where might we
venture today?
Or, to be more precise, towhich moment in time shall we
journey?
Travis Mallett (02:02):
We want to explore the history of
organizational behavior.
Do you happen to know where weshould start?
George the Time Travel Guide (02:08):
Ah , a quest of profound intrigue.
Let us travel to the 1600s, atime when kings claimed divine
authority, when the notion ofthe divine right of kings
reached its most mature form.
Come now, let us take a seat.
(02:35):
Who?
Travis Mallett (02:37):
are all these people?
This looks like the English.
Parliament.
All hail King James I.
George the Time Travel G (02:43):
Indeed , but let silence fall upon us
for the king is about to speak.
Parliament Announcer (16 (02:48):
France and Ireland.
Defender of the faith sovereignof the British Isles.
Esteemed lords, ladies andgentlemen of the parliament,
attend now to King James, whoseguidance is both our duty and
our honor to follow.
King James I Speech to Parl (03:06):
The state of monarchy is the
supremest thing upon earth, forkings are not only gods'
lieutenants upon earth and situpon gods throne, but even by
God himself are called gods.
If you will consider theattributes of God, you shall see
how they agree in the person ofa king.
(03:29):
They make and unmake theirsubjects.
They have power of raising andcasting down, of life and of
death, and yet accountable tonone but God only.
To dispute what God may do isblasphemy.
So is it sedition in subjectsto dispute what a king may do?
(03:52):
I will not be content that mypower be disputed upon.
Did you get that?
George the Time Travel Gui (03:59):
Here we witness that infamous moment
.
King James I declared himself agod, reinforcing a rigid
paradigm of command and controlwhich had profound influence on
the theories of leadership andmanagement in all organizations.
Echoes of this stillreverberate in our modern
(04:21):
organizations today.
Now let us leap across fourcenturies, to the heart of the
Industrial Revolution, andwitness how management theory
changed.
Travis Mallett (04:45):
Oh, this looks like an early 20th century
factory.
George the Time Travel Guide (04:49):
Ah , there he is at the other end.
Our next encounter awaits.
Let us hasten.
I shall introduce you toFrederick Taylor, the father of
scientific management.
Come swiftly, oh good day,frederick.
Allow me to introduce Travis, aseeker of wisdom, in the annals
(05:12):
of management theory.
Frederick Winslow Taylor ( (05:14):
Nice to meet you, Travis.
How can I assist?
Travis Mallett (05:18):
I'm wondering about your views on management.
I understand that in the past,leadership was thought to stem
from divine authority, but whatdo you think?
Frederick Winslow Taylor (18 (05:28):
We are much more scientific these
days.
In fact, my theory ofscientific management is all
about using scientific methodsto determine the most efficient
way of doing work.
I believe that there is onescientifically verifiable best
way to organize our work andmanage workers, but to make that
(05:50):
happen, we need our managers todo all the thinking, while the
workers just do implementation.
See this worker I don't evenknow his name and I don't need
to, as long as he keeps grindingthese pieces for the assembly
line.
My theory is that we can seeand control the scientific
(06:12):
processes more clearly when weignore the human messiness.
Travis Mallett (06:17):
That sounds really interesting, but how is
it working for you?
Frederick Winslow Taylor ( (06:21):
Just look at this factory.
Our production has never beenhigher, and my theories about
management are at the heart ofthe industrial revolution.
George the Time Travel Guid (06:32):
Our gratitude, Frederick.
Come Travis, there is more toglean.
Travis Mallett (06:38):
I think I recognize the scientific
management approach.
It still plays a large role intoday's organizations right.
George the Time Travel G (06:47):
Indeed , scientific management persists
as the bedrock of industrytoday.
Yet its greatest strength isalso its Achilles heel it
reduces the worker to a mere cogin the grand machine,
overlooking the potential ofemployees.
Such impersonal methods, whilesometimes valuable for
(07:11):
streamlining processes, oftenfail to harness the true
potential of human capital.
Alas, I'm late for my nextappointment and I don't have
time to travel again.
What do you mean?
We don't have time?
A quaint irony, isn't it?
A guide through time.
Constrained by time, let mebriefly illuminate the path
(07:34):
ahead.
In the wake of scientificmanagement's rise, a revelation
dawned, observing that sometimesa team's motivation can triumph
over systematic optimization.
As a result, managementtheories erbed and flowed, now
probing the depths of motivation, now championing the welfare of
(07:56):
the employee.
And thus we arrive at thepresent time, an era marked by
complexity theory.
Here, in recent decades, theconcept of complex adaptive
systems and organizationaldynamics matured and came to the
forefront.
Travis Mallett (08:14):
Does that mean that all those other elements of
organizational behavior don'tmatter?
O?
George the Time Trave (08:19):
contraire .
Every piece of this intricatepuzzle is vital, such is the
complexity that enmeshes us all.
I suggest you speak withsomeone more familiar with the
field of contemporaryorganizational behavior.
Fare thee well in yourendeavors and remember the
chronicles of yesteryear are butprologues to the stories yet to
(08:44):
unfold.
Travis Mallett (08:45):
Thank you, I think I know just who to talk to
.
That was very interesting howorganizational theory has
changed over the centuries, fromstructured authority to dynamic
leadership.
We are now in a worldcharacterized by complexity,
which is the focus of thisepisode.
(09:06):
I first heard a presentation ofthis history of management
theory in a class called LeadingThrough Change with Dr Harold
Langlois at the HarvardExtension School, and we're
fortunate enough to have himhere to help explore the
complexity of modern management.
Hi, harold, and welcome to theshow.
Thank you, travis, it's nice tobe here.
(09:27):
So before we get started, goahead and introduce yourself and
tell us a bit about yourbackground and your work.
Harold Langlois (09:33):
Well, my name is Harold Langlois and I'm the
founder and president CMSAssociates.
I'm a consulting group workingin the financial industry and I
received my PhD from theUniversity of Connecticut in
organizational development andhave more than 30 years of
consultant experience focused onbehavioral finance,
organizational restructural,performance improvement, program
(09:55):
integration and teamdevelopment.
I continue to teach graduatecourses at Harvard University
the division of ContinuingEducation.
Those courses are inorganizational development and
team dynamics.
Travis Mallett (10:08):
Excellent and thank you for joining us.
So in today's episode we'rereally wanting to focus in on
complexity, the complexity ofmanagement and leadership.
Can you tell us a bit aboutsome of the tools that you find
useful for navigating thecomplexity?
Harold Langlois (10:24):
Well, that's an interesting question in terms
of having an answer to somethingthat is, in fact, complex.
So if I were to be testingsomebody for something, the
easiest type of testing would betrue and false, or none of the
above.
But complexity has evolved overthe centuries out of
organizational theory.
So what you've got is thisnotion of things.
(10:45):
Being complex means you can'tpredict completely what's going
to happen.
There's a dynamic quality to it, an organic, dynamic quality
that evolves as it goes.
So if you're going from NewYork to Boston, best thing to
use is a map or some guidancesystem, so you can pretty much
calculate what that's going totake.
If you're going from New York to, you don't know where, now
(11:06):
you're in a complex situationBecause you're going to say why
am I doing this?
Where is it going?
The questions are totallydifferent than how do I navigate
from A to B, but when we're ina complex situation, we're
really looking at what isdriving the overall process.
What am I intending to do?
What can I learn in gettingthere?
How do I manage the process ina way which is as efficient as
(11:27):
possible?
Not having a map, because youdon't want to get lost in the
process, and it's very easytoday to get lost when you're
dealing with a lot of complexissues.
Travis Mallett (11:38):
So, in an organizational context,
especially a for-profit business, where we're talking about
strategies and we've got ourstrategic plan, we're going to
be producing this product.
Here's our roadmap, here'swhere we want to go.
Now, of course, there's allthese uncertainties in the
business environment.
Of course, that's never goingto go away.
We don't actually know wherewe're going and where we're
(11:58):
going to end up, but we aretrying to carve out some sort of
a path in this messy, complexweb of a world.
And how do we do that withoutgetting tunnel vision?
Harold Langlois (12:09):
Well, I mean, you're doing something even more
than tunnel vision.
Your question is part of theproblem.
When you get caught in thequestion, your assumptions are
being driven by the question,and so I'm sitting back and
saying you say you know this andknow that, and so those are
stabilizing events, right, andI'm simply suggesting that in my
mind, that doesn't exist.
(12:31):
It exists in your head as adesire to calm your intensity
and to calm yourself down, to beable to recognize the ability
to have to maneuver.
I mean, our brain's been arounda lot longer than the theories
that we've got today.
In order to crawl out of theSerengeti, we had to have
certain certainties in mindwho's going to attack us, who's
going to procreate with me?
Where are we going to live?
(12:51):
Those were all things that hadto be stabilized in order to
evolve.
Now what's happened is that theworld hasn't just changed
technically, it's changed incomplexity, and with all the
complexity piled on one another,you don't have the same level
of predictability, though yourbrain wants it.
Travis Mallett (13:08):
That brings up an interesting question for me,
which is as a leader, we mightunderstand or recognize or be
aware of this complexity that'sgoing on, but from a group
psychology level, do you thinkthat most people can handle that
amount of uncertainty when it'sthrust upon them?
Is the organization as a wholegoing to become too unstabilized
, or should it just be?
(13:30):
Well?
Leaders really need to betrained in this.
I don't want to create somesort of a class difference in
intellectual capability here,though, but there is.
Harold Langlois (13:40):
I mean, that's the problem we've got.
I'm not going to get tooengaged with politics, but when
you don't have a lot ofcomplexity in people running
from office, you'll end up in aterrible situation because
you're arguing things which arenot relevant, and so if you
can't frame it correctly andrecognize that the complexity is
in there and that you have toadapt to the complexity as well
(14:02):
as to the direction that youwant to take it, then you're
stuck.
You're like in a position wherethe steering wheel can't move
because you're too confusedabout what's going on.
Which way do I turn?
Do I stop?
Do I go left right?
Do I back up?
We don't know that.
We don't know the answers aheadof time anymore, and so because
of that, we live in a much morecomplex world now than it was
(14:23):
50 years ago.
Travis Mallett (14:24):
I wonder if it's useful to recognize the bigger
history of organizationalbehavior as it's mirrored in
different leaders in terms ofleadership development levels,
like situational leadership, forexample, and saying this leader
is stuck and I think you dothis with your class too you
call us out and say you arestuck in a modernist mindset on
this question.
Harold Langlois (14:43):
Right, that's exactly right.
And the longer we stay there,the worse it gets.
We're not solving a problem bystaying there, because most of
the time the problem is us mostof it, and once we recognize
that there is genuine problems,then we can address it.
We're constantly in the processof defending ourselves through
the way in which we'reapproaching and we attack to the
problem and the worse it gets.
Travis Mallett (15:05):
I think it was Descartes who said that the only
thing that we have control ofand of course this makes sense
with his meditations is our ownthoughts.
Harold Langlois (15:13):
And we don't always control those.
Yes, because you're not awareof your thoughts and your brain
will actually be select.
Reject, because you're notready to handle the fact that
you don't know when you're going.
Travis Mallett (15:24):
That's part of what I think our listeners might
be struggling with Gettingthrown into this sea of
complexity but still having theexpectation or the job
description that tells them theymust still steer something.
We still have to stop on thebrake or press on the gas or
turn left or right, and that'swhat I was getting to earlier
when talking about carving outsome sort of a path through this
(15:46):
.
But you were saying that eventhe assumptions underlying that
is incorrect.
Harold Langlois (15:51):
What I'm suggesting is that unless we're
aware of the complexity ofthings, then we're not ready to
make the adjustments we need.
The more certainty we require,the less aware we are of the
complexities because they haveto be blocked out.
So what I'm suggesting is thatwe get used to complexity as a
reality, versus used to adaptingit by taking an old model which
(16:13):
is certainty.
So I know where I'm going andI'm going to get there the most
efficient way possible.
It's just as it exists in mostcases and what we just saw at
Harvard, with all itsassumptions, with all its tariff
and all its pomp andcircumstance.
Here we are fighting a racialissue.
Travis Mallett (16:29):
Speaking of the organization, that these
complexities can hitorganizations.
I think sometimes we mightfocus a lot on how us as
individuals might handle thecomplexity and this is a little
bit of speculation on my part,but I wonder if the complexity
of the world is too much for usas individuals.
Even the complexity of our jobsis too much, and should we
(16:51):
spend some time focusing on notjust how us as individuals
navigate the world, but shouldwe be focusing on how our teams
or our organizations are set up?
Are there structural thingsthat will handle complexity
better?
Harold Langlois (17:07):
That was a very good question.
We're looking for ways ofdealing with teams in a more
complex way.
Instead of here's what I wantyou to do, here's the list Sit
down and say what could get inour way.
What's out there that wehaven't thought about because
we're in denial of, or we'veavoided it or unaware of it.
So we've really not preparedour leadership in very sound
(17:29):
ways.
The leaders at the top tellingeverybody what to do.
Bad model Leaders should be atthe top telling everybody around
them how to behave.
I thought I would read thisepitaph of a tyrant.
This is WHOU Bon.
He signed this book for me andI had it bound, so it's a very
special book for me.
So this is the epitaph of atyrant.
(17:50):
Perfection of a kind was whathe was after, and the poetry he
invented was easy to understand.
He knew human folly like theback of his hand and was greatly
interested in armies and fleets.
When he laughed, respectablesenators burst out with laughter
, and when he cried, littlechildren died in the streets.
(18:12):
Now that, to me, has the sameimplication of what we were
talking about a moment ago.
So instead of the person at thetop knowing where they're going
and controlling the directionand all of everything else going
on.
Everybody ought to be feedingback what is actually happening
instead of where we're going,and so the more organic it
becomes, the more positive it is.
What you're trying to do andwhat I'm suggesting is you're
(18:34):
trying to build the capacity totolerate more uncertainty
because you're trying to buildpeople's capacity to understand
what's necessary in a complexworld, and so you feel less and
less and less like an authorityfigure and more and more like a
scientist looking at a problem.
What are the options you willget?
Reduces.
The authority issues and who'sin charge and who's running it.
(18:54):
They're not treating it well,like an orchestra or everybody's
playing their own instrument,but they have a script, and if
we can follow the script, witheverybody contributing their
expertise to that script, thenwe get a fine piece of music.
Otherwise, we get noise.
Travis Mallett (19:09):
It's an orchestra just to change the
analogy a tiny bit has a lotmore of that authority that
conductors up there directingeverybody and everybody is
following perfectly.
But in jazz setting the leaderis not facing the group and
giving these orders but is sideby side with all the other
performers, helping facilitatethese interactions.
Harold Langlois (19:30):
Yes, that's a very good analogy.
Well, I'm also assuming thatthe thing I was talking about
equally applies, because ifpeople don't know what other
people are doing with theirmusic, then they're out of sync.
I don't assume that you'restatic, since I've had you in
class and I know how you thinkand I know what you're capable
of.
That could be very differentthan this person sitting next to
you.
So when I'm orchestrating theclass, I'm trying to have
(19:53):
everybody contribute to it, in away that's meeting with person
sitting next to you who's kindof rigid and looking for the
right answers and all instead ofme confronting them, I'm going
to have you end up with aconversation with that person.
Travis Mallett (20:05):
This is a complete aside.
The way your class isstructured in some ways mirrors
the complexity that you'retrying to eliminate.
Yes, and the sense that I gotwas recognizing flat out that
none of us can handle thatcomplexity.
We have all these frameworks,but every framework simplifies,
every framework is anabstraction, and so we take a
framework, that's asimplification.
(20:26):
So let's add another frameworkon top.
That's a simplification.
Let's add another one.
We get this kaleidoscope of 20different frameworks.
Harold Langlois (20:35):
It's like what's going on here?
What's going on here?
What's going on is movement andintentional lack of direction,
because as soon as you providedirection now, you're going from
New York to Boston.
So really, what you're askingpeople to do is intuitively know
they can't do that.
Today.
There's too many unknownvariables at play at any one
time, and those variables areshifting because they're all
(20:55):
controllable.
So what you have to do is buildthe capacity to build tolerance
for the complexity.
Travis Mallett (21:02):
At the same time , if you have a goal in mind,
recognizing that complexity,looking through that
kaleidoscope, you'll start tosee some of the variables that
are going to have the biggestimpact in making strides towards
your goal.
In that sense it does give asense.
Going through all that exercisedoes give a sense of clarity,
Momentary clarity.
(21:23):
I'll give you that Right.
Harold Langlois (21:25):
Look, when you're tolerating being right,
all the time, your brain isselecting out information that
says you're on it.
So that's going on over abridge.
It may not be connected to theother side, but every time you
take a step, you're more certainto get in closer to the other
side and all of a sudden andthat's what I'm trying to have
people in my classes understandthat there's nothing wrong with
(21:46):
identifying an objective, butthat is a very, very transient
activity, and so what we'removing toward is the ability to
be more fluid in being certain.
We're dealing with fluidityversus certainty.
Think about it surgically right.
If you have to go under theknife and you've chosen somebody
who's done also a lot of work,taking out an appendix, and
(22:08):
that's the only person presentwho knows how to be a surgeon,
and they go in and there'snothing wrong with appendix,
there's other complexities ofhandling that you've never seen
before.
Now I don't want that personalone staring at me, and so what
you're looking to do is to hiresomebody a surgeon who's open
to seeing what's going on.
(22:29):
Instead, I'm here to take yourappendix out.
Travis Mallett (22:32):
Yeah, and that gets sent to team diversity and
the value that that adds, buteven aside from that, to
diversity of thought frameworksthat we were just talking about.
Harold Langlois (22:41):
Right, and it's how you take any information
from the people you're workingwith versus giving instructions,
because I'm an authority figure.
Those things just are embeddedin the systems.
Well, that's the biggestproblem with medicine today is
you don't know, and so you wantto have the surgeon and his or
her staff be aware that we'retrying to find out what's going
wrong versus what are wesupposed to do.
(23:04):
Different question I'm dealingwith adaptability versus being
right.
Travis Mallett (23:11):
That makes a lot of sense.
Well, thank you very much forjoining us and teaching us about
complexity.
I feel like I learned a lot.
Before we sign off, can youtell our listeners how they can
find you and your work?
Harold Langlois (23:23):
You can find me on coachingmindfulsystemscom,
as well as on the HarvardUniversity Faculty Directory.
Thanks for listening and,travis, thank you for having me
on.
Thank you.
Travis Mallett (23:36):
Before we wrap up, I want to talk a bit about
that kaleidoscope I mentionedbecause it made such a big
impact on me.
In Dr Langley's class, wediscussed a ton of different
frameworks or ways of looking atcomplex problems, each
highlighting a different part ofthe problem.
Some frameworks focused onevaluating the perceptions,
(23:56):
beliefs and ways of thinking ofpeople involved in the situation
, including ourselves.
Other frameworks categorizedthe type of complexity or
determined whether we shouldtake an emergent or planned
approach, and still othersfocused on fundamental
philosophies regarding how weview the world, such as through
the lenses of modernism orpostmodernism.
(24:16):
The method of dealing withcomplexity used in that class is
to take a problem maybe amanagement problem or a personal
issue and analyze it usingmultiple frameworks.
And what I found for myself wasthat looking at the same
problem through multiple lenseshelps clarify some of the
interdependencies which were notobvious at first glance.
(24:37):
And what I thought was evenmore interesting was that
multiple frameworks would oftenhighlight clusters of closely
related variables, allowing usto focus in on those elements
that are most problematic, andthat's partially what this
podcast is all about.
At the Management TheoryToolbox, we'll be going through
(24:58):
a lot of topics related tomanagement, organizational
behavior, strategy and more.
And you can think of eachepisode as a lens through which
we can view our problems.
One episode might discussemployee emotions, another may
look at organizational structure.
And what, if you analyze yourmanagement issues through a
(25:19):
plurality of lenses, even somewhich may seem less applicable
at first, you may just find thata key to your business success
lies not in the specificfeatures of your next product,
but perhaps in a less obviousfacet of organizational behavior
.
So just to recap, the historyof management theory has
(25:39):
undergone massivetransformations over the
centuries.
From the idea that managerialauthority was a God-given right,
to attempting to scientificallyoptimize efficiency, to
focusing on employee well-being,the theories have culminated in
the present-day focus oncomplexity.
This recognizes that theobjects which we study the
(26:01):
people, the organizations andtheir environments are
ever-changing, ever-influencingand being influenced by each
other.
And why is this important?
Because if we understand thedynamic and complex nature of
organizations and theirenvironments, we can better
prepare for the unpredictable.
(26:21):
While there are many voices outthere calling for simplicity,
here we flirt with the idea ofembracing complexity.
Why?
Because we can't expect theworld to just bow down to our
simplistic models.
This shift in perspectiveenables a more holistic approach
to management, whereuncertainty is not seen as a
(26:42):
threat but as an opportunity forgrowth and innovation.
In this environment, leadersare encouraged to foster a
culture of learning andexperimentation, where failure
is viewed as a stepping stone tosuccess.
This approach also emphasizesthe importance of diversity and
inclusion, recognizing that avariety of perspectives and
(27:03):
experiences enrichdecision-making processes and
enhance creativity.
Ultimately, the evolution ofmanagement theory towards
embracing complexity equipstoday's leaders with the tools
and mindset necessary tonavigate the ever-evolving
business landscape, ensuringthat organizations are not only
efficient and productive, butalso adaptable, sustainable and
(27:27):
capable of thriving in anincreasingly interconnected and
rapidly changing world.
So, with that, thank you fortuning in to the Management
Theory Toolbox.
Together, let's embrace thecomplexity of management, equip
ourselves with a diverse rangeof tools and thrive amidst the
(27:48):
complexities of the manageriallandscape.
Stay tuned for our next episode.
Until then, keep exploring,keep learning and keep building
your Management Theory Toolbox.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.