Imagine if... you were leading an orchard of bad apples

Your shiny new promotion turns out to be more than you bargained for. 

In this scenario-based "Imagine if..." episode, Caroline and Danielle assume the role of a newly promoted manager who steps into a team they didn’t choose and some character-building challenges. 

⚠️ Mild trigger warning for the depiction of toxic colleagues - we've all had one!

We cover: 

• Walking the floor and gathering intel
• How to give the boss response to a credibility challenge
• Clarifying the authorising environment 
• Lifting work quality 
• When to whip out the whiteboard to create a two-way learning exercise 
• Setting a vision and direction for the team that’s sensitive to the past 
• Responding to bad behaviour that’s not quite misconduct
• To report or not to report; the risks of weighing in

Good egg managers in the Re Meagher case
https://hearsay.org.au/graduate-lawyer-fails-in-fair-work-act-bullying-claim/

This podcast was recorded on Kaurna land, and we recognise Kaurna elders past and present. Always was, always will be.

Now for some appropriately bureaucratic disclaimers....

While we have tried to be as thorough in our research as busy full time jobs and lives allow, we definitely don’t guarantee that we’ve got all the details right.

Please feel free to email us corrections, episode suggestions, or anything else, at [e-mail].

Thanks to PanPot audio for our intro and outro music.

'Til next time!

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_02 (00:02):
Welcome to the Westminster Tradition, where we
unpack lessons for the publicservice.
I'm Alison Lloyd Wright,Managing Director of the Good
Trouble Group, and I am joiningyou from Garner Land.
With me, as always, are my twofellow recovering public
servants, Managing Director ofGood Government Advisory,
Danielle Elston.
Hello, Alison.

(00:22):
And Caroline Crozer Barlow.

SPEAKER_01 (00:25):
Hello, Alison.

SPEAKER_02 (00:28):
Thank you to our listeners for the incredible
feedback we got on our recentepisode, Imagine If Your Sleepy
Grants program woke up, whereCaroline took us through a
choose your own adventure ofministerial office meddling
amidst a literal mediashitstorm.
We aren't permanently convertingto this format.
There'll still be plenty ofinterviews, deep dives, and some

(00:51):
special format episodes comingup, but we love the experience
of recording it, and we werepleased so many of you liked it
too.
In fact, one former politiciandid reach out to compliment us
on the episode format andexpress concern that we might
not have enough content to doother scenario-based episodes.

(01:12):
Trust us, there's plenty wherethat came from.
But not every public sectorchallenge involves the
minister's office.
So today we're focusing on theevergreen issue of inheriting a
team that you didn't choose.
So welcome to The Inheritance.

SPEAKER_00 (01:34):
You've been a kind of um like the what are they
thriller?
Like a horror movie.
It sounds like a horror movie.

SPEAKER_03 (01:42):
I was thinking it's a great name for like a new
six-part binge kind of thing.

SPEAKER_02 (01:48):
Starring Sarah Snook and, you know, yeah, exactly.
Very fine.

SPEAKER_03 (01:53):
That's what came into my head.

unknown (01:55):
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (01:56):
All right, here we go.
You've been in your firstmanagement and leadership role
for a few years now.
And in that role, you were luckyenough to get a team of
unicorns, high performers whoproduce excellent work and
genuinely like each other.
They bring food, they gentlyroast each other, but they also
step up to help when deadlinesdemand it.
But outside that bubble ofcompetence and good humour, the

(02:19):
operating environment hasbecome, well, chaotic.
Your boss is, frankly, amicromanager, and the senior
leadership is locked in anever-ending turf war with
passive-aggressive emails andconstant changes in instruction
and direction.
Moreover, you're about ready torun over the minister's young

(02:39):
upstart advisor who keepscalling you at all hours of the
day.
So when your excellent formerboss calls you with an
opportunity to work with themagain, with a promotion
attached, you don't hesitate.
Uh, you put in an applicationand in due course the phone
rings, you've got the job.
Congratulations.
Uh, in winning this job, you'vestepped up a level and inherited

(03:01):
a team more than triple the sizeof your previous one, which was
now close to 30 people.
And here's where it starts toget tricky.
This job became availablebecause its previous occupant
was quietly but decisively shownthe door after losing the
confidence of both the secretaryand the minister.
You can't really get anydetails, but you get a really

(03:22):
strong sense that you are not tobe like them.
So, first thoughts, you're aboutto step into this role.
Risks, challenges, how you mightapproach it.

SPEAKER_03 (03:38):
The first thing, because I'm assuming it's going
to get difficult, is to alwaysremember that if that's the
case, like you're starting onsolid ground.
I have started a couple of jobs,um, and a senior public servant
has said to me, like, this baris a broom on the floor,
Danielle.
Like, even you can climb overit, which is, you know, super
inspiring.
Um, but it's gonna get tricky.

(03:59):
But I just think that one of thestarting points here is like you
can't do worse often sometimeswhen you go into these roles.
So try not to be overwhelmed byit because um, you know, you can
only do better.

SPEAKER_01 (04:11):
I would definitely be doing the ring around of the
people I know who know theorganization from the outside.
So, like the central agencies ormy friend who has, you know, who
works in an adjacent but not inthat division, just to kind of
get a sense of kind of thethings people are saying, and
sometimes it's right andsometimes it's wrong, but it is

(04:32):
always helpful to come in with abit of intel about kind of how
they're seen as a as a team.
Um, so like before joining, thatwould definitely be one thing I
would be really keen to do.
I mean, the other thing, ofcourse, is actually just to
explicitly say to your excellentformer boss, so excellent former
boss, what exactly is it thatyou're looking for from me?

(04:53):
I'm sure there's lots of thingsI could do.
I'm sure the broom is on thefloor, but I do think that kind
of like what's the kind of firstthing you really need from me in
the first three months?
Um, I think something, you know,just a little bit of kind of
that sort of conversation.

SPEAKER_03 (05:07):
The other thing I just would be really interested
in is what the application andad looked like.
Because have you ever seen an adthat said, come and manage an
underperforming dysfunctionalteam that everyone hates each
other?
Like every single ad says thatthey're looking for a high
performing high performing,yeah.
Like, which is a shame becausesome people like a fixer opera.

(05:28):
And I appreciate why we can'tput in the ad this is going to
require deep management skillsbecause it's a place that's in
trouble.
But like I I can imagine whatthe interview questions were and
the disconnect is what I'msaying between the recruitment
process and what it is thisperson would is apparently about
to have to actually do for aliving.

SPEAKER_01 (05:46):
Oh, I have one more risk.
I love that.
Um, also because it makes methink of that excellent song
from Frozen, he's a bit of afixer-upper, which I sing to
myself a lot.

SPEAKER_02 (05:54):
And to be clear, this is a bit of a fixer-upper,
although of course the I assumedso at this point didn't indicate
that that was so.

SPEAKER_01 (06:02):
Right.
But just the other thing I wouldtake in, there's a risk, right?
And I've done this before, I'vetaken on a job where uh the big
boss really didn't like thepredecessor and therefore had
quite a jaundice view about allof the things, and have formed,
I think, quite an inaccurateview about what parts of that

(06:22):
area were underperforming andwhat parts were performing well.
And so I think there's like try,and I didn't do this very well,
but try not to let the feelingsof the big boss overly influence
you because actually it might besomething quite small and
discreet and fixable that'sdriving them nuts about the
team, and actually it might notbe the whole thing.
I just think like try not to beoverly responsive in the kind of

(06:44):
it's it's terrible until youactually see it yourself.

SPEAKER_02 (06:49):
Well, that's a great introduction to the next part.
A bit more context about thisrole.

SPEAKER_03 (06:55):
And listeners, I'd just like you to note that we're
not allowed to scroll throughjust like last time, but Alison
so didn't trust us, even thoughlast time Alison and I didn't
scroll on, that she only sent itto us like at 30 seconds before
recording, lest we we'd beunable to be trusted and scroll
through.

SPEAKER_01 (07:09):
I also like that she used as much highlighting and as
many exclamation points as Idid, even though she was rude to
me about it last time.

SPEAKER_00 (07:15):
So just saying no scrolling ahead.

SPEAKER_02 (07:18):
You may now scroll ahead one page.

SPEAKER_00 (07:21):
Thank you.
Okay, one page only.

SPEAKER_02 (07:23):
Caroline's right in that there is maybe just a
slight flavour of resentmentabout the existence of this
whole section that you'vestepped up to lead.
So let's zoom out and take alook at this landscape that
you've landed in.
Uh, the section was set up a fewyears ago in response to
political pressure todemonstrate visible leadership

(07:45):
for a particularly vulnerablestakeholder group.
For the purposes of thisscenario, I won't go into a lot
of detail about the stakeholdergroup, but you know the type of
entity.
Most governments have at least afew.
Maybe they're for veterans,maybe they're for young people,
multicultural community, but youget the idea.
Uh this one even comes with itsown dedicated very junior

(08:10):
minister.
The section was established in ahurry and as a kind of arm of an
existing big governmentdepartment.
And because it was establishedin a hurry and under budget
conditions and strictinstructions that it was to be
cost neutral, no properrecruitment process to staff

(08:30):
this section ever occurred.
Instead, what happened isdepartments were voluntold to
contribute voluntold.
So ladies, best guesses, who doyou think uh who do you think
the staff are in this section?
Given that history and context.

SPEAKER_01 (08:52):
I wish there was a lot cynical view here, which is
to say some agencies and partsof the agencies will have sent
you their duds, right?
Like a hundred percent.
But I also expect there are someparts or some agencies that may
have thought, oh, actually, ifthis goes badly over there,
that's going to annoy me.
And so, like, I just want tooffer just the thought that it's

(09:14):
not always the worst, butclearly it's the worst.

SPEAKER_03 (09:18):
Yeah.
So on a similar positive vein,what I would say is you do not
know those people.
So there's clearly reputationsand whatever else.
So from what you've told us sofar, Alison, I know nothing, and
I have lots I need to learnabout how they were shuffled
into this team.
And I mean, we'll probably getto it, but like anything that's
performance-based could just bebased on having not had a choice

(09:39):
or all sorts of things.
So a bit like what you said inthe last bit, Caroline, when I
have inherited teams and I havebeen told in advance that they
are grumpy or underperforming, Iam very, very careful not to
assume that is because they arepersonally unable to deliver
their job.
And my first assumption is thatthe conditions haven't been set
up.

(10:00):
Now, clearly, obviously, laterhave discovered some of them
were unable to kind of do thejob.
But no, no, sometimes.
But sometimes have found it.
But we know what they say aboutassumptions, right?

SPEAKER_00 (10:10):
Yes, that's exactly right.

SPEAKER_02 (10:13):
Um, but but broadly, you're on the right track here.
Uh, in in sacrificing their ownstuff into the creation of this
new section, while there aresome decent enough performers,
there are also some peoplewho've been redeployed from
roles that are no longer uhimportant.
And some departments absolutelydid take the opportunity to get

(10:34):
rid of people with lowperformance or attitude
problems.

SPEAKER_03 (10:40):
And so, in some sense, uh yeah, so slow house or
something.
Slow house, exactly.

SPEAKER_02 (10:47):
So, for anyone uh familiar with slow horses, books
by Will Smith, TV series onApple, it's kind of a a
department of broken toys, uh,which is to say, as viewers, we
love Slough House and the peoplein it.
Exactly.
Uh so ladies, this you've notmet any of these people yet, but
you're about to you're about togo in on day one, and you know

(11:09):
that this is the kind of theorigin story of how your section
came to be.
What are the first things you'regoing to do?

SPEAKER_01 (11:19):
Walk the floor.
Like ask people questions aboutwhat they think their job is and
what they like, just try andlike, oh, I'm I'm so interested
in what the work is.
But the challenge with that isnot to look too affirming when
they tell you they're doingstuff that sounds a bit stupid.
So it's like it's a real balanceof like being genuinely curious,

(11:41):
but maintaining agnosticism tothe fact that you might change
direction a lot, which Istruggle with because I can get
a bit positive.
I'm like, oh, that sounds great.
And then like a week later,you're like, that was not great.
I should not have said that.

SPEAKER_03 (11:55):
So the first thing I want to know is what it is we're
trying to do.
So they may not have that.
So presumably, before I'vewalked the floor, or even before
I've started, I've got from myboss uh, you know, okay, they're
doing a lot of policy work, butreally it needs to be
stakeholder engagement, or thereverse, or it's all they're
spending all their time onevents, but it's supposed to be
something else.
What and and and then askingmuch clearer questions back up

(12:16):
to the boss, which is like, sowhat is it that you want this
team to do?
Don't worry about what they arenow, don't worry about where it
all came from, what it is, whatwhat what's my goal?
Like, where am I trying to getthese people?
So I'm in my head clear whatgood looks like to my boss and
what keeps me in my job.
And then I'm trying to, in thatfirst bit, get to know the
people.
Um, I think one of the thingsabout inheriting teams that's

(12:38):
tricky is you don't have CVs.
So you know that they're a suchand such level events officer in
this team, but you don't realisethat actually before maternity
leave they were much higherclassified or they've actually
worked in two really relevantdepartments.
I think that's really tricky.
I think it would be awesome ifyou could find out that
information more easily.
But I as a part of that floorwalking, what I'm trying to see

(13:00):
is what they're doing, but alsowhat the gap is without
commenting on it between what itis I've been told we're doing or
supposed to be working towardsand what it is everyone's
actually spending their time onto try and figure out why
there's such a big gap betweenthose things.

SPEAKER_02 (13:14):
So, on that one, I regret to advise that your
excellent boss was in factpulled, uh seconded over into a
department to manage anemergency response.
By the time you've started,they're no longer there.
And while technically you dohave a dotted line reporting to
someone, they basically couldn'tcare less about what you are

(13:38):
doing.
They work in the other part ofthe agency to a different
minister, and you're on yourown.
Okay.
Uh, but I think I think I wouldapproach this quite similarly to
what you are both saying, a bitof a listening to a an internal
and external listening to a chatto the people I've got working
for me about their history andwhat they enjoy and their

(13:59):
strengths and what it is thatthey think they're doing.
A chat to the other stakeholdersthe section engages with about
where it's going well and whereit's not.
Yeah.
All right, and may now scrollahead to the next page.

(14:20):
Uh you're excited about yourpromotion, obviously, but not
everyone is super excited aboutyou stepping into this new role.
Uh, some of the people thataren't excited are as follows.
Uh, one of your lateralcolleagues uh in this new
department applied, uh, but theydidn't get the role, obviously,
and they're a bit miffed aboutit.

(14:40):
You suspect they're subtly whiteanting you to other execs andor
to the minister's office, butmaybe you're just paranoid.

SPEAKER_00 (14:47):
No.

SPEAKER_02 (14:50):
And then there's Bernie.
Bernie is an old timer.
Bernie is at least 25 yearsolder than you and is wildly
unimpressed about reporting to ayoung, newly promoted woman.

(15:10):
At afternoon tea for someone'sbirthday, you brought cake.
Uh, Bernie takes you on in frontof the whole section and asks,
what experience do you haveanyway with this particular
group of vulnerable stakeholdersthe section is focused on
serving?
And unfortunately, the truth isactually not that much.

(15:31):
How are you going to approach?
Go for it.

SPEAKER_01 (15:36):
Because I've spent my whole life never knowing much
about the content when I start.
And it's like the the answer isto say, yeah, I don't know a lot
about veterans' affairs.
The bit I'm good at is the bitwhich is about what do ministers
want and what makes them happyand how do we get things done.
And the bit you guys are good atis knowing what happens with
veterans.

(15:56):
And here's the magic, right?
Like you guys and me together,we can deploy those strengths to
do really great work.
And I'm really looking forwardto you teaching me everything
you know, but also to just beingable to rely on your wisdom.

SPEAKER_02 (16:11):
Like gold star answer, Caroline.
I'm not sure I can improve onthat.

SPEAKER_03 (16:15):
No, no, no.
I was gonna say I was gonna say,I have had this happen to me a
number of times, andparticularly uh older, close to
retirement men um who haveworked in that content for 40
years and are very protective ofthat, which you know I
understand.
Um, and being called out, youknow, in that first thing across

(16:36):
the whole section where it'slike, so you don't know
anything, do you?
And being like them just beingreally hostilely clear about it.
And the same thing.
It's so bad.
And but so I think it's thething of what I am good at, and

(16:58):
being so I think it's even ifit's not that answer, that exact
answer, Caroline.
It's like, no, so you know, I'vehad a bit of a background in
comms and this and that andwhatever else, and what I'm
hoping that does is helps you astechnical experts translate this
into that and deliver the thing.
Um because the kind of thingwe're describing is also a gap

(17:22):
between like when it's technicaland content versus kind of
public sector stuff, so publicsector generalist, public sector
management.
And some areas have only everhad a technical manager and
leader where they became themanager, not because they had
any leadership skills ormanagement skills, but just
because they were the smartestregulator of you know curtains.
And so um, I think the challengehere is that there's sometimes

(17:46):
an expectation, particularlywith technical teams, that you
can only lead them if you couldalso do the ASO2 filling out of
the form kind of work.

SPEAKER_01 (17:54):
Um, I have a question about what one would
regulate in relation tocurtains.

SPEAKER_00 (17:57):
But no, but I was going to say, I am tired.

SPEAKER_04 (18:01):
I gave a lot of speeches last week, and the
closest thing to me is acurtain.
But thank you, Clay.

SPEAKER_01 (18:07):
I was just thinking my nana would have views.
But no, actually, the thing Iwould say as a as to our
listeners is this is the hardestthing to the newly promoted,
because you don't necessarilyknow or value or have words
around your your brilliant skillset, right?
Like I just gave you the speech,but that was the fourth time I

(18:27):
gave it.
The first time I gave it, it wasrubbish, right?
Because it was hard to say thisis what I'm good at, this is not
what I'm good at.
So I really encourage you, ifyou're in this situation, to sit
down with your otters and do apractice and be like, actually,
what are the things that I cangenuinely say I'm pretty good
at?
Like I'm good at building teams,I'm good at blah, blah, blah.
And then like just make surethat you keep that in your head

(18:50):
so that you have a kind of ananswer and you don't look like
you've been punched in the facewhen they say, but you don't
know what section 413 of thelegislation says, do you?

SPEAKER_03 (19:01):
Yeah, yeah.
Also, because you're gonna needit to keep your confidence going
forward.
So keep it.
Absolutely, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (19:07):
But I guess my point here is it's not your job,
actually, to be the technicalexpert.
And it is your job to know yourstrengths and to know how those
strengths are going to connectwith the technical experts and
getting what they're trying toget done done.
Uh, but it's trap for youngplayers, I think, to fall into.
Well, I better take myself homeand read all the legislation so

(19:28):
that next time I know, I uh nexttime I'm asked, so I can answer
that question.
Don't do that.
All right.
Any other thoughts about howyou're you're going to start
shaping this new team in thiscontext?

SPEAKER_03 (19:43):
Not too loudly, not too forcefully.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (19:47):
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
To Danielle's point, like Ithink, like not too loudly, not
too forcefully, gently, butshowing that you're actually
really interested in them aspeople and them as work.
And so I really like thebirthday cake.
And I think like just that kindof um genuine curiosity and
interest is really important.

SPEAKER_02 (20:09):
Excellent.
So here's where we run into somereality, though, and you may now
scroll ahead.
Obviously, it would be lovely,ideal, even, if you could spend
several weeks being genuinelywarm, empathetic, and curious,
building relationships,listening deeply, understanding

(20:29):
the team, mapping capability.
Uh, but did no one tell you?
Estimates is in three weeks.
Uh, and as best you can tell, nopreparation has begun from your
team.
So you decide that the rightplace to start is to ask to see
last year's estimates folder.

SPEAKER_03 (20:51):
Easy, just update them.
Can't be that hard.

SPEAKER_02 (20:53):
Can't be that hard, but but once you get them, boy
oh boy, uh, they're terrible.
They're long, they're unclear,they're hard to navigate, and
you are really conscious that,albeit on the little information
you have, but failure toadequately serve the minister
was really one of the reasonsyour predecessor was moved on.

(21:16):
So instead of spending your timecapability mapping and building
relationships, you now havethree weeks to get an excellent
estimates folder done.
Where are we starting?

SPEAKER_01 (21:29):
Um, sorry, I would start with what is your sense of
what they're gonna be askedbased on what have you seen
being asked in previous yearsand your spidey sense?
Because like this feels to melike why you're there is that
you've got a kind of bettersense of kind of the politics.
Um so I think there's somethingabout I actually don't think you

(21:49):
need to make the whole estimatesbrief a gun brief.
I think you need to make likethe three things you're gonna
get asked a gun brief, and thenI would preserve my
relationships and actually notoverly finesse the other ones.
Like I think, um but anyway,that's a that's a that's an
approach that I usually take, isthat I'm like radical
prioritization.

SPEAKER_02 (22:08):
I love it.

SPEAKER_01 (22:08):
Yeah, radical prioritization, right?
And like so I'm also thinking,yes, the minister might not love
that there's this very long onethat I know he's not gonna get
asked about, but also I'mpreserving my relationships with
the poor people who've put a lotof effort into it and I don't
have time to whatever it is.
So I think there's somethingabout um like yes, it's
important to get a gun folder,but also you have a long game to

(22:30):
play here.
So I think sort of trying towork out where your efforts lie
is important.
But Danielle, you look so good.
Well, I have a different view.

SPEAKER_03 (22:36):
Yeah, yeah, giving you lots of face down the line.
Um, not skeptical.
I think this is not bad news.
I think this is quite good newsbecause we are going off to
school together now as a team.
Um, for my mind, we are notdoing drafts that are coming up
and down, we are going into aroom.
Before we get there, I have readthe last sort of questions.
So, what you just said,Caroline, like having a spidey

(22:57):
sense of they're really worriedabout the grant money or the
something or the something.
So you've you've you've donethat piece of work.
Um, but there's a way to, forinstance, say to your team,
like, this is actually a reallygood way for me to get up to
speed.
Um, and I don't want you to likewrite it and then me to send
back with comments andquestions.

(23:18):
That's all like let's all gointo the room with the
whiteboard.
Yes.
I've I've prepared somequestions.
You guys probably know muchbetter ones, whether they do or
they don't.
Um, and I am gonna try andanswer them and like you are
gonna educate me as to how toanswer them.
And at the end of that, we willbe able to write down seven dot
points.
Um, and I'm really sorry thatit's your job to like school me.

(23:40):
But because we have to get donein the next three weeks, I can't
read all the back briefs and getmy head around everything.
So we're gonna do it basicallyas a live thingamajiggy.
Because it's genius.
Um I think if you don't do itthat way, all you're gonna end
up with is buried in paper thatyou don't understand, signing
through something that um youfeel a bit squiffy about.

(24:01):
Yeah.
Not that it's necessarilyinaccurate, just that you're
like, I can't understand it.
So like the minister'sdefinitely not gonna be able to
understand this.
Um, maybe they know more thanme, you know, those kind of
things.
So I think, as I said, you justrun it like a live back to
basics.
You want in your the only thingyou want as a leader in your own
head is a strong sense of whatthe kind of um uh

(24:23):
vulnerabilities are or what'scoming at you.
But after that, it's like livein the room, ask me the
question, can someone help mewith an answer?
I don't think I could say thatif I was in estimates, so what
could I say like that kind ofthing?

SPEAKER_02 (24:35):
And can I talk a bit about here uh the wrong
approach, slash the approach Iabsolutely have taken in the
past is do too much of ityourself.
Yeah.
Which is to be this kind oflike, I'm the only one that
knows what good looks like here,and we don't have time.

(24:56):
And so I don't have time toupskill everyone, and I don't
have time to get this whole packwhere I need to get it.
So people are gonna give me whatthey can, and I'm going to spend
too much time and effort turningthis into a product that I am
proud of.

SPEAKER_01 (25:11):
100% that's what I would have done, which I think
is why I went to my answer,which was like avoiding that.
But I think Danielle's answer oflike flip it to the positive is
genius.
Like I just think isn't it?
I apologize to get to knowpeople.
No, agree.

SPEAKER_04 (25:24):
And it's a genuine people.

SPEAKER_02 (25:27):
It's a very good opportunity to set expectations
really early about what workproduct from your section should
and will look like under yourleadership.

SPEAKER_03 (25:37):
Also, you can kind of ask questions under the guise
of like, I I wouldn't, Iwouldn't be interested in this,
but like they might ask us, dowe know anything about the
outcomes from that money we'vebeen given away?
And they might give you somekind of framework answer, and
you're gonna be like, okay, wellthat's not a friggin' awesome.
Need a little bit like we'regonna need some specifics here.
So it's not the most terribleway to figure out whether we're

(25:59):
like what some of the thingsmight like we're just talking in
like Wally words, that's one ofthe problems with the ministers.
We couldn't give them concreteanything, or oh, they don't know
anything, that's one of theproblems, or they know so much
that we've never been able todistill it down into anything
kind of communicable.
So you can kind of use the coverof the process to figure out
what's what, I reckon.

(26:20):
So I don't think it's bad.
You can't do that.

SPEAKER_01 (26:23):
If you're frightened, though, right?
You can't do that if you'refrightened that they will know
that you don't know things.
So all of this is predicated.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Feeling confident about whatyou're bringing, and also
feeling able to share with themthat you don't know the content.

SPEAKER_02 (26:42):
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
So you've made it throughestimates, mostly unscathed.
Uh, and actually, you're kind ofgrateful that you have a really,
really junior minister who,although they panic about things
like estimates, ultimately getsvery little media attention.
Uh, and your approach to workingcollaboratively and setting

(27:04):
clear expectations on how toprepare the estimates brief is
sort of working to improve thestandard of work across the
team.
Uh, you're still doing more ofit yourself than you ought to,
but at least the quality ofwhat's going to the minister's
office has improved.
But and Danielle alluded to thisa bit earlier.
Your team just aren't reallysure why they exist.

(27:27):
They're worried they're going toget absorbed into another
section or get redeployed again.
And outside of knowing that theywere set up to serve this
particular group ofstakeholders, they're just not
really sure what they're doingand why.
How are you going to go aboutsetting a vision and direction

(27:48):
for this team?

SPEAKER_01 (27:52):
I think the first thing I would do, and I
recognise you're not likely toget an answer, but you have to
do it anyway, is you really needa conversation with your
secretary or minister's officeor both about actually, yeah,
probably not your minister'soffice, it's probably your
secretary and your central,actually, to just say, hey guys,
just so I know, is this a thingthat we're gonna fold up in a

(28:13):
couple of years, in which case,fine, like I'll do it a certain
way, or is this like actually,you know, you kind of think it's
serving a longer term politicalgoal than just this particular
thing, and so we're gonna keepliving?

SPEAKER_03 (28:24):
Um they're never gonna give you the first answer.
They're never gonna they veryrarely say in two years
something's gonna fold.

SPEAKER_01 (28:31):
I think that's the readers between the lines,
right?
You would have to read betweenthe lines.
It would be like, because abecause a tactful central might
say something like, Look, youknow, they're a really important
stakeholder group and this isreally working for us at the
moment, but who knows?
Like maybe it will change, andthen you're like, yep, they're
killing us in two years.
Um, so like you just kind of youdo, there's something about

(28:51):
understanding the broaderauthorizing environment before
you commence on this.
And if you don't understand it,if you can't get anyone to tell
you, that's fine too, right?
Then you just have to operate onthe good faith assumption you're
there for a long time, not a nota good time, right?
So, but I just think that veryfirst piece of information is
very important.

SPEAKER_03 (29:10):
Yeah, I think some of this is about the team.
So we can also set our ownvision and direction.
And I'm not saying that that isdevoid of what the direction of
government is, but um a coupleof things to check here,
preferably without asking theteam if you can, just from an
annoying them perspective, ishave they been through various
business plans and processesthat were done to tick a box and

(29:32):
never delivered on?
Is that part of their lack ofenthusiasm?
Um, did they once have a vision?
Did they once have a mission?
Did they have a program?
Did they have a program logic?
And then that person left and itall just died.
Because um what you don't wantto do is be like, hi, I'm the
first person who's ever thoughtabout putting some direction
around this when this team of 30people are then going to look at

(29:54):
you and go, No, you're not lady.

SPEAKER_00 (29:55):
Like such a good point, Debbie.

SPEAKER_03 (30:03):
You want it, and sometimes you can't find it in
the filing, and then you try andfind the nicest person in the
team to say what have you donebefore, or like try and kind of
keep it on the low down low.
But you want to check what hashappened in the last few years
because sometimes people havehad like multiple directions,
and that is one of the reasonsthey won't set a direction with
you because they're like, Yeah,this will last for another two
weeks, I'm not doing it.

(30:24):
I think the other thing is oftenstaff have never been asked, and
managers.
So if there's 30 people, you'veprobably got maybe a couple of
managers.
You don't usually have 30 directreports, but you know, sometimes
you do.
So you're seeing your team, evenif you are a senior manager,
there might be two kind of teamleaders or something.
You want to start reallysolidifying that bit first, um,

(30:45):
those relationships and thatkind of thing, and starting that
process of what have you put upthat got killed?
Why did you think it got knockedback?
Um, because again, the suspicionof teams getting new leaders and
them being especiallyenthusiastic and energetic new
leaders will often be met by awall of resistance because we've

(31:07):
tried everything before, andthen you know that that's your
job to conquer.
Now you've got a whole differentapproach.
If it that's never happened andthey're just desperate for
someone to tell them what theirjob is.
So you don't want to be beholdento history, and you certainly
don't want to be beholden toso-and-so is bad at their job
and stuff because, like, youdon't know that yet, you haven't
tried them.
That's my strongest thing.
I believe in references, butwhen you inherit teams, I
actually don't want that muchinformation from people about my

(31:29):
team.
I will figure out who is goodbased on my own things that I
value in good performers.
Um and so, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (31:39):
If it helps you have a little context here, the
previous boss that was fireddidn't have a strategy or
direction.
And by all accounts, in yourbest search of the electronic
document management system,didn't really do you anything
except sit in their office withthe door closed.
Uh but that other person thatapplied, uh, they were acting in

(31:59):
the role while the recruitmentwas underway, and they had a
very uh clear and contraryvision about where the team
developed.

SPEAKER_01 (32:08):
See, I think so.
Can I oh that's I will go firstbecause I have been in this
situation where, like, you know,I I think I've talked about
coming in and there was like afunctional review underway,
which was code for we don't havea kind of strategic vision, so
we're looking at what we do now,which I think is very much the
worst way to start thisconversation, like just to kind

(32:29):
of let's map everything and thenwe'll work out our vision from
there.
I think the best starting pointis a conversation with your
senior leaders, not in a formalsense, but in a kind of informal
of what do we look like at ourbest?
What do we think our best impactis?
Like, where do we think we areat our best?
And then my commitment to you,senior leaders, is I'm just
gonna go and test that quietlywith the secretary and with the

(32:50):
thing and sort of see like, isthat along the right track or is
that something different?
And I think once you've got abit of a sense of kind of the
scope of where your division isbest, and that's kind of come up
from your leadership and it kindof matches a little bit what you
think your authorizingenvironment is, that's when I
think you can start having amore formal conversation with
the rest of the division around,you know, well, here team, this

(33:11):
is what I'm thinking.

SPEAKER_03 (33:13):
I was going somewhere really different and
kind of less vision-y andpractical, which is if you get
that intel that the last personwas a door locked, didn't have
team meetings, and I'veinherited teams where they
hadn't literally seen, and Idon't mean their secretary, I
mean they're like line boss.

SPEAKER_05 (33:29):
Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 (33:29):
They see them twice a year or something.
The first thing is you're like,oh, they're gonna be really
excited to see me.
You need to really think aboutwhat signals they've been given,
right?
So they've never been told thatwhat they're doing isn't meeting
the mark.
So as far as they're concerned,their way forward has been like
covering all bases.
And your sudden, I'm gonna do aone-on-one with everybody, and

(33:51):
then we're gonna do this, andthen we're gonna do that, can
feel really assaulting and canfeel a lot like you don't trust
them, or so you said to be very,it doesn't mean you don't do it.
I'm just saying you have to bevery careful that your own
assumptions, like, oh, they'vebeen neglected, so therefore
they're gonna love all my love.
There are multiple ways that canland.
Sometimes that will be true, butsometimes they will be like, I

(34:14):
have been left alone, and thatwas like to my perfect
contentment.
And who the hell do you thinkyou are with like weekly
wrap-ups and team meetings andwhatever else?
So I just one of the things Ialways say, regardless of
whether the team is highperforming or or low performing,
is your team will work for theirlast boss for a good year after

(34:35):
you've been sending signals tothe contrary.
So they are working to adifferent set of signals.
And if those signals are neversend me a problem, never
whatever, they will keep doingthat.
And you saying in your thirdday, I love problems, bring them
to me, is not going to be enoughto change that culture.
Like you got to keep doing itover and over again.

SPEAKER_02 (34:52):
Uh, that's such a good segue into the next bit.
But while you're in the middleof this I didn't look while
you're in the middle of doingall of this kind of um thinking
and discussing and working aboutyour authorizing environment and
vision and purpose, uh, you geta call from DPC.
Uh uh, you've been in the rolefor about two months, three

(35:12):
months at this point.
They're annoyed by therequirement that was established
at the same time your sectionwas established, for all of the
programs to consider, for allgovernment programs to consider
the impact uh on your particulargroup of vulnerable
stakeholders, and they'redesperate for you to kill it.
Thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 (35:33):
Yeah, so I have strong thoughts about this.
Like, firstly, I would say aheart DPC.
Is this the ASO3 who is justsick of processing the coro, or
is this the premier?
Because there are reallydifferent uh versions of whether
I care about your feedback.
I wouldn't say that out loud,but I would be checking that
out.
But I think I'm gonna take a cueout of Danielle's book.

(35:53):
I would turn this into abrilliant opportunity for what
do our stakeholders want fromus?
Like what, and I mean internalgovernment stakeholders.
Like I would be like, oh yeah,gosh, I imagine our veterans'
impact statements are veryclunky.
Um, I also imagine, of course,it would be a bit unpopular if
we got rid of the veteran impactstatement because you know it

(36:14):
was like a political thing.
How about I'll sit down withsome of my excellent colleagues
and we'll talk about, like, likecolleagues in other agencies,
the people who are beingimpacted by this, and we'll talk
about what they're looking forin that.
And then my team can come alongin those and we can sort of hear
how we are helpful in that.
Like, I just think this is sucha great opportunity to go get
more information and to reformyour process at the same time

(36:36):
with a bit of stick on the edgethat like maybe we're about to
lose our our extra specialpowers, and that'll get the team
on on side.
I agree.

SPEAKER_02 (36:46):
See, I have a different view, which is like
this is not the most importantthing right now.
Like, I'd want to know where itwas coming from, like you, like,
is it the premiere or is it theASO3?
And those are different, but butto the extent that it's not
coming from the premiere, myview is like I'm eating a big

(37:07):
elephant, and I'll get to thatone.
But right now, yeah, I need towork on getting my team to
understand who they are, whatthey do, and why they do it and
doing it well, and that is adistraction from that task.

SPEAKER_01 (37:21):
Yep, I agree with that.
Like, if it is, even if it's notthe ASO3, but even if it's just
the sort of subject linedirector in in Cabner Office
who's like, we've always thoughtthis is an opportunity, and now
we've got you as a friendlyface.
I would definitely be like,Yeah, sure, but my friendly face
isn't friendly when you ask methis, because I'm doing this
other bit of important culturework.

SPEAKER_02 (37:39):
So we're getting we're getting somewhere, right?
Uh, you're finally makingheadway.
You've hired an incredible 2ICwho is competent, calm, and
quietly fierce, uh, the kind ofperson who makes you wonder how
you ever survived without them.
Your team are clear about whatgood looks like and what the
section does and how it addsvalue to stakeholders inside and

(38:01):
outside of government.
And you're all working togetherto make improvements to her
performance.
You're all working togetherexcept for Nicola.
Nicola's work is fine.
It's fine.
She delivers deficient enoughquality work on time.
Genuinely no issues with herwork product.

(38:23):
But what there is an issue withis her attitude.
She wears her bitterness likeperfume.
She operates in that maddeningsweet spot between not
technically misconduct andspiritually corrosive.
And she's almost made that herpersonal brand.
She's cultivated a sort ofemotional black market where

(38:45):
staff go to her with complaintsand she fuels them further, uh,
gently undermining you all theway with comments like, No
wonder you're overwhelmed.
Our priorities keep changingevery five minutes.
Oh no, dear.
We've never had this level ofchaos before.
She participates in teammeetings but does so with

(39:06):
crossed arms and rolled eyes.
Is convinced the star survey isa conspiracy and is building a
growing cabal of followers.
What are we doing about Nicola?

SPEAKER_03 (39:19):
Firstly, I do think that some of these might need to
come with a trigger warning.

SPEAKER_02 (39:23):
Um they also found it triggering, so apologies.

SPEAKER_03 (39:34):
Okay, because I as you were talking, I was like
having flashes with faces andscary feelings.
So for managers out there, likefirstly, we might put one up the
top of the episode.
Secondly, we have all had thisperson.
Um, a couple of things on thisperson.

(39:55):
Firstly, um, I'm gonna take veryseriously that they're in that
not technically misconductbecause these are the people
that are the hardest.

SPEAKER_02 (40:03):
Technically misconduct, nothing.

SPEAKER_03 (40:05):
They have not done a single thing that you can
performance manage them from.
They send you perfectly adequatework by deadline, la la la la
la.
Um like grappled with this.
I don't think any of us havelanded, I've never seen anyone
do it perfectly.
I think a couple of things.
Um, head-on doesn't work verywell.

(40:26):
I think the cultural and teamnorms across the board can work
better because otherwise itbecomes a bit of a you're going
after Nicola.
And if she's got a growing cabalof followers, that will actually
reinforce the surliness if youbring her in and say, look,
we're on a journey, everyone'strying hard.
I'd love it if you could likethink of something positive to
say in the team meeting as wemove forward.

SPEAKER_02 (40:47):
Um toxic positivity is what you'll be accused of
then, Danielle.

SPEAKER_03 (40:52):
Go straight out the door, um, and you're reinforcing
it.
So I think with those people,one of the best things you can
do is I don't want to soundmanipulated, but line up the
numbers against it.
So have as many other peopleoperating differently because
you've been talking about how itis you work, you're setting an
example of where you can likehave a vent of your feelings.

(41:12):
Like, you know, in the teammeeting where you can go,
ministers change their mindagain, but it's good public
servants, we're gonna do this.
Someone else laughs, someoneelse makes a joke.
Yeah.
Which is a very differentapproach to like surly, toxic,
nasty.
So I, as a general rule, don'ttake them head on because you
can take them head on if you'vegot like something you can do
something with from a HRperspective, but if you don't, I

(41:34):
try and like work on avolumetric basis to dilute them
as much as possible.
Interesting.
I reckon I got something morespecific.

SPEAKER_01 (41:43):
No, no, no, no, no.
I think it depends, right?
If they report to me, it'sdifferent than if they don't
report to me.
Because if they report to me,they spend a lot of time with
me.
And I, in that context, um I tryto be as open and kind of clear
about my values and kind of theway I go about work as I can,

(42:06):
with the hope that um it makesthem quite uncomfortable.
So, like that when they'resaying things like, Oh, well, of
course, you know, it's theminister changing his mind
again.
It's like, yeah, you know, butactually what I really need us
to do is I need us to hold astraight face when we're talking
to the team about that, becauseit's really unhelpful when we
don't do that, because that'spart of our journey, right?
So, like if they're if they'reyour direct report, I think

(42:29):
there, I think there is a kindof hug them close and make them
really, really, really, really,really part of all of your
thinking, like just talk outloud all the time.
It's a high-risk strategybecause of course you will give
them material to use againstyou.
And I think that's where yourvolumetric strategy is,
Danielle.
It's like, I just I personallybelieve that if you act with

(42:52):
integrity in enough places, likeeven if you make a mistake and
say something in front of themand they can use it against you,
people will be like, oh yeah,but like actually she's mostly
fine.
So that's one thought.
Second thought is I think try tounderstand what Nicola's
aspirations are.
I think there's something aboutkind of you know, a really
straightforward conversation,which is like, hey, Nicola, I

(43:13):
can tell you've you've beenthrough this 700 times.
You don't want to do it 701.
I totally get that, right?
Where do you see your future is?
Because I am here to help youfind your future.
And like I am really happy tokind of give you a paid
secondment somewhere else.
I'm really happy to kind ofthink about what that looks
like.
And in a genuinely to yourpoint, Danielle, about like you

(43:34):
shouldn't judge people fromtheir context.
Sometimes people are shitsbecause of their context, and
often nicolas are shits becauseof where they've come from, and
so you can be like in adifferent context, they will be
okay.
And so I just think somethingabout trying to find out their
aspirations, trying to find thema pathway out, that feels to me
like the kind of other pathway.

(43:56):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 (43:58):
I don't disagree with that, but the first thing
I'm thinking is she goes backout to her cabal and she's like,
Yeah, Caroline's trying to getrid of me, she's offered me a
second.
And you just be on it.

SPEAKER_04 (44:07):
I'll be here long after she's gone and I'm gonna
hang out.

SPEAKER_02 (44:10):
And I will work with anyone else who has a career
aspiration that I can help themwith.

SPEAKER_01 (44:15):
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
And if she's going aroundtelling people I'll be gone in
two years, I think it's like,look, my plan is to be here, but
actually, do you know what myplan is?
That we are a happy, motivated,purposeful team that's kicking
goals.
And that is what we're doinghere, and I can see we're all
excited about it.

SPEAKER_02 (44:34):
Yep.
So uh I I guess the only otherthing I want to add to that is
for anyone who's currentlyexperiencing this or has
experienced it, it just it feelsawful.
It's awful.
It does.
It's like it feels gross in yourtummy.
You don't want to have to talkto Nicola.
The temptation is to avoidtalking to her or engaging with

(44:56):
her, but you cannot approach itthat way as revolting as it
feels.

SPEAKER_01 (45:03):
Yeah, in fact, you're making me think, Alison,
here, about just um, and maybewe can find the chain, but there
was a kind of unfair dismissalclaim that went through the
Commonwealth.
I can't remember what thedepartment was.

SPEAKER_02 (45:14):
I know the exact one that you're talking about.

SPEAKER_01 (45:16):
You know the exact one, right?
And you can read the emails fromthe EL1s and the EL2s who sat
down with this person who wasclearly really hard to work with
and really combative, and theywere just kind and thoughtful
and responsive time and timeagain, and it was just
incredibly hard work.
And then at the end, you know,it ended with a kind of, you
know, this went into the HR kindof IR space.

(45:37):
But I just think so, one, it'sicky, it's uncomfortable, no one
likes conflict.
Conflict is important if it istaking you where you need to be.
Not having conflict is actuallyreally damaging to lots of
people, including your earlyadopters who are on board with
your vision.
Like you are letting them downif you let Nicola kind of behave
like that in public all thetime.

(45:59):
So you've got to do something,even if it's gross.
Two, don't let your feelings getaway from you.
Like you have to have, like whatyou could tell from that coro
was that the EL1 and the EL2were clearly like really
thoughtfully designing how theyapproached the interaction with
the person.
So don't, you know, like makesure you've got an auto, make
sure you've got a boss, makesure you've got someone who you

(46:19):
can talk through it with so thatyou do do the right sorts of
conversations along the way anddon't kind of get trapped into
kind of some kind of drama.
Um, and then three,documentation, because although
it isn't in an IR space at themoment, it goes to an IR space
very quickly.

SPEAKER_02 (46:36):
And I've long thought, and we'll find it and
put it in the show notes.
But the emails that those publicsector leaders wrote to this
kind of problematic, we're likegold standard, everyone should
read that.

SPEAKER_03 (46:47):
Totally.

unknown (46:48):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 (46:48):
I just want to go back to your thing though,
Alison.
Like I appreciate what you justsaid, Caroline, but I am
probably one of my greatestweaknesses is being quite
conflict diverse generally.
Um and this type of stuff is thehardest stuff if you are, if you
are by nature very conflictdiverse.

SPEAKER_02 (47:07):
All right, let's bring it to an end.
Six months, uh it's six monthssince your first day.
It took longer than you imaginedand more of an investment in
external training providers thanyou were used to.
But actually, the team aremaking real progress, they're
working harmoniously, and you'vegrown a lot as a leader.
But remember that team you lovedthat you were working with

(47:28):
before, the high-performing onesthat you left behind?
Well, they've been eating ithard since you left.
The micromanaging boss you wereshielding them from has been
interfering, insulting, and allaround difficult.
When they push back against it,they were told that they had
been coddled by before,implication by you, uh, and to

(47:49):
get used to it.
People are starting to cry atwork in the toilets on a regular
basis.
And the other execs at your oldagency are too busy fighting
with each other to notice.
Your old staff are thinking ofmaking a formal complaint and
they want you to join them.
Do you?

SPEAKER_00 (48:07):
Holy shit, Alison! This is not the U-turn I
expected at the end of thisstory.

SPEAKER_03 (48:15):
Can I?
Before we go anywhere, just Ijust had this brilliant idea.
Instead of doing PME, S, YourVoice Manners, and all the names
of all the surveys, maybe wejust have a thing in the toilets
where you're like, like when youleave the like when you leave
the servo.

SPEAKER_04 (48:32):
Did you click?

SPEAKER_02 (48:33):
Did you not click the happy button or the sad
button?

SPEAKER_03 (48:38):
And that is in fact it would be cheaper.
Um, and that was so we don't ask99-page servo questions anymore.
We're just gonna have a thing inthe bathrooms.
Did you cry today?
Yes, no, that's how we're gonnatell going forward.
Yeah, this took quite the turn.
Um, two things.
I'm in two minds.
My first one is be very carefulat meddling in your old teens.

(48:58):
I'm like that's mind new leadersand whatever else.
The second part of it though isyou are presuming that you are
in a place now where like you dohave bosses who back you, you're
in a really kind of safe, you'renot in your own trouble, you are
in the best position to supportpeople who want to make a
complaint because you're notdirectly in the line of fire.
So if you are meritocracyconvinced that this meets the

(49:23):
test under whatever definitionis required to complain about
it, you are potentially like thebest support person to be a part
of that process because on yourday-to-day life, you've got a
completely different boss,completely different team,
completely different everything.
So I'm kind of in two minds.

SPEAKER_02 (49:41):
So I put this one in because it was a genuine line
ball, and I don't think there isa right answer.
I like on the one hand, I thinkexpress caution about meddling
in things that you're no longera part of and you haven't been
there for six months, and youcan't actually speak to what's
been happening in that time atthe same time.
You have the advantage ofknowing those people well and

(50:01):
being out of the kind of umsphere of influence of of some
of those managers andexecutives, and maybe best
placed to support them.

SPEAKER_03 (50:09):
There is no it has to relate to your time in the
role, it cannot relate toanything that isn't in your time
in the role, just as a matter ofkind of principle.
Um, so firstly, the only way youcan even consider it is if you
are like, look, I shielded themum and didn't do anything formal
about it, but I have XYZ fiveexamples that were clear
misconduct or clear somethingelse that I didn't do at the

(50:33):
time.
So it can't be about thingsyou've heard that have happened
after you you left.
Um, so it still has to be aboutyour time in the joint.
We all know that formalcomplaints, you know, they're
the answer to everything, andyet like we there's still
reputational issues to consider,there are still troublemaker
issues to consider.
Um I think it depends on how badit is, how much you feel

(50:57):
responsible for perhaps notdoing anything while you were
there and going, well, while I'mhere, I can keep people safe and
that'll do.

SPEAKER_01 (51:05):
Um yeah, I I think Danielle, to your sorry, to your
point about like definitely Ithink kind of um being clear to
the team that it's not the onlyplace in the world to work and
that there are good places inthe world, both with you and
with other good people that youknow, and like connecting people
to opportunities is reallyhelpful.

(51:25):
I think I would kind of as adefault go so far as to say, I'm
not willing to join yourcomplaint, but obviously you
should tell whoever is receivingthe investigation that like I'm
a relevant witness to thingsthat happened before, and so
like I'm perfectly happy to beinterviewed about my time and
offer my reflections about mytime.
Um, but I'm not willing to makea complaint because I wasn't

(51:46):
willing to make a complaintthen, right?
Like I didn't think it wassufficient when I was there to
make a complaint, and so I, youknow, like the idea that I would
now suddenly think what Iexperience triggers over into it
is a no, you know, no, no.
Yeah, fair, fair.

SPEAKER_03 (52:01):
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Because a couple of things.
You often don't know you're in acrazy cult or a crazy
environment until you gosomewhere where things are,
where behaviour is better, andthen you are like, what on earth
was I in before?
And how did I live in thatthinking that was okay?
Um, and secondly, you're makingthe assumption that every single
manager and leader in the publicservice has the personal bottle

(52:24):
and doesn't have heaps of otherstuff going on that the minute
they see something that makesthat test, that you will do it
while you're sitting in the job.
So I think that that's a veryhigh bar to ask people to No,
and I think that's a good pointabout like this is why it's such
a personal question, right?

SPEAKER_01 (52:39):
Like it is such a personal question because what
you would have like like whathas your journey been
emotionally since you left?
What have you learned aboutyourself since you left?
What have you learned about whatwas happening since you left?
Like, I just think there's likea whole thing there.
I do think it is as a chronicmeddler, I chronically meddle in

(53:00):
my old teams.
Like, oh my God, I just pityanyone who has ever taken a job
that I have had.
In fact, I had a coffee with oneof them last week.
God bless him.
He's so patient.
He's like, I just wanted to tellyou, I'm doing this thing.
And I know you said to me onetime that like you would do
exactly the opposite and youwish you hadn't.
And I just thought I'd let youknow.
And I'm like, yeah, because ofcourse, like, I'm such a meddler
that you have to tell me becauseotherwise I'll be like, why did

(53:21):
anyway?
Um, chronic meddling.
Actually, meddling is quiteunhelpful.
Um, and so unless you are happyto like, I think there's
something about are you able tosay something actually to your
old leader?
Like, I've had some reflectionsabout our time working together.
And now that I work in thisdifferent environment, I have
noticed that actually my newleader is much less on this.

(53:43):
And I wish I had provided youthat feedback at the time.
So, like just FYI.
Like, I think there is somemeddling that could be quite
helpful, but generally I thinkdon't meddle, offer safe
harbour, be a truthful andaccurate witness if called upon,
but don't do a proactive thingunless unless you look back at
it and you're like, actually, Isee a thing that really
contravenes my ethics, which isa that is a different question.

(54:05):
That's not sort of what I feellike this is getting at.

SPEAKER_02 (54:07):
But I kind of put this one in because a lot of
times in management scenarios,there is a good way and a better
way and a best way.
And on this one, there justisn't, right?
There's what is right for youand what is right for the
circumstances.
Take advice from your friendsand colleagues and decide
accordingly.
Any final thoughts on the otherthing?
But don't underestimate therisk.

SPEAKER_01 (54:29):
Yeah, well, just don't underestimate the risk of
going in on the complaint,right?
Like I really think it is it is,you know, like I'm a black and
white kind of rulesy personsometimes, but it is a high-risk
thing to go in on a complaintabout something that you're no
longer there for.
So you really want to thinkabout that carefully.

SPEAKER_02 (54:51):
So that brings us to the end of the inheritance uh
scenario that too many of ushave found ourselves in.
Our mug winner for this week isthe wonderful Simon Corden, such
a longtime follower andsupporter of the podcast, that
this mug is, frankly, overdue.
Our bad, and we'll throw in astubby holder to make up for it.

(55:16):
Till next time.

SPEAKER_01 (55:17):
Just some appropriately bureaucratic
disclaimers.
While we've tried to be asthorough in our research as busy
full time jobs and lives allow,we definitely don't guarantee
that we've got all the detailsright.
Please feel free to email uscorrections, episode
suggestions, or anything else atthe Westminster Tradition Pod at
gmail.com.
Thanks to PamPot Audio for ourintro and outro music.

(55:39):
Till next time.