WEBVTT 00:00:03.540 --> 00:00:06.150 Matt Abrahams: When it comes to work, and our relationships to work, 00:00:06.360 --> 00:00:11.010 and with our work, we often fail to focus on our personal motivations. 00:00:11.310 --> 00:00:14.790 My name is Matt Abrahams, and I teach strategic communication at 00:00:14.790 --> 00:00:16.650 Stanford Graduate School of Business. 00:00:16.860 --> 00:00:19.765 Welcome to Think Fast, talk Smart, the podcast. 00:00:21.404 --> 00:00:23.895 Today I'm very excited to speak with James Root. 00:00:24.224 --> 00:00:28.215 James is a senior partner at Bain & Company and Chair of Bain Futures. 00:00:28.485 --> 00:00:31.424 James is a fellow at Hughes Hall College, Cambridge, and an 00:00:31.424 --> 00:00:35.175 adjunct professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. 00:00:35.475 --> 00:00:38.114 His latest book is The Archetype Effect. 00:00:38.385 --> 00:00:39.585 Welcome, James. 00:00:39.644 --> 00:00:42.254 I am really excited for our conversation. 00:00:42.555 --> 00:00:43.394 James Root: Delighted to be here. 00:00:43.394 --> 00:00:43.965 Thank you, Matt. 00:00:44.175 --> 00:00:44.715 Matt Abrahams: Thank you. 00:00:44.715 --> 00:00:45.220 Shall we get started? 00:00:45.865 --> 00:00:46.615 James Root: Yeah, let's do it. 00:00:46.855 --> 00:00:47.605 Matt Abrahams: Excellent. 00:00:48.175 --> 00:00:50.935 Among the many things that you study, you spend a lot of time 00:00:50.935 --> 00:00:52.555 thinking about the future of work. 00:00:52.555 --> 00:00:56.845 What insights can you share about what work looks like in the future? 00:00:57.235 --> 00:00:57.595 James Root: Yes. 00:00:57.745 --> 00:00:59.485 That's the question on everybody's minds. 00:00:59.485 --> 00:01:02.665 I think work is going to continue to be messy for a while. 00:01:02.905 --> 00:01:03.655 It is already. 00:01:03.955 --> 00:01:09.175 Gig work, remote work, self-managing teams, cross-functional teams, an 00:01:09.175 --> 00:01:14.185 aging workforce, skill gaps, and then this ever expanding universe of AI. 00:01:14.185 --> 00:01:17.295 It's stressful for many workers, I think, including with people who 00:01:17.295 --> 00:01:19.425 manage talent, it's hard for them. 00:01:19.785 --> 00:01:22.664 And part of the problem is that we spend so much effort thinking about 00:01:22.664 --> 00:01:27.795 skills and tasks and jobs, but almost no time thinking about motivations. 00:01:27.945 --> 00:01:31.634 And as soon as we stop to understand motivations, what pops up is 00:01:31.815 --> 00:01:36.975 unfortunately how poorly suited our talent systems really are to both 00:01:36.975 --> 00:01:40.604 recognize and then adapt to what turns out to be a very rich diversity 00:01:40.604 --> 00:01:42.150 of motivations people have at work. 00:01:42.855 --> 00:01:46.935 Those assumptions go back fifty years, longer even, and they're built 00:01:46.935 --> 00:01:48.375 for some kind of average worker. 00:01:48.915 --> 00:01:53.415 They sort of assume everybody is moving through the system, trying to be better 00:01:53.415 --> 00:01:55.365 as a worker or better as a manager. 00:01:55.545 --> 00:01:58.515 Trying to rise up through the organization, more spans, more 00:01:58.515 --> 00:02:00.465 layers, closer to the leadership team. 00:02:00.465 --> 00:02:02.295 Personal motivations don't matter at all. 00:02:03.285 --> 00:02:06.105 Every aspect of the standard organization model that we've grown 00:02:06.105 --> 00:02:08.115 up with is built around this idea. 00:02:08.255 --> 00:02:12.315 Rewards, reporting structures, decision rights, performance reviews. 00:02:12.675 --> 00:02:15.525 The reality today, I think is very different, both from an 00:02:15.525 --> 00:02:17.895 organization point of view and from an individual's point of view. 00:02:18.135 --> 00:02:21.855 There are plenty of roles now where personal progress and success and 00:02:21.855 --> 00:02:25.545 results are not defined by taking in just another step up the ladder. 00:02:25.875 --> 00:02:28.065 That's all from the point of view of the organization. 00:02:28.065 --> 00:02:30.465 From the individual's point of view, we've done this wonderful thing, 00:02:30.975 --> 00:02:32.535 we've said, let's empower people. 00:02:32.595 --> 00:02:35.775 Ask them to tell us who they really are at work and what they really want. 00:02:36.105 --> 00:02:36.645 And guess what? 00:02:37.035 --> 00:02:40.605 When we did that, it turns out it was a myth all along that everybody 00:02:40.605 --> 00:02:43.925 wants to just climb up the next step on the greasy corporate pole. 00:02:44.295 --> 00:02:46.485 Some still like the idea of the corporate ladder. 00:02:46.605 --> 00:02:46.875 Great. 00:02:47.115 --> 00:02:47.955 Others do not. 00:02:48.105 --> 00:02:50.265 What people want from work is highly varied. 00:02:50.655 --> 00:02:53.505 There is no such thing as an average worker anymore, and so that would 00:02:53.505 --> 00:02:57.855 be okay if these talent systems have kept up, but they haven't. 00:02:57.915 --> 00:03:02.205 I'm afraid that their light years behind, it's been routine for decades. 00:03:02.415 --> 00:03:05.775 Our sales teams, marketing teams, customer teams, product teams just become more 00:03:06.675 --> 00:03:11.595 and more specialized and develop more and more individualized solutions and products 00:03:11.625 --> 00:03:13.725 and offerings based upon segmentation. 00:03:14.145 --> 00:03:18.555 And that kind of de-averaging of what customers like has obviously gone crazy in 00:03:18.555 --> 00:03:22.665 the last twenty years now that we live in a world of social and search and location 00:03:22.665 --> 00:03:24.525 tracking and online payments and so forth. 00:03:24.525 --> 00:03:28.395 So, you know, Google and Instagram and XiaoHongShu and Byte Dance and Nava and 00:03:28.395 --> 00:03:32.000 Kakao and LINE, et cetera, they know an incredible amount of about us, of course. 00:03:32.894 --> 00:03:37.454 But the mystery is why haven't we applied that same thinking to our workers? 00:03:37.845 --> 00:03:41.325 Why do the firms who are selling us products or increasingly selling 00:03:41.325 --> 00:03:44.804 our profile to advertisers know so much more about our motivations 00:03:45.105 --> 00:03:46.575 than the firms we actually work for? 00:03:46.935 --> 00:03:49.815 Matt Abrahams: The point you just made there about why are we not looking 00:03:49.815 --> 00:03:53.834 at the motivations of employees, I think is a really profound point. 00:03:54.315 --> 00:03:59.445 Clearly work is changing and one of those changes, as you alluded 00:03:59.445 --> 00:04:04.845 to, is that workers, in terms of their age and generations, 00:04:04.845 --> 00:04:06.584 are increasing in the workplace. 00:04:06.584 --> 00:04:11.144 It's possible now to have four different generations all working together. 00:04:11.485 --> 00:04:15.835 What are your thoughts on how leaders can facilitate productive work and 00:04:15.835 --> 00:04:20.274 communication when you have people born from different generations 00:04:20.274 --> 00:04:21.894 having to interact with each other? 00:04:22.495 --> 00:04:23.185 James Root: We did some work. 00:04:23.185 --> 00:04:27.325 It said, I think about a hundred and fifty million jobs are going to move 00:04:27.415 --> 00:04:30.175 to people who are over fifty-five years old by the end of this decade. 00:04:30.415 --> 00:04:33.175 So it's an extraordinary number and you know, we all know why, populations 00:04:33.235 --> 00:04:36.535 are aging, more lives are lengthening, fewer people entering the workforce, 00:04:36.685 --> 00:04:39.415 fertility and people spending longer in education and so forth. 00:04:39.475 --> 00:04:40.285 So no choice. 00:04:41.025 --> 00:04:42.525 Organizations have no choice. 00:04:42.525 --> 00:04:43.815 They're gonna have to deal with this. 00:04:44.055 --> 00:04:46.455 You know, one piece of good news, I remember there was a very persuasive 00:04:46.455 --> 00:04:50.625 piece of OECD research from 2020 I think it was, that said, these 00:04:50.625 --> 00:04:55.005 multi-gen workforces are more productive and have better retention rates. 00:04:55.005 --> 00:04:56.385 So I think we need to update that. 00:04:56.505 --> 00:04:58.875 Somebody needs to do some more work on that, but that was at 00:04:58.875 --> 00:05:00.195 least encouraging back then. 00:05:00.645 --> 00:05:01.785 So I think it's very important. 00:05:02.025 --> 00:05:06.165 I'm glad you raised this topic because I also think there's a lot of confusion 00:05:06.645 --> 00:05:09.075 about older workers and about Gen Z. 00:05:10.005 --> 00:05:12.795 I wanna tackle both of them briefly and start with the older workers. 00:05:13.065 --> 00:05:16.125 On the one hand, what do we know about older workers? 00:05:16.215 --> 00:05:19.365 What we know is that what they want as they age can change. 00:05:19.395 --> 00:05:20.955 It's not the same as other age groups. 00:05:21.045 --> 00:05:25.215 Around fifty-five-ish the importance of good compensation, which from 00:05:25.215 --> 00:05:29.715 most cohorts, genders, countries, is the number one job criterion starts, 00:05:29.715 --> 00:05:31.395 to fade, other things rise up. 00:05:31.395 --> 00:05:35.414 Interesting work becomes very important, autonomy becomes important, and by 00:05:35.414 --> 00:05:38.730 the time you get to sixty, actually interesting work has become the number one 00:05:38.730 --> 00:05:40.170 most important thing for these workers. 00:05:40.170 --> 00:05:45.210 So the desire for autonomy shows up as a way of controlling hours. 00:05:45.240 --> 00:05:50.070 People want to do stair steps down from full employment to full retirement, 00:05:50.100 --> 00:05:53.850 but again, most firms just are not offering that kind of solution. 00:05:54.330 --> 00:05:55.920 There's also confusion about Gen Z. 00:05:55.920 --> 00:05:57.600 I get this question all the time. 00:05:58.080 --> 00:05:59.219 What are we gonna do about Gen Z? 00:05:59.460 --> 00:06:00.780 It's so difficult. 00:06:00.780 --> 00:06:02.520 It's so different from everybody else. 00:06:02.520 --> 00:06:03.270 It's so hard. 00:06:04.080 --> 00:06:06.960 And I think that framing is very misleading. 00:06:07.500 --> 00:06:09.359 Gen Z are not all one thing. 00:06:09.359 --> 00:06:12.870 Yes, there are some overlays, no doubt, as there are for Millennials 00:06:12.870 --> 00:06:16.710 as there are for Gen X. There are some Gen Z who wanna change the world. 00:06:17.070 --> 00:06:20.670 Some Gen Z who wanna just have some stretching milestones 00:06:20.670 --> 00:06:21.870 set and then achieve them. 00:06:21.990 --> 00:06:25.650 Some Gen Z who want to just have lots of variety, change jobs all the time. 00:06:25.650 --> 00:06:27.960 Some Gen Z, who the job is just a job. 00:06:28.350 --> 00:06:30.510 It's a means to an end of something that happens outside work. 00:06:31.430 --> 00:06:34.730 So it would be a terrible mistake to assume that we have to be tempted 00:06:34.730 --> 00:06:36.680 to, to say that Gen Z are all alike. 00:06:36.680 --> 00:06:40.730 So the path to come to your multi-gen question, the path or high functioning, 00:06:40.760 --> 00:06:45.410 multi-generational workforce is, it's challenging, but it's to create jobs that 00:06:45.410 --> 00:06:47.360 are adapted for the different age groups. 00:06:47.690 --> 00:06:51.440 Uh, some physical changes, differences and capabilities and so forth, but 00:06:51.770 --> 00:06:55.100 that don't just assume that each of those age groups wants exactly 00:06:55.100 --> 00:06:56.390 the same thing because they don't. 00:06:56.815 --> 00:06:59.724 Neither the older workers all want the same thing, nor the Millennials 00:06:59.724 --> 00:07:02.305 all want the same thing, nor the Gen Z all want the same thing. 00:07:02.844 --> 00:07:09.085 So success for me is design roles suited for workers at each life stage that still 00:07:09.085 --> 00:07:13.075 recognize the intrinsic motivations of each individual, rather than just assumed 00:07:13.075 --> 00:07:14.635 and more packaged into one cohort. 00:07:15.265 --> 00:07:19.075 Matt Abrahams: I'm sensing a theme among your responses, which is a really 00:07:19.075 --> 00:07:24.659 understanding and appreciating motivation of workers in general, but then looking 00:07:24.659 --> 00:07:30.840 generationally and understanding how that actually helps us to think about the 00:07:30.840 --> 00:07:37.500 programs we need to design and the ways we need to assess success in those roles. 00:07:38.010 --> 00:07:41.640 So I like thinking about motivation in communication is critical. 00:07:41.640 --> 00:07:43.860 What motivates the audience, what motivates your 00:07:43.860 --> 00:07:45.330 workers, what motivates you? 00:07:45.900 --> 00:07:48.960 And I really appreciate how you are highlighting the value that 00:07:48.960 --> 00:07:53.310 has for some of the challenges that we are facing in the workplace. 00:07:53.820 --> 00:07:55.560 I wanna switch now to the book you wrote. 00:07:55.830 --> 00:08:01.260 I first came across the idea of archetypes when I studied Carl Jung back in college. 00:08:01.620 --> 00:08:04.500 Your new book is called The Archetype Effect. 00:08:04.950 --> 00:08:08.970 Can you tell us what you mean by archetype and what are the six 00:08:08.970 --> 00:08:10.680 types that you have identified? 00:08:11.380 --> 00:08:14.020 James Root: I felt strongly that we needed something that recognized the 00:08:14.020 --> 00:08:18.220 importance of motivations because they often get lost in the shuffle when 00:08:18.220 --> 00:08:21.700 we're talking about tasks and jobs and skills, all of which are critical. 00:08:22.030 --> 00:08:24.820 Tasks, and jobs and skills are critical, but motivations, in 00:08:24.820 --> 00:08:26.650 my view, are also critical. 00:08:26.680 --> 00:08:30.100 We needed something simple, some language that we could use with our 00:08:30.100 --> 00:08:35.039 firms to talk about current jobs, future choices and career paths. 00:08:35.039 --> 00:08:36.690 So it had to be data driven. 00:08:36.690 --> 00:08:38.789 We went out, we talked to almost fifty thousand people in the 00:08:38.789 --> 00:08:40.230 world, nineteen countries. 00:08:40.500 --> 00:08:43.650 Men, women, high income, low income, highly educated, not very educated, 00:08:43.770 --> 00:08:45.300 urban, rural, all types of jobs. 00:08:45.450 --> 00:08:47.970 It was an absolute privilege to listen to them. 00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:50.010 Tell us about what motivates them. 00:08:50.270 --> 00:08:54.830 And we had all this data and at one point it was quite concerning that it 00:08:54.830 --> 00:08:58.040 would be hard to find patterns because people are very personal about this. 00:08:58.460 --> 00:08:59.990 Individual in their own influences. 00:08:59.990 --> 00:09:03.410 But yeah, the patterns appeared and resolved themselves into six archetypes. 00:09:03.470 --> 00:09:08.570 So let me quickly bang through the six and hopefully people listening can go 00:09:08.570 --> 00:09:11.600 and take the little quiz that's on the website and find out what they are. 00:09:11.900 --> 00:09:15.165 The first we call the giver, and this is, in simple terms, it's 00:09:15.165 --> 00:09:17.834 the person who finds motivation at work by helping others thrive. 00:09:18.074 --> 00:09:19.245 So work is service for them. 00:09:19.545 --> 00:09:21.285 They're not particularly motivated by money. 00:09:21.765 --> 00:09:23.265 Very empathetic typically. 00:09:23.714 --> 00:09:28.454 So strong team spirit, very much care about relationships at work, but their 00:09:28.454 --> 00:09:30.405 mojo is, I wanna help other people shine. 00:09:30.824 --> 00:09:31.875 The operator. 00:09:31.964 --> 00:09:33.735 By the way, this is the biggest cohort. 00:09:33.885 --> 00:09:36.074 It's twenty-four percent of the world's work population. 00:09:36.135 --> 00:09:41.160 The operators are not looking for meaning, self-worth, or purpose at work. 00:09:41.490 --> 00:09:42.420 Work as a means to an end. 00:09:42.660 --> 00:09:44.670 They're not particularly motivated by status. 00:09:45.030 --> 00:09:48.270 They don't wanna stand out at work in particular, not risk takers at all. 00:09:48.569 --> 00:09:52.530 They wanna do a good job, but they like stability and predictability, and 00:09:52.530 --> 00:09:53.849 at the same time, very team oriented. 00:09:54.240 --> 00:09:56.069 So often the backbone of your teams. 00:09:56.475 --> 00:10:00.285 Artisans, which are about seventeen percent of the working population. 00:10:00.345 --> 00:10:03.645 They wanna do work that fascinates them and inspires them, and 00:10:03.645 --> 00:10:04.695 they wanna keep practicing. 00:10:05.085 --> 00:10:07.515 I always think about sushi chefs when I think about artisans, 00:10:07.515 --> 00:10:08.385 I can't get it outta my head. 00:10:08.535 --> 00:10:11.805 So this idea that I'm gonna go and just keep trying to get better every day. 00:10:12.105 --> 00:10:16.095 Very high quality standards, pursuing mastery basically. 00:10:16.455 --> 00:10:20.985 And they enjoy their expertise being of value, but they don't want to, don't 00:10:20.985 --> 00:10:24.645 send me any forms from HR to fill in because I just don't wanna do that stuff. 00:10:24.974 --> 00:10:28.155 We're not particularly focused on the camaraderie aspects of work 00:10:28.155 --> 00:10:31.185 that's important to some of these other archetypes, so leave me 00:10:31.185 --> 00:10:34.569 alone to get on with what I do best and I'll be very valuable to you. 00:10:35.280 --> 00:10:40.380 Explorers, they just value freedom to do new things all the time, and 00:10:40.380 --> 00:10:41.700 they will make incredible trade offs. 00:10:41.700 --> 00:10:45.240 They'll trade off money, they'll trade off status and titles for the chance 00:10:45.240 --> 00:10:47.310 to continue to try new things in life. 00:10:47.520 --> 00:10:50.370 And a very pragmatic approach to their own development, they only 00:10:50.370 --> 00:10:52.445 skill up as far as they think they're gonna need in the current job. 00:10:53.300 --> 00:10:55.839 And work is not a provider of a sense of identity for them. 00:10:56.260 --> 00:10:59.319 The last two, the strivers want to make something of themselves at work. 00:10:59.410 --> 00:11:02.020 They want to be motivated by success. 00:11:02.229 --> 00:11:03.310 They value status. 00:11:03.310 --> 00:11:06.400 They value the milestones and the recognitions. 00:11:06.550 --> 00:11:10.089 Sometimes the compensation that goes with those recognitions, not 00:11:10.119 --> 00:11:12.069 risk takers, they forward plan. 00:11:12.180 --> 00:11:15.300 They get a lot done, and they're often willing to tolerate less 00:11:15.630 --> 00:11:18.630 variety, so long as it's in the service of their longer term goals. 00:11:18.959 --> 00:11:23.009 And then the last and smallest cohort, we call them the pioneers, only ten 00:11:23.009 --> 00:11:26.609 percent of the workforce, they're on a mission to change the world in some way. 00:11:27.210 --> 00:11:30.690 They form these very strong views about how things should be and try to sort of 00:11:30.690 --> 00:11:34.740 bend the will of the organization and the people around 'em against that vision. 00:11:35.190 --> 00:11:38.970 Sort of a move fast, break things idea, perhaps, is the way I would simplify that. 00:11:38.970 --> 00:11:42.000 But these archetypes, unlike some of the other systems, they're 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:43.710 not a test, they're an assistant. 00:11:44.220 --> 00:11:49.965 The idea is kind of a shorthand guide to help you understand more about who you 00:11:49.965 --> 00:11:53.475 are at work, why you hate your job, why you love your job, why you thrive, why you 00:11:53.475 --> 00:11:57.495 don't thrive, and to get a deeper insight into, you know, sources of fulfillment. 00:11:57.705 --> 00:12:02.835 And they also can turn a traditional kind of career dialogue, which is top 00:12:02.835 --> 00:12:06.645 down, the firm tells you, these are the skills we think you should develop 00:12:06.645 --> 00:12:10.635 next, into a two-way discussion, which says, this is, I've got these skills 00:12:10.635 --> 00:12:12.285 and, but I'm motivated about this. 00:12:12.315 --> 00:12:14.475 I'd like to change, I'd like to do this, I'd like to try that. 00:12:14.925 --> 00:12:18.795 It can change the dialogue between employer and employee in ways 00:12:18.795 --> 00:12:20.205 that I hope are very healthy. 00:12:20.685 --> 00:12:24.074 Matt Abrahams: I really appreciate you articulating the six archetypes 00:12:24.074 --> 00:12:25.425 as you've identified them. 00:12:25.935 --> 00:12:28.395 I see utility here in many ways. 00:12:28.395 --> 00:12:32.355 From an organization's point of view, as you said, it can help you 00:12:32.355 --> 00:12:37.064 build career plans for people and help have a conversation that is 00:12:37.064 --> 00:12:39.435 enriching rather than dogmatic. 00:12:39.765 --> 00:12:44.400 It also causes an organization and leaders in that organization to think about 00:12:44.400 --> 00:12:46.380 what kind of blend and mix do I want. 00:12:46.380 --> 00:12:48.540 I don't want just all of one category. 00:12:48.570 --> 00:12:51.060 So diversity of approaches certainly matters. 00:12:51.420 --> 00:12:55.140 And then from an individual's point of view, it's very powerful to think 00:12:55.140 --> 00:12:59.520 about and reflect on what motivates me and what brings me fulfillment. 00:12:59.940 --> 00:13:05.324 And having categories can help put us on a path to see what it 00:13:05.324 --> 00:13:07.064 is that's really important to us. 00:13:07.425 --> 00:13:13.095 And I assume it can help us understand how and why we might gravitate 00:13:13.215 --> 00:13:16.005 towards certain people versus others. 00:13:16.215 --> 00:13:21.130 When I reflect on the definitions you gave in certain phases of my life, I feel like 00:13:21.130 --> 00:13:26.319 I was one archetype and as I have matured and experienced things, I've changed. 00:13:26.500 --> 00:13:28.780 Is this something we can exert agency over? 00:13:28.780 --> 00:13:30.400 Is this like a personality trait? 00:13:30.430 --> 00:13:34.120 What, what have you found in terms of our sense of agency in all of this? 00:13:34.420 --> 00:13:34.810 James Root: Yes. 00:13:34.990 --> 00:13:36.100 Such a good question. 00:13:36.100 --> 00:13:41.470 So I have found some people just are who they are at work their 00:13:41.470 --> 00:13:42.819 entire career, and that's fine. 00:13:43.270 --> 00:13:43.840 Good for them. 00:13:44.020 --> 00:13:44.439 Bravo. 00:13:44.710 --> 00:13:47.985 The motivation does not change even deep into their late 00:13:47.985 --> 00:13:49.365 fifties into their sixties. 00:13:49.785 --> 00:13:53.295 Others, and I would probably say more, have an evolution. 00:13:53.415 --> 00:13:58.065 And the typical journey, I'm not saying it's happened to you or to me, but the 00:13:58.065 --> 00:14:02.925 typical journey that the data reveals is that pioneers and strivers, when young, 00:14:03.105 --> 00:14:05.415 become artisans and givers as they age. 00:14:06.195 --> 00:14:08.355 And if you go back and think about the definitions that 00:14:08.355 --> 00:14:09.435 I gave, I won't redo them. 00:14:09.705 --> 00:14:10.485 It's intuitive. 00:14:11.699 --> 00:14:14.430 Artisans, perhaps I wanna be left alone a little bit more to do 00:14:14.430 --> 00:14:15.599 things I'm very interested in. 00:14:15.989 --> 00:14:17.010 And givers, I want to give back. 00:14:17.010 --> 00:14:19.469 I wanna mentor, I want to coach, I want to be able to pay it back 00:14:19.800 --> 00:14:21.599 as I get deeper into my career. 00:14:22.349 --> 00:14:25.619 But I wanna answer your question head on because while those two things are 00:14:25.619 --> 00:14:29.819 happening, I don't think we should actively try to change our archetype. 00:14:30.479 --> 00:14:33.869 I think it can happen to us because of circumstance or conditions or 00:14:33.869 --> 00:14:37.109 current roles, or just our own personalities and characters evolving. 00:14:37.109 --> 00:14:41.834 But I think become aware of what you are now and become aware of what the 00:14:41.834 --> 00:14:46.665 critical talent around you is, and when that happens, usually two things emerge. 00:14:46.665 --> 00:14:49.365 The two questions that emerge are, why do I feel what I 00:14:49.365 --> 00:14:50.685 feel about aspects of my work? 00:14:51.074 --> 00:14:54.464 And why do I feel, to your point, why do I feel what I feel about 00:14:54.464 --> 00:14:55.485 certain other people at work? 00:14:55.844 --> 00:15:00.704 And what I have come to believe just from thinking about this a lot and talking 00:15:00.704 --> 00:15:08.055 to many firms is that most firms have unconsciously built their talent systems 00:15:08.084 --> 00:15:12.255 around one archetype, and it may reach back to the founders, it may reach back to 00:15:12.255 --> 00:15:14.175 some seminal moment in the firm's history. 00:15:14.385 --> 00:15:19.484 Or it may just be that those sort of norm assumptions that I referenced 00:15:19.484 --> 00:15:22.724 at the beginning of our conversation, that everyone's just trying to 00:15:22.724 --> 00:15:26.984 plot up the ladder, in other words, everyone's a striver, are what embody 00:15:27.420 --> 00:15:29.099 the talent systems that we've built. 00:15:29.099 --> 00:15:32.699 And think about your own organization, which is the archetype that 00:15:32.699 --> 00:15:34.050 talent management is favoring. 00:15:34.050 --> 00:15:34.920 Who's getting promoted? 00:15:35.250 --> 00:15:38.069 Who are the people that we're putting in front of the organization to say, be 00:15:38.069 --> 00:15:40.890 like her, be like him, subconsciously. 00:15:41.459 --> 00:15:44.505 And then go, okay, now what about all the people who are not that archetype? 00:15:45.855 --> 00:15:46.875 How does it feel for them? 00:15:47.235 --> 00:15:50.415 I find this, when I get into this conversation at various 00:15:50.415 --> 00:15:54.045 firms, it's a little bit of a jaw dropping moment for people 'cause 00:15:54.585 --> 00:15:56.115 they haven't considered that. 00:15:56.175 --> 00:15:59.475 They've done the very best they can to design the system and fairness 00:15:59.475 --> 00:16:01.125 and equality and all the rest of it. 00:16:01.125 --> 00:16:03.855 But they haven't thought about the fact that person just doesn't care about the 00:16:03.855 --> 00:16:05.265 things that we're rewarding that much. 00:16:05.790 --> 00:16:09.239 That giver wants to be recognized and rewarded for being a culture carrier 00:16:09.569 --> 00:16:11.010 and helping other people thrive. 00:16:11.160 --> 00:16:14.939 Not being in the limelight themselves, but we don't recognize that person doing that. 00:16:15.150 --> 00:16:19.229 So I think, don't try to change, but change can happen 00:16:19.319 --> 00:16:21.239 and welcome it if it arrives. 00:16:21.959 --> 00:16:27.430 Matt Abrahams: I am struck by this notion of there are pathways 00:16:27.430 --> 00:16:31.960 that archetypes tend to follow over time, and that's interesting. 00:16:31.960 --> 00:16:36.130 As you advocated, we might not want to actively try to change ours, just see 00:16:36.130 --> 00:16:38.260 how things unfold and what feels right. 00:16:38.260 --> 00:16:42.340 But it's interesting to me that there are different paths that tend to 00:16:42.340 --> 00:16:48.100 occur, and it seems to me that as we are looking for mentorship and growth 00:16:48.100 --> 00:16:51.965 in our careers, that if we are to understand that, hey, somebody who 00:16:51.965 --> 00:16:56.825 starts out as a striver, perhaps earlier in their career, knowing that I might 00:16:56.825 --> 00:17:03.275 land somewhere else, in a different archetype, searching it out, mentors, 00:17:04.170 --> 00:17:08.819 tools, advice and guidance, that can lead me there might be very beneficial. 00:17:09.150 --> 00:17:12.510 So I think that not only does this help us as an individual, but it might be 00:17:12.510 --> 00:17:16.260 interesting for organizations to think about leveraging what you've learned 00:17:16.260 --> 00:17:21.000 about archetypes in terms of how they help people go through their careers. 00:17:21.420 --> 00:17:23.005 James Root: I couldn't agree more with what you just said. 00:17:24.750 --> 00:17:27.750 Matt Abrahams: Before we end, I'd like to ask you three questions. 00:17:27.750 --> 00:17:31.020 One I create just for you, and the other two are similar to everyone 00:17:31.020 --> 00:17:32.610 I've interviewed across the show. 00:17:32.820 --> 00:17:33.600 Are you up for this? 00:17:33.750 --> 00:17:34.260 James Root: Definitely. 00:17:34.500 --> 00:17:36.510 Matt Abrahams: One of the things I found really interesting about your 00:17:36.510 --> 00:17:39.600 background is that you've lived and worked in numerous countries. 00:17:39.870 --> 00:17:43.919 What advice do you have for people working in cultures other than their own that will 00:17:43.919 --> 00:17:46.050 help them be more effective in their work? 00:17:46.470 --> 00:17:47.159 James Root: A few things. 00:17:47.490 --> 00:17:49.679 Find a mentor or a coach as soon as you can after you 00:17:49.679 --> 00:17:50.655 land, or actually even before. 00:17:51.515 --> 00:17:52.655 And spend a lot of time with them. 00:17:52.655 --> 00:17:54.635 Read everything you can about the culture you're coming to. 00:17:54.935 --> 00:17:59.765 For at least the first year in the new country do not say, when we 00:17:59.765 --> 00:18:02.375 did this in my old country, it was like this, because nobody cares. 00:18:02.615 --> 00:18:04.625 It's humbling working in other cultures. 00:18:04.625 --> 00:18:08.345 So it shows you there are dozens of ways to lead teams and run 00:18:08.345 --> 00:18:10.265 meetings and define success. 00:18:10.265 --> 00:18:12.025 So just be quiet and listen for a while. 00:18:12.485 --> 00:18:15.300 You gotta adapt how you ask for input as well, because 00:18:15.660 --> 00:18:17.040 there are some flat cultures. 00:18:17.340 --> 00:18:21.270 The power distance is a certain number and open dialogue works, but 00:18:21.270 --> 00:18:25.170 there are others where it does not work in hierarchical structures, so 00:18:25.170 --> 00:18:26.640 don't compute silence with agreement. 00:18:27.150 --> 00:18:31.470 Matt Abrahams: This notion of looking outside yourself for some helping guidance 00:18:31.500 --> 00:18:36.180 makes a lot of sense, being observant, appreciating that it is different and it's 00:18:36.180 --> 00:18:38.160 going to be different, and that's okay. 00:18:38.534 --> 00:18:43.064 Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? 00:18:43.514 --> 00:18:44.475 James Root: Christopher Hitchens. 00:18:44.925 --> 00:18:48.344 He was a British American author, journalist, wrote books about culture 00:18:48.344 --> 00:18:50.084 and politics and religion and literature. 00:18:50.294 --> 00:18:52.604 Died horribly young, more than a decade ago. 00:18:52.695 --> 00:18:56.655 If you want a sample type in Christopher Hitchens, University of Toronto, 00:18:56.655 --> 00:18:58.875 free speech 2006 into YouTube. 00:18:58.965 --> 00:19:02.804 He had this ability in written work, particularly in spoken, just to kinda 00:19:02.804 --> 00:19:08.235 marshal quotations and arguments with facts and searing intellectual honesty 00:19:08.235 --> 00:19:11.055 into this warm blanket of perfect English. 00:19:11.415 --> 00:19:15.585 Matt Abrahams: I will absolutely look into that and appreciate anybody who can be 00:19:15.585 --> 00:19:17.865 that eloquent and also that informative. 00:19:18.135 --> 00:19:19.335 Final question for you. 00:19:19.875 --> 00:19:24.705 What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe? 00:19:25.335 --> 00:19:26.355 James Root: Audience analysis. 00:19:26.775 --> 00:19:27.795 Got to do that first. 00:19:27.795 --> 00:19:28.455 Who are you talking to? 00:19:28.455 --> 00:19:29.050 What do they already know? 00:19:29.445 --> 00:19:30.585 Et cetera, et cetera. 00:19:31.215 --> 00:19:33.764 Second is, you must have something interesting to say. 00:19:34.365 --> 00:19:39.825 Say it precisely, say it briefly with one or two arrestingly, memorable words 00:19:39.855 --> 00:19:43.605 or phrases that you'd like the audience to remember when they get home at night. 00:19:44.115 --> 00:19:45.435 Third, I think be entertaining. 00:19:45.885 --> 00:19:50.774 Don't tell jokes, but relatable stories, analogies, metaphors, things that go just 00:19:50.774 --> 00:19:52.665 beyond sharing the facts and the opinions. 00:19:53.145 --> 00:19:54.044 That feels important. 00:19:54.075 --> 00:19:54.760 Oh, I got, sorry. 00:19:54.899 --> 00:19:55.760 I'm gonna grab one more. 00:19:55.800 --> 00:19:56.534 I know you said three. 00:19:56.985 --> 00:19:58.520 If you have to use slides. 00:19:59.415 --> 00:20:01.545 Make them very few, mostly pictures. 00:20:02.325 --> 00:20:03.975 Matt Abrahams: Amen to that last point. 00:20:03.975 --> 00:20:07.455 I usually penalize people for adding a fourth, but that is so 00:20:07.455 --> 00:20:11.295 important that I'm gonna not only echo it, I'm gonna reward it. 00:20:11.535 --> 00:20:16.305 So know your audience, make sure you're providing value that's memorable, and 00:20:16.305 --> 00:20:19.185 then also engage your audience to help. 00:20:19.755 --> 00:20:22.095 Well, James, you have been very engaging yourself. 00:20:22.185 --> 00:20:27.165 You've given us an insight into ourselves and into how potential organizations can 00:20:27.165 --> 00:20:29.565 help us all be more successful at work. 00:20:29.985 --> 00:20:34.750 And you've helped us better understand what the future of work might look like. 00:20:34.930 --> 00:20:37.090 Thank you for your time and thank you for your insights. 00:20:37.240 --> 00:20:38.260 James Root: Thank you so much, Matt. 00:20:38.260 --> 00:20:40.000 Very much enjoyed the conversation with you. 00:20:42.190 --> 00:20:44.260 Matt Abrahams: Thank you for joining us for another episode of 00:20:44.260 --> 00:20:46.810 Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast. 00:20:47.340 --> 00:20:51.120 To learn more about intergenerational work, please listen to episode 00:20:51.120 --> 00:20:55.620 167 with Bob McCann and to better understand motivation, check out 00:20:55.620 --> 00:20:57.929 episode 104 with Katy Milkman. 00:20:58.590 --> 00:21:03.990 This episode was produced by Katherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams. 00:21:04.320 --> 00:21:05.909 Our music is from Floyd Wonder. 00:21:05.930 --> 00:21:08.720 With special thanks to Podium Podcast Company. 00:21:09.230 --> 00:21:12.680 Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. 00:21:12.860 --> 00:21:15.050 Be sure to subscribe and rate us. 00:21:15.380 --> 00:21:17.840 Also follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram. 00:21:18.260 --> 00:21:22.670 And check out fastersmarter.io for deep dive videos, English language 00:21:22.670 --> 00:21:24.950 learning content and our newsletter. 00:21:25.400 --> 00:21:29.330 Please consider our premium offering for extended Deep Thinks episodes, 00:21:29.540 --> 00:21:35.100 Ask Matt Anythings, and much more at fastersmarter.io/premium.