Apologize, but you didn't think that you were going to get love
advice funny. I want more love advice.
MM Rogers, the love Apple. I'm.
Cherie, I'm Jean. I'm Mike.
And we're the Tiger sisters. We are your Wall Street and
Silicon Valley Big Sisters. And we're a top ten business
podcast on Spotify where we talk about money, power, and love.
Our world is more connected than ever and more vulnerable than
ever. From global cyberattacks to AI
risks to the way we live online, security is no longer just a
government issue. It touches every one of us.
And few people understand that better than Admiral Mike Rogers.
As former director of the National Security Agency and
commander of US Cyber Command, he led at the highest levels of
intelligence and defense. Today, he advises companies and
governments on how to navigate the new age of cyber risk,
technology and global. Power.
We're talking about leadership under pressure, the future of
cybersecurity, and what we can all learn about resilience from
someone who's been at the center of history.
Admiral Rogers, welcome to Tigers this year, It's an honor
to. Be with you ladies.
Thank you very much for the kind invitation.
Very kind of you. The First things first, blink
twice if we're being listened to right now.
Well, you hope you are. That is the purpose of a
podcast, to communicate to a broad audience you want people
to be listening to. OK, true.
Hello to the NSA, we welcome them.
So for our first question on values and identity, you spent
your career making decisions with enormous consequences.
What personal values guided you when stakes couldn't be higher?
Number one, always integrity, the idea that you're going to do
the right thing. Now, people define right or
wrong differently. I acknowledge that.
But the idea of moral and ethical dimensions to decision
making, it's probably, to be honest, what attracted me to the
idea of serving in the Navy, serving in the military in the
1st place. I can remember telling my
parents, I literally told my parents when I was 11 years old
in the 6th grade, that I was going to be a naval officer.
I just read stories of the sea. I didn't come from a military
family per SE, and I grew up in Chicago, so a long way from the
ocean. But I was intrigued as I read
stories of the maritime environment of this idea of
challenging circumstances, leadership, but with a strong
ethical and moral base to it. This, this idea of no matter how
soon you are, no matter what you do right and wrong always plays
a core component. So for me, I, I've tried to live
that both in my professional life and my personal life, this
idea of right and wrong. And then the other part is
trying to articulate. So what's as you're making a
decision, why? What's the basis for it?
Trying to help others try to understand, here's my thought
process. This is the calculus.
This is what leads me to believe that this is the appropriate
approach to take. It sounds like you knew who you
were from a very young age. I am very fortunate.
I, I, I think that's a fair. I'm not trying to pat myself in
the back the way I would phrase it.
I was a person who was always very comfortable with who I was
and I never trying to be something I wasn't, and I had
zero interests in being something other than what I
thought I was and what I thought I should be.
I was not a person. Look, I am very grateful that
they made me a four-star Admiral, but I'll be honest, I
didn't like the trappings of being a four-star Admiral so
much because it can create a wall at times between you and
others. But you know, I, I was always
the Admiral. I understand that.
I know how this works and I didn't my favorite part of my
career. I often get asked, so you did 37
years. You went from, you know, an at
21 year old Ensign, a brand new officer run a destroyer out of
Norfolk up to this four-star combatant commander running the
largest, the same time running the largest intelligence
organization in the free world. And I often tell people that
the, the part in many ways that I just loved the most was the
very beginning when I was just a very junior officer and every
day was about learning something new with a great bunch of men
and women. I just love that.
It's very telling and interesting how you answer the
question not just about your values, but you added that
second part where you were like. It's also about communicating.
Oh, yeah. I think that's very important
because part of it, I was thought as a leader, part of my
job is to help build the bench for the future.
Part of the job is to help create the culture, the climate
and the expectation of the team. And you can't do that if you're
not willing to, to communicate. If you're just going to be a
leader who says this is the decision, go make it happen, you
can do that. I I just was never a big fan of
that approach, which is surprising I would guess to some
people and say, but yeah, but you're a four-star Emily.
Just tell people and I'm going. If the only thing that you have
going for you in your leadership kit bag is by God, I'm the boss.
So go do what I want. If that's the only thing you got
going for you, you're pretty. Limited.
So you're in the camp of I still have to win hearts and minds.
I want to communicate the what and the why, both because that I
want to inform and educate, but I want them to become advocates
for this approach. Not just, OK, I don't understand
this or I'm not familiar with the why, but the boss wants to
do it, so we're just going to go do it.
I always thought the much more effective, much greater
probability of success if people understood the why, it embraced
it. And if you understand the why,
it helps you. Then when you deal with the
unknown, you can make a decision and the people have to execute
it. You can't account for every
circumstance. You can't account for every
particular scenario. But if you help people
understand the why, in the military, we call that
articulating commander's intent. Hey, this is the why.
This is what we're trying to achieve.
It really helps your subordinates when they're
dealing with uncertainty, when they're dealing with something
new, they can mentally think to themselves, OK, this is what
we're trying to achieve. This is the broader framework I
was given. How does this fit this situation
I'm dealing with? How does it fit within that
framework and how can I make a decision?
Helps us achieve the end state for the military.
It's very powerful, very important for us.
I love that I'm going to use the articulating commander's intent.
There you go. We're going to use that from now
on. Between the two of us, yeah.
Well, there's a sister dynamic here, ladies, that you're going.
To have to deal with. Very true.
Commander, are we Co. Commanders Co.
Commanders. I would think so.
I would think you'd have to be Co.
Commanders, for purposes of this, leading at the NSA and
Cyber Command meant balancing secrecy, politics and national
security. So how do you approach these
situations when there's no perfect answer, just trade-offs?
So #1 to your previous question, always start with the foundation
of integrity, this idea of right and wrong and always trying to
do the right thing #1 #2 always remember what the mission is
you've been given and the end state you've been given.
Number three, try to articulate, make sure everybody understands
that broader context, because I'm the first to admit what
might make sense from a purely military perspective.
If you're the president or if you're the Congress, or if you
were some of our foreign counterparts, from their
perspective, it may not look the same.
My attitude always was. I will leave it to the political
world to decide the political dimensions of the decision.
I will only tell you from my perspective as a senior military
commander or senior intelligence professional, what I would
recommend based on the outcome you're telling me you want to
achieve. I'll let you decide the
political dimensions. That's not my role.
And I, jeez, I never got into that.
Then I worked for a Democratic president the last two years of
President Obama's second administration.
And I worked for a Republican president the 1st 2 1/2 years of
President Trump in his first administration.
And my attitude was I will support both of you to the best
of my ability. I'm not here to make a political
interpretation that that's the job of you and others around
you. That's not my role as a
military. Yeah.
I think that's really interesting.
I want to dig into that a little bit more.
So the idea that you worked for these two commanders in chief
who were in many ways their ideology very different,
different so diametrically. As well as their view of the
world very different. Yeah.
So how did you sort of like bridge that gap when you're the
one that is actually the, the consist, the constant across
these two administrations? First, you're you're trying to
understand what each is trying to achieve.
Yeah, and they were, they were different.
And they were different. Secondly, you're trying to
understand how does each of them assimilate information?
How does each of them what's, how is it to be affected with
them? So, for example, President Obama
was a constitutional lawyer by education and initial
experience. So what did that mean?
He loved getting into details. He loved and could rapidly
assimilate a whole lot of written material, you know, just
the reading legal briefs. So I knew generally almost
everything when you work for presidents and it's it's not
unique to presidents. Many businesses run the same
way. You know, hey, if a subordinate
is going to provide a presentation to the boss, the
boss wants to see the presentation 24 hours or so in
advance so the boss can read it, assimilate it.
And that's OK Got it. Understand.
Here's the things I really want us to focus on and here's the
questions. President Obama, he read every
prep and every time I would see him, he'd say, OK, Mike, I've
read all the prep material. Here's the three issues I want
to focus on. OK, Sir, President Trump very
much the human dynamic, the interaction piece.
Not a huge reader, not a huge detail guy.
So for example, when we did the transition between the two and I
asked my team, hey, look, let's think about what we might need
to do differently given the two. Very different approaches and
dynamics of these individuals as humans.
And I can remember the teams telling me, well, no Sir, we're
just going to do keep doing what we're doing.
And I'm going, guys I've interacted with, with President
Trump, that's not what we're going to do.
I said he assimilates by verbal interaction much more than
reading. He loves the visual image piece.
So for example, I said with with President Trump, I want to
distill this down into about 3 takeaways for him.
I don't want long detailed presentations to him because it
just won't it won't assimilate with him.
He just doesn't like long detail things.
And I want a map or a set of pictures on every subject that
we talk about because I want him to be able to relate what we're
talking about to something that resonates with him.
An image or a map that made much better outcomes.
I found dealing with him, it played to what he was
comfortable with. It played to his strengths.
But, and I'm not arguing one was good and 1 was bad, they're just
totally different. I found my job as a subordinate
was, it's not about what I would do.
It's not about what I would think is effective.
It should be about what do I have to do to be effective with
them. And that varies by the
individual. It was one of the best lessons I
ever learned as a senior guy at, you know, at a political level,
everybody's different and the Congress was different than the
executive branch. So when I had to deal with the
center of the house, that was different than dealing with, you
know, the White House. I love this story because
something we learn in like public speaking class is like
know your audience and this is the perfect embodiment and also
the craziest story of know your audience.
Right. It's just like in business
that's not unique. This These are basic human
communication dynamics guys. Yeah.
Like in sports, they're like play to the ball.
Or if you're playing tennis and you're playing on a different
hardcore versus grass versus clay, you have.
To change your game, know your. Surface how?
Does that change your style? Does it change the
characteristics of the environment?
What's going to be effective in clay versus what's going to be
effective on grass? Not, hey, I play tennis one way.
I don't change based on them. Like you aren't going to win at
the highest professional levels that way.
So then aside from your communication approach, what
about I guess in terms of like really conveying your, the
points that you wanted to make and like really putting your
recommendation and trying to get the the president's to, to adopt
to kind of your best practices? And well, remember, you're as a
senior leader in intelligence and cyber, you're just one of
many voices that are articulating A viewpoint.
And you're also part of a process often times that is
designed to tee up, if you will, a consensus among multiple
organizations in the government. So sometimes you'll talk
directly to the president, one-on-one or a very small
group. And sometimes the president will
say, hey, Mike, tell me what you think.
Yeah, sometimes you're part of group and you're trying to
distill all these different impressions into a single
recommendation that then collectively you can present to
a president. Sometimes you're staying there
and you are doing assessments where he will say, well, what
about these options? And you know, he'll walk you
through, hey, here's what I'm thinking about.
And then you're trying to assess, well, this would be the
pro, this would be the con. I've met the one time with
President Obama again, he was because he was a lawyer by so he
loved the Socratic method. Yeah.
He's the only boss I ever. I remember one of the first
times I met him, he asked my opinion.
Then he said to me, now I want you to argue the contrary.
And I was like, what? I get nothing wrong with that.
It's just something very different for me.
And I just thought no one's ever asked me to argue a contrary
viewpoint. Normally I just ask, hey tell me
what you think. That's so like nerdy and the
best way that is so right. Like that's so like just
straight from. He's like, now be your own
devil's advocate, yeah. It did take a mental reset.
I remember as I'm sitting there. He asked me this in the White
House situation room and and as part of a conversation with some
other people. And I can remember mentally
thinking to myself, OK, how, how, what would be the contrary?
If you guys OK Sir, if you don't like this, here's a contrary.
Yeah, you want me to poke holes in my own argument?
Which is fair, yeah, because that's all part of the process.
Everything's got trade-offs. True.
That's just the way it is. It's.
So interesting how you're describing the dynamic of the
different types of meetings. Cause one thing we've talked
about a bunch on the podcast is that the idea that in business,
a lot of times meetings are kind of in a way we call it like
Kabuki theater. There you go.
Like so we know the. Answer.
Yeah, we know. It's like so much of.
It has already been pre orchestrated and like
conversations, there's back channelling, There's all this
sort of pre work and a lot of times when you go into the room
and you don't know where the conversation is headed, you've
already like lost. Well, he was, I will say the CMS
levels in government, particularly in the executive
badge. Look generally there is a
framework, you know the issue that you're there to address
that's defined for you. Normally you will see, you'll
receive prep material that you were part of the input into in
which the different viewpoints are laid out.
You'll often see a flow of how the conversation is going to go.
The director, the CI is going to talk about this, the director of
NSA, he's going to talk about this Secretary of Defense that
whatever. So there is a, a format in a
flow. But on the other hand,
invariably it it, it works out to be when you, when it's all
said and done, a group of individuals with a broad set of
perspectives and led by an individual, a chief executive
who's, you know, at the end once said, OK, got it.
No, tell me what you think, but are you like?
Texting the Secretary of Defense like under the table?
No, you don't. Bring any no electronics in
this. Thing you don't bring any.
Electronics in this you just keep.
Passing a post it no, you don't bring any.
Electronics into this, Yeah. So I've never worked in
government in any official matter or unofficial matter.
Does anyone? I was.
About to say, are you implying that there's some sort of, you
know, initial relationship between?
No, no. Implication there.
I've never worked in government, but the closest that I've gotten
is a class that I took at Stanford in the Business School,
and it's called I'm Just a Bill. It's a brilliant class that
tries to get business students more engaged with politics or at
least understanding the inner workings.
And it's taught by this incredible professor called
Keith Hennessy. And he was an economic advisor
to President George Bush, too. And so in the class, he really,
I mean, it's a simulation for 10 weeks where everyone gets a role
and then they have to play either a senator or a
congressperson. And they really embody, you
know, I was a Democratic senator from Washington state and also
chairwoman of the Tech Committee.
Well done. Thank you.
Well played, Senator, and. It's actually, I was really
nervous going into the class because I felt like I didn't
really know, you know, how well aside from my like the
perspective of that. Kind of particular individual,
exactly. And in the beginning of the
class, the professor asks, what is most important to you,
national security or privacy? And at one point, you know,
students have to go around and and explain their perspective
and why. And so now I turn the question
to you, Admiral. So my.
My response would be it's not a binary either or I just I, I
would often be asked this testifying before Congress, and
I'd say that's not the way to look at this.
It's not a binary. It's one or the other.
Both are very valid, both are very significant and both are
very appropriate concerns. But don't start out by saying
it's either or I, for me at least, I just fundamentally
reject that premise. It's not.
Black or white there is. You want to try to achieve both.
My attitude was, look, we want security and privacy even as we
also want to ensure that we're adopting policies that enhance
our national security. Now, there are many times
tensions between those imperatives are those desires.
So what you're trying to figure out is how do you mitigate some
of those tensions potentially? And what are the areas where
it's an imperfect decision, but you think 1 imperative outweighs
the other? And sometimes you'll they'll do
that. So I've been part of many of
those discussions and those kinds of topics in government,
but. And for someone who's, I guess,
a civilian like me, how should we think about national security
and privacy or what are some of the frameworks that we should be
thinking so first of? All we are broadly, you're
seeing governments define national security much more
broadly now than they used to. When you think about national
security, go back in time, while the economic element was a
portion of national security, I would argue we now think of
national security with a significant economic security
dimension to it. Again, it's not a criticism,
it's just a reflection of the world that we're living in now.
I would also argue that one of the challenges in government,
you're setting policies that are going to shape private sector
choices, private sector priorities, private sector
actions. And yet I'm a good example.
I can remember having this discussion with President Trump
one time. You know, well, Sir, I, I've
spent at this time, I'm having this conversation with him.
I said something like, Sir, I've, I've spent 34 years in
government. It's the only thing, the only
thing I've ever done as an adult post college was be in the
military. I, I've never worked in the
private. I did as a kid to make money to
pay for college, but I, I haven't really as an independent
adult. So I always thought one of the
challenges when you're in government and you're trying to
figure out these issues is remember that you're thinking
about the impact of those who actually have to execute this
policy and those who are going to be impacted by this policy.
And in many cases, you're not going to have direct experience
or knowledge. So how can you in the process to
generate this policy decision? How can you try to access
knowledge and insight from those who do have that kind of
background consumer? Research that one.
Of the things I loved, I was a military guy.
And yet because I was involved in intelligent cyber technology,
I found myself spending a lot of time out in Silicon Valley.
I found myself spending a lot of time out in Washington state and
in other parts of the country dealing with.
Corporate tech leadership to often I can remember President
Obama a couple of times, you know, asked me, hey, Mike, would
you go out to the West Coast? And I'd say yes, Mr. President.
And so you're trying to understand their concerns while
you're trying to voice government concerns.
You're trying to figure out, Sir, is there a middle ground
here? Is there a way for us to work
together? I really, I found that really
interesting because I, I, if you would ask me as a military guy,
am I going to be talking to some of the largest, the CEO, some of
the largest, most visible tech companies in the world?
I, I would have said no way. I'm a military guy.
And yet I found myself doing that many of these individuals
you now see on television and in social media.
And it was an interesting experience for me.
I learned a lot from it. I'm so.
Curious like how did those meetings and how did your
impressions like stack up to what you your initial I guess
prejudices or what you thought about these leaders like were
they after you met them? Were you like you guys are
totally you're totally not connected to to the world at
all, like you're in your own little ivory, you know, bubble,
or were you like you know what, actually, they're super smart
and I think they have something. So again, neither.
Of those are mutually exclusive, yeah.
So what? My perception.
So you take it for what it's worth, I thought they didn't
understand us. They didn't understand
government very well and we didn't understand their very
well, which is another reason why guys, we need to be talking
to each other because we're talking past each other a lot,
because we think we each understand the other one.
And yet at times, as I'm sure they would, I would be thinking,
and I'm thinking about you don't have a clue about how government
works or you don't have a clue about the the dimensions that
shape our culture. Or, you know, with all due
respect, I can remember having a conversation with one CEO what I
said, you know, I have a lot of respect for what you have done
and what you've achieved and what your company does.
But don't think for one minute that we are among the best in
the world of what we do. And I'll put my engineers up
against your engineers. And you want to have a
conversation. You want to have a technical
conversation, bring it on. That doesn't mean 1 is better
than the other. My only view was, guys, we each
bring organizations that have a lot of smarts and a lot of
knowledge. The challenge is how do we apply
that in a way that recognizes the differences in our cultures?
Because I found it was the cultures that were really
different. So again, I was doing this 2014
to 2018. So that's, you know, almost a
decade ago now. And at the time, what you would
hear was very much we don't need the government.
We don't want the government to stay the hell out of our way.
You guys will only slow us down. You guys will only inhibit
innovation because you just want to regulate.
You just want policy, you want oversight, almost the broad
premise that I would hear. On the other hand, I would also
say to them, look, in many ways we have a similar culture.
You and your workforce think they're going to change the
world through the power of technology, and my workforce
thinks it's going to change the world by creating a more secure
world. I said, tell me how 1 is good
and one is bad. Tell me how one is right and one
is wrong. I see two motivated workforces
that each want to achieve very valid objectives that they take
a lot of pride in and it doesn't mean one's good and one's bad.
So can we get away from this stupid simplistic narrative like
they said guys, I don't think that that's reality.
I don't think it really helps us.
Some were amazing individuals where you can see, wow, I can
see why you're the CEO of that company.
A couple of them I'm, I'm very fortunate to consider friends
because we create a relationship.
So I just value their insights and I just enjoy talking to
them. A couple of them, not unlike at
times people I've dealt with in the military, I just thought
were arrogant jerks, to be perfectly honest.
But it doesn't mean you can't be arrogant and can't succeed.
The world is full of arrogant people who have succeeded and
done well in their particular area.
And it's just my one person's impression, so doesn't mean it's
the right one. Yeah.
We can move on to another question, but I just want to
comment. I think it's so interesting and
surprising that I feel like, once again, you're talking about
this concept of bridging the gap between what would be considered
2 very separate goals. And it's just surprising to me
because, you know, like as a four-star Admiral, like you
would think that your personality would be much more
like, I have the solution, like I know the right way.
Yeah, but you're like the total opposite of that.
I am much. More look, I'll bring a
viewpoint, I'll try to bring some insights, but I don't
pretend for one minute that I can't learn from others.
I don't pretend for one minute that you can't bring value to
this conversation. I don't want to pretend for one
minute that there aren't things that we can't learn from you.
My view is, hey, come on. Particularly as leaders, I'm
going we want to, we want to promote and actually display and
live the values we're talking about workforce about.
So if I'm talking about workforce about we need to be
inclusive. We need to respect the opinions
of others. We need to actively look to
expand our partners. If if that's what I'm
articulating, then what kind of jerk am I to sit there and say
when I'm out in California, other places, I'm a four-star
Admiral. Here's the answer.
What? What the hell don't you guys
understand? I've been in national security
for, you know, 3 plus decades. That would be stupid.
I like. That.
So, Mike, now that you've moved into the private sector advising
companies and governments on cyber risk and technology, what
has been the biggest shift that you've witnessed?
You know it's. Funny in some ways.
In the military, high performing teams optimize themselves and we
spent a lot of time as leaders. How do you create teams that are
optimized to succeed in environments with high stress,
high levels of uncertainty, high rates of change, and often
incomplete knowledge of the environment?
And yet you're constantly culture, training, structure,
processes, you're trying to optimize yourself to succeed in
that kind of world. And I look at what's going on in
the world around us right now. And I will also say to business
leaders, that's the world you're living in right now.
So how what I found is some of the things that I learned in the
military to, to work and excel in an environment like that
translate very readily to the private sector and yet are
different when I talk to the private sector, when I talk to
corporate leadership and I'll ask them the journey they'd be
on and have been on. And how is the environment now
versus 510 years or when you were starting out as a more
junior individual in your particular business or field?
They have gone through significant change as well.
I mean, that's, you know, I, I, I look at the world around me
today and I say, look, high uncertainty, high complexity,
high interdependence and a high rate of change.
So you got to figure out how do you optimize yourself to succeed
in that kind of environment? How do you optimize the company
to succeed in that kind of environment?
Now that is a great leadership challenge.
I love that. The best part of being in the
military for 37 years, leadership, leadership,
leadership. I just loved working and
creating and being a part of strong teams.
And it's funny, people will sometimes ask me, you know, do
you miss anything about the military?
And I, I don't really in the sense that, hey, I did it for 37
years. It exceeded any.
I never thought I'd do. I'd do that for 37 years.
I will be a four-star Admiral. But the part that I think back
on the most fondly, it wasn't being an Admiral.
It was I loved being a part of teams of highly motivated men
and women who really brought the best out on each other.
Very focused on the mission, strong sense of right and wrong,
moral and ethical integrity, and always remembered it's about
service to others. Our mission is to create an
environment to provide security to others.
It's not about us. It's about the mission and the
men and women we serve in the nation that that it's not about
us. I love that that was the best
part of the job. And so that concept of selfless
leadership, and I don't want to make it sound like I'm a perfect
leader. Look, I have my imperfections
like everybody else. There's no doubt about that.
But that idea of selfless service, that idea of, hey, it's
about others, it's not about you.
The more senior you get, I just think is very important for in
my experience, others might have a very different view.
But yeah. And it carries across all
industries. And remember, leaders, you
create the culture, yeah. The.
Reality is we look up the tree, we don't look down the tree very
much. People always want to know what
what are their bosses doing? What are they saying?
How are they getting promoted? What jobs did they have before
they got into that job? You know, what made them
successful? How did they get to be ACEO?
How did they get to be on a board?
You know, fill in the blank. Same thing in the military.
So I always would try to remind leaders, always project the
values that you want the organization to live every day
because you help set the culture.
And the most important thing is not what you say, it is what you
do. You can say everything in the
world you want, but if you don't live it, in my experience, it
just doesn't come across as very authentic and it just doesn't
have as much adoption. You know this is what?
I say to the guys that I date there.
You go live these values. Live it enough.
Sweet talk, let's see some action I want to see.
Outcomes I'm. Like this?
Sounds familiar? There you go.
Make it work for you, girl. Make it work for you.
Well, we say. You know tiger sisters about
money, power and love They're they're applicable.
They're really intertwined in a lot of ways.
Well, just. Remember, what's the most
important of those three? It's not money and power.
Yeah. It's your it's it's living your
life. Love helps build that.
Sense of fulfillment and purpose and the, the, the idea that you
have found someone or someone's like a family, you know, who are
going to give you something that you hope last your entire life.
Power goes, money goes. The one thing you hope you have
your entire life is love of the people around you, particularly
your family and your spouse. I mean, I always tell my, I'm
very fortunate. I've been married 40 years.
We have two sons, very fortunate, very lucky.
But I always tell my sons, as important as family is, you
didn't get to make that choice. The one choice you're going to
get to make is picking a spouse. When you get it right, it can be
the most fulfilling, most supportive thing in your entire
life. It will lift you for the rest of
your days. You hope the perfect world.
Not that there aren't challenges at times, but but when you get
it wrong, quite the opposite, it can be among the most draining,
the most empty feelings in the whole world.
So I always try to tell my son. So that's the one to focus on.
Take the time, make sure you find the right one and you have
to find what's right, not your mother and I.
You have to find that. Apologize, but you didn't think
that you were going to get no I. Love that.
I. Want more love advice Mike?
Rogers I. Love that girl.
There you go. Who?
Knew it's a whole new line of work for me.
What? Advice would you give to people
in their late 20s or or mid 30s around love in addition to, you
know, making sure number one always be.
Open to it. Oh, number two, don't lose sight
of it. Look, we can all become very
busy, very focused on many things.
And a lot of times you're so busy trying to work in your 20s
and 30s, you're trying to create a profession, you're trying to
gain more knowledge and experience.
You're trying to build credibility, and that all comes
with a price. It takes a lot of time, a lot of
attention, a lot of focus. It's physically and emotionally
draining at times, and it doesn't always leave a lot of
time for other things in life. You know, as I.
Talked to my own children and I discussed this with my own wife
and say look and I'm a guy who was hugely into work.
I loved work and at times I spoke I focused too much on
work. And then on the other hand, I
managed to find a a great woman and we've been married for 40
years. Literally.
In about two weeks, we'll celebrate our 40th.
Anniversary. I met my wife in a bar, so it
just goes to show you there's no one particular venue or one
particular mechanism to meet the other one.
But this whole idea about be open, you never know.
You never know when it's going to strike.
I literally had this conversation.
My eldest is 37, not married again, he just hasn't found, you
know, someone who he thinks is worth pursuing to that level.
But I often say to them, you can have all the plans in the world
about work. You can have all the plans about
your professional development. You can have all the plans about
what you're going to do in terms of what you're going to buy, the
money you're going to make, etcetera.
But I would only tell you when you find the right one, the plan
goes totally out the window. All that matters now is I want
to be with that person as much as I can.
I will shift my priorities to do that.
I said it is the most amazing, most powerful feeling when you
find yourself in life where you find that love where nobody else
matters, nothing else matters. Yeah.
It's great. So my.
Take away is that you're saying I should go out to bars more
often, I should party more often.
You heard it from. The love, Admiral, you heard it
from the. Love Admiral, I'm going to be
telling my boss AKA Cherie the commander, the commander, the
commander, I'm going to be saying the Admiral said I need
to go but. One, it's interesting to me, we
have more contact with more people than ever before in our
lives. And yet one of my questions and
maybe just my generation is all of that really leading to
greater communication and greater knowledge and greater
awareness of the other individual.
Because I look at much of it and goes, this is awful,
superficial. This is awful, meaningless.
I said texting, posting images, that's not the same thing as
really communicating and getting to know somebody.
And remember, to find love. You got to get to know somebody,
not just how do they look, how do they dress, what's their job,
how much money do they make. I mean that I suppose those are
all factors in calculus, but they're not the most important
things. But you can't learn the most
important things if you don't actually communicate.
And the greatest communication comes when you're physically
interacting with somebody and no matter what venue you choose to
do it in. And that's all I have to say is
love. Admiral signing off.
That's the love. Admiral signing off.
Incredible, got to do more podcasts.
Wow, this is. This is really I'm.
Loving it we have. One last segment with some
fortune cookies. They're Ice Breakers.
And so here we go. We have mild and wild.
You can choose one of each. OK, so here's.
OK, here we go. What rules do you secretly enjoy
breaking? What is funny in the sense that
although I was in the military, which is very hierarchical
there, there is a strong streak in me which my wife constantly
will highlight to me. I don't like authority and I
don't like rules. And I often tend to have
somewhat of a disregard for it. And my life will often pick up
on this. Well, you know, why'd you choose
the bureaucracy, like the Navy, like the military?
And yet so often times you don't like structure, You don't, you
don't like hierarchy, you don't really like rules.
I said, well, you got to, I like going to sea sometimes.
You just got to be willing to work in different environments,
different cultures to achieve what you want.
Now we're going to look at wild, wild these.
Ones are a little spicier and we.
Don't know? Well, obviously we don't know
what you're going to get. Here you go.
Here's the. Wild one for the love, Admiral.
What line should someone never cross with you?
Integrity. Me.
Don't ever lie to me. Don't ever, I'm like, come on,
man. We can certainly disagree, but
let's be honest and direct with each other.
And then the other one again, this is something my wife always
remind me I'm a big fan of. Look, the world works much
better when every one of us does our job.
So let's focus on doing our jobs, OK?
Everything works much better when we just do that.
Forget all the emotional and all that.
Can we just focus on doing our job?
It's very full. Circle they're back to the very
beginning of our conversation. Well, hey, you've.
Got what you wanted out of it. That's yeah.
Thank you so much most. Importantly, yeah.
They taste. They're really good, actually.