1 00:00:10,120 --> 00:00:13,400 Welcome to the Everyday PM Podcast, the podcast where we 2 00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:16,360 discuss project management principles for your everyday 3 00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:18,600 life. My name is Anne Campia, and I'm 4 00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:21,120 the host and founder of The Everyday PM. 5 00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:24,720 And I'm so excited to welcome our very special guest, Leslie 6 00:00:24,720 --> 00:00:28,000 Grandy, who is here to speak about future proofing business 7 00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:32,720 success with Generative AII. Love that because as everybody 8 00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:35,880 knows, AI is everywhere. Everyone's trying to learn about 9 00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,480 it, catch up on it, and Leslie is here to break it down for us 10 00:00:39,480 --> 00:00:41,840 in that space. So, Leslie, for those who have 11 00:00:41,840 --> 00:00:44,320 not met you yet, please take a brief moment to introduce 12 00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:45,840 yourself to our audience. Sure. 13 00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:48,360 Thanks for having me and I'm happy to be here. 14 00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:53,560 I've had over A2 decade career in product management dating 15 00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:57,280 back to early streaming media days in the early days of the 16 00:00:57,280 --> 00:00:59,520 Internet. And I've LED product teams that 17 00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:02,880 have included designers, program managers, product managers, and 18 00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:07,560 engineers for companies like Apple, Amazon, T-Mobile, Best 19 00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:11,240 Buy and Discovery. And after I retired from full 20 00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,120 time work, I wrote a book called Creative Velocity, Propelling 21 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:16,560 Breakthrough Ideas in the age of Generative AI. 22 00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:21,640 And the platform is really to help people as AI is sort of 23 00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:25,960 taking on more mundane tasks to explore their creativity, to 24 00:01:25,960 --> 00:01:30,280 understand what they bring to that partnership and to actually 25 00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:34,920 Createspace with the thanks to AI for that kind of strategic 26 00:01:34,920 --> 00:01:37,600 and creative thinking. That's incredible. 27 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:39,960 Your background is, is truly amazing. 28 00:01:39,960 --> 00:01:42,880 And I'm sure from all of those companies, big and small that 29 00:01:42,880 --> 00:01:45,840 you've been able to work with, you've learned a lot about how 30 00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,320 generative AI might fit into that business model. 31 00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:52,840 So I'm curious, even before I get into my first question for 32 00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:56,360 you, what was that moment for you where you decided, you know 33 00:01:56,360 --> 00:01:59,920 what, let me write this into something that can be useful for 34 00:01:59,920 --> 00:02:02,520 others to learn from. And so, as you had mentioned, 35 00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:04,880 you wrote the book. Was there something that 36 00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:07,520 happened in your professional journey that you said? 37 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:09,960 I got to go down this path. I got to share my thoughts on 38 00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:12,360 this topic. It's a it's a really interesting 39 00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:17,160 question because the answer is a little bit of a bunch of things 40 00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:22,200 as opposed to 1 real aha moment. One of them is one of the main 41 00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:25,280 drivers for the topic. Before I get into sort of 42 00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:27,920 writing the book and delivering the book is over the years of 43 00:02:27,920 --> 00:02:34,120 coaching people as a leader of teams, I see people more than 44 00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:38,560 I'd like to hold back because they don't think it's their role 45 00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:42,440 to contribute a creative idea or that in their job, they're 46 00:02:42,440 --> 00:02:45,920 expected to be executional. And so therefore they don't 47 00:02:45,920 --> 00:02:48,840 leave space to solve problems creatively. 48 00:02:49,280 --> 00:02:52,880 And it's frustrating because some of the most talented people 49 00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:55,720 that I have, and when I say that in their job, they're talented, 50 00:02:56,040 --> 00:02:59,840 are the least comfortable in that space of expressing 51 00:02:59,840 --> 00:03:04,640 themselves creatively. And so when I would hire people, 52 00:03:05,080 --> 00:03:07,960 I started to really look for signals that they might not be 53 00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:10,560 that type of person, that they might actually be the type of 54 00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:14,480 person that sees the world from multiple perspectives or has 55 00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:18,920 great empathy to be able to adapt a new perspective. 56 00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:22,040 And so those skills started to become more important in the 57 00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:24,440 teams that I hired. So that's kind of the topic for 58 00:03:24,440 --> 00:03:28,240 me area. And I have a lot of passion 59 00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,440 about it because people get judged on performance as to 60 00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,760 whether they can think big when they want to move up in their 61 00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:36,080 career. But a lot of people don't feel 62 00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,080 they have permission in their job to think big. 63 00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:42,280 And so I want to help people sort of own that, take agency 64 00:03:42,280 --> 00:03:44,440 over it. The second part and the second 65 00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:48,760 kind of factor here is my fear that AI takes that away from 66 00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:52,360 people, that they feel that AI is more creative, more capable 67 00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:56,440 of generating ideas quickly, more useful in that way. 68 00:03:56,680 --> 00:03:59,520 And so not just outsourcing for productivity tasks, but 69 00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:02,600 outsourcing thinking. That's a real concern for me 70 00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:04,960 because these people are already vulnerable to not thinking 71 00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:08,840 they're creative or probably the first class of people that will 72 00:04:08,840 --> 00:04:12,040 flock to AI to generate ideas for them. 73 00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:14,680 And it's not that AI shouldn't do that, but you should have 74 00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:16,880 agency over it. And the only way of agency is to 75 00:04:16,880 --> 00:04:21,000 believe you can be creative and take that output and mold it 76 00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:23,640 into something purposeful and meaningful and valuable. 77 00:04:23,880 --> 00:04:26,840 So I think those are the two kind of factors in why the 78 00:04:26,840 --> 00:04:30,800 topic, the book, why the book and why, how did that all 79 00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:35,080 convert into a book when I, you know, when I left full time 80 00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:37,520 work, I wasn't really sure what I was going to do with my time. 81 00:04:37,640 --> 00:04:39,520 And my husband kept saying, oh, you should write a book and you 82 00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:41,200 should write a book. And I kept thinking, I don't 83 00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:44,640 need to do it for myself, but if there's value in doing it, if 84 00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:47,440 the, if there's an audience for it, maybe then I will. 85 00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:51,840 And part of my product training was to actually look at the 86 00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:55,080 construct of writing a book. Like I was launching a product 87 00:04:55,080 --> 00:05:00,600 and putting putting the sort of topics in into a book proposal 88 00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,640 that I gave to a bunch of people who were not family, but who 89 00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:06,400 would give me tough love, who would tell me, oh, this is cute. 90 00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:10,040 It's a blog post, not a blog. You know, who do you think's 91 00:05:10,040 --> 00:05:12,200 going to read this? Why would somebody care? 92 00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:15,520 And so I kept looking for that kind of negative feedback and 93 00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:17,560 this kind of this kind of play into our discussion, which is 94 00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:20,000 why I, I felt so important to kind of go down this journey. 95 00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:23,200 I wanted somebody to tell me it was a bad idea and I wanted to 96 00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:24,920 understand why it was a bad idea. 97 00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:29,440 And I wanted to understand what what I missed, right. 98 00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:33,080 And so looking for the negative feedback was actually the most 99 00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,200 positive thing because everybody made it better and everybody 100 00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:38,120 told me where I could strengthen it or how it can. 101 00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:42,600 So six months in, I gave the proposal to someone who was an 102 00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:45,240 author with Wiley, very successful author. 103 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:49,240 And I knew that person wouldn't like want me to do it embarrass 104 00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:52,640 myself, but it and so he would tell me this is a bad idea. 105 00:05:53,840 --> 00:05:55,960 And he said, how are you going to sell the book? 106 00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:58,600 And I said, well, I I figured I'll do it the way they say on 107 00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:00,080 the website. He said that'll never happen. 108 00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:03,480 He said, if I like the book, I'll pitch it to my editor and 109 00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:06,080 if she's interested in reading the proposal proposal, I'll 110 00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:09,240 introduce you to her. And so by the time I got to that 111 00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:12,560 point, the product had sort of gone through all that user 112 00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:15,280 testing and all of the things that would help me see. 113 00:06:15,280 --> 00:06:18,000 I, I asked professors at the University of Washington, I 114 00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:20,600 asked all sorts of people to read the book to see if it had 115 00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:21,960 value. And by the time I got to this 116 00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:25,080 person, it was very easy for him to introduce me to his publisher 117 00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:28,560 because it had already been formulated and I'd already taken 118 00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:32,520 all of the risk out of it, if you will, in how it how it 119 00:06:32,520 --> 00:06:35,120 showed up. And within a week, she, they 120 00:06:35,120 --> 00:06:38,280 bought the book. So I realized I was never going 121 00:06:38,280 --> 00:06:41,560 to do it just to self publish to fulfill some personal need or 122 00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:43,680 ego need. I really wanted to actually get 123 00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:46,760 it to people, to help people. And so getting the publisher 124 00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:50,120 validation was that was the real final moment of saying, OK, this 125 00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:51,760 is a thing. I should probably go, right? 126 00:06:52,480 --> 00:06:57,560 That was brilliant and sightful. And I love the connective tissue 127 00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:00,920 between what you have done professionally for over 2 128 00:07:00,920 --> 00:07:04,200 decades and how you're able to apply kind of that same 129 00:07:04,200 --> 00:07:06,680 framework into getting to this place with the book. 130 00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:08,880 That's incredible, Leslie. I love that. 131 00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:12,520 So I mean, why don't we dive into creative velocity now? 132 00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:15,840 I'm obviously you've launched all kinds of projects for these 133 00:07:16,120 --> 00:07:20,600 multibillion dollar companies. You've seen these be either 134 00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,840 successes or failures. Now in your book, you argue that 135 00:07:23,840 --> 00:07:27,640 one of your our biggest mistakes strategically is planning 136 00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:33,400 failures and how psychologically unwilling we are as humans to 137 00:07:33,400 --> 00:07:36,280 admit weakness and plan for those failure type scenarios. 138 00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:38,240 Right? We always want to just say, this 139 00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:41,320 is going to be successful. We hardly ever have those 140 00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:45,200 conversations around what if it fails and what does that mean? 141 00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:47,960 I, I don't know what that is about the human being, you know, 142 00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:51,440 in our nature to do that. But typically the conversations 143 00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,440 I've even sat in are always about this is going to be 144 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:56,080 successful. No one's in the room saying, 145 00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:58,400 well, what's the, what's the flip side of that coin? 146 00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:03,080 So can you share a story maybe from one of those companies? 147 00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,480 Or it can just be kind of a, a trend or an overview of what 148 00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:08,680 you've seen throughout your professional journey, where you 149 00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:12,720 saw this play out and you know, where a team's inability to 150 00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,040 imagine failure led to something that probably could have been 151 00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:18,760 preventable. Yeah, there's a couple of 152 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:22,600 Nuggets in there. So the first thing I'll say is I 153 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:29,520 think there is a predisposition to avoid the negative, right. 154 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:32,039 So that's just in general and failure being negative. 155 00:08:32,039 --> 00:08:35,320 So when we present an idea in a meeting to stakeholders or 156 00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:41,240 executives, if we get the objection, sometimes we get 157 00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:43,480 defensive. And so we don't actually get at 158 00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:45,000 the root of what the objection is. 159 00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:49,280 And even if the objection may be flawed, the fact that there's 160 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:53,720 someone there that could create a reason for us to fail is 161 00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:55,640 something we also navigate around. 162 00:08:55,800 --> 00:09:00,280 Like, oh, John is just a Megatron, and he doesn't like 163 00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:02,240 anything we do that isn't his idea. 164 00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:04,840 So we're just going to avoid talking to John, right? 165 00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:08,120 That's a very common behavior. We kind of cut the people out 166 00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:11,600 who might create the friction because we really feel the 167 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:15,000 pressure to deliver. And so within an organization, 168 00:09:15,000 --> 00:09:19,040 there's a pattern that develops where we don't take the 169 00:09:19,040 --> 00:09:22,520 objection as an opportunity to improve the idea or to 170 00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:25,160 strengthen the idea. We don't look at the objection 171 00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,480 as something that's meant to be supportive of the idea innately. 172 00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:33,240 And so we're moving to a position where we deal with that 173 00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:37,480 objection in one of three ways. Maybe we go deeper and maybe we 174 00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:41,200 learn what is the source of that objection and address it either 175 00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:45,880 in our delivery plan or in our feature prioritization, right? 176 00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:49,080 Maybe that's one thing that we could do, but maybe there's a 177 00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:52,480 cultural propensity to just avoid a conflict. 178 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,320 And so in a lot of consensus driven organizations, people 179 00:09:56,320 --> 00:09:58,800 will navigate around the conflict. 180 00:09:59,560 --> 00:10:01,840 And that's that's so that's number two, right. 181 00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:04,600 You can you can see where I'm not going to be able to have a 182 00:10:04,600 --> 00:10:06,920 healthy conversation with somebody about their objective. 183 00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:10,600 So I'll just navigate around it. And then the third thing that we 184 00:10:10,600 --> 00:10:14,680 do when we see this in this kind of organizational tendency is 185 00:10:14,680 --> 00:10:22,200 that we look at the reason for failure as potentially not 186 00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:25,680 worthy of our time. Like we don't dive into what 187 00:10:25,680 --> 00:10:28,400 that failure case would be or what would have caused it. 188 00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:31,600 And so we're more willing to look at that in retrospective in 189 00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:35,600 a post mortem, right? And so we spend the time 190 00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:38,280 evaluating what went wrong after it went wrong. 191 00:10:38,640 --> 00:10:42,160 But we rarely do the pre mortems to think if we failed like this, 192 00:10:42,160 --> 00:10:44,120 what would have happened to make us fail? 193 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:49,760 And that's a behavioral miss for most product teams, right? 194 00:10:49,760 --> 00:10:54,240 We don't see it as an agile ceremony like post mortems are 195 00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:58,400 and retrospectives are. We don't go in front expecting 196 00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:00,640 to fail. We want to show our confidence 197 00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:03,760 to our teams, to our leaders. And so we don't really spend the 198 00:11:03,760 --> 00:11:06,760 time exploring the failure cases sometimes. 199 00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,600 And this is again another risk to not doing that. 200 00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:13,040 The failure case you might decide is one in a million, but 201 00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:16,160 if it happens, your business shuts down, right. 202 00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:19,360 So when we think about things that have happened over the last 203 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:24,200 year where certain data systems and network security systems 204 00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:26,920 aren't available to regular everyday businesses, they 205 00:11:26,920 --> 00:11:29,240 counted on those companies to deliver that. 206 00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:31,240 What did they plan for if they didn't? 207 00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:34,440 Maybe it's once in a blue moon that will happen. 208 00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:37,480 But now your business isn't operating online anymore for 209 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:38,960 until they figured out what happened. 210 00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:43,320 And so you are so in failure mode that you don't actually 211 00:11:43,320 --> 00:11:45,160 have anything you can do to recover. 212 00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:48,520 There is no backstop. So I think those are the reasons 213 00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:52,120 and the trends that that that I think that describe what you see 214 00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,080 around the, you know, the negativity in particular. 215 00:11:55,280 --> 00:12:00,520 I think there's also a reticence for people in a company to 216 00:12:02,080 --> 00:12:06,120 object in any way to something that may be a higher authority 217 00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:10,160 has has proposed. But you're closer to the ground, 218 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,480 you're clearer about what could go wrong, and it's hard in a 219 00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:16,960 meeting to tell Steve Jobs that's a dumb idea. 220 00:12:17,680 --> 00:12:20,960 Right. I or that idea will fail for 221 00:12:20,960 --> 00:12:23,000 this reason. Even if you don't say it in a 222 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:25,720 silly critical way like it's a dumb idea, you say here's 223 00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:27,160 reasons I don't think that will work. 224 00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:29,520 It's hard to be the one that speaks up in that meeting, 225 00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:33,160 right? And so authority and, and I saw 226 00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:35,760 that that happened when I was at Apple during the Steve Jobs era. 227 00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:39,120 Steve wanted to launch an iPod speaker that looked like a 228 00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:42,840 lunchbox cooler. It was big and looked nothing. 229 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:45,040 The only thing about it that looked Apple like was that it 230 00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:47,640 was white. And there wasn't a single person 231 00:12:47,640 --> 00:12:50,200 in a meeting without Steve who would say it was going to sell. 232 00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:54,320 But nobody in a meeting with Steve would tell him and he 233 00:12:54,320 --> 00:12:55,840 wouldn't have heard anyway. He wouldn't have listened. 234 00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:59,080 So they just all shut down. And sure enough, not many people 235 00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,080 remember that product ever released, right? 236 00:13:02,080 --> 00:13:04,640 It failed. But it was, in his case, 237 00:13:04,720 --> 00:13:07,320 something he could just pull out of the distribution quickly. 238 00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:10,080 And it faded from memory because of the number of successes. 239 00:13:10,640 --> 00:13:15,000 But nobody in the room wanted to say to that authority, this is 240 00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:17,360 not a good idea. This is not going to sell. 241 00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:20,160 It's going to take up shelf space because of the size. 242 00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:22,480 It's going to be hard to carry because it's so cumbersome. 243 00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:24,960 Like all the reasons it might not have worked because he had 244 00:13:24,960 --> 00:13:27,400 more hits than misses. So people were like, maybe he 245 00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:30,320 does know better. And so sometimes failure happens 246 00:13:30,320 --> 00:13:33,960 because of a case where the authority of the idea and the 247 00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:37,000 person that delivered it feels like it's irrefutable. 248 00:13:38,240 --> 00:13:42,080 Yeah, understood. And in those situations, Leslie, 249 00:13:42,680 --> 00:13:46,880 where I, I, I, there's kind of a subtle trend in what you've 250 00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:51,240 discussed so far around somebody kind of losing that agency or 251 00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:55,080 that permission to have a say. And when we're looking at the 252 00:13:55,080 --> 00:13:58,480 failure, potential failures, obviously you called out the 253 00:13:58,480 --> 00:14:02,200 human behaviors to immediately try to justify the successes. 254 00:14:02,200 --> 00:14:05,480 Before you even think about that, have you, how have you 255 00:14:05,480 --> 00:14:11,120 navigated that in terms of being a leader in the room, knowing, 256 00:14:11,120 --> 00:14:13,920 let's say in the speaker conversation that we're talking 257 00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:17,560 about this speaker that never launched this product at Apple 258 00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,320 that it probably wasn't the best decision? 259 00:14:21,320 --> 00:14:25,320 How do you, how do you provide that feedback? 260 00:14:25,320 --> 00:14:27,720 I guess I'm speaking on behalf of the project managers who 261 00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:30,000 probably listening to this saying I've been in the room, 262 00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:33,680 I've used the data, I've tried to talk about what this looks 263 00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,800 like from a failure standpoint, yet it didn't feel like anyone 264 00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:40,680 was listening to me. Is there anything at that point 265 00:14:40,680 --> 00:14:43,520 you would advise product managers, project managers in 266 00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:45,640 terms of what you've seen be effective? 267 00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:49,840 Yeah. So there's a, there's a, a, a 268 00:14:49,840 --> 00:14:52,960 couple of different techniques, but one really simple one is to 269 00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:57,400 take it out of the personal and the judgmental and to say, what 270 00:14:57,400 --> 00:15:00,400 if this doesn't happen the way you imagine it would? 271 00:15:01,920 --> 00:15:05,400 What could be the things that would go wrong that prevents it? 272 00:15:05,520 --> 00:15:09,760 Is it customer behavior? Is it distribution problems? 273 00:15:09,760 --> 00:15:12,320 Like what are the things? So let's think about if one of 274 00:15:12,320 --> 00:15:16,880 those things doesn't go as we expect and then it's not so much 275 00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:20,760 you were wrong or your predictions are as as possible, 276 00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:23,680 maybe as mine are, but what happens if both of us aren't 277 00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:26,320 right? Like what's that scenario right? 278 00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:29,960 So it's not so much about being the right person in the room or 279 00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:33,600 the critical person in the room, but asking a what if question 280 00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:37,040 that takes it out of the personal and creates that sort 281 00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:40,160 of what if we're all wrong about how customers are going to react 282 00:15:40,160 --> 00:15:42,520 to this? What would that look like? 283 00:15:42,520 --> 00:15:44,800 What could be the, what could be the trigger of that? 284 00:15:45,240 --> 00:15:48,040 Have we thought about what might be something we have to plan for 285 00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:51,480 since nobody's ever seen this kind of speaker before? 286 00:15:51,960 --> 00:15:55,920 What might be the questions or problems right that it raises in 287 00:15:55,920 --> 00:15:59,720 distribution or what might be the the shipping issues or you 288 00:15:59,720 --> 00:16:03,120 know, what have we not asked about as a place where we could 289 00:16:03,120 --> 00:16:06,880 be vulnerable? Even if what we're right is that 290 00:16:06,880 --> 00:16:10,520 there's a need for this and we think it will fit the market 291 00:16:10,520 --> 00:16:14,400 need, there are circumstances that are not always in our 292 00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:17,760 control and that's the way you help breach the conversation. 293 00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:21,600 The circumstances that you can't control are things like customer 294 00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:24,480 behavior. You cannot just, you know, you 295 00:16:24,480 --> 00:16:27,680 don't know also what could happen the day you launch in 296 00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:32,000 terms of some tragic event that the whole world is focused on. 297 00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:36,520 There could be some other scenario where what you planned 298 00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,000 isn't in your control and what happens therefore isn't what you 299 00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:42,680 planned. And so there's a great saying 300 00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:49,000 that says by not planning to fail, you will fail, right? 301 00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:53,080 Because the, the, the idea that, you know, failing to plan 302 00:16:53,080 --> 00:16:57,680 creates the case for failure. And so I, I think it's the 303 00:16:57,680 --> 00:17:00,800 notion that there's things that you can't control that are 304 00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:03,440 beyond your know, your knowledge, especially if you're 305 00:17:03,440 --> 00:17:06,800 an innovator like Steve Jobs, There are things you won't know 306 00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:09,720 that people will do because they won't tell you in advance 307 00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:11,200 because they've not seen that before. 308 00:17:11,640 --> 00:17:14,839 And so that's the most important time to say, well, what if we 309 00:17:14,839 --> 00:17:16,520 were wrong about what customers will do? 310 00:17:17,119 --> 00:17:18,680 Or what if our assumptions are raw? 311 00:17:19,200 --> 00:17:21,720 Which assumptions would hurt us the most if we are raw? 312 00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:24,359 And by asking it that way, you're sort of putting it on the 313 00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:27,240 table and letting anybody comment about it without it 314 00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:30,120 being a personal thing. And you do it in the light of 315 00:17:30,120 --> 00:17:32,680 fortifying the plan. Because if we think about these 316 00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:35,640 things in advance, we'll have contingencies for them. 317 00:17:35,800 --> 00:17:38,960 We won't be unprepared when they happen to activate the 318 00:17:38,960 --> 00:17:41,840 contingency. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. 319 00:17:41,840 --> 00:17:43,320 Thank you for that insight, by the way. 320 00:17:43,320 --> 00:17:46,880 I think it it gives us a little bit of a deeper layer insight 321 00:17:46,880 --> 00:17:48,880 into how you would navigate that situation. 322 00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:53,040 And now I want to take that similar scenario and pile on 323 00:17:53,040 --> 00:17:56,200 there. Leslie, generative AI, right. 324 00:17:56,240 --> 00:18:00,560 In terms of your insights into generative, AII know right now a 325 00:18:00,560 --> 00:18:04,040 lot of organizations are looking at it from an operational 326 00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:07,640 efficiency standpoint. You know, how do we draft emails 327 00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:10,120 faster? How do we generate reports, 328 00:18:10,120 --> 00:18:15,120 automate with automation. I know in your book, you, you 329 00:18:15,120 --> 00:18:18,600 coined the, the phrase strategic imagination in terms of 330 00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:22,000 repositioning, how folks are looking at generative generative 331 00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:26,640 AI and the usage of that more as like a creative partner rather 332 00:18:26,640 --> 00:18:29,240 than just kind of doing the thinking for us. 333 00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:31,640 And in many ways. So could you walk us through 334 00:18:31,640 --> 00:18:33,880 what that practice looks like in practice? 335 00:18:33,880 --> 00:18:37,320 And you know, how is that differentiating from kind of at 336 00:18:37,320 --> 00:18:40,560 a basic level what I've seen organizations looking at AI for 337 00:18:40,560 --> 00:18:44,720 right now to do, which is like those basic automated tasks that 338 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:46,760 operational efficiency that I described? 339 00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:49,520 Yeah. So the the thing that's so great 340 00:18:49,520 --> 00:18:52,360 about AI is it can do pattern recognition faster than the 341 00:18:52,360 --> 00:18:54,800 human brain. So if this circumstance looks 342 00:18:54,800 --> 00:18:59,160 like any other circumstance in any other domain, it can use 343 00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,480 that to fuel possible places where there are vulnerabilities 344 00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:04,880 in your plan. People who have tried to do 345 00:19:04,880 --> 00:19:08,480 something like this before in other fields have done have seen 346 00:19:08,480 --> 00:19:11,520 this happen, right? So there's the ability to look 347 00:19:12,280 --> 00:19:16,600 quickly across similar but not related domain, similar 348 00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:19,080 situation. So a good example of this is I 349 00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:21,520 create a disruptive check in process. 350 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:24,240 Now let me look at what happens when people try to disrupt the 351 00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:27,360 check in process across all the places people check in, in 352 00:19:27,360 --> 00:19:29,840 restaurants, in hotels, in airports, right? 353 00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:32,680 The notion that there's a different kind of experience 354 00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:36,080 every place you go that's unique to that experience might tell 355 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,240 you something, right? Like what are they solving for 356 00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:41,720 in that unique experience? The experience is similar. 357 00:19:41,720 --> 00:19:44,920 It's a check in, but there are consequences that are different, 358 00:19:44,920 --> 00:19:47,600 right? And so you want that assistance 359 00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:50,320 in terms of seeing what people have done where there isn't 360 00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:52,200 necessarily data about what you're doing. 361 00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:55,680 But the domain may be serviced by knowledge from other places. 362 00:19:55,680 --> 00:20:00,400 A really great example of this is the the you're getting into 363 00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:02,440 the defense segment. And one of the things that 364 00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:05,640 defense has really done great is that looking at nature and 365 00:20:05,640 --> 00:20:09,480 bioscience for how things actually work in nature. 366 00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:14,160 So draw drone swarming is by what happens when insects swarm 367 00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:16,200 to attack, right? And if you look at certain 368 00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:19,760 things, you can actually see what happens and what goes wrong 369 00:20:19,760 --> 00:20:22,000 when that happens. And so now you can say, all 370 00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:24,760 right, I can see why it has benefit, but I also see where it 371 00:20:24,760 --> 00:20:28,120 has vulnerabilities. So let me go fix that in this 372 00:20:28,360 --> 00:20:31,560 sort of re evolution of nature and what I'm going to build. 373 00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:35,400 So that ability to look in places you're not uniquely 374 00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:38,680 familiar with, you don't know yourself, that's a really great 375 00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:42,000 way to sort of offset some potential risk. 376 00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:45,720 The other great way that AI works is that it can quickly 377 00:20:45,720 --> 00:20:48,440 look at second and third level consequences of a miss. 378 00:20:48,640 --> 00:20:50,280 What if this assumption is wrong? 379 00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:53,560 What are the ripple effects of that assumption being wrong in 380 00:20:53,560 --> 00:20:57,120 places I might not look right? I might be focused more on 381 00:20:57,120 --> 00:21:00,640 operational, but there could be brand ramifications for this 382 00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:03,920 miss and I might focus only on the operational ones. 383 00:21:04,560 --> 00:21:08,080 And so the idea that it can look at the second and third level 384 00:21:08,080 --> 00:21:12,160 consequences quickly to help make sure that sometimes the 385 00:21:12,160 --> 00:21:14,840 first one isn't the biggest hit. It's what happens when the 386 00:21:14,840 --> 00:21:16,640 second and third get activated, right? 387 00:21:16,640 --> 00:21:19,360 And then in totality, it's, it's a crash, right? 388 00:21:19,360 --> 00:21:22,680 It's a problem. And so you want to have that 389 00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:25,680 ability to get to that level of thinking quickly as well. 390 00:21:25,680 --> 00:21:29,440 And I think that's a really useful way that generative AI 391 00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:31,480 can bring you back the kinds of questions. 392 00:21:31,480 --> 00:21:33,640 Well, have you thought about this or what about this or where 393 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:37,200 are the other areas? Lastly, I think it's hard, it's 394 00:21:37,200 --> 00:21:40,760 hard to know what the opposite of an assumption could create. 395 00:21:41,080 --> 00:21:43,400 We assume people will do this. We assume the market will be 396 00:21:43,400 --> 00:21:45,960 like that. We assume the tolerance for 397 00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:48,600 prices in this range. And we make a lot of assumptions 398 00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:51,080 in especially in innovation without a lot of data. 399 00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:55,040 And even when we have data, data isn't always predictive of what 400 00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:59,240 happens in a new environment. And so being able to provide a 401 00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:02,400 list of assumptions and look at the opposite of those 402 00:22:02,400 --> 00:22:04,920 assumptions being true and what they do to the plan. 403 00:22:04,920 --> 00:22:06,880 Here's my plan. Here are the assumptions 404 00:22:06,880 --> 00:22:09,800 underlying that plan. Now, what if any of these 405 00:22:09,800 --> 00:22:12,400 assumptions was wrong? What would be the consequence of 406 00:22:12,400 --> 00:22:16,120 that on my plan, right? And so now you're able to sort 407 00:22:16,120 --> 00:22:19,000 of take all that insight quickly, right? 408 00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:22,680 And establish where you, with the agency that you have, want 409 00:22:22,680 --> 00:22:26,120 to focus, go deeper, understand how to build a contingency plan. 410 00:22:26,360 --> 00:22:29,480 So it's going to come back with all this perspective, but the 411 00:22:29,480 --> 00:22:33,320 human has to sort of put value on what's the most important 412 00:22:33,320 --> 00:22:36,720 thing to focus on, what's the one to explore and what risk you 413 00:22:36,720 --> 00:22:40,920 want to tolerate. Yeah, I'm smiling because all 414 00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:43,560 these, you know, little light bulbs are going off in my head 415 00:22:43,640 --> 00:22:46,920 as you're speaking Because, you know, we just talked about a few 416 00:22:46,920 --> 00:22:51,240 minutes earlier how just the human nature, the human behavior 417 00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:56,040 around being not in the position to want to discuss failure. 418 00:22:56,560 --> 00:22:59,560 And then now you've laid out kind of the layer of this is 419 00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:02,240 what you would do situationally if you were in the room. 420 00:23:02,480 --> 00:23:05,040 And then now we've added in the layer of how do you then make 421 00:23:05,040 --> 00:23:08,480 generative AI your, your creative partner in this 422 00:23:08,480 --> 00:23:11,200 journey? And then now I'm thinking, I 423 00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:15,000 wonder if Leslie, you would imagine a space or maybe you've 424 00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:20,400 already seen it where folks are in a room using the data from 425 00:23:21,000 --> 00:23:24,600 the prompts that they've they've fed into the generative AI tool 426 00:23:24,920 --> 00:23:30,440 and are now leveraging that kind of to placate the adverse nature 427 00:23:30,440 --> 00:23:32,400 that humans have to talk about the negative. 428 00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:35,560 Have you seen anyone surface Gen. 429 00:23:35,560 --> 00:23:38,760 AI as if they were another stakeholder in the room and 430 00:23:38,760 --> 00:23:41,520 saying they are the ones talking about failure? 431 00:23:41,880 --> 00:23:43,400 No, it's really a great question. 432 00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:46,040 I haven't seen it, but what I have talked to several product 433 00:23:46,040 --> 00:23:54,040 managers about is using that as a talking points, talking points 434 00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:55,640 sort of memo for the conversation. 435 00:23:55,880 --> 00:23:59,760 So I hear your objection and I've explored it with AI and 436 00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:03,200 here's some thoughts that I have now in thinking about that 437 00:24:03,200 --> 00:24:05,280 objection. So it does two things. 438 00:24:05,280 --> 00:24:08,960 One is it gives the person I've been seen and heard, which from 439 00:24:08,960 --> 00:24:12,320 a stakeholder perspective or leader perspective is valuable, 440 00:24:12,320 --> 00:24:14,440 right? To do it shows you took them 441 00:24:14,440 --> 00:24:17,320 seriously. It also shows that you did it 442 00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:20,160 dispassionately and not just defensively, because the 443 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:23,560 psychological distance that generated AI brings is really 444 00:24:23,560 --> 00:24:25,520 helpful in that conversation, right? 445 00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:29,160 It's not saying bad idea. It's saying here's some flaws, 446 00:24:29,160 --> 00:24:32,240 here's some risk, here's some assumptions that aren't strong, 447 00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:35,040 right? And so it takes that human 448 00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:39,640 dialogue from I think this is not the way to go to let's 449 00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:43,600 explore the reasons this could go wrong and see how realistic 450 00:24:43,600 --> 00:24:46,440 we think they are together. And by the way, I have 451 00:24:46,440 --> 00:24:49,400 contingency plans for three out of the five of them. 452 00:24:51,200 --> 00:24:54,720 And now you're now as a product person, you're, you're again, 453 00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:59,240 you're showing a, a level of insight that isn't just your 454 00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:02,040 personal knowledge because maybe you're a more junior employer, 455 00:25:02,040 --> 00:25:04,160 you don't have the years of experience of the person who's 456 00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:07,120 provided the objection. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. 457 00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:10,360 Gosh, Leslie, I'm going to try to prevent myself from rabbit 458 00:25:10,360 --> 00:25:15,080 holing down this this trend, but I'm absolutely enjoying this 459 00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:17,520 conversation. But to kind of put the bow on 460 00:25:17,520 --> 00:25:21,560 this conversation around your book Creative Velocity, as well 461 00:25:21,560 --> 00:25:25,160 as, you know, the insights that you bring within the context of 462 00:25:25,160 --> 00:25:28,080 that. Let's talk a little bit about 463 00:25:28,080 --> 00:25:31,040 big picture. So building that organizational 464 00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:34,800 resilience, making sure that it's not just IT, for example, 465 00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:37,720 individual project managers who are usually the audience of the 466 00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:41,440 everyday PM, but you know, product managers, whomever that 467 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:44,520 it goes from individual to organizational practice. 468 00:25:44,520 --> 00:25:46,960 Yeah. So you talk about I think the 469 00:25:46,960 --> 00:25:50,160 term is premeditation of evils with Gen. 470 00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:54,320 AI, which you know, can can help in terms of organizational 471 00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:56,320 cultural change and that sort of thing. 472 00:25:56,320 --> 00:25:59,200 So can you elaborate more on what you mean by that? 473 00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:02,240 And then as well as you know, what do you think it's going to 474 00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:04,600 take to build that type of resilience at scale? 475 00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:09,120 So the premeditation of evils is a Stoic philosophy. 476 00:26:09,120 --> 00:26:13,200 And one of the reasons that Stoicism factors in here, and I 477 00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:15,680 talk about this in the book as well, is because the Stoics are 478 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:18,680 really about emotional regulation, right? 479 00:26:18,680 --> 00:26:21,960 And not having the highs and lows that come from, you know, 480 00:26:21,960 --> 00:26:25,080 failures and wins, right? And, and taking them all in 481 00:26:25,080 --> 00:26:27,440 stride and then being able to process them all with 482 00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:30,400 equanimity. And in an organization that 483 00:26:30,400 --> 00:26:35,640 accepts failure, that equanimity is part of how they do it, 484 00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:37,560 right? People don't get punished for it 485 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:40,920 and any more than they get rewarded only when they 486 00:26:40,920 --> 00:26:43,240 celebrate. And I was talking to an 487 00:26:43,240 --> 00:26:47,400 executive yesterday who was telling me that in his all hands 488 00:26:47,400 --> 00:26:49,920 meetings, he starts with all the failures and what we've learned 489 00:26:49,920 --> 00:26:52,120 from them. So that people doesn't. 490 00:26:52,120 --> 00:26:54,080 It's not that he's celebrating failure, it's that he's 491 00:26:54,080 --> 00:26:56,640 acknowledging it as a part of the journey. 492 00:26:57,240 --> 00:27:00,800 And so that acceptance of the learning from it comes from 493 00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:04,200 being regulated and how you react to it. 494 00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:08,920 So that's part of why the Stoics are really good for this advice, 495 00:27:09,400 --> 00:27:11,320 right? Because we all fear failure as a 496 00:27:11,320 --> 00:27:16,000 performance judgement and we all feel feel fear failure as a 497 00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:18,320 final statement as opposed to a learning journey. 498 00:27:18,720 --> 00:27:20,840 So that's, that's, that's one element of it. 499 00:27:20,840 --> 00:27:24,240 The premeditation of evils is also based on the Stoic belief 500 00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:28,240 that things that you don't think about or don't plan for hit you 501 00:27:28,240 --> 00:27:34,480 harder if you not so much expect the worst, worried just to 502 00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:37,440 worry. But if you imagine these things 503 00:27:37,440 --> 00:27:40,800 could happen, you build more robust and resilient plans 504 00:27:40,800 --> 00:27:44,680 because you expect the things that are out of your control 505 00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:47,920 could go wrong. And so you think about the ideas 506 00:27:47,920 --> 00:27:49,840 in advance of what it would take if they did. 507 00:27:50,240 --> 00:27:53,120 And so there's kind of three components to this in the book 508 00:27:53,120 --> 00:27:55,920 that that I used to sort of bring it to life. 509 00:27:55,920 --> 00:27:59,520 The 1st is paradoxical thinking. What if one of your assumptions 510 00:27:59,520 --> 00:28:02,200 is true, but the opposite is also true? 511 00:28:02,960 --> 00:28:06,480 Both things can be true creates a different dynamic than if only 512 00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:10,720 yours is true, right, right. There's a tension in both things 513 00:28:10,720 --> 00:28:13,920 being true, which isn't bad. Always look at Bombas's 514 00:28:13,920 --> 00:28:16,680 profitable and you know, charitable, right? 515 00:28:16,680 --> 00:28:19,880 Those typically don't exist. So it's not bad. 516 00:28:20,160 --> 00:28:23,880 But if you understand what it creates when both of those 517 00:28:23,880 --> 00:28:28,200 exist, the the assumption that you have and the it's opposite 518 00:28:28,200 --> 00:28:30,720 can coexist. You're a little more prepared 519 00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:35,680 for what that dynamic will be when you enter the market or you 520 00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:40,040 execute the plan, right? Because then it doesn't torpedo 521 00:28:40,040 --> 00:28:42,120 you that someone said, well, see, the opposite is true. 522 00:28:42,120 --> 00:28:45,000 Yeah, but I'm true, too. And in that scenario, this is 523 00:28:45,000 --> 00:28:47,520 how we have to navigate that tension, right? 524 00:28:47,520 --> 00:28:49,520 So it's a proactive thought about that. 525 00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:54,280 The second one is opposite thinking, and I love to recall 526 00:28:54,280 --> 00:28:57,640 the Seinfeld episode with George Costanza where he spent the 527 00:28:57,640 --> 00:29:00,120 whole day doing the opposite of every single thing he thought 528 00:29:00,120 --> 00:29:02,240 about. Doing I take all and any 529 00:29:02,240 --> 00:29:03,840 Seinfeld references? Thank you, Leslie. 530 00:29:04,520 --> 00:29:07,920 Because that episode was so fantastic, and when they 531 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:11,560 interviewed the actor who played them, Jason Alexander said that 532 00:29:11,560 --> 00:29:13,960 people have walked up to him on the street telling them that 533 00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:16,640 they took that advice and it worked out for the better. 534 00:29:17,440 --> 00:29:21,880 And the whole concept of this is imagining every assumption is 535 00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:24,160 wrong. That everything that you assume 536 00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:28,680 to be true isn't in in in the plan isn't what's going to be 537 00:29:28,680 --> 00:29:31,040 true. And by taking the opposite of 538 00:29:31,040 --> 00:29:34,800 your assumptions, not that yours is true, but only the opposite 539 00:29:34,800 --> 00:29:37,640 is true. Now you recognize how weak, how 540 00:29:37,640 --> 00:29:40,800 it weakens the plan. Can the plan go forward if one 541 00:29:40,800 --> 00:29:43,720 of these assumptions isn't true? Which assumption not being true 542 00:29:43,720 --> 00:29:46,040 will hurt the plan the most, right? 543 00:29:46,040 --> 00:29:49,080 And so by looking at the opposite of your assumptions, 544 00:29:49,400 --> 00:29:52,840 you're looking at the ways that things along the way could 545 00:29:52,840 --> 00:29:56,480 decrement your success. Maybe it'll be successful, but 546 00:29:56,480 --> 00:30:00,200 maybe not as successful, or maybe it can't be successful if 547 00:30:00,200 --> 00:30:02,880 this assumption is wrong. And so you kind of rank your 548 00:30:02,880 --> 00:30:06,400 assumptions and you see the risk in your assumptions more clearly 549 00:30:06,400 --> 00:30:08,680 that way. And then the last version of 550 00:30:08,680 --> 00:30:10,360 this is called inversion thinking. 551 00:30:10,760 --> 00:30:13,720 And this is where you actually imagine the worst thing that 552 00:30:13,720 --> 00:30:16,400 could happen is the opposite of what you want to happen. 553 00:30:16,560 --> 00:30:18,240 And I'll tell a personal story on this. 554 00:30:18,640 --> 00:30:20,720 My first career was in the film industry. 555 00:30:20,720 --> 00:30:23,440 I was a film major at Northwestern and I grew up in 556 00:30:23,560 --> 00:30:26,080 Philadelphia and I wanted to move to LA right away after 557 00:30:26,080 --> 00:30:28,640 college and start working in the film industry. 558 00:30:28,640 --> 00:30:32,880 I had no friends, no relatives, no connections, no idea how to 559 00:30:32,880 --> 00:30:35,120 do it. And my parents, who were the 560 00:30:35,120 --> 00:30:37,920 educated professionals, told me it was a dumb idea and that I 561 00:30:37,920 --> 00:30:40,920 would fail. They were 100% sure they didn't 562 00:30:40,920 --> 00:30:42,760 support this idea. And when I left, they're like, 563 00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:44,640 good luck, right? Like we're not helping you 564 00:30:44,640 --> 00:30:46,360 because we think this is a bad idea. 565 00:30:46,560 --> 00:30:48,760 You made this choice. Go go live with it. 566 00:30:49,680 --> 00:30:53,680 The entire time I was in Lai thought they can't be right. 567 00:30:53,680 --> 00:30:57,160 I can't let them be right because if they're right, then 568 00:30:57,160 --> 00:31:00,280 everything I want is wrong. And I can't believe that. 569 00:31:00,480 --> 00:31:03,080 So what is it going to take for me not to fail? 570 00:31:03,080 --> 00:31:07,360 How do I look at their scenario and what would prove them right? 571 00:31:07,440 --> 00:31:09,760 Well, I couldn't pay my rent would prove them right. 572 00:31:10,000 --> 00:31:13,080 I couldn't afford my car because LA is a car city. 573 00:31:13,080 --> 00:31:16,440 You have to have a car, right? I couldn't sustain long enough 574 00:31:16,440 --> 00:31:19,800 to build a career economically, not that I couldn't find a job 575 00:31:19,800 --> 00:31:22,880 in the film industry. And if I reset that failure 576 00:31:22,880 --> 00:31:26,480 state at that abstract level, which is maybe it takes a year 577 00:31:26,480 --> 00:31:29,200 or two to get into the film industry and I just, I have to 578 00:31:29,200 --> 00:31:33,360 buy my time and make smart choices along the way, then they 579 00:31:33,360 --> 00:31:36,760 won't be right because I'll have survived long enough to do that. 580 00:31:37,520 --> 00:31:39,800 And that actually was the biggest motivation. 581 00:31:39,800 --> 00:31:42,480 And within three years, I became a member of the Directors Guild 582 00:31:42,480 --> 00:31:44,800 of America. I ended up working with James 583 00:31:44,800 --> 00:31:48,880 Cameron and Brian De Palma. And I literally had no prior 584 00:31:48,880 --> 00:31:50,480 connections. I was not an Apple baby. 585 00:31:50,480 --> 00:31:53,280 I didn't know anyone. But I navigated my way there 586 00:31:53,280 --> 00:31:55,960 with a different point of view because I didn't set out 587 00:31:55,960 --> 00:31:57,680 thinking that was the job I had to have. 588 00:31:57,960 --> 00:32:02,360 I just thought I needed money. And in LA, if you work on a, you 589 00:32:02,360 --> 00:32:05,360 know, as a cater waiter or a nanny, you're probably working 590 00:32:05,360 --> 00:32:07,200 for people in the industry, right? 591 00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:09,800 Right. And so putting myself out there 592 00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:13,160 to get jobs, even if they weren't the job helped me make 593 00:32:13,160 --> 00:32:15,600 my network. And then in building my network, 594 00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:19,320 I was able then right to navigate to an entry level job 595 00:32:19,320 --> 00:32:21,920 where someone knew me and trusted my basic intelligence 596 00:32:21,920 --> 00:32:25,760 and skills to give me that entry level production assistant job. 597 00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:28,760 And then once I got that door open, it was up to me to keep 598 00:32:28,760 --> 00:32:31,880 working. But I started to appreciate that 599 00:32:31,880 --> 00:32:36,600 the effort to get in there was all mine, not to get the final 600 00:32:36,600 --> 00:32:40,040 job right, but to put myself in a position to get hired. 601 00:32:40,840 --> 00:32:44,120 And so that failure was the biggest motivation to not 602 00:32:44,120 --> 00:32:46,000 failing. And my parents just couldn't 603 00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:48,760 believe it, Like they wouldn't believe that I actually had 604 00:32:48,760 --> 00:32:50,680 success. And when when they asked, I 605 00:32:50,680 --> 00:32:52,400 said, it's because I just didn't want you to be right. 606 00:32:53,160 --> 00:32:55,240 I just didn't want it. And so I thought of every 607 00:32:55,240 --> 00:32:57,040 possible way that you could be right. 608 00:32:57,200 --> 00:32:59,840 And I did the opposite of that. I thought about what it would be 609 00:32:59,840 --> 00:33:02,000 that I would have to do so that that wouldn't happen. 610 00:33:02,480 --> 00:33:06,880 And so my plan was super strong and super resilient and, and in 611 00:33:06,880 --> 00:33:09,360 retrospect, probably the only plan that would have worked. 612 00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:14,320 Yeah, absolutely. I, Leslie, that story alone has 613 00:33:14,320 --> 00:33:19,680 been incredibly inspiring and has been transformative just for 614 00:33:19,680 --> 00:33:21,440 me. So if I'm being selfish amongst 615 00:33:21,440 --> 00:33:25,240 my audience, I've enjoyed this conversation thoroughly because 616 00:33:25,440 --> 00:33:28,640 now you have me thinking about things in a very different 617 00:33:28,640 --> 00:33:31,360 framework and light. And that's what I wanted for, 618 00:33:31,400 --> 00:33:34,000 for us to get together and have this conversation for and to 619 00:33:34,000 --> 00:33:36,920 share that with our audience. So Leslie, thank you so much for 620 00:33:36,920 --> 00:33:38,920 this. Honestly, it's been incredibly 621 00:33:38,920 --> 00:33:41,480 insightful, thoughtful. I've learned a lot. 622 00:33:41,680 --> 00:33:44,840 Again, like I said, I honestly think when we're done with our 623 00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:48,000 conversation today, I'm going to go about my day, George Costanza 624 00:33:48,000 --> 00:33:51,800 style and try to flip everything on his head today too, because I 625 00:33:51,800 --> 00:33:54,040 think that would just be incredibly fun to see how that 626 00:33:54,040 --> 00:33:55,280 would turn out for me. So absolutely. 627 00:33:56,120 --> 00:33:58,440 Well, look, that will do it for our conversation today. 628 00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:01,040 Leslie, thank you so much for giving of your time and your 629 00:34:01,040 --> 00:34:04,120 expertise and just sharing some of the stories around generative 630 00:34:04,120 --> 00:34:08,440 AI and as well as the book, which I encourage everybody to 631 00:34:08,440 --> 00:34:10,800 pick up. So, Leslie, if folks want to 632 00:34:10,800 --> 00:34:12,960 continue the conversation with you, where can they find you 633 00:34:12,960 --> 00:34:15,440 online? Well, I have a website, 634 00:34:15,440 --> 00:34:18,239 lesliegrandy.com and also a sub stack. 635 00:34:18,239 --> 00:34:21,120 So either of those places work and everybody's on LinkedIn, but 636 00:34:21,120 --> 00:34:23,480 everybody has different opinions about being on LinkedIn. 637 00:34:23,480 --> 00:34:28,560 So I Ioffer the other two first. I am going to take up the offer 638 00:34:28,560 --> 00:34:30,719 of the sub stack. I didn't realize that, so I will 639 00:34:30,719 --> 00:34:32,840 be doing that as well as soon as we're done today. 640 00:34:32,840 --> 00:34:35,480 So again, thank you for joining me. 641 00:34:35,480 --> 00:34:38,320 I look forward to hopefully future conversations with you. 642 00:34:38,320 --> 00:34:42,480 This has been so much fun and for our listeners who are maybe 643 00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:44,600 listening in for the first time, let us know what you thought 644 00:34:44,600 --> 00:34:46,639 about this conversation. Let us know if there's any other 645 00:34:46,639 --> 00:34:49,000 topics you want us to cover on the everyday PM. 646 00:34:49,280 --> 00:34:52,280 You can also subscribe to the podcast on any of your 647 00:34:52,280 --> 00:34:55,880 podcasting platforms as well as drop a comment and let us know 648 00:34:55,880 --> 00:34:57,880 what you thought about our conversation today. 649 00:34:58,440 --> 00:35:02,160 So that will do it for the everyday PM myself for Leslie. 650 00:35:02,440 --> 00:35:04,200 Thank you so much for joining us, everybody. 651 00:35:04,200 --> 00:35:06,320 And until next time, take care.