BusinessManagementCareersEducationSelf-Improvement

I Have Some Questions...

Erik Berglund

Most people know the headline of a leader’s story. Few know the path it took to get there. This podcast goes beyond titles, book launches and business wins, to explore the lived journey behind the thought leader.

Through deep, unhurried conversations, we uncover the moments that shaped them—the doubts, pivots, convictions, and quiet breakthroughs that built their body of work.

Each episode features authors, coaches, executives, and bold thinkers who have forged their own path. Instead of rehearsed talking points, they’re invited into a space where thoughtful questions unlock something more human. The result is a layered conversation that reveals not just what they preach, but how they became the kind of person who can teach it.

Because we believe the best stories aren’t always told—they’re revealed. And when brilliant people are given the right questions and the room to answer them fully, what emerges is insight you can feel, frameworks you can apply, and a deeper understanding of what it truly takes to lead, create, and contribute at a meaningful level.

Play

Open in

31 episodes
Avg 42 min
English

Episodes 31

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

Today · 8 min
263: "How To Turn Journalism Skills Into Business Impact" (Reflections On Katie Morell)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik comes away from this review episode struck by one unifying theme: Katie’s surface work changed a lot, but the underlying craftsmanship stayed recognizable. He frames journalism not as a mystical calling, but as a learnable system of curiosity plus repetition plus translation into value. He also sees a quiet throughline between writing, disruption, and facilitation. Skills that begin as personal processing can later become economic leverage, and connection is not an automatic outcome of proximity, it is an outcome of intentional design. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Curiosity is necessary, but journalism is also built through sustained writing practice before you ever get “recognized.” When industry models shift, the vehicle may change, while the value delivered can remain the same. In-person connection does not happen by default. Meaning comes from attention, facilitation, and leadership buy-in. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik admits the episode challenged a simple way he has previously viewed journalism. He thought of it mostly as a curiosity profession. Katie helped him see that curiosity is only half the engine. The other half is the unglamorous work of writing until you can communicate what you uncover. He also resonates with the career implication: he has seen people get trapped defending the traditional container, and this conversation argues for mapping capabilities to new containers instead. 🧰 From Insight to Action Audit your core skill signals. If you can describe the questions you ask and how you listen, you can likely apply them in multiple arenas. Track your “practice you already did.” Name the repetition behind your confidence so you can transfer it intentionally to new problems. Design for connection, not attendance. For offsites, require clarity on purpose, facilitation plan, and leadership commitment before you sell the venue. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Katie agreed that curiosity is absolutely central to being a good journalist.” “The vehicle changed, but the underlying value didn't disappear.” “Physical proximity alone doesn't necessarily create meaningful connection or engagement.” “There has to be intentionality… thoughtful facilitation, and buy-in from leadership.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Katie Morell's Episode
#262
Yesterday · 1 hr 2 min
262: Maria Malik: "Communicating with Authority Isn't Only Reserved for Extroverts"
In this episode of I Have Some Questions..., Erik Berglund sits down with Maria Malik, founder of The Introverted Speaker, to challenge the assumption that confidence, authority, and influence belong to the loudest people in the room. Maria shares her journey from growing up introverted and navigating intense cultural expectations to reclaiming control of her life and building a platform that helps others find their voice. Together, Erik and Maria unpack the psychology behind public speaking fears, the surprising power of thoughtful questions, and how introverts can develop a commanding presence without pretending to be extroverts. The big idea: Confidence isn't about becoming someone else. It's about removing what's preventing you from showing up as yourself. 👤 About the Guest Maria Malik is a communication coach, speaker, author, and founder of The Introverted Speaker. With an audience of more than 250,000 LinkedIn followers, she helps professionals overcome communication fears, develop executive presence, and build authentic authority. Her Speaker Authority Method combines mindset work, communication skills, and practical exercises to help people become more confident and influential. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Maria describes her origin story: being quiet, repeatedly told to speak up, and using LinkedIn to reframe what “introvert” really means. She explains why the “scripted life” feels tempting and what it takes to break out, especially when culture and expectations push you elsewhere. Maria teaches fear as the core issue, including seven fear types, and how naming and practicing dismantles it. She shares her Speaker Authority Method: Phase 1 mindset and fears, Phase 2 delivery and body language, Phase 3 presence and energy. 💡 Key Takeaways Introverts don’t need to become extroverts to be powerful. Quiet confidence and deep listening can lead. Fear has multiple forms. Identifying which one shows up for you makes targeted action possible. Confidence improves through structure (like PRI: point, reason, impact) and repeated practice with feedback. The hardest work is internal: when mindset shifts, body language and presence get easier. ❓ Questions That Mattered How did Maria realize introversion was being treated like a problem, and how did that become her mission? What keeps people stuck in a “scripted life,” and what internal tension is involved in breaking out? If someone panics when they’re called on, what should they do in their nervous system, specifically in the first minutes? How can introverts scale from “knowing what to say” to actually speaking well in the moment? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “You don't have to be magically an extrovert to communicate well.” “Before you get up on stage, start that clock early.” “We focus so much on the self… we forget there’s an audience there.” “Phase one is always the most difficult. That’s where we go into fears.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Maria Malik on LinkedIn Check out Maria’s Website: The Introverted Speaker Quiet by Susan Cain
#261
Wednesday · 1 hr 20 min
261: Katie Morell: "Here's Why AI Won't Ever Replace Excellent Journalism"
Katie Morell’s “origin story” starts with being encouraged to journal by her Mom, then grew into going to journalism school at Michigan State, a detour into PR, a breakthrough into freelancing writing, and then finally where she is now, sitting at the helm of a boutique executive consultancy. We talk about how curiosity and strong questions translate into business impact, why AI changes the vehicle not the value, and why in-person off-sites create real energy, attention, and cohesion. 👤 About the Guest Katie Morell is a strategic facilitator and executive advisor who helps leadership teams break circular debates and leave with clear plans. After 20 years as a journalist interviewing executives and founders, she now designs strategy sessions, off-sites, and executive roundtables for clients like Meta, Prezi, and Nextiva. She’s based in Bend, Oregon and co-leads a peer group for Bend-based business organization called Opportunity Knocks. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Journalism as a mindset: curiosity, diligence, and asking questions people do not want to answer Her career pivot: income anxiety after journalism school, then freelancing and a bridge into consulting and advising Transferable skills for business: how facilitation blends interviewing with “holding space” and reading room energy Why in-person off-sites still win: attention, body language, cohesion, and leader buy-in 💡 Key Takeaways Curiosity plus doubt beats jaded certainty. The goal is to ask questions that make people pause and think. Journalism skills travel: critical thinking and investigative habits work inside strategy, leadership, and teams. AI may commoditize writing, but excellent research, fact-checking, and judgment still matter. In-person matters when it’s intentional: leaders set the tone, distractions are reduced, and energy changes outcomes. ❓ Questions That Mattered How do you maintain conviction without getting captured by your own viewpoint? What makes a “good question” in facilitation, and how do you create space for input from others? Is journalism best seen as a W2 job, or as a transferable skill set and mindset? What will AI change in writing and journalism, and what will it not replace? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Journalists can’t do a good job without a million percent curiosity.” “In person you can tell people’s body language.” “The vehicle has changed, the journalists haven’t.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Katie Morell on LinkedIn Check out Katie's Website The Human Connection Study by Jason Lauritsen
#260
Tuesday · 55 min
260: "Practical Use Cases for ChatGPT's Dots" ft. Justin Coats
Erik and Justin catch up on how voice-first AI agents like Dots (Q) are changing daily execution, then zoom out to the real adoption gap. They unpack why many MSPs and businesses are hesitant, what incentives are missing, and why the next wave is about layered context, specialization, and human guidance at scale. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Erik demonstrates “Q” as a voice agent: drafting emails, building decks, creating shared folders, and even researching and scaffolding a repeatable pre/post survey system. Justin explains how their agent setup uses specialized sub-agents, cloud virtual machines, and strict approval guardrails so the agent can work without going rogue. They debate the real risk conversation: AI is reducing button-clicking work, but raising the value of taste, quality, and domain judgment, often creating demand for experts and fractionals. Justin shares what he heard at an MSP/IT conference: most providers are not training teams on AI or supporting customers, mostly because the forcing functions are not yet landing. 💡 Key Takeaways Voice agents are most valuable when you already have structured communication in your history, because the agent learns your context and style from that access. Effective prompting often means going deep in context (layering information), not trying to “be clever” in the prompt. AI lowers the cost of high-quality execution for the long tail of businesses, which shifts work from “who can click” to “who knows what good looks like.” Adoption isn’t blocked by lack of interest. It is blocked by missing business incentives and lack of support infrastructure, especially among MSPs that lack training and a clear adoption roadmap. ❓ Questions That Mattered How much context can you reliably articulate to an agent, and how much does the agent need access to your real communication history to succeed? When businesses say they are “not doing anything with AI,” what are they actually missing that would create a real forcing function? Will AI replace professionals, or does it mostly reallocate work toward higher judgment and specialized expertise? How should teams standardize agent behavior so work stays secure, consistent, and scalable across staff and systems? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Three weeks in AI time is like it’s been a year.” “Dots has access to my email… She sees every form of communication I have and hears it all.” “Nearly every single one of them said I’m not doing anything with AI. My team has not had training.” “The value of the human button clicking has gone down. What’s gone up is the value of quality, of style.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen To Other Episodes Co-Hosted With Justin
#259
November 6 · 8 min
259: "How Much of Your Potential do You Leave Unexplored?" (Reflections On Tony Dina)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik treats this as a short, experimental “recap episode,” and you can feel him steering the listener back to the core questions he keeps returning to: what parts of himself people are unconsciously running, what parts they admire without owning, and what it means to build environments that make honest expression possible. He also lingers on the AI thread with a grounded, human-first lens. The tech is useful, but it does not replace the lived experience of decision, relationship, and meaning. The fact that this version is a digital replication of his voice turns his reflection into a meta-echo 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview The golden shadow idea: admiration can point to an inner quality that is present but not fully expressed. “If you spot it, you got it” becomes a prompt to investigate what you actually want for yourself. “Being found” reframes recognition as a duty to help the right people locate your gifts, not a bid for status. AI can support reflection and pattern-finding, but it cannot have lived experience, feelings, or desires in the human way 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik admits his admiration for a specific archetype of audacity, using it as a mirror rather than a scoreboard. He clarifies that resonance is not automatic proof that you already possess the same level of courage, but it is a useful data point about what you may be avoiding. He also contrasts “telling someone to express fear” with creating an environment that makes expression safe, which sounds like both leadership advice and self-compassion practice. Finally, the AI segment lands as a reminder that analysis is not the same thing as living. Even when tools help you see yourself more clearly,ï 🧰 From Insight to Action When you admire someone, write down the exact trait you are reacting to, then ask what version you want to develop. Audit your environment and expectations, including your own, and identify what makes honest expression feel risky. Choose visibility with purpose: focus on being findable so your work reaches the people it is meant for. Use AI as a reflective assistant, not a substitute for decisions you must still live through 🗣️ Notable Quotes “If you spot it, you got it.” “Being found was a sacred duty.” “It’s one thing to ask someone to speak up. It’s another thing to make it safe enough that they actually will.” “AI can generate language about those things, but he doesn’t believe that means it’s experiencing them.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Tony Dina's Episode
#258
November 6 · 7 min
258: "Is it Safe to Be Honest In Your Workspace?" (Reflections On Henna Pryor)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik found himself coming back to a single thread: trust is no longer something people simply grant. It is something they actively manufacture through patterns, signals, and repeated experiences. This conversation with Henna Pryor landed because it connected “communication” to a deeper leadership job: creating environments where people can safely practice being honest, then showing their work enough that credibility survives increased skepticism and AI-made polish. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Birdsong leadership: safety is not a slogan, it is an atmosphere leaders consistently model. Social muscle atrophy: people have less practice with uncomfortable conversations, so leaders must build repetition. Trust is shifting toward verify-first discernment, so leaders need to expose reasoning, not just claim authority. Cheap signals lose impact in an AI era, so costly, transparent signals and leading with the con can outperform polished performance. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik recognized how easily leadership becomes wishful thinking. Many leaders say they want candor, but do not reliably create the conditions for it. He also felt the tension of modern credibility, where even great communication can look manufactured. The episode reminded him that trust is built through how leaders prepare people to speak and how they handle the uncomfortable truths first. 🧰 From Insight to Action Start small “practice reps” for hard conversations: add a short bad-idea brainstorm or a weekly “what didn’t go well” prompt to meetings. When presenting decisions, lead with the con: name the downside, tradeoffs, and friction upfront before others surface it. Show your work in plain language: explain how you arrived at the decision, including alternatives you considered and why you chose what you chose. Use costly honesty intentionally: avoid pretending effort or originality you did not have, and consider human signals like a quick call or voicemail when the message matters. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Leaders have to chirp louder.” “Verify first, and then decide whether to trust.” “The person who names it first builds the trust.” “If a solution costs more… say that.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Henna Pryor's Episode
#257
November 5 · 1 hr 17 min
257: Tony Dina: "The Empty Feeling After The Title And The Money"
Tony Dina shares how his shift from CTO work into Jungian depth coaching led him to a central belief: when you rush toward answers, metrics, and momentum, you lose human judgment, creativity, and meaning. Using dreams, shadow work, and “sitting with the mystery,” he explores what it takes to reclaim purpose in careers shaped by AI. 👤 About the Guest Tony Dina is a Jungian depth coach and founder of Crucial Canvas. After nearly 30 years in technology leadership, including roles at Dell in AI and data analytics, he now helps high-performing leaders reclaim judgment, creativity, and meaning. His coaching blends depth psychology, archetypal thinking, and dreamwork, with a focus on how to avoid treadmill living and re-enter purpose. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Tony connects art training and CTO communication: decomposing complexity and translating it into business meaning. He explains Jungian depth work through triggers and shadow integration, including the “golden shadow” of what we admire in others. Dreams are treated as a symbolic “learning loop” and a way the psyche reconciles liminal life transitions. He challenges AI fear by arguing AI can scaffold ideas, but it lacks lived experience, unconscious depth, and desire. 💡 Key Takeaways Human purpose is easier to access when you slow down long enough to hear what your unconscious is trying to tell you. Shadow work is not just about fixing “negative traits,” but reclaiming the full range of parts you were conditioned to suppress. The ego resists growth by generating stories, but discomfort can be a signal to sit with rather than escape. Legacy is not only what’s built with your name, but the chain of meaning and values that came before you and continues after you. ❓ Questions That Mattered Where is the edge where “I’m ready for this” becomes the real question underneath career change? What happens to your life when you stop acting: what stays in motion when you stop trying to perform? How do you balance urgency and empathy so the “dial” matches the moment? When AI accelerates answers, what happens to your identity and your human judgment? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Money looks good, title’s there, and yet there’s this empty feeling inside.” “When we find our edges is we find where our true humanity is.” “The dreams are just buoys in the ocean of where to go.” “The minute we lock into what the chalice meant, then we’ve already decided what the story was.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Tony Dina on LinkedIn Check out Tony’s Website The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell Red Book by Carl Jung The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch
#256
November 4 · 47 min
256: Henna Pryor: "Building Trust In The Verification Era Through Signals"
Henna Pryor traces her path from Big Four auditing to executive search to keynote and best-selling books, sparked by a desire to move the needle for leaders, not just check boxes. We explore “social muscle atrophy,” the new “verification era,” and why leaders must build trust through “costly signals” and proactive honesty. 👤 About the Guest Henna Pryor, CSP is an award-winning author and keynote speaker with a background at a $2B executive search firm. She helps leaders navigate influence, believability, and workplace communication. Her new book, The Signal Gap, is out November 10. 🧭 Conversation Highlights How auditing taught Henna to seek advisory impact, leading to a decade-and-a-half of studying human communication and workplace dynamics The “social muscle atrophy” idea: people avoid hard conversations because they lack low-stakes practice Trust in the “verification era” is shifting from trust first to verify first, driven by bigger comparison sets and signal gaps Leaders should “chirp louder” and lead with the con, so teams can verify reality and still feel safe 💡 Key Takeaways Modern work systems reduce everyday practice for difficult conversations, so people stall at the moment stakes rise. Trust now depends less on intent and more on believability signals, which are easy to counterfeit cheaply. Costly signals build credibility when AI and speed make “polish” look suspicious. High standards still work, but leaders must show the trade-offs, risks, and math behind the decision. ❓ Questions That Mattered Where did Henna’s first spark of thought leadership come from, and how did she turn it into a career? How do leaders address social muscle atrophy without shaming employees? What changed culturally and technologically to create the “verification era”? How can leaders earn trust when people actively verify before they believe? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “In audit, you’re checking their work to make sure it’s correct or incorrect. I didn’t want to live in that definition.” “Birds only sing when there are no predators around… leaders need to chirp louder.” “We have moved from trust than verify to verify than trust.” “Polish is cheap, therefore polish has become suspicious.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Henna Pryor on LinkedIn Check out Henna’s Website: thesignalgap.com Pre-Order Henna’s Book ‘The Signal Gap’ here Read Chapter 1 for Free here
#255
October 30 · 8 min
255: "Are You Communicating Accurately Or Just Assuming You’re Heard?" (Reflections On Molly Tschang)
🧠 Erik’s Take This short review mattered because it challenged a habit Erik has seen in leadership and in himself: focusing on what’s being said while ignoring whether the other person is willing and able to participate. He feels Molly’s lens cut through the “better communication will fix everything” storyline. What stuck is the shift from persuasive accuracy to relational conditions, where honest exchange depends on both a speaker’s skill and a listener’s openness. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Communication is not just about accuracy, it is about being heard, in the moment, by the person in front of you. You can build skill, but you still cannot force participation, alignment, or value from the other side. Organizations often mistake shared access to data for an accurate shared reality that includes human experience. A simple pivot like asking what the other person is hearing can reveal misalignment before decisions get made. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik keeps returning to his own pre-departure corporate meeting story, where his intention to “charge the hill” collided with the reality that his boss could not receive what he was trying to express. He recognizes that even when he recruits allies and feels energized, he still has to do the slower work of translating intent into something the other person can actually take in. He also sees how easy it is to invest energy into being understood, without first being clear about Me. 🧰 From Insight to Action After important conversations, ask: “What are you hearing?” Then clarify what’s off before moving to decisions. Run a quick “deserves you” check: is this a difficult conversation that can be had, or an environment that is consistently unwilling to engage? Practice Me You We as a pre-frame: clarify values and feelings (Me), genuinely take in their experience (You), then name what you can build together (We). When teams rely on tools for shared truth, also create space for shared reality by surfacing both facts and lived experience, explicitly. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “You can't defy gravity.” “Communication requires participation from both sides.” “Having access to the same information isn't necessarily the same thing as having an accurate, shared understanding.” “When you've explained something important, stop and ask the other person what they're hearing.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Molly Tschang's Episode
#254
October 30 · 8 min
254: "Engagement Vs Connection: Why One Comes After The Other" (Reflections On Jason Lauritsen)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik reflects on how the conversation with Jason Lauritsen landed because it challenges a very familiar leadership pattern: treating “connection” like something that happens after work starts, rather than something leaders design before performance expectations are set. What stuck is the inversion. If connection drives motivation, then building relationships and meaning is not a soft add-on. It is upstream management. Erik also feels the discomfort of how often leaders measure what is easy to measure, then run out of space to do what actually creates momentum. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Connection should be treated as upstream of performance, not a byproduct of working well together. Highly connected employees reported 6.7x more motivation, suggesting the conditions for motivation can be intentionally created. Engagement is the degree to which people are willing and able to perform now, while connection can shape engagement before the results show up. Organizational resonance, the link between purpose and day-to-day work, correlated most strongly with outcomes and is least frequently experienced. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik contrasts his own instincts about management with what the research implies. He admits he has often thought in calendars and deliverables first, then hoped relationships would grow “along the way.” This episode reframed that hope into a leadership responsibility. It also surfaces a tension: Erik agrees that connection takes intention, not necessarily more time, but he recognizes how hard it is for leaders to show up differently without adding a new task list. The uncomfortable part is realizing the work may be less about doing more and more about doing the same things with different depth 🧰 From Insight to Action Rework one recurring leadership touchpoint (check-in, 1:1, team meeting) to include a deliberate connection prompt and a clearer intention. Audit how the organization connects purpose to execution: ask whether people can explain how their work advances direction, not just what the mission says. Experiment with small practices that target connection types: a question of the day for interpersonal connection and specific shoutouts for recognition. When engagement is low or flat, shift the question from “How do we raise scores?” to “What conditions are we failing to create that would increase motivation and willingness?” 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Maybe it isn’t something we do after we’ve taken care of the important business activities. Maybe it itself is one of the important business activities.” “Engagement is largely a trailing indicator. It tells you how people feel about the experience they’ve already had.” “Connection gives us something we can work on to improve what happens next.” “Most organizations have some version of a mission, vision, or values, but employees often don’t have a meaningful connection between those words and what they actually do every day.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Jason Lauritsen's Episode
#253
October 29 · 1 hr 7 min
253: Molly Tschang: "When Crickets Win: Why 'No One Speaks Up' Kills Execution"
Erik and Molly dive into the real skill behind “speaking up” and why organizations fail: they don’t have an accurate shared reality—essential to actually make the best decisions, execute, and deliver great outcomes. Molly shares a simple, flexible framework that all professionals can apply: “Me–You–We” and explains how leaders and teams can create mutual understanding, hear tough truths, and turn communication into trust and faster execution. 👤 About the Guest Molly Tschang is a founder of Abella Ventures and Say It Skillfully. With 80+ M&A experiences at Cisco and US Filter, she helps senior teams “Win as One.” Through Say It Skillfully, she teaches people at every level how to communicate with clarity, compassion, and confidence. She co-authored Say It Skillfully: Speak Up, Make Your Words Matter, Win Together and is a TEDx speaker and podcast host. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Molly’s origin: shyness, then noticing how silence creates disconnect and friction across organizations. “Accurate shared reality” as the foundation for decisions, speed, and execution, built by skillful speech and mutual hearing. Skillful means both content and delivery, with positive intention, curiosity, and a focus on hard facts. Leaders choose how to create receptivity: culture starts at the top, and communication capability must be built, not assumed. 💡 Key Takeaways Accurate shared reality is not about tools; it requires human participation and skillful communication. The Me–You–We framework to skillfully use your voice involves 1) dropping ego/emotion in your way and setting your intention, 2) walking in the other’s shoes with empathy and connecting as human beings, and 3) best serving the whole, be that a couple, team, or entire organization. Trust grows when leaders make it part of everyone’s job to surface information, including the “unpopular”, as in the tough feedback or bad news. AI can accelerate work, but organizations still need to teach communication so change is understood and adopted. ❓ Questions That Mattered What does “skillful” actually mean when your message could be heard differently than you intend? How do teams stop being stuck in opinions and instead bubble up the hard facts that drive decisions? When leaders say they want input, but decisions are already made, how should the system be communicated transparently? How should organizations talk to employees about AI and prevent confusion from becoming a new shared disconnect? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “An accurate shared reality is about being on the same page about the hard facts, AND the human experience.” “You don’t need to run around and try to unearth what everyone’s thinking, if your people to realize it’s their job to be speaking up.” “People complain about self-interest, and the reason they get away with it is because no one says anything.” “When you say it skillfully, the people around you rise—and so do you.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Molly Tschang on LinkedIn Check out Molly’s Website ‘Say It Skillfully’ Explore the Me-You-We Framework
#252
October 28 · 1 hr 31 min
252: Jason Lauritsen: "Connection as the #1 Performance Booster in the Workspace"
Erik and Jason Lauritsen dig into what “connection” really means at work, what drives it, and how it translates into motivation, performance, and retention. Jason shares findings from the Human Connection Study, including why “resonance” with purpose can matter more than human-to-human rapport. 👤 About the Guest Jason Lauritsen is CEO of Connected Performance Group and an advisor to leaders who refuse to choose between results and people. He developed Connected Performance Systems and helped publish the Human Connection Study, based on 286,000+ employee responses across 1,600+ organizations. He also authored Unlocking High Performance and speaks on cultivating high performance through connection. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Connection is defined as meaningful engagement with something that matters to the person, not merely relationships The study found two distinct types of connection, with resonance connection showing stronger correlation to performance outcomes Connection acts as a leading indicator for motivation and engagement, while engagement is more of a trailing indicator Organizational resonance and manager skills are key levers, and the “fully on-site” group reported the lowest connection 💡 Key Takeaways If you want impact, focus on moving people from moderately connected to highly connected, not obsessing over the most disconnected group Investing in connection is a cultivation shift, not a short-term tactic, and it can be implemented in everyday management moments Engagement and connection are related but not the same, and connection is upstream of engagement Physical proximity does not automatically create connection, so leaders must design connection conditions intentionally ❓ Questions That Mattered What is connection, really, and how do you measure it without assuming you already know? Why does the data show non-human-to-human “resonance” can drive work outcomes more strongly? What should leaders stop doing, and what should they reprioritize, to make connection possible at work? How can managers hold people accountable without breaking trust or turning accountability into fear? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Connection is an experience of meaningful engagement with something that matters to you.” “Connection seems to be more of a leading indicator… engagement is on the output.” “It’s not an argument for remote work, it’s just evidence that physical proximity does not automatically create the conditions that connection requires.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Jason Lauritsen on LinkedIn Check out Jason’s Website Reach out to Jason via email at jason@jasonlauritsen.com Download the Human Connection Study Report The Future of Management by Gary Hamel
#250
October 23 · 8 min
250: "Are You Solving the Right Bottleneck with AI?" (Reflections On Drew Mehta)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik treats this episode as a strategy debrief, not a tech demo. The part that stayed with him is that AI adoption often fails when businesses chase automation before they diagnose the real bottleneck. He also reflects on how consulting handoffs, while efficient at scale, break down for founder-led companies. That framing leads to his bigger, more vulnerable point: leadership change is about redesigning work without accidentally taking away the experiences people need to grow, make judgment calls, and build trust. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Smaller businesses should resist the “separate strategist and implementer” consulting model and instead look for enough generalist depth to solve the problem end-to-end. AI value shows up as one of three outcomes: increase revenue, decrease costs, or improve quality, and “saving time” is often only a mechanism. Before automating, businesses should ask what actually blocks performance, then check whether people, processes, or existing tools are the real constraint. Resistance to AI is frequently not fear of technology but grief over lost inefficiencies that people have come to equate with their value and identity. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik recognizes a tension he sees in himself and in others: it is easy to get excited about the capability of tools and forget to measure whether the whole system improves. He also hears a leadership warning in the examples: if AI speeds up communication and decisions, the organization must still preserve the human situations where leaders learn. In his view, the goal is not to remove friction everywhere, but to remove the wrong friction so people can spend more time on judgment, relationships, and meaningful work. 🧰 From Insight to Action Audit one business process end-to-end to find where time is actually lost, and verify whether AI reduces the true bottleneck or just compresses the visible steps. Replace “strategy then implementation” thinking with a forward-deployed approach where a single person can understand the business problem and build the solution. Prioritize AI only after diagnosing people and process constraints, including whether training, role design, or feature adoption is the missing piece. Communicate the human “why” of changes: explain how automation will shift value toward judgment and growth, and protect the feedback and trust-building moments leaders need. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “The goal isn't to implement more AI. It's to build better businesses.” “Saving time isn't necessarily the outcome. It's one of the mechanisms that gets you there.” “The person who understands the problem can increasingly be the person who solves it.” “Efficiency and development aren't necessarily the same thing.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Drew Mehta's Episode
#251
October 23 · 9 min
251: "The Best Leadership Fix Is Focusing On The Fundamentals" (Reflections On Michael Summers)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik framed the episode as a leadership question, not a political one: how to lead people who genuinely disagree without losing the thread of what actually matters. He kept coming back to a quiet but demanding discipline, holding convictions while staying curious enough to notice what his own first instincts miss. He also noticed how often organizations confuse novelty for progress, especially in education, and how that pattern can steal attention from fundamentals like reading, math, and attendance. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Michael’s school-improvement philosophy centers on fundamentals and individual student support, not chasing constant new initiatives. The goal “make school board meetings boring again” signals a shift from show to outcomes, so educators can do their work. Political tension can function as quality control in purple districts, forcing negotiation and better information into decisions. Bridge-building starts with interrupting reaction and choosing curiosity, treating frustration as a signal that something important is missing. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik connected Michael’s approach to his own parenting and leadership instincts. As a dad, he wants the basics handled well before layering on more priorities, and he sees the same pattern in organizations that feel compelled to announce change rather than prove improvement. He also reflected on how easy it is to treat disagreement as dysfunction, when it may actually be a system feature. The most personally resonant contrast was Michael’s ability to disagree firmly without turning people into enemies, based on how you treat others when you do not need their agreement. 🧰 From Insight to Action Audit the “fundamentals first” layer: list the outcomes you claim to care about, then check whether your current initiatives reliably support them. Create a standing practice for disagreement: ask what tension might be protecting from a bad decision, and invite the opposing view to contribute evidence. Adopt a curiosity interruption habit when triggered: pause, assume you are missing something, and ask one sincere question before defending your position. Strengthen trust through fair process: treat minority voices with real seriousness now, not only when you are guaranteed to win. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “The board’s job isn’t necessarily to be the center of attention.” “Make school board meetings boring again.” “Disagreement can operate as a quality-control mechanism.” “When somebody reacts in a way that doesn’t make sense to him, he tries to remind himself, ‘I’m missing something.’” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Michael Summers's Episode
#249
October 22 · 1 hr 28 min
249: Michael Summers: "Can You Run for Office Without Becoming a Walking Controversy?"
Michael Summers shares how he went from professional musician and third-generation business owner to a politics-and-education leader, and why his north star is replacing fear with wisdom. From school board chairing during COVID to running for Oregon House District 53, he argues that bridge-building, disciplined priorities, and the “main thing” mindset can help communities disagree well and deliver better outcomes. 👤 About the Guest Michael Summers is a Central Oregon business owner and community leader with deep ties to Redmond. Before politics, he played drums professionally and has led a third-generation flooring business. He chaired the Redmond School Board through COVID, focusing on consensus, “science of reading,” attendance, and student outcomes. He and his wife, Ally, raise four daughters and he is now a candidate for 🧭 Conversation Highlights How politics often rewards fear and incentives instead of wisdom, and why he treats fear as a warning light Bridge-building as a practice: curiosity, treating people as whole humans, and protecting relationships Why “purple” participation and moderation can improve legislation, not weaken it What worked at Redmond Schools: keep the main thing the main thing, focus on math and reading, and improve attendance through knowing every student 💡 Key Takeaways Fear can be useful as a warning, but it should not drive decisions Disagreement is healthy when opponents feel heard and champions are in the ring Education gains come from basics, focus, and accountability, not culture-war distractions Integrated leadership means boundaries, delegation, and bringing your family into the mission in meaningful ways ❓ Questions That Mattered What does it actually feel like to notice fear in the moment and choose wisdom instead? What is the root cause of people’s sense that politics is “rigged” against good faith? How do you tactically maintain curiosity when emotions and assumptions are running hot? What specifically helped Redmond schools improve by keeping math and reading prioritized? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Fear is a warning… not there to drive the vehicle.” “Every man sounds correct until another man speaks.” “Let’s make school board meetings boring again.” “I wanna mess up the really nasty political system… get back to where we disagree and then go grab a beer.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Michael Summers on LinkedIn Check out Michael’s Website: electsummers.com The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt
#248
October 21 · 1 hr 21 min
248: Drew Mehta: "Why Most AI Projects Deliver Faster Garbage Instead Of Business Value"
Drew Mehta explains why so many “AI strategies” fail in practice, and why owner-operators need end-to-end workflow decomposition, not deck-first consulting. We dig into the difference between consultants and builders, the “garbage equation,” and why AI should be used to fix weeks-long process bottlenecks, not just minutes of work. 👤 About the Guest Drew Mehta is an AI and product builder with 20+ years of experience creating data, analytics, and AI products for Major League Baseball, KKR, and PepsiCo. He founded ThinkFraction to help small owner-operated businesses ship AI-enabled improvements by decomposing workflows, measuring impact, and pairing advisory with implementation and education. 🧭 Conversation Highlights How consulting incentives (deck deliverables, time and materials) can create a strategy-to-execution gap in enterprises Why AI “faster garbage” happens when leaders optimize the wrong thing, leaving queue time and handoffs untouched The emerging FDE (forward deployed engineer) mindset, and why AI makes that hybrid role more valuable. It’s basically what the technical product manager role has been at many firms for many years. New name, a few distinctions playing the same game. Leadership and learning: cheap signals get cheaper with AI, but trust and development still require real human feedback and mentorship 💡 Key Takeaways If AI only speeds up the minutes, but the process still takes weeks, you did not fix the problem. Consulting and building need different incentives: decks don’t equal shipped ROI. Decompose workflows first, then decide what to change across people, process, and technology. AI can force better self-diagnosis, but leadership still depends on high-quality human signals and feedback. ❓ Questions That Mattered Why do large companies so often split strategy from implementation, and how does that mismatch harm outcomes? What does it mean to avoid “the garbage equation” when adopting AI? How should owners and leaders think about governance vs guardrails when using AI with sensitive data? As AI cheapens communication signals, what becomes the risk to trust and leadership development? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Broken process plus AI equals faster garbage.” “If AI cuts the work from 60 minutes to 30 minutes, but it still takes 22 days, that’s the problem.” (Credit to CEO of Varick Agents) “The deliverable for a consultant is a deck. The builders ship and demonstrate quantifiable impact.” “A review is qualitative, not just quantitative.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Drew Mehta on LinkedIn Check out ThinkFraction’s Website
#249
October 16 · 6 min
247: Are You Building the Future, Or Just Getting Better at Running the Present? (Reflections on Shawn Busse)
Erik walked away from his conversation with Shawn Busse thinking less about technology itself and more about what it actually takes to create something new inside a business. Shawn described business as “the hardest art project ever,” and the idea stuck. Artists create through experimentation: they make something, react to it, change it, throw pieces away, and keep going. Businesses call those same behaviors prototyping, testing, iteration, and product-market fit. The tension is that businesses eventually become very good at doing something else: execution. They optimize processes, improve margins, create predictability, and protect what already works. Erik’s question coming out of the conversation is a provocative one: Have companies gotten so good at operating businesses that they’ve gotten worse at creating them? 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Creation and execution require different muscles. Optimization rewards consistency and predictability. Creation requires curiosity, taste, experimentation, and making decisions without complete information. Your org chart is a statement about power. Training, quality, R&D, innovation, brand, and other long-term capabilities can be called “strategic,” but their position in the organization reveals how much influence they actually have. Technological disruption isn't necessarily something you can wait out. Shawn contrasted recessions, where disciplined businesses may be able to preserve cash and ride out the cycle, with disruption like AI, where companies may have to innovate their way through it. Innovation needs multiple survivable bets. Don’t make a bet that kills the company if it fails. Make more than one bet. Learn what’s true before becoming overly committed. Outside perspective matters. Shawn’s memorable version: “Your mom might not be right.” Innovation needs people willing to tell you which ideas have legs—and which ones need to die. 🧩 The Personal Layer What Erik keeps returning to is the emotional difficulty of being wrong once you’re invested. It’s easy to say companies should test ideas and kill the ones that don’t work. It gets much harder after someone has spent money on the idea, attached their reputation to it, or publicly announced that it represents the future. At that point, learning has a social cost. That makes genuine experimentation as much a leadership challenge as an innovation challenge. Leaders need to create enough separation between “this idea failed” and “I failed” that people can respond to evidence instead of defending their identity. And there’s another tension: the people optimizing today’s machine and the people imagining tomorrow’s machine are doing fundamentally different work. As Erik puts it, the R&D lab can’t really live on the factory floor. Both functions matter—but forcing creation to follow the rules of optimization too early can kill promising ideas before the organization discovers what they could become. 🧰 From Insight to Action Look at your org chart as a map of power. Which capabilities actually influence strategy—not just appear in company messaging? Separate creation from optimization. Give experimentation enough room to operate before demanding the efficiency and predictability expected from mature operations. Build a portfolio of survivable bets. Instead of staking everything on one “big idea,” run smaller experiments that generate useful information without creating existential risk. Get comfortable killing ideas. Decide what evidence would cause you to stop an experiment before ego, money, and reputation become attached to it. Find someone who isn’t your mom. Build relationships with people who can challenge your assumptions without needing to protect your feelings or validate your ideas. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “Business is the hardest art project ever.” “An org chart isn’t just a reporting structure. It’s a statement about what has power.” “If the people with the most power are primarily responsible for protecting revenue, controlling cost, and keeping the existing machine running, it shouldn’t surprise us when the business gets very good at operating the present, but has trouble inventing the future.” “Agility isn’t just speed. It’s the ability to learn without putting the company at existential risk.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Shawn Busse's Episode
#248
October 14 · 1 hr
246: Shawn Busse: "The End Of Cheap Customer Acquisition Is Here. Now What?"
Shawn Busse argues that “growth marketing” hits an inherent ceiling when it becomes a commoditized, copyable process. He uses Hotelling’s law and the “Google beach” to explain why competitors converge, prices collapse, and differentiation fades. The antidote is creative, cross-functional marketing that also shapes product, pricing, and delivery. 👤 About the Guest Shawn Busse is the founder of Kinesis, a Portland growth studio helping businesses compete on creativity instead of conformity. A former sculptor and art professor, he later built businesses through making, teaching, and practicing creative problem-solving. His contrarian thesis: most companies over-rely on predictable channels and under-invest in true innovation. 🧭 Conversation Highlights Hotelling’s law: rational competition drives companies to converge on the same “middle beach,” especially in digital channels. Commoditization turns marketing effort into a race to the bottom; creativity and radically different value are harder to copy. Silos kill creativity: innovation requires collaboration across functions and top-level sponsorship. New opportunity emerges when the market becomes “ready” and technology catches up, making previously “unbuyable” ideas viable. 💡 Key Takeaways When a tactic becomes repeatable and widely accessible, it commoditizes and its value compresses. Differentiation must be product-level and delivery-level, not just messaging on existing channels. Creativity is a practice and a muscle, not a weekend workshop. Go-to-market and customer readiness matter as much as the idea itself. ❓ Questions That Mattered What happens to a product or process once it becomes commoditized and competitors converge? Where should marketers stop playing defense on the “Google beach” and move to a different field? How do companies build a sustainable creative practice without burning out or reverting to best-practice optimization? How do founders maintain flexibility and learn product-market fit early enough to avoid painful pivots? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “The job of marketing generally is to differentiate.” “The really sneaky part is that the number of beaches vavailable to customers is actually reducing.” “Creativity is done in collaboration and across functions.” “What has changed where there’s now opportunity and where the market aligns with you?” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Shawn Busse on LinkedIn Americana: A 400-Year History of Capitalism by Boo Srinivasan Great by Choice by Jim Collins Antifragile by Nassim Taleb
#245
October 9 · 6 min
245: "Treating Rejection as Information" (Reflections On Wanda J. Herndon)
🧠 Erik’s Take Erik frames this as a short, high-leverage review of his conversation with Wanda Herndon, using her career as a mirror for a recurring workplace pattern: people who are ready to grow run into organizations that only know how to say “no.” What stays with him is Wanda’s ability to treat rejection as information, not identity. He also leans into the nuance that her story is not a simple “leave when it’s hard” message. It asks harder questions about timelines, internal opportunity, and what companies owe when they actually see someone’s potential but fail to communicate a path forward. 🎯 Top Insights from the Interview Wanda’s stalled growth wasn’t a lack of ambition, but a failure of internal communication: the company valued her, yet withheld clarity about opportunities. She learned to hear “yes” in every “no,” without turning that into passive waiting forever; eventually, the yes had to come from somewhere else. When she joined Starbucks, she built what wasn’t there and made earned media tangible by showing the relationship work behind the story. Her book’s core idea lands as a leadership challenge: if you’re invited into the room, you already belong, and leaders must make belonging real through real contribution. 🧩 The Personal Layer Erik is struck by the contrast between how organizations interpret “readiness” and how individuals experience the same reality. Wanda’s perspective shows what it feels like when your performance is strong, but the doors inside the company stay locked without explanation. Erik recognizes that tension from his own leadership mindset: you can respect someone’s potential and still fail them by not translating that respect into concrete next steps. He also appreciates Wanda’s balance of gratitude and urgency, especially her warning that other people’s doubt can become your own conclusion if you let 🧰 From Insight to Action Audit your “no” signals: write down what you were denied, what you asked for, and what alternative growth path was offered or missing. Practice the Wanda filter: treat refusal as a data point, then decide a clear timeframe for trying internally before seeking opportunities elsewhere. If you lead, make belonging practical: explain why someone is in the room, name what success looks like, and give them ownership. Track earned media as behavior, not luck: identify who is doing the relationship work that creates attention and scale that system intentionally. 🗣️ Notable Quotes “If you’re invited into the room, you already belong.” “She kept making that ambition clear.” “Eventually, the yes had to come from somewhere else.” “That’s a pretty consequential failure to communicate.” 🔗 Links & Resources Listen to Wanda J. Herndon's Episode
#244
October 7 · 1 hr 3 min
244: Wanda J. Herndon: "What If Every 'No' Is Telling You to Find a 'Yes' Elsewhere?"
Wanda J. Herndon shares how her commitment to telling the truth guided her through corporate PR, and how she navigated being stifled by “sure things” in old-guard companies before helping build Starbucks into a global brand. Her memoir, *Working Class to Breaking Glass*, connects leadership, belonging, and resilience. 👤 About the Guest Wanda J. Herndon is an award-winning communications executive, author, and trailblazer. Best known as Starbucks’ first SVP of global communications, she rose through Dow Chemical, DuPont, and Starbucks, and authored the memoir Working Class to Breaking Glass. Raised in Flint, Michigan, she brings a working-class, race- and gender-aware perspective to leadership. 🧭 Conversation Highlights How “telling the truth” works in corporate PR: selective communication, but not lying Starbucks as a brand-building environment: from local growth goals to global culture learning “Never hear no” reframed: when the party’s over, pivot to “yes” elsewhere Resilience and belonging: claiming the seat, building networks, and lifting others as you climb 💡 Key Takeaways Truth can be both a personal ethic and a communications practice, especially when you’re asked hard questions Stifling can feel like inertia, but you can still design your next “yes” and keep moving Brand growth is also internal culture, messaging, and earned media partnerships Global communication demands nuance: directness must flex to the people and context in front of you ❓ Questions That Mattered Where did Wanda’s commitment to truth get tested, and how did she handle the tension? What did “no” sound like in the boardroom when her global aspirations were blocked? What does it mean to pivot from fighting for one path to finding “yes” on another? How do you adapt external messaging and tone across cultures while staying true to the brand? 🗣️ Notable Quotes “You can leave out certain aspects and decide on what you should communicate.” “I was never afraid of losing my job. I had plan B.” “You’re the CEO of me. I am in control, and I am going to see how many yeses I can get on the open market.” “If you’re invited into the room, you already belong. Don’t let anybody take that away from you.” 🔗 Links & Resources Follow Wanda J. Herndon on LinkedIn Check out Wanda’s Website Order Wanda’s Book ‘Working Class to Breaking Glass’

Showing 1–20 of 31 episodes