This episode is brought to you by Kettle and fire, do love me my Kettle and fire. I believe, I first heard about Kettle and fire when it was originally recommended to me by one of your favorites fan, favorite podcast guests and ketogenesis expert, among many other things. Dr. Dominic D'Agostino. So what is kettle on fire? Kellen fire offers premium bone broth made with bones from 100%, grass-fed and grass-finished, cows and organic free-range chickens. They can buy bones with Organic herbs and vegetables and filtered water and steel kettles.
And then the mixture is slow simmered for 14 plus hours at a hundred thirty degrees Fahrenheit to ensure that, as many nutrients collagen and amino acids as possible, are able to soak into the broth. And all that goodness is fantastic for supporting your gut health. Immune system, weight loss. You're fasting regimen, whatever it might be, and they make it extremely convenient, just heat and eat five minutes on the stovetop or one minute in the microwave. It's great as a snack. You can also sip it straight out of a mug or honestly, sometimes I just
But right out of the box, you can also add it as a flavor to recipes, and they sent me some eye-popping stats. It's pretty amazing. 24 million plus carton sold 25,000, plus five star reviews on Amazon and their own website two-year, shelf-life and zero preservatives added flavors, antibiotics, hormones, or colorings. And all of their brats are paleo keto friendly and Whole 30 approved. They're also my neighbors here in Austin, Texas, and I'm happy to support a local company. So check them out. You
Save 25% off of your order by going to Kettle and fire.com Tim that's spelled out. KET TL e a ND, F. IR, e.com, Tim and using Code Tim at checkout or more time. That's Kettle and fire.com, Tim and code. Tim at checkout.
This episode is brought to you by eight sleep. My God. Am I in love with eight sleep? Good. Sleep is the Ultimate Game Changer more than 30 percent of Americans struggle sleep. And I'm a member of that, sad group temperature is one of the main causes of poor sleep, and heat has always been my Nemesis. I've suffered for decades tossing and turning throwing blankets off, putting them back on and repeating Ad nauseam, but now, I am falling asleep in record time, faster than ever. Why? Because I'm using a simple device called.
The Pod Pro cover by a to sleep. It's the easiest. And fastest way to sleep at the perfect temperature, it pairs Dynamic cooling and heating with biometric tracking to offer the most advanced but most user-friendly Solution on the market. I pulled. All of you guys on social media, about the best tools for Sleep, enhancing sleep. And eat sleep, was by far and away the crowd favorite. I mean, people were just raving fans of this, so I used it in here we are.
Add the Pod Pro cover to your current mattress and start sleeping as cool as 55 degrees Fahrenheit or as hot as a hundred and ten degrees Fahrenheit. It also splits your bed in half. So your partner can choose a totally different temperature. My girlfriend runs hot all the time. She doesn't need cooling. She loves the Heat and we can have our own bespoke temperatures on either side, which is exactly what we're doing now for me. And for many people, the result eight sleep users fall asleep up to 32 percent faster, reduce sleep interruptions by up.
40% and get more restful sleep. Overall. I can personally attest to this because I track it in all sorts of ways. It's the total solution for enhanced recovery. So you can take on the next day. Feeling refreshed. And now my dear listeners. That's you guys, you can get 250 dollars off of the Pod Pro cover. That's a lot. Simply go to eight, sleep.com Tim or use code Tim. That's a tall. Spelled out TIG HT, sleep.com, Tim or use coupon code.
Code Tim TI m 8 sleep.com Tim for 250 dollars off your pod Pro cover
this altitude. I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start shaking another organism living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
Hello, boys and girls, ladies and germs, this is Tim Ferriss and welcome to another episode of the Tim Ferriss show. My guest. Today is General Stanley, a McChrystal who is General McChrystal? A transformational leader with a remarkable record of achievement General Stanley. A McChrystal was called quote, one of America's greatest warriors and quote by Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates having held leadership and staff positions in the Army, Special Forces Army Rangers, 82nd Airborne Division, the 18th Army Airborne Corps and
Joint staff and Crystal became commander of jsoc in 2003, responsible for leading the nation's deployed military counterterrorism efforts around the globe. His leadership is credited with the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein and the 2006 locating and killing of Abu, musab al-zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda and Iraq in June, 2009, McChrystal received his fourth star and assumed command of all International forces in Afghanistan General. McChrystal founded the McChrystal group in January, 2011 advisory.
As his firm that helps businesses challenge, the hierarchical command and control approach to organizational management. He is a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs where he teaches a course on leadership and he is the author of the best-selling leadership books. My share of the task a memoir team of teams, new rules of engagement for a complex world, and leaders myth and reality. His newest book is risk subtitle. A user's guide. You can find him online at McChrystal group.com. That is MC CHR.
Is tal group.com and you can also find the microphone podcast which started last year, and that is called no turning back. General, McChrystal. Welcome back to the show. It's good to see you sir. Tim. Please call me Stan and it's a pleasure. I am so thrilled to have you back on. This is I think round 3, if we count the follow-up Q&A episode and a tremendous amount has happened, both in the world and in both of our
Our Lives since we last spoke and I wanted to start with Afghanistan and I'm looking at a paragraph that I pulled from an older interview. This is from the financial times with you and you were giving a tour, I believe of your home to the journalist, and you pointed out a map. And you said, this is a hand-drawn map of Kabul by British officers from 1842. This is the route. They took to jalalabad one guy made it out of 15,000. I keep it on my desk in Afghanistan as a
Under, let's not be too sanguine. And I wanted to begin with the current day. Everyone is seeing so much news about Afghanistan, and I can only look at it personally, through the lens of a lay person with very minimal, understanding having never been there. What do you see? When you look at recent events, if I made ask such a broad question, I think naturally I look at it. Probably two ways.
I look at it emotionally because I see our opponent, the Taliban now running the country, and of course already there are indications that their regime is going to be very difficult on parts of the country, particularly females, but we'll wait and see how that develops over time. And then I also look at it as someone who has been involved, at least in the military part of foreign policy. And so I ask myself. What is it mean going forward? The first thing I'd say is though, people always ask me.
About what's in the rearview mirror and they say, why did it come this way? And so, I'll touch on that and I'll say that there's a temptation to oversimplify to find out the critical mistake the wrong decision, the evil, policymaker, the unaccepted reality and that sort of the graveyard of Empires and to say, this is why it didn't come out the way we wanted it to. And I think that when we do that, we do two things, one, we
Miss many other factors, but we also let ourselves off the hook. I personally don't believe that Afghanistan in what we tried after 2001 was impossible. I don't believe that the Taliban were 10 feet tall. I've seen too many up close to believe that what I believe is. In fact, many of the things that failed us.
Was us, it was our weaknesses and putting together a coherent, well, coordinated, effort over time. And sometimes that involved, mistakes and decision, making or half-hearted policies, but often it was just not being able to make the team of teams work, and that's frustrating because someone goes to the doctor and wants to know why they're suffering a certain pay normality.
And the doctor says, well, you're in poor health. You smoke too much. You drink too much. You don't sleep, you don't work out. You got all these things correct, those. And many of these other things will not happen and yet, we don't like that advice. We'd rather say, well, here's the pill or the procedure. I will do to solve that problem. And so I think Afghanistan was as much a case of us needing to look in the mirror and say, why do we struggle with big efforts like that as anything else?
What do you think it means? Looking forward when you're looking out the windshield? Instead of at the rearview mirror actually, think the implications are quite large Tim. And the first is our nation's inability to do, big things like this. It will undermine our confidence to take on efforts and maybe we there many, we shouldn't. But there may be some, we should and yet we will be averse to doing that because
we will lack the confidence in our ability to pull things together and execute. Well, maybe the other side of that coin is the world will look at us that way. Most people of my generation who were born after the second world war, enjoyed a very distinct environment for our nation, where people may disagree with things the United States did, but there was this extraordinary respect for our capability in many cases for our
I think that has worn thin. I think in fact, we can't assume we have the same level of credibility walking into any situation that we did even a few years ago. We will have to rebuild that credibility over time and it will it will take a significant effort. Thank you for answering that it's been on my mind and a number of my friends who are veterans have texted with me about the events, which have been very disheartening to many people who
Who served? So I really am grateful for you, shedding some light on your perspectives since it would be only guesswork on my part. Let's jump straight to it. And I do this very rarely. I very rarely jump to the new book. Usually, there's a lot of background we have, though, had previous conversations. We've talked a lot, about your history of talked about everything, from your one meal, a day, policy to for yourself, not for everyone else, to exercise to training and will perhaps referring
Back to some of those. And in fact, I'll start with a reflection. I was looking back at a recap of our first-ever conversation on the podcast and I asked you and this will tie into risk, I think, because most things tie into risk in some fashion. I asked you, how you would Train 100 athletes to become as my team, put it here soldiers and the athletic part was simply to check off the box of sort of physical prerequisites and the
Answer as it was paraphrased for me, here. Is that given that they have all the basic technical skills, you would push them in endurance, live-fire training and in making decisions with incomplete information decisions through which they would be forced into bad outcomes and have to deal with those bad outcomes. And that last portion is extremely interesting to me because certainly, the last year, has highlighted how difficult it is for most people, if not all people in some sort.
Stances to make decisions with incomplete information. And I spent a lot of time thinking about risk and mitigating risk and even just defining risk. So, could you maybe start with how you define or think about risk and why write an entire book called risk, a user's guide? I hit a point in my life. I'm 67 now, where much of my life I had been experiencing risk trying to deal with it trying.
Trying to mitigate it in some cases, trying to avoid it in other cases.
And watching other leaders, do the same. And I came to the conclusion. We don't do it very well. We've never really done it very well. We had matrices and calculations that we used, but the end of the day, most of the decisions were pretty subjective and they weren't made on data. They were made on sometimes experience and sometimes just we'll call it good feel and our outcomes were uneven at best and
I came to the conclusion that the greatest risk that we face is in fact, us.
If we're worried about the risks in the world, we should go look in the mirror because most of the other risks we can't do anything about. They are external risks, that will inevitably emerge, they will be impossible to predict with great clarity in either in the timing or exact nature of them, but we can absolutely be confident that they will show up and they will impact us. And unless we're extraordinarily fortunate or Nimble. We won't Dodge them complete. They will be impacted by the
Them in some way. And we will have to make decisions based on that. And so, when I talked about preparing athletes to be a team, a world-class team or to be soldiers in combat, I start with the absolute assumption that risks will emerge, that will be have to be dealt with, and the impact of those risks will be at first unclear, two people, but they will have to make decisions in the moment that in themselves, carry risk. And
I mean is there's a risk emerging? Making a decision carries risk as well. It carries reputational risk. It carries potential costs. A leader in combat, often has to decide to do things, which may carry significant cost in casualties from their Force. Now, the desire is to wait until you have perfect information so that you don't do something that turns out to be an effective. But, of course, we all know that not making or delaying a decision, is it?
Decision in itself and carries its own risks. Unfortunately, we have habits which often say that the person who actively makes a decision and goes a certain direction and has a bad outcome or it is costly is held accountable. But someone who does it make decisions, we don't hold them to the same account. We sort of say, well, they didn't make decisions and so they're not really responsible. I found in the counter-terrorist world. We used to get opportunities arise.
And you call it a certain terrorist would be located somewhere and we have the opportunity to arrest or to Target them and we have to get a decision. And some of those decisions would have to go all the way up to the highest levels of DC. And so, what you do is you go to decision makers and went through a series of levels and often partway through that. Some decision-maker bureaucrat in the system would go, well. Let me ask a couple questions. How much wood can a woodchuck chuck.
I go. What are you talking about there? No woodchucks in this and they'd say, well, I need to have more information before I can approve it. And so we'd go back and we'd find out how much would a woodchuck. Could say we come back by that time the opportunity had passed. And what happened was that decision maker would then look at me and say damn it Stan. I wanted to improve that you need to come better prepared, so I can approve it and what they had really done is they hadn't accepted the risk of approving a mission, they have
Accepted the responsibility for disapproving. They'd sidestepped it and they'd had the effect of preventing Us in doing anything. And I don't know how many different permutations of that. I've seen, But the idea that we want to mitigate risk to zero before we Act is really common and really costly. It was was looking back at the notes from that first episode of that, I mentioned.
And the second part to that answer a bit later on with respect to the hypothetical training of 100 athletes was and again paraphrasing indicating that your what you're looking for is largely that the commanders were reflective and not just making knee-jerk decisions. There's no right answer necessarily in those situations. Just a more thoughtful way of arriving at the answer. This is something that I see a lot. Also in the
Best investors in the world, who I've been lucky enough to interview her spend time with. And that is, they have to be very careful about
Separating process from outcome so that they are rewarding good process. Even if you happen to pull a joker card and get a bad outcome and vice versa, not rewarding bad process. Just because somebody happened to pull the Ace of Spades as the deck by sheer luck. How did you think about organizing risk, a users guide and actually, formatting the book to teach people to systematically?
Think about risk in a smarter way or perhaps it's a more informed way. We started by looking at what risk really is. And of course most of us think of risk is that intersection between the probability of event occurring in the consequences, if it does and if the consequences are low or at the probabilities low, we don't worry about it. If both rise up and suddenly we take notice and we try to do something to mitigate it.
You can also think of risk slightly differently as a mathematical equation. And you say that mathematical equation is what is the threat?
And what is your vulnerability to that threat? And literally it's threat times vulnerability equals your risk. So if the threat to me, is somebody with a handgun and I am walking down the street and they want to shoot me, and that handgun would hurt me. I've got pretty high level of risk. If however, I'm in a tank and they have a handgun, then suddenly my vulnerability is much reduced. And so the resulting risk, and if my
Vulnerability is 0, my risk is 0. So if I can either reduce the threat to 0 or the vulnerability to 0, I've taken it to 0 now, very rarely. Can we do zero in either but we don't control the threats much, we do control our vulnerabilities, we control, what can hurt us and what we can do about it in the moment. So we started to think about risk acting with risk is really about reducing your vulnerabilities.
Think of the human immune system and this was the analogy that jumped out at us. The human immune system fights off something like 10,000 pathogens a day, which could make us sick or kill us.
And we don't think anything about it because when we're normally healthy, it just detects assess responds and learns from that process. And we go on our merry way. If our immune system is weakened because we're sick or weak an autoimmune deficiency. Suddenly those things which wouldn't bother us on a daily basis become potentially very dangerous. And so if we start to think about that, then the reality is every one of us as individuals, and every organization has
Equivalent of an immune system, which is either healthy or does not healthy and we could call it a risk immune system. And that's in the book. We offer a model in which there are 10 factors or risk control factors and those risk control factors such as communication, narrative, timing, action bias diversity are all components of how well you and your organization are able.
To detect risk assess, their danger, Potential Threat to you respond to them and learn from that. And so, the trick is to understand those risk control factors strengthen those as both individual factors and as a system, and keep yourself as healthy because you were accepting the reality that you can't prevent all the threats from emerging. I would love to
Delve into the world of stories, maybe case studies and this may be a way of tying some of your previous work to this as well or you could pull from the new book. You wrote a book as mentioned in the intro leaders, myth and reality. And this was a Plutarch Ian study of various leaders, 13 case studies. Ranging from Coco Chanel to Abu musab, al-zarqawi, including Walt Disney, many others. Are there any of those leaders?
Ours or other leaders who come to mind, who have exhibited intelligence or excellent execution around risk. Are there any stories that you might tell that would pull together? Some of the, some of the concepts were discussing or just general story about someone who is excellent at interacting with her thinking about risk? The unexpected one is Coco Chanel. And of course, she was born in the late part of the 19th century.
Of modest upbringing her father essentially deserted her when she was young, says, she grew up as a de facto orphan. She had, if you look at it, no opportunities. And she was probably going to be relegated to not much in life and yet she became initially a nightclub singer and a courtesan. You might call it. She ingratiated herself with some people who had more money. And so she got an
Or tunity, and partly was her physical charms, and her willingness to use them. But then, on the other part, the risk. There is she becomes minimalized. She becomes personally a commodity and she wasn't going to accept that. And so what she wanted to do was create an identity and an opportunity for herself that was beyond that. And so she did an amazing thing first. She designs an entirely new line of fashion, and she intersects with the period when
Blair Fashions. During the first world war that cost somewhat not were accepted. But she also becomes the brand herself. She decides to transform herself into the walking embodiment of the lifestyle. Her Fashions are designed to sell a little, like Ralph Lauren did a couple of generations after that. And so the risks to her were overwhelming and of course, as as a female gets older, the idea that a female
Is going to be able to still be a fashion icon is non-traditional because typically, it's for a young period when they are very physically attracted. But instead what she did was, she became iconic first as a fashion icon herself, and then there's a power in the industry developing, you know, Chanel Number Five, becoming a business tycoon. That's the only way we can say it. And so that one jumps out at me, the other person who is probably unexpected is dr. Martin Luther.
King jr. Because when dr. King led the Civil Rights Movement, you think. Well, obviously there's opposition from entrenched forces, the whites in the South didn't want progress. But in reality what, he realized the risk to the Civil Rights Movement were really wide and we'll call him diverse. When he wrote his famous letter from a Birmingham Jail. He was actually criticizing moderate National White.
White clergy who had said, dr. King. We agree with the aims of the Civil Rights Movement, but you're too aggressive. You're pushing too hard and he understood that the real risk to the Civil Rights Movement was not the very impassioned violent response from Sheriff Clark in Alabama. In fact, it was in action. It was passive support from the rest of White America.
And so, dr. King, understood those risks. And what he had to do was take him on with a campaign that went the entire breath. He had to campaign, not just against those entrenched George Wallace like interest. He had to campaign against the people who lived far away from the deep south and yet whose support politically was essential to the Civil Rights Movement, things like the Voting Rights Act, having an opportunity and it convinced presidents Kennedy. And then Johnson,
That it was in their political interest to take political risk to push something that was important to dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement. So his understanding of risk to his movement and how to put other people at risk, almost like a chess master, so that he could maneuver them into support was was pretty impressive. And when we think of dr. King, as a great, orator saying, I have a dream and we leave him two.
Channel, then I think we miss a master strategist. Those are two outstanding and very unexpected, different ways in different ways unexpected examples. So thank you very much for that. I'd love to just mention something for people listening, and that is
Defining risk for yourself is extremely extremely, extremely important. If I could just kind of pontificate on this for second because if you don't Define it, you can end up being this very vague hazy respecter that affects you but is untreatable. So I loved your. If I'm get if I'm recalling correctly, sort of threat times vulnerability is an example of that, you know for myself. I've often thought about risk as the likelihood of an irreversible.
About come just from the investing and business perspective. So you have for instance, Walt Disney since I just mentioned, Walt Disney, I was listening to a case study of Walt Disney and the company and the fact that Walt Disney and Company it effectively and please correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but been a break-even proposition at best up until Snow White, which changed everything and it was a huge investment, but it also returned the entire fund. So
To speak it, made up for all the losses. And of course, it's a hits driven business. So as long as you can afford the potential of it being a failure, investing amount of money necessary to test the new technology that allowed them to recreate and reinvent and ultimately. Build. This Empire of a company and I would love to hear any other examples that come to mind. Another one just to Rift because I've had enough caffeine this morning is
Jeff Bezos and we have spent too much so much basis, but I was reading a story about one of their product failures and I think it was I want to say the fire phone and at the press conference. I'm paraphrasing all this. I might get some of the details wrong, but he said in effect. Oh just wait. We're going to have much bigger failures because from those experiments, ultimately, he had confidence with his team with the methodologies that they would.
Would create incredible successes like Prime which was very much doubted and kind of ridiculed in the early days. And of course, it's become something quite different. Are there any other stories that that you might be able to share of leaders? They don't have to be well known they could be who have exhibited? Good thinking or behavior around risk. I'd start a little bit back with Walt Disney because you are correct. He, in fact, mortgage.
Mickey Mouse to fund Snow White. I did not know that. Yeah, the intellectual property of making Mass. He mortgaged him so that he could make the movie Snow White. Wow, but risk continue to change. So, Walt Disney, of course, is wildly successful with Snow White. It changes full-length animated movies. In fact, it was the first movie and he said, I can make audiences cry as well as laughs. And once he learned they could do that. Of course, we have the whole
Library of Disney movies now, but is the company changed. He went through a number of Crisis points. Early in the second world war. He had a labor struggle with his inside his firm and the company was evolving and Walt Disney began to understand. He was not the right guy to run it. And so the Walt Disney of when I was a child and I watched The Wonderful World of Color and Uncle Walt would come on and introduce Davy.
Get was now focused on things which were his strength like development of Disneyland. And then Disney World, and his brother Roy. In fact, took over much of the running of the business because they had come to the conclusion that the risks had changed. The requirement had changed, and the risk had changed. So, won't Disney was much more effective in focusing. On those things that were his strengths and his interest as opposed to trying.
To do something for which he's not, you know, really well suited. If we think about decisions in risk and I'm a big fan of any Duke, the poker player and her, she will talk a lot about probabilities, as you mentioned, Tim. You got to separate the decision from the outcome and let's go to Afghanistan begin for a moment because everybody is very upset about the withdrawal from Afghanistan and
The reality is had the Taliban not moved quickly, and topple the government and American forces had come out quickly. And in big gone before the government of Afghanistan fell, it might be viewed as a brilliant stroke, you know, people have different opinions on the wisdom of the, the overall. But that particular outcome of that decision might be viewed entirely differently, because the outcome what you've really got to do. In my view on our decision is go back.
Two two factors. The first is, are they making the decision with the right values in mind? Are they using Integrity in the things that represent you as an individual and you as an organization? And then the second is in a rational decision probability-wise, what? They know, then there's an interesting analysis to go. Back to the Japanese Admiral, who was defeated at the Battle of Midway and there's the famous moment when he makes a decision to rearm his Planes and he re arms his Planes and during that
Process. The American dive bombers. Come in and Destroy three. Aircraft carriers, in a matter of minutes and change the course of the war. And we step back and we go, I look at that Japanese Admiral. He just didn't have his act together and whatnot. But if you analyze the information, he had in the moment and each decision as he made over time. They were completely rational. In fact, they probably would be the decisions you or I would make. And so, when we go back to look at it and
We get so fixated on the outcome because it didn't work. It must have been stupid. Then we don't teach ourselves how to do risk management and decision-making because in reality you may make a number of decisions that don't work out well, but as you mentioned, Jeff Bezos as he's building a stronger team and he makes some decisions that don't work one. They are learning from those decisions to as the team gets stronger. He knows that the probability of success over time is
Genuine to rise. And so, our argument in our book is as you continue to strengthen your organization's risk immune system, your probability of success in every Endeavor goes out because you are healthy. You are more able to accept the really bad piece of luck, because when probability evens out over time, you are in a stronger position.
Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we'll be right back to the show. This episode is brought to you by shipstation shipstation is the shipping software with the most five star reviews. Now speaking as a former e-commerce CEO back in a previous Incarnation when I was shipping tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of products. This is what I wish. I had way back in the day and if you're an e-commerce seller or if you want to be selling more online, you have to
Ask yourself. Are you ready to meet the demands of our new delivery economy? You can be ready with shipstation when you're selling online? Getting a lot of orders out. Fast can be super hard. I've experienced this firsthand. How do you keep track of? Who gets what, which shipping carriers should you use? How do you process refunds? How do you process returns? How do you do all of that? Are you getting the best rates? Shipstation helps online sellers of any size. Get orders out quickly. Save money on shipping costs and keep customers happy. And right now my dear listeners, you can try ships.
Station free for 60 days. When you use offer code, Tim TI M, you can start your free trial without even entering your credit card. Info just visit shipstation.com. Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type. In Tim one more time shipstation.com. Click on the microphone at the top and type in Tim. That's me T IM check it out.
The threat times. Vulnerability, Eagles risk is really important on a multitude of levels, of course, because if the I'm thinking about, the if either side is too big a number and the other side is in the 0. You have a large problem on your hands. And if you look at Andy, Duke poker, I think her book is thinking in bets, if I'm, if I'm recalling correctly or you look at say A Book Like Bringing Down the House by been metric, which was about team from MIT, who?
System for winning in blackjack you can have the best system in the world. But you also have to have in this particular case enough bankroll enough money to sustain and extended string of bad luck. And I would love to jump to the the 10 risk control factors one jumped out that I'd love to hear you speak more about and that is if I'm recalling correctly narrative or narratives. Would you mind expanding on that?
Narrative is what we say about ourselves and it's how we want to be defined. We begin in the book with the story of the Alamo and William, Barrett Buck Travis stands out in the courtyard of the alimony draws a Line in the Sand and he tells whoever will stay with me for victory or death. We will defend the Alamo and of course. History says, everybody came across the line. And the reality was the Alamo was tactically Operation instructions.
Teacher clearly insignificant, it bought a little bit of time for Sam Houston to build up the Army, but the reality is, it did not matter much, but in terms of narrative, Remember the Alamo became a call across, Texas. And actually that's infected across the United States of resolute. People absolutely committed to win their independence. And so the Alamo becomes important, all out of proportion to its scale of the fight.
Itself, and so the narrative becomes the story, it is the power. A little, like, the 300 Spartans are David and Goliath. The reality is the story becomes the thing and so the narrative becomes very powerful for an organization. Think, when we believe in the narrative, we think we believe The Narrative of the United States. We touched a little bit earlier about the potential that our credibility could be weakened. Suddenly The Narrative that the United States having the kind of values.
Should Prevail in the world and the power to Prevail in the world? They go hand in hand. If we look at a case where they get at cross-purposes. Google is a tremendous case in point in reality, Google started the idea of don't be evil. And when I remember when I first saw it, I said, well, that's a really catchy idea and who couldn't be for? Don't be evil. And then you say, well, what is don't be evil mean? Well, it's a little bit in the eye of the beholder.
Older, but it's still generally powerful. We're going to do good things. And then in 2017, when Google started working with the defense department on Project Maven, some of the people inside Google felt like that was in opposition to the narrative in opposition to don't be evil and the culture in Google was that everybody would be googly and speak up and have their say and help shape the culture. And they had a very serious crisis on their hands.
Because a number of people in the company felt like the leadership had lost their way and was violating the narrative. And so we call that a say, do Gap, the difference between what we say and then what we actually do. And so the power of narrative, it's critical that we have one, but it's also critical that we understand what it is and that we be true to it and if it's if we're not prepared to be true to it. We should change it. We should reflect what it really is.
As you discuss narrative, I can't help think about a few things. Number one is, how much our individual and Collective. Realities are governed by these stories, of course, and and also the incredible power and damage that can be done when your software that's being installed is a story not of your choosing in a sense. And so I'd like to ask you
about the
the power risks of propaganda and misinformation that seem to be coming more and more prevalent certainly with the amplification of technology and sort of ubiquitous social media and so on. But could you speak to that? If you have any any particular thoughts, I personally think it may be the biggest threat to American society today and that is true in many other societies as well.
If we go back to just the power of information of what we believe we fall in line behind certain narratives, either of patriotism or identity of the organization were a part of and their critical. But we also listen to information that comes and influences as we are all influenced by advertising, we're influenced by slogans. We look at the course, the master out of Hitler who created an entire idea that Germany had to come
Back into the world after the first world war in a proud and strong way. And then he pushed a number of ideas that were, of course, much more extreme than that. But he was out of Hitler was still popular in Germany, the day he was killed in 1945. Now, that's Unthinkable because after 12 years of essentially, taking his Nation to war and destroying it, German still believed in him because the power of the message was so
It was almost like a narcotic and we say well that could never happen to us. Well, let's look at tobacco in America.
In the 1940s and 50s, he became clear that tobacco was a carcinogenic and nicotine was, of course, highly addictive. And as that information started to become really logically irrefutable.
The American Tobacco Institute, which was funded by big tobacco implemented. A very clever campaign and they didn't take on the idea. They didn't say, no. Tobacco, doesn't cause cancer. What they said is tobacco may cause cancer, they left a little bit of daylight and they left each person who wanted to smoke. They left him daylight to say, Well, it may cause cancer, but it may not, and the American Cancer Institute played this over.
Over enough doubt so that people could continue to Market cigarettes. People could continue to smoke people. Could argue about that and we realize how vulnerable we are to either blatant. Misinformation. You know, what, one side calls, the big lie, but also to very subtle misinformation which much of it is true and suddenly we start to believe things and act on those. If we look at the state of the American
Can political environment right now? We've got a polarization. That is as Stark as I think we've seen, since right before the Civil War. And there were strong economic causes for it then and we don't have the same root causes. Now pulling us apart. Now, they are more tribal. They are more cultural. They are more informational and the ability to have our our mind shaped if I was in tech right now, if I was a big Tech leader, and we're talking about
Asks, I would get up in the morning. And I'd say I may have created the thing that is going to destroy my firm. Meaning if I am in social media. I may have created a suicide machine because that which they have created is so damaging that in fact, there will be a revolution against what is happening to our young people and to a degree to ourselves. And so I think that if tech leaders
Don't get in front of this and start to understand it. I could argue the same may be true of artificial intelligence as we start to employ it more and we understand the impacts. I think that leaders have got to understand that the actual risk to them maybe now in failing to get in front of it and act on that now and shape it so that it is not as damaging as it can. Otherwise be
I have to just raise my hand and
Concur, 100% with that. And there's so many different threats. Let's just say threats that people might consider existential threats and the discussion of
Tech and say, social media inputs and the behaviors that are reinforced by those Technologies. And the belief systems that are also created and reinforced, I find absolutely terrifying and I say that as someone who has, let's just call it a monthly audience of somewhere between 15 to 20 million people and many of these listeners and readers are consistent. So I'm able to see changes in Behavior over time.
And the collective changes in individual changes. I mean, I recognize a lot of these names now, I mean hundreds and thousands of people who have been in my communities for many years, the degree of polarity and rage that I've seen in
Mass numbers of people, I recognized who did not have in whom I couldn't see those characteristics. Earlier is really mind-boggling. So I have to agree with you. Can we talk about that in relation to covid? Yes, please. Because if we think about covid, it was almost the perfect enemy. And I say it was perfect because it was inanimate. So it was okay to hate covid-19.
You didn't have to have any sympathy for covid, and so, it was like, out of a movie. If aliens had come from outer space, the entire world could righteously unite to fight that. Now we have that it wasn't from outer space, but it was that. And so we have this emerging threat, that could and should have United us extraordinary. Well, and our first excuse is we say, well, we were surprised, we didn't see it coming and the reality is, although we didn't know covid-19.
19 would come, we absolutely knew that another viral infection. That could be a pandemic would come because they have come with frightening regularity in history. So its appearance was inevitable. And then the second thing is we absolutely knew what to do about it. The science of public health is pretty good. And so we knew what works and what doesn't work and then we literally got a scientific Miracle because
They were able to produce vaccines in the speed never contemplated before and almost a freebie. So if you line those all up and we had even done an exercise in 2019 inside the United States, Crimson contagion to war game. This and we had war game to viral infection coming from China, beginning in Chicago and US struggling with it. So we we had War gamed a pretty painful outcome and then when covid-19
Teen arrived. What did we do globally? We acted as individual Nations. What did we do? Nationally, we froze to a great degree at the national level for a period. We had problems with our narrative. Then we executed at least on the state level, but I could argue, we were even more atomized than that, many cases. We operated at a municipal level and no organization at that level has the resources or the ability.
To effectively fight a pandemic by itself. It has to be a United effort. It actually has to be a global United effort. So my point is, our vulnerability was self-induced to covid-19 covid-19. Like the Taliban is not Ten Feet Tall. It's eminently defeatable. And so what we should do is we should say we failed as a system.
We can't look for a single person who screwed this up and pin the tail on them. We failed as a system and that should worry us because we're, we fail as a system, means the next threat that arises means our system has already proven its limitation, and we better, look at that system.
I was just thinking about this last night, probably because I had this conversation on my mind and I was thinking a few things. Of course, the death toll is atrocious. We are not fully out of the woods. The numbers. Also, I think have just not had the psychological impact that other events like 9/11 would have because, like you said, that's this invisible intangible. And some ways abstract also long-term.
death toll, but
Imagine if we had been hit with Delta first or imagine, if we were hit in 2000, who knows. Let's just make it pretty recent 2005 2010 when we had fewer technologies that would allow people to work remotely and what the impact would have been on the economy in a sense. I mean, we are having and did get a very important dress rehearsal because it's not going to be the last pinned.
Emma core Nationwide, perhaps even Global catastrophe that we have to contend with. Do you feel like we have improved or fixed some of the systems or dressed any of the systemic failures to be better prepared for next time? Would you imagine that we have?
Tim. I was on two commissions last year, one from accounts from Farm relations, which explored this question and came up with recommendations. And then another from an organization called the business Executives for national service. And both of those commissions were formed of really smart accomplished. People in me and I was put on sort of a comic relief, but the reality was
We fixed a few things, but the reality is, most of the things we fixed which are systemic in nature our Communications, how we coordinate these things. How decisions are made, how we resource the different requirements for public health. I think have been woefully under addressed so far. I think one of the things that you notice that you mentioned is just so important. We have
Had the ability enabled by technology to continue on many things. We do many businesses could continue to operate generally. Actually, I think part of that is unfortunate part of it. It's wonderful and some miracle because our economy didn't completely disappear. But, you know, if our economy was not able to limp along at first and then to come back, like it has, we would have been forced into more decisive activities.
Against covid-19 because we could essentially push much of the suffering on two parts of our population. People like you and I who might have the opportunity to work from home. And what we do can be enabled by that. We didn't have to do things which I think might have forced us to address those vulnerabilities and I think that may be a long-term challenge for us. Because if something isn't bad enough, you don't fix the
If people come out of covid-19 thinking, well, you know, if we only lose 600,000 people, I didn't know many of them anyway, so it's okay.
That's a problem.
Yeah, that is a problem. What do you think? It will take for things to be fixed? Is it going to require something like something of the scale of another pandemic with even worse outcomes, to force the hand, or is there something? Do you feel like there are things that can be done to catalyze? Those changes? In the meantime? I know there are things can be done and most of them have been identified. I am not confident, we will do.
I think on the margins we are doing some things certainly and we're getting smarter and so part of that will happen, but I would pull us to cyber security. We have a very similar situation with cybersecurity right now that we do with and it makes because a huge cyber security. Challenge is inevitable. It's not possible. It is inevitable. And when I talk about huge, I'm not talking about Target having some customer data.
Exposed. I'm talking about things that we rely on stopping for at least a period. Maybe it's banking maybe it's our energy distribution, things like that. I think it's an absolutely inevitable that that will happen. And the question is will we address it before? That happens on a big way? We have not yet. We have done a number of things, but this requires a public-private partnership on a level. We've never had before between the government and big.
Operations because cyber security isn't something that you put a big cybersecurity defensive Maginot Line at the nation's borders. It's not like that cyber security is something that is in-depth. It's built into all of our systems and it's also has to be built into our culture of how we operate and what private security and Liberties. We're willing to have shaped to get greater security. And so I think where we are is where extraordinarily vulnerable
But we are to a certain degree, have our heads in the sand, hoping that they'll get somebody else. I think many businesses right now. Get up every morning and and know that they could be the Target and they're happy. If somebody else gets it.
I've so many follow-up questions. Could you? We spoke about this in one of our prior conversations? But I think it's a concept worth revisiting, and that is the concept of the red team or red. Teaming. Would you mind? Just describing what that is? Because I think it's even as a thought exercise. And sometimes it's difficult to take on both parts, as a single person makes you're too close to your systems, too close to your problems, but would you mind describing what a red team is?
Is it's essentially making somebody the bad guy and commissioning them to screw you up? And you say, well, why would I do that? Because we become blind to our vulnerabilities. There's a great story from a war game called Millennium challenge, which happened before the first Gulf War and I Marine General named Ben riper. Lieutenant General was made the commander of the opposition essentially in a red team role and he looked at how this was likely to play out because
He was playing a Mideast nation. And so he said, I'm not going to let the Americans do what they're good at. I'm going to do a preemptive strike. And so we did a preemptive strike and he in the game. He killed the equivalent of 20,000 Americans and he really screwed up the American plan. And so they stopped the war game and they re cocked him went back and they said, okay, we're going to continue but don't do that again, and it was like, wait, wait a minute. The whole idea of a red team is to find clever people.
All who will come and find the holes in your plan. Where are there, gaps and seams or flaws, that you have become blind to? Where will they as you inflate? You know, it's that tire inner tube that you've been working on and you patched, you inflate it and you see if there are any more leaks, where are the leaks? A good red team is people who are a step outside your organization. You can have people inside but they have to be fenced off and
So that they are not wedded to the plan because if they're wedded to the plan, they're incentivized not to find flaws in it. And so you've really got to have a red team that's incentivized to find flaws. And then the leadership has got to act on those when they find those problems. Gaps and seams, the leadership is got a follow-up and got a close them and they can't make the red team pariahs. They can't say, you know, you people are bad people because you were disloyal to our plan.
No, the greatest loyalty you can ever do is to make it stronger.
And so I'm a great believer that red teaming takes us out of being comfortable. And we're all guilty. I remembers a as a commander in combat. You work a plan for a long time. You do all these things and if somebody questioned it or poked a hole in it, right, when it was time to execute, you got mad because damn it were about to execute this plan. Don't don't distract me. Don't do that. That's irritating, but you need them to do that. And so red teams are really.
Ali effective way to pressure test.
So when you look at we could say this country, we could speak globally also, but what threats most either, most concerned you or, which threats, do you think? People are not paying enough attention to? I'll let you define threats and people as you like, I think not surprisingly. I'll tell you that. The one that literally leaves me up at night, is the failure of our system to be able to do routine things routinely. And what,
I talk about is when our government is seized up with partisanship, and we are unable to do the normal functions as outlined in the Constitution. If we're unable to have the normal political debate to make processes work without doing a huge pendulum swings to one side of the other, then the machine isn't working, right? As long as the American government and Society are working will get dinged up with threats. That will come, but we will.
Always be able to respond when the system is it working? I think we are fundamentally vulnerable to covid-19 or to potential foreign aggression or to terrorism. You cybersecurity. You pick any number of threads. Then there are some other issues that, of course, jump out cyber security, of course, is the one that I would spend most of my time worried about. Because I think it's immediate. I think that
The climate change is one of those cases where, if your neighbor's house was on fire. You would go do something about it.
The reality though is if there was a fire 10 miles away that was burning up, all the fields that produce the food you eat. It wouldn't be as apparent to you. And so, you might not run outside and call the fire department. And I think climate change is one of those cases where we are literally destroying that, which we are dependent upon, but because it's not happening in crisis speed that we think of, in fast rolling time. It's happening more.
Ali is doesn't seem as dangerous. The problem is the corrective time is also much slower. So you can't just put out the fire to your neighbor's house. It takes a long time. So climate change, and then finally, I would throw out education on a very National level.
If you don't have an educated population.
Then you're not going to be competitive internationally because the days of the United States, having this huge Geographic and social Advantage are gone. There are so many other places that educate a lot of young people and now they can compete. So that's the one and second. If you don't have an educated population, you get ignorant stuff happening. Many of the Great ills in Life or because people just don't know. And when you are subjected to the kind of misinformation in our society, you are
People, with knowledge, you give them the ability to understand. We used to deal with many people who would come in as terrorists into Afghanistan and many had been taught in madrasas in Pakistan. They've been taught the Quran and they memorized it, but they didn't speak Arabic. So they didn't understand what they were reading. They required, the interpretation of whoever was teaching them. And so they were entirely vulnerable.
On someone else, telling them what was right or wrong. They couldn't do the critical analysis because they didn't have the education for it. So as a consequence, they became vulnerable when we are ignorant. We are vulnerable. We are ignorant as a society. We are societally. Vulnerable.
Let's return to arming with knowledge. I would love to explore communication a bit. It just seems like the the glue, the connective tissue. That holds so much together. Could you elaborate on your thoughts about the four tests leaders and teams can use to evaluate their communication? If we think about communication? We say, well, I got a cell phone and she's got a cell phone. So we're in communication.
No, I think that means you could potentially communicate but there are four tests that decide whether you actually communicate and the first is technically can I get my message to the person or people that I'm trying to communicate to can I send a letter, write an email or whatever mode that you need to use? Can it get there? The second is more subtle, but more often a big issue. It's will I do it. Will I communicate my message?
I tell the people in other silos in my company or in other places will I pass them the information? And it might be, I won't pass them because I don't like them. It might be, I don't pass it because I don't know, they exist. It might be. I don't pass it because my boss hasn't given me approval there. Any number of reasons, not all of which are black and white evil, but the reality is the second test. If you won't pass information, there is no communication.
The third starts to be.
Can the person receive it? Can they understand it? Am I transmitting, an English and they speak Chinese or are they of a mindset? That just is not willing to hear what I'm saying? And then of course, the final one that goes hand in hand with that is what I'm passing accurate and And Timely. So am I giving them good information? That would truly be a value and are they capable of receiving it? So if you don't have a yes, on all four tests, you don't really have
Communication. And if you don't have communication, both ways, one, you don't know if you're communicating and to, you can't have the iterative importance of communication where you say something to me, I processes I talk back to you and there's a dialectic which occurs which over time, opposing thoughts, start to get to where we can get to something approaching rational reality, or logic with just me thinking what I think in gym and it to you. We don't get there and if I can't get it.
You didn't happen. So it's got to be two way. She'll communication and an organization is really of the ten risk control factors. We had hours of argument over, which was most important leadership or communication. I think communication is that our table Stakes? If an organization can't communicate internally or won't, then they can't respond to anything the human immune system requires the ability of the body to sense threats. Communicate back up whether they
Are dangerous and then whether we should do something about it, if we can sense threats in our society, but we can't, communicate, we can't do anything about it. And so therein lies the challenge. So let's talk about one puzzle piece within that challenge and that is being willing to receive or here and
I want to focus on this because I feel like alongside the polarity and the polarization that we're seeing in a sea of propaganda and click bait and so on online, there's also a
Fetishizing of fragility in a sense and we don't have to spend too much time on that. But I do want to spend some time on the opposite. So what I've noticed, certainly in many teams even among friend groups and so on there is a hesitancy to share certain things for fear of upsetting and other person. So, ultimately being willing to share is a negative for fear that the willing to receive will not be there. And I'm curious
To know if there are any approaches, you've seen that are really effective for people, to train themselves to become more resilient in being able to receive candid communication or helping their teams to become more resilient and capable of communicating and a very candid fashion. I would love to hear any and all thoughts on the yeah, in the military. We used to always do things called after Action reviews and they really started from the Second World War.
War and they came out of the realization that after a battle, or a firefight, every participant had a different view of what had happened, you know, you watch a war movie and you see a firefighting say, everybody saw the same thing. No, they didn't. They all saw where they were, and they present an account after the fact that is very skewed. And in many cases, it's skewed from what they saw, and then they just get it wrong. So, everybody walks away with a different set of conclusions to that.
And so after Action, reviews were put in place to do two things, one to figure out what happened and then to figure out what they should do about it next time to be better. So the first part of that was getting everybody together and going through and searching for truth, trying to pull all the pieces out and that was frightening to some people because sometimes you'll find out that what you thought the reality was was very different. And then when you start to talk about what went right? And what went wrong often, it can be
very, very Illuminating to your shortcomings. I remember as a young company Commander, we would go into after Action reviews, after big training missions and some would last for hours, long and I would walk out humiliated because they had using sights and sounds from the battlefields because they had pictures and slides and what not. They would point out every one of my screw-ups and they would not only point out every one of my scripts they do it in front of all of my peers and my bosses and my bosses.
Pause. And so they could be very, very upsetting events. And my boss is weaknesses, were also pointed out to all his subordinates and that was pretty upsetting as well. So the effort was to create a thick skinned understand that everybody makes mistakes. So, let's be open enough to accept those and to accept different viewpoints. I think, what we've come into now is a point in society.
See, that is a little bit unhealthy. In fact, I'm going to call it more than a little bit unhealthy. I teach at Yale University and I've been there. I'm in my 12th year and I will tell you that the atmosphere on the campus has continued to evolve and I don't think for the better in one sense. It's better. Because there are people championing rights that people should have an equality and values that I think are good, but there is an intolerance for anyone's whose values are.
14 yours, in fact, there's an unwillingness to listen to a speaker from from outside the university come and speak. That might have a polar opposite position. We talked a little while ago about the importance of the dialectic where you get opposing ideas together, and if you only hear what you already believe or if you protect yourself from the offensive words of somebody who violates your safe space.
Then I think you are making yourself more vulnerable over time. I absolutely believe we need to as a society subject ourselves, to all of this constantly, but we need to build up the resilience in that process to hear it, to tolerate it to understand the things like the first amendment had a purpose to them. They were to protect people's rights to communicate, but they were all sort of buildup in society diverse dialogue that would produce.
Good outcome for democracy. And so I think it's important when we talk about communication now to understand that it's not just what you want to communicate or just what you want to hear. It's got to be sometimes. What we need to hear. Are there any other ways that you might suggest or that you found to be effective for training resilience that are applicable in the civilian severe?
There are a number of things that can make an organization, communicate, more Orbeez systemically, but there's nothing like failure to drain resilience. I remember when I was a ranger regimental Commander, we put in place an exercise which we call Savage strike. If I remember correctly, and we would take a ranger company about a hundred and fifty Rangers, and we would take them from their home base and we put them in airplanes. We fly them halfway across the country and they do a
Salt to go do this Mission, and the mission typically was something like this. They have to go from the Drop Zone where they landed in parachutes to go rescue a number of Americans who were being threatened in an area in some country and they would get there and we would orchestrate opposing forces and whatnot role players so that when they got there, they would
Secure the Americans and they would be moving to extract them and then the enemy would attack and when the enemy attacked they would cause a number of casualties in the Ranger force. That would always be the dynamic. Now the ranger company commanders in a position where the mission he was given was to extract American civilians, but the ethos of the Rangers is I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. So this Ranger company commanders in this position where to extract the
Americans. He's got to leave his dead and wounded.
To leave his dead and wounded. He's got a violate, the very oath, the very being of being a ranger. And so I would play the higher headquarters and the company Commander would invariably call in with this situation report and say, here's the problem. And I'd say, okay, get the American citizens out and they go sir. I can't, because I've got my dead wounded. I can't leave them. I need reinforcements, and I said, well, you're not getting reinforcements. I got nobody, send you and so, they be in this.
It was really a moral dilemma as well as an operational dilemma for which there was no. Right answer. And they would get beat up and we would go and have a detailed after action review better and they'd always say well, what was he approved solution? And my response was, I don't know, you know, you tell me but we're going to be in those positions because we've got to be resilient enough one to fail. And to to make those damn it ably impossible decisions where you're doing something you just hate.
Doing to do something you have to do and so they were torn between do I fail in a mission or do? I essentially break my oath? I have to interrupt for a second to ask you about the the assessment. So after putting someone in a position like that, what are you looking for? Because there may be no, right? Answer. But are you looking for Speed of execution and logic / rationale behind the decision?
What are you looking for? What are the positive indicators? Because there's no perfect answer. What I was looking for was first, does that person keep cool and go through a process? Do they first try to get external things to help him out of it, like, asking for reinforcements? Because that's logical. So you do that until you narrow down. Okay, we've got this really difficult situation, and I've got to do a or b. Then I'm looking at how their values fit in.
And their values, in some cases are honesty and loyalty to people. And then the other is, did they go through a rational probability based outcome. Did they say this is the best. I think we can do here, our likelihood of this being successful at cetera because you're really looking for someone whose mind continues to function, when things aren't the way, they want them to be, to be honest. They were a couple cases where the commander almost just said screw it.
Everybody we're going to do a custom. We're just going to fight and die and they were almost angry. They said, we shouldn't have been in this position. Screw it. We're going to fight and die the hell with it and that may be the right answer, but that wasn't the right way. It was arrived in. You know, I wanted them to stay calm and be thinking and look for options and then say. All right. This is the best of lousy courses of action and go from there. It raises so many questions for me. It related to how someone
Sort of mock that in. I'm not saying they should, but this is the idea the customizer of mock that in an interview scenario. If you're trying to vet for important positions in a company, you know, how do you navigate a stressful situation? And do you ask them? Because I know there's a lot of criticism of stress interview is also. Pretty asked, what open a window and the windows jammed, or whatever might be, right. Some of those could probably end up being pretty foolish, but is it enough to ask?
What about how they've handled the situation like that? Or do you really need to kind of put them into a situation like that in civilian setting? I'm just having that run through my head. I don't know if it's I don't know if it's even feasible to do that. But it seems like an incredibly powerful way to reveal character and behavior under stress. Have you seen any version of that implemented outside of the military? I have heard about it outside of the military, but
but it's hard in many cases, but I'm a great believer in role-playing things. One of the things I tried to see whether it's in an interview or in someone's performance, after the in the organization, when they're putting those decisions. Do they try to dodge them and you'll see, can they find a way to not be responsible. There's the famous story, of course, of Admiral rickover, the father of the Nuclear Navy and his interview process. Reportedly, he put people on a chair and the two
Legs of the chair were shorter than the back legs. So when you sat down, you automatically were sliding off the chair. So so you had to fight to stay on and then he would do these really combative interviews where he would basically ask, why were you born? You're not, you know, worth it. And he asked one candidate. All right, you've got two minutes to make me angry. And apparently, the guy got up to the Admirals desk, where there was a model of the
First nuclear aircraft carrier, he picked it up and smashed it on the floor and the reportedly. The Admiral says, okay, you did it. You accomplish that.
But I do think there's an awful lot to creating cases, where people are under some kind of simulated pressure when they learn an awful lot about themselves. Yeah, as well as you learning about them. Yeah, that's chatting. With, with someone I do work with and sometimes he works with a lot of Executives who were hiring and sometimes he's brought in as he put it to be the loving asshole, who can apply a little bit of pressure to see what happens. Nothing too terrible.
Nothing too extreme, but just to see how do they handle a conversation? That isn't all and of rainbows and Roses. How do they handle being interrupted? For instance? Or having someone interject? Do they keep their cool? Do they get contracted? They start to get reactive so doesn't have to be extreme certainly to try to assess those things. Are there any other names, people who come to mind? Who you think are excellent at?
Navigating or thinking about risk. I know I keep bringing this up in part because I just love learning of the case studies could be alive or dead people, you know, people, you don't know. But any other any other people who come to mind for you, there are the scholars who deal with risk, and I think you know how we think. Daniel Kahneman people like that who have done a lot of thinking about how the human mind thinks I much prefer going to practitioners, who have dealt.
With very risky situations and looked at how they navigated them. I would go and teach this in my email course Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation because when we step back with the distance of history, there was a wrong that was slavery. There was a Civil War and in the middle of that Civil War. The president United States said, okay, we're going to free the slaves and it was done and of course, it wasn't at all like that.
And and so what President Lincoln was doing was dealing with risk, he was simultaneously dealing with a civil war. So the fact that they could lose a civil war. He's dealing with the risk that many people in the Democratic Party of the north which were not very supportive of bringing the South to a slave free position. There were other stakeholders. You politically wanted to undermine him. They were foreign.
Powers who really weren't excited about the South not being able to produce cotton, like, they had. And so he's trying to triangulate or balance all of these risks together at the same time. So it's not just knowing what the right answer. Is announcing the right answer and moving forward. It is navigating this Twisted journey to as good an answer as he could get not a perfect answer but as good an answer as he could get.
And so, when I look at that, I think of here's a leader, who is having to assess risk on a constant basis. He's got to keep his team together, you know, his Team of Rivals on his cabinet, but also, his larger National basis, and it was a masterful performance. And so other than just being a smart guy in a charismatic president. He was a master.
Manipulators and negative words sometimes, but that's what I'm really talking about of orchestrating risk.
Yeah, orchestrator, excellent. Conductor of risk factors. Well, Stan, we could go on for, for many hours. I can't think of a better person to author risk a users guide. Are there any other facets of risk or the book that you would like to explore or any other stories you'd like to tell before we begin to come to a close in this conversation? Sure. I'm going to talk on a personal basis.
Here. Because I think every leader has to identify how they deal with risks and what their own value set. Our I remember in 2006. I was leaving counter-terrorist forces in jsoc in Iraq, and we had been at the fight for I had been at the fight for about three years at that point. Most of the people is part of the task force had been in even a little longer than that, and it was brutal combat at the time. And so we were starting to do.
Operations more aggressively than we'd ever done before we were at a point where we were doing, literally 300 rates of month or 10:00 every night and then occasionally we would fight in broad daylight and that was against our Doctrine and it didn't play to our strengths and we in a situation where we got in a fire fight with Al-Qaeda forces outside of Baghdad and it became a real serious fight and we put some what we call Little Bird helicopter gunships into the fight and one of those helicopters was shot down.
And the pilot killed pilots in that particular case and the father of one of the people we lost had been a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, very mature, very experienced guy, and he asked the question of us. That was fair. He says, what in the world was my son out doing in a middle of daylight flying, a little helicopter that was designed to be flown at night for stealth counter-terrorist missions.
And, you know, we answered him. That's when the fight was we needed him and he accepted that very graciously. But the question we had to ask ourselves. And and I did all the time is at what point do you become hardened to risk and the cost of risk? Ulysses Grant near the end of the Civil War, wouldn't go to combat hospitals. He wouldn't visit the wounded to hospitals because he found it was so upsetting that he was afraid. He couldn't make the
The difficult decisions they had to make to get this war over and I found myself asking myself whether I'm becoming so hardened to the risk. Because in some ways, the risk physical risk wasn't mine. It was being born by other people and had I become so close to the problem that solving this problem defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq was overwhelming for me. And what was the risk to the larger National?
Policy and all that sort of thing. And it's almost like you are, you're in a bar with your brother and you get in a fight and at a certain point in the fight, you need your brother to pull you out of it. You may be losing your maybe winning. Either way, you need your brother and pull your out of it and I got four brothers. So, you know, that was very important, but I think we all need to think about risk that way because there's a certain point your adrenaline pumps. Your manhood gets challenged any number of those things and you will take risks and you
You'll bet things that aren't yours to bet or you will stay the course on things when you should have stopped simply because that's the way it is. And so, that's where systems have to operate and they almost have to at times to protect us against ourselves. We can be very good, but we're not always as good at this as we need to be. Sometimes. We're just too human.
Yeah, what will protect you? What will pull you out of the fight when you are? As we all are, sometimes are less ourselves and systems are part of that answer will stand. Thank you so much for taking this time. It's an important couldn't be a timelier message, and more than a message. It's a toolkit. It says, it's a set of Frameworks and approaches that have been tested in the field and stress tested.
So, I think this is an incredibly important work and the book just to remind people, the title is risk, a user's guide. You can find General McChrystal online at Crystal group.com. His name is probably misspelled as often as mine. So I'll say one, more time. M CC H Ry. S, tal group.com, a link to all these things. Everything we've talked about in the show notes at teamed up log forward, slash podcast. Thank you so much. And for everybody listening until next time, thank you.
Tuning in.
Hey guys, this is Tim again. Just a few more things before you take off. Number one. This is five. Bullet Friday. Do you want to get a short email from me? And what do you enjoy getting a short email for me? Every Friday is that provides a little more soul of fun for the weekend and five bullet. Friday's a very short email, where I share the coolest things I've found or that I've been pondering over the week, that could include favorite new albums that have discovered it could include gizmos and gadgets. And
All sorts of weird shit that I've somehow dug up in the the world of the esoteric. As I do it could include favorite articles that I've read and that I've shared with my close friends, for instance, and it's very short. It's just a little tiny bite of goodness before you head off for the weekend. So if you want to receive that, check it out. Just go to four hour work week.com., That's 4-Hour, workweek.com. All spelled out and just drop in your email and you'll get the very next one.
And if you sign up, I hope you enjoy it.
This episode is brought to you by eight. My God. Am I in love with eight sleep? Good. Sleep is the Ultimate Game Changer more than 30 percent of Americans struggle with sleep. And I'm a member of that, sad group temperature is one of the main causes of poor sleep. And heat has always been my Nemesis. I've suffered for decades tossing and turning throwing blankets off, putting the back on and repeating Ad nauseam, but now, I am falling asleep in record time, faster than ever. Why? Because I'm using a simple device called.
The Pod probe cover by eight sleep. It's the easiest. And fastest way to sleep at the perfect temperature, it pairs Dynamic cooling and heating with biometric tracking to offer the most advanced but most user-friendly Solution on the market. I pulled. All of you guys on social media, about the best tools for Sleep, enhancing sleep. And eat sleep, was by far and away the crowd favorite and the people were just raving fans for this. So I used it in, here we are.
The Pod Pro cover to your current mattress and start sleeping as cool as 55 degrees Fahrenheit or as hot as a hundred and ten degrees Fahrenheit. It also splits your bed in half. So your partner can choose a totally different temperature. My girlfriend runs hot all the time. She doesn't need cooling. She loves the heat to end. We can have our own bespoke temperatures on either side, which is exactly what we're doing now for me. And for many people, the result eight sleep users fall asleep up to 32 percent faster, reduce sleep interruptions by up to
40% and get more restful sleep. Overall. I can personally attest to this site Racket and all sorts of ways. It's the total solution for enhanced recovery. So you can take on the next day. Feeling refreshed. And now my dear listeners. That's you guys you can get 250 dollars off of the Pod Pro cover. That's a lot. Simply go to eight, sleep.com Tim or use code Tim. That's eight all spelled out TIG HT sleep.com, Tim or use coupon code.
Tim TI M8, sleep.com Tim for 250 dollars off your pod Pro cover. This episode is brought to you by Kettle and fire do love me my Kettle and fire. I believe, I first heard about Kettle and fire when it was originally recommended to me by one of your favorites fan, favorite podcast guests and ketogenesis expert, among many other things. Dr. Dominic D'Agostino. So what is kettle on fire? Helen fire offers premium bone broth made with bones from
A hundred percent grass fed and grass-finished cows and organic free-range chickens. They can buy bones with Organic herbs, and vegetables and filtered water, and steel kettles. Then the mixture is slow simmered for 14 plus hours at a hundred thirty degrees Fahrenheit to ensure that, as many nutrients collagen and amino acids as possible, are able to soak into the broth. And all that goodness is fantastic for supporting your gut health. Immune system, weight loss. You're fasting regimen. Whatever it might be, and they make it extremely convenient, just
It's a neat five minutes on the stove. Top of one minute in the microwave. It's great as a snack. You can also see if it's straight out of a mug or honestly, sometimes I just sip it right out of the box. You can also add it as a flavor to recipes, and they sent me some eye-popping stats. It's pretty amazing. 24 million plus carton sold 25,000, plus five star reviews on Amazon and their own website two-year, shelf-life and zero preservatives added flavors, antibiotics, hormones, or colorings and all of their brats are
Elio. He do friendly and full30 approved for also, my neighbors here in Austin, Texas, and I'm happy to support a local company. So check them out. You can save 25% off of your order by going to Kettle and fire.com Tim, that's spelled out, KET tle, a ND, F pi r, e.com, Tim and using Code Tim at checkout or more time. That's a kettle and fire.com, Tim & Co Tim at checkout,
