What Grit Really Teaches Us About Happiness with Professor Angela Duckworth

I have empirical evidence. You and I have careers.

“You and I should not have careers. There should be no demand for our work.”

We talk about trust. We talk about cooperation. And there should be no demand for our work. But the fact that people are interested in the things that we're putting in the world that are some of the guidance that we can help offer towards getting to that ideal that we imagine proves that people are hungry for this. Five years from now, we'll revisit the conversation. We'll see how went. And in the meanwhile, we'll try to like, you know, tilt the odds in the

direction. I promise to have you back on the old pod in five years. Every now and then,

I have a guest where we talk about everything. And everything seems to be really, really interesting.

Angela Duckworth is one of those guests. She's a professor of psychology. You pen, McGarther, genius, award winner, and probably the reason most of us know her, the best selling author of the book, "Grit." We talked about the problem of living in a world that pushes us to stand out as individuals when, as human beings, we're actually hard-wired to thrive together. We went deep into the loneliness epidemic, particularly as it affects young people.

And we talked about something that both of our work deals into. The reason achievement means very little without belonging. So pull up a chair, sit back, and enjoy. This is a bit of optimism. Now, the thing that I love about language, it is a living breathing thing. It changes. Prenunciations change. Grammar's change. Words get added and taken away. And it is a reflection

of the times we live in. And there's one word that I find really funny that I, my ear catches every time somebody says it of a completely new way of people speaking. Very rarely do people use the word "me" anymore. They use myself. So Angela and myself went to the beach, as opposed to Angela

and me went to the beach. It is amazing how many people say the word "my self." What does that

reflect? I do not know. But it is a clear pattern how many people say myself. Do they think it's like more proper? But that would not be, you know, language is getting more informal. I don't think it's a properness. If I had to make a wild ass guess, I would say that it is a reflection of the fact that our nation over indexed on rugged individualism and individualism in general. And that so much of our society has become, look at me, look at me, look at me, look at

me, you know. And I'm the hero and I want the promotion. And like the concept of team and togetherness and we're all in this has kind of taken a back seat for this over emphasis on individual performance.

“And I think changing the word for me to myself. First of all, you get through syllables. You get”

twice the airtime. And it's a more emphatic me, isn't it? It's more emphatic, right? It's sort of like a slightly larger font. It's a slightly larger font. It's exactly what it is. I think that's interesting. Do you want me to ask the people on linguist's department? Yes, please. What is their theory as to why more people are using, particularly young people, but it has now become to your point that the young people lead the language. And by the way, I completely agree about rugged individualism.

I guess it was Aristotle, right? Like man is a social animal, but just like forgetting that you are part of an organism. Like it's not like the universe extends to just like your fingers and toes, right? Like you are part of an organism called society, but like yeah, I mean, my parents are Chinese, so I think I was brought up with both American and Chinese like sensibilities. And I think the rugged individualism that is distinctly of the United States is not good. You go inside companies

and you look at incentives structures and almost all incentives structures inside most companies today are based on individual performance. If you hit this number, you will get a bonus, right? You know incentives don't incentivize performance, outcomes they incentivize behavior. And so you can't incentivize an outcome, you can only incentivize a behavior. And those to align the incentive to the behavior you want, hopefully to get the outcomes that you want.

And so when you emphasize individual performance, what you get is hoarding information, can't share it, right? Yeah. What you get is me before we, what you get is my performance is

“more important than your performance. Yeah. What you get is that's what my boss wants. That's what”

I'm going to do as opposed to what's the right thing to do here. Right. So like your annual performance review, like paradoxically like disincentivizes like what you can do for the coming,

all of us went to elementary school, all of us went to middle school, most of us went to high school,

“a lot of us went to college. Yeah. And at no point in the academic journey, are you ever incentivized”

to do things for other people, right? Like how would I as a professor for example change the grades in my class so that when you are part of the tide that lifts the other boats, like you, you know, whatever you can get marked for, right? Yeah. When I used to teach, I did the final project. So they got individual grades for all their test leading up to the final. And the final was a group project. And what I told them was, the group grade is going to be your

grade. Yeah. And the people who like, like literally filed complaints with university about about that, were my high performers. Because, oh, interesting. They, they felt like they were going to suffer. That the group would pull them down. So what did you say to that? That must have had a rebuttal to that. Oh, I didn't care. Oh, you just let them complain. What it reveals is just that,

which is there's a, there's a flaw here that they're missing. Yeah. But at first time I did group

projects in a classroom, I did what I thought was fair. I took my highest performers and evenly distribute them. I took my lowest performers and evenly distributed them. And I took my average players and evenly distributed them so that I had four or five teams that were similar profiles. And the university gave me advice. They said absolutely do not do that. Many of the high participants are going to be in the nappy, right? Based on the university's advice, I

remade the groups. And I put my highest performers on one group. And then sort of evenly distributed everybody else, right? And then we're popular. When I announced the teams to the class, literally, because they don't, they know who the high performers are, right? Yes. I announced that all my top performers are going to be one team. And literally the classroom goes, come on, right? Not one year,

ever did my high performers get the best grade. Never. Really. And the reason is is because the

high performers are predominantly motivated by individual performance. And they were constantly stabbing each other in the back. They were constantly complaining to me that somebody's not pulling their weight. And I'm doing all the work. And they're going to get the grade based on my work. And that's not fair. You know, where your average performers, because they know they're not the smartest, they work really well together. It worked really well together. And they're not so bothered

if somebody does slightly more in somebody's slightly less, because they're kind of all in it together. And every single year, they got the better grades. That's not to say that the high performers got bad grades. But when they got like B pluses, like my God, the complaints, right? Yeah,

“right, right. So do you know this David Deming paper? Do you know David Deming at Harvard?”

He is one of my favorite economists. He's so great. Anyway, he wanted to know what makes a great team player, which is a version of the title of this paper. So what he did was he--

I have a theory. I want to see if he lines up. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So like, well, first

give me your theory, because now that I can reveal to you what he discovered, but I'm going to also tell you how he did it, because it's clever. But what do you think makes a great team player? Well, I mean, I've seen data on this before, that average students tend to make, as I just, you know, sort of my example. Like average versus like outstanding students. Okay. And then what? Yeah, outstanding students are put on pedestals. And they're afraid to fall off them.

Yeah. And it's very, very, very smart kids in school. I told you so smart. I knew you do so well. You're so smart. I knew you do so well. And so they're afraid of falling off their pedestal, where more average players aren't rewarded for their outcomes. They rewarded for their effort. Hey, great effort. So for them, there's no ceiling. You're partly even to get it. I don't think there's anything that contradicts it. But I will tell you that he measured IQ. I mean,

this is a experiment. So there are, I don't know, volunteers, um, they're all adults. And they take a baseline set of measures like the big five personality, measure one of them. And then IQ. Uh, and then they also do the reading the mind in the eyes test, which is I think 27 items, you know, you get a photograph of someone, you can only see their eyes and their eyebrows. And

“you have to essentially guess what emotion they're feeling. Like, are they irritated? Or are they”

angry? Or are they sad? Or are they upset? And then what he does, and I think this is the part that is so clever, is that you rotate through teams. I mean, it's kind of like being a company. But you're like, okay, next switch and each time you're with a team, you have to basically solve a bunch of puzzles, right? So they're all games that require you to figure out something. And um, what he finds is that, you know, being higher IQ, because, you know, full-scale IQ tests at the

beginning, it does help. You do do better, right? But the question is, like, when you are on a team, you know, is it likely that that team? Because Simon was on it, right? Because Angela was on it,

the team will do better. And so he does this, you know, rotational things, so he has enough observations,

to know every time Simon's on a team, you know, they do better. And what he finds is that IQ is not a predictor of being a team player. I don't think it's a negative predictor, but it's certainly not a positive predictor. The predictor is really how well you do on this test of social intelligence, like reading other people's emotions. And he does speculate, you know, economists tend not to be too forthcoming about like what might be going on because they don't want to make the wrong

“inferences going beyond the data. But I think he says, like, you know, basically, people work harder”

collectively when there is this empathy on the team, right? Or you're like checking in with people. You're like, oh, you know, you seem kind of annoyed by what I just said we should all do for the next step. Like, like, can you help me understand what's going on, right? Like, I don't want to annoy you. I think it's so interesting because if you just ask this deeper question, which is like, how much energy do we spend as a society? Yeah. Like checking it about this, measuring it,

rewarding it. It's like not enough. And you know, I think this is related to like the general, like decline and well-being among young adults. And I know you've thought a lot about generational changes, but that is the other thing that is like literally keeping me up at night, just like just how unhappy Gen Z is. Like, wow, like Holy smokes. And I think it's related to what we're talking about.

And I'm very happy to hear about this experiment because it basically validates my work,

which is the difference between high-performing teams and low-performing teams is not the IQ. It's how good a leader are you. And the good leader is checking in. The good leader is concerned about the well-being of their people. Yeah. And I guess I go back to what I said before because I'm thinking about some remarkable leaders I know who are brilliantly smart, but they care so much about their people first. And where I talked about the sort of more average, you know, they're not worried

about are you bringing down my grade? So what is your prescriptive recommendation then for like the rehaul of, you know, traditional incentives and structures in, let's say corporate America for starters, right? So I need, there is a rebalancing this part. It's not that individual performance isn't important. It's that we need a rebalancing, right? So for example, one of the theories that I've heard

“from business and one of my favorite companies and I think it's proprietary so I'm going to leave”

out their name. But they, they don't do individual performance, they do group performance. And it's not usually, it's not money-based. It's like, what are the things we have to do to succeed? And the analogy they use is sports, right? Which is, in sports, nobody practices winning. You don't practice winning in sports. You practice plays. And then you go out on the field and if you play the plays to perfection, you're more likely to win as a team. But nobody practices winning. And so

he took that logic and they applied it to their company. I guess I can see what it is. Check bicycles.

They're amazing. John Burke is the CEO. John Burke was inspired by the sports idea.

You know, of playing the play to perfection. And so what he does is say, what are the plays? So if if you're in marketing, if you're in product development, if you're in sales, what are the plays? Versus versus what is the score? Right. And so what are the plays that if we do these plays to

“perfection were more likely to succeed? Now, I'm, we're going to score ourselves. We're going to”

do score cards and we're going to score how well we're playing the play on the plays. And so there's no individual incentive at all put into these. It's all team-oriented. The incentives come later, which is if the corporation hits certain goals, then those in leadership position will get a financial benefit. Do you think some people listening to you say that will be like, wow, I didn't know Simon Sinek was a communist. I mean, it sounds a little bit like, hey, if we all work together,

then like the harvest will be better. And you know, all be fed. Right. Do you know what people worry about is that without creating a local like individual incentive structure, then there's the, you know, sort of the, the slacking off phenomenon, right? But, but it's, it's not communism says, everything's equal and everybody, and everything's distributed, right? And everybody does there, that's not what this is saying. What he's saying is we are more likely to succeed, hit and exceed

our goals. If we work better as a team. And so the better I can incentivize teamwork than individual performance, the more likely we will succeed as a, as a company, a team sport. You do not incentivize individual performance. You incentivize how well they play plays. So it's all fine and good that you're the fastest runner. Okay. So maybe your point is like, you don't incentivize the outcome, which you have limited agency over, but you incentivize to think that somebody has, I don't know,

it's 100%. But like, yeah, like a lot of engines, the over. If somebody is a great runner, then let's, then the play we're going to run, maybe we'll have our fastest runner be the runner in

You know, it's, it's leveraging everybody's individual skills for the good of the play.

Yeah. Do you think this has anything to do with what we're going to say is like too far field, but just the other day, I was listening to another Harvard professor named Mike Norton give a talk on CEO pay. And so he has these charts about how much people think that a CEO should make relative to the lowest paid worker in the company, right? Like an unskilled worker say like a factory worker or something. And then, you know, you can listen to these, you know,

so, I think should be 10 to 1. You know, some people might say like 20 to 1. I think the average was something in the teens, right? Like 12 to 1, right? So if I make $10 an hour, you know, I'm comfortable with you making $120 an hour or something like that, right? But then he has, like, the other side on, like, you actually, what, what the ratio is and maybe this isn't entirely related, but it is really stunning how vastly, you know, higher paid CEOs are then 30, like 50 to 1 or something.

I think it's over 200 or something crazy. I mean, I'm, I might be wrong, but I think order of

“magnitude, it's like, whatever, 10, but here's the thing. Do you know about this, so the answer”

apology of this, I find really fascinating, right, which is, and to your point, people aren't angry that somebody more senior makes more money, right? Because we're naturally higher or are called animals. I like the answer apology of it, which is, you know, you go back to early homo sapiens, you know, we're living in tribes of about 152, 100 max, and you know, austere conditions, and the hunters bring back food and we're all hungry. So what happens? And so if you just left it to

the concept of, you know, the misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, which is not about strength, different conversation, which is, then we'd all shove our way to the front, and if you happen

to be built like a football player, you get to eat first, and the artist of the family gets an

elbow in the face. This is a bad system for cooperation, because if you punch me in the face this afternoon, I'm not going to wake you and alert you to danger tonight. And so we evolved into these hierarchical animals, where we're constantly assessing and judging who's alpha in the, in the, in the natural hierarchy, and we defer to the alphas. So we let our alphas get first choice of meat and first choice of meat. And this is true in, in our modern world too, which is, you know, you hold a door open

for somebody's senior, you know, you're, if you're, if you're a senior, and you left your coat in the other room, someone will go get your coat for you. If you're a junior, you get your own coat, right? You get about a parking space, you get a better office, and nobody minds that somebody more senior gets a higher salary than me. I might think you're an idiot, but I'm not morally offended by it. No, we get, we get hierarchy. I agree. We are hierarchical. But where, where it gets screwy

is, and go back to caveman again, which is, the group is not stupid. We don't give these benefits of leadership for free. Yeah. There's a deep seated social expectation that if danger threatens the tribe, the person who's actually smarter, actually stronger, actually better fed, will be the one to rush towards the danger to protect the tribe. In other words, the benefits

“come at a cost. So if you want to be a leader, it comes at a cost. And so if you go back to”

our modern world, we have no problem paying our leaders incredible amounts more than what we get.

However, if the economy hits the skids, if bad things happen, you better put your own interests aside and protect us. But what ends up happening is we see CEOs lay their people off, lay off their people to protect their bonuses. And that's why we get angry. It's not the disparity, it's that they have failed their deep seated social contract. They have aggregated the contract, right? Exactly. That's where we get morally offended. I think when you ask people what they

think the ideal thing is, and they're like, oh, you know, it's different from what the actual is. But when you show them the actual, they're not like, oh, wow, let's do something about it. Maybe you can move them a little bit. Like, hey, should we have this policy? Should we have that policy? But but maybe what you're saying is let that's not really people's central concern. I don't care that you make 500 times what I make. What I care about is that you have an obligation

“as our leader to protect and to serve. And therefore, if I'm threatened, you have to go do your job,”

right? That was the one job I gave you. The one job I gave you was to protect the tribe. Yeah. And it goes right back to where we started, which is teamwork, which is, hey, how you doing? You okay? Like, do you even care about me? Because if you do care about me, I won't work my brains out to see that your company does really, really well, because I'm grateful that I feel protected in this tribe called my job. Right? Well, let me ask you this business

question because, you know, I am a professor at a business school slash, you know, I don't have,

if you have a large company and you are at the head or, um, in the, you know, executive leadership, how does this work, right? Because you're taking us back to the time where there are like 150 people living in a group. It's more clear to me what I do to show you in word and indeed that I do

“care about you, even though you are a lower ranking person in the hierarchy. So what does it mean?”

When you have like a global conglomerate of like 5 or 10,000 people or more? So super simple, we see it all the time, unfortunately, at the end of every financial year, especially in the public markets, but not exclusively, we're seeing in the private markets too, because the amount of

VC in business today basically is making lots of private companies operate like public companies,

which is like care more about their investors and their shareholders than they do about their employees and their customers, right? And they're quarterly, quarterly for four months in their world. The whole idea that you're better off as a private company is not necessarily even true anymore, but we see it all the time, which is the company missed its projections. These projections were arbitrary. They made up numbers of what goals we could hit and they missed them.

They're still profitable. They're just not as profitable as they promised. And so to make the numbers work, they send you home and you can tell your spouse, you no longer have a job, because the company missed its arbitrary projections. Because if I hit the projections, I get my bonus, because my bonus is based on the price of the equity, right? So we see it all the time,

versus a company saying, we missed our numbers and that's it, we missed our numbers. And so the

shareholders we've pissed off, but that's okay. Don't worry about it. Let's learn our lessons and figure it out next time and protect the people. I saw it happen even in one of my favorite examples, Barry Way Miller, Bob Chapman, the CEO of Barry Way Miller. And in 2008, they lost 30% of their orders and their company was, I mean, like if they, the expenses that they had, that they continued down that path, it would have been very, very damaging to the company. And the board is like,

we need layoffs. We have to do layoffs. That is the prudent thing to do. And Bob absolutely refused. And what they ended up doing was implementing a furlough program that every employee had to take

“I can't remember what it was two weeks or three weeks. A can't remember what was four weeks vacation.”

They didn't have to take it consecutively. They could take it whenever they wanted. But Bob announced

the program and he said, better, we should all suffer a little than anyone should have to suffer a lot

and no one less their jobs. And something that was not a part of the program, but happened organically, which is the team started looking after each other. So people who could afford to take off more time would do so so that people who couldn't afford to take off any time didn't have to take off any. And this is the point, which is when leadership expressed care about the people, the people to care of each other as opposed to stabbing each other back because I got to protect

Numerous Uno. I got to protect myself. Right. Right. Right. Like you turned it from a zero of some game into, right, like a collective. And all these years later, people still talk about that and talk about their love and loyalty to the company from that time. You know, I think there's another company. I don't know that they had the same crisis, but like one of my favorite companies is Wegmans. You know, the supermarket chain. Do you have a Wegmans near you? I don't. But I've been.

Going to Wegmans. Do you think it's like a magical experience? I just like it's so fun. It's like it's like, it's like, people are nice. Like help you. It's like that too. And trader Joe. Yes, Wegmans trader doesn't. I knew an executive in the food industry and he was like, by the way,

“if you want to talk about like cold chain management and these things that like nobody really”

thinks about, but actually you should know that like it influences the quality of your food, like they were like Wegmans and trader Joe's like best in the business. Yeah. But on culture, I think they have a policy. I mean, they're very successful supermarket. And so they don't think they have a lot of closures, but you know, like every company they take risks, you know, like whatever, they're going to start a cafe and like maybe the cafe idea takes off and maybe

they shouldn't have cafes. I think they have a general corporate policy that that, you know, if a store doesn't work out or if an idea doesn't work out, that you have a job, you have an open invitation and maybe you don't have like infinite latitude about what those choices are. But I think it builds tremendous loyalty. But when I learned about its culture, it made me think of, um, do you know this anthropologist since you like anthropology, name Alan Fisk at UCLA?

Like this is very Simon Sinek. I think you'll appreciate this theory that he developed for understanding human relationships. So he said, you know, we have different kinds of relationships with other people and they're categorically different and they have like different math to it, like different logic. So one kind you already mentioned, which is hierarchy, right? We are primate species. And so I know what it means to be a follower. I know what it means to be a leader.

I know what it means to be a manager. I know what it means to be a subordinate. And um, those have rules, you know, like, um, for example, when the manager says to do something, the employee tends to do it, there's another kind of relationship, which is like a contractual relationship or matching

state of price of this pizza. And you are going to give me a pizza in return. And it's tip for

tat and, you know, we agree on prices and, you know, that's it. And the third kind of relationship

is a communal relationship where you're, you're sort of part of the same organism. So now, instead of like taking orders from you because you are my manager or because, um, you know, you paid me a certain amount and in return, I promised you a certain service in return. A communal relationship, which is, it's almost like, you know, the elbow to the wrist of the hand to the foot, like,

“your part of an organism. And the analogy I think he has used is like, if you come down in the”

morning to the kitchen and you open their refrigerator and you pour a glass of milk, you're not recording on a little pad that you, like, took eight ounces of milk and you owe the family eight ounces and you'll try not to drink too much milk in the next week to balance it out. Nobody thinks about that, right? Because you're in a family and the milk when it's gone, somebody has to go buy the milk, but that's pretty much it. And I think that that bears on, like,

what we're talking about because, yes, we are hierarchical going where, you know, primate. But I think the best leaders, you know, understand that, at least at some tacit level, that in some ways, you're in all three relationships with the people who work for you, right? Yes, or the boss, also you have made contractual obligations that you will honor and are explicit. But thirdly, I do think that that's the best feeling in the world to feel that you are, you know, part of an

organism and you're going to do your part and then other people are going to do other parts, but you're not really individuals, like, first and foremost. Look, you've had contracts with people and

everybody knows that the best contracts are when you sign it and then you never refer back to it.

Yeah, you probably don't even refer back to it. Everybody just get the work done and nobody's actually checking if you're doing more or less and nobody's actually working with my contracts as with my employer, right? Like University of Pennsylvania. Did I even sign one? A relationship is gone sour when you pull out the contract and you start referring to the terms. When you're reviewing the prenat, right? It's not a good choice, yeah. And so even though the contract, like an employment

“agreement or minimum standards or whatever it is, it's really important for mutual protections”

at the beginning, but once that deal is signed and that you shake hands and say, we both agree to these broad terms, it gets put aside and this is why it's like, you're contracted to work 40 hours a week, you know? But we're in a green project. I mean, like, I, for example, I'll tell you what we do, right? So, yeah. And it's not because it's written down. It's not a company policy. It's not a promise. It's just what we do. If somebody works on a on a Saturday, like we have a

huge project and somebody, whether they're asked to or not, but they work on a Saturday, somebody will say to them, hey, listen, thanks so much for working this Saturday. Why don't you take any day off your week? Use your, use your responsible freedom to pick the right day. You know, we advise you to Friday or Monday because it'll work out better for you. But like, take off, we owe you a day. Like, we took one of your personal days. So, we owe you one of our days.

Yeah. Yeah. Again, it's not written down. It's not a corporate policy. It's just like, that's the right thing to do. And so, yeah, the point is, is we don't pull out the contract and say, well, we're entitled to six weekends a year. You know, nobody cares. We're just thinking about each other. And I actually just, you know, pivot real quick. I, you know, if you go back to your family analogy, you know, mom and dad are the leaders of the of that of that company. And, you know,

when the milk is run out, it's mom, dad, we need more milk. And so, there's the expectation that the leaders will provide and we're not counting all the things. But like, let's just get the work done. You know, and there's the expectation that the kids will support. And you know, the data better better than I do, which is kids who are raised with chores tend to be happier as adults. Yeah, I totally wanted to do a chores random assignment study. Like, when my daughters who are

“now 24 and 22, like we looked up, when is it legal to work in Philadelphia and state of Pennsylvania?”

And my husband and I were like, the day you get your working papers, like, you're getting a job. Yeah. We were like, of mixed success and we, yes, they had chores. I think we were, you know, not as, but we knew that having a boss was like a good thing. But I wonder if, you know, the mallas slash on we of Gen Z, which, which is really documented. You use two French words there in the same sentence. You know, because it's the language of feeling. I love my word on we.

But those are like, I, it's just, let's be clear, just so that people who know what we're talking

about, like, because I, on we, and I always feel the definition, but on we is kind of like,

me. Okay. I think on we has a sort of like existential vibe. And I recently did a Google Scholar search because, you know, in addition to Google, I used Google Scholar to look up anything.

we. But I think it's a great word. Again, no directing was better. And I think like, spiritually

“restless, you're feeling a little empty. I mean, I think what's it actually? It wants it off more.”

And what am I doing? You know, from a philosophical, like, essential standpoint, not life.

All of the above, I think, all of the above. I think it's also something that, you know, people feel about themselves. Like, it's not necessarily just a comment on the state of the world. Yeah. And, you know, as you can tell from the description, it's not something that people like feeling. No. And I've been thinking about these, like, say, you know, 18 to 28 year olds, which is, as you know, the lower and upper bound of being a Gen Z adult. And when I look at

the data on how unhappy they are, it is really, I mean, I have to say, as a social scientist, it is rare to be shocked by data. When you look at the data on Gen Z adults and how they're feeling, how lonely they are, how depressed they are, how anxious they are, the number of days at the last

30, where they would say, like, every day was a bad day. It's really amazing how unwell they are

in that sense. And I mean, everyone points to phones and to social media. I don't think it's a complete

“explanation, I think. I mean, Victor Franco pointed out the existential crisis that he both saw”

and predicted for the United States when he came to visit in the mid 20th century. So I think it's, it's not uniquely a social media phenomenon because that predate social media. And I'm not saying that phones and screens don't have anything to do with it. But I just wonder, you know, assignment to somebody who thinks about these things, like, what the heck do you think is going on? Yeah, I think there's two very, very simple answers. And social media and cell phones are not

the cause, but they do absolutely exaggerate the problem. And it's not feeling a part of a community, not feeling a part of something bigger myself, no sense of belonging. And few, if any deep meaningful relationships, I mean, those are not the same thing. You're saying like not the same thing. Not the same thing, not the same thing, not the same thing. Yeah, elaborate. A deep meaning for relationship is a friendship with someone with whom I can fight in, that I share my hard days.

I celebrate my good days. I want to be there and sit in the mud with them on their bad days. And I want to cheer them on on their good days, right, fully relaxed. And even young people will admit to me, you know, that they wouldn't be surprised if their friends canceled on them because they got better plans. I've heard people tell me that they like their friends. They have fun with their friends. They enjoy the company with their friends, but they don't deeply trust

their friends and wouldn't turn to them in a time of desperate need. Yeah. So you go to the chat GPTs for advice and hard times. And that business model, I was like, oh, we got another live one, you know? Yeah. Yeah. We keep using like drugs and alcohol to talk about the addiction of phones and social media, which is unfair, because when you are addicted to drugs or alcohol, the way you can solve that addiction is abstinence. You cease the use of drugs and alcohol.

Right. That's the use of social media and your cell phone entirely. And so it's more like a needing disorder, which is you can't stop food to get over your believing. You can't stop eating,

“but you have to learn to have a healthy relationship with friends. I would argue that we have to”

learn to have healthy relationships with the devices, but the priority is the friend. And how do I have a healthy relationship with the device in order to prioritize my friend? And the act of service, which is, it's not about me. And so if I'm struggling with deep meaningful relationships, instead of sworing about me and how do I get friends? How do I help my friends get friends? And how do I be the friend that people want? And that actually helps solve the problem. So that's friendship is one problem.

The other one is belonging. It's a deep psychological need to feel a part of something bigger than

ourselves. I am both me and I am a member of a group every moment of every day. But the problem is

where's the group? You know, there's no bowling leagues, there's a decline in membership to churches, and where work could provide that sense of belonging in meaning. And just what we just talked about, the problem is, is all the incentive structures at work are not about belonging in meaning. The purpose is a statement on a website, but we don't actually use it to make decisions. It's all about individual performance and money. And it is, there's nothing to do with

serving the greater good. Using our products of services or our culture to give people a sense that they're contributing to something larger. You go back to that company, Barry Waymiller, and you walk around their factory. In fact, I did an episode with Bob Chapman and Barry Waymiller where we visited their factory. You can see that these magical human beings feel a part of something bigger than themselves. They work in a factory. And so if that company is able to give people

And even in America, like as a nation, we've lost that sense of feeling part of something bigger

than ourselves. And I will blame every president that has served since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, because we got a cheat. Because when there was an existential threat outside of our own borders, it's like, no matter how much our political divisions were at the end of the day, the threat outside our borders is worse than the threat inside our borders. So it gave us a collective feeling of we're in this together. You know, we saw it after September 11th. You know? Right.

Assama bin Laden thought it would divide our country. It did the opposite. It brought us together, because the existential threat was scarier outside of our borders than inside our borders. And it

“brings us together. And so I think every president since the collapse of the Berlin Wall”

has failed to bring to give us a sense of immunity and belonging and that only contributes to,

well, if I can't get it at a national level and I'm not getting it at my work. I'm not getting it my work and I'm not getting it from my church and I'm not getting it. By the way, amongst young people, we're seeing a rise of church management. I just heard that. I just heard that very recently, right? All of the students are attending church and worshiping. They're becoming more religious and Godfaring. And you can see it. And if you look on the left or the right side of the aisle,

you can see people desperately, especially young people desperately looking for anything that will help them feel like they're a part of something bigger than themselves. So on the left, it might be Palestine, Israel, that kind of thing. On the right, it might be Vax or masks or whatever

it was, you know. And those things have all of the feelings of movement and a part of something

bigger and I'm contributing it has the community and has all of it. But for the fact that all of those things are reactive and temporary and they aren't something that you would commit your entire life to and then your kids will pick up the torch where you left off. And you can see one thing will phase out and something else will phase in. But what's interesting to me is not what they're latching onto. It's that everybody's trying to latch onto something. How do you rally a people to

come together around a common cause without waiting for fear to galvanize us? And this is what distinguishes the reactive cause finding that we see versus real cause. You still need, unfortunately, you still need a threat. And I'm very uncomfortable at this point of view and I've struggled with it for over a decade, which is it is much easier to know what you stand for when you can see the thing that stands in the way of what you stand for, right? Because standing for something is ethereal,

it lives in our imagination where the thing that is against is real and tangible. And the difference between the reactive versus the true cause relationship is the threat that stands in the way of you achieving what you're trying to get is temporary. It is simply an obstacle in the way and true cause is being able to know what is on the other side of that obstacle that will outlast. It'll have another obstacle and another obstacle, but we are driven by what is on the other side of the wall,

we are not driven by breaking down the wall, although we recognize that the wall is an obstacle. And so the Soviet Union stood in the way of us achieving democracy in peace in the world. And it's not that we are inherently waiting for them to fail. It's just that if they did go away,

“we still believe in democracy in peace. I believe in a world in which people wake up in the morning”

inspired. If you'll say forever they are in the day fulfilled by the work that they do. I see current leadership models left over from the 80s and 90s and the lack of good leadership education as the obstacle standing in the way from me achieving my vision. So I am anti, you know, the way Wall Street tells us to run companies. I'm an anti the way, you know, private investors and venture capitalists tell good CEOs how to run their companies.

I'm anti-ranking, anti-mass layoffs. I'm anti those things, but if I got rid of those things, I still have something to believe in. Right. Right. And so it's not that I'm just anti-corporate. That's too convenient. That's not true. Yeah. But I'm driven by the vision of where to go to. So like you can take a look at both the left and the right. And you can play the mental exercise, which is, okay, what if you achieve what you're looking for? Then what? There's no, there's no answer.

There's no answer because it's not, it's against something. It's not for something.

“But not for something. I think that's true. Do you think, I mean, obviously you think it's true,”

you just said that, I don't know if they would agree that that it's true. I ask for any of them to articulate the vision and explain what this is standing in the way of because they talk about the obstacle more than they talk about where they're going. And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, true cause, true vision is not, is not exclusively about standing against. Yeah, it's not

And the question is, what are you in service to building? Who's your favorite leader? Like who

are your favorite leader? Who are the leaders that you think? Well, like, okay, let me give you a counter-example to what I just described. I mean, it's the greatest hits. Do you know, given to me? You know,

“I think with the church, it was pretty great. I think Marshall was George Marshall.”

George Marshall. Marshall plan. Marshall plan. Yeah. What a remarkable. Marshall plan was good. What a, he was, he was secretary of defense. He was secretary of state. And he developed the Marshall plan after the end of the war. His thinking was like, okay, we've completely flattened Japan. So how do we prevent Japan from rising up again and threatening us again in a future, right? So we can suppress them and we can overbear them with force and might, which probably won't work in

the long-term, it'll work in the short-term. What if we spend our money rebuild that nation and make them a great trading partner? No, I'm a Marshall scholar. So I have George Marshall to think. Oh, there you go. And what a brilliant long-term idea to spend our own money to rebuild our enemies to turn them into allies. And that's exactly what happened. What about like, living today, like, 2025, 2026? Yeah. So, so I told you about, about Bob Chapman, from Barry Wheeler. Yeah, he sounds great.

Who is absolutely remarkable. And by the way, wasn't born that way. He, he had to have come to Jesus and recognize that the way he was leading was was was not the way to lead. And so

so so leaders, the good ones have conversions, you know, and so it's never too late. So yeah,

Bob was converted. He used to view people as items on a spreadsheet until he didn't.

“I told you about John Burke from Trek bicycles. I think he's absolutely remarkable.”

Yeah. Gary Ridge, who left WD40 just recently, I think he was one of the good guys. You know, you talk, I mean, if you just look at the companies we love to do business with, yeah, you're going to get some clues because people who love to work for their companies we love to work with them. Yeah. So, so like, sure, Wegmans, that's on the list. How can it not be? You know, trader Joe's, how can it not be? Just go and interact with their employees.

And you'll get a very clear sense of what the leadership environment is like. The litmus test. Like, when I go there, is everybody happy? Like, you know, wanting to be helpful. And there are companies that I will keep their names out of this, who I used to love going to their stores. And now it's just a retail experience. Or worse. Or worse. Or worse. Or worse. Or worse. Or worse. Or worse. I went to a store recently and I sort of like said semi-jocally to the

guy as was buying something. I was like any sales today. He's like, I'll give you 50% off. I'm like, say more. And you know, why he gave me 50% off? Because he, because he hates his job. Oh, and he's like, I would rather you have the money than he couldn't give a shit. He's like, screw this place. You can have 50% off. It wasn't done like, oh my god, here, here, let me give, it wasn't done like this. Like, you know what, screw this place. I'll give you 50% off.

It was done out of anger. Yeah. Yeah. So much work to be done. Simon, Senate. I know. I know. Can I ask you one other question? Because I'm curious about this with your work. So your, your work in my work has both been on the market for 10 years. And both your language and my language have now been integrated into the vernacular, which is, you know, grit is now a much talked about thing. And people talk about their why, which is a great honor for

both of us, right? What about your work has either been completely misinterpreted and

“or is outdated? Oh, right. Like, what if I change my mind about or what is a misconception?”

Right. Because because grit is one of those very dangerous things, I'll tell you where the root of the question comes from, right? I see people who are unhappy. I see people who are grinding. And they're like, I have to grit it out. I got to grit it out. And like, it is either used to force myself to do something I don't want to do. And I've lost any joy or it is used as a feedback. Like, you need more grit, you know? Yeah. And not getting on what I think the misconception

is. So I'm going to answer both these questions. The first is, I mean, I recently reread grit.

I'd give it to my undergraduates to read and I wouldn't give them anything to read that I don't read the same time they do. I agree with my past self Simon. And yeah, growth mindset check, deliberate practice check. Like, you know, getting to the flow state and being interested in what you do check. Like, I, I stand by what I said, um, now to answer your other question, I think it's a huge misconception to think that what gritty people really are are people who have iron

you know, they're like white knuckling their way to excellence. But as you know,

better than most. Yeah. And I think myself included, not just because of what we study for living but also because who we are that nobody becomes great at what they do because they're forcing themselves against their, against their will. I mean, there are four things that I think run through the mind of a person who has grit. This is interesting. This is important. I can do this. Yeah. I know what to try next. Yeah. When you have those four sentences, like nobody has to like

shove you out of bed in the morning, you know, force you to stay late, you want to. And so the the monosolabic, you know grit, um, you know, should I grit or should I quit? I mean, it's not the Nike slogan. I will tell you that. It's not just do it. And look, the great thing is the concept has, has, has spread. And I think the part that I try and instill in people

“is is, is the sacrifice worth it. Like you should lean into your grit if it, if it feels like”

it's worth it. Which, by the way, is a rational decision. I know people think that what gritty people do is they do irrational things. No, they do rational things, but the way they tally up the costs and benefits make me different than the way you do, but nobody does a rational things. Nobody does things where the, you know, the, the costs outweigh the benefits to them, right? I think some people to your point, which is when they get it wrong, is they feel they

need to prove to themselves or somebody else. I, I hear by getting everybody license and endorsement and even encouragement to quit the things that you hate. There we go. You know, like, don't spend another day doing things that you don't really want to do it. I think everybody, if they interest fact, and they look in the mirror and they say, like, do I really want to do this? Like, don't worry about like, you know, being a whim, like, you, you probably have a voice in you

“that, and if the answer is no, go do something else. Life is short. Yeah, love. Thank you for that.”

Thank you for that. That's a great question. I love that question. It speaks to something slightly aside to what we're talking about, but related, and it goes right back to what we're talking

about about grading, which is I've always believed that grades should be given as ratios,

which is the level of accomplishment. You're grade over how many hours you studied. Right? So you got it. You got it. Oh, that's interesting. You got it. It's like a efficiency rating. So you get an A over 50 or a B plus over a three. So because what it does is it demonstrates that an A is not necessarily a better grade than a B plus. It depends the kind of person you're looking for. So if you need somebody to hit perfection and you're willing to give them the time to hit it,

you hire the A over a 50. But if you need somebody who grind, if you need somebody who can grind and do pretty well, you know, with a lot of pressure, you hire the B plus over the three because the A over the 50 is going to flail in your company. Right? Well, I like this because you're like not only in my going to radically change the way you think about it, like even the scale, it's not like more as it was better. And it's not that a higher level of accomplishment is better. It tells you different

“skills and different personalities. Right? So I my whole life was a B plus over a three guy. Right?”

And I literally would have people be like, I'm smarter than you. I got an A. I'm like, yeah, but your life sucks. You studied 50 hours. Like, I studied three. And I, I'm okay with the B plus. Right. Right. Well, I I like the ratio. I'm not sure I'm going to change all my grading to it. And I'm not sure I would categorize myself as the same person you were. But you know, there is something about hard workers. Like, they have a heuristic. They have a rule, which is like,

pain is good. You know, like suffering is good. Being tired is good, not getting enough sleep is good. And all those rules are stupid. Like, no, that's not true. Aficiency is good. Yep. Sleep is great. If you can get this task done in five minutes that I thought was going to take you an hour, that's amazing. Yeah. Right. But I think there is a kind of, you know, massacistic, you know, self-fledgelating, like, oh, I know that tired is good. And I spent a lot of my

life that way. I was like, oh, the more tired I go to bed, like the better I am doing. And like, now at the age of 55, I'm like, no, exactly the opposite. But I think it took me longer than I would have liked to figure out that efficiency is a thing. And I think it's, like, I know that there's

always somebody who's going to sell more books, make more money, be better, looking, be more charming.

Boom, boom, boom, so like, I'm not competing against them. Right. I'm competing against me. Do I want the aid to make myself feel better? Sometimes depends what the thing is. And sometimes be plus is great because I want to go live my life. It comes right back. It sums up so perfectly the whole conversation we've had and the loneliness unhappiness of a young generation who has been raised in an environment that over-emphasizes individual performance.

away from either their parents having been laid off or their friends, parents having been

“laid off through no fault of their own. It was not a meritocracy. They've been raised in a world”

in which they've seen only bad leadership in jobs, you know, where the company would soon sacrifice the people than than its own money or the CEO's executive pay package over the people's pay packages. Right. We see this over and over again and it's no wonder why they're cynical. They don't trust companies. They offer no loyalty and they're unhappy. I would be too. And the solution that we're asking is be the friend you wish you had. Be the leader you wish

you had because in every example that you and I've been talking about about the highest performing teams, the happiest people, the healthiest people. It's not about grit. It's not about individual

performance. It's not about me before we. In every single circumstance, it's a commitment to the

greater good. It's a commitment to serve. It's a commitment to the people to the left of me and the people to the right of me and the great irony is when we do that, we're happier, we're healthier,

“we feel more connected and the performance of the organization regardless of which organization we're”

working for thrives. I literally could not agree more and I couldn't agree more that that is not the general direction of where a society is going. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Because you, yes, it is. I can prove it. I have empirical evidence. You and I have careers. You and I should not have careers. There should be no demand for our work. We talk about trust. We talk about cooperation and there should be no demand for our work. But the fact that people are

interested in the things that we're putting in the world that are some of the guidance that we can help offer towards getting to that ideal that we imagine proves that people are hungry for this. I would not have had a career in the 80s or 90s. They would have left. The new also proves that they have a yearning of like, you know, just to, so let's see, okay, in five years, right, which is the optimist in me, which is a people want it. I agree. The fact that it is demand is the embarrassing

part, but the fact that it exists. All right, I got to ask a couple more questions here. Five years from now will revisit the conversation we'll see how went. And in the meanwhile, we'll try to like, you know, tilt the odds in the direction. I promise to have you back on the old pod in five years. Okay, if you could teach every child or young person, one thing about grit and building character, what would it be and why? I would say that character is everything you do, not just for

yourself, but for other people. That is my definition of character. And if that's only one thing, that's I'll leave it at that. It's like what you do, not just for yourself, but for others. If you ever ask, like, what is my character? Like, what do people mean by good character? What do they mean by bad character? It's all in the definition. That is brilliant. And I think it challenges a traditional definition of character, which is it's how you are when nobody's looking. When nobody's looking.

And I think that is not enough. And I think this is better. It's how it's, it's, it's the pro social component. It's how you treat others. Exactly. It's what we've been talking about payment for that. I completely agree with you. Do you have a struggle with losing motivation? And if so, what are your tricks to getting it back? Yes, I have struggled even with burnout, which I used to talk about as an academic subject in the abstract, but have personally experienced

in the last couple of years. And you know, it turns out like I can experience that emotion. I will just

say that when you are really struggling with your motivation, I think the first thing to do

is to like really listen to that because whenever you feel anything, it's like spraying your ankle.

“The first thing you should do is ask like what's wrong and not blame yourself and not try to”

like fast forward to not feeling burned out and to suddenly wake up the next day and have a lot of energy. But to really ask with seriousness what's wrong, I did finally learn to ask what was wrong and then I fixed it. It took a long time and now I don't feel that way. The thing that I really like about what you said there about the loss of motivation or the feeling of demotivation or unmotivation, I don't know what the grammar is. But that is what you said is it's a feeling.

It's a feeling. It's an emotion. I think burnout is best characterized as an emotional state. And like all emotions, you know, they're signals. Burn out as an emotion and you have to allow yourself to feel, right? So we don't want everybody to go through the world being happy all the time. That's not healthy. But a healthy human being has a range of emotions and burnout is one of those emotions, including happy sad, angry and all of the rest, jealousy and so the question is

if you have that feeling, like any of those feelings, investigate where that feeling is coming from. Exactly. Great advice. Angela, thank you so much. It's so fun talking to you because we just

Thank you. Thank you. I'll see you soon, Simon. A bit of optimism is a production of the

“optimism company, lovingly produced by our team Lindsay Garbinius, Phoebe Bradford”

and Devon Johnson. Subscribe wherever you enjoy listening to podcasts and if you want even more

cool stuff, visit SimonCenic.com. Thanks for listening. Take care of yourself. Take care of each other.