Well, that scenario is an exciting examination. It's an example of, what I would call, a discovery meeting. Let's point out from the beginning, that the CEO creates a space where he's saying, yes, we're doing well, but that's not what this is about. >> Yes. >> What are we missing? He's inviting a question, he's asking a question. He's framing a meeting not about what we know, or what we're good at, or let's just pat each other on the back. What is it we're missing? And he's turning to his team to invite them for their ideas. That's a frame that creates a space about discovery, as opposed to just production or putting things into use. And he's taking the time, they've created the space. They put their phones away so that they're all able to be in the moment and talk to each other. That's an important step. >> Yeah, and the bank with 12% of market share and the quarter-on-quarter growth, boy, the celebration doesn't stop. It's just endless. And it's so easy to lose yourself in the success. But what we saw in the team was they were taking a pause, a pause to reflect. In 2008, the global meltdown wasn't something they forgot in their celebration. It is a tough thing to bring out, a failure collectively. They may not have been responsible, but you notice the CEO said that banks are supposed to protect, not cause financial meltdown. >> [LAUGH] Right. >> It's bizarre how paradoxes happen. >> Absolutely, and one thing that I noticed, and I'm sure you observed as well, is that it's a very diverse team. Not just whether from different functions, but culturally, they were diverse. So in spite of the differences, they were able to work with each other. When you spoke about information diffusion, how are we going to diffuse information across the organization. And as you said, success can be limiting when you become complacent and just focus on celebration. And because it's a diverse team, they're diverse ideas as well. And what I really noticed about these were that there was advocacy of ideas. The scientists spoke about, we have 35 PhDs, believe us, trust us, we'll get this done. >> Big data, yeah. >> Big data, yes. >> Yeah, big data. Though there were advocacy of ideas, there was also an openness to discuss all the other ideas on the table. It was reiterated, again, by the CEO that it's not a zero-sum game. They're going to be able to listen to each other, listen to diverse perspectives and ideas, and take this team forward. >> I would reinforce that, in the sense that I thought there was some conflict. But the CEO was able, as you were saying, to frame it as, this is productive. I'm glad this is happening. We want to get different views out on the table. And he also reminded the team that it wasn't about who made the best point or who had 35 PhDs, it was about their understanding of each other's contributions, and how they were going to work together. Which I thought very much fits Alan, with the point you made about it being a discovery process. >> Yeah, I'm excited to see in real time, not just, afterwards we have to have another meeting because we didn't do this well. The CEO saying, wait a minute, we don't have to make a choice between your way science about big data and PhDs, and your way of voices in the organization coming up. We can do both of these things. This is an exciting opportunity where he is putting both of these things in play. Not making a false choice, well, this seems like it's more likely to get us to the answers sooner, so let's do this. Let's make that choice, and we'll forget about this other. No, we want that tension, we want those differences expressed. That's a nice piece, well illustrated by this scenario. >> Right. >> Of difference of exchange, of people coming from different perspectives. And not just different departments of the organization, different parts of the world, sharing their ideas. >> And when you started to, sorry, go on. >> [LAUGH] >> Another thing that I thought that the CEO did well was he brought people back and said, we need to make sure that what we're doing is aligned with our values. So it wasn't just that everybody's opinion was going to be heard, which was important, but they were also going to make sure that it fit with their values and where they were headed. >> Absolutely, I was just about- >> And I interrupted you. >> [LAUGH] >> No, that's okay, I was about to heap more praise- >> [LAUGH] >> On this CEO. I thought the pivotal moment, in that meeting, was when the CEO said, what are we missing? And that generates discussion on going on to discover our blind spots, things that we might not have considered so far, and pushing the dialogue forward towards that. >> At a meta-level, technically, they were just a bunch of people sitting in the room. But look at the way they got everyone in. They brought in the voice of the customer. They brought in the voices across the floors. They brought in sales, they brought in crowdsourcing, they brought in collective intelligence. They brought in not just the 35 PhDs who I've spoken about it, but the boots on the ground. So in many ways, it was talking about multiple stakeholders who are outside, the external environment. And they seem to be cognizant of the fact that they are as much influenced by the environment as they are influencing the environment. And that is taking into consideration a massive systemic ripple, the impact of one's actions and the consequences that get sent out into the system. >> It's an exciting meeting for a number of reasons, I think. We all wish, I think, we had more meetings like this. I think you used the term- >> I sure do. >> [LAUGH] >> Reflecting, they're reflecting, but they're also reflecting forward. What can we learn? What have we done that we can use going forward? And we've made mistakes, and there have been problems, and banks have caused problems. Let's not do that. So this idea of moving forward and then handling the tension, this makes me think about a tool that we can also use, from Chris Argyris and other scholars. I'll call it the ladder of inference. He calls it such. And that is that where is this discussion taking place? In the ladder of inference, there's all of life, and there's all sorts of things going on, but we use certain lenses. And we want to use more than one, and more than one frame, to select data that's important. What's useful? What's important? Of all the things that are happening, what's going on? Big data, science, is going to help us with some of that. Voices of our people out with the customer, face to face, that's important data. So if some are making a false choice about that, and at some point instead of allowing that conversation to go up to, well, I think this is more important. >> Right. >> My belief, my conclusion, my judgment, is that I rely more on one than the other. Hold that, keep that tension, and don't make those decisions. Don't force yourself up this ladder from the data, to then culturally shared meetings. Well, if we're doing this in India, then we have to do it this way. If we were doing it in Sweden, we could maybe do something else. Well, let's look at those culturally shared meanings. It's going to help us understand what's going on, and what our customers think and what our employees think. And then, level three would be drawing conclusion and making judgements. Level four is building beliefs and assumptions. And, of course, when we have those assumptions, there's this reflective loop that causes us, if I see the world in a certain way, it causes me to count some information and discount other information. >> Right. >> So all of this is happening, and I think we'll talk more about this. But this idea of the ladder of inference, and making sure that, in these types of discovery meetings, that you're not just fighting with your judgements and beliefs against somebody else's judgements and beliefs. Let's get down and talk about why we think what we think. Let's peel away the cultural levels. Let's peel away down to the data and the specifics. And if we can agree on that and understand the different information that's available to us, then I think we can find some really exciting things and paths forward. >> It's amazing how rich the conversations would begin if we begin to say, what are the cultural assumptions that we're making, and as I take these steps. And I suppose when you're trying to practice this, and you can refer to this in the resources where this ladder of inference is drawn, to begin to ask those questions. To begin to ask, what are you assuming? What am I understanding, the assumptions I'm making of my understanding of what you just said. And you're sort of, Dana, we were talking about the undiscussable and pulling it out. Did you mean this? Am I correct in my understanding of what you're sharing? I think change often, and when we're doing it at an organizational level, we don't consider these micro conversations that take place. We don't consider these small units, meetings after meetings after meetings, taking place in this whole organization. And how conversations could change if we start using these tools, and how liberating those become.
