How Might We Learn From History To Make Better Decsions

In this Episode my guest is Brad Borkan. Brad has a great interest in how people and businesses build resilience. In this episode Brad shares his thoughts on how lessons from leaders of the past can help us make better decisions today.

Brad's first book was the award-winning book: WHEN YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT: Extreme Decision Making Lessons from the Antarctic. This book puts the reader right into the action of the life-and-death decisions made by early explorers. In it, we reveal unparalleled lessons in leadership, teamwork, and the sheer determination that can help all of us make better decisions in life. It won 1st Place in the Chanticleer International Book Awards for Insightful Non-fiction.

Brad's second book, AUDACIOUS GOALS, REMARKABLE RESULTS: How an Explorer, an Engineer and a Statesman Shaped our Modern World, focuses on six epic achievements made by three extraordinary people, one of whom is Theodore Roosevelt and another is the great Victorian-era engineer, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The book explains the mindset they each developed to make monumental impacts in their fields.

 

Transcript

Scott: [00:00:00] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of How Mike We, And on this episode, I'm pleased to welcome Brad Balkin and we are gonna be talking about how might we learn from history, make better decisions. So, Brad, welcome. Would you like to introduce yourself

Brad: please? Hi, Scott. Great to be here. Thanks for having me on your show.

I'm Brad Borkin, as you said, and I've written two books that have to deal with history in terms of looking at great explorers and great people in history and great endeavors that were occurred in history and ask what can we learn from this? Focusing on the decision making side of these people and these endeavors.

Scott: And I think, I mean, I like decisions cuz I think we've mentioned before when we're off air is decisions are basically the precursor to every action we.

Brad: Yes, they're at the heart of, of everything. And one of the things when it came to the early [00:01:00] Antarctic explorers was there's lots of books written about them as people, about the expeditions, like what they ate and how, where they traveled and the challenges they faced.

But actually up until the, the book that my coauthor and I wrote, no one ever looked at the decisions. And we looked at the life and death decisions, which were actually the most exciting ones because they all, they all came near death all the time, but they actually very rarely ever died.

Scott: Well, I can't, I suppose dying only happens once, so Yeah, that's it.

Brad: That's that's true. But, but they, but they came, they came, they faced all sorts of commodities and, and challenges and, and you know, these, these, you know, everything from frostbite, curvy to, to flowing, harasses and, and all sorts of things and that, but somehow they, they were sort of at one level sort of indestructible.

Yeah.

Scott: I think the interesting thing is, as I say, you make a, you make a decision. I think we've talked about this as well before, is, and basically you're trying to predict the future with a decision. Cause when [00:02:00] we don't know the outcome, until we actually make that decision and enact it.

Brad: That's right. Yeah.

And, and, and actually a good, good point is, is I retired from my main job in 2021 in, in July, 2021, which coincide with to launch my second book. And inflation was 2% and the stock market was slowly growing and the world was at peace. And a year later, you know, it seemed like a sane. Normal rational decision.

Inflations at 10%, the stock market is down 25%, and the war, you know, at least Ukraine and, and Russia at war. And it's, it's just a complete un perhaps not predictable, but it's, it's the, the outcome of a decision that you, you don't know until you look back many years later on. What's that? A good decision or a bad decision?

Scott: Well see, I, my view on decisions is I think the decision, we make decisions, and usually it's one of the, with the. Capabilities we have at that time, whatever they may be with the best [00:03:00]intentions for the outcome that we want this, that that's there. So I would say a decision either has the desire, Or unexpected outcomes.

Brad: Yes. And I think one of the things that's exciting about life and about looking, whether you're looking at explorers or you're looking at, at his great people in history, is that you can't, no one could predict the future. And even for them, like, just like we can't predict the weather that well, we really can't predict what the outcome is.

Whether you're heading to the South Pole and you're running outta food and you're trying to decide what do we do next? Or you're trying to build a Panama Canal and you're dealing with workforces, dying of yellow fever and, and all sorts of other engineering challenges and building the Panama Pinella.

It's like you just, you, you make. Best decision you can. But one of the things we learned, my co-author and I figured out in looking at these great decisions and great people, was that it's not about making the best decision, it's [00:04:00] about having the resiliency to recover from a bad decision.

Scott: Okay. And I suppose that's, especially when you're talking about the, the extremes in which they were doing the Panama Canal and the and the explorers is they are extreme.

And I imagine that a decision has an impact and you can see that quite quickly. And then you have to say, make a recovery decision or a

Brad: another one. Right. But that's true in modern life as well. I mean, in a sense like we all have to make the, we all make decisions about jobs and houses and cars and all the things that we do in our, in our day to day lives, relationships, all sorts of things.

And you can strive to make the perfect decision by, I've got a friend who tr want to buy a car, and he spent years, several years analyzing, looking at websites, trying to find the perfect car. as opposed to just going, buying a car and being like, Oh, if it's not the one for me, I'll just sell it and buy another one.

It's you can't it. We have so many tools at our disposal to make perfect decisions, or we think we can make perfect decisions that we're actually [00:05:00] better off making a decision and it might be the right one. As time will tell, or it may be not a good one, but there are many different ways to recover from, from a not good decision,

Scott: I suppose, making.

Well, the other thing I'll say is not, deciding not to do anything is a decision in itself.

Brad: That's right. That's right. Yeah. And, and there's some famous quote from Teddy Roosevelt about something like, you know, the something to the effect of the best thing is to make a decision, and the worst thing you could do is just not make a decision.

It's, it's that to make. The, It's better to even make the wrong decision than to make no decision. Cause at least then you're taking action that you're not being

Scott: on the path, aren't you? Something's happening. You've got momentum, right?

Brad: And if you're on that path and it's wrong, As happened with Panama Canal, you can start making, making the right decision.

So what? Yeah, the interesting thing with the Panama Canal was that the question was do you build a sea level canal? Basically you build a big trench and let the Atlantic Ocean of Pacific Oceans fill it. Or do [00:06:00] you build a, a canal with locks as the p Panama Canal exist today? And they started out with this idea, well, you just build a big trench and.

Dig across Panama and across all the swamps and the jungles and the rain forest and you big build this big trench. And, and it, and the problem was, it was the wrong decision. You just couldn't, they, the. The soil of the clay, the, the very wet, dense material earth that's there, that kept the more they dug, the more they had landslides.

I was just destroying the work they were doing. And they had, And what they found was that, So let's go back on the original decision and say that was the wrong decision. We try to the wrong decision, now we've gotta go to build locks. And they end up building 12 locks, each lock being like a thousand feet long and you know, three times bigger than any lock ever built in the world.

And they built 12 of them in 19, you know, in the years between 1910 and 19 four. . [00:07:00] So it's looking at a decision and saying, Okay, now we've got, make the wrong decision. Now it's gonna cost a whole ton of effort and money to to, to correct it, but we will correct it, and they were successful.

Scott: So in your view of all these, the, the people that you've done, they've all not been afraid to make decisions and actually enact on something and then say, Oh, that's not quite worked out properly.

And then made have say, the resilience then to make corrective.

Brad: Exactly, exactly. You saw that, we saw this in Antarctica a lot. Mm-hmm. that there's a wonderful decision that Shackleton had to make. He was, so this is his first expedition that he led in Antarctica, and it's lesser known than the expedition where the ship got sunk.

Ice and got crushed in the ice and, and sunk and, and called the endurance expedition. And this was called the Nero Expedition. And he and four men as part of this expedition left base [00:08:00] camp, and they were treking to the South Pole and they got to roughly from the coastline to the South Pole was about.

800, 850 miles. They got to within 103 miles of South Pole and realized they were running out of food and they were either, they had this choice, which is they had choice of either we go forward. And we probably dial all the way back. Almost certainly we'll die because we don't have any food together.

Sch back and we don't have any, There's no communication methods. There's nothing that they can call back the base camp and say, Hey, come rescue us. Or they turn around. And so two years setting up an expedition, checking out 700 something miles saying, Hey, we're 103 miles from the South Pole. We just need to turn back if we're gonna live to see it another day.

And he came to the decision and you'd think, Okay, this is a binary decision. This is either we go forward and we'll probably we'll hit our goal, but we'll probably die on the way back, or we go turn back at this [00:09:00] point. And he chose a third option, which was, he said, What we're going to do, I think it was January 8th, 1909.

And he said, What we're gonna do, we're gonna leave all you know on. On this day. We're going to leave everything. The tens, the food the sweeping bags. Everything that we've got, we're gonna leave behind. We're gonna walk south as far as we can for one day. We're gonna plant the British flag and that.

Then we'll turn around, head back to, to the camp site that we had, and the next day we'll start heading back. So the question is, why did he do that? And his reasoning was to cross the a hundred mile mark that it seemed a lot better to return to Britain being, Hey, we got within a hundred miles of South Pole than to say we got 103 miles to the South Pole.

And it's that ability to say, it's to make a decision, but to say, often we as human beings wanna find, make a binary decision. We wanna say, Is it A or B? Is it X or [00:10:00] Y? Is it Stop or go? Is. , you know, forward to back and he's was able to say, Look, there are third dis, there are third options. Yes, we have to go back if we're gonna live.

But taking that one extra day to plant the flag that much further meant to think it was sort of declare victory. It wasn't of, it wasn't a real victory, but it was a enough of victory that they go back to England and he could start raising money for another expedition.

Scott: So I think the thing for me is When your decision making is looking at the impacts of our decisions as well.

So and so we could stop here. It'd be a failure. We can go on and we can die. And you say there's, they see quite binary and he, he somehow picked up that third. And I think that's really important for how we're in business today and moving forward. Cuz the world is very ist binary.

Brad: Exactly. And I think this is the thing that, but it, But our human brains really like this.

We really like to. Make a decision. And I think when [00:11:00] you get into boardroom decisions, you find that, as, you know, as teams of people are analyzing things in big corporations that's trying to be like, Okay, I gotta get, you know, make, help the boss make the right decision. You've gotta go into the boardroom and be like, Here are your choices.

Your choices. A, your choices B. And often the choice is way more complicated than that, but it's been boiled down to A or B because that's easy to go to a boardroom and say, Here are your choices CEOs, cfo, whoever, and, and this way, you know, and, and here's my recommendation, as opposed to being, Well, what's search, searching for that third alternative that may be.

Not a, not B, but something that will enable us to plant a flag. And, and it, it may be a better solution. Cause you can't, like we were saying, we can't predict the future. Mm. So

Scott: even if it had gone to that day, somebody could have got injured or something that could have never made it back or whatever. So there was no guarantee of actually still being alive in the Arctic.

It would just reduced the risks. Of death. [00:12:00]

Brad: Yes, exactly. Everything's, everything's calculated risk, but it's, it's trying to say what, what gives you momentum? So it's, it's yeah, it, it's, it's fascinating. It's a fascinating study of when you're looking at people like Imbar Kingdom, Renell, like Teddy Roosevelt, like Gold Robinson, who was the first head of South Pole and first through the Northwest passage.

You looking at Shackleton or Scott or any of these people or any really anybody in, in, in history that, that they're just, they're one of, and one of the things we learned as well, which was interesting was none of them had an easy. Path. They, we look at people today and I think we often glamorize that, Oh, someone, you know, someone was successful because it was really easy for them.

And when you look at someone like Teddy Roosevelt, born into a wealthy family, could have he was very intelligent. He was very sickly as a young boy. He could have just put his feet up and. I just wanna indulge my, my fascination with the natural world and [00:13:00] collect rocks and insects and, and study mammals and, and birds and, and all the things that he was fascinated by.

But he decided that's not the life he wants to lead. He wants to live, lead a life that gives back to. To the world and went into politics. So it's an interesting thing. You think, Well then, yeah, but even for him, it must have been easy. And it was, you know, the press was brutal to him as, as a presser today.

And, and, and so people, we look at them and they be like, Oh wow, that guy had an easy, that woman had an easy, and it's not like that they had. Real, honest to God challenges that they, they overcame and all of them brunel allinson, all these people had real, real obstacles that they constantly hit. But what was different about them was that they were able to overcome them, or they saw them with a different mindset than, than most people do.

Scott: I, there's, there's something that, there's a guy called Astro Teller. He runs Google. [00:14:00]Google. It used to be Google X. And I think one of your things you are saying is we're gonna try something. If it doesn't work, that's fine. Because we are gonna learn on the way.

Brad: Exactly, exactly

Scott: we are. Well, and the story he talks is about is when Google were creating their drive driverless car and he's talk about the driver's car and he is having an, they're doing it.

And they came from this assumption goes, this goes back to what you're talking about, the pan maar. There was an a canal. Sorry, There was an assumption built into that. That we would have some level of control still as drivers. Like people say, You're not gonna, we're not gonna be fully autonomous. We're gonna have some level of control.

He said, But when they actually got to the point of testing people in the car, they realized that no people didn't do that. The, actually, the behavior of people was, I'm not driving this and now I, I will not stay alert cuz they just, they just won't do it. So they then had to go back to the drawing. And the key assumption that whole design ethos was built on was changed overnight.

And it's their willingness to say, Okay, doesn't work here. It won't work in its present format. And it's either, it's [00:15:00] too big an obstacle, so we do then have to learn to ditch, ditch it, or we still think we can overcome that obstacle by doing it this way.

Brad: Yes, yes. You can't, you've gotta bake human. Nature into these things and, and you can't just, just automatically assume that that people will always make the right decision.

And yeah. One of the things, actually, one of the interesting ar areas that I've gotten involved in is disaster. Response management and emergency management. So I've been writing articles for a magazine called Crisis Response Journal, which is for people who are the, when there's a flood, earthquake tornado, hurricane, whatever, that these are the people who set up the.

That either they're working for charities or working for government. They're working for private sector, they're working for nonprofits. They're, they're the people come in and try to try to support humanity and the, the masses of people who are affected by these, these natural disasters. And what I'm trying to do is draw the lessons from [00:16:00] people like Shackleton and Scott and SSON and, and Roosevelt and different people into helping crisis managers look at how these people are from history and look at crises.

And it's, it's an, it's a, it's a different application to, to decision making. You've gotta take into account how humans make decisions. And I got drawn into this area because when I was in graduate school and I was studying decision sciences, the, I got involved working for a professor, and the professor was doing a.

This is many years ago, and the study was about floods and earthquakes and saying, public policy is based on the idea that, and lets talking about America, that people may live in a flood prone area, but if the government offers low cost flood insurance, they'll buy it because there, if the house is risk of flooding, Well, it would make sense, Wouldn, if you know the flood insurance isn't too expensive, you think people living in front point areas, they know they're in the [00:17:00] flood front areas, they'll naturally buy the insurance.

The whole organization will work well because people are insured against this risk. And what our study showed was people don't behave rationally. And when we get down to these low probability situations and a flood and earthquakes, low probability situation, even a flood print area, The people don't behave rationally.

They'll, they'll take a low probability and, and discount it down to almost zero. . But alternatively, when you look at a lottery, people look at a lottery ticket and being like, Well, of course I'm, I could win when the odds are so much greater at not win. You know, the, the, the, when is a really, really low probability, for example, winning lottery.

Mm-hmm. , we up that probability. And so humans have this real mix of how we deal with things. So with the driver, less cars is, is the same thing, which is you might think, well, people behave rational. They'll always be looking out for their, their safety. And if everybody is, [00:18:00] is no, we're actually really good at tuning things out, or misjudging or saying, Well, the probability, the, the driver, the autonomous car will work properly.

Is enough that I can just tune out. So it's so, yeah, so it's, it's interesting when you're looking at human nature and looking at policy and looking at how do you deal with things, whether it's floods and earthquakes, whether it's adventure explorers and things

Scott: like, I think that's the question, isn't it?

Don't, don't do what you think people should do, but what people are actually gonna do. And there is a difference.

Brad: Yes. Yes. There great difference. And I think it's real. It's, and that's what's absolutely fascinating is that you and, and it is, it is often hard to predict. And that's sort what, what leads to trends and fads and, and different things when you think, I

Scott: think that as a game in psychology called the ultimatum game And I, I can't remember if I can get, I've gotta try and explain this to people who aren't, cause I can't draw it.

So imagine you're, you're in pairs, so you've got a group of pairs. So you might be B and rba, and I've got a hundred dollars and I'm a, And I say to you, I [00:19:00] don't say to you, You get an offer from me of how many. So I might say to you, I'm gonna give you so many dollars. Out of that a hundred. You have a choice, you accept it or don't.

Okay? So just automating me either gonna say yes or no. There's no negotiations. There's no communication. If you say yes, We both get what was agreed. If you say no, we both get nothing. So unless you were offered zero, logically you should say yes to everything because it's a, is financially beneficial for you.

Even if I say, Well, I'll give you $1, you say yes, you're gonna walk away with a dollar you didn't have. I'll walk away with 99, but you'll walk away with the one. But I believe it's a around about 35%. Once people drop below 35% of. Being offered. So anything under $35 out the hundreds, the, the amount of no expense goes up.

Wow. Okay. So that decision is based, I, I believe that decision is based on fairness. People saying, So I think in organizations, whatever [00:20:00] decisions say, Well, they should say yes, they can be a benefit from, they say, Well, if they say no, it might not, because they're not looking at the benefit, but they're looking, Well, I'm not letting you get away with it.

And if I have to suffer because of that, then that's fine. Great. Cause it's not there. And I don't want to be party to an unfair decision that I'm on end of mm-hmm. . Yeah.

Brad: Yeah. And we see this in business all sort, or in all sorts of different ways. I was talking with somebody the other day about, remember the Blackberry phones with the little keyboards on them and how Blackberry's like, Whoa, we're gonna focus on making the keyboard better and better and better because people are saying these long emails with our, with our phones.

And then all of a sudden the world just changed to text messages. And I think there was a story that. The person or the small team that invented text messages thought no one would ever use them. They're like, Well, we can do this thing, but probably never take off. And, and Blackberry went out of business because their, their focus was on something that was like, you know, e sending emails by phone was not as much fun as sending [00:21:00] by phone.

And you could do that without the fancy keyboard.

Scott: Yeah. I, I think there, there history litter didn't there with people who made decisions, they. Decisions based on information they had about predicts in the future. And those decisions turned out to be less than ideal. And it's then again, it's how quickly can that organization, that person, that then realize that they're on the wrong path.

Brad: Yeah. Surpri surprising. How many don't realize that? I mean, Google and Apple are very good at at, at realizing, oh, we're taking the wrong path and we they course correct. And then you look at places like Blockbuster. Blockbuster had a chance to buy net Netflix for $50 million and turned it down because at that point, they were opening one new store every 17 hours.

They were just going into every high street in the UK and the US and, and just you and, and they thought, who, you know, Netflix is just some online streaming service. We don't need this. [00:22:00]We, you know, it's, and, and, And then you look at, at other situations, whether it's you know, book sellers getting preempted by Amazon, whether it's but there's so many examples of, you know, even, even Kodak and Kodak actually invented the digital camera.

Which is sort of not always known because people are like, Well, Kodak was just doing film, but that was their focus. They were doing film and then a team within the Kodak realized they could make digital cameras, and the company was so focused on making film. They're like, No, no, that's just, that's never gonna take off.

Okay. But they never went back to it. They didn't go back to it quick enough or, or fast enough. But then other companies do, I mean, like Apple, hp, a lot of companies haven't made mistakes and, and of course

Scott: corrected. I don't, I don't think there's a journey where there hasn't been, Oops. Yeah, along the track, isn't it?

There's gonna be bumps along. So things happen that we don't expect or we say when we have got all the information available to us. And yes, we [00:23:00] say we, we, we believe we are good at decisions, but in some ways we are quite flawed in our decision making process. So there's a book called Thinking Fas, either Think Fast, Think so, or Thinking Fast Thinking.

Yeah. Think. Yeah. Right. And he talked about and the amount of information you said, like you said, we've got so much information we zone lots out and we kind of go into autopilot to make decisions. And sometimes these complicated decisions we simp. Then it's easier for us to make them cuz we like elections.

He talks about elections as a result and we kind of said, you like this person or that person. That's how we kind of make a choice, not really looking at the manifesto and the policies too much.

Brad: Yes. I mean, if there's playing out without getting too much into policy instead of playing out big time in the US right now with the Supreme Court decisions and the fact that people are like, Oh, I can't believe they just did this, you know, to returning Roe v.

Wade and. It was so clear that the, the, it was, but people wanted to photogenic or they didn't feel Hillary was photogenic enough or, or [00:24:00] it, it, she didn't have the right persona for, for television or whatever. It's, it's just, it's fascinating how you'll make decisions. They make decisions about, Things.

They vote on things, they do things, jobs they take, and we do this all the time. And relationships. Mm-hmm. , there's a fascinating book by Malcolm Gladwell and I'm trying to think of the name of it, but it's, it's about the idea that. We are actually, as humans are not, we think we're really good judges of character.

We think we meet someone, we can assess them, assess them, or assess them out within a few seconds. And what he approves in this book over and over and over again is we're actually terrible at that. And our ability to dilute ourselves, I think, Oh, that person looks like a criminal. That person looks like they're a good person.

That person looks like they'd be a, a kind, generous person, and they're trying to be, be a rat bag or a crook or a an evil doer. And, and, and it's, [00:25:00] but we're actually actually very bad at, at, at judging. Other humans and it's and I mean there are many, many high profile cases he go, There's one very interesting one about a CIA spy, a spy who was in the cia.

And he think all these people in the CIA would absolutely know. If there was a spy among, among them, and they didn't. The person was just so good at hiding it and everyone just assumed, well, she seems like a nice person. She does all sort of nice things and, and does her work, and she's really commended and she like commended by the president, one of the presidents this going back 20 or 30 years.

But, you know, one of the presidents will, you know, she got, gave her like some fast award and it's like, and yeah, at the same time she has a complete spy. For Cuba. It's like, you know, and, and you know, everyone just just assumed that, Oh, it's just you a nice person. It's, they must

Scott: be nice. And so we have these flaws.

All of us have these flaws in our decision making process. And you've looked at things in the past about people who, yes, they've had their [00:26:00] flaws and we've talked, they're not perfect characters, but they've created. Amazing outcomes through decision making process and their resilience. So what do you think are the key things that sort of maybe stands in the part or the key lessons that you've learned?

I think one,

Brad: one of them is that they're very good at building teams that have very simple goals. Mm-hmm. like a single goal. And that goal of, of whether it's Amison taking a team of, of seven people through the Northwest passage. Northwest passage is a was the sea route that has been desired for over 400 years.

And, and famous people like Sir John Franklin and all these different, Henry Hudson, all these different explorers and adventures, tried to find it, which is literally a sea route that goes from from Greenland across Northern Canada. To the top of Alaska, to Asia, and no one can see no one because they're all the little islands and all [00:27:00] these ice formations and it's very hard to, it was impossible for people to find a, a secret through and am is like, he studies it and studies it and go like, the secret to this is a small team with a single purpose, which is we're going sale a various, Everyone's like, No, you can't take a small ship through that sort of ice crusted, you know, all these islands, A lot of unmapped areas.

and yeah, there, there are places where this, the water is so shallow, you, you, that you only have a few inches of water that you're, you're, you know that. And so a small boat can sail better than a big boat. But it's, it's, it's just a fascinating story of someone saying, Oh, you know what the, the, the secrets A small team that's very focused with a mixture of, you know, typically these teams were all white males.

But he, the teams were diverse in that some people were naval people, some people were scientists, some people, they had all these different skills and he was able to form me Teams, Shackleton did the same, [00:28:00] kept us gotten into the same, He formed teams that are made up of multiple different types of skills and backgrounds, different nationalities.

Then and, and as we said in the Antarctic and. With Amison and the Northwest Ps there happening to be all white males, but within that structure, they were, they were quite diverse. And so diversity singleness of purpose was, were key, key elements.

Scott: So, so for leaders today, say, like, look at your team, say, how can you then bring those, that diversity, the strengths within that team, into that team to say, it may not be, Gender diversity.

You may not have racial diversity, but you do have cognitive diversity and skills based.

Brad: right now. What's interesting is that so, so sometimes we think of diversity as just being, well, we're just ticking boxes. Mm-hmm. So we've gotta have different people. And what our studies showed [00:29:00] is that it's not about ticking boxes.

And a few of, there are many other studies that by other people have done this as well, which is that that diversity gives you diversity of. Gives you diversity of reactions. So where one, one person, if you took a all people being very homogenous, they may all react in the same way as opposed to someone else saying, Wait a minute, what about this alternative or that alternative or, or what if we took this approach or that approach?

And so diversity gives you strength. It does is not just a box of tick exercise. The more homogenous the groups were, the more challenges they had. And we saw that you see this in some of the various Antarctic and Arctic expeditions. Like why the, the ones we studied there were six. There were two by Shackleton, two by Scott.

One by Robinson, one by Mosson that we studied in our first book. They were quite diverse in terms of, of being this, this mix of scientists and military people and, and other people as well. So it's what [00:30:00] Chap, you know, one of his exhibitions that still awake. So it's like, so then you got, there's like random guy, he just shows up because he's been starving in a closet for a couple days and then when they, they're heading down towards Antarctica.

This guy, this young man staggers out of, out of the, the closet being like, you know, I'm one still on the ship. And what's funny, the good Shackleton did say here, so this, that slightly over. Young man and Shackleton drags him up on deck when a friend of all the other men and says I'd throw you overboard if I could, but I can't.

But I'll tell you, if we ever get into trouble, you'll be the first one we eat. And ,

Scott: that's, that gives somebody confidence. Isn't that, Sit again, Please don't get into trouble. Please don't get into trouble. Right. Great. Cost quite high. Exactly. Okay, so we've got a diverse group and I, I totally agree with you and I'm, I'm a great fan of inclusion and getting people involved in.

If you want a system to change or a system to evolve, get the system involved in the conversation which comes from like appreciative inquiry and appreciate, appreciate those people around you [00:31:00] and sort of dig out their strengths and encourage 'em. Okay, And this singleton, of course, a very clear purpose.

What are we doing? What we're

Brad: trying to achieve? There was one other thing as well, which was they always had a second in command. Mm-hmm. . Even in a small team, sometimes even in a team with three people, you'd have a team lead and you'd have a person who was the second in command. Now whether that was designated as a second in command or whether it was.

Sort of just a facto based on the person's experience or knowledge or, or skills. And especially in situations where you had seven or eight people and you had a team and you had a second in command, you'd be like, Why do you need a second in command is such a small team. The what was happening, and actually I've, I worked, the company I worked for prior to retiring was.

German software company and so like a hundred thousand people in the company. But the, the team I was in was fairly small and I was reporting someone who was a second command and, but I often also report to his boss. And so I had this sort of strange structure, but I was very similar to [00:32:00] what was in the Antarctic was, was that you could go to the second command and say, I don't really understand this task.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily wanna go to my boss and say that the boss's or his boss or I wouldn't wanna go higher up in the company and say, I don't really understand this task I, but you might wanna say, Hey, I don't understand this task, or, I don't like this person I need to work with. Or, We've got this inter personal conflict that we need resolution on.

You can go the second in command. Without bothering the main guy. Mm-hmm. . And the main, main moment, and, and I think this is where this second command structure works really well in that it gives you the ability to take a grievance, take a challenge, take a problem, and resolve it without. Someone going like, So that's a ding on your mark cuz you don't know how to do that.

Or you're just a troublemaker or you're just, or you're just lazy or, or it's just not getting done and all of a sudden you, the person's procrastinating. Procrastinating cuz they, they haven't [00:33:00] been able to say to someone, I don't know how to do this. And all of a sudden the deadline hits. And it's not done, or it's not done well.

So it's just like a, it's a, So that's another, another criteria, another method that they used.

Scott: So have a deputy second in command, somebody that people feel comfortable talking to and approaching with. Some of the, I'd say maybe more operational day to day issues. They're, they're, they're facing. Exactly.

Exactly. And then, so then the person in the leads is, is doing the, say, the more leadership strategic type of stuff and not getting bogged down into that operational stuff. Right. Oh, and then any micromanages listening. Any micromanages listening today. Right. Okay. We're gonna add something

Brad: else. Right. And and one of the other things was, was never giving up.

I think it's not about, N not when you hit a dead end, it's not like saying, Okay, this is a dead end. [00:34:00] I'm going to stop. It's like this is a dead end. I'm gonna try something else. And so this never giving up. It's not necessarily saying You're gonna go on a straight line. I'm just gonna keep going, going, going, going to like collapse.

It's going to keep going. Then I'm going to hit obstacle and maybe I'll try to break through that obstacle, but maybe I'll need to go rounded obstacle or maybe I need to change, change course completely. And I think we, we saw this with some of the things Brunelle was doing. We saw it with some of the things Roosevelt was doing and, and the explorers that, that the, the main thing was perseverance.

It was, but perseverance doesn't mean just bang your head into a wall at time, after time, after time. It's trying to be like, Okay, I've tried and now I've hit this wall, and now I'm going to turn sideways and try to get another route through. and, and I mean that there are very real instances of that where you hit a CVAs field and [00:35:00] you're trying to go through a, a glacier and there are CVAs and you go like, Okay, we just need to start going sideways.

We can't go through, don't wanna fall on kvass. So we just need to start going sideways until we get by away from the kvass field. Mm-hmm. , which is sort of a visual way of thinking out, but those sorts of similar sorts of things happen in, in all rocks of life.

Scott: Okay, so we come a against something perhaps we weren't expecting or some challenges.

And it's not necessarily saying, Right, this is the path I on, I'm not gonna change. So we say, would it be something like sailing? So, you know, like I've gotta go over there and I'm here. That's the route we've picked, but the wind's changing or something's happened, so we've gotta attack and adapt.

Brad: Yes, exactly.

Exactly. But it doesn't mean you give up and it doesn't. And so even when we look at Shackleton's, Story of getting to, trying to get to the South Pole and saying, We're not gonna get there, but we're gonna, we're gonna plant the flag at 96, 97 miles from the South Pole. We're gonna go [00:36:00]back, We're gonna live to see another day.

We're gonna set another expedition. We're gonna try again. And it's like, you know, so, So, yeah. So we didn't make it this time. , but we achieved something and now we're gonna go back and, and try again. And it may be several years that we get a chance to try again. But it is that sense of, of constantly trying effect there.

There's a wonderful story of, of in the, from the endurance expedition where the ship gets crushed in the ice and the men end up getting stranded on it's long story to get them to the, where you've got 22 men stranded on Elephant Island, which is an uninhabited. Large well basically large rock in, in near Antarctica.

And Shackleton and, and five other men take one of the largest of the, of this lifeboat. And the largest lifeboat was only 23 feet long across 800 miles to the roughest seas of the world and sail at the South Georgia, which is an island that isn inhabited. They get to the island that isn't inhabited [00:37:00]after 17 days.

You know, terrible storms and, and terrible conditions. And they arrive and they arrive on the wrong side of the island, the uninhabited side. So they have to three of them, of the six men. Three. Stay with the, the small boat and three walk across the uninhabited, unmarked, uncharted mountains to get to the whaling village.

I think, Okay, well then everybody's saved, aren't they? Because you've got the 22 men on Elton Island. You've got the other three on the uninhabited side of South Georgia, and you've got the whaling Village on South Georgia, and the whalers can just sail around. They could easily rescue the other three men, but you still have the 22 men on Elephant Island.

So the whaler set off in a ship to go rescue the 22 men on the Elephant Island 800 miles away and they can't get near Elephant Island cuz all ice in they, So they and Shackleton goes, they go back and so Shackleton, so that's first attempt. [00:38:00] Shack gets another ship, tries again. They can't get near Elephant Island through of the ice.

Tries again, gets another ship. And he is going across like, he, he starts in South Georgia, then he is at, in the Falkland Islands, trying to get his ship. Then he is in Argentina and, and UA trying to get a ship. Eventually they do. It took four efforts. Before they rescued the men on Elton Island. I mean these, it's like, this is the, you know, just cure, keep persevering.

He wasn't gonna give up until he got his men rescued, but it wasn't gonna, it wasn't easy. It's like, and these sort of, you know, these sort things are sort of inspirational cuz, cuz we do hit obstacles. We, you know, the whole world hit obstacle with, with covid. Now we've been obstacle with, with Ukraine war in a way that, you know, our, our economies are suffering.

Our, we're dealing with inflation, we're dealing with all the, all these high costs of things and being like, Okay, well that's not really what I planned for, but we just gotta deal with it. You know, Just try again, Try something else. Try.

Scott: So, I think, I think one of the things that I, [00:39:00] it strikes me is that what they, that it comes across within the stories you've told is what they do is say it, I heard this so many times.

It is what it. We are where we are. The thing is, where do we go next?

Brad: Yes. They were very good at saying precisely that, which is not blaming. It's just this is where we are today. And how do we put one foot in front of the next and move forward in some way? And I think this is, you know, this was the, the lesson out of Covid.

Mm-hmm. was, you know what? We can look at the dreams and ambitions we had in 2018, 2019 and say, Well, we can't do all that. You know, can't, can't get back to the life we had in 2019. We're just freewheeling. Just, you know, everyone just traveling where they want and going where they want, not worrying about getting covid.

I know so many people who in the last two months have gotten covid and, and it, it's hasn't gone away. And it's just bit like this. You know, just persevering through and being, [00:40:00] I can't get the life I had, I'll just persevere through with the life I've got. Mm-hmm. , same with inflation. It's like, you know, Okay, sorry.

Cut that. You, the, the, for me, cuz now I'm trying to live off my income as an author. It's trying to say, Okay, now I need to reduce my spending. That's right. That, that's what me, it's a p. Decision, it's just temporary for well, inflammation's running high. And, and, and so it, so it's, we all have to make adjustments and I think it's just accepting that, that you can't always ha things can't go back to the way they were.

So you can't blame things. You can't say, Oh, I wish it was different. This is what it is here, Here we are in 2022. It is what it is.

Scott: It is what it is. What's happened has happened and mistakes have been made, and they probably will. Mistakes will be made. I think it's accepting. That big thing is it's about do we accept failure, learn from it, and move on.

So I think there's a lot within innovation, there seems to be a lot of sort of analogies about how these [00:41:00] men made these great impacts and wasn't an easy trip. And it was like perseverance, but also learning and then moving on. So from that lesson, what did I learn? How can, what am I gonna do differently next?

Exactly.

Brad: To try and make it. Exactly. Yeah. There's, there's a lot of great lessons to, to, to learn from, but it's very much that idea of trying not to focus on blame, not to focus on what could have happened and just be, okay, this is where I am today. How do we move forward?

Scott: The become changed the.

Brad: Yes. You can't change the past as we can

Scott: only influence where we go in the future,

Brad: right?

And we can't even predict that. And as we said the very beginning, we. , well, can't predict the future that well. So in a way you just have this present time and be answer a course correct and adjust as you go and just keep persing. And that was, that's probably the biggest lesson of all of it is this perseverance.

Mm-hmm. that that's resilience. [00:42:00] Perseverance and. And the World War and given, given my age we've seen cycles before. We've seen the, the economic downturn in in the 90. There was one in the nineties, there's one in 2008. These things were recurring and eventually the world Star gets through it and there are wars and people get through it.

And

Scott: So, Yep. I changed my job in 1990 recession. I went from a paid job to freelance in 2009. Recession. You thought I'd learn, wouldn't you? , Bit like you. Well it was just one of those things and then you just like, just, Oh, I could have chosen about time, I could have, I didn't. I'm here. Right.

Brad: Make it work.

Exactly. Exactly. And that's what, that's what makes life fascinating and, and. I mean, you've gotta see it as, as a, as a a game. Mm. And you've gotta see it as, as how do I manage within this, within these multitude of challenges and, and just keep [00:43:00] thinking positively and optimistically and, and

Scott: yeah, I think there's a cuz I do Clifton strengths and there's too strong, I've, I've got high positivity, which is always like looking at what could be rather than what has what. Not being, And also I've got high adaptability, which is, you know, I'm, I'm comfortable in the here and now. Mm-hmm. and this level of uncertainty.

So I do think one of the keys that perseverance and you say where we do is accept the level of uncertainty in which we actually do live. Yes. Been unusual in the last 10, 15 years. We've had a lot of certainty, which has been unused to say the cycles. We haven't had these cycles. Come back that used to be much more regular.

Yes.

Brad: Yes. And, and you, it's funny, when you look back at life and you think, you know, I know I was in America, my first mortgage was at 11% and the at that point you had savings and loans organizations that gave mortgages. And the banker there said to me, You'll never get a loan this low [00:44:00] ever again. And interest rates went all the way up to like 18.

and now they're down to like, you know, they, they came down to like 2%, 1% for mortgages at one point, and he was saying he was predicting their future. Like, you'll never see something lower than 11% and now it's gonna, and now sort of rising back up a bit. But there was something that I want to, to say that, that Shackleton was asked was, what are the traits of, do you need to be a polar explorer?

And he said there were optimism, patience, physical endurance, idealism, and courage. And I think that's sort of like a good sense of traits for, for 2022. Mm-hmm. .

Scott: So this is a question I've asked you before. And you were like, Oh, I dunno. Cause we can't predict the future. We've, we, So we, I'm going to ask this question on, I'm never gonna come back and say, this is what you said 10 years ago.

Okay. So we've, you've looked at great people in the past, people who have had a great impact and sort of shown all those traits. If you look back over the last five years or 10 years up [00:45:00] to today, who do you think might be, if you were to do this book again in a hundred years time, who do you think might be the people you would say, these are the leaders?

Of 20 20, 20 22, whatever this region, let's say, this level of uncertainty we've had that I would like to investigate, I would like to, to examine.

Brad: Great. There's, well, certainly Linsky is one of the most fascinating characters of someone who's, you know, not only transformed himself in the sense of being from a comedian to a dancer, to a an actor.

To being a president and actually being a statesman. And he actually moved this continuum and somehow commands the world's stage. It's, it's quite a remarkable transformation for a human being. And, and that, so he's, he's one I think definitely that. And certainly you see people like, I think Tim Cook at Apple is quite a fascinating [00:46:00] character because he's, he's not flamboyant and he is not out there as portraying himself as a visionary, and yet he runs a visionary company and I think that he's quite a, a sort of a soft spoken, enormously successful human being.

And, and I think that's that. And Apple's delves into all sorts of different, different avenues and, and everyone was predicting. In fact, I, I read a study once that said that at a point when Apple Stock jumped 80% in one year, No, probably 70% in one year, 80% of all the articles written about Apple were about how it's, it was fallen by the wayside.

It was not being innovative. It was so, a lot of people dis dissing Apple criticizing it, saying it was never gonna achieve anything. You know, after Steve Jobs died they lost their way. Samsung phones were better, whatever. It's like all these things. And, and yet Apple just kept performing and performing, [00:47:00] perform.

And I think the other is Elon Musk. I mean, he's quite a controversial character, but he's, he's clearly a visionary at one level and, and it's hard to assess him at this stage. I, he, I don't, you know, would he be like a brunelle? I'm not sure. The, I think we'd see, I think we'd easily say my last book was about an engineer explorer and a statesman.

Mm-hmm. . So you had almond sin as the Explorer and Brunelli engineer and Teddy Roosevelt as a statesman. Certainly you'd have zelensky as a statesman and perhaps Elon Musk or or Tim Cook as the engineer. I'm not sure who the explorer would be at this stage, but it's it's a fascinating, it's fascinating to look at at modern life in those terms.

Is there anyone that you'd, you'd,

Scott: I think quite controversial. I might go for some like Therea May. And why is that? I [00:48:00]think because she managed an extraordinary turbulent time in British politics coming in as only the second female leader of the party. Second. Prime Minister. And I think she kind of, and it might be controversial, I think she kind of got dropped in at the deep end big style because they said we're gonna have a referendum.

And as soon as they lost a referendum, then Prime Minister said, Right, I, I don't wanna deal with this. I'm off. And the party was split, so she was trying to manage a split part. But one thing I think about her, talk about the visionary and that stuff about the, and it being the perseverance and the, the sheer determination to do the right.

Yes, I, The circumstances in which she found herself I think would be quite an interesting thing, and how history might view her, I think might be slightly differently compared to how she was viewed currently. I

Brad: think that's interesting. That's very interesting. I hadn't thought of that. The yeah, certainly if they to look at, at Biden as and I think there's a lot to be commended about.

Biden is a very calm [00:49:00] reason approach with everyone saying, Oh no, you need to like take these knee jerk reactions to everything that's happening in the Supreme Court decisions and, and. Prosecuting Trump and all the different, different decisions and he's taking a very steady approach to, to things.

And I think there's some, Therea May was doing the same. I think she was trying to be a steady influence on something where people, where the press and everyone, everyone's asking for, for dramatic action. So it's interesting. It's, it's it's a fascinating. World that we live in,

Scott: I think. I think yes. I think that you could look back in this, this period of time, last 5, 5, 10, probably the next five years I sort, 10 years that decade.

Maybe the 2020s might be as such an interesting decade to look back on in the years. And I think there'll be, there'll be leaders or people who, as you say, Linsky came to the fall very, very quickly because of the circumstances, Ukraine war and how he, how he positively managed his. Way of [00:50:00] doing a very Churchillian, I think, in his approach.

And he is very, very good at Oratory. He can, he speaks well, we can engage with people and he says the actions he has is going down to the front line and actually being, being there at the front line with people.

Brad: Yes. See, I'm sorry. What he showed is some of what. Shackleton said was, you know, optimism and, and patience of physical endurance.

I mean, he just just showed this is bravery. When you look at him, look at Nial. These are people who are just so incredibly brave and we aren't used to seeing this level of bravery. We're used to seeing. People talking about being brave and you see adventures and mountain climbers and it's people doing adventuresome things, but in a world where there's communication in a world where there's, there's rescue and, and so a lot of these, yes, some, some, a adventurers and explorers do die in modern [00:51:00] times, but they do have And they do risky things, but there's a level of bravery that doesn't exist.

And I, and most of the people I've met, right, all of the, the people that have been Antarctic at. Adventurers today have said when I've seen them talk or I've talked with them, they said, We are, we are adventurous. We are not explorers in this Shackleton, Scott Robinson sense, we are not at pat risk.

And yet here we have in Zelensky, in the ney and some of the other people that here we have sheer honest to God bravery and is a fascinating thing just to see it in a world where we many. Haven't seen it in a while.

Scott: Mm. I think also the difference between leaders who say, and they, they do it from like, from a distance, from afar, Right.

This person is there.

Brad: Yeah. I mean, I, I seeing him, seeing Zelensky walk on the streets and, and of of the cities and in, in the Ukraine, it's just, [00:52:00] I'm always amazed. It's like it's, it's. Just very risky. It's, it's, Is bravery in

Scott: action, bravery, perseverance, a bit of patience, and he just keeps banging it.

He, he's and so's a very clear message

Brad: and yes, And one of the things, I think one of the lost arts is, or, or being a great order, and you saw this with, with Teddy Roosevelt, who always had these wonderful terms of phrase, and you had you see this with Zelensky, but with, and you had it with Churchi.

So the way we had Teddy Roosevelt in the early 19 hundreds, you had Churchill in the 1940s, and you've got Zelensky now. But this the, the terms of Frank Mike from Roosevelt with things like trying to achieve glorious triumphs, trying to kajo and encourage Americans at that time to say, The easy life is not what's desired.

The people who make a mark in, in the world are the people who are not sitting in armchairs. They're [00:53:00] people out there getting beat up in, as he would call in, in the arena. You're the, he wrote, he had this great speech called The Man in the Arena, but it's like the person in the arena, the person who's out there getting beat up.

It's not the critics who are criticizing them is the people who are out there and they may not succeed. And, and he had a great phrase called mu dare mighty things that you've just gotta keep going out and persevering, persevering and trying and doing things and, and daring to be great and, and you might fail along the

Scott: way.

I think it's great. I'm gonna try cause I can't remember. There's the, the film, The Darkest Hour, I think it's the Darkest Hour, which is about coming into 1939 and his speech at par. And it somebody, and everyone's like clapping and things going up and somebody says, What's he done? And he says, He's just mobilized the English language.

Brad: Well, that's precisely, and I think we don't have enough of that today. We don't have, we've got Lansky's trying to do it, but [00:54:00] he's But in the, in the western world, the in, in the world, that is American Britain. Where we don't have that great order today. There's no one that's, that is is that Churchillian person right now that And we need that.

Scott: Yeah. Cause that, that, that again cuz people who can articulate the vision and put it in the word and tell stories and do it in a way that resonates, gets people so much more. Yes. And yeah, we could, we could argue about possibly why a made this thing about soundbite politics. We talk about this and we could talk about that.

people still will, if somebody can get up and give arousing speech.

Brad: Yes, absolutely. I think that JFK was able to do this to some degree. Mm-hmm. and yeah. Cause it's, it's a, it's a rare skill and it's a skill that probably needs to be taught more to, to young people. That ability to, to to speak and, and to, to inspire.

Scott: And is it through stories? Well, it's been an absolute pleasure. Great. [00:55:00] Thanks. Pleasure. Just saying thank you very much for your time. I think that's a nice thing to finish on actually. The, the ability to actually articulate and speak and inspire people is probably something you've always got from the past and there are people currently doing it, but the few and far between, and it's, and it may be the way we communicate now with more text, more videos, more this, more that, and everything's the, the, we don't practice that skill as much, so that's maybe why it's less, it's less prevalent.

Learn from the past. Then from the past. Totally, yes. Right. Okay. So, but again, thank you very much for your time. It's been an absolute pleasure. Well, thanks very

Brad: much, Scott. You're welcome.