Show Notes
In this episode, Mon-Chaio and Andy delve into the concept of Future Search, a powerful methodology for driving organizational change. They discuss the essence of Future Search, its origins from Marvin Weisbord’s book ‘Productive Workplaces Revisited,’ and explore why it’s crucial to involve the whole system in problem-solving. The episode provides insights into the past, present, and future focus essential in the Future Search method and offers actionable tactics for effective implementation in technical organizations.
References
Transcript
Mon-Chaio: Welcome listeners. Good to sit with you again, Andy. I believe last episode we talked about diagnosis, right? Because we want season three, the theme here is transformation. And so we talked about diagnosis. How do you diagnose a situation? And after that, when we were deciding what this episode should be about, we decided that it would be interesting to understand if there were best practices in creating change.
Andy: With the idea that once you’ve diagnosed a bit of what’s going on, you should start working on addressing it. And so we thought, oh, let’s get into how do you create change? And I pitched two things to you Mon-Chaio. One is this one that we’re going to be talking about, which is future search. And then another one, which I think we might be planning for next episode, but we’ll find out.
Mon-Chaio: Right. And creating change is very, very challenging and might even be more challenging than diagnosis. And so we thought, well, are there any models for how we go about driving change? And Andy, you suggested these two models, and we’re going to be talking about one today. This one’s called future search. It comes from a book, Productive Workplaces Revisited, and the author is Marvin Weisbord?
Andy: Yep.
Mon-Chaio: The book is almost 500 pages. And I think Andy’s read the complete thing. I have not. I read the last third part of the book, which specifically focuses on future search.
Andy: Yes. And just for our listeners, so that they don’t have to read all 500 pages or maybe to entice them to read all 500-some pages, I think he splits it into three parts and this is the way I think about it as well. His first part is more of like reading a history. It’s a history of organizational psychology, organizational design, and sociotechnical systems.
The second part of the book is him telling you about experiences he’s had. So Marvin Weisbord talking you through his career as a management consultant, organizational consultant, where he’s brought into these companies and he’s told, fix us. Or he’s a manager at one of these companies, and he’s like, I’m going to fix this place. And his experiences in doing that.
The last section is basically saying, well, we got all of this history, all of this thinking of how people work, how they think, how they organize. I’ve got all of my experience about helping different companies. So the last part of the book is him reflecting on all of that, as well as kind of bringing the reader up to what is his current thinking from about the mid-nineties, late-nineties, two thousands onward. And that’s what we’re going to talk about because what he came to was this structure that he calls future search.
Mon-Chaio: And I was telling you Andy earlier, I’m really into the etymology. So even though for this episode, I didn’t read the beginning parts of the book, reading through the history of how these theories came about and how they interact together, I think would be fascinating. But what Wiseboard doesn’t get into is how do you action this thing?
And so I think for us, we’ll try to make the bulk, perhaps, of this episode about that. Because I think we wouldn’t be able to do justice to the other stuff. There’s already 500 pages.
Andy: Yeah. And I think we can get through what is it that he’s described, hopefully really fast. And when we say fast, that means about 20 minutes.
Mon-Chaio: Right! Because boy, do we love to expound, don’t we? Okay. So future search, what is future search?
Andy: I would say at its most basic observable structure, future search is an agenda for meetings to come up with a new way of working. So, it’s split up into half days and it spans three days. So your first half-day, people talk about the past. The second half-day, people talk about the present. The third half-day, people talk about the future and what common ground there is between them and between them and others. And the fourth half-day, they talk about action, they come up with exactly what they’re going to do.
And then out of it, to say that you’ve had future search, there’s kind of two observable things and one thing that you probably should feel. The observable thing is you should have a common ground statement that every person that was at this future search supports. You should have an action plan, of things that you probably never thought of doing at the beginning. And those are the two things, two written documents.
And then the thing you can’t really observe, but you should all feel, is a high commitment to follow through. And there you go. You got future search, right Mon-Chaio? It’s that easy.
Mon-Chaio: Right. And that’s not even three days. That’s only two, because there’s four half-days in there.
Andy: It’s four half days, but he splits it into a p.m., an a.m., a p.m., and an a.m. And I have a feeling that that is because you want the space in between those different things.
Mon-Chaio: So maybe, and I think that’s clear as clear can be in terms of what this thing is. Now maybe we should touch briefly on why does Weisbord think that this is good, unique, what makes it work, why is he proposing this?
Andy: So I think he believes that it’s unique and important because it connects together the different predominant methods of organizational change that he was familiar with: organizational design and sociotechnical systems.
And he actually had an interesting section of the book where he kind of described what those two did and why they weren’t enough on their own. Basically, what he was starting to realize and what he’d kept hitting in his practice was that when you thought about just changing the structure, it turned out that people needed to change their behavior, and when you thought about changing their behavior, it turned out that you needed to change the structure. And each one of them kept hitting these limits of how far you can go by not doing the other thing.
And so what he said was, maybe I can come up with a way where we can achieve both. We can both change the structure and we can change the behaviors.
Mon-Chaio: Weird, because I’ve been told that the structure doesn’t matter, Andy. Just change your behaviors, collaborate through it. The structure is the least important part of your org. Don’t worry about the structure.
Andy: Who told you that?
Mon-Chaio: Uh, yes, various people in Big Tech. I think we’ve had these conversations before about how leadership kind of abdicates the responsibility of structure. They tend to not like reorgs. And so they’ll pooh pooh sort of the importance of structure. And we’ve mentioned how important we think it is because of things like Conway’s Law, but also things like what we’re talking about today. Because I do agree, it’s difficult to change behavior alone when the structures constrain you in a particular direction.
Andy: Yeah, the structure gives a lot of clues about what to do. And so that will constrain your behavior. And your behavior will set whether or not the structure is able to support you in what you need to do. And this actually connects you back to the ideas of like Taylor, where there was this concept of the ideal employee,
Mon-Chaio: Oh my goodness, yes.
Andy: Because the idea was the management comes up with the structure and then the workers just execute it. And so the ideal employee was one where the manager can come up with that’s the structure. And now you find the ideal employee who fits in that structure. And theverything’s happy!
Mon-Chaio: Right. Uh, so getting back to future search though, I think there are some benefits, at least from my side, that I felt he was espousing around this idea of future search. One is actually, I think, in the name: that by focusing on the future, and by focusing on an idealized future, you allow people to find common ground more than if you start to say, well, what are the current problems and how do solve the current problems?
Andy: And that’s a key point that he goes back to again and again, which is focus on the future. Don’t get bogged down in your current problems. And he warns people, he’s like, a big way that consultants get engaged in the way they think they should be working is that they should go in and they should diagnose and they should come up with a list of problems. And that that’s what the consultant is there to do. And he’s like, that’s, not going to work. One is you want to focus on the future. But the other one is also like, you have this external person coming in, telling people what’s wrong, when they probably know what’s wrong.
Mon-Chaio: So “focus on the future” I think is a big thing that he would say is different than a lot of the other ways in which we go about it because, you said earlier on Andy, that one of the things you want to get out of it is this commonality, this common statement, this belief in like the common goal, and he believes that focusing on the future is the right way to do that.
Andy: Yeah.
Mon-Chaio: I think the second thing that would say about the uniqueness of his system is that it gets everybody in a room, all disciplines. And throughout the book when he talks about future search, it’s not just in technical organizations. That’s where we’re going to focus because we’re a technical-organization podcast, but he talks about transforming villages, and political systems, families, that sort of a thing.
And so when he talks about getting all points of view and stakeholders in the room, an example that he would give might be, you don’t just have the politicians in the room, but you get the townspeople in the room. You fly in people who’ve had success from overseas, you get them in the room. And he’s a really big believer that in this type of problem solving, you’re not gonna run into the “too many chefs in the kitchen” problem. That the more chefs better.
Andy: Yeah. Well, not quite the more chefs the better. The more you cover the whole system the better.
Mon-Chaio: Good. Yeah. That’s a good … yep, a good clarification.
Andy: And he has a rubric that he uses to define who the whole system is. And you can use the words ARE IN, A R E I N, to try to remember it. And it’s that you need the people with the Authority, the Resources, the Expertise, the Information, and the Need.
So your future search is set up because you have a very particular issue that you want to be dealing with. And so that gives you the guidance about who has authority with respect to that? Who has the resources in respect to that? So if you’re talking a town or a city or something, it might be the mayor and then the planning council. And then who has the expertise? Well, maybe that’s actually the planners. They understand city planning. And maybe it’s also someone external. Maybe it’s a professor of urban design, would be an expertise. And then you’ve got, the information. So that’s going to be people who live there. They’re the ones with information, and maybe it’s researchers engaged by the city. And then who has the need? Once again, people who live there, people who maybe are bondholders, municipal bondholders of the city, if it’s something about like, this isn’t a sustainable building pattern. So you kind of get all of those people together. And that starts constituting what’s the whole system.
And the reason I said it’s not the more the merrier is because like, well maybe you start getting too many of them and then you can’t actually have a conversation.
Mon-Chaio: Right. I think you make a good distinction here. You want to have enough that you cover ARE IN.
Andy: Yeah.
Mon-Chaio: But that doesn’t mean that for your IN you need all 2 million people in the city there.
Andy: Yeah.
Mon-Chaio: Right. Okay. So that’s a good distinction. Exactly. And listeners who are listening to this might think well, we do this already.
We have consultants go out, they talk to the townspeople, they bring back information, they deliver that to the town planners, and the town planners have a meeting. So the clear difference here is that everyone is together And we’ll get into the facilitation part maybe a little bit later, but it’s not sort of this upward/sideways communication style of you reporting to somebody else and you distilling information.
The intent is for everyone to hear the first-hand information from every part of the ARE IN system.
Andy: It’s the idea that they’re all literally in the room.
Mon-Chaio: The third unique thing about what Weisbord would say he’s presenting is this concept of self organization, that you don’t go into this with a bunch of people, with a facilitator having a plan – other than the day thing, right, that’s the structure – but you don’t go into this saying okay, we’re going to come back together after an hour, we’re going to do this, and then we’re going to do a sticky-note diagram, and then we’re going to vote, and then we’re going to put these things together, and then when we have the themes we’ll have two groups dividing up, and one is going to figure out x part of the theme the other part’s going to be y.
The idea is that the confusion and the mess that’s in there with all of those stakeholders of the system, if you can focus on the common ground, which is the future, then they will be able to self organize and develop ideas and processes and systems of working in that room that you would have never thought of before. And they’re going to be ideal for solving the problem.
Andy: Yeah, absolutely. Page 374, he says: “Everything we have learned about group development since Lewin supports the view that floundering around is an essential precondition to learning and high output.” You don’t want to create this illusion that we know how to get the answer. The floundering around is how you get the answer.
Mon-Chaio: I also get the sense that he doesn’t think groups will be ready to do future search unless they’re already in a state of confusion.
Andy: Yes.
Mon-Chaio: “Oh, I don’t know how I’m gonna solve this problem. It’s so big. I’ve tried so many things!” Which I know that I agree with, but I get the sense that he believes that.
Andy: Yeah, so he did have this model that he uses to kind of justify why you have to have that floundering. He says basically you can divide people up into one to these four rooms at any given time. One of them is renewal: we have so many good ideas and we have all this energy, let’s just do it. Those people you don’t need to worry about. They’re open to an idea, they’re going to do it. You’ve got people in confusion and they’re just complaining about “it’s all just a terrible mess!” And for there, that’s where the focus in the future is needed. You focus on the future for them and you help them understand how they can structure tasks that they can do and they’ll start doing it.
So for him, you need to work with people in renewal or confusion. Renewal, probably you don’t need to do too much with. They already know what they’re doing. They have an idea they’re running for it. So it’s really the confusion people.
Mon-Chaio: Hmm. What are the other two?
Andy: The other two are contentment and denial. So there are people who are just content with the situation. They’re like, there’s nothing wrong here. And the ones who are in denial, they just don’t want to admit that there’s anything happening.
Mon-Chaio: Mm-hmm
Andy: As far as I understand, he would not work with places where he would go in, he’d assess do they have potential for action? And if they have potential for action, they’re probably in confusion. They’re not content. They’re not in denial because he can’t help them.
Mon-Chaio: Uh huh. But I think the challenge for me is the four rooms. I don’t know if that’s his concept or not. I haven’t run across it before. If it’s not his concept, then I think it’s reasonable to go out and search for how do you move people from room to room. Because if there are tactics for moving people from room to room, that makes it much more understandable. You do that first. But if there’s only this concept of rooms with no tactics on how to move people, and then something built on top of it to say, in order to do this process, you must be in one of two rooms, that’s not super helpful.
Andy: Well, I think if you’re looking for the organizations that you can help, it is.
Mon-Chaio: Sure. Yeah. But this might be a good time now to dive into the tactics, right? I think you have this three days, half-day program, you have this concept of making sure you get the whole system in the room , you allow them to self organize, you focus on the future. And we know what you want to get out of it. So now what, how do we, how do we action this? What are the tactics for this? How do we actually go about running a future search in a technical organization?
Andy: So, I would say one is don’t do it remote. Get literally in person.
Mon-Chaio: Mmm hmm.
Andy: I think that would be the first thing is don’t try to do this in some sort of remote group.
Mon-Chaio: Well, and I think his book was written before the tools of remote work were available. But I think he very clearly said it requires this physical presence in order to work well.
Andy: Yeah, and I think part of it is because the tools still are very strictured. Like you can’t have that dynamic discussion that you really want in this, which is, it’s a lot about people building up relationships, having side conversations, having little conversations, bringing it back together, splitting up again, and just repeating that again and again. And that I’ve always found is really difficult in a remote environment. You’ve got breakout rooms and things, but they’re not unstructured enough.
So I think one of the very first things, the tactic is do this in person.
Mon-Chaio: Mmm hmm, okay, I agree with that.
Andy: Are there any tactics that we can say for people or rules of thumb beyond what we’ve already gone through about what is the whole system?
Mon-Chaio: I think the only tactic in my mind right now is that not only do you have to get the whole system in the room, you have to have the whole system engaged in the room. And the reason I say that is because as soon as you start expanding parts of the system, let’s use the city/town example, the mayor may say, oh, well, I’ve got 9-10am, and I’ve got 12-2pm, and I’ve got 3-4pm. And that doesn’t work.
Andy: Yeah. No, you’re there. You’re not going elsewhere, you are there.
Mon-Chaio: And then I think the whole system has to be engaged. They can’t say, well, I’m only interested in this sub-part of the discussion. And so I’m going to open my laptop and start responding to emails because, oh, you’re the townspeople, you’re talking about the well, and you know, I’m a city planner from Sweden, we don’t even have wells. So I don’t know, like you’d finish and then whatever outcome you come out with the wells, I’ll rejoin. That can’t be the case either. So I think that’s the tactic that I would think about.
Andy: Yeah. You have to be engaged for the whole thing. And I think a part of that is before you start, do some iteration on what is the thing that you’re bringing people together for. It’s like, oh, it’s future search. No, no, it’s not future search. It’s because there’s a particular situation and issue or opportunity that you as a group want to be reaching for.
Mon-Chaio: Right, and I think the easiest way to think about this is the first part of the future search process is the past: sharing your experience. And if you are unclear about what your target is, how can you share experiences? Well, I grew up here and I had a tough childhood. Okay, well, that’s not relevant, right? So you have to at least constrain it. to something that people know where they can start to share their points of view and experiences.
Andy: And I think that’s a very good point. If you don’t confine it, you’ve got this assessment that you have the potential, you have the energy, And now you’ve just wasted it because you didn’t give people a direction to channel all of that.
Mon-Chaio: But the other part to be careful of here is to not confine it too much. And this may sound difficult, but I’m just going to say, look, that’s leadership. That’s delegation. You want to give them enough space to play, but not too much that they end up running out of the fenced area, right?
Andy: Yeah, you need to be able to somehow define “these are the challenges, this is the idea, this is where we’re trying to go.” There’s an article that I know called “How I Learned to … do something … And Let My People Lead.”
Mon-Chaio: Mm hmm.
Andy: And it was the Johnsonville Sausage factories. They had an opportunity to manufacture sausages for someone else, kind of white-label sausages,
Mon-Chaio: Mmm hmm.
Andy: The CEO didn’t know how they could do it. He didn’t think they could do it, but he decided, rather than him just making the choice and saying, well, we can’t do it … Because he was like, this is such a big opportunity for the company, this would be stupid for me to let it go. And rather than forcing them to do something where he designed it or his minions designed it, he decided, you know what? Let’s get my factory workers together. Let’s get the management together. Let’s get the logistics people together and let’s just present them the challenge with the question, can we do this and how.
Mon-Chaio: Mm hmm.
Andy: And then they went off and they came up with all these things and they’re like, yes, we could do it, and here’s how we would do it. And it was something that he never would have come up with. And they never would have bought into if he had come up with it.
Mon-Chaio: Yeah. And so in that example, if he was doing a future search, something too wide would be something like “we want to become the world leader in sausages.”
Andy: Yeah.
Mon-Chaio: Okay, that’s way too wide. But too narrow would have been “we’re not sure how the factory can package white-label and our brand label sausages in the same machines. Too narrow, right? You have to try to find the right balance that gets you what you need and allows you to be innovative.
Okay, okay!
Andy: So we’ve got, make sure you have a problem or a direction that you want to point people in that’s not too narrow and not too wide.
Mon-Chaio: Mmm hmm.
Andy: Do it actually in person. Here’s another one. You touched on it, but I’m going to bring us back to it. As the leadership, don’t overpower the conversation.
Mon-Chaio: Mm
Andy: So like if you’re the CEO, don’t talk very much. Talk when you have particular information, but don’t kind of like railroad the conversation.
Mon-Chaio: Mm hmm.
Andy: So be very cognizant that what you’re trying to do is you’re trying to gather the insights and understanding and knowledge of these people who you brought together because are the right people to have in the room because they represent the full system. And listen to them.
Mon-Chaio: And the other part is true, too. Look, as the CEO, you’re going in to convey information, not in a way to educate, but in a way to inspire innovation. And that can be a different way of communication, right? One can be “oh, you didn’t know this, let me tell you how our sales force sells to customers.” Another way might be “this is the way that our sales force currently sells the customers and here are like the pros and cons of how they work right now.”
But the other part that I was going to mention is you also have to be willing to listen because you want what they say to inspire new thought and confusion in your own mind as well. That’s what powers this, right? So if you’re just the information deliverer and just a listener, but without really being open to listening in a way that generates innovative confusion and thoughts, I think you’re not going to have the right mindset going in.
Andy: And there’s a quote that I have from Weisbord that I think fits here really well for kind of people in more leadership or authority positions, because there’s always that dynamic of the authority has spoken, and so the rest of us shouldn’t say anything anymore And he said: “I add the most when I can assess the potential for action rather than the solution required.”
Mon-Chaio: Okay.
Andy: Meaning, you’re there to participate and add your part of it. But you can add much more than coming up with particular solutions. You can add much more in listening to see, is the direction this is going something that’s invigorating people? Is this a direction that has potential for action?
Mon-Chaio: Mm hmm. I like it.
I’d actually like to step down into the details a little bit more, kind of to end the tactics session. Because beyond this whole get the whole system in the room and allow people to self organize, there is a very specific structure that he puts into place around past-present-future
Andy: Yeah,
Mon-Chaio: Now I think at least for me, I understand the future part the best: focus on the future, get a common goal together, how do we get there? But what are the tactics for how we handle the half-day past and the half-day present section?
Andy: I think there’s a couple things. And I’ll go to some of the guidelines and kind of principles that he brings up. Which is that you want to explore the whole before seeking to fix any part. And so, during that time, as a facilitator, what you might have to do is pull people back from going into “oh, we’ll fix this this way and we’ll fix that that way.” You want to spend the time making sure you understand the situation.
And we’ve talked about this before when you’ve talked about like incident analysis or how you understand what’s going on, is you need to spend a fair amount of time really making sure you understand. And so part of that is trying to stay away from solutions or solutionizing. Staying away from people telling each other “no, that’s not the way it is.” Unless it’s somehow backed up by facts.
Mon-Chaio: But I don’t think even if it’s backed by facts, maybe that’s the right thing to do. So when I think about creating problem sets, I think that generally, in my opinion, happens probably in the present section. You’re focusing on the present. I think the intention, again, is people talking about their perception of the present and how that relates to the topic at hand.
And oftentimes that gets into “well, I really have problems doing this, and this tool doesn’t work well, it’s super slow for me, and I can’t serve my customer needs because they call me and it takes me two hours to do what they need, and they’re frustrated.” And you can both have “well, I have a solution to this” as well as “well that’s just the way our system is built and we have to do a whole re architecture to get that done.” I don’t think either of those are valuable, right, in the present section.
Andy: Right. Yeah. He has a thing about how you get the whole system into a room. And one of them is, you, as the facilitator, you organize the inquiry as much as the data. It gets me the sense that he has been burned multiple times by thinking that his job is to make sure that all of the data is organized.
Mon-Chaio: Mmm hmm.
Andy: And his job is not to organize the data. His job is to organize the inquiry that’s happening.
Mon-Chaio: I would be curious as to his thoughts, because we’ve definitely seen in our practice that some people live with confusion better than others. And so you’re going to be in this room with 30 people perhaps, or as he likes to call it, eight groups of eight. So 64 people, that’s his perfect number. And somebody is going to say, okay, okay, okay. I’m going to go to the whiteboard and I’m going to start writing these things down – one of the participants – and I’m going to start organizing it and trying to categorize it. And I think he would say, that’s okay. Because that’s one of the parts of the system that’s in the room. But you shouldn’t force that.
And it’s also okay for somebody to be like, no, don’t write this down. And maybe that’s the job the facilitator is to kind of question that like “are we really sure now’s the right time to write? Maybe we want to listen more.”
Andy: Or to say “let’s ask the group, oh, you’re saying, no, don’t write that down, can you, as a group, discuss that and decide how you want to proceed on this?” Cause he, he has another thing, which is that you want to contract with the participants to manage time boundaries and task structures. He doesn’t want to be the one having to run around constantly checking, like, are you on task? Are you on task? He wants to have somehow that they are doing it.
Mon-Chaio: Yeah, and I think the other part he would probably say is on task is whatever they think on task is. Even if it’s not what they agreed to originally.
Andy: I don’t know …
Mon-Chaio: You don’t think so?
Andy: I don’t think so. Cause another one of his rules of having the whole system is have the task front and center. If a subgroup starts going off on a different task, they’ve kind of lost what is the front and center task. Now they might be able to come back and say, we analyzed it. It’s the wrong task. Let’s change it and get everyone to be like, okay, yeah, let’s change our focus.
Mon-Chaio: Or as we were doing this task, we realized that there’s a higher value task and we did that instead. I think that’s part of that emergent design thing. I think that’s okay. Or the same thing as let’s spend 20 minutes on this and at minute 30 everybody agrees that we need another 10 minutes. That’s probably okay too.
Andy: I think that would all be fine, if they’re focused on the task. But you’re trying to avoid going off and being like, this group is now talking about the baseball game last night.
Mon-Chaio: Sure, sure.
Andy: Or because we accidentally had a preponderance of people from the California office in it, they’re now talking about a particular issue that’s happening in California that they need to go and address in two days.
Mon-Chaio: Right.
Andy: It’s like, oh, you’ve lost the task.
Mon-Chaio: Yeah, I think that can make sense. I think that does make sense a lot.
I think it is almost time to wrap up. I just wanted to touch real quick on the difference in your mind between present and past. So, in one hand it’s very clear one’s focusing on the present and one’s focusing on the past. But in both of them people are expressing their perceptions of that state as defined by the topic at hand. But are there any other tactics or best practices that differ between those two half days?
Andy: Maybe this is the difference. The present is what everyone is going to be dealing with right now. The past is what each individual has a different thing that they dealt with. Because maybe I’m fairly new. I’m dealing with the present. But the past that they keep talking about I was never part of. And so in the present, you have a lot of shared problems. The discussion of the past, you might not. It might be a lot of very different things.
And it might also bring in things that are completely disconnected from the current organization. It might be from prior jobs or prior things, or prior leaders. But they’re all somehow relevant to the task at hand, the reason that you’re in this future search.
Mon-Chaio: Okay.
Andy: So maybe the way of thinking about it, this is just off the cuff, maybe the way of thinking about it is the past is to figure out how much deep resource do we have available to us here? And then the present is the investigation of where do we all find ourselves now?
Mon-Chaio: Okay. I like that. I think that’s all the all we have time for in this episode. There are certainly things that we haven’t touched on that we could keep speaking about. One big one on my mind is future is the third half day and yet there is constantly this focus on the future as that will help eliminate conflict and eliminate differences in thinking because everybody’s focused on the same future. So how do you keep pointing to a future that you haven’t even really defined yet when you’re in past or present? Lots of different things.
So much more to talk about. If you are interested, if it piques something in your mind around “I would love to talk to some more people about future search!” – reach out. We’d love to hear from you. If we have enough people, we’re even happy to start a little group. It won’t be in person, probably, and it won’t be a future search, but we could discuss future search a little bit more and talk about everyone’s questions. And not that we have all the answers either, but we love to engage in thinking and learning and that’s why we do the podcast
So reach out to us hosts@thettlpodcast.com. That’s hosts with an ‘s’. Also, if you’re a company or an individual and you’re running into a problem in your current life and you think you need some help and maybe future search or some other stuff that we’ve talked about in the past would be relevant for you, reach out to us as well. We love helping people. It’s what we do day to day. That’s our job. So, email us as well. We’d love to hear from you.
Lastly, If you enjoyed this episode, or if you just enjoyed us rambling and think you might enjoy future episodes, maybe not this one particularly, recommend us to your friends, your colleagues, your leaders, your investors, help us out, help us grow the podcast, help us spread these ideas, if you think they’re valuable ideas that need to be spread. Next week, I think we will be talking about a different way of thinking about change and how you deliver change. But until then, be kind and stay curious.
Leave a Reply