#89. Gabor Holch: Taking The Lead
01:28:37 Share

What's up, everybody? Welcome back to The Honest Drink. I'm Justin. Check out the description below for more details. If you've been enjoying the show, go ahead, leave a rating and subscribe. Our guest today is an intercultural leadership coach. He's also a former diplomat. He's been an expat since age four. He holds degrees in languages, international relations, and diplomacy. He has coached public leaders, CEOs, and high-level decision makers in some of the largest multinational corporations in over 25 countries.

countries. We talk about the current situation of expats in China and if the golden age of expats here is over. We talk about how we measure success, both individually and as a society. We explore different leadership styles and talk about leadership, responsibility, accountability, IQ, and EQ. We talk about how we all unintentionally tend to mirror our predecessors when we're put in positions of power. And we also talk about signaling and how quickly people might be reading you and figuring you out.

It's always a pleasure talking to him. This one was hosted by Howie and myself. So without further ado, please welcome back Gabor Holch.

As you know, I always love talking to you. That was a great time. My big pleasure to be here. Again, how you been?

I've been very well. As we had this little chat beforehand, I miss international travel, but I am trying to make the best out of being sedentary, which I'm really not used to because under normal circumstances, I have about 160 traveling days a year. So it's quite different, but I'm not one of those people who are happy that life has changed and we are never going back again.

I actually look forward to going back. Are there people like that? Yes, there are lots and lots. Really? Yes, yes. That are happy that life has changed. Exactly. How much easier it is not to commute, not to travel internationally, working from home, working flexibly. Yes, I do talk to lots of people. Well, a lot of people actually aren't even going back to work and deciding they don't like...

they kind of had this like epiphany moment, I guess, where they realize, you know, well, I wasn't happy doing what I was doing before. And they're doing other things or making other career choices now as well. But it feels like now the dust is settling and people are kind of finding themselves again and trying to figure out things again. And,

For many people, they're trying to figure out, okay, well, what is the new normal? How do I get back to it? And now you hear about a lot of expats in China dealing with visa issues because they want to travel abroad, but they can't necessarily get back into China. Do you feel like the golden age of the China expat is over in the sense that as...

as China rises and develops and the local talent pool and skill level here also rises and develops, that's in kind of direct competition with what the value of expats brought before. - This golden age thing, may I ask you where this expression comes from? - I just made it up, I don't know.

You did not. Huh? You absolutely did not. No, no, I'm not coining the term. I'm just saying, like, I don't think I got it from anywhere. It's very interesting because I thought you read it somewhere because Roland Berger and the European Chamber have been conducting a so-called, wait, what's it called? Business Confidence Survey.

for about the last 12, 13 years in China. And it was about five years ago. And they asked verbatim this question that you asked me now. So it was put the way, is the golden age for multinational companies in China over? They have been asking this question for about 10 years. And it was about five years ago that the bigger half of multinational companies consistently started answering yes.

I can't remember the year exactly, but it was something like 2016 or 17 when it bounced over and it has been over ever since then. In China, there was like a huge upward curve of exposure. And then around 2013, 14, then it started going down again. It didn't go down all the way where it started, let's say 20 years ago, but there is a significant downwork. So yes, that now...

Again, it depends on your personal philosophy regarding the interaction between China and the rest of the world, whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing. Yeah, and yeah, like you make a very good point. It's important, you know, what narrative you buy into. Absolutely. We will find it out when, let's say, I am 70 years old.

So in a perspective of 20 years, we will know what was actually the direction that we didn't see. Well, time will tell. Time will tell. You can also see a lot of patterns happening besides. I mean, if you're just talking about what is the golden age of whether it's expats or multinational companies in China, the successes of their here in China growth.

Is that over? But you can also switch it around and be like, Chinese national pride and confidence has been rising. So there is that scale, right? Now, you can see it very obviously that if you talk about, let's say, 2013 compared to now, that national pride and confidence in one's own culture, one's own product, brands, it's never been higher now. Mm-hmm.

And that kind of goes hand in hand. Yeah. And I think it's kind of purposeful. It also depends on where your incentives lie, right? Like to boil it down to its most basic, like if you're an expat, then you're likely going to side with one side in terms of what benefits you as an expat. But if I'm a Chinese local...

I'm gonna be very happy about the changes there because that means more opportunities are being afforded to me as well. - Yes, absolutely. - So it depends on what you're incentivized by. - Yes, both of the points that you make, I like it very much. And actually, so my day job is I'm an intercultural leadership consultant and there would be a theoretical and a practical confirmation of both of the things that you said, but I would also put a kind of footnote to both of them.

So one of them is about self-confidence and the other one is about priorities. Now, one of the key concepts of intercultural leadership is that in a way communities are like people. So the way you have patient people and impatient people, you have patient societies and impatient society. The way you have fun and flexible people and perfectionist people, you have fun and flexible societies and perfectionist societies.

Now, if I'm allowed to use another parallel to what you said, is noticeably China has been more and more self-confident and prouder and prouder. And it seems justifiably so. But if we translate that into individual psychology, just to make a point that everybody understands,

self-confidence and pride does not necessarily correlate with a better life situation. So it could happen. So you could do this two by two matrix that I am getting more and more confident and I'm actually becoming more and more successful, or I'm getting more and more confident, but actually I'm not getting more and more successful or the other way around. I am getting more and more depressed, but on paper, I'm getting more and more successful and, and, and the missing bit as well.

And so pride is good, confidence is good, but it is not proof that China is becoming whatever they want to become. And then we come to your point about priorities. And again, if I translate it into, let's say, an individual life story, if somebody says, listen, I'm becoming richer and I'm getting more powerful, so see, I'm a success.

And you are going to be a success to all of those people whose priorities in life are riches and success, sorry, riches and power. But you might be a complete loser in the eyes of those people whose priorities in life are knowledge, family happiness, helping others, and so on. China is also like this. And right now, especially if you zigzag between countries virtually or physically,

And, you know, not everybody measures success in this way. Yeah. This reminds me of a debate that's recently happening in the US actually is kind of almost precisely what you're saying is they're saying like, you know, for so many years, the kind of economic success of a country has been measured by the GDP metric. Yeah.

And GDP tells you nothing about the general happiness of the population, the mental health of the population, right? Even the economic, economical status of the population, job opportunities, homelessness, imprisonment rates, overdose, drug use, crimes. It doesn't factor any of that in.

But so much of that time have we been using GDP as kind of the sole metric to rank countries. And if that's your priority is gross domestic product, then you're kind of being led off

Off of a very kind of blinded path. Yeah, that's right. I'm about to say something about Scotland. Oh, cheers. By the way, this whiskey is awesome. I didn't want to interrupt you before, but this whiskey is really, really good. I'm so glad you like it. Cheers, cheers. So Scotland has just announced that they would turn a quarter of Scotland's territory into national parks.

over the long term. - A quarter of what? - Of the territory of Scotland. - Oh, international parks. - International parks. - Really? - Yes. - Wow. - Yes, yes. So it's going to be reserved. Sometimes forest, marshland, and so on. - So this is happening. It's not the top? - This is happening, yes. It's an announcement. Now, if you look at it from the perspective of a newly industrializing country whose main indicator is GDP, that is a completely loser thing to do, isn't it?

Why would you want to do that? So this is just the opposite of, let's say, what is happening in Indonesia, Brazil. It's not like your economy is growing where you can afford to just be like, yeah, let's make some parks. Exactly. And it's not going to grow. It's not going to add to GDP. But it is an interesting, from an interculturalist's point of view, this is a very interesting and very aware approach.

saying, well, GDP is good, but there is another lifestyle that we have in mind. And behind that, basically, there is the assumption that to us, success is not GDP. Success is, let's say, being able to raise your kids. More in nature. Yeah, exactly. Right next to nature or being... The whiskey industry itself and the scotch industry is extremely sustainable, extremely...

sensitive to the needs of local economies. And you have to sacrifice resources if you prioritize. So, okay, now I'm talking business talk. So if you don't want to be rich, but want to be happy or healthy,

or your life is about helping others, then you have to sacrifice being rich. You have to sacrifice being famous. You have to, it's something for something, basically. Yeah, there's always a trade-off there. Exactly, there is a trade-off. And if you make a conscious decision to live in a different way, you also have to be prepared for those people who, let's say, define their own success in terms of money, not understanding you.

Sure. Yeah. Because everyone's looking at it with different metrics. Exactly. It's like you're weighing something with kilograms and the other person's weighing it with kilometers. It's like two different metrics, man. That's right. But I feel like that's so common. I feel selfishly, arrogantly, I feel like I'm misunderstood all the time in the sense that I feel I have different values and priorities than a lot of

people my age, so to speak. Justin's a loner. You have to understand he's a loner in his thoughts. And it's almost like you're speaking an alien language to them. You know, they don't get it. They don't get that. Oh, you're not chasing that promotion. You're not chasing that higher paycheck. You're not chasing like just burning the midnight oil and having your own startup and just grinding it out and just, you know, being that

that entrepreneur CEO, like, I don't know. Like, I just feel it's almost like an alien thought that you are not thinking that way. And it's almost like you're a loser for not thinking that way. - That's a very good word. So since you invited me to this podcast because I'm a leadership expert, but we are talking about China. Now imagine that the CEO is face-to-face with somebody who has completely different values.

And imagine that the CEO is extremely proud of what he achieved, like millions of euros in the bank, beautiful car, a kind of professional position that will pay him for the rest of his life. Like the typical societal standards. Yes, exactly. Typical societal standards. And let's say he meets a cousin at a wedding who has completely different values.

Now this CEO, let's say he feels not only he's an unmitigated success, but also he sacrificed an awful lot in order to be successful. And therefore he's a role model for people who are lazier than he is, but actually could be as successful as he is. Can you imagine this kind of mindset? And then when he's talking to this cousin and then he talks about his car and his house and the cousin says, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah.

And doesn't ask the follow-up questions that the CEO wants to hear. And then the CEO says, listen, it's so interesting. Are you envious or do you resent me because I have what you don't have? And let's say the cousin says what you said now. He says, no, actually, no, frankly, I wouldn't want a Bentley. You know, I wouldn't want the penthouse that you have. So actually what I see in the family and the way you talk about how many hours you work, in my eyes,

Maybe he wouldn't use the word loser, but I would say, I mean, are you okay? Are you happy? Are you sure you're okay? Are you healthy? I mean, it seems to me he doesn't eat well. Do you see what I mean? Now, how resentful the CEO would be that now he's suddenly on the defensive? Yeah, he's like being pitied almost. Almost, yes. Now, what I see recently is in the community of nations, China is...

very often pushed into this kind of corner. Individual Chinese people, they interact with foreigners. Like why would it, you say exactly, the leadership says it explicitly. Would it hurt you to just accept that we are ahead of you, that now we are the success of the future? All these, let's say, Chinese companies who invest abroad, China gives development aid to these countries. Would it hurt you to thank us? But it's possible that on the other end, there is somebody who,

who doesn't really see it that way, who sees it in a completely different way.

And that makes, from an intercultural perspective, that makes a fascinating conversation. It's like speaking in two different languages. Yes. Right? It's like I'm talking with Gabor right now in English and he's responding in Hungarian. And we're trying to understand each other and we're making our points, but we're both like, you're not understanding me. You're not listening to what I'm saying. Or if we use the same words, but they would come from two different paradigms where the word means something completely different. Sometimes the misunderstanding is simply that

We see how China is going, but we wouldn't want it here. Or on the other hand, especially when I talk to Europeans, they would want the results of what China has achieved, but certainly wouldn't want the lifestyle that led to those results. So they are not quite sure about how that works. But how much of that is also, like, I totally get what you're saying, but the kind of devil's advocate in me is like, how much of that

is just also posturing in a way where it's not that they are speaking two different languages. It's that the quote unquote air quotes, the losing side of the equation is now trying to change the rules of the game because they are losing. You know what I mean? Like if, if any other country, let's say was achieving the same economic success that

um that china is achieving now they'd probably be running around the world boasting about it and pumping their chest and all these things but because they're not they're trying to find other ways to be like well you didn't do it that way and what about this and what about that and look how you're getting there and it's like trying to just punch holes into the uh the case i guess yes so again uh

You are a smart guy and you assume a much higher level of awareness. You're going too far by calling me a smart guy, by the way. Okay, so you are... I'll take it. No, I will stick with smart guy. Sorry, if you don't like it, don't take it. No, no, I'll take it where I can get it. Cheers to that. Cheers. But what were you saying? So, when you're saying that, you assume a higher level of awareness, right?

That would be typical for most people in the world. Okay. Because most people would not be aware of their own situation, that they are on the losing side and they are being cornered. So in order to be on the losing side and being cornered and strategically try to change the rules of the game, the discussion, you would have to be on a level of awareness that is typical for 5% to 10%.

of the population of any human community. But what would be more typical is that most people are not even aware that they are on the losing side.

If you, again, translate it into individual terms, so it's a little bit like, let's say, somebody who is responsible for running a company, and then they are actually dragging the company down. Most managers wouldn't know that. Most managers wouldn't know. If they are slowly becoming unpopular, and the employees not only wouldn't support them, and this is a situation that I often deal with as a consultant, but would actually try to backstab them, you know, because they want to get rid of them.

Most managers would be completely unaware of the situation. Most of them. I think 10% would say, I see something is brewing here, so I have to change the narrative, as we say. But in most cases, they simply wouldn't be aware. You know, actually, I do want to bring up something about, you know, you're bringing up leaders now. I just feel like there's so many...

schools of thought on what leadership is like what is a leader you know and i mean you you've heard it all uh i'm not going to summarize all the different types but in general there is like the you know you have like the alphas that are like constantly making decisions quick decisions strong decisions clarity moving forward get everybody on board right you know leading everybody leading the ship the archetype the archetype yeah yeah

And then you have other people who's like, no, you don't have to be like that. A great leader is to be sympathetic and is to constantly listen to everybody, almost like in a beta way. Right, right. And, you know, it's like collectivism and stuff like that. But obviously, as a leader, you're still taking all these different ideas and bringing it together to come to a conclusion. That's right. I mean, you have all these different schools of thought, right? And actually, you can continue and continue. You can be like the dictator type, you know? That's right. Yeah.

I mean, what are your thoughts on leadership in general? - Next time you find yourself in the middle of this debate, just smile and tell these people they are not arguing about what leadership is. They are arguing about leadership styles. So there is the question, what is leadership? And these people have no misunderstanding or no contradiction here, what leadership is, but they are arguing on the next level, which is there are parallel leadership styles. Alternative leadership styles would be the better word.

And they are arguing about which leadership style is better, not about the definition of leadership. And in some schools of thought, and then there are schools of thought again, there are schools of thought about what leadership is. But there were a couple of people who pretty much settled that debate. It started with Peter Drucker, who's a big business guru. And then there is an author whose family name is Shine, but I think he's also Peter, but I'm not 100% sure.

But in any way, they basically said that managers manage things, projects, time, resources, and so on, and leaders manage the intangible human element of production. I think that is very helpful.

And then you can trickle down and you can say there are three alternative leadership styles or four, that's the school I mostly use, or seven or 12 or whatever it is. And those people who are arguing in front of you, they are comparing leadership styles that we can label.

such as the top-down, let's say the dominant leadership style, the serving leadership, the coaching leadership, the technical leadership, the this and that leadership. So that's the behaviors that you described. If somebody says leaders have to be good listeners, they need a lot of empathy, you describe serving leadership or coaching leadership. Other people say, no, no, because you need a strong hand and okay, then you are describing dominant leadership.

And then the third person says, no, actually, leader doesn't make decisions at all.

the data makes the decisions, the traditions, the laws make the decisions. The job of the leader is just to point out- To calculate. ... what those objective factors, what kind of course of actions it dictates, then it's a kind of transactional leadership that you are talking about. But these are parallel ones. And if anybody asks you after you told them this, which one is the best leadership style?

Then what you have to say is, "Describe to me who you are and what you need to achieve. And then I will tell you which leadership style is best for you." - Because really it's about the person. It's not about leadership. - It's about both. It's about the interaction between the person and the environment. So let's say you are now working as a documentary director, right?

And then you need a certain leadership style. I'm just saying something. This is the way my world and my work works.

Since you are a documentary director, on one hand, you need technical expertise. You work with, you know, a microphone or a camera. It's not going to work in a different way just because you give it a motivational speech, right? It's a technical reality that you have to deal with. You need resources, you need processes. But on the other hand, you also need flexibility because suddenly the weather changes or one interviewee says, oh,

oh, I told you I have time at two o'clock, but I want to do the interview now. You have to roll over very quickly. So you need another aspect of leadership as well. And then if you struggle and if you come to me for leadership advice, I will listen to you and we will find out what your nature and nurture is like, what kind of a person are you naturally and how you were conditioned.

and why you're struggling in your current role, and I will help you recalibrate your leadership methodology according to the needs of this environment. But then let's say, God forbid, you get fed up with directing documentaries and you open a restaurant

or you do a startup that writes mobile phone apps, then your leadership needs are going to, you still are going to be you. There is no fundamental change, but now you have to lead in a different way. And then you will come back to somebody like me again. Like the advice that you gave me about documentaries, they're brilliant, absolutely great. But now again, I'm stuck. But I just feel like there's still core elements, regardless of your environment, that...

with all the different environments. That's not true. You mean like common traits that overlap through all the four? What I'm trying to understand right now is like, let's say I'm going to go with what you're saying right now. Let's say I'm a documentary filmmaker and obviously within my environments with how I work as a role as a director and all the people around me, that's going to dictate a certain type of communication level based off of my personality, right? So with that in mind, if I were to switch over and start up a restaurant business, let's say,

I'm still dealing with different people. It's just that maybe the technicalities of what we're doing change a little bit. Maybe the roles and responsibility change a little bit. But as a leader, as my personality, shouldn't that still keep certain core elements intact regardless of the environment? It depends on what you mean by a core element. So if you go down to the core, to your personality, it not only shouldn't change, it cannot change. Okay.

you cannot turn an impatient person to a patient person. It's not going to happen. If somebody is a perfectionist, you're not going to...

turn them into a kind of flexible visionary. That's not going to happen. But you get pretty close to the core and everything changes when you put somebody in a different kind of environment. And let's say if, again, let's say if it does happen ever in your life that you leave this kind of professional environment with film crews and you find yourself in a completely different environment, just please remember what I'm saying you now, that you will be in a different environment. You will start struggling.

A lot of the leadership methods, I would say the majority of the leadership methods that worked with the documentary coup are suddenly not going to work. And you will question yourself. You will question yourself because when this happens, by definition, a lot of your life situations changed.

Right? You left your job, maybe you're financially not so secure. You have to make new friends. Maybe you are in another physical location and you will start struggling as a leader. And you will start saying, do I really take it so hard that I moved to another city and I cannot see my old friends from the camera crew? But it's not that, that it's on the other end, it's a different kind of people. Why? Because the typical kind of person who goes and wants to work in a restaurant is a different kind of person from the one that wants to work in a camera crew.

Cause it kind of what you're saying also, it boils down to who you're leading. Cause there's personal biases that have a role in this too, right? Like for the different leadership styles, right?

you mentioned. I mean, there are people out there who just have their personal biases and they'll look at someone, let's say, who pushes from behind, that's more, that's not as vocal or not as authoritative, quote unquote, and it's more like, okay, I'm going to listen to you, I'm going to hear what you say, and I'm going to let the group make decisions.

more of that collectivism that Howard was mentioning. There are a lot of people out there that would, followers out there, I guess, that would see that and be like, "That's not a leader. That's not my leader. That guy can't be a leader." - And they would be right. I mean, I would say it's not also about who you're leading, it's only about who you're leading.

This is something that's very hard to digest for somebody who is promoted from the managerial to the leadership level. So let's say sales manager, let's say you're a star sales and then you become sales manager and then you become sales director. Your job is not anymore to sell. Your job is to make other people sell.

And that's difficult because it's a step back from something that you were good at and you've always loved. - Yeah, that you were familiar with. - Exactly. So if those people say that you are not the kind of leader that they expect or not the kind of leader that make them perform, they are right regardless of what leadership methods you are using because a leader's job is to make those people perform at a level that they couldn't imagine. It's like a sports coach.

basically help those people break personal barriers themselves. Nobody cares if the leader is, uh,

breaking their own barriers. It's completely instrumental. That was a very good example. I really, really love Richard Branson or later Sir Richard Branson who built and leads the Virgin Empire. - Who just recently went into space. - Yeah, that's right. That's right. Oh, everybody has to go to space now. So there was a press conference and he was talking about leadership.

And somebody put up their hands and said, I have a comment, Mr. Branson. You are leading the Virgin Empire. At that time, he already had the record and the airlines and the bridle and everything else.

And you are working with a lot of highly talented people who are dying to work for a company like yours. But I am running a small printing shop and I'm surrounded by unmotivated and fairly bored people. So your leadership advice is very little use to me. If I were the CEO of Virgin,

I would lead like the way you're saying now. And then Branson said, but if you were the CEO of Virgin, you would make Virgin bankrupt. And if I got to lead your printing shop, I would build it into a multimillion business in a couple of years because that's the way you lead people. So if you, you know, this person was probably a professional and maybe a manager, but when he looked around, he saw unmotivated and lazy people.

So his own judgment just came back to him and it very easily turns into a vicious circle. Because if I suddenly decided how is a lazy person, right? Then I'm going to start controlling you. I'm going to start micromanaging you, give you a lot of negative feedback, not telling you. For example, if you are stuck, I'm not going to tell you, come on, you can do this. Because I don't believe that he can do it.

And then suddenly you will start resenting me and resisting me when I try to lead you. And then I say, you see, I was right. He's a lazy person. It's a vicious cycle. It's a vicious cycle. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess. But the moment I realize that my job with Howie in the printing shop is not a managerial job, but a leadership job, I am accompanying you to figure out how to run a complex operation. Mm-hmm.

- And a lot of tricky things are part of this process. For example, as a manager, I will not allow you to make mistakes, but as a leader, I will encourage you to waste some resources on making mistakes, because that's the way I figure out how you would solve a problem without me, right? It's a little bit like if you are a drill instructor in the military, you very closely control the soldiers, the famous scene from "Full Metal Jacket," like three inches from your chest.

But if I'm a military leader, I will send you in the field with very detailed instructions and then I will cut off your radio communications. - And see what you do. - And see what you do, exactly. And of course you are not going to perform so well as you would with the micromanagement and the radio connection. But when you come back, I say, all right, that was a very interesting solution.

I mean, it was a simulation. You still blew yourself up. But next time you do it a little bit differently, you will- It's like you're investing in this person. Precisely. And that's also like the biggest difference, I think, between leadership and management, right? Like the minute you have to-

hover over someone and watch their every move or micromanage. - Yes. - You are managing someone, you are no longer leading somebody. - Yes. - And there's a big difference between those two. - Well, human resources management, I mean, it's a very telling expression because in management, you have the electricity, you have the equipment, you have the money, and you have the human resources.

And you try to manage human resources like any other resources. For example, if it's electricity, you try to get rid of fluctuation. If it's money, you try to get rid of the conversion rate. I mean, you try to reduce your risk. And when it's people, you try to make them behave in a uniform way. This is what management is all about. That's why we give people uniforms,

the same work hours, the same coming back to, right? - So management camp shouldn't be mistaken for leadership. - Yes, that's right, that's right. But if you go up to the leadership level, then you suddenly, if you have 10 salespeople who do exactly the same job, then if you are promoted to a leadership level,

the first job that you have to do is take a step back and watch what they are doing with those uniform instructions and how they work differently from one another and what they are turning them into, because that tells you the future of it. I mean, you cannot, if somebody is impatient, you cannot turn them patient. So you might as well give them jobs that need impatience. And that's what leadership is. - I want to get your perspective on this, Gabor, you having worked with so many different leaders.

And as I was thinking about kind of the one thing that I feel like overlaps for all leaders, no matter what leadership style they have, I came down to the idea of accountability, ownership. And I feel like all leaders, despite their styles, all have a common trait of accountability.

taking accountability. They have that innate sense of not shying away from accountability. And I see this at all levels. Like I see this on a social level. You know, when you're with groups of friends in a social setting, like you're having dinner, who's the one that grabs the check and decides to lead kind of like the splitting of the bills and doesn't shy away from that responsibility? Who's the one that kind of leads the group in

in terms of coming up with ideas of what to do. And, you know, like who's the, despite the fact that they're taking a risk in leading somewhere that the group later on criticizes them for, like, oh, we shouldn't have gone to see it. We shouldn't have seen that movie or we shouldn't have gone to this. Like, what the hell were you thinking? They would take all the blame, but they're okay with that. They don't shy away from the liability and responsibility. And I feel like all leaders are,

have that. They have to have that. That's an innate characteristic they have. And it's the followers that don't have that, that shy away from accountability. Well, that's why they are followers. It's a nice thing to be follower. But what's your perspective on the idea of accountability and ownership? I perfectly agree with you. Perfectly agree with you. And I'm going to illustrate that. But before that, the researcher and author and lecturer in me calls for a little bit of hair splitting. Okay. Because

While you were talking, you used accountability and responsibility as interchangeable, and actually they are not. So accountability is about accounts, let's say, and responsibility is about a response. So accountability is a lower level of interaction because accountability means if I question you, why did you do that? Then you can show me the record, so to speak.

You are accountable to us. Whereas responsibility means that you proactively go after, and I think it's responsibility that you were talking about, like reaching for the check. - Yeah, but I don't know. Let me split hairs back at you. - All right. - Okay. Because I find this interesting. This is fascinating to me. I mean, obviously when we're talking semantics here,

But I would almost put accountability as the top because for example, using the example of like a CEO of a company. Now it is maybe the executives, the GMs, whatever like higher level executives underneath him, it's their responsibility to do their job and to lead their teams and do whatever tasks or functions that require of them in the company. But ultimately if they screw up,

and the company is liable for something. It is the man or the man or woman at top, at the top, the CEO, it is there, they are accountable for what happens to the company. They can't, you know, at the public press conference, they cannot be pointing fingers to other employees. They are, the buck stops with them. So they are ultimately accountable, even though they weren't responsible for the specific tasks. Yes, so we agree that from the management and legal perspective, accountability is paramount.

Because if a CEO makes a decision and then, let's say, he's caught red-handed doing something that he shouldn't have done, then he cannot say actually how he suggested it, right? Nobody cares. In management or in law, nobody cares if how he suggested it, but I was the one who actually made the decision. But if we look at it from a leadership perspective,

then responsibility is paramount, that I see something and I respond to it proactively. And that is extremely important because here, again, you remember when we were talking about success and self-confidence, there is another thing that often correlates, but not always, which is a leadership title,

and the leadership responsibility. So a lot of people are promoted into a high-level leadership position, but they are not ready to take this kind of responsibility that you mentioned. They just want to stay accountable. They are just...

they are the representative or the executive who is going to be accountable for decisions. But if that is the primary value in your head, then you are going to play safe. Then you are going to try to avoid mistakes. But people who are...

promoted into a high-level leadership position and they are ready to be responsible, they are going into the job looking around and not waiting stuff to come to their desks, but looking around of where we have wasted talent, where we have wasted resources, where we have behaviors that don't really fit their idea. And again, that's very subjective of how a great company should work.

and they proactively start making changes. Or if they see something that must be encouraged, that let's say people did it, but they didn't get positive feedback about it, then they say, well, listen, guys, this is amazing. I'm actually now learning from you. So this is indeed a big difference. And I agree with you that this kind of responsibility, actually accountability too, but since it's more like a management or legal category, it's not so interesting for us.

But this kind of responsibility pulls together all kinds of leadership styles. I have a question. I mean, it could be controversial. I have no idea how you're going to take it, but...

I mean, in your opinion, can anybody be a leader? Because I feel like that's something... I was about to ask the same thing. Really? I was going to say, are leaders... Do you believe leaders are born or can they be created? Yeah, because I actually think about this a lot. I mean, I told you I'm a director, but I also have my own production company. Yes, yes, yes. Small production company, but I'm always analyzing the people in my company. Like...

Number one, are they worth keeping? And number two is, do they have potential to take more responsibility? Like you say, right? But then I just, I don't have any answer because I'm just like, I don't know enough yet, right? So I'm just asking you, like, do you think anybody can be a leader? You throw this question into a room full of intercultural consultants or researchers and leave, come back in 20 minutes, they will throw chairs at each other. But- I would pay money to see that. Yeah.

Sounds fun. I would pay money to do that.

And the only restraint on this, the only caveat that I heard that made any sense and I saw it proved is certain IQ levels. So there are researchers, mainly psychiatrists who are applied by the army, by the Red Cross and so on, who rule out people with an extremely low or extremely high IQ.

So there you have certain problems because people with a much lower than average, so the world average in IQ is about 100. If you have people who are missing like a dozen IQ points from that, you get to a point where those people simply cannot process a certain level of complexity.

And then- I mean, that's just fact, right? It's, well, okay. It's a fact, but it depends on how you measure performance, for example. So if you measure performance like the way you do in the army or the way you do in a restaurant, then certain people with certain IQs, they cannot lead others because they simply cannot process that level of complexity. And they put other people in danger and sometimes they will just give up and so on.

And then there are people with extremely high IQ who are not good leaders because the followers simply cannot keep up. They think on such a high level of complexity that have you ever tried to learn something from somebody who made you even more confused when they tried to teach you than you were before? So it happens when you hire like a mathematics tutor who is an astronomer or something like this.

And then they try to explain to you this equation, but they use terms that are too high level. So you ask a really basic question and then you come out of it like just so perplexed. Exactly, exactly, exactly. So it just intimidates you. It doesn't teach you, it doesn't lead you and so on.

And this is, well, obviously I work for multinational companies, not the army or the Red Cross. So I bump into the high IQ question more often than the low IQ question. But between this, and actually that means, I don't know, 90% of the adult population

almost everybody, certainly everybody who would end up in your camera crew could be a good leader if only they find a way to do it. Now let's twist this thing around, if you don't mind, and let's look at people who are leaders, but question themselves. So you don't just ask the question, can anybody be a good leader? - Can I lead? - There are CEOs and vice presidents who have been recently promoted

And you would be surprised how many of these people at the first coaching session, they look at me and they say, I usually ask them, so what's the main issue that you want to deal with? And they look at me and they say, Gabor, I don't think I can do this. I'm not ready. One of the automotive CEOs I coached here in China, a German gentleman, he said, I think they promoted me by mistake. Oh, wow.

because he just sat down and he just couldn't, he found himself lacking in any measurement of leadership. But of course, there is always a reason. We dig down to the reason and we usually just find out that they are trying to lead according to a leadership philosophy, a leadership style that is very far from their natural temperament.

So they just, he really believed he just was picked by mistake just because of his own self-doubt. Yes. It's a little bit similar to what we said about countries and definitions of success. Now it's leaders and definitions of success. So if we go back to those leadership styles, this automotive CEO was a classic and extremely talented coaching mentoring leader by nature.

but his predecessor, the previous CEO who mentored him into the job, he was a top-down leader, a very dominant character. And then you look at somebody who leads in a completely different way, and then everybody thinks along the lines of like three to five success indicators.

And they look at it and they say, "I'm not as tough as he is. I'm not as fast as he is. I'm not as charismatic as he is." - So how can I do the job? - Yes, exactly. I'm not so good at influencing people as he is. I couldn't take the kind of risks that he is taking. And now I described the typical D-style leader in the DISC system, a dominant, top-down, high-risk, high-yield leadership style.

But he came from the opposite end of the leadership spectrum, which is the community-based, empathy-based, listening, coaching, nurturing kind of leader. So all we have to do is increase the level of awareness and tell people, and this is what my job boils down to, is that you can do it if you find a way to do it your own way. It's almost like you coach basketball, right?

You coach somebody who is very tall or who is above average height, but for a basketball team is relatively short. They have to use different techniques. Now, if they keep watching LeBron James or whoever the star is. Yeah, but they are four inches shorter. It's simply they don't follow. It's like Steph Curry looking at LeBron James, like, I can't do that. Precisely. But they have to follow a different movement pattern to get the same result.

That's so true. And I think that's, like you said, that's one of the greatest values of what you do

And that's one of the things I get away from talking to you as well is just being educated and exposed to the idea and understanding what all these different leadership styles are. Because I feel for even many leaders and CEOs and high positions and big companies, they're not aware that there are several different types of leadership styles. And so what they do is they buy into the

the kind of prevailing social archetype of what a leader is. They think they need to be a certain way. Exactly. They need to be a dominating guy. They need to be a fucking Steve jobs or, or whoever, right? Like whatever the prevailing kind of idea of a envision, an image of a leader is they think, okay, well I need to be that. And if I'm not that, that means I can't lead. I can't do this job. But once you understand that,

and you look at all the intricacies of all these different types of leadership styles, you will fit into one of those styles. And then you understand that like, hey, I can lead, like you said, Gabor, in my own way. And I don't have to do it the stereotypical way of what I thought a leader was at first. - Exactly. You know, when we are in an emergency or when we are under mild pressure, then our brain follows the simplest possible narrative.

And that's the problem in emergency situations. That's a problem on social media. That's certainly the problem in leadership as well. So when you put somebody in a new leadership position, which is the situation I very often work in, I sometimes work with leaders who have held that position for five years, but most of the time I work with leaders just before they are promoted to a higher level leadership position.

Their brain simply follows the most available and least, let's say, effort-intensive pattern of building up a new leadership style. Guess what the source is? I would say the bigger half, I wouldn't hesitate to push it up to 70% of people.

smart, successful, achieved leaders. They are put into a high-level executive position. They follow a leadership pattern, which statistically is not their own pattern. The previous leader. Exactly. Their own boss.

That is- It makes sense. It makes sense in one way because they are trying to grow into the shoes of the crazy. Like naturally it makes sense. Exactly. Naturally it makes sense. Naturally, according to the logic of organizations, it makes absolute sense. But you can, again, you can use different systems. I use the four leadership styles because it's so easy for everybody. There are five, 12, and so on. But however many the number is, statistically, it's likely that it's not your leadership style.

Because even if we just have four typical leadership styles, then what's the chances of your boss being the same as you are? Best 50-50. Even if we are correct for certain things, for example, in certain industries, one leadership style is more frequent than the other one.

a top-down leadership style is more frequent in let's say finance, whereas this technical transactional leadership style is more frequent in automotive engineering law and so on. Even if you correct for that, you have more than 50% chance that your boss's natural leadership style is not yours. And you are going to twist yourself and first of all, you are never going to become as good as he or she is

at their style. This is number one. Number two, you are constantly going to cause yourself pain and stress and pressure for trying to be like them. That's so interesting to me. I'm digesting what you're saying and I'm putting myself into that

historical position of when I got promoted into a leadership position. And it is so true because it's like, I mean, you're a product of your environment, right? And if your environment is based off of a certain type of leadership style, and that is so, I guess, instrumental to your growth or, you know, it affects everything, how you view things as a person growing, right?

That I remember when I got put into a leadership position for the first time, or at least that period of time, my previous leader, without being specific, was

was very aggressive and that person was almost like putting people down. You know what I mean? It was a very negative, kind of like a negative thing. And it was just so aggressive and strong, right? And then I was like, wow, that's so not me. Like just in general, I was like, wow, that's not me. And all of a sudden, boom, I'm put into a leadership position.

And I caught myself where I'm leading a meeting or some sort of one-on-one or something. I'm like, do you think that's right? I'm like, are you an idiot or something? Just be like the biggest dick. Yeah, almost like a dick. And all of a sudden I'm like,

And I see the reaction with them because I'm very empathetic, right? Yes. And so also I'm seeing the reaction. I'm like, that's not right. That's not a good reaction. Yes, that's right. And also I'm like, did I just do what my previous leader was doing? Yes. And I actually had to stop and be like, the hell am I doing? Like, that's not me. This doesn't feel comfortable. Yeah. It doesn't feel comfortable. It's hilarious to me because I think I know who you're talking about. Yeah.

But the interesting thing is now, why does my industry exist, my job exist at all? Because very few people would be able to answer the question, if not that leadership style, then what, right? So very few people, let's say, at your age, with your experience and so on, would tell themselves, listen, then I'm not going to lead like my previous boss. I'm going to lead my own way. Very, very few people would have the self-confidence to do this.

And half of the people who would have the self-confidence to do this would be completely wrong about that. So...

Do you see what I mean? Let's say all of the people, let's say 70% of them would just keep copying the boss's style. 30% of them would say, no, I'm doing this my own way. Out of that 30, 15% would succeed. Another 15 would fail because they have no guidance. They have no consistency. They have no structure. So this is why my job, my industry exists because we systematically answer the question, if not the boss's style, then what?

So what kind of a person are you? And then you say, you know, I'm the kind of person who would much rather just look at what they are doing and just try to adjust it a little bit, give them faith, give them direction. Or I'm the kind of person who says, listen, you keep making mistakes, just let's build a process. Let's create a rule book, right? But if you start experimenting with this,

then you are going to burn up too many resources, too much time. We're just building up your own leadership style. So that's when somebody like me is helpful because then I come in armed with lots and lots of examples of how people have done it already, have failed and then succeeded, or even the so-called best practices of how that can- So they don't have to waste time going through the whole trial and error process. I feel like Gabor is a leadership optimizer.

You know what I mean? - You could say that. - You know what I mean? Because it's like you cut through the bullshit because if you're not optimizing, right, then you have to, you may not even get to the end goal, right? Or whatever that goal is, that improvement, the constant improvement. You may not because you're not even optimizing the code or the process. - Yes. - But then Godward comes in, it was like, okay, I see what's going on. I gotta change the code a little bit. - Right. - Right, I gotta change that structure a little bit because, or the way you're training, physical training for building your body, whatever.

You're doing it wrong. You know what I mean? So you've got to optimize it. You're right on the spot. Let me tell you another story about this. So we have different kinds of leadership styles and some of them are more flexible with time and some of them are more serious about accuracy. Some of them are perfectionists. Some of them are social and so on.

Here is the story I would like to tell you. There is a high-level executive in an industrial firm. He was promoted to running the Asia-Pacific operations from sales.

Now that he is, he has been running the Asia Pacific operations. I think he was VP for a couple of years. And then I was coaching him for about two years when he was putting together another team, higher level team. And one of these people was a CFO, Chief Financial Officer, Finance.

This was an extremely smart lady, great experience previously and so on. Then I asked him, so how did your first meeting with the CFO go? He went brilliantly, excellent. And I'm very proud of the leadership style. I was really myself and so on.

And then I said, so what was the topic? She came to me and she said, we are going to work together. With my previous boss, we had a weekly meeting between the CEO and the CFO, and in this case, VP and CFO. So what is going to be our agenda? Are we going to meet on a weekly basis, several times a week, twice a month, and so on? And then this VP said to me, and then I just told her, listen, my door is always open.

"Whatever you need, whenever you need it, "you come to me and talk about it, "or you call me on the phone." 24/7. And he was beaming with pride. - So he said that or the CFO? - He said that to the CFO. - He said that to the CFO, but also we are coaching. So he narrates this, you know, he told me that he had told the CEO.

And then I told him, okay, so one thing that we do is, one exercise that you do in coaching is that you help people. It takes some preparation, a little bit of time, but you help people to build empathy with the other side and then turn the table around and see the situation with the other person's eyes.

So I said, just put yourself into the situation. We do it for five, 10 minutes. We build it up. This person is a CFO. She has been trained in finance. She has an impeccable record. What kind of certifications she has? Then you ask them questions like the CFO, for example. How do you imagine her private life? What does she do at the weekend? What is her behavior at meetings? So basically you put on the other person almost like a suit, right? And then I say, and now your boss tells you,

You asked the question, what is going to be our weekly routine? And you said, we don't have a weekly routine, whatever. Just call me anytime. What is your reaction to that? And this is the time when the person who is the coaching client kind of either gets pale or red and...

and looks at you and says like, "Oh my God, what have I done?" - Like, "Oh shit." - Yeah, that's right. And I said, "Just say it, say whatever you see now, say it. You are the CFO, you asked your VP." And then this VP said, "It's unprofessional, it's..." - How could you say that? - What you said, just, "It's a little bit like a loser."

Now, this is exactly it because you can manage your own way, but the person on the other end is extremely important. You still have to know, let's say, we have guitars hanging on the wall. You can be somebody who has an amazing experience with guitars, but when you teach somebody to play the guitar, you cannot use the high-level vocabulary. You cannot expect them to know exactly how to hold a guitar.

You can be the best salesperson in the world when you're coaching somebody to the next responsibility of sales. You cannot assume the same insight and experience that you have. So I can't help but think of, and we touched on this briefly the last time I spoke to you, Gabor, and I got the feeling that you were not too personally involved.

invested in the concept of EQ. Because we talked about IQ moments before, and you mentioned that there was kind of a sweet spot for IQ in terms of leadership.

But what we're talking about here in terms of understanding the other side, wearing like seeing from the other side's perspective. Right. Back at you. Isn't that EQ? Isn't that understanding like how people are thinking other outside of you and your ability to look back at yourself from like a third person from outside yourself? Isn't that doesn't that boil down to EQ? Yeah.

We had a very similar conversation last time. And then I watched and listened to the podcast and I realized that we finally didn't end up on the same side. So yes, extremely important, but I have reservations with EQ because it became a product. So now when you say EQ, then most people think of the book and the course that came out of the book and so on. And also a lot of people think

there is the cognitive process, there is the IQ, and there is the EQ, which is more like a heart to heart, improvable talent of kind of, how do you say, picking up the vibes of the other person. And so I don't know if I'm really wrong about, for example, the way you propose this, but the fact of the matter is that what we call EQ is still a very heavily cognitive process.

So if we look at, let's say, IQ and how much we understand each other when we discuss something, then we imagine it like head to head, let's say. - Like mathematical? - No, let's say head to head. And when we talk about EQ, then we say it's more like heart to heart. But actually, if there are people with more natural EQ and less natural EQ empathy. So for example, naturally I have extremely low empathy.

But if you want to train somebody in EQ, then it's hard to head to the other person's head, to the other person's heart. So it's a cognitive process. It's a modeling. I would agree with that. I would agree with that. So you turn emotions into cognitive concepts, basically ideas, and then you communicate those ideas. And if you're lucky, then you can start this kind of... So ultimately, it's not so different from IQ.

Most of the time. And then you have people who maybe never really opened up a book, but they'll be able to talk to you and they'll be able to persuade you to do certain things. They'll be able to understand and empathize with you. They'll be able to relate with you on a certain level where you're like, wow, I really like this guy. I want to follow this guy almost, even though...

He might not really know technically a lot of things about coding or mathematics or history or whatever the subject is. Let's say that I am coaching a high-level executive who, until he reached or she reached this high level of executive position, didn't really have to work with socializing. Socializing is a very good term.

example, because on one hand it can be debilitating if you're not good at it. And on the other hand, this is something that we usually put into the bracket of EQ rather than IQ, right? And let's say there is this person comes to me and says, "I work for a pharmaceutical company. I have been a chemical scientist all my life." And suddenly they put me in an executive position and I have to network, I have to influence, I have to hang out with people. And I'm really uncomfortable with this, right?

So I would need to coach this person at getting better at socializing. And then let's say, in order to socialize, one of the basic rules of the game of socializing is that you talk about what the other person wants to talk about, not what you want to talk about. Because in this case, this person would keep talking about molecules all the time. That will not score a lot of brownie points. So try to talk about what the other person is interested in.

And then she would say, but how do I know what they are interested in? And then they say, okay, for example, how to pick up on body language signals. Look at how they dress, look at how they wear their hair, look at what kind of, do they have a watch? What kind of watch? I mean, a Rolex is different from a runner's watch. And then they say, wait a minute, but are we still talking about EQ?

It sounds like a very rational process to me. - Yeah, 'cause you're able to break it down. - Yeah, exactly. So now we are modeling. Now we are analyzing. Actually, I'm very good at this as a chemical scientist. I have no problem with this, but where is the EQ? When do we start talking about like empathy and almost feeling the other person? Then I would say, no.

Actually, since your natural EQ apparently doesn't help you in these situations, now we kind of channel this over to IQ.

But I don't know. I feel like we have different definitions of EQ. My definition of EQ does not contradict what you're talking about at all. I mean, my sense of EQ is not this like intangible, just heart to heart vibe or feeling. I think it's one's ability to observe, right? Observe details and then use those details for influence. There is no problem with that, except that it's natural. And consequently, you cannot influence it.

So I'm in perfect agreement with you, but the question is, if you want to improve your EQ, then what? - Like you're able to give an A, B, C, D, E step-by-step process on how to improve the EQ, quote unquote. - Yes. - I think that's what you're trying to say, Gabor. - Yes, yes, yes. Some people, yeah, naturally, some people have higher level of empathy, lower level of empathy. - You just naturally, instinctually,

kind of align yourself towards those ABCDE processes. - Exactly, exactly. But it's a little bit like when Nobel Laureate scientist, Daniel Kahneman, how do you say, explained his theory about how people make decisions, and then the interviewer asked him, "So, Professor Kahneman, what do we do about this?"

And then he chuckled and said, nothing. That's the way it is. So with EQ, the kind of EQ that you described, the problem is that somebody comes to me and said, can you help me with, or anybody like the person who wrote the book, EQ, can you help me to improve my EQ as you defined it? The only way to do it is to turn EQ into an IQ process.

Otherwise, it's just a natural talent. Again, back to basketball, right? So the question is, I'm relatively short. I want to be a great basketball player. What I can teach that person is not to be naturally taller, but to jump higher.

And then it's a completely different process. So I think what I'm getting now is that some people are just naturally talented towards certain types of mental processes. But that does not say that if you're not talented in those mental processes, you cannot get at least good at that. So EQ can be something where it's defined as...

one thing you're looking at is body language, right? So there's certain body postures that signify how they are reacting to what you're saying. And EQ is all about reacting to the other person, understanding what the other person is like. So for example, when you look at my psychological profile, my natural EQ is low.

But at this point in my life, I'm not going to strike you as a selfish dick because I learned EQ as a second language using my IQ, which is easier if my IQ is higher. If somebody is the...

cognitive abilities are relatively more modest, it's more difficult, for example, to teach somebody how to read the other person's body language, how to pick up on these kind of signs and how to respond to them. So at this point in my life, most people wouldn't think this person has very low EQ because...

In a way, I'm pretending. I learned it. Now, when I was younger, I was much more selfish, much less likable. And it's possible that as I approach the retirement age, again, I'm going to be less flexible when it comes to other people's feelings and desires and so on, because this is more or less the bell curve. So we are at the highest point at...

kind of midlife when you are, you know, you are very young, you're being yourself, you don't give a damn about what everybody thinks. And then you start correcting yourself and you start picking up certain behaviors because- - You socialize. - You socialize because that's the way you're rewarded in life. You want to make money, you want to make friends, you want to be popular. If you have a YouTube channel, you want followers. So you, psychologists say, you start behaving in an agreeable way.

And then you get to a point wherever it is, different people, different way, when you reach the top of this bell curve. And then for a while you live out of these successes. But let's say if you make enough money, then you are beginning not to care what everybody thinks. - You no longer need to- - Approval.

- To be agreeable anymore. - Yes. - And the act kind of goes away. - Exactly. The act goes away because first of all, when we are older, we don't need so many friends. We don't want to go out so often. And secondly, all right, I don't get this project. So what? Even I feel this now. You know, when I was, let's say I started my company and three years into running my company, the client says, "You know, you have to do what I say.

Otherwise, we are not doing the project with you. I was terrified. I did anything they wanted to do. At this point in my life, I said, fine, good. So then it starts going down. Or let's say this is if you're a success in life, or if you're a failure in life, let's make it extreme. Then why would you comply? Right? You tried, you failed.

you give the world a finger. Well, can you correlate that to the general mentality of understanding and digesting experience, right? Because only with experience and experiencing different situations that you've been in, meeting different type of peoples, right? And knowing the results of these experiences, you were able to be like,

"Yeah, you put me in that corner, but I really don't care 'cause I'm fine." - Yes. - And only because you didn't have that experience when you were younger, you're like, "Oh, wait, hold on. Wait, what?" You know what I mean? - That's it. - And that's like a core essence. - And that's the interesting thing about the interaction between generations, because very often when young people want to learn, let's say leadership, they learn from seniors who are in the different life situation.

And then if somebody doesn't have that self-awareness and start to imitate those behaviors, it's just cartoonish. It is comical. I still remember I started my Shanghai company and it must have been about the second year because I remember which office we were in. And I was hiring young consultant who would start from the beginning of the career path.

And I remember I interviewed this very smart, very young foreigner who just came over from a large company to a small company. And I asked him a question.

There is this client situation. This is what they want. How would you solve this client situation? And then he kind of leaned back in the chair, which is difficult with the microphone for me. He leaned back in the chair. He looked at me and he said, listen, Gabor, if there is one- Son, let me tell you something. Yeah, exactly. He literally said, I still remember. He said, listen, Gabor, if there is one thing I learned in business-

That is that, you know, and after that, basically the end of the sentence doesn't matter. Somebody is 27 and looks at you and starts the sentence like, no. Like trying to lecture you. Yeah, exactly. Now, obviously this person picked up this behavior from somebody who has already proven himself, already has a lot of money in the bank, already has a higher level of hierarchy. And then if you say, if there is one thing I learned in business, then you listen because it's 25 years, not 2.5.

- That's a very fascinating idea, actually. Like, you know, we can't underestimate our tendency to mirror. And you brought up an example before about, you know, we tend, when we get promoted to positions of authority or leadership, we tend to kind of try to emulate our previous boss. You said we emulate our previous generation, right? We have this tendency to mirror what came before us

And we don't have that self-awareness to kind of contextualize, well, is this appropriate for the situation, I guess. That's right. That's right. Or even for me as a person. We assume that that person got a certain reward from a certain behavior. So obviously if we imitate that behavior, we are going to get...

And this is hardwired in our brain. So this is against- - A plus B equals C, yeah. It's like a heuristic. - It is. It's against our best interest, but it's so much hardwired into us that behavioral psychologists have proven this behavior in pigeons.

So, you know, pigeons copy one another's behaviors. Like they randomly gave feed to pigeons in an experimental environment. And then if one pigeon turned twice around and got some seeds, then all the other pigeons start turning twice around, whether they get it or not. It's absolutely amazing. And as you said, we are completely out of context. As we say in Hungary, we are sitting on this horse backward.

Because there is absolutely no guarantee that the same behavior that we copy is going to get us the same results because it's all contextual, as you said. My boss, when he was top-down, so let's go back to the example of that CEO that I mentioned, who is an empathy and community-based coaching and nurturing leader, right?

His boss was a top-down, high-risk CEO. But when that CEO was leading, he was leading him, right? He was leading the second-generation CEO. So, of course, the top-down leadership style worked because that next CEO is a good follower.

since he has a lot of empathy and since he's a good listener and since he's a good nurturer, of course, he works well with a top-down leader because he absorbs this energy very well. But then, first of all, he cannot play the role of the top-down leader. And secondly, there is no guarantee that his followers are going to be like him. So there are multiple problems here. Yeah, let me ask you a question, Gabor. Of all the years and leaders that you've worked with,

you know, accumulating all the experience you have, are there any like main, I guess, lessons you've taken away that you feel can apply to just everybody, no matter if they're a follower, a leader, just regular people, or even maybe you're using in your own life that you've taken away from speaking to all these leaders? Yeah, absolutely. I would say this is something that can work if I'm coaching a CEO for a year and a half,

or if your hairdryer broke and you take it back and you want a refund, but you know that they are going to give you a hard time, is that you start by observing. You start by observing, so you create opportunity to observe the other person. And that's how the process starts. You don't start by observing

by talking. You don't start by demanding. You don't start by setting the conditions. It's like you're at a negotiation table. You don't speak first. You don't speak first. Well, I mean, the perfect middle way between silence and talking is a question. So I usually encourage people to start a conversation with questions.

And then that question is an opportunity to observe the other person's body language, linguistic behavior, eye contact, and so on. So let's say this happened to me last year when I was stuck back in Hungary. And then I had this hair cutter, you know, and something broke inside, but the appliance wasn't working.

on warranty anymore, the warranty had expired, but I was still hoping that they would replace it for me. So you enter this customer service center and then you enter and you just throw something up so that you can feel the other person for just five minutes. And the first thing that came through to me from that five minute discussion is that this person really hates her job.

So she really doesn't want to be there. And she just doesn't know how the computer system works. And she probably hates her boss. And she just wishes she could be somewhere else. Now, then the question becomes, how can I get this job done? You know, making her replace this part in my hair cutter, acknowledging and even empathizing with her situation. And it's actually possible, right? It's actually possible to weave

into the situation that, so when she started looking in the computer whether she's even able to replace this part for me, and then obviously she started from the assumption that it's a shitty computer system, which probably wasn't true because it was Philips. So probably they had a good computer system, but she couldn't use it, so therefore it was a bad system. To step into that world with her and say, okay, let me look at it. And when she says, I'm sorry, sorry, it's going to take a while,

to say, "Ah, I know these computer systems. They are a headache, aren't they?" And suddenly they are on your side. Now you are a team against the computer system. And then it becomes a completely different job

to get this job done as if you were against her and you were banging on the table. - As opposed to you being like, can you be faster? Like, I've been waiting here for so long. - Exactly, it's your job to do this. And what's wrong with it? Do you see what I mean? So it can be this or it can be the CEO and you are coaching her every week. It's exactly the same thing. - But I feel like, I just want to make a real quick comment because what you said right there, it's like in my school of thought,

It has always been some people get it and some people don't. And what does that mean? Some people get it in the way that, yeah, if some people who get it are in that situation, they will be able to sympathize and try to align themselves in that way. But then there's other people that don't get it because they're just in their own world. They're just like, fucking, I want what I want. I want my results. Exactly, exactly. Right? Yes. So is it like...

I guess this is a rhetorical question because going back to what you're saying is that, yes, there are those people that get it naturally and some people that don't. But it doesn't mean that if you don't, you can't become that. Well, for example, I'm not sure I could teach EQ, emotional intelligence, the way you defined it. I'm not sure it's even teachable. But what you mentioned right now, I can teach it to anybody as a skill set.

And then eventually when somebody asked me, listen, Gabor, okay, okay, okay. Eye contact, body language, listen to the words that they are using, how they are relating to you. - Processes. - Yes. And then they say, ultimately, how long does it take to figure somebody out? Right? So I was coaching online a manager in Japan, and then he said, I asked them, what kind of person are they? And we gave the four leadership stars and I said,

which leadership style out of the four do you think that person represents? And this manager said, ah, you know, I think it's hard to tell because I've only been working with this manager for three months, right? So ultimately they asked me, how long does it take to get a basic idea about whether they are patient or impatient, perfectionist or flexible, right?

Actually, I wrote an article about this, which is entitled, "Can They Figure You Out in Five Minutes?" - Yeah, it should be fast, right? - Yeah, exactly. It's about five minutes. 'Cause the article was, "Can They Figure You Out in Five Minutes?" Because it's much more interesting to people if the article is about them. So the article is a narrative about stepping into a meeting room. And then I'm giving, I think, I can't remember exactly, but I think I'm giving 10 clues

that other people can use to figure you out in five minutes. So you step into the meeting room, do you kind of burst in or do you stop on this kind of mental barrier, which is the door sill and look around? Where do you sit? Do you talk to people or not? How do you arrange your stuff on the table?

Very, very easy because we are hardwired. I mean, our brain is programmed to figure this out because the first impression is where everything is decided. Are you friend or foe? Can I trust you or not? Are you one of us or not? But we somehow lose this ability as we grow up.

Because we believe, you know, the important thing is not whether he's patient or impatient, a perfectionist or flexible. The important thing is that he's my boss or he is the one who might buy my product. And I start focusing on the institutional relationship or the product. And then we have to reintroduce people to this. And do you know how many times it's absolutely wonderful? Because

Because lots of people tell me when we start talking about this and learn this skill, wait a minute, then there is one thing that they say, ah, Gabor, I understand. I remember. So this, when you step into a meeting room and you're figuring people out, it's kind of like that situation I can remember. Do you know what is the one that they say? It is like what? First day at school.

- You just feel everything out. - You have no friends. You don't know, it's a completely new environment. You're going, who's going to be my friend? Who's the bully? Who has something I want? Who's going to help me? - Which is very human instinct. - It is a very, very human instinct. - Yeah, it's like this assessment, like where are the threats, right? Like we go back to early humans, like okay, well, where are the lions hiding? - And where are the connections? Yes, it's a scientifically proven fact. If you, let's say, if you still stay in this four leadership style,

Like if you step into a room, you instinctively pick up on people who are from the same leadership style. - Which I think goes to what Justin was saying about, it's like the idea of EQ. Like how in tune are you with that instinct?

Right. But you have to relearn this. You have to relearn this. So the way you relearn this is, for example, you ask somebody, do you remember when you started working with that new project team? Yes, I do remember. Who was the first person that you connected with that you said, okay, this person might be an interesting... Okay, when you had the first project meetings and you went out for lunch, who did you hope would be at the same table? Right.

And then they say a name and I ask them why that was the person. And they describe it's like in the middle of their own sentence, like, so you mean because that person shared my personal temperament. That's exactly it.

I feel like there's multiple levels to this. So you have level one, which is you're oblivious. So you have no idea what empathy is. You don't really care. You just do your own thing. Think of the next level, which maybe is what Justin was saying, where you're naturally inclined to be a little bit more empathetic or be able to read people and that's almost like a priority for you.

but you don't know how to translate that. You don't know how to utilize that to get what you need or what you want. And then you get to the next level, which is, yes, whether you're a client or not, or you learned, but now you know how to approach these situations, how to manipulate, maybe not manipulate, but at least utilize these information and to get to where you need to go, right? - And also in our modern world,

everything is more important than empathy. Absolutely everything. So when we drive our car, we know where we want to go. We know that we want to file into the queue. We forget to look at the other driver. Are they on a phone call? Are they crying? Are they trying to calm down two screaming babies in the backseat? We don't look. You would be surprised. I mean, I'm asking, there is an extremely important negotiation. We are kind of unpacking it with...

with the person who does my coaching or we are talking about the board meeting with a leadership team at the training. And I'm saying, the person opposite you, what kind of a person is, what kind of a person was he? And they were sitting there for three hours and they look at me, how do I know that? Do you think he had kids? Listen, what kind of stupid question? Do they do sports? Let's stop this. And then I say, listen, okay, let me ask in a different way.

Were they wearing a sports watch? Because a lot of runners these days, they wear like a Suunto or something like, and then one of them says, you know, now that you're telling me, yes, one of them was wearing a Suunto. We look at stuff, we don't look at people. But if somebody is wearing a Suunto, you know, we all self-actualize, as Maslow said, a famous psychologist. If you're wearing a Suunto at a business meeting, right? You don't put it down after your run. You are communicating. Yeah.

And if you pick up on this, you know this person is a performance-oriented person who also wants to measure his performance.

likes data, likes to show it to other people. Because if I don't want other people to know that I'm a runner, they won't. - It's like an extreme because like Suunto is the extreme of fitness watch and whatever, or Garmin or something like that, right? - Yeah. - But if you're just wearing a regular watch, they may be fitness, like they love fitness and they love working out, but maybe they're not as- - By the way, Suunto is not the extreme. Do you know what the extreme is? When somebody walks into a meeting in those five-toed shoes.

- Five-toed shoes. - That's the extreme. - Those like, to mimic like you're walking like barefoot. - Yeah, exactly. That's a religion. - Have you seen that? - Absolutely. - I haven't seen that. - Absolutely. Yes, yes, yes. - I haven't seen that yet. - In the United States, I did, I trained- - Five-toed shoes? - Yeah. - You know what they're talking about, like the sock shoes. - There is a brand that goes with this and they run marathons in it. It is a movement.

And I was, I still remember in Parsippany, New Jersey. Parsippany? Yeah. I was doing a training there and we were sitting in a circle. So it was a two-day training and we do an activity, then we sit in a circle, we do an activity. And the circle was always about giving each other personal feedback. And there was this young manager who was sitting in the training with those five-toed shoes. That's an extreme signal that you are, there is somebody who's serious about fitness and so on.

And then there is the senior manager and he says, I would like to, let's call him Bob. I would like to give some feedback to Bob.

And then Bob says, okay, what is it? And he was sitting cross-legged with his shoes. And then his manager says, Bob, I would like to give you the feedback that these shoes are insultingly stupid. They are so stupid, they are not even funny. That was, you know, you hold back this kind of thing day by day. This guy shuffles into work every day, meetings, client visits, everything.

And you just kind of, you know, sit on your hands. It's a form of virtual signaling by what you wear. And you just, in a normal work environment, just most people wouldn't say it. Or he's introvert. He's polite. He doesn't say. But now he says, you can give any kind of feedback. I just had to say it. That's funny. And then...

there was a conversation about it and we asked him back, "How does it make you feel to have said it out loud?" And he says, "It's such a relief." - It's a weight off my shoulders. - I wanted to tell him it was such a relief. So that would be an extreme expression. - Moral of the story, do not wear five-toed shoes into work. - Or if you do, then be aware that you will be judged. - There is judgment happening. - Exactly. - There's a lot of judgment happening.

Look, Gabor, it's almost a pleasure talking to you. Likewise. I'm so happy to be part of it this time with you guys. That's so nice of you to say. Fantastic. I hope everybody else will, you know, as Monty Python said, if the listeners will enjoy it half as much as we did, then we enjoyed it twice as much as they did. Yeah, for sure. Well, Gabor, thanks again for coming back. Thank you. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers.

I'm a fan of Alibaba.