Interview Transcript

Intro:

And welcome back to CCL’s podcast, Lead With That, where we talk current events and pop culture to look at where leadership’s happening and what’s happening with leadership.

What if the biggest disruptions of the year weren’t interruptions, but instructions? What if every crisis, every shift, every trend we scrambled to respond to was actually telling us something? Now, 2025 was loud. AI moved faster than our policies. Markets shook without warning. Workforces hit walls of burnout and change fatigue. We reacted, we pivoted, we got through it, but the noise never stopped. And maybe that’s the point because inside the noise, sometimes there is a signal, a pattern, a truth about how we’re leading or not leading through complexity.

As we head into 2026, leaders are being pushed to rethink adaptability itself. CCL calls for a shift from crisis reaction to collective sustainable adaptability where learning is continuous, leadership is interdependent, and complexity is something we meet with broadened perspective rather than narrowed focus. From vertical development to boundary spanning, the big idea is clear: disruption isn’t just something to respond to, it’s something we can use to expand capacity, deepen alignment, and strengthen our shared ability to navigate the unknown.

Today, as we step toward 2026, we’re asking a different question. What if disruption isn’t something to survive, but something to learn from? And what if it’s the raw material for reinvention?

Ren:

Again, welcome back everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, what was the biggest disruption for you in 2025 or the biggest disruption you anticipate coming up in ’26?

Allison:

How will I ever choose? There’s just so many, so many possibilities. 

Ren:

So many.

Allison:

Well, clarifying, do you mean personal, career? Do you mean all of the above, anything at all?

Ren:

Anything that you’re … Like word association, the biggest disruption that came up for you when you heard that. So you choose.

Allison:

I think probably some unexpected family health obstacles. And also, we had, I don’t know if you’ll remember this, Ren, but we had a hailstorm over the summer that produced golf ball-sized hail, which is sort of common in Colorado now, and that created a whole bunch of other situations with the house, with the car, with all of the things. So probably those 2 things.

And from a work perspective, as you were speaking and doing the intro, I was thinking to myself, “Gosh, I think I’m just so used to disruption at work that it doesn’t faze me as much anymore in terms of it coming to a surprise,” coming as a surprise, that is.

Ren:

Were you able to leverage any of that kind of skill or thick skin or muscle in your professional disruption management into the personal disruption management?

Allison:

I’d like to think so. Although, you ask my family, they might say something different. What about you? What have been some of the biggest disruptions in your world or foreseeable?

Ren:

There have been some things happening in the world and government in 2025, and I would say the biggest disruption for me, probably personally and professionally, is navigating an entirely new lexicon, new language, new verbiage, new ways to approach conversations that I think persist. And so it was really interesting to navigate through a lens of … It drew me back to our canceled conversation that we had so many episodes ago where I was like, “Oh, wow, certain words are totally off-limits right now.” And it’s just an interesting exploration of, I think, that kind of continued balance.

And so I’d say a disruption that I’m really interested in exploring in ’26 is something … The world looks so fractured and I just wonder, is it as fractured as it seems? And I’m really wondering some of the disruptions, are they actually, like we claim at CCL, a chance to look at the world differently? And so I think I’m excited maybe less about the disruptions on the horizon, though we’ll talk about them, but more about an opportunity to test some of what I think CCL or what I’m interested in doing is withstanding disruption or letting disruption catalyze change.

So I don’t know, is that a sufficiently murky and ambiguous enough answer?

Allison:

Oh, yeah, it’s great. It’s great. And I want to know, perhaps it’s another podcast, but what words and language are off-limits? Can you even answer that question if they are off-limits?

Ren:

No.

Allison:

Okay. Can’t even go there.

Ren:

We might not even be able to let this episode post, our last one of the year, if I talk about that.

Allison:

Okay, fair.

Ren:

But we can, yeah. I think it’s just like the opportunities that, when the prevailing winds shift, how can we adjust our sails, as the old resilience phrase goes? And so how can we continue to do work that matters and work that honors where we are inside of environments that maybe don’t invite that?

Allison:

Yeah, that’s so interesting. And I’m interested in 2026 to explore the tension between being, quote, unquote, “resilient” and adaptive, and also investigating what are the things that we shouldn’t necessarily adapt to, that we should actually, I suppose that’s still change in itself, but that won’t necessarily be helpful or healthy to become adapted to, if that makes sense. There’s certain things, I think, from a very big picture, let me be vague and ambiguous too, that we know human beings are very resilient and adaptable. We know that. And perhaps there are certain things that maybe we should push back against. I don’t know.

Ren:

Yeah, I hear you. It reminds me of a T-shirt I saw the other day. It was like, “Get uncomfortable with discomfort.” And it’s funny because I think in classrooms, I tell leaders all the time, “Your job is to get comfortable with discomfort,” which is the idea of get used to stretching yourself. Discomfort is a sign of change. But I think the T-shirt in the associated area that I was in, in this art installation, was speaking larger to the idea of maybe your discomfort isn’t something you just put up with or accept, but maybe it’s a sign that you should shift things.

And so I think I’m hearing you. It’s like the caution of being perpetually adaptive or resilient is that sometimes we can adapt to circumstances or environments that maybe we shouldn’t, that we perpetuate, that we shouldn’t, that we should shift or change. And so I think I’m hearing you there. It’s like, let’s not help the … The biological resilience that lets us be the predominant creature on earth can also maybe get us stuck in the rut.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

And I think … Yeah, okay.

Allison:

Yes, yeah. Yeah, and I think too I spoke, when you asked me that question, I spoke from a very personal perspective and it’s all relative to … the things that impact a human being on a personal scale often impact at the organization scale as well, especially if you are a leader. But I think maybe, at least for the sake of this podcast recording, from an organizational perspective, again, we’ve always been asked to be adaptable. That’s always been in leadership development language, and I think now most organizations are in a state of perpetual disruption. So some might say crisis, depends on who you ask. And you might say, “Well, yes, there’s always been change at work. That’s true.” However, I think in a healthy, functioning workplace, change is expected, but it’s paced and managed very thoughtfully rather than what a lot of people feel is constant and chaotic.

Ren:

And something too, probably in that constant chaos, is the reactivity that causes that. And I think sometimes disruption, you can think golf ball-sized hail or family emergencies or rifts or market shifts, all these things happen and then we go, “Oh, no, environment shifted.”

And that’s why I think it’s going to be interesting for us to talk about today CCL’s point of view or one of its newest papers, this idea of reinventing disruption or turning disruption into a powerful force for change. I think it really boils down to these 3 larger ideas that how do you withstand disruption or create an environment where disruption can help you change or be a powerful force for change? It’s like, what does our organizational culture look like? What is the individual capacity inside of that culture, like your ability to do certain things, and then what does collective agility look like inside of that?

And so I think probably today we’ll talk about those 3 things and some ideas that likely undergird it, and even looking at some disruptions that we’re experiencing in our culture now, some disruptions that are heading our way, but before we get any further than that, those 3 big ideas: org culture, individual capacity, collective agility.

And so I’m wondering, when you think about an organizational culture, any time you work with clients or you’ve seen in the environment around you, like, “Wow, disruption faced them and because of their culture, they were able to face it,” or maybe, “disruption came and because of their culture, they didn’t,” and what’s your reflection on the role of org culture inside of disruption or especially turning disruption into a powerful force for change?

Allison:

Well, I think it involves taking a step back and looking at historical context. And if we were to have had this conversation in 2019, I think I might have had a different answer, and we could probably reference certain companies that have gone through all kinds of, quote, unquote, “disruption” and were able to navigate it because of a lot of different things. But the one thing that keeps coming up for me is perhaps they were able to look back into history, whether it was with their own organization or a different one and say, “Okay, this Company X had a similar obstacle and here’s what they did, and it didn’t work,” or, “Here’s what it did, and it did work,” and draw from that.

And now, leaders are being asked to respond in much different ways because now we have challenges that we’re not necessarily able to look at history or prior obstacles to find the solution. Now, you might be able to draw from some experiences, but now we have challenges like AI and technology, geopolitical tensions that are, yes, of course there’s always been geopolitical tension, but they’re impacting workplaces at a different rate, economic instability, all of this making change or change fatigue, if you will, more of a norm.

So quick fixes now just aren’t going to work and it’s going to involve looking at your workplace more systemically, which I think, again, you might argue as a listener, we’ve always done that. Sure. However, it’s going to demand equally complex and systemic solutions that likely you won’t be able to draw on history to figure that out.

Ren:

Yeah. There’s a couple of things that you’re conjuring up for me. One, maybe the history angle I’ll talk about as we shift into the individual capacity because there’s something there, but something around the systemic complexity is that you’re talking about is really when we talk about org culture and we think, “How do you turn disruption into powerful change or force for change?” It’s the idea of that interdependent culture. And some of what you’re talking about around org culture is perspective-taking. They have a view of the past. They’re able to put that into the future. They’re able to take in different views.

And I actually think you maybe just said too, it’s like some people might say we’ve been doing it or looking at our complexity or integration of our cultures for a long time, or it’s like maybe, or our work environment’s like that. I don’t know. Sometimes I think people are still really independent in their cultures or dependent where a leader calls the shot, and that’s where I think a lot of disruption turns into lurching from reaction to reaction is when we’re not interdependent.

And I think CCL’s point of view or our point of view in the classroom often, the root of our leadership outcome framework is the social process. And so sometimes that systemic, complex environment, it’s like, what are we doing inside of systems, leaders, listeners, whoever, personal or professional, what are we doing to let interdependent collaboration happen where we’re tapping into the perspective into the system, where we’re letting wisdom come to the top, where whether I’m the leader in my home or the leader at work, I’m not the one who’s always calling the shots and instead I’m creating environment for the social process of leadership to happen?

Now, then I think disruption isn’t like, “Oh, crap, it’s coming,” but, “hey, well, we’re tapped into the system, we know disruption was heading our way, and this kind of disruption requires this part of the system to act.” And so maybe that kind of visibility, that perspective, that interdependence helps us navigate through that complexity, lets disruption be a force for change.

Allison:

Yeah. And I think too, for our listeners who maybe are not familiar with the language of interdependent and independent culture or dependent culture, what are some of the behaviors that might highlight or signal interdependent culture at a workplace?

Ren:

Yeah. Well, maybe I’ll retroactively do it and then we’ll talk about what it could look like, because a dependent culture is what we would say a typical top-down kind of organization, or a command-and-control. You can think of a triangle where on the top is one person, they call the shots, or a group of people, and then everyone else listens. And so the org is really dependent on a group of leaders or a leader making the decisions. And you saw a lot of dependent structures that were investigated and lamented post-9/11 in 2001 where all of these US defense groups had visibility on threat to America, but none of them were communicating because the structure was like, “No, only one person calls the shot. We weren’t ever asked to communicate. And also, inside of our hierarchy, there’s no real structure for it.” So it was all these people waiting for 1 or 2 people to call the shots.

And then what you can see from dependency is then you can move to an independent culture, which is instead of just one person calling the shot, you see different subject matter experts calling the shots where it’s not necessarily the person leading the organization, but the person leading the project or leading that product.

And what we see then, if dependence is one person or top-down, if independence is depending on where you are in the system you get to call the shots, the interdependence is the best of all of those worlds where sometimes in an interdependent group, because of an emergency or because of certain wisdom, dependence is required. One person needs to call it. Sometimes in an interdependent system, independent thought is necessary. Sometimes subject matter expertise really matters and we have to rely on them. But the idea of interdependence is that we’re letting all of these things happen at once, where we’re not just relying on one person or one subject matter expert, but we’re relying on the group. And maybe sometimes it is one person or one subject matter expert. But really, the interdependence is that collaborative environment where we are working together to create an outcome, not relying on any one source.

Is that fair? What would you add to that?

Allison:

Yeah, I think that’s a great descriptor. And I would add to that, it’s collaborative upgraded. It’s upgraded. And I think a leader or just really anybody at the workplace, in order to foster that type of culture or climate, needs to let go of any attachment to ego or position or “I know best” type of attitude, which can be really hard, especially in a crisis because we want to solve and we want to solve now and we want to get the expert, and sometimes that’s the right decision.

However, what I’m hearing from you, Ren, and what I know some of our research has posited is that in this type of environment that we are in where it truly is unpredictable from day to day, hour to hour, you need to be able to harness the collective mindset of the organization. And so if you are listening and noodling on this, it’s something to think about. How can you as a leader empower others to have a voice in spaces and on topics where it might not be their day-to-day, but you can harness the wisdom of others?

Ren:

Well, and what a cool segue because I think it leads to the next part, is this idea of individual capacity, because something you said was really interesting. You got to be able to check your ego, but also, the ask for someone to engage in interdependence is to start to shift their mindset around what leadership, what effectiveness, what collaboration looks like, and really being able to start to think differently.

And so some of what we talk about inside of the individual capacity or when you’re faced with disruption, how could that be a good thing, is the vertical development mindset at that shift where we’re in work with each other, and we’re starting to think about, “How can I look at this thing differently,” versus, “Oh, no, here’s a disruption. Let me use this framework or this tool,” versus, “Oh, no, here’s a disruption. How can I change the way I perceive it and then change therefore my behaviors?”

So I know you do a lot in the vertical development space, and what’s your read on that idea of, okay, part of the idea of disruption and then using it as a lever is the individual’s capacity to shift their mindset, look at the world differently?

Allison:

Yes. I think in concept when you say it or when I read it or when anybody talks about it, it sounds lovely. It sounds like this wonderful concept. Well, we’ll just think differently. We’ll just approach that problem with a different mindset. And then I’m sure you’ve experienced this too, Ren. We get into the classroom with our clients and understandably, they go, “Okay, well, how? What’s step A? What step B? How do I get there?” And then the answer becomes a little bit more complex because what we’re asking people to do is expand their range of ways of approaching obstacles or not even an obstacle, just the workplace.

And that is so much harder for people because a lot of times we were hired, you were probably hired because you have a skillset for whatever your role is, you have that skillset. And so for some people, you can go to the workplace and to some extent be on autopilot because these skills are naturally ingrained in you. And so we are asking people to slow down and pause and ask for what’s needed now and take a moment and think about, “Do I need an expert in the room right now? Is there one solution? Do we need to think about this big picture? Do we need to think about multiple solutions? Do we need to think about the polarity of this?”

So it really, I’m very much simplifying right now, but it is more about how you approach the work and how you approach an obstacle, not with what skillsets. And I think that trips people up. And one analogy that I’m sure you’ve seen, Ren, that I like to share a lot, is thinking about your phone or your device. And if you’re adding apps to your phone or your device, think of it in leadership as adding tools to your tool belt or skills. And when your phone does that thing where it asks you to upgrade the operating system, which we all probably ignore a lot because it takes time, that’s what we’re talking about when we talk about vertical development. So it’s upgrading your, quote, unquote, “operating system” so that your thinking around obstacles is different. It’s expanded.

Ren:

Yeah. And here’s an upgrade too. I love that. If someone’s listening right now, the individual capacity, great vertical development, and they’re asking us how, and I love what you’re saying there and I’ll add to it here. There’s this idea inside of our disruption point of view, turning disruption into a powerful force for change, is VUCA upgraded. It’s like a new OS for VUCA.

So VUCA is a term that I think, as practitioners, we’re like, we hear a lot of and there’s so many people. The new one is BANI, but we’ll start with VUCA. Let’s actually start with BANI. Well, I don’t know. What should we do? VUCA first?

Allison:

Start with BANI.

Ren:

BANI?

Allison:

Start with BANI.

Ren:

Brittle.

Allison:

Yeah, do it.

Ren:

Anxious, right?

Allison:

Non-linear.

Ren:

Non-linear.

Allison:

And my favorite, incomprehensible.

Ren:

Incomprehensible, nearly like the phrase. And VUCA is this idea of an environment that’s volatile, uncertain, complex or chaotic, and ambiguous. Clearly, I know VUCA better than I know BANI, but whatever. We love acronyms, all of us learners in the field, and we’re like, “How can we describe an environment that is not welcoming or warm that’s either fragile or hard to navigate?”

And I think the disruption point of view, the new VUCA, VUCA 2.0, we’re not done with VUCA, we’re building on VUCA, is this idea of vision, understanding, clarity and agility. Disruption is the new norm. The way you did work yesterday quite literally won’t necessarily be the way you do work tomorrow. It’s happening that fast. And there’s this idea of future readiness and adaptability as a core strategy.

And so leaders, if you’re thinking about like, “Well, how do I expand my vertical development today?” It’s, well, versus the idea of volatility, what vision? What are you trying to accomplish as an organization as a team? Does everyone understand what’s happening in the environment and how it’s impacting the organization? From that vision and understanding, can you create clarity? Okay, “Through this, quote, unquote, ‘disruption,’ this is how we’re going to embrace change.” And then therefore, the agility is required. Disruption requires a change in behavior.

And so for the leaders, it’s a question of how do you shift your attention from what are we doing today to how do we build the capacity to learn and respond tomorrow? And I always cite these organizations, which I know that more are going to come, but they’re still the best use cases. It’s like Kodak or Blockbuster. They’re like, “This is what we do today and we do it great and this is all we’re ever going to do.” And the question was never posed really effectively, “Well, how do we build the capacity to learn and respond to tomorrow’s demands?” Because the world is innovating leaders, things shift. Even in static businesses that don’t have big seismic shifts, work is never done the way it was 10 years ago.

And so I think right now as a leader, you can ask yourself whether you’re experiencing VUCA or BANI, what vision, understanding, clarity, and agility can you bring, and how can you, say, shift from what we’re doing today to building the capacity to learn and respond to tomorrow?

Allison:

Yes. I love that reframe on VUCA. And it made me chuckle a little because as professionals in the leadership development space, I was having a conversation with somebody at the office a few weeks ago who was referencing VUCA. And I said, “What I wouldn’t give for some VUCA these days. Give me some ambiguity. I can handle that. Now we’re in this incomprehensible, ‘What does that even mean? What does that even mean?’” And we had a good laugh about it, but I love that reframe of VUCA.

And we’ve talked before, Ren, about polycrisis, so I won’t belabor that, but I do want to underscore that now, again, it’s not that you’re having disruption once a quarter. It’s disruption that’s continual and each disruption or problem seems to then feed into the next obstacle, and so it is continual. And I like what you were sharing about capacity and developing not only, and I’m paraphrasing what you said, but not only individual capacity, but collective.

And I think if it’s okay, I’d love to share a more tactical example of how this can play out at work because sometimes I think as leadership development professionals, sometimes, I’m giving myself feedback here, sometimes we speak in these very conceptual terms because you and I talk about this every day. This is our world. And so if you’re a listener who’s not necessarily in this space, let me just give you an example of how this looks a little bit different than it did 2019 and prior to that.

So if you can imagine a global manufacturing company with a few external obstacles that impact and exacerbate one another, think of it this way. So there’s geopolitical tension. And again, you might say there’s always been geopolitical tension, but let’s just make believe that this geopolitical tension is impacting this business with trade restrictions delaying critical components. And with that geopolitical tension, there’s also economic instability, both local and global, and that economic instability creates rising costs. So you have trade restrictions, then you have rising costs, and those rising costs maybe force your organization to have budget cuts.

And then that economic instability and geopolitical tension, it’s like a domino, can lead to a labor shortage because those budget cuts potentially cause your organization to have a reduction. Then with the labor shortage, you can’t find skilled workers as easily as you used to, and that actually slows your production, so what was intended to cut cost and save money now has slowed your production. And then on top of that, perhaps, there are threats of cybersecurity, which is very real for most organizations right now. And let’s, again, just play make-believe that the same company experiences a cybersecurity breach that forces systems to shut down or slow down, halting operations.

So that’s an example of how these things can domino into one another and make a perpetual state of almost crisis where, in this case, you’ll have project timelines that are slipped, your profits might be down, employees start to feel stressed, teams are working overtime, maybe your customer complaints are spiking due to increase in cost or decrease in actual materials. And then what happens in leadership meetings then becomes crisis management if you’re not able to develop these capacities and these skillsets ahead of time.

So again, I just offer that because I think sometimes we’re like, “Yeah, polycrisis, that’s great. That’s super interesting. What does that mean? How does that show up for me?” And so if organizations want to break out of crisis mode, and I’m not invalidating that these things are not crises because they are, but it will be important for organizations to change, again, to your point, Ren, how they think about disruption. It’s not a one-time event, it’s an ongoing process. And if we can start to think of it in terms of evolution with not necessarily a finish line, but just evolution and how we work and how we approach problems, that’s a good place to start. Is it an easy place to start? You tell me, but that’s a place to start.

Ren:

I really love it. And what made me think as you’re talking about the evolution is this idea of perspective. It’s that because crisis is a norm, crisis doesn’t have to be disruptive because we’re looking in the scope of years, in the scope of not just a single project, but the entire thing. And language that we use in this is the idea of from crisis to canvas. It’s how can I start to think each one of these is actually just a small part of a much larger picture that, if done managed the right way, it can turn into the change for our future organizations?

I think you saw this when COVID happened, was people were in the midst of perpetual crisis, and how many organizations rebuilt themselves? I mean, how much has e-commerce and dining changed in America alone, let alone the world, because of that kind of thing? And I think that’s one of those things where we start to say, “Well, how do we manage this crisis, this crisis, this crisis?” All of a sudden it’s like paint-by-numbers or it’s like the Picasso dot painting. It’s like all of these little crises, when you zoom out, then all of a sudden create some kind of a real picture.

And it’s interesting, the balance, too. You talked about this skills and how do we navigate that inside of vertical development because there’s a tension too where I think really a big in vogue thing is shifting mindset, but also a recognition of a skills-based organization that provides fluid teams, which is just what I mean by leadership and leaders. How do we rethink how we build, mobilize, and lead skill-centric teams and organizations, versus a role-centric, which is really core to interdependence? The idea, “Well, I’m the boss and I do this.” I’m like, “No, if you have the right skills for this kind of crisis, we bring you to the front and we let you lead the way, and then it’s like that’s your bit of the painting and then someone else’s bit of the painting.”

And if we’re coordinating those efforts, then crisis, when we zoom out, we start to say, “Well, this dominoed.” I think you painted a picture of the domino effect of negativity, what can stem from something in the interconnected environment. And the goal would be to look on the other side of that coin. It’s like, what happened when this crisis happened? The dominoes of creative thinking, of new products, of new solutions. And again, I think we saw that in droves 4 or 5 years ago and we continue to see that where crisis then gives people an opportunity to think, “Well, what’s the next answer?”

And so I think that crisis to canvas really resonates for me right here.

Allison:

Oh, yeah, I love that visual too. And something you mentioned before is that this isn’t something a single leader can fix, and so it’s about looking at leadership as a concept a little bit differently too. And CCL has always found in our research and we’ve always said that leadership exists regardless of what your title is. However, in more hierarchical organizations, it will be important for those types of companies to really reconsider what, quote, unquote, “leadership” looks like because this isn’t something a single leader can fix. These big-system types of obstacles are not solved by a heroic effort. I think you said that almost verbatim, Ren.

And so yes, talented people, strong training programs, those things absolutely matter, but they’re not enough. And what makes the difference, as you were just highlighting, is that coordinated strategy that connects the dots across the entire organization so that you can tackle those interconnected challenges together because they are interconnected. Again, at a very tactical level, what hits Operations and challenges Operations is also going to challenge Marketing, for example, and so on and so forth. And you might argue again, yes, that’s always been the case, but it’s just at a grander scale now.

So really looking at how can we have a coordinated strategy interdependently at our organization, which I know is word salad again, but there is good news. I feel like this can feel sort of heavy, I suppose, but there are solutions. There’s always a solution. And I think it’s tempting for more senior leaders too to focus on process change within this type of environment, and of course that can be important, but leading through these types of challenges really does mean focusing on people and culture as well and those 3 different pillars that you’ve already mentioned. I also think about within those pillars, polarity management, so both/and thinking, and boundary-spanning leadership, how can you span boundaries in your organization in ways that you haven’t before?

There’s probably a lot we could touch on here, but I’m curious, Ren, if you were talking to a leader of any level, what’s one piece of advice that you could give a leader that could be actionable today? Because we’re talking about mindsets and these big conceptual things. What’s one action step you might suggest?

Ren:

Yeah, I’d probably build on the polarity thing that you said, because something that’s critical to this idea of disruption being a force for change is to rethink risk. Risk is a polarity. One side of the polarity being risk as a threat, the other side is risk as an opportunity.

And so if a leader right now, I think part of your job, especially when we think about economic or talent turbulence coming our way, or the continued generational shifts … I mean, I’m just talking to another client the other day. All their leadership team is aging out, and not 10 years from now, legit 5 years from now. And they really struggle with knowledge transfer, because it’s an organization that has not been interdependent, it’s been dependent, and at best, independent. But that means that there’s all these silos of years and years of wisdom that people aren’t letting go of.

And so I think there’s a leader. Part of what we got to start to diagnose is, do we have the right talent with the right mindsets and the ability and the agility to evolve? That becomes the competitive advantage. And if we don’t focus on that, then that’s a risk. And so I think maybe diagnosis, leaders, what you could do today, maybe diagnose your risks. Which part of your risks are the biggest threat? And then inside of that, which part of the risk is the biggest opportunity?

I think, like this organization that I’m working with right now, a major risk is their aging population and their leadership aging out. The major opportunity in there is that there is a real urgency inside the organization and a desire to collect all of that information and put it somewhere. And so that’s a way for us to balance it where I think the worst parts of it is, “Well, this is a threat. What do we do here?” versus an opportunity to change the org culture. With all these leaders leaving, they can now start to say, “Well, this is something we need to do in the future. So we have the knowledge here and we don’t have to frantically scramble.”

So I’m thinking back to your question. I don’t know if that’s like a super practical thing. So again, leader, if you’re listening, diagnose, look at risk, and rethink it. What risks do I traditionally see as a threat? And then what is the opportunity inside of it? That is then how we literally, not even literally in a figurative sense, but literally look at disruption and say, “Ooh, this is disruptive. Great, what’s the opportunity here?” And so again, may not be easy, but it’s something I might suggest. 

Allison:

Yeah, I love that. And I love the call out of there are populations that are going to be exiting the workforce and how can you harness that wisdom and not say, “Could you write down your best practices?” That’s not very … “Just go ahead and write down what you’ve been doing for the last 40 years and how you approach things.”

Ren:

For your career, yeah, your whole life.

Allison:

But there’s something in what you said too around embracing a relational view of leadership, and some organizations do this already. I would say a lot don’t. Embracing that relational view will help your organization move beyond those shared individual goals and focus on shared collective outcomes. And I’m simplifying here, but doing that enables the organization to then continuously assess, like you were saying, Ren, and adapt capabilities to meet the challenges that are coming, the challenges that might even be unknown.

And again, you and I have talked about this probably ad nauseum on our recordings, but the Direction – Alignment – Commitment tool is a really, really great starting out point to determine the precursors for action in an organization. So do we have a clear direction? Are we aligned as an organization, as a team, and are we committed as an overall organization or a team to resolve these challenges?

And alignment, I would guess … Well, I’m making some assumptions here. Alignment tends to be the trickier part depending on the size of your organization, but when organizations achieve direction, alignment, and commitment, then they’re able to tap into those collective forces that can really motivate individuals and organizations.

And I think too, given the wild times that we are in, that motivation part might be tricky for some organizations too inclusive, Ren, of what you were saying about populations who are about to age out of the workforce. What’s their motivation? What is their motivation to share that wisdom that they’ve had when they’re potentially just exhausted and ready to retire? Again, that’s a whole other podcast, for sure.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I mean, we can answer it and there may not be motivation, which is the problem. I think that’s the opportunity here is how do we create a culture where there is a motivation for it?

And I love where you’re at when you were talking to that because I think a big part of organizational resilience is this idea of values, trust, and psychological safety. Inside of new tensions, do I value my teammates? Do I know what they value? Do I have trust? Do I have psychological safety? Because technological advantage alone is not going to win the day.

Allison:

No.

Ren:

Leaders have got to cultivate a relational and cultural competencies at scale. It’s like, who are we and how do we operate despite the weather?

And so the DAC is exactly the precursor for any kind of action, and it’s the root of the collective agility that we’re talking about in our disruption point of view, is you look at your organizational culture, you identify and diagnose individual capacity, and then you build collective agility using DAC, some shared sensemaking, and ultimately having a culture where we value each other, we trust each other, we have safety.

And so I think part of the incentive for these leaders aging out is, well, how can the current leadership structure or those who will be left behind demonstrate value and trust in who these people are? And how can these leaders feel psychologically safe enough to say, “Well, will I be sunsetted even faster if I let go of my wisdom?”

Allison:

Nice.

Ren:

And so I think some of the incentive, it doesn’t maybe exist right now, but could exist. And we talk to leaders all the time around the idea of legacy, of impact, of what are you leaving behind? But in the very least, for those who are self-focused, which is nothing inherently wrong with that … I talk to leaders all the time at this point in their career, the goal is to articulate your mastery. The next mountain for you to climb is telling me how you climbed all the mountain, not just relying on those impulses that you’ve cultivated over 40 years, “Write down your best practices.” “Well, I don’t even know how I did that.”

Yes, that’s the trick. The trick is now giving these leaders an opportunity to tell their story, not just write a bullet list of best practices, but your story is meaningful, we value it, we trust your wisdom. If you can feel safe enough to share it, then you can demonstrate the kind of culture that we need in the future.

But I don’t know. I don’t know if that would incentivize these people or not, but that’s a really good question. I think that’s something they need to be asking themselves. But either way, I think that if you could build a culture of values, trust, where we value each other, where we know of our values, where we trust each other, and we create safety, then we can navigate those new tension zones really well.

Allison:

Yes, I love that. And I’ll add one more thing that plays perfectly into what you just said, which is that human beings tend to be predictable in times of disruption and uncertainty, so that’s some good news. And what we can share with you is that uncertainty or things that are not clear tends to be one of the roots of the biggest stress for people.

And so as a leader, one thing that is simple in concept that you can do now to immediately start to improve resilience and build that trust that, Ren, you were just talking about is by communicating. And again, that’s very simple in concept, but acknowledging the uncertainty when it calls for, communicating a clear picture of priorities, assuming that you know those, and if there are any next steps, even if the next steps mean that, “in one hour, we’re going to do this thing,” or, “by next week, we are going to do this thing,” because again, even if the long-term plan is still evolving, what people need is something to anchor into so that they know “we are taking care of this as an organization.”

So again, simple in concept, but that is one takeaway that you can action immediately.

Ren:

Yeah, yeah. I’ll just tack on VUCA 2.0. It’s like, what are you doing to contribute to a vision? What are you doing to contribute to an understanding of that vision? How does that provide clarity for what you’re going to do next? And then do you have the capacity to be agile to do what’s required of you next?

Allison:

Yep.

Ren:

And so I think those are really practical approaches for any of us to answer right now. If you’re feeling that disruption and you’re feeling not the good parts, but the bad part, create some VUCA 2.0, create some collective agility, start expanding your own individual capacity, and then I think that will positively impact your culture.

Allison:

Yeah, indeed, indeed. And to reground our listeners, some of the things that Ren and I were both talking about today are in one of our new articles that’s titled, Reinvention Through Disruption: Moving From Perpetual Crisis to Collective Adaptability. You can throw that into Google and it will pop up for you. It’s a really fascinating research article that links to other research of ours that will go into a little bit more detail of some of those pillars that Ren and I were both talking about today.

Ren, any last words before we move probably out of our 2025 recordings?

Ren:

That’s right.

Allison:

Likely, our listeners, we’ll see you in 2026.

Ren:

Yeah, that’s 100%. No, just take care out there, everyone. Be safe, keep doing the good work. I feel lucky to work with people like Allison and people like you listening who care about the people they work with and care about the people they get to come home to. And I really believe that is what makes work work is the truth that we’re all just trying to do a good job. Most of us are really just trying to do a good job. And if we can treat each other like that and start to cultivate more understanding of one another, then disruption can really start to not be so disruptive.

So, thank you all. We appreciate you. Stay safe out there. Enjoy the holidays. Enjoy the end of ’25. And yeah, we’ll see you sometime Q1 in ’26.

Allison:

Yes, indeed. That’s well said, my friend. Happy holidays to our listeners. As always, you can find all of our podcast episodes and show notes on ccl.org. And a big thank you to our team that works behind the scenes to get our podcast off the ground. We will look forward to speaking with you again in 2026. In the meantime, find us on LinkedIn. Tell us what’s going on in your world. What would you like us to talk about in 2026? And we’ll see you soon. Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks, Allison. Thanks, everybody. See you next time.

Allison:

See you next time.

Ren:

Find Allison on holiday TikToks in 2026.

Interview Transcript

Intro:

Welcome back to CCL’s podcast Lead With That, where we talk current events in pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

Ren:

So, what does leadership look like when you’re 250 miles above Earth, facing an unexpected 9-month extension to your work trip? NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams didn’t plan to spend nearly a year aboard the International Space Station, but when technical failures grounded their return vehicle, they adapted, preserved, and led with resilience. This episode, we’re diving into their experience — not the spacecraft, not the mission logistics, but the astronauts themselves. How do they cope?

How do they lead, and what can we learn from their ability to stay focused, motivated, and mission-driven in the face of uncertainty? Both Wilmore and Williams demonstrated what leadership under pressure truly looks like. Rather than frustration, they chose optimism. Rather than isolation, they leaned on teamwork.

Williams put it best when she said, “We don’t feel abandoned or stuck up here” during her interview last year. They tackled scientific research, station maintenance, and the psychological demands of an extended mission with unwavering commitment. It’s truly a masterclass in adaptability, trust, and the kind of leadership that transcends gravity. So, what can we leaders learn on Earth from their experience?

Today, we’re breaking down some lessons around the high-stakes problem-solving, mental endurance, and teamwork under extreme circumstances. So, whether you’re leading in an office or orbiting the planet, Wilmore and Williams’s story proves that the best leaders are steady, and stay steady, no matter how long the mission lasts.

Welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, what’s the longest you’ve had to work with someone on a job, like a single person stuck on one gig?

Allison:

Single person stuck on one gig? Well, we run 5-day programs all the time, but I suppose we leave at the end of the day, so maybe that doesn’t count.

Ren:

You get to go home.

Allison:

So prior to CCL, in my past life, I was in charge of getting retail stores open from both a training perspective and an ops perspective. There was one occasion in which I had to open a very small store in a very, very small space that me and another teammate spent all hours of the night working. So, that was probably 7 am or earlier, to about 3 or 4 am, give or take. What about you?

Ren:

I don’t know. Yeah, maybe like a 12-hour stint, 7 to 7 in some of our programming, maybe on a work trip internationally, spending more time with someone. I was always able to clock out and go home. Considering that long stretch, how did you manage your space with each other? What were ways that you were able to work better together? What were some of the things that you took away from a “leading yourself and leading the situation” experience?

Allison:

Well, I think, gosh, there’s so much to say there. The root of our success was that she and I had, and still have, a very good relationship and were able to communicate transparently and effectively with one another. So, just to be clear, there were no windows. It had to be private, for some reason that I’m still unsure of. So, they didn’t want anybody looking in the window, so they barricaded everything. So, there were no windows, which you would think wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but it does have an impact on you.

I think we were just able to communicate and had lots of caffeine, and we knew what we were getting into. We knew what we were getting into, which is actually something that these 2 astronauts said, too. We knew it was going to be a trek. We knew that in advance. So, I’d say that, and the communication, and us having a very solid relationship was helpful.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I think you highlight some of those things that maybe Suni and Butch have to lean onto, or Wilmore and Williams. I’m going to call them all sorts of names, hopefully the polite names, but let’s run it back because I think it’s such a wild story.

I didn’t really pay attention until the astronauts were coming home, and then I saw a meme. Imagine you were told that you’re stuck up there, and then they were like, “Hey, actually, let’s wait a day” because the return ship was delayed for a day once it was planned. So let’s first look at who they are.

Butch and Suni, both Navy test pilots, they’d served as Navy pilots and they both were astronauts. They’ve been up multiple times. You’ve probably seen Butch on all those NASA clips. He’s one of those faces that they put on TV when they talked to the astronauts. So, they’ve both done a lot of work in planes and in space.

And, as they’re test pilots, this was Boeing’s Starliner. That was the space shuttle that they took up to the space station. That was Boeing’s first pass at taking astronauts. NASA, for the past decade, has been using this commercial flight program where they rely on private industry, or private companies, to take their astronauts up there. That’s why SpaceX has been involved, and we’ll talk a little bit around the return capsule. So, we got these Navy test pilots who are astronauts who were asked to fly the Boeing Starliner up to space for the first time ever. It’s the first manned flight for this pod.

So, they go up, and as they’re going, there’s some hydrogen leakage issues in some of the thruster engines, especially as they’re getting close to the ISS, and they were able to stop the leakage. But as they began to dock with the ISS, some of the thrusters failed. So much so, that both Butch and Suni had to re-engineer, get this stuff back online, get the computer activated, and for them to safely dock. But it’s just such a wild thing to think of. They finally can see it, and then they have these issues. It reminds me … Was it Apollo 11 or Apollo 13? Which one is a Tom Hanks movie?

Allison:

Oh, I think it’s 11, right? Oh no, I don’t know now. I’m questioning myself.

Ren:

Oh, did I ruin it?

Allison:

I think it’s 11.

Ren:

People are yelling into their microphones. They’re like, “Idiots, it’s Tom Hanks.” But anyway, so they get up there and so they’re the only 2. I think the plan was supposed to be 8 days, and they were going to fly up to the space station just to see how it went and then come home. But after the thruster issues … it was June 2024 when they flew up there. After the thruster issues, NASA and them said, “Okay, we’re going to try to figure it out.” And for 3 months, they waited for a plan. So, it was June, and then in August, NASA was like, “We’re not sending you home” and that “We’re going to bring it home unmanned. Also, we’re just going to keep you on board until the next crew arrives,” which was going to be in September.

But after more and more conversation happened, they say, “Well, you know what, what we’re going to do is …” And the crew that usually come up, they come up in groups of 4. So, the crew, instead, they dropped 2 people off of the September crew, and then they brought up those 2 other people, a cosmonaut and the other US astronaut. His name was Nick Hague. So, those 2 arrive at the space station in September, and then they all stay and work together until March, when they were finally able to go home. So, it’s a wild day. Wilmore and Williams ended up spending 286 days in space, 278 days longer than anticipated. They circled the Earth 4,576 times. They traveled 121 million miles by the time they splashed down.

And Williams and Wilmore quickly transitioned from being guests to full-fledged station crew members. In fact, Suni Williams became the station commander once they decided that she was going to be up there, and, wildly, they did 62 hours over 9 spacewalks. Williams specifically set a record for the most time spent spacewalking over a career among female astronauts. So, it’s like this super-duper wild story. They get up there and there’s a lot of things to unpack too around, “Were they stranded, were they left?” NASA and the astronauts both made a conscious decision, and probably a financial decision, that they’re just going to roll them into the squad.

But the thing that got me really thinking about this is you got an 8-day trip and it turns into a 286-day trip. And I asked you, like, “Should we talk about this?” Maybe just how they didn’t freaking kill each other. So, I think I want to dig into some of the tension that could have happened, some of the characteristics that they leaned into in themselves, some things that came out as they talked about it when they arrived home, But it’s just this wild trip with so many factors at play. So, I wonder, as you observe the story, listen to the astronauts, hear about the details, what sticks out to you about any of this?

Allison:

A lot. I think 2 things. One was just interesting to read about some of the health ramifications about being up there for such a long duration, that I thought about, but didn’t really consider deeply until I really started reading about it. Even on just a typical engagement — we can probably agree this is atypical, but — astronauts in general usually experience, or can experience, bone and muscle loss, vision impairment, shifts in brain structure — I just want that to land, a shift in your brain structure — immune dysfunction, and others. So, again, you and I are not in the medical business, but I would be really curious to just know how they’re doing. They both said they had experienced a lot of dizziness, a lot of balance obstacles as you might imagine.

But I think from more of an organizational perspective, there was a quote that stood out to me that I want to read as a direct quote from Wilmore. That quote is, “The plan went way off from what we had planned. We prepare for any number of contingencies, and you cannot do this business without trust. You just can’t. You have to have ultimate trust and for someone to step forward in these different organizations and say, ‘Hey, I’m culpable for part of that issue.'” He’s referencing the obstacles that they faced and the major delay in their return. So, for someone to say, “I’m culpable for part of that issue,” that goes a long way to maintaining trust.

“And if I was given another opportunity to fly,” Wilmore said, “We’re going to fix it. We’ll make it work. Boeing is completely committed, and NASA is completely committed. With that, I would get on in a heartbeat.” That was really telling to me. What do you make of that, given everything that you just said, plus the health issues, and they’re saying, “Yeah, we would do it again”?

Ren:

Yeah. Well, it made me think, too, about, so the only way this works is because they have 2 of the hardest-nosed, hard-skinned Navy test pilots who just get into planes to test them. They’re just the biggest risk-takers. And I’m thinking, “Could it work with a normal human?” So part of me goes, okay, but yeah, that makes sense because that’s what you do. Your identity, I wonder how wrapped up it is in being a pilot and doing really tough stuff.

But I think there’s a couple of things. One, it reminds me of the nature and nurture conversation around human development, but also around leadership. At CCL, we firmly believe and have for decades that leadership can be developed. And I think there’s some truth that some people are naturally born into it.

So, it’s interesting. Butch said something, too. He’s like, “We plan and we prepare.” What an interesting sentence. And Suni says, “This is in our hearts, it’s in our heart.” I’m not surprised to hear … yeah, sign me up. I don’t know if Suni’s going back. I mean she’s done almost anything you could possibly imagine for an astronaut. I think this is her 5th or 4th time, maybe. And for prolonged amounts of time; she’s had long stays at the ISS before. So, it’s like I don’t know if they would go back. Some of it makes me wonder, are you just being a good soldier, you’re not trying to blast Boeing?

But it is interesting to say, from an organizational standpoint, someone in Boeing’s got to say, “I know what the problem is, and we were attached to it.” Because if they’re not honest about it, then they have a much bigger headline about the thrusters not working and the thing crashing into the ISS. So, I did think it was interesting. Like, “We trust Boeing, they’re going to get it right.”

It reminds me, too, mistakes happen. Even with SpaceX, I mean, the SpaceX Dragon brought everyone back. SpaceX has been, I think, flying up there for 10 years or something, but even they recently had a pretty large explosion across the sky.

So, these things happen, but there’s something around the trust, trust that you planned, trust that you prepared, trust in yourself, that you were made for it, or trust in yourself that you could hack it. So, that’s probably I think the thing that you’re talking about right there is one of those things too that they had to rely on, which was that notion of trust.

Allison:

And the knowing: “We plan for this.” Now I’m not quoting either one of them, but loosely paraphrasing what they both have said, which is, “We know there are risks to doing this, major risks. We know that. We’re aware of that. Yes, we’ll do it again.” So, you’re right. I think it takes, well, a specially trained person to do what they do, of course, but also a special type of human to be in literal outer space for that long and then to come back and say what they said.

And I’m just going to take them in good faith, although you’re probably right, there’s probably a little bit of being a good corporate citizen, so to speak, and not blasting their partners. But I just wonder what kind of adrenaline junkies either one of them might be, to want to do something like that again. But it did get me thinking about contingency planning and risk taking, calculated risk, and how all of that also partners with trust and plays out at the workplace too.

Ren:

It’s interesting when we look at our organizational culture, sometimes at CCL, we use a lens where we look at … There’s 4 dynamics about risk taking, decision making, conflict, and feedback. We often get leaders into a room and talk about, “Hey, where is your organization today, and where does it need to be? Where are you in this room, as a team or executives, and where do you need to be?” So it’s an interesting lens to look at for these folks around how do these things play out? I think some of what I’m thinking too is, “Well, would a normal person have been okay? How quickly would’ve a normal person reacted or rebounded?”

We know too, there’s so many personality assessments that … some of us take a longer time to rebound. Some of us are really, really stressed out when something doesn’t go to plan. So, I think there’s something about that cultivated skill, or something that really stuck out with me is a growth mindset. There’s more than a few times that there was no time to do “Woe is me.” There was no time to be like, “Well, crap.”

I mean, even like Suni said, “Did I think I was going to not be there for my daughter’s high school year?” Oh no, sorry, that was Wilmore. That was Butch. Butch missed his high school year. But even through that lens, when he was in the Navy, he was saying, “When I was in the Navy, they never got to experience me being away or me being at missions that were risky.” So he was actually kind of glad because, he said, “My daughters, my family, they got a chance to build resilience too.”

Yeah, it sucked, but also think about the resilience they’ve cultivated. Think about the story that they have now. Think about when something shocks them in their world again, they’ll be able to say, “Well, my dad was up in space for 200 days when he was supposed to be there for 8.” So there’s something, too, around the idea of that growth mindset, that preparation, and then too, can a normal person inhabit that space and succeed? I think there’s a couple lessons here for normal people, too.

Allison:

Yes. And I think, too, that the story highlights the complexities they faced and, really, the collaborative efforts that you alluded to earlier that were taken to ensure their safety. We probably could call this a crisis situation, and success in crisis can often depend on collaboration and trust, as you already mentioned or we both mentioned. Really among those who are in the field, so to speak, and those who provide the support, like you mentioned earlier, I think it’s a good reminder too that, when hardship or crisis falls on a team or an organization, that cross-functional efforts and cross-functional teams really need to work together to solve the problem rather than become siloed.

I think it’s human nature sometimes that when crisis occurs, some of us can go into silo mode, and it’s almost just a protective reaction. Hopefully, most of our listeners won’t go through anything like this at the workplace. But crisis can be defined in a lot of different ways, which we call it hardship. Anytime there’s hardship, which a lot of organizations are facing right now, it’s really important to have that cross-functional collaboration to work to solve problems together.

Ren:

That always makes me think too, because I think sometimes silos, and for those of you who maybe don’t use that language a lot, I feel like sometimes I take for granted that corporate speech, but it’s like if you are working in an organization or a funnel or a team and all the communication or all the conversation just stays in your little vertical, like a tube, like a grain silo is what the image looks [like]. There’s all these grain silos around the organization. And the goal is to not just have that work happening behind walls, undercover, where we don’t see or know what’s happening there.

I remember I was doing this work with this team, and they worked in the energy space, and they were saying, “I don’t know if silos are bad. For us, we are all on top of each other because of the emergent nature of the work. Sometimes we have to know whose sandbox is whose.” They’re like, “Sometimes we have to draw borders.”

It made me think, I was like, I don’t know if there’s an implicit issue with silos, so much as when we put a lid on the silo, that’s the problem, when information can’t get out or is not openly communicated. It’s like, how do I then build bridges between my silos? Because NASA is an interesting point of view. I love the movies or the shows, where they’re about to take off, and they go through the final check, and the whole room — subject matter experts, flight engineering, temperature — go for launch, go for launch, go for launch.

These people have to have boundaries in their work. The jet propulsion team doesn’t really need to engage, frankly doesn’t have time to engage, with the weight dispersal team. They have to do some collaboration around thrust and velocity.

I love that you brought in accountability on the front end, and that’s one of the words that’s shouted out of the silo. It’s like, “My bad, this is what happened.” So we can fix it. So, it’s really interesting, even if you’re in an environment where you’re saying, “Ren and Allison, you don’t understand, we have to have boundaries.” I would say, “Great, just make sure that you’re communicating outside of your boundaries.” Because it was Apollo 13, I think, the film, and I was thinking —

Allison:

Yes, I was going to say that it is 13. So, for my movie buffs, I’m sorry. It’s Apollo 13.

Ren:

Well, I mean I failed us too. But I think there’s such an interesting sign, because they have an air filtration issue wrong, and then there’s a scene down on Earth where they got the engineers in a room and it’s like, “We’ve got to make this circle thing fit into this square filter with only these parts,” because they can’t mail them parts. That’s that collaborative conversation, where a group of subject matter experts get together into a room, bring their subject matter expertise to bear. Sometimes I think that’s your job as a leader, if you’re listening, formally or informally, it’s how do I get all the right people in the room so we can have a conversation about solutions?

Allison:

Yeah, exactly. You’re making me think about boundary spanning too. Me and a colleague, we’re working with a senior team of a tech company a few weeks ago, and they’re integrating new top leadership to the organization. It’s one of those scenarios where half of the group has a very long tenure with the company and half is “brand new.” So, there’s the old and the new. How are we going to work together? What does culture look like? There’s all of that.

And when we talk about boundary spanning leadership at the Center, one of the most important things to do is something that you alluded to, Ren, which is clarify who’s responsible for what. You can call it creating boundaries if you want, but it’s really about clarity, so that when there is a crisis, you can go from one end of the spectrum to the other pretty quickly and how people respond to it, from chaotic to being underreactive. And one of the ways you can navigate that spectrum is to be very clear on who’s responsible for what.

It doesn’t mean that they don’t have a say or input in other parts of the project or the “crisis,” but it’s a really good idea to know, okay, Ren’s been doing X, Y, Z for 10 years, so I know I can come to Ren about whatever that is. I think a really interesting way to look at spanning boundaries, too, is to put the container off of it so that you’re not completely isolating people, but to also keep it contained so that you know who, in essence, is responsible for what.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, that’s why I like the sandbox metaphor, because what I love about boundary spanning is the first step of boundary spanning is qualify your own boundaries. Tell someone about your boundaries or your team’s boundaries or whatever, so that they know.

And then it makes me think about systems thinking, right, Allison? It’s like the more I know about your experience, the better I can ease the condition of your experience. So, I like the sandbox because you can see a border, but there’s no walls. I can talk to you, you can talk to me. You’re like, “Look at my sandcastle.” You’ll be like, “Cool, look at my truck over here.”

I think that’s a fun metaphor because, again, borders aren’t the problem. It’s opaque borders that are a problem; things that we can’t see through or get through are an issue. But if borders are just existent in a flexible, fluid space where the border is like my sandbox, but you could walk through it, you could speak to me through it, you could see what I’m doing in it …

I think that’s a really interesting idea around when we span boundaries, again, we’re talking about opening options as opposed to restricting them. Part of that, too, starts with a recognition that these are areas that I operate and play in, and these are areas that you operate and play in.

Allison:

Yeah, definitely. I think it might be helpful for our listeners to know, who might be new to this type of language around boundary spanning, is that traditionally within any organization, there are 5 different kinds of boundaries that exist. So, there’s horizontal, which is between functions of the organization; vertical, which can be hierarchical; stakeholder, external groups; demographic, so gender, generation, etc., and geographic. So, depending on the company, different regions, different markets, and different distances.

I would say when it comes to being effective at the organization, it’s important to be able to navigate all of those boundaries, but especially when there’s a crisis or a major hardship, you are going to need to get a lot of those players involved. The ability to span those boundaries, by the way, was cited by senior executives as, 71% said that it was absolutely crucial to their success for the organization, not just for them as individuals.

Ren:

I think boundary spanning, too, helps us navigate those crisis spaces, because when I think about the best people who deal with the crisis in the moment, they’ve prepared for crisis. Organizational resilience, there’s all this narrative where they were stuck or they were abandoned.

Pretty quickly, NASA and the astronauts and all of the space community, they made decisions, functional decisions about what they were going to do and why they were going to do it. Every time, there’s always a lifeboat on the ISS. So, had something traumatic or dangerous happened, they could have left. But they decided, “Hey, for a variety of reasons, we’re going to ask you and rely on your service to stay up there and rotate into the next crew and then finish that part of it.”

So it was all really intentional, but I have to imagine, when Butch and Suni talk about planning, there is probably some page in their pamphlet that’s like, “If you’re marooned on there, you’re going to work on the station for us. That’s just the way it’s going to be and we’re going to appreciate your help and then we’re going to bring you home.”

Allison:

Sure.

Ren:

So there’s this being ready for everything. That’s what makes a resilient organization and might cultivate some personal resilience when you anticipate things that could go wrong. And then you start to say, “Well, I’m here now. What can I focus on?”

Allison:

How do you get from point A to point B, right? A lot of organizations have risk mitigation, but not all of them do. This is rhetorical, Ren, unless you have an answer, but how does a leader know when to focus on one or the other, and how to plan for contingency based on situation A, B, or C?

It’s tricky, right? But I do think what we were talking about a few moments ago is that first step in boundary spanning is to create and actually strengthen an understanding of skillsets, expectations, values, etc., so that you do know how to do collaborative work, period.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I think I do have an answer for you. How does one or an organization manage that crisis preparation and preparedness? It reminds me of that phrase that we talk a lot bit here, polarity management. How do I do both things?

I think at any one plan, or if any of you are working on major projects or there’s real risk out there, you’ve got to do the work. You can’t just prepare for the risk. But if you never prepare for the risk and something goes wrong, you’re stuck holding the bag. I think this is a great polarity that they manage. It’s like a both/and. We have our mission preparedness, which is an 8-day test flight, but we’re also deeply prepared pilots and astronauts. So, we know, too, that we got a valuable skillset that we need to keep cultivating and then ready to deploy.

So, I’m thinking, if you’re listening out there, how do you plan and do the work that you need to do, and how can you carve out time in your project plan to talk about worst case scenarios? Now, maybe not for every job or for everything, it makes sense, but I think there’s certain spaces, especially when the stakes are really high, having someone say, “Okay, so what do we do when things go wrong?”

So making sure that there’s time for both, I think, is how someone would functionally balance crisis preparedness versus analysis paralysis, where if you think about crisis too long, everything looks really horrifying and then you don’t do anything. So, yeah, we don’t want that, but we also don’t want complete ignoring of it, but instead being ready for it.

Allison:

I would imagine, for some people, when you get to that point of over-planning, could almost generate a freeze response. But I want to come back to something that we both mentioned earlier, which was this trust, this concept of trust. And I want to tie it to boundary spanning here in a moment.

But when I think just as a human being, just as a human, regardless of title, job, etc., being stuck in a small space with somebody for that long, I would imagine they had to have had some trying moments. I would imagine. I think about my sister, who’s probably the closest person to me in my life. If you put my sister and I in a small space for that long, we would probably be at each other at least a few times, if not more than that. Don’t you think, Ren, for you, for most people?

Ren:

Yeah, 100%. I think that’s why I asked you, how do they come back alive, not fly back, but how do they end up not beating each other up? So yeah, I think that’s completely reasonable.

Allison:

But to bring it back to the workplace, hopefully none of us are going to be sent out into space unexpectedly for that long. But another part of the ability to span boundaries, especially in a crisis, and something that people can think about now before crisis happens or hardship, is really about cultivating and nurturing relationships.

And I don’t know the history of those 2. I’m not sure how long or how often they had worked together in the past. Regardless, something that leaders who are listening can take away from this is, when you’re able to connect on a personal level with folks, I’m not saying you need to share diaries or anything like that, but just simple, “How are you, Ren? What’s going on in your world?” Those types of things, basic human decency, right? Connecting at a personal level does help to build trust and enable more candid communication.

So, you’d ask me earlier how me and my prior coworker were able to navigate that. Part of it was because we had connected on, not on a deeply personal level, but enough to have trust established so that we could talk about obstacles, we could identify priorities, we could identify challenges, and collectively build and almost mobilize towards a new strategy or a different direction based on some of the unexpected turns that happened.

Ren:

I’m going to say one word, so we come back to it, so I don’t forget, but then I want to talk about some of what you said. So, one words can be compartmentalized or compartmentalization, but maybe another side of that polarity is what I’m thinking and you’re talking about is this idea of leadership disclosure.

As we are famed at the use of Johari window — classic American psychologists Joe and Harry getting together writing a 4 by 4 or 2 by 2. Folks, when we talk about leadership disclosure, it’s like you’ve got an opportunity, when working with people, to expand how you work together. One of those ways is asking feedback, how am I impacting you, so I can identify some blind spots for me, so I can treat you differently, that works?

The other one is sharing some more of that hidden information about you, things that I would keep private. Again, like Allison saying, it’s not like your diary, but hey, why am I making that decision, or what of my experiences have made me act the way that I do, or why do I look at challenges the way that I do? So often we make decisions, especially if you’re in a close, personal dynamic with someone, you’re stuck in a piece of metal above space.

It’s easy to see someone’s behavior and then make up a story about it. “Oh, why didn’t Suni say hi to me today? We’re stuck in this tin. We ran into each other.” When it could be like, “Oh, I know that, in the beginning of Suni’s day, she stay super focused. She doesn’t engage with anyone. She’s head down, works on her tasks.” The moment I know about someone’s experience or their personal mechanisms for operation, the easier it is for me not to take their behaviors personally.

So you, as a leader, if you’re listening, you’ve got to model that behavior. It’s like, what’s some information that you don’t tell your team that maybe they could learn? And then definitely be asking for feedback about how you’re impacting people to determine how you can operate better.

Allison:

I love that. I love that so much. It does start with the individual level. It almost always will. I was just talking to some clients yesterday about this. We went orienteering and we’re out in the Colorado Rockies. It’s a no-risk environment; at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. We’re not playing with real money, but they’re achievers and they want to achieve their target. One of the things that we talked about was this notion of disclosure, too, around, “Where do you go when you’re under stress?” So we did a power pause, if you will, right in the middle of the session to talk about, “What’s going well? What do we need to do differently?”

And one of the leaders said, “I am really much aware when I get into high achiever mode, I get very granular and honed in on a singular task, and I stop listening. I just want the 2 of you and my group to call me out on that. Feel free to be like, ‘Hey, you’re doing that thing. You’re doing that thing. With love, come back to us. Stop doing that thing. You’re not listening. Come back to us.'”

So then, one by one, the 3 of them just shared where they go under stress, and they were all different. So, we might make assumptions, like you were just saying, in the way that you shared and also in a different way, of okay, I can stop listening, so I might assume that everybody does the same thing.

But another group member said, “I just check out. I just assume my opinion’s not valued. So, I don’t share at all, and I just check out. And people might read me as being calm and cool, but I’m boiling inside because nobody’s listening to me.”

So, again, I’m just underlining that, in partnership with what you just said, in that disclosure can be so helpful, especially when it’s high stress. And you really do want to be collaborative together. It’s knowing yourself and knowing where you go under stress, and having the courage to share that and ask people to hold you accountable.

Ren:

I think it’s like you said, it starts with the individual, but then it’s about us very quickly. Because I always tell people, involve people in your development. If you’re working on something, tell someone you’re working on it. If you’re trying to shift the behavior for the benefit of the team, tell them that you’re doing that. Not so you have more people busting your chops about it not working, but so you have a community of people that are helping you try to be your best. Because I know a leader who’s willing to say, “Hey, I know when I go to stress, I do X, Y, or Z. Please, you have permission to say, ‘Hey, Ren, snap out of it.'”

That’s, I think, a generative, positive experience. When someone’s like, “Hey, you’re doing that thing you said you didn’t want to do,” I’m not going to be mad at them. I’m not going to hold it against them. I’m going to be like, “Hey, thanks for calling it out,” because I know I want to work on it.

And so, there’s something about that recognition of what I need, and then involving people in it. It’s like, “Hey, I’m trying to accomplish this,” or “I know that we spoke about this is how we’re going to interact, but this is how I’m feeling now.” I think, too, leaving space for that flexibility, but always leaving those lines of communication open … really, really critical.

Allison:

Yeah, indeed, indeed. Well, there’s probably so much we could talk about in this story, but I’m wondering, too, Ren, we just gave a bunch of tools, but if there was one standout from this story that you wanted leaders to take away, just one, what would it be?

Ren:

Yeah, I’m going to cheat. I can’t, because I’m going back to the word compartmentalize, and then it attaches to something else.

Allison:

Oh, yeah, please elaborate on that.

Ren:

No, I think it’s a good segue into some of what we’re talking about, because what I thought was interesting, and Butch said this in an interview too, is like, “Hey, sometimes we have to compartmentalize. It’s like, I can’t let my life at home or our experiences interfere with what I’m called to do at that moment.” He said, “It’s not about me. It’s not about my feelings. It’s about what the human space flight program is about. It’s our national goals.”

Now it sounds totally great, like a person who served the US, our national goals, but also it’s not about me, it’s not about my feelings. There’s something there, too, like you were saying when you get into a room with someone, even your sister, the closest person in the world, you’re going to get into fisticuffs maybe sometimes.

I think the perspective-taking of being like, “Oh, wait, this isn’t about me. It’s not about you. It’s not about our feelings.” And 2, I love the psychology and philosophy around like, “Are you your feelings, or are feelings just a symptom of whatever?” So there’s something about the ability to recognize that part of yourself and then put it in a tiny little box and say, “Cool, that goes over there. We’re in space. I need to do station maintenance.”

So I think the biggest thing, then, that connects for me for leaders, and something that was really clear, and maybe I don’t think it’s just reserved for Navy test pilots, is this idea there was no abandonment narrative. We often talk about, like we were just talking about here, it’s easy to fill in the gaps for storytelling. When you don’t have information, it’s easy to feel like you’re the victim or make yourself the hero.

One of the biggest derailers I [see in] people in their relationships is victimization, where they feel victimized or they take on a victim narrative, especially when they don’t know what’s happening behind someone else’s wall. Some project gets thrown on them, or they’re stuck here, and it’s like, “It’s X, Y, Z’s fault,” or “I wouldn’t be here if not for those people,” or “I can’t believe this is happening to me.” And I imagine there were moments of that for these folks. And hear me, Allison and everyone else — there are moments where people are legitimately victimized.

I’m talking about when we create a story of victimization in our own head, where I don’t know what’s happening, someone’s just like, “Hey, Ren, you got to do this new project.” I’m like, “Oh, no, these people, they’re torturing me on purpose.” I might just ask like, “Hey, Allison, is there a reason that you gave me this project?” And like, “Oh, you said you wanted to go to Cabo and it’s in Cabo.” I’m like, “Oh, yeah, I’m not a victim here. Actually, this is a benefit.”

So there’s something around they just didn’t say, “Oh, I’m stuck here. I’m abandoned.” They were like, “This is the mission. This is the job. We’ve been trained for this,” and they got to work. So something about your circle of control, stemming the narrative, and too, because they’re not the only heroes, they needed to rely on a whole bunch of people on Earth. So, it’s like, we all have to work together, we’re not abandoned here, stuff happens. I mean, even the SpaceX Dragon, like I said, they were delayed almost a month from coming home because it messed up a little bit. So, there’s these things where we just have to go, “Okay, nothing’s functionally happening to me. No one woke up today and said, ‘Butch, Suni, you’re stuck in space. Ha-ha.'”

So I think that’s probably like, all of those things are likely their takeaway, but the interesting thing is how do we cultivate that strength to leave the abandonment or victim narrative alone and find out the real information? Really find out if you are being victimized before you embrace that, because it might be disempowering.

Allison:

We always do this. There’s so much to talk about in what you just said, and we’re nearing the end. So, 2 things that immediately came up for me. One is the sphere of control, which is something that we talk to our leaders a lot about, which is … if you can imagine 3 circles, one is what can you control as a leader? What can you influence, would be the next circle. And what do you need to accept?

In a situation like that, I would imagine, it sounds like, too, those 2 leaders got to, “I need to accept that this is happening. This is the reality right now, and work on or focus on what I can control, which is probably not a lot.” But the ability to get to that quickly, I think, underscores the importance of that awareness, and what you’re referring to, in a crisis or hardship situation. I was going to say at the workplace, but probably in life too. But I suppose we’re not here to be therapists, but same, same.

I think the situation that we’re talking about really underlines that leadership is not just about command. Sometimes it is, but it’s not holistically about command. It’s about adaptability. It’s about trust. It’s about teamwork in the face of uncertainty, which can be really hard for people. Again, these folks are probably used to some level of uncertainty, and most of us are not going to be sent into space like I mentioned, but uncertainty is a reality for some people right now. Again, that adaptability, the trust and the working with your team and your people, can be so important in handling hardship thoughtfully.

And I would also state that it can help protect company morale, too. And how an organization handles hardship can also really indicate what their long-term reputation might be — as you and I have talked about in prior podcasts, different stories — but just as NASA didn’t abandon or try to avoid or evade responsibility, leaders also have to guide their people through turbulence with, I would say, clarity, compassion, and sometimes a little bit of creativity.

So, perhaps we can leave it at that for today. Again, I feel like based off of where we just went, there’s lots of other things to talk about, but perhaps in the next episode.

Ren:

We could stay in orbit, but I don’t think we have to. Let’s go home.

Allison:

Well played. It’s your dad joke for the day.

Ren:

It sounds like it really worked for you. Yeah, I killed it. I crushed it. You’re welcome. You’re welcome, everybody.

Allison:

Well, Ren, thanks for the conversation, and to our CCL team who works behind the scenes to make our podcasts happen, we thank you. To our listeners, you can find all of our podcast episodes and show notes on ccl.org and find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you think about this story, and let us know what you’d like us to talk about next. We look forward to chiming in with you next time. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Ren.

Ren:

Thanks, Allison. Thanks, everybody. See you next time. Find Allison on Amazon’s TikTok.