0:00:01.00 Junior: What would you do if you were in charge of running a country that had too many cobras? That's the introductory anecdote to today's episode. Welcome back, everyone to the Leader Factor. I'm Junior back with my co-host, Doctor Tim Clark.

0:00:14.10 Timothy Clark: Good to be with you.

0:00:15.05 Junior: And this was the situation of some leaders in India during British colonial rule.

0:00:22.08 Timothy Clark: So there were this really happened.

0:00:24.26 Junior: This happened. There were a whole bunch of venomous cobras in Delhi. So how did they solve the problem? They offered a bounty for cobras. So kill a cobra, bring it to the office and we'll give you your bounty. So people killed cobras. They collected the reward. And then what happened? There were fewer cobras. But the bounty is still there.

0:00:50.14 Junior: The incentive still there. So what happened? People start breeding cobras so that they can kill the cobras. So that they can take them to the office and get their bounty.

0:01:00.06 Timothy Clark: So now we have more cobras. So? So we had a dip in the population.

0:01:04.13 Junior: Yeah, we have a dip. Then it rises. Yes. And the leadership gets smart and they see. Oh this is not good. You're breeding cobras right. So what do those smart leaders do? They eliminate the bounty. So what does that do to the worth of a cobra? It goes to zero. So what does everybody do with their extra cobras?

0:01:28.02 Junior: They just release them. All right, so now we have more cobras.

00:01:33.02 Timothy Clark: Yeah. So we have unintended consequences on top of unintended consequences based on perverse incentives.

0:01:40.11 Junior: That's right. So today's episode is about decision making.

0:01:43.04 Timothy Clark: Oh wow. Okay. So we can always work on this junior.

0:01:46.27 Junior: We can. And this is something that we hear from CEOs all the time. And I feel like after you'll come back from an executive meeting, you fly in and you tell me, I hear this so many times. The executives just want their people to be more strategic. They want them to make better decisions.

0:02:04.00 Timothy Clark: That's right.

0:02:04.21 Junior: So tell me about that narrative, that pattern that you hear from the top executives with whom you work. Why are they saying this all the time?

0:02:13.15 Timothy Clark: Well, I think they're saying it because. Decision. You know what they call it? Decision. Architecture gets more complex. And the problem is that we bring people up in an organization with a tactical mindset. We bring them up through a function. And so they're very task oriented. They're very, right. They think in a, in a, in a very narrow frame.

0:02:40.05 Timothy Clark: They don't think about application or implications that are far reaching. And so at some point they need to do that. And typically the organization will go tap them on the shoulder at some point, say, hey, we need you to think strategically. And the employer says, that's fantastic. I would love to do that. How do I do that? And they have not been nurturing those employees to think strategically, to think from a systems perspective, from the beginning, because it was tactical, it was very narrow.00:03:13:20 Timothy Clark: It was very task oriented. Now we have a problem. So I think that this is a common obstacle in large, complex organizations.

0:03:23.25 Junior: That's something that the audience needs to appreciate is just how often we hear this from executives of multibillion dollar organizations. What does that tell us? It tells us that the decision making in their not just their leadership population, but generally speaking, in the organization, the decision making quality is lower than they would like it to be and lower than it should reasonably be.

0:03:48.11 Timothy Clark: Well, junior high.

0:03:49.01 Junior: Which is why we get.

0:03:50.02 Timothy Clark: Calls. Yeah, I can think of a CEO who last year removed three members of the executive team, and this is a large multinational. And as I was talking with the CEO, he just said they cannot think strategically. They don't have the critical thinking capability, and they're still waiting for me to give them the answer to a lot of things.

0:04:16.24 Timothy Clark: And I don't I don't know the answer because I, I'm not supposed to be able to do their job better than they can. So this comes up time and time again. Yeah.

0:04:24.27 Junior: So we've been dealing with this issue for a long time. We've been advising clients on this note for a long time, and we want to share some things with you today that are two, well, one non-obvious and two effective. So hopefully the combination of those two things will be enough. To get you to stick around. We've got some interesting things to say.

0:04:43.14 Junior: So the first consideration, the quality of a decision depends on the timeline through which we look at it. If you look at the snake example and you took who knows what, it was a six month view. Cobras went down. Right? I don't know what the gestational timeline is of a cobra, but let's assume that it's a few months.

0:05:04.00 Junior: So four months out, Cobras down. Good decisions. Good, right? We've accomplished the goal. We met the metric and everything's working swimmingly. We fast forward, we look through a 12 month lens. We have a big problem. So I can't overemphasize that. Point is a lot of bad decisions look like good decisions at first. And a lot of good decisions look like bad decisions at first.

0:05:33.10 Junior: What do you think about the timeline? What should we be thinking about timelines as we evaluate decisions?

0:05:40.08 Timothy Clark: Well, that's that goes back to the point that we made earlier. Junior. When we say that we want people to think strategically. Inherent in that is to think long term. So it's to think more broadly and to think on a longer time horizon, both dimensions. So the scope of the thinking, the scope of the decisions based on the reverberations of the consequences.

0:06:10.11 Timothy Clark: Right. So how far out do they go? And then let's think through time beyond the near term, to long term consequences. And then we have to think about. And so we're going to get into solutions. But, we're just not thinking through the different order consequences. We're not thinking through intended and unintended. Yeah.

0:06:37.05 Junior: This to me is a really encouraging point, because in the example that you gave about the CEO who fired the two executives, what is the cost of turnover at that level of an organization?

0:06:48.15 Timothy Clark: It's massive, right?

0:06:49.09 Junior: It's tens of millions of dollars most of the time.

0:06:51.18 Timothy Clark: Yes.

0:06:52.08 Junior: So if he's willing to spend 50 million to turn over those two executives, what does that say about the importance of what he perceives to be their lack of decision making? It's hugely important. Yeah. What's also cool in the encouraging piece of this is that if their decision making wasn't that great at that level and they were able to get there, how much further could you go and how much more effective could you be if you learn some of these skills early and you start to think about the second and third order consequences a lot sooner in your development as a leader than most are required to and required to is an important qualifier, because

0:07:34.07 Junior: the organization often won't require it until it's too late for you to build it too late.

0:07:39.20 Timothy Clark: And the other piece of good news here, JR, is that you don't need to be brilliant to learn these tools. Yep. And to be able to apply these tools in your role.

0:07:52.15 Junior: And I don't know if we'll keep the title of the episode, but I call it don't chase brilliance, avoid stupidity, and it's to your point. We'll talk about that later in the episode. But you do not need to be a genius.

0:08:05.13 Timothy Clark: You don't.

0:08:05.25 Junior: Often. It can be a liability. Not that you wouldn't take it all else equal, but it can be.

0:08:11.11 Timothy Clark: You do need to have some pretty good common sense. You need to be grounded with some basic tools to frame an issue, frame a problem, and be able to think through it. Yeah.

0:08:23.12 Junior: Speaking of thinking through it or the lack of thinking through it, I want to share one more case study. So we're in the late 1960s Ford Motor Company. They are at war with the Japanese. Right. In terms of auto manufacturing, Lee Iacocca is the CEO of Ford. He demands that they produce a new subcompact car that has two conditions.

0:08:46.08 Junior: It needs to be less than $2,000, it needs to weigh less than 2,000 pounds. And he goes and that's the, exhortation. You all better do this right. So we want to rush production in record time so they force production to a 25 month timeline instead of, 43 month timeline. So almost half we're going to cut our timeline in half.

0:09:12.24 Junior: We need to get this thing out. The engineers, at some point in the process discover a design flaw. They call this car the Pinto. The pintos gas tank is located just behind the rear bumper. For some listening, you'll remember this. For others, this might be news in a rear end collision, that gas tank can rupture. What happens when a gas tank ruptures in an accident?

0:09:37.04 Junior: Not good stuff. It blows up. The rear of the car. Also crumpled. Really easily, so it's not like it's reinforced it drive. It would drive metal components into that gas tank and create spark. You've got a fire.

0:09:55.07 Junior: The engineers present this Ford has two options. The first option redesign the gas tank placement, which would have cost $11 per vehicle, which is an insignificant. They're manufacturing multiple million, but $11 a vehicle, right. Or we can ignore the issue and we'll deal with the lawsuits later. So those are your two paths. They went so far as to create even more definition in those two paths, and they start doing math.

0:10:30.09 Junior: So they do the math and a cost benefit analysis on both of those paths. So they estimate that 180 people would die in Pinto explosions if they did nothing. Fixing the issue would cost $113 million across 11 million vehicles. They calculate that paying out the lawsuits would only cost 49.5 million.

0:10:57.15 Timothy Clark: So it's simple.

0:10:58.05 Junior: Math. Simple math, 49.5 million 113 million. Which path do you choose?

0:11:03.20 Timothy Clark: Credible.

0:11:04.05 Junior: You choose the 49.5 million. So Ford decides to let people die and pay the settlements, right? What happens? As predicted, the Pinto explosions happen and not 180 people lose their lives. More than 900 people die in pinto fires. Right. And I know there's some levity around this, and we're making it out to be a crazy anecdote, but it's it's.

0:11:29.10 Timothy Clark: Tragic.

0:11:29.28 Junior: Right? It's tragic.

0:11:30.25 Timothy Clark: Yeah.

0:11:31.25 Junior: They're forced to recall 1.5 million pintos. They pay out millions in settlements, and they're publicly shamed. They become the poster child for corporate greed and bad ethics. Right?

0:11:45.18 Timothy Clark: Yeah.

0:11:45.25 Junior: Which ends up costing them, who knows? But certainly something more than the tune of 113 million that it would have taken to just fix the incredible right. And not that all returns are dollars. We have lives in this equation as well. And what's the worth of that? I don't know, probably more than 113 million. Yeah. So what do you think about this?

0:12:08.16 Tim Well, you can't quantify it. No. And this is where this is where decision making and wisdom and judgment. Are not infused with an ethical creed, with non-negotiable values. So it compounds the problem. It's hard to even comprehend that they would try to dollar denominated human lives, which is what they did. And they just took the, the, the cheaper option.

0:12:41.12 Timothy Clark: It's incomprehensible really.

0:12:45.22 Junior: Insurance dollar denominated. But it's a different model. Right. Sure. This one, this one's a little different.

0:12:51.06 Timothy Clark: It is.

0:12:52.03 Junior: So let's talk about decision making tools, practical things that we can do to increase the quality of our decisions. So the first thing that we should take away from this setup in the episode is that timeline matters, and that most decisions that end up being poor end up being poor because they looked good on a short timeline. And this has to do with almost any decision in life, personal or professional.

0:13:16.20 Junior: If you forego the long term consequences in your evaluation, you're missing the biggest part of the puzzle and you end up doing pretty stupid things. So the first thing we want to do, we're going to call it Know Your Doors. And this is a one way, two way door tool or idea. We're asking the question, if this fails, can I undo it?

0:13:39.17 Junior: So in the case of Ford, it's a one way door. If you forego fixing the entire lineup and you just go for it, you can't take that back. You can't undo the fires and the explosions and the deaths. One way door, two way door. Something you can back out of, something that you can reverse. Something that you can undo, knowing which is which.

0:14:03.29 Junior: When you're evaluating a decision is incredibly important. And I put it up front because I think it's one of the most important filters to do first, because this changes the whole dynamic of the situation, because it then has to do with speed in the decision making. What do you think about one way doors? Two?

0:14:22.25 Timothy Clark: I think this is a sobering test as we think about this, as we think about scenarios, as we think about options, as we think about courses of action. This is where everyone needs to just stop and think through. If you are dealing with a one way door, then the imperative is that you need to think out as long term as you possibly can, because you can't go back.

0:14:52.26 Timothy Clark: So the so the one goes with the other. If there's a potential one way door, there's the imperative to think as long term as you possibly can. You are you are the chess grandmaster here, junior. This is where you are. Magnus Carlsen. You are thinking 15 moves ahead. You have to because you can't go back. Yeah.

0:15:18.03 Junior: So you optimize for different things depending on whether it's a one or a two way door. If it's a one way door, you optimize for decision quality. If it's a two way door, you optimize for decision speed, because if it's something that you can quickly test out and go right back through that door, awesome. Move along. If it's something that you can't back out of, you better be sure that that is the right move for you.

0:15:42.15 Junior: And you do have to think all the way to the end, which requires time. So that's why I like to do this up front. Two way door. Go for it. One way door. Let's sit here for a second, perhaps many seconds, and evaluate what's going to happen longer term. And at best, we're going to get the decision right.

0:16:00.04 Junior: We're going to weigh all of the variables appropriately and we're going to do something reasonable. But we won't always get it right with as much analysis as we can do. But it's an important distinction upfront.

0:16:12.04 Timothy Clark: I think if it's a one way door where the stakes are really high, the cost is significant and the risks are high. I think you go to great lengths to make sure that you're doing it right. So you bring in the, as we say, the white hat hackers. And you look at you look at it from every angle, and you try to shoot holes in it, and you try to find the defects and the flaws.

0:16:41.20 Timothy Clark: You've got to do everything you possibly can.

0:16:45.15 Junior: Number two, consider incentives. Incentives are a variable in decision making that leaders often underestimate or completely overlook. Every decision you make as a leader has incentive structure that's attached to it. You're incentivizing people to do something, to not do something, to avoid something. Wells Fargo and fake accounts. That's an interesting case study. In incentives, we incentivized account creation, so much so that we are fraudulent, right.

0:17:21.x12 Junior: We're creating accounts for people who don't ask for them. We're creating accounts for, you know, a whole host of reasons that aren't good reasons. And we're.

0:17:29.26 Timothy Clark: Doing it thousands of times.

0:17:31.10 Junior: And we're doing it many, many times. Right. Amazon warehouse speed metrics. This was a thing a couple of years ago where the warehouse speed metrics were such that people were forgoing bathroom breaks and all of those things, and like, sacrificing human health in order to stay compliant with the metrics. So you created some weird, perverse incentives. Yeah, by optimizing for certain variables.

0:17:56.01 Junior: Unlimited PTO is an interesting one to think through, right? That is one that I've seen many people around here. We have big startup culture and, silicon slopes, and often people will default to unlimited PTO being the answer because it's like, who wouldn't want unlimited PTO? There are interesting incentives that you have to consider with vacation policy, right, that are non-obvious.

0:18:19.08 Junior: Those types of things require deliberate evaluation through the lens of incentives. You have to ask yourself, what are people more likely to do? If I go pursue this course of action? What are people less likely to do? And are those actions in line with my desired outcome or not? And across what timeline this is where capital flow becomes super interesting to me.

0:18:44.12 Junior: This is something I'm really interested in. The way that we allocate capital in markets in is incentives, right? We're creating incentives. That's why many organizations are incentivized to perform on the quarter. Is that the best for the organization? Not necessarily. Right. Oftentimes it's not. We create decisions that hurt the business across a long time horizon. So what do you think about this one incentive structure.

0:19:11.21 Timothy Clark: It's amazing how people how incentives drive behavior. Yeah. And I think one of the complications JR that we're seeing, more and more now is that because we can measure more things we do. And when we measure more things, we get complexity, unintended complexity, and we get unintended incentives and perverse incentives that we didn't think about because it's based on the interaction of competing incentives.

0:19:52.25 Timothy Clark: And so I just think that we need to think about what we can measure, think about the dashboards that we have that are beyond anything that we had just a few years ago. So a person can't pay attention to all of those things simultaneously and give them equal weight. And so they're going to they're going to figure out what to pay attention to, what not to pay attention to.

0:20:21.19 Timothy Clark: And, often we're going to optimize for the wrong thing. So I think that's just one thing I wanted to highlight is the complexity that we've created, given the fact that we can measure so many things. Yeah.

0:20:35.05 Junior: A couple practical notes that I've seen to be useful when considering incentives. One. Ask yourself, if I were in the shoes of X person, what would I do to game the system right and say you're implementing a change, you're taking a course of action and people are affected. How might they behave such that the outcome is poor for you, for them, for the business?

00:20:56.23 Junior: Assume that they'll do that and then hedge against it.

0:20:59.25 Timothy Clark: Run those.

0:21:00.10 Junior: Scenarios. Run the scenario. If I incentivize account creation, right, how would I game the system? Well, if I'm incentivized to create more accounts. Yeah, there are some obvious things that I could do to fudge my number or create a real number by doing fuzzy things.

0:21:16.08 Timothy Clark: I'm going to breed more cobras.

0:21:17.18 Junior: I'm going to bring more cobras. Yeah. Exactly that. So the second piece is use multiple KPIs so that people can't game it. So if you said I'm going to goal you not just on account creation, but CSat scores, right? I'm going to take the NPS scores from such and such, and I'm going to wait that with account creation to hedge against the drop in client satisfaction or whatever the case may be, I'm trying to find 2 or 3 variables that can work together as checks and balances often help.

0:21:51.28 Junior: I have found and seen that if you optimize for a single variable, it's way easier to get perverse incentives because they'll manipulate other things to get the one. And then three is the saying you get what you're pay, you pay for. So be careful what you pay for. When you literally pay for something, you're creating crazy incentives, and you have to be very, very careful about the incentives that you're creating.

0:22:15.21 Junior: So a couple of practical things there. The next one use the pre mortem. We talk all the time about post mortem. What does that imply that something or someone's already dead right post mortem right thing died. And then we're asking why did it die. What happened. Right. The pre mortem is predicting cause of death.

0:22:38.07 Tim That's right.

0:22:38.28 Junior: And asking what will happen doing this? I don't know why we're so obsessed with the post mortem. Like we should be way more obsessed after the first mortem, right? Why are we so obsessed with like after the fact? Health care? Why can't we do preventative care? These are. These are big questions. And, for another time. Right? But what are we.

0:23:01.02 Junior: Why are we going to wait until something's broken to fix it? Like you often talk about predictive preventative breakdown systems. What's your take on the pre mortem?

0:23:13.12 Timothy Clark: Well, I think the pre mortem is a test that's under underused and we, we need to use it because we're trying any system that you have you're trying to mature the system and it begins as a breakdown system. You wait till it breaks down. You fix it and you keep going. You run to failure breaks. Right. Fix it.

0:23:33.26 Timothy Clark: You're trying to move beyond that to a preventive system. And then ultimately a predictive system. So that's the maturity of any system. Hopefully you are trying to be deliberate and maturing the system. And so you've got to be moving in that direction. You've got to look at what you're measuring. It can be too much or too little.

0:23:56.01 Timothy Clark: Right. Think back on manufacturing and my years in manufacturing. And we would focus on I think we measured a lot of things. But, but what it came down to JR is that on the production side we measured throughput. Well these are the three things that I paid most attention to throughput quality and yield. And then so I think about that those three and then think about a circle that goes around those things.

0:24:27.06 Timothy Clark: Those three things safety, the safety that surrounds throughput quality and yield, the interaction of those things. I think we tried to I think that was the that was kind of the secret sauce to get to that point where it wasn't too few and it wasn't too many, but the interaction of those things would help us optimize for the whole and not sub optimize parts of the whole, which would compromise the system.

0:24:59.07 Timothy Clark: It's hard to get there, and you have to continually reevaluate. I think as you go.

0:25:05.29 Junior: The last tool we have for you is called the Munger method or don't seek genius. So this is from Charlie Munger. His quote is it is better to avoid stupidity than to chase brilliance. Coming from a brilliant guy.

0:25:21.03 Timothy Clark: It's a very insightful.

0:25:23.00 Junior: The best decision makers aren't necessarily the smartest. I have known some pretty brilliant people who've done some pretty stupid stuff so far. So intelligence is not proxy for decision making quality, which, if I had to venture a guess, I would suspect that the executives that got fired in your example were intelligent people.

0:25:47.29 Timothy Clark: Highly.

0:25:48.25 Junior: Yeah. So we need to detach those two things and look at them independent intelligence in a vacuum. Awesome. Intelligence can mask bad judgment often, and it's a point that we need to consider in ourselves, in hiring, in team building, you should not be wooed by just raw intellectual horsepower. You have to look at decision making quality as a separate and important variable.

0:26:20.11 Junior: So what do you think about the Munger method?

0:26:22.21 Timothy Clark: Well, I used I worked for time for a CEO who equated IQ points with judgment and good decision making, as if they were the same thing. And his entire methodology for putting a team together, hiring the best and the brightest people was all about IQ points. And, it was a disaster because they didn't know how to analyze a lot of variables together.

0:26:57.26 Timothy Clark: They didn't know how to collaborate. Oftentimes they were looking for a more sophisticated, more complex solution than a simple solution, all kinds of problems. And, that CEO didn't last well because he didn't understand the difference.

0:27:15.00 Junior: And that's the Chase brilliance side of the equation. If we look at the first part of stupidity, this is where the magic is. Find the dumbest possible thing to do and don't do it.

0:27:26.25 Timothy Clark: Start with that.

0:27:27.27 Junior: Instead of asking, how do we make our company successful? Ask, how could we guarantee that our company fail if we do that? Suddenly? The answer to that question is so easy. Well, we can ignore our customers. We can burn cash. We can not screen talent. We can do all of these things that will guarantee our failure. Now, if you flip that and you suddenly avoid doing all of those things right, you pay attention to your customers, you innovate, you keep cash.

0:28:01.17 Junior: Suddenly you have a business that's much better than so many out there, and you've hedged against the downside tremendously. It's a way easier question to answer. It's also a very easy question to answer on a personal level. You can use the same methodology when you're looking at yourself. How do I ensure that I become a terrible leader? That's an easy question to answer, right?

0:28:28.01 Junior: If you look at it most. Basically, this is something that I help people. Well, yeah, that I help people with in just starting a career. Right. I've had opportunity to have a few conversations lately, people asking questions about specific career paths, and they're asking these nuanced questions of like, how do I become the top 1% of the 1%?

0:28:49.21 Junior: What skill do I need to build? Right. And if we reframe that one.

00:28:53.29 Timothy Clark: Skill.

0:28:54.16 Junior: Yeah, right. If we reframe that and we say, well, what would guarantee failure, right. That becomes suddenly very easy for them to answer. And they say, well, like, I wouldn't show up on time. I, you know, would be mean to other people. I wouldn't get my stuff done. Right.

0:29:15.13 Timothy Clark: It's like you just named three of the top ten failure.

0:29:20.14 Junior: Exactly. So then we say, okay, how about you don't do any of those things? So if you just show up on time. Yeah, be reasonable with people and get your stuff done, like.

0:29:32.19 Timothy Clark: Wow, you just outperformed 75% of your family. Yeah.

0:29:36.29 Junior: Like, so I have some affinity for this line of thinking because it's so on the nose, but it's so brilliant. And it just it makes these types of questions seem much less complex. Because success in these areas often isn't complex. It's quite simple. So framing a decision that way is often, the great way to go. So if you're an executive who's on the chopping block because you have poor decision making, instead of asking, like, how do we work our way out of this, right?

0:30:13.02 Junior: Ask like, how do we guarantee failure? And you'll probably come up with some things that should influence your behavior and hopefully change the outcome. So the my last note here is you don't need to be a genius. You just need to not be an idiot on purpose. I feel like that would go a long way with a lot of people.

0:30:33.09 Timothy Clark: It seems counterintuitive.

0:30:34.16 Junior: Goes a long way with it.

0:30:36.01 Timothy Clark: But how many? How many times have I been in meetings with, leadership teams and they talk about how can we guarantee failure? They never do.

0:30:46.02 Junior: They don't, but.

0:30:46.18 Timothy Clark: They really need to. And they need to put those on the board first and then say, let's not go near those, okay? And then let's do the rest of our analysis.

0:30:55.19 Junior: But it's not as intellectually stimulating. It's not as sophisticated. Right, right. We often avoid it, but it's the very thing. Right. The blocking and tackling that would just you just wipe so much of that downside risk off the table. So I really like that one. And then this last point or section that I wanted to call out, I added, on personnel, people, talent, the decision making conversation for whatever reason, seems to be constrained to the competitive arena.

0:31:29.06 Junior: We talk about business decisions, right. We talk about product, we talk about marketing, we talk about operations and all of these things. Your decision making, when it comes to people, the decisions you make on who to hire, who to fire, how you develop, how you engage, those decisions are so much farther reaching in most cases than the actual tactical business decisions.

0:31:54.18 Junior: If you can make the decisions such that the right people are on the bus, your chances of success are way higher than if you were a good tactical decision maker in isolation, making the strategic choices.

00:32:06.20 Junior: That's something that's underappreciated, something that I wanted to throw in there and get your thoughts on before we wrap up.

00:32:12.14 Timothy Clark: I think you're absolutely right. If you think about hiring someone often, that person will outlive your strategy. And so if you think about it, it's the most far reaching decision that you make. That's profound to just reflect on for a minute. It may that person may outlive one or 2 or 3 competitive cycles and they're with you. And so that's the long term decision right there.

0:32:45.04 Junior: Yeah. And then going back to the short term long term you got to live with that one for a very long time. That's right. So to wrap up, the worst decisions aren't just bad. They're seductive on a short timeline. They look so attractive. And they encourage you to do the short term thing to get the short term win.

0:33:07.04 Junior: What we have to do is avoid the big mistakes by asking, is this secretly dumb? If we can do that, and we had you against our downside risk by eliminating the stupid stuff, we'll have much better chances of success. So doors know your doors one and two way doors. Consider incentives, use the pre mortem and don't seek genius.

0:33:30.08 Junior: Avoid stupidity. Final thoughts.

0:33:32.28 Timothy Clark: Yeah, I would just add to that junior, you need to have an open mindedness that comes with humility so that you can avoid the willful blindness that the can is always, a threat to all of us. On top of all of those recommendations that you've given.

0:33:50.23 Junior: Yeah. The last sentence that I would share is that great leaders don't chase big wins. They avoid big mistakes. And if you can do that, you'll find yourself in that top whatever percent pretty quickly. So hopefully that was, enjoyable, valuable conversation for all of you. If something stood out to you, we would love to hear your thoughts and feedback in the comments.

0:34:16.09 Junior: And if you have ideas for future episodes, topics that you'd like us to treat, go ahead and throw those in there as well. If you liked it, share with a friend and we will see you in the next episode. Take care everybody. Bye bye.